Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[JasonSzeremi]

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.

 

that begs the question, what new components the T1 and T2 should get (I personally fly the T1 alot, and favor the T2 but current missile break environment makes it rough)

[Gavin_Kelvar]

that begs the question, what new components the T1 and T2 should get (I personally fly the T1 alot, and favor the T2 but current missile break environment makes it rough)

 

I'd give the T1 BLC and LLC first off. One of it's biggest flaws is the lack of a CQC blaster. Maybe give it Overcharged shield. Possibly give them pods (although I might save that as only for the missile strike).

 

As for the T2 I'd give it thermites, interdiction, and pods. I'm unsure about giving it Sabo as that might be cool leaving it as a scout specific. I'd swap out armor for reactor (IMO on a strike chassis armor is only useful when you can also pair it with the more beneficial reactor that plays to the strike's defensive strengths) and give it retros. Yes this makes the T2 largely identical to the T1 save for what weapon it swaps but I think that's a good thing since in practice that's what they already are save for a few minor component differences designed to fulfill the flavor text (which is namely why the T2 has armor instead of reactor).

 

For both strikes I'd give them Pdive. That both would provide better defense to ion rail and potentially help offset any buff to torps.

 

The reason I give more to the T2 is because that seems to me the most in need of help. I think the T1 is fairly well rounded component option wise save for missing a viable CQC weapon and perhaps needing an alternate to CP which is a trap component on that model.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Kinsha]

I would like to see a better close quarter weapons on the t1 strikes, but I'd prefer it be done by buffing RFL to some level of effectiveness rather than seeing BLC just slapped on as a patch up job. Despite it's description as a close quarters weapons, it often gets used as a general purpose weapon and I think the game would not get better if BLC became an even more common sigh on the battlefield in it's current state.

 

 

As for the t3 strike....

I'd prefer to see the t3 strike become a force multiplier in GSF, rather than giving it even more potential to be a lone wolf. I'd take a look at nerfing wingman and giving some serious tweaks and buffs to combat command. I'm curious to see what would happen if wingman only affected primaries or provided a lesser buff to the ship that used it, but gave a stronger buff to allies. IE: wingman would provide only 10% to the user while provided 20% to allies in a larger radius. Then give combat command something like a 10km-15km radius while also letting it affect secondaries. Then there might be a real reason to try and fit a t3 strike into a wing and at the same time also give enemy teams a high priority target.

 

As far as primaries and secondaries on the t3 strike, quads are pretty general purpose but a solid choice. I do think HLC would make a much stronger ship, but step on the toes of the other 2 strikes. The T3 should be leading/supporting the team rather than being one of the grunts on the front lines. I'm not saying it shouldn't be able to get it's hand dirty, but I think there need to be less ships around that are able to easily take a satellite with 3 turrets defending it.

 

As for secondaries, I think that's where the T3 needs to be looked at. Buffing Ion missiles and EMPs would be a start.

 

What if EMPs disabled current enemy ship buffs. Emps would be able to cripple enemy bombers from distance before closing in for a kill. This would throw a serious wrench at CP bombers.

 

What if Ion missile hit BOTH arcs? I find that targets that get actually get hit by an Ion missile often lose most if not all their shields before the missile hits and if the target still survives, you will usually end up firing at the stronger shield arc afterward. This does seem a bit OP to me, but when was the last time anyone recalls thinking "Oh damn...that guy is firing ion missiles at me!" because they were scared and not shocked at the choice of a secondary?

 

Just as a crazy notion...

What if there was an upgrade for concussion missiles that turned it into a sort of double charge missile. Some sort of HE warhead. The missile would hit for say... half damage on contact(which would get the 20% shield pierce) and a secondary charge which exploded like a mine for the other half in say... a 1-1.5km radius when it reached the end of it's flight. This would be a sort of soft counter to to DF as the intended target would still take damage if they didn't vacate the area.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Kinsha

[Gavin_Kelvar]

As far as primaries and secondaries on the t3 strike, quads are pretty general purpose but a solid choice. I do think HLC would make a much stronger ship, but step on the toes of the other 2 strikes. The T3 should be leading/supporting the team rather than being one of the grunts on the front lines. I'm not saying it shouldn't be able to get it's hand dirty, but I think there need to be less ships around that are able to easily take a satellite with 3 turrets defending it.

