Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[TNTeron]

So I read almost everything in this thread and I am all for buffing strikes in anyway to make them more viable. I consider myself a seasoned gsf-player. Done a lot of matches, died a lot and murdered a lot of folks And I love to fly the strikes, all of them. Although I end up flying a T2 or T1 scout most of the time, because I like to win the round using strikes only when the overall team setup "allows it".

 

Though there is one thing I noticed when flying a strike (of whatever build): You can be pretty devastating and do a lot of damage etc. as long as you are not alone and watch carefully what is going on around you. So apart from a general boost to damage output (and/or range), shield power and engine stamina I had another idea (whether this is possible or not I can't say of course):

 

 

• give strikes in inherent bonus if allies are nearby (within 5km maybe) boosting damage, shield, engine power
  
• or even better put this buff into a strike only system boosting it further when upgrading
  
• if put into a system you could choose between boost to rockets, laser or system on higher tiers depending on your strike (T1-T3) and prefered loadout
  
• possibly give a little boost to nearby allies in return, so that you want to have a strike nearby
  

 

This might give the allrounder a place among all those highly specialized builds around him. As someone stated before strikes are somehow supposed to be the bulk of the forces, aren't they?

 

(and please change the stock loadout. It is crap and an aweful trap for newbies)

 

Theronn (flying on VC)

Taroon (flying on JC lately)

Edited June 1, 2015 by TNTeron

[tearsoflight]

Not sure how to directly respond to this. I think if there was a ranked GSF like in normal pvp the strike fighter would be good and bad. First we'll talk about the original strike fighter, the star guard. Like you mentioned it's a jack of all trades. I referred to it as the tank in the early days when no one knew what they were doing. it could take a lot of damage. The ion cannons are it's primary advantage can fire nearly endlessly draining all ships hit of shields and engine power. Problems like some have said is it's turn speed and speed in general are slow. So with evenly skilled pilots a flashfire scout can easily dispatch it. This being said all ships have their weaknesses and advantages. The next ship the Quarell has the double missile advantage. aim and fire a cluster make them use their evasion and lock a harder hitting missile on. there evasion will not be back up again. The enforcer is pretty much the same as the star guard. Lastly clarion by far the hardest strike fighter to do well in as it is limited to 1-2 kills with the powers and buffs. the missile systems are of no use unless you're against a bomber that can't evade. (So maybe a possible change there ). also it can be more like a bomber and heal its self.

Honestly it's not that bad to fly a strike fight as long as you have a good team. teams definitely don't take advantage of having a group for the most part they just single out 1 play than focusing on the battle as a whole. A starguards ion cannons with a a quarrels rail shots can devastate a group of ships if worked together properly.

one suggestion may be an immunity to the ion rail shots energy halting power, because in a head on attack against that type of gunship there is no way of surviving. Another thing to look into on the evasion powers being able to be shot at while in them. I would like to see them have a purpose again. For now this is all I have. After playing and thinking about it more I might add some. - tearsoflight

[jmaredsox]

Gunships have amazing long distance sniping abilities for blasters, bombers are amazing tanks and amazing supporters, scouts are amazing as speed and maneuverability, i think strike fighters should have an amazing array of missiles including missile barrages faster lock times and perhaps one super nuclear fusion missile that results in an instant ko and has a cooldown of 5 -8 minutes

[Itkovian]

Salutations.

 

I've unfortunately been rather semi0dormant for quite some time now, popping in from time to time, but those who do remember me will know that I am an avid Strike Fighter player, with the Pike being my starfighter of choice (Because X-wing *grin*).

 

While there are several reasons I've gone inactive as of late, the lack of attention to GSF was certainly a prominent factor, so I'm _very_ happy to hear about this topic, and that the devs are actually listening.

 

Since I haven't been active lately, my advice has a chance of not being current, but then again little has changed since I last played frequently so my thoughts are likely relevant.

 

But to be honest, I don't think I could do any better than the suggestions already outlined by Nemarus, so here they are again, with a dedicated Strike pilot's stamp of approval.

 

Thank you.

 

Itkovian

 

 

Thank you for posting, Alex! We have been waiting for dev contact for a long, long time. I hope it continues.

 

UPDATED: After all the discussion here, I'm going to make my final suggestions the following:

 

1) Make Strike after burner activation/sustain cost equal to Scouts. They will still be slower and less maneuverable than Scouts, but at least they will have similar endurance.

