Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[Tredayn]

Devs care about GSF? Hurray! \o/

I was barely about losing hope ^^.

 

Devs care about strike fighter! Glory to them ^^.

 

More seriously, although strike fighter are clearly under the other ships, i think it should not be overbalanced. But closing a bit the gap should be great.

Maybe :

- 5% bonus in shield power capacity and 10% shield power regen rate.

- 5% bonus in weapon power capacity and 10% weapon power regen rate. (ex:110->115, 10->11)

- 5% bonus in engine power capacity and 10% engine power regen rate.

- no more health, maybe a little damage reduction bonus.

- Maybe adding some choice in component on each strike fighter to gain in versatility.

- no more turnign rate, or a very little boost, turning rate and mobility should keep being scout mastery.

- Alternatively, in place of an other bonus, a boost on lock-on time. But i will say strike figther mastery will become missiles. It could be fun, but it is a real design choice.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Tredayn

[ALaggyGrunt]

Howdy Flygirls and Flyboys!

 

I’ll be blunt. Strike Fighters need lots of love. The original design is that they are the Jack-of-All and Master-of-None but they have filled out this role too well and because of it are rarely a compelling option. We want to talk about how Strike Fighters can be made into a good option to bring in any match, by any skill level. We have some ideas of what we want to do with them but because this community is always very impressive with communication and feedback we want to get your thoughts on what you think is the best course of action. We know there are some fantastic threads and posts aplenty that already covered this information but we want to consolidate and create a focused discussion.

 

We want to set expectations though. This is just about gathering feedback and creating a focused discussion on which to possibly make changes based off of. Just a heads up and Musco made me say it

 

So! What are your pet peeves about Strike Fighters? If you could only pick one section to buff would you choose to improve their Maneuverability, Secondary Weapons, Primary Weapons or Defense? Or something different? What would make them more effective in both game modes?

 

Looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts!

 

The devs are actually paying attention to GSF? I think the world's about to end.

 

What I'd improve on:

 

Tutorial/New Player Experience. I still see a lot of totally clueless noobs in games unloading rapids at nothing or not knowing how to lock break, and very often putting up literally zero accuracy. I would put that at a higher priority than any current balance issue, because we have a somewhat diverse playable game with a really steep learning curve, which is made a lot steeper because most MMO players don't know the first thing about how to fly in threespace. If this game can't keep the new players it attracts, it dies. It should cover:

How to boost

How to lock a missile

Weapon range and its effects

How to tell if you're in missile or gun range of a target

Tracking penalty effect

Basic evasive flying

How to roll

What a gunship is, and how to deal with it

What a bomber is, what mines are, and how to deal with them

Offensive and defensive cooldowns

How to join the Gsf channel and where the GSF forum is

 

As for strikers:

 

Offense. Everything glowy or splodey the strike can throw at someone is hard countered for about 6 seconds by popping distortion field. Basically everything which flies around in the open has distortion field, and everything which sticks to cover (usually sats), well, sticks to cover. All of the short-range guns and missiles suffer from the strike's boost inefficiency. I hope this covers the why pretty well:

 

First, there are four ways to deal with gunfire, and all guns should have a way to deal with one of the four:

One is to eat the damage with hitpoints.

Another is the damage-reduction mechanism, which means charged plating + deflection armor + damage reduction crew. This mechanism is extremely powerful against stock ships, because very few of them have taken any armor piercing upgrades yet (protorps), but becomes totally worthless once people start taking piercing talents.

A third is the evasion stat. No weapon hard counters this.

The fourth is to just not present a possible shot (range, out of firing cone, LoS). A ship's ability to do this is measured mostly in boost speed and duration. In the case of the higher rate-of-fire weapons, if you force a pursuer to deal with navigational hazards, they have to choose between evading the hazards, and taking a shot at you.

 

As for what the guns mean to these:

 

Rapids are fail. They have poor damage output and require you to be on target for a while, which nobody good will let you do. What's more, they can't snap-shot like BLC can: you have to either fire or fly the ship. All four defense types counter this weapon very effectively.

Light lasers are almost as bad as rapids. On paper, they counter things with a lot of hitpoints. In practice, they require your target to be nearly centered at very short range for a few seconds. Nobody good will let you keep them there.

Ion cannon can rip through shields crazy fast, but are seriously limited by the range and the mobility of the only ship which can fit them-and they limit the choice of missile to clusters.

Laser cannon are slightly less powerful than quads, but they have lower tracking penalty and higher accuracy at extreme range. They're somewhat more newbie friendly than quads, because they can be fired a while longer and are a little more effective at the edge of their range-but pack less punch than quads in almost any real fight.

Quad lasers have decent damage output 4-5km, if they hit. The kill-zone is pretty thin, though: too far is too far, and too close means it's easy for a target to exploit the guns' tracking penalty.

Heavy lasers have low damage output and stiff tracking penalty, but they're relatively accurate all the way out to their max range. They counter damage reduction (tier 4 upgrade). They should be able to ignore some damage reduction totally stock. They are countered by sheer hitpoints and exploiting their tracking penalty.

Burst lasers counter basically everything if you can get them in range. About the only thing which can tank these is overcharged shield + shield power converter with slippery flying.

 

For missiles:

 

Clusters are the reason distortion fields are everywhere. Lots of damage and very fast reload time mean they're spammable. Double volley means they run out ot fast on a scout, but on a striker with munitions capacity extender, you can keep spamming them for a lot longer.

Interdiction missile is really annoying.

 

The type 1 striker was designed to be a gunfighter. It's not very good at this:

Rapids fail. Make them better able to counter one of the defense stats.

Quads are decent, but this ship isn't very good with them: a scout with TT/BO is better with it.

Ions require a lot of boosting and fine range adjustment to keep in optimal range, which strikers are bad at.

Heavies are pretty good against charged plating once they hit tier 4, but the primary place you see these being useful is against charged plating bombers on sats-who will usually LoS them.

If this ship could use burst lasers, it would no longer be a joke in close quarters.

I like the idea of a gun which has an ammo pool instead of energy drain.

I like the idea of a short-range primary with a charge-up mechanic.

 

The other thing is this ship needs either a hull bonus to primary weapon capabilities-or a secondary component no other ship can take which provides a choice between these.

The choices for these components could be:

-Crit chance and multiplier bonus for guns.

-Flat accuracy boost, which would help with all shots taken at something.

-Tracking penalty multiplier. This would make mid/long-range guns able to fire much better at deflection.

-Move the extreme range mark out about 50%. This would do very little for short-range guns because the accuracy at extreme range is so bad-but for heavies, this would mean they would really reach.

 

 

The type 2 striker was meant as a missile boat. It fails at this mostly because of all the missile lock breaks (including line-of-sight), and the very noticeable lock warning while this ship is acquiring a lock. These would make it more dangerous:

Choice of: Suppress the lock warning for at least part of the lock-on time, or faster lock-on times. We could do this with a hull bonus or a component.

Faster reload times for most of its missiles, or move the distortion field lock break to another shield component, or swap distortion field faster cooldown and increased duration talent locations so the break can only be available once every 30 seconds instead of 20-or swap the increased duration and evasion talents, so whatever has distortion field has to choose between evasion and the lock break.

EMP missiles need a dumbfire mode or longer range.

Ion missiles need to lock and reload faster, and be more debilitating.

Concussion missiles need to lock and reload faster. About the only thing they're really good for is lobbing at charged plating bombers.

