I feel like the tac is a smaller version of M2. and it is probably really good with monster hunting, you get the ramp for the driver. the hanger for the pilot. downfacing size 5, and extended range to search and hunt those worms!! I think it will be released with some monster hunting features.
Good comparison to the M2 in the sense of downfacing firepower, ramp with vehicle/cargo, and jumpseat focus (and actually puts jumpseats on correct floor with elevator system to facilitate that use). Will be fun to put ship through its paces.
@@RedJay I've always thought the jump seats on the M2 were not for troops to disembark from the M2 on foot, but rather to be loaded into the vehicles she carries. That would be more consistent with its intended role on the battlefield I think. A quick atmo landing, vehicles roll off, ship gets out.
Speaking specifically to the respawn feature. I believe it will stay across all tiers. They've now doubled down "from their own mouths" on respawning being a tier wide ability, only limited by range. Now, ofcourse there will be tweaks to this. If they take it away AGAIN, it'll really look bad on them... Let's not forget the whole Ursa Rover fiasco and what how they responded to it. From their literal mouths.....It was always going to have a respawn feature. We just wasn't sure how to go about it. What I suspect will happen is, tiers will consume different amounts of "mats" to be used. With lower tiers being less efficient and higher tiers being more. That's speculation but, what other direction do they have to go outside of "shutting down the studio again"..😂😂
I remember when out of nowhere Cutty Red got fits regen pulled making only ships with regen in player hands Carrack and 890J for years. Ironically this was in a particuarly buggy patch cycle involving backspacing more then usual at least for me exploring new content... thank goodness I had my Carrack. But not everyone will have such ships and if Tier 3 medbeds get regen pulled randomly again then many backers will be stuck without, usually relying on having a Nursa on board or on-board tier 3 beds. I think range of regen usibility and consuming far more resources makes sense on lower tier beds scaling both with tier. I do hope current plans do not change and Tier 3 keeps some form of regen though.
@RedJay with how they introduced the Nursa, they've essentially solidified that function in lower tier beds. Then, their response to the community doubled down on it by saying it was always the plan. If they took it away again.... It would cause a shitstorm we've never seen lol... It has to be a mainstay.
Not sure I understand your armor affecting fuel burn rates more than your cargo can statement. It just doesn't work that way. It is total mass that is the differentiator. 1lb of lead is the same as 1lb of feathers. Here you are simply swapping the type of weight carried. My guess would be, the ship was designed for a max GW of 256scu. Then some smart military engineer realized they could slap armor, two size 5 cannons, med bay, extra fuel, etc. etc. on this bad boy and still be well within the safe operating parameters for the Starlancer design . Ever hear of an AC-130? OH-58? OV-1, Bell Jet Ranger? Also, I was a little confused by the QT fuel being increased to 1.5scu, a 25% increase? The Max has 8.5scu of QT fuel. So I think that answer got garbled somehow? Adding the 25% to the base Max's 8.5 would make for 10.6scu would be awesome. Puts the TAC into the long legs club with the 890J and Polaris.
I would've like to know what speed it will have because if it's slower than the current PTU speed of the MAX, oh boy.... I mean most ships of the MAX size go way faster😢
Absolutely - but do want to note ATLS is now for sale in-game for 15.5K aUEC in Area 18 and Lorville. New utility gear gets sold then quickly comes into game for cheap in-game purchase.
The Redeemer was fighting in a manner it shouldn't have. It should have been used like a mini HH. Not a large/capital ship hunter. You all got comfortable with that and they pulled the rug of reality.
Sorta disagree. People couldn’t handle the Redeemer was supposed to be a GUNSHIP, like the AC-130. It was supposed to parallel and broadside from out of range on larger ships and ground targets. That’s why one fits in the Javelin, so it can project strength even in atmosphere. So they waaaaauuuugh!!!ed and it got turned into a heavy fighter. The original whiners about no maneuverability killed it.
@charliemcawesome5012 Would you believe me if I told you a gunship varies from ship to ship? That some gunships are supposed to take on larger ships, while others are built to take on smaller ships. The s5's were always goofy on this ship. Not because it doesn't make sense, but because they had to nerf the hell out of the maneuverability just to make it make sense. They should have introduced it with s4's just like the HH.
@@northernfabricationllc2281 they have been delivering stuff on time recently. The last set of concept ships have been ready as they were promised, C1, Zeus, starlancer max and so on
@@northernfabricationllc2281 Ship development is clearly working much better now, with better development cycle and more teams assigned to different ships. SC track record is what it is, however It s not realistic to not notice the difference after one year where they actually kept the promises (speaking about ships) plus also developed additional unannounced ships (the Starlancer MAX, etc). TAC is a variant of an already developed ship, and base building and crafting seems their max priority now.
@@northernfabricationllc2281 They have fairly regularly put out most new announced ships on schedule the past few years. The issue is the backlog of ships that don't have their gameplay loop implemented or are otherwise slowed down for some reason. The ones that take a long time have been one offs like BMM (RIP BMM Team lost to the allure of NFT money), ships that are doing things that don't exist yet (Refining, science, repair, building, etc...), and oddly enough ground vehicles. This is just strapping guns to an already functional ship.
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for the vid. 👍
Gald you gave it a shot
I feel like the tac is a smaller version of M2.
and it is probably really good with monster hunting, you get the ramp for the driver. the hanger for the pilot. downfacing size 5, and extended range to search and hunt those worms!! I think it will be released with some monster hunting features.
Good comparison to the M2 in the sense of downfacing firepower, ramp with vehicle/cargo, and jumpseat focus (and actually puts jumpseats on correct floor with elevator system to facilitate that use). Will be fun to put ship through its paces.
