Star Citizen: The Gladiator & Vanguard suck (but they can be saved)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- Welcome to my channel where i rant about obvious shit, and use logic to cause my self pain by pointing out problems i know will probably never get fixed XD
Today were talking about the Torpedo bombers in star citizen.
PS: I didn't cover the other issues with the torps in the video mainly because the tracking and counter measure related problems are server side issues or bugs, and should get fixed "Someday™".
PT 2 for those who want to keep the beds.
• Vanguard Harbinger Alt...
TAG's Discord: discord.gg/bUeAygywy9
Am i shilling my referral code like everyone else on youtube is for this game? You bet i am!
EXAGGERATED INHALE
Don't have Star Citizen yet?
Use my referral code: STAR-BLRL-6Q76 to get some extra Free stuff when you create your account. Then to trigger the bonus all you have to do after that is buy a starter pack, or spend atleast 40$ or higher. At which point You get 5,000 extra starting credits, and Depending on what time of year you use my code You may even get a 2nd free ship when you sign up!
You can find out if they are running any signup bonus events on their main page.
You get all that, and i get 1 more point in my referral rewards stamp collection, its a win win!
lve almost got that Gladius unlocked, i just need 5 more 'suckers' err i mean "referrals". (the joke here is that friends don't trick friends into playing this buggy pre-alpha)
But Kidding aside, if you are going to get the game anyway you dont have to use my code though id appreciate it of you did, but you should atleast use someones code when you signup because it does give you extra free stuff.
Whatever you do, just dont use one of the big youtubers codes. They have all LONG sense had all the referral rewards unlocked and your signup bonus would be wasted on them. help out a little bro like me
I want to hear you rant about every ship! Please make this a series!
You're Perseus video is amazing, please keep doing this and I hope and pray it makes it to the eyes of a CIG employee/higher up
Honestly, my biggest two complaints on the Gladiator is the flight model (which is super old) and the fact that missiles actually connecting to targets is extremely variable based on the current build, server fps, etc. Dumping all four torps on a target can do a solid amount of damage... but only if it actually hits.
Outside of that, I honestly don't have much issue with the Gladiator. It's a fun ship and I see the guns/missiles that it has as more of a defense against lighter ships that try to contest the bombing run. I'd definitely love the option for a heavier loadout, but I don't personally think it's as essential as you've indicated here. If they fix the flight model and the torps connect 90ish percent of the time, I'll likely repledge one. It's a great bird, situationally.
I'm pretty sure that I remember CIG reworking the weapon size system, using different metrics. The Gladiator is a *very* old concept!
Man I’m liking your content!
I’ve recently grown to hate my vanguard in pvp. Swapping to a scorp/hurricane with a gunner.
Also gonna pick up a caterpillar (I know the C2/M2/A2 are better but tractor beam and not penguin shaped)
Keep these cool videos up. Hope cig listens to your insighs
Game will prbly Start working when they release squadron. This game is amazing but such a let down atm. It’s advertised as “playable now” haha
He needs to be on Twitch to be recognized by CIG unfortunately
Keep these videos up, great points. Not shitting on SC, but trying to make it better through constructive criticism.
on your comment about shielding, replacing twin size 1's on the gladiator and medium fighters would be amazing, but I would also be plenty happy if they gave us a 3rd size 1 on these ships, i know its not that big of a boost in comparison but come on give us medium fighter/light bomber guys something xD
I completely agree with your gladiator criticism, however with the vanguard I feel like the beds are part of the ships identity. I think it would be very neat for the turrets missile racks to be replaced with 3 or 4 size 5 torpedoes. This would be unique to have a torpedo turret and people replace the turret missiles with blasters anyway. Its also the least effort of the options as it doesn't involve modifying the ships hull.
some people want the beds on the vanguard. i did thinkg of a way to keep them after talking with a buddy. we managed to squeeze in the missile rework, but it still involved heavy hull edits to that specific vanguard the overall look of the vanguard stays the same but the internals change quite abit.
I was going to put it in this video at the end but thought against it, now im kinda regretting it.
Anyway in order to keep the beds, the rear ramp would be sealed. and the beds would go in the back area sideways, then the middle of the floor would have a conny style elevator to get in and out, and the pilot seat would have a ladder to get in and the hatch would open. that's ALOT of edits just to make the torps fit. i have a picture but idk how to get it on youtube.
