Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[jmonka]

I suppose I will finally post despite the risk of this replying getting lost in the see of off-topicness...

 

 

TLDR:

Strikes need to be better than a specialist ship at every non-specialized role and need to feel OPd as a whole.

Musts:

 

-1 Increase primary range a *lot* (75% or more) -chassis buff

-2 Increase Secondary range some (20%) -chassis buff

-3 Increase weapon damage noticeably (15%-25%) -Chassis Buff

-4 Decrease weapon tracking penalties (by maybe 20% of the normal penalty %) -Chassis Buff

-5 Increase Power Pools (35%-50%) *esp. important for engine pool. -Chassis Buff

 

Also needed (particularly for the T2 Strike) but with added risks of having knock-on effects on other classes:

 

-6 Reduced Missile Lock-on times for all non cluster or interdiction missiles (reduce times by 0.5 seconds.) -Chassis -or- Component buff. Should only be implemented with:

-7 reduced engine maneuver cooldown (reduce by 20%) -Chassis Buff

 

That is a lot of significant changes all at once and they complicate the overall effects. I would say +75% range is too much, and helps Deathmatch more than Domination. Same issue with power pool increase. Better to increase damage more and that's it.

 

I agree there are a several changes there that will play off of each other (largely intended in my suggestion since I believe the strike needs to be a very serious threat at many roles if it is to actually ever be choosen -simply making a ship without a role a slight bit less bad won't make it a compelling choice- they need to make it a stronger than average choice if they are to "fix" it).

That being said, I definitely think the combination of such potent weapon buffs combined with the engine pool buff could be slightly excessive, and the numbers of the engine buff (if given alongside those weapon buffs) might need to be tweaked -the goal I was aiming for was to make strikes able to tank a full 2 Ion rails before they were dead in the water (second one depleting/nearly depleting the full engine pool). Ultimately, since the original post asked for a single area to buff the ships in I doubt they will want to do both (in which case the weapons buffs would be the buffs I'd be suggesting).

 

I actually was thinking the changes I suggested might be more useful both modes than a straight weapon damage boost would be (I may be wrong and would love if you would elaborate some on what you meant though).

 

I say this because pretty much every other class would still have much better burst and strikes would not have any burst of their own assuming missiles still have the same problems landing they do now (Of course lack of burst from missiles would not be as problematic if the primary damage boost to strikes was closer to an 100% boost giving them a sort of perma-burst capability -and I'm not categorically opposed to that).

 

By increasing the range substantially not only do strikes gain a longer on-target window in which to put out their non-burst damage, but it would give them some unique abilities in Dom matches too:

From how I was envisioning it, by increasing range on HLC to over 10k and most of the rest of the strikes' weapons to the 7k-8k ranges it gives strikes an ability to threaten satellites from long ranges (not gunship long) but it would force any non-gunship, non-strike defenders to break cover from the sat in order to intercept the strike or risk the strike clearing the turrets before getting into range of any defenses. On the flip side, a strike defending a sat would not have to expose himself nearly so much in order to intercept incoming enemies.

 

In addition, extra range should give the strike a little more capability in jousting in either mode by giving them a few extra shots before the scout can enter its own effective range -as it is now if I'm attacking a sat in my scout and there's a lone strike guarding it and he positions himself to joust me my usual best practice to clear the sat quickly is to pop any offensive cooldowns, boost in to under 5k before he gets more than one shot off, and burn down the strike in a single pass and then eliminate the turret defenses. If that strike had a 8k-10k effective range and was pointing my way when I approach, I'm guessing the best plan might be to maybe Barrel Roll in to avoid the joust trying to avoid being hit then try hitting the turrets before the strike can turn on me. At that point I would have to get behind the strike or risk his increased damage+reduced tracking penalty actually being dangerous/deadly).

 

Of all my suggested changes I think it's actually the range that is the most vital (and to have enough of an impact on the strike I feel the range increase must be pretty noticeable). The only problem with only buffing the range and not the tracking penalty (and to a lesser extent the damage) is that the strike would remain the worst choice under a sat without those additional buffs. The problem I see with only buffing damage (assuming we aren't talking a huge buff such as 75% or 100% damage buff), is that it leaves the strike as a slower, less mobile, less bursty, less accurate and less defensible scout with slightly better range and slightly better non-burst (assuming the target will let you shoot at it that long) damage.

