Buff strikes until the forums QQ

[Verain]

This forum has a host of gunship, scout, and bomber complaints. But strikes have a few milquetoast "buff me" threads, and that's about it.

 

 

I think strikes need to be buffed until people with no forum portrait come in to scream about how it's the worst thing in the world that they are invincible/mobile/too much burst/whatever.

 

It's a pvp game. If no one is complaining about the strategy, it's probably not good enough!

[tunewalker]

 

It's a pvp game. If no one is complaining about the strategy, it's probably not good enough!

 

Quoted for the truest statement said on the GSF forums.

[Asbetos]

Part of the reason for the lack of complaints might lie in the fact that not many people actually fly them competitively. From what I've seen in the game and read on the forums, most of the best pilots fly them for fun and messing around and not REALLY doing their best.

 

However, they definitely need a buff. Against a scout, they lose at evasion, they lose at maneuverability, they lose at burst, they lose at speed, they lose at engine endurance. They win at shield and hull strength, but that means very little when scouts can either run away, out-turn you, pop-evasion+burst CDs and take you head-on without breaking a sweat. Against gunships no evasion -> ion -> dead in the water.

 

They do have a better chance against bombers because they can take more punishment but, due to the lack of short range teeth, it really takes a lot of skill to pull it off.

[tunewalker]

Part of the reason for the lack of complaints might lie in the fact that not many people actually fly them competitively. From what I've seen in the game and read on the forums, most of the best pilots fly them for fun and messing around and not REALLY doing their best.

 

 

Competitive pilots fly competitive ships to be competitive in. If Competitive Pilots are not flying strikes Competitively .

[Gavin_Kelvar]

They do have a better chance against bombers because they can take more punishment but, due to the lack of short range teeth, it really takes a lot of skill to pull it off.

 

Actually I don't think it's the lack of short range teeth that's the problem. Rather it's fact that their heavy hitting long range weapons (especially torpedoes) forces them into a long attack run flying straight and level which leaves them greatly exposed to enemy fighters. So they rely on the quality of their teammates more so than a scout. The Clarion in particular suffers from lacking HLCs which, IMO, is why it doesn't shine more in the offensive role.

 

But striker weapons do give them the ability to engage outside of the mine/drone/turret threat range bombers usually hole up in which I think is a distinct advantage over scouts. But it only shines as an advantage when the rest of your team can keep enemy fighters off your tail during an attack run.

 

This being said I agree with your analysis of striker vs. scout. If strikers were more competitive in a dogfight I think we'd see them flown much more often.

[Verain]

I mean, discussing specific buffs seems a bit whatever. For what it's worth, I think giving heavies to the type 3 would greatly reduce what makes the type 1 and type 2 special- I think the difference between each strike is less important than the overall position of the group.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I mean, discussing specific buffs seems a bit whatever. For what it's worth, I think giving heavies to the type 3 would greatly reduce what makes the type 1 and type 2 special- I think the difference between each strike is less important than the overall position of the group.

 

I guess to me HLCs are the strike equivalent of GS slug rails, it just feels weird not having them as an option. I get that quads were probably meant to be the class iconic weaponry (given how similar it looks to X-Wing quads) but I think HLCs are as much the iconic weapon of the class as quads (IMO they give a look similar to ARC-170s which, from a purely aesthetic view, would look so cool on a Clarion). Granted it's probably hard to pin down a class iconic weapon since strikers were clearly meant to have very flexible builds to suit different flying styles so what's an iconic weapon to me might not be to someone else.

 

Regardless you're right that the overall position of the striker class is far more important than the difference between variants.

[Verain]

I concur that the heavies are, in practice, the weapon a strike normally wants to use, AND that it was likely intended to be the quads. Quads are pretty rare outside of strikes, with the type 3 bomber being able to bring them, and mysteriously the battle scout, who also get the gunship burst laser cannon as his weapon.

