Let`s talk about Combat Command - Strike Buff

[NeverEvar]

Mastered combat command gives you 20% accuracy, 7% crit. With a 60 second cooldown it`s basicly stonger then wingman copilot And same...it`s AOE.

 

pared with Quads

 

it gives 20% accuracy bonus and 15% crit. Pretty sweet.

 

It has the best buff uptime(24 sec) but not the best cooldown (60sec)

 

The problems are:

 

1)It applies only to primary weapons

 

2)It`s on ships that have far superior alternatives(tensor and rep probe)

 

So if we are taking about strikes, wouldn't it be fun to have this kind of buff on T1 strike? How much difference could it made?

 

You could pair it with wing-man (40% accuracy, 15% crit) with CF( 20% accuracy 51% crit) chance) or even with bypass(20%accuracy, 15 crit, 16% Shield piercing) and that just for quads. HLC would be even more gun and make scouts life miserable if cought off guard. T2 strike can back it it up with cluster and conc combo that's very effective.

 

What other ships could use CC? Would this system ability help under performing strikes?

[Nemarus]

Mastered combat command gives you 20% accuracy, 7% crit. With a 60 second cooldown it`s basicly stonger then wingman copilot And same...it`s AOE.

 

pared with Quads

 

it gives 20% accuracy bonus and 15% crit. Pretty sweet.

 

It has the best buff uptime(24 sec) but not the best cooldown (60sec)

 

The problems are:

 

1)It applies only to primary weapons

 

2)It`s on ships that have far superior alternatives(tensor and rep probe)

 

So if we are taking about strikes, wouldn't it be fun to have this kind of buff on T1 strike? How much difference could it made?

 

You could pair it with wing-man (40% accuracy, 15% crit) with CF( 20% accuracy 51% crit) chance) or even with bypass(20%accuracy, 15 crit, 16% Shield piercing) and that just for quads. HLC would be even more gun and make scouts life miserable if cought off guard. T2 strike can back it it up with cluster and conc combo that's very effective.

 

What other ships could use CC? Would this system ability help under performing strikes?

 

Rycer and Quell would have to give up weapon switching to get a system component. Weapon switching is not that powerful, but I'm not sure I'd exchange it for Combat Command.

 

I would definitely exchange it for Targeting Telemetry or Booster Recharge. And that's the problem. Even if all Strikes could take Combat Command, they are still apples-to-apples inferior to Scouts with TT and superior weapons.

 

Strikes either need a permanent buff to accuracy/damage/range, or else some system component that supercharged their missiles and torpedoes somehow. Otherwise, Scouts will always be the superior option for pretty much every scenario.

[NeverEvar]

That is a good point...But just had a crazy idea..what if Combat command would fill shield ability?

 

Shields are the weakest part of strikes anyway.

 

Still i`m not saying that this is the way to fix strikes but this really cool systems components is wasting cause it`s fitted only on ships with much better systems. We actually did an experiment on Prego some months ago, on two strikes formation, Combat Command on my T3 with RI, despite the trouble of co-o flying without voice, The T1 strike performed extremely well

 

(Wingman Accuracy + 20%, + 20% CC Accuracy, + 16% RI evasion, +7% CC crit) With that level of accuracy buff scouts just felt apart. I find it a good model for "chasis buffs"

 

If i recall the "buffed" strike was running Quad/HLC/Clusters/Retro/Wingman.

 

So it putted "buffed Strike"

 

Quads with: 156%/141/%131% with 15% Crit Chance and 31% evasion

 

HLC with: 151%/146%/141% with 7% Crit Chance and 31% evasion

 

Note that T1 doesn't have the armor component so t2 strike would have either of them but with 40% evasion

 

Hmmm...Actually i`ll try to find a "recording buddy" and test it again.

 

It might be a good simulation of "chassis" buff that is actually coded into a game

Edited September 22, 2015 by NeverEvar

[Gavin_Kelvar]

That is a good point...But just had a crazy idea..what if Combat command would fill shield ability?

 

Shields are the weakest part of strikes anyway.

