Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[Svarthrafn]

Honestly it sounds like someone flies a battle scout and wants to retain their advantage. I don't want strikes (or any ship) to obsolete any other ships either, but we have exactly that already, and it is called the T2 scout. There's a reason almost every "ace" flies one.

 

The difference in shield pool between strikes and scouts isn't great enough that buffs to QCS or Directionals are going to greatly help the strike whether DF remains the same or not; because if you buff them too much, you're going to see the battle scouts start using them too.

 

As to jousting strike vs scout, you actually suggested that the strike should disengage and avoid a joust with the scout? You are implying that you think it is perfectly fine for the scout to be favored in this type of engagement, are you not? Do you even strike, bro? The scout has the speed and maneuverability advantage. He is the one dictating the engagement, and the only one realistically able to say "I ain't jousting". If a strike doesn't want to joust, all he can do is boost to close the distance quickly while rolling to keep the deflection angle high, which may or may not help...no matter what, he's still taking hits. The scout likely has the advantage in any close LOS-ing situation. The strike can't run away. The scout will just chase him down and shove lasers up his butt, so he rolls the dice and jousts.

 

Where I do think he gets things right is on the lock times. As a heavy missile user, I think a lot of what is being suggested would be too short.

 

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.

 

This seems pretty good, provided a lock reduction ability can still be selected for both. We have to be careful, lest bombers become too powerful when they take these.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Svarthrafn

[Gavin_Kelvar]

The difference in shield pool between strikes and scouts isn't great enough that buffs to QCS or Directionals are going to greatly help the strike whether DF remains the same or not; because if you buff them too much, you're going to see the battle scouts start using them too.

 

What if you buffed strikes to have, as base shield strength, what they currently get with directions + crew passives? (As a strike pilot I'd love it if their base shield pool was what they currently get with directions + large reactor + crew passives but that might be overkill). Either way they'd have a respectable base shield pool that could then be buffed further with components/crew passives. Personally I'd also lower their regen delay to 4 seconds (1.5 seconds seems to be the hard cap for how low you can reduce the delay, so you'd get slightly less benefit from the T3 option than before but it would free up a strike to take the large reactor to enhance their shield strength further). That'd allow directionals to give strikes an even beefier shield pool with which to absorb damage without buffing the component directly. If you got rid of QCS minus to shield strength a strike using it would now have a much stronger shield pool, when combined with large reactor it would be fairly respectable when you consider they're trading even more strength for enhanced mobility.

 

As I recall someone suggested a "shield hardening" that counters bypass. Maybe you could integrate that into directionals? That'd make it a worthy choice and reason to sacrifice the increased mobility provided by buffed QCS.

[JasonSzeremi]

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?

 

Generally speaking the battle scouts you are going up against are using Distortion field for the extra missile buff, thus making strikes missiles even less reliable then usual. if they are diverting to quick charge shields then that drops one missile break.... Directional users swear they don't NEED an extra break.

Scout shields should be thinner at basic then strike shields (they are aren't they?) so anything that increases/restores shields might favor the strike fighter.

 

I still agree, a scout jousting a strike head to head, should lose.... it should not be the way a skillful pilot in a scout engages a heavily armed and armored target. If blowing cool downs changes that, strike pilots are still being asked to be cannon fodder to the 'skilled pilot' who's charging into the cannons of what is supposed to be a dangerous foe.

[JasonSzeremi]

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.

 

Because in a joust is where the strike fighter's strengths come to bare. better shields, bigger guns (in theory) the chance to get a good missile lock off. The best deflection angle. The joust is where the enemy's maneuverability is not coming into play... the scout doing a joust on a strike fighter is making a tactical error.

 

As one game designer put it: If your game lets Cav charge up hill against entrenchments/bunkers and win, then your game design is wrong.

 

the scout isn't trapped in a joust.... the strike might be seeking a joust to be able to hit a scout. Currently the strike is at a serious disadvantage in mobility and cannot out run a scout with the same engine capacity, out turning them in a dogfight is off the table, and hiding/evading is more then challenging since the scout can fly faster, longer, and turn tighter.

so when you ask a pilot in a slower, less maneuverable craft to choose when it engages an enemy, some pilots only hear you poking fun at what's currently wrong with strikes. (I did notice you are all for improving strike's engine cap which might let them boost away on a good day but scouts sometimes have CDs for that too)

[tunewalker]

quick charge shield math fun.

 

assuming quick charge did NOT penalize max shield strength (so shields with quick charge = base shields)

 

Pike with 10% crew = 1980 shields

 

T2 Scout with Large Reactor and crew (+30%) = 1690

 

Strike fighter advantage 290 that's almost 300 shields... which is about 1 shot of a rapid fire or a laser canon. Further fun comes in the regen rates as strikes regen faster thus with the 60% regen while under fire upgrade strikes can see a difference closer to equal to 1 quad laser shot, which is fairly substantial.

 

 

vs Current

 

Pike with 10% crew = 1440

 

T2 Scout with Large reactor and crew (+30%)= 1300

 

Difference is 140, massively smaller, I could point out what scout shield levels are CURRENTLY with disto but that would just highlight the problem even more.