 

I guess here is where we might differ in what support means. To me that means being able to perform offensive roles such as clear out armored targets so the generalist or dogfight specialist fighters can mop up remaining defenders to flip a sat. Primarily in the sense of anti-bomber where battlescouts can kill bombers but not without risk to themselves. While the Star Guard and Pike can engage a bomber they lack the defense of a Clarion and so of the strike variants the Clarion takes the smallest risk engaging a bomber. Yet it lacks the offensive tools to make the most of that defensive edge in support of their squadron. Aside from a strike using a torp/HLC the only other ship that can engage a bomber outside of the bomber's ideal range is a GS. Giving the T3 HLC would just give it better ability to support it's squisher squadron mates by clearing away targets like bombers.

 

For record I personally also think BLC should never have been given AP and that the only AP scout weapon should have been pods. That being said I don't think it's a good idea to limit any strike fighter's AP options (IMO being anti-armor is a key part of strike fighter duty given their tendency to be equipped with heavy ordinance) due to AP being more easily available on other ship classes than perhaps it should have been.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Kinsha]

I'm not completely against HLC, but HLC are available on quite a few ships. I think improving the systems and weapons on a T3 strike that are more unique to it is a better way to go. Taking a quote out of the movie "the Incredibles".. "if everyone is special, then no one is". Although I think the things I suggested are more than anyone could hope for unless GSF received the same kind of resources it had when it launched.

 

also...

I'd like to see proton torpedoes damage upgraded to 1k flat or have satellite turrets hull reduced to 850 or so. It just drives me nuts that protorps can't kill a turret.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

also...

I'd like to see proton torpedoes damage upgraded to 1k flat or have satellite turrets hull reduced to 850 or so. It just drives me nuts that protorps can't kill a turret.

 

Not that torps are really efficient for killing turrets but I agree. It seems stupid that they can't 1 shot a turret.

[Greezt]

I'd give the T1 BLC and LLC first off. One of it's biggest flaws is the lack of a CQC blaster. Maybe give it Overcharged shield. Possibly give them pods (although I might save that as only for the missile strike).

 

That would basically make the T1 a scout, and a bad one too. How would a T1 even fight short range? Scouts would demolish it.

 

Ion cannons are the T1's special weapon, and I personally love them even with their short range. I mastered the star guard first of all my ships, and always had a blast stripping shields with ion cannons and chasing with HLC for the finish, but it didn't work well, and I generally ended matches with assist MVPs and lots of damage, but little to no kills...

 

I think if ion cannon's range was upped to fit HLC, the T1 would be a viable ship. it would be less maneuverable than a scout, but would have more DPS uptime, and it would keep its role as a medium range multipurpose ship.

 

Also, adding MORE BLC to an already BLC saturated game is just plain bad in my opinion. Why not give some realistic alternatives?

 

As for the shields, I honestly think that shields are perfectly ok as they are on strikes at the moment. They are a step behind bombers, but still ahead of gunships and scouts, which is as it should be for a general use ship. If anything, their maneuverability needs to be buffed to be closer to scouts', and their DPS needs to be higher, because they are the bottom of the food chain right there. Maybe a small range increase too, so they have an advantage over bombers with primary weapons.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Greezt

[JasonSzeremi]

Not that torps are really efficient for killing turrets but I agree. It seems stupid that they can't 1 shot a turret.

 

Yet thermites, a scout weapon (amongst others) can

[Gavin_Kelvar]

That would basically make the T1 a scout, and a bad one too. How would a T1 even fight short range? Scouts would demolish it.

