Let's talk about Strike Fighters

[Verain]

Missiles do not take Evasion itself into account.

 

But most do take shield health into account.

 

Perhaps missiles were meant to be the counter to Evasion.

 

I would be surprised to learn that, if this was the case. Specifically because the ships that have evasion based utilities have SEVERAL missile breaks. Only one bomber has a missile break, and it pays for it in other components. Only one gunship has more than one missile break, and it has two. The other options are all strange engine utilities. Every strike has some of these options, but each retains at least two missile breaks. Finally, two of the scouts can't even opt out of a missile break, and the one that can has it as a side option. Also, one scout can break missiles with the one button, and all of them with the two button if they take disto, on top of generous mobility and lower engine consumption.

 

If missiles were meant to counter evasion, every layer of the game wouldn't scream otherwise.

 

And this is why people keep proposing removing the missile break.

 

My opinion is, people keep proposing removing the missile break because they don't understand the balance ramifications, at all.

 

The game actually did have that two week period where distortion had no missile break. The game was an unplayable mess, with strikes even weaker, and bombers a lot stronger. That meta was becoming monobomber, and it was the worst GSF has ever been.

 

The other thing that tells me that this demand is unreasonable is that the numerous middle grounds are unexplored. For instance, distortion field is worded in a way that it won't cancel a missile once it is in flight, but it does exactly that. Breaking a missile lock before it is launched, but not after, might even have been the original intent of that move. Why don't people say that? Instead of demanding the gutting of the meta ships, which they inevitably do. Or, how about the OBVIOUS nerf (which I have recommended)- increase the cooldown on the move from 20 seconds talented, to 30 seconds? This could be accompanied by any of several small compensatory buffs if the opinion of the balance guys is that it makes disto too weak- the shield penalty could be slightly reduced, or the length of the buff could be increased, etc. Why not that?

 

But no, it's usually just the same loud voices screaming for the move to be trashcanned. Never a partial nerf, a mild adjustment- it's always "remove this".

 

 

So I have my theories as to why people ask for that, but it's not because it needs it, would make the game better, or that they have thought it out that well.

 

In my big post, I recommended distortion field make missile locks take slightly longer, as a basic passive of the move, and for there to be no missile break.

 

 

The fact is, unless you talent the missile break, distortion makes you a lot weaker versus missiles than any other option. The fact that the one shield that greatly weakens you versus missiles, has a missile break option, DOES tell us that they were trying to give with one hand and take with the other- but I think we all know that they gave a bit more than they should have.

 

 

Verain, what would be your reaction if Feedback Shield had the missile break, instead of Distortion Field?

 

Just straight up add / subtract? Interesting. My inclination is that I would run feedback on the gunship, but it's such a sizable battle scout nerf that its' hard to predict what the meta would be. It would certainly make feedback shield far too good- feedback is already a defensible option, and giving it a giant bonus would be too much to say no to. Distortion on gunships would only be used to win snipe wars. Honestly, I'd have to play and see how it felt. It would be an unreasonable nerf to scouts, however. I suspect the result would be, a bunch of bombers.

[RickDagles]

I think the general consensus goes something like this:

 

-Strike chassis upgrades (shield, hull, turning, speed, engine efficiency, or weapon range) would really help the Starguard and Pike, but they may also run the risk of making the Clarion overpowered.

 

-Missile buffs would increase the offensive capability of Strikes but would further increase the importance of equipping Distortion Field on any ship that can use it. Furthemore, since Strikes don't get Distortion Field, they would be missile food.

 

-Starguards and Pikes need a way to deal with ion railgun shots. Maybe give one of the strike shield choices a tier 3 ability to regen engines, or give strikes an inherent resistant to ion railgun debuffs, or give them power dive, or even a co-pilot ability that regenerates engines. Give us something to limp away with so that we don't always die to the follow up slug railgun.

 

-Strikes need a way to deal with close range BLC scouts. They don't have to counter Scouts, but at least give them something that makes the battle a little less one-sided. Options here are better turning for Strikes, better close range weapons (BLC, improved RFL/LLC) or even better systems abilities.

 

 

 

It's going to be a really tough job to fix them and I really do think each ship needs to be handled differently.

Edited May 29, 2015 by RickDagles

[Nemarus]

I probably spent 75% of my early matches in Strike Fighters, my first mastered ship was a Pike (sad, I know), and the only reason I don't fly Strikes more is their lack of an effective role. So I am very excited by the possibility that Strikes will get buffed in a significant way.

 

My ideas are similar to some of the ideas / feedback already provided, but maybe slightly different in implementation.

 

• Give the Strike Fighter chassis large buffs to Weapon, Engine, and Shield power pools/regen rates/regen delays.
  
• Make those buffs similar or equal in magnitude to the minor components they mimic, and then remove Reactor and Magazine as minor components from Strikes (since you would already effectively have these components baked into the Strike chassis). I'd keep the Thrusters component, since Strikes already lack mobility in their current form.
  
• Create a new, Strike-specific minor component. Let's call it "Targeting" or something like that. Have options that increase primary weapon accuracy, primary weapon range, primary weapon critical chance and magnitude, or missile lock-on/cooldown times. Or something like that -- basically address the big offensive deficit Strikes currently have.
  
• Since the Star Guard would lose two minor components, fill the 2nd missing component with Armor.
  

