It's still best to use them from as close as possible. Just know that you can use them up to 2000m and still land most of your shots, and even 3000m in certain situations.

Generally, under 3000m is ok. Under 2000m is recommended because that's where their accuracy becomes really high. The closer, the better. Firing over these ranges is wasteful because you'll be missing a bunch.

BLC are the jack of all trades of weapons. Because of their accuracy, armor ignore, tracking and damage per shot they're good against everything. Quads/LLC have high DPS, but their tracking and lack of AP make them only good vs. fairly immobile targets. LLC in particular aren't very good against anything, while quads are good vs. gunships and non-CP bombers mainly. The only other weapon that is so versatile are heavy laser cannons, which aren't an option on a scout (and in any case don't have as good tracking or damage per shot).

Very high damage per shot -- they easily deal over 500 damage per hit, meaning a single shot with BLC is worth usually 2-3 shots with any other blaster. This is important when you have evasive targets that only let you land a shot or two before escaping. Very high accuracy close-range -- with the "Pinpointing" passive (which is a must-have) you get 123% accuracy at 500m. That's 7% higher than any other blaster, making them exceptionally good against targets with high evasion close-range (mainly scouts and gunships). Very low tracking -- if you don't understand tracking, it is a penalty. An accuracy percentage you lose for every shot that you take when your targeting reticule isn't exactly in the center of the screen. BLC have only 0.5% accuracy loss per degree offcenter, and on top of that you get the first 5% you lose refunded! so you can basically fire them at up to 10° offcenter without losing accuracy at all. This makes them amazing in turning fights, because together with their high base accuracy they will miss much less up-close (where tracking is more prevalent). 100% Armor penetration -- this is essential in domination matches, because turrets have 70% damage reduction and bombers will often have 99% damage reduction. Any blaster without armor penetration will take long to kill turrets, and an unrealistically long time to kill a bomber with charged plating. The armor ignore upgrade allows you to ignore these traits completely. Keep in mind -- BLC are effective close-range, preferably in under 2000m if possible. They take some practice because they're different from any other blaster in the game, but they're very much worth it. Hope this helps.

It's an old bug (from 4.0). You lose the upgrades, so you have to remember to re-select them every time you log in.

No. Matchmaker should create balanced matches, and that is an issue, but reducing skill artificially or increasing it is not fair to anyone. People who are better (and as you say, they are better regardless of what alt they're on) have worked for that. You're suggesting that work be thrown away... then what's the point of improving in the first place? Wanting to have matches against players of similar skill is understandable, even bolstering players with less upgrades (similar to ground PvP) so everyone would be on equal footing gear-wise. Reducing skill is not.

You don't move backwards. Moving backwards is slower than moving forwards or strafing. You should move with your mouse only, and maybe strafe with the keyboard if you don't have keys on the mouse for it. I personally have my keybinds set to 1234/QWER/ASDF/ZXCV and then [shift] + the same keys. I can't move with the keyboard at all, but it doesn't matter because I don't. Get used to moving with your mouse, turning is much faster that way and it's more efficient.

Verain states clearly what each of them means. F4 is balanced power mode, F1 is power to weapons, F2 is power to shields, and F3 id power to engines. In any case, the tutorial explains how to swap power, and you can check out Stasie's guide stickied here for more info.

Disto offers a better defense than any other option against two damage types. This is due to two things -- the abundance of shield piercing, and the missile break. If there were no SP on missiles, then directionals (and other shields to a lesser extent) would be good at negating them, and the missile break would be a utility for disto. That would make missiles quite weak though even compared to what they are now. I don't know why disto could not simply be given the base amount of shields (instead of having them reduced by 20%) and evasion. That should be it, really. If you take disto, you know you're more vulnerable to missiles and mines than someone with shields, but less vulnerable to accuracy-based weapons. If you take CP, you know you're more vulnerable to missiles and armor penetrating weapons than someone with shields, but less vulnerable to mines and drones. And if you take shields, you're taking middle ground -- not best against anything, but not horrible against anything.

Posting for Tunewalker:

20% * 5% = 1%. That's how much damage a shield generator will soak up for you, and let's not forget that excludes crits, force or tech damage. You are definitely playing wrong if you ditched focus, and if you haven't even noticed the DPS drop then I'd say you might also have issues with your rotations/priorities. Maybe you didn't feel how much damage is mitigated by infiltration passive, but it's there nonetheless. I suggest you parse some matches and see the difference for yourself if you don't believe me. You can also parse a bit with a focus and see that it increases your DPS.

