Is It just me? Are Scouts a bit OP?

[HKtheindomitable]

Statement: Thanks for the reply and explanation mr_sim.

 

Agreement: What you put is exactly what I've been thinking. As is what Ramalina put.

 

Statement: Didn't think I revived a dead thread. He he.

[mr_sim]

I think part of the design problem comes from being built by people used to balancing ground PvP in MMORPGs. It seems like they vastly underestimated the extent to which having brief shot opportunities against a maneuvering target reduces the value of sustained DPS and enhances the value of burst DPS.

 

I think It's because it was designed buy a bunch of scout loving devs who couldn't get over their personal bias to a class they love. I have no proof of this just an opinion but the same thing happened with the Mage ..I mean,...OP caster in every other MMO......I mean Sage/Sorcerer. When Swtor originally launched it was OP and Bioware came back and admitted that it chose to polish the Sage over far more then any other class, and lo and behold it was just so in operations. You can't tell me that was coincidence when the same role in Kotor and Dragon Age also happened to be OP.

 

I will say this for Scouts, they must adhere to the speed is life doctrine therefor their time on target is limited compared to the tougher classes, Hence a scout must by nature be bursty, It's simply a matter of how much.

 

In some ways distortion Field is wrong for the scout. while the missile breakers is 100% legit, the 6 second invulnerability encourages scouts to stand still and not constantly be the evasive wasps they are supposed to be. Also it encourages them to go head to head, another thing they should not be doing.

 

Some players claim it is the thing that is a must have to survive but I say you have no idea in which 6 seconds of a many minute game that that charged up GS rail gun shot is coming so how could you possibly know to have it up when you need it

 

All that said distortion field is right for the GS, It's supposed to stand still, It often can't avoid a head to head and only stands a 40% survival rate(in my experience) when it does stay around for a head to head(when not using distortion field).

[Zharik]

For example the Scout is a get in close tear them upship, I just explained 60% of how to fight the scout in 6 word that make perfect sense. I challenge anyone to do so for the striker.

 

Challenge accepted:

Build it according to your strengths.

[Yndras]

Funny thing I was agreeing with you and punctuation has little to do with the validity or strength of an argument. Also () are a form of punctuation, so I may not have much but I do have some.

 

What the post above essentially said was that because of their speed ability to use distortion field shields along with insane damage thanks to Blaster overload in combo with a crew ability essentially makes Scouts unstoppable killing machines, as Distortion shields make them 100% immune to everything a Strike can do for 3 seconds out of 30 and for that time with damage CD's up the strike will be dead with out ever landing a single shot.

 

A good strategy to combat this 3 second window when you cant hit them is to not fly straight at them guns blaring. If i remember correctly scouts can only attack within max 5km(Quads). If they are using quads the tracking on them are crap, and a strike will easily best it.

 

If they are using burst, then the strike has a range advantage, and you must play to your advantages. I play a Ft-8 Pike, and I only really struggle with gunships. Tho that will change once the rail guns receive their nerf next patch. read it this morning, minimum charge values are being added for all rail guns.

 

Made my day tbh. No more ion cannon love taps.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Yndras

[mr_sim]

Challenge accepted:

Build it according to your strengths.

 

^FAIL^

 

You did not at all explain how to use a Strike fighter in combat.

 

What you did explain is how to use your hanger screen

[Flearos]

http://i1288.photobucket.com/albums/b488/Flearos/lol_zpsda9d680e.jpg

 

Just gonna leave this here.....

[mr_sim]

http://i1288.photobucket.com/albums/b488/Flearos/lol_zpsda9d680e.jpg

 

Just gonna leave this here.....

 

For those wondering it shows a 12 v 12 where every single player has chosen scout. It is pre match so potential staging could have occurred.

[Zoom_VI]

For those wondering it shows a 12 v 12 where every single player has chosen scout. It is pre match so potential staging could have occurred.

 

I wish I could get some matches like that, I could use a some good dogfights. Must have been a nice break from the unending repetition of hunting gunships.

[Flearos]

Actually 20 chose scouts 4 myself included chose strikes... But yeah made me chuckle to see that... and there was no staging. Thats what i waited till 3 seconds before launch to take the screenshot. I wanted to make sure people were done selecting ships. Edited January 24, 2014 by Flearos

[Korithras]

No, scouts are not OP. We are designed to be the glass cannons. We can deliver a punch but we can't take one. We're small and fast but I have literally been taken out with one hit at 100% shields and hull on my scout. The problem with the game are gunships which are OP as hell with their firepower from WAY too far away and either need a nerf/redesign or to just be scrapped entirely. (I would prefer the latter, personally but that's just me and I know it won't happen.)

