How to improve strikes

[Eldarion_Velator]

I know this is probably a topic on which most pilots have given up (mostly because the devs aren't touching GSF, and I think mostly for good reason, if the latest problems with bugs/patching are any indication), but I thought I'd put this up here for some community input/ideas. I feel like I may have mentioned something like this in a reply to a thread months ago, but it seems like getting more strike fighter appreciation (largely out of pity for those new pilots who start with access only to the base T1 strike and scout) might be a good way for people, especially newer pilots, to think about how GSF mechanics actually work.

 

Basically I don't think a complete strike fighter overhaul is necessary to make them viable in combat (and the Clarion/Imperium have a build or builds that already do so, so my suggestions here don't apply to those ships). Specifically I'm proposing a single shield component with 3 tiers of upgrades: I call it Interference Hardening, applicable to the Star Guard/Rycer and the Pike/Quell.

 

Duration would be 6s, cooldown anywhere between 30s and 60s (60s if devs feel that it's too strong), and upgrades would be as follows: (as it is a shield, all of these abilities must be activated)

 

Base - increase base shields by 25% and reduce all AoE and direct mine damage by 25% for 6 seconds.

T1: - "Ion Hardening" - reduce all AoE ion damage by an additional 10% and direct ion damage by 10% for 6 seconds.

T2: - "Anti-Interdiction" - reduce effect of all interdiction (drones and fields) effects by 50% for 6 seconds.

T3: option 1 - "Anti-Interdiction Field" - extend "Anti-Interdiction" effects to 2 allies within 5000m for 6 seconds; option 2 - "Ion Hardening Field" - extend "Ion Hardening" effects to 2 allies within 5000m for 6 seconds.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Eldarion_Velator
upgrade naming consistency and added more specifics

[Storm-Cutter]

I assume you read through all ~101 posts of this thread Lets talk about strike fighters.

 

And have considered that that was probably the last dev post ever on this subforum - and we're only a couple of weeks from it being 2 YEARS old. (28th May 2015.)

 

Having politely pointed that out. - Suggest away, OP.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Storm-Cutter

[Eldarion_Velator]

I actually posted an idea similar to this suggestion in that thread: http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=8889450&postcount=1006

 

That being said, some good counters to that particular idea were raised, and I think my current suggestion is perhaps more reasonable and addresses some of the objections to my original idea.

 

Maybe the component wouldn't just be restricted to T1/T2 strikes but could be extended to the Comet Breaker/Dustmaker and the Spearpoint/Bloodmark.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Eldarion_Velator

[DownloadStarter]

I think I might be the only person still playing who thinks strike fighters are fine. At least, I've never had any complaints flying them (well over 2000 matches now).

 

A lot of it may come down to how I fly it - I don't typically fly in a pack, and I try to minimize time around teammates and heal depots because, frankly, I'm not interested in getting caught in an ion railgun chain shot. That one detail alone seems to keep me out of enough trouble to contribute. At max upgrades, my retro/ion/hlc/cluster burn build seems to do quite a number to all ion railgunners.

 

None of the three tiers of strike fighter appear to have been meant for straight-up alpha damage like T2 scouts and most gunships are. Honestly, I'm a bit nervous to think about what I would do to people if I had even the tiniest buff in a strike.

 

She's a jack of all trades meant for game managers - not superstars. And personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. (But I would definitely redesign all the Imperial strike fighters; they all look terrible and I refuse to fly them, much to the chagrin of my Imperial teams.)

[Greezt]

I think I might be the only person still playing who thinks strike fighters are fine. At least, I've never had any complaints flying them (well over 2000 matches now).

 

Probably.

 

A lot of it may come down to how I fly it - I don't typically fly in a pack, and I try to minimize time around teammates and heal depots because, frankly, I'm not interested in getting caught in an ion railgun chain shot. That one detail alone seems to keep me out of enough trouble to contribute. At max upgrades, my retro/ion/hlc/cluster burn build seems to do quite a number to all ion railgunners.

 

In that case, they're probably bad gunships. How do they allow you to get within 15k of them without ioning you dead is the question. Even if you somehow made it to them, they can just barrel away. This is a waste of time though, it's been proven time and again.

 

None of the three tiers of strike fighter appear to have been meant for straight-up alpha damage like T2 scouts and most gunships are. Honestly, I'm a bit nervous to think about what I would do to people if I had even the tiniest buff in a strike.

 

Which server do you fly on? I've been around a bit and never met a strike ace. Scout aces, gunship aces, sure. Even bomber aces. Not strike aces. I have met many players who claim that scouts and gunships are "OP", and that without them strikes would be fine... you know, like they phrase "rock is fine, nerf scissors. --paper".

