Flash/sting counter

[StrixHiraeth]

Wanted to add that I do use my Blackbolt frequently. I have it set up with targetting telemetry, distortion field, power dive (just say NO to missile locks!), and hydro spanner (yes, Blizz again). I use laser cannons and rocket pods. It's more useful than my Sting is against bombers and gunships, though it doesn't have quite as much survivability. Dampening sensors is definitely a great tool for gunship hunting or sneaking up on a bomber nest!

 

I've seen a few people mention in this thread that the Bloodmark is a good ship--it's the last scout left for me to master (can you tell I like scouts?) ...it's just, I can't seem to do anything with it. I want so much for it to work! But... every time I use it, I just get squished immediately when someone sees me. I feel it's because I try to set it up similarly to my other two scouts, and I just haven't found the right build for it yet...and because I am almost never in a coordinated group. It doesn't strike me as being meant for a soloist.

 

The other two ships in my loadout are there because after mastering two scouts, I found I wanted to branch out. The Jurgoran and the Legion. I'm still clumsy with both of them, but I am learning, and upgrading.

 

Oh, Strix... A thought: the Jurgoran has the best look for our names, in my opinion. With a slug railgun and burst laser cannons it really does look like a bird of prey. Therefore, I will continue to master it until my foes freak out when they see me loading it!

Edited September 8, 2014 by Ymris

[Ryuku-sama]

Wanted to add that I do use my Blackbolt frequently. I have it set up with targetting telemetry, distortion field, power dive (just say NO to missile locks!), and hydro spanner (yes, Blizz again). I use laser cannons and rocket pods. It's more useful than my Sting is against bombers and gunships, though it doesn't have quite as much survivability. Dampening sensors is definitely a great tool for gunship hunting or sneaking up on a bomber nest!

 

I've seen a few people mention in this thread that the Bloodmark is a good ship--it's the last scout left for me to master (can you tell I like scouts?) ...it's just, I can't seem to do anything with it. I want so much for it to work! But... every time I use it, I just get squished immediately when someone sees me. I feel it's because I try to set it up similarly to my other two scouts, and I just haven't found the right build for it yet...and because I am almost never in a coordinated group. It doesn't strike me as being meant for a soloist.

 

The other two ships in my loadout are there because after mastering two scouts, I found I wanted to branch out. The Jurgoran and the Legion. I'm still clumsy with both of them, but I am learning, and upgrading.

 

Oh, Strix... A thought: the Jurgoran has the best look for our names, in my opinion. With a slug railgun and heavy laser cannons it really does look like a bird of prey. Therefore, I will continue to master it until my foes freak out when they see me loading it!

 

Well.. Having met you a few times in the last two days (since I came back to JM) I have to say that you're a fairly good pilot.... But I won't break out seeing your Jugo..

[Kuciwalker]

I love your post overall, just have to take issue with this one statement. I see it a lot. Yes, the T2 GS is a bit of an odd duck, offering neither the long-range cc ability of ion nor the close range weaponry/maneuverability of the T3. But personally, I find it a damn fun ship to fly. Plasma/slug with directionals can be a pretty lethal - if situational - combo. Plasma in general is amusing, at least to me. Few enemies are expecting it, since it's so rarely used (relative to the two other railguns).

 

No, this is dumb. Plasma doesn't surprise me; it just tells me the whoever just shot me is a free kill and not a threat.

 

T2 is bad, and there is never any reason to fly it other than lulz.

[Verain]

There I disagree. Type 2 gunships have a unique playstyle (that you don't see when flying the others), so playing it familiarizes yourself with it. Type 2 gunships have slightly optimal damage options under certain conditions as well.

 

However, from a power perspective you are absolutely correct, of course- the type 2 gunship's superiority in 1/1000 game positions is by no means a fair comparison with the type 1 or type 3. The general lack of good defensive components (missing both armor and distortion), the lack of utility railguns (ion) without compensatory other tricks, the presence of lock on torpedos without the strike or scout's pitch, yaw, or speed (or boost efficiency), and the same options as the type 1 for engine components (barrel roll) means that it's strictly worse than the type 1 in any sort of real compare.

 

 

But... what if they fixed it? What if plasma got buffed, and torps were fixed, and distortion was changed to be a reasonable choice next to directional. Then it would be useful.

 

 

 

It's a different playstyle. The fact that it's balanced poorly is a fault of the dev's tuning, not a fault of the playstyle.