 

That being said, I think a pure damage buff *could* work but I think it would *have* to be a very significant buff if it is to make the strike a compelling choice for a tough match all by itself (and from reading this thread I get the impression a very large damage buff worries a lot of people). The range buff would do much the same job but with the added effect of making the strike fulfill it's mid-range "role" a little easier.

 

Either way though, with just an offensive buff Ion Rail would still be a death sentence for strikes and I worry that they could bring enough to the table to be considered competitively even after a pure offensive buff to offset that weakness without some sort of buffer against the energy drain (T3 not included)...

 

I could well be wrong of course and I'm hoping for more feedback on flaws with how this might not work in practice/might not matter even if it does work.

[JasonSzeremi]

I Ike the last two posts, and especially your idea, Kiko - it seems the idea of creating a multiple-lock system of some kind would give strikes a purpose, such as cleaning out the bomber nests like you said. Although, BW meant for strikes to me multi-purpose / jack-of-all-trades, right? I just don't understand the utility of a multi-purpose fighter in GSF as it is right now. Giving the strikes some teeth does make sense. I'm still new though, so maybe I'm just doing it wrong.

 

If you up the SF's firepower so it can kill things more quickly, it might become a multi-purpose fighter.

Giving missiles the ability to lock on multiple missile targets might help them, and several of the other less useful chasis, although it might result in cluster missiles doing less damage to your primary target. Could result in T3 scouts strikes, and T2 gunships lobbing thermite (or proton) torpedos at a satalite turret and hitting every defender on the same side of the satalite when launched.... albiet for reduced damage.

Torpedos fired at gunship stacks might hit a few of them, multiple strikes firing might even make them move or take one or two out. (then again it usually only takes two direct hits from gunships to kill a strike, esp if one fires Ion and the other slug)

Concussion missiles might be more effective in this situation, but you have to get closer to fire. The shorter lock on time gives you a chance to fire a spread.

 

(awww hell give torps the blast radius of the ion rail gun/seeker mine and see what kind of havoc that would do... and would that be a good thing?)

 

Ammunition might be a riddle in this situation. Would you use up one missile per target fired on, hit, or just one missile per casting of your missile spell. Here's a stupid question: How many pilots would object to removing amunition from missiles as a factor? 'Reload' buffs could reduce/the cool-down on the weapons or on all secondary weapons (how bad would that buff bombers/the T3 strike, and do they need it?)

If the missile 'rack' is used, reload could mean reloading missiles in the rack, which would happen 'naturally' every so many seconds with or without accounting for a total number of missiles in inventory.

 

Oh and no, you're not doing it wrong. High Dps is 'general purpose' it kills everything it can hit. Scouts are nimble and can out turn a strike up close (although I wouldn't object to the T1 being given similar turning and only the T1), bombers are sneeky and can hide under satalites putting deployables in your way but you should be able to hammer them face to face, and gunships have the longest range highest single pulse weapon (add to that the fact they don't fly, they sit and aim, and they aren't really 'fighters' as much as mobile gun emplacements). Everybody will still have something they do best, even if the strikes get enough punch to make people not want to be in-front of them and that would still mean they would be 'generalist' as they aren't scouts (still no sensors or booster recharge), gunships, or bombers, they are 'fighters' and if they have a specific role, perhaps going after bombers should be their role. (and by a similar token, bombers need to be resistant to scout attacks, BLC don't seem like a weapon that SHOULD have armor piercing to me, making bombers more of a nussiance to scouts might give the strikes more of a place especially engaging slower armored targets)

[ALaggyGrunt]

The only thing a multilock-type weapons system would be useful against in a serious game is a sat with a lot of mines and drones. Everyone else will know to scatter and/or LoS. GS will tend not to be too close together, and will reposition often for a shot or an angry scout.

 

If we had a medium-range missile which locked kind of like the one from the space missions, that would be an interesting weapon. Here's what I'm thinking:

Range 7-8km.

Damage. 600-750.

Shield piercing 10-26% (tier 5)

Armor piercing 10-50% (tier 5)

Rack capacity of 3-4, reloads one every 4-5 seconds.

 

Hold right mouse to lock. When you move the cursor over a target in your firing cone, lock-on takes 1.5 seconds and can happen simultaneously on all targets. And of course, release to fire.

Edited June 8, 2015 by ALaggyGrunt

[JasonSzeremi]

The only thing a multilock-type weapons system would be useful against in a serious game is a sat with a lot of mines and drones. Everyone else will know to scatter and/or LoS. GS will tend not to be too close together, and will reposition often for a shot or an angry scout.

