Just buff the strike fighter.

[reclipsed]

This is actually a really good point.

 

I'm not so sure it is, I read that bombers...at least one of them will be able to use HLC's too.

 

I would like Strike Fighters to get a missle ability that shoots multiple salvos like those hellfire ones on military helicopters. I know you can upgrade to shot 2 at a time, but I'm talking shoot your entire payload at once..maybe reduce each missles damage by 75% but having 10-15 missles coming at you seems pretty sweet. Or have them be converted to fire and forget heatseekers that locks on any target within 3k m

[Armonddd]

It's hard to figure out which are problems with individual components, which are problems with the strike class and which are problems with the strikes we have.

 

I don't disagree with you that BLCs and distortion field should be nerfed, but I do disagree with your presented methods. Here's how I would do it.

 

Burst cannons have two huge advantages. One, they compress a lot of damage into a small time frame, which is extremely powerful when your target isn't flying straight and slow. Two, they reward a skilled user more than any other primary weapon in the game. There's no other laser that can win a turning fight or kill a weakened opponent zooming by with a single shot. It's true that you can fire off three rapid-fire lasers in the time it takes to fire one burst cannon (three and a half with frequency capacitor), but when you require nine rapid-fire shots for a kill compared to burst's two or three, that ends up meaning you need anywhere from five to nine split-second openings compared to burst's two or three, and those are (by definition) relatively few and far between.

 

What the devs need to do here - and have probably already done to an extent, but game design is all about re-evaluating your decisions - is decide how long they want each craft to survive in combat. From there, they can do internal testing to determine how many shots per second a player is supposed to land. At this point, the "effective DPS" of the various lasers can be normalized, then adjusted for things like range, shield piercing, armor penetration, ion damage, etc. Finally, the devs can adjust the shields, hull, and maneuverability of various ships in order to tweak their survivability.

 

The current problem with distortion field is that it is skill-based immunity (which is ok) on top of passive, skill-less RNG immunity (which is not). The way to fix it is to remove all accuracy and all passive evasion, then buff distortion field to 100% evasion. From there, the cooldown can be adjusted, or it can be made to only apply against a few shots, or the duration can be changed, as needed..

[Kain_Turinbar]

Don't need concussion missiles, one single upgraded heavy laser hit will drop a scout to half dead.

 

Awful hard to get hits on scouts with lasers sometimes. If they build theirs anything like I built mine they have 47% evasion on top of being a small fast moving target. Concussion missiles are my #1 weapon vs scouts (especially with target engine) and some of them are hard to land missiles on too if they take the 2nd missile lock break in the final tier of distortion field.

 

Proton Torpedo's are our best counter to gunships and missiles in general are the best answer to scouts because of their insane evasion so reduced missile lock times across the board would be nice but in the case of cluster missiles it would almost be an "instalock" and I don't think people would like that.

[Whitelightr]

Ive been seeing an interesting trend on BC lately. Last night was the most effective so far. Against a double premade, made up of average/slightly above average pilots. We were just in a 3 man premade, rest were pugs.

 

People have been flying groups (2-3) of Pikes/Strikers to counter the scouts. I know it sounds crazy. But people are starting to put groups of 2-3 of those on a node. The issue becomes you simply cant LOS enough. Had one instance where it was 3 pikes on B vs me and another. They would focus more on one of us and using missile breaks/LOS just wasn't enough. My lock-on alert was literally going off constantly for 1-2 minutes.

.

Of course it takes a certain amount of coordination to pull off, but if the meta changes to that and it gets perfected a little better it could be a viable counter for strikes against scouts. Even more so when the new EMP missile is released.

 

I'm not saying Strikes are fine, just saying maybe they are more of a group ship than a solo ship. As for the idea to link blasters for more alpha; I like that idea, and to balance it perhaps they would use 25%/50% more weapon power. Then you would have the blaster damage strikes need, but you couldn't simply spray-and-pray, you'd need to make each shot count

[Luneward]

Firing both primaries at once would be insanely overpowered. Think about it. A heavy laser cannon and Quad laser hitting at the same time. You could one shot a scout without even popping a companion ability, and could probably one shot a strike with a companion ability.

 

Huge resource cost is no cost at all if your target is instagibbed.