Also in my humble opinion putting beds on small combat ships kinda takes away from the explorers niche who should be the ones to have the long range life support type gameplay, where combatships smaller than Fast attack craft (conny sized) shouldn't really have beds as they are they to go do a job then come back to base.
Again though, This is just my opinion and how i would personally do things.
here ya go ua-cam.com/video/SwFwN0K63zU/v-deo.html
also i have NO idea how you would get anything larger than a S3 missile onto that turret as its quite small. so im not sure how well that would work.
Please do not give up. These videos are exactly what the game needs. Too many of the zombies backing Star Citizen get angry when they see any criticism, as if they think that hurting CIGs feelings will delay that game even more.
We are not game players. We are testers, and people need to understand that. CIG also needs to understand that we are testers and not an ATM machine.
Just as you have a background in gamedev I come from the QA/QC/IT side, though I moved to greener pastures when the industry decided QA is for the birds. When I started giving CIG money it was because I thought I could use my experience to help an idea that I loved turn into a reality. I believed that because I was an idiot.
You can see on Glassdoor how little they value internal QA. When you know how easy JIRA can be public facing and you see how tight their grip on spectrum, its obvious they are not geared to listen to what we think of their work.
The only other option is to do exactly what you are doing, and the SC community on UA-cam is not doing it. Some channels may rant and rave about being lied to or nerfs but they lack knowledge and direction. Most channels are just reacting to official news and each other. Very few are testing or otherwise providing comprehensive useable feedback.
Even if they don’t hire you, they need to put 2-3 people on doing something to improve the ships we have. All of them.
Just as you quickly rattled off a logical correlation between ship size and shield size that should be easy to implement, they could group the ships available right now by class and size and make one simple change to standardize all ships.
Physicalize ballistic ammunition and tie energy weapon load out to the capacitors and powerplants.
Let’s make some boxes and work out a few examples. “Small” ships in general include snubs and ultralights like the mustangs and auroras, then light, medium and heavy versions of fighters, bombers, haulers and multi-use ships. For the purposes of this explanation I hereby reclassify the Cutlass chassis as a heavy small ship, by the way, since its never been comparable to medium sized ships and we need more ships in the heavy small utility and hauling classes.
A little fuzzy math is next. Each size ship has a certain amount of SCU for crew, components, internal storage, cargo and crew comfort facilities. We can assign values to each component based on its size and then add in slots for additional capacitors/powerplants or ammunition cases depending on loadouts. For our fighters, this means no more bathrooms or beds, as we need that space by now to fulfill our primary function. Ultra light and light ships just don’t have the room, so that weird bed on your aurora goes in the scrap pile in favor of cargo space that makes sense. Any ship with a bed also gets a bathroom, shower and at least a mini fridge. Standardization is easy!
If you made a few modifications here and there, like moving a wall on a cutlass or welding in a front door on a cutter, every small ship would easily fall into its place in this scheme. Add an extra gun or two here and there where appropriate and suddenly we start to have a bunch of viable options among the ships we have instead of a few clearly superior ships in a sea of why would you want this.
Its a lot of work but we are owed it. A long journey begins with one step, and a small group working on updating one ship at a time would generate an incredible amount of excitement and good will.
Maybe put a couple guys/gals on figuring out armor and a couple more working full time on tuning the flight model. Ask for volunteers and hire a few people if needed. This, to me, is the very least amount of effort required for me to plug my joysticks back in, but CIG will clearly NEVER do this unless the community demands it, and they will only demand it when channels like this show them it is possible and even easy.
DONT QUIT
I actually worked out most of the math on this a while back but nobody cared. I could recreate it if wanted. It works.
Usually I’m not one to listen to sc criticism, not because I’m an sc fan boy but because usually anyone doin it is just horrible to listen to. But you have genuine good reason
I got and none of it comes of as “whining”. Congrats dude!
I love this rant lol. It's on point! Please god CIG give that Gladiator the buff it deserves! Hell they used to have it on SQ42 'Bomb them all' posters...
You also sound exactly like someone I know who teaches Naval history, accent and mannerisms even. He's a good dude too and it's funny to be reminded of him in the SC community!
I Appreciate the comment, i dont teach history or think i know you, but the irony is i know a fair bit about naval history and tactics, especially the more modern stuff. When you were describing this guy you know i had this moment while reading the comment where i had a 'guilty eyeball look right and left' haha.
tenor.com/view/guilty-gif-5332537
as for the bomber I think i forgot to add in a bit about adding possible air to ground bombs and rockets that this thing should have as a light bomber. or how the back seater should have a targeting laser to allow them to be guided.
they sold this thing as the UEEs best light bomber that can fit in idrises and go anywhere, and it sucks at everything.. REEEEEEE
with how CIG does things, i bet if it was an actual cargo ship it would actually be good at freaking combat XD
but yeah we dont need more dumb ships like the A1, we need more weapons and features for existing stuff added.