 

2) Give Strikes a flat damage boost to both primaries and secondaries, to make ignoring a Strike a dangerous proposition, at any range. Strikes need to be able to accomplish SOMETHING under a satellite, so that is why the flat damage boost is still necessary, even in addition to the below suggested Range and Accuracy buffs. The damage boost need not be 100% like Damage Overcharge, but I think it needs to be at least +50% to move the needle on Strike presence and influence in a battle.

3) Give Strikes a significant Range boost to both primary and secondary weapons. Range would help Strikes do more damage (even with melee weapons like Rapids, LLC, and Ions) from mid-range, where they are comfortable. It would also make their missiles easier to lock on with.

 

4) Give Strikes a significant Accuracy boost to primary and secondary weapons. (Yes I know they currently do not have secondary weapons affected by Accuracy, but one of my other suggestions is to give Pikes Rocket Pods. Accuracy would help them deal better sustained damage against Evasive targets, and would make up for the fact that they don't have many inherent Accuracy buffs on their weapons, nor access to Targeting Telemetry.

 

None of these changes present any threat to the other three classes of ships, and all of these changes would help new pilots significantly (without them having to do anything specific to take advantage of them).

 

Now for specific variant/component changes:

 

5) Remove Charged Plating from the Star Guard and replace it with Feedback Shield. Charged Plating is a trap on a ship that can't stack damage reduction. Feedback Shield is a good, solid shield that would synergize great with Ion Cannons and Cluster Missiles, and give the Star Guard some extra teeth against Scouts.

 

6) Give the Star Guard Burst Laser Cannons. Not every Strike should have them, but this Strike--the primary weapon specialist--should have them.

 

7) Give the Pike Retro Thrusters. They synergize extremely well with aquiring missile locks, and they would give the Pike another medium cool down missile break.

 

8) Give the Pike Interdiction Missile. Currently, a Condor using both Clusters and Interdiction Missile can do quite well, due to both missiles having wide arcs and short lock-on times. You basically spam Clusters to drain lock-breaks, then hit with Interdiction. As the missile specialist, the Pike should have access to this combo. Alternatively (or maybe in addition), you could give Pikes Rocket Pods. Just keep in mind their effectiveness will be limited without Targeting Telemetry.

 

9) Give the Clarion Concussion Missile. Concussion Missile is not the ace dog fighting super missile it was originally conceived to be. There is no danger giving it to the Clarion, and it would give the ship a bit more offensive capability against all kinds of targets.

 

10) Give the Clarion Heavy Laser Cannons. HLC's are the quintessential Strike weapon, and every Strike should have them. They would cement the Clarion as a great anti-minelayer ship, as well as giving it more capability to assault satellites that have turrets.

 

Some may think that #9 and #10 make the Clarion too much of a dogfighter, when it is supposed to be a support ship.

 

I disagree. The fact that Clarions lack Thrusters will always be a hit against their space superiority credentials--do they really need to be so offensively neutered as well?

 

Giving them HLC's and Concussion Missiles would open up the kinda of Clarion you could make. You could make an anti-Bomber Clarion, a healing/support Clarion, a jousting specialist, or a mid-range harasser. And on that last option, you could complement the HLC's by taking Combat Command, or you could complement your Concussion Missiles using Remote Slicing, or you could just stick with Repair Probes for extra survivability.

 

At this point, I think that is about the best set of changes I can recommend.

[CommanderKiko]

It would be safe to assume that I agree with Ramalina. It is clear that they actually fly strikers on a somewhat often basis, and thus see things from different angles than those who more or less refuse to fly them.

 

Also, as someone who spent a lot of time during the 3.0 bug in a striker. The following quote is so accurate that it is extremely painful.

-snip-

It didn't increase damage done or kills all that much, and often resulted in being the target of a scout or gunship annoyed that a strike had dared to get ideas above its station and threaten a *real* GSF ship, but as a team utility peeling is very useful, and a strike that can peel at 7-10 km range is a lot more powerful than one that needs to close to 4 km or less to start a peel. It also wasn't dependent on the Ion Cannon and Clusters combo, so it worked for all three strikes.

-snip-

[Pherdnut]

For the record, I've stopped playing. I really enjoyed it for a while but domination by premades, excess queue times, and near total lack of signs of interest in terms of continuing development got really old.

