Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[CommanderKiko]

Summery of the options that we can think of thus far in generalized terms.

 

1:Creating passives via chassies.

2:More striker specific components. It's a field that everyone agrees is lacking.

3:Buffing things that strikes use thus buffing other classes that will still be picked over Strikers.

4:Creating an actual role for each individual striker (One to beat scouts, one to beat gunships, one to beat bombers, whatever.)

5:Finding a way to make strikers insanely overpowered so that people have a reason to use them.

6:Nerfing thing(s) that are part of the reason other classes are always chosen over strikers, and angering half the community.

7: Kinda nerfing one thing, but introducing another component that replaces the loss, giving people a choice.

 

I think that's about it, but I feel like I'm missing something...

[JasonSzeremi]

If a few tweaks on the chassis are extreme how about these changes:

combine the two primary weapons on the T1 strike and free up the 1 button for a 'system'

(double the blaster pool and have both weapons fire when you fire...)

let the system have options to give the buffs people need:

Extended blaster range and accuracy? with a CD

Decoy missile that makes people waste their missile breaks? Or that cuts the lockon time and drops the reload time... once per cd

an afterburner special engine maneuver that jets you straight forward a distance without a missile break? with a cd...

don't see that working on the T2.... combining missiles? just doesn't track (no pun intended)

but half of the suggestions are to add existing components to the T2 and/or swap out the armor for something the missile lobber could better use

the T3 already has most of what it needs, suggestions to give it the same weapons the T1 starts out with don't seem outragous to me, concussion missiles and heavy lasers on a clarion? sounds pretty striky, although as is it won't out gun a T2 scout, or rapid kill a gs

 

Just dropping the lock on for missiles a bit, and size ably reducing the cool down/reload period might bring strikes off the floor, it might also give other missile lobbing ships a second life, but missiles aren't a problem currently

perhaps it will be good to have them all viable regardless of platform.

and ofcourse giving more of them to the strikes that need them.

[Drakkolich]

Did you just say 2 different crew members? yes yes you did.... did the shield behave different because of a CREW MEMBER passive, and "Upgrade passive" that you Chose... yes yes it did... is there anything that changes that Chasis idea to good... no no there isnt.

 

You can argue that its different from scout to strike to which I would say yes... yes it is, but that's because ALL ships have different Base shields and base shield regen... if you want to touch those, feel free that is something that exists, but NO SHIP has a change in accuracy or damage from one to the other... only UPGRADES/ CREWMEMBERS do that no CHASIS does that and no chasis SHOULD do it.'

 

 

 

Edit: things that exist on ship Chasis

 

Engine efficiency (scouts have a different cost then all other ships)

Base Hull

Base Shield Strength

Base Shield Regen

Base Turning Speed

Base Movement Speed

 

(base means before upgrades)

 

Things that DONT exist on a ship chasis

Firing arcs.

Damage

Accuracy

Lock On times

Ammo

Range

Tracking penalties

 

So much more, all of these exists on the components that are on the ship.

 

Bomber Chassis' have +33% or +50% ammo depending on the missile. So the precedent for buffing chassis' is there.

 

Edit: Actually it gets even more interesting when you look at different missiles.

Strikes gets a Base of 12 Concussion Missiles , Bombers get 16

Strikes get a base of 8 Proton Torpedoes, Bombers get 12

Strikes get a base of 20 Cluster Missiles, Bombers get 20 as well.

 

This actually opens up changing each individual weapon on different chassis across the board!

Edited June 1, 2015 by Drakkolich

[Ramalina]

I'm going to have to agree with Nemarus on getting, "good enough," strike balance through chassis buffs and maybe some addition of components that probably should have been on certain strikes in the first place.

 

GSF has clashing design philosophies that have resulted in pretty terrible balance outcomes. Whether you go by 1v1, team v team, rock-paper-scissors, by any of the reasonably accepted definitions of "fairness" in game design the majority of ship types and builds in GSF are very poorly balanced.

 

Thematically, there's very solid design. A recon scout, a space superiority scout, a utility scout, a dogfighting blasters strike, a multi-role missiles strike, an armored utility strike, a Shield and general DPS gunship, an anti-armor specialist gunship, a gunship that can dogfight at least a little, a minelayer, a dronelayer, and assault bomber.

 

The problem is that when it came to designing components, builds, and gameplay incentives those concepts were not supported. The dogfighting strike, multirole strike, anti-armor gunship, and assault bomber don't have tools that can be combined into builds that perform those thematic functions well. The gameplay incentives are organized in such a way the recon scout, multi-role strike, anti-armor gunship, and assault bomber don't have those roles to perform, so have to find something else to do. To top it off, component availability in ship builds was determined by thematic considerations rather than by considering the mechanics that influence how gameplay turns out.

 

The individual components aside from some non-functional ones, are in at least fair shape balance wise. You could make a new GSF game with 10-12 well balanced ships out of the existing set of components if you wanted to.

 

Balance for GSF was at best an afterthought, or at the least parts of the job of balancing were delegated to different groups of workers, and no one was checking how those elements would work when combined to spot the problems before they could be fixed without a massive amount of reworking things.

 

That stage is long past though. It's like a tractor implement that somehow wound up with caster wheels that can only take about 30% percent of the load they'll experience on rough ground. Proper design and construction would have been nice, but if crops need to go in what you do is buy some stronger wheels and axle stubs, and weld up a big ugly plate to get them on the implement NOW. That's the situation we're in with GSF.

 

Beautiful, elegant balance fixes would be better, but the deadline for that was 1.5 to 2 years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and here's a copy of my comments on Nem's most recent revised list of suggestions from his new thread.

 

It's a very good list Nemarus. It mostly solves almost all of the problems that I feel current missile break mechanics inflict on strikes without touching missiles or distortion. Well enough that I think I'd be happy with it.

 

As far as engine energy management goes, I'd prefer reducing the current efficiency gap with scouts by about 50%, but also boosting regen a healthy amount. This is just a flavor matter though. Something to differentiate between the efficiency that allows scouts to run for a very long time without stopping vs. a Strike style of shorter sprints with short pauses to catch one's breath. In the end overall boost endurance is overall boost endurance, but if it could be a bit different in how it plays for the two dogfighting classes I'd like that.

