@Devs- Stabilize your rear deflectors!

[Ryuku-sama]

I think as far as tactical game play goes we are in agreement. Where we disagree is when it does and should meaningfully exist. In our hypothetical battle we have going here the next logical step should be the counter move of the 8 Gunships being countered by 8 Scouts. However I think that this only exists at the high level play. I do not think 8 intermediate scouts will counter 8 intermediate Gunships. I also think the only way that you can truly make Strikes a true player in the meta is to make mid-range superiority a real thing. Mid and long range missiles seem to be the most logical means to that end, but they have to be a real threat more that just an annoyance. People complained a lot when Distortion's T3 was bugged some even saying the game was unplayable. I say it was a good thing and that people were uncomfortable because it created a significant paradigm shift in game play. Which I think we all agree is needed.

 

I remember the Disto bug days.. Nope. Once you're used to flying a Speed StE nova, dealing with lock spam is easy. Just use Power Dive and you don't really need Disto breaker.

 

I said it. Strike problem isn't that their missiles aren't threat. It's that their survivability is ****. They rely on shield or armor while most weapon can bypass the former and the most used ones bypass the later. Their missile breaker has a way too long CD for a fighter. They have a way too high engine consumption (the only way to compete with a scout in engine field is to field QCS which enhances the first problems). Its speed is somewhat decent but its turning could need a buff.

 

Again. Problem with strike isn't they aren't able to be mid range threat. Problem is they are easy to swat aside because they lack escape opportunities once long range spot them BEFORE they are in range or short range bring the fight to them where their inferior maneuvrability is their downfall.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Ryuku-sama

[CommanderOtto]

I agree with most of what Verain has to say. However, I will point out a few things I do disagree with:

 

I agree with these ideas.

 

Unchanged Cluster Missiles are pretty weak, but I didn't think about Double Volley.

Rapid Lasers definitely needs a buff. I use them on my main Scout and even when they're almost fully upgraded, they still don't hit hard enough.

I think that Ion/EMP Missiles need a shorter lock-on time. They do almost no hull damage and only hit one side of the shields. they're even weaker if the ship has Shield Recharge.

 

I disagree with Verain here... it should be left as it is because I do not feel they do much damage, but they are great at short range fighting when enemy player keeps turning away from you, so you can lock on quickly if you have the opportunity. Also, although it does not provide that much damage, it has a great psychological effect... players tend to run away when they get the missile beeping at every few seconds, allowing me to aim and use my blaster.

 

Rapid Fire Laser

Verain Recommends: Moderate buff

This gun loses out compared to the other short range options. Being efficient at firing is not good enough to make this weapon strong. It also is a default component on the two stock ships and a lot of players assume it's a good gun. It is a big trap. Literally buff anything about it.

 

I also disagree here because the rapid fire laser has a huge aim circle..... which allows me to better aim when locking on target at very close range. Example: if you are using the heavy leaser weapon, the aim area is small, and the enemy ship keeps flying out of that range, cancelling my lock on. So, if I am at medium range, I use the heavy laser, and at close range I switch so that I may lock on better. Additionally, people overlook the fact that rapid fire laser eats away at shields very well and consumes very little weapon energy.... specially useful when you couldn't destroy the enemy pilot by flying straight at him for a few seconds. On those moments he/she keeps turning, you can fire and miss plenty of shots without worrying of emptying the weapon bar. I am not saying it shouldn't get a buff, but I think it has some advantages.

Edited February 2, 2015 by CommanderOtto

[Lendul]

Give Rapids shield piercing that way they can actually kill via 1000 cuts.

[Ryuku-sama]

Give Rapids shield piercing that way they can actually kill via 1000 cuts.

 

I love that idea!!!!

[Caernos]

I also disagree here because the rapid fire laser has a huge aim circle..... which allows me to better aim when locking on target at very close range. Example: if you are using the heavy leaser weapon, the aim area is small, and the enemy ship keeps flying out of that range, cancelling my lock on. So, if I am at medium range, I use the heavy laser, and at close range I switch so that I may lock on better. Additionally, people overlook the fact that rapid fire laser eats away at shields very well and consumes very little weapon energy.... specially useful when you couldn't destroy the enemy pilot by flying straight at him for a few seconds. On those moments he/she keeps turning, you can fire and miss plenty of shots without worrying of emptying the weapon bar. I am not saying it shouldn't get a buff, but I think it has some advantages.

