Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[Danalon]

... just give strikes a 40% accuracy buff and permanent DO.

 

It seems a little over the top. Also, wouldn't that degrade any missile (except maybe clusters) to the state Ion missiles have now? (Not worth locking because the blasters will have done the work by the time the lock goes through.)

Edited October 1, 2015 by Danalon

[NeverEvar]

The problem with missiles is, that buffing them to the level that will harm double m-break ships will make them to efficient vs strikes themselves.

 

After my experiments with CC and Tensor as a buff, i really don`t think that they need a dmg buff.

 

Range, mobility, accuracy sure. I`m not so sure about 40% thou.

 

20 percent is a good number and combined with wingman it will give 40%. Thats enough to override Disto insane active evasion . 33+27+8= 68% putting it to more reasonable 28%.

 

With this, scout still have some protection but they loose the "I`m immortal bubble" vs strikes

 

Without disto and wingman active it goes like this: 33-20=13% evasion.

 

With wingman vs no disto active, 33-40= -7%

 

If we combine it with 15% range bonus, timing with cooldowns will be even more crucial for a

a scout, still keeping it lethal.

 

With a slight buff to evasion (about 10%) Strikes would gain some Rail gun safaty.

 

t1 Strike Could go up to 20% evasion with RI)

 

T2 and T3 to to 29(while RI is active)

 

All of them would be less evasive then scouts even during RI active. But they will escape form "throw a rock and you will hit a strike" place.

 

With this small buffs you can gear you Strike for whatever job you like. And with a slight mobily boost, the "window of opportunity" to snare down a Strike will be smaller.

 

To sum it up:

 

Boost engine pool by 15% (or boost 320% multiplayer to 360%)

 

Boost range by 15% (HLC with range cap 7935 range, Ion 5290, quads 6612 )

 

Boost Evasion to 15%

 

Boost Accuracy by 20%

 

Change tiers on concs so you can have both engine targeting and armor ignore.

 

In my opinion those small buffs will greatly help Strikes keeping them as "all around work horses", a good choice to face a balanced team, when you have to swap roles quickly and adapt.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

It seems a little over the top.

 

Also, wouldn't that degrade any missile (except maybe clusters) to the state Ion missiles have now? (Not worth locking because the blasters will have done the work by the time the lock goes through.)

 

Not really. Right now heavy missiles aren't worth locking on a double break ship since they stand little or no chance of ever hitting. You have 8.6 seconds before the next conc fires (assuming the first is nullfied with one break), leaving you 1.4 seconds for the missile to travel to it's target. Longer than that and a double break ship can safely use their next break so that they'll always have a break ready every 10 seconds (assuming BR + disto; if you're using an engine with a shorter CD it's more dicey, PDive and you're never going to hit). Mind you that's assuming that the target stays in the strikes firing arc for the entire 8.6 seconds, if they slip out of the firing arc even for a second you've effectively made it so the conc won't hit (since that 1 second is taken from the 1.4 second travel time, leaving it with .4 seconds to travel to and hit the target before 10 seconds are up).

 

With torps they're not really even worth launching since the only way they hit a double break ship is if the target commits serious pilot error.

 

So it wouldn't reduce other missiles to the level of ion, it would be making up for the fact that against a double break ship strikes might as well not even have secondary weapons.

 

Unfortunately you can't simply solve it by making all missiles cluster level spammable for the reasons noted by NeverEver. Which leaves one of two choices: kill the double break missile system (meaning disto looses it's missile break) or buff strikes primaries with lots of accuracy to compensate for the fact that disto currently nullifies both sources of strike damage.

 

20 percent is a good number and combined with wingman it will give 40%. Thats enough to override Disto insane active evasion . 33+27+8= 68% putting it to more reasonable 28%.

 

With this, scout still have some protection but they loose the "I`m immortal bubble" vs strikes

 

Without disto and wingman active it goes like this: 33-20=13% evasion.