 

I don't mean to say that it you should optimally fight at close range in a strike, even with the most ideal post buff. Simply the fact that the T1 lacks viable close range weaponry (especially weaponry that would synergize well with ions). Now I suppose you could just buff ions to HLC range and abandon the idea that the T1 has any functional close range primary weapon options but I don't believe that's a good design direction either. Basically my idea is to give them an effective close range hull damaging weapon other than clusters that T1's can use.

 

Also, adding MORE BLC to an already BLC saturated game is just plain bad in my opinion. Why not give some realistic alternatives?

 

Ideally I'd buff RFLs and LLC to be viable alternatives to BLC. But that's rather tricky balancing to do right and I'm assuming that the devs won't have that kind of time. Thus just giving them BLC is a less than ideal but relatively easy thing to do.

[Greezt]

I don't mean to say that it you should optimally fight at close range in a strike, even with the most ideal post buff. Simply the fact that the T1 lacks viable close range weaponry (especially weaponry that would synergize well with ions). Now I suppose you could just buff ions to HLC range and abandon the idea that the T1 has any functional close range primary weapon options but I don't believe that's a good design direction either. Basically my idea is to give them an effective close range hull damaging weapon other than clusters that T1's can use.

 

I don't think that strikes need to have close range lasers, because there are two ship classes that rely primarily on lasers for their damage: strikes and scouts. Scouts already fill the niche of close range battle very well, so giving strikes close range weaponry would either make them even more obsolete, or if they get maneuver buffs it will render scouts obsolete. That being said, RFL should be fixed, but LLC are OK in my opinion right now.

 

Since strikes are supposed to be jack of all trades ships, giving them good close range lasers should be an option, in case someone wants to give them a close range laser, bat that's not what'll fix them. Note that scouts don't have long range weaponry to offset their close lasers. Only bombers and gunships have both types, because both would be helpless outside their range without them.

 

Making strikes more maneuverable and maybe increasing their range should give them the ability to kill from medium range. The only ship with a real problem is the T2 strike, for which I have no idea what to do. Maybe give missiles that aren't torpedoes the ability to hit 2 lock release ships, or give it a new missile with that ability.

[JasonSzeremi]

I don't think that strikes need to have close range lasers, because there are two ship classes that rely primarily on lasers for their damage: strikes and scouts. Scouts already fill the niche of close range battle very well, so giving strikes close range weaponry would either make them even more obsolete, or if they get maneuver buffs it will render scouts obsolete. That being said, RFL should be fixed, but LLC are OK in my opinion right now.

 

Making strikes more maneuverable and maybe increasing their range should give them the ability to kill from medium range. The only ship with a real problem is the T2 strike, for which I have no idea what to do. Maybe give missiles that aren't torpedoes the ability to hit 2 lock release ships, or give it a new missile with that ability.

 

BLC on strikes would likely be for targeting the fighter's natural prey in history: Bombers. A CQC weapon with armor piercing fits the bill of a weapon for digging out entrenched armored bunkers as well, and strikes can survive a few mines, even CP might be of some use if the strikes are under satalite chasing down a bomber, although I still favor directional shields for that job.... still seismic mines are nothing to sneeze at and CP could diminish the damage from them.

 

the T2 strike? perhaps ion missile should have a blast radius option, and be available to the T2 strike. Imagine hitting a turret with ion missile, destroying all the mines around a sat, pealing the shields of ships caught in the blast. Then with HLC or QLC going after bombers under the sat with their dogfight missile option (clusters or concs). Ion missile really under-performs as is, it needs a followup with some damage, like the ion-anything option on the T1 strike. And the ion missile needs to disable _something_ engine maneuvers? shield abilities? either/both.

 

I still like the idea of allowing T1 strikes to select from any laser in the game, and T2 strikes to select from any missile and/or pods.... the players will find builds that work on their own, and more people will play gsf just to try out new builds.

[Greezt]

BLC on strikes would likely be for targeting the fighter's natural prey in history: Bombers. A CQC weapon with armor piercing fits the bill of a weapon for digging out entrenched armored bunkers as well, and strikes can survive a few mines, even CP might be of some use if the strikes are under satalite chasing down a bomber, although I still favor directional shields for that job.... still seismic mines are nothing to sneeze at and CP could diminish the damage from them.