 

 

 

My goal is that Strikes, just like Gunships and Scouts, must be noticed and dealt with BEFORE they start shooting at you from their optimal range. If you allow one to get into its favored position and to start shooting at you, then you need to suffer damage or potentially die. Just like how if you ignore a Scout or Gunship, you risk suffering surprise burst damage.

Right now, you don't need to take any preemptive action against a Strike. You only need react (and not even immediately) to avoid letting it kill you. If that remains true, then Scouts and Gunships will always remain superior offensive choices.

 

Agree 100%. Maybe I'll go out and find some extra % just so I can agree more.

 

For the components I'd like to see some sort of defensive buff to the T2. Armor => Reactor or else make DF available to it. Even with the nice additions in Retro and Interdiction, I don't think it gets enough offensive punch to justify giving it glass cannon style weakness in survivability. So make the Shield slot and Defensive minor slot ones that work well together. Shield + shield or evasion + evasion, go for positive interactions.

 

For the T3 more offensive punch might be nice, but the existing design is sort of biased in favor of the short range game. I could see going with Clusters instead of Concussion in order to preserve that tendency, and either leaving the blasters alone or giving it Ion Cannon or BLCs. It has builds that do fairly well hanging out on the node with bombers, and I'd sort of like to see that enhanced rather than making it a typical strike that has component options that suggest mid-range strength is a specialty. The type 3s are all supposed to be a bit atypical for their classes.

 

For those worrying about the magnitude of the flat offensive output buffs, keep in mind how the mechanics work. To create the sort of ability to peel or pressure that you get from primaries + secondaries + system or from railguns, or from a minefield you have to give a very large buff to strike primary sustained DPS if you're not really doing anything to increase their on demand burst capability. If primaries are what strikes get, then strike primaries need to be very, very good.

 

A big boost to secondary damage does worry me a bit with regards to cluster missile, especially if strikes get the engine endurance to start running down any ships but the longest legged scouts. Clusters don't need that extra damage, and the other missiles have more trouble with hit rate, and rate of fire than with damage per hit (though I suppose torpedoes could stand to do a bit more damage). If Clusters on any ship are going to be doing significantly more damage than Concussions do on live, then they shouldn't be getting fired at a much faster rate than Concussions currently do. I don't want cluster to be as mandatory as it would be at 150-200% of its current damage. It's already overtuned, it doesn't need to get even worse.

[tunewalker]

Bomber Chassis' have +33% or +50% ammo depending on the missile. So the precedent for buffing chassis' is there.

 

Edit: Actually it gets even more interesting when you look at different missiles.

Strikes gets a Base of 12 Concussion Missiles , Bombers get 16

Strikes get a base of 8 Proton Torpedoes, Bombers get 12

Strikes get a base of 20 Cluster Missiles, Bombers get 20 as well.

 

This actually opens up changing each individual weapon on different chassis across the board!

 

This is a fair point, but still I would like less of a band aid fix. People think "buff lights" will not help strikes more then scouts, but look at it this way. Do scouts have a viable Knife fighting build? yes. Do strikes? No. They both have knife fighting weapons but one weapon doesnt work. what if BOTH had a working weapon? what if the lights did better against NON armor targets like the scouts themselves, now what if Both ships could reliably get in range of these knife fighting weapons. Now what if again the Strike had comparable defenses and the ability to ALSO switch to a weapon specialized to killing armor. Thus having both an anti-evasion weapon that was better then Burst at Anti-evasion AND an anti-armor weapon that was better then Burst at anti-armor. Then to top it off what if they had defenses that anti-evasion didnt help against? would these not be some incentives to try the strike instead of the scout, or any other ship for that matter I could do for every weapon you guys can think of.

[Drakkolich]

This is a fair point, but still I would like less of a band aid fix. People think "buff lights" will not help strikes more then scouts, but look at it this way. Do scouts have a viable Knife fighting build? yes. Do strikes? No. They both have knife fighting weapons but one weapon doesnt work. what if BOTH had a working weapon? what if the lights did better against NON armor targets like the scouts themselves, now what if Both ships could reliably get in range of these knife fighting weapons. Now what if again the Strike had comparable defenses and the ability to ALSO switch to a weapon specialized to killing armor. Thus having both an anti-evasion weapon that was better then Burst at Anti-evasion AND an anti-armor weapon that was better then Burst at anti-armor. Then to top it off what if they had defenses that anti-evasion didnt help against? would these not be some incentives to try the strike instead of the scout, or any other ship for that matter I could do for every weapon you guys can think of.

 

All I was saying is the ammo thing means they have the tech to make "Light Laser Cannon" on Strikes different from the one on other Classes. We thought that might not be possible, so go crazy, you guys can now talk about how different Rapids, Heavys, hell even Cluster missiles can be balanced and they can have different stats then the one on Scouts.

 

Happy theory crafting.

[tunewalker]

With drak's last post I am waiting to see a bunch of ideas that make NONE of the components on Strikes look like their counter parts on other ships... lets go crazy lets go nuts lol. If that every DID happen might as well name them something different.

 

What all strike fighter equipment is Unique MWAAH HA AHAA.

[ipikki_oukami]

The Reason i don't choose the strike fighter is because it is easily out maneuvered by the scout and can't enter the combat arena to any objective in fast enough time to engage the enemy when they are taking my teams nodes. Honestly that is why i think so many people go for the gunship so they don't have to make the huge trek to objectives. The scout is the only option in a pinch where your team is dropping and needs you back in the action fast. If we had arenas that played more to the type of combat the Strike needs then we may choose it more often. Fighter combat like battle front 2. Kill static ship deffence points to destroy the ship. ie shields communications, turbo lasers, hanger bay, each one with a buff that the deffending team looses when they get destroyed. basically we want better more realistic star fighter options. There is no point for us to take those current nodes. They really don't help in the long run for any real purpose. If I am playing a star fighter simulator a simple king of the hill style fight is not what I am looking for. I want to feel like i am doing something useful. Take the rail star ship missions add our star fighters to the scene and we now have an interesting battle ground. Defend this station from the waves of enemy fighters(those fighters being the opposing team). Kill that opposing fleet before they jump to hyperspace and escape. maybe involve guild ships vs star fighters or even make a battle front mode where you board guild ships and take them over for the match. honestly it took me 5 minutes to come up with a few ways to make star fighter more engaging and interesting. Bioware I know your a great company but you really need to take our feedback and what we all know you want to see in the game as well to heart and tell EA it needs to happen. For this game to survive we need new exciting content and I for one do not want to loose my beloved Star Wars The Old Republic.