[Crazy-Wolf]

Crazy-Wolf:

 

If you are running out of engine power, I would ask--are you using Regeneration Thrusters and the systems ability Booster Recharge? These, combined with Blizz and F3, ensure that I never run out of boost. Only getting hit by multiple ions can run me out of power, and then only for a second or two. A very dangerous second or two. I'm like a shark... I die if I stop moving. The only ships that have a chance of keeping up with me are other scouts with similar setups.

 

 

Reg thrusters, Blizz, F3 - yes. Booster recharge - no Targeting Telemetry is just too powerful in my humble opinion. But after a little game of "20 quetions" with Drakolich somewhere here in another thread, I will use barrelroll instead of retros, which will wipe out a few problems I have on that end. ^^

[Altheran]

Ramalina pretty much got it. The idea would be to allow the devs to make adjustments to individual ship's spaceframes without screwing up every ship in that class. Now that's not to suggest replacing nerfs/buffs to overtuned or underpowered individual components. Rather it would allow the devs to add further balance adjustments without having to take the drastic step of completely removing an entire component type on overtuned ships. With a Flashfire for example you could tweak it's defensive stats so it would always be at least 5% less defensive than a Spearpoint with identical component choices.

 

With strikers you could do as Ramalina said: buff Star Guards base spaceframe stats to actually have greater agility over other strikers at the cost of being slightly weaker defensively than a Pike (assuming here that the Pike would largely remain the same since it's description indicates it's supposed to be a generalist and thus be the baseline of all striker stats). Right now however a Starguard and Pike can achieve the exact same agility and the only thing keeping them from being carbon copies is which weapon they swap and that one has the armor component while the other has the reactor component.

 

Basically it'd allow the devs to tune the individual ships to reflect the intent of their performance in the description without having to rely on component types to do so. If for example a Starguard was granted a 5% boost to agility over other strikers and given LLCs (or RFLs balanced to be half decent) it's weapon swap might become more valuable to people looking for a dogfighter that isn't a scout. You could likewise make tweaks to Pikes and Clarions so all three striker variants would be competitive in the meta and either 1) have better synergy with it's existing components (for example adjusting a Clarion's sensor related base stats to make the sensor component more worthwhile) or 2) make adjustments to base stats so, for example, you could replace a Pike's armor component with a reactor component that would synergize better with it's existing shield options.

Then, I have to disagree with the concept.

 

The difference between ship classes is sometimes so thin that there's no room for such tweaks. For instance, if you improve the agility/mobility of a Strike by 5 % like suggested, you have the same stats as a Scout.

In the end, with these 5%, and cannons adjustments (RfLC made viable or given LLC) a Starguard would be put at Flashfire level. (LLC/Ion/Cluster being approximately as good as LLC/Cluster/BO if the agility/mobility is similar).

Flashfire would not be the king anymore, but instead of solving the problem of his extreme power, we'd create another monster.

(That's why in some other discussions I tend to be in the "Strikes-are-the-ones-fine-not-the-others" side or the "stop-wanting-to-put-everything-at-Flashfire-or-Quarrel-level" side)

 

The other way isn't that good either. Tuning down a Flashfire defense this way, I assume to put it at the same level of a Novadive, would solve the issue of stacking both great offense and defense, but would likely make the Flash

just a Nova without sensors in case of similar loadout. That lack may not be that perceptible, but it's present and undeniable - so not really desirable.

 

 

Actually, my main gripe with the idea is that it's a balance move that is done hazardously. Some ships are inherently too strong/weak, some are only in specific loadout, and these moves try to balance it around some loadout that may change at some point. It's not organized, it's messy.

I mean, if doesn't replace fine tuning of components, how to balance a common component, if the ships using it are not going to behave similarly anymore ?

 

In my opinion, the way it's done for now on Strikes is the best basis to ensure that one doesn't get the uphill over the other ships of the same class. Then if one get the uphill in a specific loadout, it becomes easy to spot which component is at fault, and you can balance it.

In normal cases, if you do this in this particular order, you don't have unbalances betweens ships of the same class. If there are remaining unbalances between classes -Scout and Strikes for exemple- you can try some moves to specifically adjust this.

For exemple, if once cannons are balanced Strikes are still behind Scouts, you can try to tweak down Scout systems (because they're exclusive to them), or improve max range accuracy of the previously mentionned cannons to reduce the output difference (because a Strike is more likely to stand around max range than a Scout, and that's it would be against scouts that it has the more effect), changing the shape of satellite (because it is number 1 hindrance for being a Strike in domination), some moves like that.