 

With wingman vs no disto active, 33-40= -7%

 

The reason I advocate for a 40% buff is because I don't think strikes should have to use wingman in order to be effective against a scout using disto. What you haven't said is how disto but no wingman gives a strike: 68-20 = 48% evasion. Add in TT's T4 right and suddenly you're looking at 68 + 8 - 20 = 56% (normally 76%). Both of those are still massive penalties to a strike's accuracy before you've factored in tracking penalties (which can be very hefty) and still leave them at a severe disadvantage in a joust. That sets up a strike where they NEED wingman to be a threat to a fresh scout, if wingman isn't equipped or ready the scout has no reason to fear the strike. Strikes can already run wingman and that 20% extra accuracy doesn't give their primaries enough power to discourage a scout from flying right down their gun barrels. To me this indicates that 20% accuracy isn't going to have a significant impact in giving strikes the ability to threaten scouts, they'll be less bad than they currently are sure. But less bad doesn't mean they're now meta worthy.

 

Strikes simply should not have to use wingman in order to be a threat to a scout, that's not making them meta worthy, that's just making them less weak than they are now and pigeonholing them into certain builds to be threats.

 

Now maybe you don't need a buff to base damage in the order of DO but I do think strikes need to be packing enough primary weapon damage that a fresh scout will not want to be in a strike's firing arc. Unlike a GS, strike primaries are unlikely to ever have that level of surprise burst (and missiles give more than enough warning that the burst is incoming). So that means you need their sustained damage to hit reliably enough that it can't be ignored by the pilot getting shot at, they need to respond or die. Currently a fresh scout can easily use disto to avoid any serious damage from a strike and effectively ignore the strike until they're ready to kill it (unlike a slug where letting a GS take more RNG shots at you unchecked could very well leave you dead). Unless you give strike primaries a buff that means a scout can't ignore them with a button press then the status quo isn't going to change.

 

With a slight buff to evasion (about 10%) Strikes would gain some Rail gun safaty.

 

You're talking about giving them a higher base evasion than a scout AND giving T2/T3 strikes nearly the same amount of evasion of a scout built specifically for evasion. I think the odds of that occurring are pretty low as you're giving strikes both the best base shields and best base evasion stats.

 

Also if strikes only had 20% base accuracy you'd still find strikes in jousting situations where fewer of their shots hit compared to the number of incoming shots that hit them against scouts full burst cycle. Unless you fold in decent buff to their shields you're still not leaving strikes in a situation where they have a better than 50% chance of winning a joust against a scout. They're certainly not going to be in a situation where the scout will not want to engage them.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Svarthrafn]

This is going nowhere.

[JasonSzeremi]

It seems a little over the top. Also, wouldn't that degrade any missile (except maybe clusters) to the state Ion missiles have now? (Not worth locking because the blasters will have done the work by the time the lock goes through.)

 

While it might be a tad over the top, I mean i would just be happy with a 50% damage increase... although perhaps BLC do more then that so I should be aiming higher. Strikes can have missiles that out range their blasters, and since enemies can flee from strikes, the missiles can finish the job on a damaged target, or lead in before the cannons can hit.

[JasonSzeremi]

The problem with missiles is, that buffing them to the level that will harm double m-break ships will make them to efficient vs strikes themselves.

 

I challenge the premise that strike fighters with buffs that make them more efficient at shooting down strike fighters is a bad thing. Considering other strike fighters would have the same advantage, it would be as fair as a gun fight in the old west or a modern dogfight. Shoot first and win.

[JasonSzeremi]

Here's another off the wall idea that might make more sense:

Strike fighters as a class uniquely all have large aerodynamic wings, and in modern aircraft such surfaces tend to feature weapon pylons.

Instead of having a missile launcher or two for every strike fighter, replace the tube launched weapons with weapon pylon mounted munitions.

What difference does that make you ask?

First, drop the missile/torp cool down to match that of rocket pods.

Second, allow missile locks to persist after firing one missile, so the second missile can be fired using the same lock-on... or third missile.... or fourth missile.

third, reduce the amount of missile ammo to account for them being externally stored on a limited number of pylons, where they could all ride the same carrier wave the first missile used.

fourth, given the limited number of them, it might make sense to increase their damage 50%-100%

 

This could possibly help overcome some of the problems strikes have with missiles, without making them insane.... also a rapid spread of seeking ordinance... a missile or torpedo 'strike' just sounds like what a strike fighter should be able to do.

