Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[Svarthrafn]

... and the crying about stealth ships would immediately rise to fever pitch.

 

Given that one of the chief complaints levied against gunships is "I didn't even see what killed me!" do you think people would appreciate and accept a ship class whose defining characteristic is sneaking up on things unseen and killing them?

 

There are interesting mechanics possible with the concept of stealth, and there are sensor abilities that exist now which would finally have a reason for existing, but one thing the introduction of stealth fighters would NOT do is reduce forum whining. It might re-target it slightly, but the cries would be loud and anguished.

 

Despon

 

I think if you didn't make them one-hit killing machines, it wouldn't be so much of a problem. Though I'm not sure I'd trust bioware to do this right. They seem to love making anything with any semblance of stealth an unbalanced killing machine.

 

If strikes could get the same kind of dampening effects that gunships had at launch, and make it strikes-only, I think we could make some headway.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Svarthrafn

[JasonSzeremi]

I think if you didn't make them one-hit killing machines, it wouldn't be so much of a problem. Though I'm not sure I'd trust bioware to do this right. They seem to love making anything with any semblance of stealth an unbalanced killing machine.

 

If strikes could get the same kind of dampening effects that gunships had at launch, and make it strikes-only, I think we could make some headway.

 

Ok you got me thinking (which is dangerous... have you seen some of the stuff my imagination can do?)

 

If and only if they decided strikes should become stealth fighters, then it should probably be a CD, something you pop that makes you dissapear from radar and untargetable by missiles for the durration of it's buff. perhaps something that lasts until you fire weapons perhaps (stealth missile/torpedo lock ons?) on second thought probably something that lasts as long as DF or CP. The strikes weapons are on record not killing most anything in one pass even from surprise.

 

But in the end it sounds a lot like the way space superiority scouts use DF now. And it might do more to calcify the role reversal of strikes as recon/hit and run with light dps, and scouts as strike fighters.

[RickDagles]

I'm afraid when you say bombers are OP vs scouts... what I hear is: Bombers are the rock to scouts scissors, they are supposed to destroy scouts

 

You're a great pilot and a good guy from what I can tell, but if I want to get someone into a tizzy about what's wrong with gsf, esp the balance between scouts and strike fighters all I have to say is:

Scouts get a big gun that does more damage then anything a larger strike fighter can carry

it's an armor piercing shot gun

 

The first I think can be fixed by buffing something.... HLC is coming out as the ideal choice given it's range, although expect to see bombers and even some gunships with them if they become good.

 

the second... I just don't see how it makes sense to have a scatter gun that punches coherent holes through heavy armors... perhaps it was a desperate 'bug' fix by the developers who never intended bombers to take over.

If strikes are to have a role, the ability to 'strike' armored targets is high on my list of possibles without crippling an existing well working classes favorite role: top dog fighter.

 

I also hear..if they did take away AP from BLC (not from scouts who should have some AP left still.... rocket pods are a logical weapon for AP) Then... if they don't buff strikes enough to kill bombers... bombers, not strikes will be the ones getting 'some love' out of this conversation.

 

 

While I do agree that it's a silly concept for the scouts to have this weapon, it makes for great game balance. So I would prefer not to tinker with that.

 

Strikes with HLC/pod would be a lot of fun and a pretty great counter to bombers. The final upgrade on rocket pods would finally serve a purpose due to synergy with HLC range.

[JasonSzeremi]

While I do agree that it's a silly concept for the scouts to have this weapon, it makes for great game balance. So I would prefer not to tinker with that.

 

Strikes with HLC/pod would be a lot of fun and a pretty great counter to bombers. The final upgrade on rocket pods would finally serve a purpose due to synergy with HLC range.

 

as much as I think strikes can carry the blc... it really does seem to favor scout flying abilities. Strikes with pods... now that's 'strike'

 

I recently started a match not realizing all the primary weapons had 'fallen off' my various fighters. Switching to a bomber, which still had no lasers and no secondary mine rack. I ended up with 1 kill 2 assists.... from the rail gun sentry drone alone....

Perhaps bombers are a bit op.... do they really need that many hitpoints to hide behind things?

[Linuxizer]

This does bring up a balance idea that wouldn't require removing DField's break: return DField's duration to 3 seconds. To further make that choice even more compelling remove all of DField's base passive evasion and shift it to that T3 upgrade. That way a DField user who chooses the missile break for added defense against missiles must pay the price of distinctly less evasion defense (meaning even if they break the missile accuracy based damage will stand a better chance of getting through).

