Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[JasonSzeremi]

If the strike's problem isn't firepower (not sure how it couldn't be since nobody I know says the strike does as much burst damage as a gunship or a T2 scout or a bomber with a well placed rail gun sentry drone or cluster of mines)

then the problem is defenses... if you beef them up too much the strike can survive almost anything, and gsf would slow to a crawl, perhaps strikes would be the order of the day or it would become strike/gunship/t2 scout instead of bomber/gunship/T2 scout.

Or the problem could be regenerative systems/self heal... the only strike people say works well is the only one with a major self heal system cluster, the T3, what if all strikes had the extra room, given their larger frames from scouts, for self repair systems that operated automatically, that means if a strike wasn't killed in the first pass, it would already be healing (unless there is a regeneration delay like with shields) R2 showed this sort of ability in the X-wing where the little droid repaired stabalizers and other damage in flight. Sure you could say that's just the hydrospanner.... but our fighters are so much LARGER then the X-wing.... ever look at the ones in the launch bay? and realize there's room for a 5 man crew in that sucker and a bomb bay full of mines, a rail gun.... well the strike doesn't have mines, or a rail gun or sensors, but it could have some little self-repair droids bustling about the interior, or exterior (ep1, R2 fixing the princess ship during combat anyone?) patching holes in the hull and repairing damaged systems.... perhaps diminishing the duration of debuffs like the ones causd by ion rail guns.

[Lavaar]

Quads and Heavies are more than capable of dishing out a great deal of damage, the issue is getting them consistently centered on target. The advantage to BLC is it's ability to land meaningful glancing shots in tight quarters during turning battles. The question is how do we keep those guns faced where they need to be more often without outdoing the scout in maneuverability.

[RickDagles]

A suggestion I have would be to VASTLY increase the speed and responsiveness of the strikes strafing (SHIFT + WASD) capabilities. The problem that the strikes currently have isn't so much a lack of firepower, rather it is in the inability to effectively deliver that firepower by pointing it where it needs to be (Quads, Heavies, Ion's are all guilty of this). Imagine a strike that could "pivot" around a target in its sights without having to turn, maneuver carefully through obstacles, and, with surgical precision, quickly and efficiently dispatch a bomber hugging under the node while using the terrain as cover. Doing this would allow the strikes to have a clear advantage in a number of situations, and would clearly distinguish it as a separate class from the scout.

 

 

I really like this idea. A lot. It might not help them too much in TDM but damn it would make them super dangerous in Domination games. A charged plated Pike or Clarion would be able to strafe around a satellite all day and land shots with HLC/Quads. Bombers would be a lot less safe than they are now. The Pike might even be a solid option against a BLC/cluster scout since you'd be able to do heaps of HLC/wingman/cluster damage before getting smacked with BLCs. They'd still be food for ion railgun and CP builds would still be food for slug railgun, but I think that's ok.

 

 

The game text claims that Gunships have upgraded strafing. It seems barely noticeable to me. Maybe a 10%-20% increase at most. I think the Strikes would probably need close to a 100% increase.

[JasonSzeremi]

Quads and Heavies are more than capable of dishing out a great deal of damage, the issue is getting them consistently centered on target. The advantage to BLC is it's ability to land meaningful glancing shots in tight quarters during turning battles. The question is how do we keep those guns faced where they need to be more often without outdoing the scout in maneuverability.

 

why am I picturing the gunnery chair in last star fighter? it could shoot in any direction it could look.... too much?

Right now the scouts have the advantage (in the T2) in having the ability to turn, and thus aim as well as a weapon that works well with those capabilities. Enhanced side-slip/slew/strafe can help a bit, it certainly gives them better tools for satellite raiding... they could glide around the corners as far out as they are willing to and shoot from their ideal ranges. They might benefit in a drop in penalties for using their weapons in deflection shots and wider targeting circles.... being less maneuverable they might need them even if they can't out turn, they could at least be able to shoot at things as they pass in front of them.