 

Maybe so. But the strike's biggest weakness is that unlike the scouts or gunship, it has no on demand quick burst. It's decent at everything, but specializes at nothing. It's a good steady throughput fighter in all situations without any standout traits. I termed it the RPG Main Character syndrome once. So average at anything it is good at nothing.

 

I agree it might be a bit overpowered, but when you're up against a gunship that can gib you in two shots or a scout that can smear you in three seconds up close, it is kind of hard not to feel a little lackng somewhere.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Maybe so. But the strike's biggest weakness is that unlike the scouts or gunship, it has no on demand quick burst. It's decent at everything, but specializes at nothing. It's a good steady throughput fighter in all situations without any standout traits. I termed it the RPG Main Character syndrome once. So average at anything it is good at nothing.

 

I agree it might be a bit overpowered, but when you're up against a gunship that can gib you in two shots or a scout that can smear you in three seconds up close, it is kind of hard not to feel a little lackng somewhere.

 

I think it suffers more from the scout/Flashfire being so good it can perform practically all offensive roles a striker fighter can perform. It can dogfight just as well (or better) than a striker and it can destroy stationary targets like turrets with equal proficiency while also having vastly superior mobility for quick response to threats. So while the striker should shine as a multirole starfighter and the most versatile ship out there it ends up getting overshadowed by the scout that can perform the offensive role of a striker with none of the typical jack of all trade disadvantages because it was not designed to be a multirole starfighter and thus has none of the disadvantages typical of such design built in. In essence for the scout many (or all) of the disadvantages of being a multirole starfighter are offset by it's intended role/design as a dogfighter/interceptor.

 

Granted the striker may be a bit underpowered but I think it suffers more from the flashfire being so powerful it can be an equally good multirole fighter on top of it's intended performance as a superior dogfighter. Buffing the striker alone won't solve that problem.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[mr_sim]

I think it suffers more from the scout/Flashfire being so good it can perform practically all offensive roles a striker fighter can perform. It can dogfight just as well (or better) than a striker and it can destroy stationary targets like turrets with equal proficiency while also having vastly superior mobility for quick response to threats. So while the striker should shine as a multirole starfighter and the most versatile ship out there it ends up getting overshadowed by the scout that can perform the offensive role of a striker with none of the typical jack of all trade disadvantages because it was not designed to be a multirole starfighter and thus has none of the disadvantages typical of such design built in. In essence for the scout many (or all) of the disadvantages of being a multirole starfighter are offset by it's intended role/design as a dogfighter/interceptor.

 

Granted the striker may be a bit underpowered but I think it suffers more from the flashfire being so powerful it can be an equally good multirole fighter on top of it's intended performance as a superior dogfighter. Buffing the striker alone won't solve that problem.

 

^this

 

Also the other issue to buffing the Strike is that currently the Strike is perfectly balanced in Stike vs Strike and Strike vs GS. I haven't tried it against bombers nearly enough but my gut says that it is also well balanced against bombers as well.

 

So you can't really justify Buffing the Strike just to match the scout without ruining so much more balance in other departments

 

No as it's the odd man out of that equation any change if indeed changes must occur must be changes to the scout.

[Xnemth]

... the strike's biggest weakness is that unlike the scouts or gunship, it has no on demand quick burst. It's decent at everything, but specializes at nothing.

 

This is actually the FUNCTION of the strike. It's called "Pressure DPS".

 

Pressure DPS: damage that is applied continuously to one or more targets over time, forcing the target to constantly choose between risking more damage to engage higher priority targets, or neutralizing the pressure source.

 

Strikes are not one-man-kill-machines. That's the heavy scout. The Strike is a Team Support unit, that should back up other fighters, shooting into their furballs and providing pressure dps on as many targets of opportunity as they can. That is the function of the Strike, and, with practice and a lot of mental letting go of bad habits/unsuitable tactics and urges, it does it very well.

 

Do not fly a strike expecting a massive kill count. Done right, fly it and expect a monstrous Assist count.

 

Please, stop trying to turn the strike into a Superiority fighter, we have one already; and stop trying to turn the Superiority fighter into some lesser Strike, we already have Strikes. Please adjust your perception of the role, and choose a fighter that fits the role you want.