Internal/elemental damage ignores armor (so, for example, force breach by an infiltration shadow would ignore it). There are debuffs that reduce armor (sundered by shadow strike for example), and some classes have abilities that reduce armor to them alone (Combat sentinels, illegal mods for slingers). All that being said, if you still feel as squishy as Serenity you're playing wrong. Fact is that your mitigation is all passive, while all Serenity gets is some frankly pathetic selfheals and an extra cooldown for 30% DR (6 seconds every 45, so 4% DR on average compared to the 24% you get as infiltration).

The likelihood of landing any non-cluster missile on even a disto/BR gunships is very small. Concussions have a 2.6 lock-on time, and a 5.5 reload time (with upgrades and rapid reload). So 8.1 seconds for a "cycle". A gunship facing a single concussion missile platform of any kind that is not a completely new player will wait until they release the missile and then break. Now the gunship has 8.1 seconds until they need to break again. Fortunately, they have a second break, so they use that too. Now, once again, they have 8.1 seconds until they need to break. This leaves us with 3.8 seconds out of 20 in which the concussion might land, assuming the strike/bomber are capable of sticking to the gunship. Basically, the only way of beating even the two-breaks ship with the slowest breaks in the game on a ship with non-clusters is either by an insane attrition war (considering blasters will also be less effective against evasion, and considering the ship does not benefit from TT as scouts do), or by ganging up on them -- a strategy that works regardless of components. If you do the same exercise with any ship with two breaks, you'll see that they're even weaker in these situations. On a retro/K-turn/snap turn scout, only the 4th concussion will land. On a PD ship even without two breaks, you only get 1.9 seconds window to land a concussion. I'm curious which numbers would make missiles good against any of these ships (without making them murder machines against strike fighters and bombers). Also, people do not avoid sabo probes because they're bugged, they avoid them because they're impossible to land. It's easy to take the regen debuff instead of the speed one, and if the rest of the sabo was good they'd take it. But it's not, it's a horrible option with a long lock on and cooldown.

Mitigation methods and their effectiveness: Shields: Hard counter -- nothing. Good at mitigating -- weapons withouth SP that are non-ion -- all blasters but HLC commonly, plasmas, interdiction mines, interdiction missiles, turret/drone lasers and clusters (due to the extremely low SP). Bad at mitigating -- anything with SP or ion-based: slug, ion, HLC, railgun drone, any missile and mine but interdictions, missile drone missiles, Damage reduction (CP): Hard counter -- any non-AP weapons -- unupgraded components (save torpedoes and EMP missiles), any blaster but HLC and BLC commonly, mines, missile sentry/interdiction drones, turrets, missiles (except concussions). Good at mitigating -- basically everything it mitigates it hard counters the way the meta is currently shaped, with the exception of plasmas. Plasmas with the AP upgrade are soft-countered by DR. Bad at mitigating -- armor ignore weapons -- HLC and BLC commonly, slug, railgun drone, concussion missiles, torps and EMP missiles. Evasion (disto): Hard counters -- missiles, seeker mines. Good at mitigating -- any accuracy-based weapons -- all blasters, all railguns, drones and turrets (except railgun drone). Bad at countering -- non-accuracy based weapons -- railgun drone, non-seeker mines. You're suggesting to shift disto immunity from missiles to mines, while ignoring the fact that in either case it's better against more weapons than CP (which you think needs a rework) and way more weapons than shields. It is possible that by enabling missiles mines would also be less of an issue, because strikes are not as susceptible to them as scouts are. I can't guarantee that will happen, but neither can you guarantee that taking disto break will reinforce a bomber meta.