 

I think this might have some advantages:

1. You increase the offensive and mobility capabilities of the current Strikes while maintaining their defensive niche as "the shield guys".
   
2. You increase the offense of Strikes by buffing primary or secondary weapons in ways specific to Strikes, by buffing through a unique minor component rather than a specific laser or missile. This avoids affecting the balance of other ships, e.g., QLCs on Quad/Pods scouts.
   
3. The stock T1 Strike becomes very strong, making it a good beginner ship -- and since it is one of the two guaranteed starter ships, that is a good thing.
   
4. If the Targeting minor component is done right, perhaps it helps the Strike find niches, like a true mid-to-long range fighter (with increased primary range -- some posts bandied around a 30-50% increase), a missile fighter (with very short lock-on times like current Cluster missiles, but instead with Concussion Missiles or even Proton Torpedoes), or anti-evasion (with a +accuracy minor component).
   

 

I could see this going overboard, but then you could tweak the specific buffs to the Strike chassis, or the values of the Targeting minor component, without affecting other ships and ship types.

 

 

I think this is a really solid idea.

[Verain]

Component buffs:

 

 

Many of the ideas in the thread involve buffing the chassis. I favor this approach as well.

 

 

Component buffs can help, but they only go so far.

> Many ships share access to strike components. Buffing components enough to make strikes good will definitely impact the rest of the meta. A properly tuned EMP and Ion missile will help two of the strikes, but only if they pick the missile, and if EMP was actually good enough to use, why not run it on a type 3 scout or type 3 gunship? Likewise, overly buffing these components would disrupt balance, because you would put them on the stronger chassis. If directionals were some god-tier, you'd simply see battle scouts, type 3 gunships, and type 3 bombers running them and being more effective with them. It wouldn't make you want to play a strike or type 2 gunship unless their other issues were addressed.

 

> Strikes have many good components. Heavy Lasers, Cluster Missiles, Power Dive, Retros, Barrel Roll, Quad Lasers- all of these are top tier components. When they don't show up as much as you might expect on a certain ship, it's normally for another reason. This means that the problem is likely not with the components. Yes, it would be cool if type 1 strikes had BLC, but if they did, every type 1 strike would run BLC. I would rather a strike be effective with a choice of quad, heavy, and ions first. A chassis buff can do this. A subsequent component buff could add rapids to the list of viable weapons, without overpowering it for the scouts it is native to.

 

 

> The closest strikes get to meta builds use their "good components", but the performance isn't that much different from a ship using "bad components". A type 1 gunship with plasma / slug / light lasers / fortress / interdiction isn't going to be a very effective ship, but a junk build strike fighter, while also trash, isn't going to be as far behind effective contribution, relative to its components, from a properly built one.

 

 

If you FIRST buff the strike chassis to be good with the existing "good components", THEN buff the weak components to be valid choices, you end up with a bunch of great build options, AND a deep meta.

 

 

 

That's not to say that these really weak components shouldn't be buffed (nor that the top tier components should never be nerfed), but that's not really the topic of the thread, right?

Edited May 29, 2015 by Verain

[Nemarus]

Alex, I also hope that you can tell us something of the dev team's ideas.

 

I think you'd get very immediate and thorough feedback (with both experiential/anecdotal and mathematical opinions) to tell you if you're going down the right road or not.

 

We've been chewing on our own tail, with regard to theoretical balancing discussions, for a long time in these parts. Actually having proposed changes to discuss and offer feedback/tweaks on would be quite productive.

[RatPoison]

Howdy Flygirls and Flyboys!

 

I’ll be blunt. Strike Fighters need lots of love. ...

 

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!

 

I don't know that I'd take the tact I'm seeing through most of the initial posts of buffing everything on a strike, or even tweaking components that are shared by multiple ships, such as heavy lasers. For the most part, it seems that folks are satisfied with the current status of gunships, bombers, and scouts... minus some grievances here and there.

 

To answer the specific question by Alex, I would look at a couple of aspects of the strike that are reoccurring complaints that could be buffed without consequence to other ship types and builds.

 

My first issue with the strike is repetitive to a lot of posts... maneuverability. I would tinker in this department first and foremost. Suggestions I'd offer up is to increase the strikes engine pool. The strike benefits from having a bigger frame than scouts, so why shouldn't they be able to boost for longer durations than the smaller scout? And to tweak things in dealing with gunships versus strikes, gunships need to first have the ion railguns debuff for slows and engine/weapon power regen fixed, and then specifically to strikes, I'd consider giving strikes a shorter duration for engine regen time (following a boost).

 

As much as I'd like to say buff missiles or more specifically torpedoes... in an average match, I can still be effective using torpedoes against people. Good pilots in scouts are an exception to the rule, and pilots experienced enough on how to save their missile break for after a missile has been fired makes it hard to not want to shorten the cooldown on torpedoes or tweak them, but when considering the devastation that can be wrought by one proton torpedo connecting, it makes sense to me to have them on a longer cooldown. Now, if you threw in a option for a quick reload as a component for strikes exclusively on torpedoes, then that may make things more interesting in combination with the right co-pilot.

 

Third on my list is the defensive status of strikes, I don't see much value to boosting strike evasion, but given the situation with every ship short of strikes and bombers being able to stack multiple forms of evasion, this may be a necessary evil if strikes are to have better standing versus scouts and gunships. An alternative and more inline with the idea of strikes is to consider boosting their shield pool. Bigger frame, bigger engines, better shields... A larger shield pool and perhaps a faster regen on shields could help their situation while not essentially turning the ship into a scout.

