Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[JediBoadicea]

Since the launch of GSF, Domination victory is determined by under-satellite, close-range fighting. It is not a "scenario". It is 60% of GSF matches.

 

Scouts, Bombers, and even Quarrels and Condors all have solid ways to take and hold a node.

 

Strikes need to have a part to play in that game too--one that doesn't require you and a buddy pincing the satellite from top and bottom while you hover motionless in open space.

 

I agree with your point that under-satellite fighting is an extremely common situation. But I don't feel that an ability to be competitive on that one point should be the deciding factor when it comes to looking at possible buffs for a Strike.

 

You include Quarrels in the list of ships that have solid ways to take a node - do you mean at range, or close-quarters with BLC? If at range, there's a chance that a Strike with increased range capabilities benefits in a similar way. If you mean Ion Railgun, perhaps changes to EMP or Ion missiles could help them there too. If you mean close quarters with BLC, their turning rate is no better than a Strike's, and while BLCs might be ideal for close quarters fighting, they are by no means the only effective choice for close-quarters fighting and Strikes have other primaries that can do the job to some degree.

 

My point with all this is not to sound like an authority or like it's all parity, but merely to argue that I don't think there's only one single way to make Strikes competitive in close-quarters, or that close-quarters competitiveness should be the determining factor in considering buffs for them. It isn't only just under-satellite fighting that determines who takes or holds a node; initiative, stopping reinforcements, utility powers - all of those matter. And as often as not, under-satellite fighting is determined by who can flush out defenders so they can be picked off by allies who aren't directly under the node, so Strikes can have a part to play there too. A really good sat-hugger can play merry-go-round-the-sat indefinitely with another close-quarters fighter and will often only be picked off by allies who are free to line up a longer distance shot.

 

At the root of the point I'm trying to make is that the other ships fit roles very neatly. Certain builds allow overlap, but the specializations are pretty distinct. Strikes, on the other hand, are the median ship. Almost by definition it means they don't have a niche. But prolonged gameplay has shown that not having a niche makes it a bit harder to be competitive, hence this discussion at all. My opinion on the situation is that it would be more desirable (or at least more interesting) to give the Strike its own distinct specialization, rather than try to make it more like other ships.

 

A bomber can hold a node, but for the most part is a sitting duck in any place other than a node (or a bomber ball). I personally would think it perfectly fine if the Strike were the opposite; extremely effective in the open and at range, and significantly less so in close quarters. At least that scenario would give the Strike an arena in which it was distinctly effective! Even if that meant it was only a desirable ship in TDM, that would be, by your math of 60% node-critical matches, a 40% and entire game mode's worth of improvement. Currently it's Master-of-None, but I don't think the solution is to turn it into Master-of-All. Let it have some limitations distinct to its type, as long as it has some benefits too!

[tommmsunb]

Sure, such a call would be helpful, but I believe it's counterproductive to stifle this conversation. Yes, some of these suggestions aren't viable (probably even my own) and/or indicate a lack of familiarity with the game, but at least it's discussion. When was the last time a thread got this much attention around here?

 

Other than the obvious trolling, I tend to think any discussion/interest is positive. Just have to hope Alex can separate the viable suggestions from the rest. Maybe if we can reach some kind of consensus amongst ourselves, that would help point him in the right direction.

 

but it won't because we won't reach some kind of consensus. If this game were designed democratically based on what people have posted a lot of we'd be in a very very bad spot balance-wise. A lot of people are posting about removing the 2nd missile break on dfield for example. They're not realizing how vitally important that is for the upper bracket names because when you're a name the other team says "Dog-pile that guy" dfield just barely makes that dog-pile situation bearable. They really don't understand the ramifications of such a change whatsoever because they don't know the spectrum.

 

Discussion/interest is positive but there comes a point when too much lip-service is being made and people just want to make a post because they want to have said something. The content is irrelevant at that point. If the developers see that crap and think "oh this is what the community needs in changes" balance will be too drastically changed from such a simple little change.

Edited May 29, 2015 by tommmsunb

[aidendakana]

hi all,

This is my first post ever on the Dev thread so please be gentle.

 

Thank you Dev's for GSF, at first it was tough and very disorienting, thanks to Conquests it got me in their, I really enjoy it now, but am casual as Operations and story are my first game.

 

Here is my thoughts, I tend to agree with most everyone here, and your opening words Dev's. The Strike wants to be the Jack of all Trades but falls short.

 

I love the Strike first fight I flew, and it taught me the mechanics, however it it sadly just could not keep up with the advanced classes, so here is my 2 cents.

 

1. More armor/hit points, Scouts can blow them in one pass make it 2 to three passes. and Gunships (my current ship of choice) can 1 shot them pretty easy. and pointless against bombers except for fodder.

 

2. flat out speed especially in boosters and length of time they last, maneuverability is fine the scouts should be more agile, but the scout should have to dog fight it's way out not just boost away. it would also give more of a hit and run ability against bombers/gunships.

 

3 main and secondary weapons boost especially lock on shortened and slightly extended range. I would love for the Strike to be more of a missile boat but brutal in close range with primary, so much that in a head-on pass a scout should be limping away. and a tunnel vision gunship is in trouble and a toe to toe Bomber it's going to be a 50/50.

