Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[Gavin_Kelvar]

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.

 

I don't know if it has to be as good as rails, but it certainly should be a viable alternative. Since right now the two choices are rails or a scout taking the chance with BLC + pods at point blank. Having torps as viable alternatives would be very beneficial to the meta IMO.

 

I think as you said the existing other draw backs to torps would keep them balanced even with a super short lock-on time. Even if it was a 2 second lock-on with the existing 12 second reload it would leave most single break ships fairly safe so I don't think it'd result in effectively buffing the power of double break ships. I think you could probably still buff the firing arc to 16 base and it'd still be balanced since it would still be difficult to use in a dogfight. Importantly it would open up both T4 options as viable choices that depend on personal preference. With the short lock-on it would give ships using torps some very fearsome teeth if they could get off a point blank shot and make straying into their firing arc a bad thing, which I think is exactly what we want for strike fighters.

 

 

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).

 

I always wondered why sometimes my lock wouldn't break when a bomber flew between sat fins. That explains it!

[FlavivsAetivs]

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).

 

And any bomber who keeps going around in circles like this is a moron and it will get them killed if they're flying against me, because it's pathetically easy to kill them when they do it if you know what to do. Really the only sat this actually works on is "C" in Lost Shipyards because the shipyard framework will LOS from all directions.

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited October 26, 2015 by FlavivsAetivs

[Gavin_Kelvar]

And any bomber who keeps going around in circles like this is a moron and it will get them killed if they're flying against me, because it's pathetically easy to kill them when they do it if you know what to do. Really the only sat this actually works on is "C" in Lost Shipyards because the shipyard framework will LOS from all directions.

 

~ Eudoxia

 

So you've figured out a way to make it "pathetically easy" to tag a bomber with a torp while they try to LOS you around a sat? Do share this tactic that has seemingly eluded the rest of us.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Ramalina]

So you've figured out a way to make it "pathetically easy" to tag a bomber with a torp while they try to LOS you around a sat? Do share this tactic that has seemingly eluded the rest of us.

 

I believe Eudoxia is saying that it's easy to kill a bomber that makes no serious attempt to fly defensively. You on the other hand, are more likely talking about scenarios like trying to tag Drako with a torp when he's trying to avoid getting hit. It looks to me not like you two are disagreeing per se, but just having two entirely different conversations that don't have much to do with each other. It's also possible that Eudoxia missed the, "competent," in the previous quote or just hasn't encountered the full range of creative fin LOSing that a good bomber pilot can pull off.

 

 

To digress for a moment, in one of the cutscenes on Zakuul it is made clear that the people who doubt that giving BLCs to strikes would solve a lot of problems were correct to have that doubt. Vaylin doesn't even need a Battlescout or Gunship to cripple a BLC equipped strike and force it to flee the battle. Of course, maybe Koth would have done better if his strike had had a system component to go with the BLCs, or enough shield and hull to have tanked the single hit that Vaylin got in.

[FlavivsAetivs]

I believe Eudoxia is saying that it's easy to kill a bomber that makes no serious attempt to fly defensively. You on the other hand, are more likely talking about scenarios like trying to tag Drako with a torp when he's trying to avoid getting hit. It looks to me not like you two are disagreeing per se, but just having two entirely different conversations that don't have much to do with each other. It's also possible that Eudoxia missed the, "competent," in the previous quote or just hasn't encountered the full range of creative fin LOSing that a good bomber pilot can pull off.

 

Partially this^^

 

But this is what I'm talking about:

 

If they stay entirely below the satellite weaving in and out of the fins all you have to do is fly straight down below the sat at a 90 degree angle to their flight path and slowly come straight back up (power dive, basically). Then they have to go over to the top side of the satellite to break LOS, the fins give them no cover.

 

The advantage of doing this is that they 1. completely loose track of where you went, 2. probably aren't expecting you to come up and attack from straight below, and 3. are probably going to be confused as to why the missile lock isn't breaking behind the fins. A good bomber pilot like Traesha (or presumably Drako but I don't play on Harb so haven't flown against him) will easily be able to break this by simply flying over to the other side of the satellite (or popping an evade if they have it), or defend themselves by turning to attack you (but still risking the protorp hit).

 

Can do the same thing on the top side of the sat, I just wouldn't hit power dive unless you're flying upside down though, lol. *Promptly proceeds to power dive into the satellite.*

 

Only real problem with this is that you become exposed to gunships or other fighters. Directional shield will probably be facing forwards, so anything coming from the front will have to eat through it, but you're heavily exposed to the rear so a scout can royally **** you over here.

 

The only thing this really won't work against is a 99% reduction charged plating build, which also can be done on a SF as well as a bomber.