Torpedoes need to lock faster. All a bomber has to do to LoS those is fly through the fins sticking out of a sat, even if you're sneaky and wait until it comes around the sat-which means it has quite a lot of orbit to go.

Retros would enable this ship to complete a lock while under fire.

 

It needs thermites and interdiction missiles. If it's supposed to be a missile boat, it needs a lot of missiles to choose from.

 

The other thing we could do with it is give some of its missiles special abilities. For instance, gunships have a hard time dealing with bombers which set up in a crack in a sat. If this ship had a powerful slow-moving dumb-fire weapon which could fly through terrain and deal 100% damage to all targets within 10m of the explosion, it would be good for dealing with stationary targets with or without a line of sight: namely, turrets, gunships, or tick bombers.

 

A component in place of the capacitor upgrade (out of place on a missile boat) could offer the choice between:

-Fast lock-on.

-Stealth lock-on for a big part of the lock. The ship's target won't know until it has the lock almost totally completed.

-Missile critical damage chance and multiplier.

-Increased missile range

-Wider missile-locking cone

 

The type 3 striker is pretty good at two things: being tanky and firing infinite protorps. Remote slicing can let this ship disable a target's engine ability right before firing a torpedo, but is available too rarely for that to be useful.

 

Shields:

Part of what makes strikes so weak is they're trivially easy to hit with everything without distortion field.

The only component which gives them acceptable mobility is the quick-charge shield, which makes them very squishy. Increasing boost efficiency on a strike would make these an extreme-endurance option, rather than a must-have option.

Directional shields very much need be able to cycle backwards with shift (or another key) held.

 

Engines:

Type 1 and 2 both need power dive if there are that many missiles flying around.

Type 1 and 2 both need retros for a "keep locking/firing while breaking this missile" option.

Increasing non-boosted speed, acceleration, and turning rate would make these much better able to deal with enemies in close quarters. Boosted speed should stay about the same.

Increasing striker endurance is a must. In order to effectively use close-quarters guns, they have to be able to get to close quarters and stay there-or get out of there if turns bad.

[TRFWesVos]

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

 

Unfortunately, I do not believe there is a single major reason Strike fighters suffer, nor is there a single silver bullet that will fix them. Their inefficacy in the meta is determined just as much by the specialized strengths of the other classes (along with some specific components) as it is determined by the Strike's own chassis and component choices.

 

I'll try to break it out as best I can. I'll use Republic fighter names for simplicity.

 

Strike Offensive Weaknesses

 

Offense.1) No surprise burst damage.

Every single Strike weapon involves sustained warning to your target. Whether it's a stream of Rapids, Quads, or Heavies, or the lock-on tone of a missile, your target always has ample time to respond before taking significant damage.

On the other hand, every other class has at least one way to deliver sudden, untelegraphed damage:

 

NovaDives can combine primary weapons and rocket pods (which, unlike missiles, offer no warning), along with Targeting Telemetry to create not only increased criticals, but criticals that deal increased damage.

 

Flashfires can do the same with Quads + Pods, or they can just use Burst Laser Cannons (which inherently do surprise burst damage). Again, using Targeting Telemetry or Blaster Overcharge further increases the surprise burst damage.

 

All Gunships have Slug Railguns, which by their nature deal a sudden burst of shield-piercing, armor-piercing damage, with no warning except a charge-up glow (if you're looking at the Gunship).

 

Quarrels have Ion Railgun, which deals a sudden burst of high shield-damage (negating the one thing the Strike is "best at") and crippling the target's mobility (which for a Strike is already in trouble). Again, it has no warning except if you happen to be looking toward the charge-up glow.

 

Warcarriers have their three drones, all of which strike without warning: the railgun drone fires just like a railgun, the Interdiction Drone immediately applies its crippling snare (while doing damage), and the missile drone releases a missile with no warned lock-on time. The only warning happens once the missile is already flight. Seeker Mines are the same--there is only a very narrow window in which the target can react to use its missile-break.

 

Minelayer mines deal their damage with no time to react. Seismic Mines bypass shields (again negating the Strike's main strength), and Interdiction Mines immediately cripple victim mobility.

 

All of the above weapons and combinations have the ability to very rapidly kill or cripple a target with little to no warning. Note that none of those combinations involve missiles.

 

The Strike, on the other hand, has no access to Rocket Pods, Railguns, Drones, nor Mines. The Stirke's secondary weapon offense is limited entirely to missiles, all of which offer significant warning to their target. Tragically, it is even deprived of the one burst damage primary weapon in the game. It has always been a mystery why the Star Guard--as the primary weapon specialist--does not have access to Burst Laser Cannons, while Flashfires, Quarrels, and Condors do.

The only way a Strike can deliver significant, lethal damage before giving a target time to react is on a Star Guard with Ion Cannons and Cluster Missiles. In that case, the Star Guard can strip the shields of a target even while locking on with a Cluster Missile. This is a strong combo, but it is very short range and severely limits the Star Guard's component choices--and it still requires landing a missile. For a class based on versatility, there should be more viable offensive options.

 

And the Pike and Clarion are simply hopeless when it comes to delivering surprise burst damage, as they cannot even pull off the Ion Cannon/Cluster Missile trick. All of their offensive potential relies on sustained primary weapon fire while attempting to lock on with missiles.

 

This leads us to the next point:

 

Offense.2) Missiles are Ineffectual

Missiles require the greatest set up time, are bound by both ammo and cooldown, and offer ample warning to their targets. And yet their damage and secondary effects are largely unimpressive compared to other secondary weapons. Cluster Missiles are the exception--when fully upgraded, they do solid damage, require little lock-on time, have a very short cooldown, and have enough ammo capacity so as not to be very restrictive.

 

But by far, the biggest reason Cluster Missiles are effective is because they can be spammed. And if you can spam a missile, then you can drain the target of both their engine maneuver missile break and Distortion Field's missile break.

 

That's the real problem with missiles--there are too few missiles flying around to eat up all of the missile-break's.

One potential solution to this would be to take Distortion Field's missile break away. This would likely go far in balancing the power of Flashfires, but I know there are Quarrel enthusiasts who are concerned such a nerf would hit them too hard (since their only other missile break is the 20-second cooldown Barrel Roll). Personally, I do not share this concern--I fly a Quarrel with Feedback Shield, and missiles are rarely a concern for me.

 

If decreasing the number of missile breaks isn't palatable, then the other option is to increase the number and rate of missiles being fired. One way is to simply reduce lock-on time. I'd suggest doing this, not for Clusters, but for every other missile. Too often, long missile locks are spoiled by lag, which sours players on them (and GSF in general). Shortening lock times across the board (except for Cluster Missiles) is a safe fix that will be good for GSF as a whole..

 

Another interesting question is this: should any missiles have cooldowns at all? Or is lock-on time, warning to target, and ammo limits enough of a check to missile power? I tend to think so. A Strike firing Concussion Missiles (or even the derided Ion Missile!) as fast as he can attain locks would be very threatening and a very strong counter to Evasion, which has long dominated defense. This would be my personal suggestion.

 

This would be a soft nerf to the Pike's very weak advantage to chain fire two missiles consecutively; however, in a world where missiles have no cooldowns, the Pike's ability to spam both long range torpedoes and short-range dogfighting missiles would be make it a force to be reckoned with.

 

This change would buff Strikes, but it would also buff Sledgehammers, Condors, and the misbegotten Comet-breaker. Note that even with this buff, Star Guards and Pikes would still be largely passed over in favor of Sledgehammers and Condors, because a Mine or Railgun is superior to the ability to switch between multiple lasers or missiles.

