Vanguard wish list

[Shadow Reaper]

So, with Scorpius we were reminded that other heavy fighters are going to get a balance pass. With 8 S3 weapons the Scorp has raised the bar and the Vanguard should see some sort of enhancement. Note that when they added missiles to the Cutty the Vanguard got no balance pass. When the Vanguard got its speed nerfed that was bad news. When the Valkyrie got cargo grav plates added we were jealous. Now the fantastical DPS of the Scorp is really screaming the Vanguard needs some tweaks. What should they be?

Open disclosure here, I'm a huge Vanguard enthusiast despite I do not like the way it looks.

First thing I would change: the turret needs to be 4 S2 guns. As is now, no one wants to sit that seat and why should they? It doesn't bring enough to the table. If we can get two more S2s on there, it will still have less range than the Cutty, Hurricane, and Scorp, but we can at least get players to sit REO. Right now, no one wants to fly that seat despite what CIG says they want.

Second thing I think the Vanguard needs is two SCU cargo grav plates. It's the only ship its size with no cargo ability and two plates is not asking much. That would be enough to move grav bikes without them wrecking the interior, or keep a couple crates of grenades, guns and ammo aboard.

Third thing is those fantastic engines. They are BIG. Just the engines are larger than most small fighters, and heavier too. If you're gonna fly that large a target there should be more benefit. I am in favor of splitting the benefit of such huge engines in three ways: better range, higher speed and lower IR. If they extended the range by another 20%, put the SCM back near what it was in the past, and knocked the IR down by 3k, that would seem justification enough to me that the ship is as easy to hit as it is. Lowering the IR from 11k to 8k makes it about in line with small fighters, but if those huge engines are part thruster shroud, then it ought to have a much smaller IR sig than would otherwise. The F22 is designed this way, with lots of shroud that makes it IR stealthy.

Lastly, I think CIG needs to make good on the brochure that still says the Vanguard has the fastest missile lock time of any ship. Right now there is no differene as the lock times are all a function of the missiles. If they knocked 0.3 seconds off Vanguard lock time we'd at least feel they made an effort.

Oddly, I don't think they need to touch the nose guns. That is what comes first to mind with Scorp, but CIG obviously wants to make the Scorp the DPS champ. So lets leave that alone.

Will CIG even care what we think? Probably not but hey, I can't sleep.

Thoughts?

 

[Dirtbag_Leader]

Ok, as a fellow Vanguard lover, I'll bite! Firstly, I know they said in the Scorp Q&A blades to slave the turret, blah blah blah, but I'm still expecting this to have some sort of compromises and the Vanguard to still keep some sort of upper hand in terms of pilot-controlled dogfighting gunnery. Like maybe sure you can slave the turret forward, but it convergence with the wing guns will be shitty or something. But then the Scorp can maybe outclass it a bit with a really gunner in there.
For the turret, I think 2xS3s would be more reasonable. This makes it a good bit more 'serious' than it is currently, still leaves the Scorp its space to be the 'single turret leader,' and changing to a 4x setup would really kinda screw up the design, looks, and possibly firing arc of the current ship plan.
As to your second point, I'll go ahead and argue it doesn't really need any SCU cargo spots, for two reasons. Firstly, this might make the Vanguard kinda 'too good' by giving it the ability to really do just about anything. I think it's ALREADY the best solo/duo daily driver out there (cutty being a possible contender), and adding the possibility to say run even small amounts of expensive drugs long distances at speed might be pushing that envelope a little far. Secondly, it similarly also already has the rather large advantage over all the other fighter class ships of being able to at least store some items, like mission boxes/gun racks/etc. You know how long I tried to shove a Covalex box into the rear seat of my SuperHornet the first time before giving up in utter dismay?!?
With the several revisions that went into gimbal/fixed/aim assist/etc. balancing, I too am now pretty happy with the nose guns. I like the whole P-38 feel of the design and find them good enough in terms of accuracy. I'd probably keep them over gimbaled S1s even if given the option at this point!
Engines I don't feel all that strongly about one way or the other, but think the range thing will reveal its import only once we have jump points available to use.
Missiles, also don't disagree, but still perfectly happy to have a nice complement of S3s, as I find S1 and S2 missiles pretty worthless. . .

