Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[JasonSzeremi]

Considering the current state of the game, I can't think of a good reason why the T1 strike shouldn't be given an armor component. The T2 strike should be given a reactor too.

 

As is, it's not like those changes are going to overpower anything... it could only help (and give people good places to spend requisition)

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Considering the current state of the game, I can't think of a good reason why the T1 strike shouldn't be given an armor component. The T2 strike should be given a reactor too.

 

You'd be giving the T1/T2 the T3's big defensive strength. Which would leave it as a slower, but just as durable, strike with more limited weapon options and it's only unique feature being it's system components. Right now the T3 trades mobility for defense but the proposed change would mean it traded mobility for nothing (sensors don't count as a strength or anywhere close to be worth the loss of thrusters). If it's not going to have a defense advantage compared to other strikes it shouldn't have a mobility disadvantage.

 

Now to be clear I don't think what you're suggesting is necessarily a bad change but you'd need to swap the T3's sensors for thrusters, give it HLC and (maybe) Concs. The latter two weapons I think should probably have been on the T3 regardless as they're kinda key in allowing strikes to fulfill generalist roles (and just because the T3 is a so-called "support" strike doesn't justify making it less able to perform it's class's generalist role; neither HLC or concs would allow it to take the role of dogfighter from the T1/T2 which have components that are better geared to that purpose). Otherwise you risk making the T3 strike a one trick pony like the T3 scout. Which I don't think is a good thing since the entire strike concept is as a multi-role ship.

 

Now in a world where strike components are homogeneous (or nearly so with the exception of QCS, shield projector, clusters, and what their system ability does) the T3 would still likely be the most versatile ship and most meta worthy (as kind of is the case now) but the T1/T2 would also probably be better able to fulfill the "strike" part of their name since they'd have the defenses to engage bombers more easily. You'd also likely find strikes could be piloted based more on personal preference than choosing a strike variant due component options making it stronger than another variant.

[Kinsha]

You'd be giving the T1/T2 the T3's big defensive strength. Which would leave it as a slower, but just as durable, strike with more limited weapon options and it's only unique feature being it's system components. Right now the T3 trades mobility for defense but the proposed change would mean it traded mobility for nothing (sensors don't count as a strength or anywhere close to be worth the loss of thrusters). If it's not going to have a defense advantage compared to other strikes it shouldn't have a mobility disadvantage.

 

Now to be clear I don't think what you're suggesting is necessarily a bad change but you'd need to swap the T3's sensors for thrusters, give it HLC and (maybe) Concs. The latter two weapons I think should probably have been on the T3 regardless as they're kinda key in allowing strikes to fulfill generalist roles (and just because the T3 is a so-called "support" strike doesn't justify making it less able to perform it's class's generalist role; neither HLC or concs would allow it to take the role of dogfighter from the T1/T2 which have components that are better geared to that purpose). Otherwise you risk making the T3 strike a one trick pony like the T3 scout. Which I don't think is a good thing since the entire strike concept is as a multi-role ship.

 

Now in a world where strike components are homogeneous (or nearly so with the exception of QCS, shield projector, clusters, and what their system ability does) the T3 would still likely be the most versatile ship and most meta worthy (as kind of is the case now) but the T1/T2 would also probably be better able to fulfill the "strike" part of their name since they'd have the defenses to engage bombers more easily. You'd also likely find strikes could be piloted based more on personal preference than choosing a strike variant due component options making it stronger than another variant.

 

The systems component, more specifically the repair probes component is what gives the T3 its staying power. Even if the T3 strike was a one trick pony, it's a damn good trick and there's no real way to stop the T3 from using it. As far as it's mobility goes, I've found the T3 strike to be more mobile than any of the other strike builds with the exception of quick charge shield equipped strikes with regen thrusters. It's mostly power dive doing the heavy lifting there in that regard though.

 

I definitely agree that the offensive tools the T3 has should be buffed. I think I once said that concussion missiles should be added and IIRC people worried that would step on the other strikes toes. The same would probably happen with HLC being added to it instead. The reason I favor the concussion missile over the HLC being added would be that the concussion missile gives the T3 strike extended range and firepower every 6 seconds. The HLC gives it all the time. The T3 definitely shouldn't get both though. I know I'd definitely use only the T3 if it had concussion missiles and HLC combined with repair probes and power dive.

[JasonSzeremi]

and if we also gave the T3 strike the components it's missing (thruster?)... would that make them all better multi-role craft? I would probably still fly my T1 strike... but the T3 might be more mobile

[Gavin_Kelvar]

The systems component, more specifically the repair probes component is what gives the T3 its staying power. Even if the T3 strike was a one trick pony, it's a damn good trick and there's no real way to stop the T3 from using it. As far as it's mobility goes, I've found the T3 strike to be more mobile than any of the other strike builds with the exception of quick charge shield equipped strikes with regen thrusters. It's mostly power dive doing the heavy lifting there in that regard though.

