Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[Kinsha]

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.

 

Would this lock break apply to DF exclusively? I'd probably be on board for almost any sort of nerf to DF because as I've said I think it just accomplishes too much in one defensive component. While I wouldn't mind seeing some mind games working its way into missile and anti-missile play, this sort of thing could be seriously effected by latency. On a side note, this sort of situation does remind me of mastered remote slicing. Once a scout knows you have it, they know they have to pop that missile break early or they run the chance of you hitting them with remote slicing and getting locked out of a missile break right before a proton or thermite launch.

 

Back to strikes.... Probably the best thing for them to do would be to put some sort of advanced component like advanced capacitors or targeting computer....whatever you want to name it. The base effect for all options of said component would effect accuracy and the differing effects between them could be range/Rate of fire or maybe even something crazy like giving minor armor pierce to all blaster fire. IF a new component were added, they could possibly slap it on something else too, although I dont't think any ship would need it except possibly the t3 bomber.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Kinsha

[JasonSzeremi]

Back to strikes.... Probably the best thing for them to do would be to put some sort of advanced component like advanced capacitors or targeting computer....whatever you want to name it. The base effect for all options of said component would effect accuracy and the differing effects between them could be range/Rate of fire or maybe even something crazy like giving minor armor pierce to all blaster fire. IF a new component were added, they could possibly slap it on something else too, although I dont't think any ship would need it except possibly the t3 bomber.

 

and possibly the T2 gunship, which is the 'strike hybrid' gunship (although if it effects it's rail gun, then snafu it's back to pre-evasion days)

the only other 'strike hybrid' is the T2 scout, which has replaced the strike in it's original role.

Edited November 15, 2015 by JasonSzeremi

[JasonSzeremi]

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.

 

I'm starting to hear 'strike's need a shield system jammer' but other then the magical 5 button or a co-pilot ability I don't see how that would get implented

[Kinsha]

and possibly the T2 gunship, which is the 'strike hybrid' gunship (although if it effects it's rail gun, then snafu it's back to pre-evasion days)

the only other 'strike hybrid' is the T2 scout, which has replaced the strike in it's original role.

 

That would make it THE gunship to use for maximum slug rail efficiency...... is an extra 10-20% slug rail accuracy worth giving up DF and ion railgun ? I know a few pilots who run feedback who would probably do it.

 

One thing that occurred to me is that a big problem when trying to run with strikes is, the need to have a weapon that can handle almost any situation. What that basically translates into is, a gun that beats armor. I think it's safe to say the vast majority of strikes take HLC if they can have nothing else. If the clarion had HLC, I think every clarion would take it too. Armor piercing is just too mandatory at the higher lvls of play.

 

I wish they would rework armor so it wasn't so binary as so many before me have said. I'd like to see armor reworked so that it was never useless. Yes it should be less effective in situations, but it should never be completely negated except possibly vs ordinance like pods or proton torpedoes. If they ever did change armor, they'd probably also need to adjust reinforced hull armor so that the extra hull would be competitive vs deflection armor in situations where armor piercing did come into play.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Kinsha

[Gavin_Kelvar]

That would make it THE gunship to use for maximum slug rail efficiency...... is an extra 10-20% slug rail accuracy worth giving up DF and ion railgun ? I know a few pilots who run feedback who would probably do it.

 

As a strike pilot I honestly wouldn't mind there being less ion rail. the power of bombers in dom matches basically ensures the T1 GS will always have a place. The T3 might encounter some issues with regards to whether being a skirmisher was more beneficial than being able to pack extra accuracy. That being said if GS, as a class, got an overhaul I don't think that direction would be inherently bad (T1 for CC, T2 anti-scout, T3 skirmisher). It would at least break each one down into a clear role and purpose.

 

I wish they would rework armor so it wasn't so binary as so many before me have said. I'd like to see armor reworked so that it was never useless. Yes it should be less effective in situations, but it should never be completed negated except possibly vs ordinance like pods or proton torpedoes. If they ever did change armor, they'd probably also need to adjust reinforced hull armor so that the extra hull would be competitive vs deflection armor in situations where armor piercing did come into play.