 

You wish to give something to the Strike, and take something away from the Scout. You gave rational reasons. Super. And what will you give to the Scout in return?

[Lendul]

You wish to give something to the Strike, and take something away from the Scout. You gave rational reasons. Super. And what will you give to the Scout in return?

Why can't scouts superior speed and maneuverability be enough? Why can't GS range and burst be enough? Why can't bombers tankiness and aoe be enough? With all those things being occupied the only thing left for strikes to have and have a niche of their own would be for them to have superior close/mid range damage. Edited September 15, 2015 by Lendul

[Gavin_Kelvar]

You wish to give something to the Strike, and take something away from the Scout. You gave rational reasons. Super. And what will you give to the Scout in return?

 

What I've given scouts (and GS) is a DField that still has a missile break. My proposal is basically meant to be a compromise between the camp that wants to just remove the missile break outright and the camp that wants to keep DField as is. As I understand S2E builds scouts are entirely viable and absolutely don't need DField to have a place in the meta. Ergo I don't believe scouts, as a class, require any direct compensation for any DField change. Keep in mind though as Tune noted if you buff quick charge and directionals scouts will benefit along with strikers.

 

The unfortunate truth is that scouts have to loose the DField they're used to in one way or another in order for strikers to be given functional secondaries. That loss can come either in the form of an alteration to DField like I propose, an outright nerf that takes the break away entirely and gives them less as a replacement, or an indirect nerf in the form of all missiles being near (or at) cluster levels of spammable. Those are the only ways to make missiles functional in the game.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[ALaggyGrunt]

We could take the dfield missile break effect and put it at the end of the dfield cycle, instead of the beginning.

[Danalon]

We could take the dfield missile break effect and put it at the end of the dfield cycle, instead of the beginning.

 

A 6 second delay in a game where the difference between killing someone or being killed is often a matter of a thenth of a second? It could as well be removed completely then.

 

 

I started participating in this thread a few months ago because instead of suggestions to actually make Strikes better I mostly found nagging about other classes and calling for nerfs.

And here we are again in the same situation.

Why are so many here so obsessed with nerfing one or more of the 3 working classes instead of buffing Strikes to a point where they can be useful? There is a chance Strikes could be as good as the other classes are now but instead some of you suggest nerfs to make other classes as bad as Strikes are now.

DF breaking locks, Scouts having superior evasion, railguns being superior on long range, ion rail drain and interdiction effects punishing Strikes too hard, missiles being bad secondary weapons, etc - Think of something to buff the Strike chassis or components/upgrades they have acces to instead of calling for nerfs to those things that are actually working.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

A 6 second delay in a game where the difference between killing someone or being killed is often a matter of a thenth of a second? It could as well be removed completely then.

 

 

I started participating in this thread a few months ago because instead of suggestions to actually make Strikes better I mostly found nagging about other classes and calling for nerfs.

And here we are again in the same situation.

Why are so many here so obsessed with nerfing one or more of the 3 working classes instead of buffing Strikes to a point where they can be useful? There is a chance Strikes could be as good as the other classes are now but instead some of you suggest nerfs to make other classes as bad as Strikes are now.

DF breaking locks, Scouts having superior evasion, railguns being superior on long range, ion rail drain and interdiction effects punishing Strikes too hard, missiles being bad secondary weapons, etc - Think of something to buff the Strike chassis or components/upgrades they have acces to instead of calling for nerfs to those things that are actually working.

 

Well what you're missing with DField is that it has effectively rendered an entire weapon class unusable to the point that they might as well not even exist in the game. Strike fighters currently experience offensively what a scout would experience with no offensive CDs and no secondary weapon. Unless you directly alter DField's missile break the only other way to make missiles usable is to make them as spammable as clusters to be able to piece through the existing double break system. That would effectively make DField even more essential and the builds without DField that much weaker.

 

The reason nerfing DField's missile break comes up so much is because there's really no way to make missiles exist in game without altering the existing double break world in some way. That can take the form of either altering DField directly or indirectly by doing something like make all missiles as spammable as clusters. Remember GS use DField too so unless you're in favor of strikers only being viable against bombers and still free kills to GS and scouts then things need to be shaken up so that either 1) strikers can reliably threaten both GS and scouts with concs/torps which are their only source of burst damage or 2) reliably break through DField's defenses to do severe or lethal damage using primaries alone.