 

If we had a medium-range missile which locked kind of like the one from the space missions, that would be an interesting weapon. Here's what I'm thinking:

Range 7-8km.

Damage. 600-750.

Shield piercing 10-26% (tier 5)

Armor piercing 10-50% (tier 5)

Rack capacity of 3-4, reloads one every 4-5 seconds.

 

Hold right mouse to lock. When you move the cursor over a target in your firing cone, lock-on takes 1.5 seconds and can happen simultaneously on all targets. And of course, release to fire.

 

Seems like a good idea.... I believe they are called 'concussion missiles'

the armor piecing might have to go to 100, everything else has 100% armor piercing or 0%

(thematically I think concussion missiles are supposed to deal their damage from the shock wave, making them more effective at piercing shields, but such distribution of force would not be armor piercing... if the blc loses it's armor piercing concussion missiles probably should too.... ) that might leave you with a missile system that could clear mines but not do alot of damage to bombers.

 

it wouldn't be so bad to be able to fire two proton or thermite torpedoes either.......

[tunewalker]

To be clear how a concussion missile works in Canon. It's kind of like some RPG's now adays. Basically its meant to burrow its way into a craft (usually fighter) and then explode for maximum damage. They are said to pack a greater punch then a Turbo Laser, but are intended to be used against fighters for their High tracking.

 

Basically they are there for a fighter craft to easily hit and kill fighters, OR for it to be able to do SOME damage to a capital ship, but the limited ammo usually means that Concussions are not great against Capital ships, Proton Torps are much prefered for that.

[Sunova]

1st. Defenses. having around 45% damage reduction and still be one shot is not fun.

2nd. Lock on time for short-range and long range missile needs reduced. we're strike fighters, not heavily armored tanks that can take a pounding waiting for a lock on.

3rd. Engine power regeneration. needs to be quicker. Again, strike fighter, "get in and get gone" requires speed

[CommanderKiko]

>Semi off-topic post

 

I Ike the last two posts, and especially your idea, Kiko - it seems the idea of creating a multiple-lock system of some kind would give strikes a purpose, such as cleaning out the bomber nests like you said. Although, BW meant for strikes to me multi-purpose / jack-of-all-trades, right? I just don't understand the utility of a multi-purpose fighter in GSF as it is right now. Giving the strikes some teeth does make sense. I'm still new though, so maybe I'm just doing it wrong.

 

Was tune's idea actually, I just added onto it in detail ^.^ Also, you aren't doing it wrong.

[Linuxizer]

I agree there are a several changes there that will play off of each other

...

I actually was thinking the changes I suggested might be more useful both modes than a straight weapon damage boost would be (I may be wrong and would love if you would elaborate some on what you meant though).

...

but it would force any non-gunship, non-strike defenders to break cover from the sat in order to intercept the strike or risk the strike clearing the turrets before getting into range of any defenses. On the flip side, a strike defending a sat would not have to expose himself nearly so much in order to intercept incoming enemies.

...

In addition, extra range should give the strike a little more capability in jousting in either mode

...

Of all my suggested changes I think it's actually the range that is the most vital

...

Either way though, with just an offensive buff Ion Rail would still be a death sentence for strikes and I worry that they could bring enough to the table to be considered competitively even after a pure offensive buff to offset that weakness without some sort of buffer against the energy drain (T3 not included)...

 

I don't really object to your list of changes. If Bioware implemented all of them and the Strikes became too good, they could probably correct with a second patch. All I meant was that the overall effects have not been tested. In contrast, the idea to increase weapon damage by +100% and do nothing else has been tested--every time a Strike picked up a DO. It is a bit much. A similar idea of +50% damage has also been (sort of) tested--it is just like using Concentrated Fire and getting a few criticals in a row.

 

Range versus damage... Yes, in Domination it would be nice to start hitting the enemy minelayer from 10,000m out with your Heavy Laser. But he would find cover quickly, and it takes you too much time to travel 20,000m and turn around to start hitting him from the other side. You are going to have to get in closer, where a damage buff would help more than a range buff.

 

Note that Nemarus has suggested adding Burst Laser to the T1 Strike. I have mixed feelings about this. It would solve the Strike's problem, but GSF could turn into GBLCF. I know it is unfair to combine your idea with his idea and then criticize the outcome, but consider that BLC + Range Capacitor > BLC + Damage Capacitor (according to the Stasiepaedia), and notice that giving the T1 Strike a BLC with 7700m range would be insane!