 

I think most of you would be happier playing a heavy scout first and THEN making the leap to support in a SF. I still have to remind myself every time I select my strike "Support... support... no furballs, disengage, support". When I remember, it's a wonderful ship.

 

Cheers!

[mr_sim]

Pressure DPS: damage that is applied continuously to one or more targets over time, forcing the target to constantly choose between risking more damage to engage higher priority targets, or neutralizing the pressure source.

 

Answer me this because I haven't gotten an answer. Does damage to shields show up on the boards.

 

I'm a striker pilot I've been through matches where I've fired my missiles dry(you can only fire locked on) and was stuck with blaster because I refuse to kill myself to get a reload. Anyone who knows anything knows missiles(except protons) do mostly shield damage vs hull damage it's in their nature being a longer ranged weapon.

 

I come out of matches like that we dominated and won yet I still look like a chump on the boards and I can't figure out why, unless it's because shield damage isn't counted then that makes a lot of sense.

 

You say pressure DPS hitting lots of targets at once. Fine I've done that, but It means I mostly hit shields. Shield hits defiantly should count. In the ground game the closest thing to shields is heals(yes I know tanks have shields but in GSF everyone has shields) I still get credit for burning down health that is being restored by a healer.

[Arkerus]

You can make up all the excuses you want (it sounds like Blizzard when they tried to defend why Paladins were worthless from 2004 through 2008). "We wanted them to be average at everything and good at nothing."

 

The problem with that ridiculous philosophy is that it doesn't translate well to games. Games, and gamers in general, are lessons in maximization (or minimization). Hence the term min/maxing.

 

When you give a group a people a tool that that is "ok" at most things, but not very good at any one thing they tend to stray away from it. Why be average when you can exceptional?

 

The scout offers equivalent (if not better) firepower in a much more agile package.

The gunship offers extremely potent firepower, period.

 

So you have one craft that is faster and turns much better. And you have another craft that offers superior firepower. People tend to gravitate to what they want to do, and do it with the proper tool, because no one wants to be average.

 

It was the exact same problem in WoW with Paladins. Blizzard refused to buff them for 4-5 years because they couldn't admit to themselves that they were worthless as "jack of all trades" characters.

 

The gunship has the same problem. They need a fix. They need a strength that no other fighter has.

 

If ANYTHING, the scouts generally need a damage nerf (or something along those lines) because scout craft should be COMMUNICATORS and fast attack/capture craft. They should not offer a simply superior package over the SF. The biggest problem with the game right now is that SF don't have a roll. Why take a SF when you can take a scout and do (almost) everything better?

Edited January 22, 2014 by Arkerus

[BrianDavion]

as I've said before the strike fighter is solid but could usea bit of a speed/manuverability buff, right now the gap between the scout and strike fighter seems a little large for my tastes.

[Arkerus]

This is actually the FUNCTION of the strike. It's called "Pressure DPS".

 

Pressure DPS: damage that is applied continuously to one or more targets over time, forcing the target to constantly choose between risking more damage to engage higher priority targets, or neutralizing the pressure source.

 

Strikes are not one-man-kill-machines. That's the heavy scout. The Strike is a Team Support unit, that should back up other fighters, shooting into their furballs and providing pressure dps on as many targets of opportunity as they can. That is the function of the Strike, and, with practice and a lot of mental letting go of bad habits/unsuitable tactics and urges, it does it very well.

 

Do not fly a strike expecting a massive kill count. Done right, fly it and expect a monstrous Assist count.

 

Please, stop trying to turn the strike into a Superiority fighter, we have one already; and stop trying to turn the Superiority fighter into some lesser Strike, we already have Strikes. Please adjust your perception of the role, and choose a fighter that fits the role you want.

 

I think most of you would be happier playing a heavy scout first and THEN making the leap to support in a SF. I still have to remind myself every time I select my strike "Support... support... no furballs, disengage, support". When I remember, it's a wonderful ship.

 

Cheers!

 

What is bad about this attitude is that I have seen it on countless games where people didn't want something buffed or changed always claiming "its a support role, its not supposed to be XYZ (aka actually doing something)".

