Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[Ershiin]

Sadly at this point in serius games a t3 GS is just a support Rail to T1`s ion+ slug

 

It`s the best "carry" team GS since its offering a "better then strike" fighting close range ability"

 

i would say what a T3 bomber does in a serius game but that ship was never spotted their(a bit of irony)

 

a T3 Bomber is a better strike then most strikes. And still it dosent make him a good ship.

 

He has an acctepable drone, incresed mobilty but lacks: close range danger ability of t1 bomber, regen ability and team buff of t2. He has powerdive, but it` usage moves him of satelite. Also 3 weak mines at best(or 3 useless mines) isent cutting it. , For good guns it has quads and heavies, and I agree that Heavy with range cap + conc incresses its threat range to scouts.bot nowhere need needed lvl to be considered a good ship.

 

Oh I didnt mean to speak of those two ships like they were amazing ships.

Just that they seem to be better at doing what the SFs are intended to do. (Which is essentially to act as filler/support once you got enough of the specialists set up.)

[Etrii]

Oh I didnt mean to speak of those two ships like they were amazing ships.

Just that they seem to be better at doing what the SFs are intended to do. (Which is essentially to act as filler/support once you got enough of the specialists set up.)

 

 

Agreed 100% then

 

 

also the problem is that a serius game dosen`t need filler ships. couse the gap between specialised and filler is to big.

[CommanderKiko]

But seriously, who gets elitist over GSF? I've topped scoreboards, I don't go telling people they're lousy when they die repeatedly. I'm actually grateful just for it to pop half the time.

 

^ This is why I try to introduce new players to the meta. This is why I feel we should keep newbies in mind when changing the meta. This is why I feel that keeping insanely OP ships OP, then trying to make strikers even more OP to compensate is counter productive - as now newbies are just going to get nuked by yet another ship while simply trying to learn how to fly.

 

Elitism has no place in GSF, it's hard enough to get queues to pop as is.

[Koichi]

^ This is why I try to introduce new players to the meta. This is why I feel we should keep newbies in mind when changing the meta. This is why I feel that keeping insanely OP ships OP, then trying to make strikers even more OP to compensate is counter productive - as now newbies are just going to get nuked by yet another ship while simply trying to learn how to fly.

 

Elitism has no place in GSF, it's hard enough to get queues to pop as is.

 

Well, let's face it. GSF has little reward from participating in it. Exp and credits you gain for your character are so-so, your starfighters--despite all the customization and upgrades you make--will only appear in GSF and not somewhere where you can show off your fighter in your guild's flagship or your own stronghold (which to me, is a major bummer. I see no reason why we can display our hard earned starfighters in our strongholds), there's no commendations or reputation points for GSF (NOT referring to the Kuat Yards flashpoint), and there's no vendor that sells anything we can exchange for the nonexistent commendations.

 

GSF would get a better pop if BioWare added more rewards or features to establish a solid incentive for us to play it more often. I like GSF, but the queues are long and there's little reward form playing it. Even regular PvP has more going for it than GSF in terms of rewards. HECK! That Starship Railing MINI GAME offers more rewards from playing it than GSF! That's how messed up GSF currently is.

[CommanderKiko]

Well, let's face it. GSF has little reward from participating in it. Exp and credits you gain for your character are so-so, your starfighters--despite all the customization and upgrades you make--will only appear in GSF and not somewhere where you can show off your fighter in your guild's flagship or your own stronghold (which to me, is a major bummer. I see no reason why we can display our hard earned starfighters in our strongholds), there's no commendations or reputation points for GSF (NOT referring to the Kuat Yards flashpoint), and there's no vendor that sells anything we can exchange for the nonexistent commendations.

 

GSF would get a better pop if BioWare added more rewards or features to establish a solid incentive for us to play it more often. I like GSF, but the queues are long and there's little reward form playing it. Even regular PvP has more going for it than GSF in terms of rewards. HECK! That Starship Railing MINI GAME offers more rewards from playing it than GSF! That's how messed up GSF currently is.

 

I don't think I could agree more, unfortunately this gets too far off topic. As I said earlier, the entire meta has a problem, and what you stated is indeed a big part of it. Sadly this in no way pertains to strikers and thus will surely be glossed over in this thread - and rightfully so to some degree. Still, I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who feels this way.

[Koichi]

I don't think I could agree more, unfortunately this gets too far off topic. As I said earlier, the entire meta has a problem, and what you stated is indeed a big part of it. Sadly this in no way pertains to strikers and thus will surely be glossed over in this thread - and rightfully so to some degree. Still, I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who feels this way.

 

Yeah. Sorry about that. It's just that I really love GSF and it has so much raw potential, yet BioWare is killing it. I've already re-posted my last comment in a new thread in the Suggestion Forum and the GSF Forum.

[idnewton]

Elitism has no place in GSF, it's hard enough to get queues to pop as is.

To be frank, elitism has no place anywhere.

[Etrii]

Quote: Originally Posted by CommanderKiko View Post

Elitism has no place in GSF, it's hard enough to get queues to pop as is.

To be frank, elitism has no place anywhere.

 

Can we please cut the offtop and focus on the main topic? Strikefighters

 

Feel free to make a topic about Elitism in GSF in seperate window

[phalczen]

^ This is why I try to introduce new players to the meta. This is why I feel we should keep newbies in mind when changing the meta. This is why I feel that keeping insanely OP ships OP, then trying to make strikers even more OP to compensate is counter productive - as now newbies are just going to get nuked by yet another ship while simply trying to learn how to fly.