These statements don't go well together. On one hand, you state that bombers set the meta. On the other hand, you suggest buffing the best evasion cooldown in the game while keeping the only non-bomber evasion counters weak against it. If players had a stronger disto, bombers would be the most reliable way of killing them. Mines and railgun drone are the only way of enforcing damage through evasion even in a world with one break -- missiles would still be broken by both engine and manual maneuvers, and if disto had no break seekers would be even more effective against scouts. The only suggestion of yours that I do not disagree with on principle is the second one. The first one is not necessary because disto is already very good and can get 9 seconds with the duration upgrade, and the third one is just asking for another immunity to what is meant to be an evasion hard counter. What's the point if evasion can counter both accuracy weapons and non-accuracy ones? Also, if you make the other upgrade as good, you'll simply be making other components as weak as missiles -- blasters or railguns in this case. That doesn't solve anything, it shifts the problem. I'd also like to say that on the two QnP recordings I posted above (as well as the SRW vs. TRE matches, and any time I've flown that QnP build solo or grouped). I had only one break -- I had long disto as my upgrade. It is not weak, it is good enough as it is. It may be less desirable because the other upgrade is so good, but it's viable in its current state.

In general I agree that any changes should be careful and gradual. In this case, it makes sense to first remove disto break (of course putting some other T3 upgrade instead) and then see how missile fare before buffing them. I have a sneaking suspicion that concussions might be slightly better (stull underpowered), and every other missile will still be junk except clusters. I don't think clusters would require a nerf. Cluster DPS is abysmal (219 under optimal conditions, compared to the 481 pods have, 441 stock slugs have, etc.). Their damage per hit is only just over half the a slug shot, only they're way harder to land, do not ignore armor, have shorter range, less shield piercing, are less spammable and have more counters (CP, disto, engine maneuvers, even EMP field are all hard counters to clusters currently). The only reason I think seekers would require a nerf is that they're the only reason scouts really need disto break. The nerf by the way could be a simple damage one -- say, reduce base seeker damage to 650. There's really nothing wrong with ships that rely on evasion having trouble with missiles, except that we're used to it and don't want it to change. Why are seekers good? Mainly because they force breaks, and can kill scouts without breaks. Why do scouts need two breaks? Mainly because seekers are abundant and are hard to deal with as a scout. Not because of clusters -- you could deal with them effectively with powerdive alone, even with retros you can force cluster ships to flee. And then what? I don't get this fear of missiles. Slugs, ions, even plasmas all deal more DPS, more damage, have better range, and all have exactly 0 hard counters. Yet without the two breaks ships currently fly missiles would end the game? I mean, you need 3 concussions to kill a scout, compared to a maximum of two slugs. Protorps can potentially kill a scout in one shot (less likely than a slug still!), but the only way that's happening (even in a single-break world) is if that scout went to sleep. And scouts are the squishiest ships in the game hull and shields-wise. So scouts and gunships get hit by some missiles, they'll still be plenty viable. I fly that build a lot too, and I can't say I fear missiles on it. The only way I'm dying to missiles that aren't clusters is if I have a bunch of people locking on to me -- wouldn't you agree that it's fair that I lose to more than one player all things equal? In any case, it seems as if you're saying that feedbacks are only good because people don't run missiles, and that they don't run missiles because of disto. I take from that two things: feedbacks actually rely on missiles being weak in order to be viable, and disto plays a significant role in making missiles weak. But instead of fixing one component (disto) to make a lot of components (missiles) better, you want to fix a lot of components to make them better. If feedbacks aren't good enough currently, if the only reason they can be fielded is the lack of missiles (due to disto), then they deserve a buff. They go together. Just as you don't know what will happen when things get nerfed, you don't know what happens when things get buffed. It's more than likely that some components are weak because they're badly designed, but also more than likely that some components are never given a chance to shine because other components are better in too many ways. You cannot say that there is no relationship between how well a certain option performs and how badly the other options seem to be. As the game currently stands, it has a select few components that work on a select few ships. Slug, BLC, disto, and in very certain situations CP are the apex components, they shape the meta. Consider that you had any of these components on ships that don't have them, would you not take them? Even on meta ships -- a T1 bomber would take BLC if it could, as would the T1 scout. In order to create more diversity, weakening some overly-dominant components is just as necessary as improving the overly-weak ones. There is such a thing as OP.

These are the main things here. I don't think disto is overly OP, but it's still definitely competitive without the break. I would suggest (following a discussion with friends) seekers get a nerf as well because disto break is essential for dealing with them, but honestly disto would be very meta-worthy even without the break.

