Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[JasonSzeremi]

Thanks. I just got to thinking that the only way strikes ( and GSF in general ) is going to get any love from the devs is if the suggestions are based on systems that already exist. We already have copilots with redundant abilities so let's add a little variety.

 

A buff icon should show up if the strike is targeted, I agree with that. I disagree though that a strike with this ability needs to display a warning to a target. I think a "Cannot Evade" warning should tell the target why they took a missile hit after they pop DF or an engine ability though.

 

For example: If a gunship has the ability to cripple and then destroy a strike at 14.9K Meters with no warning at all it's not fair a strike should have to broadcast his intent to the gunship pilot. The gunship pilot already gets the lock-on tone now he just has to wonder if it's a strike or not and act accordingly. I think a certain level of fear should exist when anybody hears the lock-on tone and right now with all the missile breaks there isn't any fear at all.

 

A visible buff on someone who is targeting the strike might be an adequate compromise? Co-pilot abilities do often show up as buffs, if you are watching the target you can see many of the CDs they pop.

 

If people were afraid of the lock-on tone, strikes would be more effective pealers

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Honestly, a strike fighter that could destroy anything _except_ scouts would have a role. It would be the bomb, and scouts would be the scissors.

 

No doubt and that would be cool. Since the dev OP notes they want strikers to be good in any match that rules out their one strength being bomber killers since that's going to be more niche than it sounds like the devs want (at least I assume from the OP they don't want the presence/benefit of strikers in a match to hinge on whether one specific ship class, in this case bombers, are in play). Either way the problem would be that strikers would need to become much better than scouts at destroying bombers and at least close behind (if not at the same level) as scouts in destroying gunships.

 

It may just be me but it seems that if you buff strikers up to that point you'd likely have them threatening scouts anyway. Since to bring down a bomber better than a scout they'll have to pack impressive burst that surpasses what a scout can throw at a bomber (likely including improvements to conc/torpedo reliability) and to threaten a GS they'd have to have a significant buff to their mobility; together those buffs would probably make strikers at least threatening to a scout anyway. (Of course an option to buffing them against bombers that doesn't require crazy burst is to remove most/all of the scout's AP options so their burst has a noticeable reduction in effectiveness against armor/CP builds. I'm unsure though if such a nerf would be wise as it puts a lot of faith in the power of the buff to strikers. such a nerf likely is best introduced after the effectiveness of the striker buff is seen).

 

Overall though I don't like the idea of strikers being the one class that wouldn't be balanced so there are some circumstances where it could engage a scout and win. Both bombers and GS have ways they can engage scouts (without requiring the scout to be near dead and/or totally ignoring them, although obviously a careless scout pilot helps both bombers and GS land a kill) and have a reasonable chance of winning so it only seems fair to balance strikers so there are some circumstances where a scout will reconsider engaging a striker.

[RickDagles]

While I'm not sure it really fits the intended design. I feel like Blaster Overcharge on a Strike would be super deadly against Bombers. HLC/BO/Wingman would be dangerous against anything that didn't fly defensively. Edited August 30, 2015 by RickDagles

[JasonSzeremi]

Overall though I don't like the idea of strikers being the one class that wouldn't be balanced so there are some circumstances where it could engage a scout and win. Both bombers and GS have ways they can engage scouts (without requiring the scout to be near dead and/or totally ignoring them, although obviously a careless scout pilot helps both bombers and GS land a kill) and have a reasonable chance of winning so it only seems fair to balance strikers so there are some circumstances where a scout will reconsider engaging a striker.

 

If somehow the forward firepower of a strike was enough to destroy a bomber before the bomber could seriously damage the strike, then in it's range and forward area, a strike would be devastating.

 

The logical counter for other pilots would be to focus on their craft's advantages: Bombers stay out of los and put out as many deployables in access points as possible... don't get hit. Gunships: snipe at 15k, stay mobile... stay away from strikes but take pot shots at max range.... don't get hit. Scouts: focus on strikes that are already engaged in other targets or keep to hunting gunships, which are a bane to your teams ability to do their jobs.