In regards to the Harbinger, it's listed as a fighter-bomber, not a medium bomber.
I feel like all of your feedback is based on wanting it to be a heavier bomber... which it isn't. It's basically a slightly downgraded Gladiator (-1 torp) on a Vanguard chassis for long range light bombing and heavy fighter activity.
Basically, it has the Vanguard role (minus escape pod) with additional bombing capabilities. I don't think they were trying to make a heavier bomber with it, they were giving a heavy fighter torps.
At the moment, it definitely is a direct upgrade from the Gladiator, if nothing else due to the better flight model.
As far as the Hoplite goes... I haven't had any issues with the seats, but it is a weird frame for a dropship role. Pretty handy for running org mates around quickly, which is how I use mine if I'm not just using it as a general heavy fighter.
I really appreciated the Ares nerf reference. If a light fighter steps in front of an Ares and dies... that's the light fighter's problem. lol
Hoping they slow the weapon projectile speeds on them and raise the damage back up. I think that would be a good compromise that would allow the Ares to actually be worthwhile.
A 'civilian version' should never have smaller mounts. If you look at real-life 'export versions' of modern military equipment, which is the closest parallel I can think of. The biggest change is in the electronics and sensor packages they carry because you don't want your competitors getting a hold of your advanced technology and reverse-engineering it.
There is no logical reason to to use it as a justification to reduce the weapon size, especially when the weapons are MODULAR. It is absurd that the fixed weapons on a bomber are so damn tiny.
Another thought on the missile conundrum is the smaller mounts carry heavy-duty rocket pods with traits to allow it to excel at dealing damage to hull. This would give you a one-two punch where you blast a hole in the enemy shields/armor with the torpedoes, and then follow up with a rocket barrage on the exposed hull.
I think the biggest problem at CIG is that Chris Roberts has a vision and he refuses to compromise on it even when it affects the actual enjoyment of the game. It's his project and no one else's and he refuses to listen to criticism until he's basically getting beaten over the head with it. I noticed this way back earlier in development when he went on a spiel about turrets and wanting them to 'be like ww2 bombers' when his turret designs were abysmal lacking coverage and visibility and pretty much everybody pointed out that they were shit designs he pretty much ignored it. Turret designs have improved slightly over time but a lot of them are still garbage. Then there are ships lacking crew facilities such as bathrooms, dedicated mess spaces, and even freaking airlocks(looking at you connie having to depressurize the entire damn ship every time someone wants to get off) that should have them and others having them that shouldn't. The ships are pretty, no one can argue that, but on a functional level they fail 90% of the time.
In my eyes your criticism is perfectly valid. As a military arms and vehicle enthusiast their design philosophy is annoying at best and detrimental to the game at worst. Too many vehicles are unable to do their intended job. I recently had a discussion on the Khartu-Al being sold as a Scout/Explorer, but having nothing, apart from top speed, that would make it good for that role.
You seem like a cool down to earth guy. Do you have an org?
i do have an org sorta, but orgs don't really do much in game right now so their isn't much of a point to them. theirs only like 6-8 of us.
We don't do any big ops, nothing is mandatory, we just kinda chill and hangout or do our own thing. we only occasionally group up when we feel like it.
We do alittle bit of everything though, so were not one of those 1 trick pony orgs or role players who think they are pirates or w/e.
That being said, i want to be pretty upfront.
I'm not going to be doing what other you-tubers or full time gamers do. I wont be trying to run my org like its some kinda-job. I don't have the time or desire to do that, and it would defeat the purpose. its just a chill place for us to hangout and have fun.
100% on the gladiator, in lore it is the defacto light bomber of the UEE and it does not come close to doing its role. Ignoring bugs in the game, the payload it offers does not justify placing two dedicated people into it where something like the Shrike or even a couple furyMX can deliver something similar.
I have personally been on the side of bumping up the Vanguard to a 3x S6 torp Historically a torpedo is used to punch slightly above your weight class meaning this medium bomber heavy fighter should be able to threaten (not obliterate) a c2 with a payload.