 

the T2 strike? perhaps ion missile should have a blast radius option, and be available to the T2 strike. Imagine hitting a turret with ion missile, destroying all the mines around a sat, pealing the shields of ships caught in the blast. Then with HLC or QLC going after bombers under the sat with their dogfight missile option (clusters or concs). Ion missile really under-performs as is, it needs a followup with some damage, like the ion-anything option on the T1 strike. And the ion missile needs to disable _something_ engine maneuvers? shield abilities? either/both.

 

I still like the idea of allowing T1 strikes to select from any laser in the game, and T2 strikes to select from any missile and/or pods.... the players will find builds that work on their own, and more people will play gsf just to try out new builds.

 

BLCs are good for killing bombers from close range, but the T2 scout already does that very well. Giving a strike BLC would make people choose between the strike and the scout, which means they will inevitably choose the scout. Anyway, HLC are perfectly fine for killing bombers from medium range, so why close the distance? Gunships kill bombers from a much larger distance, and scouts take a big risk going into a bomber's denial area.

 

As for the T2 strike, its' problem as far as I can see is that it has no real target. Bombers are rarely threatend by torpedoes, since it takes 3.4 seconds to lock one. Gunships and scouts are threatened pretty much only by cluster missiles, and both have are more of a threat in close range, with scouts being more maneuverable and gunships being almost as maneuverable and with BLC. Shortening the torp's lock time might give the needed edge against bombers, but still won't be enough for anything else... Rocket pods won't work because the ship using them needs to be either very maneuverable, or firing on a slow target, and they're close-range weaponry. So if you would give the T2 pods it would also need a close-range laser and maneuverability... And we're back to the T2 scout. If other strikes were made viable, though, T2 might have a place as a strike counter.

 

Improving specific missiles is a problem because missiles aren't specific to strikes. If you gave ion missiles an aoe, you'd start to see many T3 scouts with them, for example. You'd see bombers with torps if their lock on time was reduced, etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but that's why the T3 would be the hardest ship to improve.

 

Giving the T1 all the lasers in the game isn't a bad idea, but it won't help it. Scouts would still dominate the close range, and the meta would still have one strike build (maybe two) that would dominate (assuming it would make it into meta). The T1 gunship is the T1 strike of gunships, and how often do you see a plasma railgun in serious games? Almost never, and it won't change unless they make plasma more attractive. They could add five different railguns to the T1 gunship, but as long as ion/slug remain optimal that's what you'll see.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

That would basically make the T1 a scout, and a bad one too. How would a T1 even fight short range? Scouts would demolish it.

 

Well the T2 and T3 both have LLC even though they lack a primary weapon swap ability. So clearly the devs think that strikes should be viable with only CQC blasters for primaries. The problem with the T1 is its only CQC blaster is the worst gun in the game. My idea giving it both LLC and BLC is to fix that.

 

Also, adding MORE BLC to an already BLC saturated game is just plain bad in my opinion. Why not give some realistic alternatives?

 

The reason I suggested BLC is I'm assuming balancing RFLs and LLC to be competative with BLC would require more time than the devs can or want to devote to a GSF balance pass. The reason LLC needs a balance pass is because the only reason pilots use it is if their ship doesn't have BLC. So LLC needs a balance pass too to be brought up to the level where it's a competitive choice to BLC (it doesn't need it as much as RFLs but it still needs it). I suggest giving the T1 both BLC and LLC though so if a CQC blaster balance pass ever happens they could use LLC instead.

 

To be clear I don't think these component changes are enough to bring strikes into the meta. This was just in response to another poster's query of what I would give T1/T2 strikes to keep them from being made obsolete by T3s with HLCs.