 

Now if you want to go with option 2 in order to leave the current meta where missiles effectively don't exist due to DField's break then you're talking about giving strikers primary weapons with enough punch that on their own that is somewhere on the level of surpass the best burst a scout can muster using offensive CDs, primaries, and secondaries combined (strikers need the offensive teeth that you can't ignore being in their sights without risking critical or lethal damage just the way a GS and scout targeting you can't be ignored). IMO that's arguably far worse than removing DField's break since it basically means anything without a scout's defenses will be vaporized faster than a battlescout currently can do. I suppose instead of buffing their damage directly to that extreme a level you could give strikers a moderate DO level buff and give them a passive accuracy bonus that at minimum ignores DField's active evasion. But then you've still nerfed DField in some way.

 

By all means though tell me how you can make heavy missiles viable against GS/scouts using DField that doesn't involve directly or indirectly nerfing DField. You can argue that nerfs shouldn't be on the table at all and that's fine. But you should then give us some suggestions of what buffs you would implement that would allow strikers to reliably threaten DField users with lethal damage such that activating DField no longer allows a GS/scout to ignore a striker until they're ready to kill it.

 

I think Jason's quote sums up both the current problems strikers have (in no small part due to DField allowing GS/scouts to ignore the threat presented by strikers) and what strikers need to be able to do.

 

All I want is the ability to shoot down my target just as well as my target can shoot me down. Give me the tools to do the job the strike fighter was designed for, let it be one where the one who fires first flys away, and I'll never complain about being shot down.

But if I fire first, do everything right, and still get shot down by another craft in my ideal range, head to head, then something is wrong with my bird.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Danalon]

Well what you're missing with DField is that it has effectively rendered an entire weapon class unusable to the point that they might as well not even exist in the game.

 

That still leaves the possibility to buff that weapon class instead of nerfing DF.

 

By all means though tell me how you can make heavy missiles viable against GS/scouts using DField that doesn't involve directly or indirectly nerfing DField.

 

Buff the missiles. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "indirectly nerfing" in particular. What I have a problem with is not that DF may be less useful in the future. The problem is, that instead of making Strike suggestions there are "nerf others" calls. The other classes are working well for the most part, don't change them - make Strikes work as well as them.

 

 

Make a new copilot ability that gives a 20s buff and during that buff every missile the pilot launches can't be avoided once it's on its way.

If a missile is sucessfully locked and launched, it's going to hit. If the target decides to disrupt the locking process, he's losing a cooldown, while the missile doesn't. Next lockon process can be started immediately.

 

Considering that at the moment the best time to break a lock is when it's on its way, this ability has the potential to let a target burn it's cooldowns and be vulnerable later. That Copilot has the added benefit of affecting other underrepresented ships as well (T3 Bomber and T2 Gunship). Now add some general Strike buffs and it could work extremely well for Strikes.

For example:

Give Strikes a flat 20% accuracy buff. If the Strike manages to force its target to use cooldowns early because of lockons, the Strike's blasters will do even more damage.

Throw in a bigger engine energy pool, so the Strike can chase its target better.

And maybe add 20%-30% (depending on weapon) extra range for Strikes. They'll be better at surprise attacks and it will be easier to chase other ships.

If that's not enough, start lowering reload or lockon times for missiles.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Danalon

[Danalon]

Just had another idea. Strikes could be more missile centered by making all their missiles work similar as cluster double volley worked in the beginning.

 

Strike will use dual chambered versions of every missile, shooting two missiles at once, instead of one. Each missile will do 50% of the damage, so they add up to the same amount a single missile does on other ships. If a target uses it's missile break after the missiles are launched, only one of the missile will lose it's lock. A guarantee for at least 50% of the damage arriving at the target. Also, both missilies carry whatever debuffs the missile has; the debuffs don't stack, but are applied everytime, because one of the missiles will hit.

[Ryuku-sama]

Just had another idea. Strikes could be more missile centered by making all their missiles work similar as cluster double volley worked in the beginning.

 

Strike will use dual chambered versions of every missile, shooting two missiles at once, instead of one. Each missile will do 50% of the damage, so they add up to the same amount a single missile does on other ships. If a target uses it's missile break after the missiles are launched, only one of the missile will lose it's lock. A guarantee for at least 50% of the damage arriving at the target. Also, both missilies carry whatever debuffs the missile has; the debuffs don't stack, but are applied everytime, because one of the missiles will hit.

 

And.. For a damage buff... A missile does 75% of the original missile damage.. Meaning 150% total.

Only problem would be with Cluster... The strike would launch three volleys???? Or four?? How much increase?

