These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey 1.1] Heavy Assault Cruisers - round two

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1401 - 2013-08-02 21:15:17 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
if you upped the falloff on the vega to 12.5% per level that would fix the "range" issues people are having with the ship.

so that would end up being an extra 62.5% increase to falloff crs 50% that we see now. its not much but it should make the difference.


The main issue with the vaga is that you can't even fit 425's which costs it 9km range and some dps


ok so how much pg is it short on?


you have EFT/EVE HQ don't you ?

Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75
425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6
Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693.
I see plenty of grid left.


Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1402 - 2013-08-02 21:20:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
I still think that the Zealot's cap reduction role should be factored into it's cap replenishment, seems hellaciously anti-amarr that every other weapon system is essentially recieving 2 bonuses from it's cruiser bonus set to their effectiveness in dishing out/apply DPS while the Zealot must continue to limp along like a bastard red-headed stepchild. maybe if it was a reduction to all cap using modules, it might make abit more sense, but deliberately having to give up what every other ship has as a weapon platform bonus for it definately doesn't seem to make much sense. Hell, it's Amarr made, shouldn't they have better insight into cap useage then this?
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1403 - 2013-08-02 21:20:47 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75
425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6
Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693.
I see plenty of grid left.


Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD

Wow so you can't fit full tank and full gank on you ships, such a tragedy. Looks like you will need to use fitting mods or just use resist mods rather than extenders.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1404 - 2013-08-02 21:22:37 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75
425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6
Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693.
I see plenty of grid left.


Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD

Wow so you can't fit full tank and full gank on you ships, such a tragedy. Looks like you will need to use fitting mods or just use resist mods rather than extenders.


The point here being is the cynabal can do both....

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1405 - 2013-08-02 21:27:06 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75
425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6
Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693.
I see plenty of grid left.


Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD

Wow so you can't fit full tank and full gank on you ships, such a tragedy. Looks like you will need to use fitting mods or just use resist mods rather than extenders.


The point here being is the cynabal can do both....

Wait so a pirate faction ship out classes a T2 ship much the way a navy ship outclasses a T1 ship, who would have thought.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Thorvik
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1406 - 2013-08-02 21:29:59 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

Vagabond: I'm still fairly confused about how there is so much resistance on this ship design. The complaints range quite a bit but I think the most legitimate one is that the Vaga struggles to project damage compared to its competition (Deimos/Cerberus mostly). I think you have to accept that the Vaga has huge advantages in some other areas that should easily outweigh its slightly lower damage projection. Compared to Cerberus for instance, you have an enormous speed advantage, a utility high, and significantly lower Signature. How valuable you think these things are will vary of course, but you can't expect the Vaga to push damage out as well or it simply becomes better in all cases.

Deimos armor: YES! Adding shields and taking away armor was a needless nerf to an already thinly tanked ship.
Deimos bonus: I actually *like* the MWD bonus but understand im in the minority heh

Vagabond: I'd venture that you're confused about the resistance because you're confused about the ship. The Vagabond is not the Hurricane. It's not a close range shield AC brawler that moonlights as an artillery platform. It's a kiting AC ship, fighting at the edge of point range. It's competition is not the Deimos (close range) or the Cerberus (any range). You're focusing too much on improving the Vaga's performance in a role it's not really suited to do with it's HP, fittings, and weapons layout (dual prop XL ASB fits are more of a novelty than a standard). Going from your proposed shield boost bonus to another fall off bonus will not impact the Vaga's close range brawling capabilities nor give it enough range to remotely compete against the Cerberus.

But it WOULD return the Vaga's ability to fight competitively in the 20-25km, which is what soloers and small gangers (the people that use the vaga) are craving. The Vaga shouldnt be the best in all cases, but it should be the best in THAT case. Anything else and the breadth of the "value variance" is from little to nothing.


Well said! (emphasis mine)
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1407 - 2013-08-02 21:36:52 UTC
Bottom line here Rise is that all your Threads are too conservative in the first round and only slightly less conservative in the second .... but too conservative nonetheless even the CSM/former CSM guys are telling you this .. yet all you say is where afraid.....

Too little gets changed in EVE because of the continuous conservative approach that is prevalent ... shakes head get a sense of adventure plow in there like you did with the geddon.. granted slightly too much on the neut range and let us gauge if you have gone too far.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Thorvik
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1408 - 2013-08-02 21:43:16 UTC
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:
Tsubutai wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Vagabond: I'm still fairly confused about how there is so much resistance on this ship design. The complaints range quite a bit but I think the most legitimate one is that the Vaga struggles to project damage compared to its competition (Deimos/Cerberus mostly). I think you have to accept that the Vaga has huge advantages in some other areas that should easily outweigh its slightly lower damage projection. Compared to Cerberus for instance, you have an enormous speed advantage, a utility high, and significantly lower Signature. How valuable you think these things are will vary of course, but you can't expect the Vaga to push damage out as well or it simply becomes better in all cases.


