Is It just me? Are Scouts a bit OP?

[Itkovian]

Superiority fighter

 

Source

 

That sounds nothing at all like a strike fighter but sounds a awful lot like a flashfire.

However after poking around a bit I found that what is termed as a "heavy fighter" seems to fit the strikes perfectly

 

source

 

You're confusing fighter classifications from different era. Heavy Fighters were a WWII era classification, whereas Air Superiority is modern. It's like how we now have Main Battle Tanks, whereas in WWII there were Light/Medium/Heavy tanks.

 

So let's go back to your quote:

 

An air superiority fighter is a type of fighter aircraft designed for entering and seizing control of enemy airspace as a means of establishing complete dominance of one side's air forces over the other side's (air supremacy). Air superiority fighters are designed to effectively engage enemy fighters, more than other types of aircraft. They are usually more expensive and procured in smaller numbers than multirole fighters.

 

How is this inappropriate for the Strike Fighters? These are all things the Strikes do, their main purpose is to shoot down enemy fighters. That is very much what Air Superiority fighters are (or space).

 

Heck, by all accounts the Scouts are better suited for shooting down Gunships. Wouldn't that make them interceptors more than anything?

 

In fact, that IS their classification in SW Lore, or at least in the X-wing games. A-Wings (clearly the inspiration for scouts) were Interceptors, while X-Wings (the inspiration for Strikes) were Space Superiority Fighters.

 

Regardless, my main concern is that some people seem to use their definition of Scouts as "Space Superiority Fighters" to rationalize that it's OK for scouts to be more useful at shooting down fighters than Strikes. That's completely preposterous, given that the role of pretty much everything in GS is to kill other fighters, but to do it in different ways in different "envelopes" (range, for example).

 

So if Scouts ARE more useful at killing fighters than Strikes (and I'm not convinvced that is the case in general), then there IS a balance issue. It makes no difference what people's definition of "space superiority" is, it is not a license for a fighter role to be dominant (at least not in the current situaiton, once bombers and other roles are added things may change, of course).

[mr_sim]

Superiority fighter

 

Source

 

That sounds nothing at all like a strike fighter but sounds a awful lot like a flashfire.

However after poking around a bit I found that what is termed as a "heavy fighter" seems to fit the strikes perfectly

 

 

source

 

I watered down my definition of Air superiority because GSF has respawns.

 

Heavy fighter ironically offers one point each to strike and scout. Strike obviously for the weapons load out. But Scouts are technically the longest ranged(travel not weapons) fighter, as it has the most efficient engine power pool and regen. That said obviously scout is not a heavy fighter. Heavy fighter would be Gunship, what is not said in your heavy fighter description is their extra weight that makes them far less effective dogfighters.

 

What this thread is about is not what a scout is but rather what role it should be, and how the scout is doing the strike fighters job and doing it with less skill required and reaping massive kill numbers vs any other classes average.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Superiority fighter

 

Source

 

That sounds nothing at all like a strike fighter but sounds a awful lot like a flashfire.

However after poking around a bit I found that what is termed as a "heavy fighter" seems to fit the strikes perfectly

 

 

source

 

As it currently stands yes that is the scout. The problem is that, if we go with the traditional Star Wars trinity of Interceptor, Space Superiority, and Fighter Bomber, that isn't their role (GSF descriptions of the fighters would also seem to confirm as much). Space Superiority has always been the arena of X-Wing (Striker class ships) that pack medium firepower, decent armor/shields but at the cost of some speed and maneuverability.

 

Interceptors are typically the iconic A-Wing/TIE Interceptor, designed for speed and maneuverability for hit and run attacks against more heavily armored starfighters (like GSF's gunships) but the emphasis on mobility makes them less than ideal for holding a position - a key aspect of air/space supremacy since it relies on maintaining control, not just blowing everything out of the sky and then moving on.

 

It all comes down to ability not just to shoot down enemy fighters but also having the defense to the maintain control of that area. Clearly scouts lack the armor and shielding to hold an area and are (in theory) dependent on their mobility for survival. The only reason they can perform space superiority missions is because evasion artificially gives them endurance they otherwise lack (again evasion stat + abilities temporarily give them complete invulnerability which no other starfighters have, it is the equivalent of strikers/gunships having abilities that boost their shields to 50,000 points so they literally couldn't be killed). If scouts didn't have evasion artificially boosting their survival abilities they would not succeed in the space superiority role. Witness the fact that in all other Star Wars starfighter games using interceptor/scout class ships for space superiority ends in death when going against genuine space superiority fighters (X-Wing/striker class ships).