[Danalon]

And.. For a damage buff... A missile does 75% of the original missile damage.. Meaning 150% total.

Only problem would be with Cluster... The strike would launch three volleys???? Or four?? How much increase?

 

An additional damage buff to missiles for Strikes could be useful. However I preferred if that buff were indireclty, via reload or/and lockon time reduction. I'd say Clusters have double double volleys then, so 4 projectiles of which 2 always hit.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Danalon

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "indirectly nerfing" in particular.

 

What I basically meant was DField wouldn't be as effective as it used to be and, depending on the routine taken, affected in such a way that it might as well have been nerfed directly.

 

Make a new copilot ability that gives a 20s buff and during that buff every missile the pilot launches can't be avoided once it's on its way.

If a missile is sucessfully locked and launched, it's going to hit. If the target decides to disrupt the locking process, he's losing a cooldown, while the missile doesn't. Next lockon process can be started immediately.

 

That's an interesting idea. The problems I have are 1) how will you limit access so a battlescout can't use it too? (since up to this point it's unclear that crew can be coded to be ship specific) 2) more than just strikers use heavy missiles and could use this so it can't be strike specific (since ideally torps should be viable on all ships that can use them, not just strikers; the T2 GS being an example 3) missiles should be viable without any extra abilities, you shouldn't have to take a copilot ability to have a viable secondary weapon; using co-pilot abilities to make missiles reliable just creates a whole slew of newb traps which we really don't need more of. 4)unless this co-pilot was unlocked by default you'd basically put newbs at that much more of a disadvantage when they spawn in without the co-pilot that makes their secondary weapon viable

 

 

Give Strikes a flat 20% accuracy buff. If the Strike manages to force its target to use cooldowns early because of lockons, the Strike's blasters will do even more damage.

 

I do like this in theory and think they desperately need it. The one problem I see is that DField will also completely negate this accuracy buff so they're still going to be in a sticky situation jousting scouts. Given that strikers are unlikely to be buffed to win a turn fight they need a buff to allow them to reliably win in a joust. So, IMO, strikers need an accuracy buff much greater than 20% to ensure that when a scout blows its defensive CDs it can mitigate one, but not both, sources of strike damage (unlike now where scouts can mitigate both damage sources while a strike just has to hope it can absorb all of the scout's burst). Overall I think strikes need at least one offensive scenario where a scout will want to withdraw rather than engage the strike.

 

Throw in a bigger engine energy pool, so the Strike can chase its target better.

And maybe add 20%-30% (depending on weapon) extra range for Strikes. They'll be better at surprise attacks and it will be easier to chase other ships.

If that's not enough, start lowering reload or lockon times for missiles.

 

I definitely like the mobility boost. Based on my personal experience torps need a lock-on/reload reduction regardless because they're far too easy to LOS right now and take so long to reload they aren't competitive at all with railguns in efficiency (they don't need to be equal to railguns but they shouldn't loose to railguns in efficiency by such a large margin; if they're supposed to be long range anti-armor they should at least be competitive with the other long range anti-armor weapon in the game).

 

 

Strike will use dual chambered versions of every missile, shooting two missiles at once, instead of one. Each missile will do 50% of the damage, so they add up to the same amount a single missile does on other ships. If a target uses it's missile break after the missiles are launched, only one of the missile will lose it's lock. A guarantee for at least 50% of the damage arriving at the target. Also, both missilies carry whatever debuffs the missile has; the debuffs don't stack, but are applied everytime, because one of the missiles will hit.

 

Just wondering but would this reduce their ammo count at all?

 

Also, IMO, since missiles are the only source of burst damage for strikers each missile needs to do closer to 100% of it's original damage. Otherwise their burst damage will still be fairly below par. Doing 150% damage for both missiles like Ryuku suggests might also allow torps to become more potent bomber killers without having to make them crazy spammable. If you gave them lock-on/reload stats like interdiction missiles they wouldn't be super spammable but, with the double volley mechanic, they would heavily threaten a bomber that got tagged (unlike now where it's a very slow war of attrition that is also highly inefficient). But I do like the double volley idea as an alternate.

[Danalon]

I don't think a limit to that copilot ability for battlescouts is necessary, because I'm certain wingman would outperform it on those.

Yes, it would affect other ships than Strikes, that's the downside. Mostly It would affect T2 Gunships and T3 bombers I think. Buffing those may let them outperform Strikes again, that's why I mentioned direct Strike buffs in addition to it.