 

Elitism has no place in GSF, it's hard enough to get queues to pop as is.

 

But Alex Modny was very clear in his OP:

We want to talk about how Strike Fighters can be made into a good option to bring in any match, by any skill level.

 

And I think that the way to do this is to decide:

How should SF be changed to be a better Jack of all trades?

Or

How should SF be changed such that they have a defined role in the current meta?

 

SWG Jump to Lightspeed had the same problem, especially after the Jedi Starfighter Eta-2-Actis interceptor was introduced, but it was a difficult meta frought with bugged spreadsheets that made 2000 armor 0 mass armor plates and 40k RGR 3k mass reactors commonplace on ships with tiny hitboxes and insane firepower. (Those of you who played know exactly what I'm talking about.) The meta was all about interceptors (here, scouts). No amount of nerfing ever changed that. The only thing that helped JtL was introducing new content.

 

Not that GSF and JtL are functionally similar, they are not. But I think the way to address things is not to nerf the other ships to make SF relevant, its to give them a job to do and the tools to do it. Verain's rainbow soliloquy a few pages back artfully outlines one way a SF could be constructed to truly be a jack of all trades in the current game modes (really, just Domination). Can we reasonably expect that the developers would give the SF a tolerable mine, tolerable railgun, and primaries and secondaries with tolerable utility? Since the answer is no, I think it should be our job to define a role for the SF and figure out how to modify the components or chassis numbers of the strike to best fit that role.

 

Would anyone take a Clarion/Imperium into super serious night if it had BLCs instead of Quads and Clusters (or even interdiction) instead of Thermite? Would that make it enough of a decent support ship under the node, or at your team's gunship nest in TDM? Would it be better than, say, a T2 bomber at those tasks because of the mobility of a strike over a bomber?

[tunewalker]

On the whole "any skill" level thing again, I DO NOT think they are saying Noobs should be good against Aces, but Moderates should be Moderate against an Ace, and Vice Versa.

 

Strike vs Scout (I picked scout for ease, not for any other reason, I could theoretically do this with every ship in the meta this is an example for examples sake) = skill (be it noob, Moderate, or Ace) need to be balanced. which leads me to this little tirade, obviously it ISNT balanced in this regard.

 

Lets talk Defensive first. The Strike basically has 3 shields, QCS, Directional and Charged Plating, vs the Scouts most common Disto field. Scouts pilots can get a lot of Mileage out of just proper use of the CD ability every 20 seconds and swapping between Engine power and Weapon Power. Strikes using QCS are almost REQUIRED to do all of that AND manage Shield power which means they have one more system they need to swap to, as shield regen is kind of bad and the extra shield strength at the start of the fight can be life changing, those using Directionals have to manage Directionals. So already defensively we have strikes being the "try hard" class comparitively.

 

Then we talk about maneuvering. Scouts have good engine efficiency, Strikes often have to get into around the same Range but have less engine efficiency AND speed. So they now have a harder time managing Engine power to top all of the previous off. They only have 1 missile break so they find themselves vulnerable to missiles much more often, and again with less engine efficiency to do anything about it. "Try hard" engine power management.

 

Ok offensive strength. With the right build Scouts can get a target in its sight for a split second and do serious burst damage, to top it off they have better turning thus allowing them to get them into that sights a lot easier while Strikes need sustained for any serious damage and of course that weaker turning.... "Try hard" offensive strength.

 

 

While a Strike CAN force some one to eat harder damage then they should, its only by the strike pilot out playing the opposition. Be it Holding a missile lock to finish them with lasers, not locking a missile to hitting with a laser to trick them to pop disto early or so on and so forth, but ALL of these methods are still available to scouts. The only difference is the scout doesnt NEED this to be effective, but can use it to push his effectiveness to the next level while to even play against Moderate scout pilots a Strike needs to bring his A game, and if its an Ace forget it, but we already knew that, that's why they arent in Super Serious night. (this is not to say a Ace Strike pilot can NEVER force a mistake from an Ace "blank" pilot even proffessional athletes and gamers or what have you can make a mistake, be it positioning, or just a split second decision that normally works just not working out that time)

 

 

Edit: again I could do this with any ship in the meta vs strikes some of it is litterally the same thing, I just chose scouts for ease of use. This is not uniquely a Strike vs Scout problem. It is a Strike vs the world problem.

Edited May 31, 2015 by tunewalker

[CommanderKiko]

This issue has so many layers that it could beat a world record.

 

My initial opinion was to simply cut out part of the problem. Remove the lock break on DF and replace it with a new component that gives lock breaks stock. That way it forces people to chose between being unkillable by railguns/primary weapons for a short time, or being a lock-breaking mine shaking machine that can still get hit by railguns and primaries. People don't like this solution for "reasons," (valid ones at that) and feel it would not help strikers. Well, then we cycle back to the same question that the dev asked that we have all been trying to answer already. "What would help strikers?" (paraphrased) and begin infinite loop.

 

Strikers have a very set amount of problems. We identify these problems, but fixing them could in theory unbalance every other class > many of the problems the striker has come from other classes being who they are anyways. So how can we solve these issues without unbalancing everything else? Continue infinite loop.