 

The heavy fighter is arguably what in Star Wars is the role of Y-Wings and B-Wings and GSF bombers (presumably) when they are released. X-Wing/Striker class ships have never been considered heavy fighters in Star Wars. The closest striker class ships come in Star Wars is multirole variants (the Pike in GSF - the in game description even states as much) although mutlirole ships are not as ideally suited to heavy fighter missions as purpose built starfighters.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Zoom_VI]

Strikes match the WW2 "heavy fighter" classification because as quoted they specialize in heavier mid-range weaponry. They are generally heavier and slower than other fighters.

"Heavy fighter" IS relevant b/c star wars space fighting was designed to emulate WW2 dogfighting. I included the bits about superiority fighters because it was something that people where throwing that around to rationalize strikes should be as maneuverable as flashfires. Superiority fighters are designed to outmaneuver enemy fighters, which fits the flashfire perfectly.

 

"Inceptors" does appear in SW but the term is not at all related to the RL interceptors. RL interceptors are design to rapidly close distances to a high-altitude bomber. If you really must apply it to GSF it would be the NovaDrive b/c the ND is faster than a Fashfire (ofc this assumes the FF is not stacking speed components, which would really make me question why they would be flying a flash anyway.)

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Strikes match the WW2 "heavy fighter" classification because as quoted they specialize in heavier mid-range weaponry. They are generally heavier and slower than other fighters.

"Heavy fighter" IS relevant b/c star wars space fighting was designed to emulate WW2 dogfighting. I included the bits about superiority fighters because it was something that people where throwing that around to rationalize strikes should be as maneuverable as flashfires. Superiority fighters are designed to outmaneuver enemy fighters, which fits the flashfire perfectly.

 

"Inceptors" does appear in SW but the term is not at all related to the RL interceptors. RL interceptors are design to rapidly close distances to a high-altitude bomber. If you really must apply it to GSF it would be the NovaDrive b/c the ND is faster than a Fashfire (ofc this assumes the FF is not stacking speed components, which would really make me question why they would be flying a flash anyway.)

 

It's based on sure. But Star Wars has it's own starfighter classification scheme which is what the devs clearly used as the inspiration of 2/3 of the starfighter classes in game (I have NO idea what gunships should fall under in Star Wars lore but that's a whole other issue). The point being that the Star Wars concept of interceptor (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Interceptor) defines what scouts are in GSF and space superiority is iconically represented by slower moving (relative to interceptors), heavily armed ships like the X-Wing or GSF's strikers.

[Helig]

Superiority fighter

 

Source

 

That sounds nothing at all like a strike fighter but sounds a awful lot like a flashfire.

However after poking around a bit I found that what is termed as a "heavy fighter" seems to fit the strikes perfectly

 

 

source

Stack Pikes, lol@enemies. Because nothing says "air superiority" like multiple sets of cluster and concussion missiles, ready to brighten the sky with explosions and debris. They *will* rustle the jimmies of the enemy team. We did 3 Pikes+1Star Guard, and it was pretty damn hilarious, even with ships being relatively light on Requisition at that point.

 

Strikers may be weaker at lonewolfing than Scouts, but they sure as hell are amazing when stacked and supporting eachother. Gunships are also great with support/coordination. In teamplay, all ships perform pretty much exactly as advertised.

 

I do agree that Strikers could use better defenses, though. Offensively - no complaints at all.

[Zoom_VI]

As it currently stands yes that is the scout. The problem is that, if we go with the traditional Star Wars trinity of Interceptor, Space Superiority, and Fighter Bomber, that isn't their role (GSF descriptions of the fighters would also seem to confirm as much). Space Superiority has always been the arena of X-Wing (Striker class ships) that pack medium firepower, decent armor/shields but at the cost of some speed and maneuverability.

 

The heavy fighter is arguably what in Star Wars is the role of Y-Wings and B-Wings and GSF bombers (presumably) when they are released. X-Wing/Striker class ships have never been considered heavy fighters in Star Wars. The closest striker class ships come in Star Wars is multirole variants (the Pike in GSF - the in game description even states as much) although mutlirole ships are not as ideally suited to heavy fighter missions as purpose built starfighters.

 

Lore-wise yes a X-wing would be a superiority fighter. But in nearly every star wars space game the X-wing mechanically ends up as a multirole. The most extreme example would be SWBF2 which slotted X-wings straight into that role with A-wings being the better dogfighter.

 

You can scream lore all you want but lore never makes good class balance. I will point out that GSF is completely undoing all the established fighter roles anyway. Gunships are unprecedented for a dogfighting game, and the upcoming bombers are not bombers at all but rather these odd utility and just generally odd-abilities craft that doesn't fit into any traditional role.

 

Really we shouldn't try to draw any comparisons for the sake of argument b/c BW is ignoring all conventional role definitions.