 

So if you decided "no cooldown on missiles" was the one fix you're going to make, then make it inherent and exclusive to the Strike chassis. Then, at least, they would have a unique capability that might let them edge out Sledgehammers and Condors. I would also recommend giving Clusters (for everyone else) a longer cooldown, to prevent Flashfires from spamming them, and to re-emphasize "spammable missiles" as a unique Strike perk.

Offense.3) Switchable weapons (that aren't Railguns) is not a great #1 system ability.

In judging the value of a "switch weapon" ability, you have to consider how it compares with other #1 abilities. In particular, ask yourself, "If I could trade this ability for a mine, drone, Targeting Telemetry, or Blaster Overcharge?" For Star Guards and Pikes, the answer is "Yes, I'd give away weapon switching for one of those system abilities." For the Clarion, it is a tougher call, as Repair Probes is a solid system ability.

 

There are five ships in the game that can switch between two different weapons with the #1 key:

Star Guard (two different primary weapons)

Pike (two different secondary weapons, all of which are missiles or torpedoes)

Quarrel (two different railguns)

Comet-breaker (two different secondary weapons, all of which are torpedoes or railguns)

Condor (two different secondary weapons, all of which are missiles or railguns)

 

I think there is general agreement that of the above list, only two are worth a #1 system ability slot:

Quarrel -- but only with Ion Railgun and Slug Railgun, which complement each other so well. Switching between Plasma and Slug is of no value, as those weapons do not synergize.

Condor - since a Slug Railgun is a great, universal long-range weapon, and Cluster Missiles are a solid short-range weapon that combine well with Burst Laser Cannons

 

The Star Guard's ability to switch between primary weapons would be more valuable if it had a better set of primary weapons to switch between. Heavy Laser Cannons and Quad Cannons are great long-range weapons, but what's missing is a strong short-range weapon--namely Burst Laser Cannons, but even Light Laser Cannons. Unfortunately, Rapid Laser Cannons are just altogether underpowered and nigh-useless.

 

Unfortunately, due to the aforementioned weakness of missiles, the Pike has even further to go. The first step would be giving it access to the solid Interdiction Missile and Rocket Pods (!!! -- yes, Rocket Pods on a Strike--they would give the Pike stronger jousting skills and tons of flexibility).

 

As for the Clarion, the one Strike without a "switch weapon" system ability, its utility is solely defined by Repair Probes. Combat Command and Remote Slicing are largely ignored, the former because of its extreme cooldown, and the latter because of its underwhelming effects (and still long cooldown).

 

 

Strike Mobility Weaknesses

 

Mobility.1) Strikes are often out of engine energy.

It costs a Strike just as much engine energy to engage and sustain afterburners as it does a Bomber or Gunship. That's not only silly, but lethal given the Strike's role. Unlike a Bomber or Gunship, which--once in position, can fulfill their roles while relatively stationary--a Strike needs to boost both to get where it's going and subsequently keep boosting while fighting. In particular, it needs to keep intermittently boosting to keep enemies at optimal range (close enough to hit, but far enough to keep centered).

 

As it stands, Strikes have to spend all of their energy getting where they are going, with nothing left to actually fight and maneuver with.

 

Strike afterburner activation and sustain cost needs to be higher than Gunships and Bombers for sure--I would even say it should be equal with Scouts--especially considering that Strike base speed will still be lower.

 

But even this would not solve the problem, since ...

 

Mobility.2) Ion Railguns are ruinous to Strikes.

Strikes are uniquely disadvantaged by Ion Railgun. Lacking the Evasion afforded Scouts with Distortion Field, Strikes are easy for an Ion Railgun to hit. And when that hit comes, the Strike (which is probably already almost out of energy) is robbed of whatever engine energy it had left. It can't use Barrel Roll. It can't use afterburner. It is literally dead in space, with no chance of getting to cover, let alone presenting a threat to the Gunship which shot it.

 

Compare this to what happens with an Ion Railgun hitting other ships. When an Ion Railgun hits a Bomber (which is probably sitting on a full tank of gas), the Bomber shrugs and lurches behind nearby cover. When an Ion Railgun hits another Gunship, that Gunship has usually lost its duel, but has enough gas left to seek cover. Plus, it had a fair and even chance to win. When an Ion Railgun hits a Scout without Distortion Field, that Scout is usually either running Shield-to-Engine Converter or Power Dive, either of which can be used to get it to cover.

 

This is true of any ship with Power Dive, in fact, and so the Clarion is in a much better state against Ion Railguns than its two classic Strike siblings.

 

I believe the optimal solution here is to alter Ion Railgun, such that its draining effects are reduced depending on the target's available shields on the arc that was struck.

 

A fully charged Ion railgun does 1850 shield damage. A Strike's base shield is 1800/arc. I'd propose that, an Ion Railgun's energy drain effect should be related to how much damage it did beyond the victim's shields--this would replace its pitiful hull damage. The more damage that was leftover after the shields were brought down, the more energy drain. But if the Ion Railgun doesn't eat through the full arc of shields, then there should be no energy drain at all.

 

Not only would this offer extra protection to Strikes, which have inherently high shields, but it would buff all the high-capacity shields, and potentially sway the meta away from Distortion Field a smidge.

Mobility.3) Inability to dogfight at short range.

Strikes have stronger turning speed than Gunships and Bombers, but it is still significantly lesser than Scouts. Combined with the lack of Burst Laser Cannons, this dooms the Strike to lose any dogfight against a Scout--or even a Quarrel or Condor with Burst Laser Cannons.

Even a Quarrel, as slow as it turns, can clean up Strikes under a satellite quite easily, using Burst Laser Cannons. The Condor, which can get more turning speed and Cluster Missiles, can do so even better.

 

Ultimately, a huge problem in the game is that Rapid Laser Cannons and Light Laser Cannons are just woefully ineffective against a target that is moving quickly, or getting frequent breaks of cover--which is pretty much the name of the game under a satellite in Domination. The Strike does not have the tools (namely Burst Laser Cannons) to play that game well.

Giving Strikes Burst Laser Cannons would help here, but they are still going to lose to Scouts, who have superior turning, Evasion, and offensive cooldowns. This means that a Strike has very little chance of ousting a Scout off a node, and no chance of beating a Scout who closes on it, even in open space.

 

This is perhaps the hardest to solve. I suggest giving the Strike superior turning speed compared to the Scout. From a lore perspective, it makes sense that a space superiority fighter could turn faster than a speedy scouting craft. Plus the Scout would still have the speed and Evasion advantage, as well as its offensive cooldowns. But the Strike could claim definitively that it is the best "dogfighter".

 

Strike Defensive Weakness

 

Defense.1) There is but one Defense, and its name is Evasion.

The Strike chassis trades 5% Evasion away to get 5% Damage Reduction in return. It trades away access to Distortion Field to get Charged Plating. These are just simply bad trades, because Damage Reduction is largely useless. Not only does Damage Reduction not reduce damage to your shields, but it also does nothing to reduce the magnitude of harmful effects like snares. Worst of all, there are too many weapons with 100% Armor Piercing, which completely negate your component choice.

 

And let's not even talk about offering Charged Plating on a starter ship that doesn't have an Armor component to stack with, which is the most horrendous newbie trap in the game.