@Verain: aright, I understand. I agree with most of that, apart for a couple of things: buffing components should probably come first, because any component change affects all ships. While that on its own will not turn strikes viable, it may turn the other ships (mostly the T3 scout and T2 gunship) into viable. I still have issue with the fact that a DO strike simply is not scary. Yes, people will move if shot at by one, but it can't actually pressure anyone. It still gets shut down by ions and slugs. They'd still not be a threat, while a strike that was capable of sticking to targets would be perceived as a more realistic threat even currently (and certainly if missiles were an actual threat). @Stellarcrusade: for one thing, that scouts can kill strikes is not necessarily an issue. If strikes are worth fielding, they need a ship that can deal with them, and for all I know it could be scouts. Secondly, if a scout beats a strike by outmaneuvering them and then killing them, that's fine with me too. The question is whether strikes can be able to pressure scouts. Currently, the answer is pretty much no. You could build a Pike or Star Guard with the intent of harassing a scout the whole match, but the thing is that scout will still be able to preform to decent levels whilst ignoring you, while you will be taking yourself out of the match. If strikes were buffed to be made viable in any way (I want mobility and missile buffs mainly), then scouts will not be able to ignore them. Think of a gunship. Scouts can't continue to do their job under gunship fire, because they know they'll die. They either run away, or deal with the gunship. That's what I want strikes to be. Scouts already fulfil the role of burst ships close-range, gunships already fulfil the role of burst ships at range (and if plasmas were fixed, also sustained). Bombers do area denial, and strikes could do sustained close-range. All they need is the ability to actually sustain damage, which can be achieved by improving their secondaries and their mobility. This is a good quote. I like this quote. It shows a complete ignorance of how games work, so allow me to explain: A game is created, in the game, there are certain ways to win, and if the game is well balanced then each way can be countered by another way and no way is the best. However, almost no game is that well balanced -- so certain ways become good in more situations. People who play games can do so for a variety of reasons, but a major one will always be winning and performing well. I've yet to meet someone who enjoys losing and performing poorly in any game. To the people who want to win, it's natural to seek the best way to do so -- in the case of GSF, the best components, ships, team comps and strategies. Yet here you are, saying something is OP and too easy to use, and therefore anyone who uses it is a stat padding. I mean, if everyone is using the best ship what does it come down to? Of course, if you insist on flying inferior options then you will effectively be padding their stats, but that's you. Really, a winky face? Trolling is a subtle art, you can't just flaunt it in our faces. It makes it too obvious.

I envision roles something like this: scouts - close/medium-range burst damage, very low tankiness, very high mobility. gunships - long-range burst/sustained damage, low tankiness, low mobility. bombers - area denial, very high tankiness, very low mobility. strikes - close/medium-range sustained damage, high tankiness, high mobility. I think that were strikes able to put up constant pressure on target by being a real threat, it would matter less that they're worse than scouts at killing something fast. They'd survive long enough that ignoring them wouldn't be an option, and their damage would be good enough that if you do ignore them, you die (on any ship).

I could sort of get behind this, but it still does not fix any other broken ship (all of which we have agreed are weak for partially the same reason strikes are). So it's not a good fix unless you also completely change the components on other ships, making them more like meta ships along the way. Seems like a dulling-down to me compared to what could be done. How? By removing weak blasters? We want more options, not less. Having the T1/3 scouts with LC only? Kicking LLC and RFLC out of the game save on strikes? I don't get this. A strike more maneuverable and mobile would not feel like a scout to me, because of the range and way of dealing damage. Example: my current favorite T1 strike build is HLC/Quads/directional/retros/concussions. It's a mid-range jouster, and is actually decent at killing ships via blasters alone. Its issue is that it get out-turned and can't chase, as well as landing about one in 3/4 concussions maybe. Making concussions more threatening would go a lot of the way to fixing this build offensively, and giving it more mobility would finish the job. Turning would be nice too, but I'm not sure if that's necessary. In either case, it still wouldn't be a scout because it doesn't burst damage (and it never will unless they make missiles insanely OP), and it's tanky. That's what males a strike a strike to me. I feel that making strikes more deadly within their cone is akin to giving them DO, which is basically making them scout-like in the way they deal damage. They'll then rely on surprise burst damage to kill targets, and will still be inferior to scouts in any other conceivable way (since they still won't have a counter to ions, slugs and BLC). Even if strikes straight up did twice as much blaster damage as scouts, I don't think you'd see them in meta games, for the same reasons even a strike with DO is not a huge threat. They're slow, lumbering, easy to escape even with DO. Maybe a Quads/clusters T1 can do some high burst damage, but that's basically a scout build.