I actually think that all of the advantages you cite for the vagabond are relatively weak, and you're strongly understating the strength of the RLM cerberus as a kiter when you make that comparison, Rise. Point-by-point:

1: The difference in speed and maneuverability between the vaga and the cerberus once you've actually fit them is smaller than it appears based on hull stats alone, since the cerberus can easily fit one or two nanos after fitting BCS, while the vaga needs its remaining lows for TEs and a damage control, so it can't readily fit additional speed mods. When you compare realistic kiting fits for the two ships, the cerberus is around 400 m/s slower while MWDing but has much better agility, which largely offsets the loss of raw speed. In addition, the cerb's superior projection further offsets its lower speed because it can start hurting things from much further away than the vaga can.

2: The utility high really isn't an advantage for the vaga at all, and the fact that it is required on the vaga but not the RLM cerb illustrates one of the latter's great strengths. The vaga needs a medium neut because if it gets scrammed by a frigate, it has no other options for getting away. The cerb can just smash the frigate to pieces with its main weapons, since they use frigate-sized ammo; it has a far more effective built-in frigate defence. The neut isn't a strength of the vaga; rather, the fact that it needs a neut reflects one of its biggest weaknesses.

3: Describing the vaga's damage projection as "slightly" lower than the cerb's is a rather strong understatement: with two damage mods on each (and the vaga having two TEs to boot, assuming it's fitting 220s and has barrage loaded), the cerberus starts outdamaging the vaga at 15 km. At 40 km (the edge of heated, skirmish-linked T2 point range after the 1.1 patch goes live), the cerberus is outdamaging the vaga by a factor of two. Phrases like "crushingly superior" seem more appropriate than "slight" under the circumstances.

4: You can fit an RLM cerberus with a full rack of launchers, a dual LSE/LASB tank, an MWD, two BCS, and two nanos with around 160 PG and 110 CPU to spare. On the vagabond, you don't even get enough grid to fit 220s, an LSE/LASB combo with an MWD, and a medium neut without needing a fitting implant.

Realistically, there's a lot of room for the vaga to be improved as a kiter before it comes close to the general capabilities of the RLM cerb. Something very similar happened with the RLM caracal and stabber in the first T1 cruiser buff: sure, the stabber was quicker than the RLM caracal and had more damage at point blank, but the speed difference became small once you started fitting nanos on the caracal, and the caracal's superior projection, greater array of midslot options, better tackle-killing ability, and much easier fitting made it into a far stronger kiting ship overall. As a result, no one flew the stabber. What you're doing with the vaga here is pretty much exactly what was done to the stabber - you're increasing its strength marginally while simultaneously introducing a massively superior alternative. Giving the vaga enough grid to fit a reasonable tank and 425s wouldn't make it overpowered, it'd just move it to a point where it'd be somewhat competitive with the new kid on the block.

:words:


Also, This ^^



I second this!
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1409 - 2013-08-02 22:07:23 UTC
I agree, bonuses on vaga are fine! just give us more grid!
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#1410 - 2013-08-02 22:33:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Rynnik
Thorvik wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

Vagabond: I'm still fairly confused about how there is so much resistance on this ship design. The complaints range quite a bit but I think the most legitimate one is that the Vaga struggles to project damage compared to its competition (Deimos/Cerberus mostly). I think you have to accept that the Vaga has huge advantages in some other areas that should easily outweigh its slightly lower damage projection. Compared to Cerberus for instance, you have an enormous speed advantage, a utility high, and significantly lower Signature. How valuable you think these things are will vary of course, but you can't expect the Vaga to push damage out as well or it simply becomes better in all cases.

Deimos armor: YES! Adding shields and taking away armor was a needless nerf to an already thinly tanked ship.
Deimos bonus: I actually *like* the MWD bonus but understand im in the minority heh

Vagabond: I'd venture that you're confused about the resistance because you're confused about the ship. The Vagabond is not the Hurricane. It's not a close range shield AC brawler that moonlights as an artillery platform. It's a kiting AC ship, fighting at the edge of point range. It's competition is not the Deimos (close range) or the Cerberus (any range). You're focusing too much on improving the Vaga's performance in a role it's not really suited to do with it's HP, fittings, and weapons layout (dual prop XL ASB fits are more of a novelty than a standard). Going from your proposed shield boost bonus to another fall off bonus will not impact the Vaga's close range brawling capabilities nor give it enough range to remotely compete against the Cerberus.