(In case you're interested, the two last ideas are the direction I'd like to explore if I could test it, the system nerf is rather just repeating what I see on forums)

[Verain]

Then, I have to disagree with the concept.

 

The difference between ship classes is sometimes so thin that there's no room for such tweaks. For instance, if you improve the agility/mobility of a Strike by 5 % like suggested, you have the same stats as a Scout.

 

I see this comes up a lot, but it's wrong.

 

The baseline scout has 1.8 pitch and 1.08 yaw, and engine speed 780.

The baseline strike has 1.58 pitch and 0.96 yaw, and engine speed 744.

 

This means that the scout is 5% faster, can pitch 14% better, and can yaw 12.5% better.

 

5% wouldn't put you within range of that.

 

Also note 1.32 and .78 for bombers, and 1.5 and 0.9 for gunships.

 

Scouts pitch 14% better than strike, 20% better than gunships, and 36% better than bombers. Importantly, this means these are all large numbers. Certainly, you can feel the difference in similar ships when an enemy is double turning and you are single turning, or speed/regen.

 

 

Not that I feel that strikes (or anyone) need maneuverability buffs- only that there's plenty of room in the 2% to 8% area if you want to buff stuff.

 

 

In the end, with these 5%, and cannons adjustments (RfLC made viable or given LLC) a Starguard would be put at Flashfire level.

 

No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't be as wrong to pick it for dogfighting. A 5% buff would leave the flashfire a mighty 11% better at maneuvering still, while LLCs or viable RFL (viable RFL should just be done- the devs should just DO IT) would leave the starguard still unable to chase a flashfire in a duel or have damage anywhere close to a BLC in most dogfighting scenarios.

 

(LLC/Ion/Cluster being approximately as good as LLC/Cluster/BO if the agility/mobility is similar).

 

But LLC/Cluster/BO is not even the top Flashfire build. So it would be 10% behind on maneuvers instead of 14%, able to deal damage instead of not, and still nowhere close to:

Quads/Pods/TT

BLC/Pods/TT

BLC/Clusters/TT

BLC/Clusters/BO

 

But yes, it might be within 10% of some build no one runs.

 

 

Flashfire would not be the king anymore, but instead of solving the problem of his extreme power, we'd create another monster.

 

And I see THIS a lot too. Nope. There's plenty of room to buff many of the underwhelming ships without them becoming overwhelming or owning the meta. The starguard and pike in particular could use simply stronger lots of things, and if we're talking something as granular as 5% buffs you definitely wouldn't see the meta budge much, though a Starguard might actually have a job.

 

 

The other way isn't that good either. Tuning down a Flashfire defense this way, I assume to put it at the same level of a Novadive, would solve the issue of stacking both great offense and defense, but would likely make the Flash

just a Nova without sensors in case of similar loadout.

 

Burst Laser Cannon is a gunship weapon, at the core, and that's the real issue- it should be the deadly front of a ship that it's easy to not have to face the front of at close range. The fact that the flashfire also has both armor and reactor is another issue- that's the one that makes him such a solid choice over the novadive. For a ship whose concept is throwing away all the scout parts to be beast, they should have saddled him with a magazine instead of that.

 

But it's WAY too late for those kinds of nerfs. Those are ship redesign level nerfs, and I'd personally be furious if they took away their stolen gunship armaments and cheeseball perfect components. I feel they handled the intra-scout rivalry well with EMP and shield to engine, special components that make the type 1 scout unique, and the type 3 issues are mostly type 3 issues.

 

I don't think it's too late for some strike buffs. In my other threads I suggest some larger changes that should alleviate the outstanding issues (for instance, the general superiority of distortion shield should be addressed), but buffing strikes by 5% on maneuvers and giving them a couple other bones, such as non-trap weaponry, would go pretty far. The Pike in particular mostly needs retros- a double missile platform missing an obvious missile enabling maneuver as even an option is unquestionably sad.

 

Actually, my main gripe with the idea is that it's a balance move that is done hazardously. Some ships are inherently too strong/weak, some are only in specific loadout, and these moves try to balance it around some loadout that may change at some point. It's not organized, it's messy.