 

Giving T1s BLC/LLC would allow them to be better than a T3 under a sat while having similar offensive output to the T3 at range (since they both could use HLC/torps). T1's would be a little more squishy than a T3 as current but they would still have a place. Similarly a T2 with my component additions would offer a different playstyle to the T1 but still allow it to have a place. The main objective being to ensure that the T1 and T2 still have a purpose in the meta if the T3 locked down the assault strike fighter role with HLCs and (functional) torps.

 

These ideas are very similar to Nem's post way back in this thread (http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=814938&page=3) and I largely support his suggestions. I have my own variations and reasoning but I'd be totally happy if his ideas were implemented.

[Greezt]

well the t2 and t3 both have llc even though they lack a primary weapon swap ability. So clearly the devs think that strikes should be viable with only cqc blasters for primaries. The problem with the t1 is its only cqc blaster is the worst gun in the game. My idea giving it both llc and blc is to fix that.

 

Well, the devs also thought that strikes would be jack of all trade ships... Like I said, I have be no problem with giving the T1 (and T2 and T3, for that matter) BLCs, but all that would mean is that it would die quicker. In their current state, the only thing they're gonna be able to kill from close range is bombers, and HLC do the job just fine (although a range and damage increase would very much improve them).

 

the reason i suggested blc is i'm assuming balancing rfls and llc to be competative with blc would require more time than the devs can or want to devote to a gsf balance pass. The reason llc needs a balance pass is because the only reason pilots use it is if their ship doesn't have blc. So llc needs a balance pass too to be brought up to the level where it's a competitive choice to blc (it doesn't need it as much as rfls but it still needs it). I suggest giving the t1 both blc and llc though so if a cqc blaster balance pass ever happens they could use llc instead.

 

To be clear i don't think these component changes are enough to bring strikes into the meta. This was just in response to another poster's query of what i would give t1/t2 strikes to keep them from being made obsolete by t3s with hlcs.

 

Giving t1s blc/llc would allow them to be better than a t3 under a sat while having similar offensive output to the t3 at range (since they both could use hlc/torps). T1's would be a little more squishy than a t3 as current but they would still have a place. Similarly a t2 with my component additions would offer a different playstyle to the t1 but still allow it to have a place. The main objective being to ensure that the t1 and t2 still have a purpose in the meta if the t3 locked down the assault strike fighter role with hlcs and (functional) torps.

 

I get what you're saying, I just don't think that close-range weapons are the direction to go. A strike on a node would be able to kill bombers just fine with BLCs, but would still lose to scouts and gunships, just like they do now. So it won't change much. Anyway, what about deathmatches? I'd like to be able to see a strike coming my way, and think "better get a move on, or I'm dead". BLCs or LLCs won't do that, all they'd do is make sure the strike won't even get a shot out before being ioned and slugged to death.

 

These ideas are very similar to nem's post way back in this thread (http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=814938&page=3) and i largely support his suggestions. I have my own variations and reasoning but i'd be totally happy if his ideas were implemented.

 

I read his post a while back, and agree with many points there (and also disagree with some). In short, I don't know about giving missiles no lock on time. I don't think the pike would benefit from rocket pods. And I certainly don't think the T1 needs BLCs.

I do think that the rest of his points are solid and worth considering, especially maneuverability, range and damage increases.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Greezt

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I get what you're saying, I just don't think that close-range weapons are the direction to go. A strike on a node would be able to kill bombers just fine with BLCs, but would still lose to scouts and gunships, just like they do now. So it won't change much. Anyway, what about deathmatches? I'd like to be able to see a strike coming my way, and think "better get a move on, or I'm dead". BLCs or LLCs won't do that, all they'd do is make sure the strike won't even get a shot out before being ioned and slugged to death.

 

I'm totally fine with the devs taking the route of making strikes exclusively midrange fighters, that's certainly how I tend to fly strikes. But then I think they need to strip away RFLs and LLC from all strike models or else you're effectively leaving them with trap components. But if the devs like the idea of strikes being built to be CQC fighters then I think the T1 absolutely needs functional CQC blasters as RFLs fall very, very short of filling that role.