Fourth, ion cannons. The tier 1 strike may be the most offensively built strike of the bunch, and it is because of this component in my opinion. The only downside to the ion cannon is its short range. Increasing the range of ion cannon would be a nice buff if the accuracy and tracking penalties remain unchanged, however, as this component is limited to one ship, it doesn't overall improve "strikes". In regard to this same ship though, tweaking the initial components/load out of the ship would also help with new pilots (short of buffing the tutorial).

 

...

 

Anyway, that's my thoughts in as brief of a format as I can manage. Buffing the engine pool and regen of all strikes would help give strikes the ability to better range opponents and outlast and escape. As such, that would be the one item I'd desperately like to see modified that would not shift or change how other ships play.

 

On a side note... holy ****, get a yellow post and suddenly there are all these folks who don't play GSF at all or much reporting on what needs fixing? scary... Well anyway, it's nice to see some yellow for a change, even if nothing comes of it.

Edited May 29, 2015 by RatPoison

[Verain]

Concur with Nem, we'd love to know what kinds of changes are even worth discussing.

 

Technical limits:

That ship specific component up the thread sounds amazing but there's no way it would be easy, and you'd have to migrate existing spent requisition, etc. A lot of us work in software development or other technical fields so we have threads like "what could be changed on a low budget" as pretty separate from "what cool ideas would help GSF", as one is normally gonna be magnitude changes to numbers and the other type has our Star Wars Nerd hats on and it's all "lets do a battle with capital ships that dance for us, that would be sooo kewwwl".

 

I know you guys are just getting the temperature of the water, but if you are thinking about bringing a pool noodle, jet ski, or cruise ship would be good to know. I'm sure we'll have fun whichever way.

 

 

Design limits:

Saying that you intended strikes to be generalists was the biggest news I think we've gotten since Jason Attard explained the math. A lot of the suggestions are informed by that, and a bunch of the above posts flatly disagree with the statement. I'm personally inclined to disagree with it as well- the game has two "hybrid" ships, and one of them (type 3 gunship) is well loved and powerful, and the other (type 3 bomber) is liked by several, but just seems to get left out.

 

I think the core difference here is that the gunship frame isn't total trash for dogfighting, but the bomber frame is, even with thrusters and powerdive, leaving the ship mostly as a bomber when the fighting gets tough, and he's not that great at it. The strikes exist below that- if you leave a type 3 gunship alone, he'll start sniping your team. If you leave a type 3 bomber alone, he can at least mine or drone a node. A strike left alone begins the Interpretive Dance Of The Strike, a ritualistic and slow process involving a lot of beeping noises that are traditional among the Strike Fighter Peoples, but not exactly suited to space warfare.

[CommanderKiko]

The distortion field extra break loop continues, but no one (not even myself) has stated the obvious solution so far as I have seen. Maybe someone stated it and I missed it, idk.

 

Solution: Remove DF's break or nerf it, and make a new shield. Chaff shields.

 

Chaff shields should be, imho, as follows. Their shield ability would break locks by default. Yes. Their entire point would be to break locks. Buutttt, when you break the lock, it overcharges your shield and must reset. taking 2 full arcs of shield power. This should have no cooldown and should be based 100% on how much shield power you have at the time. This new component should be up for every ship that can equip DF, and should be up for the starguard, pike, and their counterparts as well. The shield should also be fairly strong in of its self to make up for the lack of evasion, but have a somewhat slower than par regen speed. T1 upgrade could be a buff to shield power pool, t2 an ups for regen, and t3 a choice between both higher shield and regen (Improved shielding) or a temporary speed boost (Scram jets)

 

This way people can chose between if they want to have an ungodly amount of evasion via DF, or be able to take more punishment and break locks with Chaff Shields. It would also safe Strikers from themselves, if they so chose, and could assist their mobility issues when fully upped.

 

Edit: this could even give shield repair drones a reason to exist.

Edited May 29, 2015 by CommanderKiko

[MaximilianPower]

This thread has taken a huge leap forward since I posted yesterday, so many solid posts and a distinct decrease in blatant TCing. If/when another yellow post shows up on the dev tracker, I'm sure the trolling will resurface, but for now the discussion is largely back on target.

 

Nice to see some of my fellow JCers weighing in. There's way too much to respond to overall, but a couple of posts that struck me:

 

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

 

 

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

 

You and I played in a game last night, 39-38 TDM (maybe 38-37, not sure); you were in a strike, I assume the ion/HLCs/cluster build, I was in my relatively low-req sting. I am far from a premier scout pilot, but 99% of the strikes I run into are still basically food (which, again, reflects the nature of this entire topic). I can count on one hand the number of SF pilots who can actually threaten me. Based on that game last night, you're included in that count. It was unfamiliar yet kind of refreshing to actually feel threatened by a SF, and a good/timely reminder of their potential. I'd poke you now and then, but then you'd poke back, generally melting me. If everyone flew this exact build, the way you did in this game, there would be less gnashing of teeth over strikes. But no one wants to be limited to a single viable strike build, the average pilot isn't going to have your skills/experience, and that build still isn't going to be as useful in a dom against a solid team.

 

--snipped for brevity--

 

I was hoping you'd weigh in here, and as expected, this is an excellent post. Everyone click the little arrow above and read it.