 

A much more reasonable concern. But at this point we can kind of say that some problems are ship level, some are class level, and some are component level- but you are damned correct to say there's a lot of interplay. For instance, to nerf or change distortion shield requires you to also address the type 1 scout (designed well, tuned well), the type 2 scout (designed badly, tuned aggressively), the type 3 scout (designed well, tuned very poorly), the type 1 gunship (designed well, tuned aggresively), and the type 3 gunship (designed well, tuned oddly). That's a very strange mix of guys to show up, all of whom have different options that distortion is kicking around. A straight nerf would probably murder the type 3 scout, for instance.

 

One of the things I suggested a long time ago was a "ship specific component". With this unupgradeable component, you'd have some of the class power baked in. For instance, if scouts were all nerfed by 10% maneuvering, that could come back in a ship specific component. Then maybe you could have a SECOND choice for that component that doesn't give it back, but gives something else instead (ex if the first component gives you 10% turning and 10% speed, yielding the scout on live, the second component might give you 0% turning, 15% speed, and 10% shields, or whatever).

 

Now, you'd give a bit of player tuning there, which is nice, but the bigger piece is that you could change that COMPONENT if you have an issue with a badly tuned ship, because no one else has the "Starguard Kuat Tuning" component or the "Starguard Blackhole Expeditionary Tuning" component, so if you need to buff Starguards you simply make that one a bit better than the "Pike Kuat Tuning" one or whatever. Gives the devs a knob at the ship level, and gives them a way to give you different play experiences, but the first is much more important, and the second entirely optional.

 

 

 

I do feel that scout systems need to come down. I do feel that they represent unquestionably outstanding power. My suggestions are mostly to reduce the peak output while giving them a passive benefit that is always on. I think too large a nerf would push to a gunship meta, and I think that interplay is one to watch whilst tuning as well.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Verain

[Ryuku-sama]

A lil detail about Flashfire builds. LLC'n'pods + TT is even more destructive than Quad'n'pods + TT just much harder to use with the much smaller effective range (about 3500m with TT up.)

[Verain]

A lil detail about Flashfire builds. LLC'n'pods + TT is even more destructive than Quad'n'pods + TT just much harder to use with the much smaller effective range (about 3500m with TT up.)

 

I don't see that being a very good or common choice. Notice that it's fully able to be done on the Blackbolt as well. The problem is mostly that the build has an EXTREMELY narrow point in space of effectiveness. While quads and pods (or lasers and pods) essentially draws a lance of death in front of you, LLC and pods draws a dagger. I don't think it's just much harder to use, I think that in general it's less damage, because enemies have a much easier goal, as your threat area is just so much smaller and easier to escape.

 

If you can open up at 800m, it's a bit more damage. At 2000m, it's similar. Past that, it's all for the quads.

 

Some math: At 1000m, LLC is 8% more than the quads. At 1500m, it's 6% more. At 2000-2500m, it's about even, with the quads pulling ahead just a bit past 2000m. At 3000m the quads are 8% better, and in the 3000m-5000m range the LLC drop rapidly to nothing. There's just no way it's worth adding extra targeting restrictions to this build to gain about a 5%-ish total damage increase in the ~1000m range, while losing out on so much damage at other ranges.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Verain

[Ryuku-sama]

I don't see that being a very good or common choice. Notice that it's fully able to be done on the Blackbolt as well. The problem is mostly that the build has an EXTREMELY narrow point in space of effectiveness. While quads and pods (or lasers and pods) essentially draws a lance of death in front of you, LLC and pods draws a dagger. I don't think it's just much harder to use, I think that in general it's less damage, because enemies have a much easier goal, as your threat area is just so much smaller and easier to escape.

 

If you can open up at 800m, it's a bit more damage. At 2000m, it's similar. Past that, it's all for the quads.

 

Some math: At 1000m, LLC is 8% more than the quads. At 1500m, it's 6% more. At 2000-2500m, it's about even, with the quads pulling ahead just a bit past 2000m. At 3000m the quads are 8% better, and in the 3000m-5000m range the LLC drop rapidly to nothing. There's just no way it's worth adding extra targeting restrictions to this build to gain about a 5%-ish total damage increase in the ~1000m range, while losing out on so much damage at other ranges.

 

At 3000m.. LLC is ahead by 100DPS and behind by 5% accuracy. After 3000m (3500 with TT up) LLC just can't hit anything. THe better tracking penality also help in the under 1000m range. But you're right. Quad is better overall, LLC is better if you reliably get under 3000m.