Edited November 11, 2015 by JasonSzeremi

[Greezt]

How fast do you think that a strike would need to be in comparison to a bomber for this idea to be useful? Do you think it would need to be able to keep up with a bomber circling a node, or could half that speed be enough? Edited November 11, 2015 by Greezt

[keirhart]

Strike fighters could benefit from some beeping when a gunship is targeting them and then have some sort of chafe that can reduce damage or dodge attack. A easy to understand counter move.

[Danalon]

Strike fighters could benefit from some beeping when a gunship is targeting them and then have some sort of chafe that can reduce damage or dodge attack. A easy to understand counter move.

 

This won't work because Gunships don't need to target anything when using railguns.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Strike fighters could benefit from some beeping when a gunship is targeting them and then have some sort of chafe that can reduce damage or dodge attack. A easy to understand counter move.

 

the chafe you're talking about exists essentially as evasion right now. I don't think it's likely that the devs would give strikes more evasion. Our most practical option is to give strikes more beefy shields, larger power pools, and more efficient engines to mitigate the higher probability of being hit by Ion rails. (adding PDive to the T1 & T2 wouldn't hurt either).

[Ramalina]

Radar reflective flat metal particles are chaff. If you pour a bag of chaff into your underwear and then try to walk around it is likely to chafe (produce an unpleasantly abrasive rubbing sensation) to a rather extreme degree.

 

Just so we're clear.

 

As an aside, chaff is generally pretty ineffective against guns, and unless the guns are using a detectable and distinct rangefinding emission of some sort, targeting/launch warning systems are also generally pretty useless against artillery.

 

On the other hand, a deployable countermeasure involving smoke, (think ship or turret blown up near a sat), might be reasonably effective as long as it obscured the targeting box for gunships as well as blinding the BLC scout that was right on your tail.

 

That's a very cephalopod sort of defense so presumably it would be manufactured by the Quarren.

 

The number of ships smashing into sats would also be hilarious. It would be amazing fun in a CP Clarion build.

 

Say 16 canisters, refillable by ammo refill affects?

 

I doubt it will happen, as it's the sort of thing you'd need to give strikes a 5th button for, but the Quarren Smokescreen would be a pretty fun way of messing with other ships.

[FlavivsAetivs]

Ramalina hit the nail on the head, that would be perfect for damage reduction Clarion on a Domination match. I've smacked into satellites before where I flew into the explosion and couldn't see.

 

~ Eudoxia

[Kinsha]

A little bit off topic, but I've talked with some buddies from GSF about the general usefulness of distortion field and how it covered so many defenses in one shield. Bioware could've made a different kind of shield to to defend against missiles. Like some sort of Flare launching Shield System. It could break missile locks and block them out for longer while still providing general vulnerability to blaster fire. They could expand on that with giving it the ability to fan out and detonate mines or provide missile lock immunity buff to allies.

 

Of course this sort of thinking still requires more than zero interest from the devs

[Greezt]

A little bit off topic, but I've talked with some buddies from GSF about the general usefulness of distortion field and how it covered so many defenses in one shield. Bioware could've made a different kind of shield to to defend against missiles. Like some sort of Flare launching Shield System. It could break missile locks and block them out for longer while still providing general vulnerability to blaster fire. They could expand on that with giving it the ability to fan out and detonate mines or provide missile lock immunity buff to allies.

 

Of course this sort of thinking still requires more than zero interest from the devs

 

Emp field. But I don't understand, do you wanna give this shield to strikes or replace distortion field with this for scouts?

 

Either choice isn't too great in my opinion. Giving all scouts the ability to detonate mines will make bombers much more vulnerable, and giving all strikes another missile break will kill missiles completely (except vs. bombers, again making them too vulnerable).

[Kinsha]

Emp field. But I don't understand, do you wanna give this shield to strikes or replace distortion field with this for scouts?

 

Either choice isn't too great in my opinion. Giving all scouts the ability to detonate mines will make bombers much more vulnerable, and giving all strikes another missile break will kill missiles completely (except vs. bombers, again making them too vulnerable).