 

A relatively slow, heavily armored strike fighter is a general purpose fighting craft. It would be able to contribute but it lacks specialized weaponry such as rail guns or mines. Scouts advantages in speed and agility are why so many focused on them for potentially good dog fighters. It was when they were given superior dps that the strike really started to pale in comparison.

[JasonSzeremi]

If you're going to have a larger, slower, fighter craft, it needs something to justify the expense and resources that go into constructing it. More payload capacity means potential for more/bigger weapons. I personally, don't see how there would be any lasers or missiles barred from strike fighter's use. Every laser or missile in the game should probably be an option for them to mount in those large chassis.

 

Can you picture a T2 strike with sabotage probe or interdiction missile and a torp or concussions? Who needs the ability to make a target easier to hit more then a fighter that has been relegated to doing dps over time? Or which depends on missile locks to get it's burst damage.

 

Or a T1 strike with ion missiles to compliment it's ion cannon and quad lasers... or sabotage probe, ion cannons, and burst lasers.

 

I want to hear some pilot scream "God dam strike fighters" the way they do "god dam gunships!" and "*********** battle scouts!" now.... let them join the rest of the fighters in being able to piss people off, and shoot down their craft.

[JasonSzeremi]

While I'm not sure it really fits the intended design. I feel like Blaster Overcharge on a Strike would be super deadly against Bombers. HLC/BO/Wingman would be dangerous against anything that didn't fly defensively.

 

I think this is a very good idea, the only problem is finding a way to toggle the system ability in and say activate it with a different key like F or G or z (are we using Z right now?).

Thinking about that, imagine if system abilities could be toggled like the weapons on gunships and T1-2 strikes.... swapping between two or more options. It would probably complicate the game, but picture being able to change which system ability you are using to suit the situation. Combat command might see alot more use, other abilities might see some use too.

[ALaggyGrunt]

Hmm, chassis buff: perma-BO or perma-TT.

The BO would be counter-health, TT would be mostly counter-evasion. Have it run through essentially the same upgrade tree as the active versions. Broken? Maybe a little, but these ships would now be able to kill stuff more effectively. Not having to manage that cooldown would be the perk a strike gets for being slow without distortion field-and we wouldn't have to figure out where to map another active cooldown.

[JasonSzeremi]

Or here's a simple one that was brought up before:

Because missile breaks are more common, give all missiles 50% lock on time.

Because strikes need some help, give strikes 100% more missile ammo

and because torpedoes are often fired from 10k, in addition to 50% lock on time (which means closer to 80% more torps will actually be fired) give them double speed/half travel time to target, which still amounts to a few seconds to hit their missile breaks.

Other then the bonus to strike's ammo, all the changes should be across the board

More missiles in the air, means more missile breaks being blown, means more missiles hitting when there are no MB available

[JasonSzeremi]

Hmm, chassis buff: perma-BO or perma-TT.

The BO would be counter-health, TT would be mostly counter-evasion. Have it run through essentially the same upgrade tree as the active versions. Broken? Maybe a little, but these ships would now be able to kill stuff more effectively. Not having to manage that cooldown would be the perk a strike gets for being slow without distortion field-and we wouldn't have to figure out where to map another active cooldown.

 

I'm probably reaching here but: code this into an additional crew slot.... call it the RIO (Radar Inter Ception Officer) or gunner... and let them put some of those companions to use with an extra ability on them. Since strikes are bigger then scouts but don't use the space for all that electronic gear, perhaps there's room for one more man...

[JasonSzeremi]

I think this is a very good idea, the only problem is finding a way to toggle the system ability in and say activate it with a different key like F or G or z (are we using Z right now?).

 

or... just have f g or z activate a new ability without toggling it in, or the 5 key.... this would make strikes a 5 button fighter

Edited August 31, 2015 by JasonSzeremi
extending

[Danalon]

While reading another thread that recently turned to an EMP discussion, I had an idea.

 

What if there was a strike-only missile with focus on utility/cc. I'm thinking of a combination of other existing missiles.