 

In short, I do not think you are a threat in a strike and I do not think you should be afraid of what you'll achieve in one if they were buffed.

 

 

(But I would definitely redesign all the Imperial strike fighters; they all look terrible and I refuse to fly them, much to the chagrin of my Imperial teams.)

 

Offtopic, but what has chagrin do to with anything here? This sentence doesn't make sense to me.

[DownloadStarter]

Probably.

 

 

 

In that case, they're probably bad gunships. How do they allow you to get within 15k of them without ioning you dead is the question. Even if you somehow made it to them, they can just barrel away. This is a waste of time though, it's been proven time and again.

 

 

 

Which server do you fly on? I've been around a bit and never met a strike ace. Scout aces, gunship aces, sure. Even bomber aces. Not strike aces. I have met many players who claim that scouts and gunships are "OP", and that without them strikes would be fine... you know, like they phrase "rock is fine, nerf scissors. --paper".

 

In short, I do not think you are a threat in a strike and I do not think you should be afraid of what you'll achieve in one if they were buffed.

 

 

 

 

Offtopic, but what has chagrin do to with anything here? This sentence doesn't make sense to me.

 

...um, actually, I regularly attract double/triple teams in a strike. If you don't, you will lose because there are very, VERY few people who can beat me one-on-one.

 

I'm not saying this to boast. I'm saying it because it's true, and if you're ever interested in testing me on that, I'll be more than happy to acquiesce.

 

I can be found on Harbinger during the mornings, usually. My strike pilot is named Dainan, Repside.

 

(From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of chagrin

: disquietude or distress of mind caused by humiliation, disappointment, or failure

 

...which means, of course, that my teammates generally do not like it when I fly anything other than a strike or bomber, as I am very very bad with the other two classes. I am grateful for this opportunity to have educated you in the English language, and humbly invite you to posit any further inquiries you might have about any other words or phrases!)

Edited May 6, 2017 by DownloadStarter

[Greezt]

...um, actually, I regularly attract double/triple teams in a strike. If you don't, you will lose because there are very, VERY few people who can beat me one-on-one.

 

What does this mean? That two or three players chase you? That's not because you're good, that's because you're food. Notice the 'f' instead of 'g' there.

 

I'm not saying this to boast. I'm saying it because it's true, and if you're ever interested in testing me on that, I'll be more than happy to acquiesce.

 

I can be found on Harbinger during the mornings, usually. My strike pilot is named Dainan, Repside.

 

Gladly. Although I have been flying on Harb every day for the last couple of weeks and not even seen you once. Not to mention in any of my other 500 matches there.

 

(From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of chagrin

: disquietude or distress of mind caused by humiliation, disappointment, or failure

 

...which means, of course, that my teammates generally do not like it when I fly anything other than a strike or bomber, as I am very very bad with the other two classes. I am grateful for this opportunity to have educated you in the English language, and humbly invite you to posit any further inquiries you might have about any other words or phrases!)

 

I see now. You meant to say that you lose when not in a strike, and that causes your team to be frustrated. That's believable. What isn't is that you would win under the same circumstances while in a strike. However, I'd love to be proven wrong. I can be found under Close shave-srw mostly on Harbinger pubside. Let me know if you can show me the error of my ways.

[Ramalina]

I buy his argument, with caveats under certain conditions.

 

Ion-Retro is pretty good for stripping the shields off of a gunship, and unless the gunship pilot is very flighty it's often possible to get in lethal or near lethal damage before they run, especially if you're using clusters.

 

Alternatively, if you just focus on Ion Cannon use, it's often possible to completely strip shields from one arc of 3 to 4 gunships that aren't all that spread out, and if your team is on the ball, they can capitalize on that even if you die.

 

 

You have to conserve engine power and use cover a lot, but it does work. Especially if you have an engine overcharge active. For a strike in a lot of ways an engine overcharge can be almost as valuable as a damage overcharge.

 

 

Where it falls apart is in high skill organized teams. If really good gunships are covering each other, or if a scout or two comes after you because the gunships are asking for help, then a strike gets pretty much completely neutralized except as a very brief distraction. A scout on the other hand, is going to be a lengthy distraction and a real threat under the same circumstances at similar skill levels.

 

It's a level of play that doesn't happen all that often, and if just solo queueing on your own it might just be a handful of games, if that, in a 2000+ game career.