 

~Dezz'Revas~

The Revas Colonial Alliance

Begeren Colony West Coast RP server

Edited June 2, 2015 by ipikki_oukami
needed to be more on topic

[idnewton]

Fighter combat like battle front 2. Kill static ship deffence points to destroy the ship. ie shields communications, turbo lasers, hanger bay, each one with a buff that the deffending team looses when they get destroyed. basically we want better more realistic star fighter options. There is no point for us to take those current nodes. They really don't help in the long run for any real purpose. If I am playing a star fighter simulator a simple king of the hill style fight is not what I am looking for. I want to feel like i am doing something useful. Take the rail star ship missions add our star fighters to the scene and we now have an interesting battle ground. Defend this station from the waves of enemy fighters(those fighters being the opposing team). Kill that opposing fleet before they jump to hyperspace and escape. maybe involve guild ships vs star fighters or even make a battle front mode where you board guild ships and take them over for the match. honestly it took me 5 minutes to come up with a few ways to make star fighter more engaging and interesting. Bioware I know your a great company but you really need to take our feedback and what we all know you want to see in the game as well to heart and tell EA it needs to happen. For this game to survive we need new exciting content and I for one do not want to loose my beloved Star Wars The Old Republic.

 

~Dezz'Revas~

The Revas Colonial Alliance

Begeren Colony West Coast RP server

 

 

It took you 5 minutes to come up with your own topic and then express your opinion about it.

 

I'm sorry, your essay receives a score of 0 being on a completely different topic.

[clcooper]

I would like to say keep it simple stupid . (it is a saying )(that should be followed by many)

stop adding buffs just fix what you got now .

quit giving out trophy just for showing up to the game . make us earn them .

sorry ahead of time . I have a lot to say . I know I jump around a lot .(I am not a writer ) and think this should be enough for all to understand what I have to say . if anybody can fix it up please go head . I tried to proof read it 2 times .

 

I really enjoy GSF and want to see it stay and grow . and I believe what I say here is a good start

 

I think a lot of the buffs need taken out of the game . all the make believe fairytale buffs . the just to keep the cry babies happy buffs the ones that want to be top pilots but don’t want to really be a top pilot buffs . the top keyboard pilots buffs . get ride of them all .

 

make GSF all server so the wait time is less and more often . then you would have more to play in the different type of ship to do the job it was designed to do . and some of the now so called top pilots can really find out weather they are really the top pilot they say they are or if they should just stay on the porch with rest of the other newbies .like they tell the newbies to do

 

also need to fix some attitudes of a few . they get in a match with a lot of newbies . and when they are losing they start calling them names they suck their stupid they should learn to play . I have told many to get in a un upgraded ship and show them how it is done . not once have any of them done it . how many new people do you think are going to stay when they are treated that way. and as you read you will see why I say that . I have seen I have done it and still doing it

 

I want to know why my one side ships which have NO upgrades yes NONE. they are doing better the my other side which have upgrades and some are about to be mastered

 

I have also noticed when I am with a lot that are upgraded . I have done better . but when I am with a lot of newbies . I did just as good as they did . meaning better in how many kills , how many times I died . how easy it was for me to make my kills . how easy it was for me to be killed. I have been in match where I was the only one on either side with upgrades and still did no better then rest of me team . like the other team got bolstered up and I got bolstered down. yes I have seen some that only have 1 ship and have it all upgraded . and you can tell who they are . and that is not what was happening .

 

stop making it the top pilots the ones with all the upgrades some are calling themselves top pilots when they really are just fancy fliers like the blue angels (some even think they are that good also ).they don’t know the first thing about doing battle . they know they can just ran in and start shooting . because they have all the upgrades and know how to use all the buffs . and because they know nobody can do no harm to them . take all that away from some and they will do no better then any newbie.

 

make people think on how they want to attack the next ship . with all the buffs / add ons now you just run in and attack . and who has the better upgrades or knows how to use the buffs is the winner . make it so we have to think . like a scout make them think. ok if I go to the left of this bomber I can get the gun ship . do I have enough cover to sneak up close enough to do any damage before they see me . or any of the strike fighters protecting them . or am I in the range of a gunship if I try to get to the next rock to hide a bomber make them think ok if I place a mine here a scout cant sneak up on me with out setting the mine off . but place the mine in the wrong spot . the scout if smart enough himself can still sneak in and put a hurting on the bomber before the bomber knows what happen .same with gun ship . at 15,000m or even 20,000 make them unstoppable . but if a scout can find a away to sneak in close . . with that 1 shot should take a scout out at 15,000 m . but under 10,000 the gun ship. has to rely on his other guns . and or smarts.

a better way to tell what ship you want to target and then you will know how to attack it or not to attack it maybe instead of the other team being red , a scout would be yellow .or a red and yellow outer ring . or the name a yellow name means they are in a scout . blue they are in a bomber .

and if you keep the buffs . do the same thing . because not anyone should have that much of a upper hand in the game .

 

I say don't just fix the strike fighter . there is more that needs fixed first . and like some have already said . you fix the strike fighters then that will be the only ship worth using until the next fix then that ship will be the only ship everybody flies . fix them all so they all can fly .

one thing I have seen . in my un upgraded ships . I have had my sights on others many times . and fired at them long enough to use all my weapon power and I did little to no damage . and as soon as they turn around to fire on me in 2 to 3 shots from them I am dead . this will make anybody not play again .

 

I have been in a scout and strike fighter many times . followed a ship around had my sights on him the whole time and did no damage yes I was firing the whole time . a few time even had time to wait for the weapon power to catch up and still did no damage . but as soon as he turn around to me in 2 or 3 shots I was dead . why when I have my sights on somebody for so long I do no damage . a question that every newbie asks . and why they never come back . if I hold my sights on to some for that long and do no damage . and there is no learning curve on that . the learning curve is what buffs was he using what buffs do I need to use . but when you have one buff that is more powerful then any other buff why have buffs to start with .