 

I do like your idea of giving ions a range buff. Personally I'd buff their max range to 8,000 so they synergize better with HLC. You'd be able to strip a craft's shields before getting in HLC range whereas if the range buff is the same as HLC range by the time you strip shields you're getting into the close range where things get dicey for HLCs due to tracking penalties.

[Kinsha]

I got the impression that strikes were meant to strip down shields with blasters(hopefully some hull damage), and finish their target off with a missile. I remember saying to someone that on a stock strike that RFL were generally laughable, but the concussion missile that came right behind them wasn't.

 

I think ion cannons with a 5-6km range, not including upgrades or capacitors, would make them a pretty lethal weapon in the right hands. That's something I think should be kept in mind when trying to buff strikes. The buffs should make components lethal with some people, not everyone so the player is making decisions on how they want to adjust their play style. If ion cannons had a hefty range that allowed them to strip shields and then still fire HLC comfortably, everyone would be jumping on that the same way that BLC is THE blaster of choice for a generalist build on a T2 scout.

 

P.S.- I would like to see ion cannons on the T3 strike. Yes it'd be damn hard to to kill scouts, but watching a thermite get a direct hit to a bomber hull is so sweet.

[Greezt]

I do like your idea of giving ions a range buff. Personally I'd buff their max range to 8,000 so they synergize better with HLC. You'd be able to strip a craft's shields before getting in HLC range whereas if the range buff is the same as HLC range by the time you strip shields you're getting into the close range where things get dicey for HLCs due to tracking penalties.

 

You know, it always struck me as strange that ion cannons have such a short range, yet gunships have an ion railgilun, which is both stronger and has a longer range... Making their range longer than HLCs is a great idea. I wish some dev was reading this.

[Greezt]

I got the impression that strikes were meant to strip down shields with blasters(hopefully some hull damage), and finish their target off with a missile. I remember saying to someone that on a stock strike that RFL were generally laughable, but the concussion missile that came right behind them wasn't.

 

That's true, but the only way you're ever gonna land a concussion on any gunship or scout is if 1) he just wasted his cooldowns jousting with another player and you charged in, or 2) he fell asleep on the keyboard, went afk, or some other such reason... A gunship might be possible to land if you take him by surprise and he is far from cover, but how often does that happen?

[Kinsha]

That's true, but the only way you're ever gonna land a concussion on any gunship or scout is if 1) he just wasted his cooldowns jousting with another player and you charged in, or 2) he fell asleep on the keyboard, went afk, or some other such reason... A gunship might be possible to land if you take him by surprise and he is far from cover, but how often does that happen?

 

Not too often which is why I do think the balance teams should be looking at tweaks to DF rather than straight buffs into the strikes because I'm fairly certain large buffs on the same scale as doubling the range of ion cannons is going to have many unintended side effects. You could argue that this would buff everyone to the same scale because its a stock ship that everyone starts with, but I think it's more likely to just toss in a new ship which can "one shot" a new player.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I think ion cannons with a 5-6km range, not including upgrades or capacitors, would make them a pretty lethal weapon in the right hands. That's something I think should be kept in mind when trying to buff strikes. The buffs should make components lethal with some people, not everyone so the player is making decisions on how they want to adjust their play style. If ion cannons had a hefty range that allowed them to strip shields and then still fire HLC comfortably, everyone would be jumping on that the same way that BLC is THE blaster of choice for a generalist build on a T2 scout.

 

Well see the thing is by the time Ions have stripped a target's shields the target still needs to be far enough away to not cause massive tracking penalties to HLC/QLC. Which means a target not much close to the strike than 6,000m. Once you get below 5,000m things get much more dicey for the strike and scouts begin to enter their ideal range. The T1's scary combo of using ions to strip shields + blasters/missiles shouldn't only begin threatening a scout with hull damage (the point where the strike can swap from ions to HLC/QLC) at the scout's ideal weapon range where combat will steadily shift in the scout's favor.