 

This is what is staring me in the face. Strikers are useless because the t1 is basically a slower flashfire with worse burst DPS and energy, but more range. The T2 is basically a condor without the ability to equip a railgun or fight at super close range with BLC. The T3 is basically a mobile and tankier version of the repair drone, with a long cooldown. Again, identifying the problem only goes back to the loop OR

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

 

Or, chose the next door. Instead of asking ourselves "what can we do to make the striker a good option to bring into any match." (Answer: make them OP) or "What are your biggest pet peeves?" (Answer: the fact that DF makes them useless) I think we should perhaps ask a completely different question.

 

"What would make the most people happy, and improve the use of strike fighters at the same time?"

My answer would be: Create a brand new role for them. Gear strike fighters to be a specific counter to a specific class. Make type 1's into scout killers, they already almost are. Make type 2's into bomber hunters, as again they already almost are. And make the type 3's into a strong support craft, repeating again that they already almost are. Each of these craft has the potential to be great, the problem is class wide > but each ship is very unique.

 

Maybe, just maybe, if we all ask the same question the dev did but in different words, maybe we can come to a consensus and the problems with strike fighters might actually get solved. I'm not saying we will, or they will, but it's worth a try.

[wilcou]

To be frank, elitism has no place anywhere.

 

Except in forum signatures, apparantly

[Lendul]

We could make the 2nd lock break an interesting choice. Take it off DF and put it on QC.

[Etrii]

Ok...where should i start?

 

t1 strike can dream of being a t2 scout.Even a slower and lower dmg t2 scout

 

t2 strike has wet dreams of being a t3 GS t3 GS offers: better guns, better shilds, better missiles, better engines ...oh yeah...it can also have railgun.

 

t3 the only thing that ship is lacking is a good secondary HLC wouldent hurt as well. Otherwise i`s a mobile best heals platform with decent mobility. Almoest meta worthy

[Gerfaut]

I don't think it would take that many changes to make Strike Fighters competitive. People seem to underestimate how changes to even one component can drastically alter the game.

 

Before the barrel roll nerf, strikes were much more competitive. My favorite ship at the time was the Pike/Quell. I played it in all types of games, Dom and TDM, easy and challenging games, and tried various builds. I didn't beat damage or kill records with it, but I felt I had a "presence" in the game and made an impact even against good players. I liked to do hit-and-runs on gunship walls, and the short CD and cheap cost of barrel roll meant I could safely get away. I also liked to run into the middle of the enemy team, get their attention with a few shots and missile locks, then barrel back to my team with 4 enemy scouts in tow, which my teammates would shoot down while I got away unscathed. It was a lot of fun.

 

The nerf to a single component, barrel roll, put an end to this. I learned to play gunships and now it is my ship of choice for TDM. I play either T2 scout or gunship in Dom, occasionally bombers. These days, I only play the Pike/Quell as a "fun ship" against newbies who haven't yet learned how to boost.

 

IMO, restoring mobility to strike fighters would be the most important thing. Scouts should remain the most agile (highest turn rate) and fastest on short distances (highest engine speed), but strikes should have the most endurance and mobility over long distances. They would be the ship of choice on a map like Denon, the first to get to nodes at the start of the game, or to bring reinforcement from across the map.

 

How could this be achieved? I think the cost of engine maneuvers should be lower for strikes than for all other ship types, as a class passive. It could be reduced by 50%, or even 100% (make all engine maneuvers free for strikes). This would solve the greatest vulnerability of strikes: their inability to get away when hit by ion railgun. They would still be able to use barrel roll or whichever engine ability they choose, even with no power. And it would not require any direct nerf to railguns (I would MUCH rather strikes be buffed without any nerfs to other ships). The cooldown of barrel roll should also be shorter for strikes, similar to what it was before the nerf. Barrel roll would remain as it is now for other ships.

 

Additionally, I think that strikes should have either a larger engine power pool, or better boost efficiency (lower cost to initiate boost and lower power cost per second while boosting). This would give them more endurance than any other ship in the game, without altering their turn rate or max speed.

 

These changes would give strikes a distinct role: they would be the first to get to satellites at the start of Domination games, and the best reinforcement to send when help is needed in a hurry at the opposite end of the map. Scouts and gunships would still be better "killers", bombers would still be better at area control, but strikes would have their own distinct role. In TDM, their ability to do hit-and-runs, and to lure enemies to their deaths while getting away unharmed would be restored.

 

Another thing that would help strikes a lot would be to fix underperforming components. Two pet peeves of mine:

 

1) Why does Quick-Charge Shield (QCS) have a 30% strength penalty? Even Distorsion Field, the best shield in the game, only has a 20% penalty. I think QCS should have no strength penalty. This would help strikes in their role as "first on the scene", or "reinforcement specialists" by making them more sturdy, so that they can stay alive until additional members of their team show up to help them kill the opposition. It would also help them to get away safely when doing hit-and-runs/baiting in TDM.

 

2) EMP missile should have a much shorter lock-on time, no longer than cluster, and should do the same amount of damage to ships as it does to mines/drones, rather than half damage. I tried using this missile on my Pike/Quell when it was introduced in the game but it has 2 main problems: it is too specialized (too "niche") and it is not very effective at its one main use because it takes too long to lock on a target. Many times in Domination, I would approach a node guarded by one or more bombers and start locking an EMP missile, only to be pulverized by a scout or gunship before I could even finish the lock. Being forced to fly straight and slow for 3 seconds to acquire a lock just doesn't work against good opponents. Lock-on time should be around 1 second, maybe 1.5. Additionally, having this missile do more damage to enemy ships than it does now would make it viable as an AOE damage weapon in ship-to-ship combat, which would increase the versatility of any build using it.