 

 

I have said this before and I will say it again. Strikes have the best BASE shields, what this means is any component that positively OR NEGATIVELY affects that shield strength on a strike will have greater impact than on any other ship. The largest shield pool possible is on the T3 Strike using Charged plating and a bunch of + shield capacities ( Shield converter 'shield power upgrade', large reactor, +10% shields crew) at a massive (and useless) 3330 shields. But even with that you can still drop shields on a strike down to a catastrophically low 1,260 with quick charge and no +10% crew or large reactor, and one strike that has quick charge as an option can not even pick up a reactor meaning its best shield strength if it wants half decent mobility is only 1,440 as I pointed out before. That same mobility is beat by a Distortion field T2 Scout, which has the added benefit of extremely high evasion and a second missile break all with the low low cost of 10 shields and some regen rate on shields that honestly no one cares about. Or they can just pick up Directionals still have greater mobility AND higher evasion all while having STRONGER shields at a nice comfortable 1820, which is even better then what the T1 Strike gets... and it HAS a reactor. This is the issue, people use quick charge to try to bypass the strikes mobility issues, but what they end up with is a scout that has less shield strength, less evasion, less damage and less mobility, basically a dead man's paper weight.

 

 

This is the point people keep making about how bad the shields on a strike are, or the mobility on the strike is, or anything on a strike is. Which is why I say ya you can go ahead and buff these shields.. it will affect strikes more because their base shields are more, thus any multiplier will be larger for them. You can buff their hull because they have a huge hull difference between them and the next guy up in bombers, you can buff their range because their mobility is closer to a gunship then it is to a scout, thus it needs effective weapon ranges that reflect this, you can buff their mobility meaning range has to be buffed less as it makes them easier able to keep up with targets, but just buffing one will likely not be enough, I point back to my really really old post on this, but it would take some serious digging, ultimately it had a LOT of buffs for strikes, to the point where some were calling it OP. (increased range on strike chasis of like 1000-2000 meters on all weapons... that's right we are talking about cluster missiles with a base 6,000-7,000 meter range 'that is a 6,600 to 7,700 meter range when upgraded incase people are wondering'... ON STRIKES ONLY, increased engine efficiency to be closer to quick charge levels passively, increasing shield strength on quick charge and directionals by 10-30%, Double regen levels on all + regen things, fixing rapids, lights, and fixing bad missiles, decreasing lock times on everything not cluster, increasing base hull strength by 20-30% and a bunch of other changes. I ended up showing what my strike would look like and it was met with a big so its not neccisary to remove something just make the numbers on a strike to a level where they are feared and the job will be done. And by numbers I mean EFFICIENCY NUMBERS not damage numbers)

 

the point I like to make on missiles is I see each range and type of missile to be meant for a specific target. Clusters are meant for those double missile break ships, specifically the scout that can get up close and deal with the things the way it does, or even in some ways the gunship since getting close to one is its "counter" so these missiles are meant for multi break missile ships, as if they dont have multi break usually they can just soak these and be ok (strikes and bombers). Concusions were meant for the 1 missile break ships (the strikes) but strikes arent in the meta so these arent in the meta, if strikes were these would be great, they do a little bit more damage nd have a bit more consequence for hitting, you could even lump ion's in here with how they operate their issue though is the reload time in addition to the lock time, so I dont think concussions NEED to hit scouts or gunships. And finally the Proton seems meant for the ship that has 0 missile breaks, thus hitting something with a missile break should be rare, this is why I dont really advicate reducing reload times, they are there as a means to say which missile is meant for which ship type, but I am all for decreasing lock times for more efficiency in doing so (seriously try to launch a proton on a good bomber on a node and tell me how long it takes you to get ... that length of time is likely longer then it should have taken to kill the bloody bomber) and I am all for increasing engine efficiency and range on a strike to make them more reliable all around be it with lasers or missiles.

 

As Verain's "jack of all trades" speech went and how mine went a while back. Verain talked about his jack having a railgun, but not the best railgun, and a mine, but not the best mine. while my jack talked about not having the best mobility.... but it was darn close, not having the best range, but it was darn close, and not having hte best defenses... but it was darn close. Right now its second best mobility sure...but its closer to the third then it is to the first, that's not a jack.. that's a 8 or a 9, Right now its range is around the same as the worst range, not much different, that's not a jack that's a 4, or a 5, right now its defenses are also among the worse, simply because how evasion works, but even when just looking at numbers its defenses are again closer to the 3rd then they are to the first, that's not a jack... that is an 8 or a 9... get it to where all the numbers are that of a true jack, and you may have something, as I said before they got the master of none right, but they had a big miss on that "jack"

Edited September 18, 2015 by tunewalker

[JasonSzeremi]

I can't help but agree. Strikes are currently dangerous weapons but our kills get stolen by friendlies because we don't have the burst damage, we get shot down by scouts because we don't have the defenses to take one pass by one, we get picked off by gunships because we don't have the range (in the form of engines and weapons)

 

I'm not sure I entirely agree about the 'one target per missile' idea, although it would be ideal if each missile did have a best target. Being 'jack of all trades' in my mind is similar to being 'general purpose' a title we apply to high explosive ammunition. X-wings are 'general purpose' in Lucas because 4 good blasters and a set of torps that you can fire on the fly does enough damage to take down most anything in it's size class. The same is true of it's competition: Tie interceptors are based on a different philosophy but do the same damage.