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited October 27, 2015 by FlavivsAetivs

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Partially this^^

 

But this is what I'm talking about:

 

If they stay entirely below the satellite weaving in and out of the fins all you have to do is fly straight down below the sat at a 90 degree angle to their flight path and slowly come straight back up (power dive, basically). Then they have to go over to the top side of the satellite to break LOS, the fins give them no cover.

 

The advantage of doing this is that they 1. completely loose track of where you went, 2. probably aren't expecting you to come up and attack from straight below, and 3. are probably going to be confused as to why the missile lock isn't breaking behind the fins. A good bomber pilot like Traesha (or presumably Drako but I don't play on Harb so haven't flown against him) will easily be able to break this by simply flying over to the other side of the satellite (or popping an evade if they have it), or defend themselves by turning to attack you (but still risking the protorp hit).

 

Can do the same thing on the top side of the sat, I just wouldn't hit power dive unless you're flying upside down though, lol. *Promptly proceeds to power dive into the satellite.*

 

Only real problem with this is that you become exposed to gunships or other fighters. Directional shield will probably be facing forwards, so anything coming from the front will have to eat through it, but you're heavily exposed to the rear so a scout can royally **** you over here.

 

The only thing this really won't work against is a 99% reduction charged plating build, which also can be done on a SF as well as a bomber.

 

~ Eudoxia

 

Ah yeah that does work. In my experience though you need allies pressuring the bomber from the other side to basically force it to stay on your side of the sat (barring them being lazy which as you observe makes them easy to tag with a torp). I get the feeling though that when a skilled pilot opts to stay on my side of the sat and eat the torp it's because the torp is less threatening than whatever is on the other side (normally a GS). I think though we can both agree that torps should be good enough that they can pressure a good bomber pilot like Drako (maybe not hit Drako without luck, but at least put pressure and possibly cause a misplay that you or another ally can exploit, currently I don't think torps do this).

 

You raise a good point of how a torp run exposes the attacker to withering defensive fire from enemy GS and scouts. which I think should change since the risk required to make a successful torp run is far greater than the the reward.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[JasonSzeremi]

Partially this^^

 

The only thing this really won't work against is a 99% reduction charged plating build, which also can be done on a SF as well as a bomber.

 

~ Eudoxia

 

why would that affect a protorp?

[Ryuku-sama]

why would that affect a protorp?

 

More because a 99% DR bomber will just bounce off the sat and get out of your torp arc so fast you won,t even see it.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Ryuku-sama

[FlavivsAetivs]

Not so much that as that it would take two torps and 60+ hits from quad lasers to actually do enough damage to the bomber to destroy it when they have max damage reduction popped. It would do almost nothing, you need something that ignores armor like slug or rocket pods.

 

~ Eudoxia

[JasonSzeremi]

Not so much that as that it would take two torps and 60+ hits from quad lasers to actually do enough damage to the bomber to destroy it when they have max damage reduction popped. It would do almost nothing, you need something that ignores armor like slug or rocket pods.

 

~ Eudoxia

 

because the 100% damaeg reduction skipping protorps don't do enough damage themselves... I see

have you tried heavy lasers and prots?

Edited October 28, 2015 by JasonSzeremi

[FlavivsAetivs]

IIRC Heavy Laser cannons don't have an ignore armor option, do they? And protorps would still do nothing against such a build.

 

HLC+Protorp is a good combination, I use it on my Starguard/Pike.

 

~ Eudoxia

[Archonitek]

IIRC Heavy Laser cannons don't have an ignore armor option, do they? And protorps would still do nothing against such a build.

 

HLC+Protorp is a good combination, I use it on my Starguard/Pike.

 

~ Eudoxia

 

Both hlc and protorps ignore 100% armour and damage reduction. still prefer ions and cluster though for satellite fights

[FlavivsAetivs]

Hmm... I stand corrected then. Still 99% DR bombers are a pain in the *** regardless. Isalina and I spent a whole match fighting Rakun in a 99% bomber and didn't once kill him, hell we didn't knock his health down below 5%. He was a tricky bastard.

 

~ Eudoxia

[Gavin_Kelvar]

IIRC Heavy Laser cannons don't have an ignore armor option, do they? And protorps would still do nothing against such a build.

 

HLC+Protorp is a good combination, I use it on my Starguard/Pike.

 

~ Eudoxia

 

I really wish they'd add HLC to the Clarion. It'd be the ideal bomber hunter then (assuming torps get a buff).

 

As I've said earlier in this thread I don't think there's anything wrong with one strike model having an ideal selection of components to make it more meta worthy than other models. That already happened with the T2 scout (and to a lesser degree GS and bombers) so it only seems fair for strikes to have one of their models be the most meta worthy.

