@Ramalina and Delta_V Thanks guys, when you're wrong, you're wrong, and I was wrong . I was thinking the circle was being viewed as the base of the cone rather than a small circle inscribed at a distance much less than the base range. I agree this wouldn't be noticeable with cone height changes, but would be sensitive to angle changes. Thanks for the diagrams and fruitful discussion! I appreciate the time both you took to draw/model the cone. I'll edit my previous post.

@Ramalina Thanks for your suggestion. It possible I'm wrong in all of this, but I'm not nuts about your suggestion because you're invoking ever higher levels of abstraction--nearly impossible to test--to explain away the data. If what you're saying is true, how do you reconcile a player seeing a noticeable change in the arc size in Situation C vs A and B? The diameter (volume) increase is nearly the same, so if A and B are too small to notice, why isn't C? That just doesn't make sense. The cone edge change would be about the same. So either some really funny business is going on here, or that cone isn't changing with range as so many think. I'm drawing my conclusions on what I can test, it's possible it's wrong, but I think it's better than eliciting ad hoc ideas. I would like for what people think (cone increases with range) to be true since it "feels" nice and is consistent with how the cone should work. I just haven't found any empirical evidence to support it.

I'm not saying it's not a cone, I'm saying your analogy didn't define the meaning of the cone base, firing arc's or tracking penalties. Therefore, the cylinder conveyed what you wanted to convey--at least my interpretation of it-- in what I thought was an easier, more colorful approach. You're totally correct about the cone. With your later explanations and Ramalina's diagram I agree with what you're saying. Thanks to both of you for clarify that, I enjoyed those posts.

This kinda makes sense but its has a few flaws. It's not clear what the significant of the cone base would be, if it's the circle defined by "firing arc angle" as is typically thought, then the range explanation (increasing cone size), doesn't make sense because the "firing arc"--size of circle--isn't a function of range. I think it's better to think of it has a cylinder. First start off with a cone and define the cone angle by the firing arc angle (say 32 degrees). Then make the cone, where the base of the cone, which is what people call the "firing arc", even though it's clearly not an arc then becomes the base of the cylinder. This step is needed so the "firing arc"--read circle diameter-- doesn't change size as the range of a weapon changes. Now make a cylinder using the cone base as the base of the cylinder. The length of the cylinder = Range, the surface of the cylinder is colored to reflect damage as a function of range. The top of the cylinder is colored to reflect tracking accuracy (% per degree) as a function of cursor position within the "firing arc". Note that the top (inner) cylinder gradient would reflect the tracking accuracy at far range, which is constant relative to base accuracy. By base, I mean 90% at range X--the quoted value in the tooltip. As you moved down the cylinder the base accuracy would change which is difficult to depict visually--you'd need a second vertical gradient. I made a drawing to help people: http://i.imgur.com/O9gK9Sv.jpg

Not yet. Tane...you were running a Novadive with Pods yesterday? I think I remember that guy . I've been looking for groups on Impside, I'm still learning names and such. What's your impside name? My name has a special character (it's an alt I took from Shadowlands), so it's hard to search for in WHO box. I'll be on tonight, ~7 pm est if you're flying. I also ran into some of those Strike guys you mentioned. Strike-Seven is my favorite so far, I like his style.

in chat box type /cjoin gsf and also type /cjoin pilot. Most servers use the GSF channel, but sometimes people talk in the Pilot channel.

I thought that was you pub side the other day lol. Do you have an imp toon? POT5 is a sad situation, even prime time (7-10 pm est ) on a Friday or Sat it's hard to get pops in under 30 min. Weekdays...it's a nightmare, you need the entire week to get the weekly done. Some of us have taken to traveling, I'm currently on Ebon Hawk imp side, Is'pep and I think Archer are both doing stuff on Harbinger, other less well-known people have also left for different servers

Assuming the middle ground with your changes (35% range boost, 50% damage boost, and 15% acc boost) HLC's will look like this: Range = [776, 4657, 9115] (using range capacitor) Accuracy = [126, 121, 116] (using pinpointing) DPS vs Shields = [1182, 1059, 993] DPS vs Hull = [ 1277, 1143, 1071] Just imagine a target 9k away and you pop WM and have 136% accuracy and no charge time on a laser. You're right it would make a strike something another player could not ignore. Are the BLC's going to be more powerful than on a scout due to the umbrella buff to all strike weapons you're proposing? Or will the BLC's be exempt from the buff? On top of the above suggestions, there's the secondary weapon buffs, which would make the strike even more dangerous. Do you think strikes are really that underpowered? I think the suggestions are good, but your values are too high and they go pass the point of buffing. Also why would a T1 pilot ever pick quad and BLC? Quads don't have the range, armor ignore, accuracy, or shield piercing of HLC and they have higher power draw than HLC. I don't see those two weapons being favored by many even if quads have slightly higher DPS. BLC and Ions maybe, it would definitely be cool to try. I don't think you can just "buff the strikes" and only change these values for strikes. People already complain about the learning curve and this will make it worse. Smaller changes to the weapon component tiers makes the material easier, doesn't risk tipping the scale too far, and doesn't involve having a messy obfuscated "buff" do deal with strikes.