 

 

I think the real thing is that, the type 1 and type 2 both seem to compete for some kind of dogfighting role, and have little to recommend them over similar combatants. The type 3 is even weaker offensively, but at least can bring solid support. I just get cross when I see stuff like "the strike is a generalist". That may even have been the intention, but in practice I just don't see it.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I think the real thing is that, the type 1 and type 2 both seem to compete for some kind of dogfighting role, and have little to recommend them over similar combatants.

 

I agree, they definitely feel like they were meant to be dogfighters. IMO they're held back by a combo of striker frame base stats and some odd component choices that effectively hold them back (lack of Retros on T2s, lack of LLCs on T1s etc.). they also seem to have trouble competing since the scout class, and battle scouts in particular, can have the same effective blaster range unless the strike is using HLCs.

 

The type 3 is even weaker offensively, but at least can bring solid support.

 

I honestly always feel bad about the T3 getting classified as "support" since, in concept, it has the basics needed to be a phenomenal heavy fighter. A reason why I don't think HLCs would take away from T1s and T2s since it's offensive equipment plus defense gears it towards the offensive role of heavy fighter more so than a T1 or T2 can perform.

 

I just get cross when I see stuff like "the strike is a generalist". That may even have been the intention, but in practice I just don't see it.

 

Probably what their concept was IMO (the dev posts way back at the start of early access at least seemed to indicate that was their intention for the class). My impression was that it was meant to be more adaptable dogfighter than the scout, primarily in the sense of being the best at switching from offense (seizing a sat/digging out bomber ticks) to defense (second only to bombers). But intention or not it certainly didn't work out that way in the meta, as early access revealed scouts could perform just about any offensive role a strike could but better and bombers obviously supplanted strikes in the role of defense. Part of me thinks that's why the class is so weak, it was designed around a certain concept which in practice has no real role in the meta.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Estiqatsi]

I think nerfing distortion field (starting from removing missile unlock) would put strikes in a far better position than they are now. Having missiles in the current meta where everyone has a double missile evade seems honestly pretty meh. This doesn't apply to bomber, which is the only ship a strike have a serious chance against. Oh and clusters, but at this point one can just go battlescout .

[RickDagles]

I agree. It's the combination of evasion stacking and the extra missile break that makes it slightly OP. Good use of directional shield essentially absorbs 1 cluster missile damage but then you're giving up the passive 9% evasion and active HUGE evasion buff, making you a lot more susceptible to slug railguns and lasers. Also, anything that penetrates shields is going to hurt you more even if you are ninja-fast with your shield switching. One of the top pilots on TEH uses a build that is vastly different from the meta but he puts up great numbers, which tells me DF isn't rediculously OP.

 

Quads/Clusters/Booster Recharge/Directional Shields/Retros/Concentrated Fire. There's more than one way to crack an egg as a Battlescout. Although it would be interesting to see how much better he would be with BLC/Pods/TT/DF/Retros/Wingman.

Edited November 3, 2014 by RickDagles

[Ardaneb]

I think nerfing ...

 

The original post is so right. Developers, please buff strikes. It is not necessary to get bogged down in specifics. Any buff will do.

[Bolo_Yeung]

I think nerfing distortion field (starting from removing missile unlock) would put strikes in a far better position than they are now. Having missiles in the current meta where everyone has a double missile evade seems honestly pretty meh. This doesn't apply to bomber, which is the only ship a strike have a serious chance against. Oh and clusters, but at this point one can just go battlescout .

 

Still I manage to hit with my concussion missiles pretty often... Peronally I think that 2 locks are pretty good balanced (especially since DF is weaker than other shield types)

GIVE the DF and BLC to strikes, this should even the odds.

[Ryuku-sama]

Still I manage to hit with my concussion missiles pretty often... Peronally I think that 2 locks are pretty good balanced (especially since DF is weaker than other shield types)

GIVE the DF and BLC to strikes, this should even the odds.

 

False. I don,t have the math under hand, but Verain posted a while ago how evasion stacked scout EHP was higher than a max shield strike. Only way to get more EHP than evasion stacked scout is with DOUBLE Directionnal (Large + Crew), Overcharged (Large + Crew), Fortress up (Large + Crew), 94% DR against non armor piercing weapons. Now the problem is simple. double Directionnal leave your back open. Overcharged can't recharge itself so is near worthless without EtS. Fortress forces you to stand still. And DR stack leaves you open slug railgun, torpedoes, Concussion with armor pen, HLC and BLC. Three of them being the dominant weapons in the current meta.