 

There are a lot of other components used by strikes that need buffing (RFLC, ion missile, etc...), but I don't have specific ideas about how to fix those. I do like the idea of giving RFLC a large accuracy buff to make it an anti-evasion weapon.

 

TLDR: Buff the mobility and endurance of strikes by making engine maneuvers free (or at least cheaper) and increasing boost efficiency or engine power pool, and fix underperforming components.

[Nemarus]

I think at this point, my total suggestions would be this:

 

1) Make Strike after burner activation/sustain cost equal to Scouts. They will still be slower and less maneuverable than Scouts, but at least they will have similar endurance.

 

2) Give Strikes a flat damage boost to both primaries and secondaries, to make ignoring a Strike a dangerous proposition, at any range. Strikes need to be able to accomplish SOMETHING under a satellite, so that is why the flat damage boost is still necessary, even in addition to the below suggested Range and Accuracy buffs. The damage boost need not be 100% like Damage Overcharge, but I think it needs to be at least +50% to move the needle on Strike presence and influence in a battle.

3) Give Strikes a significant Range boost to both primary and secondary weapons. Range would help Strikes do more damage (even with melee weapons like Rapids, LLC, and Ions) from mid-range, where they are comfortable. It would also make their missiles easier to lock on with.

 

4) Give Strikes a significant Accuracy boost to primary and secondary weapons. (Yes I know they currently do not have secondary weapons affected by Accuracy, but one of my other suggestions is to give Pikes Rocket Pods. Accuracy would help them deal better sustained damage against Evasive targets, and would make up for the fact that they don't have many inherent Accuracy buffs on their weapons, nor access to Targeting Telemetry.

 

None of these changes present any threat to the other three classes of ships, and all of these changes would help new pilots significantly (without them having to do anything specific to take advantage of them).

 

Now for specific variant/component changes:

 

5) Remove Charged Plating from the Star Guard and replace it with Feedback Shield. Charged Plating is a trap on a ship that can't stack damage reduction. Feedback Shield is a good, solid shield that would synergize great with Ion Cannons and Cluster Missiles, and give the Star Guard some extra teeth against Scouts.

 

6) Give the Star Guard Burst Laser Cannons. Not every Strike should have them, but this Strike--the primary weapon specialist--should have them.

 

7) Give the Pike Retro Thrusters. They synergize extremely well with aquiring missile locks, and they would give the Pike another medium cool down missile break.

 

8) Give the Pike Interdiction Missile. Currently, a Condor using both Clusters and Interdiction Missile can do quite well, due to both missiles having wide arcs and short lock-on times. You basically spam Clusters to drain lock-breaks, then hit with Interdiction. As the missile specialist, the Pike should have access to this combo. Alternatively (or maybe in addition), you could give Pikes Rocket Pods. Just keep in mind their effectiveness will be limited without Targeting Telemetry.

 

9) Give the Clarion Concussion Missile. Concussion Missile is not the ace dog fighting super missile it was originally conceived to be. There is no danger giving it to the Clarion, and it would give the ship a bit more offensive capability against all kinds of targets.

 

10) Give the Clarion Heavy Laser Cannons. HLC's are the quintessential Strike weapon, and every Strike should have them. They would cement the Clarion as a great anti-minelayer ship, as well as giving it more capability to assault satellites that have turrets.

 

Some may think that #9 and #10 make the Clarion too much of a dogfighter, when it is supposed to be a support ship.

 

I disagree. The fact that Clarions lack Thrusters will always be a hit against their space superiority credentials--do they really need to be so offensively neutered as well?

 

Giving them HLC's and Concussion Missiles would open up the kinda of Clarion you could make. You could make an anti-Bomber Clarion, a healing/support Clarion, a jousting specialist, or a mid-range harasser. And on that last option, you could complement the HLC's by taking Combat Command, or you could complement your Concussion Missiles using Remote Slicing, or you could just stick with Repair Probes for extra survivability.

 

At this point, I think that is about the best set of changes I can recommend.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Nemarus

[JasonSzeremi]

I'm a gsf pilot, not the best, partly because my computer isn't the best and doesn't keep up in close quarters...

 

So I spend more time in the seat of slower paced ships hoping my missiles, cannons, or mines can do the job.

 

Most things in this game take familiar forms: Juggernauts resemble Darth Vadar, Sorcerers echo the emperor, Smugglers are like Han solo, and so on.

 

So what about GSF? the Scouts more then slightly resemble the A-wing and perform much like Tie fighters.... good firepower, extreme maneuverability, a slight disregard for the pilot's safety. They Survive because they are hard to hit.

bombers and gunships seem to have swapped roles: Y and B wings being high firepower, underlie maneuverable ships for delivering Ion, heavy laser, and torpedo ordinance against larger ships, with the cover of mostly X-wings to protect them from other fighters. Cap ship's guns must not have been as effective... these were bombers.

Gunships had been heavily shielded, low maneuverability craft armed with lots of missiles. Imagine if Luke had had a Mangler! although a stationary gun platform probably wouldn't be beyond the cap ship's guns tracking.

 

What are the strike fighters in my story? X-wings and Darth Vadar's Tie.... later the Tie-Advanced.