 

[Shadow Reaper]

It's interesting that we see the turret solutions differently. My real issue is that on many, many ships CIG has placed turrets in order to foster group play and the turrets often don't provide adequate reason to use them. I get that CIG wants to do like Star Wars, and generate a WWII bomber turret experience, but they've done that too successfully; which is to say what WWII taught us was that turrets on bombers were an entirely bad idea.

Case in point: the most expensive weapons program of WWII was not the Manhattan Project as many suppose; but rather it was the B-29. Like the two engine bombers that went before it, the B-29 had turrets, but even in this, their ultimate expression; turrets were always completely ineffective and certainly not worth the time, effort and cost. Like the B-17 and B-25, the B-29 was shot to hell over the skies of Europe until the P-51 was built to escort them. That changed everything. In SC as in RL, escorts rule and turrets suck.

No matter how much CIG wants turret play, they have to make manning the turrets worth it to the players and really they have failed to do this. Its rare even to find players manning turrets in ships where the pilot has no guns and the turrets are huge, like the Carrack. As in WWII, escort fighters are vastly more effective than turrets and if CIG wants to see turret play develop, they need to make the turrets far more effective than they have.

Note that the first thing we all think of is whether the turret can be slaved to the pilot, which is like saying we wish we had no turrets. Obviously this is not what CIG intends.

Someone jump in here and tell us all how you love flying as a turret gunner. What makes that a compelling experience to you in a game where anyone can get access to almost any ship at any time? Why sit a turret when you can pilot an escort?

IMHO, turrets should ALWAYS offer more firepower than they do. I know it may sound shocking, but I think we would see players flock to turrets if they generally started with 4S4 guns like the HH. Even on the HH it's damn hard to get players to sit the seats, but at least when a player thinks about it, there is the appeal of blasting targets to smithereens pretty quickly. Yet we almost never see players sitting the turrets on the HH. Something is obviously wrong here.

 

[Dirtbag_Leader]

Ah thanks Shadow, this is a good thread! While you are absolutely right, I actually DO like playing in turrets, and I also see a future for them in the game. But yeah, buffing them a bit to make them more appealing I think is a great idea. What I like most about turrets is the social aspect of it. I really enjoy that when I'm playing with friends, we can all hop on ONE ship together, and having turrets there at least gives everyone something to DO while we're flying around. It's not as profitable or effective, but Bunker missions are a great example. I like to pull out the Connie, and then someone goes in the belly turret for both a great view and to take care of the static base defenses while the other guy flies. Then we both unload and charge inside. Taking two Wardens would probably be better/faster/etc, but it's honestly not really as much fun. Dogfighting is perhaps less persuasive, but still if you have someone who doesn't own much in the way of powerful ships yet, then they can still participate in a VHRT mission by coming along in the turret of a bigger ship instead of their Aurora. This is one of the reasons I really don't like the Lancer though, because with it's rear firing arc that can't shoot forward, that one IS really boring to try to play in.
As for the future of turrets, I think they'll see a BIG increase in utilization when jump points come in. As smaller ships won't be able to jump very far (or at all) or quickly, and larger ships are tougher to solo, I foresee people crewing up a lot more on bigger ships so that they can be able to jump somewhere together. Sorta like back in the days when QT was slow as shit, and everyone was trying to hitch a ride with anyone who had a Crossfield in order to go check out A18. So yeah, I absolutely agree escorts are more effective when available, and would love to see turrets get buffed a little to make them even more appealing/fun, I still think they have an important role to play for multiplayer. I'm quite excited about co-pilot missiles for the same reasons!

 

[atpbx]

CIG are not going to fundamentally change the Vanguard, especially after completely ignoring the opportunity to fix it during the last update.

Its a horrible, horrible ship, yes its a decent fighter, but overall its a total mess.