 

I have had a Scout come right in front of my gunship ,stop and sit and fire on me . while I fire on them with either gun and they still killed me . I ran out of weapon power firing the laser cannon .which is the same gun the scouts use but for some reason a scouts gun uses less power then any other ship and if using any of the rail gun (which are to be at 116% acc, at 500m) still did no damage . never have been able to fire a 2nd shot .

 

scout = humvee / spy

strike fighter = Abrams tank / infantry

bomber = mine field , Mortars / mine field ,Mortars

gunship = air support or ocean support / Artillery

a scout is fast because off the little to no armor . a bomb is slow because it has a lot of armor bigger guns and carries more ammo . strike fighter is not as fast as a scout because it has a little more armor and little bigger guns and missiles

 

a scout should die every time it comes face to face with any other type of ship . same as a fully upgraded scout against any other fully upgraded ship scout should lose . the in between upgrades should help a scout win against the other until they get their up grades . . now if the scout sneaked up behind any ship and got a few shots off first . then the scout should have a chance . and that is what a scout is ,. it is to sneak around hit and run . it is to get to the sat first . fight off other scouts . until the heavier armor ships get there to fortify the sat the .

so you say nobody will want to fly a scout then . same can be said with a gun ship . if at close range it cant do nothing . and a long range it cant do nothing . why fly a gun ship then , they all have their benefits . and should be made to use that benefit .

 

scouts should be able to fight a strike fight and win . or do same damage . but a scout and a bomber . the bomber should be able to sit there and laugh . swat the scout away like a fly . but if the scout out smarts or sneaks up on the bomber which the scout was designed for / to do then the scout should have a chance . but not the way it is now . a scout can go face to face with a bomber , in a very short time still fly away while the bomber is back getting a new bomber . a strike fighter should be able to go face to face with a bomber but not a scout . a scout at close range with a gun ship .

just like a gun ship it is designed to shot and kill at long distance . . well sorry for any body's luck that was in that range . but I hear the scouts crying . now the scouts can go / do /anything they want / with no fear . I have seen a scout coming at my gunship . I targeted him . when he came in range I shot . did not even slow him down . I get enough power to shot half power and then I am dead . he is still going . I have done many times same results .

I have fired on the same ship same match many time . me doing no to little damage . others on my team shooting at that ship also . and I died 4 times to his 1 . with the 3 of us between our 12 deaths we chipped away enough to kill him once fix that before you go adding anything on to any other ship . find out why 3 ships died 12 times to his 1

 

I have also have the other team disappear . and then come back . some times it was all of the other team . some times it is just 1 or 2 . I have been killed so I like to look for who killed me and try to return the favor LOL . so I target him (20,000 to 30,000 m ) . start flying their way then they disappear .and they come back they are closer to me . I understand about the sensors . but when others on their team at the same area same distance I am still able to see . why is it that I cant see him or still seeing them. I have even had it happen when they were in 15,000 m of me some were going away from me some when I was able to see them again the only thing I was able to do was to click the ready to rejoin button

 

if you are going to make a certain type of cannon or buff to ignore shields 100% then why even have shields to start with . if a gun ship cant do any damage to a scout out at 15,000 m .why even have gun ships because at any distance a gunship wont hurt a scout .

.

why is it that a certain type of gun on a scout uses less power than any other ship. if it is the same gun it should use the same amount of power . it should do the same amount of damage .

if being a new pilot and you have to get upgrades before you can kill anything hell even to hit anything to do any type of damage .why even fly . just sit in the corner and hide until you earn enough points to get the upgrades you need to make a kill .

 

some of the top aces are really not top pilots they are top key board users . stop making us stand on our heads to win a fight . some of us come to play and don't have the money to get the top of the line gamer system .and should NOT be easier targets because of that . some of us have heath issues that wont allow us to do all the fancy key board tricks . some like me type with 1 finger . because we .have other type of job that don’t require us to master the keyboard . like fix your cars . build your roads or your house . so because we are not masters of the keyboard should we be looked down on in the game . because we don't or unable to ctrl and shift or know all the different key strokes just so we can get a hit on another ship .

 

if you want it to be a team /group thing then make it that way . make it so every ship has a reason . and if that ship is not in the battle . well sorry for your luck . maybe next time you will have a gunship . to help . or maybe have a scout so your team could capture a sat. or a bomber to place mine on your back side . so the other team isn't able to sneak up behind you . but like now it doesn’t matter a scout can run in fight like a strike fighter with bomber armor on .

 

make it a game of out smarting not out keyboarding

 

make it a Star Wars game not a star terk . or this is how they did /do things in WOW or any other MMO / make this the Star Wars game

with that said don’t add stuff like clocking because star terk had clocking . add it because Star Wars had clocking which I dont remember clocking . and if there was none of that type of ships is in GSF now anyways . so then neither should clocking.

 

you can keep all the people that are in GSF now all happy and only get 1 or 2 new players to stay. or make changes so more new player come and stay . and lose a few that are in GSF now .

[aakrea]

I don't think strikes need as many buffs as many here suggest. I haven't used the Clarion much but I have thought of a few for the others.

 

Star Guard- The primary weapon specialist, I don't think it would need any changes to the turning, speed or engine pool. Trying to make it into another scout isn't the answer, just make ions better. As has been suggested give them longer range and an Interdiction like effect (slowing the target is the same as buffing the strike speed) then it can get in range to use the second primary, I think these should include all primary weapons.

 

- Buff the Capacitor numbers a little to give a little extra punch (maybe 4-5% instead of 2%)

 

- Buff directional shields vs ion rail to at least give it a chance to escape (maybe an anti ion reactor) mouse wheel to change direction would help a lot too

 

New weapon- plasma cannon, DoT, maybe some shield bleed through

 

Pike- The missle king, speed, turning, engine pool should be a little better than a bomber because that is basically what it is, just with missle instead of mines/drones. It seems everyone agrees it should be given retros to help lock on, and Interdiction is a must. I have a few more suggestions to add.