 

Caveat: when the missiles are gone, they are limited to just using their primary weapons.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I challenge the premise that strike fighters with buffs that make them more efficient at shooting down strike fighters is a bad thing. Considering other strike fighters would have the same advantage, it would be as fair as a gun fight in the old west or a modern dogfight. Shoot first and win.

 

I don't think he meant that strikes being their own best counter is a bad thing. Rather it would make all non-disto using ships that much more vulnerable. So you'd effectively buff disto on the ships that can equip them by making it an even better choice than it is now.

[JasonSzeremi]

Our best indication that whatever improvements the devs have for strikes are working, will be people literally complaining that strikes are suddenly OP because they aren't sitting ducks for dominant meta ships any longer, any change in meta for those who were on top is bad in the eyes of a few, vocal individuals.

[NeverEvar]

Actually Gavin made my point, yes. It would put away every other shield except Disto way behind.

 

As for your new idea...i find in terrible on the deeper level.

 

chain protorp, or chain conc will work only on newbies and/or vets who made a huge misplay. And ofc bombers in open, that actually are not a trouble at all. It will also strongly hit every ship that dosent have powerdive.

 

GS`s and scouts will still lough at strikes same as bomber on sats, that can use LOS, they will only slightly alter their respective playstyles

[ALaggyGrunt]

I beat a bomber to a sat the other day with a Quell. I started locking a protorp at 10km. The bomber boosted right at me, and only turned when it got to the sat I was sitting on. The protorp never finished locking.

[JasonSzeremi]

I beat a bomber to a sat the other day with a Quell. I started locking a protorp at 10km. The bomber boosted right at me, and only turned when it got to the sat I was sitting on. The protorp never finished locking.

 

dropping the lock-on time would fix that. bombers have almost as much mobility with boost as everyone else... they just run out

[JasonSzeremi]

Actually Gavin made my point, yes. It would put away every other shield except Disto way behind.

 

As for your new idea...i find in terrible on the deeper level.

 

chain protorp, or chain conc will work only on newbies and/or vets who made a huge misplay. And ofc bombers in open, that actually are not a trouble at all. It will also strongly hit every ship that dosent have powerdive.

 

GS`s and scouts will still lough at strikes same as bomber on sats, that can use LOS, they will only slightly alter their respective playstyles

 

you kinda have to waste your first missile on their missile breaks or wait for them to blow it. then the rest could hit on the second lock-on. Not much use on LOS breaking of missile locks, Ace pilots are good at that, sub-ace... I get alot of missile opertunites on

 

But Gavin's point still stands.... making multiple missile breaks stronger doesn't help the craft who don't have them as much as it might reinforce the need for them. (and for the one shield ability with them)

Edited October 21, 2015 by JasonSzeremi

[NeverEvar]

ok, let`s look at some missile break match on most basic builds, paired with torp lock on:

 

1.disto, retro scout/GS

 

2. disto BR scout/GS

 

3. disto pd scout/GS

 

4.Powerdive scout/strike/t3 bomber

 

5. Barrer roll Strike/Scout/t2GS

 

6.retro thrusters T1 strike/T2 GS with feedback(i know not that common combo)

 

Case 1:

 

Sec zero start locking

 

3,4s fire

 

3,5 first missile break (disto active 20).

 

14,5 Start locking second missile (disto 9 sec CD)

 

17,9 second missile fire (disto 5,4 CD)

 

18. sec. Retro active (disto CD 5,3/ Retro CD 15 sec)

 

29. Sec third missile start locking (disto no CD/Retro CD 4 sec)

 

32,4 third missile fire, (disto no CD, Retro 0,6 sec)

 

As you see their is a problem with one thing:

 

To fire 2 torps you need: 17,8 seconds not considering the flight time. Let`s look with BR/disto

 

sec zero: start locking.

 

3,4s fire

 

3,5 first missile break (disto active 20).