 

Personally I think they should give the strikes homogeneity when it comes to engine components. It's kinda silly that the T2 doesn't get retros and all of them having PDive would at least mitigate their lack of a second missile break (meaning the devs could buff missiles without necessarily being totally crippling to strikes that have to rely on 15 second CDs). I'm also of the opinion that the T3 strike should be altered to be considered a "assault strike" rather than "support strike" so I don't think the T1/T2 would become irrelevant if the three were balanced around the T3 taking on that role. That's why I'm more interested in the HLC than concs since HLC fills more of the assault role and concs are more generalist.

[JasonSzeremi]

Personally I think they should give the strikes homogeneity when it comes to engine components. It's kinda silly that the T2 doesn't get retros and all of them having PDive would at least mitigate their lack of a second missile break (meaning the devs could buff missiles without necessarily being totally crippling to strikes that have to rely on 15 second CDs). I'm also of the opinion that the T3 strike should be altered to be considered a "assault strike" rather than "support strike" so I don't think the T1/T2 would become irrelevant if the three were balanced around the T3 taking on that role. That's why I'm more interested in the HLC than concs since HLC fills more of the assault role and concs are more generalist.

 

how insane would it be for strikes to have Shield to Engines? power to weapons is an option for the T1...

[Gavin_Kelvar]

how insane would it be for strikes to have Shield to Engines? power to weapons is an option for the T1...

 

With their current mobility limitations probably pretty balanced actually. They'd have to eat through quite a bit of their own shields to get anywhere and without high evasion they'd have basically weakened their only defense by the time they got there. On the flip side if they didn't cannibalize their shields to get to the fight they'd have pretty strong shields by the time they got there (theoretically stronger than what directionals + large reactor provide).

[Ryuku-sama]

With their current mobility limitations probably pretty balanced actually. They'd have to eat through quite a bit of their own shields to get anywhere and without high evasion they'd have basically weakened their only defense by the time they got there. On the flip side if they didn't cannibalize their shields to get to the fight they'd have pretty strong shields by the time they got there (theoretically stronger than what directionals + large reactor provide).

 

You forgot Turbo Reactor.. Turbo would make it so you'd regenereated your shield before the 6s CD is up. So basicly, as long as you're out of a fight, you'd have infinite engine.. And more shield than any other ship except an Overcharged + Large + crew + active or a double Directionnal.

[SithAceI]

Come on guys almost a thousand posts!

 

JK

 

The fact we have had noooo.... dev responses to this thread is disheartening to say the least. Keep up the good fight! If anyone is interested I have my suggestions buried on one of the first five or so pages.

 

Edit: page 8 to be exact!

Edited December 9, 2015 by SithAceI

[JasonSzeremi]

We used an acronym in the military called : K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid)

First eliminate rapid fire lasers from the game, they are trash can and nobody uses them. Make ions the default first weapon on the Tier one strike fighters. (And whatever the scouts have next in line hehe.)

 

Starguard/Rycer : With what was said above make Ions range 8k, so they mesh with quads and heavies.

Give all strikes a component that makes Ion weapons in-effective (even other strike fighters ions)

Give ALL strike fighter's DF as an option.

 

Pike/Quell : Make all (non-cluster) missile reticules 50% larger so as to make it easier to keep targets in lock.

And what is stated above for tier one strikes. Maybe a little less lock on time on protons.

 

Tier three strike's are pretty good so maybe just the extra options listed above also.

 

I tried to keep this simple and I hope you all will like my suggestions.

 

The ion's will help eliminate all other ship types pretty equally well.

 

Giving strikes the DF option should help the QQing about DF etc. Then everyone has two missile breaks, everybody happy happy happy!

 

The only thing I did not address was mobility, but with ion weapons being in-effective loosing all your engine pool should be a thing of the past. Hell with the ions in-effective and an extra missile break plus larger missile reticules should, even the playing field a bit.

 

There Stike's are fixed lol!

 

All good ideas I think... although I doubt it would fix the strike fighter's lack of killing power. Which hampers it in delivering kills and in surviving dogfights with other fighters. Having DF would just mean strikes are just as hard to lock missiles on as anyone else, making missiles no more effective a secondary weapon. Ok bigger targeting circle means it's easier to get a lock started... but it's also easier to get it broken with more DF users

[Krixarcs]

Strikes? give them all plasma railguns, ion mines, missile sentry drones, ion missiles, and all the other great toys

[JasonSzeremi]

When you think about it from the perspective of a strike fighter pilot:

The longest range fighter is the gunship, barely a fighter at all, it is an artillery unit on the star wars map.