SU-34 Fighter Bomber has a bathroom in it. So Vanguards philosophy kind of follow the fighter bomber roles. But the execution is pilot based.
all fighters have a paddle bag where u can relieve yourself if you have to pee, or a relief tube.. thats not a full sized bathroom though with shower sink and toilet its not the same.
A series on "actual capability" vs "the brochure pitch", and how to reconcile them would be interesting.
Telling marketing team to stop making up shit should be the first step
i love the gladaiator at least in looks and thematicly, though it needs to be scaled up by at least 30% to 50%. I agree with your hardpoint sugestions, though i would bump the turret to a quad turret on top of that and not slave it to the pilot, encouraging a group play instead of using ai blades in the future etc.
id also personally like some group play with the gladiator as well, but the way id do it is give the back seater a targeting laser.
then give the pilot air to ground weapons like rockets and bombs they can drop or fire unguided.. but if they have a back seater then they become guided.
@@TheAngriestGamer. Well hopefully cig dosent implement the theoretical targeting hardware into the turret. We all know how cig fks up thier lines of sight...
- Beeing able to remotly operate nosemounted cameras for targeting would be a verry nice idear for sure.
But i still think that uping either the turrets gun size or ammount would be needed due to the gladiators verry slow and hefty flight performance. ( its a sitting duck of a missile truck, even a Vanguard is more agile thatn that thing...)
the best way for them to make the gladiator good, is to make those size 5 missiles swappable with size 5 EM missiles, but that would make the gladiator op as hell, not a single medium ship will stand a chance against it if it gets size 5 EM missiles
not really. S5s haven't done damage in a long time now. they are kinda useless, and the fact that every ship also has a 50% kinetic resist ontop of it now means they do even less damage.
it also doesnt solve the fact that their are ZERO air to ground weapons on the ship. and the pilots guns are 1 size too small.
besides you can swap the missiles with a tractor beam. its just a P-I-T-A and doesnt really do anything. the S5s the gladiator has now are the highest damage missiles out there the EM ones do far less damage.
If you have ever used the gladiator in pvp, you know that the stalker V missiles are completely useless, they almost never lock and when they do get instantly flared. The scimitar V missile is the absolute bane of any craft, any medium sized craft cant flare them at all or dodge them since they are proxy fused, if the gladiator had these missiles, it would be the bane and instant death of any medium or light fighter it runs into. Again, damage is not the issue, its the missiles guidance system.@@TheAngriestGamer.
@@stanvandenadort4710 *instant migraine** Bruh.. what are you doing? Idk what to say other than USER ERROR, plz replace user... and yes damage is the issue, But You're not suppose to be using f**king Micro torpedoes against fighters.. No crap they cant lock-onto them, they aren't for that..
S5s are meant to be going after Sub-corvettes and Corvettes, Things like Conny, Corsair, Freelancer, A/C/M2, Galaxy, Hammerhead, Perseus, Carrack, Caterpillar.
S5s are NOT meant to even be fired at heavy fighters, let alone smaller things. Heavy fighters and things like the Zuse, A/C/E1s, cuttys, should be attacked by S4 missiles if/when they get fixed as they are medium ships.
Medium and light fighters should be handled by S3 or S2 missiles.
S1s are more for anti-missile/torp and anti snub craft defense. but in the game S1 spam is king currently cuz we dont have armor and you can have so many of them and because the larger missiles are junk due to not doubling it damage like they use to.
Ur right the tracking and guidance for all missiles is Poo, but it has always been poo. +CIG screwed the damage into the ground a few years ago for S3-5 missiles, which is part of the problem and the reason i said the damage needs to be fixed.
100% agree with you and all points about these ships. Whats ur take about the retaliator bomber?
its hallways are too narrow to navigate half the time. some of the Warts/gun turrets are wedged into weird crevasse on the ship so this results in terrible coverage and inability to shoot targets, making most of the defenses essentially useless. The fact you need a TON of crew for a small ship like that is also SUPER obnoxious and bad for design.
the thing has more health than it has any right to and can ramp a Hammerhead to death and win. But other then that its OK ish.. the S9s are kinda crap atm but so are all missiles. id redo the countermeasure and missile system completely. and redo the UI for them.
I don´t see why they couldn´t just add bespoke racks for the wing pylons of the Gladiator.
With all the bullshit the game pulls of despite wanting to be grounded in pseudo reality that change would in no way hurt it.
Just look at the vanguard nose guns or Nova gun, anything that is bespoke doesn´t follow the rules so just add another exception for the Glad.