 

Plus, IMO, the T3 strike for both sides is the best strike model cosmetically.

[NeverEvar]

Well, Clarion is a very good utility ship that is really close to the meta. But....HLC will not solve the problem. mosty ouse they are near worthless in under sat combat.

 

What i would want, is a strike exclusive companion that has an ability to add armor ignore(even 50%!) for a time period. 16/60 would suffice.

 

And if we are talking missiles, i think that concs would benefit it better then HLC, first they already have a great "snare" talent, that can crap up bombers life, second they come with armor pen, which makes both of does a valuable option since concs are one of the few multi role that sort of works.

 

With concs you have a solid chance on landing it on a scout if you focus, you can easily tag a bomber with it on a sat, and LLC can really crap a bomber if it`s not using CP, or CP is on CD.

 

You can argue that t3 strike is the best defensive ship in the game. Which is great for surviving high agrro. I just had a game, when my Clarion won a heavy GS game. Not by doing dmg, but by taking it. 3 deaths and 49683 dmg.

 

My point is:

 

T1 strike needs armor component and powerdive

 

T2 strike needs powerdive and retro(at once! that would be cool, i would sacrifice switching directional s for 2 engine manovers)

 

T3 Needs concs or interdiction missile

 

OFC all around buffs would be nice as well

[FlavivsAetivs]

I have talked to several other players on Jedi Cov including Zuck, Graendhal, and Rakun and a large number of us agree that Concs would be a good improvement to Clarion.

 

I don't claim to be the best pilot on Jedi Cov, but I wreck people in a Clarion. A reduced lockon on Protorp is all it would take to make that ship perfect.

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited October 28, 2015 by FlavivsAetivs

[Altheran]

My thoughts on Clarion with Concussive Missile...

 

I'd prefer not make the Clarion be something it's not supposed to be : an offensive ship.

[FlavivsAetivs]

Lol it is an offensive ship, at least when I fly it. But as Rakun can attest my thoughts on strike piloting would have me put in a rubber room with a comfy jacket.

 

But I'm kind of like Keenz in a scout... nobody in their right mind stays in the middle of 10 enemies flying around in a scout. Except Keenz.

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited October 29, 2015 by FlavivsAetivs

[Gavin_Kelvar]

My thoughts on Clarion with Concussive Missile...

 

I'd prefer not make the Clarion be something it's not supposed to be : an offensive ship.

 

IMO not making it an offensive ship are one of two major factors for why it's close to but not meta (the other being the obvious flaws in the strike class itself which the devs seem intent on correcting). The support systems CDs are simply too long to allow it to focus on support and not offense. Unlike bombers it lacks any additional tools to round out a support role well (as many have noted shield projector is hard to use without info on allied shields and is unlikely to ever make a difference). Once it's system ability has been used it has nothing else to do but be on the offense.

 

IMO the T3 is also the best designed to be an offensive fighter with only a few additional tools as it comes closest to having an ideal blend of components.

 

Well, Clarion is a very good utility ship that is really close to the meta. But....HLC will not solve the problem. mosty ouse they are near worthless in under sat combat.

 

Oh I know full well that it wouldn't solve the problem and it still would very much need the strike buff this thread hinted at. The reason I think HLC would be good is because it would allow a T3 to be equipped for heavy assaults on bomber defended sats. HLC to take out turrets and mines before they threaten the strike and to harass the bomber during missile reloads. The shield pierce + AP serving to minimize hull repairs the bomber might achieve, the shield pierce being especially powerful if combined with a thermite, highly threatening if bypass is thrown into the mix. Altogether once you factor in CP's bleed through a T3 with HLC + thermites + bypass could be doing upwards of 70% damage straight to the hull which could very well melt the bomber in short order without requiring it to fight under sat (leaving the under sat fighting to it's nimble scout allies or T1/T2 strikes). With the extra range of HLC it might even force bombers to leave the cover of sats to engage the strike. Concs, while very good, don't give a T3 to do all of that and largely just expand the formula it can already use with QLC (which is a good formula but not, IMO, ideal for sat assault).

 

If any ship should be built for under sat combat I'd say it'd be the Star Guard or Pike with their weapon swap options. I'm kind of assuming here that a T3 would be built with the idea of clearing a path for more nimble ships that are better equipped to handle under sat fighting than being built with the expectation of being well suited to under sat fighting. Another reason I focus more on HLC than concs is because HLC would allow a T3 to be built to have an ideal set up for a specific offensive role (heavy assault; a role it would already clearly fill save for missing HLC) without stepping on the toes of the Star Guard and Pike due to not having the missile options to be an offensive generalist. At least as I see it the Star Guard and Pike are both generalists whereas the T3 is a specialist that focuses on heavy assault & support.