 

14,5 Start locking second missile (disto 9 sec CD)

 

17,9 second missile fire (disto 5,4 CD)

 

18 sec. BR active ( BR 20 sec CD, disto ,5,3 CD)

 

29 sec. third lock on starting: (BR 9 sec CD, disto no CD)

 

32,4 third fire (disto no CD, BR 5,4)

 

You can clearly see that in one on one scenario a scout is basically unhitable with a torp

 

Let`s see what happens with only engine maneuver

 

Sec zero, start locking

 

3,4 fire

 

3,5 BR active (20 sec CD)

 

14,5 second lock(BR 9 sec CD)

 

17,9 second fire (BR CD 5,4)

 

but ok, that is BR

 

so what about retro?

 

3,4 fire

 

3,5 retro active (15 sec CD)

 

14,5 second lock( 4 sec CD)

 

17,9 second fire ( CD 0,6)

 

I could do the match for PD, but i think it`s not needed. well lets just look: at one thing reload 11 sec, PD coldown 10 sec

 

So if we boost lock on time, you will hurt mostly ships with one missile break, reinforcing powerdive and disto.

 

That will basically put T1 strike, T2 strike, T2 GS even further out of the meta.

 

Sure it would make T3 strike totally meta. powerdive defenses, healing and a working secondary with unlimited ammo. If it would be a general torp buff, it would also add t3 Bomber as an effective ship.

 

But that was not my point. If you buff to torps with lock on and/or cooldown you are risking pushing more builds out of the meta in favor of pd/disto builds. So it would give fewer choices for : t1 scout, t2 scout, t3 scout, t3 GS.

 

let`s see how strong would your buff need to be to break true disto/retro combo

 

let`s try 2 sec lock on and 7 sec CD

 

sec zero start locking

 

2s fire

 

2,1s disto active (20s CD)

 

9,1s second lock on start. (Disto 10,9 CD)

 

11,1s second fire (Disto 8,9 sec)

 

11,2s Retro active (disto 8,8, retro 15)

 

18,2 Second lock on start disto 1,8, retro 8)

 

20,2 Fire (Disto no CD, retro 6)

 

so this is not enough

 

But if it was only Retro?

 

sec zero lock

 

2s fire

 

2,1 retro active (15 sec CD)

 

9,1 second lock on (8 sec CD)

 

11,1 fire (6 sec CD)

 

TL: DR

 

boosting torps that way will not help versus scouts or GS to a serious extend. It will force certain builds, and will enforce higher reliance on manual breaking torp locks in shorter window of time would make it even more fresh players unfriendly.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

But if it was only Retro?

 

sec zero lock

 

2s fire

 

2,1 retro active (15 sec CD)

 

9,1 second lock on (8 sec CD)

 

11,1 fire (6 sec CD)

 

TL: DR

 

boosting torps that way will not help versus scouts or GS to a serious extend. It will force certain builds, and will enforce higher reliance on manual breaking torp locks in shorter window of time would make it even more fresh players unfriendly.

 

See I don't think it's inherently bad making it so torps can threaten a single break ship or putting greater emphasis on LOS lock breaking. But I get what you're overall saying that the only ones who actually get threatened in this scenario are strikes themselves and the double break system would just become that much more powerful. It also, I think, highlights why DField needs to be directly addressed since buffs to missiles would effectively just make it even more powerful.

 

That all being said torps absolutely need a lock time reduction if nothing else. When the lock-on time of torps causes them to not be reliable against bombers (the ship the devs most likely envisioned it being a powerful counter to) there's a problem. Give a bomber something to LOS around and it becomes slightly less maddening than trying to lock a torp on a double break ship. O n the "stupidly hard to use" meter torps currently sit in the ballpark of "give railguns a 8+ second charge up time with no option to fire early."