 

Arguably shields are it's biggest defense strength. Granted the base stat needs a buff to be better able to face tank a scout's burst but still you'd be giving up it's major defensive strength to get more offense. I'm not sure that's a good idea since strikes already make enough trades to get one thing or another. I think they should just get a straight buff rather than be asked to choose between more offense or more defense. GS should be the glass cannons, not strikes.

 

Personally I think the way you could make CC (and remote slicing) more appealing on the T3 strike if you gave them one (or both) buffs to the base strike chassis: 1) passive hull repair that's better than the co-pilot heal but not as powerful as repair probes/drones or 2) shields that both have the strength to face tank a scout's burst with some left in reserve and gave it a 3-4 second regen delay (unlike the 6 second delay now). If strikes could rely on their shields to tank most of the incoming damage then it wouldn't be as big an issue for a strike to give up repairs.

 

But I think even with CC become an AOE TT T3 strikes would be reluctant to give up repairs that are a key to letting them tank so much damage. Without a big buff to their defense they'd be sacrificing a lot of survivability to gain offense (which again I think is a bad design direction to take them in). As a Clarion pilot repairs have really made the difference between being able to make multiple torpedo runs on an entrenched bomber at a sat and being brought down by the withering defensive fire.

 

Overall I think the T3s don't take it is not just because tensor and repairs are inherently better but because they'd be sacrificing a lot of their variant's strengths for an offensive component (and in the T3 scout's case they're sacrificing tensor's strengths for something they don't have the offensive tools to get the fullest benefit from the buff, and they have TT). It's hard to make CC a compelling choice when your variant lacks the tools to truly benefit from TT (scout) or when it's really decreasing your survival chances (strike).

[RickDagles]

That is a good point...But just had a crazy idea..what if Combat command would fill shield ability?

 

Shields are the weakest part of strikes anyway.

 

Still i`m not saying that this is the way to fix strikes but this really cool systems components is wasting cause it`s fitted only on ships with much better systems. We actually did an experiment on Prego some months ago, on two strikes formation, Combat Command on my T3 with RI, despite the trouble of co-o flying without voice, The T1 strike performed extremely well

 

(Wingman Accuracy + 20%, + 20% CC Accuracy, + 16% RI evasion, +7% CC crit) With that level of accuracy buff scouts just felt apart. I find it a good model for "chasis buffs"

 

If i recall the "buffed" strike was running Quad/HLC/Clusters/Retro/Wingman.

 

So it putted "buffed Strike"

 

Quads with: 156%/141/%131% with 15% Crit Chance and 31% evasion

 

HLC with: 151%/146%/141% with 7% Crit Chance and 31% evasion

 

Note that T1 doesn't have the armor component so t2 strike would have either of them but with 40% evasion

 

Hmmm...Actually i`ll try to find a "recording buddy" and test it again.

 

It might be a good simulation of "chassis" buff that is actually coded into a game

 

 

Strikes actually have the biggiest shields and fastest regenerating shields. That and HLC are really the only advantages.

[NeverEvar]

Prolly to much of a shortcut, I meant that even directional Shields in the long run are short on effectiveness comparing to : Disto, Feedback, Overcharged. I`m not counting CP cause thet require an armor component to work and one strike is lacking it.

 

And Siraka, that is all correct, if you forget about t3 bomber, that with overcharged shields has bigger ones(it prolly is the best strike)

 

So even if shields are a big asset of strikes, they still fall short in comparasment

[Verain]

No, he's correct. Strikes have the biggest shields.

 

Strike base shielding is 1800. This gives them 90/s regen base as well. These are the best values. Anything that "boosts regen by 10%" will give you 9/s. Anything that "boosts shielding by 10%" will give you an extra 180.

 

Bomber base shielding is 1500. This gives them 75/s regen base. If you "boost regen by 10%", you'll get 7.5/s. If you "boost shielding by 10%", you'll get an extra 150.

 

Gunships base shielding is 1700 (regen 85) and scout base shielding is 1300 (regen 65).