 

on a side note I want to throw this out there. a ranking system for gsf, that at certain point gains you get a special token or cartel market certificates, for rewards you can use on your toons or gsf or SH ( let us choose the reward this would make it much more different from pvp). base it on the same system you have for giving points out, just keep a running total that separates it from the ones spent. We need more reasons to go there.

Another thought is an escort mission protect the capital ship or a cargo ship. and a couple new maps would be nice.

Sorry one more a practice arena where a group of friends or guildies can go in and help new ones to learn so when they go into the real thing they actually can learn instead just going up against vets and are then turned away from it.

 

Joysticks please!!!!!!!!!!

 

thank you again Dev's

[JediBoadicea]

Sure, such a call would be helpful, but I believe it's counterproductive to stifle this conversation. Yes, some of these suggestions aren't viable (probably even my own) and/or indicate a lack of familiarity with the game, but at least it's discussion. When was the last time a thread got this much attention around here?

 

Other than the obvious trolling, I tend to think any discussion/interest is positive. Just have to hope Alex can separate the viable suggestions from the rest. Maybe if we can reach some kind of consensus amongst ourselves, that would help point him in the right direction.

 

I agree that I think the discussion and the interest are great. Speaking as someone who has long been only a lurker here, this one drew me out of lurking (for obvious reasons). The usual suspects who post here most frequently and speak with the most authority are obviously extremely knowledgeable and dedicated, and having seen them fly either in matches or by video I would be quick to agree they are excellent pilots. But the danger of having only a small number of frequently-vocal people is that conversation has the danger of becoming a bit insular; "consensus" is only ever as broad-reaching as the number of people participating in the discussion. With the goal of making changes that will impact the entire gaming base, I think the more input that wider gaming base can provide, the better.

 

Yes, with more voices, the chance for poorly thought out or straight up crazy suggestions increases exponentially. No denying that. Unfortunately, it becomes the task of the devs or employees tasked with reading the thread to sort the wheat from the chaff. That, however, is just the nature of the field. I appreciate that the devs reached out to the community for feedback; as a dedicated GSFer, I'd be sad if my voice were to be excluded entirely from that discussion. I may not post regularly, but when the opportunity presents itself to be heard I'd like to have my chance!

[tunewalker]

For clearity to any one that doesnt know, but I agree that Disto missile break shouldnt be removed, I am also of the opinion that Missile Reload times shouldnt be messed with as I feel they are appropriate for the Appropriate targets (except the futility missiles) What I think strikes need are another secondary, or a primary adjustment or something that can make them actually good against scouts when they take the right components, good against gunships with the right components, good against bombers with the right components and good against strikes with the right components. By good I of course mean great, they dont have to be all, all the time, but they need to be 1 all the time, or some most of the time. And they are just not there yet.

[Nemarus]

A lot of people are posting about removing the 2nd missile break on dfield for example. They're not realizing how vitally important that is for the upper bracket names because when you're a name the other team says "Dog-pile that guy" dfield just barely makes that dog-pile situation bearable. They really don't understand the ramifications of such a change whatsoever because they don't know the spectrum.

 

Discussion/interest is positive but there comes a point when too much lip-service is being made and people just want to make a post because they want to have said something. The content is irrelevant at that point. If the developers see that crap and think "oh this is what the community needs in changes" balance will be too drastically changed from such a simple little change.

 

I think your reply has proven why discussion is so important.

 

I am one of those upper bracket players who is immediately targeted by the opposing team, but whereas many other aces built their playstyle around using Distortion Field to tunnel, I went a different route (S2E/PowerDive).

 

I say this not to say that my way is better, but to say that because of the way I play, it never even occurred to me that Distortion Field's missile break is a vital part of your ability to have fun despite being focused.

 

Now that you've expressed that specifically, I am further pushed away from the suggestion to remove DF's missile break--and hopefully it sways the devs as well.

[MaximilianPower]

but it won't because we won't reach some kind of consensus. If this game were designed democratically based on what people have posted a lot of we'd be in a very very bad spot balance-wise. A lot of people are posting about removing the 2nd missile break on dfield for example. They're not realizing how vitally important that is for the upper bracket names because when you're a name the other team says "Dog-pile that guy" dfield just barely makes that dog-pile situation bearable. They really don't understand the ramifications of such a change whatsoever because they don't know the spectrum.

 

Discussion/interest is positive but there comes a point when too much lip-service is being made and people just want to make a post because they want to have said something. The content is irrelevant at that point. If the developers see that crap and think "oh this is what the community needs in changes" balance will be too drastically changed from such a simple little change.

 

I'm not delusional enough to think that a true community-wide consensus is a remote possibility; I guess by "some kind of consensus" I meant perhaps we can agree on a handful of solid ideas that most of the regulars support. Perhaps a separate thread to enumerate these specific suggestions would help narrow the range of possibilities.

 

Another thing we can't know as players is how easy these suggestions might be to implement. The more of them we have, the more likely it is that Alex & team can find something that is actually feasible. No, I don't want them enacting anything that will turn the meta completely upside-down, but I would like to see something in the way of change. I think most of us would.