 

If a strike could do the same damage a T2 scout can, then it might be general purpose... at the moment the T2 scout is with the ability to destroy (under the right conditions) anything flying. The joke is if you read the flavor text, T2 scouts are supposed to do about the same damage as strikes, if a bit less.

 

So if you did boost say HLC till it did the damage of a BLC under the right conditions, on a strike esp. That would give it a 'general purpose' role, although the lasers might have difficulty focusing on targets up close.... lessining the damage...under say 2k. If the torps/missiles could fire more quickly and had a shorter reload time/more ammo (strikes are bigger then scouts... .bombers have more ammo for their torps/missiles don't they) then you would have the burst damage to take down other fighters in 4k-7k and peal out to 11.5k (a proton slowly homing in on you is a good reason to peal)

 

Right now what we have is a strike scout... with limited mobility, modest firepower, and defenses Good for checking out signs of danger and reporting back when we get shot down.

 

In ground pvp I don't believe there is any class that can't be killed when it pops it's cool downs, by a group of determined enemies. If there was the forums would be full of people griping about it. And those cool downs that are powerful have long off time periods that leave them vulnerable more then long enough for people to kill them.

Force cloak for example, compare it's up time/down time to CP DF or any other gsf CD in use.

 

A general purpose fighter, can be a good choice if you want to threaten/peal anything flying out to 7-10k and not be stuck behind a rail gun. If the engine boost given is high enough, it might beat most scouts to the satellite, making it a good choice for the suicide tag regardless of other capabilities. If more of the strike's options work, the strike fighter is one of the most versatile classes in gsf, you could load it out to do a variety of missions.

 

If you went ahead with double-firing missiles you could swing the mechanic where the first missile to hit does 100% damage, and if the second missile hits it does 50% more... if missile broke the first missile or second missile still hits, depending on which way you need the damage curve to roll. I must be the only pilot who favors the versatility of cluster missiles, with their shield and armor piercing traits... but one missile isn't enough, they probably need the 100% missile to be the sure hit. Torps might only need the 50% to hit, they either do a dot or ignore all defenses, you can't ignore that especially if two fighters start lining them up on one target.

 

Strikes are and have been intended for team play, which means more then one might get involved in a furball. the T2 scout's popularity is owed in part to it's ability for a lone pilot to hop in one and with skill and cool downs (dodging behind rocks while they re-charge) take on entire waves of strike fighters. Ofcourse when you ask more then one fighter to get into a situation to counter another, you beg the question: why not choose a better working chassis. The T3 scout is the best platform with a shared engine boost. But the best 'team' fighters are the gunships, who can do what the strike fighter wishes it could: dish out good burst and threaten/peal at ranges, kill anything when working in a group of 3 or more, and the T2 scout.... anyone who can destroy any fighter in the game has a place on a team.

 

So I suppose my point is, if we upgrade the strike till it can either 1. kill almost anything in one pass (especially a thin skinned fighter like a scout or an easy target like a gunship) or 2. survive the attacks of a T2 scout or a gunship long enough to deal damage to them (survive one pass/survive long enough to get close to a pair of gunships firing on it) Then it will be general purpose/jack of all trades, and have a home in the meta

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I must be the only pilot who favors the versatility of cluster missiles, with their shield and armor piercing traits... but one missile isn't enough, they probably need the 100% missile to be the sure hit.

 

do you mean concs? Because clusters have never had AP.

 

The joke is if you read the flavor text, T2 scouts are supposed to do about the same damage as strikes, if a bit less.

 

This has always bothered me too. Since the Sting's text indicates it's supposed to have inferior firepower to a strike (perhaps the original idea was CDs were supposed to bring it up to the same level of damage as a strike?) And the Flashfire's text clearly indicates it's supposed to not be competitive in a joust with a strike, or at least be in a situation where it at best is even with a strike. If those flavor texts indicate original developer intent something major changed along the way as they basically scrapped both of those parts. That's also partially why I've been in favor of giving strikers buffs that 1) allow it to reliably beat a scout in a joust and 2) give it burst damage that is equal (or in my ideal world slightly better) than what a scout achieves with CDs. That might require a lot of tweaking to get right but it would bring the strike/scout dynamic back into line with what the flavor text indicates was the original intent.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Altheran]

quick charge shield math fun.

 

assuming quick charge did NOT penalize max shield strength (so shields with quick charge = base shields)

 

Pike with 10% crew = 1980 shields

 

T2 Scout with Large Reactor and crew (+30%) = 1690

 

Strike fighter advantage 290 that's almost 300 shields... which is about 1 shot of a rapid fire or a laser canon. Further fun comes in the regen rates as strikes regen faster thus with the 60% regen while under fire upgrade strikes can see a difference closer to equal to 1 quad laser shot, which is fairly substantial.

 

 

vs Current

 

Pike with 10% crew = 1440

 

T2 Scout with Large reactor and crew (+30%)= 1300

 

Difference is 140, massively smaller, I could point out what scout shield levels are CURRENTLY with disto but that would just highlight the problem even more.

I don't think that's fair to compare the one strike without reactor with the one offensive Scout that has one... It biases the point as we're not comparing shielding of a Scout to a Strike in a similar situation.

 

If we'd compare with a Scout of similar "build", Armor but no Reactor, meaning a Novadive, the Shield drop to 1040, meaning 400 points of difference in the current state, without any potential buff of Quick-charge, and 1430 with it for a difference of 550. Either way, the difference is much more reasonable.