 

Then you have to consider that all these shield allow one and only one missile break on a 10-15-20 sec CD. Overcharged don't even allow you one.

 

Distortion is the best shield around.

 

 

I would love to have BLC on my Rycer

Edited November 3, 2014 by Ryuku-sama

[MDVZ]

False. I don,t have the math under hand, but Verain posted a while ago how evasion stacked scout EHP was higher than a max shield strike.

 

When they're all up, yes.

 

When they're not you have a piece of paper with high firepower.

 

So that comes down to the skill of respective pilots - can the scout pilot have all his evasion CDs up when in combat and evade when not, and can someone trying to kill them do so when their CDs are down? The answer to both is yes, of course.

 

But even that analysis is wrong, because most shots are fired off-axis and/or at longer than optimal range. So tracking becomes a factor; a very hard one to calculate for a typical battle (easy at extremes though). The upshot is that evasion allows anything that has it (scouts in particular, obviously) to survive large amounts of long-range, off-centre fire that would be more likely to hit something without evasion. So the effective health, especially while buzzing round among large numbers of enemy ships, is much, much higher. Against, say, heavies at the edge of their arc you can have a greater than 100% chance to miss a scout with light armour, whatever crew member for passive boost, distortion, running interference and TT (80-odd% evasion Vs 20% tracking penatly from -2% per degree over 10 degrees (half the arc, if I understand it correctly; if not its 40%)).

 

So if you want strikes to kill scouts, give them lower tracking penalty weapons, and if you want them to survive attacks from scouts, give them evasion, basically.

 

I would personally like to see a low-medium tracking penalty weapon with medium-high damage that only strikes can have. Have them have their own uber-blaster for tracking targets at mid-high range that's a bit better than quads or heavies to close the gap. I think thats quite fair, since stingfires get BO or TT to significantly augment the damage of their weapons for about half the time. Strikes get quads as well, but nothing to give them more damage, so just give them a gun that gives them more damage.

 

Edit: I like flying strikes and scouts, btw. Even the pike. But, yes, at higher levels of play, everything but strikes has a real strength they can play to and make people whine about them, and strikes don't. So give them better guns. Simples.

Edited November 3, 2014 by MDVZ

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I would personally like to see a low-medium tracking penalty weapon with medium-high damage that only strikes can have. Have them have their own uber-blaster for tracking targets at mid-high range that's a bit better than quads or heavies to close the gap. I think thats quite fair, since stingfires get BO or TT to significantly augment the damage of their weapons for about half the time. Strikes get quads as well, but nothing to give them more damage, so just give them a gun that gives them more damage.

 

Edit: I like flying strikes and scouts, btw. Even the pike. But, yes, at higher levels of play, everything but strikes has a real strength they can play to and make people whine about them, and strikes don't. So give them better guns. Simples.

 

I'm not sure you could give them "better" guns without buffing other classes. Unless there's some behind the scenes coding the devs have that would allow them to make HLCs with strike specific stats (for example). The way so many components are currently broken I'm unsure of the wisdom of adding more things where they could get broken behind the scenes.

 

This being said it might be worth tweaking accuracy/tracking penalty stats to reflect that there's pretty much no way to counter evasion stacking even close to a 2:1 ratio much less 1:1. On select weapons they could do something like massively buff the base accuracy so that the primary reason they'd miss is tracking penalty (basically do like Verain has suggested in making some weapons essentially the evasion equivalent of weapons with 100% armor pierce).

Edited November 4, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[MiaowZedong]

When they're all up, yes.

 

When they're not you have a piece of paper with high firepower.

 

So that comes down to the skill of respective pilots - can the scout pilot have all his evasion CDs up when in combat and evade when not, and can someone trying to kill them do so when their CDs are down? The answer to both is yes, of course.