 

Moderate lockon time (between 1.7-2 seconds), huge firing arc, 7km range, around 12-15 seconds reload time.

 

- deals no hull damage, but huge amount of shield damage (or drains shield energy).

- disables use of target's systems ability

- slows down

 

T1/2/3 talents should be filler talents. Something like shorter lockon, more ammo, higher range, shorter reload or whatever fits best.

 

T4: disables use of shield ability - or - disables use of engine ability

(T4 is a somewhat lame talent but this is the only option I can think of to not give a single missile both effects)

 

T5: adds 3-5km explosion radius, disables mines/drones/turrets, all targets within explosion are affected - or - lockon can't be broken once missile is launched

(I thought of T5 as an option between node-clearing and single target supremacy)

 

I'm indecisive about debuff duration. I was thinking of the debuffs to last 2 seconds longer than the reload time, except for interdiction which lasts 4 seconds shorter than the reload time, so the target has a chance of hiding.

 

 

No idea if that missile would be too strong or still too weak, just wanted to post it before I forget. A downside would be, that strikes will feel forced to use that missile.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Danalon

[Gavin_Kelvar]

While reading another thread that recently turned to an EMP discussion, I had an idea.

 

What if there was a strike-only missile with focus on utility/cc. I'm thinking of a combination of other existing missiles.

 

Moderate lockon time (between 1.7-2 seconds), huge firing arc, 7km range, around 12-15 seconds reload time.

 

- deals no hull damage, but huge amount of shield damage (or drains shield energy).

- disables use of target's systems ability

- slows down

 

T1/2/3 talents should be filler talents. Something like shorter lockon, more ammo, higher range, shorter reload or whatever fits best.

 

T4: disables use of shield ability - or - disables use of engine ability

(T4 is a somewhat lame talent but this is the only option I can think of to not give a single missile both effects)

 

T5: adds 3-5km explosion radius, disables mines/drones/turrets, all targets within explosion are affected - or - lockon can't be broken once missile is launched

(I thought of T5 as an option between node-clearing and single target supremacy)

 

I'm indecisive about debuff duration. I was thinking of the debuffs to last 2 seconds longer than the reload time, except for interdiction which lasts 4 seconds shorter than the reload time, so the target has a chance of hiding.

 

 

No idea if that missile would be too strong or still too weak, just wanted to post it before I forget. A downside would be, that strikes will feel forced to use that missile.

 

The main problem I see is that Ion and EMP would be trap missiles on strikers and would largely remain useless on all the other ships (let's be honest it would be a big buff to T3 scouts too if they had a utility missile that actually was useful and that wouldn't be a bad thing since most of their missile options are pretty lackluster).

 

I'd honestly say though that you'd probably need to give it a much longer range than 7K based on reports of being able to strip a target of it's shields using blasters before the ion missile hits. Ion missile (or your proposed missile) would pack a lot more power if you launched it at say 12K where by the time it hits and has stripped a target's shields you're within HLC range. That would be powerful and worth considering. I do feel though that for the T1/T3 striker you'd need to give it some ability to outright destroy mines/drones since they would be giving up their only source of burst damage for a utility missile. If you're going to make that kind of trade you really need to make it worth their while (this assumes that torps get buffed to be reliable damage dealers; in which case the T3 will really need utility missiles to make a compelling argument for being equipped over thermite torps which have a very powerful debuff).

[JasonSzeremi]

...12-15 seconds reload time.

- deals no hull damage, but huge amount of shield damage (or drains shield energy).

- disables use of target's systems ability

- slows down

T4: disables use of shield ability - or - disables use of engine ability

(T4 is a somewhat lame talent but this is the only option I can think of to not give a single missile both effects)

T5: adds 3-5km explosion radius, disables mines/drones/turrets, all targets within explosion are affected - or - lockon can't be broken once missile is launched

 

I'm not going to say this is a bad idea, I can see you've put some thought into it and heck, just having ideas is a good thing.

the reload time seems high to me. Alot of the utility missiles we have now are used less because they also have high reload times, and that clashes with having abundant missile breaks. Unless it can't be missile broke. This might be a great option if you're a better gunner then I am... often missiles is the only significant damage I do to a target until I can corner/joust them. A T1 fighter with this missile would definitely have to finish with their blasters, or for someone else to finish them.