 

To a point I agree. I think though that, assuming the mobility flaws were dealt with, you could make anti-armor the strike's job (leaving all of its AP intact) and nerf the non-strike weapons that do AP (primarily BLC, slug, and pods). That nerf could either be in the form of it's complete removal or reduction from 100% to <50%. It wouldn't really give strikes a clear place in TDM but it would give them an essential role in Dom without having to navigate the problem of how to make them a viable dogfighter and not make them scouts (kind of their current problem since the T1's most powerful setup leaves it basically as a less mobile scout).

[Altheran]

To a point I agree. I think though that, assuming the mobility flaws were dealt with, you could make anti-armor the strike's job (leaving all of its AP intact) and nerf the non-strike weapons that do AP (primarily BLC, slug, and pods). That nerf could either be in the form of it's complete removal or reduction from 100% to <50%. It wouldn't really give strikes a clear place in TDM but it would give them an essential role in Dom without having to navigate the problem of how to make them a viable dogfighter and not make them scouts (kind of their current problem since the T1's most powerful setup leaves it basically as a less mobile scout).

 

Maybe instead of tuning down selectively some armor penetration, it could be done so that non T5 upgrade are at 50%, making them half of a similar T5 upgrade, like most, if not all other upgrades types. (Example T5 +hull damage is 16%, while non T5 are 8%)

 

Effectively, it would tune down the aforementioned weapons (I have a doubt about BLC, might need an upgrade swap), plus HLC. It would affect Strikes a bit, but the point is that Armor wouldn't be moot, and that includes Strikes'. Also, HLC isn't Strike only, and can be used on ships that don't even try to be Strike-alike. Max armor penetration would then be located only on very Strike-alike weapons : Torpedoes, and possibly Concussion Missile (EMP missile as well, even though damage is not its purpose)

Edited November 16, 2015 by Altheran

[Gavin_Kelvar]

\

Effectively, it would tune down the aforementioned weapons (I have a doubt about BLC, might need an upgrade swap), plus HLC. It would affect Strikes a bit, but the point is that Armor wouldn't be moot, and that includes Strikes'. Also, HLC isn't Strike only, and can be used on ships that don't even try to be Strike-alike. Max armor penetration would then be located only on very Strike-alike weapons : Torpedoes, and possibly Concussion Missile (EMP missile as well, even though damage is not its purpose)

 

Aside from the T2 GS aren't bombers the only non-strikes that have HLC? I guess I didn't think it would be bad for bombers to retain the ability to be strong self-counters (similar to how scouts are best equipped to counter their own evasion). Since the T2 GS needs so much help I suppose I didn't think it would be bad for it to also benefit from full HLC AP.

 

Aren't torps and, to some degree, concs also available on all the non-strike-alike ships that have HLC too?

[Kinsha]

Aside from the T2 GS aren't bombers the only non-strikes that have HLC? I guess I didn't think it would be bad for bombers to retain the ability to be strong self-counters (similar to how scouts are best equipped to counter their own evasion). Since the T2 GS needs so much help I suppose I didn't think it would be bad for it to also benefit from full HLC AP.

 

Aren't torps and, to some degree, concs also available on all the non-strike-alike ships that have HLC too?

 

The T3 and T2 bomber both have concussion and protorps IIRC. I think the T1 has just protorps. I don't think its that terrible for bombers to "counter" themselves because bombers just don't have the speed to zip around everywhere.

 

Even if the T2 GS had super HLC, I can't imagine it ever being a choice between the T1 and itself without a massive overhaul. They'd need to make plasma rail gun unique to it and also make plasma well.... good. There are times that I think GS would've been a much deeper ship if it had only one railgun. People would see the gunship, but they'd always be wondering what kind gun the pilot was carrying.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

The T3 and T2 bomber both have concussion and protorps IIRC. I think the T1 has just protorps. I don't think its that terrible for bombers to "counter" themselves because bombers just don't have the speed to zip around everywhere.

 

Even if the T2 GS had super HLC, I can't imagine it ever being a choice between the T1 and itself without a massive overhaul. They'd need to make plasma rail gun unique to it and also make plasma well.... good. There are times that I think GS would've been a much deeper ship if it had only one railgun. People would see the gunship, but they'd always be wondering what kind gun the pilot was carrying.