 

But even that analysis is wrong, because most shots are fired off-axis and/or at longer than optimal range. So tracking becomes a factor; a very hard one to calculate for a typical battle (easy at extremes though). The upshot is that evasion allows anything that has it (scouts in particular, obviously) to survive large amounts of long-range, off-centre fire that would be more likely to hit something without evasion. So the effective health, especially while buzzing round among large numbers of enemy ships, is much, much higher. Against, say, heavies at the edge of their arc you can have a greater than 100% chance to miss a scout with light armour, whatever crew member for passive boost, distortion, running interference and TT (80-odd% evasion Vs 20% tracking penatly from -2% per degree over 10 degrees (half the arc, if I understand it correctly; if not its 40%)).

Even that is not quite accurate.

 

If you have, say, "only" 110% accuracy—and this is very difficult to achieve without Wingman, even perfectly centered you must be very close and you must run Pinpointing—a scout still has 23% passive evasion. This translates to a 30% increase in EHP, so even against this high accuracy the scout effectively has slightly more shields and slightly less hull than the strike, for overall slightly more EHP.

 

And of course, there are more and more powerful Evasion cooldowns than there are Accuracy cooldowns. And also, abilities like Bypass and even Concentrated Fire would see alot more use if HP stacking was actually competitive, so it's not entirely fair to consider Evasion vs. Wingman and then compare it to HP stacking vs. nothing.

 

That said, "butt it until someone QQs about its power" is actually not a bad rule of thumb to apply.

Edited November 4, 2014 by MiaowZedong

[Verain]

Like, sure, scouts are overtuned. And yea, evasion is too strong, and the missile lock break defines the meta (actually the best argument for leaving it in place).

 

But just like... buff strikes.

 

 

That's the thing. That's the WHOLE thing. Scouts are too good, but the game isn't all scouts, at any level of play. Gunships are very strong, and they have counters. Bombers are very resilient and good and have solid strategies, and they have counters. And a balanced team is scouts, bombers, and gunships, working together....

 

 

And the strikes are pretty weak. The Clarion is ok support, and the other two aren't much at all.

 

 

 

That's the problem. Are scouts too good? Doesn't matter. This game has three good classes and one poor one. The FIRST priority should be fixing the poor one. Does anyone really think the game just can't be balanced with scouts having two-three missile breaks? I would argue it is almost balanced already- it just needs strikes in the party. So lets take the bulk of our angerface, and ask for strikes to be frustrating to play against.

 

That's the thing, ok? When the scout can't be hit, that's his thing. When the gunship hits you from range, that's his thing. When the bomber lets out the poops and you have to run away, that's his thing. Strikes don't really have a thing. If you are like "lets nerf disto", I say, no, lets instead buff something about strikes so that your attitude becomes "lets nerf disto and also remove whatever about strikes". You should be angry at strikes like you are at everything else. Because those ships are fun, and they are most of the game. More powerful strikes, more fun ships.

[tunewalker]

That's the question I think needs to be asked.

 

 

What do strikes have that no one else does?

 

Quick Charge shields are rare for some most ships.

 

Directional shields are slightly rarer on other ships.

 

Strongest base shields and shield regen, gets offset alot by piercing and shield types that arent "strong" with out conditions.

 

Ability to swap between to laser weapons on the T1 (this is where a buff to rapids and NEEDED buff to them is probably the biggest help) Ion Laser cannon (obvious buff is obvious) so something needs to happen for this to be annoying.

 

Conc missiles are a bit rare on other ships

 

T2 strike Has the unique ability to swap missile types, this needs to be important. All strike ONLY have missiles as secondaries, all other ship types have access to other secondaries. Only powerful missile is Cluster, Other ships do have access to missiles though so this is not unique, but the ability to use 2 is still unique to T2.

 

These are things they need to hate. If any one else can think about something unique about them say something.