 

I'd try the following for strike fighters:

 

* Give them some kind of ECCM option to block missile evade options occasionally.

* Make them a lot tougher than gunships. Not a little bit tougher.

* They should have hands-down, the best main guns in the game. A nice passive accuracy boost would help newer players get past the learning curve and would make it easier to do some serious damage at that medium range window strikes are typically going to have the best shot of taking stuff down in.

* Maneuverability at least closer to competitive with scouts or at least temporary boosts/nerfs with reasonable cooldowns to make up the difference when you need it.

 

For the game in general:

 

* Everything is a little too squishy. Especially maxed out ships vs noobs, but really it should take longer for one player to take down another no matter what the skill/upgrade differences are. It's hard to learn anything when you die as fast as you do in an all-noob team vs premade and I suspect it alienates a lot of new players.

 

* Gunships are only a little bit OP. They're a part of the game now and it's not like you can just toss 'em out. I agree with these statements, but I still think they were a mistake. They have way too much impact on how the game needs to be played. Star Wars space combat is ww2 dogfighting in a very silly version of space where there's sound and pointless banking. They turn it into a hiding behind space debris simulator that often feels more like descent than X-Wing or Tie Fighter. I don't have a solution on this one but I do think finding ways to mitigate the issue would be wise if you guys actually want to breathe life back into GSF.

 

* Medals are broken. You want medals, play gunships and bombers. With strikes and even scouts at lesser tiers of upgrades to a degree, you're spinning your tires as far as upgrades are concerned. Successfully locking on with a missile and firing should count for something as it takes a lot of work and a lot of time and effort to do it and doing so puts pressure on people to fly out into open space and get murdered by gunships. It's no fault of the player that everybody and their mother can just ditch that lock but at least that creates an opportunity for somebody else to do the same. Damage done in excess of a ship's last hitpoint also shouldn't count towards your total. That really swings medal counts in favor of gunships and it's not fair given the lion's share of the kills they're already snatching up even though they'd be at a disadvantage without allies that aren't gunships.

 

* PVE Missions. With participation as low as it is, you need something to give new players an option to master the controls without getting stomped on constantly.

 

* There is something wrong with queues and queue times. I seriously don't just think it's low audience. It takes forever when I know there's other people out there looking for a game. And then when games do start it's often with laughably mismatched numbers of players.

 

* This is probably more of an @ the community thing but GSF guilds should seriously consider restricting their group sizes or just trying to queue up against each other when they want to fight as maxed out teams. Getting steamrolled by large premade teams all night long is in no way shape or form fun. It doesn't matter how well you try to do if it's a GSF conquest week and you're on a team full of meganoobs. It's one of the many reasons I put the game down months ago and haven't felt super-compelled to try and get back into it and I WAS into it. It's like the PVP servers. Do you want open-world PVP? Okay, so let's not grief the crap out of people at lower levels making it a really unpleasant experience for them and then gripe about low active pop when they all abandon the server.

 

* Don't give participation awards for GSF to other aspects of the game. You should always have to win to get anything. It's one thing to be on a team full of noobs. It's another thing to be on a team full of noobs who don't even give a damn. That's probably hurting GSF as much as it helps. Regular PVP is still popular enough that it can probably absorb bad behavior related to participation awards. GSF does not have the pop at this point.

[JasonSzeremi]

I would have to say, a lot of what plagues strike fighters is the ineffectiveness of missiles.

In a recent match I was flying a T3 scout with thermite torpedoes (yes I know that's not a strike fighter...)

I locked and fired thermite after thermite on targets at a distance, most of them missed, some of them would have hit by my target didn't exist when they arrived, I finally got a non-part penalty. Someone voted me (probably several someones) for not participating, so I rushed in to do some laser damage... right into a bomber nest and I was shot down by a rail-gun drone using my missile break on my way out.

The vote kick stuck with me even as I struggled to get a gunship back to the firing line and I was kicked.

 

What does this have to do with Strike Fighter you may ask?

Strikes are amongst the ships that ONLY have locking missiles as secondary weapons... the T3 scout also does and the T3 bomber does also. So you have no alternative to missiles when you purchase one of these platforms, and 90% of the time when you use them against other fighters they miss or in the case of torpedoes, your target is either shot down or ducks behind something. You can be lobbing missiles like a mad man for an entire match and still get 'not contributing'. This is starfighter speak for useless pilot and useless weapon.