 

That's my impression as well. I think limiting HLC's AP would really just be limiting the strike's tools without giving them an AP advantage over the non-strike-alike ships. As I said the main benefit to limiting AP to those weapons would be giving strikes a clear role relative to scouts, at least in dom matches. Offensively I think you could cover TDM by giving them the accuracy/damage buffs Nem and others have suggested. Between the two I think offensively you'd carve out a role for strikes while still leaving scouts as the ideal turn fighters/hit and run experts.

[Altheran]

Aside from the T2 GS aren't bombers the only non-strikes that have HLC? I guess I didn't think it would be bad for bombers to retain the ability to be strong self-counters (similar to how scouts are best equipped to counter their own evasion). Since the T2 GS needs so much help I suppose I didn't think it would be bad for it to also benefit from full HLC AP.

 

Aren't torps and, to some degree, concs also available on all the non-strike-alike ships that have HLC too?

Yes, these ships can have HLC, and torpedoes (and sometimes Conc).

 

It may have been not so clear, but my point is that when they use these missiles, they mostly give up on their initial role by not taking either a rail or a mine. They become actually close to what could be called a Strike-alike or Strike hybrid. In this situation they warrant Armor pen as much as a Strike.

 

But when they decide to still be more Gunship- or Bomber-like by using either rails, or mines, they still have HLC, and there armor pen becomes more questionnable.

I'm especially thinking about Bombers here. They especially give up on their artllery possibilities, and entrench more. And they do so by giving up the weapon they (should) fear the most : a missile. Initially, they have to be become worse at taking down another Bomber in this situation. Maybe this kind of choice should have more significant immediate effects.

 

So, in the hypotheseis that HLC would lose a bit of Armor pen, maybe that while it's a weapon widely used on Strikes it could raise Armor importance (where Strikes are supposed to have potential in), raise Missiles importance (one of Strikes' principal selling and style defining point), and increase the significance of choosing to play a very Bomby Bomber to level that could be reasonable.

 

Long version short : it may be less profitable to Strike's offense, but it may fill (better) some holes in the meta even if they aren't all Strike-centered.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Altheran

[Kinsha]

Yes, these ships can have HLC, and torpedoes (and sometimes Conc).

 

It may have been not so clear, but my point is that when they use these missiles, they mostly give up on their initial role by not taking either a rail or a mine. They become actually close to what could be called a Strike-alike or Strike hybrid. In this situation they warrant Armor pen as much as a Strike.

 

But when they decide to still be more Gunship- or Bomber-like by using either rails, or mines, they still have HLC, and there armor pen becomes more questionnable.

I'm especially thinking about Bombers here. They especially give up on their artllery possibilities, and entrench more. And they do so by giving up the weapon they (should) fear the most : a missile. Initially, they have to be become worse at taking down another Bomber in this situation. Maybe this kind of choice should have more significant immediate effects.

 

So, in the hypotheseis that HLC would lose a bit of Armor pen, maybe that while it's a weapon widely used on Strikes it could raise Armor importance (where Strikes are supposed to have potential in), raise Missiles importance (one of Strikes' principal selling and style defining point), and increase the significance of choosing to play a very Bomby Bomber to level that could be reasonable.

 

Long version short : it may be less profitable to Strike's offense, but it may fill (better) some holes in the meta even if they aren't all Strike-centered.

 

 

So if I am reading this correctly... you would possibly like the following:

 

A) a reduction in armor penetration across the board, including on HLC

B) a new component for strikes that can increase their armor penetration

or

C) weapons being unique on each ship, with strikes having a upgraded HLC with increased armor penetration

 

I wish bioware had thought to make weapons unique for ship types. Even if only a few talents were different it would've deepened the game more.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I wish bioware had thought to make weapons unique for ship types. Even if only a few talents were different it would've deepened the game more.

 

It would've also saved them so much trouble when it finally came to buffing the strikes (such as how chassis buffs are really the only buffs they can do that won't also buff one meta ship or another).

[hamlinius]

well I have flown the Clarion predominately. only recently switching to the Flash. that said my biggest complaint with the Clarion and strikes in general is no running legs, and the lock-on time of the thermite torp. the ship does take forever to kill something. shields are fine. for the most part. there is an answer to every defense/weapon we know this.