 

 

You shouldn't count stuff like "overcharged shield". Those modifiers are coming from the component itself, and there are disadvantages and advantages to that. A type 3 bomber with OC shielding, large reactor, and crewman passive is 2700, or 3000 in F2. If you press the button and are specced for the most temp shield, you can get up to 3405.

 

A gunship running fortress shield can get up to 5100 shields, but with the obvious cost of never being able to move during that cooldown. Does that count?

 

A type 1 or type 3 strike with directionals is 2520, or 2880 in F2. But if he uses his active, he's over 5000 on a single arc- that blows away the type 3 bomber under ANY situation, and is similar to the fortress gunship. Which, coincidentally, is why you use directionals on that type 3 bomber, at which point the numbers are lower in all cases to the strike fighter.

 

Or, forget directionals, lets talk Clarion with Charged Plating- now your shields are 3060, 3420 in F2. That's much higher than a bomber can get to.

 

Strikes are the best at shield hit points. Shield hit points, of course, don't make a ship great all by themselves, but it's very likely that in testing before launch, shield health was overperforming compared to live- in fact, there used to be even more shield piercing, implying that their testing was done with testers who have a lot less time on target than modern players (to be expected- testing was months log, game has been out for a lot longer).

[NeverEvar]

Ok, point taken i`ll refraze my thought:

 

Even Strikes best defense, which is its shields, even with in it`s immense power in the long run is falling short in efficiency, due to burst dmg style of the game.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Ok, point taken i`ll refraze my thought:

 

Even Strikes best defense, which is its shields, even with in it`s immense power in the long run is falling short in efficiency, due to burst dmg style of the game.

 

I'd say it's due more to two things: burst (as you noted) and the power of evasion. If we had a world where the only RNG way to miss was from tracking penalties I think our perception of strike's shields might be a little different. Scouts would get burned down much more easily by their own burst so strikes not being burned down quite as fast would be more noticeable (if still weak as a defense). I think though one of the forum theory crafters figured that, with evasion, scouts had nearly the same effective HP as strikes which is why I think their shields feel so weak. It's not really a powerful defense if they end up having nearly the same effective HP as a craft that has, supposedly, a paper thin hull.

 

Simple solution though is to just give strikes a base shield around what they currently achieve with CP, large reactor, crew passive (~3,000 I think) and tweak their regen to be much more powerful (I think 4 second as a base delay with the 1.2 second hard cap minimum delay still in place is good along with a buff to the regen rate). All together it'd make them harder to burn down and would make their shield strength the advantage it was likely always meant to be. Directionals using their active would be nigh impenetrable in that case and strikes would have a very powerful defensive CD (if one that required a little more skill to use optimally than some others).

[Ramalina]

Back when there was a fair bit of mathing out of shields vs evasion there was some recognition that evasion had mechanical advantages over shields, but for the most part that got left out to make modelling easier.

 

Mostly the assumption was that a ship has a finite non-regenerating set of hull points, a finite non-regenerating set of shield points, and evasion reduces the amount of incoming damage to those two pools by roughly the percentage of evasion rating.

 

It's a very simplified model that's easy to use, and under certain fairly strict conditions it not an absolutely terrible one.

 

There have also been environmental changes like 2 years worth of pilot skill development for some players and fairly massive changes to engine maneuver frequency.

 

Now, I'd tend to say that a minimum simplistic model would want to compare

 

Hull pts + shield points + evasion from one or several "typical builds" vs a range of "typical" weapons such as piercing blasters, non-piercing blasters, slug railgun, and at least one kind of missile with each weapon being simulated on an (x amount of time firing at y expected hit rate before evasion).

 

It's a lot of work, but it would capture things like shields only protecting hulls against non-piercing damage, where evasion protects shields, hull and spaceframe against any non-missile/deployable damage and debuffs.

 

Maybe sometime when I'm not stupidly tired I'll work up a simple model to take another look at shield vs evasion in the meta as it stands.

 

I'm pretty sure that shields are not as competitive as I though they were just after the great evasion nerf, but I don't really know how much you'd have to buff them to have a crude estimate of what more closely balanced would look like.

 

No, he's correct. Strikes have the biggest shields.