A 5-411 omni mount should absolutely work but no double tripple or quad mounts for that slot size.
How would you feel about removing the pilot guns and adding another set of missile pylons?
id rather have a pair of S4 guns personally, cuz when you show up and dump your load. you become kinda useless without guns, you HAVE to leave at that point. with a pair of S4 guns you could in theory stick around for alittle bit and try to be annoying or help in an attack.
i also dont think you could stick big enough missiles in place of where the guns are to make it worth it..
NOW AIR TO GROUND BOMBS AND ROCKETS.. thats a different story and this thing needs them badly.
@TheAngriestGamer. I agree at the very least S4s would to be thrown on. Just wish we'd get a bump up on the glad. Strike, Fury have so much missile power, feel like glads falling behind hard. Glad and Hornet are my favorite small combat ships.
not sure i get it when your saying it needs bigger guns because it targets bigger craft as a bomber.
the torpedo would be for the big targets and it has arms to help it punch through other fighters the point would be to peel off enemy fighters so you can focus on dropping the load.
and the shield reducing the damage what is crossing my mind is why are you bombing a ship with a shield. I am no expert in meta setups but i have always competed against them in most game and first thing that comes to mind is this ship probably wants fighter escorts but at minimum anti shield weapons lowering the defense of its targets before dropping a big missile / torpedo load.
you said its a 30% reduction in damage it would seem to me they either dont want this ship to 1 shot enemies before they can react or 2, they have lowered the damage so that it can disable parts of a craft its fighting instead of destroying it.
ill try to make this simple as i can.. Fighters typically need high dps to do their job, they get this by having lots of guns. fighter guns are typically smaller because they don't need to punch through lots of armor and its easier to mount more little guns on a fighter than it is to mount lots of big ones. hull space is still an issue..
bombers and attackers by contrast don't need high dps and don't normally have lots of guns, they exchange lots of guns for fewer bigger guns. they need this because they have to strafe larger targets with more armor and go after things that fighters cant hurt. After you fire your missiles, you can stick around alittle and help strafe targets that are too armored for the fighters to even hurt, before leaving (assuming the situation permits it and doesnt demand you just fire and leave on the spot).
the ideal target size for this thing is conny, redeemer, retaliator, carrack, caterpillar, C2/A2/M2 etc.. currently the damage on torpedoes and size 2-4 missiles is so dog shit poor that it is only doing about 4.3-5.7k damage per shot with size 5s. meaning it takes more torpedoes than this thing can carry to disable even a single ship. and that assumes that ALL missiles hit, and hit the same section instead of spreading the damage over multiple sections of the target which all have their own independent HP values.
a bomber should beable to at-least deal with a single target in its intended pool of targets, and have some wiggle room for the occasional miss/decoyed/intercepted missile because it takes a long time to resupply and its suppose to carry powerful weapons to engage things fighters cant. Not fire poorly guided Marshmellows. It is so poor at its job, it cant effectively disable ships let alone kill them. noone is asking for 1 shorting things. you're totally missing the point and failing to understand the gravity of just how shitty at its only job, and failing to understand how flatout weak this thing actually is. it will fire its full load at something and the target ships (which aren't even very strong in the 1st place) are totally fine, thats a huge problem.
Their are several reasons NOONE uses this thing in-game and this is one of them.. Imagine a cargo ship thats the size of a bengal carrier but only has 2 scu of cargo, no guns and no shields...
If you can imagine that, then you should beable to understand just how bad thing is at being a bomber.
also CIG doesnt think about anything. you are assuming way more competence than they actually have. Everything that happened to this was side effects from 2 events. 1: the increased hull resistance because of the changes to kinetics and shield bleed through. And 2: the nerfs to missile damage 6 years ago because they were starting to add sub components to the ships damage models, and the blast damage was blowing up all the components on ships due to them not having an armor system or knowing how to put components behind a layer of ship hull to prevent aoe damage from soft killing a ship. As i said. CIG is just dumb af, and forgot to fix this and many other things. we have gatlings with 14 seconds of ammo and then they are empty, where as the same gun in S42 has over 4-5 min of ammo
I wonder with some ships like this if they are waiting to do anything until they do a gold standard pass
im not sure, but they dont need to do a gold standard to fix the external issues. those can be fixed in 1 day by anyone with access to edit the loadout section of the ships xml file (or w/e they are using to store hard ship config data)
the animation might need edited for the guns alittle bit (maybe).. but thats also a super easy tweak. and shouldnt take more than 20 or so min.
i could do this edit on my lunch break if given the chance.
the vanguard edit on the otherhand would probably need a team and a week of work. its not bad but its alittle heavier and requires new model, texture, animation files.