I switched to the flash as i wanted something that could kill quicker and have legs to get away. but they are far more squishy than the Clarion. With no legs however even a tank can be over whelmed with damage.

i've seen lots of great ideas posted above.

[JasonSzeremi]

(somebody else already said this) Edited November 19, 2015 by JasonSzeremi

[JasonSzeremi]

Yes, these ships can have HLC, and torpedoes (and sometimes Conc).

 

It may have been not so clear, but my point is that when they use these missiles, they mostly give up on their initial role by not taking either a rail or a mine. They become actually close to what could be called a Strike-alike or Strike hybrid. In this situation they warrant Armor pen as much as a Strike.

 

But when they decide to still be more Gunship- or Bomber-like by using either rails, or mines, they still have HLC, and there armor pen becomes more questionnable.

I'm especially thinking about Bombers here. They especially give up on their artllery possibilities, and entrench more. And they do so by giving up the weapon they (should) fear the most : a missile. Initially, they have to be become worse at taking down another Bomber in this situation. Maybe this kind of choice should have more significant immediate effects.

 

So, in the hypotheseis that HLC would lose a bit of Armor pen, maybe that while it's a weapon widely used on Strikes it could raise Armor importance (where Strikes are supposed to have potential in), raise Missiles importance (one of Strikes' principal selling and style defining point), and increase the significance of choosing to play a very Bomby Bomber to level that could be reasonable.

 

Long version short : it may be less profitable to Strike's offense, but it may fill (better) some holes in the meta even if they aren't all Strike-centered.

 

Does the fact the T1 strike does not feature an armor component figure into this?

[JasonSzeremi]

It would've also saved them so much trouble when it finally came to buffing the strikes (such as how chassis buffs are really the only buffs they can do that won't also buff one meta ship or another).

 

I don't have a problem with some of the buffs affecting non strikes, especially less effective ones. especially if the cluster of buffs brings the strike up higher

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I don't have a problem with some of the buffs affecting non strikes, especially less effective ones. especially if the cluster of buffs brings the strike up higher

 

I was thinking more of how you can't buff HLC, directionals, quick-charge etc. without buffing ships that are already in the meta. The fine line between buffing things so strikes and weaker non-strikes benefit most from the buff and buffing things where it ends up enhancing the power of meta ships more than it benefits strikes.

[ALaggyGrunt]

Dirty trick: Purchased upgrades affect striker components twice as much as they do non-strike components. A few might be broken:

Super-turbo directionals with extra health.

Super-turbo quick-charge shields.

Insane regen thrusters and turning upgrades (+40%!)

Charged plating has an even longer uptime (23/30s).

Combat command would be a lot better on a Clarion than a Spearpoint.

Extra-spammable clusters (1.1s lockon).

 

It would make them scale in effectiveness with upgrades more like other ships and make their versions of the components on them something to not laugh at.

[JasonSzeremi]

I was thinking more of how you can't buff HLC, directionals, quick-charge etc. without buffing ships that are already in the meta. The fine line between buffing things so strikes and weaker non-strikes benefit most from the buff and buffing things where it ends up enhancing the power of meta ships more than it benefits strikes.

 

the other HLC ships aren't ships that primarily use HLC to kill: Bombers are mostly about deployables. Strikes should be more agile then bombers right? Although better HLC might make bombers better bomber killers. The T2 gunship favors any railgun over HLC for most any function the HLC is for. Directionals... which ships mount these? making these more attractive to meta ships would also make it a more viable choice then picking Distortion field... making missiles atleast easier to land on targets. Landing missiles on thick shields is better then not landing missiles on a missile break? Quick charge... these suckers need help, newbie ships start with them automatically and it's possibly part of why newbies die so fast to skilled up ships and pilots.

 

if we're buffing the cast off components 'meta' ships aren't using... it may not be so bad. Changing what components the ace pilots favor, will undoubtably change the game. I don't mind seeing some changes if our strikes can deal lethal damage to at least as many fighters as seem able to deal lethal damage to us.

 

Right now it's like Rock Paper Scissors Bomb:

T2 scout is the bomb, even things supposed to kill it are killed by it 50% of the time. Ace pilots take these to kill bombers which are supposed to kill them.... same with gunships which _can_ kill them especially in cocentration... 3-6 gunships can kill anything if they can focus it. Strikes... Are supposed to be better then the T2 scout at dogfighting, but we strike pilots are at their mercy most of the time.