 

Should the satellite defender break cover to joust an incoming enemy? Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no need. Sometimes, "you can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." In Deathmatch, you must also resist the temptation to joust at every opportunity.

 

Well, offensive buff(s) help against Ion Rail by letting you shoot down the gunship first...

[Linuxizer]

1st. Defenses. having around 45% damage reduction and still be one shot is not fun.

2nd. Lock on time for short-range and long range missile needs reduced. we're strike fighters, not heavily armored tanks that can take a pounding waiting for a lock on.

3rd. Engine power regeneration. needs to be quicker. Again, strike fighter, "get in and get gone" requires speed

 

The 45% damage reduction is not a good build. You should choose between 99% damage reduction (on the T1 bomber), or forget about damage reduction and add more evasion (lightweight armor and Nadia or Vector for defense) or more hull and shield (reinforced armor and Nadia or Vector). See the stickied Stasie's guide.

 

The lock on time of the Cluster Missile does not need to be reduced. Put that on your T1 and T2 Strikes if you cannot lock a Concussion Missile or torpedo.

[jmonka]

I don't really object to your list of changes. If Bioware implemented all of them and the Strikes became too good, they could probably correct with a second patch. All I meant was that the overall effects have not been tested. In contrast, the idea to increase weapon damage by +100% and do nothing else has been tested--every time a Strike picked up a DO. It is a bit much. A similar idea of +50% damage has also been (sort of) tested--it is just like using Concentrated Fire and getting a few criticals in a row.

 

Range versus damage... Yes, in Domination it would be nice to start hitting the enemy minelayer from 10,000m out with your Heavy Laser. But he would find cover quickly, and it takes you too much time to travel 20,000m and turn around to start hitting him from the other side. You are going to have to get in closer, where a damage buff would help more than a range buff.

 

Note that Nemarus has suggested adding Burst Laser to the T1 Strike. I have mixed feelings about this. It would solve the Strike's problem, but GSF could turn into GBLCF. I know it is unfair to combine your idea with his idea and then criticize the outcome, but consider that BLC + Range Capacitor > BLC + Damage Capacitor (according to the Stasiepaedia), and notice that giving the T1 Strike a BLC with 7700m range would be insane!

 

Should the satellite defender break cover to joust an incoming enemy? Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no need. Sometimes, "you can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." In Deathmatch, you must also resist the temptation to joust at every opportunity.

 

Well, offensive buff(s) help against Ion Rail by letting you shoot down the gunship first...

 

Yeah I totally agree that BLC with my proposed changes would be a *terrible* idea and specifically mentioned (or at least intended to) that BLC and my range increase suggestion should never be combined for exactly the reasons you point out.

I agree with you about the proposals Nemarus has made concerning strikes gaining BLC. yes it would help strikes (especially the T1 -and T3 if it wasn't limited to just the T1) significantly, but personally I don't like the idea of putting them on (yet another) non-gunship... GBLCSF would definitely be... yeah...

 

You also make a good point that it's easier to know what the outcome of a pure damage buff might be compared to a range buff since there's never been anything of the sort thus far in GSF, so it would be safer. I just wonder if a 50% increase would make strikes *enough* better than the other options for the specialists not to always be the preferable way to go.

I would argue that in Dom even if the bomber scampers for cover at 10k from the sat, the strike wouldn't *have* to chase him 20k there and back. A bomber 10k from a sat isn't offering very much area denial around said sat short of maybe keeping a hyperbeacon alive and thus is sort of taking himself out of the equation in the fight for control. (Though as I'm sure you're thinking, once the strike gets distracted from the bomber the bomber would once again have an opportunity to sneak in so the strike might be only a temporary deterrent).

 

And yeah the increased damage would help against the Ion Rails. I guess I was just thinking when I fly a strike now it's difficult to get in range to even hit an Ion sporting gunship unless he's *highly* distracted, hence why I was thinking if engines can't be buffed as well, a large range boost might help since even if I'm floating there idle in space waiting for the inevitable follow-up slug I can at least pew-pew a couple into the gunship on my way out

 

Anyway thanks for elaborating on your thoughts about my suggestion. I hope I didn't seem to be getting defensive about it.

 

-Oh, and you need fly more on Shadowlands again. Haven't seen you there in a while and it's starting to get boring.

[ALaggyGrunt]

The way we can put BLC on more ships without devolving the game into BLC wars is to rethink all the short-range guns. Everything needs a specialty, and the other short-range guns need a reason to be used besides "it can't fit BLC."

