EDIT: 29/11/17 **************** PLEASE DO NOT UPVOTE THIS THREAD! UPVOTE THIS ONE INSTEAD!!!! https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/vanguard-and-their-variants-rework #VANGUARDVICTORIOUS ! **************** Hi Devs, TL:DR Question: Will the backer feedback harvested by @Meohfumado-CIG be used to inform the work on the Vanguard Harbinger and Sentinel, and if so, will it be reverse/reworked onto the Warden given its absence on the 3.0 schedule. It cannot have escaped the notice of Community Relations, or other devs within CIG, that there is a sentiment within a certain significant part of the Vanguard owners, that the Vanguard Warden implementation we have (which was according to Paul Delessi an 'early in engine implementation for feedback') doesn't match the concept , in terms of the usual high CIG standards for quality and fidelity we have seen since on Drake and MISC ships. A brief review of the old Shipyard forums shows the level of consternation. There are also significant concerns around the place that the Vanguard occupies in the ship hierarchy (if it may be called that) and the role that the (Warden especially) occupies and the flight model it has. This concern is related to the concept being 'impressive speed, not agile, extensive forward firepower, multiple shielded/armoured and redundancy'. While Items2.0 is required for the multiple shielded/armoured and redundancy, however to date the Vanguard has been very vulnerable as a large, slow, not agile target, and very vulnerable to physical impact at slow speed, with an inability to fly straight if an engine is lost, and since 2.6.1 has been extremely 'sloppy' on rotation, and drifty on all axis on translation. There are many comments, both on the old forums, Spectrum, Reddit and SC Discord channels on the state of the Vanguard, and I wanted to ask officially the Devs here, given the lack of the Warden from the 3.0 Schedule as to whether the collected feedback (that Meofumado did such an amazing job with) will be applied to the Harbinger and Sentinel, and assuming so, whether it would also be reverse utilised on a Warden Rework. For ease of reference, Meohfumado's collected feedback: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6750834/#Comment_6750834 And a selection of topics on the Vanguard to give a flavour....: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/365464/vanguard-development-history#latest https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/358040/the-cutlass-puts-the-vanguard-to-shame/p1 https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/359963/what-is-wrong-with-the-vanguard/p1 https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/331243/highly-disappointed-in-the-vanguard-especially-the-warden-standing/p1 https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7448576/#Comment_7448576 https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/362129/remodel-the-vanguard-entirely/p1 https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/364649/survivability-of-the-vanguard#latest https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/357619/warden-interior-looks-nothing-like-the-concept-why/p1