 

- Magazine change power pool extender and regeneration Extender to a lock reduction and missle speed increase

 

- Removing the missle break on DF has been debated but I think I have a compromise, as long as the pike has the ship targeted the missle break doesn't work, all you have to do is get out of range first (maybe a reason for dampening sensors) or get someone to shoot at it, risk being killed or lose the missle lock.

 

New weapon- seeker missle, launch without lock, it would auto lock like the mine but it would have a trigger cone rather than radius. If it doesn't find a target in a second or so it self distrust (not a mine)

 

I never did much with the Clarion so I won't make suggestions there other than it would be nice to see friendly ships health.

 

Might as well throw in a new weapon here to, healer missles?

Edited June 2, 2015 by aakrea

[JasonSzeremi]

This is a fair point, but still I would like less of a band aid fix. People think "buff lights" will not help strikes more then scouts, but look at it this way. Do scouts have a viable Knife fighting build? yes. Do strikes? No. They both have knife fighting weapons but one weapon doesnt work. what if BOTH had a working weapon? what if the lights did better against NON armor targets like the scouts themselves, now what if Both ships could reliably get in range of these knife fighting weapons. Now what if again the Strike had comparable defenses and the ability to ALSO switch to a weapon specialized to killing armor. Thus having both an anti-evasion weapon that was better then Burst at Anti-evasion AND an anti-armor weapon that was better then Burst at anti-armor. Then to top it off what if they had defenses that anti-evasion didnt help against? would these not be some incentives to try the strike instead of the scout, or any other ship for that matter I could do for every weapon you guys can think of.

 

I follow, if LLC were more potent, but (still) not armor piercing, they would do more damage to targets without armor, but strikes have armor (fact checks, T1 strike doesn't currently) LLC are native to T1T2 T3 strikes, T1 T2 T3 scouts, T1 T2 T3 bombers, T1 T3 gunships, if HLC did more damage and was still armor piercing (or a new weapon for strikes only?) or BLC which are ALSO anti armor and high burst (should it BE anti armor? most shotguns do poorly vs force distribution aka armor plating). HLC are native to T1 T2 strikes, T2 gunships, T1 T2 T3 bombers, BLC are native to T2 scouts, T1 T3 gunships

 

Buffing lights would have the potential to help every strike, scout and bomber class, if they could get up close to dogfight (for the scout and bomber that's a no-brainer, the scout can, people come to the bomber under nodes)

but as an option that isn't used much of the time except on gunships as an emergency weapon

This might not be a bad thing. Of course a strike-only buff would keep other classes from using them better.

 

Buffing the HLC would help most, but not all strikes (unless the T3 was invested with a pair), the least popular gunship, and every bomber, that doesn't switch to LLC. This might no be a bad thing.... are bomber's HLC a serious problem? they have mines and usually hide out, they also turn like bathtubs, I someone would complain but even strike fighters and gunships can out maneuver one if it was about the dogfight. if it comes to not being in front of one, that's tactics. If anything the bomber might wish for BLC, because their role puts them up close with the enemy alot. In real wars where fighting was often up close, soldiers brought shotguns from home, and they worked, when the enemy didn't have a los on them till too late.

 

Buffing BLC? urm.... sharing BLC with the strike fighters, giving it to the T1 T2 and T3 strike. The T1 is the laser specialist strike, surely the power couplings can handle the weapon, they handle almost every other laster, heck you could replace the rapids with BLC and not miss RLC at all. The T2, could have it for a backup weapon like the T1 gunship does, when missiles fail to keep the enemy at range. The T3... same argument?

 

Options 4 and 5: Not just buffing existing weapon systems, but also the strike's defenses and giving it:

an anti-evasion weapon that was better then Burst at Anti-evasion (which could still be LLC or could be something new) and an anti-armor weapon that was better then Burst at anti-armor. (which would be something new, perhaps call it the Gatling Laser Cannon, a fast firing hard hitting weapon with range similar to HLC or Quads)

Then to top it off what if they had defenses that anti-evasion didnt help against (which might be armor or might be something new or different)

[JasonSzeremi]

Borrowing from the descriptions of the T2 scout and T3 gunship (both are sometimes called strike fighter hybrids)

'Its weapons and defenses still don't match those of a full strike fighter, but it can be deadly in the right hands.'

'designed for survivability on battlefields where keeping foes at a distance isn't feasible. ...ship-to-ship missiles in mid combat and unleash volley from enhanced close-range laser cannons. Additional speed, maneuverability and equipment options ...ready and able to finish off damaged foes or escape from enemies who may be closing in.'

 

I would like to the the strike fighter they hybridized from. One that makes the statement 'weapons and defenses ... don't match those of a full strike fighter'

And a strike fighter that was designed to threaten the T3's survival, making them want to escape, unless the strike was damaged enough to be finished off up close.

(up close the T2 scout and T3 gunship often have exactly the same weapons, and very similar defenses)

 

What would make these statements true?

[JasonSzeremi]

just looking at the unusual missile options given to scouts and the T3, it seems as if these are intended to resort to trickery. Sabotage probe (originally meant to be tracking beacon) and interdiction missiles, both make a target easier for lasers or a rail gun to take out. Do strikes need something like that, that makes a target easier to... target with sustained laser DPS?

 

In Tie fighter, a fighter mounted tractor beam inhibited the target's maneuverability, to make it easier to target with lasers and missiles. Although there isn't a slot for one on our ships unless, the 1 key switched between it and another weapon... you could subsume the clarion's system ability into a switching system that switched between it and it's missile package, giving you a 1 key that swapped between repair probes, remote slicing, combat command, or torpedoes, concussions clusters.... like the way they work on gunships but with system abilities on the menu too. course then you could have two missiles, or a clarion with remote slicing and repair probes but no missiles at all.

 

Some of the more obscure options might emerge this way... is it possible to have the 1 key rotate between three options? lock on tractor beam (careful it's eating your blaster power pool or your booster power pool), lock on missile while tractor is functioning.... missile hits tractor beam breaks, switch to missile 2 and try to lock on, hope missile 1 was a concussion with engine crippling...