 

As JediBoadicea eloquently expressed above (supported by Nem's subsequent post), getting all of these thoughts/suggestions/ideas out into the open is, I think, an important & productive first step.

[SithAceI]

Like I said give strikes DF! Everyone HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!

[CommanderKiko]

I still feel that DF needs at the very least nerfed in it's breaking capabilities. Insanely high evasion makes primary weapons useless against DF being up, and the break makes secondaries useless against DF. There are, of course, ways around this. But the main reason I've all but stopped playing my beloved strikers is because of their sustained damage and lock dependence. DF is a double blow, as it makes sustained damage impossible (evasion counters most your shots) and breaks lock-ons.

 

The scout that makes strikers practically useless by it's capability to 3 hit bombers has the capabilities to, when using its cooldowns, be almost unkillable.

 

TT, which gives the scout the ability to 3 hit mastered bombers, also provides +8% evade +

DF, which adds another +27% evade, + another +8% evade + a lock break +

It's engine abilities, such as retros, that provide another +24% and in the case of retros, you can continue to fire on or get a lock on your target and is another lock break+

Lightweight that provides +5%, +2%, +2%, +2% evade

+ large reactor which makes it more tanky IF you can hit through all that evade above^

 

And as thus, strikers can't touch them. Strikers can't 3 hit a mastered bomber, strikers can't dodge, Strikers aren't nearly as fast and strikers run out of energy far quicker. Further, strikers can't compete in any department, any job a striker can do the t2 scout will do better, faster, and have a higher chance of surviving and continuing to be useful. Yet we are going to ignore this and argue that this clear lack of balance has nothing to do with why strikers are deemed "useles?" Yea, GG and that's why I never forum post.

 

Still, I don't want the entire bloody scout nerfed, instead:

I go back to my other suggestion, to make a shield specifically for lock breaks that doesn't stack insane amounts of evasion to boot. That way you can pick between being unkillable by gunships and everything else, or having a lock break to be more survivable when fighting under a node against bombers.

 

Edit for clarification: the only class completely reliant on lockons for secondary weapons is strikers. This suggestion would improve their worth without a need to really buff them.

Edited May 30, 2015 by CommanderKiko

[DresG]

I agree that DF missile breaker hurts SFs because every missile (except for Clusters) becomes irrelevant when you can't do any damage with them, but removing the missile breaker altogether is not the right way to approach this. A more balanced DF is not one that breaks no lock ons, its one that has a higher cooldown. Scouts need it to be able to get into the fray, burst and get out, but it has to be with a much higher cooldown.

 

Double the cooldown for DF, increase its active Evasion and duration by 50% more than its current value, decrease its passive Evasion by 50% as well.

 

This way DF becomes an Oh s**t button instead of the current "I'm going to joust everyone with my BLC and come on top every 20 seconds"

Edited May 30, 2015 by DresG

[GrimAce]

I'm nowhere near as well versed in the meta as...well most of you, but one thing I'll say is that the only Strike that I've ever really run with any degree of enjoyment or competetiveness is the Clarion. I enjoy how tough it is, and how you can sort of work it to be something of a bunker buster in terms of bomber nests. I dunno about you guys, but I think it'd be interesting if they sort of worked the Strikes to be something of a more mobile, almost tank role.

 

And yes, I know, loathe the trinity and stuff, but really, you could do some interesting stuff with a taunt-like ability or something to force people to target you, shield boost to soak up mines and whatnot, and still have warheads like thermites to bust up bombers.

 

I dunno, just a thought.

[Vasdrakken]

gun ships still need to have the heavier guns, scouts need to be more maneuverable, bombers need to blow stuff up from a distance. So where do strike fighters fit in... well in the movies they are the ones with the three photon torpedoes and afterburners... we have the abilities to slide between the three defense engines and offense, but what if strike fighters simply had afterburners as an ability on top of the three settings so they go like a bat out of hell on a cool down and give them three photo torpedoes they fly into an enemy ship. that might take so brain storming and testing to get working but it would let players close and then fly the torpedo into a fleeing scout or gunship while their fighter follows along. essentially the npc is following the torpedo while the player is flying the torpedo... which keeps the skill involved. Be fun if the Jedi/Sith could cheat a little with the force and only have to get close while the other classes could a benefit to other strike fighters. ie troopers a bonus to gun ships and smugglers a bonus to bombers since they look like cargo ships...

[Linuxizer]

I still feel that DF ...

 

I disagree to tinker with DF. It would unbalance the other ships, and it would not help Strikes much (again, Strikes are currently inferior to bombers, to gunships with DF, to gunships with feedback shield, to scouts with DF, probably to scouts with S2E).

 

If you could only pick one section to buff

 

Some previous suggestions to add 5% to A and 10% to B and 8% to C... are probably effective, but may require more development than Bioware will give.

 

The +100% damage ideas are simple and effective. 100% is like an exaggeration to make the point. +50% should do. In other words, perma-crit instead of perma-DO.