 

But I get the point you're making.

We can compare them as armored ships, and have the results you pointed, but honestly that is only because the T2 scout is abnormal as a ship.

It is abnormal because of the presence of both Reactor and Armor on it despite being an offensive ship. And this counts a lot as it allows it to have roughly similar passive EHP than either T1 or T2 Strikes once evasion, which screws all kind of Scout vs Strike comparison. It screws it because we can't balance a Strike against both the T1 and T2 scouts as one is normal, and not the other one. We can't even balance the T1 with the T2 within the Scout class.

 

Frankly, if we want to reach an actual state of balance, where all ships are roughly equal, including the Scouts' and Strikes' T1 and T2, we can't decently let it go as it.

Can we just buff strike accounting for the T2 Scout "strength" ? Yes definitely. After all, we want Strikes to work, and T2 scouts are what is "working", even though it is the one working because it obsoletes the other ones.

But is letting the T1 Scout behind is what we desire ? I don't think so. I don't think one can decently ask to be back on tracks, while letting other off-tracks. That'd be as right to do as not doing anything for the Strikes... nothing warrants it.

 

So I defenitely think it's wrong to compare a Pike to a Flashfire, and think it's wrong to even take the Flashfire as a measurement norm.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Altheran

[tunewalker]

I don't think that's fair to compare the one strike without reactor with the one offensive Scout that has one... It biases the point as we're not comparing shielding of a Scout to a Strike in a similar situation.

 

If we'd compare with a Scout of similar "build", Armor but no Reactor, meaning a Novadive, the Shield drop to 1040, meaning 400 points of difference in the current state, without any potential buff of Quick-charge, and 1430 with it for a difference of 550. Either way, the difference is much more reasonable.

 

But I get the point you're making.

We can compare them as armored ships, and have the results you pointed, but honestly that is only because the T2 scout is abnormal as a ship.

It is abnormal because of the presence of both Reactor and Armor on it despite being an offensive ship. And this counts a lot as it allows it to have roughly similar passive EHP than either T1 or T2 Strikes once evasion, which screws all kind of Scout vs Strike comparison. It screws it because we can't balance a Strike against both the T1 and T2 scouts as one is normal, and not the other one. We can't even balance the T1 with the T2 within the Scout class.

 

Frankly, if we want to reach an actual state of balance, where all ships are roughly equal, including the Scouts' and Strikes' T1 and T2, we can't decently let it go as it.

Can we just buff strike accounting for the T2 Scout "strength" ? Yes definitely. After all, we want Strikes to work, and T2 scouts are what is "working", even though it is the one working because it obsoletes the other ones.

But is letting the T1 Scout behind is what we desire ? I don't think so. I don't think one can decently ask to be back on tracks, while letting other off-tracks. That'd be as right to do as not doing anything for the Strikes... nothing warrants it.

 

So I defenitely think it's wrong to compare a Pike to a Flashfire, and think it's wrong to even take the Flashfire as a measurement norm.

 

the point was showing WHY the T1 and T2 strike were so obsolete. I even showed the T1 strike (which has a reactor) and compared it to a Flash fire with Directionals (which would have stronger shields, better evasion, AND better mobility then the ship that decided to give up some shield strength for better mobility)

 

The primary point is that shields with + or - to them will affect the ship with the largest base shields the most.

 

A Scout using Quick charge only every loses 390 shields, while a Strike with them loses 540. The T1 scout finds it's niche currently with EMP field (disabling MORE missiles and mines) or Shield to Engine power converter which allows it to have the same shield strength as the T2 Scout using Distortion field (10 under our poor pike with Quick charge), but having MASSIVELY more efficient engines (meaning it leaves basically EVERYTHING in the dust) and still having better evasion then any Strike. The T1 Scout is Niche, but it still finds its place in that Niche roll. Something no strike currently does.

 

Ultimately the point wasnt just comparing the Strike to the flash fire, the whole post was about comparing the Strike (pike or other wise) to the current working ships in the meta, which Includes the Flashfire, T1 or T3 gunship which ever you want to call it there, and the T1 and T2 bomber. Being "not fair" to compare it to the only working ships in the meta when its about buffing them to be in the meta is exactly the definition of "fair" I am not asking it be better then the Flashfire in every way, but there is nothing unfair about comparing an out of meta ship against in meta ships when the call is to bring the out of Meta ships in Meta with out touching the In meta's ships.

 

Basically the problem with considering the Flashfire as a "not normal" ship or a ship we shouldnt try to balance around, is that the flashfire exists and, in fact, is actually balanced among the other ships in meta including bombers and gunships. If we do not balance a ship we want to work around any of these ships then they will inherently never be in the meta. They didnt ask us how to bring ships down to the Strike level, they asked us how to bring strikes up. That means it has to be UP to the Flash fire level, it has to be UP to the Mangler Level, it has to be UP to the Condor level, it has to be UP to the Rampart level, or the drone carrier level. The T1 scout is not some dumbster trash ship, nor would it be if Strikes become Flash fire level. its Niche Roll would still exist, The T3 Scout with some of my earlier proposals may also find itself UP as Light Lasers and Ion Missiles would be helped. This is about bringing ships up, not about bringing a flash fire down, even when comparing the

 

T1 Scout vs the T2 strike fixing the numbers

 

As I said before T2 Strike Quick charge shields 1440 which is absolutely pathetic, best evasion 19% with active 34% (running interference) so not much on the evasion meaning shields are the only thing this poor ship is relying on, shields and mobility.