 

Evasion, on the other hand, has nothing but upside. It reduces damage taken to both your shields and hull. It saves you entirely from detrimental draining or snaring effects. One might think missiles are supposed to be the anti-Evasion weapon, but Distortion Field is the one shield in the game to offer a missile break. And there is no ubiquitous weapon upgrade that says "Ignores Evasion 100%", as there is with Armor Piercing.

 

The solution here is not to give Strikes Distortion Field or more Evasion. The solution is to make other choices viable, and to nerf the overall effectiveness of Evasion if necessary. Not only does Evasion create a Scout hegemony, but it needlessly confuses and frustrates new players. They aim at a target, dead center, shoot at it ... and nothing happens. It makes GSF look amateur and laggy and broken.

100% Armor Piercing should be reserved for very special, very hard-to-hit-with components. Personally, I think only Proton Torpedo should have it. Slug Railgun's armor piercing magnitude should be based on the range to target. Shooting at 15km? No armor-piercing. Shooting at 3km? 100%. Shooting at 10km? Maybe 40%.

 

All other weapons which currently have Armor Piercing of 100% should have it reduced to 20 or 30%, I think. If someone elects to build for Damage Reduction, they need to get something out of it, even against armor-piercing weapons.

This change, however, would necessitate a reduction in Charged Plating's magnitude and/or duration.

Conclusion

 

By no means am I presenting the above ideas as the only solutions--or frankly as the only problems Strikes have. As I said, it's a complicated, multi-faceted problem. As far as Strikes can be fixed without touching other ships, great. But I do believe that at least some small adjustments will be needed... to Burst Laser Cannons, to Distortion Field, to Slug and Ion Railgun ... in order for Strikes to carve out a lasting place.

 

Thank you again for finally stopping by, Alex. I hope this can continue to be a 2-way conversation.

 

This. Definitely this.

[Yomitako]

I completely agree with Nemarus' post (I didn't even care that it was long-winded). A lot of really good details and suggestions that I hope the devs take into serious consideration, and try and breathe life back into GSF.

[tunewalker]

Yes, it will help you by allowing you to do at least 1108 more damage more than you would have.

 

 

 

Agree to disagree then. Because in the current state, thermites don't work against good players. You are right that the rocket pods can fill a similar role to the concussion missile. And rocket pods would be really cool on a Clarion/Imperium too, but then it is one step closer to a Scout.

 

 

 

 

True it fails at being a good support ship as intended. But as it stands it is a damn good tank ship with the ability to occasionally help teammates. If you want to enhance the support aspects then there needs to be huge buffs to the range of repair probes and several buffs to shield projector.

 

 

 

 

The problem is that there are only 3 roles in the game. One, shoot stuff from far away. Two, area denial. Three, close range fighter. I think in order to add another role, you need to add 2 roles. And that was what the plan was initially (stealth ships). I dunno maybe give Targetting Telemetry to Strikes and let them counter Stealth ships and then Scouts can use Blaster Overcharge.

 

 

 

IMO Directionals are vastly superior because 1 repair probe heals the damage done by 1 seismic mine, and I'm not constantly running into seismic mines.

 

 

 

 

The Clarion is 33% faster than the Warcarrier, that's a staggering difference. When would you ever attack a Gunship with a Bomber head on? The Sledgehammer is a much better comparison, but you wouldn't pick overcharged shields on that, you'd also pick directionals for the instant shield regeneration (switch the injured shields to the uninjured side and there's no regen delay).

 

 

 

 

I'm just saying you have the ability to take a face shot with both shields forward if the situation calls for it. Arguing about the usefulness of directional shields is an entirely new tangent I don't want to go on.

 

 

 

 

Yes, that build sucks hard. What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?

 

 

Ok A T1 strike can have nearly the same amount of health, and moves better then the clarion thanks to thrusters... it has those vaunted Concussion missiles. It has something BETTER then Quads for taking out bombers in Heavy lasers. Are defenses its only problem? HELL NO its offensive strength is terrible and one of the worst in the game. Clearly Concussion missiles do JACK SQUAT to fix that. Serious Concussion missile are BAD, I dont know how to explain it to you beyond that. Go use them, watch them get dodged repeatedly, then FINALLY land 1 and watch it not really do anything of consequence. If its not cluster its bad.

 

 

33% slower (which isnt that much slower honestly) with the SAME boost efficiency (so not REALLY 33% slower), with the ability to fire while not in LoS thanks to drones AND technically being able to take an entire extra Railgun hit over it. Seems reasonable comparison to me.

 

To answer your final question. We are discussing strikes, that is a valid strike build as it is intended to trade SOME defense for a little extra speed (engine efficiency close to the vaunted scout) and it leaves said strike with such a gaping defensive weakness that quite litterally the ship known as the "heavy fighter" the one that has the best base shields in the game, is probably defensibly the worst ship in the game.

 

 

 

For the question a little further down of "jack of all trades" a Jack of all trades does not need to use other peoples specialization in a game like this, it just needs to be able to counter ANYTHING brought its way with the proper load out. If it loads itself out right, it should counter Scouts, if it builds itself right it should counter Bombers, if it builds itself right it should counter gunships, and finally if it builds itself right it should counter strikes. Now it doesnt need to do ALL of this at the same time, but it needs to do it. Currently it counters nothing and is countered by everything. It is the Master of None, not the Jack of all.

[Tredayn]

Nice post Nemarus!

[ThrakhathSpawn]

I am quite happy with my strike fighters, and have all three types unlocked on my main GSF toon and on my tab.

 

If I wanted them to have some form of viable edge, it would be reduced power drain from draining ion weapons.

 

The base strike fighter, feels like it needs access to some form of primary laser cannon that none of the other ships get.

Edited May 29, 2015 by ThrakhathSpawn

[tunewalker]

So i had a thought after Reading verain's post and a couple bellow.

 

 

Replace Weapon power converter with. Emergency power boost. It would be an engine ability that maybe its last upgrade had a missile break, but what its baseline would be would to instantly give like 50 or so Engine power as a kind of "Anti-ion" "OH crap get me out of here" Dont know how well that would work, but it might be interesting to try for a couple days before I realized I just became super vulnerable to scouts and their cluster missiles.....

[tunewalker]

Another note on this "reduce lock times and reload times of missiles" that every one is talking about.

 

I want to remind every one that Barrel Roll nerf was, as far as I know, SUPPOSE to help strikes and weaken gunships. Because strikes had been using it for mobility and the Type 2 was using the fact that every one thought they were safe from missiles after it, the actual effect was strikes were some what hurt by it. The type 2 more then any other ship, even the gunship as opponents were now picking the disto break and to top it all off, the T2 had its legs litterally cut out from under it.

 

I say this because it appears no one has put this little factoid together. If you design dog fighting missiles to be able to get through 2 missile breaks consistantly..... what happens when those missiles are turned on the strike that only has 1 missile break. Are we going to see a world where strikes are best at killing strikes and ok at killing everything else and everything still kills them good? Is that the goal here?

[Trevor_the_Bruce]

I love playing the T1 Strike fighter, but feel that Bombers are a pain to deal with because my ion cannons only have so much range and that range is short enough to be within the range of their darn mines they pop out all the time. If the Strikes could get a passive boost or a dcd against dmg from mines then I think they'd do better at taking down bombers. Right now the gunships are the only good option for fighting against bombers. I think if the Strike fighers had an even better defense vs the mines they'd make a bigger impact. And maybe to help vs Gunships, they could have a ability that increases their dmg reduction vs dmg from further than X distance away. Gunships wouldn't then be blasting you before you can even get to them.