I see the downsides of it being a mandatory copilot, but the same is more or less applicable for wingman now. I mentioned a general +20% accuracy buff for Strikes, so they have a baked in wingman. Scouts would still have evasion, that's their trait, but it would be easier to counter for Strikes. Being able to force someone to use a break before a missile is launched in combination with an accuracy buff has a higher threat potential, because the DF has to be used earlier and the next lockon will follow immediately. The accuracy buff isn't there to counter DF, but to counter passive evasion, while no cooldown is up.

You are worried about DF being able to counter both Strike damage sources for a short time. If you use the "lockon copilot" it will help less against missiles, if you use wingman, on top of an 20% accuracy buff, it will be less useful against blasters. Also, I want to keep DFs ability to decide a 1v1 close combat situation, when it's used correctly. A scout should be threatening to everything when it uses cooldowns, otherwise there wouldn't be a point to cooldowns. However, a scout also should be more vulnerable while his cooldowns aren't up and that's what I'm aiming at with those suggestions. In other words, while the cooldowns are up, the scout needs to be superior, but after they wore off the Strike should be. Also those buffs should make it easier for a Strike to get the first hit in, a wounded scout is much less dangerous, because he knows he can die any moment.

 

To Strike buffs in general. From my experience, the main problems that Strikes have are either debuff related and dependent on opponent (ion rail, interdicition effects) and that their weapons (usually HLC or quads & missiles) don't have a large enough area in which they work well. A boost to the engine pool may help against the negative effects of the debuffs, maybe add a bigger blaster pool to - or a high regeneration bonus for one or both of the pools. Longer range would help Strikes to be less extended as they are now. Most of the time they need to get close but don't have close range weqponry. With the passive accuracy buff it should be easier to make high deflection HLC shots hit bombers under satellites. With the range it should be easier to engage gunships (I'm thinking of HLCs at 10km and torpedos at 13-14km). WIth range and accuracy combined it should be easier to surprise scouts and deal damage to them before they run off or engage and therefore taking them out of the game for a short period or giving them a disadvantage if they decide to stay in combat.

 

 

Well. either that passive double volley should not affect ammo at all. Or it should use double ammo but Strikes get twice the magazine size. I'd go with the first one, because it would be easier to see how many shots are remaining for the pilot. It wouldn't be a good buff, if it came with the huge tradeoff of cutting ammo count in half. If those missles did more damage, I can see the main problem in their use against bombers, which don't have maneuvers. I also didn't have burst damage in my mind with this change but a higher, less avoidabale sustained damage. I think shorter reloads or lockons might work better for that.

Another problem is, I only have basic knowledge of how torpedos behave from a users perspective. I mostly used them in games where I flew a new T2 bomber and didn't have the req to buy seekers. So the question arises: What would work better in real combat?

Double volley with 150% damage total, half of that unavoidable, with current lockon and reload times.

or

Double volley with 100% damage total, half of that unavoidable, with reduced lockon and/or reload times.

or maybe even another option.

[Svarthrafn]

I see a common trend through this, and as a strike pilot I see it in game too:

 

Scouts jousting with strike fighters.

 

A scout shouldn't be jousting with a strike fighter. A scout should be using their speed and maneuverability to get out of the strike's forward arc, not charging at it confident of their success.

 

Whatever it takes to make it so that a scout jousting a strike becomes a dicey proposition will do a lot to make strikes viable.

[Danalon]

I see a common trend through this, and as a strike pilot I see it in game too:

 

Scouts jousting with strike fighters.

 

A scout shouldn't be jousting with a strike fighter. A scout should be using their speed and maneuverability to get out of the strike's forward arc, not charging at it confident of their success.

 

Whatever it takes to make it so that a scout jousting a strike becomes a dicey proposition will do a lot to make strikes viable.

 

A Scout jousting a Strike is wasting his cooldowns on a target that usually doesn't need cooldowns to be used on. Either the Scout isn't busy enough to fight other things like gunships or the Scout pilot decided that the Strike needed to be taken out fast and didn't have time to get in a better firing position.

 

The main problem here are the Strike's shields, they're not durable enough. A buff to directionals, for example making them even more tanky could help here. Another probably more interesting option would be a buff to QCS, for example it could fill 100% of the shields on use instead of 30% or instead of just letting the ability fill a fixed amount it could set the shield regen rate to a high amount for a short time, 250-500 energy per second refill over 3-6 seconds or something.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Danalon

[Svarthrafn]

A Scout jousting a Strike is wasting his cooldowns on a target that usually doesn't need cooldowns to be used on. Either the Scout isn't busy enough to fight other things like gunships or the Scout pilot decided that the Strike needed to be taken out fast and didn't have time to get in a better firing position.

