WTB Light Laser Cannon or Burst Laser Cannon on Type 1 Strike

[Verain]

The Type 1 Strike (Starguard / Enforcer / Rycer / Gladiator) is the only ship in the game capable of swapping between primary weapons. This means that its strength is in the ability to pick weapon types, but it is pretty limited in this regard.

 

Heavy Lasers are a premium laser- shield ignore, armor piercing, low fall off with range, with the tradeoff of poor tracking and therefore poor at close range.

 

Quad Lasers are solid- very high dps, overall decent.

 

Ions are very niche, but deliberately. Absurdly high dps versus shields, but only close, and nothing versus hulls.

 

 

This leaves a pretty big hole- no way to deal hull damage at close range effectively. Rapid fire is awful, and I have a thread about it:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=7213935

 

 

But, there ARE good options- the burst laser cannon and the light laser cannon. They just are not on the Type 1 Strike (the light laser IS on the Type 2 Strike).

 

 

 

 

So... why not? The devs don't seem to be buffing Rapid Fire. There's even a few RFL apologists around the forum, who claim that it's "low energy usage" is somehow attractive.

 

Those guys would probably all tell you- possibly including the devs- that the RFL is a worthwhile choice. So... how about add Light Laser Cannon? (Or even Burst Laser Cannon- but that seems so powerful that it's probably meant as a perk to the two ships that have it)

 

If RFL and LLC are sidegrades to each other (which I don't agree with, I believe LLC is better without question), then lets just throw it on the Starguard! It should be a no-brainer.

 

 

 

 

 

Light Laser Cannon would give a great amount of dps to any time you are in close range. It would be an excellent companion to Heavy, Quad, or even Ion. It would make the Starguard what it is supposed to be.

[DresG]

I agree with you on some of your points, but before I begin I must address your closing comment about what the Star Guard is supposed to be. The Type 1 SF should be used as a short range ship, and should be used with the proper components to help her achieve this role. Think of it as a tankier, more versatile version of Type 2 Scout, with less burst capabilities. If you want long range, go with Type 2 SF equipped with Heavy Lasers.

 

Now, I consider Rapids to be good enough, but you do need to learn how to use them. If you want to use them against shielded opponents then you are doing it wrong, you need to kill the shields with Ions while you target a Cluster and then switch to Rapids. Please use Frequency Capacitor for this. I've read your thread before about Rapids (did so before I became a die hard Star Guard pilot) I do agree they need a buff, I like your idea of a stacking buff to damage (even if i consider your proposed duration too long). But really, only if you compare them to Burst Laser Cannon, which is stupid OP, Rapids would need a decent buff.

 

Burst Laser Cannon is a broken primary weapon, very high damage, crits deceptively often, all of its mandatory upgrades are amazing and, on top of all of this, its the easiest and most effective primary weapon there is. IMHO the only primary weapon that comes build in with these two very important features, ease of use and good upgrades, is the Heavy Laser Cannon and, quite honestly, its still not nearly as powerful as the Burst Laser Cannon. It should be reworked through a much higher tracking penalty because, as you mention in your thread about Rapids, it makes the ship even more manueverable.

 

Could Type 1 SF benefit from Lights? definitely, specially if you consider the major indirect buff Type 2 SF are getting through the nerf to Engine Components. I totally support this.

[Verain]

I don't really think RFL is good enough. I talk about that close range strike 1 build:

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=729222&page=4

 

The reality is that such a close range build is largely signed up to do the scout's job, but without all the scout's tools. It has advantages to be sure, but rapids are a big part of why this build lacks dps compared to alternatives.

 

Buffing RFL is sort of a different story. If it remains unbuffed, it mostly means that the devs likely think that the benefits of having a low power consumption gun are actually worthwhile, and I use the other thread to dispute that.

 

I simply think that LLC would offer a real close range option. BLC would as well.

[Ramalina]

Getting BLCs on type 1 strikes would be pretty amazing, but it would totally violate the design goal of having at least one ship class that never generates a giant torrent of threads complaining about how OP or anti-fun it is.

 

The thought of Heavies + BLCs + range capacitors, well, I should stop thinking about such a tasty combination before I start drooling all over my keyboard. A 6.4 km long kill-zone. *sigh* You could fill the weak bit in the middle with cluster missile spam.

[Nemarus]

I agree with you on some of your points, but before I begin I must address your closing comment about what the Star Guard is supposed to be. The Type 1 SF should be used as a short range ship, and should be used with the proper components to help her achieve this role. Think of it as a tankier, more versatile version of Type 2 Scout, with less burst capabilities. If you want long range, go with Type 2 SF equipped with Heavy Lasers.