[Verain]

I want to remind every one that Barrel Roll nerf was, as far as I know, SUPPOSE to help strikes and weaken gunships.

 

This was assuredly never ever stated. There was a dev post to the effect of, 'barrel roll is giving too much map mobility', and some comment about reducing missile break quantity.

 

The amount of class whining that is snuck in here is pretty telling. The patch that nerfed barrel roll also nerfed k-turn, snap turn, and retro thrusters. I guess that was to hurt gunships too, eh? Those changes were clearly related to each other.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm generally disappointed that the moment a dev steps up and asks how to buff strikes, a lot of you have walked in and asked for nerfs to the other classes. Ion railgun doesn't need to get crapped all over, no matter what color you ask for it in. Putting the top turning on strikes would absolutely give them a role, but is that how we really want strikes to be fixed? If the devs are willing to buff strikes, lets assume that they can do multiple knobs at once, and also that they probably don't want to give the best turn fight thing to the strikes. I think the sneakiest nerf request comes from Nemarus, who mentions that he doesn't even use distortion on his gunship, and therefore that distortion should be nerfed (because he wouldn't notice it). On super serious I have never seen him gunship up, and even if that's an effect of his Bastion alt, I can say that even on his native Ebon Hawk, if I'm on the enemy team, I cannot recall ever seen him select a gunship.

 

I am absolutely certain that if the dev team wanted to get "nerf gunship waah" as feedback, they wouldn't need to make a dev post. The topic name is "Lets talk about Strike Fighters". That you can't even hold back from class bashing is pretty lame.

 

 

 

 

Strikes need to be buffed, and it is excellent that the dev team is looking into it. Please don't turn the only dev post in around a year into a platform to whine about the other three class types. You crap up all my threads with that junk, don't do it here too.

[Veeland]

Ok guys let me add my two cents to the discussion.

 

I'm no expert at GSF, so my experiences could be common for any fairly inexperienced Strike Fighter pilot flying T1 SFs.

 

1. As soon as I boost out to reach my target, and fly about 20000 distance, I'm out of engine power. I need all the engine power (and the appropriate upgrades) I can get on my ship to be able to reach a satellite or a fighting line (mid), and then I'm exhausted and cannot fight back any immediate attackers until I rebuild my engine power.

 

2. While pursuing an enemy I tend to choose other SFs, satellite defenses, mines, drones because they are the only easy (slow, immobile or squishy) targets. Gunships shoot me (or disable with Ion gun) usually before I get to a proper distance (or they fly away and I don't have the engine power needed to go after them). Scouts outmaneuver me, and the only chance to kill them is Cluster missile spam. As soon as they realize they are under attack, and manage to boost away, I'm usually forced to seek out another target. So choosing a target that is already after someone else is a way to maximize my chances that the victim will be distracted enough for me to have a chance of succeeding. Against bombers, even if I fire successfully shot after shot, I usually run out of weapon power until I destroy the bomber. Often, my attack is broken because I realize I became someone else's target: a gunship shot, a lock-on sound, a sudden loss of air pressure in the cockpit is usually a good sign I should take my leave and seek shelter (or prepare for respawn).

 

3. My best weapons are Heavy Laser Cannon and Cluster Missiles with the increased magazine. Other options are rather useless. I would need faster turning to be able to dogfight better, but I have to give up turning engines for more engine power. The latter at least allows me to reach a satellite and win it for a short moment when it is unguarded. If the satellite is under attack by the enemy it's usually a lost cause - then I try to fight the defenses, possible immobile targets, for which I can temporarily give up engine power for the weapon boost (F1/F3 switch). Because I lose weapon power too fast to be able to hold ground in a prolonged blaster fight.

 

I would welcome more engine and weapon power as a basic improvement in addition to making other missile or weapon options a viable choice. I don't think that primary weapons need an upgrade on their own. But missiles do. Maybe missiles should generally ignore evasion once locked on target, that would help all missile users, and it would make other defense options (armor upgrades) more viable. If evasion were a countermeasure against blasters and damage reduction a countermeasure against missiles, then the health upgrade would work against both weapon types and neither would be overpowered.

 

Cheers

[tunewalker]

This was assuredly never ever stated. There was a dev post to the effect of, 'barrel roll is giving too much map mobility', and some comment about reducing missile break quantity.

 

The amount of class whining that is snuck in here is pretty telling. The patch that nerfed barrel roll also nerfed k-turn, snap turn, and retro thrusters. I guess that was to hurt gunships too, eh? Those changes were clearly related to each other.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm generally disappointed that the moment a dev steps up and asks how to buff strikes, a lot of you have walked in and asked for nerfs to the other classes. Ion railgun doesn't need to get crapped all over, no matter what color you ask for it in. Putting the top turning on strikes would absolutely give them a role, but is that how we really want strikes to be fixed? If the devs are willing to buff strikes, lets assume that they can do multiple knobs at once, and also that they probably don't want to give the best turn fight thing to the strikes. I think the sneakiest nerf request comes from Nemarus, who mentions that he doesn't even use distortion on his gunship, and therefore that distortion should be nerfed (because he wouldn't notice it). On super serious I have never seen him gunship up, and even if that's an effect of his Bastion alt, I can say that even on his native Ebon Hawk, if I'm on the enemy team, I cannot recall ever seen him select a gunship.

 

I am absolutely certain that if the dev team wanted to get "nerf gunship waah" as feedback, they wouldn't need to make a dev post. The topic name is "Lets talk about Strike Fighters". That you can't even hold back from class bashing is pretty lame.

 

 

 

 

Strikes need to be buffed, and it is excellent that the dev team is looking into it. Please don't turn the only dev post in around a year into a platform to whine about the other three class types. You crap up all my threads with that junk, don't do it here too.

 

That's why I put "as far as I know" which goes to show how much I know , but still Barrel roll was the only one giving map mobility the other ones that you mentioned was to "help missiles become more reliable" which many (including myself) assumed that the ship like the Pike would have gotten better, but it got worse. That's all I am saying with that post Verain. When people make suggestions of "buff this or that" make sure that buff isnt going to put the one ship we are trying to buff further in the can.

 

I completely agree with your post if they could find some miracule cure button that fixes strikes with out touching anything else. That allows them to specialize into killing any target they choose. Do it, but honestly I dont think there is anything that CAN fix strikes at this point.

 

Honestly this is my ideal strike world to a bit more clearity.

 

T1 Strike able to specialize to kill any of the 4 ship types in game with a selection of a Primary and a secondary. Able to swap a primary that is specialized to kill something else (Basically it would be built to hard counter something, while either A soft countering another, or B not being helpless against that thing with a swap of primaries) or provide team utility.

 

T2 Strike Able to specialize to kill any of the 4 ship types in the game with a selection of Primary and Secondary. Able to swap Secondary that is specialized in killing something else, or provides team utility.

 

T3 Strike Able to specialize to kill any of the 4 ship types in game with a selection of Primary and Secondary. Provides team utility with Systems ability.

Edited May 29, 2015 by tunewalker

[Sylvidre]

I agree with most of what has been said before concerning strikers. I don't claim to be a GSF specialist (still have a lot to learn in terms of ships builds), however I play GSF a lot (well, as much as I can depending on my server, and its GSF pilots...)