 

(well you wouldn't expect the tractor beam to stay locked on after a violent impact like that would you? game balance)

 

and if the tractor beam used laser power, you might be firing your lasers but if you run out.... the beam breaks or you just can't re-charge laster power untill the beam does break, if they use a missile break on your first missile... the tractor beam stays on or.... a missile break might knock the tractor beam off, and make way for a real missile

 

or if we're thinking the way things are coded now, the 'tractor beam' would work like the crew ability servo inhibitor (sp?) although perhaps more powerful like the interdiction mine. Dealing no damage... leave that to the exploding mine. Or have it work like the interdiction drone, radiatiing from the starfighter for a short time, the same way repair probes do for the clarion vs the repair drone. the code for that is probably already there, just port the interdiction from the drone, to a copy of the repair probe's code, but have it target red dots only.

Edited June 2, 2015 by JasonSzeremi
gramer

[tunewalker]

I follow, if LLC were more potent, but (still) not armor piercing, they would do more damage to targets without armor, but strikes have armor (fact checks, T1 strike doesn't currently) LLC are native to T1T2 T3 strikes, T1 T2 T3 scouts, T1 T2 T3 bombers, T1 T3 gunships, if HLC did more damage and was still armor piercing (or a new weapon for strikes only?) or BLC which are ALSO anti armor and high burst (should it BE anti armor? most shotguns do poorly vs force distribution aka armor plating). HLC are native to T1 T2 strikes, T2 gunships, T1 T2 T3 bombers, BLC are native to T2 scouts, T1 T3 gunships

 

Buffing lights would have the potential to help every strike, scout and bomber class, if they could get up close to dogfight (for the scout and bomber that's a no-brainer, the scout can, people come to the bomber under nodes)

but as an option that isn't used much of the time except on gunships as an emergency weapon

This might not be a bad thing. Of course a strike-only buff would keep other classes from using them better.

 

Buffing the HLC would help most, but not all strikes (unless the T3 was invested with a pair), the least popular gunship, and every bomber, that doesn't switch to LLC. This might no be a bad thing.... are bomber's HLC a serious problem? they have mines and usually hide out, they also turn like bathtubs, I someone would complain but even strike fighters and gunships can out maneuver one if it was about the dogfight. if it comes to not being in front of one, that's tactics. If anything the bomber might wish for BLC, because their role puts them up close with the enemy alot. In real wars where fighting was often up close, soldiers brought shotguns from home, and they worked, when the enemy didn't have a los on them till too late.

 

Buffing BLC? urm.... sharing BLC with the strike fighters, giving it to the T1 T2 and T3 strike. The T1 is the laser specialist strike, surely the power couplings can handle the weapon, they handle almost every other laster, heck you could replace the rapids with BLC and not miss RLC at all. The T2, could have it for a backup weapon like the T1 gunship does, when missiles fail to keep the enemy at range. The T3... same argument?

 

Options 4 and 5: Not just buffing existing weapon systems, but also the strike's defenses and giving it:

an anti-evasion weapon that was better then Burst at Anti-evasion (which could still be LLC or could be something new) and an anti-armor weapon that was better then Burst at anti-armor. (which would be something new, perhaps call it the Gatling Laser Cannon, a fast firing hard hitting weapon with range similar to HLC or Quads)

Then to top it off what if they had defenses that anti-evasion didnt help against (which might be armor or might be something new or different)

 

 

If Lights were buffed enough for both Strikes and scouts to take it, then this is a MASSIVE buff to strikes NOT a buff to Scouts. Strikes now have a means to fight back against the scouts close range assault (they currently have 0) the scout gave up armor piercing which 2 strikes can now abuse with Charged Plating so the scout is useless against them. Which would FORCE the scout back to BLC's while the strike still gets to use his better gun and maybe now he can ALSO switch to a shield better suited for BLC's like an upgraded QCS or something.

 

I am going to stand by my earlier thing, just 1 or 2 new components maybe, and upgrades to existing components could be all that's needed. Sure we can do Chasis buffs that make all weapons x better on a strike, but I dont want the solution to "Scouts have Target Talem" to be "give Strikes a permanent Target Talem" its just cheap, lacks flavor and and lacks ingenuity, and for me just cheapens the whole experience.

[Ramalina]

There are different but subtle things you could also do to strike primary weapons.

 

For instance, change the short and mid range breakpoints.

 

From a lore sense, surely the short and medium ranges of HLCs should be longer than for RFLs right? If strikes had these range breakpoints as percentage of max range rather than 500 m, 3000 m, max, that would be a buff, as long as you took the percentages from the current short range weapon stats. So your breakpoints would be 12.5% of max, 75% of max and max. Mid for HLCs would go from 3 km baseline to 4.5 km baseline.

 

Do that and increase ranges 15% - 20% for strikes and you start to have a modestly noticeable difference in primary weapon strength for strikes. Or at the very least usability at middle ranges goes up.

 

The down side is that the more things you involve in a balance pass the more work it is to do, and if small changes are made it's going to take a lot of them to overcome the fundamental mechanical challenges that plague strikes.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Ramalina

[JasonSzeremi]

If Lights were buffed ... strike still gets to use his better gun and ... an upgraded QCS or something.

 

... just 1 or 2 new components ....

 

I agree, it doesn't have to be new toys, although people do like new toys, it could be some well placed buffs for systems already in the game, and if say bombers take them up, so what? they aren't great against armored targets, and T1 strike could take charged plating if that becomes an issue.

 

Also the suggestion has been put forward several times to give more good component options to strikes from the existing ones. Let the T1 strike have every possible laser option, and let them find one that works, maybe interdiction missiles and or sabotage probes too. Why not let them be the ones to stun their targets with missiles then finish them with lasers, since they need a maneuverability counter.

 

Upgrading HLC might help the strike partly counter gunships and those armored T2 scouts (the T2 scout has armor, the T1 strike doesn't?? which one is actually meant to take a hit?)

 

Perhaps QCS could use a missile break, then strikes would have two missile breaks too? but they aren't very effective against Cluster missiles, which is why those missiles have become so popular.