The no lock-on feature comes very late on your missile, should it be intrinsic to the weapon instead? You could end up with a missile that has the ability to disable engine/shield abilities but who's lock on is broken by them before it hits.

Doing virtually no direct damage is one reason ion missiles (the original ones) are almost never used.

 

If this missile was in the game, I'm sure some pilots would use it, and use it well but I probably wouldn't use it on a T1 or T3 strike, where the missiles are a large part of my damage ability.

Edited September 1, 2015 by JasonSzeremi
shortening quote

[Danalon]

I can see you've put some thought into it and heck, just having ideas is a good thing.

 

It took me more time to write the post than I put into the idea. I really posted it just because it came to my mind. I had an interesting idea a week ago and didn't post because I wanted to refine it; over night I completely forgot the idea and can't even slightly remember what it was. However I think the idea needs to improved, because reading a second time over it, it seems weaker than when writing it down.

 

I can see the problems with the shield damage, however I think the main reason shield damage doesn't work on ion missiles is their long lockon time. Improving range could work there but I fear improving the range beyond 8-9km could make all the debuffs or the T5 too powerful. I can also imagine the missile doing a small amount of direct hull damage to kill mines.

 

A shorter reload is probably a good thing but is has to come with shorter debuff duration. Anyway debuff durations, amount of shield damage, duration of disabling turrets/mines/drones all compared to reload+lockon duration and all in one missile probably needs a lot of fine tuning where a difference of one second can mark the line between useless and overpowered.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Danalon

[ALaggyGrunt]

Ion Missiles are pretty much useless against anything with a lock break. The point of them is to rip of a target's shields so you can finish it with blasters, which means your target has fresh shields-and, usually, lock breaks.

 

If there's any missile which could be made unshakable without being broken, it's that one.

[JasonSzeremi]

Ion Missiles are pretty much useless against anything with a lock break. The point of them is to rip of a target's shields so you can finish it with blasters, which means your target has fresh shields-and, usually, lock breaks.

 

If there's any missile which could be made unshakable without being broken, it's that one.

 

Basically, giving ion missile, or Dan's missile unbreakable lock because.... it needs it?

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I can see the problems with the shield damage, however I think the main reason shield damage doesn't work on ion missiles is their long lockon time. Improving range could work there but I fear improving the range beyond 8-9km could make all the debuffs or the T5 too powerful. I can also imagine the missile doing a small amount of direct hull damage to kill mines.

 

to be fair if we assume that concs and torps are buffed to be more reliable and competitive choices to clusters then really a utility missile like Ion, EMP, or your missile having a range greater than 9km is not likely to make the debuffs game breaking (since all utility missiles will need to have very compelling reasons to take them instead of missile that does direct damage, concs and thermites having debuffs of their own).

[JasonSzeremi]

to be fair if we assume that concs and torps are buffed to be more reliable and competitive choices to clusters then really a utility missile like Ion, EMP, or your missile having a range greater than 9km is not likely to make the debuffs game breaking (since all utility missiles will need to have very compelling reasons to take them instead of missile that does direct damage, concs and thermites having debuffs of their own).

 

what if the only buff is cutting the lock on times in half and doubling the strikes ammo?

[Gavin_Kelvar]

what if the only buff is cutting the lock on times in half and doubling the strikes ammo?

 

Honestly that'd still be a pretty big buff to torps. They'd still have the absurdly long reload time true but they wouldn't be nearly as hard to land in a dogfight and they'd become super useful against bombers that would have a much harder time LOS them (IMO the ttk issue with torps is in no small part due to how easy it is for even a bomber to LOS them, forcing repeated lock on attempts). Even if torps aren't ideal for dogfighting you'd have to make a utility missiles very powerful to make choosing them a compelling enough reason to leave a torp and it's ability to deal with bombers behind.