 

More damage is not the way to go for SFs, the problem is that the time on target is really low

 

I see that you use Ion Cannon a lot. I would increase its range, rather than try to re-balance speed/boost and turn-rate of the Strike. But I'm writing on the premise that we get only one buff, so I still say overall damage first.

[tunewalker]

To go along with my earlier post I am going to talk about each individual Strike and how they compare against the rest of the ships with the components they have and what some would think would be the optimal against opposing ships based on how those components design or design intent seem to be.

 

 

 

T1 strike

 

The starting components thoughts can be found here

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=8222221&postcount=146

 

Rather then talk about individual components like I did in the above, I am going to talk about T1 Strike BUILDS, which ones seem like we are trying for something and what isnt working. So to begin

 

 

T1 Strike vs Scout targets.

 

Looking at it the Scout is built to avoid hits, T1 strikes to be good against them would thus need ways to force damage through. The build you would THINK could pull this off is

 

Rapid Fire lasers (T4 Right, T5 Left) (Anti-evasion close range weapon?)

Heavy lasers (T4 left, T5 Right OR left) (Anti-evasion long range weapon?)

Cluster Missiles (any upgades of preference) (reliable against double break)

Quick Charge Shields (any upgrade of preference) (more engines to chase down target)

Barrel roll or Retro's (upgrade of preference) (chase down target, more time on target)

Large reactor

Turning Thrusters (easier to get in sights for weapons?)

Damage capacitor

and either Regen cap, or Munitions cap.

 

But it doesnt, while it appears Rapids are good High deflection lasers truth be told they are just terrible all the way through, they have all the trappings of a possibly good laser, but their lack of damage, lack of range, lack of accuracy, terrible tracking means that even at the one job it MIGHT be good at, it sucks at it. Heavies while good at long range (so decent when a running target which is why you would have them here) they have no capability to track. Clusters ARE in a good spot and preform their job well, possibly TO darn well since their dps is high enough that other missiles even when used on THEIR appropriate target fall behind. So either the other missiles arent doing their jobs well enough or clusters just do to much damage, I lean towards the former (other missles arent doing their jobs well enough) To top it off Quick charge, while it allows you to be better capable of running down your target, this is ONLY if you can pick up Regen thrusters for fighting scouts, because other wise they dont increase boost efficiency enough. If you DONT pick up turning on the Strike and your opponent also has what ever upgrade is done to Rapids, again thanks to QCS leaving your shield defenses at a laughable level whether its rapids, lights or Bursts it wont matter as your defenses will ALWAYS fall before the scouts simply from the fact that their double missile break vs your 1 and their health vs your health with quick charge, they are going to win that fight hands down every time.

 

Second Possible build, Ion Laser for Heavies. Advantages, is it drains shields faster (assuming rapids arent buffed THAT much) and it does SOME drain to energy. The energy drain is honestly to small to make any difference as a "utility" laser and the range is to small for this to be a reliable chase weapon should the scout decide to run, which goes back to the other points.

 

Things needed to make it capable of hurting scouts, Better Engine regen, possibly more health (shields and hull) Rapids to not suck, possibly new primary or new secondary. Even then they wont likely be as good at killing scouts as other scouts, so Strikes likely need some serious help here beyond this.

 

 

 

T1 vs Gunship

Oh lordy where to begin, what even IS an anti Gunship weapon on the Type 1 strike? Heavy lasers? why the armor pen then??? they dont seem to do all that much damage either, doesnt seem like enough to me. Quads, not very accurate for shooting at a high evasion target and its range is even SHORTER. Protons? With that lock and reload time, you are just ASKING to be Sluged and then dodged and SLUGED AGAIN, and what would be hte point of bypassing armor on a target with no armor. Concussion? GS have 2 missile breaks just like scouts, so concussions would be just as reliable. Clusters? Ok so if you can close in that's good so lets go with that assumption.... best case scenario.... I guess.

 

 

Heavy Lasers

Quad Lasers

Clusters

QCS (to better close in)

Barrel Roll (To better close in and chase)

Regen Thrusters (better chase)

Large reactor (better take a hit)

The rest really doesnt matter

 

But again we are looking at Laughable QCS that would allow the gunship to do good damage, you are dealing with weapons that ALMOST are good against gunships on a Strike... but not really, clusters work better as a Scout deterent not a Gunship one, Heavies are MAYBE something that can work, but dont seem to have the range OR the damage neccisary. Quads have the damage but not the range and deffinately not the accuarcy, the only reason scouts get so much success with them is TT. Honestly you need whole knew systems, this again is another "Fix Strike Engine Efficiency." With better engine efficiency they wont need crappy QCS, with more health and more base shields taking QCS isnt as bad and finally fixing QCS's badness in general wouldnt be a bad thing, but beyond that T1 strikes need a new "anti-gunship" missile.... heck ALL strikes do and maybe even a new "anti-gunship laser" because I dont know WHAT I am supposed to be using to hunt and kill gunships.

 

 

Strike vs Bomber

Your dealing with a target that sticks close to cover, has strong shields a lot of hull, and occassionaly Strong Armor. They like to circle a node as often as possible, and they have no missile breaks. If I were to guess the kind of build you want with these guys its.