 

I have perhaps too much time on a Starguard, to the extent that parts of my brain occasionally forget that if you trigger an engine maneuver on a Pike it's more likely to go forward than backward. Experience does make an impact, and to equal a mastered Starguard I need to have a BLC-Clusters scout nearly fully mastered, just as a matter of difference in proficiency. Quads and pods, maybe 30%, chiefly because I find the play style to be much more similar to how I run strikes, so there's less adjustment.

 

If I didn't have experience with things like Super Serious nights, I might have largely the same opinion as DownloadStarter, instead of the opinion that a strike with Engine Overcharge and Damage Overcharge is almost on par with a battlescout without any overcharges.

 

I've been in games though, where I'm pretty confident that newer players have decided to switch from battlescout to strike, because after trying to 1v1 me 3 or 4 times it became clear to them that strikes have an obvious hardware advantage of some sort, and a mirror match would be more fair.

 

The random solo queue match can provide evidence that can be incorrectly interpreted. Even large datasets from many matches can have this sort of skew based on time and sever dependent local populations.

 

The correct conclusion is reached by being proficient in strikes, proficient in scouts, proficient in gunships, proficient in bombers, and then flying in matches filled entirely with other proficient pilots. That's a dataset accessed by a very small portion of the overall GSF population.

[DownloadStarter]

What does this mean? That two or three players chase you? That's not because you're good, that's because you're food. Notice the 'f' instead of 'g' there.

 

 

 

Gladly. Although I have been flying on Harb every day for the last couple of weeks and not even seen you once. Not to mention in any of my other 500 matches there.

 

 

 

I see now. You meant to say that you lose when not in a strike, and that causes your team to be frustrated. That's believable. What isn't is that you would win under the same circumstances while in a strike. However, I'd love to be proven wrong. I can be found under Close shave-srw mostly on Harbinger pubside. Let me know if you can show me the error of my ways.

 

I've flown against you. Your best ship against me is your Flashfire. I've taken out your gunship on a number of occasions already. I'll be more than happy to do so again if you like. Give my fondest to the rest of the crew?

 

(As far as records in and out of a strike, it's pretty clear from my statistics which my best ship is and which gives my team the best chance to win. My sincere apologies if that offends you somehow. Frankly, I have no idea why you're behaving the way you are. Is it tribalism, maybe? Do you feel like you're being threatened somehow because my experience has been a bit different than yours? Can I also ask when the last time you flew a strike was? It's usually gunships and T2 scouts for you.)

Edited May 6, 2017 by DownloadStarter

[Greezt]

If I didn't have experience with things like Super Serious nights, I might have largely the same opinion as DownloadStarter, instead of the opinion that a strike with Engine Overcharge and Damage Overcharge is almost on par with a battlescout without any overcharges.

 

Even with DO and engine overcharge ions will put a strike at a dead stop outside of any threat range. A couple of taps are all it takes to render that strike dead in the water (I've been on both sides of this fence, might even have a recording somewhere).

 

Scouts are more mobile than strikes, more maneuverable and more evasive. You know this of course, but what we disagree on is the fact that you need to fly against a 4-man in order to find that out. All you need is a single good scout or gunship pilot to fly against you and you learn the weakness of strikes.

 

I've flown against you. Your best ship against me is your Flashfire. I've taken out your gunship on a number of occasions already. I'll be more than happy to do so again if you like. Give my fondest to the rest of the crew?

 

I'm sure you have taken me out. I'm not invincible. However, I do doubt your contribution to your team in such cases (unless we were a bunch of new players).

 

I don't only fly the Flashfire. I fly the Condor and Quarrel close to equally, and I bomb with the Rampart quite often as well (although not as often and certainly not on Harbinger). Point being, when I think the match is going to be serious you probably won't see me in a strike. That's because I know they're weak, not because I don't like them.

 

What crew is this that you'd like me to give your fondest to?

 

(As far as records in and out of a strike, it's pretty clear from my statistics which my best ship is and which gives my team the best chance to win. My sincere apologies if that offends you somehow. Frankly, I have no idea why you're behaving the way you are. Is it tribalism, maybe? Do you feel like you're being threatened somehow because my experience has been a bit different than yours? Can I also ask when the last time you flew a strike was? It's usually gunships and T2 scouts for you.)

 

I'm not offended by you being better in strikes than in other ships. Perhaps you are, I do not recall seeing you in a strike, much less in any other ship. If anything, I will be disappointed to find a strike on my team in any serious match, if the player has a better option (read: pretty much any other ship in the game) on their bar.

 

I am also amused that you think I only fly gunships and scouts. Of course I do in serious matches, they're better. Don't worry, I also fly strikes.