[_Syntinen]

I see this comes up a lot, but it's wrong.

 

The baseline scout has 1.8 pitch and 1.08 yaw, and engine speed 780.

The baseline strike has 1.58 pitch and 0.96 yaw, and engine speed 744.

 

T

 

..Little bit OT but hay.

 

Is there some nice online resource listing different numbers, stats and features of each ship in this fashion?

[Verain]

http://dulfy.net/2013/11/16/swtor-galactic-starfighter/

 

Is a pretty fast reference.

[MaximilianPower]

No, this is dumb. Plasma doesn't surprise me; it just tells me the whoever just shot me is a free kill and not a threat.

 

T2 is bad, and there is never any reason to fly it other than lulz.

 

Oh yeah? Well...well...YOU'RE dumb. So there. nah nah nah nah nah nah

 

Seriously though, it's kind of ridiculous for you to say "this is dumb" in response to my assertion that the T2 is fun to fly. I thought my post was pretty clear: the T1 and T3 are superior in the vast majority of scenarios, but that doesn't mean the T2 isn't worth using. OK, maybe it's best for lulz, but I can still rack up decent K+A with the thing, and amuse myself in the process. Fortunately for me, I guess I don't regularly go up against a squadron of Kuciwalkers.

 

Verain gets it:

 

There I disagree. Type 2 gunships have a unique playstyle (that you don't see when flying the others), so playing it familiarizes yourself with it. Type 2 gunships have slightly optimal damage options under certain conditions as well.

 

However, from a power perspective you are absolutely correct, of course- the type 2 gunship's superiority in 1/1000 game positions is by no means a fair comparison with the type 1 or type 3. The general lack of good defensive components (missing both armor and distortion), the lack of utility railguns (ion) without compensatory other tricks, the presence of lock on torpedos without the strike or scout's pitch, yaw, or speed (or boost efficiency), and the same options as the type 1 for engine components (barrel roll) means that it's strictly worse than the type 1 in any sort of real compare.

 

 

But... what if they fixed it? What if plasma got buffed, and torps were fixed, and distortion was changed to be a reasonable choice next to directional. Then it would be useful.

 

 

 

It's a different playstyle. The fact that it's balanced poorly is a fault of the dev's tuning, not a fault of the playstyle.

 

Well put. So while the T2 isn't on par with the T1 (or T3) re: overall capability, it's fun to play because it's different - and it's only a couple of tweaks away from being a truly viable alternative.

[Verain]

At 3000m.. LLC is ahead by 100DPS and behind by 5% accuracy.

 

Factor in the accuracy like I did. In fact, I just multiplied with accuracy- given the passive evasion and distortion field, it's normally worth MORE. In practice, quads will outperform starting around 1300-ish, given targets like Type 1 Gunships.

 

 

The tracking penalty is a non-issue with this build. Obviously lights (edit: I typed quads) are better at high deflection- they are the second best weapon at high deflection, second only to BLC (yes, they are better at high deflection than RFLs).

 

With quads and pods, you spend most of your time lining nose to target. While you CAN take a few pot shots at high deflection- and you will some times with the quads as well- almost all your damage is done with nose to target, under cooldown, with quads AND pods.

 

So no, you don't care about tracking penalties either.

 

 

 

In practice, LLCs aren't used with this build. When they are better, they are barely better. When they are worse, they are much worse. Neither Blackbolt or Sting runs LLCs/Pods unless the pilot is trying something interesting, doesn't have the other laser mastered, or really wants to play with ranges and still have the deflection option for a different playstyle. Since the build does strafing runs, choosing a much shorter strafing run is also much less damage.

 

 

More importantly, you can ask pilots who live and die by this build. They don't run LLC nearly as often as Quad or even Laser (and Laser really has lower dps), because you deal more damage with the longer range, less-fall-off-with-range weapon.

 

 

Also worth pointing out is that here, like always, a faster rate of fire is worse than a slower rate of fire. When you begin the burst cycle, you get one shot immediately, meaning that the weapon with more "charge" (the slower rate of fire) begins with an advantage.

 

It's no BLC versus RFL, but LLC does fire 20% faster than QLC. The opening LLC shot even at point blank less damage than the opening quad, and you spend a decent amount of time in that first bit of time on target with the quad in front because the damage is discrete.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Verain

[Magira]

 

Oh, Strix... A thought: the Jurgoran has the best look for our names, in my opinion. With a slug railgun and heavy laser cannons it really does look like a bird of prey. Therefore, I will continue to master it until my foes freak out when they see me loading it!