 

No. Read the ship description, and consider that its default loadout is Heavy Lasers (best long range weapon) and Rapid Fire Lasers (short range).

 

"The Star Guard can support an array of laser and ion cannons that allow it to engage foes at multiple distances."

 

"The Rycer can be fitted with two primary blasters from an arsenal of options, including multiple laser and ion cannons; properly equipped, it can destroy or disable foes at any range."

 

Its stated purpose is multi-range versatility.

 

And your claim that it is a "tankier" version of the Type 2 has no basis in fact. Sure, the Type 1 has a Reactor, but the Type 2 has Armor. Otherwise the two are identical in durability ... unless the Type 2 takes Engine-to-Shield Power Converter, which gives it extra shield capacity and the ability to use engine energy to quickly refill shields. Because of this, prior to Bombers, the Pike/Quell was the "tankiest" ship in the game. And when 2.7 launches, the Imperium / Clarion will be the tankiest, since it will have Engine-to-Shield Converter, Reactor AND Armor, Repair Probes, and the Strike's best-in-game base shield capacity and regen.

 

The Pike/Quell is also focused on versatility through its Secondary Weapons. But instead of the versatility being limited to the weapons having different ranges, they are also all very different in effect: Cluster for close range dogfighting, Concussion and Ion for mid-range dogfighting, EMP for mitigating Bombers, and Proton Torpedoes for attacking slower, well-defended targets from range.

 

Please do a more thorough consideration of ship builds before making sweeping generalizations about what you think a ship is for.

 

And in case you weren't already aware ... all ship differences within a class come purely from components. Without any components, a Star Guard and Pike are identical. Without any components, a Sting and Blackbolt are identical. They have the same inherent maneuverability, shields, hull, speed, etc.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Nemarus

[DresG]

I don't really think RFL is good enough.

Let's agree to disagree on this then. I do support your argument that Type 1 SF would benefit from another short range option tho.

 

Please do a more thorough consideration of ship builds before making sweeping generalizations about what you think a ship is for.

 

I'm old, I'm entitled to have things easier, so I will just quote myself and highlight the important part.

 

Think of it as a tankier, more versatile version of Type 2 Scout, with less burst capabilities. If you want long range, go with Type 2 SF equipped with Heavy Lasers.

 

I do commend you on your effort tho, you posted detailed, even thorough info explaining something no one here asked for.

[DamascusAdontise]

Funny stuff! Had a conversation with a guildee a couple days ago about this exact thing. Stasie and I were talking about this in VOIP, the question being "what could they add to the rycer to make it not suck" and then burst lasers came up. Properly built this thing could be a strike dogfighter, and I would seriously have to look into some builds (giving me a reason to take turning and other dogfighter tricks of the trade)

 

It could be like a slower, more armored, more forgiving type 2 scout (with more ammo to boot) In a post 2.7 world with reduced mobility I could see this becoming a premium platform. Anyways long story short im all for expanding the weapons available to the type 1 strike, it really needs some love (I think we all have a soft spot for those starter ships)

 

++1 (and did I mention pweeetty pweeeesss mr dev? )

[Altheran]

IMO, the only thing that is needed, is turning Rapid-fire into decent cannons, slightly tweak Burst so that they're not overwhelmingly the best short range weapons, and not change which ship has this or that. Edited April 3, 2014 by Altheran

[TrinityLyre]

IMO, the only thing that is needed, is turning Rapid-fire into decent cannons, slightly tweak Burst so that they're not overwhelmingly the best short range weapons, and not change which ship has this or that.

Either of the two proposed solutions works (Altheran's and Verain's). I'm not sure how they really consider the two lasers (Rapid-fire and Burst) closely balanced and are "mostly happy" with it right now, though.

[DresG]

IMO, the only thing that is needed, is turning Rapid-fire into decent cannons, slightly tweak Burst so that they're not overwhelmingly the best short range weapons, and not change which ship has this or that.

 

If they could add "evasion piercing" as Verain suggested in his thread dedicated to Rapids, it would be a very nice buff.

Edited April 3, 2014 by DresG

[Armonddd]

Let's agree to disagree on this then. I do support your argument that Type 1 SF would benefit from another short range option tho.

 

I'm old, I'm entitled to have things easier, so I will just quote myself and highlight the important part.

 

I do commend you on your effort tho, you posted detailed, even thorough info explaining something no one here asked for.

 

Your entitled *** is doing a real good job of ignoring facts.