 

That being said with torps I think they need a minimum base firing arc of 16 to solve the ninja lock loss problem. To me such a thing isn't a buff so much as a bug fix. the firing arc might've been fine on paper but the reality is that it just makes it super vulnerable to ninja lock losses and the seemingly only way to reliably overcome that bug is with a larger firing arc.

 

And the reality is that if they want to make non-clusters viable in dogfights they'll have to solve the double break system. Personally I hope for a DField/cluster nerf tied to small/moderate buffs to heavy missiles. The only other option to make heavy missiles viable is making them nearly as spammable as clusters which only hurts single break ships and makes DField all the more essential (and just a straight nerf to DField/clusters doesn't fix some glaring problems with heavy missiles like ninja lock losses and difficulty landing them on bombers).

[DEATHICIDE]

I think it just needs a little bit more of everything.

+ to power pools, hull and shields.

Make this thing slightly OP for a jack of all trades, then dial it back or kick it up a bit for fine tuning.

 

The guns need to be able to spam without running out of power during those outclassed scout dogfights, and the shields should regenerate faster to compensate further for the bulkiness.

 

The ship that is supposed to be the icon should be the ship that is slightly OP.

A jack of all trades ship that is OP still can't beat a gunship in range, a scout in maneuverability, or a bomber in durability, so buffing this ship across the board would have made sense long ago, imho.

[JasonSzeremi]

I think it just needs a little bit more of everything.

+ to power pools, hull and shields.

Make this thing slightly OP for a jack of all trades, then dial it back or kick it up a bit for fine tuning.

 

The guns need to be able to spam without running out of power during those outclassed scout dogfights, and the shields should regenerate faster to compensate further for the bulkiness.

 

The ship that is supposed to be the icon should be the ship that is slightly OP.

A jack of all trades ship that is OP still can't beat a gunship in range, a scout in maneuverability, or a bomber in durability, so buffing this ship across the board would have made sense long ago, imho.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with your logic, right now I think the strike is the jack of all trades and under powered too boot. making it stronger all around, and especially in it's role... rephrase: it's mission envelope

Then it should be a viable choice for intelligent pilots who don't have a specialized role in mind.... "shooting down other fighters" should be the role of all fighters regardless of chassis, Strikes are supposed to be good at it, even if it becomes a race as to who fires first.... that's the way dogfights are supposed to work.

[tunewalker]

As some know I already take the stance that, some range increase, some engine efficiency increase and DEFINATELY some durability increase would all work wonders for a strike, but that may not be the only way to look at them. This isnt going to have any suggestions just kind of a way I see it and a Way it is with ships.

 

 

 

Some have heard me talk about "threat Range" (the range at which a ship is threatening to you) This is the range that if you see this ship on your scopes you feel in danger for your life. Currently the ships highest up in the meta have a large threat range. Gunships have long range, making a long threat Range, scouts are fast with extremely efficient engines allowing them to close distances fast and often, making their threat Range pretty large as well. Bombers threat Range is dependent on the ship, but in TDM they usually pack a Railgun drone in their pockets so we can safely check that box of "threat range"

 

To find a targets "threat range" we have to take into consideration several factors. 1 is the Ships "effective Range" The "effective Range" of a ship is where it can deal large amounts of burst damage the most reliably. Thus earning Kills the most reliably.

 

For a Gunship this is around 14k- around 8 or 9k It has a long "effective range", giving it a long "threat range" It also is the 2nd slowest ship in the game, though it is compensated for it with its Effective range as It doesnt need to close on targets to dish out its payload.

 

For a Scout The "effective range" is incredibly small, its only around 3k-1k (burst lasers scout here, though if oyu put in quads and pods it probably would be around 4k-2k) which incredibly short Range, but they are also the fastest ship in the game allowing their threat Range to be the cause of their immense speed rather then a direct cause of their weapons.