 

Meh, I will also Heavy laser on my Jurg. How did you do that? My has not.

[Ryuku-sama]

Factor in the accuracy like I did. In fact, I just multiplied with accuracy- given the passive evasion and distortion field, it's normally worth MORE. In practice, quads will outperform starting around 1300-ish, given targets like Type 1 Gunships.

 

Fair point.

 

The tracking penalty is a non-issue with this build. Obviously quads are better at high deflection- they are the second best weapon at high deflection, second only to BLC (yes, they are better at high deflection than RFLs).

 

Fair point, but false in the details. under 1000m, LLC at high deflection is better. Quads and LLC have about the same accuracy under 1000m. LLC has better tracking penality. Over 1000m, LLC is fourth to BLC, quad and LC at high deflection.

 

In practice, LLCs aren't used with this build. When they are better, they are barely better. When they are worse, they are much worse. Neither Blackbolt or Sting runs LLCs/Pods unless the pilot is trying something interesting, doesn't have the other laser mastered, or really wants to play with ranges and still have the deflection option for a different playstyle. Since the build does strafing runs, choosing a much shorter strafing run is also much less damage.

 

I do. Booster + StE forced me to use LLC to get some damage in.. Anyway I could chase someone for ages without trouble and close the range as soon as my target is out of engine to a second volley... Or use Wingman to fire over 2000m.

 

 

More importantly, you can ask pilots who live and die by this build. They don't run LLC nearly as often as Quad or even Laser (and Laser really has lower dps), because you deal more damage with the longer range, less-fall-off-with-range weapon.

 

Right. Using longer range weapons may be better with a long uptime CD like TT. With no CD or a short duration one, shorter range may be better for the higher DPS. And I love LLC for another reason... It's surprising how few pilots can actually hit something under 1000m before I kill them. Even with only 24% evasion.

[Verain]

Sorry, had typed quads instead of lights. Clearly lights are better at high deflection, they are the second best weapon in the game at high deflection. My point is that isn't relevant for the build.

[Verain]

Right. Using longer range weapons may be better with a long uptime CD like TT. With no CD or a short duration one, shorter range may be better for the higher DPS. And I love LLC for another reason... It's surprising how few pilots can actually hit something under 1000m before I kill them. Even with only 24% evasion.

 

 

And my point is that if you are running LLC/BO/Pods you aren't running a quads and pods, or playing like one. Quads and pods normally acts like a plasma lance (a weapon we should totally get, btw) versus remote gunships, providing rapid swaps and superior damage versus less mobile or distracted targets. It's exceptional for noob killing if there aren't any real targets to harass, etc.

 

An LLC/BO/Pods build is going to offer some play in a dogfight, be able to strike scouts and strikes reliably, and be less damage versus the thing quads and pods is optimized for. It's a fundamentally different build for a different purpose.

 

 

I'm not saying LLC is a bad weapon, either. It does offer, in its damage zone, the highest dps of any weapon, and it's reasonable on satellites,whereas quads are very painful.

[Ryuku-sama]

Sorry, had typed quads instead of lights. Clearly lights are better at high deflection, they are the second best weapon in the game at high deflection. My point is that isn't relevant for the build.

 

True. But I grew fond of my LLC on my SportsDive, and I can't get them away of my BattleFire

[StrixHiraeth]

No, this is dumb. Plasma doesn't surprise me; it just tells me the whoever just shot me is a free kill and not a threat.

 

T2 is bad, and there is never any reason to fly it other than lulz.

 

While I wouldn't phrase it like this.... If I get hit by a plasma shot, I hit hydro spanner and go after whoever just got plasma all over my beautiful ship.

 

...T2 gunship is the one I have chosen, and will continue to fly...

 

Meh, I will also Heavy laser on my Jurg. How did you do that? My has not.

 

I meant burst cannons.

 

Any gun that's bigger than my Sting is heavy to me!

[Ryuku-sama]

While I wouldn't phrase it like this.... If I get hit by a plasma shot, I hit hydro spanner and go after whoever just got plasma all over my beautiful ship.

 

...T2 gunship is the one I have chosen, and will continue to fly...

 

 

 

I meant burst cannons.

 

Any gun that's bigger than my Sting is heavy to me!