 

I've been soliciting feedback in game from non-subs, and I intend to post some of that here. Just one so far, from K'orvith/Rakun. This has been echoed elsewhere in this thread (it's along the lines of the suggestion to somehow soften ion railgun's impact versus strikes only), but it's worth restating:

 

any buffs to strikes should be of limited benefit to scouts. for example' date=' if they massively buffed RFL, we don't suddenly want all the sting/fires running around with rfl. the change has to largely effect strikes.[/quote']

 

As I type this, I sit in queue with strikes on my bar. This will inevitably lead to a frustrating day of GSFing, but merely reading these posts has given me the bug to go a-quellin'.

[Enurrsha]

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.

 

 

Speaking as a very long-time Pike fan, I'll simply say - Yes, please. This sounds like a good "silver bullet" to try, but I would like to see at least a small tweak to improve mobility - all those big engines shouldn't just be cosmetic - perhaps an increase to the engine pool or it's regen rate, neither of which should be difficult in the least to implement.

[JediBoadicea]

A strike left alone begins the Interpretive Dance Of The Strike, a ritualistic and slow process involving a lot of beeping noises that are traditional among the Strike Fighter Peoples, but not exactly suited to space warfare.

 

Hahah! Thanks for the laugh, Verain. Much needed, as forum threads always have a tendency to become a little contentious and can use some levity.

 

There have been a lot of interesting suggestions, but a lot do seem to be wandering from the requested focus. As we all know, there are tons of tweaks and fixes that the game could use, but making a wishlist that includes - nay, demands, through its intricately interwoven nature - everything plus the kitchen sink, is probably going to lead mostly to disappointment. I think trying to focus on simpler changes that target the Strike directly, and as much in isolation as possible, is likely to yield us the most satisfaction due to the likelihood that smaller scale changes are all we're ultimately going to get. (Not a knock against the devs, just acknowledging the reality of resources and the challenges of game with so many interwoven and interlocking parts.)

 

In review of the thread so far, a rough tally of how frequently suggestions come up seems to be putting missiles at the head of the race. Changes have included shorter lock times, faster cool downs, and also longer ranges. I personally like all of these, either individually or in conjunction, across all missiles or even just for some. I also want to further champion the proposals to buff some of the utility missiles that are (mostly) unique to Strikes, like EMP or Ion. I have played with these on multiple ships, always in the tenaciously irrational hope that somehow I will figure out how to use them "right" in order to get the payoff the cool concepts promise... but to no avail. The fact that the T3 Scout and GS would also get the benefits of those missiles being buffed in no way (in my opinion) unbalances things, because it would just mean that more variety is added as those missiles suddenly become viable choices for people who wanted strong utility builds in the first place (particularly true for the T3 Scout).

 

Regarding the idea that buffs to Strike missiles would further corral other ships into choosing only Distortion Field, I don't think that's necessarily true. In my experience missiles locks are broken just as frequently (if not more so) by LOS, either by banking or terrain, as by straight up missile break components. I don't believe it would make Distortion Field any more or less attractive than it already is (always depending on the build a pilot prefers). Would it make other ships, even those with DF, suddenly feel more vulnerable to a Strike? Yes, absolutely - but isn't that the point? Currently many pilots/ships don't feel vulnerable to a Strike at all, and that's precisely why many argue that the Strike is not competitive in the meta. (As I previously stated, I don't share that opinion quite as strongly, but I don't deny there's some foundation for it.) And frankly, I think making some battle scout builds more frightened for their lives would not be a bad thing (and that's speaking as someone who heavily favors scouts); it would certainly shake things up. More people thinking that Strikes are a threatening option mean fewer people defaulting to bombers or gunships, making for more varied matches and more scenarios in which changing up your tactics becomes a necessary component of play.

 

As another very simple and targeted idea, I like the proposal for increased weapon ranges for the Strikes, either all around or just on primary weapons. As was pointed out somewhere above in the thread, on approach to a target, even on a slow moving strike, you zoom past the outer limit of the current range and straight into the ineffective close range in what feels like the blink of an eye - and that's assuming that your opponent isn't moving toward you at any angle, which closes that window even more quickly. It's true that this increased range wouldn't help a Strike that was trying to fight in close quarters, such as on a node trying to root out entrenched defenders, but really that's the scenario a Scout is a ideal for, and I don't think it's necessary to try to make a Strike competitive at all levels of specialization. There is always a scenario in which a particular ship or a particular build is disadvantaged; that's part of having separate roles/types in the first place.

 

One of the ideas I personally don't care for, however, is increasing Strike turning rate. Yes, I absolutely gnash my teeth in frustration at what feels like the waddling turn rate of a Strike, especially if I've just come off a few consecutive Scout matches. But again, I don't think the Strike needs to be made into a Scout. Increased maneuverability is what the Scout is all about. (The fact that Scouts also manage to hit ridiculously hard might be more appropriately a topic for adjustments to the Scout, if any adjustments were really needed.) Buffs to a Strike's engine pool, on the other hand, might not be a bad thing. They'd still move slower than Scouts, which means a Scout would reach a destination first (as it should be), but I think the idea that the more robust Strike would have more stamina is not inappropriate.

 

I still also contend that something to give Strikes an improved defense against armor-piercing weapons would be nice, but that might just be my personal frustration with BLC sneak attacks speaking.