[Maleckaa]

One of the reasons why strikefighters are not popular is: noone fighter have most powerfull laser weapon- burst laser. This laser is super accurate at mid and close range on moving targets, have high damage and armor ignore. Almost all good (experienced) players use that weapon with scout (flashfire or sting) and gunships.

 

Solutions:

 

1. Give burst laser to strikefighters

 

2. Nerf burst laser, just one from these will do work:

a: give burst laser accuracy like all other lasers

b: significantly reduce damage

c: remove armor ignore

Edited June 10, 2015 by Maleckaa

[JasonSzeremi]

The way we can put BLC on more ships without devolving the game into BLC wars is to rethink all the short-range guns. Everything needs a specialty, and the other short-range guns need a reason to be used besides "it can't fit BLC."

 

Currently, only three chassis have BLC as an option: T1 Gunship, T2 scout, and T3 gunship (two of those have cartel market clones)

Adding one more the T1 strike doesn't seem like it would turn the game into BLC wars to me... it also wouldn't do anything for the T2 or T3 strikes.

Unfortunately, it also wouldn't do much to help strike fighters in their optimum range of about 7-4k range and with their current turn radius don't expect to see alot of T1 strikes winning dogfights with skilled scout pilots

Missiles are still their best hope for good burst damage, combined with good lasers ofcourse

[Lupin-III]

I'm a scout pilot, but one thing that would make strike fighters more compelling for me would be making the strike fighters actually fulfill the role of a strike fighter, so the first thing to know is what exactly a strike fighter is. In World War II, which is what Star Wars space combat is inspired by, a strike fighter was a multi-role aircraft that would be used for air to air combat, but above all... ground attack. They had an array of weapons combining machine guns, cannons, rockets, and later in history, air to air and air to ground guided missiles.

 

I'll use the P-38 Lightning as an example of this. This was a plane that had four .50 caliber machine guns and a 20mm cannon. Now when the pilot wanted to use the cannon, he didn't have to stop firing his machine guns, when he saw his .50's chewing into the target, he would hit a secondary trigger and chug-chug-chug, out would come this extra wave of devastation. This made the P-38 a very effective plane because once something was in its sights, it was going to put some massive holes in it. It would also carry dumbfire rockets and bombs making it very effective at many tasks. It could escort bombers, or intercept them, it could dive bomb, level flight bomb, do ground attack, and it could dog fight.

 

There was also the P-39 Aircobra, and much like the A-10, it was a plane that was built around a massive gun. In this case it was a 39mm cannon that fired through the nose, as well as a pair of nose mounted .50 cal machineguns, and four wing mounted .30 cal machine guns. Again, the cannon was controlled by a secondary trigger, and it could be combined with the machine guns for great effect... at least when it worked, this particular cannon was prone to jamming.

 

So to make strike fighters a more compelling choice, I would do two things.

 

First, I would give them all the ability to carry two types of lasers, a slow firing cannon (heavy laser cannon or ion cannon) paired with faster firing lasers (laser cannon, light laser cannon, rapid fire lasers, quads), and instead of switching from one type to the other, giving the cannon its own trigger. A possible way to implement this would be to make the key which switches from primary weapon to primary weapon instead toggle the cannon, and when the mouse button is pressed it would fire both, but of course at the cost of a larger power drain.

 

Second, since a strike fighter is a ground attack aircraft as well, they should also be the undisputed kings of attacking a hardened target, such as a satellite entrenched with a bomber's mines and drones. Their protons and concussion missiles are great and all for attacking a moving target, but the slow lock time on them limits them and makes them unsuitable for attacking a stationary target. What I would do for this is add long range, dumbfire, rockets. Unlike the scout's rocket pod 5km range... I would give strike fighters a 10km unguided rocket. This would give them the ability to quickly strike defense turrets, drones, and mines while closing the distance. Combined with a cannon overhaul, they would be able to do their job of actually striking a hardened target and then clear out the bombers.

[ALaggyGrunt]

That gets into flight-sim territory and out of GSF territory.

 

When you see your rapids chewing into targets, you don't usually want to add HLC to the mix: your rapids are for firing at deflection (though are a lot weaker than other guns at this), and your heavies are for longer-ranged combat. The closest we've seen to that in the Star Wars universe is the stutterfire trigger in The New Jedi Order, for confusing Yuuzhan Vong. That would be kind of interesting in this game if ships had point-defense systems where one shot = one "shield" hitpoint so you could mix weak rapid shield-draining shots, but that would make a really different game.