 

Oddly enough, missiles are attractive to new pilots, once they learn how to manage the lock. Because they don't require perfect precision. If you can keep the bogey inside the circle for long enough then you can launch one of these birds at a target and the missile mostly does the rest. People who have trouble aiming at a moving target, or who's systems (like mine) take inopportune moments to lag... especially when I am close to another starfighter I'm trying to shoot, can use these to be productive and contribute to the team.... I'm pretty confident trying to evade my missiles assisted those other pilots who got kills from my targets. But for a new pilot to be handed a weapon they can use and only find out it's useless against any half way decent pilot in a scout or gunship and you start to see why there's so much rancor and venom for gunships and good T2 scout pilots

 

Existing pilots usually fall into three pools: top aces, guys who get into a match and mop the floor with anyone not as good, usually in a gunship (every slug rail is the same) or a T2 scout (or is that really an interceptor?)

Average guys like me who might someday hit the top, and somedays I do, but those I call top aces usually mop the floor with my fighter's debris.

or noobs who are just learning. and don't know what works and what doesn't.

 

They pick the strike fighter because, the scout looks kinda thin skinned or they tried the scout and died very very fast.

Then the strike's substantial firepower lets them down. Even if they stick with it like me, they watch their kills go poof as someone else usualy has the burst damage to finish the job before your first or second missile hits, and the lasers don't deliver the damage fast enough.

 

If that isn't frustrating enough, teams of gunships, bombers and/or T2 scouts frequently humiliate even expirienced solo pilots cuing, the newbies in their strikes give up on GSF and cues stop happening, and for an hour or four, gsf dies on a server.

 

If strikes were the superiority fighters they have the potential to be (a generalist starfighter, with the firepower and missiles to engage anything on the map) New players and average players would be able to better contribute to their team with the ships we start with. We could buy and upgrade to new builds that worked rather then being told buying a pike or quarrel is suicide (paraphrase from an imperial pilot I met the other day)

 

We want new generations of gsf pilots to enjoy and learn the game at least long enough to get into our gunsights and add to our kill records.... without functional strike fighters, most noobs just quit.

 

So that's a peev of mine, that too many of the good looking choices you could make especially regarding strike fighters, are dead ends (no pun intended).

 

Missiles need to work better: a full second off the locking times perhaps, half or no cool down (for strikes only?)

the battlefield is dominated by ships using the secondary weapons that don't have a substantial cool down time: rocket pods, cluster missiles, and railguns. It also wouldn't bother me to get credit for participating when I fire a missile even if it's evaded by DF, a Manuver, or EMP field or if my target explodes before the bleeding thing impacts TY again gunships....

 

it would be truely nice if when my lasers do actually hit, they leave a bigger impression, then 'oh time to move, he scratched my gunship's shields'

 

As for pursuit boosting when I approach a gunship, I coast in quietly as I can in regular w and if I did have to boost in, he has a full tank of gas to run from me. I'm told scouts don't have this problem, their burst damage causes targets to explode before they can run, or their long legs can keep up even after boosting in to get close, letting them re-close for the kill while my strike has to lob missiles to keep the gunship running till he runs out of gas.... or gets smart and ducks behind something to recharge the damage I did to their shields. starting the whole fight over again...

 

as it is, the game is somewhat dominated by ships that 'get the drop' on the enemy, scouts with fast locking or non locking secondary weapons. Gunships that deliver a massive wallop from a huge distance with little to no warning, and bombers who are setting up death traps around corners and under satellites.... strike fighters who are supposed to slug it out, often don't survive those sneak attacks, but can go toe to toe with each other for minutes.

 

If the strike did more damage, even to each other, they would be more playable. Currently they are outgunned by ships that are lighter then them, and ships that have a range double or triple their effective ranges.

if their missiles ever hit it would only be 50% greater range then the torps but with the lock on times as they are anyone can avoid being hit by a torp.

[tunewalker]

http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=8224896&postcount=268

 

20. Add crit Magnitude buff to Crit choice on Combat Command, Replace extra energy regen talent with extra damage talent. I think Combat command should be hybrid of BO and TT

 

21. Increase duration of Remote slicing to 12 seconds Base, Make its drain do 5% power from ALL systems PER second (that's 60% base for those wondering 75% buffed) This could be slightly overboard but hey its one way to make sure a system ability with a minute CD that only affects one target ACTUALLY AFFECTS said target.