 

This doesn't work. This is a video game, not real life. While real command structures require supporting weapons this isn't how most games work. Just like when 100s of forum users proclaimed that Paladins were "100% useful as a support role" in WoW, you are claiming the SF is a support craft and really shouldn't be used to engage or generally cause havok. That's such a bad stance to take. Its not fun for people who want to fly the SF.

 

I've seen this attitude before and I am sure we will see it again. Regardless, it will get changed just like it has on all those MMOs and RPGs with "support characters" who get buffed up to compensate,

[Kain_Turinbar]

as I've said before the strike fighter is solid but could usea bit of a speed/manuverability buff, right now the gap between the scout and strike fighter seems a little large for my tastes.

 

I don't agree with turning rate improvements. You can already get some upgrades in your strike fighter if you want to go that way.

 

I agree with maximum speed and thruster power though. I know this is not going to be a popular sentiment because it has nothing to do with video games or Star Wars but I draw parallels from modern day fighters.

 

The fastest fighters are usually larger because they have two very big engines. Think F-14, F-15, F-22. They also have increased range.

 

The smaller more nimble fighters (think F-16) have the advantage in turning rate and close range dogfighting but don't have the "legs" of the larger aircraft. Their job is to get close and win dogfights.

 

Terrible comparison, I know. But when I fly around in "aircraft" and engage in dogfights I just can't help but draw parallels to current stuff. As an aviation enthusiast and flight sim (and arcade flight games like Ace Combat) player it would just make sense in my mind for the scouts to be the unrivalled up close dogfight kings with the Strike Fighters having better engines and missiles to take you out with at range (the latter of which they do have and I like).

[Itkovian]

What is bad about this attitude is that I have seen it on countless games where people didn't want something buffed or changed always claiming "its a support role, its not supposed to be XYZ (aka actually doing something)".

 

This doesn't work. This is a video game, not real life. While real command structures require supporting weapons this isn't how most games work. Just like when 100s of forum users proclaimed that Paladins were "100% useful as a support role" in WoW, you are claiming the SF is a support craft and really shouldn't be used to engage or generally cause havok. That's such a bad stance to take. Its not fun for people who want to fly the SF.

 

I've seen this attitude before and I am sure we will see it again. Regardless, it will get changed just like it has on all those MMOs and RPGs with "support characters" who get buffed up to compensate,

 

Agreed.

 

And really, "pressure DPS" is just a nice way to make "less DPS" sound balanced.

 

Because really, any concept of "sustained" DPS in GSF is a problem, because this is not ground PVP where all you need to hit your target is be in range and mash a button. You need to actually bring your guns to bear, and opportunities to do so are naturally very limited. This means the only DPS that is truly effective is BURST DPS. That's why burst lasers are so useful, why getting hit by a Concussion missile so dangerousl, and so on.

 

What matters is the ability to deliver the highest amount of damage in the short opportunities available. This is doubly true in GSF where shields regenerate very quickly.

 

But in fact the Strikes are clearly meant to be KILLING other ships, not provide some sort of strange support meant to tickle enemies while everyone racks up the kills. We have powerful guns, powerful missiles, and it's clear from the design that shoot down fighters is the Strike's role.

 

The problem is that Scouts, though armed with lesser secondary weapons and weaker health/shields, also happen to have cooldowns that massively increases their offensive and defensive effectiveness, and have the best burst weapon with BLCs. On to of this, of course, they have the highest evasion (offsetting their lower health/shields), and best mobility.

 

As such, when it comes to blowing up ships in general, they are the best (at least the tier 2 scouts). And since the point of the game is to blow up ships, this becomes a balance issue.

 

At least, this is how it is right now. Bombers might change things, as scouts have 2 vulnerabilities: their lethality is short ranged only, and their survivability mostly against lasers/railguns. Missiles and Mines can mess up a scout (though missiles are, of course, hard to use on good scouts), and of course mines can make attacking at short range very dangerous.

 

Still, concerning strikes, it's clear that unless their offensive capabilities don't become more effective with the introduction of new roles and gamemodes (maybe strikes are good against bombers, for example), they are destined to remain underpowered.

[Itkovian]

I don't agree with turning rate improvements. You can already get some upgrades in your strike fighter if you want to go that way.