 

The closest we have to the system you describe are the offensive cooldowns, in the form of blaster overcharge/targeting telemetry and concentrated fire/wingman.

 

.... and, a few hours later, that would be an interesting shield component. It would have a few (say, 8 hitpoints per arc) and no regeneration, but all incoming damage would be reduced to 1 as long as the shield has health. There wouldn't be any melting the whole arc with one BLC crit. It would be vulnerable to plasma burn (rail and thermite) and spacemachinegun-type weapons, because those will put 8 shots out very quickly and melt the arc of one of these shields with no problems. The active ability would be to drop both facings and start regeneration, which would be 1/second per arc-faster with regeneration reactor and/or crew passives.

Edited June 13, 2015 by ALaggyGrunt

[Lupin-III]

That gets into flight-sim territory and out of GSF territory.

 

When you see your rapids chewing into targets, you don't usually want to add HLC to the mix: your rapids are for firing at deflection (though are a lot weaker than other guns at this), and your heavies are for longer-ranged combat. The closest we've seen to that in the Star Wars universe is the stutterfire trigger in The New Jedi Order, for confusing Yuuzhan Vong.

 

Thanks for dismissing my well thought out suggestion with non-reasons.

[ALaggyGrunt]

"These guns behave totally differently" is a very good reason you usually don't want to fire them together. The space in front of your ship where both will be able to hit something is very small, and anything worth shooting will do its very best to not be in that space.

 

Some might work better together (quads and heavies, quads and ions, rapids and ions), but most combos would get very little benefit from that, because most targets worth shooting with the combo will be out of range (rapids and ions), or way off center, (quads and heavies).

Edited June 13, 2015 by ALaggyGrunt

[Lupin-III]

"These guns behave totally differently" is a very good reason you usually don't want to fire them together. The space in front of your ship where both will be able to hit something is very small, and anything worth shooting will do its very best to not be in that space.

 

Some might work better together (quads and heavies, quads and ions, rapids and ions), but most combos would get very little benefit from that, because most targets worth shooting with the combo will be out of range (rapids and ions), or way off center, (quads and heavies).

 

Eh, whatever. I'm not going to discuss it further with you since you're doing nothing but playing devil's advocate and your post history shows that you just like to shoot down new ideas unless they are your own.

[Linuxizer]

I had suggested something similar. It was partly for fun.

 

I fly the P-39N a lot in IL-2 1946. I never fire the 37mm cannon and the six .303 machine guns together. The ballistics are too different. The rate of fire of the 37mm cannon is too low. I would click off one round at a time. The 2x 20mm cannons and 4x .303 machine guns on the Spitfire Mk.IXc (or the similar setup on your P-38) is a better example. I would fire machine guns only, cannons only, or both, depending on the situation. Another example is the 4x 30mm cannons on the Me-262, which you can fire one pair, or all four.

 

And that is the problem with fire-linking the different primary weapons on the Star Guard / Rycer. Its weapons are too different. That is why part of my suggestion was to allow both primary weapons to be the same type.

 

The X-wing games have the fire-linking toggle. The B-wing, for example, has 3 laser cannons and 3 ion cannons. You can select to fire 1 laser, 3 lasers, 1 ion, 3 ions, or all 6 cannons. Firing all 6 is generally not useful, except perhaps when attacking a Star Destroyer. The X-wing has 4 laser cannons and you can fire 1, 2 or 4 at a time, giving a rate of fire of 100%/50%/25% without changing the rate of damage (DPS). It is more about choosing to spray-and-pray or to aim carefully, and to some extent to help with the weapon convergence problem on the X-wing. Adding all of this to GSF would be interesting, but it is a lot of work that does not solve the problem.

 

If, on the other hand, we allow firing both weapons without reducing the rate of fire, that would double the DPS and it would be overpowering. So to make it balanced, there would have to be some fudge factor when firing both weapons. And if there is going to be a fudge factor anyway, then why spend the effort to create the fire-linking function. So we are back to discussing what numbers to change and by how much.

[Verain]

One of the reasons why strikefighters are not popular is: noone fighter have most powerfull laser weapon- burst laser. This laser is super accurate at mid and close range on moving targets, have high damage and armor ignore. Almost all good (experienced) players use that weapon with scout (flashfire or sting) and gunships.

 

You are correct that BLC is both popular and good. But why not talk about buffing strikes, which is the exact thing the devs asked for, rather than destroying the stuff that works already?