[Leyasu]

I will make this quick.

 

During a warzone all players can compete even on a very basic level. This is because questing and doing flashpoints will teach a player the basics to using talents and abilities. For GSF a player can only learn how to fight in a player vs player environment. That means all new players must lose over and over again until they can be competitive. This negative reinforcements turns most of the player base off early and they are not willing to give GSF a second chance. GSF does have a tutorial but it is way to short for a player to be able to grasp how to be a successful pilot. As crazy as this sounds the game needs to add some sort of PvE for GSF. That way a player can hone his/her skills before competing with other players. Competition will become better and more players will take a shot at the GSF warzone if they are more confident in their own ability. If PvE is not an option then a better longer and more efficient tutorial mode that helps players become competitive pilots.

 

2. The game already has squadrons but they serve no purpose. The 4 man squads need to developed to be meaningful and useful.

 

3. Players need the option to que with full 12 man groups. If you can fill an entire team why not let the players fill the entire roster. Guilds can often coax and reward their own members to join large scale events. 12 man que is a must for guilds to help take an interest and promote GSF.

 

4. Better rewards personal and conquest. GSF having huge rewards or payouts makes it almost impossible not to get involved.

[JasonSzeremi]

Several good points were brought up that I would call a wish list, as in I wish it would happen but I'm not expecting it:

 

PVE GSF: Even if all you did was re-format the space missions for starfighters to fly in, or re-run old missions from X-wing, flying your starfighter against the computer for a change might bring more interest back to gsf, and it could give those pilots a reason to stick around when the ques die... ofcourse you could also have team gsf instances up against npcs just like we have on the ground.

 

A new Strike Fighter chassis, something optimized for the space superiority role, maybe with a cloaking device? players will go nuts over it for a few weeks, might even keep people playing gsf who have wandered off.

 

Did someone mention a cruise missile? what if the new strike fighter had that.... ofcourse it would probably force somebody to manually guide it, leaving their fighter dead in space? ala tow missile. Too much? try the next pie in the sky dream:

 

Space Vs GSF: this one's HARD... enabling a que where players select if they want to be in a starfighter (from their hanger) in a pilot's seat or in a turret on a class ship (or a capital ship) for some a new hope/battle of endor type fun. People with no gsf ships can man the guns while gsf pilots try to run fighter screen/intercept the attackers. It would take alot of dev time and could be amazing...

 

Stealth ships? they could be lightly armed like scouts... wait are scouts lightly armed? There are people with stacks of tokens banked for the day these appear. Although a new viable strike might bring em back.

 

Here's a big, not going to happen one, A way to target/see your allies health and condition, almost like the raid window or just being able to cycle through 'firendly' targtets. Healers especially like to know how someone's health is doing, and if you are someone's wingman it's good to know if they need help... knowing target of target wouldn't be bad either... seeing they are going up against Xcal you know they need backup.

Edited June 1, 2015 by JasonSzeremi
adding

[CommanderKiko]

I will make this quick.

-snip-

 

I agree with your statement in full, but this has nothing to do with fixing strikers, which seems to be the main focus of this topic/probe. In GSF chat, I have talked about how GSF needs a PvE version and the ability to let older pilots "group up" with new pilots for the tutorial mission.

 

On the other hand, introducing a PvE mode that caters specifically to strikers could indeed give them the place they deserve without changing them at all. It's an idea.

Edited June 1, 2015 by CommanderKiko

[AlexModny]

Morning Flyboys and Flygirls!

 

Thank you immensely for all the feedback and discussion last week and over the weekend. Keep on going but I just wanted to pop in to let you know that we are reading and looking at options. No timetable but just an acknowledgement that we are here and listening/reading along.

 

Cheers!

[JasonSzeremi]

The idea of being able to cue up 12 man groups seems very nice if you are in the 12 man group, and I am every sunday I can be there on Shadowlands. But I've seen what it was like to receive an 8 man pre-made and I'm not really sure this would help keep gsf cues popping. If you know an unstoppable wall of average to ace fighter pilots is rolling, sometimes you just stop cuing.

 

as for strike fighters, I'm not really sure it's possible for them to become 'too good' as long as gunships are longer ranged, scouts are more manuverable.

[ChillingFear]

Morning Flyboys and Flygirls!