 

That being said concs would be nice too and if I could I'd give the T3 both HLC and concs (among other changes). Because why shouldn't the strike class get a "battlestrike"?

Edited October 29, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[ALaggyGrunt]

The T1 and T2 strikes should be battlestrikes-both of them T1 is the gunfighter, T2 is the missile boat. T3 should be support with slightly threatening weapons, which it is. It's just not that good at support, between the cooldowns/range on systems abilities and the generally weak effect of directional shields.

Speaking of which, it doesn't need a capacitor. It needs thrusters instead for mobility.

[Altheran]

IMO not making it an offensive ship are one of two major factors for why it's close to but not meta (the other being the obvious flaws in the strike class itself which the devs seem intent on correcting). The support systems CDs are simply too long to allow it to focus on support and not offense. Unlike bombers it lacks any additional tools to round out a support role well (as many have noted shield projector is hard to use without info on allied shields and is unlikely to ever make a difference). Once it's system ability has been used it has nothing else to do but be on the offense.

Should I recall why a NovaDive will never be viable as an offensive ship, and why a Spearpoint will never be viable as the pseudo tanky scout ? Maybe it has to do with the fact that the FlashFire possesses both at the same time, hasn't it ? These two have been relegated to trick ships who have value only in their exclusive components.

 

Grant the Clarion the same power than other strikes, and they are condemned. It's as simple as that. No one would ever need them to do something a Clarion already does better. And that'd be worse than the situation with Scouts, as they'd be only able to differentiate with an additional generic weapon, not a power. Only the Starguard has a dim chance to survive because of Ion cannons. The Pike would be buried once and for all.

Let's not do this.

 

In my opinion, if the Clarion needs anything, it's to make its weapons, which are meant to be niche, be still niche although less crappy. No more, no less.

In a world where Torpedoes can't be ignored by some ships, the Clarion shines.

In a world where EMP missile and Ion Missile wouldn't be almost completely useless in ship to ship battles, the Clarion would likely shine.

In a world where QLC, LC, RfLC and other cannons wouldn't be wildly inefficient at their maximal range, the Clarion would likely shine.

 

IMO, if the Clarion is still "out of the meta", then it has to be addressed. Separately. On those "meta ships", not on the Clarion.

 

But, it's a matter of perspective, I guess.

Because, yes, I'm one of those who think that the "meta ships" shouldn't be taken as reference for a norm.

 

(Off-topic)

 

To me, a FlashFire chassis/load out combination makes no sense. Not in game where the load out can be copied by its "sister ship".

To me, the Gunships and Bombers proficiency for extreme weaponry and crap chassis makes no sense. Not in a game where there are hybrid ships that propose regular non-extreme weaponry along proprietary "purposely made abnormally strong" weaponry, and where they can even mimic the mechanism of an entirely different class.

To me, trying to stick to those, is twisted thinking. It's just impossible.

 

For example, let's imagine we take the Quarrel as an example of balanced ship. Let's imagine we buffed Torpedoes to the point a Cometbreaker would be the Quarrel equal. Mechanically, we'd make Strikes OP, because they'd be nothing but the same as Cometbreaker, with a better chassis.

 

That's how rotten the current system is. It lacks methodological thinking.

Strike stuff, is shared stuff. It has almost nothing proprietary. Logically, it should be the cornerstone of the balancing process, not something we try to fit last.

Some ships may differ only by its chassis, other may differ only by its component. Logically, chassis and components should be balanced independently. Any thinking of weak/strong combination of chassis and component screws everything when hybrids exist. And they do exist.

Only then, one can try to confine the role of a said ship, by allowing/unallowing components.

 

Edited October 29, 2015 by Altheran

[Ramalina]

I don't really disagree much with the rest of your post, but this part:

 

Should I recall why a NovaDive will never be viable as an offensive ship, and why a Spearpoint will never be viable as the pseudo tanky scout ? Maybe it has to do with the fact that the FlashFire possesses both at the same time, hasn't it ? These two have been relegated to trick ships who have value only in their exclusive components.

 

is pretty ridiculous.

 

The Novadive has been, is, and almost certainly will continue to be a perfectly viable offensive ship. In fact, what is arguably the most potent offensive build for the T1 scout contains no type specific components whatsoever. Offensively it's pretty much the same as a Quads & Pods battlescout and defensively it just gives up 400 shield per arc, the value of which largely depends on how frequently and how hard the pilot is getting hit.