You shouldn't count stuff like "overcharged shield". Those modifiers are coming from the component itself, and there are disadvantages and advantages to that. A type 3 bomber with OC shielding, large reactor, and crewman passive is 2700, or 3000 in F2. If you press the button and are specced for the most temp shield, you can get up to 3405.

 

A gunship running fortress shield can get up to 5100 shields, but with the obvious cost of never being able to move during that cooldown. Does that count?

 

Of course it counts. If it can be mounted on an existing build it counts for that build. Whether or not the component employed with "good usage" within the context of the build or the build itself are any good in combat is another matter.

 

Shields and armor could use some work. Evasion is highly effective, and pretty interesting in the way it works. The other two defensive stats could use some more of that kind of mojo. Figuring out where to get that mojo is the tedious part. Not sure I'd even expect changes on that front in any case even if we in the community did a fairly detailed rough outline of the math of what might potentially work.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Ramalina

[NeverEvar]

Actually Fortress shields, terrible as they are they have some small merit. And i see the idea behind it`s design. IMO they were design to withstand plasma and slug barrage, the problem is Plasma is just...bad. Which is funny cause it is almost good. If you could actually hit anything while having Bypass active, it would be a really big trouble for low hull targets.

 

 

But we are sidetracking. I did some experiments with combat command and i have a fun conclusion.

 

A T1 strike buffed by tensor and combat command at the same time is really dangerous. In my personal view it puts it on par with T1 scout. Builds used:

 

1)Quad/ion/cluster/bypass

2)Quad/ion/cluster/RI

3)Quad/ion/cluster wingman

4)HLC/ion/conc/bypass

5)HLC/quad/cluster//wingman

 

1) Meh

2) Interesting, can outjoust a t2 scout, sitll, jousting is bad

3) Worked surprisingly well under the satellite, scouts evasion was basically negated

4) worked good against overcharged an and fortress, dint encounter a CP bomber

5)Good but not very impressive, did some nice dmg to scouts while using range capacitor.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

A T1 strike buffed by tensor and combat command at the same time is really dangerous. In my personal view it puts it on par with T1 scout.

 

Very interesting what your experience was. If I'm understanding the buffs tensor provides that'd be 22% buff to base turn radius (more depending on what component upgrades you were using; it would be helpful to know what thruster and T3 engine upgrades you used) and a 30% buff to base speed. For the ones using Wingman + CC I think that's a 40% accuracy buff. I'm curious though how you found disengaging from combat with a scout? Did tensor's buff provide enough mobility to allow you some ability to disengage? Or was the strikes mobility still too low to be able to disengage from combat with a scout?

 

Personally I'd lean more towards buffing the strike's base speed and power pool with a more moderate buff to turning than what you experienced with tensor (the 22% turn radius buff of tensor basically gives a strike a scout's turn radius, I think it would overall be better to give a strike longer legs than a scout but keep it with an inferior turn radius. This would, I think, leave both ship classes with base stats that compliment their weapons). I do like the idea of 20-40% accuracy buff folded into strike primaries to greatly reduce the effectiveness of evasion in nullifying the threat presented by a strike.

 

Incidentally those buffs are very similar in stats to some of the stuff I was proposing in the strike thread so I'm glad it could be tested out and found to be effective. (minor differences in % buff).

 

EDIT: my assumption here is that adding a 5 button option to strikes is neither viable for the dev team with the time they have nor ideal since during the CD strikes would retain their underwhelming current stats and they really need buffs that make them threatening all of the time.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[NeverEvar]

I was using Retro Thrusters, with extra turning and Regen thursters.

 

As for buffs, we used :

 

Tensor with Evasion and booster regen, and RI

 

combat command with crit and accuracy with wingman

 

So the buffed t1 had: (+40 accuracy, +7 crit, +20 evasion, + 15 turning, with + 16 shield piercing with bypass

 

We didn`t try 2x RI couse we were not sure if evasion buff`s stack.

 

Gonna try today with CF, With quads it should be some insane burst dmg.

 

22% turning is also on "to test" list.