 

Emp field. But I don't understand, do you wanna give this shield to strikes or replace distortion field with this for scouts?

 

Either choice isn't too great in my opinion. Giving all scouts the ability to detonate mines will make bombers much more vulnerable, and giving all strikes another missile break will kill missiles completely (except vs. bombers, again making them too vulnerable).

 

I think it'd be better for GSF if there were more tools to fight bombers. I''m in favor of more options to fight bombers, be it better strikes handling or more ways to clear their bombs off the node.

 

As for where this shield would go, I'd prefer this sort of shield system on the scout/GS chassis with DF possibly buffed but losing the missile break. It wouldn't have to detonate mines, but it would at the very least give temporary immunity to seeker mines. Basically a different way for a scout to briefly penetrate into fortified territory minus the massive evasion.

 

I really didn't want to talk about scouts in this thread, but it's overly optimistic to think that strikes can be competitive without touching the other ships.

[JasonSzeremi]

Radar reflective flat metal particles are chaff. If you pour a bag of chaff into your underwear and then try to walk around it is likely to chafe (produce an unpleasantly abrasive rubbing sensation) to a rather extreme degree.

 

Just so we're clear.

 

As an aside, chaff is generally pretty ineffective against guns, and unless the guns are using a detectable and distinct rangefinding emission of some sort, targeting/launch warning systems are also generally pretty useless against artillery.

 

On the other hand, a deployable countermeasure involving smoke, (think ship or turret blown up near a sat), might be reasonably effective as long as it obscured the targeting box for gunships as well as blinding the BLC scout that was right on your tail.

 

That's a very cephalopod sort of defense so presumably it would be manufactured by the Quarren.

 

The number of ships smashing into sats would also be hilarious. It would be amazing fun in a CP Clarion build.

 

Say 16 canisters, refillable by ammo refill affects?

 

I doubt it will happen, as it's the sort of thing you'd need to give strikes a 5th button for, but the Quarren Smokescreen would be a pretty fun way of messing with other ships.

 

imagine instead a limited use cloaking device that causes you to disappear visually and from radar for a few seconds, just a burst of invisibility then you re-appear.... that would have alot of uses. you can't (usually) hit what you can't see. The makers? The 'Deffel' ? a species of black shadowy animal people in star wars that disappear against darkness.

 

Or both.... the ink cloud defiantly has possibilities in tight places

Edited November 12, 2015 by JasonSzeremi

[JasonSzeremi]

I think it'd be better for GSF if there were more tools to fight bombers. I''m in favor of more options to fight bombers, be it better strikes handling or more ways to clear their bombs off the node.

 

As for where this shield would go, I'd prefer this sort of shield system on the scout/GS chassis with DF possibly buffed but losing the missile break. It wouldn't have to detonate mines, but it would at the very least give temporary immunity to seeker mines. Basically a different way for a scout to briefly penetrate into fortified territory minus the massive evasion.

 

I really didn't want to talk about scouts in this thread, but it's overly optimistic to think that strikes can be competitive without touching the other ships.

 

but EMP field isn't a shield, it's a special system... sure you could give strikes a 5th button and the clarion two special systems.... strikes with TT, emp, or booster re-charge (or ink cloud, cloaking burst)?

 

T1 scouts and T3 scouts each have EMP weapon/special system options already. I've seen T1 scouts buzz the satellite and emp it, and they could still have distortion field too. gunships with an emp field? they already have some of the best weapons for fighting bombers: range 15 guns, sometimes including range 15 ion cannons that AOE mines drones and ships

Edited November 12, 2015 by JasonSzeremi

[Kinsha]

Ok I'll elaborate to hopefully illustrate what I had imagined.

 

Throwing out some basic numbers:

 

lets say a shield system that gives -10% shield or 100% base shielding. Relatively standard

Then have a shield activation ability that fires off flares into the surround area. The basic function would be breaking and preventing missiles locks for .... I don't know... perhaps 4-6 seconds. Definitely a stronger defense vs missiles than DF.

