Putting evasion stat up near where it was at launch and delaying or taking away the missile break would make distortion a lot less broken: you won't be able to gun it down because everything shot at it will RNG out, but it will fear those beeping sounds because it won't do anything about them.

Honestly I think going back to evasion where it was at launch would be bad, even if DField lost it's missile break (as I recall most people didn't use the missile break anyway because evasion was so powerful the T3 left option was better, but DField also had a 3 second without that upgrade back then too). I think you'd also need to revert DField back to it's original 3 second duration but ultimately I don't think it would benefit strikes since missiles fire too slowly to make up for effectively having DField mean strikes don't have primary weapons. I do agree though that DField is broken since it grants immunity to all sources of damage a strike can throw at it without making a scout choose which immunity it wants.

In that regard I think you've convinced me that directionals would have to be buffed to fairly crazy levels (the odds of which happening are probably about the same as winning the lottery) to make it a compelling choice over DField on a battlescout.

Honestly I think going back to evasion where it was at launch would be bad, even if DField lost it's missile break (as I recall most people didn't use the missile break anyway because evasion was so powerful the T3 left option was better, but DField also had a 3 second without that upgrade back then too). I think you'd also need to revert DField back to it's original 3 second duration but ultimately I don't think it would benefit strikes since missiles fire too slowly to make up for effectively having DField mean strikes don't have primary weapons. I do agree though that DField is broken since it grants immunity to all sources of damage a strike can throw at it without making a scout choose which immunity it wants.

 

In that regard I think you've convinced me that directionals would have to be buffed to fairly crazy levels (the odds of which happening are probably about the same as winning the lottery) to make it a compelling choice over DField on a battlescout.

Basicaly directionals are not currently the 'meta' choice for battle scouts, so buffing them won't actually alter meta.... like raising the height of a shorter building

Honestly I think going back to evasion where it was at launch would be bad, even if DField lost it's missile break (as I recall most people didn't use the missile break anyway because evasion was so powerful the T3 left option was better, but DField also had a 3 second without that upgrade back then too). I think you'd also need to revert DField back to it's original 3 second duration but ultimately I don't think it would benefit strikes since missiles fire too slowly to make up for effectively having DField mean strikes don't have primary weapons. I do agree though that DField is broken since it grants immunity to all sources of damage a strike can throw at it without making a scout choose which immunity it wants.

 

In that regard I think you've convinced me that directionals would have to be buffed to fairly crazy levels (the odds of which happening are probably about the same as winning the lottery) to make it a compelling choice over DField on a battlescout.

You also need to keep in mind this was during the days of the 10 second cooldown on barrel roll and retros. Overall I'd agree that evasion should not go back to what it was before. Back then it wasn't a high evasion ability, it was effectively 6 seconds of blaster fire immunity.

Even if directionals were buffed, I wouldn't be opposed to number tweaks to DF. Maybe taking a second off the base duration of DF and adding 2 or 3 to the extended duration talent.

You also have to remember there weren't bombers at launch. Bombers would stop battlescouts a lot better (no more dfielding seekers), which would make the T1 scout a lot more interesting, because of EMP field being the second missile break, and dfield working against blaster fire-but no TT/BO or BLC on these ships.

Making missiles lock faster and hurt more would make a single-break dfield even weaker, because then scouts wouldn't be able to just fly out of stuff.

And, making EMP field debuff accuracy harder and/or designing it to properly deal with wide-trigger-radius mines (either by just buffing the range a little or buffing the range a lot and making it directional) would allow T1 scouts to make a gunship nest practically useless for a while, because they would have trouble hitting even zero-evasion bombers. These scouts wouldn't have the insane burst potential of anything with TT/BO, so they wouldn't be able to just mow down strikes. They would have to choose between being a really hard-to-kill pain in the neck which can shut down gunships, and the ability to inflict fatal damage in 2 seconds or less.

You also need to keep in mind this was during the days of the 10 second cooldown on barrel roll and retros. Overall I'd agree that evasion should not go back to what it was before. Back then it wasn't a high evasion ability, it was effectively 6 seconds of blaster fire immunity.

Forgot that part. So I guess they basically had the missile lock immunity they have now, just with the added bonus of being immune to blaster fire.

Even if directionals were buffed, I wouldn't be opposed to number tweaks to DF. Maybe taking a second off the base duration of DF and adding 2 or 3 to the extended duration talent.