 

Thank you immensely for all the feedback and discussion last week and over the weekend. Keep on going but I just wanted to pop in to let you know that we are reading and looking at options. No timetable but just an acknowledgement that we are here and listening/reading along.

 

Cheers!

 

Cant speak for everyone but I honestly appreciate this type of post Alex, I hope this becomes a regular thing across all threads on the forums, I would prefer posts even if they are just acknowledging Dev activity in the forums then nothing at all. We are quick to post out the negatives and dislikes, so here is me pointing out a positive. Me likey

Edited June 1, 2015 by ChillingFear

[phalczen]

* Gunships are only a little bit OP. They're a part of the game now and it's not like you can just toss 'em out. I agree with these statements, but I still think they were a mistake. They have way too much impact on how the game needs to be played. Star Wars space combat is ww2 dogfighting in a very silly version of space where there's sound and pointless banking. They turn it into a hiding behind space debris simulator that often feels more like descent than X-Wing or Tie Fighter. I don't have a solution on this one but I do think finding ways to mitigate the issue would be wise if you guys actually want to breathe life back into GSF.

 

It's true that in the movies, you never see stationary starfighters sniping at other starfighters. It seems tactically unsound, given that most of the space battles occurred in mostly open space. That, and the fact that it would be an easy target for a capital ship. Which led me to wonder if Gunships were meant to be like a capital ship or even a corvette without the cap ship/vette development price tag. And if that was the case, and given that the prototypical bomber in this game is really an area denial specialist, should the Strike Fighter be designed as the prototypical ideal gunship killer?

 

No one would take a Strike over a T2 scout to kill gunships in the current game, and any change which affects distortion field or evasion stacking affects scouts as well as gunships, but it is an interesting thought experiment. Should a scout be more of a "pressure" type ship, to de-roost gunships but not necessarily destroy them, giving time for a strike to set up for the kill? How do we grant that role to strikes without nerfing scouts or gunships to do it?

 

I could imagine that with the right active copilot ability to affect 1-4 ability usage, and a short lock-on/short reload missile which has great utility, and the right blasters to achieve a reasonable burst damage cycle, strikes could do it. I would imagine that some upgraded flavor of In your sights, lockdown, servo jammer, or slicers loop could do it along with (? upgraded) interdiction missile and BLCs on a T2 strike. The T2 strike retains its vulnerability to scouts because of mobility. It can force some peels by virtue of cluster spam, but its more of the surgical strike specialist. The lack of a reactor means the T2 strike is still susceptible at range to GS, at close to scouts or other strikes, and must choose between better shields to deal with those threats or a charged plating/deflection build to survive mines. The common theme here is that the T2 strike needs burst damage capability which it does not currently have. It also doesn't help that you need to already be in close-to-mid range to use copilot abilities.

 

If the Gunship is ideal to address bombers at range, then the type 1 strike gets re-designed to be a good melee specialist, taking out bombers under the node that have LoS'd the gunship. This would include things like dramatically more accurate RFLs, or BLCs, or a shorter lock on concussion. Similarly, these changes would impact other close range fights. As a highly accurate close range weapon, buffed RFL, as already described by multiple experts in this thread and others, could conceivably be the anti-evasion weapon, along with ion canons, to make dogfighting in a T1 strike not just words in flavor text in the Hangar window. Yet this T1 strike retains some vulnerability to the enemy's ion-rail equipped T1 gunship, leaving the dedicated strike pilot a choice: continue to peel enemy scouts at the expense of some free GS deaths, or switch to your T2 strike to teach those GS a lesson in humility.

 

I don't know, just throwing more stuff out there.

Edited June 1, 2015 by phalczen

[AlrikFassbauer]

or noobs who are just learning. and don't know what works and what doesn't.

 

They pick the strike fighter because, the scout looks kinda thin skinned or they tried the scout and died very very fast.

Then the strike's substantial firepower lets them down. Even if they stick with it like me, they watch their kills go poof as someone else usualy has the burst damage to finish the job before your first or second missile hits, and the lasers don't deliver the damage fast enough.

 

If that isn't frustrating enough, teams of gunships, bombers and/or T2 scouts frequently humiliate even expirienced solo pilots cuing, the newbies in their strikes give up on GSF and cues stop happening, and for an hour or four, gsf dies on a server.

 

Which is a very nice way to constantly and with no end frustrate Newbies.

