Although, the strike fighter seems to suffer from a lack of class 'depth'. for other ship classes the 1 button tends to do something useful, or switch between effective weapons like rail guns. For the star guard, it's switching between lasers that are proven less effective then those on other fighters (who's number 1 buttons can augment their primary weapon damage) for the pike... it's switching between missiles and more missiles, feeding into the missile break-cool down debate give em something like rocket pods and they can at least try to do some frontal DPS compeition with other meta ships the third strike fighter's number 1 button does useful things and it's favored by 'meta' pilots. meaning it has more depth, despite it's weapons being a bit second rate, it is possibly the most useful strike to it's team. across the board upgrades to the frame would help alot increases to strike's weapon ranges and accuracy might give them a place in meta, perhaps even edging the scouts back to specialist fighters. Sure ace flash fire pilots will probably still be nasty, but they won't be able to wade into a pack of strikes and kill them all with impunity. Each of those kills is another player trying to play the same game.

this one's slightly off topic but I think strike fighters benefit from having a gsf to play so it affects us too. I was just overhearing another game's 'changes' for it's pvp coding: If a player sabotages pvp events repeatedly (it keeps a tally) by 1. leaving the battle early or 2. not doing anything (I think for us that means not dealing damage, getting objective points, or even locking and firing missiles) they lose all rewards for events (if guilds are farming gsf for conquest perhaps they should lose all conquest points for a week or something) until they start participating. On a similar subject, I think locking and firing missiles should be participating, you can't do that without having a target in range, and doing something to help your team... and making the other guy blow a missile break is contributing. Just because a battle scout or gunship blows up your target before the missile hits, doesn't mean you aren't trying. I also think taking damage is participating... still it would avoid penalizing new players as long as ramming asteroids doesn't count. Leachers (players who only farm gsf for conquest or other reasons) have made gsf nearly die out on my home server, because fewer and fewer players cue for matches knowing one or more people are going to lazily drift across the map or when they know they are being voted.... slam their ships repeatedly into asteroids to end the match early and punish us for trying to stop them. Several good players told me they were leaving our server for that reason, and cues have slowed down to one every few hours for lack of willing pilots.

There's hardly a weapon system that screams 'strike' more then rocket pods... and it gets around the missile lock issue. The only downside is pilots like me would need to practice our gunnery more. A larger ammo rack for strikes might be a cheep way to buff them without major code changes.

Here's what is bound to be an unpopular idea. If scouts are meant to scout, the targeting telemetry buff should give it's bonus to allied ships near the scout, and not to the scout itself. Turning that cool down into a support function. Because scout is not the code word for killing machine, but for reconnaissance support ship. It might even give ships who stick close to the scout a chance to deal some dps, that includes strike fighters and other scouts (course a two man scout wing-man team might have similar results one does now but it won't be a one ship killing squad) You're thinking "You can't be serious!" well... partly, I'm not, I doubt such a change would ever be approved, it's a nerf in a sense and I agreed not to talk about nerfs but if scouts are ment to scout, then their cool downs should help other ships on their team, not help them be better killers. Perhaps the scouts buffs could also give other ships on their side... like say strikes, their advantage... it is called 'targeting TELEMETRY' as in transmitted data to another ship or base. If it only affected strike fighters... that might be interesting, useful, and complicated. If it ever affected rail-guns we would all be doomed.

Actually, the shoe is on the other foot. The theory behind scouts and strikes, was that strikes were the 'normal' fighter, and scouts were, smaller, could go faster or further, and turn faster. They were also supposed to be less well armed to compensate for all their advantages (the T1 and T3 scout resemble that theory). The T2 scout is better armed at close ranges then... anything else in space. Probably because it was supposed to destroy gunships. Scouts currently fly further and faster then anything else in space, which would make sense if they were supposed to scout.