 

Stripping a target of their shields in and of itself isn't useful if they are then too close to be reliably hit with HLC/QLC (and HLC/QLC need to be able to get several shots in to account for RNG, allow it to do significant damage, and in so doing make the paring with ions a lethal threat). The Pike already encounters these problems with ion missile where its ability to strip shields doesn't compliment concs because the have the same range and by the time the ion missile hits you are no longer at the ideal range for concs. You can hit with clusters sure but at this point with either ion weapon's case you're giving strikes a weapon that is only optimally paired with weapons that force the strike to fight at a scout's ideal weapon range.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[JasonSzeremi]

That's true, but the only way you're ever gonna land a concussion on any gunship or scout is if 1) he just wasted his cooldowns jousting with another player and you charged in, or 2) he fell asleep on the keyboard, went afk, or some other such reason... A gunship might be possible to land if you take him by surprise and he is far from cover, but how often does that happen?

 

I usually land concs on people who are otherwise busy, charging up their rail guns, dog-fighting someone else, or jousting me. Concs aren't useless, and people allow a surprising number of them to hit them. With a cool down close to the time period it takes to do an engine maneuver, if left to my own devices I can usually land one on anyone who uses an engine maneuver to break my lock, before or after I fire the first one. Fighters using engine maneuvers aren't dealing damage either so it has a temporary CC effect, so as a pilot used to being shot down, I try to lock my missiles on the biggest threats to my team and make them burn their missile breaks while better pilots on my team (or gunships) can do their jobs. This is even better if it's the only defender on an enemy satellite, since if they engine maneuver out, I can stay close to the sat and even turn and lock another missile on them, I don't need to kill that target to help my team win a domination match, I just have to keep them from staying close to the satellite.

 

Improving strikes doesn't just have to be about giving them the ability to make more kills, it must be about making them a better team player, perhaps only strike pilots and bomber pilots think about how to contribute to the team without making kills, because neither is ideal for racking up kills alone, and strikes too often have their chosen quarry escape their non existent surprise burst dps.

[JasonSzeremi]

You know, it always struck me as strange that ion cannons have such a short range, yet gunships have an ion railgilun, which is both stronger and has a longer range... Making their range longer than HLCs is a great idea. I wish some dev was reading this.

 

I actually seldom ever use ions on my strike, typically I get a few shots in before my targets get booking, and I do not hit them well if they are flying with any effort at evading my shots. Landing a few ion hits might strip the shields a bit, if I can get my HLC's on target after that sure... but hits with HLC with shield and armor piercing do some hull damage for my first 'surprise' shots and I am forced to follow up with a missile on most targets, then re-aquire after they missile break and finish the job. Sometimes that first hit with HLC is all I get on a target before playing the missile chase game, currently ions are so close ranged, I would have to hope they wouldn't notice me a good 2k more distance before leading in with them and then if it's the only laser hit I missed an opertunity to deal some permanent (hull) damage. longer range on the ions might change that dynamic for me.... range 8k would definitely put them in a place where I would use them at long range, to follow up with a missile and damage lasers. Also as a weapon that does laughable hull damage, it couldn't be too OP to have them with a greater range.... too bad they couldn't be range 10k.... .... 15k would be bad right? I mean how OP would it be to be able to hit gunships with weak ion blasters at ion rail gun range, without another weapon to follow up with at that range (ofcourse that is what friends are for.... one hits with the ion and another with slug rails or a torp)

 

Alot of you are pilots who can get sustained laser hits on evading targets, I on the other hand seldom do, either because of the graphics lag my system experiences or because somehow I just suck. Improving strikes, the non-gunship I fly best, will help me be a better team mate in gsf. I have to think it will help a lot of other pilots out there too. Some of us just can't fly a scout for one reason or another.

[JasonSzeremi]

I read his post a while back, and agree with many points there (and also disagree with some). In short, I don't know about giving missiles no lock on time. I don't think the pike would benefit from rocket pods. And I certainly don't think the T1 needs BLCs.