[Armonddd]

No, scouts are not OP. We are designed to be the glass cannons. We can deliver a punch but we can't take one.

 

Scouts get 41% evasion, approximately infinite afterburner power, and (for half the populace) two missile breaks. They will absolutely survive more firepower than a strike fighter.

[elthenar]

Scouts get 41% evasion, approximately infinite afterburner power, and (for half the populace) two missile breaks. They will absolutely survive more firepower than a strike fighter.

 

I was going to post this.

 

Scouts are the best at dogfights. They have enough speed to close to dogfight range in a heartbeat. They have a 3-6 second shield of near invulnerability to close that distance and massive firepower to end the dogfight in a hurry.

[mr_sim]

No, scouts are not OP. We are designed to be the glass cannons. We can deliver a punch but we can't take one. We're small and fast but I have literally been taken out with one hit at 100% shields and hull on my scout. The problem with the game are gunships which are OP as hell with their firepower from WAY too far away and either need a nerf/redesign or to just be scrapped entirely. (I would prefer the latter, personally but that's just me and I know it won't happen.)

 

Wow late to the conversation much. Why didn't you read all 28 pages? JK!

 

We gave up on the Scout vs GS discussion long ago. Here's the high points.

Large distance scout loses.

Short distance GS loses.

Really that is the whole conversation in 8 words. GS aren't OP they just have their role.

 

No the 28 pages are all about Scout vs Strike fighter. It is also a representation of excellent L2P discussion that I personally and hopefully other players have improved their play from it's discussions.

 

Here's where the discussion stands:

The flashfire/sting have an OP build that is killing ships to fast for it to be considered balanced. we're talking about dead in 2-3 seconds for Strike fighters to die.

 

There's a lot of discussion where we debate on how to balance this, while Scout pilots chime in and declare they are perfect and it's everyone else fault strikers suck.

 

The most reasonable suggestion is to nerf Distortion field so that it debuffs accuracy of the user when activated while it still works identically for defense against opposing fire. Essentially restricting the ability so it can't be used offensively.

[Armonddd]

GS aren't OP they just have their role.

 

This is true, gunships aren't overpowered. They're flat out broken.

 

The most reasonable suggestion is to nerf Distortion field so that it debuffs accuracy of the user when activated while it still works identically for defense against opposing fire. Essentially restricting the ability so it can't be used offensively.

 

Has anyone but you agreed with that? I honestly haven't been paying attention. I do know that I said that all evasion should be removed except from distortion field and engine abilities, at least one of which should get 100(0)% evasion.

[Kaivers]

Question: Strikers are supposed to have bigger engines right? Why then do Scouts have both Engine Power and Engine Regen that is either equal to or greater than Strikers? Plus they have higher engine speed and lower afterburner cost and consumption.

 

If anything, as a smaller craft with smaller engines, Scouts should have less/lower Engine Power and Engine Regen than Strikers. As a smaller craft it only makes sense for them to be faster (higher engine speed) and more efficient (lower afterburner cost and consumption), which they already have.

 

This must have been an oversight?

[Armonddd]

Question: Strikers are supposed to have bigger engines right? Why then do Scouts have both Engine Power and Engine Regen that is either equal to or greater than Strikers? Plus they have higher engine speed and lower afterburner cost and consumption.

 

If anything, as a smaller craft with smaller engines, Scouts should have less/lower Engine Power and Engine Regen than Strikers. As a smaller craft it only makes sense for them to be faster (higher engine speed) and more efficient (lower afterburner cost and consumption), which they already have.

 

This must have been an oversight?

 

Increased mass means significantly more thrust for the same propulsion. (I think. I might have some terms mixed up, but you get the idea.)

[tunewalker]

Increased mass means significantly more thrust for the same propulsion. (I think. I might have some terms mixed up, but you get the idea.)

 

Ya i think thats what the person said, but that the larger craft should also have a "larger engine" kind of thing. Honestly i think its just mechanics and they are trying to make the mechanics as universal as possible. Besides the size difference between the 2 ships isnt that huge that the Strike's engine would be THAT much bigger.

[Armonddd]

Ya i think thats what the person said, but that the larger craft should also have a "larger engine" kind of thing. Honestly i think its just mechanics and they are trying to make the mechanics as universal as possible. Besides the size difference between the 2 ships isnt that huge that the Strike's engine would be THAT much bigger.