 

No fix to the Strike is going to make them a threat to all other ship types, or impervious to all other ship types. But some boosts and buffs that are unique to the Strike will suddenly give them something to exploit. If there's one thing that all the varying opinions of the GSF community prove is that (in addition to being obsessive) our pilots are extremely creative. Good pilots can employ builds that may not seem optimal or desirable on the surface to surprising effect - for offense, defense, utility, whatever. I have a lot of faith in the GSF community's ability to take whatever changes Strikes get and leverage them to best effect.

[Verain]

I think perma-doubling strike damage would be going too far but... I'm not entirely sure. I am fairly certain that the only reason strikes feel "right" with DO (which I generally agree with) is that enemies actually "turn dark blue and run". If you draw bead on a gunship, he'll run, not stand and tank you while railgunning you, if you approach a bomber he'll use all his boost to escape, etc. In other words, the enemies react like you are way more dangerous than you normally would be, because DO.

 

With this on permanently, these tricks wouldn't work- I honestly feel you'd run down and splatter most of the enemy team if you had a permanent DO, I think it would be too strong.

 

 

 

But on the note of dramatically increased damage- the old X-Wing games had "two layers" of weapon power. What if strikes enjoyed variable and large damage boost to blasters? Maybe a "white tier" at 80%+, for, pretend, +40% damage, a "bright red tier" from 40% to 80% for, pretend, +20% damage, and then a passive lockon bonus for faster missile locks or whatever. This would make that magazine choice a lot more interesting too (though you wouldn't really ever take extra ammo on a ship like this, but that's fine- it would be in fine company next to the type 1 gunship, type 3 gunship, etc.).

[Nemarus]

 

Design limits:

Saying that you intended strikes to be generalists was the biggest news I think we've gotten since Jason Attard explained the math.

 

I think that ultimately this design just can't work while I can have a hangar of five specialists which I can switch between during a battle.

 

If I had to pick just one ship to use for the duration of a match, then a Strike might be worth consideration ... though I'd probably still opt for a Condor.

 

So personally, I think that "jack of all trades" design goal for Strikes should just be abandoned. Strikes need to have a dedicated specialty. Mid-range specialists sounds appealing, but I'm still not convinced it would provide crucial value in Domination, where under-sat combat determines the winner.

 

The Strike needs some unique, special capability that adds value in both game modes. Extreme durability (way beyond Bombers), extreme sustained damage, or extreme AOE even. Imagine if all Strike missiles dealt AOE damage.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Nemarus

[CommanderKiko]

Just to clarify, I play strike fighters a lot. I've even gotten yelled at for it. None of my ideas or statements are in any way intended to be class bashing. As a striker pilot, I see often what the issues are. All of what I have stated, even things pertaining to other ships, are specifically to help strikers. Not to hate on other classes.

 

Figured I would throw that out there.

[MaximilianPower]

This:

 

Speaking as a very long-time Pike fan, I'll simply say - Yes, please. This sounds like a good "silver bullet" to try, but I would like to see at least a small tweak to improve mobility - all those big engines shouldn't just be cosmetic - perhaps an increase to the engine pool or it's regen rate, neither of which should be difficult in the least to implement.

 

Plus this:

 

I think perma-doubling strike damage would be going too far but... I'm not entirely sure. I am fairly certain that the only reason strikes feel "right" with DO (which I generally agree with) is that enemies actually "turn dark blue and run". If you draw bead on a gunship, he'll run, not stand and tank you while railgunning you, if you approach a bomber he'll use all his boost to escape, etc. In other words, the enemies react like you are way more dangerous than you normally would be, because DO.

 

With this on permanently, these tricks wouldn't work- I honestly feel you'd run down and splatter most of the enemy team if you had a permanent DO, I think it would be too strong.

 

 

 

But on the note of dramatically increased damage- the old X-Wing games had "two layers" of weapon power. What if strikes enjoyed variable and large damage boost to blasters? Maybe a "white tier" at 80%+, for, pretend, +40% damage, a "bright red tier" from 40% to 80% for, pretend, +20% damage, and then a passive lockon bonus for faster missile locks or whatever. This would make that magazine choice a lot more interesting too (though you wouldn't really ever take extra ammo on a ship like this, but that's fine- it would be in fine company next to the type 1 gunship, type 3 gunship, etc.).

 

...got me thinking: what if they just upped the weapon/engine bonuses associated with F1 & F3, only for strikes? iirc, F1 gives you +10% blaster damage and...what, +50% to regen? But drops engine & shield numbers. Similarly, F3 gives (I think) +20% speed and +50% regen (and drops blaster/shield numbers). How about giving a big bump to F1 blaster damage (+40%?) and maybe increasing the F3 numbers to +30%/+75%? Or something like that. This would certainly reward smart power management, and theoretically, wouldn't be terribly difficult to implement (though I really have no idea on that).

 

Apologies if this has been suggested already, there's a lot of stuff in this thread.

[SithAceI]

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!

 

Just in case you all missed This in all the many pages and the time I posted this. I think it does cover a lot of what people are saying. Or maybe I am just full of it lol.

