There are two main problems with strike fighters as they are now, from a competitive standpoint.

 

1. Mobility. They lack a reliable means to extract themselves from dangerous situations, and lack a reliable means to quickly get back into the fight after respawning. Nerfing barrel roll many ages ago really hurt strikes far more than anything else. You'd think with those big, powerful engines growing like barnacles off of every wing and fin of the strike models, they'd be able to get around a little better.

 

2. Missiles are ineffective. Cluster missiles are the only worthwhile missile in the arsenal, with torpedoes and Interdiction missile (which for some unfathomable reason isn't available on the T2 strike) being semi-useful. With the prevalence of multiple-missile-break builds, it takes a large amount of luck to catch a scout between cooldowns (or to lock one in the first place). Even gunships can sport two missile breaks. EMP and Ion missiles are both good in theory and terrible in practice. Give the T2 strike some sort of Super Missile System, fix the terrible and broken missiles, and add Interdiction Missile to its arsenal, and maybe it might merit looking at again as a competitive ship.

 

There are certainly other issues with strikes, but those are the two I'd focus on fixing.

 

Despon

Edited May 29, 2015 by caederon

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

 

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

 

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

 

Strike Offensive Weaknesses

 

Offense.1) No surprise burst damage.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

This leads us to the next point:

 

Offense.2) Missiles are Ineffectual

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

 

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

 

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

One potential solution to this would be to take Distortion Field's missile break away. This would likely go far in balancing the power of Flashfires, but I know there are Quarrel enthusiasts who are concerned such a nerf would hit them too hard (since their only other missile break is the 20-second cooldown Barrel Roll).

 

If decreasing the number of missile breaks isn't palatable, then the other option is to increase the number and rate of missiles being fired. An interesting question is this: should any missiles have cooldowns at all? Or is lock-on time, warning to target, and ammo limits enough of a check to missile power? I tend to think so. A Strike firing Concussion Missiles (or even the derided Ion Missile!) as fast as he can attain locks would be very threatening and a very strong counter to Evasion, which has long dominated defense. This would be my personal suggestion.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

Star Guard (two different primary weapons)

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

Quarrel (two different railguns)

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Strike Mobility Weaknesses

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Mobility.2) Ion Railguns are ruinous to Strikes.

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

 

Compare this to what happens with an Ion Railgun hitting other ships. When an Ion Railgun hits a Bomber (which is probably sitting on a full tank of gas), the Bomber shrugs and lurches behind nearby cover. When an Ion Railgun hits another Gunship, that Gunship has usually lost its duel, but has enough gas left to seek cover. Plus,but it had a fair and even chance to win. When an Ion Railgun hits a Scout withoseut Distortion Field, that Scout is usually either running Shield-to-Engine Converter or Power Dive, either of which can be used to get it to cover.

 

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

 

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

 

A fully charged Ion railgun does 1850 shield damage. A Strike's base shield is 1800/arc. I'd propose that, if an Ion Railgun deals more shield damage than the target has shields, then it should do its energy drain (and no hull damage). The more damage that was leftover after the shields were brought down, the more energy drain. If the Ion Railgun doesn't eat through the full arc of shields, then there should be no energy drain.

 

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

Mobility.3) Inability to dogfight at short range.

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Strike Defensive Weakness

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

 

this, soooo this

I feel the Strike fighter chassis has good stats (pretty much too good, actually), so I wouldn't touch any of that.

 

Non-cluster missiles overall could use some buffs... there's no real reason to take them on any class that has alternatives available. Something that makes them easier to land on experienced players (shorter locks, shorter cooldowns, faster travel, no lock warning until fired). They can already be quite devastating on new players.

Also, finite ammo is a pretty poor idea overall (what's the point ? penalizing players for surviving too long ? Why only on missiles ?), I'd remove it and replace anything that modifies ammo capacity with cooldown modifiers instead.

 

Lasers tend to have relatively low dps and are practically unusable by newer players. BLCs work stupidly well because they have burst (as one would expect...), really good upgrades, and the low rate of fire makes them easier to aim, but strikes don't get that. Heavies are made somewhat easy to aim by their longer range but the dps is crap. Quads fall into a good middle-ground of fairly high dps and long range, so they're ok. But everything else is just a pain to aim at short range. The aiming reticle is just too small with the requirement of constant tracking. Scoreboards show abysmally low accuracy values for any average-or-below player using a strike fighter or scout, that should tell you something, I think. Ironically, railguns are far easier to aim by unskilled players and do good damage too on top of being safer to use.

 

Strikes don't get any offensive cooldowns to their lasers (except battle command, but that doesnt really work well in pugs, there's never enough allies in range to justify using it), so between lackluster lasers and lackluster missiles the offensive package of strike fighters suffers a bit.

 

For the SF1:

-ion cannons are lackluster, could use more range and better utility (baseline snare/drain ? brief engine/systems silence at top-tier ?)

-Having 2 primaries doesn't offer much. Versatility, yes, but that's a pretty bad trade-off compared to some of the systems available. Having 2 secondaries at least means you can use 1 when the other is on cooldown. Besides, all laser cannons are short-to-mid range direct-damage weapons that have 0 utility, except ion cannons (which are bad), so it doesn't give you that much versatility in the first place. Suggestion : 3rd toggle mode that fires both primaries at the same time at a slight damage penalty ?

Edited May 29, 2015 by Loc_n_lol

I can't argue with the rainbow of pretty colors in the post above me (edit: on page 3) in any way shape or form. It is logical and points out every problem with strikers that I could think of off the top of my head - and more. Edited May 29, 2015 by CommanderKiko

First of all, thank you so much to the devs for this sign of renewed attention on GSF! At the Anaheim tour I was pleased to be able to thank one of the senior designers for GSF; I fear that often the designers don't get to hear as much gratitude as they deserve. I hope that the inevitable negative comments some griefers might choose to post here do not dissuade the devs from giving GSF some attention and love. GSF has a dedicated community, and further, it's also one of the aspects of SWTOR that is unique among MMOs; all MMOs have ground PVP and PVE, and players who fiend for those aspects are going to have many games to choose from and are likely to be MMO wanderers, moving regularly between games; but GSF is unique to SWTOR and players who love it have more reason to remain faithful to the game that gives it to them.

 

Personally, I do not feel as strongly as many players do that Strike Fighters are so grotesquely uncompetitive in the meta. Yes, they are a jack-of-all-trades ship, and by default that means they will not be as powerful in a specialized role. And while I do agree that they are rarely the go-to ship choice for tough matches or specific objectives, I don't agree that they are useless. A competent, veteran pilot in a Strike Fighter can still be deadly, and often also has the advantage of being underestimated by dismissive pilots. ;-) That being said, some changes or improvements to the Strike Fighter would not be unwelcome, if only to make them a bit more specialized and give them a unique role of their own.

 

1.Secondary Weapons.This would probably be my first choice for a buff. Maneuverability is (arguably) the scout's chief trait, defensibility is the bomber's, and offensive power is the gunship's -- in turn, a unique weapon ability might be a fun choice for the Strike. I would suggest that missile lock-on times for Strike Fighters could be lowered, either across the board on all missile types or particularly on the longer lock-on and more powerful missiles like Protons and Thermites. Hand-in-hand with that, perhaps also (or alternatively) lower cool-down times on missile reloads. This would make Strikes more threatening to scouts with a double missile break (giving them a chance to still get a lock in the window between those breaks), and give them a better chance to take out a bomber before they can be intercepted by other defenders. Missile buffs like this might increase the attractiveness of Strikes in general but particularly the T2 Striker with its unique dual-missile load out.

 

2. Defensibility. As my second choice for attention, I would suggest defensibility -- in particular something that might defend against armor-piercing weapons. Armor vs. armor-piercing is, I think, a well balanced battle when it comes to bombers vs. scouts/gunships given all the variables involved in those face-offs (range, minefields, LOS, etc). But less balanced is armor-piercing versus Strikes, who are slower than the scouts trying to get within range, and often not maneuverable enough to avoid gunships. Perhaps an inherent resistance against armor-piercing weapons for all Strikes, or a new component that would grant something similar? It's almost never a shield piercing weapon that ends up melting a Strike, but rather an armor-piercing one. If a burst scout or gunship can't be guaranteed to one or two shot a Strike, it might give the Strike pilot a better chance to retaliate (particularly if it also had swifter lock-on missiles to hit that gunship within 10k ).

 

Whatever changes are made to Strikes, I would suggest that you be sure they are applicable to the Star Guard / Rycer so that new pilots feel the benefits right away with their stock ship choices. As we all know, the learning curve on GSF is very steep and often discourages new pilots, who will frequently be starting with the T1 Strike without the experience to recognize that they are "disadvantaged" when pitted against ships more specialized. Something like shorter missile lock-on times might also allow a newer pilot to learn to use missiles period; I remember very clearly back in the days of early access, ignorant and wet around the ears, wondering why missiles "didn't work," often not even getting to the point of hearing the successful lock-on tone that would allow me to better learn the weapon or feel at all encouraged.

ITT: A lot of people coming out of the woodwork who don't play or don't like GSF or just generally are not good at the class and think that's why they're failing and will not be pleased by any changes made solely to strike fighters. I realize you're short on resources so please for the love of god do not listen to them. Controls are fine the way they are, people are asking for a sim when they want the controls changed and this is never going to be a sim unless you scrap it from the bottom entirely.

 

The truth of the matter is you have to do exactly what they told you not to do in balance class.

 

MAKE STRIKE FIGHTERS OVERPOWERED

 

At the moment every single ship in the meta is overpowered in their own way and the only reason Strike fighters don't fit in is because they just aren't. If nobody could figure out these overpowered builds then strike fighter would be fine. But they did and they will and there's no point in throwing out nerfs. Nerfing update design is boring and not what we need. Now as for options

 

You've outlined Maneuverablility/Secondary Weapons/Primary Weapons/Defense

 

Any change to missiles will add to noob discontent, because noobs don't like dying to things that they think they can't avoid. (Despite the fact that they can.)

 

Any change to maneuverability also won't change noob discontent because noobs won't know what to do with it. The current rhetoric of being unable to dogfight at close range is also a false dilemma because there is really no point in fighting at close range in a strike as it stands, you're a midrange fighter, why would you screw yourself like that? Just boost away, turn around and retro or barrel roll away and turn around to distance people.

 

So that leaves us with primary weapons and defense.

 

At the moment with how evasion and armor pen works health pools feel like they're not worth anything. I'd say you need to buff healthpools to the point that they matter next to passive evasion. But whatever number you're thinking of right now, double it, triple it, maybe even put it on par with bombers and then add some. But if you do something like this, don't add any downside to attacking the strike like you have with bombers/gunships (think drones/mines and feedback as downsides to attacking)

 

 

Primary weapons, this ones simple, buff heavy lasers DPS/accuracy to be in line with quad lasers and buff the range on ion cannons to be the same as heavy lasers in every way. The concern of course is that that traps strike fighters into only one build, the issue is that if you buff any of its other components you risk buffing everything else too much.

 

 

This would make strike fighters overpowered, but it would fit into the meta.

 

 

 

 

Final note: Please I beg you do NOT nerf any of the other classes to bring strike fighters into line. Gunships/Bombers right now are in a weird spot where they're really good against people who don't know how to deal with them but REALLY REALLY bad against people who do. I really think scouts are balanced right now, maybe running interference/wingman could use a nerf but as far as it's components go, they're all just addtive-ly good together, it's not like any of them are ridiculously overpowered on their own. There is argument towards distortion field being overpowered, but that's again simply people who don't know how to deal with it and think that because they don't know how that there isn't a way, if you nerf distortion fields missile break you will make the top end of gameplay impossible for scouts because of just how many missiles are always coming in at scouts (seeker mines and missile drones are nearly unavoidable for scouts.)

 

Buff strikes beyond recognition, but do not touch the rest of the game.

Edited May 29, 2015 by tommmsunb

Scouts must remain more agile in order to retain their individuality. That means Strike Fighters need stronger weapons. Perhaps their guns should simply deal more damage.

Scouts must remain more agile in order to retain their individuality. That means Strike Fighters need stronger weapons. Perhaps their guns should simply deal more damage.

 

That won't make up for the weapon power pool drain consumption. All the most lethal primary weapons consume energy like a Humvee guzzling gas. Weapon and Engine Power Pools need a buff, with a decrease in lock-ons on the missiles.

That won't make up for the weapon power pool drain consumption. All the most lethal primary weapons consume energy like a Humvee guzzling gas. Weapon and Engine Power Pools need a buff, with a decrease in lock-ons on the missiles.

 

I really have no idea what you're talking about, I have never needed more than a weapon power pool on any ship to kill any other ship and I don't see how buffing powerpool would fix any of its current problems.

Edited May 29, 2015 by tommmsunb

Scouts must remain more agile in order to retain their individuality. That means Strike Fighters need stronger weapons. Perhaps their guns should simply deal more damage.

 

The problem with said "individuality" is that with Evasion being the only viable defense it's makes them tankier, better armed, faster more maneuverable and overall just better then a Strike at anything but long range combat.

I'm man enough to admit that seeing a new yellow post at the top of this forum actually brought a tear to my eye.

 

While I have several thousand games under my belt, I have considerably less experience in strikes than anything else (which in a way speaks to their lack of a defined role) and do not consider myself an expert re: what's needed to bring them in line. I know enough to agree with the obvious issues, i.e. the total impotence of RFLs and the problems associated with relying on lock-on missiles/torps as a primary source of burst. Those are areas that clearly need to be addressed.

 

So I may not be the SF expert, but I have a couple of guys in mind on my server who are extremely knowledgeable and I'll be soliciting their opinions (one in particular is not a sub and thus cannot post). I'll add that info as I receive it. For now, I just want to thank Alex for throwing us a bone, and to make sure he knows to separate the wheat from the chaff in this thread. I mean, sure, stuff like:

 

Put money into real PvP, not this dead crap...

 

...is utterly and obviously useless (seriously dude, go whiz in someone else's cheerios), but some other comments, like those about controls (which are fine, stop asking for joysticks, people) definitely do not speak to the core problems you're trying to rectify. That's probably obvious too, but I just wanted to mention it. Yes, everyone's opinion is worth considering, but the quality nuggets of info are going to come from Ramalina, Nem, tomm, Verain, Drak, nyghtrunner, caederon, tune, etcetera...the guys who have been here since day one and have consistently evangelized GSF, have flown thousands of games representing every possible scenario, and have been theorycrafting (and/or trying every possible component combo) since beta. This is inevitably going to be a huge thread; we GSFers may represent a minority of the player population, but we're verbose and committed. Your answers are going to be in here, I'm sure of it...the difficulty for your team will be pulling out those critical pieces of wisdom.

Edited May 29, 2015 by MaximilianPower

My thoughts on the "overall" what a strike fighter should be vs other classes.

 

 

 

Strike Philosophy. (I understand that likely 0 people will agree with me, I accept all your hate and ridicule upfront, thank you)

 

 

Scouts are the fast maneuverable ship, their way to survive is to avoid damage, their way to deal damage is as a knife fighter/ intercepter up close and personal.

 

 

Gunships are long range snipers, they dish out their pain from long out of range of most targets, they survive by staying out of the fray and again being hard to hit when they get into the fray.

 

 

Bombers are area denial machines, they dish out pain in a small area REGARDLESS of them being in LoS with you or not. Their defenses comes from being able to hurt while out of LoS (avoiding damage) AND monsterous amounts of health that allows them to tank things.

 

 

 

Strikes should be Heavy Fighters. If you want to make them a true "Jack of all trades" they need to actually be that jack depending on their load out. Clusters already provide good anti evasion "High dps" (Quotes are their because truthfully they arent that high on dps when people can dodge them often enough) "Low burst" (again they may do to much burst for "Low burst") but the OTHER option for Anti evasion missiles be it the Futility missiles (Ion and EMP... futility because they are useless... even if you do manage to miraculously hit with one of them) or Conc missiles dont preform their role because of their lock times and reload times mixed against double missile breaks. I see Concs as the "Low dps, High Burst" Anti-evasion weapon. If they could be that it would help. then Torpedoes are the missiles that arent designed for breaking through evasion but breaking through Hard targets.... like bombers this again could add in the futility missiles but again futility is futility. Thermites are actually decent at this.... when you can finish their lock, both Torps have REALLY long lock times even if you are largely targeting just bombers with them, maybe its appropriate, what's not appropriate is how little Proton's do. Thermites set up for the kill with their Debuff, Protons either need to be able to kill a half health bomber outright (that's 1000 damage or better if any one is wondering) or have a debuff of their own. Finally the Strikes defenses as a heavy fighter and jack of all trades should be some where in between the scout and the Bomber, essentially I think strikes should have the best defense against missiles, but be vulnerable to other things. Fast enough to evade Torp's with enough health to eat clusters and Concs.

 

 

TL : DR

 

Strikes are Jacks of all trades, make them that, make a player capable of swapping between anti evasion, and Anti-armor, be it primary or secondary. Make them capable of evading enough and taking enough to put defenses on par with other ships. Make them a Jack of all, not a Master of none.

Edited May 29, 2015 by tunewalker

I've done a ton of GSF both sides all ships. One thing that I'm sure most people agree on is that strike fighters are always second choice due to low damage overall or just plane too squishy.

 

My favorite boat is the Pike/ Quell. They are what i would love to fly all the time, but cant because they just don't have punch (excepting missiles) or stick . If they could take take serious damage (say 30-40% more), strike fighters would be a whole lot more valuable and desirable for special objectives.

 

A side note... maybe somewhere down the line a fighter might be used to enhance an ops i.e. removing obstacles or giving some tactical advantage to the raid. Sounds odd, but I like the idea.

I normally don't like talking balance stuff but I'll make an exception for this thread.

 

Since we have a close range specialist (Scout) and long range specialist (Gunship) just make Strikes mid ranged specialists. To this end I think Strikes should get a 30-50% increase on all of their weapons ranges.

 

The truth of the matter is you have to do exactly what they told you not to do in balance class.

 

MAKE STRIKE FIGHTERS OVERPOWERED

 

At the moment every single ship in the meta is overpowered in their own way and the only reason Strike fighters don't fit in is because they just aren't. If nobody could figure out these overpowered builds then strike fighter would be fine. But they did and they will and there's no point in throwing out nerfs.

 

<snip>

 

Buff strikes beyond recognition, but do not touch the rest of the game.

 

Despite my huge, detailed, rainbow analysis, I think the above is generally true.

 

I think you could buff and buff and buff and buff Strikes pretty safely. They will never replace Gunships so long as they can't shoot things from 15km.

 

They will never replace Bombers so long as they can't provide passive area denial.

 

They may *partially* replace Scouts, and I think we want that to happen. But Scouts will always have a unique role, even if it becomes more about utility and flanking than about straight up jousting and dog fighting.

DO NOT NERF ANYTHING!!!!!!!!! I cannot emphasize that enough! To be honest, just gives SF better defensive cool downs or some oh **** button to negate a burn burst from a sting.

for me more important is to fix the controls of starfighter in general. I was super excited when it was announced and super disappointed with its release. I was expecting a type of control like warthunder, the current controls feel awkward to me...

 

Terrible controls are pretty much why I rarely play too. And while I would like actual Joystick support, I've played plenty of mouse based space flight games to say this just isn't cutting it.

Sad fact is on the whole Just buff strikes... Everything people have listed, Increase Engine Efficiency, Remove Lock on Times for missiles (Remove and reduce down to 3 seconds to me is 1 and the same, simply because engine maneuvers prevent lock ons for that amount of time so basically clusters DONT have a reload time in my head) reduce lock times for missiles, make Lights and Ions and Rapids and Heavies and Quads better.... make strikes tougher.... could do all of it, and in my head all I am thinking is.... would it be enough? I dont know, that's how bad Strikes have it right now, you could buff everything about them, and it might STILL not be enough.

Talking about this in GSF chat on pubside bastion, i came up with an idea.

 

Instead of changing stats around. Why not make a weapon/ship/component weight system? Heavier weapons mess with turn and thrust rate. It's an idea, I'm not sayin' a good one, a rough one but I think if the kinks were worked out of it, it might balance the meta out quite a bit.

 

Strikers and bombers, being designed to handle more weight anyways, would be less affected than, say, scouts.

Edited May 29, 2015 by CommanderKiko

Talking about this in GSF chat on pubside bastion, i came up with an idea.

 

Instead of changing stats around. Why not make a weapon/ship/component weight system? Heavier weapons mess with turn and thrust rate. It's an idea, I'm not sayin' a good one, a rough one but I think if the kinks were worked out of it, it might balance the meta out quite a bit.

 

Strikers and bombers, being designed to handle more weight anyways, would be less affected than, say, scouts.

 

 

this is a good idea and I like it. it's too bad it'd require a total revamp of the system

There's already a lot of good information in this thread. Tommm made good points, Nem made an exhaustive list of many core problems of the module (such as the binary nature of Armor Penetration), I like the idea of lengthening ranges of Strike weapons, and even find the missile lock-on/CD time discussion interesting (although I think Torps with the lock/CD of Clusters would get UGLY under satellites...).

 

At present, and without going too far under the hood, I guess my short list of exploratory quick fixes to buff just the Strike would be (in no particular order):

1. Give the T1 access to BLC (it's the "laser" strike, after all)
   
2. Give the T2 access to Interdiction Missile ("missile" strike)
   
3. Give access to Power Dive on all Strikes (help mobility, Ion Rail survivability. Might make it the almost "default" engine component, but if we're thinking quick and dirty)*
   
4. Increase range of Ion Cannon (especially if BLC is not an option)
   
5. Increase booster pool, increase speed, increase maneuverability (at least 1 of these, possibly more**)
   
6. Give the T1 something like a built in 10% boost to blaster damage (or something like a 30% boost to blaster range. Possibly even both.)
   
7. Give the T2 something similar to #6, but with Missiles (or maybe reduce lock-on time, instead of range)
   
8. Remove base DR, replace with 5% base evasion. Maybe even 10%... Doesn't have access to Disto, after all.
   
9. Give T1 an Armor component (give it a base 20% boost to weapon regen rate, remove Magazine)
   
10. And finally, and especially with regards to the T3 Strike... Make the explosion animation for Thermite prettier. It's a better missile for the anti-bomber role, but... Pretty blue blooms... ***
    

 

I wouldn't necessarily make all of those changes at once, and there are other changes, such as the armor, that I'd like to see worked on at a fundamental level, but if we're talking about quick and (hopefully) easy ways to buff Strike Fighters alone, I'd start here.

 

One other thing I'll note, though... Some people have mentioned, but RFLs in general are just awful. The tracking and damage are part of the reason, for sure, but something I hadn't seen anyone mention about them yet, and might be part of the reason so many people are upset about the controls... RFLs are really the only weapon in the game that actively punishes pilots trying to learn to fly (to a lesser extent, LLCs, but those aren't stock on anything but the T1 GS, I believe****). Having the aiming mechanism tied to the flight controls in general is fine for most missiles and for anything you can take "snap shots" with (especially BLCs, but HLCs and Quads to a lesser extent do enough damage to make it worth taking snap shots), but RFLs require you to move your mouse over the targeting reticle while firing and keep it there in order for them to come close to doing anything, which means you are obliged to turn whichever way that is. Using RFLs effectively under satellites and close quarters (when those are the CQB stock weapon on the 2 starter ships) is one of the most skill intensive things in the game, and even then, it is largely unrewarding (unless you're Tommm). To a new player learning to fly, no matter what tier upgrades they have, RFLs are a death sentence.

 

In my humble opinion, they should be either buffed to infinity, or simply be removed from the game. But regardless, they have no business being a default component on a starter ship.

 

*I'd be fine with giving strikes a native 5s decrease to engine maneuver, so long as it's not < 10s on the missile break. But 15s Barrel Roll or 10s Retro on a Strike would probably be just fine. A 5s PD, probably not as fine. Just not sure how easy it would be to specify custom values for components depending on the ship, since I always assumed they use the same code objects.

 

**T1 with Retros and Turning Thrusters can get into the fairly maneuverable range already, to be honest. Just kills mobility even deader-er.

 

***In case it's not patently obvious, I'm kidding here, but making thermite do the same thing, only red, would be pretty sick. Pretty red blooms...

 

****Just remembered the T2 Scout starts with LLC.

Edited May 29, 2015 by nyghtrunner

The current meta:

 

- Best dogfighter = Flashfire/Sting with burst-lasers + Cluster missiles

- Multiple mine reliant bombers and multiple gunships

 

Fighters can not beat a scout of equal skill and under performs vs bombers and gunships.

 

Quick fix:

- Increase damage for torpedoes and concussion missiles

 

This is the easy single day fix for weapons most associated with fighters. Fighters only excel in one area...anti-bomber and anti-gunship but a burst-laser + cluster Scout is still a better master of anti-all ships. Or at least make torpedo uncompromisingly lethal vs small crafts as implied in lore (it only took 2, with a critical roll, to destroy a Death Star). Gunships still will prefer their rail guns and bombers will still prefer their drones+mines. Perhaps turning torpedoes into single shot auto-kills will add more variety to gunship and bomber loadouts.

 

More effort fix:

- Create a new missile unique for fighters only that could perhaps combine the characteristics of the torpedo, concussion missile and maybe Ion missile.

 

NO matter what change, scouts will always be the better "fighter" when skills are equal so the only future of the Fighter is to be better at killing bombers and gunships than the scout.

 

--------------------------

 

Needless to say, the common cancer to GSF is rail guns. This cancer can never be removed....ever. Attempting to create a space FPS Sniper equivalent was the poison that doomed the noble imaginary of a high-tech dog-fighter. The final insult to the cancer patient is when 4 gunships and 4 drone bombers can lazily defeat 8 fighters with ease (and minimal movement).

 

Many thought the 'gunship' was the heavy fighter or missile boats from 1994's TIE Fighter as they are obviously reflective of the design. Ironically, the heavy reliance on a large dorsal gun and almost no reliance on missiles betrays the very texture of the crafts.

 

Most people want to reenact the colorful lethal race shown in the Star Wars movies. Outside the Jedi and Sith, the Star Wars franchise is equally famous for its space battles in the entire international sci-fi genre.

 

Without gunships and better map design (like sides defending their ships as PvPers defend their pylon) GSF could have been romantic as this:

 

 

Alas...the Fighters cant be fix because Scouts will ALWAYS outfly them and gunships/bombers will ALWAYS outgun them.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Annahiel

Concussions ARE NOT.... and have never been... a Useful Secondary.. name 1 ship that uses it in the Meta.. you cant cus it doesnt exist, Conc missiles are bad, giving a bad ship another bad component with out doing anything else will not fix the ship.

 

Star guards already have good short range weapons... Ion Laser and Cluster missile... guess what, they arent effective on this ship cus boost efficiency is aweful enough that close range weapons are bad on anything that's not a Scout.

 

Pike That would do a whole lot of jack except make it a crappier Condor, cus Condor has BLC AND powerdive AND Disto break, AND slug railgun.

 

 

I think I have seen you post in "buff strike fighters" things before, trust me they are not as close to competitive as you think they are.

 

 

You're right about the Rycer/Starguard and Pike/Quell, which is why I specifically said those changes wouldn't be enough to make them balanced. I just think those are absolutely necessary additions to those ships since they are supposed to specialize in lasers and missiles respectively. They would also need something else (which is what I said, although I can see how the wording was a bit confusing).

 

 

Many top players (Verain and Drak) agree that the Clarion/Imperium is only one small upgrade away from being meta. Concussion missiles are not used on any meta ship because they aren't a choice on any meta ship (except the T2 bomber but meh). They are certainly very easy to land on even top bomber players, and especially effective on Charged Plating bombers. For example, I think you'd see a lot of people equipping Concussions if they were available on a good chassis like the NovaDive/Blackbolt. I think that build would have a niche meta use (tunneling Charged Plating bombers). Yes I agree they are pretty much useless against good Scout/Gunship players due to the 2 missile breaks. I do like the idea of buffing all missiles and torpedos (except cluster missiles). But also remember that by buffing missile/torpedos, you are also hurting ships with only 1 missile break (i.e. Strikes). So the balance has to be careful, and I think involving Distortion Field is integral. That being said, I reeeeally don't want them tinkering with the perfect balance that currently exists between bombers, scouts, and gunships and tinkering with DF might have an impact on that. Remember how much of a disaster it was when the Distortion Field missile break was bugged?

 

 

What's a bit difficult is that the Clarion/Imperium is already close to balanced but the Starguard/Rycer and Pike/Quell are super far off from being balanced. So a Strike Fighter chassis buff that makes Starguard/Rycer and Pike/Quell balanced is going to make Clarion/Imperium overpowered. So I'm not sure how you do it, but I think you need to treat each ship individually. I'd also like to see buffs that don't just turn Strikes into Scouts.

Edited May 29, 2015 by RickDagles

Since strikes are supposed to be bigger and heavier than scout, I think the best solution to making them relevant is to give them more burst damage, and more boost endurance.

 

With more burst damage, they can kill faster to make up for their lesser chance to get a clear shot. So a possible suggestion is to give concussion missile the same lock on time as clusters, and make them unique to strikes. Another suggestion is to make quad lasers unique to strikes and give them a bit more base dps, while leaving then with the same range and tracking penalties they have now. These changes would not improve their chance to get hits, but when they do get hits they will hit harder than scouts.

 

The suggestion to give strikes more boost endurance will help make up for the lack of top speed and turning compared to scouts. The scouts will still be the cheetahs, but if the strike gets a head start and survives the initial attack, it might be able to get away from scouts.

 

One side effect of these changes might be that strikes might become the preferred way to go after gunships, since they would be able to hit harder than scouts, would be able to survive a rail gun hit better, and would be able to boost in from a distance with greater boost endurance. Also it might provide somewhat of an alternative to gunships against bomber balls.

I normally don't like talking balance stuff but I'll make an exception for this thread.

 

Since we have a close range specialist (Scout) and long range specialist (Gunship) just make Strikes mid ranged specialists. To this end I think Strikes should get a 30-50% increase on all of their weapons ranges.

 

I like this idea a lot. I think a Clarion/Imperium with 7500-8550m Quads might be a bit overpowered, but it's hard to say.