 

 

Just remember every one this is a "buff strikes" thread not a "nerf x thread"

 

 

Edit: Maybe make quick charge = to base shields (yes remove penalty) and Directionals up to +20%, Def buff Rapids and Ions, Def do SOMETHING with T2's unique missile way up (maybe even do huge buffs for Ion and EMP or something) As usual dont know WHAT to do, just do something to make people hates strikes as much as they hate the rest.

Edited November 4, 2014 by tunewalker

[Loadsamunny]

Part of the reason for the lack of complaints might lie in the fact that not many people actually fly them competitively. From what I've seen in the game and read on the forums, most of the best pilots fly them for fun and messing around and not REALLY doing their best.

 

However, they definitely need a buff. Against a scout, they lose at evasion, they lose at maneuverability, they lose at burst, they lose at speed, they lose at engine endurance. They win at shield and hull strength, but that means very little when scouts can either run away, out-turn you, pop-evasion+burst CDs and take you head-on without breaking a sweat. Against gunships no evasion -> ion -> dead in the water.

 

They do have a better chance against bombers because they can take more punishment but, due to the lack of short range teeth, it really takes a lot of skill to pull it off.

 

What are you trying to say, that Strike Fighters are the weakest class because they are balanced and flexible instead of specializing in one specific role? That's akin to comparing them to a hybrid.

[Ryuku-sama]

What are you trying to say, that Strike Fighters are the weakest class because they are balanced and flexible instead of specializing in one specific role? That's akin to comparing them to a hybrid.

 

They aren't flexible at all. They are right now a support mid range figther. But every single ship can outclass them

[Gavin_Kelvar]

That's the question I think needs to be asked.

 

 

What do strikes have that no one else does?

 

Quick Charge shields are rare for some most ships.

 

Directional shields are slightly rarer on other ships.

 

Strongest base shields and shield regen, gets offset alot by piercing and shield types that arent "strong" with out conditions.

 

Ability to swap between to laser weapons on the T1 (this is where a buff to rapids and NEEDED buff to them is probably the biggest help) Ion Laser cannon (obvious buff is obvious) so something needs to happen for this to be annoying.

 

Conc missiles are a bit rare on other ships

 

T2 strike Has the unique ability to swap missile types, this needs to be important. All strike ONLY have missiles as secondaries, all other ship types have access to other secondaries. Only powerful missile is Cluster, Other ships do have access to missiles though so this is not unique, but the ability to use 2 is still unique to T2.

 

These are things they need to hate. If any one else can think about something unique about them say something.

 

 

Just remember every one this is a "buff strikes" thread not a "nerf x thread"

 

 

Edit: Maybe make quick charge = to base shields (yes remove penalty) and Directionals up to +20%, Def buff Rapids and Ions, Def do SOMETHING with T2's unique missile way up (maybe even do huge buffs for Ion and EMP or something) As usual dont know WHAT to do, just do something to make people hates strikes as much as they hate the rest.

 

Perhaps rather than buffing components like directionals which are already good do what someone else on the forum suggested and add a "shield hardness" stat that is the opposite to bleedthrough/piece. the trouble would be balancing it with CP since you could basically get a strike that has super durable shields with no bleed through plus insane DR if you manage to cause their shields to break.

 

At least for the T3 you could add sensor components that buff accuracy or reduce lock on time to make that component slot useful to them (plus you could add that sort of component to notably weak ships like the T3 scout or T2 GS). Not sure what you could add to T1 & T2 strikers unless you added a mirror component for magazines that would be strike exclusive (point being you'd have to give all strike variants access to the buff component without putting it in a slot that already provides meaningful buffs to them).

[Verain]

What are you trying to say, that Strike Fighters are the weakest class because they are balanced and flexible instead of specializing in one specific role? That's akin to comparing them to a hybrid.

 

Strikes are neither balanced nor flexible. With the highest shields and the second highest hull, they are CLEARLY balanced with those- but the weight is too high. The extra shields definitely matter, but not nearly as much as the more substantial defenses of the other classes.

 

The idea that strikes are a generalist or balanced or a hybrid is wrong. Do they have a little railgun? Little mines? No? Not a hybrid. Slow scout.