 

CommanderOtto, I just want to point out that the firing arc of your lasers (the aim circle) actually has no effect on the lock on of your missiles. The area you can missile lock a target in is the fainter, non-bolded circle. The easiest way to observe this is by flying a quell or pike with heavies/clusters/protorps. When you swap to cluster missiles, you'll notice that the bold aim circle (firing arc) of heavies is contained within a thinner more faint circle which is your firing arc for clusters. Then when you switch to protorps, that faint and thinner circle shrinks and lies within the bold circle of your heavies.

 

Don't get me wrong, its still very unlikely that you'll hit something with heavies in a turning fight due to their narrow arc, but you can still lock clusters on to an opponent. Bottom line, the size of Rapid Fire Laser's firing arc has no effect on the targeting arc for missile locks.

[Verain]

Give Rapids shield piercing that way they can actually kill via 1000 cuts.

 

This is an excellent idea. I'm not personally partial to whatever buff rapids get, but this one would be exciting. Right now the thing that makes rapids "special" is their low cost, but this is neither exciting nor effective. Shield piercing would make them unignorable and make the "rapid fire" part more machine-gunny.

 

 

I do not feel they do much damage, but they are great at short range fighting when enemy player keeps turning away from you, so you can lock on quickly if you have the opportunity.

 

Cluster Missile is the highest dps of all the lock on missiles, with an extremely fast reload time. It's far and away the most effect for a given lockon time as well. The damage of double volley is very close to that of a concussion, and there's a lot less investment to make that happen. The fact that they are so good when an enemy is trying to escape is sort of the problem- why should they be so much damage that is unavoidable? Out of the field of all missiles, clusters and concussions seem the go-to missiles, but concussions seem a lot more interesting in their powers and tradeoffs.

 

You say why clusters are good, and I would argue that this is why they are (a little) too good: you can't get these effects with the other missiles, and a slightly less punishing attack cycle would put them a bit in line.

 

I also disagree here because the rapid fire laser has a huge aim circle.....

 

First of all, it doesn't. Burst laser has larger. Secondly, the slightly above average area it DOES have is still meaningless- with such a low baseline accuracy and dps, when you factor in the average damage per second at the end of the arc it is truly trivial. And when you FURTHER factor in the fact that you never get to actually hold rapid fire ON a target anywhere but the direct center, and as such you get almost no shots off (remember that rapid fire doesn't front load much damage), it becomes truly ineffective.

 

Example: if you are using the heavy leaser weapon, the aim area is small, and the enemy ship keeps flying out of that range, cancelling my lock on.

 

Third, this is incorrect (and is pointed out above me). You have TWO targeting circles, one for your missiles, and one for your blasters. It is the exact same process to lock on with a concussion while you have rapid fires or heavies active.

 

 

I go into more points about RFL being trashcan here:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=7213927

[Kuciwalker]

1 button? Maybe for those begineer GS pilots. Especially in T3 GS.

BTW "yeah, GS has to be good at close and long range as well"

 

T3 GS is a different animal and clearly less powerful qua gunship than the T1.

 

Please show me the extra missile or offensive cooldown on the T1 that I've been missing.

[Ryuku-sama]

T3 GS is a different animal and clearly less powerful qua gunship than the T1.

 

Please show me the extra missile or offensive cooldown on the T1 that I've been missing.

 

Wingman. Potentially Feedback if you're dumb enough to use it.

[Kuciwalker]

Wingman. Potentially Feedback if you're dumb enough to use it.

 

Come on. Wingman is available on every single ship.

[Verain]

Come on. Wingman is available on every single ship.

 

And feedback is on both the type 3 and type 1 gunship as well.

[Ryuku-sama]

Come on. Wingman is available on every single ship.

 

Uou asked to name you offensive CD or missile you forgot on the T1.. You never specified it had to be unique to the T1.... And outside my gunships, I'm using Suppression more than Wingman

[Drakkolich]

So interestingly enough we see very little talk about the Jurgoran/Condor being overpowered, it's almost always the Mangler/Quarrel that people seem to yell about. However in this argument that Gunships shouldn't have close range weapons the Jurgoran/Condor definitely has superior close range weapons to the Mangler/Quarrel.

 

Comparing these two ships is always interesting because the trade offs between the two are so obvious.

Ion Railgun + Barrel roll + Armor minor

VS

Cluster missile(or Interdiction missile) + Power dive(or Retro thrusters) + Thrusters minor.

 

 

What this ship does is sacrifice it's ability to counter Bombers as hard and gives up power in Gunship duels to better stand a chance vs it's counter the Scout.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about why counters shouldn't be absolutes, because with the Jurgoran/Condor you are a less focused Gunship. If you wanted to play only Gunship for example you could put both these ships on your bar to play vs whatever they are fielding.