 

I agree with maximum speed and thruster power though. I know this is not going to be a popular sentiment because it has nothing to do with video games or Star Wars but I draw parallels from modern day fighters.

 

The fastest fighters are usually larger because they have two very big engines. Think F-14, F-15, F-22. They also have increased range.

 

The smaller more nimble fighters (think F-16) have the advantage in turning rate and close range dogfighting but don't have the "legs" of the larger aircraft. Their job is to get close and win dogfights.

 

Terrible comparison, I know. But when I fly around in "aircraft" and engage in dogfights I just can't help but draw parallels to current stuff. As an aviation enthusiast and flight sim (and arcade flight games like Ace Combat) player it would just make sense in my mind for the scouts to be the unrivalled up close dogfight kings with the Strike Fighters having better engines and missiles to take you out with at range (the latter of which they do have and I like).

 

I agree, this very much makes sense.

 

Thank you.

[BrianDavion]

I don't agree with turning rate improvements. You can already get some upgrades in your strike fighter if you want to go that way.

 

I agree with maximum speed and thruster power though. I know this is not going to be a popular sentiment because it has nothing to do with video games or Star Wars but I draw parallels from modern day fighters.

 

The fastest fighters are usually larger because they have two very big engines. Think F-14, F-15, F-22. They also have increased range.

 

The smaller more nimble fighters (think F-16) have the advantage in turning rate and close range dogfighting but don't have the "legs" of the larger aircraft. Their job is to get close and win dogfights.

 

Terrible comparison, I know. But when I fly around in "aircraft" and engage in dogfights I just can't help but draw parallels to current stuff. As an aviation enthusiast and flight sim (and arcade flight games like Ace Combat) player it would just make sense in my mind for the scouts to be the unrivalled up close dogfight kings with the Strike Fighters having better engines and missiles to take you out with at range (the latter of which they do have and I like).

 

I'll agree with this completly. and that's what I ment by a speed/manuverability buff, one or the other needs to be improved and I agree that on strike fighters speed is proably the best one to go with.

 

Dogfighting theory 101: there are two general approuches to air to air combat. classic turn based dog fighting, and "energy fighting" whereas dog fighting is about superior manuverability. energy fighting is all about using superior speed etc to dictate the terms of engagement to be able to kill your opponent that way. and IMHO the strike fighter should be the energy fighter, compared to the scouts dog fighter

[Yndras]

Strike fighters dont need any buffs at all. With a good pilot behind the helm, they are very VERY deadly.

 

I tend to agree with you. The last thing the game needs is more missles. In Beta they were terrible, I do not wish to go back to that period in time. It can get bad enough as it is trying to avoid missile locks.

[Kain_Turinbar]

Glad to see I'm not the only one to think this way. I thought if I posted my thoughts on the matter I would get "GRRR this is starfighter not jetfighter!!" type responses.

 

BrianDavion I couldn't agree with your last post more.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Kain_Turinbar

[Ramalina]

One bad design choice was making close range accuracy fall off to zero so quickly. In the sort of very close range turning fight that heavy scouts should excel at your chances of hitting anything, even with a burst laser cannon, is very low.

 

The result is that what should be the huge offensive power of maneuverability in a dogfight is rendered much much less valuable.

 

In an engagement of strike vs scout, you'd expect the strike to have 1.5 to 3 times the firepower of the scout mostly because there's more space for weaponry, so head to head passes should terrify the scout pilot. If the scout survives to complete the merge though, the strike pilot's only effective counter should be to try to evade long enough for a wingman to rescue them. Once a scout is in tail pursuit of a strike the strike should be doomed unless it gets help.

 

Part of the problem is that they screwed up the normal mechanics of air/space dogfighting by adding in RPG elements. The RPG elements are reasonably balanced in isolation, but they've really screwed up the dogfighting balance.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Ramalina

[Nethgilne]

I don't agree with turning rate improvements. You can already get some upgrades in your strike fighter if you want to go that way.

 

I agree with maximum speed and thruster power though. I know this is not going to be a popular sentiment because it has nothing to do with video games or Star Wars but I draw parallels from modern day fighters.

 

The fastest fighters are usually larger because they have two very big engines. Think F-14, F-15, F-22. They also have increased range.