 

 

T1 Scout Distortion field (because lol its not using Quick charge in its current state, so no point comparing there) 1170 (that's 270 under... not 400) now these shields are pretty pathetic, but being honest... its not relying on shield strength for its survival. Evasion 33% passive with active a whopping 68% and it doesnt need a crew member for that, thus having much more reliable means to avoid the damage, and to top it all off, with out any system ability what so ever it is still faster then teh Quick charge shield pike, and it can still dish out more pain, and it still avoids more missiles.

 

Honestly in the end I am glad you made me swap to the T1 scout, because when you do so, it still outclasses the Strike in every single category,

 

Speed: Check, even when the strike specializes for it, and the scout doesnt

 

Defenses: Check most of the time thanks to the strength of evasion, and how pathetic some of the Strikes shields can be, especially on the T2.

 

Damage: Check (target talem is still present and acounted for)

 

Range: about equal Rocket, pods have around the same range as clusters and Lasers about the same as Quads, considering the T1's better turning more often then not they have an even easier time getting ships to nose then the strike does, considering its speed it can even get targets into this range better.

 

 

It doesnt matter what "in meta" ship you want me to compare the Strike to, in all cases the fact that its defenses are absolutely pathetic are all over the place. The fact that its been given a shield with the highest - to shield strength while simultaneously having the best base shields being asinine and back wards is still true.

Edited September 18, 2015 by tunewalker

[Svarthrafn]

I still don't get where people get off calling the T2 scouts balanced. If I (I consider myself average) can get into one and consistently put up 10 kills in Dom, often 15-20 in a TDM match, there's a big effin' balance problem.

 

I would contend that of the scouts, the T1 is actually what you would call "balanced".

[Danalon]

Honestly it sounds like someone flies a battle scout and wants to retain their advantage. I don't want strikes (or any ship) to obsolete any other ships either, but we have exactly that already, and it is called the T2 scout. There's a reason almost every "ace" flies one.

 

It just sounds like it, but that's not my intention. I only used my T2 scouts a handful of times during the last 8-10 months because I wanted to master other ships. Those were the T1 & T2 Bomber, the T1 & T3 Gunship and the T3 Strike, however I removed the T3 Strike from my bar in favor of the other four because the Strike didn't have the power to compete in games where I needed to play seriously.

 

 

When I'm making suggestions I want the Strike to be a versatile ship that can deal with different situations and switch between them. It's somewhat difficult to explain what I have in mind, but I'll try anyway.

 

The problem is not that a Strike is worse in situations where the other ships excel. Gunships should be and stay the best at long range combat, Bombers at node-combat and Scouts at dogfighting. They need to be best in their domain, otherwise there wouldn't be a point of having them.

The problem is, even in situations where the other ships have deficits, a Strike still is even worse than them. Gunships are better at dogfighting than Strikes, Scouts don't have any significant range disadvantage against Strikes and there's barely a difference between Strikes and Bombers in mid-range combat.

 

A Strike should lose a dogfight with a Scout but a Strike should pose a serious threat to a Scout as long as it's not a dogfight.

A Strike should lose to a Gunship in long range fights but a Strike should make the Gunship run as soon as he comes close.

A Strike should lose to a Bomber in CQC but he should be able to easily kill a bomber that's doing something else than fighting on a satellite.

 

I'm specifically talking about 1v1 situations because when I'm saying a Strike should lose a certain situation I don't think of a 100%-0% victory of the other ship like it is now. The other ship should win but it should be damaged to a point where it can't survive another encounter and has to retreat and repair and wait for shields and repairs. The difference between Strikes and the other classes has to be huge enough to make the specialized ships useful in what they're doing but at the same time it has to be small enough that a Strike can outperform them when they make a mistake.

 

 

At the moment, when a Strike and a Bomber fight for a node, the Strike will eat an interdiction effect while being continuously damaged by the drones/mines and at some point the Bomber will outmaneuver the Strike and kill it.

I want Strikes to be able to chase Bombers around satellites instead of being chased while helplessly watching their hitpoints get lower.

When a Strike and a Gunship meet, the gunship will either ion rail the Strike until it floats around helplessly and finish it off or the Gunship rails the Strike just once or twice and finishes him off in melee range.

I want Strikes to be able to retaliate after being hit with ion rail. I want them to make Gunships run, when they get close.

When a Scout gets the first hit on a Strike, the Strike is dead. When a Strike gets to shoot first at the Scout, the scout uses a cooldown, turns around and kills the Strike.

I want Strikes to deal damage to Scouts from far enough away that the Scout can't simply turn around and shoot back but has to use his defensive cooldown earlier and to close in if he wants to fire.

 

Those examples are exaggerated as they assume different skill levels between pilots, but I'm just describing thoughts. That's also the reason why I didn't mention specific buffs to Strikes here.