 

In an ideal world torps will be buffed so that they're a viable (if slightly weaker) alternative to railguns for pressuring bombers. Right now though I'll settle for them being functional against a bomber.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[JasonSzeremi]

Well you could always give torps a range of 15k.... it's not just hitting a target with one that matters but also making them stop firing those rail guns.... or approaching the satalite

[NeverEvar]

The problem with incresing range is filght time(speed of a torp)

 

I think what should be done for torps is:

 

For protorps:

 

base dmg boost to 910(955 with t3 upgrade)(basicly if a scouts get hit, it`s dead unleas it has reinforced armor)

 

set lock on time base as 3,4(2,9 upgrade)

 

base speed incresed by 50% (150>300% with t4 upgrade left )

 

Firing arc incresed by 4 degree(8 with t4 talent right to a total of 20 degree)

 

Reduce base reload time to 10 sec(from 12) so with crew member it will be 9,2 seconds

 

With does changes they will be easier to land, and be more rewarding.

[FlavivsAetivs]

To fire 2 torps you need: 17,8 seconds not considering the flight time. Let`s look with BR/disto

 

This is one of the reasons I find HK to be a useful crew member. The accuracy bonus of Qyzen is really vital (especially against evade builds), but TBH the kill capability in Clarion (or any SF really) is usually in the missiles, not the guns. HK keeps the firing arc bonus but gives a 2 second cooldown on proton torpedos, which can often be just enough to get that second torpedo onto a target rather than him evading.

 

A big issue with protorps is that they're checked both client and server side (as I'm sure many of you are aware), unlike say gunships which are only checked client side. So if your ping is anything over 80ms you're pretty much ****ed when it comes to missiles because they'll ninja break like hell.

 

Well you could always give torps a range of 15k.... it's not just hitting a target with one that matters but also making them stop firing those rail guns.... or approaching the satalite

 

I usually use the 11.5K Range perk on the Torp because of this. It allows scouts to outrun them but when you're engaging good scout pilots that really doesn't matter because they're going to break them, out maneuver you, or be too close for a lock when jousting no matter what and you have to rely on quads (and hope they screw up if they're good pilots and in BLC Flashfire/Sting). But the 11.5K lets me get that lockon first so my missle is gone by the time they've locked onto me and I can use their focus to get it to hit them while I dodge, and it also allows me to take gunships down faster and/or get them moving sooner.

 

base dmg boost to 910(955 with t3 upgrade)(basicly if a scouts get hit, it`s dead unleas it has reinforced armor)

 

set lock on time base as 3,4(2,9 upgrade)

 

base speed incresed by 50% (150>300% with t4 upgrade left )

 

Firing arc incresed by 4 degree(8 with t4 talent right to a total of 20 degree)

 

Reduce base reload time to 10 sec(from 12) so with crew member it will be 9,2 seconds

 

With does changes they will be easier to land, and be more rewarding.

 

Hmm... I don't know the numbers too well myself, not too familiar with that whole game, but i agree the single biggest improvement would be reduced lock on time. I'd take that over anything else.

 

Just my two cents. But again, this has probably already been pointed out and discussed to death.

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited October 22, 2015 by FlavivsAetivs

[Gavin_Kelvar]

The problem with incresing range is filght time(speed of a torp)

 

I think what should be done for torps is:

 

For protorps:

 

base dmg boost to 910(955 with t3 upgrade)(basicly if a scouts get hit, it`s dead unleas it has reinforced armor)

 

set lock on time base as 3,4(2,9 upgrade)

 

base speed incresed by 50% (150>300% with t4 upgrade left )

 

Firing arc incresed by 4 degree(8 with t4 talent right to a total of 20 degree)

 

Reduce base reload time to 10 sec(from 12) so with crew member it will be 9,2 seconds

 

With does changes they will be easier to land, and be more rewarding.

 

These all seem like really solid changes. I haven't used concs in a while but basically you'd have a slightly longer lock-on than a conc. Which I think would be good but the real test is whether it could reliably tag an evasive bomber on a sat or whether they'd need to have the lock-on reduced further to overcome all the LOS options a sat provides. (I'm not saying a skilled bomber shouldn't be able to LOS the torp but it should be something where the average strike pilot can feel reasonably certain that they can get a lock without the current undue amounts of effort/luck required).

[FlavivsAetivs]

These all seem like really solid changes. I haven't used concs in a while but basically you'd have a slightly longer lock-on than a conc. Which I think would be good but the real test is whether it could reliably tag an evasive bomber on a sat or whether they'd need to have the lock-on reduced further to overcome all the LOS options a sat provides. (I'm not saying a skilled bomber shouldn't be able to LOS the torp but it should be something where the average strike pilot can feel reasonably certain that they can get a lock without the current undue amounts of effort/luck required).