The best defending unit is the bomber, heavily armored but with no bombs to drop, it instead deploys mines drones or torpedoes, even though it's got the most hit points it doesn't need them, it needs to stay out of los of everybody.

The most powerful craft in dog fighting range is... a scout.... a light weight higher maneuverability and higher mobility craft that can blow up anything on the map often without taking any damage in return.

Whats left? Strikes aren't a bad platform, but once everybody else gets the best toys... strikes need the second best toys. If they were second best at range... (10k?) second best at defending (more shield/hull/evasion?) more maneuver and mobility then a bomber or a gunship (more engine juice or less burn during boost?) enough firepower to blow up most anything on the map, while taking some damage in return.

 

It doesn't have to be THE best.... but if they were second best at most everything instead of third or fourth best, the flexibility of taking one would be similar to choosing an X-wing (space superiority fighter) vs an A-wing (scout/dogfighter), a Y-wing(fighter-bomber) or a B-wing(bomber)

[Kinsha]

Strikes? give them all plasma railguns, ion mines, missile sentry drones, ion missiles, and all the other great toys

 

Krixarcs is on the something here. Nerf plasma to 10 km, take it away from gunships and give it to strikes. We'd see plasma railgun being used more often.

[Krixarcs]

Krixarcs is on the something here. Nerf plasma to 10 km, take it away from gunships and give it to strikes. We'd see plasma railgun being used more often.

 

 

Thanks, I thought of it in the car!

[Ramalina]

When you think about it from the perspective of a strike fighter pilot:

The longest range fighter is the gunship, barely a fighter at all, it is an artillery unit on the star wars map.

The best defending unit is the bomber, heavily armored but with no bombs to drop, it instead deploys mines drones or torpedoes, even though it's got the most hit points it doesn't need them, it needs to stay out of los of everybody.

The most powerful craft in dog fighting range is... a scout.... a light weight higher maneuverability and higher mobility craft that can blow up anything on the map often without taking any damage in return.

Whats left? Strikes aren't a bad platform, but once everybody else gets the best toys... strikes need the second best toys. If they were second best at range... (10k?) second best at defending (more shield/hull/evasion?) more maneuver and mobility then a bomber or a gunship (more engine juice or less burn during boost?) enough firepower to blow up most anything on the map, while taking some damage in return.

 

It doesn't have to be THE best.... but if they were second best at most everything instead of third or fourth best, the flexibility of taking one would be similar to choosing an X-wing (space superiority fighter) vs an A-wing (scout/dogfighter), a Y-wing(fighter-bomber) or a B-wing(bomber)

 

Second best at range is a bit unclear due to the primary/secondary divide. For secondaries, you'd need to exceed the 10 to 11.5 that bombers get on railgun drone/proton torpedoes. For primaries, you'd need to exceed 6.9 km on HLCs as found on other classes.

 

Basically 12-13 km for a useful secondary weapon and 8-11 km for HLCs would effectively put strikes in a solid second place for range in practical terms. In addition, the weapons would have to be reasonable to use effectively. Giving strikes 12.5 km on proton torpedoes doesn't do much good, but giving them 11,501 m on Concussion missiles would be pretty potent.

[LordFell]

I'm a bit newer to GSF, although I've flown enough to become decent; I usually fly in the top half of the Score Board.

 

What I remember most about my experience with the default Strike Fighter was how bizarre the notion of swapping my primary guns was. I immediately retired my Rycer, and flew exclusively on the Blackbolt until I earned enough Requisition to buy something new (because I just didn't know about the Intro Quest that gives you 5K until I earned about 5K).

 

To me, the idea of switching blasters for other blasters was pointless, and worse, with only 4 command buttons to use, a 25% reduction of how much stuff you can actually do. And, as other people on the GSF channel have tipped me off to, the only valid reason to have switchable main guns is Ion Cannons for shredding shields, and then Quads (or whichever) to blast the hull. I think it would make more sense that the initial Strike just not have swappable blasters. Actually... I could even see none of the Strikes using swappable blasters -again the only viable option is Ions with a Blaster.

 

I think what I would like to see... if we can't firmly put a Strike Fighter into the role of Second Best at Everything, then give them the Best Options for Everything. Maybe offer a single Strike with swappable blasters. Next, a different Strike that has swappable secondary weapons; how about Thermite Torpedoes matched with Interdiction Mines. Basically... what I'm saying, is make it possible for Strike Fighters to have some of the most bizarre and interesting load-outs in the game. I mean... your Strike with Repair Drones, a Sensor Beacon, and a Missile Sentry is going to be heavily disadvantaged in a Dog Fight, but your team mates are going to love you anyways, because you can set up a moving checkpoint.