 

Ion Laser (or rapids.... MAYBE) (for close quarters on node shield stripping or pure damage

Heavy laser (with armor pierce, range allows for mine destruction)

Proton Torp (Armor pen and ignores shields for massive damage, Reload time long enough that not reliable on any target with even 1 missile break)

Charged Plating (able to eat mines a bit better, trap component with out Deflection armor.)

Koiogran turn (on node missile break)

 

Again there is some room for variation here, but again we run into a easy to see problem, Protons are to easy to LoS AND they dont do enough damage, both an increase in damage AND a decrease in lock time is called for, If this is supposed to be the Anti-bomber missile but be nearly useless against anything else then it needs to HURT like its the anti-bomber missile and be reliable for it as was, it already succeeds in being easily dodgable by other ships even IF its lock time was dropped by 1 second. Heavies cant do anything to a bomber that is on the node, and Ions are only good for stripping shields, that SOME bomber types dont care about. Charged Plating is a trap on the T1 strike and no other shield type works against seismic mines of the T1 bomber, to top it off the T2 bombers Rail gun drone has armor piercing. They need a weapon that's good on a node, either to back up Heavies or Replace them depending on the preference of the strike fighter.

 

 

Finally

 

Strike vs Strike

 

This one seems the most readily aparent and easy. Strikes have a lot of health, but only moderate evasion and speed, so basically its just spam Hard hitting weapons and you should do fine.

 

Quads (highest dps laser, not great accuracy, but that's not needed against strikes)

Heavies or Ions (armor pierce or shield destroyer, depending on the type of strike you are hunting)

Concussion missile (They do good damage, easily dodgeable by 2 missile breaks, but its CD is short enough to be reliable against 1 missile breaks.)

Directional shields (beefiest shields available)

Retro's or Barrel roll likely

 

This is easy nearly everything works here pretty well, if I had to say something DOESNT work well for killing other strikes its Concussion missiles lock time is to long and its damage is once again to weak ESPECIALLY by the standards set by Cluster missiles. As it stands it better to just get the missile designed to work against duel missile break ships then it is to get the missile designed to work against he 1 missile break ship.

 

This is no where near a comprehensive list of everything that does and doesnt work with Strike fighter match ups, but to me it seems pretty clear at least from the T1's perspective that basically everything still needs to be done, form chasis adjustments to new components to old components getting buffed. there is a long way before the T1 strikes is the "Jack of all trades" instead of the "Master of none".

Edited May 30, 2015 by tunewalker

[Sadriel_Fett]

Making it to where you can use a control stick or game controller would be a big plus and make it feel more natural.

[DresG]

I see that you use Ion Cannon a lot. I would increase its range, rather than try to re-balance speed/boost and turn-rate of the Strike. But I'm writing on the premise that we get only one buff, so I still say overall damage first.

 

I am uploading a new video (check the SF celebration thread tomorrow) that demonstrates the amount of burst that Ion+Clusters and the underrated RFL provide. Anyone that ignores the lock on and the Ion simply melts, we do not need more damage.

 

We need mobility.

[Nemarus]

I am uploading a new video (check the SF celebration thread tomorrow) that demonstrates the amount of burst that Ion+Clusters and the underrated RFL provide. Anyone that ignores the lock on and the Ion simply melts, we do not need more damage.

 

We need mobility.

 

 

This thread is about buffing all three Strike variants, not one build of one variant.

 

Yes, Ion/Cluster has been hailed time and again in many threads. That is great. But it is neither helpful toward new players nor helpful toward the Pike or Clarion.

[DresG]

This thread is about buffing all three Strike variants, not one build of one variant.

 

Yes, Ion/Cluster has been hailed time and again in many threads. That is great. But it is neither helpful toward new players nor helpful toward the Pike or Clarion.

 

Are Quads and HLC bad primaries? I know you are aware they are good. Pike has access to both and Clarion to Quads, Pike also has access to the most useful missiles(Clusters) and EMP (I agree this one needs a slight buff, but currently its underrated). On both of these ships the problem is still mobility, they feel really sluggish. But ok, if for some reason mobility is not buffed (this is what we really need, time on target), a new SF-exclusive minor component that increases crit by x% (15 tops) to either Primary or Secondary (twice the crit chance).

 

Still, mobility is what SFs need.

[Verain]

I am uploading a new video (check the SF celebration thread tomorrow) that demonstrates the amount of burst that Ion+Clusters and the underrated RFL provide. Anyone that ignores the lock on and the Ion simply melts, we do not need more damage.

 

We need mobility.

 

No, strikes need to be effective. Damage makes them effective, but there's lots of things being discussed about that.

 

I know how this goes: you find some food, you eat the food, you post the link. Who cares? Against actual opponents, not farmed fishies, you don't get to do any of that stuff- you only get a little bit of shots in, and then they aren't a target for you any more. More damage would actually fix that. So would all of the synonyms for more damage, especially if they increase targeting capabilities (more accuracy, longer range, faster lock on).