 

The ace talk, while great, completely misses the point I was trying to make. A scout jousting a strike fighter at full capability shouldn't be a viable option. If the strike has wasted their cooldowns, is damaged, or in duress in some other way, sure. But as a complete noob I was able to joust down full strength strikes in my scout way too easily, and that has never changed.

 

How is buffing QCS or directionals going to help the strike without helping the battlescout EVEN MORE?

Edited September 17, 2015 by Svarthrafn

[Gavin_Kelvar]

If you use the "lockon copilot" it will help less against missiles, if you use wingman, on top of an 20% accuracy buff, it will be less useful against blasters.

 

I don't dispute this but I'm just concerned that relying on a co-pilot ability to make the difference (rather than inherent base stats) means a strike will be far too reliant on a long CD co-pilot ability to be a threat to a scout that is using CDs that will be up long before the co-pilot ability is. I don't think the viability of a class offensively should rely on the use of co-pilot abilities.

 

Also, I want to keep DFs ability to decide a 1v1 close combat situation, when it's used correctly. A scout should be threatening to everything when it uses cooldowns, otherwise there wouldn't be a point to cooldowns. However, a scout also should be more vulnerable while his cooldowns aren't up and that's what I'm aiming at with those suggestions. In other words, while the cooldowns are up, the scout needs to be superior, but after they wore off the Strike should be. Also those buffs should make it easier for a Strike to get the first hit in, a wounded scout is much less dangerous, because he knows he can die any moment.

 

I agree with basically everything you've said except here. Given scouts will likely retain superior mobility allowing them to largely choose when and where to fight (which seems to define their ideal tactic of hit and run) then I think strikers absolutely need to have some scenarios where, even blowing all their CDs the strike will beat them by a large margin if it can pull off the first shot. If the only time a striker has the advantage is during a scout's CD period they'll basically never be able to kill a non-distracted scout target which will be a problem since they'll have no ability to discourage a scout from engaging them.

 

Keeping DField able to decide a 1v1 basically boils down to keeping the meta as is when it comes to scouts vs strikes. Even when a strike does everything right, bates the scout into a joust (which favors their sustained, high tracking penalty weapons and/or long lock-on weapons), and gets the first shot in scouts can (and do) use DField to completely negate being at a disadvantage. Being able to get the first shot in won't make a difference to strikes if scouts can completely opt out of being caught at a disadvantage. And it certainly won't make a difference if scouts retain their ability to use DField to completely negate the strikes seeming advantage in a joust and then use their offensive CDs to kill the strike anyway.

 

I don't want scouts to be non-threatening even with CDs up, I just don't want them to be able to ignore the threat a strike presents because the scouts CDs are up (which is what currently happens, CDs up means whatever threat a strike might present is gone). Even with CDs up scouts can't (and don't) ignore the threat presented by a GS or bomber and I want scouts to treat strikes that way too.

 

Another problem is, I only have basic knowledge of how torpedos behave from a users perspective. I mostly used them in games where I flew a new T2 bomber and didn't have the req to buy seekers. So the question arises: What would work better in real combat?

Double volley with 150% damage total, half of that unavoidable, with current lockon and reload times.

or

Double volley with 100% damage total, half of that unavoidable, with reduced lockon and/or reload times.

or maybe even another option.

 

Well I'd say that the current lock-on times need to be changed because a bomber can LOS torps maddeningly easy with the current lock-on. So 150% damage with current lock-on/reload won't be a useful buff because the amount of damage you do isn't worth the effort it takes to land them. In their current state they are simply not user friendly. IMO the long lock-on also contributes to making it vulnerable to ninja lock losses by giving you more time to have the game registering your target escaping you're small firing arc. So I'd overall say the lock-on and firing arc need to be buffed for the simple sake of bug fixing.