Probably the best thing to do would be to alter the T1 upgrade to grant the current passive evasion (making it functionally similar to directionals which require the 1st upgrade to be truly worth using), reduce the duration to it's original 3 seconds (making the T3 left upgrade more appealing, and attach the former T1 active evasion upgrade to the T3 left upgrade). Basically make it so you can have either the current maximum evasion or the current missile break but not both. Scouts have a more difficult choice sure but the main thing being that it avoids nerfing DField just right on scouts but overnerfing it on GS that rely a lot on the missile break.

You also have to remember there weren't bombers at launch. Bombers would stop battlescouts a lot better (no more dfielding seekers), which would make the T1 scout a lot more interesting, because of EMP field being the second missile break, and dfield working against blaster fire-but no TT/BO or BLC on these ships.

 

Making missiles lock faster and hurt more would make a single-break dfield even weaker, because then scouts wouldn't be able to just fly out of stuff.

And, making EMP field debuff accuracy harder and/or designing it to properly deal with wide-trigger-radius mines (either by just buffing the range a little or buffing the range a lot and making it directional) would allow T1 scouts to make a gunship nest practically useless for a while, because they would have trouble hitting even zero-evasion bombers. These scouts wouldn't have the insane burst potential of anything with TT/BO, so they wouldn't be able to just mow down strikes. They would have to choose between being a really hard-to-kill pain in the neck which can shut down gunships, and the ability to inflict fatal damage in 2 seconds or less.

To me this sounds like the way scouts should have always been designed from the get-go. Strikes would absolutely still need a buff, if for no other reason than their mobility being so aweful. But I don't think we'd face the current problem of what are strikes even for since there wouldn't be a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-most ideal scout component combo.

GS with distortion field are a big part of the reason big missiles are useless. Missile lock? No problem! '2' and keep shooting.

I forgot an important part to that little post: targeting telemetry. It shouldn't be an accuracy debuff so much as a strong evasion debuff: it would paint a target or three for yourself or a friendly to shoot, costing it a pretty hefty bit of evasion for a while. That, to me, is what the name of the component says it does anyway: scouts aren't supposed to be for bashing, they're supposed to be for pointing so someone else can bash. Strikes are for bashing.

GS with distortion field are a big part of the reason big missiles are useless. Missile lock? No problem! '2' and keep shooting.

If by "big missiles" you mean torps I agree. I think ion rails would be more balanced if strikes could still threaten with a torp even if they were otherwise dead in the water. The GS would either have to eat a torp and kill the strike or bug out and let the strike live to fight another day. I feel though that the double break is most unbalanced on the scout since it basically allows it to opt out of receiving damage from the other dog fighting class in GSF and ignore it's effort to force a peel while the strike doesn't have a comparable ability to opt out of being pressured by the scout. (Which I don't think strikes should gain the ability of the scout to opt out of being pressured so much as be brought up to the level of the scout, and all offensive meta ships for that matter, in forcing their enemy to "flee or die").

I forgot an important part to that little post: targeting telemetry. It shouldn't be an accuracy debuff so much as a strong evasion debuff: it would paint a target or three for yourself or a friendly to shoot, costing it a pretty hefty bit of evasion for a while. That, to me, is what the name of the component says it does anyway: scouts aren't supposed to be for bashing, they're supposed to be for pointing so someone else can bash. Strikes are for bashing.

That would be pretty cool and maybe would make combat command unique instead of just the poor man's TT. It'd also make stacking the two under a sat very powerful. More importantly I think the debuff would lessening the impact of lacking a systems component that 2/3 strikes have.

GS with distortion field are a big part of the reason big missiles are useless. Missile lock? No problem! '2' and keep shooting.

 

I forgot an important part to that little post: targeting telemetry. It shouldn't be an accuracy debuff so much as a strong evasion debuff: it would paint a target or three for yourself or a friendly to shoot, costing it a pretty hefty bit of evasion for a while. That, to me, is what the name of the component says it does anyway: scouts aren't supposed to be for bashing, they're supposed to be for pointing so someone else can bash. Strikes are for bashing.

I've said on multiple occasions to some fellow gsfers that TT should not be a buff. It should be a de-buff. This makes it a cooldown that allows a scout to chase after one target and take him out. Basically a combat command buff to everyone on your team but only vs that single target or if you prefer another term "mark of death" or whatever.

I just got splattered all over creation by some guy who only has a T2 scout in his bar. This I think is symptomatic of what's wrong with strike fighters.

The T2 scout has the best firepower, the best mobility, and the best defense. So you don't need another ship if you are going dogfight.