But it WOULD return the Vaga's ability to fight competitively in the 20-25km, which is what soloers and small gangers (the people that use the vaga) are craving. The Vaga shouldnt be the best in all cases, but it should be the best in THAT case. Anything else and the breadth of the "value variance" is from little to nothing.


Well said! (emphasis mine)

Quoting all but mostly responding to what Alek says.

The Vaga can't be the 'best' in mid range at damage projection and killing stuff. Why do people keep forgetting or ignoring that that hull is undisputedly the best at disengaging from mid-range fights and thus having a major strength in non-tank survivability and the picking and choosing of engagements. That is huge. If the Vaga keeps that AND also has the best mid-range damage/projection then no one will ever fly another hull in that category ever - people naturally don't like losing ships.

So you get your risk adverse, frigate speed, destroyer sized fun-mobile. You just have to balance that with reasonable DPS and projection trade-offs.

The Cynabal is going to be sorted. CCP Rise already stated that. It isn't a reason for the Vaga to be buffed beyond this proposal and if that means everyone only flies Cynabals instead of Vagas because of that, I don't see the problem. It would probably hasten the balance priority on that particular pirate hull.
Glippo
Hello. Yes.
#1411 - 2013-08-02 22:53:02 UTC
CCP Rise... The EAGLE!!!.
It is the worst HAC (by far) for a reason. And you have changed approximately nothing. It will remain the worst HAC. There are no viable roles for it. The only thing it was ever used for was as a Beagle, why not emphasize that? You want it to be a sniper? Have you heard of the Naga?

Rise, i implore you, fix the Eagle. You cannot take the worst HAC in game change nothing and expect it to be better ( yes i know about the medium rail changes). To start you off i suggest removing that Ridiculous double optimal range bonus.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1412 - 2013-08-02 22:59:22 UTC
Glippo wrote:
CCP Rise... The EAGLE!!!.
It is the worst HAC (by far) for a reason. And you have changed approximately nothing. It will remain the worst HAC. There are no viable roles for it. The only thing it was ever used for was as a Beagle, why not emphasize that? You want it to be a sniper? Have you heard of the Naga?

Rise, i implore you, fix the Eagle. You cannot take the worst HAC in game change nothing and expect it to be better ( yes i know about the medium rail changes). To start you off i suggest removing that Ridiculous double optimal range bonus.



Well actually i think the 2nd op bonus is useful as a beagle lacks much falloff a double damage bonus or even a 10% ROF is what it needs along with the speed/agility and an extra low for TE's and nano's.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#1413 - 2013-08-02 23:04:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Sorry I didn't say anything about the Caldari HACs, it's because I think they are probably both in really good shape.



Sales of HAC's in The Forge (March - May)

Zealot 6,013
Vagabond 4,465
Ishtar 4,315
Muninn 2,353
Deimos 1,801
Sacrilege 1,546
Cerberus 1,502
.
.
Eagle 610

As you can see from popularity of HACs, as shown by their relative sales, the Eagle isn't just the worst HAC it is the worst HAC by a considerable margin. You'd think it was going to get major updates with perhaps a changed or refined purpose:


  • Is it a blaster platform based on its resist bonuses with added tracking and falloff bonuses..No apparently not.

  • Is it a sniper platform to rival tornados based on its optimal range bonuses with added damage bonuses to improve its alpha..No apparently not.


...No its going to have a mixture; neither glass cannon nor brawler and, of course, RAILS.

Fixing rails will not specifically fix Eagles, may help; but most likely other ships, like Naga's, will be used instead like they are now.

I've posted this here so that I can come back an reference it in December when I can compare these results with the three months to November.

Let's see CCP games design team are up to scratch or if the Eagle post 1.1 is still languishing at the bottom of heap.

RollYou seem a little bit lost. When Rise says "I think they are probably both in really good shape" he's referring to the alterations made in this thread, and the alterations to medium long range guns in another thread, not to current stats on the ships and sales of them on Tranquility.

As for your ABC v sniper HAC argument it applies to almost all of them, not just the Naga v Eagle.

At least the stats on the proposed Cerb are likely to get revised downward in some way. And that is a good thing. Start by removing the proposed drone bay. Give the 15m3 drone bays to the Eagle and Zealot. Then reexamine the difference in agility between the Sac and the Cerb. As for RLM launcher Cerbs, I don't know what you can do other than modifying the launchers directly. edit - actually just remove the bonus affecting RLMLs. If you are going to restrict drone bonuses to specific single drone types on the Ishtar you can do the same with the Cerb.