 

Of course, "frustration" doesn't exist or can easily be overcome.

 

 

as it is, the game is somewhat dominated by ships that 'get the drop' on the enemy, scouts with fast locking or non locking secondary weapons. Gunships that deliver a massive wallop from a huge distance with little to no warning, and bombers who are setting up death traps around corners and under satellites.... strike fighters who are supposed to slug it out, often don't survive those sneak attacks, but can go toe to toe with each other for minutes.

 

See it like ground PvP :

 

Gunships = Snipers

Scounts = Gunslingers

Strike Fighters = Sentinels = Marauders

Bombers like any tank class.

 

So, the most obvious problem is far too easy to see : Strike Fighters need somne sort of "gap closer". Like melee fighters in ground PvP.

 

I'm actually surprised that no-one has mentioned it that far.

 

In ground PvP, melee gets Force Jump as THE gap narrower.

 

What do Strike Fighters have ? Nothing.

[Nemarus]

Which is a very nice way to constantly and with no end frustrate Newbies.

 

Of course, "frustration" doesn't exist or can easily be overcome.

 

 

 

 

See it like ground PvP :

 

Gunships = Snipers

Scounts = Gunslingers

Strike Fighters = Sentinels = Marauders

Bombers like any tank class.

 

So, the most obvious problem is far too easy to see : Strike Fighters need somne sort of "gap closer". Like melee fighters in ground PvP.

 

I'm actually surprised that no-one has mentioned it that far.

 

In ground PvP, melee gets Force Jump as THE gap narrower.

 

What do Strike Fighters have ? Nothing.

 

Except Strikes don't really want to close the entire gap. If their target gets under 3000m away, they won't be able to hit it.

 

Imagine a ground class that could only achieve optimal damage from 15-10m away. Any closer and its accuracy suffers. Any farther and its attacks simply don't work. And imagine that class cannot even walk backward.

 

That's what the Strike is. It wants to engage targets at 4-7km away.

 

And even worse, imagine half of its attacks are channeled abilities that the target gets a huge audible and visual warning about, so that they can interrupt or break LOS.

 

That's the Strike.

[JasonSzeremi]

if this was ground pvp...

The Gunship would be a sith sorc who had 150 range and the lightning storm before the nerf

Scouts would be smugglers or assassins with a high damage sneak attack that often kills

Bombers would be a buff sabotour/engineer (imperial agent) who hides around corners setting up ambushes with his bombs everyone says tank.... but the bomber's job (despite hitpoints) is not to be a target and soak damage , to keep los between it's enemy and it, and to use stealth and traps to deny others a satellite. If you never pull agro, you might still be a good bomber.

Strikes are a range 30 gunslinger or mercenary, who still has the min range for mortar barrage/DTA and have to choose roll if they want it.

 

if this was X-wing:

the gunship would be a B-wing that could fire from outside the range of cap ship's guns

Scouts would be tie fighters

Bombers would be Y-wings or Tie-Bombers

Strikes.... the X-wings and DV's Tie

Except our tie fighters make minced meat of our X-wings in under 3 seconds, and our X-wings can't return the favor, even with a heavier platform and more actual lasers to fire.

Who would fly an X-wing in that meta?

[Enurrsha]

I completely agree with Nemarus's list of changes, as well as a bit I saw from tomm about strikes getting "double damage" rocket pods. A few other ideas popped into my head as well, some I've probably mentioned before & some that others probably did, but some of this might be "new". These changes would be chassis-specific, so the buffs for T1 would not apply to T2/T3 and vice versa.

 

T1

since it is the only ship that has access to ion gun, make ion gun "free"/"unlimited" - no energy cost at all, thus saving the blaster power pool for the HLCs (or BLCs if those are added), access to ALL blaster types including BLCs

 

T2

double capacity for ALL missile types, significant reduction in lock, cool down, & reload times (~50% sounds good) of all missle types, access to all missle types including pods

 

T3

no new ideas here, but would really like access to HLCs maybe BLCs too, in addition to other general strike buffs

[Bulldogs_Rule]

I would say a buff to primary weapons. The scout has its advantage in maneuverability/engines, the bomber is defense/support, and the gunship is secondary weapons (the railguns). Thus to me the logical place to be buffed is primary weapons. The secondary weapons as mentioned by several people appear to be the real weak point, but this would be offset much better with a buff to the primary weapons that gave the strike fighter a superior edge in a close range dogfight. The scout would still be able to dodge when played properly, and the bomber would still have superior defense, while the gunship would still rely on range. I disagree with a buff to speed or engines as it would essentially erase the unique character of the scout.