 

I still play my FT-1 Rycer with some of my rerolls (waiting for my S-13 to grow stronger ^^), and it is really a nice ship to play (I use ion / quad and concussion missile). I don't agree on the fact that its double primary weapon is useless. However the range of the ion is really tight compared to the quad' and moreover having to get very close to the target to hit with the ion gun, the lack of maneuverability is really a great weakness (not mentionnig the fact that using my build, the only way to be productive is locking missile while shooting with ion to finish your target... and its lock time is really long when you are so close of your ennemy << have to use retro to counterbalance...). It is true that its a little bit weird that strikers have no BLC available, however, thinking twice what is really weird is that a Gunship has access to it , and not a striker (the fact that S-13 has BLC is on the other hand is not that weird, as this ship can be one/two shot by a gunship).

 

I have a lot of difficulty flying the FT-2 striker (which should be bombers' Nemesis) as it needs to launch 2 missiles (with a rather long lock time) to erradicate bombers' drones. A gunship can "oneshot" a drone form 15 Km, why FT-2 missile can't have (at least) a chance to "oneshot" the drones in an small area with one missile ? (of course the good idea would be to team with another FT-2 striker or a SC-4 scout, however when you are on a French server, thinking about making a regular team for GSF is a beautiful utopia).

 

(never flew the T-3 striker, nothing to say about it)

 

Modifying the strikers enabling them to be the bomber's Nemesis (FT-1 really damaging the bomber and FT-2 really damaging the drones) would be a plus, as it would also counterbalance the tendency of some players to do teams "bombers/gunships" only (last week we were often fighting bombers+ 2 gunships teams << this is SO boring) . Of course there are already gunships to strike hard on the bombers, however on my server bombers have taken the (bad) habit to hide in tiny holes, making them nearly impossible to kill except from close range. If the FT-2 could have a chance to oneshot their drones and FT-1 had the potential to harm them enough, I think this new habit would vanish quickly (and really it should, have you any idea how dull a match can be when half of your opponents is hidding in holes, not even trying to take part in the fight ?). And, why not, giving the FT-3 the possibility to disable the bombers drones, for some seconds ? As a support ship, this would be logical. Last but not least, the strikers should have greater engine capacity.

 

Some people could answer that what I propose would be unfair for bombers... I don't think so, because taken alone none of the strikers would be able to "oneshot" a bomber. Two strikers on a bomber, on the other hand, would make his life rather difficult (as two gunships covering each other can be deadly if they know their job, for example).

 

(I hope that me text is understandable, the more I typed it, the more I realized that my english writting skills have really decreased )

Edited May 29, 2015 by Sylvidre

[Nemarus]

I just re-read this entire thread and there are some great ideas out there. I think Nemarus' "rainbow" post hits the nail on the head and it should speak for the community. I do have some minor disagreements (listed below) but otherwise I think it's very very solid.

 

PLEASE do not take away Distortion Field missile break. The game was very unbalanced back when the glitches caused the DF break to be removed. I think one of the main problem with losing the break is that, in deathmatch, seeker mine/railgun drone combo (and therefore gs-bomberball) becomes too strong. Instead of tunneling a gunship or bomber and popping DF to deal with a seeker, I had to take a less efficient attack path. Or even worse, if the bomber timed a seeker mine drop properly then I'd have to peel from my attack entirely. Not good for meta balance.

 

Also, in domination mode I think it's important for Scouts to have the DF missile break so that they can tunnel Ramparts while briefly ignoring everything else. Otherwise the Rampart bomber becomes a little safer in its nest and therefore the balance starts to get out of whack. As it is, stacking Ramparts with hyperspace beacon cycling might be slightly overpowered, so don't make it harder for Scouts to burst them. Yes yes I know Scouts aren't supposed to counter Bombers. But hey, the game is great the way it is, don't meddle too much with what's not broken.

 

 

I sympathize with these points, and I agree that we don't want to make Bomber fortification any stronger. That being said, it is hard for a Strike to be worth playing so long as a Scout can "tunnel" in order to take on 2-3 entrenched opponents solo.

 

The Strike can only tunnel via face-tanking with shields, and its offense is not bursty enough to kill anyone before those shields fail.

 

Scouts can shield-tunnel too, by the way. I use Directional on my Domination Flashfire, and I can eat 2 Seeker Mines without taking hull damage, and recharge enough shields (via Turbo Reactor) to also absorb a third. And I still have TT, BO, and Rocket Pods in order to burst down the Rampart before I have to flee. Which the Strike will never have.

 

So even if Distortion Field did lose the missile break, the Scout would remain the superior drill to break through a Bomber and/or Gunship formation.

 

I think what we're starting to confirm here is that, more than anything, the Strike just needs a massive offensive buff. Which leads me to my next reply...

[Nemarus]

Allow the T1 Strike to fire both primaries together, and both primaries can be the same type or different types, and the rate of fire is not halved (but the blaster power pool is depleted twice as quickly). Press 1 to cycle between heavy/ion/heavy+ion or heavy/double-heavy, etc. Allow the T2 Strike to fire both secondaries together. The effects are easy to evaluate--just watch any video where a Strike picks up a Damage Overcharge, but imagine double the blaster power consumption.

 

 

When you mentioned a Strike with Damage Overcharge, it got me thinking ...

 

Damage Overcharge is when a Strike feels right.

 

Its weapons do not instantly kill, but they kill quickly enough that any target needs to get out of the Strike's arc fast or it's going to die. Missiles and torpedoes with Damage Overcharge finally feel worth all the trouble it takes to land them.

 

That makes me wonder--is there actually a silver bullet here? A single, uncomplicated fix that will do the job and leave all other classes unchanged?

 

This will sound crazy, but consider it: Give Strikes perpetual Damage Overcharge.

 

Before you balk, just think about it a bit.

 

It makes lore sense. Strikes are meant to be offensive powerhouses.

 

It gives Strikes a strong, unique identity. If you get in front of one and it gets you centered, you're going to melt.

 

If, despite your plethora of cover, missile breaks, and lag protection, you let a Strike land a Concussion Missile or Torpedo on you, you're going to get hurt really bad.

 

If you're guarding a node and see a Strike incoming, your first thought isn't, "Good, our first catch of the day."

Instead, if you're a Scout, your thought is, "I need to use my superior mobility to flank and get behind it."

 

If you're a Gunship, your thought is, "I need to Ion Railgun this thing before it gets in range."

 

If you're a Bomber, your thought is "I need support. --> [Ops] Strike approaching C."

 

And if two Strikes approach your node and you're alone, you're likely going to die (this simply isn't true right now).

 

In Deathmatch, Strikes become priority targets, just like Gunships. Leave them unharassed and they will chew up your team.

 

The starter Star Guard, with Rapids, Heavies, and Concussion Missiles would be a solid, threatening craft with strong distinction from the starter NovaDive.

 

Best of all, the rest of the classes remain unchanged. A powerful new kid on the block has shown up, but Scouts, Gunships, and Bombers are still all able to perform their current roles.

 

And it's dead simple to implement ... and dead simple to revert if it turns out broken.

 

The one open question--can Strikes still get the Damage Overcharge Powerup? Sure. Though it should add another base 100% bonus damage, so that the Strike is doing triple damage. This is how Damage Overcharge was before. It shouldn't double the doubling the Strike would inherently enjoy.

 

I'm honestly curious to hear feedback from the rest of the aces on this. It's certainly not the most elegant fix, and it still leaves some mess on the floor (Star Guard Charged Plating, crappiness of Rapids and Missiles for everyone else, etc.). But in terms giving Strikes a defined role without messing with anyone else, I think it gets the job done well enough.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Nemarus

[Tredayn]

isn't it a little too powerful?