[Nemarus]

This:

 

 

 

Plus this:

 

 

 

...got me thinking: what if they just upped the weapon/engine bonuses associated with F1 & F3, only for strikes? iirc, F1 gives you +10% blaster damage and...what, +50% to regen? But drops engine & shield numbers. Similarly, F3 gives (I think) +20% speed and +50% regen (and drops blaster/shield numbers). How about giving a big bump to F1 blaster damage (+40%?) and maybe increasing the F3 numbers to +30%/+75%? Or something like that. This would certainly reward smart power management, and theoretically, wouldn't be terribly difficult to implement (though I really have no idea on that).

 

Apologies if this has been suggested already, there's a lot of stuff in this thread.

 

Unfortunately, power management escapes most new pilots entirely. So this change wouldn't really help the starter Strike avoid being a newbie trap.

 

I'd like any Strike buffs to be fairly automatic, so that new pilots benefit from them without having to know the game's intricacies yet.

[Bugattiboy]

I sure hope they listen to you GSF players better than they listened to Watchman Sentinels.

[Nemarus]

I think perma-doubling strike damage would be going too far but... I'm not entirely sure. I am fairly certain that the only reason strikes feel "right" with DO (which I generally agree with) is that enemies actually "turn dark blue and run". If you draw bead on a gunship, he'll run, not stand and tank you while railgunning you, if you approach a bomber he'll use all his boost to escape, etc. In other words, the enemies react like you are way more dangerous than you normally would be, because DO.

 

With this on permanently, these tricks wouldn't work- I honestly feel you'd run down and splatter most of the enemy team if you had a permanent DO, I think it would be too strong.

 

 

 

When I say Strikes "feel right" with DO, I am specifically talking about the time to kill, and the return on landing a missile. I don't know of any competent pilots who flee from a Strike with DO, and I've never witnessed it myself.

 

if I'm flying a Strike and I get a DO, there are two responses I see:

 

1) No response, because pilots didn't notice I got DO or are distracted shooting someone else. I turn my HLC's on them--and even with DO it takes a few shots to finish them off, during which they have a window to either go evasive or turn on me.

 

2) They notice me get DO and immediately focus me with railguns and melee attacks.

 

Now imagine every Strike has DO. You simply cannot win against them by jousting. You have to flank them with a Scout or outrange them with a Gunship. And that ... seems perfectly good to me.

 

I don't even think a team of 8 Strikes, all with perma-DO, would clean up against pilots of equal skill in mixed ships. Because it's not like the Strikes can "sneak up" on you. You'd see them coming 15km+ away, you'd see who they are targeting, you'd get ample warning as they attempted to lock on missiles. And in that time, you could react using the specialized strengths of Scouts and Gunships.

 

Bombers would be quite vulnerable against perma-DO Strikes, but that's exactly what we've wanted since Bombers first came out.

 

Even if +100% damage seems a bit extreme, I thin that a significant, pure damage buff may be the simplest, safest, most efficient fix. Whether it's 100%, 80%, or 60%. The simple truth is that a Strike looking at you, in range, needs to be especially dangerous.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Nemarus

[Nemarus]

It's true that this increased range wouldn't help a Strike that was trying to fight in close quarters, such as on a node trying to root out entrenched defenders, but really that's the scenario a Scout is a ideal for, and I don't think it's necessary to try to make a Strike competitive at all levels of specialization. There is always a scenario in which a particular ship or a particular build is disadvantaged; that's part of having separate roles/types in the first place.

 

Since the launch of GSF, Domination victory is determined by under-satellite, close-range fighting. It is not a "scenario". It is 60% of GSF matches.

 

Scouts, Bombers, and even Quarrels and Condors all have solid ways to take and hold a node.

 

Strikes need to have a part to play in that game too--one that doesn't require you and a buddy pincing the satellite from top and bottom while you hover motionless in open space.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Nemarus

[tunewalker]

Ok so we know design intent was Jack of all trades BUT master of none. I have said my ideal would be Jack of all Trades NOT master of none.

 

I have said that phrase enough times to be anoying, but I want to be clear what I mean by that. Every one knows a Jack of all trades means Good at everything, BUT master of none means that they wont be great at anything. This is currently where we are at, this is why a good Strike pilot can still decimate a bad team made of anything, but cant do anything against a good team made of anything. Other ships are "OP" at something because they are great at that thing. Now of course the Jack of all trades NOT master of none phrase basically means they can be good at everything AND STILL be great at 1 thing in particular. This is my ultimate want for the strike. To be able to built in a way they counter one of the FOUR ships in the meta while only being moderately weak to the other 3. To do this I want to first examine where we are on the whole "Jack of all trades" thing. Fair warning, yes this one is going to be one of those MASSIVELY long posts.... you have been warned.

 

Strike Chasis, again at first glance this thing is pretty good in my opinion. It has the second highest hull behind bombers (WAY BEHIND unfortunately). The strongest shields by a small amount (Probably TO SMALL) and has the second greatest maneuverability behind Scouts (WAY behind again). as you can tell by the parethesis in there, there is room for improvement, the gap between its health and the Gunships health vs Its health and the Bombers health is potentially to large a buff to hull health could help a little, or the difference between its shields and the gunships shields (and every one elses for that matter) is probably to small a buff to its base shields could also help. But for me the biggie is the Maneuverability difference between it and the scout. The strike ha about the same interval in speed and Turning Difference from the scout as the Gunship has from it and the Bomber has from the Gunship, so that part is pretty fairly balanced. Let's face it the Strike FEELS good the way it turns and moves just feels right. The issue is actually as I have said in the past Boost efficiency, unlike the bomber and the gunship, scouts and Strikes rely on boost for BOTH their offensive and defensive capabilities, thus having a strike have boost efficiency equal to ships that DONT rely on it for offensive potency seems kind of an unneccisary handicap.