 

I'd also like to point out that in a Scout vs Jurgoran/Condor fight the Scout still has the advantage but it's a smaller one.

[Ramalina]

I remember the Disto bug days.. Nope. Once you're used to flying a Speed StE nova, dealing with lock spam is easy. Just use Power Dive and you don't really need Disto breaker.

 

I said it. Strike problem isn't that their missiles aren't threat. It's that their survivability is ****. They rely on shield or armor while most weapon can bypass the former and the most used ones bypass the later. Their missile breaker has a way too long CD for a fighter. They have a way too high engine consumption (the only way to compete with a scout in engine field is to field QCS which enhances the first problems). Its speed is somewhat decent but its turning could need a buff.

 

Again. Problem with strike isn't they aren't able to be mid range threat. Problem is they are easy to swat aside because they lack escape opportunities once long range spot them BEFORE they are in range or short range bring the fight to them where their inferior maneuvrability is their downfall.

 

You may remember the disto bug days, but you're clearly not remembering from a strike pilot's seat.

 

The difference was the ability to use missiles to pressure or peel a target. Chiefly scouts and gunships, but then strikes don't really need much help vs. bombers.

 

With double breaks, what happens is that the target gets the lock tone, uses DF's break to buy time to finish what they were doing (normally trying to kill the strike or one of the strike's teammates), and then is still perfectly fine with regards to missile defense against the strike. The strike is limited to primary weapon damage + copilot cooldown when it comes to putting offensive pressure on the defender, and right now that amount of pressure is extremely weak, especially when it's trying to get through a buff to evasion.

 

In a single break world where the break is tied to an engine maneuver things are very different. If the defender chooses to ignore the lock tone, they have significant risk of taking substantial damage on top of the strikes primary weapon dps. If they choose to go defensive, they're much less likely to be able to continue being offensively productive at the same time. Any engine maneuver other than retro forces a pause in DPS, and flying to LOS may still allow DPS to continue, but it tends to make it much more difficult and the rate of DPS tends to go down quite a bit.

 

That still wasn't as good at pressuring or peeling a target as the common scout builds or gunships are, but it was a huge improvement over having just primary weapon damage as a tool for pressuring or peeling a target.

 

Yes, a single break StE style of scout play is still pretty much immune to missiles, but it has a maximum sustained offensive potential that's substantially lower than double break disto builds that stick around and keep killing things while the StE scout is busy running away. If a strike can force a standard battlescout to start flying like a StE T1, that's a significant advantage for the strike, and for the strike's team. It doesn't matter if the scout gets away as long as it's not being productive any more.

 

I don't feel that I need an extra or shorter CD missile break on strikes. For that matter, if you fly a strike like a strike, I don't think they really need any help defensively in the current meta (provided one thinks that it's o.k. for BLC-Cluster and Quads & Pods to be strong and moderate counters to strikes). I do feel that strikes are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to the amount of time they can spend being offensive vs. defensive, and also at an enormous disadvantage when it comes to forcing other ships to go from offense to defense.

 

I'm not even suggesting DPS or burst parity with scouts or gunships, just make it more practical for a strike to extract a heavy price for being brushed off and ignored. Right now the price a strike can expect to get is a penny or two from the take-a-penny dish, and that's not competitive with, "defend yourself or die," or, "No entry, Minefield."

 

More defense might be nice, but if when you're trying to put out peak dps the most fragile ships in the game regard that dps as not a significant threat, more defense or maneuverability is not going to help you be a threat, or to be relevant in the meta.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Ramalina

[Verain]

I do think the type 1 gunship is a little more popular and a little bit better of a ship. You're correct to point out that the trade offs are very visible. I also think that it's visibly a bit of a hybrid- thrusters and capacitor make it a lot more able to dogfight, and power dive allows it to escape the hammering of missile locks without having to jet across the map.

 

Maybe these tradeoffs are why you don't see the number of complaints? Not having ion and armor component means that the ship really is trading away some chunk of its power versus bombers and gunships in exchange for that melee capability. I also think that type 3 gunship pilots are not as numerous as you might expect, which still sort of surprises me. The type 1 gunship is unarguably more focused at the "rail sniping", so maybe the concern is when someone closes to melee and the gunship can still meaningfully return fire, that's the cause for the consternation?

 

I'll say this: the type 1 gunship's entire game when in melee with a non-baddie scout is to run and hope that someone peels or drops mines. Without that, it's a variable length game with only one real out. My normal tech is to get near some obstacles and try to prevent the scout from having the ability to endlessly lock missiles and fire BLCs, but there's no way to damage their hull during this little dance.