 

Fly straight down/up below/above the Sat and the bomber can't hide. That's what I do. As long as nobody sees you, you can wipe out a satellite with directional shields on full front. Works with a charged plating build too, but if there's a gunship or whatever you're royally ****ed.

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited October 22, 2015 by FlavivsAetivs

[JasonSzeremi]

These all seem like really solid changes. I haven't used concs in a while but basically you'd have a slightly longer lock-on than a conc. Which I think would be good but the real test is whether it could reliably tag an evasive bomber on a sat or whether they'd need to have the lock-on reduced further to overcome all the LOS options a sat provides. (I'm not saying a skilled bomber shouldn't be able to LOS the torp but it should be something where the average strike pilot can feel reasonably certain that they can get a lock without the current undue amounts of effort/luck required).

 

Currently concs tend to be barely fast enough reloading to get the second one off to hit a target that engine breaks the first.... usually. and their cool down roughly matches how long it takes my targets to complete their missile break manuvers and stabalize again

[tunewalker]

I will say this again, I have said it before. If we look at the missiles as having each a specific type of target (clusters for double missile breaks, concs for single missile breaks, Torp for no Missile breaks) then their reload times are fine, but the larger ones still have a lock TIME problem for reliability, and range on Clusters is to short FOR A STRIKE FIGHTER.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Currently concs tend to be barely fast enough reloading to get the second one off to hit a target that engine breaks the first.... usually. and their cool down roughly matches how long it takes my targets to complete their missile break manuvers and stabalize again

 

I'm less concerned with the reload time being able to beat a missile break CD and much, much more concerned with the lock-on time being short enough to tag a bomber that's not just sitting letting you get a lock. Torps are still going to be stupidly hard to use if even at 3 seconds a half competent bomber can LOS it with relative ease (I'm not saying a bomber can break LOS easily with a 3 second lock-on but that we shouldn't also assume that's a sufficiently short lock-on for torps to be effective).

 

Make it long enough that a bomber has a chance to break LOS sure, but make it short enough that they have to actively try to break LOS. Unlike now where simply flying around the sat is likely to break LOS unless the strike set up perfectly above/below the sat to force the bomber to actually try to break LOS (and even then it's far easier to break LOS than it should be).

Edited October 22, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[JasonSzeremi]

As much as I want to keep the conversation going. I just simply agree with everything tunewalker and Gavin have said Edited October 25, 2015 by JasonSzeremi

[ALaggyGrunt]

I'm less concerned with the reload time being able to beat a missile break CD and much, much more concerned with the lock-on time being short enough to tag a bomber that's not just sitting letting you get a lock. Torps are still going to be stupidly hard to use if even at 3 seconds a half competent bomber can LOS it with relative ease (I'm not saying a bomber can break LOS easily with a 3 second lock-on but that we shouldn't also assume that's a sufficiently short lock-on for torps to be effective).

 

Make it long enough that a bomber has a chance to break LOS sure, but make it short enough that they have to actively try to break LOS. Unlike now where simply flying around the sat is likely to break LOS unless the strike set up perfectly above/below the sat to force the bomber to actually try to break LOS (and even then it's far easier to break LOS than it should be).

 

If a torp is going to be anywhere near as good as rails against a bomber, it has to have a very short lock time. It needs to be so quick to lock a bomber has no good choice but to not give the strike a clear line of sight at all, like they pretty much have to do with gunships now. Long fly time would mean it would still be easy to missile break, and several seconds of reload time would mean once the torp was launched, a non-bomber target would have time to get out of the way before the torp was ready to fire again, unless the ship with the torps happened to be a double-torp gunship. Even then, it wouldn't reliably hit a T3 bomber because of how short the cooldown on pdie is.

 

A competent bomber can break a 3-second lockon because the fins on the sat will break LoS if the bomber moves through them slowly and lag-warp through (the game won't catch the LoS break if the bomber is never behind the fin on a server tick).