@@RedJay I've always thought the jump seats on the M2 were not for troops to disembark from the M2 on foot, but rather to be loaded into the vehicles she carries. That would be more consistent with its intended role on the battlefield I think. A quick atmo landing, vehicles roll off, ship gets out.
parking sideways gives all options
You know it!
Speaking specifically to the respawn feature. I believe it will stay across all tiers. They've now doubled down "from their own mouths" on respawning being a tier wide ability, only limited by range. Now, ofcourse there will be tweaks to this. If they take it away AGAIN, it'll really look bad on them... Let's not forget the whole Ursa Rover fiasco and what how they responded to it. From their literal mouths.....It was always going to have a respawn feature. We just wasn't sure how to go about it. What I suspect will happen is, tiers will consume different amounts of "mats" to be used. With lower tiers being less efficient and higher tiers being more. That's speculation but, what other direction do they have to go outside of "shutting down the studio again"..😂😂
I remember when out of nowhere Cutty Red got fits regen pulled making only ships with regen in player hands Carrack and 890J for years. Ironically this was in a particuarly buggy patch cycle involving backspacing more then usual at least for me exploring new content... thank goodness I had my Carrack. But not everyone will have such ships and if Tier 3 medbeds get regen pulled randomly again then many backers will be stuck without, usually relying on having a Nursa on board or on-board tier 3 beds. I think range of regen usibility and consuming far more resources makes sense on lower tier beds scaling both with tier. I do hope current plans do not change and Tier 3 keeps some form of regen though.
@RedJay with how they introduced the Nursa, they've essentially solidified that function in lower tier beds. Then, their response to the community doubled down on it by saying it was always the plan. If they took it away again.... It would cause a shitstorm we've never seen lol... It has to be a mainstay.
Reverse your vehicle, prevent a hot drop, just saying ;)
How much is 1.5 scu of quant? One of my fighters is like .777 so only being twice a light fighter seems low
Not sure I understand your armor affecting fuel burn rates more than your cargo can statement. It just doesn't work that way. It is total mass that is the differentiator. 1lb of lead is the same as 1lb of feathers. Here you are simply swapping the type of weight carried.
My guess would be, the ship was designed for a max GW of 256scu.
Then some smart military engineer realized they could slap armor, two size 5 cannons, med bay, extra fuel, etc. etc. on this bad boy and still be well within the safe operating parameters for the Starlancer design . Ever hear of an AC-130? OH-58? OV-1, Bell Jet Ranger?
Also, I was a little confused by the QT fuel being increased to 1.5scu, a 25% increase? The Max has 8.5scu of QT fuel. So I think that answer got garbled somehow?
Adding the 25% to the base Max's 8.5 would make for 10.6scu would be awesome. Puts the TAC into the long legs club with the 890J and Polaris.
I would've like to know what speed it will have because if it's slower than the current PTU speed of the MAX, oh boy.... I mean most ships of the MAX size go way faster😢
I will put money on them monetizing the building cart they used in CitCon when they put building in the game.....
Absolutely - but do want to note ATLS is now for sale in-game for 15.5K aUEC in Area 18 and Lorville. New utility gear gets sold then quickly comes into game for cheap in-game purchase.
You call this a quick one? xD
It was intended to be far shorter but details made it long haha. Chapters are in for different topics to jump around!
@@RedJay I love Your videos. I like listening to them. You do great work for the community Sir :) o7
@@RybakSix o7 Glad to help!
Remember, Redeemer died for this
They're not even remotely competitors and to assert so is blind salt flinging.
The Redeemer was fighting in a manner it shouldn't have. It should have been used like a mini HH. Not a large/capital ship hunter. You all got comfortable with that and they pulled the rug of reality.
Sorta disagree. People couldn’t handle the Redeemer was supposed to be a GUNSHIP, like the AC-130. It was supposed to parallel and broadside from out of range on larger ships and ground targets. That’s why one fits in the Javelin, so it can project strength even in atmosphere. So they waaaaauuuugh!!!ed and it got turned into a heavy fighter. The original whiners about no maneuverability killed it.
@charliemcawesome5012 Would you believe me if I told you a gunship varies from ship to ship? That some gunships are supposed to take on larger ships, while others are built to take on smaller ships. The s5's were always goofy on this ship. Not because it doesn't make sense, but because they had to nerf the hell out of the maneuverability just to make it make sense. They should have introduced it with s4's just like the HH.
Too bad we wont see the TAC and BLD for at least 3 or 4 years. With that also note the same time line for base building.
CIG has comitted to releasing the TAC in early 2025. Basebuilding also is set for 2025.
How many times have they said that about multiple ships and game content throughout the years. CIG has a horrible track record on delivering promises.
@@northernfabricationllc2281 they have been delivering stuff on time recently. The last set of concept ships have been ready as they were promised, C1, Zeus, starlancer max and so on
@@northernfabricationllc2281 Ship development is clearly working much better now, with better development cycle and more teams assigned to different ships. SC track record is what it is, however It s not realistic to not notice the difference after one year where they actually kept the promises (speaking about ships) plus also developed additional unannounced ships (the Starlancer MAX, etc). TAC is a variant of an already developed ship, and base building and crafting seems their max priority now.
@@northernfabricationllc2281 They have fairly regularly put out most new announced ships on schedule the past few years. The issue is the backlog of ships that don't have their gameplay loop implemented or are otherwise slowed down for some reason. The ones that take a long time have been one offs like BMM (RIP BMM Team lost to the allure of NFT money), ships that are doing things that don't exist yet (Refining, science, repair, building, etc...), and oddly enough ground vehicles. This is just strapping guns to an already functional ship.