[ALaggyGrunt]

The problem with poking around with minor components is: everything else has them, too. A buff to, say, sensors, will mean a buff to T1/2 GS (hah), some bombers, T1/3 scout, and T3 striker.

Capacitor will buff basically everything but bombers and T1 GS.

Armor will buff basically everything but T2/3 GS and T3 bomber.

Shields will buff everything except T2 striker and T1 scout.

 

If you're going to balance strikers by secondary components, you have to either add more to strikers, or make new ones specifically for strikers-or both.

 

There's also room to improve the primary ones.

EMP missile, for instance, could have a dumbfire mode: if it's not locked onto anything, it could fly until it either hits something solid or maximum range, and detonate. This would help greatly with the vulnerability to gunships: much less time spent straight and level.

T2 strikers could get thermites, which would make them better against bombers.

Heavy lasers pierce 50% armor at tier 0.

The type 1 striker could get more weapons choices (LC/LLC/BLC or a new one).

Power dive. This component makes a T3 bomber/striker more mobile and harder to missile than either the T1 or the T2.

Weapon power converter could be modified to increase burst potential, and/or increase lock-on times for hostile missiles, and/or increase boost efficiency.

 

Quick-charge shields need to have lower strength penalty-or none at all.

 

And, there's also room to improve base stats:

Resistance to snare and other debuffs.

Cost of boosting.

Turn rate.

Passive evasion. Since strikers can't stack evasion like scouts (best passive evasion is 19%, active is 34%-which comes out about like an evasive scout with no cooldowns).

[MDVZ]

I'm not sure you could give them "better" guns without buffing other classes. Unless there's some behind the scenes coding the devs have that would allow them to make HLCs with strike specific stats (for example). The way so many components are currently broken I'm unsure of the wisdom of adding more things where they could get broken behind the scenes.

 

I appreciate your wariness there, but 'breaks things behind the scenes' is written on all the devs CVs, in bold, underlined italics. It's just a fact of the game. I'd risk it to try for a better strike-only weapon.

 

Even that is not quite accurate.

 

Quite right, I accept the correction.

 

I do completely agree that everything else is fine as well, and strikes need to be made more competitive.

 

It's a tricky one to figure out if we stick to the 'strikes are generalists' intention. That can also mean ' strikes are weak against all specialities', in which case, they nailed it.

 

If not give them a better, exclusive gun, I like the idea of buffing concs and protorps, as they're unaffected by evasion. When maxed clusters can hit a bit less than 90% as hard as maxed concs, with half the lock on time, theres something wrong there. The range is nice on paper but its hard to take advantage or as its also more chance for the target to break the lock, and the extra lock on is comparatively crippling. Moreso for protorps.

 

Drop them to 2.5 and 3.5 second base lock on and increase their crit chance significantly: 20% or something. Maybe more. Perhaps also make them faster. 'Wait for release and evade' is just too good a defence against missiles, especially with 2 breaks. Currently, you can close right in, and get inside the scouts little sphere of death, or release from a distance and probably waste the missile. Higher damage (through crit, so its not one-shot to kill or remove shields all the time), shorter lock on, faster missile = strikes have a way to seriously threaten scouts at a range the scout struggles to threaten the strike. The scouts job is then to either greatly increase or decrease the distance between them, and the strikes is to maintain that advantage.

 

With these buffs to concs and protorps, higher accuracy/lower tracking penalty on heavies, that would make strikes very threatening at 4-10km (depending on the strike/build), which is a strength that still allows them to be 'generalists'.

 

It would also make them better against everything else, of course, especially bombers, but then that's the idea, isn't it? But, scouts would have to close or flee, bombers hide, gunships run, which is much the same as it is now, except the strike has a better chance of killing you if you don't do one of those.

 

Bombers would benefit from some of these buffs as well, but not as much (though perhaps that just evens out the increases strike threat to bombers?). A bomber still can't aim heavies or missiles as well as a strike as their turning rate is much lower, and they want to stay near their nests, so are less able to control distance to target, but they're going to have better heavies and just maybe missiles, that they're less able to use.

Edited November 4, 2014 by MDVZ