It's a really nice list and I'm glad you extracted it from the above thread for those of us not wanting to read 20+ pages of replies. I agree with most of the changes, but I think some of the increases are a bit extreme. If all changes were implemented a strike would be one hell of a ship and a very dangerous hybrid class. Propositions 2-4 Are all of these necessary? I don't think strike DPS is an issue, it's the accuracy of the strikes primaries and the high evasion on so many other ships that can make engagements difficult. If you pop WM@6000m with HLC you can do a nice bit of damage against any scout or GS. Now imagine if you have increases to range, damage and accuracy? With your low side buffs you'd get HLC hitting at 8280 meters (using the current Range Capacitor) with 111% accuracy dealing >1k DPS along with the perks of Armor Ignore and 15% shield piercing--OP. You made a highly mobile medium range GS with no charge time I think tamer changes to accuracy and range will suffice. The changes need to be component specific too. For example, HLC's dmg +10%, RFL = +30% and give them 15% shield piercing. I think Quads and Ions are OK atm in terms of damage. Range could be +5% for HLC, and +40% for Ions--see below for HLC/Ion pairing. I don't think secondary weapons stats should be touched. Those aren't the issues with the strikes, I agree with adding more missiles (e.g. Pike with interdiction missile) though. Also imagine if the stats were changed on nearly every missile only for a strike? Then every time a player swaps ships he has to remember all the buffs the weapons no longer have. This would increase the learning curve and cause all kinds of confusion. On that note, I don't like implementing all that via a perpetual buff. It's going to be weird if a player switches ships (say T1 strike to T1 bomber) and suddenly HLC's feel like a different weapon. If the changes were modest, like the ones I suggested above, implementing them in the component tiers might make sense without breaking other classes. Granted, it's a concern that such changes could increase the effectiveness of other class builds--testing would have to be done to some extent. 6) Give the Star Guard Burst Laser Cannons. I don't think this is a good idea. If a pilot can run HLC and BLC, then say goodbye to any other weapon combination. It also defangs the scouts in terms of uniqueness-- yes I know GS have BLC too. However, the overall changes you're proposing are making the Strike = Scout. I rather see the current weapons better complement each other. For example, the range of Ions should be increased close to HLC, hence the +40% above. As is, their range difference (2300 meters) is annoying and limits the effectiveness of using Ions to lower shields and then hit with HLC. RFL need to have their damage increased, close range accuracy increased (110->115% base), and tracking penalty dropped to 0.25 % per degree along with shield piercing (15%). That would make them better under satellites. It would be nice if HLC/RFL was good for dom matches and HLC/Ions were the logical choice for TDM. I didn't see any increases to evasion mentioned in OP. Maybe I missed it, but I'm thinking +8 base evasion. I think the rest of the suggestions are good and thanks again for compiling the list.

I tried to get one started on POT5 a few months ago but had to cancel due to lack of interest. Granted, that may have more to do with POT5's small community and not many aces having mastered strikes over there rather than the event itself. I think for it to be successful, Bastion would need to be the server since so many of us probably have respectable req level strikes there. I'd definitely be down for a strike night!

They've got my vote, and more importantly my money. Thanks for posting this

In regular play I agree with the above posts. Sadly, EMPs are like strikes—you could probably always find something better that would help your team out more. Also, I haven’t found EMP missiles to be any more useful in serious team play. I’ve tried several times to get EMP missiles to work well and convince myself they have a great role in team play. Two super serious events ago I ran an Imperium with EMP/CP/Repairs with the idea of trying to help out T1 bombers on a node by EMPing everything and healing them. The heals from the T3 are very useful in such situations because they are buffs—cannot be disable or destroyed by missiles/AOE etc. Most repair drones don’t last long in serious play, at least not when they are around a node. The idea kind of worked, and with CP and deflection armor I could stay alive long enough to be useful, but really my heals helped more than the EMPs. My observations were: 1. Turrets rarely were up long enough to be useful for the EMP locks. 2. Friendly ships were facing tanking spam faster than my missile locks, so I rarely could lock on to spam. 3. I had to constantly try and lock on to the bombers for the EMP missile to work, difficult against good bomber pilots unless they are snared. With these observations Chukker and I played around with the idea of running a T1 scout with EMP field, that way it’s instant and you can avoid the lock on issues. Basic strategy is pop EMP field, get away from node and GS hunt. Repeat. I found this strategy better, but since questionable in regards to overall effectiveness. In other words, I felt I could have been more useful in a burst/pod scout, or a GS with ion, or a bomber. I don’t think running a EMP build is a crucial component to having a good, well-rounded team. It was fun to try though. In terms of solo play I would never consider it on a serious build.