 

Strike fighters don't just lose to BLC. Strike fighters don't just fail because they lack BLC. This is a very shortsighted view of the meta. Bombers don't have BLC, right? Type 1 and Type 3 scouts don't have BLC, and they are both much stronger than strike fighters.

 

Only three ships have BLC, but more than those three ships have a job.

[phalczen]

You are correct that BLC is both popular and good. But why not talk about buffing strikes, which is the exact thing the devs asked for, rather than destroying the stuff that works already?

 

Strike fighters don't just lose to BLC. Strike fighters don't just fail because they lack BLC. This is a very shortsighted view of the meta. Bombers don't have BLC, right? Type 1 and Type 3 scouts don't have BLC, and they are both much stronger than strike fighters.

 

Only three ships have BLC, but more than those three ships have a job.

 

Talking with Drako on some of his streams, he identifies strikes as being an decent candidate for mid range combat, given that scouts have the short range, "under the node" game locked down and GS have the long distance "sniper" game down pat. So, if we take that route, BLCs wouldn't be necessary.... but, it does raise the question of what to replace RFLs with on the T1 strike. Do quads need upgraded range, perhaps to strike chassis only because we do not need the prototypical quads/pods T2 scout build any more lethal? Or should it come by adding [regular] Laser Cannons (BlasTech HMC-15), currently not available on the T1 strike but only on scouts and GS? And, does making the Strike a mid range specialist mean the missiles available on T1/T2 choices need reworking?

 

Is there anything that a Strike would assault/attack from mid-range that it would be useful for? I'd say turrets, of course, maybe an entrenched bomber from down below the node. However, the T1 and T2 strikes already have HLCs which are great for clearing turrets because they have long range and armor piercing, which [reg] LC do not have; and concussions (if you take that talent instead of the slow).

 

So the next option for a "mid range target" seems to be other starfighters which are caught unaware. Since once a T2 scout is aware of you, it can melt you in a few shots, or fly evasively, that initial surprise attack has to hurt, if not cripple ... Similarly, once a GS is aware of you, it only needs to charge ion enough to apply its snare and regen penalty on you to trap you at mid range for itself or its scouts to clean up. So we either need a near-deadly burst damage increase or better escape tools. I can't honestly see them adding DF to strikes or matching the mobility of strikes to that of scouts. So that leaves only a burst increase.

 

I used to want to view the strike as the ideal escort craft. The strikes would protect bombers coming into a node, or GS hiding in TDM. But that means they need tools to deal damage in close range (when the enemy intercepts them) and tools to react when under attack from afar (when the enemy GS tries to snipe them) ... so in other words, the scouts we already have. So I guess that leaves the mid-range threat job open for strikes to apply.

[Ramalina]

Well, they did suggest giving BLCs to strikes as a first choice before they suggested a nerf as a second choice.

 

I think it's probably worth pointing out for Maleckaa that without gaining scout level boost and turn capabilities BLC's would be a bit niche for strikes. BLC works best at 1 - 2 km, and without boosts from TT or BO requires more shots to kill. Strikes currently have trouble getting to and keeping ideal BLC ranges on an uncooperative target.

 

BLCs would be a beast on the T3 strike. That might make it the go-to ship for clearing 1-2 bombers off of a satellite, though I think seismic minelayers would probably still beat it for clearing larger numbers of bombers. This would work because a T3 strike has no problem staying right on the tail of a bomber circling a node, and could tank the mines while using the BLCs. Given that the T3 strike is likely to still have problems running down most types of ships even after buffs, I tend to think that from a balance perspective it's the best candidate for a strike to receive BLCs if any strikes get them.

 

The T1 strike has a few builds that would find BLCs very useful, in that they don't have a good short range primary weapon for hull DPS right now. Still the T1 in a lot of cases is going to run into trouble getting the target in the proper range window for enough time to maul it with BLCs. Short range specialist builds would love it, but a short range specialist strike still trails a BLC scout by a large margin at the short range game, and gives up all the mid-range strengths of a strike to do so. So they'd be nice, but they wouldn't be some sort of miracle cure for strikes.

 

Personally, I'd be as happy with an extra 1 km of range on HLCs and a .25 second lock reduction on concussion missiles as I would be with getting BLCs on any of the strikes.

 

For any strikes that got it, BLC would fill in the checkboxes for:

Short range hull DPS

Easy to hit with at short range

Armor piercing short range weapon

 

 

 

It wouldn't do much for the burst DPS and create reliable peels categories though, which I think are both a bit more problematic for strikes as a class in general.