 

 

As Verain's "jack of all trades" speech went and how mine went a while back. Verain talked about his jack having a railgun, but not the best railgun, and a mine, but not the best mine. while my jack talked about not having the best mobility.... but it was darn close, not having the best range, but it was darn close, and not having hte best defenses... but it was darn close. Right now its second best mobility sure...but its closer to the third then it is to the first, that's not a jack.. that's a 8 or a 9, Right now its range is around the same as the worst range, not much different, that's not a jack that's a 4, or a 5, right now its defenses are also among the worse, simply because how evasion works, but even when just looking at numbers its defenses are again closer to the 3rd then they are to the first, that's not a jack... that is an 8 or a 9... get it to where all the numbers are that of a true jack, and you may have something, as I said before they got the master of none right, but they had a big miss on that "jack"

Basically the problem with considering the Flashfire as a "not normal" ship or a ship we shouldnt try to balance around, is that the flashfire exists and, in fact, is actually balanced among the other ships in meta including bombers and gunships. If we do not balance a ship we want to work around any of these ships then they will inherently never be in the meta. They didnt ask us how to bring ships down to the Strike level, they asked us how to bring strikes up. That means it has to be UP to the Flash fire level, it has to be UP to the Mangler Level, it has to be UP to the Condor level, it has to be UP to the Rampart level, or the drone carrier level.

 

Just for emphasis.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Danalon

[tunewalker]

I still don't get where people get off calling the T2 scouts balanced. If I (I consider myself average) can get into one and consistently put up 10 kills in Dom, often 15-20 in a TDM match, there's a big effin' balance problem.

 

I would contend that of the scouts, the T1 is actually what you would call "balanced".

 

Its "balanced" by comparison to the T1 Bomber, T2 bomber, T1 Gunship and T3 gunship.

 

In highly competitive play you see Bombers counter scouts, Gunships counter bombers and scouts counter gunships. Though I do personally believe Scouts are slightly over tuned (specifically things like Target Talem) but when it comes to "overall balance" and "what is in the Meta" the T2 scout works well within the boundries of the above.

[Svarthrafn]

Thanks for the clarification Danalon, that makes more sense.

 

I'm going to throw this out there, just spitballing. It is probably a terrible idea, but maybe it can get people thinking in ways that could cause a good idea to pop up:

 

I don´t know that the ranges at which we play, the game types, and the speed at which we fly gives us enough "resolution" for strikes to really have a role. Right now, the scout is the dogfighter. What if the scout filled another role, like "scout"?

 

Suppose gunships had 15k range, but not the sensors to cover that distance (unless in the focus cone maybe)? Or if dampening could reduce that to below 15k. Hell, what if all ships had a base sensor range of 10k, but the scout had greatly increased sensor and communication range? Suppose scouts had all the mobility and survivability tools they have now, but their firepower was reduced with greatly reduced gun power pools and greatly reduced warhead payloads, without necessarily changing the components available to them. We could couple this with the slightly reduced lock-on times mentioned earlier to give the strike more of a brawler role. The scout could still mix it up really well, but would have to be more careful in managing their power levels, and still performs a necessary battlefield role beyond combat by transmitting sensor data to friendly gunships, bombers and strikes that might have the range but not the sensors to use that range.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Svarthrafn

[Danalon]

Thanks for the clarification Danalon, that makes more sense.

 

I'm going to throw this out there, just spitballing. It is probably a terrible idea, but maybe it can get people thinking in ways that could cause a good idea to pop up:

 

I don´t know that the ranges at which we play, the game types, and the speed at which we fly gives us enough "resolution" for strikes to really have a role. Right now, the scout is the dogfighter. What if the scout filled another role, like "scout"?

 

Suppose gunships had 15k range, but not the sensors to cover that distance (unless in the focus cone maybe)? Or if dampening could reduce that to below 15k. Hell, what if all ships had a base sensor range of 10k, but the scout had greatly increased sensor and communication range? Suppose scouts had all the mobility and survivability tools they have now, but their firepower was reduced with greatly reduced gun power pools and greatly reduced warhead payloads, without necessarily changing the components available to them. We could couple this with the slightly reduced lock-on times mentioned earlier to give the strike more of a brawler role. The scout could still mix it up really well, but would have to be more careful in managing their power levels, and still performs a necessary battlefield role beyond combat by transmitting sensor data to friendly gunships, bombers and strikes that might have the range but not the sensors to use that range.

 

I think Scouts were meant to be that. Just Scouts. You can see remnants of that in TT and then there's the sensor beacon. At some point the design changed.

If Sensor range was anything below 15k, there would be even more threads with complaints about gunships. "I approached a single Gunship but got shot by 3 others I couldn't even see."

Reducing the damage on Scouts and making them "mobile sensors" while at the same time reducing sensor range in general will end up with Gunships unstoppably dominating. The Gunships will be able to rail down everything within their comm range while they themselves can't be seen and without Scouts the only threat to Gunships will be Gunships.

 

Also this wouldn't improve Strikes. It's a buff to Gunships because it removes Scouts and being discovered early as threats and it's a nerf to Scouts that forces them in a playstyle where they are only allowed to fly around while their Gunship buddies rail everything.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Danalon

[Svarthrafn]

I think you're forgetting that the gunships would have reduced sensor range also. The same things you say will play to the gunships' favor can also work against them if the other team uses their scouts and sensor beacons better than they do.

 

Scouts will retain their sensor range (or we could even increase it!), so a team flying in communication range of a scout is still going to see a gunship approaching before they are in range to fire.