 

• Clarion on TRE -
  
  
• Quell on TRE -
  
  
• Pike on SL -
  
  
• Star Guard on TRE -
  
  

 

I haven't recorded in a while, but rest assured I still fly strikes regularly. The difference between us seems to be that I don't confuse weak opposition with good ships. Recording no. 3 is a prime example of how easy it is to shut down strikes, by the way.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Greezt

[Neflarion]

Well Greetz in this case the phrase "Rock is fine. Nerf scissors." -Paper. Really does apply. Strikes are not weak, battlescouts are just OP. Your first clue to this fact? They are called battlescouts. 1v1 a scout shouldn't beat a strike because it can do more damage easier then a strike. A scout should win because its a more agile class of ship. When in a strike, a class of ship that is supposed to be a stronger class of ship, do you really think its appropriate that any scout should be able to take a strike from full hp/sp to dead in a matter of 3-4 shots. Cause I sure as hell don't.

[DownloadStarter]

snip

 

Guess I'll see you up there then.

 

Oh, and don't worry about your current angry attitude. Most people shed that after their 20s.

[keetrazor]

Honestly I'm not sure how much revamping strike fighters need. If they are upgraded and used properly, they are beasts. I've always been a scout and gunship person myself, but I have fought pilots that are highly skilled in the strike fighters, and as a result very difficult to kill. Can't really think of anything they needs to bolster. Idk why I've always gravitated towards scout and gunships, I guess I just like two shotting/one shotting people, or decimating them with cluster missiles and burst cannons.

[Greezt]

Well Greetz in this case the phrase "Rock is fine. Nerf scissors." -Paper. Really does apply. Strikes are not weak, battlescouts are just OP. Your first clue to this fact? They are called battlescouts. 1v1 a scout shouldn't beat a strike because it can do more damage easier then a strike. A scout should win because its a more agile class of ship. When in a strike, a class of ship that is supposed to be a stronger class of ship, do you really think its appropriate that any scout should be able to take a strike from full hp/sp to dead in a matter of 3-4 shots. Cause I sure as hell don't.

 

Battle scouts are not OP, they are the only ship in the game with hard counters - railgun drones and mines. Gunships and bombers can do their job from range our out of LoS, scouts cannot. In low-level matches scouts can do well, but it's quite easy to render scouts useless - 2-3 bombers on a team will force any scout to either swap ships or die repeatedly.

 

It's fine, every one of the three useful ship classes has been called OP at some time or other here. It goes to show, it's all a matter of perspective.

 

Guess I'll see you up there then.

 

Oh, and don't worry about your current angry attitude. Most people shed that after their 20s.

 

Thanks for making your point relevant to the discussion at hand and not personal. It makes you more convincing that way. Did I make an angry impression? I'm not. Either way, this discussion seems to have gone off the actual topic (if it ever was on it), so I'll leave it at that.

[Ornithopoda]

...um, actually, I regularly attract double/triple teams in a strike. If you don't, you will lose because there are very, VERY few people who can beat me one-on-one.

 

I'm not saying this to boast. I'm saying it because it's true, and if you're ever interested in testing me on that, I'll be more than happy to acquiesce.

 

I can be found on Harbinger during the mornings, usually. My strike pilot is named Dainan, Repside.

 

Lol Dainan, I killed you 1v1 just the other morning, despite the fact that every time you were nearing death you just ran away to take cover behind your teams gunship fire. Once we were away from the interference of teammates, you could barely land a shot on me, and to be fare I'm really only an intermediate GSF pilot.

[Eli_Porter]

Straight-up making them tankier and increasing missile range + reducing lock time would go a long way.

 

I don't think we need any complex mechanics like the OP suggests, because T1 strikes are part of the newbie package and should be newbie friendly.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Eli_Porter

[DownloadStarter]

Lol Dainan, I killed you 1v1 just the other morning, despite the fact that every time you were nearing death you just ran away to take cover behind your teams gunship fire. Once we were away from the interference of teammates, you could barely land a shot on me, and to be fare I'm really only an intermediate GSF pilot.

 

I'll have to take your word for it, I guess. Good job?

[DownloadStarter]

Thanks for making your point relevant to the discussion at hand and not personal. It makes you more convincing that way. Did I make an angry impression? I'm not. Either way, this discussion seems to have gone off the actual topic (if it ever was on it), so I'll leave it at that.

 

Oh. Okay. See, it was things like this that threw me off:

 

Which server do you fly on? I've been around a bit and never met a strike ace. Scout aces, gunship aces, sure. Even bomber aces. Not strike aces. I have met many players who claim that scouts and gunships are "OP", and that without them strikes would be fine... you know, like they phrase "rock is fine, nerf scissors. --paper".

 

In short, I do not think you are a threat in a strike and I do not think you should be afraid of what you'll achieve in one if they were buffed.

 

What does this mean? That two or three players chase you? That's not because you're good, that's because you're food. Notice the 'f' instead of 'g' there.

 

I see now. You meant to say that you lose when not in a strike, and that causes your team to be frustrated. That's believable. What isn't is that you would win under the same circumstances while in a strike. However, I'd love to be proven wrong. I can be found under Close shave-srw mostly on Harbinger pubside. Let me know if you can show me the error of my ways.

 

...physician, you're on line one with a bit of rectal pain? Might want to heal thyself.

 

(Just mail Dainan with a time/date/whatever, if you don't mind. My calendar's pretty much open. I have no idea about yours. Thanks!)

Edited May 9, 2017 by DownloadStarter

[Stellarcrusade]

Well Greetz in this case the phrase "Rock is fine. Nerf scissors." -Paper. Really does apply. Strikes are not weak, battlescouts are just OP. Your first clue to this fact? They are called battlescouts. 1v1 a scout shouldn't beat a strike because it can do more damage easier then a strike. A scout should win because its a more agile class of ship. When in a strike, a class of ship that is supposed to be a stronger class of ship, do you really think its appropriate that any scout should be able to take a strike from full hp/sp to dead in a matter of 3-4 shots. Cause I sure as hell don't.

 

Yes this is exactly true. As I posted elsewhere battle-scouts shouldn't be a thing. Nor should fighters be so weak and rarely used by veterans. Since both fighters and scouts are the dog-fighters, the only way to make fighters viable is to even out with the scouts. If we take BLC away from scouts and give to fighters it would do it. It is way too easy for a scout to get into close range on an opponent, and out maneuver many of them to get behind them. Its childs play really, zip in, press 2 mouse buttons for a second or 2, dead.

 

I would love it if veterans had a 50/50 choice between a fighter for its raw firepower if you can get close (harder to do with a fighter) or the range/speed manuverability of a scout. Imagine if 2 veterans would have an even battle dogfighting between the two. Realistically any solution to make fighters a choice has to involve balancing the scout also, if you just make fighters super powered and leave scouts alone it makes gunships and bombers useless.

[Eldarion_Velator]

1) I would like to remind everyone that this is a thread about improving strikes, not nerfing any other class or taking personal potshots at other pilots. Posters, especially newer pilots (in my mind "new" pilots have fewer than 250 matches across their legacy and/or fewer than 100 matches on any single toon; "newer" pilots have fewer than 1000 matches across their legacy and/or fewer than 250 matches on any single toon; for reference, as of this posting, I have 5557 matches across my legacy on every single one of my 24 toons, and my most-played toon, Tae-gun, has 1200 of those matches), should be aware that their experience relative to other veteran pilots is quite limited; numerically-speaking, their data set and therefore the statistical power of their analysis is far weaker than those of veteran pilots and therefore less statistically valid. As a result, making sweeping generalizations ("gunships are OP; battlescouts shouldn't be a thing; etc. etc.") on these weaker data sets is not recommended and will likely be dismissed by those with far greater experience and more intimate knowledge of how GSF actually works. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; but until that opinion can be backed up with statistical strength, it remains just an unfounded opinion.

 

2) Other posters have already discussed in other threads why gunships and T2 scouts are not OP, and their role in the meta. This sort of thing should not have to be regularly repeated, but in short, gunships are your long-range artillery and your scouts, especially the T2s, are spearheads/shock ships. While they are strong ships in their own right (gunships even more so because of their short-range defenses, which can be very effective in the hands of a skilled pilot), their real role is in support of each other and their bombers/nodes, as well as countering the opposing team's bombers and intercepting opposing bomber support. Both the T1 gunship and the T2 scout, with the right builds, are superior choices for these roles, but a good pilot can still do well in these roles with other gunships/scouts and non-meta builds (and many do so, for the sake of fun and variety, on a frequent basis - the Condor/Jurgoran being the most notable and frequently-used off-meta gunship). Regardless of how effective these ships are at these roles, they can still be countered effectively, but doing so will often require skill/experience and team support, especially if these ships are piloted by skilled pilots.

 

3) Speaking of the meta, the major reason why strikes just aren't viable now (doesn't mean there aren't good strike pilots out there having a lot of success - but I am certain that their success is a result of their experience/skill and not from any advantage of the strike fighter; timing and knowing your target's power/shield/engine status is more important for strike pilots because those things will affect a strike fighter's efficacy against a target) except in the hands of good pilots is because of the way the numbers work out, and because their main tactical role - bomber escort and defensive combat flight - are better-handled by gunships and scouts at the present (to some extent because of the small size of GSF maps). More committed pilots than I have worked out that evading damage some of the time is superior to mitigating damage all of the time, and that in GSF it's the high burst damage that tends to kill pilots; thus you're more likely to survive by evading that burst damage than by trying to mitigate it. Scouts in general have high evasion and therefore are much harder to hit before they get into range to unload their payload of weaponry - even then, a T2 scout has to unload basically everything it has in one head-on fly-by (retros can be used very effectively to extend the duration of this fly-by, though stronger pilots are able to achieve success using other methods such as flanking or hitting targets from behind, where the scout's maneuverability can be fully employed to its advantage) to notch a kill on a resistant target. Strikes, on the other hand, aren't as maneuverable, are slower, have lower evasion, and are therefore much easier to hit - while the range of strike fighter weapons and the toughness of strike fighters are superior to those of any scout, the fact that the strike fighter's weaker flight characteristics (compared to scouts) means it has to try to mitigate damage most of the time also means it is actually less likely than a well-equipped T2 scout with a good pilot to survive an encounter successfully. The reason why many pilots have suggested just beefing up the strike fighter is to increase the amount of damage a strike can take (and therefore extend the period of time a strike has to fire/launch its weapons) such that at its lower DPS, the overall damage done by a strike can at least be comparable to that done by a T2 scout, which can also be achieved by faster secondary lock and reload times.

 

4) Strikes and scouts should not be a one-for-one equivalent; tactically they have very different roles. As I mentioned in the previous point, scouts are supposed to be solo operators, advance parties, and movement spearheads. They don't have staying power (compared to the other ship classes), but they hit hard, fast, and are meant to pierce opposition defenses and cause shock and confusion in opposing formations. They are in-and-out ships, and must deliver their damage in a short amount of time to avoid getting destroyed in the process. To achieve these objectives they need to be hard to hit, have respectable offensive capability, and have high speed/maneuverability. Both the T1 and T2 scout are actually well-suited to this tactical role, though the T2 scout's strengths (slightly beefier, stronger close-range weapons) help it to outshine the T1 scout most of the time. Strikes, on the other hand, are escort and defensive fighters; they are meant to protect nodes, escort bombers, and intercept other ships attempting to pierce their defenses. Adjustments to strike fighters should reflect this role (e.g. longer range to weapons, less susceptibility to damage/interference effects, improved short-term maneuverability/engine power, and so on), not try to make the strike a T2 scout re-skin. With currently-available upgrades, strike fighters can be crafted to be better at this role than scouts; the only component I thought was truly missing was resistance to damage/interference effects. Some people say "just beef up the strike," which in light of its role is a reasonable suggestion; I lean more towards increasing the strike's resistance to interference, since in my opinion trying to beef up against burst damage is an exercise in diminishing returns.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Eldarion_Velator

[DownloadStarter]

I wouldn't argue with letting evasion armor be an option on a T1 strike, swapping out the magazine slot.

[Eli_Porter]

The case for buffing missiles: Right now, sentries+repair drones are the best way to protect gunships. But they're a static defense that takes a while to move, which promotes static gunship vs. gunship battles as neither side is willing to leave its seeker/sentry/repair fortress.

 

Buffing strike fighter's missiles lets them do what support bombers can't, which is to provide a mobile defensive matrix for gunships. Strikes can repair as well so it works perfectly.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Eli_Porter

[Neflarion]

1) I would like to remind everyone that this is a thread about improving strikes, not nerfing any other class or taking personal potshots at other pilots. Posters, especially newer pilots (in my mind "new" pilots have fewer than 250 matches across their legacy and/or fewer than 100 matches on any single toon; "newer" pilots have fewer than 1000 matches across their legacy and/or fewer than 250 matches on any single toon; for reference, as of this posting, I have 5557 matches across my legacy on every single one of my 24 toons, and my most-played toon, Tae-gun, has 1200 of those matches), should be aware that their experience relative to other veteran pilots is quite limited; numerically-speaking, their data set and therefore the statistical power of their analysis is far weaker than those of veteran pilots and therefore less statistically valid. As a result, making sweeping generalizations ("gunships are OP; battlescouts shouldn't be a thing; etc. etc.") on these weaker data sets is not recommended and will likely be dismissed by those with far greater experience and more intimate knowledge of how GSF actually works. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; but until that opinion can be backed up with statistical strength, it remains just an unfounded opinion.

 

2) Other posters have already discussed in other threads why gunships and T2 scouts are not OP, and their role in the meta. This sort of thing should not have to be regularly repeated, but in short, gunships are your long-range artillery and your scouts, especially the T2s, are spearheads/shock ships. While they are strong ships in their own right (gunships even more so because of their short-range defenses, which can be very effective in the hands of a skilled pilot), their real role is in support of each other and their bombers/nodes, as well as countering the opposing team's bombers and intercepting opposing bomber support. Both the T1 gunship and the T2 scout, with the right builds, are superior choices for these roles, but a good pilot can still do well in these roles with other gunships/scouts and non-meta builds (and many do so, for the sake of fun and variety, on a frequent basis - the Condor/Jurgoran being the most notable and frequently-used off-meta gunship). Regardless of how effective these ships are at these roles, they can still be countered effectively, but doing so will often require skill/experience and team support, especially if these ships are piloted by skilled pilots.

 

3) Speaking of the meta, the major reason why strikes just aren't viable now (doesn't mean there aren't good strike pilots out there having a lot of success - but I am certain that their success is a result of their experience/skill and not from any advantage of the strike fighter; timing and knowing your target's power/shield/engine status is more important for strike pilots because those things will affect a strike fighter's efficacy against a target) except in the hands of good pilots is because of the way the numbers work out, and because their main tactical role - bomber escort and defensive combat flight - are better-handled by gunships and scouts at the present (to some extent because of the small size of GSF maps). More committed pilots than I have worked out that evading damage some of the time is superior to mitigating damage all of the time, and that in GSF it's the high burst damage that tends to kill pilots; thus you're more likely to survive by evading that burst damage than by trying to mitigate it. Scouts in general have high evasion and therefore are much harder to hit before they get into range to unload their payload of weaponry - even then, a T2 scout has to unload basically everything it has in one head-on fly-by (retros can be used very effectively to extend the duration of this fly-by, though stronger pilots are able to achieve success using other methods such as flanking or hitting targets from behind, where the scout's maneuverability can be fully employed to its advantage) to notch a kill on a resistant target. Strikes, on the other hand, aren't as maneuverable, are slower, have lower evasion, and are therefore much easier to hit - while the range of strike fighter weapons and the toughness of strike fighters are superior to those of any scout, the fact that the strike fighter's weaker flight characteristics (compared to scouts) means it has to try to mitigate damage most of the time also means it is actually less likely than a well-equipped T2 scout with a good pilot to survive an encounter successfully. The reason why many pilots have suggested just beefing up the strike fighter is to increase the amount of damage a strike can take (and therefore extend the period of time a strike has to fire/launch its weapons) such that at its lower DPS, the overall damage done by a strike can at least be comparable to that done by a T2 scout, which can also be achieved by faster secondary lock and reload times.

 

4) Strikes and scouts should not be a one-for-one equivalent; tactically they have very different roles. As I mentioned in the previous point, scouts are supposed to be solo operators, advance parties, and movement spearheads. They don't have staying power (compared to the other ship classes), but they hit hard, fast, and are meant to pierce opposition defenses and cause shock and confusion in opposing formations. They are in-and-out ships, and must deliver their damage in a short amount of time to avoid getting destroyed in the process. To achieve these objectives they need to be hard to hit, have respectable offensive capability, and have high speed/maneuverability. Both the T1 and T2 scout are actually well-suited to this tactical role, though the T2 scout's strengths (slightly beefier, stronger close-range weapons) help it to outshine the T1 scout most of the time. Strikes, on the other hand, are escort and defensive fighters; they are meant to protect nodes, escort bombers, and intercept other ships attempting to pierce their defenses. Adjustments to strike fighters should reflect this role (e.g. longer range to weapons, less susceptibility to damage/interference effects, improved short-term maneuverability/engine power, and so on), not try to make the strike a T2 scout re-skin. With currently-available upgrades, strike fighters can be crafted to be better at this role than scouts; the only component I thought was truly missing was resistance to damage/interference effects. Some people say "just beef up the strike," which in light of its role is a reasonable suggestion; I lean more towards increasing the strike's resistance to interference, since in my opinion trying to beef up against burst damage is an exercise in diminishing returns.

 

Even with your almost 6000+ matches, I think the definition of scout is lost on you. There is a difference between "Battlescout" and "scout".

 

I don't recall saying scouts shouldn't be highly maneuverable and able to evade fire. What people are saying, is that there is no circumstances a scout, should be able to fly in, and out damage a strike and kill them in a few shots.

 

In every meta ever, scouts aren't meant for battle, or to even really kill people. Scouts are meant to check out the area ahead of advancing troops and report back enemy positions. Should scouts be able to kill a strike 1v1? Yes, but it shouldn't be because they do so much more damage then a strike. It should be because they're able to out maneuver the strike and keep up a steady barrage on the strike.

 

Also most people forget, that while they're often just called strike, the full class name is "Strike-Fighter" By meta standards they are right where they should be. They can hit from range and in the hands of a skiled pilot, they can put up a hell of a fight.

 

Bombers are fine, gunships are fine, strikes are fine. "battlescouts" are the only ships that don't correctly fit their meta.

[Greezt]

Even with your almost 6000+ matches, I think the definition of scout is lost on you. There is a difference between "Battlescout" and "scout".

 

I don't recall saying scouts shouldn't be highly maneuverable and able to evade fire. What people are saying, is that there is no circumstances a scout, should be able to fly in, and out damage a strike and kill them in a few shots.

 

In every meta ever, scouts aren't meant for battle, or to even really kill people. Scouts are meant to check out the area ahead of advancing troops and report back enemy positions. Should scouts be able to kill a strike 1v1? Yes, but it shouldn't be because they do so much more damage then a strike. It should be because they're able to out maneuver the strike and keep up a steady barrage on the strike.

 

Also most people forget, that while they're often just called strike, the full class name is "Strike-Fighter" By meta standards they are right where they should be. They can hit from range and in the hands of a skiled pilot, they can put up a hell of a fight.

 

Bombers are fine, gunships are fine, strikes are fine. "battlescouts" are the only ships that don't correctly fit their meta.

 

You're going by word definition. We know however that the definition of scout is irrelevant here - what is relevant is what the devs intended for scouts to be. For the battle scout, they undoubtedly intended high offensive capabilities. Read the flavor text:

...trade away sensors and communication range... for more powerful laser cannons, mid-range missiles and stronger defensives... The result is the Flashfire... with deadly offensive capabilities.

 

Undoubtedly this ship was meant to be an apex predator. Even if you didn't want to read that (or decided that it means nothing o you), the T2 scout has a special ability that increases its raw damage output. That can't be read in two ways - the ship was meant for burst.

 

As for strikes, the devs have already stated they're supposed to be multi-tools. The problem with them right now is that they can't be made into specialized tools as other ships can.

 

Regarding the balance of gunships, bombers and strikes in the absence of scouts - strikes are still weak. They can't reliably finish of a bomber (and certainly not in a short time period required to flip a node), and gunships eat them easily - they pose no threat to a gunship.

[Neflarion]

You're going by word definition. We know however that the definition of scout is irrelevant here - what is relevant is what the devs intended for scouts to be. For the battle scout, they undoubtedly intended high offensive capabilities. Read the flavor text:

 

Undoubtedly this ship was meant to be an apex predator. Even if you didn't want to read that (or decided that it means nothing o you), the T2 scout has a special ability that increases its raw damage output. That can't be read in two ways - the ship was meant for burst.

 

As for strikes, the devs have already stated they're supposed to be multi-tools. The problem with them right now is that they can't be made into specialized tools as other ships can.

 

Regarding the balance of gunships, bombers and strikes in the absence of scouts - strikes are still weak. They can't reliably finish of a bomber (and certainly not in a short time period required to flip a node), and gunships eat them easily - they pose no threat to a gunship.

 

You think strikes pose no threat to a gunship and only serve to be eaten by them? Other then mastered GS which one shot everyone. I routinely, in a strike, boost face first into single gunships and rip them to shreds and only get hit once. Smart gunship pilots book it before I finish them off, but unless I get a tail, rarely do they ever escape.

 

You can't say strikes pose no threat to gunships, when any class of ship who sits in their bubble and lets them snipe with no harassment, is gonna end up the same way.

 

Again we're back to "Battlescout" vs "scout". If BW wanted scouts to be hard hitting fighters, they should have just called them fighters. Strike fighters and fighters are not the same. Fighters are specialized air superiority, strike fighters, are multi-role.

 

And lets remove the scout classification. In any game where you have a light agile class, that has high evasion they don't hit near as hard in a single attack as their heavier less agile counter parts. For example a rogue type class vs a knight type class. The rogue is going to be more agile and harder to pin down and hit than the knight, but in a single attack the knight is going to be much more devastating.

 

That's the problem with scouts right now. You have the agile hard to hit scout, that hits harder than the heavier easier to hit strikes. In no meta in any other game does this make sense.