Also just because the Flashfire is shaped like a A-Wing does not mean its a lore A-Wing.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Lore-wise yes a X-wing would be a superiority fighter. But in nearly every star wars space game the X-wing mechanically ends up as a multirole. The most extreme example would be SWBF2 which slotted X-wings straight into that role with A-wings being the better dogfighter.

 

You can scream lore all you want but lore never makes good class balance. I will point out that GSF is completely undoing all the established fighter roles anyway. Gunships are unprecedented for a dogfighting game, and the upcoming bombers are not bombers at all but rather these odd utility and just generally odd-abilities craft that doesn't fit into any traditional role.

 

Really we shouldn't try to draw any comparisons for the sake of argument b/c BW is ignoring all conventional role definitions.

Also just because the Flashfire is shaped like a A-Wing does not mean its a lore A-Wing.

 

EDIT: ignoring lore as you suggest and just using whatever definition justifies the scout's current abilities isn't going to be balanced either. The devs designed the scout and striker classes based on lore and gave them stats according to the stats ships of those classes are supposed to have according to lore.

 

If you create a ship with stats fitting the lore for interceptor class ships while ignoring what it's combat role is and limitations are according to lore won't be balanced either. Witness that we have the scout class ship that is modeled on the interceptor class starfighters in Star Wars lore but can perform space superiority even though that is defined as a completely separate class of ships.

 

Interestingly according to lore space superiority starfighters typically have strong armor, shields, and powerful weapons which curiously happen to define the base stats of strikers.

 

I would argue that in X-Wing and to a degree Rogue Squadron the X-Wing was the space superiority role. Interestingly lore seemed to be just fine in producing balanced starfighters in those games provided you used them in their intended roles.

 

Arguably BFII wasn't very well balanced starfighter wise since some factions had transports that could perform air superiority just as well or better than X-Wings or A-Wings (depending on team skill) because they had A-Wing cluster missiles + insane amounts of health/armor so I wouldn't say that BFII is a shining example of class balance.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Gavin_Kelvar

[mr_sim]

Lore-wise yes a X-wing would be a superiority fighter. But in nearly every star wars space game the X-wing mechanically ends up as a multirole. The most extreme example would be SWBF2 which slotted X-wings straight into that role with A-wings being the better dogfighter.

 

You can scream lore all you want but lore never makes good class balance. I will point out that GSF is completely undoing all the established fighter roles anyway. Gunships are unprecedented for a dogfighting game, and the upcoming bombers are not bombers at all but rather these odd utility and just generally odd-abilities craft that doesn't fit into any traditional role.

 

Really we shouldn't try to draw any comparisons for the sake of argument b/c BW is ignoring all conventional role definitions.

Also just because the Flashfire is shaped like a A-Wing does not mean its a lore A-Wing.

 

Really in BF2 the bomber was the OP craft.

 

what were are trying to tell you is the real multirole fighter as it currently stands is the Scout not the Striker. the Striker is a built and balanced(in my opinion) multirole fighter. The problem is Scout is an even better multirole fighter as i currently stands.

 

There is only one thing the striker does better then the scout and that is bouncing off asteroids and not dying.

[mr_sim]

btw asteroids ignore evasion.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Really in BF2 the bomber was the OP craft.

 

what were are trying to tell you is the real multirole fighter as it currently stands is the Scout not the Striker. the Striker is a built and balanced(in my opinion) multirole fighter. The problem is Scout is an even better multirole fighter as i currently stands.

 

There is only one thing the striker does better then the scout and that is bouncing off asteroids and not dying.

 

I agree with you and I'd point out that in Star Wars multirole starfighters also tend to be space superiority fighters. Depending on model they might emphasize one or the other aspect much like we have two striker models where one (default) emphasizes space superiority and the other (fleet req) emphasizes multirole.

[Itkovian]

Strikes match the WW2 "heavy fighter" classification because as quoted they specialize in heavier mid-range weaponry. They are generally heavier and slower than other fighters.

"Heavy fighter" IS relevant b/c star wars space fighting was designed to emulate WW2 dogfighting.

 

Good point.

 

That said, all this means is Strikes should be just as good at killing enemy fighters as Scouts, but should just achieve that role in a different way than Scouts. Scouts are better at close in dogfighting, while Strikes excel at longer ranges and combat that avoids turning fights (such as striking targets on their wingmen's tails, speed passes, and so forth).

 

In either case, both of these count as Space Superiority, they just have a different approach to it. F-14s were air superiority fighters too, after all, and they were nowhere near as agile as F-16s or F-15s (heck, F-15s themselves depend more on superior avionics and range to achieve that role as well).

