View Single Post

RickDagles's Avatar


RickDagles
07.20.2015 , 09:34 AM | #517
Quote: Originally Posted by JasonSzeremi View Post
You mean it's mostly effective against mines in the current meta. It is also effective against weapons that don't have 100% armor piercing. what is intended and what is a bonus is a matter of opinion, is it better that light weight weapons like burst lasers ARE 100% armor piercing? Do gunships NEED 100% armor piercing or rather does the game need gunship walls and stationary fighters? I think less armor piercing would help strikes.
This is one advantage they could have had over scouts that is nerfed because of the high armor piercing on the highest dps weapons (burst lasers, rail guns).
The counter argument I have heard is that lower armor piercing would make bombers harder to kill (for scouts)
but if strikes gain more firepower and have armor piercing weapons like heavy lasers, they may be needed for engaging bombers that scouts can't handle.
(course that also means rocket pods might become more popular but without an armor piercing laser not sure it would make a difference)


As for not being able to 'hit' a scout that has maxed light weight armor, popped distortion field, is using an evasion boosting crew member and targeting telemetry's defensive buff. Perhaps it's not as much that I can't hit such a scout at all, as the damage I can do with my strike when they park right in-front of my guns doesn't amount to much, but the damage they deal kills me quickly. So perhaps it is not so much that they are completely invulnerable but that their burst damage is completely unbalanced compared to mine. Why else would they park in-front of enemy strike fighters and gunships and win. This isn't just a pilot skill thing or the good pilots who select scouts would be doing the same thing with strike fighters, they know this and don't necessarily want strikes to become more competitive because it would make them have to change their tactics or take up flying strike fighters
The point of the forum is to make strike fighters a viable option, if they become a logical choice for some missions then that would be success on our part. At the same time, we don't want to make scouts useless, but as long as they are faster, quicker to nodes, and possibly turn better (although the T1 strike could use that turning radius and not threaten the scouts recon mission)

there are videos on the web of scouts coming to a complete stop and wailing away at other craft, sometimes in-front of their guns

Many of the good pilots avoid strike fighters now because experience has told them they are better off in the strike scout: Flash fire, sting. Other scouts remain on the battle field because being faster, more agile, and more versatile are real advantages still. Now if you want to talk supposed to the T2 scouts are 'supposed to' be second best to the T1 strike in dog-fighting and firepower. We know that's not the case in the current meta and that argument seems to have no weight, it's an opinion that was posted in text files that describe the craft but isn't supported by code.
I agree with what you're saying. But buffing charged plating and/or nerfing armor piercing is not the solution. The game is already perfectly balanced between the Charged plating Rampart, Ion GS, and T2 Scout. If you start making changes to their components, it throws off that delicate balance. They just need to find another way to make Strikes more relevant.

It would have been really cool if they could have balanced out Strikes with charged plating in the beginning, but it's too late in the game now to be tinkering with builds that people already love to fly. I guess they could make Strike CP different than Bomber CP. Maybe Strike CP works against BLCs and bomber CP doesn't. But that's kinda sloppy.