 

I still think there could be something useful here....somewhere. I'm just not sure what. Gut feeling.

 

But yet again, another reason gunships should have been sustained long range support fire; not one-hit killing machines.

 

The biggest problem is that there IS NO role in this game for the strike fighter that isn't done better by something else. The role I see most suggested for the strike only differs from the current scout role by a distance that you can cover with 2 seconds worth of engine fuel. Hence what I said earlier about "resolution". You either buff strikes and make them new FotM dogfighters, or nerf everything else to the same effect. We've seen the cycle in this game's ground pvp. There needs to be a new role so that scouts and strikes aren't stepping on each other's toes all the time, and recon is the natural (and easiest) option.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Svarthrafn

[Danalon]

There needs to be a new role so that scouts and strikes aren't stepping on each other's tied all the time, and recon is the natural (and easiest) option.

 

I say it again. The problem isn't that Strikes and other ships "step on each others toes". The problem is that a Strike can't compete with any other class, no matter what the situation is. Even if a situation starts out extremely favoring the Strike, he'll probably lose if the other ship has a good pilot flying it.

Even if Scouts were removed completely, Strikes would stay the worst class and they still would be outperformed by every other class in every situation.

 

Also, if "there needs to be an new role", why not give that role to Strikes instead of meddling with the ships that already work and have a role?

Also I don't get why you want to nerf the other classes instead of buffing Strikes. The other classes are fun to play, why bring them down to a lower level instead of bringing the Strike up to the same high level of fun?

[RickDagles]

I thin it would be really cool to remove TT and Blaster Overcharge from Scouts and give it to Strikes. Then crank up a Scout's base evasion from 33 to maybe 43 percent. Also take away the range/damage/freq capacitor and substitute sensors. Basically take away a scout's teeth but give it more engines (booster recharge), evasion, and sensors. Gunships would have a much harder time hitting them, but Scouts would also be less dangerous. They would serve a niche role of distracting GS so that the Strikes could move in and unload with super HLCs.

[JasonSzeremi]

I still don't get where people get off calling the T2 scouts balanced. If I (I consider myself average) can get into one and consistently put up 10 kills in Dom, often 15-20 in a TDM match, there's a big effin' balance problem.

 

I would contend that of the scouts, the T1 is actually what you would call "balanced".

 

Perhaps they are thinking about pitting it against bombers and gunships, where the T2 scout comes out with bruises and damage in a good number of the engagements, if not completly destroyed against skilled pilots working in tandem.

 

One objection to some of the changes we have suggested for scouts, is the gunships or bombers will simply take a more dominant role, if strike fighter buffs don't make them not equal but superior to one or both of these threats.

losing scouts evasion (something we have not been talking about much) would have the unintended consequence of making them more vulnerable to gunships and thus greatly reducing the threat to this non-dogfight centeric class. (if you think dealing with ship eating scouts is bad, imagine more gunships on every map)

Making scouts less effective against bombers (if you ask me bombers are supposed to damage scouts if not destroy them....) but if strike fighters don't get the tools do do away with bombers, then big slow cumbersome, mine/torpedo/drone launching behemoths are the future of gsf.... ships that don't even need to get gun-sights on a target to destroy it.

 

they see their fighting craft as the answer to these questions.... that's probably what being 'in the meta' means. Given any changes are likely to be imperfect, Players who don't want to see working meta craft nerfed might be wary of changes that would encourage the wrong answers in fighter choices.

 

I think it's pretty clear our objective here is supposed to be, proposing improvements to strike fighters that would make them right answers in fighter choices, 'put them in the meta' as possible answers to 'what fighter can perform X needed role in a match'

[JasonSzeremi]

do you mean concs? Because clusters have never had AP.

 

uh... oops Yea Concussions missiles.... the fighter killing missile from X-wing....

 

This has always bothered me too. Since the Sting's text indicates it's supposed to have inferior firepower to a strike (perhaps the original idea was CDs were supposed to bring it up to the same level of damage as a strike?) And the Flashfire's text clearly indicates it's supposed to not be competitive in a joust with a strike, or at least be in a situation where it at best is even with a strike. If those flavor texts indicate original developer intent something major changed along the way as they basically scrapped both of those parts. That's also partially why I've been in favor of giving strikers buffs that 1) allow it to reliably beat a scout in a joust and 2) give it burst damage that is equal (or in my ideal world slightly better) than what a scout achieves with CDs. That might require a lot of tweaking to get right but it would bring the strike/scout dynamic back into line with what the flavor text indicates was the original intent.

 

if you asked me.... the T2 scout is supposed to be the Strike-hybrid scout..... I just would love to see the strike they are supposed to be crossed with, maybe they can make a T4 strike that can do everything a T2 scout can, just not as perfectly, with more hull and more shields?

 

Fighter craft breeding chart:

Strike Fighter: T1: Laser lord, master of rays.

T2: Missile lord, master of finned fired flying explosives

T3: Strike commander: master of electronic wizardry, shields and hull. Possible bomber hybrid

 

T1 scout: recon & strike adept

T2 scout: Strike hybrid scout (possible parrantage from both T1 and T2 strikes... it takes the best from both it seems)

T3 scout: support scout: electronics wizard: possible bomber herritage, it's like a T3 strike only lighter, faster, and armed with different odd weapons. It can use the repair drone known on some bombers

 

T1 bomber: mine layer and warp point launcher

T2 bomber: launcher of exotic drones

T3 Bomber: hybrid of bombers and strike fighters.... since it's part strike fighter, not surprisingly it's under performing

 

T1 gunship: master gunship, if it's a rail gun it can fire it.