They say that's balanced.... by balance they mean if there is something out there, there's a battle scout that can blow it up.

I find myself flying a strike fighter in hit and run tactics against them... shouldn't scouts be doing hit and run?

I don't think strikes need the ultimate mobility... but perhaps the best firepower and best defense would be high on my Christmas list this year. Weapons that can blow things up just as well as the scouts and gunships

Shields or other defenses that can keep my x-wing alive long enough for R-2 to lock down that stabilizer. If luke can blow up a death star.... I sure would like to be able to blow up a tie fighter or something with my 'strike fighter' and live to tell the tale.... long enough for his buddy to blow me up... that's balanced. Being able to kill AND be killed.

I'm starting to think the guy who said 'give em a permanent damage overcharge' wasn't nuts after all, we still have to get in range to fire our weapons, and survive all the gunships, but atleast if we hit something, it will matter, and we might even start getting kills on the board.... I've seen T2 scouts get 23 kills today.... I can't think of too many strike pilots that get that many kills+assists

I'm starting to think the guy who said 'give em a permanent damage overcharge' wasn't nuts after all, we still have to get in range to fire our weapons, and survive all the gunships, but atleast if we hit something, it will matter, and we might even start getting kills on the board.... I've seen T2 scouts get 23 kills today.... I can't think of too many strike pilots that get that many kills+assists

I believe it was Nem who first floated that idea. I kinda like it along with a 40% accuracy bonus (20% is not enough as evidence by the fact that no scout is afraid of a strike with wingman ready). Now that may be in part due to strike primaries not being very bursty to begin with (which the permanent DO would partially solve) but I think it's also in part due to a scout's active evasion being able to completely negate wingman and still have enough left over to buff a scout's evasion beyond it's maximum passive evasion of 33%. 40% would effectively mean a scout doesn't have passive evasion against a strike (meaning being under a strike's guns would be very dangerous, making jousting finally an ideal tactic for strikes) and it would also greatly lessen a scout's ability to opt out of being damaged by both strike primary and secondary weapons (they'd still be able to makes strikes effectively have no secondary weapon slot with DField but they wouldn't be able to simultaneously trivialize a strike's primary weapons).

I find myself flying a strike fighter in hit and run tactics against them... shouldn't scouts be doing hit and run?

I don't think strikes need the ultimate mobility... but perhaps the best firepower and best defense would be high on my Christmas list this year. Weapons that can blow things up just as well as the scouts and gunships

Shields or other defenses that can keep my x-wing alive long enough for R-2 to lock down that stabilizer. If luke can blow up a death star.... I sure would like to be able to blow up a tie fighter or something with my 'strike fighter' and live to tell the tale.... long enough for his buddy to blow me up... that's balanced. Being able to kill AND be killed.

Ultimately though I agree with your sentiment and if the buff achieves that I will be very, very happy

Unfortunately, with the way battlescouts with a META build aren't balanced right now, that's what it's going to take for a strike to actually threaten them in a joust.

Either that or make them boost forever and ridiculously hard to shut down/offer build options which do this. Some DPS specs are designed that way in the ground game.

. . . . . . Strikes are fighter craft... not portable turbo laser cannons. . . . . . .

Hey, tell that to Battlescouts with offensive cooldowns active.

Or do scouts get an exemption because they're highly portable turbolaser cannons? Or because they're highly portable turbolaser cannons with highly effective secondary weapons that can be used at the same time?

To answer the question it would probably work just like weapons currently work. So roughly 800 damage on a normal HLC shot and 1600 if it had an active DO on top of that. So yes, strikes at that point would have damage output close to as good as a T1 or T2 scout though probably still less peak burst. Also less ability to keep targets in range and centered, though if accompanied by a range or accuracy increase that might be compensated for.

For reference, with DO currently in the vast majority of situations a strike has trouble matching the DPS of a scout without DO. A gigantic buff purely to damage looks a bit silly, but it gets talked about because the buffs to strikes are going to need to have a gigantic effect if they're to become competitive with other ship classes.

Would that stack with a DO power up? Additive? Multiplicative? We'd be seeing 1-2k dmg quad hits or 900-1500 or so HLC shots. This isn't even accounting for a critical hit. Strikes are fighter craft... not portable turbo laser cannons. This would basically equip strikes with a longer ranged albeit slightly harder to center high RoF BLC.

compare strikes dps to the gunships (1600 per shot) or the T2 scouts with their offensive cool downs (strikes would like some offensive/defensive cool downs too...) and you might see that strikes currently have to be careful and very good to come close to what the scouts are dishing out.... so, the portable armor piercing super burst damage shotguns have already set a pretty high bar for damage output. It makes dogfights with them short only because they blow the other fighters or even bombers using their defensive cool downs away. The T2 pilot's response? "Avoid the T2 scout when it's offensive cool downs are up" which bombers can't do, and strikes can barely try... since the scout is ALSO one of the most mobile ships. As for portable turbo lasers.... what are gunships again? They out-range the cannons on the capital ships...