 

Larger engine = more mass = more thrust required. Using real world physics, it probably evens out (actually, it probably favors the scout, because the real heavy stuff comes from lasers and missile payloads). Using star wars physics, who knows?

Edited January 24, 2014 by Armonddd

[tunewalker]

Larger engine = more mass = more thrust required. Using real world physics, it probably evens out. Using star wars physics, who knows?

 

Probably ya, like i said just mechanics trying to logic it out in a science Fantasy genre area is likely a exercise in futility.

[Brewski]

I always just wrote it off the actual values being relative to what you are flying. Scouts have smaller engines, but less mass, so relative to strike fighters they have longer sustained thrust plus faster acceleration.

 

Either that, or we could write it off to "A wizard ... er, Jedi did it!"

[mr_sim]

Has anyone but you agreed with that? I honestly haven't been paying attention. I do know that I said that all evasion should be removed except from distortion field and engine abilities, at least one of which should get 100(0)% evasion.

 

Some have agreed, I will admit it's my suggestion but it is the most reasonable as it asks for the least out of everything suggested.

 

Dropping evasion is a huge change I believe, and the results would cause sweeping nerfs to be required to all classes. Though 2.6 does already have sweeping nerfs to ll classes.

[Kaivers]

Larger engine = more mass = more thrust required. Using real world physics, it probably evens out. Using star wars physics, who knows?

 

It's really not about thrust. A larger engine should = more engine power and regen at your disposal.

 

At the moment Scouts have access to an Engine Power Pool that is equal to or greater than Strikers. It is the same with Engine Regen. In addition they, rightly so, have higher Engine speed and consume less power from engines (afterburners).

 

All Strikers have a base Engine Speed of 774m/s, while all Scouts have 780m/s....so Scouts are faster, not a problem makes sense.

 

All Strikers have a base Afterburner Cost of 5, while all Scouts have 4.....so Scouts have more efficient engines for thrust, not a problem makes sense.

 

All Strikers have a base Afterburner Consumption Rate of 10.4/s, while Scouts have 8.7/s...so again Scouts have more efficient engines, not a problem makes sense.

 

What doesn't make sense to me is that Scouts ALSO have both Engine Power Capacity (100-108) and Engine Regen (5.0 - 5.4) equal to or greater than Strikers.

 

So Scouts are not only faster and more maneuverable...they also have more power and regen available to sustain this speed for a longer period. Larger engine should = larger fuel tank.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Kaivers

[mr_sim]

While the power to weight ratio discussion is intriguing, here's what really matters:

 

Scouts are to be like A-Wings

Strikers are to be like X-Wings

 

A-wings are the fastest .

X-wings are the most balanced in all stats.

 

 

We'll need to ignore the Tie fighter and Tie interceptor. they cannot be compared as they have no shields and are generally a high thrust low cost design that doesn't compare to the more expensive A-Wing and X-Wings.

[Flearos]

Larger engine = more mass = more thrust required. Using real world physics, it probably evens out (actually, it probably favors the scout, because the real heavy stuff comes from lasers and missile payloads). Using star wars physics, who knows?

 

You forget the part where larger engine = more thrust. Its like an F-15 vs F-16. An F-15 is bigger with more powerful engines it has better acceleration with higher top end speed and climb rate. F-16 however is slightly more maneuverable. Both have similar armament.

 

Not even gonna open the F-22 can of worms which outclasses both in everything but armament.

[Zoom_VI]

Some have agreed, I will admit it's my suggestion but it is the most reasonable as it asks for the least out of everything suggested.

 

Dropping evasion is a huge change I believe, and the results would cause sweeping nerfs to be required to all classes. Though 2.6 does already have sweeping nerfs to ll classes.

 

If evasion is entirely removed in its passive form then I demand a frigging buff to my shields. 1k shield arc is nothing when every single primary has 1k+ shield dps when upgraded.

 

Besides I God-mode cooldowns are the problem, not RNG. RNG in not controllable by the scout, simply put there are not enough hits taken to even begin to meet the theoretical evade amount. that's why RNG specs and RNG procs are considered detrimental in the ground game. Because RNG leaves the player at its mercy.

 

41% chance to be invicible, 59% chance to get raped.

 

The active is the problem because its active allows scouts to be outplayed and yet they can still waltz out of their own failure just by popping a button. No Scout should be able to fly in a straight line and not have to face the consequences.