 

 

Post your link on super serious night, of you in a strike versus a premade or double premade. You won't be dealing much damage, and deciding to pin that to the fact that you can't take the type 1 strike specific ion cannon, and the type 1 specific weapon switch, and append those two to a battle scout, is not the issue. It's not JUST maneuverability- you are essentially saying "if you make this ship into a battle scout, I could do battle scout damage, and fill the battle scout role". Yes, of course. Or, you could play your battle scout.

 

Oh, definitely post that build versus a charged plating bomber. Lets see those mad dps.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Verain

[Verain]

Still, mobility is what SFs need.

 

 

Lets delve into this. There's devs reading, so we should have the discussion.

 

What kind of mobility buff are you talking about? You've left it vague.

 

Do you mean:

> More turning

> Less boost consumption / greater boost regeneration

> A really big boost bar

> A higher top speed

> More rapid engine maneuvers

 

Tune had a thing where he pointed out that if you made strikes able to turn better than anything else, it would fix strikes. I agreed. Do we WANT that fix? The strike shouldn't need scout mobility, and the dev post launching should set the tone of "generalist".

 

 

How much maneuvering? In my post in this thread, I recommended it be increased by 5% (the turning). That's pretty huge change, given that the scouts are 13% better turners than the strikes, and also that having a higher tops speed works against turning tightly.

 

How much do YOU think that they need?

 

 

Now, lets fast forward into your world. Strikes have a buff to turning- somewhere between 5% and 10%, lets say. Further, they get a speed boost.

 

> What does this ship do in domination?

> What does this ship do in TDM?

> What does this ship do versus a scout?

> What does this ship do versus a bomber?

> What does this ship do versus a gunship?

 

With better turning, the short range tricks go up in power. As Nemarus says, this pretty much exclusively helps the Starguard, and it pretty much exclusively buffs ion cannons and cluster missiles, which is pretty much the standard build, while doing not much for other builds.

 

 

In domination, this ship is a bad scout. Just like live, it is the worse choice to chase a gunship (it is slower, and uses engines faster). It is the worse choice on a node (it turns slower and lacks BLCs, and the Type 1 Strike even lacks lights). So it's a mild buff to a ship no one will queue.

 

In TDM, it is a little better, but it is still a bad scout. It can't grab red like a scout, can't deroost a gunship like a scout, can't burst hard like a scout. It can't even hurt a charged plating build easily, and a scout can if he has BLC.

 

So, it has no new role.

 

Versus gunship, it's the same game- the gunship can't out turn you, but he can out gun you if he can get you in front. You won't kill him through disto if you joust, so you have to get behind him. It's the same as now, but you might land an extra cluster or two.

 

Versus bomber, it's worse than the scout.

 

Versus scout, it's not able to keep the scout under nose.

[Justbee]

If u wanna push SF, simply nerf Scouts.

 

All of the real good pilots choose to play Flashfire in op build. Why ? Tons of dmg, nearly indestructable. So for what reason they should play a SF, slow, bad dmg ?

 

Scouts should be scouts, fast in capturing satelites, and strong vs mines with emp for example.

 

When playing Gunship i dislike scouts forcing me in a dogfight. SF ar weak enemies even in dogfight.

 

When Playing Bomber im not able to fire a simple lasershot on good scout pilots in dogfight.

[Verain]

The Jack Of All Trades

 

 

Sam the Strike launched from the cap ship. He was the Jack Of All Trades, the Master of None.

 

He boosted slower than the scouts. He didn't barrel roll with the gunships, because even though he was faster slightly, he couldn't afford barrel roll, because he had chosen retro thrusters. With retro thrusters, he could dogfight, but not as well as a scout. Because he was the Jack of All Trades, Master of None.

 

 

The scouts got to the node. A friendly bomber and an enemy bomber tried to attack each other, and the opposing scouts. Even an enemy gunship was on the node. What a busy node!

 

Sam wasn't there yet, but he switched to his mid range weapons, because he was the Jack of All Trades, the Master of None. His allied bomber took some hull damage from the burst laser scout. The burst laser scout took some hull damage too, and left the node, to run at Sam!

 

Sam tried to hit the scout, but since he didn't need to blow disto on the node, he could use it now. Sam couldn't hit him- he was the Jack of All Trades, the Master of None. The Master of dogfighting could pop TT and wail through disto. The Master of dogfighting could do large damage at short range.

 

Sam couldn't do those things, so he had to settle for a little bit of shield damage. Hopefully the scout would go away.

Sam didn't have the blaster the scout had. But at least Sam had a blaster. It was a decent blaster, no burst laser cannon, but it was good. If Sam didn't have a blaster, he wouldn't even be the Jack of All Trades, the Master of None. So, of course he had a blaster. Just not the BEST blaster.

 

 

 

An ion zapped past! It didn't hit the scout, but it got his attention. Hopefully the scout would go bother the gunship, so Sam could finally reach the node. He would peel the scout, but he knew he couldn't chase him, because he was the Jack Of All Trades, the Master of None.