 

Personally I'd go for 125% damage with interdiction missile lock-on/reload times. The lock-on would be short enough to allow it to reliably tag a bomber using LOS while not being super spammable. The 125% damage means a single missile hit is still doing competitive damage in a dogfight so a T1/T3 strike isn't left entirely without a ship-to-ship missile (not perhaps as ideal as clusters or a conc but still something that can be pressed into service in a pinch). Ideal world I'd give them the interdiction lock-on/reload time with the 150% damage but that's me wanting a missile that is truly devastating when it hits and something you fear to see heading your way after feeling that they just don't have the punch you'd expect for the amount of effort you spent setting it up.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Svarthrafn]

To add some torpedo insight, I use torpedoes a lot, but only on the T2 strike. The lock on and arc are too restrictive anywhere but mid-long to extreme range. Around the 5-6000m mark, you have to have something available with a shorter lock on, and bigger arc (though arc Is mostly because of the latency). In high LOS-able areas, torps are nigh useless. Sometimes you can get a torpedo off if you relocate directly above or below a sat, but that raises other problems.

 

Due to all this, on any ship with only 1 missile option, I never bring torpedoes. On the T2 strike, I absolutely love them, but only because I have a second option to overcome their weakesses.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Svarthrafn

[ALaggyGrunt]

Something else to do with missiles is to make locks not instantly break with LoS. You just lose as much lock as the target has spent behind something, which makes LoSing through the fins on sats not work as well any more.

[Altheran]

Something else to do with missiles is to make locks not instantly break with LoS. You just lose as much lock as the target has spent behind something, which makes LoSing through the fins on sats not work as well any more.

 

There would likely need better cues of how much the lock is progressing, or regressing. Otherwise it would affect the QoL about how to release a missile the quickest way.

At the moment one can time the button release from habit knowing how long it takes, but the time would now be "modular" and actual cues are poor/insufficient at the moment IMO.

 

To add some torpedo insight, I use torpedoes a lot, but only on the T2 strike. The lock on and arc are too restrictive anywhere but mid-long to extreme range. Around the 5-6000m mark, you have to have something available with a shorter lock on, and bigger arc (though arc Is mostly because of the latency).

That's normal if you ask me. The torpedo is meant to be used in complement or as a replacement of missiles with shorter range, so it's actualy fine that you feel the need for using these missiles instead when you enter their range of efficiency. The contrary would be an indication of the Torpedoes being overkill.

 

Though, I think they could use a little buff in the firing arc department, especially speaking about the unupgraded torpedoes. Way too restrictive before the grade 4 upgrade and/or without the crew bonus, IMO.

I'd split the upgrade's 4 degrees half into torpedoes' baseline and half into the upgrade, and would do the same about the crew bonus, even if it means giving 2 degrees to every weapon for all ships.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Altheran

[Danalon]

How is buffing QCS or directionals going to help the strike without helping the battlescout EVEN MORE?

Because battlescouts already have DF. Bringing up QCS and directionals to the level DF in terms of defense against blasters would buff only ships that don't have DF.

If the beneficial effects of QCS and directionals get tied to the size of the shield pool those shields will be stronger on Strikes than on Scouts.

 

Personally I'd go for 125% damage with interdiction missile lock-on/reload times.

Concussion missiles should get the lockon time of interdictions (1.7), torpedos that of concussions (2.6). Torpedos with interdiction like lockon times would be overkill in melee situations.

 

I agree with basically everything you've said except here. Given scouts will likely retain superior mobility allowing them to largely choose when and where to fight (which seems to define their ideal tactic of hit and run) then I think strikers absolutely need to have some scenarios where, even blowing all their CDs the strike will beat them by a large margin if it can pull off the first shot. If the only time a striker has the advantage is during a scout's CD period they'll basically never be able to kill a non-distracted scout target which will be a problem since they'll have no ability to discourage a scout from engaging them.

This and some other posts of you read to me like you want to give Strikes so many buffs that they obsoletize ANY cooldown of every other ship. What would be the point of cooldowns then? As I said above, Strikes shields could be buffed to survive such situations better but considering that it's a shield cooldown and a scout has a shield cooldown and an offensive cooldown, the scout should be superior if he decideds to use both on a single ship.

 

 

 

 

Another point is: Why do those joust situations some of you talk about always sound like it's impossible to just avoid the joust for the pilot in the inferor ship? Everytime I read something about jousting favoring scouts it sounds like there is some magical tube with both ships flying inside of it, not being able to change directions.

Whenever I see someone with active cooldowns coming for me I run or hide or evade - I don't joust. And I keep that person targeted until either his cooldowns wear off or he chooses another target because he realizes his cooldowns are useless if he doesn't get me anyway. In both cases, that's my time to attack.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Danalon

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Concussion missiles should get the lockon time of interdictions (1.7), torpedos that of concussions (2.6). Torpedos with interdiction like lockon times would be overkill in melee situations.