 

 

Stock Strikes Jack of all trades component look.

 

 

T1

 

Rapid fire lasers: As has been said these look like they may have been intended as high deflection anti evasion weapons, with high rates of fire for spray and pray tactics. If this was the case obviously they fail misserably at this job. There is a lot of Spraying and a lot of Praying, just nobody answering. Their accuracy is abismal, their Tracking just as bad and their damage even worse even if the RNG gods answer your prayers and a laser lands it does so little damage that it doesnt matter. Also as has been said if you buff them to much scouts will just use them and then they become good against NON high deflection evasion targets, which would be bad if that's NOT their intent.

 

Best guessed intent: Anti-scout

 

 

Heavy Lasers: Long range lasers that when upgraded have armor pen and poor tracking, good accuracy..... I have no clue what this lasers goal is. Anti-gunship.... its kind of got the accuracy for it, but not sure about the range... I definately dont think it has the damage for this. Anti-bomber, well its got the Armor piercing and its range allows for the ability to destroy mines from a safe distance, but with its tracking you cant really reliably hit targets under node, and with its damage it doesnt really kill bombers all that quickly. Its good for these jobs just not great, I guess this could be a generalist weapon, but if we are going to be able to swap primaries I think the goal is to get 2 specialized lasers. (again if this were buffed ships like the bombers would be better as well, but bombers arent really known for their primaries so that's not exactly a bad thing)

 

Best guessed intet: Anti Gunship, or Anti-bomber

 

Concussion missiles: Mid Range, Mid Lock and Mid Reload high Pure damage missile. I have gone on record saying this is bad... in the CURRENT meta. This missile as others have noted is actually reliable AND deals nearly enough damage to be truly devistating to the one shipin the game that only has 1 missile break.... the Strike fighter. If the missile is intended to counter strikes, its pretty close. Its damage could afford to be a little larger (especially if you buff strike health) and its lock time could definately afford to be reduced to be made more reliable, but if its intended as a Anti-strike missile lowering its CD would bring it into the realm of to good against other ships namely double missile break ships like Gunships and Scouts.

 

Best guessed Intent: Anti-strike fighter

 

 

Koiogran Turn: The only thing this maneuver has ever been good for is missile breaking on a node, if its intended for something else... well ya that's a pretty big failute.

 

Best guess Intent: Node holding survival

 

Quick Charge shield: this things primary use thus far has been for the engine efficiency. This allows strikes to have better boost efficiency against scouts AND gunships, but again turns them into wet paper towels when it comes to taking a hit. The combination of Turbo Reactor seems to suggest to me that the Quick regen of this shield was supposed to mean something, but damage is to high and regen to slow on ships accrossed the board for this to be true. As far as I can tell this is meant to facilitate either Anti- Scout by allowing the Strike to keep pace with the scout, or Anti- Gunship but helping the strike close on the gunship. In both cases it fails as the weakness of the shield and the lack of evasion makes trying to approach either of these ships nearly suicide.

 

Best Guess Intent: Assisting in Anti-scout and Anti-gunship killing capabilities.

 

 

 

As we see here it seems the T1 Strike stock IS pulled in multiple directions, unfortunately NONE of those directions are any good at the moment, and it needs serious help to get there.

 

 

T2 Strike Stock

 

Quad Moderate range, Moderate accuracy, Moderate Tracking, and high Dps, this seems like the Concussion missile of Primaries. As such I am leaning to believe it was intended to kill strikes. If this is the case, it again is pretty decent at it. If anything else ......... well its only good at it if you can run a TT and buff its accuracy through the roof and its good against Gunships.... beyond that I dont know what you were aiming for.

 

Best guessed intent: Anti-strike weapon.

 

Concussion missile: See T1 strike oppinion hasnt changed

 

Best guessed intent: anti-strike

 

Proton Torp: long Lock time, Lock range, Long Reload Armor ignoring, shield ignoring weapon. This looks like an Anti-bomber tool, shoot from out side its area of denial ignore its defenses and do good damage, its long reload time off set by the fact that the Bomber cant break it. Its problem, lock on time is to long giving bombers way to much time to LoS (with it warning them that they NEED to LoS) AND it doesnt do nearly enough damage. If its meant for bombers it needs to be able to take AT LEAST half their health, OR place some sort of debuff on them that makes them truly feel one of these ESPECIALLY since its not like the bomber should eat more then 1 of these. If they survive long enough to eat a second, then I feel the bomber has done its job.

 

Best guessed intent: Anti-bomber

 

Barrel Roll: good running tool, good chasing tool. This is used to traverse the map faster, get away from short range targets on your tail, or chase down targets that you need to get close to. Basically run from Scouts/ strikes and run TO Gunships.

 

Best guessed intent: Anti- Gunship, Anti-scout

 

 

Quick Charge shield: Read above, evasion seemingly acting similarly to Turbo for intent, intending to make them miss long enough for you to regen rather then just shortening the time between you last got hit to starting regen.

 

Best guessed intent: Anti-gunship, Anti-scout.

 

Again we see a stock ship that pulls you in multiple directions, but again if the intent would be to make them Jack of all trades NOT master of none, then this isnt a bad thing as it gives samples of directions you can take the ship in, and then lets the player begin to specialize in one direction or another.