As for what may be on the bottom of the heap, my vote is with the proposed Muninn.Straight

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1414 - 2013-08-02 23:06:15 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Glippo wrote:
CCP Rise... The EAGLE!!!.
It is the worst HAC (by far) for a reason. And you have changed approximately nothing. It will remain the worst HAC. There are no viable roles for it. The only thing it was ever used for was as a Beagle, why not emphasize that? You want it to be a sniper? Have you heard of the Naga?

Rise, i implore you, fix the Eagle. You cannot take the worst HAC in game change nothing and expect it to be better ( yes i know about the medium rail changes). To start you off i suggest removing that Ridiculous double optimal range bonus.



Well actually i think the 2nd op bonus is useful as a beagle lacks much falloff a double damage bonus or even a 10% ROF is what it needs along with the speed/agility and an extra low for TE's and nano's.


ok how about this

EAGLE

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Caldari Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
4% bonus to shield resistances

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage

Slot layout: 5
4H(-2), 6M(+1), 5L(+1); 4 turrets (-1), 2 launchers
Fittings: 990 PWG(+115), 440 CPU(+2)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1350(-25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.29/s (+1.2)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 180(+16) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 50
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km(+20km) / 252 / 8
Sensor strength: 25 Gravimetric(+7)
Signature radius: 130(-20)

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
DJ FunkyBacon
Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc.
Monkeys with Guns.
#1415 - 2013-08-02 23:11:50 UTC
CCP Rise will be joining me on Eve Radio (http://eve-radio.com) at midnight tonight (less than an hour from this posting) and we will be discussing these HAC changes among other things.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#1416 - 2013-08-02 23:14:10 UTC
Cerbs are the new Talwars.

The dawning of Cerbfleet is at hand, the apocalypse is neigh.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1417 - 2013-08-02 23:14:53 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Glippo wrote:
CCP Rise... The EAGLE!!!.
It is the worst HAC (by far) for a reason. And you have changed approximately nothing. It will remain the worst HAC. There are no viable roles for it. The only thing it was ever used for was as a Beagle, why not emphasize that? You want it to be a sniper? Have you heard of the Naga?

Rise, i implore you, fix the Eagle. You cannot take the worst HAC in game change nothing and expect it to be better ( yes i know about the medium rail changes). To start you off i suggest removing that Ridiculous double optimal range bonus.



Well actually i think the 2nd op bonus is useful as a beagle lacks much falloff a double damage bonus or even a 10% ROF is what it needs along with the speed/agility and an extra low for TE's and nano's.


ok how about this

EAGLE

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Caldari Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
4% bonus to shield resistances

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage

Slot layout: 5
4H(-2), 6M(+1), 5L(+1); 4 turrets (-1), 2 launchers
Fittings: 990 PWG(+115), 440 CPU(+2)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1350(-25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.29/s (+1.2)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 180(+16) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 50
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km(+20km) / 252 / 8
Sensor strength: 25 Gravimetric(+7)
Signature radius: 130(-20)


No cos you're removing dps with that -1 turret... either remove a mid to a low or CCP needs to add an 16th slot to the low.. not likely mind. tracking bonus combined with blasters would be OP i suspect and without the second op bonus its range would be a little low.. just look at a ferox with null. and it needs at least 200m/s and more agility/less mass either or.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Sigras
Conglomo
#1418 - 2013-08-02 23:18:35 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75
425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6
Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693.
I see plenty of grid left.


Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD

Wow so you can't fit full tank and full gank on you ships, such a tragedy. Looks like you will need to use fitting mods or just use resist mods rather than extenders.


The point here being is the cynabal can do both....

Thats a case for the cynabal needing a nerf not the vaga needing a buff.

1068.75 PG base - 693 PG for guns leaves 375.75 for other stuff
MWD is 150 PG leaving 225.75 left for other stuff
a large F-s9 is 112.5 PG leaving 113.25

This means that you can fit 2 LSEs if one of your lows is a PDS or an RCU, or you can make your other mid slot an invulnerability field.

I mean I would like a deimos with 5 neutron blasters an MWD and a 1600mm RRTP but we cant have everything that we want.