I've posted my ideas regarding missiles already, from the same thread here are the ships I think need more than component fixes, and what I think would help them. I don’t think any ship requires a drastic change, not even strikes. They are the one class that requires a change as a whole of course, but while many other players have suggested adding new components to buff strikes, I feel that swapping around their minor components and component choices they have available should make them worthy of flying in a competitive match. One change I do think they need is giving them the engine efficiency of scouts. Meaning, their boost activation cost and cost per second should be 16.7% cheaper than that of bombers and gunships. They will still be slower than scouts and less maneuverable, but they will be more mobile than they currently are. That should help them a lot, because they rely on CQC as much as scouts do. Now, for specific buffs: FT-8 Star Guard/F-T6 Rycer: Has access to all primary weapons. This means it gets access to BLC, LLC, and LC in addition to those it can currently access. Magazine is replaced with an armor minor component. Reasoning: This ship is meant to be the premier blaster ship. It’s quite strange that it doesn’t get access to the best close-range weapons (BLC) or even to their runner up (LLC). It does not require a magazine, it never runs out of power even if you take munition capacity extender. If someone feels that they need more juice, they can easily choose weapon power converter as their engine maneuver. FT-6 Pike/F-T 2 Quell: Has access to all missiles. This means it gets access to interdiction missiles, sabotage probes and thermite torpedoes in addition to those it can currently access. Capacitor is replaced with a reactor minor component. Weapon power converter is replaced with Retro thrusters. Reasoning: Just as the T1 strike is meant to be a blaster ship, this ship is meant to be a missile boat. As such, it should have all options available for maximum customization. The capacitor, while nice, is unnecessary on a ship which is supposed to deal damage with secondaries. A reactor will serve it much better. Weapon power converter is likewise redundant on a ship that only uses its primary weapons as a utility. Retro thrusters will allow for more missiles to be landed and will generally make this ship a scarier frontal offence ship. NovaDive/S-12 Blackbolt: Capacitor is replaced with a reactor minor component. Reasoning: Scouts are in less need of a capacitor than other ships, because their system abilities grant them a huge offensive increase already. Losing it will reduce the offensive output of the T1 scout, but it will be able to use the engine power converter much more easily, and will be able to shield tank some damage too. Sledgehammer/B-5 Decimus: Magazine is replaced with an armor minor component. Now has the option for missile sentry drone as a systems component. Reasoning: The T3 bomber is lacking in defensive capability and area denial compared to other bombers. The area denial lack is fine if it’s meant to be more of a jousting ship, but low defensives mean it’s food for more other ships (including strike fighters even in their currently weakened state). If it gets an armor component, charged plating can now be safely used. The offensive output should also be increased due to the buff in secondary components it will get. Missile sentry drone is a good option on this ship, to compliment cluster missiles. All other ships are in my opinion either fine right now, or will be fine once components are changed as suggested.