 

Bombers are probably the scissors.... most scouts hate deployed munitions that don't have to aim at the agile, high evasion, but delicate fighters. That T2 scouts have no fear of them is only evidence that something is not quite right in the meta's balance.

 

the strikes are probably paper but they under perform, unable to get their ordinance on target is a very good criticism.... Honestly, I can't figure a strike loadout that equals to the gunship's damage or the T2 scouts.

So they fall behind in their role and someone else takes it up, because of it. Much like how the bomb replaces paper in games of RPS

 

Gunships in this example are the rocks... but they are countered by the T2 scouts... should they be countered by strikes instead? what upgrades to the strike would make them the gunship's foe?

[Kinsha]

what upgrades to the strike would make them the gunship's foe?

 

 

I'd lean toward range at the very least. Enough of a range buff so that if a strikes gets moderately to extremely close to a gunship, the strike can still fire on said gunship with blasters after a barrel roll.

[JasonSzeremi]

I'd lean toward range at the very least. Enough of a range buff so that if a strikes gets moderately to extremely close to a gunship, the strike can still fire on said gunship with blasters after a barrel roll.

 

Range is certianly why they don't talk about gunship's mobility much. But it does need to be effective range, the ability to hit something at 8-10k perhaps with quads.. and effective weapons, more then half the range of the gunship's weapon range (and the same range as anyone else's.... 10k range on railgun drones, 10k range on torps) might make the strike a viable jack of all trades

[Kinsha]

Range is certianly why they don't talk about gunship's mobility much. But it does need to be effective range, the ability to hit something at 8-10k perhaps with quads.. and effective weapons, more then half the range of the gunship's weapon range (and the same range as anyone else's.... 10k range on railgun drones, 10k range on torps) might make the strike a viable jack of all trades

 

I'm all for for upgrading on strike quads, but I was thinking of something more moderate. Quads should be somewhere around where HLC currently are and HLC getting buffed closer to 8-10km. I'm really not sure about what to do RFL and LLC though. Range definitely helps both on a strike, but I'm not convinced it will be enough. RFL with a 5-6km range with accuracy tweaks might be enough. Maybe play around with the damage so that RFL's long distance damage is equal to it's mid-range.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Directionals... which ships mount these?

 

Battlescouts can use these. Hence why if you make it as effective as DField there could be balance repercussions since they do have the reactor minor component to compliment it. Granted they wouldn't get as much benefit as a strike but then strikes also aren't going to be helped by one of their chief adversaries getting a buff either.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[ALaggyGrunt]

Battlescouts can use these. Hence why if you make it as effective as DField there could be balance repercussions since they do have the reactor minor component to compliment it. Granted they wouldn't get as much benefit as a strike but then strikes also aren't going to be helped by one of their chief adversaries getting a buff either.

 

It would be hard to buff directionals that hard because they don't have a missile break and they give up the passive and active evasion stats of distortion. If directionals became strong enough to be a seriously compelling choice for battlescouts, they would be a lot more vulnerable to shield-piercing missiles and things might get shaken up hard.

Right now, they're the next-strongest counter to feedback: it's a lot harder to feedback through a layer of directional shield than a facing of distortion field. The big weakness of directionals vs distortion is: all the other things which will be trying to kill you: distortion field helps a lot more against attacks from multiple directions, and they don't help against debuffs.

 

Putting evasion stat up near where it was at launch and delaying or taking away the missile break would make distortion a lot less broken: you won't be able to gun it down because everything shot at it will RNG out, but it will fear those beeping sounds because it won't do anything about them.

 

Ninja edit: But then, what would gunships fear? Seeker mines would be enough to make that scout peel, never mind cluster spam.

Edited November 23, 2015 by ALaggyGrunt

[JasonSzeremi]

Battlescouts can use these. Hence why if you make it as effective as DField there could be balance repercussions since they do have the reactor minor component to compliment it. Granted they wouldn't get as much benefit as a strike but then strikes also aren't going to be helped by one of their chief adversaries getting a buff either.

 

It will cut down on their evasion and completely remove their main evasion cool down if they do go for directionals.

Edited November 23, 2015 by JasonSzeremi