 

The X-wing was a strike fighter, or rather a space superiority fighter with high firepower, more laser kick then any Tie fighter before it came out, and proton torps for backup. I've seen these modeled as 'standoff' weapons or as 'once the defenses are down get up close and lob them in a senstive place'. Locking time was a bit of an issue, but the X-wing was either equipped with some thick shielding (lucas arts X-wing) or good maneuverability and a hull that deflected rather then ablated with damage (WEG's D6 Starwars).

 

I see strike fighters as our X-wings, our Tie Advanced, perhaps even our tie interceptors:

the multi-role place they are ment to have comes from heavy firepower, adequate manuverability, good defenses, speed that actually matches it's lighter cousins when not re-charging weapons or shields...

strike fighters brought some of the most potent weapons in space to bare against each other, bombers didn't stand up to their firepower long, gunships were nearly tied with them, trying to hold them off with concussion missiles at a distance, and heavy lasers up close.

 

Honestly, the T2 scout IS a strike fighter with thin hull but formidable defenses and firepower not unlike what the X-wing and Tie-Adv lob at each other. Firepower, speed, and defenses are the calling cards of a successful strike fighter.

 

So what is the Strike Fighter family missing?

Firepower: the ability to do serious damage to a target with just a few shots or at least peal off their shielding so they knew you were there. Enough firepower that a target would have to peal off it's target to deal with the strike fighter

Missiles aren't that weapon currently because effective jamming is common in the form of DF. They could be if lock-on times are diminished, say... reduced by 1 second or halved if the launching platform is a 'strike fighter'. Another suggestion that seemed to get weight with better pilots I talk to is cutting missile cool downs (perhaps only for strike fighters)

Remember 'missile breaks' are actually only one of about four ways to avoid a missile: Out range the launcher (this happened to me a couple times today as I was flying a quell, the other players just boosted away from me right before I could release death at them), Out maneuver (this one's harder, but if you can't keep a bead on em you can't fire that missile), Line of sight (several times today... someone used their brains and ducked behind something and it doesn't have to be very solid, the fins on a satellite have 'bomber pilot was here' etched on them from the number of times they were bumped by boosting bombers getting their best natural missile break

so a missile lobbing fighter is trying to catch someone who is unready to run, dodge, duck, or use one of the missile breaks built into his chassis. Because, unless it's a cluster missile, the target is getting a missile warning when you lock that weapon on.

Least with shorter lock-on times, I can enjoy the disservice of seeing them use a missile break, and if that doesn't peal them, then a shorter cool down means I get to beep beep beep them again. Only then, if they aren't able to run from me, run for cover, or out maneuver my targeting circle... they and I both deserve what follows.

Honestly, the missiles don't reward the effort well but Quell/pike pilots will kiss you for any improvement to their plight.

 

I recall games where I could fire all the energy/projectile weapons pointing in the same direction at once, even heard the original plan for bombers involved having a double laser armament that you could combo fire.

Imagine if the T1 strike could fire all of it's lasers at once

The X-wing had this sort of ability, and twice the laser energy battery of the A-wing or tie fighter. So did the Tie-Interceptor (battle scout?) and Tie Advanced.

That is the combination of twice as much blaster power pool to start with, and the ability to drain it with all the forward pointing energy weapons on the fighter... somehow I see ion blasters becoming even more popular with this.

 

Alternativly, any way to make the strike's foward laser armament do as much damage or more then a battle scout (T2) makes perfect sense to me. The role of a scout is manuverability, speed, and reconisance, in the Tie's case it's also an interceptor, and it's firepower is adequate if it doesn't get hit. the Strike Fighter is not as manuverable, and is often armored because it will get hit, and it needs to dish out enough damage to kill another strike fighter, to say nothing of killing lighter scouts. Give the scouts a reason not to be infront of the heavier fighter. Give the heavier fighter the firepower to take out comparable fighters quickly: if they are the workhorse, they need it

 

Strike fighters also fall behind in being able to get where they are going... bigger boost tanks might help them get there.

 

As my squadron leader would say "The lasers (weapons) are why the ship exists, up grade them first" the Strike Fighter's role is to bring firepower reliably into battle. It should have some of the best, and heaviest weapons a maneuverable craft can carry, they have to take out the bombers and protect their own bombers from other fighters.

 

GSF may have become Rock Paper Scissors, but it might better fit triad warfare: Artillery destroys infantry and aircraft best (and most anything else second best), Tanks destroy artillery best, infantry destroy tanks when dug in, and are fodder for them when not, and aircraft destroy tanks and infantry best.

Kinda like rock, paper, scissors, bomb...

The way I see it the roles: Scouts are intended to destroy Gunships, Bombers with their exploding ordinance are hell on scouts with their maneuverability and speed flying into the things, Gunships destroy anything that doesn't destroy them first, and strike fighters should have the firepower to take on bombers an at least an even footing.

 

Fighters (sf) escorting or engaging bombers and enemy fighters, bombers making areas unsafe for lightly armored scouts and unpleasant for anyone else. Gunships raining damage on anything in the open. Scouts taking out that stationary artillery with their superior speed and elusiveness. A good pilot can take a scout and take out a strike fighter, an average pilot is in serious trouble in the same dogfight.... the better pilot usually wins regardless of craft.

 

So I suppose that's my peeve, the strike should be the space superiority fighter, the one who has the power to engage anything on the field and do some damage to it, perhaps even destroy it or be destroyed by it

 

in the rock paper scissors bomb analogy, I'm not asking the strike to become the bomb... that role is mostly the gunships currently, making the scout the scissors that cut the fuse, the rock being the bomber that breaks the delicate scissors, leaving the strike as paper, a well armed tanky fighter that has enough firepower to destroy itself and a bomber too, but might have problems dealing with scouts.