Indeed, and magazines are worthless for burst. They're only really important on gunships currently, although if missiles were buffed I could see the Pike benefitting from them. All scouts have armor, all scouts have a capacitor. The first is the most important component defensively, the second offensively. Scouts also have better choices within their major components -- better secondaries, better shields (heck, the T2 even has directionals in case someone wants to fly a better strike), the T2 scout has BLC, better engine choices (except for maybe the T1 strike, but all strikes definitely lack the variety scouts offer), and the T3 scout has better systems than the T3 strike. The benefit scouts have from Quads/HLC/clusters is because of the following reasons: they can stick to their targets better due to speed and turning (affording more uptime) and they have better secondaries to augment their DPS. They also have their systems to increase their deadliness much more, but they're not really a must -- , . If strikes were faster, had better engine efficiency, had better turning rates (any or all of the above) then the first part of the problem would be solved. The second part relies on making missiles other than clusters good. If you make a strike only fix (buff strike range, damage, give them special secondaires) you're still leaving the other weak ships out of the meta. Other components: strikes suffer as much as scouts do from having only one break, only they're more susceptible to accuracy-based weapons and can run away less. Barrel roll only works on scouts with disto, try flying a barrel roll/directionals T2 scout and see why it's complete junk on the Pike. Gunships can get away with only one break because they can do their job from 15k away, but even then the most common gunship around is the T1 with two breaks. The only strike with powerdive is the one without thrusters, ironically. So it's still less mobile, and also lacks HLC that would make hitting targets slightly easier (or any secondary that even resembles something good). Retros actually work extremely well on a strike offensively, but any smart player will avoid a head-on joust and either outmaneuver the strike or run away. A strike with retros cannot chase targets down unless they take quick-charge shields, and then they're just food to anything with burst (so gunships and scouts). With directionals strikes can tank a lot of damage, but they're still susceptible to scouts turning figure eights around them and gunships ioning or slugging them. All could be fixed by buffing mobility and maneuverability. If RFLC were buffed, I'd take them on the scout of course because strikes would still be weak in any other regard all things equal. But if concussion missiles/torps were buffed, I'd not take them on a T1/T2 bomber -- at least not on a serious build, because bombers still have no breaks and no way to mitigate damage out in the open. I would take them on the T3 bomber though, which is the point. Also, I think that if RFLC were buffed in addition to strikes receiving their chassis buff that is not a component buff, I might take the T1 strike with them. I mean, if I knew that I'd be able to use them on the T1 effectively, and I knew that it's nice to have other blasters (say HLC for AP), why would I take a scout for them? Because components are global, and making them change stats based on ship would create confusion, mainly. But also because fixing a component for a specific ship does not actually make it good, and there's no point in having RFLC on scouts if they're only good on strikes. First of all, I'd buff all missiles but clusters, because as mentioned I think clusters are good and the only reason they don't work on the T1/2 strikes and T3 bomber is that the platforms that carry them suck in these instances. The reason they do work on the T3 gunship is the synergy with slug in forcing scouts to use one break preemptively, and also in the fact that they're very secondary to damage and are mainly a defensive. Secondly as mentioned, I think buffing other missiles would be good for all non-meta ships, but not particularly for meta ones. Bombers who decide suddenly they need missiles (excluding the T3) will find out why you can't fly in the open with no breaks, especially in a buffed-missile world. The T3 gunship is already good with clusters, but wouldn't it be nice if it could also use EMP or interdiction missiles without being a troll build? The T2 gunship would gain a lot from torpedo buffs, but unless torpedoes are turned into clusters I doubt it will be overbuffed. So in general, I don't think buffing missiles will turn other ships into OP. To be clear, I think strikes require a buff outside of component buffs. I'd like to see them get at the very least the engine efficiency of scouts, and possibly a speed & turning buff. I just don't want them to get a component buff special to them, because that's just a crude patch that doesn't actually fix the components, or the other weak ships.

Any buff to strikes only would probably be a welcome one (provided it doesn't break the game of course), but strike-only buffs should be limited to speed/turning/engine efficiency. Any idea such as buffing components specifically for strikes I disagree with, because good components work on strikes just as they do on any other ship. Bad components are the major reason as to why strikes are bad in the first place. The main reason strikes are so weak is their reliance on missiles, which are generally weak. The only really good ones are clusters, and they rely on the user sticking to their target -- something strikes are bad at. However, while buffing strikes to be competitive via some sort of range, damage or accuracy buff to their chassis might fix them, it won't fix the other ships that are weak, and these ships are weak for precisely the same reasons strikes are. All ships that are non-meta rely on missiles without having the capability of using them. The T3 scout has three bad missiles. The T3 bomber has one good option but is even less mobile and maneuverable than strikes. The T2 gunship has two horrible missiles, and apart for that there really is not a lot of reason to field it (HLC are actually nice, but limited against scouts). If missiles were made good, these three ships would become useful in addition to strikes, and that seems to me a less contrived solution/ Not to mention, it would probably create some confusion as to how that strike hit me from 10k with HLC. Edit: regarding EMP, more than a range fix is probably needed. Even if EMP had 4500m as stated in the tooltip, it's still only available every 45 seconds and is a large defensive & offensive sacrifice compared to TT (loss of accuracy, evasion and crit chance on both primaries and secondaries). It should offer something more to the user, or alternatively have a shorter cooldown.

Infiltration is probably better at adds too though, at least with Stalker's swiftness.

It does not.