 

Sam got to the node. The enemy bomber was on the other side. The enemy gunship was stuck- hiding from the friendly gunship. Sam flew over to him, and began locking his clusters. The enemy gunship flew between vanes. Sam began locking his clusters. The enemy gunship instantly stopped all inertia relative to a mysterious universal constant, provoking a much deeper philosophical question about the existence of God and Truth, but Sam was a bit distracted and didn't really follow through with all that. Or the cluster, because the weaselly gunship pressed disto. Sam began locking a cluster, but oh no! Sam was losing front shields. Sam's clusters went out, and hit! The gunship had lost some shields too now. Sam began locking a cluster. The enemy gunship flew between vanes. Sam began locking a cluster. The enemy gunship barreled away! "Oh bother" thought Sam. "Someone else will have to handle him now."

Sam didn't have rocket pods. But at least Sam had a missile. It was a decent missile, no rocket pod, but it was good. If Sam didn't have a missile, he wouldn't even be the Jack of All Trades, the Master of None. So, of course he had a missile. Just not the BEST missile.

 

 

 

That left the enemy bomber. The enemy bomber was dropping powerful mines. Sam shot both down. Good shot Sam! But the enemy bomber was hiding pretty well, and had a lot of armor. Those clusters wouldn't cut it here! Sam dropped his mines. The enemy bomber had nowhere to hide! He was done for.

Sam didn't have seismic mines. But at least Sam had a mine. It was a decent mine, no seismic mine, but it was good. If Sam didn't have a mine, he wouldn't even be the Jack of All Trades, the Master of None. So, of course he had a mine. Just not the BEST mine.

 

 

 

Sam's hull turned orange. Or at least, Sam thought it was orange. He was red-green colorblind, like 10% of all men. The hull mostly looked similar, and so did the shields, but Sam was used to picking out really fine details like that. He really had to focus, and he would have to readjust over the course of weeks if he ever got a new monitor, or it was bright outside, or anything like that. But colors specifically right at the only point on the spectrum where Sam couldn't distinguish were the only possible way to display magnitudes, naturally, so Sam figured it was orange.

 

That meant he had been struck! Sam turned and saw that gunship. The enemy gunship had remembered their fight from 30 deciseconds prior. What a bothersome curmudgeon! Sam switched to his railgun. He shot the gunship. Kaboom! The node was saved.

Sam didn't have a slug railgun. But at least Sam had a railgun. It was a decent railgun, no slug railgun, but it was good. If Sam didn't have a railgun, he wouldn't even be the Jack of All Trades, the Master of None. So, of course he had a railgun. Just not the BEST railgun.

 

 

 

៚

 

Obviously I'm not in favor of adding the class defining weapons of other classes to strikes. But I am interested in pointing out that it's pretty hard to be a generalist in a game of specialists if you fundamentally don't have access to their toolkits, even slightly. Lets be real- the strike fighters are the X-Wings. The Clarion even looks like one. A very pretty one too. That's the real kit behind the design, and the hope that they can be generalists from a game mechanics perspective is going to have a lot of mountain to walk up, because they just lack access to the pieces that normally define that sort of thing.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Verain

[zaskar]

I really feel strike fighters are fine the way they are, in general, strike fighters are almost as good as scouts at dogfighting and some can deny or capture objectives as well as a bomber. What strike fighters are not is the best at something, thus, a bad reputation.

 

In general the "power curve" of the starfighter class is flat, unlike the monsters of the other classes. This makes them seem lackadaisical when they are exactly what they should be, balanced multi-role platforms.

 

What needs to happen is scouts need to get less godly (remove their armor(evasion)) and bombers need to handle worse.

 

Currently the balance is OK, before tweaking on the metagame via roles, could you see about fixing the components that are broken? These are very well documented all over these boards.

 

1. Sabatge Probe
   
2. EMP Field
   
3. EMP Missile
   
4. Thermite Missile
   
5. Plasma Railgun
   
6. Ion Missile (100% worthless, it's a trap weapon system and traps are lame)
   
7. Interdiction everything
   

 

Pretty much if it had a snare it had a "ghost nerf" applied to them and/or they simply don't act as described in their tooltips.

 

Thanks!

Edited May 30, 2015 by zaskar

[Verain]

Your solution to strikes is to nerf bombers and scouts? A bomber in open space is dead on live servers already, balancing them assuming that they spawned on that node seems really unfair.

 

You also opened with "I really feel strike fighters are fine the way they are". Why do you feel this way? You don't fly a strike fighter in serious fights, so you can't really believe that. You, personally, do not fly strikes of any sort, in serious games.

...and your reasoning appears to be that every other ship is better. How do you come to the conclusion that, if all the ships are better than strikes, and no one plays strikes, that all the other ships need to become less powerful, less fun, and generally as crappy as strikes, so that strikes will be, by comparison, less crap?

 

Bombers can only survive if they get to a safe spot. If you nerf them so badly that they can't do anything even there, then their one job is gone. Scouts only survive because of their evasion. It could well be too powerful, but not by nearly as much as strikes fall short of being good.

 

 

Currently the balance is OK, before tweaking on the metagame via roles

 

We get our first dev post in a year or something, and you want to control how they spend their time? No, they don't need to do anything BEFORE fixing balance. It's GLORIOUS that they are here dude. And since you probably didn't read the thread, we did bring up the broken components. But I guess we should have implied that they should be a priority interrupt or something for them.