The problem many strike fighter pilots are discovering with the x-wing vs tie fighter scenario, is we are the tie fighters. an x-wing can shoot down a tie fighter in one pass, a tie fighter has to harry an x-wing for several minutes to take one out. Several ships can take out a strike fighter with one pass or 3 shots, strike fighters have to harry most targets for several minutes to take them out. our firepower is unreliable, speed is bellow average, defense are bellow average. I would kill to see these replaced with reliable, above average, and above average.

My basic theory is strikes need a boost to damage output, enough to kill things in front of it in it's kill range... it's too slow to chase anything with good cool downs forever without running into trouble, tougher in theory then scouts but not in practice when evasion is factored in. It has some firepower but it needs to out gun recon fighters since it can't out run or out defend them. Long range missiles that did something worth while would make them good ships for less experienced pilots. Blasters that hit targets that are using their evasion cool downs if not for amazing damage but more then now... would make them more able to be fighters. Right now the strike fighter has to choose it's targets like a scout is supposed to, and one scout can barrel into the middle of the fray and slug it out, like a strike is supposed to. The roles have reversed due to over attention paid to the scout's capabilities and not enough to the strikes. Somewhere between my internet connection and my reflexes I can't perform in a T2 scout at the level as some of these equally experienced pilots so it's the strike fighter (or gunship) for me, I wouldn't mind having a fighting chance in the crate I can fly best that isn't a gunship. One less gunship in gsf sounds like an improvement to me...

unintended consequences: strikes would be higher priority targets to things that already are more able to kill them then visca versa.... this increased ability to cap nodes wouldn't help individual strikes be strikier

then we're back to a, b or linked... and as bad as it may sound linked isn't such a bad idea... but being able to switch to and from linked would be very star-wars... and perhaps very helpful. Being able to add rapids to another blaster might make them useful and do some decent dps for example

then the number 1 key could be re-tasked to do something else on the T1 strike as the weapons would all fire-linked would the T2 strike benefit from the same?

the thinnest fastest recharging shields with the missile break? Humm I like your style! You get a missile break but more vuln to burst damage... it seems somewhat fair... does the T2 scout even have quick charge as an option?

or... for a more star-wars feel: let strike fighters fire-link their primary weapons like y-wings in the x-wing games 1 might toggle a, b, or fire linked letting a strike throw all it's blaster energy into a burst with two sets of weapons might make it much more useful even if their sweet spots are going to be different Not sure if the T2 strike fighter would really benefit from locking two missiles at once although that would be more 'strike' then lobbing 1.... fire linked missiles is also very star wars X-wing games (although usually they are the same type of missile)

When you think about it from the perspective of a strike fighter pilot: The longest range fighter is the gunship, barely a fighter at all, it is an artillery unit on the star wars map. The best defending unit is the bomber, heavily armored but with no bombs to drop, it instead deploys mines drones or torpedoes, even though it's got the most hit points it doesn't need them, it needs to stay out of los of everybody. The most powerful craft in dog fighting range is... a scout.... a light weight higher maneuverability and higher mobility craft that can blow up anything on the map often without taking any damage in return. Whats left? Strikes aren't a bad platform, but once everybody else gets the best toys... strikes need the second best toys. If they were second best at range... (10k?) second best at defending (more shield/hull/evasion?) more maneuver and mobility then a bomber or a gunship (more engine juice or less burn during boost?) enough firepower to blow up most anything on the map, while taking some damage in return. It doesn't have to be THE best.... but if they were second best at most everything instead of third or fourth best, the flexibility of taking one would be similar to choosing an X-wing (space superiority fighter) vs an A-wing (scout/dogfighter), a Y-wing(fighter-bomber) or a B-wing(bomber)

All good ideas I think... although I doubt it would fix the strike fighter's lack of killing power. Which hampers it in delivering kills and in surviving dogfights with other fighters. Having DF would just mean strikes are just as hard to lock missiles on as anyone else, making missiles no more effective a secondary weapon. Ok bigger targeting circle means it's easier to get a lock started... but it's also easier to get it broken with more DF users

how insane would it be for strikes to have Shield to Engines? power to weapons is an option for the T1...