 

Missiles likely still need their lock-on times halve or cut by 1 second (except clusters which are already fast enough missile breaks are almost useless against them) and cool down times cut in half, or even dropped all together, missiles already have lock-on times where they are vulnerable to six different sorts of missile breaks and flight-to-target where they are vulnerable to 3 (ask a T1 scout pilot what the third is). Once the target of a missile realizes there is a problem, they should have to choose between being hit more then once, or disengaging (pealing, running for cover, boosting away).

 

let the T2 strike have any missile in the game, if you want 'seeker missiles' maybe add a seeker mine, launched forward about twice it's tracking radius with a 15 second timer till it pops, so bombers don't get too jealous. let it track just like other seeker mines in all directions, it's foward launching and limited lifespan would distingish it as a 'missile'. Or just keep it to the ones in the game now, someone's already suggested the interdiction missile for the T2 strike.... sabotage probe might be an interesting option.... being able to switch to and lock on a missile or torpedo as the target coasts straight....

 

T3.... what would booster re-charge do on a clarion? Or Targeting Telemetry? or Blaster overcharge? Or emp pulse?

Ofcourse TT would be intersting with Heavy lasers, better Light lasters, and or missile options like concussion or cluster.

 

Any pilot who says 'but giving the strikes that kind of firepower makes scouts useless' forgets that scouts are not originally meant to dominate the field, they are meant to recon the field, send targeting data to other, ships with more combat capability. Besides, with superior speed, maneuverability, and the same firepower they have now, scouts might STILL dominate the field even after changes like this are done for strikes.

[Verain]

All I was saying is the ammo thing means they have the tech to make "Light Laser Cannon" on Strikes different from the one on other Classes. We thought that might not be possible, so go crazy, you guys can now talk about how different Rapids, Heavys, hell even Cluster missiles can be balanced and they can have different stats then the one on Scouts.

 

This is true, but I don't like it. Not at all. I'm fine with ideas like "strikes have extra range on primaries". I'm a lot LESS fine with "rapid fires on strikes deal 30% extra damage and have 10% extra accuracy, but on scouts they are the same".

 

Fundamentally, no, these guys don't have their own special everythings. You are correct that the bomber extra capacity is a bit different per missile type, but frankly, this is likely a bug (not the extra ammo, that makes sense for bombers, but the fact that it is so variable). In the internals, the component lists its baseline values, and who knows why we see odd stuff with bombers. Maybe they already have what you are saying, but that's just because they don't know how to include from different schemas or something.

 

 

The big problems with your assumption- that we can individually balance components are:

1)- We lose what a component is. The entire point of having the components have the same name is so we can talk about them. Lose this, and we run into a huge communication issue, and it becomes very opaque for new players.

2)- The devs won't actually do this. I'm not sure that +30% range is a thing that they'll do, but at least they could technically accomplish this task. They would have to be doing all kinds of dumb junk to make each component actually individual, or much worse, cut and paste to make all the individual components. I think it is VERY unlikely that the devs will give components individual tweaks for a variety of technical and design reasons.

3)- It diverts useful discussion into less useful speculation. Right now, a lot of the comments are actually on topic. By starting a debate about what percent buff RFLs need on type 3 scouts versus Clarions versus Starguards, we are lost in the weeds.

4)- The entire concept of the game involves a class chasis, plus a set of components. Each ship type is some combination of this. Many suggestions involve changing the chassis. My oldest suggestion involved making a "ship specific component" that is composed of a small set of auto-unlocked unupgradable components for each ship type. For instance, your starguard would pick "Flashfire's Computer A", or "Flashfire's Computer B", and each one would give you different bonuses. In combination, you would NERF the base chassis, because what you'd be actually balancing around would ALWAYS be a chassis + a ship specific component. That's already pretty racy, but it would allow for cool customization and per-ship balancing much more than current- but if you go all the way to "power dive on the Clarion is X, power dive on the flashfire is Y, power dive on the blackbolt is Z", it's quite the mess and contrary to the build design of the game.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Verain

[CommanderKiko]

Any pilot who says 'but giving the strikes that kind of firepower makes scouts useless' forgets that scouts are not originally meant to dominate the field, they are meant to recon the field, send targeting data to other, ships with more combat capability.

 

^ This ^

[tunewalker]

I am again right where verain is.

 

The only thing I dont agree with him on is for a Strike to be a generalist it needs a railgun and a Mine. Not if its weapon range was increase by 2,000 base acrossed the board (50-20% depending on the weapon) as well as its engine efficiency being buffed to the same level it has when the strike equips quick charge (35% recently consumed regen I think it is) AND its hull health being buffed 20% as well as QCS and Directionals getting a moderate to strong buff as well.

 

Sam the strike needs THIS.

 

I wont be the first on the node... that will be the scout, but I wont be far behind, I'm not the fastest.... but I am close. All the while I can clear some enemies as they come in, after all I have good range, its not the BEST range, but its close... its close. Now that I am on this node I will be able to hold it for much longer then needed to get the bomber here. After all I am not the toughest ship.... but I am close, and when he gets here I will snipe the scouts and chase the Gunships, and should he die I will again be able to turtle on the node... I am not the best at these, but watch out... cus I am close enough that when I am on you, your not going to care, cus with this combination... close is all I need, I'm the hand grenade, I'm the strike.

Edited June 2, 2015 by tunewalker

[Verain]

I'm not suggesting that, of course. But I don't feel that for a strike to be a *generalist* it needs that- but it would need SOMETHING to let it perform the role of a bomber (but not as good as a bomber) or gunship (but not as good as a gunship). The second one it is not miles away from- it has long range torpedos and medium ranged weapons- they just don't add up to being a big enough threat, for reasons. But a striker is totally garbage on a node- it is hands down the crappiest ship on nodes. The best is generally a bomber, who doesn't need to nose to target even vaguely, followed by a scout, who can get off enough deflection shots to matter, followed by a gunship, who can't melee on the node that well, but can, if ignored for a moment, begin sniping for his team. The strike can't hit stuff on the node with his mid ranged weapons, can't shoot FROM the node because opponents will just LOS some of his stuff for a moment, can't lock weapons on anything on the node...

