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...

and if we also gave the T3 strike the components it's missing (thruster?)... would that make them all better multi-role craft? I would probably still fly my T1 strike... but the T3 might be more mobile

As is, it's not like those changes are going to overpower anything... it could only help (and give people good places to spend requisition)

I still think if we buff several strike fighter components... like... all of them... the net effect will benefit the strike fighters more then it will other ships that only share some of the components. One slightly too-easy sounding fix was to double the effect of secondary components on strike fighters.... granted that won't buff the T1 strike's armor at all... but it might do wonders for it's thrusters

It's true, missiles are far easier to aim then blasters and easier to get on target. New players would find functional missiles a lot more user friendly and so would I. I'm also 100% in favor of a damage+range buff for strike's lasers... they could use across the board improvements in most everything else. I picture strikes with the most damage output of any class... as being a jack of all trades, I also don't think it would be all bad if strikes were actually faster then scouts.... if they can't turn inside them. There were WWII and vienam erra planes that had this up and downside. The Corsair was faster (in climbs) but the zero was more maneuverable. The F4 was nicknamed 'rhino' for it's tendency to plow forward at great speed but not turn so well... As for people complaining if their ships are nerfed... we want as much buy-in as we can get for upgrades to the strikes. So we can get upgrades that we can keep. that won't get taken away in another patch. Pilots like dan who are willing to contribute to the conversation are an asset to the cause. Strikes aren't likely to become the kings of dog-fighting, the T2 scouts have that, and are doing it well... if the staff nerf them, we run the risk of having two less then ideal classes. Bringing strikes up to where they can kick ***... I mean contribute to TDM and domination matches I think is a goal we can all agree on.

compare strikes dps to the gunships (1600 per shot) or the T2 scouts with their offensive cool downs (strikes would like some offensive/defensive cool downs too...) and you might see that strikes currently have to be careful and very good to come close to what the scouts are dishing out.... so, the portable armor piercing super burst damage shotguns have already set a pretty high bar for damage output. It makes dogfights with them short only because they blow the other fighters or even bombers using their defensive cool downs away. The T2 pilot's response? "Avoid the T2 scout when it's offensive cool downs are up" which bombers can't do, and strikes can barely try... since the scout is ALSO one of the most mobile ships. As for portable turbo lasers.... what are gunships again? They out-range the cannons on the capital ships... All I really ask, is for my craft to have the ability to shoot ships down just as well as the other guy, and to be just as vulnerable to damage as the other guy.

I just got splattered all over creation by some guy who only has a T2 scout in his bar. This I think is symptomatic of what's wrong with strike fighters. The T2 scout has the best firepower, the best mobility, and the best defense. So you don't need another ship if you are going dogfight. They say that's balanced.... by balance they mean if there is something out there, there's a battle scout that can blow it up. I find myself flying a strike fighter in hit and run tactics against them... shouldn't scouts be doing hit and run? I don't think strikes need the ultimate mobility... but perhaps the best firepower and best defense would be high on my Christmas list this year. Weapons that can blow things up just as well as the scouts and gunships Shields or other defenses that can keep my x-wing alive long enough for R-2 to lock down that stabilizer. If luke can blow up a death star.... I sure would like to be able to blow up a tie fighter or something with my 'strike fighter' and live to tell the tale.... long enough for his buddy to blow me up... that's balanced. Being able to kill AND be killed. I'm starting to think the guy who said 'give em a permanent damage overcharge' wasn't nuts after all, we still have to get in range to fire our weapons, and survive all the gunships, but atleast if we hit something, it will matter, and we might even start getting kills on the board.... I've seen T2 scouts get 23 kills today.... I can't think of too many strike pilots that get that many kills+assists

Basicaly directionals are not currently the 'meta' choice for battle scouts, so buffing them won't actually alter meta.... like raising the height of a shorter building

It will cut down on their evasion and completely remove their main evasion cool down if they do go for directionals.

Range is certianly why they don't talk about gunship's mobility much. But it does need to be effective range, the ability to hit something at 8-10k perhaps with quads.. and effective weapons, more then half the range of the gunship's weapon range (and the same range as anyone else's.... 10k range on railgun drones, 10k range on torps) might make the strike a viable jack of all trades

the other HLC ships aren't ships that primarily use HLC to kill: Bombers are mostly about deployables. Strikes should be more agile then bombers right? Although better HLC might make bombers better bomber killers. The T2 gunship favors any railgun over HLC for most any function the HLC is for. Directionals... which ships mount these? making these more attractive to meta ships would also make it a more viable choice then picking Distortion field... making missiles atleast easier to land on targets. Landing missiles on thick shields is better then not landing missiles on a missile break? Quick charge... these suckers need help, newbie ships start with them automatically and it's possibly part of why newbies die so fast to skilled up ships and pilots. if we're buffing the cast off components 'meta' ships aren't using... it may not be so bad. Changing what components the ace pilots favor, will undoubtably change the game. I don't mind seeing some changes if our strikes can deal lethal damage to at least as many fighters as seem able to deal lethal damage to us. Right now it's like Rock Paper Scissors Bomb: T2 scout is the bomb, even things supposed to kill it are killed by it 50% of the time. Ace pilots take these to kill bombers which are supposed to kill them.... same with gunships which _can_ kill them especially in cocentration... 3-6 gunships can kill anything if they can focus it. Strikes... Are supposed to be better then the T2 scout at dogfighting, but we strike pilots are at their mercy most of the time. Bombers are probably the scissors.... most scouts hate deployed munitions that don't have to aim at the agile, high evasion, but delicate fighters. That T2 scouts have no fear of them is only evidence that something is not quite right in the meta's balance. the strikes are probably paper but they under perform, unable to get their ordinance on target is a very good criticism.... Honestly, I can't figure a strike loadout that equals to the gunship's damage or the T2 scouts. So they fall behind in their role and someone else takes it up, because of it. Much like how the bomb replaces paper in games of RPS Gunships in this example are the rocks... but they are countered by the T2 scouts... should they be countered by strikes instead? what upgrades to the strike would make them the gunship's foe?