 

one word about OP. Over-Powered in my book means, powered such that other choices cease to be options. That does seem to be the case with DF as it seems many scout and gunship pilots swear there are no other viable shield options for them. Does it need to be fixed? probably not. Does it seem to be the case with T2 scouts TT and BLC? Perhaps, but gunships are still a more popular choice in some battles because they have the apex burst damage ranged weapon. If we did nurf the evasion on DF, the gunship might become the number one pick, perhaps even OP as many scout pilots would change to gunships, not strike fighters.

 

About new players. Every new pilot is given a T1 scout, and a T1 strike, they re more likely to stick around if picking the strike fighter to fly isn't automatically a mistake. Scouts are harder to fly, strikes look fun until some T2 scout or gunship takes you apart for the fifth time without you having anything to say about it except 'S***'

 

if we fix this, we get more new pilots possibly, more pilots means more cues, means more gsf for everyone

Edited June 1, 2015 by JasonSzeremi
grammer

[tunewalker]

To answer.

 

What would make them more effective in both game modes? This is going to be long..... and I doubt any one will agree with all of these.... so lets see.

 

 

1. Decrease engine cost down to the same as Scouts: Again a few have said this, Scouts are still faster, they still have better turning, but darn is that efficiency neccisary in a ship like this.

 

2. Increase base hull by 20% (+290 = 1740)

 

3. fix Game bugs.... this should have been number 1, Also revert Ion weapon changes so that Ion Rail doesnt 100% shut down Regen.

 

4. Increase base accuarcy of Rapids by 20%, decrease tracking penalty by .5 (so its .3 per degree) Decrease base rate of fire to 180. Increase Base dps by 5-10%

 

5. Decrease Tracking penalty on light lasers be .5 (so its .5 per degree) Decrease base rate of fire to 150.

 

6. Give Ion Laser canon 2-3 Energy drain base line, upgrade goes to a total of 6-7 per hit.

 

7. Increase all "Shield regen rate increase" on all effects that have them by 100% (for quick charge shields it would go from 45% to 90%, the 15% on the second upgrade would go form 15% to 30% the companion would go from 15%-30% so on and so forth... Shield Regen is just bad right now.)

 

8. Remove Shield power Capacity penalties from both Quick charge shields and Shield Projector, their on uses and their passives arent worth the penalty. This is especially hard hitting on the ship with the highest base shields. (giving the ship with the highest base shields the shields that penalize that the most is kind of backwards.)

 

9. Double the effect of Shield Projector's heal (including the T3 upgrades, this may be a slight over board)

 

10. Increase the first upgrade of Quick Charge shield from 6% to 10%.

 

11. Make the first upgrade on Directionals Base line, Move the 2nd upgrade to be the first, the T3 upgrades COMBINE into the T2 upgrade (again remember number 5, it still applies) and give 2 new T3 upgrades... Left "Shield hardness", either ignores Armor Piercing or ignores Shield Piercing or both and Right "Frequency shift" Increase evasion by a set amount maybe 4-8%.

 

12. Decrease Base Lock on time of Concussion Missiles by 1 second. Increase base Damage by 10-15%

 

13. Decrease Base Lock on Time of Proton Torps by 1 Second. Increase Base Damage by 25%

 

14. Decrease Base Lock On time of Ion Missile by 1 Second, Decrease Reload time from 12 seconds to 6 seconds, increase damage by 10-15%, Increase Base Power drain by 5, Replace Crit chance with 5 additional Weapon drain talent.

 

15. Increase Range of EMP missile to 10KM. Remove "half damage to ship" clause, Increase Base explosion Radios from 3000-4000, Increase second Tier up grade from 500 to 1000. Replace Damage T3 upgrade with "prevents usage of Secondary weapon for 3 seconds" Increase Duration of lock outs by 5 seconds (to a total of 20 seconds)

 

16. Decrease Base lock on time of Thermite Torpedo by 1 Second.

 

17. Give T1 Strikes Burst laser canon

 

18. Give T2 Strikes Interdiction missile

 

19. Create new missile for ALL strikes "Cruise missile" make it the bane of Gunships... Probably just something utility wise that allows strikes to close in to a more effective range when taken and really hampers the Gunships ability to get away.

 

 

I think that's about it... a long list, but that just MIGHT do it.... If I can think of anything else... I will say it, but ya for me the answer is "help everything bad about strikes a little, and it will help strikes a lot"

Edited June 1, 2015 by tunewalker

[lwiggles]

2 cents worth .. lower the cool-down, lock-on time and increase the damage for all missiles with the exception of clusters. Keep lowering them until strikes competitive against scouts. A simple fix that could be tweaked easily and will have benefits for other while elephant ships and builds.

[Enurrsha]

I think at this point, my total suggestions would be this:

 

1) Make Strike after burner activation/sustain cost equal to Scouts. They will still be slower and less maneuverable than Scouts, but at least they will have similar endurance.

 

2) Give Strikes a flat damage boost to both primaries and secondaries, to make ignoring a Strike a dangerous proposition, at any range. Strikes need to be able to accomplish SOMETHING under a satellite, so that is why the flat damage boost is still necessary, even in addition to the below suggested Range and Accuracy buffs. The damage boost need not be 100% like Damage Overcharge, but I think it needs to be at least +50% to move the needle on Strike presence and influence in a battle.