[Ryuku-sama]

You may remember the disto bug days, but you're clearly not remembering from a strike pilot's seat.

 

Nope. I remember them from a Double Torp seat.. SO an even more strike'ish ship than a strike.

 

Problem with strike is simple, they can't keep up with other ships. I'm mostly using cluster missile for the high damage 30 double volley can do. I can easily force anything to go on the defensive... Except if it's a battlescout and it chooses to go on the offensive.

Gunships doesn't stand a chance if I get sub 7km. They will be forced to run. Even on my Imperium which has likely the worst offensive pressure, I can force a gunship to run with a torpedo lock and Quads. Problem is that outside of my Rycer (QCS being viable only on the Rycer, the Quell lacking reactor) I can't keep the pressure long enough to score a kill if the gunship chose to run. if it chose to fight back in close range, my Imperium can make the fight lasts ages but can't score a kill (Quad are aweful when you can't dictate the engagement with Retro). I can and will score the kill on the other ships. On my Quell, I'll use Cluster spam and HLC when I can line up a shot (shield pen FTW). On my Rycer, with HLC and Retro I can stay outside BLC range easily.

On my Rycer I can easily kill most scouts. Ion/Cluster/Retro will eat BLC-scouts in matter of seconds. HLC will kill Quad'n'Pods scouts and between Retro and QCS engine buff, you can keep up with the scout long enough to turn the fight into a true attrition fight. None of my other strike can reliably take on scouts and likely win. They don't have the ability to dictate engagement range and the engine regen my Rycer can get with QCS and Retro. This is the first huge problem strikes have.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Ryuku-sama

[Verain]

I think it's difficult to say exactly what problem strikes have. I'm happy that the community mostly agrees that they DO have a problem.

 

We had a thread where some players were discussing how to nerf battle scouts. It's a reasonable topic, they are a bit too good and they sort of take the jobs of other scouts and strikes. Players immediately posted, but it was VERY interesting...

 

> Some were in favor of removing or reducing the BURST. Their idea was that a scout was mobile and able to get behind the enemy, but probably shouldn't bring super powered burst once it had that lined up.

> One was in favor of reducing the max boost capacity, to map the ship to more of an "interceptor" role- not able to keep up the pressure forever, but very dangerous to any targets it could chase.

> A couple wanted to reduce the turning and speed a tiny bit, keeping its powerful surgical strikes but likely handing the "scoutiest scout" job to the type 1 scout.

 

So all of these players had the same battlescout, but to them it was a different thing- and it was a little too good at the "other role". But there was NO AGREEMENT as to what that "other role" was. Certainly, if a dev walked in and tried to implement what the players were saying, he would have ticked off several of them- and these were the players who all agreed it should be nerfed in the first place (not a universal opinion!).

 

 

Strikes are similar, in that players seem to want different things out of the strikes. I recommend buffs to the baseline in this thread because it's a numbers thread, and it would solve the problem. The ships feel really bad at dogfighting versus scouts, given that in order to deal damage you MUST get the scout under your crosshairs. A bomber can at least drop a deployable that can hurt the scout if he stays on his course, and a gunship can, if he shakes the scout for a moment, stop to snipe someone else far away, and still be doing some of his job. The strike just ends up having to tank the scout, or, worse, trying to dogfight in an unwinnable fight.

 

But there's a lot of OTHER ways you could go with it. A lot of other things that would make the class better.

 

My problem is this- engaging at medium range is not very meaningful, because so very little time is spent there. A ship approaching with boost and a bit of a roll can't be meaningfully struck, and even if you are able to take and land every shot with quads or heavies from make range to 800m you won't normally even break the shields, because you just don't have the time. Once past that point, you can't really reacquire the target, and you don't have access to much in the way of short range weaponry. Rapid fires are far too weak (and shouldn't be), lights are decent but still require nose-to-target in a ship that simply can't do that very easily, and the ability to lock on missiles is a strong one but isn't going to make the ship class solid- at least not in a meta where the type 2 scout has cluster missiles, which is definitely the one we're in.

 

 

So I suggest the extra running. It's an easy fix, it is CAPABLE of fixing the class, and it would address the issue where the strike fighter is largely a support dps that can't really support much. But it could be totally different. Other things could be changed instead. And unlike the "we can't agree how to nerf the battlescout" thread, if the devs DO swoop in and arbitrarily buff some parts about the strike fighters, no one will be devastated. Break the battlescout and you shatter the hearts of a ton of the dedicated players, AND you get a gunship meta unless you also nerf those. Fix all that and you have to checkface the bombers to ensure that they didn't just become too good by comparison. Meanwhile, we know that the strikes could be buffed and the meta would only get deeper.