 

...but again, your basic Strike should have a load-out tailored to a beginner, and this does NOT mean swapping between two different, but essentially the same blaster weapons.

[ALaggyGrunt]

The whole point of swappable blasters was to have guns with more than one sweet spot: heavies hit things at medium range, rapids at close quarters. The reason the ability isn't very good is simple: there aren't any two weapon choices which go very well together. They either overlap heavily in range (quads/heavies), fail (rapids), or don't work together (ions and anything else).

 

If the default short-range gun were burst lasers (or buffed lights or rapids), that ability wouldn't be a waste of a slot any more.

Edited January 19, 2016 by ALaggyGrunt

[JasonSzeremi]

or... for a more star-wars feel: let strike fighters fire-link their primary weapons like y-wings in the x-wing games

1 might toggle a, b, or fire linked

letting a strike throw all it's blaster energy into a burst with two sets of weapons might make it much more useful

even if their sweet spots are going to be different

 

Not sure if the T2 strike fighter would really benefit from locking two missiles at once although that would be more 'strike' then lobbing 1.... fire linked missiles is also very star wars X-wing games (although usually they are the same type of missile)

[Lendul]

I still say moving the missile break from distortion to quick charge would make for interesting meta pot stirring.

[ALaggyGrunt]

or... for a more star-wars feel: let strike fighters fire-link their primary weapons like y-wings in the x-wing games

1 might toggle a, b, or fire linked

letting a strike throw all it's blaster energy into a burst with two sets of weapons might make it much more useful

even if their sweet spots are going to be different

 

Not sure if the T2 strike fighter would really benefit from locking two missiles at once although that would be more 'strike' then lobbing 1.... fire linked missiles is also very star wars X-wing games (although usually they are the same type of missile)

 

One big problem with that: the correct answer is to always fire-link. If a TIE Fighter screams across your field of view, it's the difference between dinging it (HULL DMG!) and blowing it away. It's the same reason burst lasers are practically that much better than all the other short-range guns.

 

It wouldn't be a choice in a competitive fight so much as an easy-on-newbs switch-unless switching to single-fire mode gave some kind of advantage like an accuracy buff, or more sustained damage.

Edited January 21, 2016 by ALaggyGrunt

[TrinityLyre]

It's true, all of it. The ridiculous damage. The enemy ships cosplaying as strike fighters. The invincibility. They're real.

 

Because there's some people out there that will require this: It is a joke. Calm down. Fly casual.

 

Edited January 22, 2016 by TrinityLyre

[tunewalker]

I would like to take a moment to say... WTH when did Stasie re-sub lol

[JasonSzeremi]

I still say moving the missile break from distortion to quick charge would make for interesting meta pot stirring.

 

the thinnest fastest recharging shields with the missile break? Humm I like your style! You get a missile break but more vuln to burst damage... it seems somewhat fair... does the T2 scout even have quick charge as an option?

[JasonSzeremi]

One big problem with that: the correct answer is to always fire-link. If a TIE Fighter screams across your field of view, it's the difference between dinging it (HULL DMG!) and blowing it away. It's the same reason burst lasers are practically that much better than all the other short-range guns.

 

It wouldn't be a choice in a competitive fight so much as an easy-on-newbs switch-unless switching to single-fire mode gave some kind of advantage like an accuracy buff, or more sustained damage.

 

then the number 1 key could be re-tasked to do something else on the T1 strike as the weapons would all fire-linked

would the T2 strike benefit from the same?

[ALaggyGrunt]

then the number 1 key could be re-tasked to do something else on the T1 strike as the weapons would all fire-linked

would the T2 strike benefit from the same?

 

The T2 strike would be... awkward. The quads are graphically dual-linked (two left fire, two right fire, repeat). LLC and HLC... aren't.

 

... unless you're talking about firing both of the T1 strike's guns at once. That wouldn't work because the point of the two separate guns was versatility. Choose two: range (HLC), cookie-cutter (quads), close-quarters (RFL), close-quarters utility (ion). The two pairs of guns you'd want firing together are rapids and ions, or quads and heavies. And, to conserve power when firing at extreme range, you'd want to be able to turn the quads off, because there's a ~1000m gap between the edge of quad and heavy ranges. Ion/rapid would be point-blank, quad-heavy would be dead-center, and if you mix the guns in any other combination, a strike would need to have its target at both point-blank range and dead-centered in front of it.

 

The Flashfire can fit quick-charge shields. None of the gunships can, though.