 

It`s a quite interesting experiment, since you can stack 5 different buffs, but it requires a lot of coordination, to have it stacked in the same up time. Might try to add shield projector to the mix

 

If you have any other concepts to try it out feel free to post. Next time, will try to make a vid out of it.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I was using Retro Thrusters, with extra turning and Regen thursters.

 

As for buffs, we used :

 

Tensor with Evasion and booster regen, and RI

 

combat command with crit and accuracy with wingman

 

So the buffed t1 had: (+40 accuracy, +7 crit, +20 evasion, + 15 turning, with + 16 shield piercing with bypass

 

So once you factor in the chassis buffs from your components you had around 25% turning along with a 15% buff to base speed (I think tensor's base buff is 15% turning and speed). It sounds though like that kind of mobility buff and accuracy buff made strikes quite competitive without having to fold in a direct buff to base primary damage.

 

I'd be curious to see how a strike performs with the power pool minor component, tensor' basically as you had it (T4 evasion buff, T5 booster regen), and then retro's power pool buff. Offensively using the same buffs to get that 40% accuracy.

 

I think tensor's overall buff is on par or slightly higher with what a strike would get if it could use all the thruster minor components at once along with an engine component's buff to speed/engine power. It seems your experience with the build you tried is that a strike can be quite competitive in a turn fight and I'm curious whether a strike with buffs focusing primarily on speed/distance would have the mobility to choose when and where to fight, making them competitive without having to be as good or better turn fighters than a scout.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[NeverEvar]

40% extra accuracy, basically negates disto. I really hope the T1 strke would have LLC, that combo could be lethal.

 

As for defence the evasion with buffs goes to 31%(5% chasis, 5% crew, 15% RI 6% Tensor)

 

So it is only 2% difference to the mastered scout, with evasion choices. Combining that with Directional and ion canons ability to eat any targets shields in a moment, makes it a really deadly Jouster. Fun part is that T2 and T3 strikes, could go to actual having 40% evasion.

 

It is fairly easier to get a drop on a GS, with the speed bonus, sadly the burst is not high enough to burn it down before it can reacts. And regen of Tensor is to small to override Ion rail gun(I had a feeling that tensor regen was overwritten by energy suppression talent, but maybe just tensor run out)

 

So, what about bombers?

 

Ion canons energy drain is to small to criple bombers ability to LOS, while cluster do help under the satelite, Thou HLC with Bypass were fairly effective. Would BLC help? Definitely.

 

What i think would help strikes a bit, if concussion missile could have engine targeting and armor ignore. They would be a valid missile vs bombers, and even, to some degree., versus scouts and gunships. The problem with missiles is that buffing missiles would actually be strikes bane.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

So it is only 2% difference to the mastered scout, with evasion choices. Combining that with Directional and ion canons ability to eat any targets shields in a moment, makes it a really deadly Jouster. Fun part is that T2 and T3 strikes, could go to actual having 40% evasion.

 

The thing I don't like about that is we'd basically be giving the defining defensive strength of scouts to strikes. Now granted without booster recharge strikes kinda need the evasion defense against ion rail more than scouts. But being an pilot from beta I really don't want to return to the days of absurdly powerful evasion, even if the ship benefiting most from it would be my favorite strike fighters.

 

Of course strikes will need a performance boost in some areas that puts them on par with, or slightly ahead of, scouts. But I'm just unsure that buffing base evasion on strikes is a good option over buffing their shield strength to absurdly high levels. You could in theory give strikes double or triple the effective HP of a scout stacking max evasion by simply giving strikes thicker shields.

 

It is fairly easier to get a drop on a GS, with the speed bonus, sadly the burst is not high enough to burn it down before it can reacts. And regen of Tensor is to small to override Ion rail gun(I had a feeling that tensor regen was overwritten by energy suppression talent, but maybe just tensor run out).

 

If strikes mobility were buffed to be good and it was given offensive teeth I wouldn't necessarily mind ion rail retaining the ability to shut a strike down. Namely if strikes had the ability to impact a game the way an unchecked bomber does in dom. Think about that, if strikes became a dogfighter that threatened even T2 scouts ion rail would then be balanced as a counter that keeps a flight of strikes from steamrolling everything instead of something that turns strikes from a minimal threat to fodder with which to pad your K/D.