 

 

 

T3 Stock strike This one was obviously released later, lets see how design changed... if at all...

 

Rapid Fire lasers: Same as T1

 

Best guessed Intent: Anti-scout

 

Proton Torp: Same as T2

 

Best Guessed Intent: Anti- bomber

 

Combat command: Mostly used for increased accuracy for all team mates, but as other have said its kind of lacking in this regard, the radios could be to small, the CD to long, and even potentially the accuracy granted not enough. It does provide SOME extra stuff like energy, but since the accuracy is only on Primary weapons its really not super useful for helping GS allies, thus to me it seems clearly more about buffing allied Strikes and scouts. The extra energy being for if you are going after a target that DOESNT have evasion. Either way this system seems best for adding the accuracy which is of course used as Anti-evasion, but its definately missing something, from effect radious, to CD, to Duration, to only effecting primaries.

 

Best Guessed Intent: Anti-scout, Anti-Gunship

 

Power Dive: This engine maneuver has gotten a lot of fame lately, short CD, good missile breaking, good travel and 0 energy cost. If there could be engine maneuver that helps in catching and killing gunships specifically thus far I have to say this is it, it moves you enough and even a Ion rail doesnt shut it down.

 

Best Guessed intent: Anti-gunship.

 

Shield Projector: I have NO IDEA, what this shield is meant to be for, your armor component is reinforced so that gives more health and your Reactor is large again seemingly for more health. which is good, but unlike the other begginning shieds this one provides no mobility bonus, AND its on use is even worse some how. I honestly dont know what this shield is for other then dieing. I guess it provides shields for nearby targets, but Its so little that I dont know why you would want it.

 

 

Best guessed intent:.... Death Trap???

 

 

Again as far as I can tell the stock T3 Strike DOES have some changes in direction from teh other 2, almost as if it was acknowledging Scouts and Gunships and evasion as a problem, but again it falls short since the components are just not ready to preform the role it seems like they MAY be used for.

 

 

Also QoL suggestion that doesnt have to do with strikes..... when "complex tool tips" are turned off, make the weapon say what it currently does, but let us know what its primary purpose is supposed to be. It DOES help the community know what you guys are going for, AND it helps new players get a better sense of what they should and SHOULDNT be doing when it comes to component selection and the like. Most have no idea Heavies have bad tracking, or even what tracking is. If the Tool tip on Clusters said: Fast lock, Fast reload, perfect for taking out those evasive scouts. The new player might actually KNOW what's going on

 

 

 

Edit: will talk about non stock components current "potential" on strikes later, but suffice to say I can see the makings of the ideas in each thing, but it is still a long way off from any kind of making it there.

Edited May 29, 2015 by tunewalker

[MaximilianPower]

Unfortunately, power management escapes most new pilots entirely. So this change wouldn't really help the starter Strike avoid being a newbie trap.

 

I'd like any Strike buffs to be fairly automatic, so that new pilots benefit from them without having to know the game's intricacies yet.

 

Right, true, and this actually occurred to me immediately after I submitted that post. So how about buff base (F4) rates so all strikes benefit, then further buff F1/F3 so the more seasoned pilots can get more out of their ships.

[tommmsunb]

Please Alex just get in a skype call with Verain instead of this forum post stuff. Majority of the ideas in this thread are not well-thought out enough to be considered remotely viable.

[GlennCS]

This is awesome, I was just thinking about this the other day waiting in queue. I have a few suggestions for buffing Strikes, some of which have already been mentioned by others.

 

I think two things that would help with missiles would be: Increase the targeting area for all missiles to at least Concussion size, if not Cluster size. This would help to increase the chance of getting a lock, while keeping the lock-on time the same as it is currently. The other thing would be to make all missiles have a 6 second reload time, from Clusters all the way up to Protons. But leave the magazine capacity the same, this would give some additional use to the reload drone (outside of the Pods and Clusters scouts that need it now).

 

Second I would give Strikes either better engine efficiency or a bigger engine pool to allow them to travel the same distance as Scouts, albeit at a slower pace. For example, if a stock scout can boost 50 km on one bar of engine power, Strikes should also be able to go the same 50 km, but taking an additional few seconds to cover the distance.

 

These next two I don't think are needed as much, but I don't think they are bad ideas to think about either.

 

I think the idea to boost weapon power was on the right track. I don't think they should have the same power buff as a DO, but I think a 10-25% power buff inherent in the chassis would be about right. Whether that should be just to the primary weapons or also includes missiles I am not sure about.

I also think they could use a 10-20% bigger shield power pool in order to better survive dogfights or run-ins with gunships. I don't think they should have more hit points on the hulls, I feel they are about right in that area.

[MaximilianPower]

Please Alex just get in a skype call with Verain instead of this forum post stuff. Majority of the ideas in this thread are not well-thought out enough to be considered remotely viable.

 

Sure, such a call would be helpful, but I believe it's counterproductive to stifle this conversation. Yes, some of these suggestions aren't viable (probably even my own) and/or indicate a lack of familiarity with the game, but at least it's discussion. When was the last time a thread got this much attention around here?

 

Other than the obvious trolling, I tend to think any discussion/interest is positive. Just have to hope Alex can separate the viable suggestions from the rest. Maybe if we can reach some kind of consensus amongst ourselves, that would help point him in the right direction.