 

Edit: Any boost in range would be kind pointless unless it mirrored gunships, which would repeat my objection to speed/maneuverability mirroring scouts. To me the strike fighter should hit harder since it should expect to land fewer hits than a scout.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Bulldogs_Rule

[RAZIM]

Looking at the strikes from another angle...

 

Perhaps the default range for concussion and ion missiles on strike fighters could be increased, to match the gunship's range. The range option could be moved down in the upgrade tree, becoming a choice between long range missiles and a heavier lock-on time decrease (Destroyer vs Dogfighter setup). Short range cluster missiles, EMP, and torpedoes would remain the same.

 

This could help keep a gunship pilot on their toes, though they would still have the dominant weapon for range as rails have no target lock warning.

 

Increase their capacity upgrade a bit to deal with missile breaks reducing their effective attacks. I don't think an unlimited secondary supply (like bombers/gunships) would be healthy for strikes. They do become very limited when depleted and fully upgraded repair drones can't be counted on in every battle, it should be addressed in some way. When the only option to reload a major ship strength is to die, that ship choice won't feel like an effective one.

 

Here are a few gameplay options that could be added to combat their ammo issues:

- Allow strike fighters to reload at their capital ships or controlled satellites (while not under attack).

- Drop ammo cache power-ups on deathmatch maps

- Allow proximity reload when near bombers (slower rate than repair drones)

 

I still think the strike's engine regen upgrade being made default to the chassis would help its initial stock engine issues. Playing a stock scout or gunship definitely doesn't feel as restricted, though that definitely depends on the matchup.

Edited June 1, 2015 by RAZIM

[Nemarus]

I would say a buff to primary weapons. The scout has its advantage in maneuverability/engines, the bomber is defense/support, and the gunship is secondary weapons (the railguns). Thus to me the logical place to be buffed is primary weapons. The secondary weapons as mentioned by several people appear to be the real weak point, but this would be offset much better with a buff to the primary weapons that gave the strike fighter a superior edge in a close range dogfight. The scout would still be able to dodge when played properly, and the bomber would still have superior defense, while the gunship would still rely on range. I disagree with a buff to speed or engines as it would essentially erase the unique character of the scout.

 

The primary weapon buff to Strikes would need to be very, very significant though. You say the Scout's advantage is maneuverability/engines, but in truth it's real advantage is in its offensive and defensive cooldowns.

 

The Strike has no slot available for an offensive cooldown, so it needs a rather significant perma-buff to Primary Weapons.

[Bulldogs_Rule]

The primary weapon buff to Strikes would need to be very, very significant though. You say the Scout's advantage is maneuverability/engines, but in truth it's real advantage is in its offensive and defensive cooldowns.

 

The Strike has no slot available for an offensive cooldown, so it needs a rather significant perma-buff to Primary Weapons.

 

The strike does have some of the same defensive cooldowns as the scout though. I'm not sure how large the perma boost to primary damage would have to be for balance, that to me would be a trial and error thing determined through testing (internally and PTS).

[tunewalker]

The strike does have some of the same defensive cooldowns as the scout though. I'm not sure how large the perma boost to primary damage would have to be for balance, that to me would be a trial and error thing determined through testing (internally and PTS).

 

If by SOME you mean the engine manuever... then yes, yes the Strike has SOME of the same defensive cooldowns

[CommanderKiko]

The strike does have some of the same defensive cooldowns as the scout though.

 

Allow me to clarify what they meant meant. They were highlighting a major problem when talking about offensive/defensive cooldowns.

 

The "1" slot is the missing slot, and the lack of DF in the missing "2" slot which is both an offensive an defensive shield. What offensive and defensive cooldowns does it share with a scout? Answer: one + copilot. The t2 scout has disto feild, retros, and TT + copilot abilities that can be used both offensively and defensively as a jouster. One striker has retros (the missing "3" slot) + copilot, which can be used offensively and defensively as a jouster. That is part of the reason why people chose battlescouts over strikers, and part of the overall problem.

 

I hope that clarified a small part of the problem and what the your quoted person was trying to say. ^.^