Better content than Inforunners
Gladiator is a 165.00 dollar ship correct? And it currently cannot do its job.
yep, thats basically the long and the short of it.
if you havent seen it. you might wanna watch pt2 where i talk about the Air to ground options that it doesnt have.
I will check it out. @@TheAngriestGamer.
I like the gladiator even tho it flys like a boat and handles like one too lol
i wanna like it. cuz i need something that does the job it claims to do.. i just wish it actually did what it says it does lol..
I question how long you've been a Star Citizen backer and if you even realize the game is an Alpha and nothing is finished! SC has this concept of "The Gold Standard" SC also has 100's of ships and the two you are picking on today are both very old and very far from the current Gold Standard. You can bet the ships will be revisited and it makes no sense to keep going back to every ship till the final Gold Standard is realized. Then you will see these ships start to come up to be the ship that they were originally concepted for.
And what indicator do we have that CIG knows how to fix the gladiator? We need to criticise to direct them at the issues
First off a military version should not be a watered down version of a facken military ship. That is for civilian versions. 😂 This game is a mess.
Just need to point out you desperately need to read the original brochure for the Gladiator. CIG may post it as a "bomber" on the store page, but the original sales pitch and the lore surrounding the Gladiator called it a Fighter/Bomber hybrid. A lot of your commentary about its armament are directly at odds with things that CIG addressed specifically, such as the size 3 missiles. In the original brochure, it was given size 3 missiles specifically to still allow it to use part of its payload against other fighters, not just large ships.
Also, size 4 guns are not intended to be primarily for large ships. Size 4 guns are barely teeming into what would be considered capable of penetrating larger ship armor. Size 5s on the other hand are what is "needed" for anti-large weaponry. That was obviously never within CIG's original concept, as it started off with size 2 guns even prior to the first rework on weapon sizes. Back then, size 2s were considered the average slot for anti-fighter capabilities. I will agree with you that Size 4s would make sense for the Gladiator, but not for engaging large ships, but instead to reinforce its role as a fighter/bomber, rather than a dedicated bomber. Considering its multi-role capabilities, it would make sense for the Gladiator to sit in light fighter firepower (IE, the Talon and Khartu Al), but maintaining medium or even heavy fighter maneuverability in exchange for its added missile/torpedo payload.
Alot to unpack here..
While yes it should be a bomber capable of attacking larger ships. When i say "large ships" i need to clarify that i mean ships larger than itself. Its ideal targets are things like Connys/corsairs/caterpillars/C2s and Corvettes like hammer heads, Galaxy, carrack etc etc.. So having heavier guns would help facilitate its attacks on those ships. Obviously when you start getting into the baby capitals like the frigates/890 then the armor starts getting too thick for this thing to deal with even with S4 guns, and even the s5 torps will struggle at that point. the S4 guns are badly needed improvements to this thing to help it fill its role as a light bomber/attack. Its also missile ALL Of its air to ground rockets and bombs.
At the end of the day though it is still a modified medium fighter frame with the job of multi-role light bomber.
like the Harbinger is a modified Heavy fighter frame with the job of Medium Torpedo bomber.
As for the anti-fighter role, that's part of the customization, i might not have made it clear in the video but i never intended to take away any S1-3 missile options. And you are correct size 1-3 missiles should absolutely still be weapon options for this thing and S3 missiles are ideal for dealing with fighters. However this thing should NOT be used to fight other fighters alone, it should come in and assist light fighters by firing missiles "over their shoulder" as a 2nd line support/attacker. It should aid in dogfights by providing mid and long range "over the shoulder" missile shots before leaving to get more ammo.
You also seem to be mixing up some of the OG lore/propaganda into its role, it was never meant to be a anti-fighter, it was meant to be-able to "defend itself from fighters". The in universe marketing team made the claim that "you don't even need fighter cover, its so amazing it can do everything!" (which was a lie, and was proven false in universe). This reeks of references to the old B17 Flying fortress sales videos from ww2 because they did the same thing.
I have a discord setup now & the link should be in the vid disc. if you ever wanna come hangout and talk to me about ships, id be game to do that. I enjoy talking about lore/use cases and problems/solutions.
Well done