All I really ask, is for my craft to have the ability to shoot ships down just as well as the other guy, and to be just as vulnerable to damage as the other guy.

compare strikes dps to the gunships (1600 per shot) or the T2 scouts with their offensive cool downs (strikes would like some offensive/defensive cool downs too...) and you might see that strikes currently have to be careful and very good to come close to what the scouts are dishing out.... so, the portable armor piercing super burst damage shotguns have already set a pretty high bar for damage output. It makes dogfights with them short only because they blow the other fighters or even bombers using their defensive cool downs away. The T2 pilot's response? "Avoid the T2 scout when it's offensive cool downs are up" which bombers can't do, and strikes can barely try... since the scout is ALSO one of the most mobile ships. As for portable turbo lasers.... what are gunships again? They out-range the cannons on the capital ships...

 

All I really ask, is for my craft to have the ability to shoot ships down just as well as the other guy, and to be just as vulnerable to damage as the other guy.

Gunships have to fully charge their secondary weapon while sitting still and glowing like a christmas tree to deal 1600 damage per shot. Scouts have to come very close to their target when using BLC or have to get into a good position when using Q&P - and in both cases, while firing the Scout is relatively exposed to enemy fire and usually extended into enemy territory.

Bombers are perfectly fit to avoid a Scout with cooldowns up, as long as they have an obstacle to hide and set up their deployables.

I'm all for a Strike buff, if it's a pure damage buff, so be it. But please, if you make comparisons to other weapons, also keep their downsides in mind.

That's still not a problem for a gunship. It comes down to how we actually use our weapons: the gunship only needs to fire the instant a target peeks out from behind something. Burst lasers still only need to be on target once every ~0.75 seconds: you can shoot -> fly -> shoot -> fly, which isn't too hard if you're chasing a rock hugger. That's still why all the other short-range guns fall flat on their face, and that's still why the strike's correct response to a turning fight with a scout or gunship is to run and hide, because once it blows retros (if it even has retros), the fight had better end pretty fast or it's going to end badly.

The only way we're going to tune scouts as scouts without making gunships broken is if they have options to shut a gunship down which don't depend on burst damage, like the Mag Pulse "you thought you had charged weapons" from ye olde TIE Fighter games, or the EMP field, or sab probe, and make it a lot safer for a strike to approach and terminate.

Gunships have to fully charge their secondary weapon while sitting still and glowing like a christmas tree to deal 1600 damage per shot. Scouts have to come very close to their target when using BLC or have to get into a good position when using Q&P - and in both cases, while firing the Scout is relatively exposed to enemy fire and usually extended into enemy territory.

Bombers are perfectly fit to avoid a Scout with cooldowns up, as long as they have an obstacle to hide and set up their deployables.

 

I'm all for a Strike buff, if it's a pure damage buff, so be it. But please, if you make comparisons to other weapons, also keep their downsides in mind.

"Glowing like a christmas tree"? C'mon... You can see a gunship charging up if you happen to be looking in the right direction, but much good it'll do you if you're 12k out on a strike (or scout or bomber, for that matter). As for the scout positioning - true, but scouts are maneuverable exactly for that reason. And when firing, the scout is exposed - until it kills its' target, and then it can run away (usuallly <2 seconds), not to mention that scouts stack so much evasion that the can afford to be exposed.

I'm sure no one meant to say that other ships are OP etc., anyway, but other ships can utilize their abilities much better than strikes.

I'm sure no one meant to say that other ships are OP etc., anyway, but other ships can utilize their abilities much better than strikes.

It's not that other ships can utilize their abilities better. It's that Strikes simply don't have any abilities.

I'd love to see Strikes more durable. Adding more shield/hull (or some base evasion) and bigger energy pools, so they don't fall apart as soon as someone is looking at them while also rarely running out of energy. I'd also love to see Strikes to really be able to do damage. Buffing other lasers to the point where they're competetive with BLC, for example the other close range lasers need more DPS or rebalancing AP. Also to give Strikes more usefulness they could have boni on lock-on weapons (faster lock-on and reload, higher range, bonus on damage or missiles becoming harder to break).