[Ryuku-sama]

So I suggest the extra running. It's an easy fix, it is CAPABLE of fixing the class, and it would address the issue where the strike fighter is largely a support dps that can't really support much. But it could be totally different. Other things could be changed instead. And unlike the "we can't agree how to nerf the battlescout" thread, if the devs DO swoop in and arbitrarily buff some parts about the strike fighters, no one will be devastated. Break the battlescout and you shatter the hearts of a ton of the dedicated players, AND you get a gunship meta unless you also nerf those. Fix all that and you have to checkface the bombers to ensure that they didn't just become too good by comparison. Meanwhile, we know that the strikes could be buffed and the meta would only get deeper.

 

This!!!! More boosting capacity and turning first for strike. Then assess the changes in the meta for maybe 2-3 weeks.

[MaximilianPower]

This!!!! More boosting capacity and turning first for strike. Then assess the changes in the meta for maybe 2-3 weeks.

 

/signed

 

I was Quelling around earlier today (yes, I just used "Quell" as a verb), and Verain's post above resonates with me. Solid first step...unlikely to shatter or redefine anyone's favorite class but enough to mix things up a bit. I'd be really interested to see how these seemingly minor buffs would alter overall gameplay.

[Delta_V]

This!!!! More boosting capacity and turning first for strike. Then assess the changes in the meta for maybe 2-3 weeks.

 

This would be enough to get them in the ballpark, and from there I think you would be better off tuning each Strike individually. Some thoughts for each one:

 

T1 Strike:

- Buff Ion Cannons to 5K Range

- Grant access to Light Lasers

- Buff the accuracy drop-off and damage drop-off of Light Lasers so that it has the longest effective range of the 4K weapons, but leave them with the worst tracking penalty of these weapons (ie, they can actually be used at close to 4K meters).

- Buff RFLs by giving them accuracy and damage drop-offs between those of Light Lasers and BLCs. Some shield-piercing may also be in order to compensate for their utter lack of burst damage.

- As the "dogfighting Strike", I would consider giving it access to Power Dive. This might step on the toes of the T3 Strike slightly, but it would let the T1 better compete with Scouts. The T2 and T3 both have something "different" about them (long range missiles, group buffs, etc.) but the T1 basically plays like a heavy Scout, so I think giving them components that let them go head-to-head with Scouts might be warranted. Not to mention P-Dive would make them much less susceptible to Ion Rail, which is the absolute bane of Strikes in TDM.

 

T2 Strike:

- Buff Ion Missile's shield damage, and drastically reduce its reload time.

- Buff EMP missile by reducing the reload time (although this may necessitate reducing the T5 lockout durations) and lock-on time. Maybe make it a short lock-on (to the tune of two seconds) but give it a narrow firing cone. This would let it be used against Bombers and mine/drone clusters without exposing yourself for so long, but limit its use against other ships.

- Buff Proton Torpedoes. Not sure how exactly, but their impact just feels underwhelming for how difficult they are to land. I know other ships have access to these, but T2 Strikes are their most common users, and buffing Proton Torpedoes would affect them more than other ships.

 

T3 Strike:

- Of the three types, the T3 is in the best place right now, since it actually has *some* role in the meta. But if the other Strikes get buffed, the T3 might need a buff to its offensive potential, so its group buffs don't get overshadowed by its relative lack of killing power.

- Heavy Lasers seem like a good fit for this ship. If the T1 was able to switch its Heavies for *viable* RFLs or Light Lasers, having access to Heavies on the T3 wouldn't step on its toes too badly.

- Thermites could also use a buff, for much the same reason as ProTorps. And it's not like the other ships that have access to them are dominating the meta or anything, so I don't think a buff here is too dangerous.

[DamascusAdontise]

my strike suggestion tends to get lost in all the arguing, but ill restate:

 

give strikes better baseline turning

 

give strikes better baseline acceleration and deceleration (this thing should get to max speed instantly, and decell almost as fast)

 

I think adding to their boost capacity would be nice, but IMO would rather see a baseline speed increase. Either would work though.

 

And for the negative nellies, faster acceleration and deceleration would make the strike better at dogfighting. Not scout level mind you, but they would be much more able to survive and get to mid distance to re-engage.

 

This is not the end all be all for strikes, they need further tuning. But at least some of verains or my suggestions would make them less "clunky" feeling.