 

[Dirtbag_Leader]

but overall its a total mess

What makes you say this? Sure it has some flaws, but like I said I find it a fantastic daily driver; just the other day I did a mixed string of a box mission to Hurston, went down for a bunker mission, gave an uber ride back to PO, and then finished up with a bounty there before logging off. Was a great hour or so session, and the Vanguard was basically great at everything. Really curious as to what your chief complaints are?

 

[atpbx]

What makes you say this? Sure it has some flaws, but like I said I find it a fantastic daily driver; just the other day I did a mixed string of a box mission to Hurston, went down for a bunker mission, gave an uber ride back to PO, and then finished up with a bounty there before logging off. Was a great hour or so session, and the Vanguard was basically great at everything. Really curious as to what your chief complaints are?

I dont like it, its slow, its ugly, I think the weapons set up is and always has been a total joke (the size 5 when equipped looks absurd and is the wrong hard point to be gimballed, it should be the S2s) and I think for its price, it absolutely pails in comparison to other ships at that price point In overall ability, its at least $40 over priced.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

Well, CIG did fundamentally change what transports are capable of when they added all the missiles to the Cutty. They changed the notion that military ships do not carry cargo when they added cargo carrying ability to the Valkyrie. CIG changed what fighter turrets can do when they added the Hurricane and Scorpius. CIG changed what we expected of the Vanguard when they nerfed its SCM. They changed what we expect from the Vanguard missiles when they decided all missile locks are a function of the missile rather than the platform that launches them.

CIG also said they will be making a balance pass specifically because they put 8 S3 guns on the Scorpius. So why would you say you don't expect to see a change? As oyu note, it is a very expensive ride. Shouldn't it get a few balance enhancements?

 

[Richard Bong]

The Scorpius and the Vanguard serve very different roles. If your only measure is DPS then the Vanguard is lacking, however DPS is not the only measure to apply.

The Scorpius competition is not the Vanguard but the Hurricane.

If you truly want to compare them, OK.

The Scorpius is less agile than the Hurricane. That may make it more agile than a Vanguard, but not much more agile.

The Scorpios is more fragile than a Super Hornet, which makes the Vanguard much more durable than the Scorpius.

Now as far as guns, yes, the Scorpius has more DPS but it is limited to size 3. That makes it less effective against larger ships and has a requirement to be closer. With current ranges and limited size 5 gun availability, I can generally take a Valkyrie (which has more DPS and more durability than a Scorpius should have) without taking more than 2 seconds of fire from the Valkyrie, just because of the effective range advantage. The Scorpius with its less powerful sensors, fragility, lack of agility and short range guns is going to have a difficult time surviving to get a Vanguard in range without successfully taking the Vanguard in a short range ambush or in superior numbers.

The Scorpius is a militia short range fighter. The Vanguard is a long range military fighter. The Scorpius is tied to a carrier or base and is going to need a carrier to get any real distance, the Vanguard doesn't have that limitation.

The Vanguard's modularity gives it significant advantages in versatility over all of the other fighters and most of the other combat ships.

The Vanguard is fine as it is. No changes needed.

 

[Richard Bong]

Well, CIG did fundamentally change what transports are capable of when they added all the missiles to the Cutty. They changed the notion that military ships do not carry cargo when they added cargo carrying ability to the Valkyrie. CIG changed what fighter turrets can do when they added the Hurricane and Scorpius. CIG changed what we expected of the Vanguard when they nerfed its SCM. They changed what we expect from the Vanguard missiles when they decided all missile locks are a function of the missile rather than the platform that launches them.

CIG also said they will be making a balance pass specifically because they put 8 S3 guns on the Scorpius. So why would you say you don't expect to see a change? As oyu note, it is a very expensive ride. Shouldn't it get a few balance enhancements?

What they changed with the Valkyrie was that Vehicle bays might be able to carry cargo. But the 600i and the Carrack didn't get that buff.

 

[Richard Bong]

Open disclosure here, I'm a huge Vanguard enthusiast despite I do not like the way it looks.

First thing I would change: the turret needs to be 4 S2 guns. As is now, no one wants to sit that seat and why should they? It doesn't bring enough to the table. If we can get two more S2s on there, it will still have less range than the Cutty, Hurricane, and Scorp, but we can at least get players to sit REO. Right now, no one wants to fly that seat despite what CIG says they want.