The point I was trying to make: saying "Gunships do 1600 damage per shot" isn't a good way to compare weapons.

Hey, tell that to Battlescouts with offensive cooldowns active.

I'm all for battle scout nerfs but sometimes when that topic come up it's like poking a bear.

I do think HLC, which is probably the strikes most viable weapon for all sorts of reason could use buffs, but I think a 100% increase is far too drastic. Just think about the recent comp buffs from 4.0 . Massive buffs frequently cause unintended side effects and I'm going to classify doubling the damage of a weapon as massive. You could see a strike one shotting new players on a scout if they take the crit talent on HLC. If the strike takes armor piercing, it "only" badly maims a target by stripping all shields and destroying half the hull. That's just the first shot though and usually a target takes 2 shots before evasive action.

Bombers have acces to HLC too, so buffing it, would also buff Bombers. I think the buff needs to be on the Strike chassis itself - additionaly to buffing the generally weaker components. As missiles (except Clusters) are the only secondary weapon which most people don't use on the other classes, I'd like to see Strikes as the missile class. Making Strikes more durable and making missiles stronger on them, up to the point where a Strike's missiles become dangerous for others, could make them a part of the meta with the added benefit of being a good choice for newer players.

Maybe what you could do on decent weapons like HLC is make 50% of the buff be to the component with the other 50% being a strike chassis buff? So for example a DO buff to HLC would only be a 50% increase in damage on a bomber but strikes would get the full 100% damage increase. (Obviously weapons like RFLs would have 100% of the buff go to the component). You'd be able to buff components in general to be more competitive on all ship classes while still allowing strikes to benefit most from the buff. This assumes of course that chassis buffs of this sort are possible.

Bombers have acces to HLC too, so buffing it, would also buff Bombers. I think the buff needs to be on the Strike chassis itself - additionaly to buffing the generally weaker components. As missiles (except Clusters) are the only secondary weapon which most people don't use on the other classes, I'd like to see Strikes as the missile class. Making Strikes more durable and making missiles stronger on them, up to the point where a Strike's missiles become dangerous for others, could make them a part of the meta with the added benefit of being a good choice for newer players.

It's true, missiles are far easier to aim then blasters and easier to get on target. New players would find functional missiles a lot more user friendly and so would I. I'm also 100% in favor of a damage+range buff for strike's lasers... they could use across the board improvements in most everything else. I picture strikes with the most damage output of any class... as being a jack of all trades, I also don't think it would be all bad if strikes were actually faster then scouts.... if they can't turn inside them. There were WWII and vienam erra planes that had this up and downside.

The Corsair was faster (in climbs) but the zero was more maneuverable. The F4 was nicknamed 'rhino' for it's tendency to plow forward at great speed but not turn so well...

As for people complaining if their ships are nerfed... we want as much buy-in as we can get for upgrades to the strikes. So we can get upgrades that we can keep. that won't get taken away in another patch. Pilots like dan who are willing to contribute to the conversation are an asset to the cause.

Strikes aren't likely to become the kings of dog-fighting, the T2 scouts have that, and are doing it well... if the staff nerf them, we run the risk of having two less then ideal classes. Bringing strikes up to where they can kick ***... I mean contribute to TDM and domination matches I think is a goal we can all agree on.

Maybe what you could do on decent weapons like HLC is make 50% of the buff be to the component with the other 50% being a strike chassis buff? So for example a DO buff to HLC would only be a 50% increase in damage on a bomber but strikes would get the full 100% damage increase. (Obviously weapons like RFLs would have 100% of the buff go to the component). You'd be able to buff components in general to be more competitive on all ship classes while still allowing strikes to benefit most from the buff. This assumes of course that chassis buffs of this sort are possible.

I still think if we buff several strike fighter components... like... all of them... the net effect will benefit the strike fighters more then it will other ships that only share some of the components. One slightly too-easy sounding fix was to double the effect of secondary components on strike fighters.... granted that won't buff the T1 strike's armor at all... but it might do wonders for it's thrusters

I still think if we buff several strike fighter components... like... all of them... the net effect will benefit the strike fighters more then it will other ships that only share some of the components. One slightly too-easy sounding fix was to double the effect of secondary components on strike fighters.... granted that won't buff the T1 strike's armor at all... but it might do wonders for it's thrusters

Considering the current state of the game, I can't think of a good reason why the T1 strike shouldn't be given an armor component. The T2 strike should be given a reactor too.