[NeverEvar]

The problem with absurdly powerful Shields, is that there is a great workout around it. It`s called HLC and Bypass.Or BLC with Bypass. Not to mention Slugs native shield pen.

 

Also i don`t think that Strikes should outperform Scouts in dog fighting.

 

From what you are suggesting in most post is that Scouts should sacrifice either disto or systems to keep the better mobility advantage over strikes.

 

I don`t think i agree with that line of thinking.

 

Since repairs are so low in the foodchain(cause they are all HOTas) You don`t want to tank dmg. And lets don`t forget that concs and cluster also have shield pen. Seismic ignore shields.

 

And 40% evasion is not that high, to be realistic for t2 strike considering how few defensive options it has. a t1, without armor component only gets 31% and T3-s lack of offensive capabilities would keep it rather balanced.

 

And we already have one class of ships that is kept in check by ion railgun. I don`t think we need more ships to be canceled by that class of ships, cause it would cause even more bomber/GS balls

[Gavin_Kelvar]

The problem with absurdly powerful Shields, is that there is a great workout around it. It`s called HLC and Bypass.

 

I don't really see a problem with strikes having a counter to themselves. Scouts can counter their evasion defense with TT + wingman and they seem to be fine.

 

Or BLC with Bypass.

 

A T2 scout that does this sacrificed both their ability to counter bombers and turrets (BLC can have bypass or AP but not both) as well as put themselves at a disadvantage in a dogfight against another scout (no wingman or RI). If strikes become so powerful that a scout thinks that taking that choice almost exclusively to counter one ship type at the cost of being weaker against two other ships types and at taking sats from enemies then the devs did something right and made strikes into formidable opponents.

 

Not to mention Slugs native shield pen.

 

Simple fix is a slight nerf to it's shield pen. The devs nerfed shield pen once before if I recall right and can do so again if merited. Overall though I think slug needs a balance pass just for the sake of making plasma a worthwhile choice so that might be best dealt with then. And given that ion rail can strip shields I'd say the 28% shield pierce is the least of a strike's worries.

 

Others have also suggested a fix to bypass which would be "shield hardening" which would basically counter bypass to a degree (more in the way evasion and accuracy work than the binary AP/DR).

 

Also i don`t think that Strikes should outperform Scouts in dog fighting.

 

They wouldn't beat a scout in a turn fight (unless the strike focused on turning and the scout focused on speed, but that can currently happen now) but they'd be able to outrun them. The thing being that if they can't outrun a scout and can't out turn it then they absolutely need the ability to burn down a scout even if it pops all it's defensive CDs before it reaches the strike. Leave a scout with superior mobility and they'll retain their ability to choose when and where to fight a strike. That means they can choose to only fight a strike when their CDs are up (which they can and do right now). Therefore a strike needs to be buffed so that even with their CDs ready the strike remains a lethal threat to an approaching scout. Now it's fine if that course is opted for but IMO that requires a lot of tweaking since, unlike a GS, strikes won't have much of a range(or any range) advantage which means you're talking about a pretty hefty offensive buff which could very well be too powerful against non-scouts.

 

The strike buff shouldn't be limited in a way that makes [buffed] RFLs/LLC trap components where the only "right" weapon choices are QLC/HLC due to the necessity of range. For that to be true you need to give strikes the tools to fight a scout without having a range advantage. IMO the best and most balanced way to do that is to give strikes the mobility to flee a scout not built for speed. A strike using [buffed] RFLs/LLC could then do hit and run against a scout. Without any mobility or turning advantage RFLs/LLC become traps on a strike where they must close to a scout's optimal range but have neither the ability to flee if things go badly or beat the scout in a turn fight (remember RFLs and/or LLC are available on all strikes but only the T1 can swap primaries so retaining the current turning and mobility status quo makes those weapons traps on T2/T3s).