3) Give Strikes a significant Range boost to both primary and secondary weapons. Range would help Strikes do more damage (even with melee weapons like Rapids, LLC, and Ions) from mid-range, where they are comfortable. It would also make their missiles easier to lock on with.

 

4) Give Strikes a significant Accuracy boost to primary and secondary weapons. (Yes I know they currently do not have secondary weapons affected by Accuracy, but one of my other suggestions is to give Pikes Rocket Pods. Accuracy would help them deal better sustained damage against Evasive targets, and would make up for the fact that they don't have many inherent Accuracy buffs on their weapons, nor access to Targeting Telemetry.

 

None of these changes present any threat to the other three classes of ships, and all of these changes would help new pilots significantly (without them having to do anything specific to take advantage of them).

 

Now for specific variant/component changes:

 

5) Remove Charged Plating from the Star Guard and replace it with Feedback Shield. Charged Plating is a trap on a ship that can't stack damage reduction. Feedback Shield is a good, solid shield that would synergize great with Ion Cannons and Cluster Missiles, and give the Star Guard some extra teeth against Scouts.

 

6) Give the Star Guard Burst Laser Cannons. Not every Strike should have them, but this Strike--the primary weapon specialist--should have them.

 

7) Give the Pike Retro Thrusters. They synergize extremely well with aquiring missile locks, and they would give the Pike another medium cool down missile break.

 

8) Give the Pike Interdiction Missile. Currently, a Condor using both Clusters and Interdiction Missile can do quite well, due to both missiles having wide arcs and short lock-on times. You basically spam Clusters to drain lock-breaks, then hit with Interdiction. As the missile specialist, the Pike should have access to this combo. Alternatively (or maybe in addition), you could give Pikes Rocket Pods. Just keep in mind their effectiveness will be limited without Targeting Telemetry.

 

9) Give the Clarion Concussion Missile. Concussion Missile is not the ace dog fighting super missile it was originally conceived to be. There is no danger giving it to the Clarion, and it would give the ship a bit more offensive capability against all kinds of targets.

 

10) Give the Clarion Heavy Laser Cannons. HLC's are the quintessential Strike weapon, and every Strike should have them. They would cement the Clarion as a great anti-minelayer ship, as well as giving it more capability to assault satellites that have turrets.

 

Some may think that #9 and #10 make the Clarion too much of a dogfighter, when it is supposed to be a support ship.

 

I disagree. The fact that Clarions lack Thrusters will always be a hit against their space superiority credentials--do they really need to be so offensively neutered as well?

 

Giving them HLC's and Concussion Missiles would open up the kinda of Clarion you could make. You could make an anti-Bomber Clarion, a healing/support Clarion, a jousting specialist, or a mid-range harasser. And on that last option, you could complement the HLC's by taking Combat Command, or you could complement your Concussion Missiles using Remote Slicing, or you could just stick with Repair Probes for extra survivability.

 

At this point, I think that is about the best set of changes I can recommend.

 

 

Some of these are similar to items I mentioned many pages back, and some are ideas I'd never considered. To all of these suggestions I say - YES, PLEASE!!! Hey Alex, how about y'all toss these changes onto the PTS in a week or 2 and let us all have a go with it and see what shakes out. I think we've all had our say at this point; enough words, let's get to some actions. Thanks.

[JasonSzeremi]

perhaps slightly off topic, although strikes DO often come with armor, and or charged plating:

armor piercing.... gunships use it, T2 scouts use it, even I use it with my HLC, but why is it always 100%?

that's one hell of an armor piercing weapon.... armor doesn't even slow it down. If you have armor, it's a false sense of security, like plate mail vs machine guns (for historical examples see polish knights, WWI). The armor does... nothing, what's worse charged plating comes with a shield de-buff allowing some damage to pass through the shields untested. so my charged plating builds vanish under gunship fire faster then if I had no armor component.

I know it as been politely suggested not to nerf anyone else, but how bad would it really be if armor piercing only ignored 50% of armor? skipping some rather then switching the armor off completely. granted this would mean I have to make 4-6 shots to take out a sat turret instead of 3 but it might also take a gunship 2 shots instead of 1 to vape the same turrets, and my rampart bomber might actually make it to that bomber to hammer it with some HLCs.... course if strikes go the way I want them to.... I'll need to watch out for one guarding that gunship.... if they don't it's that T2 scout that will get me.... course if BLC don't skip ALL my armor and my defensive CD, I might have some surprises for mr scout.

[tunewalker]

The issue with having armor pen NOT be 100% against Charge plating that (on bombers) can reduce damage by 99% for 19 seconds out of 30 is those ships become nearly unkillable. They are tough now, but you have to get specialized equipment to handle them.

 

Though for those tired of the Binary either 100 % armor pen or 99% DR I did put a suggestion to change Directionals that would make THEM capable of using DR stuff against Armor pen, obviously if they are using Directionals they cant stack it to high, but then it would ACTUALLY be a viable Defense.

Edited June 1, 2015 by tunewalker

[JasonSzeremi]

50% armor ignoring means a bomber with charged plating at '99% damage reduction' is taking 50% of the damge delt still, is that more or less then a scout with DF and high evasion? it's shields aren't hiding behind that armor and if it runs from the node, then it is pealed.... if not the other ship can peal and come back when the CD runs out?