[Verain]

If you actually improved something baseline about the strikes (aka, better at turning than live, or boost consumption between bombers/gunships and scouts instead of equal to bombers/gunships), and you still needed fixes, component fixes would definitely help. But, of the points you have there:

 

First you have a massive buff to ion cannon. This buff would probably leave the ship with "ions plus one other weapon". That's not really the end of the world, though, as the ship kind of already is. It would make this ship extremely good at damage, and the Starguard can actually deal excellent damage to anything it can hold under its sights. I dunno how much of a buff would be too much. The range does feel very low on that cannon, and it's obviously intentional but... still.

 

Second, you want to add light lasers. This is a fast fix (and I like it), but I would really want RFLs fixed as well (your suggestions would be one way of doing this). Lights are just a better version of RFLs on live (don't make me hunt the math down, random person reading this who wants to claim erroneously that rapids are better at high deflection), so if you are wanting to add them because rapids are poor, instead ask for a buff to rapids. If you envision a playstyle for rapids and lights and both being good post-buff, then lights are a good addition. Both would be fine if they felt different- maybe someone would even want to run lights/rapids around a satellite.

 

I'm lukewarm on power dive. It's a fun move, and powerful, but strikes seem like they are supposed to have some set of "missile break" components, and some set of "don't break" components, and the type 1 strike already has a pretty great set of "missile break" ones. If anything, give that weapon power converter a job on the type 1 strike. Power dive doesn't feel like it should be handed out, and the ship does already have retros.

 

For the type 2 strike (for my money, the weakest ship in the game) all you have is component buffs. Note that all of these component buffs are in my OP with buff recommendations already. Also note that none of them are specific to the Pike. This ship definitely suffers for lacking retro thrusters, if we were going to start adding engine components that would be my first pick by a mile.

 

The type 3 strike, if it benefits from any passive buffs to the class at all (such as maneuvering, etc), and CERTAINLY if EMP/ION/PROTON (and thermite) get buffed, will have already seen buffs. Remember that this ship's missile options are EMP, ion, proton, and thermite, so your component buffs already boost it a great deal. Also note that this ship is already pretty good. I think adding heavies to it would be totally cheeseball. The ship lacking heavies prevents it from overlapping too hard with other ships, and preserves its support role. We're already talking about a world where it got buffed secondaries and maneuvering- I don't think you'd need anything else, and homogenizing the lasers is pretty far from good.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Verain

[Ramalina]

Different builds and different styles do make a difference apparently.

 

I run QCS on T1 and T2 strikes, and in engine and crew upgrades it's usually all engine upgrades, though sometimes on the T1 I'll pick up one turning upgrade. Regen thrusters on the T1, speed on the T2.

I occasionally run clusters, but concussion is my core missile, and I'm fond of torpedoes. My favored T3 build right now runs Quads and Thermite.

 

I also have a very engine pool management centric flight style. I prefer engine power powerups in TDM to damage overcharge by a slim margin, and I normally use LOS and make an initial approach to a target at 100% throttle, but don't boost until I'm starting the guns/missile attack run. I normally consider it to be mis-play on my part if I started boosting more than 10 km away from the target. In that sort of scenario, extra boost is chiefly a luxury item for strikes, though this is colored in part by my inclination to try getting the kill in the initial burst, as opposed to going for cluster spam on a running target. I would love extra boost, but I really don't need more unless I propose chasing after very boosty T1 scout builds, and that would take a gigantic increase in boost.

 

I also see the T1 as being slightly anomalous for the strikes. The ion cannon is a genuinely good short range weapon, and stacked with clusters or concussions, the combination is almost enough to force a fast enough peel to disrupt scout or gunship dps in an on demand fashion. I'd characterize the difference between burst scout and railgun peels vs. strike peels in this way: when it's a scout or gunship peeling the target reacts reflexively, with a strike they may still react quickly, but it's not automatic and they have that extra half second or second to think about how to react, to press the defensive cooldown, to finish one more shot (or maybe two or three). It's soooo close to being good enough, but not quite. I think of the small hesitation before you can fire again after switching to or from ion cannons as a small eternity. Sort of like the small eternity for directional shield switches.

 

I suppose as an evening-out buff for strikes as a class, boost and maybe maneuver(TBH, I think that with added boost you could address maneuverability by actually feeling free to take the existing maneuverability upgrades), would benefit the T2 more than the T1 (which almost has enough burst to peel) and T3 (which does tank well enough to really drag out a fight to bomber length proportions).

 

Honestly, I'd like both missile balance and boost efficiency for strikes. Either by itself would be a sort of half-assed fix, but together I think you'd have a wide array of viable strike builds across all three types even in the high end of the meta.