 

On the broken components (which, again, have been brought up already in this thread):

 

Sab Probe- The bug is the "snare talent" (tier 5 left). When selected, the new debuff seems to replace or negate the other one, instead of stacking next to it. This means that the actual effects of the move (can't maneuver, can't engine or whatever) all go away. This bug happened late spring 2014 (pretty sure).

 

EMP field- The bug is that the tooltip and the radius do not match. The tooltip and radius used to the smaller value, then they were buffed (early spring 2014 I think). The "bugpatch" in summer 2014 reverted the radius (nerfed it, likely accidentally), but left the tooltip with the buffed value.

 

EMP Missle- I don't think this missile is bugged in any way. It is very weak, but it does appear to do exactly what it says. The damage dealt by it is halved against ships, and the tooltip states this. It deals 335 damage to drones and mines, and half damage to ships. Is there another problem with this weapon?

 

Thermite Torpedo- I don't report this as a bug because I can't prove it's a bug. But you are correct to bring it up, because it might be. It would be good if a tester looked into the damage done, because it seems under some situations it does less per tick than implied, but again, normally it behaves as advertised. The hidden possible maybe bug is that it seems to lose lock much more readily than proton- is it possibly not respecting an upgrade talent or crewmember skill on the targeting arc? This normally happens when an enemy is moving fast enough that you lose tracking, but the important thing is, it feels different than proton.

 

Plasma Railgun- I know you think the damage is bugged, but I'm pretty sure it does the right thing. I think Plasma's only real bug is the tooltip truncation- many tooltips were broken in the "bugpatch" last summer, anything with a duration.

 

Ion Missle- Ion Missile does what it says, but yes, it's probably a bug, because the nerf happened with no communication, and during the "bugpatch".

 

Interdiction everything- These seem to be working again. I'm not sure when they got fixed, to be honest. I'm not totally 100% sure on interdiction drive snare, but interdiction drone works, ion snare works, interdiction mine works, for sure.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Verain

[tunewalker]

Howdy Flygirls and Flyboys!

 

I’ll be blunt. Strike Fighters need lots of love. The original design is that they are the Jack-of-All and Master-of-None but they have filled out this role too well and because of it are rarely a compelling option. We want to talk about how Strike Fighters can be made into a good option to bring in any match, by any skill level. We have some ideas of what we want to do with them but because this community is always very impressive with communication and feedback we want to get your thoughts on what you think is the best course of action. We know there are some fantastic threads and posts aplenty that already covered this information but we want to consolidate and create a focused discussion.

 

We want to set expectations though. This is just about gathering feedback and creating a focused discussion on which to possibly make changes based off of. Just a heads up and Musco made me say it

 

So! What are your pet peeves about Strike Fighters? If you could only pick one section to buff would you choose to improve their Maneuverability, Secondary Weapons, Primary Weapons or Defense? Or something different? What would make them more effective in both game modes?

 

Looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts!

 

So people were telling me last night that I have been very long winded with out much help lately, and with all the discussions my opinions on this original thread has changed. So I am going to re-answer these questions.

 

 

Strike Pet Peeves:

 

1. Cant Kill Fast enough

2. Not enough boost efficiency to chase scouts or to close AND chase on gunships.

 

 

If I could change 1.

Before I said Secondaries, but if we go on the belief that each missile was designed to kill SOMETHING really good (Cluster to scouts, Concs to Strikes, Protons to Bombers) then we arent in a PERFECT world but we arent terrible either, we are missing something for Gunships and the missiles meant to kill Strikes and bombers simply are a little behind the curve, but that wont really "fix" them.

Then I thought, ok Primaries, but the issue here is, again, there are almost no primaries the strike has that so many other ships dont ALSO have, yes they have a BAD set of them, but if you made them better then it would result in strikes dieing faster from Light's or Rapids on a scout.... unless the strike took armor which would leave it vulnerable to the CURRENT weapons of choice, and beyond bursts there is still no good "node clearer" weapon. So again upgrading primaries runs the risk of damaging strikes more so then other ships.

Then I though ok easy solution... Maneuverability not being able to chase down targets or shake a tail sucks, which led to the, but I dont want my strike to feel like a scout, I LIKE how my strike handles, I LIKE its turning speed, it feels good. The only thing I REALLY want from manueverability is scout level boost efficiency, I dont want speed I dont want turning unless I BUY those upgrades, I LIKE how my ship handles.

So I have to choose Defense, its the safest one, its the only one that I could be the ONLY thing that is boosted with out accidently messing with the other ships, but if you boost it to high bombers loose their role... except they dont, because Strikes cant fire unless to opponent is in front of them, bombers can hit while LoSing, bombers can avoid more damage then strikes while doing their job. Only thing this risks is turning games into a SLOG of a crawl, as every ship takes forever to kill a strike and a Strike takes for ever to kill every ship.

 

 

To the question what would make them more effective is both game modes? being more effective at killing scouts, gunships, bombers and other strikes. I am not going to speculate how, there is enough of that already, and argueing one way or another on how to do it. Honestly To me its not a question of "which needs help most" because the real answer is..... all of it.

Edited May 30, 2015 by tunewalker