[tommmsunb]

I really don't agree with a perpetual damage overcharge being necessary Nemarus. I feel like that would be definitely overtuning it. I think the best solution proposed so far is the range increase by 30-50%. 10km ion/heavy range would definitely bring strikes into line with everything else. Permanent damage overcharge would mean that if they did get damage overcharge you'd 1-shot just about everything. As it stands you'd nearly one-shot gunships and scouts like that which I think would just add to noob discontent too much.

[tommmsunb]

This was assuredly never ever stated. There was a dev post to the effect of, 'barrel roll is giving too much map mobility', and some comment about reducing missile break quantity.

 

The amount of class whining that is snuck in here is pretty telling. The patch that nerfed barrel roll also nerfed k-turn, snap turn, and retro thrusters. I guess that was to hurt gunships too, eh? Those changes were clearly related to each other.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm generally disappointed that the moment a dev steps up and asks how to buff strikes, a lot of you have walked in and asked for nerfs to the other classes. Ion railgun doesn't need to get crapped all over, no matter what color you ask for it in. Putting the top turning on strikes would absolutely give them a role, but is that how we really want strikes to be fixed? If the devs are willing to buff strikes, lets assume that they can do multiple knobs at once, and also that they probably don't want to give the best turn fight thing to the strikes. I think the sneakiest nerf request comes from Nemarus, who mentions that he doesn't even use distortion on his gunship, and therefore that distortion should be nerfed (because he wouldn't notice it). On super serious I have never seen him gunship up, and even if that's an effect of his Bastion alt, I can say that even on his native Ebon Hawk, if I'm on the enemy team, I cannot recall ever seen him select a gunship.

 

I am absolutely certain that if the dev team wanted to get "nerf gunship waah" as feedback, they wouldn't need to make a dev post. The topic name is "Lets talk about Strike Fighters". That you can't even hold back from class bashing is pretty lame.

 

 

 

 

Strikes need to be buffed, and it is excellent that the dev team is looking into it. Please don't turn the only dev post in around a year into a platform to whine about the other three class types. You crap up all my threads with that junk, don't do it here too.

 

Basically this. I've been pretty disappointed and frustrated with community feedback thus far.

[Nemarus]

I really don't agree with a perpetual damage overcharge being necessary Nemarus. I feel like that would be definitely overtuning it. I think the best solution proposed so far is the range increase by 30-50%. 10km ion/heavy range would definitely bring strikes into line with everything else. Permanent damage overcharge would mean that if they did get damage overcharge you'd 1-shot just about everything. As it stands you'd nearly one-shot gunships and scouts like that which I think would just add to noob discontent too much.

 

I do not think the range increase does enough to help Strikes have a part to play at the node. Sure, I can fly 8km below the node and shoot up at it, but that requires a lot of engine energy I don't have, leaves me utterly exposed to Gunships or other Strike defenders, and anyone I'm shooting can just flip to the top of the node to escape me.

 

On the other hand, a Strike with DO-empowered LLC's, Quads, or Rapids presents an immediate, bursty threat to everything on the node, and can itself enjoy the cover the satellite provides.

 

Also I thought you wanted the devs to make Strikes OP

Edited May 29, 2015 by Nemarus

[tommmsunb]

I do not think the range increase does enough to help Strikes have a part to play at the node. Sure, I can fly 8km below the node and shoot up at it, but that requires a lot of engine energy I don't have, leaves me utterly exposed to Gunships or other Strike defenders, and anyone I'm shooting can just flip to the top of the node to escape me.

 

On the other hand, a Strike with DO-empowered LLC's, Quads, or Rapids presents an immediate, bursty threat to everything on the node, and can itself enjoy the cover the satellite provides.

 

Also I thought you wanted the devs to make Strikes OP

 

I do want them to make them OP but currently with DO you need one ion hit and one heavy hit to kill most ships in the game. If you gave that DO you'd only need one hit to kill anything in the game. That's simply too much.

 

You conveniently didn't mention the 2 weapons that make strikes good, strikes are actually very bursty if played correctly, the issue is that they need to get too close to get their burst off properly.

Edited May 29, 2015 by tommmsunb

[DresG]

I do not think the range increase does enough to help Strikes have a part to play at the node. Sure, I can fly 8km below the node and shoot up at it, but that requires a lot of engine energy I don't have, leaves me utterly exposed to Gunships or other Strike defenders, and anyone I'm shooting can just flip to the top of the node to escape me.

 

On the other hand, a Strike with DO-empowered LLC's, Quads, or Rapids presents an immediate, bursty threat to everything on the node, and can itself enjoy the cover the satellite provides.

 

Also I thought you wanted the devs to make Strikes OP

 

More damage is not the way to go for SFs, the problem is that the time on target is really low unless you plan to sacrifice a lot of engine power. The way you describe SFs to be is the way they are right now, Ion+Clusters = You are going to melt.

 

Check my thread about SF videos, I posted one that (unintended) shows how I am constantly at low engine levels despite not really covering a lot of map distance, which means virtually any target can escape (including GSs with BR) unless I am at full engine.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=815039

 

You conveniently didn't mention the 2 weapons that make strikes good, strikes are actually very bursty if played correctly, the issue is that they need to get too close to get their burst off properly.

Similar to what I just said, damage is good, getting close is the problem.

Edited May 29, 2015 by DresG

[RickDagles]

I sympathize with these points, and I agree that we don't want to make Bomber fortification any stronger. That being said, it is hard for a Strike to be worth playing so long as a Scout can "tunnel" in order to take on 2-3 entrenched opponents solo.

 

The Strike can only tunnel via face-tanking with shields, and its offense is not bursty enough to kill anyone before those shields fail.

 

Scouts can shield-tunnel too, by the way. I use Directional on my Domination Flashfire, and I can eat 2 Seeker Mines without taking hull damage, and recharge enough shields (via Turbo Reactor) to also absorb a third. And I still have TT, BO, and Rocket Pods in order to burst down the Rampart before I have to flee. Which the Strike will never have.

 

So even if Distortion Field did lose the missile break, the Scout would remain the superior drill to break through a Bomber and/or Gunship formation.

 

I think what we're starting to confirm here is that, more than anything, the Strike just needs a massive offensive buff. Which leads me to my next reply...

 

On servers where I have a Skybolt I also use directional shields on my Flashfire. I think Quad/Pod/Retro/Directional is the best jousting build in the game. However, a good Mangler player completely cripples that build with ion railgun, at which point I must switch to the Skybolt BLC/pod/powerdive/running interference build.

 

Directional shields are definitely strong on a Scout, but the problem is DF will always be the best well rounded choice because it's good against everything.

 

It would be really nice if the Starguard HLC/BLC/retro/directional shield build could be tuned stronger than the Flashfire Quad/Pod/Retro/Directional build. That ship would have a purpose (although still food for Ion Railgun).

 

 

... the tendency of some players to do teams "bombers/gunships" only (last week we were often fighting bombers+ 2 gunships teams << this is SO boring) . Of course there are already gunships to strike hard on the bombers, however on my server bombers have taken the (bad) habit to hide in tiny holes, making them nearly impossible to kill except from close range.

 

No, this is a personal problem - not a gameplay issue. A team of 6 bombers and 2 gunships is easily countered by a team of 3 charged plating bombers with hyperspace beacons, 3 gunships, and 2 battlescouts. Your 2 battlescouts tie up their 2 gunships, which allows your 3 gunships to constantly shoot ion railguns at the enemy bombers. Your bombers eat mines while holding the nodes, and they help kill the bombers via interdiction mines, HLC, and seismic mines.