 

The smaller more nimble fighters (think F-16) have the advantage in turning rate and close range dogfighting but don't have the "legs" of the larger aircraft. Their job is to get close and win dogfights.

 

Terrible comparison, I know. But when I fly around in "aircraft" and engage in dogfights I just can't help but draw parallels to current stuff. As an aviation enthusiast and flight sim (and arcade flight games like Ace Combat) player it would just make sense in my mind for the scouts to be the unrivalled up close dogfight kings with the Strike Fighters having better engines and missiles to take you out with at range (the latter of which they do have and I like).

 

I've never thought of strike fighters like that but this makes a great deal of sense. My initial feelings were that it would make the starter scout obsolete. But considering that that scout still has exceptional sensor packages and an incoming EMP weapon, it definitely will still be able to fill its role.

 

But if we follow this line of reclassification, should the scouts still be classified as scouts? What should the class be referred to as? Light fighters? Skirmishers?

[Flearos]

One bad design choice was making close range accuracy fall off to zero so quickly. In the sort of very close range turning fight that heavy scouts should excel at your chances of hitting anything, even with a burst laser cannon, is very low.

 

I dont think anyone has commented on this yet but im fairly certain the reason you cannot hit anything at close range is due to lag-compensation not an accuracy drop off. Its the same as when using say proton torps at close range (good example as the firing arc is so small) against another ship. You may keep the ship dead centered in the circle on your screen but suddenly lose the lock or why you lock missiles and take your finger off the button just before the ship leaves the firing arc but the missile never fires.

 

Different game similar concept...

Though swtor seems to use server side hit detection.. I know missiles require a server check before they fire.

 

Ive pulled up behind gs and been 200 meters away and for a split non of my shots land but then suddenly they start getting nailed by 100% of me shots.

 

If this is why blasters are so hard to use at short range as i suspect it is. Then it will never get better and never change.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Flearos

[Flearos]

I like the idea of giving a faster speed. Perhaps they could balance it by giving strikes the highest base speed (i mean seriously they have huge engines then better be generating a ton of thrust), but make scouts faster then strikes when boosting. Give strikes the fastest engine power regen (seriously massive engines) but give allow scouts to boost longer than strikes (if they chose the ability).

 

Also remover the increased sped from barrel roll... It should be an evasion skill not a transportation device not gape closer. I will miss it dearly on all my ships but its hard to pick any other evasion ability when barrel roll is so necessary to move from node to node on a slow strike.

[Armonddd]

I like the idea of giving a faster speed. Perhaps they could balance it by giving strikes the highest base speed (i mean seriously they have huge engines then better be generating a ton of thrust), but make scouts faster then strikes when boosting. Give strikes the fastest engine power regen (seriously massive engines) but give allow scouts to boost longer than strikes (if they chose the ability).

 

Would just like to point out that massive engines literally means massive amounts of ship to move.

 

Also remover the increased sped from barrel roll... It should be an evasion skill not a transportation device not gape closer. I will miss it dearly on all my ships but its hard to pick any other evasion ability when barrel roll is so necessary to move from node to node on a slow strike.

 

Disagree. Gap closing/opening utility is what makes barrel roll not bad (the way literally every other missile break skill but retro is).

[Arkerus]

I like the idea of giving a faster speed. Perhaps they could balance it by giving strikes the highest base speed (i mean seriously they have huge engines then better be generating a ton of thrust), but make scouts faster then strikes when boosting. Give strikes the fastest engine power regen (seriously massive engines) but give allow scouts to boost longer than strikes (if they chose the ability).

 

Also remover the increased sped from barrel roll... It should be an evasion skill not a transportation device not gape closer. I will miss it dearly on all my ships but its hard to pick any other evasion ability when barrel roll is so necessary to move from node to node on a slow strike.

 

I definitely agree with this line of thinking. The SF needs something to set it apart. Give the SF the fastest engine under full NORMAL throttle would be a step in the right direction.

[Arkerus]

In the patch notes there is a new EMP missile that seems to set the SF apart. The problem is that scouts will still blatantly dominate SF in any close range, going toe to toe with a SF weapons because of their evasion stat.

 

 

 

This is a step in the right direction though.