I do think that the rest of his points are solid and worth considering, especially maneuverability, range and damage increases.

 

No lock on time for missiles (and torps?) would mean people would be using those missile breaks alot more often, or a strike in CQC could get a missile in against an opponent who had no opportunity to use a missile break after the fact. They would have to use the missile breaks prophylacticly, and in the case of non-engine ones, that means burning them through and becoming vulnerable to missiles again after 3ish seconds of furball. That would give all those non-cluster missiles the same opertunity as clusters, longer ranged weapon launches would still be vulnerable to missile breaks, and bombers would live on their heal-self buttons they couldn't los break them anymore. For non bombers there would be plenty of potential to break the lock of flying missiles.... perhaps longer cool downs on the missiles themselves would compensate. add the current missile lock times to the CD?

 

as a lark I thought of giving torps 15k range.... or an upgrade at the top (lvl 5?) that lets them get 15 k instead of 11.5k.... see gunships squirm as (under the current rules) they had to use missile breaks, los, or just plain destroy the torp launchers.... since with 15k range on their own weapons that is still an option. I just don't see anyone agree to that idea.

Edited November 4, 2015 by JasonSzeremi

[Greezt]

...

Improving strikes doesn't just have to be about giving them the ability to make more kills, it must be about making them a better team player, perhaps only strike pilots and bomber pilots think about how to contribute to the team without making kills, because neither is ideal for racking up kills alone, and strikes too often have their chosen quarry escape their non existent surprise burst dps.

 

First of all, GSF isn't all DOM. Secondly, I agree that a ship doesn't have to kill it's targets in order to contribute to the game, but all types of ships assist and kill. For scouts, you have the T2 as the obvious killer, and the T3 as the obvious assist (T1 is generally a killer because it's assist components are horrible).

 

The T2 bomber is a killer, and the T3 is a contributor. The T1 gunship is a killer (although it's so good it can just as easily assist), and the T3 is a contributor (although it can kill very well too).

So if strikes get a buff, it shouldn't be one that defines it as an assist/killer. It should give it the capabilities to do both, and maybe assign each ship a more specific role (they already have them. T2 is a killer, T3 an assist, and T1 is a hybrid).

 

Also, I'm sure you've played with top players, and you know that the good ones don't waste their missile breaks for no reason. A concussion takes 2.6 seconds to lock, and another 5.5 to reload. So they release your first lock (assuming you manage do lock onto something in 2.6 seconds) get a short break, and then use their second one. If they're a T1 gunship, they'll barrel out and snipe at you, and the T3 gunship or any scout will just evade for as long as they want and then kill you... As for fighters, your team really doesn't need any assists in killing them unless they (the fighters) are incredible players and your team is mediocre.

 

...

as a lark I thought of giving torps 15k range.... or an upgrade at the top (lvl 5?) that lets them get 15 k instead of 11.5k.... see gunships squirm as (under the current rules) they had to use missile breaks, los, or just plain destroy the torp launchers.... since with 15k range on their own weapons that is still an option. I just don't see anyone agree to that idea.

 

Removing missile locks would make strikes OP, maybe too much so, but the thing is that it would also make many other ships too strong. Imagine attacking an enemy node, and suddenly you get torpedoed from 500m by a bomber and the eat a concussion mine... Or taking a protorp and then a railgun sentry drone shot... Not even mentioning scouts here. It would also turn the T2 gunship into a wrecking ball (that might actually be nice).

 

Making the max range of torpedoes 15k is pretty useless, and would only mildly annoy gunships. That's so far that even if you managed to fire 3 consecutive torpedoes on the same gunship, they would (if they have distortion field) simply break the lock, or (if they are a T2) boost away until their CD is off and then use it. This is even assuming there's no lock on time...

Edited November 4, 2015 by Greezt

[NeverEvar]

TORP flight speed is so low, that with 15 k range, i could go get a coffee to the nearest bar, get back and still use engine maneuver.

 

I would much more prefer have a native speed buff of 100% that could be doubled with an upgrade