The tier 3 could be something funky like buffing allies with the same buff like emp, setting off mines or a duration increase.

 

There wouldn't need to be a 5th button because this is your shield ability and this would be an alternative to DF. This wouldn't make gunships stronger vs blaster fire, rocket pods or counter railgun fire. Lets say the detonate mines ability was something added. A gunship would need to go onto the sat to blow it. Also it wouldn't stop more mines from being deployed so the gunship would need to chase the bomber on the sat.

 

I'm trying to think of a way where evasion and a second missile break don't come together in one package. A player will have to choose what they want their defense are strong against rather than getting both at the same time. Also a reactor is packaged on 3 of 4 ships that have DF, so the negative shielding tends to get negated to a large degree.

[NeverEvar]

Urrr...You know that you basically discraibed powerdive version of shield? Powerdive has 10 sec cooldown and still has 3 second lock immunity.

 

Also your "flare idea" would make scouts GS fodder, or would force most scouts to use mentioned, powerdive.

 

It would also be a huge nerf to all ships that could effectively use Barrer Roll.

 

also nearly useless torps would get an even bigger Nerf

 

Also, seekers aren't an issue, they actually need a small dmg buff, cause even on paper thick scout, you can tank one per ark with no problem.

 

Also, it would push T1 bomber even more superior to T2, cause seekers are the only mines that use locking system.

 

It would also make T1 GS even more voulrnable to scouts which would actually push T3 basicly to same level(that is not nesesrly a bad thing)

 

But what would it mean for Strikes?

 

t2) would be even more useless

 

t1) would be a bit stronger versus scouts but still he would loose cause he dosent have the engine and turning to keep out of "knife" fight

 

t3) Would now have zero effective secondaries

 

 

My main point is:

 

Instead of making other ships as bad as strikes, make strikes as good as other ships

[JasonSzeremi]

Urrr...You know that you basically discraibed powerdive version of shield? Powerdive has 10 sec cooldown and still has 3 second lock immunity.

 

Also your "flare idea" would make scouts GS fodder, or would force most scouts to use mentioned, powerdive.

 

It would also be a huge nerf to all ships that could effectively use Barrer Roll.

 

also nearly useless torps would get an even bigger Nerf

 

Also, seekers aren't an issue, they actually need a small dmg buff, cause even on paper thick scout, you can tank one per ark with no problem.

 

Also, it would push T1 bomber even more superior to T2, cause seekers are the only mines that use locking system.

 

It would also make T1 GS even more voulrnable to scouts which would actually push T3 basicly to same level(that is not nesesrly a bad thing)

 

But what would it mean for Strikes?

 

t2) would be even more useless

 

t1) would be a bit stronger versus scouts but still he would loose cause he dosent have the engine and turning to keep out of "knife" fight

 

t3) Would now have zero effective secondaries

 

 

My main point is:

 

Instead of making other ships as bad as strikes, make strikes as good as other ships

 

You're right, this was off topic, Never is right, we need to make strikes meta. What they lack, mostly is what scouts have already, and giving strikes the ability to turn inside a scout dishonors the time and effort scout pilots have put into the game. Good pilots have suggested the strike needs to be the mid-range shooter... something between 10k and 4k being it's ideal range for it's weapons to fire. they need to hit things they shoot at, after all the scouts have better speed, turning, and evasion.... and removing evasion would be a gift to the gunships. What would make strikes really work.... range increase of it's primary weapons to 10k... among other things.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

and removing evasion would be a gift to the gunships

 

You could just give strikes a massive passive accuracy buff that allows them, and only them, to effectively ignore a scout's evasion. It'd still be a great defense against GS but less so against strikes (which seems like a fair trade-off since they can ignore 50% of strike's weapons, and it's only source of burst damage, with double missile breaks). doesn't really help the T2 as much as the other two strikes granted but for that to happen the double break system really needs to be directly addressed.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Kinsha]

Range alone might be enough. Players should have an easier time getting centered shots with increased range. 10km sounds a little high...perhaps something closer to 8km? Should a range upgrade apply to missiles?