About the turret, the primary job of the second person in a Vanguard is likely to be the E-War Operator, or Engineer, or both. The turret guns will be secondary. With the "operator mode" approach which shouldn't be limited to Missiles, those actions should be able to be handled from the turret seat.

I, personally, love the way the Vanguard looks. It is my second favorite, appearance wise, ship in the game. It is why my original SC name was Richard Bong and one of two ships to get me to back the game.

And for those that don't know who he was: https://bongcenter.org/richard-bong/

Though I wouldn't mind if the size 5 gun looked a little more integrated.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I want to agree with Richard above, but my trouble with this interpretation is that when the Vanguard was designed, the Sentinel was planned to be the ewar version and ewar has never emerged. We were told the Sentinel would be able to fake the signature of other ships, but there's now no plan for that to ever happen. What we got instead was the EMP and some stealth.

But even more obvious is that the other versions of Vanguard likewise offer the Rear Equipment Operator (REO) nothing to do past shooting a pair of too small guns. It's no surprise no one wants to sit the seat. Just IMHO, but when CIG designs a feature or role or position in game that literally no one wants to play, they need to rethink that feature.

Personally, if we could swap out the entire turret for a second radar package that allowed directional, long range scan, I'd remove the turret in a heartbeat.

 

[Richard Bong]

I want to agree with Richard above, but my trouble with this interpretation is that when the Vanguard was designed, the Sentinel was planned to be the ewar version and ewar has never emerged. We were told the Sentinel would be able to fake the signature of other ships, but there's now no plan for that to ever happen. What we got instead was the EMP and some stealth.

But even more obvious is that the other versions of Vanguard likewise offer the Rear Equipment Operator (REO) nothing to do past shooting a pair of too small guns. It's no surprise no one wants to sit the seat. Just IMHO, but when CIG designs a feature or role or position in game that literally no one wants to play, they need to rethink that feature.

Personally, if we could swap out the entire turret for a second radar package that allowed directional, long range scan, I'd remove the turret in a heartbeat.

Where did you see that EWar was cancelled?

The last info I saw was the EMP was described as a temporary placeholder and that Ewar mechanics were not ready yet.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I have not seen any explicit statement that ewar was cancelled, but I'm pretty sure CIG has been clear there are no plans to remove the Sentinel EMP. While we are still waiting on ewar (really just waiting on the entire swapable sensor mechanic), I don't think there is a plan to change the Sentinel in the future, save that upon offering the Scorpius, CIG said they wiill need to make another balance pass on the older heavy fighters. I would love it if CIG makes good on early statements the Sentinel will be able to mimic the signatures of other ships, but I haven't seen that claim since way before the Sentinel was produced. I think it's dead. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Richard Bong]

I have not seen any explicit statement that ewar was cancelled, but I'm pretty sure CIG has been clear there are no plans to remove the Sentinel EMP. While we are still waiting on ewar (really just waiting on the entire swapable sensor mechanic), I don't think there is a plan to change the Sentinel in the future, save that upon offering the Scorpius, CIG said they wiill need to make another balance pass on the older heavy fighters. I would love it if CIG makes good on early statements the Sentinel will be able to mimic the signatures of other ships, but I haven't seen that claim since way before the Sentinel was produced. I think it's dead. We'll have to wait and see.

The EMP is supposed to be EMP charges, whatever that means, not the EMP they gave it so that is a place holder but there will still be some form of EMP.

The Sentinel is also supposed to perform Wild Weasel duties, have an FMS (Footprint Magnification System, aka F Me Sign.), and one would hope SIGINT and Jammer gear. Wild Weasel also implies it can be a Ferret. None of those mechanics are in game, yet.

Note that everything but SIGINT intercept and DF duties, (Jamming, EMP, FMS) are all serious emitters or missions that require you to be spotted (Wild Weasel and Ferret), and in some cases even draw fire (Wild Weasel). So I still don't get the stealth components and lighter armor on the Sentinel version.