 

 

For a Strike the "effecitve range" is also really small, as missiles that are not Clusters are not viable weapons the Strike's effective range would be where it can reliably hit with its lasers and still use clusters or around 4.5k-2.5k at best, showing that its "effective range" isnt much better then that of a scouts, if better at all..... to top it off its engine efficiency is not compensated for this lack of range meaning that its current "threat range" is actually fairly abismal. I believe this is part of the problem. Once closed in a Strike can be a deadly ship, because clusters are deadly and Heavies deal pretty good damage, but it takes way to much work to bring these weapons to bear, with not enough reward.

 

You could also look at strengths and weaknesses.

 

 

 

For Scout: Its weakness can be called its incredibly short range and frail body frame, but it is compensated for these weaknesses by having good manuevering and speed to get to these short ranges and fight well in them, and its compensated with its frail body by having high evasion thus avoiding some shots altogether. We can tell these compensations worked because they are in the META.

 

For Gunship: Its Chasis weakness is all over the place, it is 3rd in speed AND Health, defensively this thing is incredibly weak. But it compensates by having immense range allowing it to save its running strength for RUNNING and to deal large amounts of burst damage (damage in a large single chunk). It's the ship that says you dont need a good defense if you have a strong offense, and we can tell this compensation works because it is in the META.

 

 

For Bomber: Again we look at it having the Worst turning rate and speed of any ship as its obvious weakness, further it usually lacks all kinds of missile breaks so staying in LoS with a missile lock ship of any kind for to long is not something it wants. It compensates for both of these weaknesses in a couple ways. One by having a weapon system that allows it to deal damage with out being in LoS, and the other by having the best "health" of any ship. We know this compensation works because its in the META (though personally i think this may be the "weakest" of the meta ships and the most in danger of a fall off as health just doesnt seem as effective as evasion... but this isnt about bombers so)

 

For Strikes: their weakness is incredibly short range, and that's it. But they are not compensated for this in any way. They are the second fastest ship, but with out Scout level Speed and maneuverability, scout level range is not good. They are the second toughest ship with access to only a single missile break, but by having to get people centered on its guns at such close range again with out that speed and maneuverability the health is just a wall that people can AND WILL punch through, and its still SECOND behind the bomber here, so if you want a wall just pick the Bomber as the big wall. This is why people keep talking about making them "into scouts" because their effective range is already basically the same as a scout, and that's the miss step. It has the "average stats" which actually makes it good "stat wise" but it doesnt have the weaponry to take advantage of these stats, unlike the previous ships all of whom have weaponry and tactics that compliment their weaknesses with a strength. Frailty with speed and good close in weapons, Slow and frail with great range, Tough but super slow and no break with damage while LoS. The strike has nothing, but nothing doesnt have to be a weakness, it can be its strength, While Gunships are "Juyo or Djem so users" (victory through superior firepower), and Scouts are "Ataru or Makashi users" (maneuvering for a constant edge) and Bombers are "Soresu users" (tank it out until the enemy makes a mistake and then capitalize) Strikes can be "Shii-cho, or Niman users" (kings of the basics, utilizing a bit of everything to pull out the W,) right now what's really killing them is that effective range, is the fact that their laser range isnt much or any better then the scouts, and that their "Mid and Long range missiles" are both unreliable and inefficient. As a true Jack of all trades, a strike needs to have no weakness, but no strength to exploit either. Currently the "no strength to exploit" is true, but the "no weakness" is not that range and those tracking penalties are killing it hard.

 

But ultimately that isnt the only option left if you can think of a weakness and a compesation for said weakness for the strike that brings it into the meta it will work, but personally the "buffed acrossed the board" needs to first look at weapons. Their "base hull" stats are pretty awesome all around, but their weaponry in no way compliments this, as the effective range isnt much different then the scouts. Making their threat range abysmal.

Edited September 5, 2015 by tunewalker

[JasonSzeremi]

I'm starting to ponder, with all the extra space in the strike fighter that isn't dedicated to a sensor package, or high out put weapons like burst lasers.... might there be room for a chassis auto-self-heal.... just a small one.... think of it like R2 churning away to keep Luke's X-wing intact. Especially since dealing with threats like scouts with burst lasers might require using the co-pilot slot for wing man or other anti-evasion abilities.