 

I guess that the overall consensus is that strikes are under-budgeted in attributes. Max out any one element, mobility, DPS, defense, etc. and you can get good enough performance to contend in that area, and if that's the area you care about most as a pilot, you can sort of get by with the ship as a whole if the environment isn't too hostile. Under pressure though, the sacrifices that you have to make everywhere else just leave you behind other ship classes no matter which area you prioritized.

 

 

 

 

 

As a side note, without QCS equipped I do feel like both the T1 and T2 are badly deficient in both mobility and defense, if you fly a sort of general full map dogfighting style. For directional to compete I feel like you need to either have a team that's good at peeling for you or you have to fly a more bomber-like style in terms of keeping close to cover. Without QCS sustained offensive pressure also becomes extremely challenging if you have to chase a target. Basically, if I fly a more Ryuku-sama style build, my balance concerns suddenly become almost identical. It's just that I consider that to be an over-all less viable build, so I view it more as a, "I wish that build worked well enough to be desirable in general use," rather than viewing it as part of strike balance as a whole. A bit short sighted on my part, and possibly indicative of how discouraging GSF balance has been for strikes since Beta.

 

Low expectations, eh? If you get right down to it, I'd settle not for strikes being better at killing, not for strikes being better at damaging, but for just being better at scaring other ships off for a few seconds when it really counts.

[Delta_V]

If you actually improved something baseline about the strikes (aka, better at turning than live, or boost consumption between bombers/gunships and scouts instead of equal to bombers/gunships), and you still needed fixes, component fixes would definitely help. But, of the points you have there:

 

First you have a massive buff to ion cannon. This buff would probably leave the ship with "ions plus one other weapon". That's not really the end of the world, though, as the ship kind of already is. It would make this ship extremely good at damage, and the Starguard can actually deal excellent damage to anything it can hold under its sights. I dunno how much of a buff would be too much. The range does feel very low on that cannon, and it's obviously intentional but... still.

 

Second, you want to add light lasers. This is a fast fix (and I like it), but I would really want RFLs fixed as well (your suggestions would be one way of doing this). Lights are just a better version of RFLs on live (don't make me hunt the math down, random person reading this who wants to claim erroneously that rapids are better at high deflection), so if you are wanting to add them because rapids are poor, instead ask for a buff to rapids. If you envision a playstyle for rapids and lights and both being good post-buff, then lights are a good addition. Both would be fine if they felt different- maybe someone would even want to run lights/rapids around a satellite.

 

I'm lukewarm on power dive. It's a fun move, and powerful, but strikes seem like they are supposed to have some set of "missile break" components, and some set of "don't break" components, and the type 1 strike already has a pretty great set of "missile break" ones. If anything, give that weapon power converter a job on the type 1 strike. Power dive doesn't feel like it should be handed out, and the ship does already have retros.

 

For the type 2 strike (for my money, the weakest ship in the game) all you have is component buffs. Note that all of these component buffs are in my OP with buff recommendations already. Also note that none of them are specific to the Pike. This ship definitely suffers for lacking retro thrusters, if we were going to start adding engine components that would be my first pick by a mile.

 

The type 3 strike, if it benefits from any passive buffs to the class at all (such as maneuvering, etc), and CERTAINLY if EMP/ION/PROTON (and thermite) get buffed, will have already seen buffs. Remember that this ship's missile options are EMP, ion, proton, and thermite, so your component buffs already boost it a great deal. Also note that this ship is already pretty good. I think adding heavies to it would be totally cheeseball. The ship lacking heavies prevents it from overlapping too hard with other ships, and preserves its support role. We're already talking about a world where it got buffed secondaries and maneuvering- I don't think you'd need anything else, and homogenizing the lasers is pretty far from good.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but those were just a bunch of component-level suggestions that could be used to tweak each Strike type after a baseline buff. So if, for instance, the T3 turned out to be fine after the buff, you can ignore those suggestions, But if it ends up being too weak compared to the others, those were some simple suggestions to make it better.

 

First, I actually did suggest buffing RFLs, in addition to adding Light Lasers to the T1. I'd make the RFLs superior to Light Lasers at short range, but have worse damage/accuracy dropoff, so they're only effective out to 3-3.5k. Light Lasers, on the other hand, would have higher tracking penalties and be less effective at very short range, but actually be usable out to 4K. The dps numbers would have to be tweaked for each laser as well, so each one has a role, but I'm too lazy to do the math right now.