 

Also range wise strikes as a class are mostly set up to do better than any other ship class in the 5 -10 km range window, but their tools for doing damage in that range and for keeping targets at that range are a bit lacking. Much improved short range performance would help address deficient strike performance at short range (not bad if you're after a generalist approach), but being genuinely strong at mid-range might be better overall for strikes than being less deficient at short range.

 

 

RE: Mid-range performance.

 

Part of the mid-ranged sustained DPS approach isn't that you never close to short range, it's that you have to do enough damage at mid-range so that by the time the short range specialist closes with you it's a reasonably competitive fight between the two even at short range. Much like how a gunship hopes to do serious damage to a target before it can close with the gunship.

 

The trouble is that in the 4-7 km range bracket a strike can't reliably put out enough damage (especially against a target with evasion and short CD missile breaks) to even the odds by the time the ships have closed to short range.

 

More damage, a wider mid-range bracket, and more reliability in shots actually hitting would all potentially address that.

 

The mid-range superiority design can work, it's just that right now it only works against lower skilled players that don't make the proper defensive reactions quickly enough.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Ramalina

[ALaggyGrunt]

Putting BLC on a T1 strike would mean gunships wouldn't be able to laugh at your rapids if you got under their guns. Combined with a chassis buff to range and/or accuracy, it would mean gunships would have to be much more careful if a strike got there-which they very much should have to be, because gunships should be seriously threatened at that range by just about anything which isn't a gunship.

[Odacervicix]

Second, since a strike fighter is a ground attack aircraft as well, they should also be the undisputed kings of attacking a hardened target, such as a satellite entrenched with a bomber's mines and drones. Their protons and concussion missiles are great and all for attacking a moving target, but the slow lock time on them limits them and makes them unsuitable for attacking a stationary target. What I would do for this is add long range, dumbfire, rockets. Unlike the scout's rocket pod 5km range... I would give strike fighters a 10km unguided rocket. This would give them the ability to quickly strike defense turrets, drones, and mines while closing the distance. Combined with a cannon overhaul, they would be able to do their job of actually striking a hardened target and then clear out the bombers.

 

Well, the GS is already pretty great at attacking hardened targets with both armor piercing and spammable ion AoE, and I don't see them being dethroned by rockets. But I've seen the idea of strike-specific rockets a couple of other times, and, as I've mentioned before, I like the idea for the following reasons:

 

1) Adding buffed versions of rockets to strikes buffs strikes without having to deal with distortion field, and without touching the scout/GS balance.

 

2) It also avoids the problems associated with buffing lasers, e.g., lasers not exclusive to strikes, extreme buffs to all lasers on the strike chassis to attempt to make up for an underpowered secondary weapon slot.

 

3) It buffs strikes by taking advantage of their weak secondary weapon slot, turning that slot into an asset.

 

4) If strike rocket builds become strong enough, it forces a choice at tier 3 of distortion field between missile break (which is useless against dumb fire rockets) and a longer evasion buff (which is useful against rockets). This, in turn, might make the other missiles more viable, if people start choosing away from the missile break.

 

I'm not a game theory guy, so maybe I'm missing something. I haven't really seen the rocket idea go through the internet forum idea shredder yet. So I'm not sure how viable it is. But it seems like most of the assets are already there.

 

The exact buffs to these strike-specific rockets would have to be determined. But, I assume that you can modify range, accuracy, firing arc, tracking penalty, firing rate, and damage to create a set of rockets that satisfy the strike's needs. Give the rockets whatever attributes you want to cover up the holes that currently exist in Strike offense.

 

Want something that hits like a blc? Just make a rocket with a slow firing rate, high damage, short range, high accuracy and low tracking penalties. Want something that hits from medium range? Make a rocket that hits at ranges up to 8-10K. Want something that pierces evasion? Make a rocket with really high accuracy when centered.

 

You could also probably load control effects on some rockets, (e.g., ability lockouts, slows and the like) just like missiles, to make them more threatening. You might even be able to load on AoE effects, like EMP missile. Not sure about that last one as I suspect that a rocket that misses just turns into nothing. But I don't really know.

 

Anyway, I like the rocket idea. Not so excited about the linked firing idea. I understand where you are coming from. But it just seems clunky to use. And, I suspect, tough to implement in a way that linked and unlinked fire are both useful and linked fire is not overkill.

[CommanderOtto]

What about a new map that favors strikefighters?

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=818788

Edited June 20, 2015 by CommanderOtto