If you're not the DPS, or the tank, you might be the heals....

[RickDagles]

But ultimately that isnt the only option left if you can think of a weakness and a compesation for said weakness for the strike that brings it into the meta it will work, but personally the "buffed acrossed the board" needs to first look at weapons. Their "base hull" stats are pretty awesome all around, but their weaponry in no way compliments this, as the effective range isnt much different then the scouts. Making their threat range abysmal.

 

If you look at the T2 Gunship, it seems like the developers thought that proton torpedos were going to be a super powerful and important weapon in the game. Because what else does the T2 Gunship have? It gives up three things that make the T1 Gunship great (ion, DF/evasion, BLC) and gives it HLC and proton torpedos? It just doesn't make any sense. The only way that trade-off makes sense is if proton torpedos are super OP. And if proton torpedos are super OP then suddenly Strikes have a long range threat too. But proton torpedos will never be OP in a game where most of the ships have 2 missile breaks and/or powerdive with 10 second cooldown. And you can't take DF missile break away from scouts because then seeker mines are OP. And you can't take away DF from gunships because cluster missiles become OP. I think maybe the solution is just to leave everything exactly the way it is but make proton torpedos do huge amount of hull damage. I think they should do about 1350 damage. That way they can 2 shot kill any type of bomber, and they can get a 1-shot crit kill on bombers with evasion armor. This would give Strikes a purpose in TDM - breaking up the bomber ball. I think this change would immediately make the T3 Strike something for the opposing team to fear. The T1 and T2 Strike still wouldn't have a purpose in serious games, but at least we could fly one of the Strikes. Also, the T2 GS would have the option to swap to protorps when targetting bombers. It would be a nice option to use while waiting for your blaster power to regenerate.

Edited September 5, 2015 by RickDagles

[tunewalker]

If you look at the T2 Gunship, it seems like the developers thought that proton torpedos were going to be a super powerful and important weapon in the game. Because what else does the T2 Gunship have? It gives up three things that make the T1 Gunship great (ion, DF/evasion, BLC) and gives it HLC and proton torpedos? It just doesn't make any sense. The only way that trade-off makes sense is if proton torpedos are super OP. And if proton torpedos are super OP then suddenly Strikes have a long range threat too. But proton torpedos will never be OP in a game where most of the ships have 2 missile breaks and/or powerdive with 10 second cooldown. And you can't take DF missile break away from scouts because then seeker mines are OP. And you can't take away DF from gunships because cluster missiles become OP. I think maybe the solution is just to leave everything exactly the way it is but make proton torpedos do huge amount of hull damage. I think they should do about 1350 damage. That way they can 2 shot kill any type of bomber, and they can get a 1-shot crit kill on bombers with evasion armor. This would give Strikes a purpose in TDM - breaking up the bomber ball. I think this change would immediately make the T3 Strike something for the opposing team to fear. The T1 and T2 Strike still wouldn't have a purpose in serious games, but at least we could fly one of the Strikes. Also, the T2 GS would have the option to swap to protorps when targetting bombers. It would be a nice option to use while waiting for your blaster power to regenerate.

 

Will note only 1 issue with this, its not complete, just adding damage wont make P. Trops good against bombers, a good bomber will LoS it long before its in the air thanks to the extremely long lock time, allowing any ship that sees the slow moving straight flying strike fighter to come over and tear it a new one, or just blast it with an Ion Railgun and call it a day.

 

 

 

That being said, I wanted to talk more on this subject from another perspective.

 

 

We keep talking META this and META that, when really we should not be talking about a ships Role in the META, but a ships Role PERIOD, what it does that makes people want to fly with it and play with it and what allows it to get INTO that Meta.

 

 

For Scouts, its easy these ships are the fastest and most maneuverable, their kit is all about avoiding damage getting in close and dealing damage better then any one else. This Kit has turned them into the best dogfighter, they are the Interceptor. (no surprise here when the flashfire looks like and A-wing)

 

For gunships its again easy they are the Long range sniper of the game. Their kit allows them to pick off any ship from beyond that ships range, but become more vulnerable at close range where their advantage is taken away. they are what many have called the "Space Artillery" of the game.