 

It does lack a compelling gameplay reason to pick it over a Quads & Pods T2, unless you want a BLC scout and a Pods & Quads scout on the same hangar bar without spending for a Cartel scout. That's a lack of compelling uniqueness though, not a lack of offensive viability. I suppose Nemarus might even quibble with that though, he really likes the infinite boost flavors of the T1 in an offensive role.

 

 

As long as it's stuck with medium range weapons and without thrusters the Clarion is going to be a niche ship. Offensive power is really just going to be the difference between a very useful niche ship and a barely useful niche ship. With improvements the other two strikes, at least in theory, have the potential to become generally useful offensive ships.

 

 

I could see a decent argument for BLCs over HLCs or Concussions for enhancing Clarion offensive output though. The Clarion is really the only ship that's not a bomber that can survive hanging out on a node in an extended brawl with bombers. It just lacks the tools to do anything other than survive. With BLC's it would gain some ability to clear the satellite, though since it'd be single target and constrained by firing arc it'd still leave bombers as the optimal satellite assault ship. It would also preserve the tendency of T3 ships to be atypical for their class, which is nice for unique and compelling gameplay styles.

 

It might not work out though if they do strong buffs to chassis based mobility. If the base strike chassis gets mobile enough to be a map-wide dogfighter then I could see your concern with the T3 strike supplanting the T1 and T2 actually taking place.

[Altheran]

I don't really disagree much with the rest of your post, but this part:

 

 

 

is pretty ridiculous.

 

The Novadive has been, is, and almost certainly will continue to be a perfectly viable offensive ship. In fact, what is arguably the most potent offensive build for the T1 scout contains no type specific components whatsoever. Offensively it's pretty much the same as a Quads & Pods battlescout and defensively it just gives up 400 shield per arc, the value of which largely depends on how frequently and how hard the pilot is getting hit.

 

It does lack a compelling gameplay reason to pick it over a Quads & Pods T2, unless you want a BLC scout and a Pods & Quads scout on the same hangar bar without spending for a Cartel scout. That's a lack of compelling uniqueness though, not a lack of offensive viability. I suppose Nemarus might even quibble with that though, he really likes the infinite boost flavors of the T1 in an offensive role.

 

It depends on the point of view.

 

From the point of view where the FlashFire and other meta ships are fine and supposedly are what every ship should be power-wise, which is not my opinion BTW, the NovaDive isn't really viable.

Yes, they are designed as offensive ships. They have the components and means to be deadly, and as deadly as the FlashFire. But even though, they are not truly good, as the FlashFire sets an higher standard with its defense, hence the NovaDive not being really viable. All they have left is what's unique to them (EMP Field and Converter)

 

The NovaDive might be as well be plenty enough on its own which necessarily implies that the FlashFire is inherently too strong -which is my opinion, but I digress- the point was that both ships can't coexist and have a balanced state. One is either relegated as niche, or the other one is OP, if not both.

 

I merely took this point of view because my interlocutor was taking the point of view "has to enter the meta", and the meta, it's the FlashFire, not NovaDive.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Grant the Clarion the same power than other strikes, and they are condemned. It's as simple as that. No one would ever need them to do something a Clarion already does better. And that'd be worse than the situation with Scouts, as they'd be only able to differentiate with an additional generic weapon, not a power. Only the Starguard has a dim chance to survive because of Ion cannons. The Pike would be buried once and for all.

 

I can understand that concern which is why I tend to feel that HLC is more balanced than adding concs. It would allow it to fulfill a niche role of heavy assault without giving it the ability to be a generalist or dogfighting specialist. Given that the T3 already has secondaries that either fill a support/utility role or assault role I feel that HLC would be in the spirit of the T3's existing design. IMO HLC would also synergize better than BLC with the T3's existing secondary weapons. As I've said though I generally fly my strike with the idea of clearing out bombers at range and leaving the under sat fighting to more nimble dogfighting ships.

 

IMO adding concs is where the T3 would begin to muscle into T1 & T2 generalist territory since concs would synergize very well with QLC to create a generalist build. I don't think the T3 having generalist build options or having an optimal set of components is inherently bad but I do see how it would create problems if the T1/T2 were just left as is and didn't get new components of their own to give them their own unique flavors.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[JasonSzeremi]

My thoughts on Clarion with Concussive Missile...

 

I'd prefer not make the Clarion be something it's not supposed to be : an offensive ship.

 

if it flies in gsf, it's probably an offensive ship, at the very least any ship can and should be able to deal damage to another. The T2 scout was not supposed to be a better strike fighter then the T1 strike fighter.... Imagine if it was the way it was supposed to be.