 

The idea behind the Ion Cannon buff was to make it synergize better with Quads. Right now, the best combo for the T1 is Heavies+Ions+Clusters. Even though Ions don't synergize with Heavies, this is the best combo because Heavies are the only choice for Armor Piercing, and then for the other spot, Quads overlap with Heaveis too much, and RFLs just suck. That leaves Ions, which pair pretty well with Clusters. But if RFLs were buffed, and Light Lasers were added, T1 Strikes might be better off taking an actual "killing" short-range laser to complement the Heavies. That would create the combo of Heavies, RFLs/Light Lasers, and either Cluster Missiles or Concussion Missiles, which would let you threaten targets over an extremely wide range. Then, if Ions were buffed to 5k, they would synergize better with Quads, you would have the Quads+Ions+Clusters combo, which trades the versatility of the other build for mid-range burst damage.

 

The Power Dive suggestion was a last minute thing because the single biggest threat to T1 Strikes in TDM is Ion Rail. Getting your power pool zapped, and having absolutely nothing to counter it, is extremely frustrating. Gunships (or at least, the *good* ones) have a button to push in those situations (D-field). Scouts can get 2(! (D-field and P-Dive) on top of being harder to hit to begin with. T1 and T2 Strikes get... nothing. Any buffs to mobility would help with that, since you're at higher power levels on average; I've just had so many frustrating experience in TDM when I switch to Strikes where I repeatedly end up drained and helpless.

 

I completely derped and forgot to mention adding Retro Thrusters to the T2. I've endorsed that addition in the past, and it would definitely have a big impact.

 

For the T3, again, those were just ideas if it turns out the buffs improve the killing ability of the T1 and T2 to the point they overshadow the T3's group buffs. If the T3 is fine after the baseline buffs, just ignore them. With the proposed changes to the T1, it would have the tricks of instantly switching from short range to long range engagements or going "hello, you're dead" at mid range, depending on components. So I don't think simply adding Heavies to the T3 would step on the T1's toes too badly. Again, not something that I think *needs* to happen, just a possibility if the T3 ends up needing a buff.

[Pherdnut]

Alright, here's a numbers thing. If I keep locking on to somebody and they do something stupid that faceplants or butt-rams them into a rock, I should get an assist for that kill even though they deserve credit for the actual death. I mean that in seriousness and in humor. It takes time/skill/persistence to stay on somebody until they do something suicidally dumb. And doing that through all of their lock-breaks until somebody panics themselves into a double-'doh is a very effective contribution. I've had matches where I killed a half-dozen people in a row just getting locks on them repeatedly until they decided they were screwed anyway and took a risk that didn't pan out.

 

In the gunship-equivalent-scenario, the target runs out of gas in open space trying to maneuver faster than somebody's mouse and the GS pilot gets what I would call an easy kill based on my GS experience.

 

Also, do gunships get damage rating for the actual health eliminated or total damage of the killing blows that go above and beyond total health. I've had matches where I wasn't just finishing other people's kills over and over again, scoring as many or more kills as gunships but they still dwarfed my damage levels. Whether damage rating informs rewards or not (I have no idea), it feels like GS contribution is overstated when you look at the numbers. I'm guessing it does inform rewards which is silly, because then the best strategy for beefing up the kinds of ships you really want to fly is to always field a gunship.

 

I'm mostly content with balance as it stands. I'm just tired of contributing to wins but not feeling like it's reflected in the stats or the rewards.

 

As for strikecraft balancing, I'd take a note from humanity. We can't outrun most land mammal predators but we can outwalk anything on the planet. It's as big of an evolutionary advantage as opposable thumbs. Give them the best engine power/regen in the game such that they can catch up with any non-scout easily if they know where it is. They should have a lot more power/regen than the GSes because it takes a ton of engine power just to get close to them without being sniped in the first place. IMO, once a sniper is spotted and targeted, they should have to move to survive if they don't have a lot of support from non-sniper teammates acting as a buffer. That they'd be close to strikers in speed makes sense, but their engine power is way too good in my experience.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Pherdnut

[CrazyOldMystic]

Orignal poster you are childish at best. Not only could you not counter my points, but when another poster comes in and brings a valid point. Your answer is go and just leave? LOL Oh by the way as for whats wrong with the pvp forums, it has to go a long way with everyone believing they are 100 percent right all the time, and anyone that disagrees with the majority well of with their head. Tends to breed bad discussions that are narrow minded like what you just did on page six op.

 

To any developer reading this post take a close look at page five and six where they openly admit that they want gunships to control both long range and short range combat. Translation they want to be at the top of the kill screen with no death or very little deaths. It is very clear that they have no interest in balancing gsf as whole for all ships and variants.