 

For Bombers we know their Kit is all about area denial. They deny a zone to any one and are effective at taking anything that comes into their zone out. They turtle up an area and that area becomes super hazzardous to anything that wants to fly through it. They are the "mine field makers" of the game.

 

For Strikes it becomes harder because while they talk about them being the jack of all trades, as many have pointed out in the past, they dont live up this currently. "how can a 'jack of all trades' be a jack with out haveing ANY of the tools of the specialist what so ever, it may not have the best tools, but it still needs a tool with those to be a 'jack of all trades'" This is why a lot of people have started to label it the "heavy fighter", and the like, which is why I decided to look into more "real world" counter parts, and see if any thoughts could be applied to what they SHOULD do in GSF, and this is what I found.

 

A heavy fighter is a fighter aircraft designed to carry heavier weapons or operate at longer ranges. To achieve acceptable performance, most heavy fighters were twin-engined, and many had multi-place crews.

 

The twin-engine heavy fighter was a major design class during the pre-World War II period. Conceived as long-range escort fighters, or heavily armed bomber destroyers,

 

So right here we are looking at 2 things... long range (which they dont have currently they are short range do to their "long range" weapons being ineffective) and bomber destroyers. The article would go on to say, that this was ultimately a failed design to the more maneuverable smaller craft just being straight better, but these fighters largely became night fighters do to their larger size allowing for more radar equipment and the extra crew meant that you had an extra person to spot things with, as well as having better lasting engines thanks to having 2 of them, allowing them to better handle the low light and the bad weather conditions needed for the night fighter.

 

But there are other desciptions that can be looked at for inspiration.

 

An attack aircraft (also called a strike aircraft or attack bomber) is a tactical military aircraft that has a primary role of carrying out airstrikes with greater precision than bombers, and is prepared to encounter strong low-level air defenses while pressing the attack.[1] This class of aircraft is designed mostly for close air support and naval air-to-surface missions, overlapping the tactical bomber mission.

 

This one is a bit harder cus our "bombers" in this game done really bomb, so this is mostly just saying Precise targeted hits against slow moving or Non-moving targets. Which combined with the previous definition to me seems to paint a clearer and clearer picture of what a strike fighter or "heavy fighter is meant for, but lets keep digging.

 

 

A fighter-bomber is a fighter aircraft that is modified or used primarily as a light bomber in the tactical bombing and ground attack roles. It differs from attack aircraft primarily in its origins; attack aircraft are developed for the attack role first and any fighter capability is entirely secondary, whereas fighter-bombers are designed as fighters and then adapted to other roles.[1]

 

This actually flips the switch the other way around, unlike the attack craft the fighter bomber is a fighter first a bomber second, meaning it hits fast moving targets first and slow moving targets as a secondary. This seems to be the closest along side the Heavy fighter to what we have, its just made bad at fighting close in targets, though this could technically be called the Scout, as the Scout is really good at killing strikes and fighting other scouts by virtue of its fighter capabilities but also still really good at closing in on and destroying a non moving target like a gunship....

 

And ultimately where I think the ship got its name sake...

 

In current military parlance, a strike fighter is a multirole combat aircraft designed to operate primarily in the air-to-surface attack role while also incorporating certain performance characteristics of a fighter aircraft. As a category, it is distinct from fighter-bombers. Is a closely related concept with the Interdictor aircraft[citation needed], but it puts more emphasis on air-to-air combat capabilities as a Multirole combat aircraft.

 

And here is where I think it hits the nail on the head, multirole just as before, but the emphasis is clear air to surface, meaning Hard slow moving, or not moving targets are its primary but still has enough focus on air to air fighting to put it where its not an "attack craft". When all this information is combined I am thinking it needs better long range capabilities as the Heavy fighter site suggested so that it can better handle PRECISE attacks against slow moving or not moving targets, while still having the manueverability that it has to keep up in a dog fight with all but the most dedicated dog fighters.