[Ramalina]

Crit and accuracy buffs for rapid fire lasers are interesting ideas, but to not be overdone in combination with scout systems like targeting telemetry, they'd probably have to remain at least slightly underwhelming without those boosts.

 

For that matter, BLCs on a strike wouldn't be as great as they are on a scout, because of the lack of systems slot offensive cooldowns.

 

Basically for the range that you get with heavies, protons, and concussions, the strike sacrifices short range damage compared to a scout.

 

Or something like that.

 

Still, of the purely close range blaster options, the starguard/rycer do seem to be stuck with the least impressive option.

[Armonddd]

For that matter, BLCs on a strike wouldn't be as great as they are on a scout, because of the lack of systems slot offensive cooldowns.

 

BLCs are perfectly effective at getting kills with nothing more than the occasional concentrated fire. I would know -- I've been running boost recharger since early access.

 

The bigger problem is that strikes don't have the engine efficiency to effectively use BLCs. Still, there's a lot of situations where the opponent comes to you so it's harder for you to hit with HLCs and whatnot -- that's when you switch to BLCs.

[Verain]

Either of the two proposed solutions works (Altheran's and Verain's). I'm not sure how they really consider the two lasers (Rapid-fire and Burst) closely balanced and are "mostly happy" with it right now, though.

 

Agreed. Nerfing BLC is a different issue entirely though- you can nerf BLC and not raise the relative desirability of the Pike and Starguard much. But whether you add LLC/BLC or just fix RFL, the net effect is the same to the Type 1 Strike.

 

 

The arguments against this fall into a few buckets:

 

1)- "RFL is fine" -> if that's true, then add LLC and you are more than welcome to run RFL!

2)- "Starguards are too strong" -> Starguards are definitely not too strong.

3)- "Starguards are meant to have no good short range options" -> The devs seem to believe RFL is a good short ranged option, and is a tradeoff with LLC and BLC. So either the devs messed up by making RFL too weak (in which case, buff RFL or add LLC/BLC) or the devs are right and RFL *IS* a fair tradeoff- in which case, add LLC/BLC, because it doesn't increase the power of the ship.

 

 

Simply put, adding one or two of these would be great.

[Armonddd]

Honestly, the biggest argument for adding an extra cannon option for the Starguard/Rycer is that the Pike/Quell gets five missiles, four of which are viable, and all of which fulfill different roles. It makes for much more interesting choices than the Starguard/Rycer gets.

 

Want to have one laser for long range and one for short range? RLC/HLC.

Don't want to do that? Pick between heavies and quads for your general purpose laser, then decide whether you want the utility (and clunkiness) of ion cannons.

 

By contrast, the Pike/Quell gets to choose between short, medium, and long range missiles, plus the utility of an EMP missile.

[Loc_n_lol]

BLCs would be ideal. Even assuming they were perfectly balanced with RLCs (which, right now, most players would disagree with...), it wouldn't just be more of the same, the bursty nature of BLCs contrasts completely with the full-on sustained nature of RLCs.

LLCs... they're pretty much just better RLCs with energy management issues. Same-ish range, rate of fire, firing arc and tracking penalties.

[Verain]

LLCs... they're pretty much just better RLCs with energy management issues. Same-ish range, rate of fire, firing arc and tracking penalties.

 

While BLC, LLC, and RFC all have the same range, the rof is much lower on LLC and the dps much higher. LLC also has a more favorable tracking penalty than RFC.

 

LLC is superior to RFC for certain.

[-Streven-]

I agree with you on some of your points, but before I begin I must address your closing comment about what the Star Guard is supposed to be. The Type 1 SF should be used as a short range ship...

 

Have to disagree. Starguard is able to dominate quite well at all ranges inside of 10000m depending on your components. It is truly versatile and equally effective at all dogfighter ranges. I love the ship.

 

Medium to long range build:

 

Heavy lasers

Quad lasers

Concussion missiles

Retro thruster

Directional shields w/ large reactor

 

Pros: great tankiness and exceptional jouster. You don't want to go head to head against this build. Really good bomber killer.

 

Weakness: lacking in mobility and vulnerable to competent Flashfire/Quarrell pilots if low on engine power and caught in the open

 

Close range build:

 

Heavy lasers (mandatory for starguard imo)

Ion lasers

Cluster missiles

Barrell roll

Quick charge shields

Regen reactor and thrusters

 

Pros: high survivability due to lots of boost and shield regeneration, very mobile, ion + cluster combo makes close range kills quick and easy on soft targets

 

Cons: not as much burst damage as you might like when dealing with heavier targets especially when not mastered

 

This build often takes scouts down very quickly if they don't run away. Alot of times though, even if you don't get the kill on the first pass you can switch to heavies and finish targets that are trying to create space such as fleeing gunships.

 

-----------

Lastly, I'd rather see light lasers on this ship because I don't want BLC on every ship in the game though I doubt I'd take them over ions and I really don't have huge issues with RFLs.

[Verain]

I think the dev response on BLC was confusing. I personally feel that they need a bit of retuning. However, regardless of dev statements, we can watch their actions- of eight ships, two have burst laser cannon and six have light laser cannon, and no ship has burst but not light. If burst was considered Fair And Balanced, we'd probably see more ship types allowed with it. The exclusion of a good short range weapon on the Starguard is either because the devs wanted to limit the ship's effectiveness, or because they figured that rapids were an adequate substitute. If it's the first, I'd say, the Starguard is kind of lacking in general (both strikes sorta are), and the Starguard builds have to mostly step around close range as uncomfortable, mostly using their ability to switch weapons as a something to mitigate a weakness, not as a strength (the highly restricted nature of ions is another example here). If it's the second, I'd say that rapids are bad, but just go ahead and throw LLC on the ship if that was the intended level of performance in the first place (remembering that if LLC and RFL are intended to be similar, then the ship is actually underperforming).

[Gavin_Kelvar]

The devs seem to believe RFL is a good short ranged option, and is a tradeoff with LLC and BLC. So either the devs messed up by making RFL too weak (in which case, buff RFL or add LLC/BLC) or the devs are right and RFL *IS* a fair tradeoff- in which case, add LLC/BLC, because it doesn't increase the power of the ship.

 

I don't know all of the numbers but I'd be interested to see how much power RFL takes to burn down a ship's hull/shields versus the power consumption of LLC/BLC. Since RFL trade damage per shot for low power consumption and thus making it a sustained DPS weapon with very poor burst DPS it would really be interesting to know whether that low power consumption actually pays off or whether the low damage per shot ends up meaning you use an equivalent amount of power to LLC/BLC to burn down an enemy ship.

 

At any rate I'd be all for adding LLC to the Star Guard, especially since the Type 3 strike looks like it will get both so presumably the devs do see RFL is a fair trade off for the striker class. I'm not sure about adding BLC though since strikers don't really have the engine efficiency to keep things that close although it might be a nice niche weapon to switch to.

[Armonddd]

I don't know all of the numbers but I'd be interested to see how much power RFL takes to burn down a ship's hull/shields versus the power consumption of LLC/BLC. Since RFL trade damage per shot for low power consumption and thus making it a sustained DPS weapon with very poor burst DPS it would really be interesting to know whether that low power consumption actually pays off or whether the low damage per shot ends up meaning you use an equivalent amount of power to LLC/BLC to burn down an enemy ship.

 

Doesn't matter. The game's all about burst damage because hull/shield/damage ratios allow it, so not having burst damage is an enormous negative. Now, if those ratios were like a third what they currently are (meaning hull and shield values are enormous compared to damage numbers), that analysis might matter... but currently they're not, and I can't see the devs making starfighters not ridiculously fragile.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Doesn't matter. The game's all about burst damage because hull/shield/damage ratios allow it, so not having burst damage is an enormous negative. Now, if those ratios were like a third what they currently are (meaning hull and shield values are enormous compared to damage numbers), that analysis might matter... but currently they're not, and I can't see the devs making starfighters not ridiculously fragile.

 

Oh I know that burst damage is best because of the brief time you have on target and your points on the hull/shield/damage ratios.

 

I simply meant it would be telling whether the trade off is actually of any benefit or whether you end up spending the same amount of power you would've with bursty-er weapons. Obviously burst damage weapons would still be better. But it would beneficial to know whether the low power consumption actually is a pro since if it ends up using a comparable amount of power it would help refute arguments that are based on the idea that low power consumption is an acceptable trade off. It might also help convince the devs that RFL are underperforming if we could prove that the damage is so low that it effectively nullifies any benefit you get from the low power consumption.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Altheran]

Anything that gives a lower DPS and isn't bursty either, has no point. Lesser DPS but bursty would be something okay, since bursts allow to put more damage than it should if it'd damage continuously.

 

It would be okay if we'd have "tanks" but each time the weapon isn't the only one, and all other give more damage, so...

 

The fact it has lower consumption do not matter at the moment, because other weapons' consumption isn't bad enough to make people starve energy before taking down targets... So even if the damage/cost ratio is better, it can't even shine on the long run.