 

I'm generally disappointed that the moment a dev steps up and asks how to buff strikes, a lot of you have walked in and asked for nerfs to the other classes. Ion railgun doesn't need to get crapped all over, no matter what color you ask for it in.

 

Yes please stop crapping on what already works. I think Nem's idea wasn't to nerf ion railgun against Scouts and Bombers, just to nerf it against Strikes. Which is totally called for, but would also be super difficult to pull off.

Edited May 29, 2015 by RickDagles

[-GMRZ-Rancor]

I'm going to write this from the perspective of the only strike fighter I have played in all of my alts and time in space.

 

The Gladiator.

 

You know what? I really enjoy it. My spec:

Ion Cannon - Weapon and Engine drains

Quad Laser Cannon - reduced laser cost and hull dmg

Concussion Missiles - Range and Ship slow

Quick Charge Shield with regen

Retro thrusters with turn rate

Range inc

Regen extender

Turbo reactor

Turning thrusters.

 

What this does is gives my Gladiator the ability to nullify enemy shields almost instantly, switch to Quads to fire

while using lockon of the Concussion missiles to either pacify and slow while burst the enemy down or cause the enemy to try to flee the lock. This coupled with my fast reloading shields makes it so I can go toe to toe with most opponents and bombers have no hope against my ions.

 

I think Burst Laser Cannons would make my strike fighter too strong, but then again so is every other ship so far. Maybe strong is what it needs.

 

What I'd LIKE to see if I have the option of creating a whole new suggested aspect to the strike fighter genre, would be this.

 

Wing Foil Transformation

In Star Wars Lore, what made the X-wing the most famous of the ships? Iconic at least is that it could change its wings into different formations for different actions. I suggest all strike fighters be given a type of passive that can be specced into that gives buffs to the different speeds at which you accelerate or deaccelerate.

At 0 speed the Strike fighter would get a stance that makes it turn faster graduallly the longer it is going no where.

At the middle speed it's stance would revert to the default turn speed and provide an Accuracy buff to its laser cannons.The longer this stance is held, the faster you regain weapon regen. At fastest acceleration, accuracy reverts to normal and a ship speed buff begins to grow. This will gradually make it the fastest moving ship class outside of actually boosting the ship, which still makes scouts fastest for getting places but makes the Strike fighter still worthwhile. Players will be able to only strengthen one of those three stances with buying into the tree but a fully upgraded stance will obviously yield greater advantages over the default. This will make strike fighters act like a jack of all trades but give concentrated potential to one avenue they really enjoy the most.

 

I'll provide samples of what those trees could be but still allow you developers to make it your own.

 

Accelerant Core passive:

Turning Core: Gradually increases turn rate by 1% every 5 seconds at 0 acceleration until capped

at 10% buff.

Tier 1: 1000 ship req

Turn rate increases immediately at 0 acceleration by 5%

Tier 2: 2500 ship req

Maximum Turn speed cap increased to 15%

Tier 3: 10000 ship req

Option1: Ion Contingency:

After reaching max turn cap, if your ship has been affected by ion weaponry

the slow is removed. This effect can only occur once every 30 seconds

Option 2: Plasma Contingency:

After reaching max turn cap, your ship gains Plasma charged Laser bleeds.

25% of the laser damage is added as a 5% bleed that can stack 2 times.

 

Accuracy Core: Passively gain 15% weapon accuracy instantly. gradually increases weapon pool regen

by 1% every 5 seconds at 50% acceleration until capped at 10%.

Tier 1: 1000 ship req

Weapon pool recovers 15 energy immediately at 50 acceleration

Tier 2: 2500 ship req

Weapon accuracy gains 1% accuracy every 5 seconds until cap of 10% buff on top of passive.

Tier 3: 10000 ship req

Option1: Critical Contingency:

After reaching max weaponry cap: When you recover to full Weapon pool, your critical hit chance increases by 5% passively until the stance ends.

Option 2: Targeting Contingency:

After reaching max weaponry cap: Your lock-on targeting time is reduced by 75% on your next secondary

weapon use that has lock-on mechanics. This effect can only be used once every 15 seconds.

 

Speed Core: Passively gains 1% Ship movement speed every second when you hit 100% acceleration until cap at 10% buff.

 

Tier 1: 1000 ship req

Ship speed increases immediately at 100 acceleration by 5%

Tier 2: 2500 ship req

Ship speed cap increases to 15%

Tier 3: 10000 ship req

Option1: Pursuit Contingency:

After reaching max speed cap: Your ship movement speed is doubled for 15 seconds

but you begin to lose Engine pool by 5 every second. This effect only initiates when you reach max speed buff cap and is activated only when you have full Engine pool and does not stack.

Option2: Escape Contingency:

After reaching max speed cap: Your hull integrity is increased by 25% and you repair 15 hull every 5 seconds while you are at 100% acceleration. This effect only activates when your shields drop to 0% and does not stack.

[SeCKSEgai]

I think it's pretty clear based on the feedback that there is far more to look at than strike fighters directly if you're truly looking to improve gsf and revitalize it - simply tweaking strike fighters alone isn't enough.

 

Now while I'm fairly certain that we don't get "legacy hangars" is to encourage the purchasing of ships - however that ends up working against itself. As most matches often end up very one-sided, the difficulty earning upgrades for ships is compounded by having to do it again and again. If it wasn't for my nostalgia for the game Tie Fighter (which handled far better mind you for a dated game), I wouldn't bother queuing, as the waits can be long.

 

You can't blame the community, as it makes no sense for people to eat 50-6 losses and desire to play again. Quite a few will drop before it even completes, as losing the reward easily outweighs the unpleasant experience.

 

Gsf needs to be more enjoyable as a whole to the masses, especially if there are plans to release a dedicated expansion.

 

Now I do take my fighter out here and there, but only when I look at the starting teams and can tell its an easy match. However, the first ship I get on any new alt is a scout, either the sting or flashfire. If not for the conquest points, I'd have no incentive to even bother leveling up ships on alts.

 

As it stands, scouts basically fill the "space superiority fighter" role. A strike fighter can't compete when it's basically outclassed on all fronts.

 

Gunships are a frequent sight on my server, and utilizing them myself, it's not hard to understand why. Can be quite the massacre when you're trying to dart through a gauntlet of gunships. But they also fill a very defined role.

 

Bombers don't actually play like I remember bombers from Tie Fighter at all. There bombers carried the heavy ordinance (read proton torpedoes) but were slow and typically required fighter escort. In GSF they're basically the support class providing defenses and "healing". When I think bomber, I automatically associate it with turtling.

 

Fighters should be versatile, but in their current state offer no reason to be picked over the previous 3.

 

If anything, the sheer power gap provided by upgrades is so drastic that it prevents strike fighters from being the mainstay as they "should" be.

 

When I think of GSF, I don't think fighters are underpowered so much as the system needing an overhaul. Makes me wish it was more like the movies, where (most) TiEs had no shields at all and relied on superior numbers and X-Wing deflectors wouldn't really stop more than a blast or two and the ship going boom.

 

The closest thing to a suggestion I could make directly related to strike fighters is by defining scouts as short range and allowing strike fighters to dominate at longer ranges without becoming sniping gunships. However, with the existence of burst (shotgun) lasers, you'd basically need to buff the range and damage to force scouts to rely on superior mobility.