T2 gunship: strike fighter hybrid gunship (or is it bomber) with heavy laser cannons and torpedoes.... under performing

T3 gunship: T2 scout hybrid gunship.... say it ain't so..... it's a T2 scout without TT and with a _RAIL GUN_ strapped to it's tight turning chassis. At least one Developer acknowledged the T2 scout is currently the standard we measure dog fighting with when they made this hybrid. It has been argued that it also makes a better T2 strike fighter if it armed two missiles instead of a rail gun, because despite not being a scout, it out performs strike fighters.

[JasonSzeremi]

I thin it would be really cool to remove TT and Blaster Overcharge from Scouts and give it to Strikes. Then crank up a Scout's base evasion from 33 to maybe 43 percent. Also take away the range/damage/freq capacitor and substitute sensors. Basically take away a scout's teeth but give it more engines (booster recharge), evasion, and sensors. Gunships would have a much harder time hitting them, but Scouts would also be less dangerous. They would serve a niche role of distracting GS so that the Strikes could move in and unload with super HLCs.

 

curious idea.... not sure if everyone would go for it. Not sure how you would impliment that with strikes, they currently tend to use the 1 key for weapon swapping

 

what if scouts and strikes both got the tt and bo? perhaps 1 should rotate through weapons and a system ability on T1 and T2? (and on t3 rotate through missiles, and multiple system abilities?)

Edited September 20, 2015 by JasonSzeremi

[JasonSzeremi]

curious idea.... not sure if everyone would go for it. Not sure how you would impliment that with strikes, they currently tend to use the 1 key for weapon swapping

 

what if scouts and strikes both got the tt and bo? perhaps 1 should rotate through weapons and a system ability on T1 and T2? (and on t3 rotate through missiles, and multiple system abilities?)

 

Or how about Blaster Overcharge for strikers.... Targeting Telemetry does have scout written all over it. They could give BO to strike fighters and up gear it if need be.

[NeverEvar]

System abilities for strikes are not the best idea, for one reason. Up-time. BO has a very limited active ability with a 40 second cool down, Strikes lack the engine power/turning to execute it correctly vs good scouts.

 

For example: Try using a Combat Command T3 strike(which ok, is basicly a weaker version of TT with AoE) It`s not very effective.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

System abilities for strikes are not the best idea, for one reason. Up-time. BO has a very limited active ability with a 40 second cool down, Strikes lack the engine power/turning to execute it correctly vs good scouts.

 

this assumes that the mobility buff is not enough to allow strikes to use it effectively, but overall I doubt strikes would get that kind of buff since they'd basically become scouts with a different cosmetic chassis.

 

I think overall adding a system ability to strikes is unlikely because it would require adding special coding for what the 1 button does just for strikes. I very much doubt the devs have the time or resources to do that kind of work buffing strikes so we're more likely to get tweaks of the strike chassis and components. Which is all I think they need to do. It's not that HLC, QLC, concs, torps, etc. can never be good on a strike chassis. It's just they're not very good currently due to various short comings of the strike chassis, flaws in the components (torps I'm looking at you), or a combination of both.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Ramalina]

this assumes that the mobility buff is not enough to allow strikes to use it effectively, but overall I doubt strikes would get that kind of buff since they'd basically become scouts with a different cosmetic chassis.

 

I think overall adding a system ability to strikes is unlikely because it would require adding special coding for what the 1 button does just for strikes. I very much doubt the devs have the time or resources to do that kind of work buffing strikes so we're more likely to get tweaks of the strike chassis and components. Which is all I think they need to do. It's not that HLC, QLC, concs, torps, etc. can never be good on a strike chassis. It's just they're not very good currently due to various short comings of the strike chassis, flaws in the components (torps I'm looking at you), or a combination of both.

 

They could just add a 5th action bar button. If the UI code is well written it shouldn't be that hard. Depending on what they were thinking about ship commonality though, adding a 5th action bar button to strikes only might be a nightmare. I suppose they could just leave it empty on other ship classes if that were the case.

 

I agree that getting an extra active ability for strikes is unlikely, but without seeing the code we can't really say what the most practical way to achieve that would be if that's what they decided to do. Extra button is probably a better overall choice than clunky multi-purpose button if you can choose between the two, at least until you start running out of space to put buttons.

[JasonSzeremi]

System abilities for strikes are not the best idea, for one reason. Up-time. BO has a very limited active ability with a 40 second cool down, Strikes lack the engine power/turning to execute it correctly vs good scouts.

 

For example: Try using a Combat Command T3 strike(which ok, is basicly a weaker version of TT with AoE) It`s not very effective.

 

I've seen it used where T3 strike or T3 scout bellies up to a stationary gunship (or gunship group) and combat commands them all, increasing their effectiveness (more acc and more blaster(rail gun) power for one or more gs)

but that means a pilot is not chasing kills, damage, or objective points themselves. Few pilots seem to even think that way, considering their contribution would not be recognized by the score board or the idle detector.

 

Combat Command, and Wingman

Edited September 21, 2015 by JasonSzeremi