[ObiWanJabroni]

Hmmm well I don't remember saying I wanted it to be like the movies. I just want scout ships to be scout ships, and this idea that they are some super fighter that can dodge blaster fire, when flying straight into that blaster fire, is just dumb. You fly straight into incoming fire in a paper ship your going to get destroyed, its just fact. However in this game scout ships win head to head fights against heavier armed, armored, and shielded ships. The only reason it happens is because of the game mechanics that are used. Scouts ships are recon/hit and run ships, fighters are head to head dogfighters, and this gunship sniper thing is just insane. Instead of developing a good space fighter mode into swtor, all that happened was they put a different skin on ground pvp mechanics. The nerfs will come, they always do and nothing will change that fact.

 

Anyone who flies straight into blaster fire is a retard, evasion ability or not. I play scouts like a third wheel on a date night. I'm the guy that waits for you to use your boost ability in a fight with someone else, then burn you down after. Usually from above you or below you.

[JimG]

According to everyone, there is one type of ship that is OP....and you'll find plenty of people who think each of the particular classes of ship is OP. People getting beaten by different class or a different ship in PVP = the opponent's class or ship must be OP.

[ObiWanJabroni]

Thanks!

 

 

 

Personally I think it should be something that causes you to drop from targeting computer read outs regardless of whether you have them on your targeting computer (so when multiple fighters are on you the abity drops you from all their computers), no longer have the red box around you (that show where enemies are in the area, making it harder to visually track you), and keep the missile lock breaking ability. Basically make it a sensor/radar jammer rather than flat out evasion stat booster. IMO that would be balanced as it would give pilots better chances of survival by making it more difficult for enemies to keep them in their sights while still requiring player skill to succeed in dodging enemy fire/escaping.

 

 

 

 

That's an interesting observation and I wasn't aware of that. Assuming that the game engine doesn't allow them to adjust hit boxes to be proper I could understand using evasion to compensate.

 

I have mixed feelings of having components/abilities that boost it further though if it's there to compensate for hitbox design and think it would be better for them to boost stats that require player skill to utilize. For example give light armor a reduction in engine power cost, further increase in speed and/or boost to turning (balanced to not be OP when combined with the turning thruster component). Such adjustments would give players even greater ability to dodge enemy fire but would require pilots learning how to maximize this potential.

 

 

I'd happily take that ability instead of the evasion. Think the crying is bad now, you haven't seen anything yet if that ability goes live.

 

Of course you seem to think that the scouts role should be capping and harassing gunships, yet that ability does nothing in the way of providing support to attacking gunships. On a gunship, you place the reticle right over the ship, no lead is needed. So you essentially want to take away a useful ability and replace it with something that only partially helps it accomplish that goal. Sure, you can get a jump on them by sneaking up from behind without being targeted, but really if you are in close proximity to a turret because you're doing your job, you can't really sneak up on them, can you?

 

In also completely breaks gunships turning boost ability. If you can't target them, you can't use the turning boost. So in fixing one ship you break another. Balancing... Not so easy is it?

[Resipsal]

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread.

 

First of all, lets do a breakdown of the flashfire/sting and the other scout side by side.

 

Shield Regen Rate-

Sting/Flashfire: 74.8

Novadive/Blackbolt: 104.0

 

Max Shield Capacity-

1040 for each

 

Max Hull-

Sting/Flashfire: 1026

Novadive/Blackbolt: 950

 

Engine Power Capacity-

Sting/Flashfire: 100

Novadive/Blackbolt: 108

 

Engine Regen Rate-

Sting/Flashfire: 5.4/sec

Novadive/Blackbolt: 5.0/sec

 

Sensor detection is 2k higher in the Novadive/Blackbolt at 19.5k without buffs from abilities or companions. The Flashfire/Sting only can boost theirs through companions.

 

Evasion-

This is the tricky one. Stock with no abilities slotted all of them are 10%. With the abilities slotted they come with, the Flashfire/Sting has 25% without using cooldowns, and the Novadive/Blackbolt has 14%. Both however, have access to all the passive buffs, and can therefore be the same.

 

It is you who are misinforming people. All scouts share exactly the same base stats, and the only differences come from the ability to slot different components. The differences you think you are contrasting are just the different default loadouts of the two ships, and they can be completely negated by slotting components that they both share.

 

So in reality, if you think the 76 hull damage and the .4 engine regen rate make it meaner, tougher, etc...go ahead and keep thinking that. The things you EARNED by saving up the 5000 req for are the clusters and the quads. A fair trade off, considering you paid a premium out of the gate before you could even upgrade them.

 

You have my argument backwards. The two scouts don't have different hull strengths or engine regen rates; they have different exclusive components. The Sting has Quad Lasers, Burst Lasers, Cluster Missiles, Blaster Overcharge, and a Shield Reactor. These are all very useful components that increase survivability (tougher) or offense (meaner).

 

The base scout, on the other hand, has Sensor Upgrades and a random assortment of components that don't seem to be particularly useful at all, like thermite torpedoes and sensor beacons. Now if I am underestimating some of the base scout exclusives feel free to correct me, but I'm not seeing a lot of good tools in the base scout toolbox.

 

Now, as for pilots of other ships that want Blaster Overcharge and Distortion Shield nerfed, and essentially nerfing all scout pilots who use those abilities, let me ask you this:

 

Do you have abilities that raise your accuracy?

Do you have abilities that grant damage reduction?

Can you plan a build that will help to negate the bonuses of scouts?

 

Answer to all three is most definitely yes. So if scouts are such a problem, why doesn't anyone want to plan a build for them? I'll tell you why. Because you found what you think is the optimal cookie cutter build for highest possible damage and you don't want to make the hard choice of utility vs maximum DPS.

 

If you know the build that counters the Sting/Flashfire, by all means please share it. It's possible that the extra hull and shields on the strikers might allow them to outlast the Sting, but there doesn't seem to be any component in the base scout toolbox that would grant them such an advantage.

 

I will point out that it is possible to augment your accuracy a little bit, and there are some copilot cooldowns that will reduce evasion by 20% or boost accuracy by 20%, but they all pale in comparison to the massive +75% evasion boost of the Distortion Field cooldown. Also damage reduction seems to be generally frowned upon, seeings as there are a host of weapons that completely ignore it.

 

Also, just stop claiming the scouts exceed strikers in offense and defense. They don't. They exceed them in short BURST PERIODS, but not overall.

 

Stings have many of the same weapon components that strikers do, and there is no inherent base bonus that boosts strikers above scouts. If you are going to argue that strikers do more damage, you'd have to assert that some of their components give them that advantage.

 

Looking over the striker arsenal, I'm seeing stuff like the heavy laser cannon, the ion cannon, proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, and the magazine upgrades. None of those components seem to be playing much of a role in the current metagame.

 

None of the blaster options seem particularly more powerful than the Sting's quad lasers. If I was going to run a 3 second lock on projectile I'd probably choose the sabotage probe, a scout exclusive, over the striker missiles. The magazine upgrades do give the strikers an advantage in blaster power pool, but I think I'd rather have the Sting's ability to upgrade both armor and shield reactor (the strikers can only do one or the other).

 

So it seems that Stings can draw pretty well even with their striker counterparts when it comes to offense, until we consider Blaster Overcharge. Blaster Overcharge increases rate of fire by 25%, crit chance by 8%, and damage by 10% for 12 seconds. If you choose the right talents the extra energy drain caused by firing so quickly can be almost entirely mitigated.

 

Now it is true that this is only a cooldown, but it's a 12 second buff with only a 40 second cooldown. That means it has, at minimum, a 30% uptime. In practice we know it will be a lot higher than that, because you'll only activate when you begin an attack run and the cooldown will be expiring while we turn and dodge and set up for another pass.

 

Since the Sting seems to be about even with the strikers on the baseline, and pulls way ahead every 40 seconds, it seems fairly clear that the Sting's average damage potential is ahead of the strikers.

 

Learn your class.

Play.

Take notes...and we'll revisit this in a few months time when there are more players AND ALL THE SHIPS ARE ACTUALLY IN THE GAME. Another thing most of you don't take into consideration is we aren't playing with a full deck here. There is at least one other ship that still isn't in game, maybe two, if the bomber isn't the cloaker.

 

HOW IN YOUR RIGHT DAMN MIND CAN YOU BALANCE A GAME WITHOUT ALL THE INFORMATION????

You can't. So stop trying.

This is probably your best, if rudest, point. The addition of a 4th class of ship will certainly have a major impact on the metagame. If beta reports hold true, the bombers will be immensely survivable ships with massive shields, and the striker's ability to switch to ion cannons to blow down shields quickly might become their most important role. But is "the anti bomber class" really the role we want for our strikers?

 

I'm not yet sure how the survivability of the strikers compares to that of scouts, although some people are reporting that they can use evasive flying to keep themselves alive until distortion field comes off cooldown, at which point they can charge their opponents with impunity. And at least in the case of the Sting, that is a terrifying proposition.

[ObiWanJabroni]

LoL iPhone iFail Edited December 14, 2013 by ObiWanJabroni

[ObiWanJabroni]

It is you who are misinforming people. All scouts share exactly the same base stats, and the only differences come from the ability to slot different components. The differences you think you are contrasting are just the different default loadouts of the two ships, and they can be completely negated by slotting components that they both share.

 

 

 

You have my argument backwards. The two scouts don't have different hull strengths or engine regen rates; they have different exclusive components. The Sting has Quad Lasers, Burst Lasers, Cluster Missiles, Blaster Overcharge, and a Shield Reactor. These are all very useful components that increase survivability (tougher) or offense (meaner).

 

The base scout, on the other hand, has Sensor Upgrades and a random assortment of components that don't seem to be particularly useful at all, like thermite torpedoes and sensor beacons. Now if I am underestimating some of the base scout exclusives feel free to correct me, but I'm not seeing a lot of good tools in the base scout toolbox.

 

 

 

If you know the build that counters the Sting/Flashfire, by all means please share it. It's possible that the extra hull and shields on the strikers might allow them to outlast the Sting, but there doesn't seem to be any component in the base scout toolbox that would grant them such an advantage.

 

I will point out that it is possible to augment your accuracy a little bit, and there are some copilot cooldowns that will reduce evasion by 20% or boost accuracy by 20%, but they all pale in comparison to the massive +75% evasion boost of the Distortion Field cooldown. Also damage reduction seems to be generally frowned upon, seeings as there are a host of weapons that completely ignore it.

 

 

 

Stings have many of the same weapon components that strikers do, and there is no inherent base bonus that boosts strikers above scouts. If you are going to argue that strikers do more damage, you'd have to assert that some of their components give them that advantage.

 

Looking over the striker arsenal, I'm seeing stuff like the heavy laser cannon, the ion cannon, proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, and the magazine upgrades. None of those components seem to be playing much of a role in the current metagame.

 

None of the blaster options seem particularly more powerful than the Sting's quad lasers. If I was going to run a 3 second lock on projectile I'd probably choose the sabotage probe, a scout exclusive, over the striker missiles. The magazine upgrades do give the strikers an advantage in blaster power pool, but I think I'd rather have the Sting's ability to upgrade both armor and shield reactor (the strikers can only do one or the other).

 

So it seems that Stings can draw pretty well even with their striker counterparts when it comes to offense, until we consider Blaster Overcharge. Blaster Overcharge increases rate of fire by 25%, crit chance by 8%, and damage by 10% for 12 seconds. If you choose the right talents the extra energy drain caused by firing so quickly can be almost entirely mitigated.

 

Now it is true that this is only a cooldown, but it's a 12 second buff with only a 40 second cooldown. That means it has, at minimum, a 30% uptime. In practice we know it will be a lot higher than that, because you'll only activate when you begin an attack run and the cooldown will be expiring while we turn and dodge and set up for another pass.

 

Since the Sting seems to be about even with the strikers on the baseline, and pulls way ahead every 40 seconds, it seems fairly clear that the Sting's average damage potential is ahead of the strikers.

 

 

This is probably your best, if rudest, point. The addition of a 4th class of ship will certainly have a major impact on the metagame. If beta reports hold true, the bombers will be immensely survivable ships with massive shields, and the striker's ability to switch to ion cannons to blow down shields quickly might become their most important role. But is "the anti bomber class" really the role we want for our strikers?

 

I'm not yet sure how the survivability of the strikers compares to that of scouts, although some people are reporting that they can use evasive flying to keep themselves alive until distortion field comes off cooldown, at which point they can charge their opponents with impunity. And at least in the case of the Sting, that is a terrifying proposition.

 

On my phone, and just got off work. I erased an important part of my message that outlined we were comparing base scouts, and went into better detail about which components where different from the original post. The term was stock, meaning stock abilities.

 

As for what your missing on the scouts, thermite a do a hell of a lot more damage than clusters, are 100% armor piercing and 20% shield piercing. They also put on a debuff. If you think they aren't good you're kidding yourself. The only thing clusters have on them is the lock on time and firing arc. The only people who care about that are people without the skill to use them.

 

What do strikers have over scouts? How about the premium ship can carry two sets of missiles for starters, clusters for dog fighting, and proton or concussion for when you line up that perfect shot. A short range missile and a long range one.

 

Matter of fact....maybe we should nerf quells.

 

I'm not going to do your legwork for you. Find your own build. When I'm in my strike fighters, I have no problems with scouts. Maybe most of them are bad on my server, I dunno. The only one that really gives me trouble uses the black bolt and sabo probe. I consider him a better pilot than myself, not that he needs nerfed.

 

Your last point is sadly your worst point. You guys seem to think that scouts should be pigeon holed into this canon you have laid out for that kind of ship, yet you finish with a line that shows complete selfishness in regards to the ship you prefer to fly. If that does become your role, you can either fill it or stumble around the map like the other potatoes and not play objectives.

 

And btw, while I'm on the subject did you ever once consider that your survivability coupled with your crappy mobility and steady damage would in fact make YOU a better node guard than a scout? Would seem to me that the more mobile ships should be the ones jumping to off nodes for defense than the slower ones.

[Helig]

On my phone, and just got off work. I erased an important part of my message that outlined we were comparing base scouts, and went into better detail about which components where different from the original post. The term was stock, meaning stock abilities.

 

As for what your missing on the scouts, thermite a do a hell of a lot more damage than clusters, are 100% armor piercing and 20% shield piercing. They also put on a debuff. If you think they aren't good you're kidding yourself. The only thing clusters have on them is the lock on time and firing arc. The only people who care about that are people without the skill to use them.

Thermites look good on paper, but you can't land them on a competent pilot, unless he really has his hands full with something else. Now then, if Thermites had a range of 10k, I'd probably reconsider.

 

Sure, alone, Clusters don't do much damage, but, when timed with a burst laser shot, it creates a *pretty nice* damage spike, capable of catching even competent pilots off guard.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Helig

[Lymain]

So it seems that Stings can draw pretty well even with their striker counterparts when it comes to offense, until we consider Blaster Overcharge. Blaster Overcharge increases rate of fire by 25%, crit chance by 8%, and damage by 10% for 12 seconds. If you choose the right talents the extra energy drain caused by firing so quickly can be almost entirely mitigated.

 

Out of everything you wrote, I think that is really the main point. It's easy to see how Targeting Telemetry would look balanced with Blaster Overcharge on paper, but Blaster Overcharge is clearly better in the current game. However, the current game is incomplete, and it's possible Targeting Telemetry and the extra weaponry on Strike Fighters will become much more useful when bombers, cloaking, and new game types are implemented (especially if the new game type makes long/mid range fighting much more important than it is in the current satellite-hugging mode).

[mr_sim]

Matter of fact....maybe we should nerf quells.

 

I'm not going to do your legwork for you. Find your own build. When I'm in my strike fighters, I have no problems with scouts. Maybe most of them are bad on my server, I dunno. The only one that really gives me trouble uses the black bolt and sabo probe. I consider him a better pilot than myself, not that he needs nerfed.

 

Your last point is sadly your worst point. You guys seem to think that scouts should be pigeon holed into this canon you have laid out for that kind of ship, yet you finish with a line that shows complete selfishness in regards to the ship you prefer to fly. If that does become your role, you can either fill it or stumble around the map like the other potatoes and not play objectives.

 

And btw, while I'm on the subject did you ever once consider that your survivability coupled with your crappy mobility and steady damage would in fact make YOU a better node guard than a scout? Would seem to me that the more mobile ships should be the ones jumping to off nodes for defense than the slower ones.

 

Nerf Quell, are you just trolling? They're barely in the game and most are uber fresh with less upgrades. I personally am still about 400 fleet away from mine. You do realize the quell only uses one missile load at a time though. I almost never kill a full health ship with missiles alone, always comes to lasers.

[Resipsal]

On my phone, and just got off work. I erased an important part of my message that outlined we were comparing base scouts, and went into better detail about which components where different from the original post. The term was stock, meaning stock abilities.

 

1. There's no point going back and editing your previous post, I've already quoted your original message in my response.

 

2. Your edited information is still either wrong or misleading. There are no engine capacity, engine regen rate, hull, turning, or evasion differences between the two types of scouts. Comparing stock stats is pointless because they can be easily switched for only 1,000 requisition per component. There is a shield difference, but that's an advantage for the Sting because it has a shield reactor instead of a sensor array.

 

Your last point is sadly your worst point. You guys seem to think that scouts should be pigeon holed into this canon you have laid out for that kind of ship

 

You're confusing me with other people. I care about compelling gameplay far more than canon. If I was to post about GSF violating canon, I would be complaining about gunships and how absolutely bizarre the idea of a sniper fighter ship is. But I think gunships are a fun part of the game and I don't worry too much about canon.

 

And btw, while I'm on the subject did you ever once consider that your survivability coupled with your crappy mobility and steady damage would in fact make YOU a better node guard than a scout?

 

Not even for a second. Scouts are clearly the masters of node defense, which is all about boosts and turning to allow for the closest possible satellite hug. The other ships would make wider turns, leaving themselves more open to being sniped at by following scouts.

 

yet you finish with a line that shows complete selfishness in regards to the ship you prefer to fly. If that does become your role, you can either fill it or stumble around the map like the other potatoes and not play objectives.

 

You don't know which ship I prefer to fly. One of the things I like about GSF is how you can switch your ship multiple times per match. In ground PvP, if I play my assassin and my team has no healers then we're just stuck with a bad composition.

 

In GSF, I can change the ship I fly over the course of the match to support whatever my team needs at that time. I like that, and the point of my posts is to signal a possible imbalance that may threaten the variety of ships we use in GSF.

 

Another interesting piece of data a guildmate mentioned to me comes from the GSF Records topic:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=703085

 

As of this writing, there are no strike fighters listed among the records for total damage, dps, kills, kill streaks, solo kills, assists, or objectives. Strikers dominate the damage taken category, which makes sense because they have more hp than the other ships, and scouts rely on evasion for defense. Strikers are also doing well in the total medals category.

[ObiWanJabroni]

Nerf Quell, are you just trolling? They're barely in the game and most are uber fresh with less upgrades. I personally am still about 400 fleet away from mine. You do realize the quell only uses one missile load at a time though. I almost never kill a full health ship with missiles alone, always comes to lasers.

 

 

Of course I was trolling. But its no more ridiculous than nerfing scouts.

[ObiWanJabroni]

1. There's no point going back and editing your previous post, I've already quoted your original message in my response.

 

Lay off the Molly kid, I didn't edit the original post. Compare it to your quote super sleuth, then ride off into the sunset in your mystery machine.

 

 

 

2. Your edited information is still either wrong or misleading. There are no engine capacity, engine regen rate, hull, turning, or evasion differences between the two types of scouts. Comparing stock stats is pointless because they can be easily switched for only 1,000 requisition per component. There is a shield difference, but that's an advantage for the Sting because it has a shield reactor instead of a sensor array.

 

OK, thank you for making your point meaningless. Then I guess the flashfire isn't really all that tougher and meaner than the regular scout?

 

 

You're confusing me with other people. I care about compelling gameplay far more than canon. If I was to post about GSF violating canon, I would be complaining about gunships and how absolutely bizarre the idea of a sniper fighter ship is. But I think gunships are a fun part of the game and I don't worry too much about canon.

Fair enough.

 

Not even for a second. Scouts are clearly the masters of node defense, which is all about boosts and turning to allow for the closest possible satellite hug. The other ships would make wider turns, leaving themselves more open to being sniped at by following scouts.

 

I node hug when needed in my Strikers constantly. Turning radius doesn't feel all that different. Are you aware of what yaw and pitch are?

 

You don't know which ship I prefer to fly. One of the things I like about GSF is how you can switch your ship multiple times per match. In ground PvP, if I play my assassin and my team has no healers then we're just stuck with a bad composition.

 

In GSF, I can change the ship I fly over the course of the match to support whatever my team needs at that time. I like that, and the point of my posts is to signal a possible imbalance that may threaten the variety of ships we use in GSF.

 

Me too.

 

Another interesting piece of data a guildmate mentioned to me comes from the GSF Records topic:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=703085

 

As of this writing, there are no strike fighters listed among the records for total damage, dps, kills, kill streaks, solo kills, assists, or objectives. Strikers dominate the damage taken category, which makes sense because they have more hp than the other ships, and scouts rely on evasion for defense. Strikers are also doing well in the total medals category.

 

You guys looooooooove your records. Only thing about that is people actually have to submit them to be accurate. I don't, otherwise I'd have the top objective slot. I'm sure others don't either, because they don't like to wag their ePeens. Also, records don't take into consideration the skill of the other pilots you were playing against. TBH, I'm not even remotely proud of beating the top objective score because I got it defending with bads coming in one at a time, the turrets lighting them up, and me finishing them off. It honestly took little skill, though the number looked impressive.

 

In other words, records are a lot like metrics. Useless.

Edited December 15, 2013 by ObiWanJabroni
A conspiracy!

[Resipsal]

I erased an important part of my message that outlined we were comparing base scouts, and went into better detail about which components where different from the original post.

Lay off the Molly kid, I didn't edit the original post. Compare it to your quote super sleuth, then ride off into the sunset in your mystery machine.

 

I guess I'm confused. You said you erased something and went into more detail, but then when I went back to check it was still wrong.

 

OK, thank you for making your point meaningless. Then I guess the flashfire isn't really all that tougher and meaner than the regular scout?

 

There are 2 differences between the base scout and the Sting/Flashfire: their default components and their available components. You were comparing default components, and I was pointing out that wasn't very useful because the default components can easily be switched out. I was comparing exclusive components, things one ship can equip that the other can't.

 

The Flashfire/Sting is tougher and meaner because it can equip more dangerous weapons and more protective shield reactors than those available to the base scout. The base scout, meanwhile, is the only scout with the sensor array upgrades.

 

I node hug when needed in my Strikers constantly. Turning radius doesn't feel all that different. Are you aware of what yaw and pitch are?

 

Yaw is side-to-side turning and pitch is up-and-down turning. The scouts have advantages in both categories, and so are universally considered the best satellite huggers.

 

Incidentally, pitch and yaw don't translate directly into turn radius because the radius will depend upon speed. It is possible to have very fast turn rates but still have a large turn radius if you were boosting, for example.

 

In other words, records are a lot like metrics. Useless.

 

There are 35 ships with records for the categories of damage, dps, kills, kill streaks, solo kills, assists. Of those 35 ships, 23 are identified as scouts and 0 are identified as strike fighters. You're saying this in no way indicates that scouts (and in particular the Sting/Flashfire/Skybolt/Ocula mirror ships) have greater offensive potential than the strike fighters?