 

Honestly I don't believe they'd be overkill. The very narrow firing arc would make sure of that. If you land a torp in melee it means you 1) did a real good job tracking your enemy or 2) your enemy committed serious pilot error. There's really no way under 5km that a torp will easily get locked on unless they're flying straight at you.

 

Why do those joust situations some of you talk about always sound like it's impossible to just avoid the joust for the pilot in the inferor ship?

 

Because strikers lack the mobility to flee from a scout closing on them. Currently a strike is in a very similar situation to a GS, namely if they are unable to kill the scout before it closes then the only way they'll get the scout off their tail is if an ally peels for them.

 

This and some other posts of you read to me like you want to give Strikes so many buffs that they obsoletize ANY cooldown of every other ship. What would be the point of cooldowns then? As I said above, Strikes shields could be buffed to survive such situations better but considering that it's a shield cooldown and a scout has a shield cooldown and an offensive cooldown, the scout should be superior if he decideds to use both on a single ship.

 

Not make CDs obsolete but not make them instant "defeat strike" buttons. Which is what they currently are. CDs shouldn't allow a scout to defeat strikes in any and all situations where the strike has to hope it engages the scout during the short 10-15 second window of opportunity when the CDs aren't up. Keeping that in place isn't balance since it basically means strikes always have to engage a distracted scout and there are no situations that play to the strike's advantage against a fresh scout. I'm arguing for making it where there are situations that a scout will NOT want to engage a strike even if it's CDs are ready because the strike still threatens the scout with lethal damage. Scouts don't get to simply ignore a GS and treat it's threat as non-existant just because DField is ready, and it's not an ideal tactic to charge right down a railgun barrel due to the possibility of that railgun shot still landing for critical or lethal damage. Yet when CDs are ready a scout has no reason to be threatened by a strike.

 

Whenever I see someone with active cooldowns coming for me I run or hide or evade - I don't joust. And I keep that person targeted until either his cooldowns wear off or he chooses another target because he realizes his cooldowns are useless if he doesn't get me anyway. In both cases, that's my time to attack.

 

In order for your suggestion to work for strikes you'd have to 1) give them defenses that allow their shields to absorb the vast majority of the scout's burst cycle (because they don't have DField their shields need to be able to absorb the brunt of the damage during the period when they will be basically unable to harm the scout; currently they don't have this and take critical or lethal damage to a target they have minimal ability to harm) 2) have superior boost range and speed to the scout to allow it to disengage, reposition, and line up an attack run that will do lethal damage to the scout in under 10 seconds (also something the currently lack since they lack the mobility to disengage once a scout has decided to attack them).

 

Realistically what #2 means is this: being able to boost out to 15km against a scout going full burn pursuing them (we have to assume the scout pursues and you need 15km to allow a strike to turn to face it's pursuer with enough space to line up a conc/torp and get the target centered for minimal tracking penalty). They then have to do critical or lethal damage to the scout, and this has to occur under 10 seconds. This assumes that the first 3 seconds of CDs were spent in the initial engagement. Leaving abilities like retros with only 12 seconds left on their CD. Unless I'm mistaken BR + DField means a scout can have a missile break every 10 seconds with proper CD management. After 10 seconds it becomes much more iffy that the strike will win since a scouts defensive CDs will be ready or close to ready (and that's assuming the scout blew them all, if the scout didn't then it already has defensive CDs ready to neutralize the strike's threat if necessary, making the entire process the strike just engaged in futile); during this time there's a possibility TT will be at the tail end of it's up period which lasts 15 seconds (assuming the initial engagement lasted 3-6 seconds only that means anywhere from 9 to 12 seconds of this time of the strike re positioning to kill the scout TT is still up presenting a serious threat to the strike). Because strikes HAVE to get their damage in before the defensive CDs are ready they don't have the option to also wait for TT to be on CD since the scout's defensive CDs could very well be ready before then. By 15 seconds the defensive CDs are ready, nullifying the threat posed by the strike and it has to restart the disengagement process. That's a super tall order to have strikes do in 10 (at most 15) seconds in order to pose a threat to a scout and requires the scout to play along; if the scout doesn't then the strike may never be in a situation where it presents a threat. With DField and breaks it's entirely possible it won't be until the 3rd attack run the strike attempts where it will catch the scout without any defensive CDs ready (the first and second being used to burn through the scout's CDs that completely neutralize the strike's threat), but by then TT may be ready again.

 

Are you in favor of giving strikes the ability to do all that in under 10 seconds?

Edited September 17, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar