Pike and Starguard need more components

[Lendul]

I think giving the T2 strikes retro thrusters would open up a little stronger dog fighter spec for these ships. They of course would still not be the best, but in the hands good pilots they could fill the role.

 

I am still holding on to a glimmer of hope that Bioware will give us a strike with a "system" component that can be a strong dog fighter.

[Nemarus]

S2E ?

I'll admit I never tried it.

 

However, is it not already Quick-charge's job to give extra engines ?

 

Wouldn't it be too strong of a component, considering the effect (much more profitable on a slower ship) with the absence of passive drawback on a ship with formidable shields ? I don't know.

 

The only thing I can tell for now, is "strange".

 

Side note : are you sure it would be Turbo which would be OP coupled with the converter ? Does it activate the "recently used rate" ?

Since E2S and breaks do not seem to activate the rate on engines as far as I recall, I would have bet this one would not either, even if it's shields.

 

S2E does indeed activate the "recently used rate". Your shields do not recharge for 6 seconds after using S2E. Which is absolutely necessary. Upgraded, S2E only costs 10% of your base shield capacity (in return you get 20 engine energy). Since everyone's shields recharge at least 5% base capacity per second, that means it only takes 2 seconds to recover the shield energy sacrificed by using S2E. If you could recover all of that shield energy before S2E's cooldown is up, then it's hardly a sacrifice at all. In that case, S2E would essentially be a "give me 20 engine energy every 6 seconds" button, with no practical shield cost.

 

Right now, if you don't want your shields to drain over time, you have to use S2E every 8 seconds, instead of every 6.

 

And even without the active ability, S2E are already pretty awesome shields, since they have no capacity penalty and their tier 3 upgrade either gives you +25 engine capacity (okay) or +25% shield capacity (much better). And given that S2E's active lets you convert 10% shield into 20 engine, that extra 25% shield has the potential to convert to 50 extra engine energy.

 

Combined with regeneration Thrusters, you can boost for a loooooong time. A S2E Blackbolt would still be able to boost far longer than a S2E Quell/Pike though, due to the Scout's discounted boost cost. So I think the Blackbolt would still have its own unique niche as best marathon runner.

 

Personally, I wouldn't think a Strike with S2E would be any more "out of kit" than a Scout with Armor, Reactor, and Cluster Missiles is.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Nemarus

[Ryuku-sama]

On a totally other issue... since when QCS boost engine????

[Fractalsponge]

Hasn't it been since 2.6 at least?

[tunewalker]

Hasn't it been since 2.6 at least?

 

ya since launch

[Altheran]

On a totally other issue... since when QCS boost engine????

 

Since always, as far as I know.

The second line of bonus is "Engine recently used rate" (+45%)

 

As result, the engine regen during afterburners rises from 2 to 2.9, without accounting for possible Regen Thrusters.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Altheran

[Ryuku-sama]

lol... Now I feel stupid... I never read this line actually /facewall

[Altheran]

lol... Now I feel stupid... I never read this line actually /facewall

 

Erm, don't take too seriously what I said after, I mixed activation cost and cost rate, what I wrote was wrong. I'll edit that very quickly.

 

Edit : done.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Altheran

[Ramalina]

Ok just because a few exceptional pilots can make it work doesnt mean they are in a good spot. I have yet to see a pilot have only that ship on their bar like we see with the GS and the Flashfire. Yes the Flash fire is getting nerfed, but it will always have more burst then the Strike.

 

Well a month or so ago I cleaned hangar, and ditched the unused ships. So now my icon setup at the start of matches looks like this:

 

Starguard, Pike, Clarion.

 

At least for my current GSF mains, some alts may still have T1 scouts and gunships on the bar.

 

I think what some people don't like about the strikes is that they reward learning how to fly a starfighter, and learning to fly a starfighter is a lot harder than learning to aim a railgun, learning to stack cooldowns, or learning to place mines/drones which is what the other ship classes reward with much less investment of time.

 

I'll also note that when you have voice comms and a reliable wingman (or even squad) for peels the dogfighting advantage of scouts mostly disappears. When it comes to strikes vs scouts 1 v 1 is very different from 2+ vs 2+ with teamwork. If you have a complete intolerance of teamwork and/or communication then I'd say you're really not cut out to be a strike pilot.

 

You can do pretty decently solo with any of the strikes, if you practice a lot with them. Teamwork is the catalyst that can really turn strikes into rampaging beasts of destruction though. It's even equipable on all three strike types with no requisition cost.

 

Actually, from that perspective, the biggest problem I have with strikes is the inability to target a friendly ship and designate them as a focus target with their own target window and a little outline on the mini-map icon that represents them. That would be a huge buff for strike fighters in terms of making wingman pairings easier to execute.

 

Yeah, focus target window for friendlies. That's the component strikes lack. Far more useful than any of the hardware options mentioned so far.

[SammyGStatus]

As to your first point, i was flying solo that match. I usually do, given I never know when I'm going to have time to play the game. only time i fly VOIP is with a real life friend on skype, and then its only 2-3 of us. Here is a screenshot of that match's scoreboard: http://i.imgur.com/hcZiZZw.jpg

 

Newb

[Kintosi]

Newb

 

Not sure if troll or just sarcasm.

[Verain]

Well a month or so ago I cleaned hangar, and ditched the unused ships. So now my icon setup at the start of matches looks like this:

 

Starguard, Pike, Clarion.

 

While amusing, you can't really be implying that this is your most effective hangar.

 

 

Once, to screw around, I made a full five gunship bar. This isn't exactly a joke bar- the Type 1 and Type 3 gunships are both very powerful, and I'm probably a bit better at my gunships than my other ships anyway. But having two type 2 gunships on the bar obviously doesn't add much tactically- in fact, even just having one type 2 gunship is not really giving you tactical superiority in situations you can count on, as while there are cases where thermite or proton can be superior to ion railgun, they aren't nearly as common.

 

Anyway, so then I queue with Drako, and I swear our FIRST MATCH is a 12v12 Kuat Mesas domination. Enemy team has some solid players. Only bomber on our team was Drako- no one else had one on the bar.

 

We lost, narrowly, because we needed a second bomber. Missing a class role is very punishing, especially on stupid KMd.

 

 

 

It was, entirely, my fault. I didn't think that EXACT SEQUENCE OF EVENTS would unfold. Normally a pilot or even new player will have a bomber, and the role will be filled, and I'll be free to play what I want, bomber or not.

 

 

 

So you can't seriously be telling me that you are being anything but whimsical or even debatably selfish for having a bar with just three strikes on it.

 

Actually, from that perspective, the biggest problem I have with strikes is the inability to target a friendly ship and designate them as a focus target with their own target window and a little outline on the mini-map icon that represents them. That would be a huge buff for strike fighters in terms of making wingman pairings easier to execute.

 

Why do you think this would just be a buff to strike fighters?

 

This would be huge for scouts of all sorts, and literally ANY ship that dogfights, certainly including the type 3 bomber and type 3 gunship. This change is a great one, but it wouldn't shift scouts on the totem pole one single notch!

 

 

Yeah, focus target window for friendlies. That's the component strikes lack. Far more useful than any of the hardware options mentioned so far.

 

And this change would help all ships equally. So maybe adding a few components would be excellent, eh?

Edited June 25, 2014 by Verain

[Altheran]

While I was looking at cannons in depth, I noticed something : Ion Cannon is a direct derivation of Laser Cannon.

Accuracy, firing arc, rate of fire... Most are those of Laser Cannon. Even the damages are simply those of Laser Cannon multiplied/divided by a factor (x2 for shields - /4 for hull)

 

I realize now that Ion Cannon has probably received the same treatment as Ion missile at launch, having the range reduced compared to its "brother weapon". (Probably inducing the only other difference : tracking penalties, maybe too high for a 4000m cannon)

 

But since Ion rail has always been having the same range as other rails, Ion missile given back its due range, I now think Ion Cannon probably should get its range reevaluated too.

 

(I know it has been proposed multiple times in the past, but at least it's not based on a mere "it would be nice" this time)

Edited June 25, 2014 by Altheran

[Nemarus]

While I was looking at cannons in depth, I noticed something : Ion Cannon is a direct derivation of Laser Cannon.

Accuracy, firing arc, rate of fire... Most are those of Laser Cannon. Even the damages are simply those of Laser Cannon multiplied/divided by a factor.

 

I realize now that Ion Cannon has probably received the same treatment as Ion missile at launch, having the range reduced compared to its "brother weapon"...

But since Ion rail has always been having the same range as other rails, Ion missile given back its due range, I now think Ion Cannon probably should get its range reevaluated too.

 

(I know it has been proposed multiple times in the past, but at least it's not based on a mere "it would be nice" this time)

 

Their tracking penalty and power draw are slightly different. Also they have drastically different upgrade trees.

 

I don't really think Ion Cannons need any adjustment. They do significantly more shield damage than normal lasers, such that 1-2 seconds on a target will drop its shields, which is a significant improvement (in terms of both DPS and DPP) over other weapons available on the T1 Strike. They can be combined very effectively with Cluster Missiles and other laser weapons, or to leave enemies vulnerable to your allies.

 

Ion Missiles, on the other hand, require way too much work to actually hit with, are easily avoided, and have a prohibitively long cooldown. Even if the cooldown was reduced, they would only synergize with short-range weapons such as LLC's, since any longer range weapons would already be hitting the target by the time the Ion Missile hits.

 

Ion Mines are straight-up inferior to Concussion Mines for doing shield damage.

[Altheran]

Their tracking penalty and power draw are slightly different. Also they have drastically different upgrade trees.

 

I don't really think Ion Cannons need any adjustment. They do significantly more shield damage than normal lasers, such that 1-2 seconds on a target will drop its shields, which is a significant improvement (in terms of both DPS and DPP) over other weapons available on the T1 Strike. They can be combined very effectively with Cluster Missiles and other laser weapons, or to leave enemies vulnerable to your allies.

 

Ion Missiles, on the other hand, require way too much work to actually hit with, are easily avoided, and have a prohibitively long cooldown. Even if the cooldown was reduced, they would only synergize with short-range weapons such as LLC's, since any longer range weapons would already be hitting the target by the time the Ion Missile hits.

 

Ion Mines are straight-up inferior to Concussion Mines for doing shield damage.

I edited to say a word on tracking penalties, but I missed the power draw. Well, as I said, the tracking penalties have probably been adapted to fit the lower range. But the power draw difference is minimal and almost insignificant.

 

But since you brought the missile and the mine into the discussion, I'd say that in general, "the world of Ion weapons" is pretty messed.

 

Ion missile and mine are made so blatantly inferior that it's laughable.

Ion rail has astonishing low advantage on shield damage (I blame Slug for overshadowing every other rail) that it packs an insane drain to be worth, and it's not really used to kill shields anymore, but as CC/pocket EMP.

 

Only Ion Cannon seems to be doing the job its description/stats implies.

 

The design around Ionic weapons is so inconsistent that it hurts.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Altheran

[Delta_V]

This was my post the last time T1 SF weapons came up, and I think it's still relevant:

 

I've had success in the past w/ the Quads/Ions/Clusters combo, although since the introduction of bombers, the lack of armor penetration has proven annoying. It's a strictly short-mid range build, but packs respectable burst potential in that range. Ions strip shields, followed immediately by a double-volley cluster directly to the hull, then just a few shots from the Quads to finish them off. The issue w/ this build, of course, is that it basically a poor man's battle scout - similar range, slightly more durable, but significantly slower and less maneuverable. And again, now that the biggest challenge in Domination is killing bombers around satellites, the lack of armor penetration is really frustrating. The ability to obliterate all 2700 of their shields in about two seconds is pretty nice, but closing to Ion Cannon range means you're probably gonna take a pair of S/I mines to the face. This build would be a hell of a lot more interesting if Ion Cannons got bumped up to 5,000 max range.

 

 

 

It's really hard to *not* take Heavy Lasers on the Type 1 Strikes, since they're one of the few weapons that really differentiates them from Scouts. The biggest issue is the lack of weapons to pair with them. If Rapids were buffed to be not terrible, or if T-1 Strikes were given access to Light or Burst Lasers, the ability for T-1 Strikes to play ball at multiple ranges would give them something unique over Scouts. Scouts would still be faster and more maneuverable, meaning they'd still be more effective at short (<4,000 meters) range, but Strikes would be at least competitive at that range, while still being able to hit things at >6,000 meters.

 

 

 

tl;dr - buff Ion Cannons to 5k meters, and give T-1 Strikes a short range weapon that doesn't suck. That'll give them a choice between absolute lethality at mid-range using Ions/Quads or the ability to engage targets all the way from 500m to 6,900m using Heavies and a short range weapon that doesn't suck. [/Quote]

 

 

 

Basically, Ion Cannons need to be buffed to a 5k base range, to better synergize w/ Quad Lasers, thus making a potent mid-range build. Then either give T1 Strikes access to Light Lasers, or buff RFLs to not be terrible, thus giving them a short-range weapon to pair w/ Heavy Lasers, to create a build that can be effective all the way from 500 to 6000+ meters.

[Verain]

While I was looking at cannons in depth, I noticed something : Ion Cannon is a direct derivation of Laser Cannon.

Accuracy, firing arc, rate of fire... Most are those of Laser Cannon. Even the damages are simply those of Laser Cannon multiplied/divided by a factor (x2 for shields - /4 for hull)

 

I realize now that Ion Cannon has probably received the same treatment as Ion missile at launch, having the range reduced compared to its "brother weapon". (Probably inducing the only other difference : tracking penalties, maybe too high for a 4000m cannon)

 

But since Ion rail has always been having the same range as other rails, Ion missile given back its due range, I now think Ion Cannon probably should get its range reevaluated too.

 

(I know it has been proposed multiple times in the past, but at least it's not based on a mere "it would be nice" this time)

 

 

 

A really good point, actually, and I didn't notice this.

 

 

We have had a devil of a time getting any love for the Type 1 Strike though. I really don't know why. The ion cannon in particular could be so damned cool.

[Loc_n_lol]

Ion cannons need more than 5km of range to become a truely good weapon.

4 engine/weapon power drain per hit is a joke, and that's fully upgraded. It needs to be more debilitating and it needs it baseline.

And the shield damage isn't all that impressive for a weapon that's only useful against shields. Arguably the hull damage is also too low. If you look at other specilized weapons, the ion railgun's hull damage isn't all that low, and the thermite torpedo's shield damage isn't low at all since it was buffed.

That's also valid for ion missiles. They need to do more. More damage (shield and especially hull), more debuffs.

 

And although that's not a staple of T1 & T2 strikes, I would argue that protorps need a damage buff as well. They should at least 2-shot bombers. They do far too little damage for how hard it can be to actually land one. 11.5km of range isn't impressive at all when you're broadcasting 3.4 seconds of warnings and even more travel time.

[dancezwithnubz]

a belated $0.02

 

i'm amazed that this so-called "Missile Boat" doesn't have all lock-on missiles available (i can understand keeping rocket pods for scouts.....).

 

seriously, it's a MISSILE BOAT.

give it ALL the missiles already.

[Altheran]

Ion cannons need more than 5km of range to become a truely good weapon.

4 engine/weapon power drain per hit is a joke, and that's fully upgraded. It needs to be more debilitating and it needs it baseline.

And the shield damage isn't all that impressive for a weapon that's only useful against shields. Arguably the hull damage is also too low. If you look at other specilized weapons, the ion railgun's hull damage isn't all that low, and the thermite torpedo's shield damage isn't low at all since it was buffed.

That's also valid for ion missiles. They need to do more. More damage (shield and especially hull), more debuffs.

Well, just giving my opinion there.

 

5km range, although not the perfect range is probably enough to be playable with all others cannons, Heavy included.

 

As for drains, I think it has to not become the main purpose, in place of killing shields.

If I had the control over design choices, Ion weapons would not even drain. I'd leave this role to other weapons/powers which are designed to be cripplers (EMP, Remote Slicing...). But I digress.

So for me, ensuring the drains are not too high by any mean is good.

I dare say that the weapon not draining unless specialized and be good on its own damage-wise should be an example for other Ion weapons.

The drain itself is not bad anyway, with a rate of fire of 2.5/s, the weapon drains 10 energy per second.

 

Now, damage.

Shield damage IS impressive. No other Ion weapon is doing twice the damage of its "brother weapon", let alone able to boast 1000+ DPS with flexibility in regards to the target's shield health as a cherry on top of the cake.

However I'll give you that the hull damage is probably too low as now. It's so easy to overshoot and turn the time/DPS gain into waste. It definitely needs to be weak on hull, but probably not as much.

In my opinion, the factor between hull damage and the "brother weapon" should be equal to factor with shield damage, not greater like currently. It's better for damage, and it's elegant.

Concretely, Ion Cannon hull damage would double (and be half of Laser Cannon) and Ion Missile hull damage would rise up to 700. But in case of Ion Cannon, it's not *much* problematic, a little of practice (knowing when to stop) can overcome this... Unlike Ion Missile which is "Hit or hit not. There is no in-between"

Can't apply this to rails and mines at the moment, there's no logic put in those IMO. (Slug makes a joke of the other two damage-wise, but probably can't be nerfed without a counterpart, and mines seem to have their value chosen erratically)

Edited June 26, 2014 by Altheran

[Ramalina]

While amusing, you can't really be implying that this is your most effective hangar.

 

Actually 3 strikes is my most effective hangar. Possibly because they're closest in handling to the fighters I fly in 'serious' flight sims and so I get more benefits from the hundreds, or possibly a few thousand hours of virtual flight time that don't really transfer well (or at all in some cases) to the other ship classes.

 

I can do about as well in a scout, though the only one I'd say I really like is the type one.

 

Gunships I cordially detest, though I might be more forgiving if I thought of them as artillery instead of as ships. To be a bit more clear, I like having them in GSF as long as I'm not the one that has to fly them, if operating a gunship can be called flying.

 

In some ways the tactical thinking you have to do for the bombers is the best combat flight experience in GSF. However, I have combat flight sims where the tactical aspect is done well enough that failing to have a flight plan ready before takeoff (and it's really best to write them out and have them handy for reference) more than doubles your chance of being shot down, so the GSF version seems very underwhelming in comparison.

 

 

Why do you think this would just be a buff to strike fighters?

 

And this change would help all ships equally. So maybe adding a few components would be excellent, eh?

 

 

As far as the target friendlies UI window, all ships would have the potential to benefit from it, but I think that strikes could potentially get the most out of it.

 

In a solo vs solo setting strikes do feel like they lag a bit behind other ship classes, especially for beginner pilots. In a team vs team setting they seem to hold their own just fine. I think they'll get a disproportionate benefit from any changes that facilitate team flying.

 

My chief criticism though, was that making the listed components available to strike fighters would be for the most part ineffective at making offensive power as readily accessible to them as it is to other ship classes in the circumstances that those ship classes are designed to excel in.

 

The truth is when people complain about strike performance it's a mix of two issues. There's not a clear specialized role for strike fighters, and in that non-existent specialized role strikes don't outperform other ships by a substantial margin when performance is measured by the ability to efficiently massacre all the other classes of ships.

 

The components don't address the ambiguity of purpose for strikes. They also don't come together in a way that gives strikes a clear unfair advantage against the other ship classes in certain situations that are reasonably easy to create in a GSF match.

 

For the first we need a map where you have to blow up Death Stars with proton torpedoes and escape the resulting explosion (needing to escape is how you rule out bombers and gunships).

 

For the second: a little bit more boost endurance, a little bit more turning performance, and a smaller difference in the ease of creating on demand burst damage compared to other ship classes.

 

Certainly the type one strikes could use one of the two good short range laser cannons. The omission was one of those quirky GSF design decisions where you wonder what they were thinking, or if they were using the Dartboard of Random Design instead of thinking.

 

Other than that, adding component options to the strikes is going to be like adding paint jobs. Nice to be sure, but not a source of significant performance improvements. TT and/or BO for the systems slot on a type 3 strike is the only other exception I can think of, and if you did that they would be type 3s anymore.