 

lol.... And between.. I love fighting your *** on Jung'Ma.. You,re one of the three imps I actually remember

[Kuciwalker]

There I disagree. Type 2 gunships have a unique playstyle (that you don't see when flying the others), so playing it familiarizes yourself with it. Type 2 gunships have slightly optimal damage options under certain conditions as well.

 

However, from a power perspective you are absolutely correct, of course- the type 2 gunship's superiority in 1/1000 game positions is by no means a fair comparison with the type 1 or type 3. The general lack of good defensive components (missing both armor and distortion), the lack of utility railguns (ion) without compensatory other tricks, the presence of lock on torpedos without the strike or scout's pitch, yaw, or speed (or boost efficiency), and the same options as the type 1 for engine components (barrel roll) means that it's strictly worse than the type 1 in any sort of real compare.

 

 

But... what if they fixed it? What if plasma got buffed, and torps were fixed, and distortion was changed to be a reasonable choice next to directional. Then it would be useful.

 

 

 

It's a different playstyle. The fact that it's balanced poorly is a fault of the dev's tuning, not a fault of the playstyle.

 

At best we are arguing at cross-purposes. I don't understand the usefulness of opining that the Type 2 could be good if they fixed it to not suck.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh yeah? Well...well...YOU'RE dumb. So there. nah nah nah nah nah nah

 

Seriously though, it's kind of ridiculous for you to say "this is dumb" in response to my assertion that the T2 is fun to fly.

 

It's in response to the idea that Plasma can be a scary, lethal weapon.

[MaximilianPower]

It's in response to the idea that Plasma can be a scary, lethal weapon.

 

OK, well that wasn't clear. Next time, please bold the comment you take issue with.

 

Specifically, what I stated was "Few enemies are expecting it, since it's so rarely used (relative to the two other railguns)." Which, I think, is not a point one can effectively argue. So, OK, you and most other forumites here may well understand exactly what's happening when I slap you with plasma...but in my experience, the average GSFer is perplexed. I am not exaggerating when I say that I average one panic-induced suicide every time I spend a match in the T2. So, maybe not "scary, lethal" but most definitely surprising/confusing, especially to those who are already under fire from my teammates.

 

Am I going to fly the T2 against a squad of excellent, highly-experienced pilots? If I want to win, honestly no, probably not. But for fun, against a team of mixed experience level/skill? I'll fly it all day long.

[Altheran]

I see this comes up a lot, but it's wrong.

 

The baseline scout has 1.8 pitch and 1.08 yaw, and engine speed 780.

The baseline strike has 1.58 pitch and 0.96 yaw, and engine speed 744.

 

This means that the scout is 5% faster, can pitch 14% better, and can yaw 12.5% better.

 

My bad. I assumed turning had the same ratio, I was wrong.

 

However, I looked at the stats of the 4 classes on Dulfy, and I'm a bit suspicious at the accuracy of the values :

 

1. Ratios between classes seem to indicate that devs used the Strike as a base for the most part, all pitch values being a x/16 of Strikes'. Nothing wrong at the moment.

 

2. Yaw/Pitch ratio is consistant between Scout and Gunship, while strangely deviating for Strike and Bomber. It's more surprising that if they followed the same ratios, the numbers would be rounded (1.6°/s for Strikes and 1.3°/s for Bombers). To add strangeness, there's no apparent reason why the Strike would be the exception -and the one having the worse yaw/pitch ratio- while being the core of pitch balancing.

 

3. The Strike-Gunship pitch ratio is also applied to gunships' speed resulting in them have (surprisingly) as sharp pitch turns as Strikes. The slight deviation in yaw previously mentionned would mean the gunship has slightly sharper yaw turns. IG experience doesn't give that feel at all.

 

4. Scout and Bomber speed are unsurprisingly exceptions as it allow them to have sharper/larger turns. However Scouts' value being the only rounded value would indicate it has been used as a basis... Which is strange given the first statement pointing at Strike being used as basis.

Not that it is actually relevant, but it seems pretty random. If I'd were to decide that stats would be a variation of one class' stats, I wouldn't change my starting point when deciding final values.

 

5. Yaw and pitch value are ridiculously impossible. 1.8°/s yaw rate for a scout would mean that it takes him 200s to do a full yaw turn (360°). That's obviously wrong.

 

P.S. : Not that I am doubting Dulfy, rather than what UI says is odd. (I checked IG and Dulfy seems accurate - oddities are on devs side)

Edited September 8, 2014 by Altheran