[Ramalina]

Range alone might be enough. Players should have an easier time getting centered shots with increased range. 10km sounds a little high...perhaps something closer to 8km? Should a range upgrade apply to missiles?

 

Depends on the weapon and whether you're talking about base range or range after upgrades and other components. If you're talking about increasing the max possible range for HLCs from 6.9 km to 8 km, then the effect of an additional 1.1 km of range is likely to be minimal. If you are talking a 33% increase to base ranges, which would give a base of 8 km for HLC range, then the maximum range with upgrades and capacitors grows to 9.4 km and looks more like a serious upgrade, especially if combined with improved accuracy. The strength of the effect would also depend significantly on whether the increase affected the minimum and medium range points or just the maximum range point.

 

Missiles for the most part have timer issues. Meaning that the rate at which most ships can break missile locks is about twice as fast as the rate at which missiles other than cluster missile can be fired, and as a consequence missile hits are exceedingly rare against competent pilots. Range increases wouldn't change that.

 

Still, having longer ranges might make torpedoes, ion missiles, and EMP missiles a bit more interesting than they currently are. Not competitive, but less pathetic. Even from 20 km they wouldn't be scary without also getting other buffs, but at least you'd be able to fire them at very little personal risk, which would match the very low chance of any gain from having fired them (assuming you actually managed to get a valid lock and fire).

[Gavin_Kelvar]

If you are talking a 33% increase to base ranges, which would give a base of 8 km for HLC range, then the maximum range with upgrades and capacitors grows to 9.4 km and looks more like a serious upgrade, especially if combined with improved accuracy. The strength of the effect would also depend significantly on whether the increase affected the minimum and medium range points or just the maximum range point.

 

I really like this idea along with a accuracy buff. At those ranges you wouldn't have to worry overly much about tracking penalties and it would synergize super well with torps. it might also allow strikes to more seriously threaten GS since they'd be within firing range much sooner.

[ALaggyGrunt]

One way to nerf missile breaks is to put a one- or two-second delay on them, or at least distortion field. That way, the guy firing the missile can make someone burn a lock without actually firing. You introduce a "Do I want to fire/Do I really want to lock break?" game.

Add a serious increase to the speed of medium (EMP, conc, ion) missiles and they're not lolmissed any more-think one-second fly time from maximum range.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

One way to nerf missile breaks is to put a one- or two-second delay on them, or at least distortion field. That way, the guy firing the missile can make someone burn a lock without actually firing. You introduce a "Do I want to fire/Do I really want to lock break?" game.

 

This sounds interesting but I'm a little unclear on how this delay would work for the one firing the missile. Primarily how it would change things from the current situation where a broken lock means (if you didn't fire) that you have to start relocking, which can be a real problem for something like a torp.

[ALaggyGrunt]

This sounds interesting but I'm a little unclear on how this delay would work for the one firing the missile. Primarily how it would change things from the current situation where a broken lock means (if you didn't fire) that you have to start relocking, which can be a real problem for something like a torp.

 

The effect would be exactly the same it is now-except the lock break effect would happen on a 2-second delay.

If the missile is in flight when the lock break happens, it still misses.

If the missile is not in flight when the lock break happens, the attacker still has to re-lock.

 

At 0 seconds, attacker starts locking a conc. Dfield has a 1.5-second delay now.

If the target activates distortion field at 0 seconds, the lock break happens at t=2 and the attacker has to re-lock the missile.

If the target activates distortion field at 2 seconds, the lock break happens at 3.5 seconds. The missile could be in flight and miss, it could have already hit (dfield wasted), or the attacker could have not fired (dfield half-wasted, missile still available to use).

 

It wasn't really for protorps so much as the medium missiles.

Edited November 14, 2015 by ALaggyGrunt