Games are all about making tradeoffs, so start making them
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1419 - 2013-08-02 23:26:01 UTC
Harvey James wrote:


No cos you're removing dps with that -1 turret... either remove a mid to a low or CCP needs to add an 16th slot to the low.. not likely mind. tracking bonus combined with blasters would be OP i suspect and without the second op bonus its range would be a little low.. just look at a ferox with null. and it needs at least 200m/s and more agility/less mass either or.


true it does go down to 6 turrets from 6.25 but tracking and 5 light drones should take care of this.

you could go 4 neutron II Null

10 mn ab II
Tracking comp
Em harner II
Invul II
Large shield expander II
medium cap booster II 800

dcu II
te II
3 mag stab II

bust accelorator
shield expending rig

5 warrior II
5 ecm 300

that would be a pretty solid ship. good damage great projection now all it needs is a little more speed.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#1420 - 2013-08-02 23:28:20 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
I actually think that all of the advantages you cite for the vagabond are relatively weak, and you're strongly understating the strength of the RLM cerberus as a kiter when you make that comparison, Rise. Point-by-point:

1: The difference in speed and maneuverability between the vaga and the cerberus once you've actually fit them is smaller than it appears based on hull stats alone, since the cerberus can easily fit one or two nanos after fitting BCS, while the vaga needs its remaining lows for TEs and a damage control, so it can't readily fit additional speed mods. When you compare realistic kiting fits for the two ships, the cerberus is around 400 m/s slower while MWDing but has much better agility, which largely offsets the loss of raw speed. In addition, the cerb's superior projection further offsets its lower speed because it can start hurting things from much further away than the vaga can.

2: The utility high really isn't an advantage for the vaga at all, and the fact that it is required on the vaga but not the RLM cerb illustrates one of the latter's great strengths. The vaga needs a medium neut because if it gets scrammed by a frigate, it has no other options for getting away. The cerb can just smash the frigate to pieces with its main weapons, since they use frigate-sized ammo; it has a far more effective built-in frigate defence. The neut isn't a strength of the vaga; rather, the fact that it needs a neut reflects one of its biggest weaknesses.

3: Describing the vaga's damage projection as "slightly" lower than the cerb's is a rather strong understatement: with two damage mods on each (and the vaga having two TEs to boot, assuming it's fitting 220s and has barrage loaded), the cerberus starts outdamaging the vaga at 15 km. At 40 km (the edge of heated, skirmish-linked T2 point range after the 1.1 patch goes live), the cerberus is outdamaging the vaga by a factor of two. Phrases like "crushingly superior" seem more appropriate than "slight" under the circumstances.

4: You can fit an RLM cerberus with a full rack of launchers, a dual LSE/LASB tank, an MWD, two BCS, and two nanos with around 160 PG and 110 CPU to spare. On the vagabond, you don't even get enough grid to fit 220s, an LSE/LASB combo with an MWD, and a medium neut without needing a fitting implant.


I actually think you are choosing really narrow perspectives to reflect on the situation in order to support your arguments in a blind attempt to get the Vaga buffed.

1: 400 m/s is a MASSIVE margin and without knowing the exact fits you are cherry picking I would just like to highlight you are talking about the difference between an un-speed modified hull against one with two speed mods. A double nano'd ship has great agility? No doubt. Your example clearly illustrates just how massive the Vaga speed superiority is.

2: You are vastly understating the utility of a med neut. The fact that the Vaga seems to get to include it in every fit by default illustrates a huge strength of the hull. If the shield Zealot could have that med neut utility it would be a mid-range powerhouse and we would be having a different conversation. The lack of that and drones is what keeps the excellent damage projection of med lasers with scorch in check. So you really don't have much cause to write off the impact of that med neut as some kind of default setting - and we haven't talked about the Vaga's drone bay at all... Should we bring that up for anti-frig utility?

3: This is of course the trade off for projectiles. With more range your damage is reduced. You want to out damage a cerb then close range to increase it. There is a give and take to missile vs turret and you are asking for a hull to essentially cancel this out? 0-whatever range flat damage application is a missile characteristic, and the crossover point with Vaga ACs is fine. And that is without thinking about projectile damage selection vs cerb kinetic. Or the ability to pilot in a way that increases damage application. etc. etc.

4: RLML would be the smallest med missile weapon system. You can't draw a straight equivalence - but how does the fit comparison go with 180s? Or go invul with an extender or LASB. Or use that fitting implant. Or drop the med neut. Your fitting baseline for the two ships is completely scewed. I haven't checked it myself but what does HAM cerb fitting look like against 425 Vaga out of curiosity?

The Vaga is one of the fastest, most capable, get out of jail free cards in the entire cruiser lineup. I am glad the cerb is getting buffed and maybe it will end up needed to be drawn back again if RLM make it out of line, but it is NOT a compelling argument to shoehorn in more Vaga buffs. Sig, cap, sensors, all of that is more than enough for this hull to make it interesting, flown (post cynabal nerf), and balanced. And you even get bonus flexibility to make it into a tanking/brawling ASB beast if you want without impacting that mid range utility at all.