 

the specialized equipment to handle them might be a strike fighter with charged plating and the close in firepower to kill a strike fighter with charged plating.

Edited June 1, 2015 by JasonSzeremi
extending

[tunewalker]

50% armor ignoring means a bomber with charged plating at '99% damage reduction' is taking 50% of the damge delt still, is that more or less then a scout with DF and high evasion? it's shields aren't hiding behind that armor and if it runs from the node, then it is pealed.... if not the other ship can peal and come back when the CD runs out?

 

the specialized equipment to handle them might be a strike fighter with charged plating and the close in firepower to kill a strike fighter with charged plating.

 

with having like double health... people have problems pealing Bombers using Charged plating off a node with 100% armor pierce, you would make that Twice as hard if it was their effective weapons were reduced by half.

Edited June 1, 2015 by tunewalker

[Ramalina]

@ Tommm, RE: remembering the 3.0 bugfest.

 

I actually liked the changes that the disto bug caused. Important to remember that this is a very strike pilot biased view.

 

With the second break gone, strikes gained the ability to peel quickly with concussions and torpedoes. It didn't increase damage done or kills all that much, and often resulted in being the target of a scout or gunship annoyed that a strike had dared to get ideas above its station and threaten a *real* GSF ship, but as a team utility peeling is very useful, and a strike that can peel at 7-10 km range is a lot more powerful than one that needs to close to 4 km or less to start a peel. It also wasn't dependent on the Ion Cannon and Clusters combo, so it worked for all three strikes.

 

Evasion builds were still a lot stronger vs rails and blasters, enough so that on the whole DF was still the best option if you could take it in most cases. If Cluster spam was really as bad as the complaining indicated, where was the mass exodus from DF to Directional and Feedback?

 

The bugfest meta had a bunch of other problems from the other bugs, and it didn't last long enough for a new meta to fully settle in, so I wouldn't draw hard conclusions based on it. Still, if DF without the missile break is so broken, and cluster missile spam is that intolerable, what was keeping people from switching to the shields that are significantly more tanky against repeated cluster hits?

 

Cluster spam is monumentally annoying, and as someone who prefers to fly single break ships that are slower, less maneuverable, and have less boost endurance than the scouts that are doing the bulk of the cluster spamming in GSF, I have a keen appreciation for how annoying it is. It is a detestable experience. A slow death, that is very challenging to opt out of if a good scout is chasing you.

 

Still, if you think about it, being cluster spammed is not really a bad thing. It means that the ship with clusters has failed to kill you with its burst damage, and is being forced to wear you down by attrition. If three or four or more ships are trying to spam clusters at you, then it means that a huge chunk of the opposing team's offensive potential is being wasted. Getting melted by a quads & pods with TT up, or hit by BLC + Clusters + system, or getting nailed by a railgun crit are in a lot of ways less frustrating ways to die in GSF than being worn down by clusters. Objectively though, anything that can be honestly called cluster spam is preferable to properly executed BLC-Cluster scout burst from a defender's point of view. If the burst is acceptable from a balance standpoint, then I'm hard pressed to figure out how the attrition that indicates failed burst is supposed to be worse. I mean sure, the damned non-stop beeping can get intolerable, but if you're hearing it, then you haven't been shot down yet.

 

 

I do think that clusters are too spammable as a missile. Their reload time is as problematic for balance as DF's extra missile break, and the two have a symbiotic relationship when it comes to creating balance problems.

 

It may just be personality quirks of mine to a certain extent too. I've been on the receiving end of enough cluster spam in a strike that it's just not something that bothers me that much anymore. And it's not a particularly considerate point of view, but at this point I can't really say the prospect of scouts and gunships feeling just as much pain from cluster spam as strikes do really bothers me. True even a QCS strike can tank closely spaced strings of cluster hits better than things with DF builds, but scouts have a much better chance of outrunning a cluster spammer, and a GS has a reasonable chance of hitting would be spammer with a dose of railgun before distances have closed to spamming range, and both the scout and the GS have a much better chance of stopping the spam by killing the target with a large dose of burst damage before the spam can begin. A strike is better suited to extending the misery for a bit longer, but less suited to stopping it or preventing it entirely.

 

The incredibly uneven state of missile balance still annoys me though, as does the lack of a serious mid range secondary for strikes, as does the degree to which ships from other classes can use their secondaries to create enough pressure for a fast peel in a way that strikes can only dream of.

 

Certainly there are other ways to deal with those problems from the strike standpoint. Buff strike base shields to the point that battlescouts fall asleep from boredom before cluster missile spam can bring them down, give all strikes rocket pods as a secondary, or any of hundreds of other options. The thing is, after all this time of being screwed over by their balance repercussions, I think I may have developed a bit of a grudge against DF and cluster missiles. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a vendetta, but given an opportunity to balance without touching them vs an opportunity to balance that involves applying a swift, hard, and very carefully targeted kick to them, the option involving the kick is very, very tempting. If making scouts and gunships howl a bit is the collateral damage, well, I can probably live with that too, as long as it's more a howl of protest than of genuine injury.

 

I should also mention that when I'm being more rational and wearing my theory nerd hat, removing DF's missile break isn't a goal in and of itself. It's just an expedient measure to even out missile balance a lot, and requires a concurrent increase in the reload time of cluster missiles to bring their DPS more in line with the other DPS missiles. There are other options for achieving those goals, but that pair of nerfs seems like the simplest one and possibly one of the easier ones to implement.