If you have the means to I'd recommend recording a few of your matches and putting them on Youtube. It would be the fastest way for people to give you feedback about what you're doing wrong. Ramalina compiled an excellent guide on how to record here http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=729222&page=37

Asking what BW is doing to GSF to stand up to Star Citizen is like asking Hyundai what they are doing to compete with Maserati. They are completely different games with very different purposes. I don't see many players leaving GSF for Star Citizen. GSF is very fun, but for serious flight simulation experience there are other options, nor was GSF ever meant to be a flight simulation. It's an arcade shooter designed to appeal to a large audience, that's why they didn't want to force users to use joysticks and special controls to get the full experience. Games like Star Citizen are hardcore, requiring >GTX 960 graphics just to get more than 30 FPS, at least at the current alpha level. A lot of people playing swtor would need to invest ~$300-400 just to play Star Citizen at reasonable levels. Not to mention HOTAS equipment if you want the full experience. I've been playing the alpha of Star Citizen and it's a lot of fun, but a completely different experience from GSF, which is why I wouldn't consider the two games in the same competition bracket. Like Nemarus said, Star Citizen is the least of GSF's worries atm. BW's biggest problem is communication, the community feels abandoned because we have been. There was more transparency between the East and West during the height of the Cold War than there is between the players and devs of swtor.

Nightmaregale and I will be on a team. Thanks!

Exactly. During Havokhead's necro glory he should have bumped that thread. No one would have complained about that, it would actually be useful to keep that thread on page 1.

Although OP is wrong on many levels as other players have noted, his ignorance is not unique. His attitude seems to be the prevailing attitude among many new players, which leads them to quickly drop GSF as part of their game experience. A better tutorial would do wonders for these guys who are not crazy about GSF to being with, hopefully Nemarus will be able to communicate with a dev at the cantina tour and get something across to them about an improved tutorial (consider throwing your shoe at them with the message taped to it). All servers need more players so that matchmaking can actually do something about pairing teams.

You don't need to be a GSF ace to figure out a search engine and find topics. Type "bomber strategy" for example, or "scouts" into the box and you'll find the Scout 1 advice thread. It's like saying you can't use google unless you're an expert at what you're searching. Regardless, I think your heart was in the right place, you just should have made a new post and linked the threads in it as suggested.

Reported and in agreement. I'm not sure why he did such a thing, but it was very annoying and unnecessary. If anyone needed/wanted to find those thread topics they could just use the advanced search features. If he thought those posts were "necessary" reading material, he could have made a new post with a list of those topics and provide the URLs to those threads.

I'm good. I'll fly with Comfyslippers as long as he has his 150 Hz CRT monitor--it's a serious advantage out there. Event duration: whole length Ships: T1/T2 scouts mastered, T1/T3 strikes mastered, T1 GS mastered, all bombers mastered (CM too).

That T2 build definitely compliments a T1 on a node. If you're using it mainly for node protection, I'd run interdiction drive on it too. It makes the ship slightly less flexible in TDM, but I usually run two T2's--one for dom and one for TDM so I don't worry about it much. It's a really strong choice and I've seen it used in SS night to great success. Lately I've been using a T3 strike with a T1 bomber on the node, which I like better for some situations, but that's not relevant to your post.

Thanks for organizing this again! Had a good time and met some new pilots, looking forward to the next one.

I've had fun with it against GS groups, but it won't work in a competitive match. Situation: Multiple enemy GS cluster together--little to no bomber support You are running a T1 scout with at least one GS in your premade Run booster recharge, distortion, sensor beacon, running interference and speed thruster with power dive. Dive into the GS cluster and drop beacon, usually they will all try to focus you and ignore the beacon. Evade like crazy and while the GS's are distracted on you, have your GS's come in range and light them up. It's fun, but easy to counter. Like others have said, there are stronger options out there.

Comfyslippers--I think that's the right spelling--will be on my team. Thanks!

Empire Availability: Full Event; Ships: All ships except Dustmaker and Mailoc; Requisition: Mastered T2 scouts, T1 strike, T1/T2 bombers, T1 GS.