 

From what you are suggesting in most post is that Scouts should sacrifice either disto or systems to keep the better mobility advantage over strikes.

 

The T2 wouldn't sacrifice disto since they don't even have S2E. They might be compelled to switch TT/BO for booster recharge. The S2E + booster recharge T1 would be the main winner there (and it wouldn't be asking them to sacrifice anything, it'd just be making that build more prominent in the meta).

 

The main idea though is that scouts have to make meaningful choices in how they want to combat a strike instead of the current situation where scouts hold all the cards and there isn't a meaningful pro/con to system selection when it comes to combating strikes. Do they want TT/BO for burst and hope they can get through the strike's buffed, stronger shields while running the risk that if the attack fails the strike has superior mobility to disengage to turn the tables? Or do they want to retain the ability to flee from the strike at the cost of having less burst, requiring more time on target which gives the strike more opportunities to damage you? Done right that kind of balance pass makes either choice viable for a scout but each one carries its own set of risks so that there is no build that allows scouts to retain their current ability to blithely ignore the threat posed by a strike.

 

And lets don`t forget that concs and cluster also have shield pen. Seismic ignore shields.

 

cluster's shield pen is a paltry 8%, that'll take a long time to kill a strike with and would probably have a negligible impact on a scout killing a full health strike. If a strike runs into a seismic mine it's their own fault since they have weapons with enough range to stay out of the mine's trigger radius.

 

And 40% evasion is not that high,

 

Scouts used to have 40%+ passive evasion before it was nerfed because it was too powerful. When you added 40% passive evasion to RI/DField etc. it went from "too powerful" to "absurdly broken" because you could literally reduce an enemy's accuracy to 0%. If the devs nerfed scouts so they couldn't have 40% passive evasion there's pretty much no chance of them turning around and giving strikes 40% evasion.

 

I forget the patch number but perhaps one of the old guys like Verain or Nem remember.

 

And we already have one class of ships that is kept in check by ion railgun. I don`t think we need more ships to be canceled by that class of ships, cause it would cause even more bomber/GS balls

 

I'm honestly puzzled here what other ship you're referring to since ion rail is already a hard counter to strikes, far more so than it is to scouts. I'm pretty sure ion rail was designed to be a hard counter to strikes, not scouts too.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Gavin_Kelvar

[NeverEvar]

Ok, got first vid.

 

This time it`s T1 strike buffed by a CC/wingman/shield projector, from clarions PoV

 

 

Score board from the match(note that i`m not a very talented strike pilot)

 

http://i.imgur.com/xCU95lV.jpg?1

 

The obvious thing is how hard is it keep u the buffs up

 

Builds used

 

T1 strike(Z'harkov)

 

HLC/Quad/Retro/Bypass//directional/Large reactor/retro thrusters

 

T3 Strike(Yo-Wan)

 

Quad/Thermite/CC/shiled projector/wingman

 

From my previous flight experiences my usual dmg is at about 35-40k

 

Considering the max up time of combat command and wingman can give it`s 1/3 ratio. so it ASSUMING i was hit with it every time for 9,50 minute combat i was buffed for about 3,5 minutes

 

3,5 minutes buff elevated my dmg by 10-15k

 

My accuracy on strike is not very impressive at the start, and there weren't a lot of high evasion targets around, so it`s hard to determine how would it face versus scouts or T1 gunships. It definitely out-jousts t3 Gunship

 

Still considering 89.48 DPS with only 41% accuracy is showing the potency of that kind of buff

 

6/9 kills were made while under boosted accuracy and crit

 

I know that considering there was not enough of of good enemies, it can be interpreted in few ways of course

 

Did those buffs made i a better ship? Definitely. Was the "Feel" of the ship different with and without cool downs? for sure.

 

"side note" We were flying without VoIP, with it prolly we could maximize buff usage and more.

 

Next vid will be a rather fresh strike pilot buffed by Tensor/CC/Shield projector/Wingman/Ri in a TDM on Lost. Base will be a T1 strike using CF as copilot

 

Edit:

 

Second video was uploaded

 

Edited October 3, 2015 by NeverEvar