 

He doesn't need mines. But he would need something, if he's meant to do this. The range boost, deflection penalty reduction, or accuracy buff suggestions would all help, as of course would raw damage. But to make a strike acceptable on a node at the level seems rough.

[JasonSzeremi]

He doesn't need mines. But he would need something, if he's meant to do this. The range boost, deflection penalty reduction, or accuracy buff suggestions would all help, as of course would raw damage. But to make a strike acceptable on a node at the level seems rough.

 

or an interdiction drive? interdiction field? tractor beam? Seeker missile that flys out and locks onto the first target it sees?

 

What if interdiction drive had a missile break.... you know interdicting the missiles as they come in, making them stop dead in space?

Edited June 3, 2015 by JasonSzeremi
extending

[tunewalker]

So after some discussion, I am going to revise my list a little... though I am starting to wonder why when honestly I am starting to feel we have run the gambit of Strike fighter thigns for the devs to look through, but hey cant help myself.

 

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=8225462&postcount=283

 

22. Give strikes a Chasis buff that makes all primaries and secondaries +2,000 meters (this is 50%-20% range increase depending on the weapon) If this is done # 1 would be able to be lessened a little probably down to = Recent regen rate to when a strike JUST has QCS. The buffs to Rapids and lights wouldnt be NEEDED but they would still be nice game wide, though the Rapids would probably be good with just a 10% accuracy boost instead of the massive 20%. Also #19 would be unnecissary. 20 and 21 are also not entirely "neccissary" but would be nice. I still feel buffing defenses and Reducing Lock times of all "larger" missiles and Reload times/ increasing range of the "Futulilty" missiles would go a long way.

 

 

For those wondering what a Ship build would look like with ALL of those choices were done.

 

 

T2 Strike

Heavy Lasers (range 8,400 meters Armor Piercing)

Concussion Missile (Range 9,900 meters Lock time 1.8 seconds reload time 5.5 seconds with "rapid reload" Engine shut down buff damage 1210ish)

Ion Missile (Range 9,900 Meters Lock on time 1.8 seconds Reload time 5.5 Seconds with "rapid Reload" slow buff)

Directional (shield Capacity is the same Shield Regen is slightly higher then picking the right upgrade (it went from 90/sec to 117/sec) while also having 3 seconds before it started, and the strike would be immune to Armor Piercing and shield piercing.)

Barrel Roll (same as it currently is)

Regen Thrusters (the ship would have engine efficiency as if it was Quick charge shield and Regen thrusters now giving it some pretty good legs)

Deflection armor (with this and the Crew guy that adds 9% along with the Strikes usual 5% that's 34% that cant be ignored)

Munitions extender (so we can run rapid reload with out worry)

Damage capacitor (so we wont have to worry about weapon energy with the lack of pick ups there)

 

On Pub side you would even be able to pick up Nulify as an ability.

It would take 1.8 seconds to finish a lock on a target, if it did the proper response and used an engine maneuver it would be 4.8 seconds before you launched the next one and you would still have to wait .7 seconds for the next missile with Rapid reload, the missiles would be pretty reliable on 2 missile break targets, but that's because of the pikes abilities to swap missiles. it would be fairly tough and have decent legs... this, I believe would be the kind of thing that would make these ships generalists. Really strong range, really strong maneuverability, and really strong defenses.

Edited June 3, 2015 by tunewalker

[Ramalina]

It would help balance in a very simple to implement way, but there would be side effects to a flat primaries damage buff approach.

 

Strike burst with a 50% primaries damage buff would still be a bit lower than the meta scouts, but strike sustained DPS would be the same as the burst at least until out of weapon energy.

 

It would produce a pretty harsh environment for new players. A more experienced pilot with 90% of a scout's burst but pretty much 100% uptime would be pretty monstrous at farming weak players.

 

It would also make all strikes Quads strikes, though I suppose T1s would retain HLCs so they could shred bombers.

 

Why Quads? Think Ion Cannons with 6 km range that do as much damage to hulls as they do to shields. That's why.

 

I'm not objecting per se, but if we're making serious suggestions we might want to also start working out the math a bit too. I picked up on these side effects when I decided to work out how Nemarus' suggestion of 50% damage buff, 20% accuracy buff, and 20% range buff would work out in comparison to the burst damage that scouts currently have.

 

Buffing strikes will probably cause some pain for other classes, and that's expected. If it didn't there wouldn't really be a point to doing it. It's worth remembering though, that there are likely to be side effects to changes, and it would be good if we can figure out the most likely ones in advance. If they give us what we ask for, we could be stuck with it for a very long time. Ideally we'll do better than the characters in "three wish" fables do, where the third wish is to undo the first two.

[Nemarus]

It would help balance in a very simple to implement way, but there would be side effects to a flat primaries damage buff approach.

 

Strike burst with a 50% primaries damage buff would still be a bit lower than the meta scouts, but strike sustained DPS would be the same as the burst at least until out of weapon energy.

 

It would produce a pretty harsh environment for new players. A more experienced pilot with 90% of a scout's burst but pretty much 100% uptime would be pretty monstrous at farming weak players.

 

It would also make all strikes Quads strikes, though I suppose T1s would retain HLCs so they could shred bombers.

 

Why Quads? Think Ion Cannons with 6 km range that do as much damage to hulls as they do to shields. That's why.

 

I'm not objecting per se, but if we're making serious suggestions we might want to also start working out the math a bit too. I picked up on these side effects when I decided to work out how Nemarus' suggestion of 50% damage buff, 20% accuracy buff, and 20% range buff would work out in comparison to the burst damage that scouts currently have.

 

Buffing strikes will probably cause some pain for other classes, and that's expected. If it didn't there wouldn't really be a point to doing it. It's worth remembering though, that there are likely to be side effects to changes, and it would be good if we can figure out the most likely ones in advance. If they give us what we ask for, we could be stuck with it for a very long time. Ideally we'll do better than the characters in "three wish" fables do, where the third wish is to undo the first two.

 

But conversely, any new player who takes a Rycer will be at least somewhat potent and threatening by default. So long as they can point and shoot, they will do damage.

 

And if they die to another Strike, they won't have reason to complain about space shotguns, sniper rifles, or bombers ruining their dogfighting game.