Jump to content

Component swapping or Ship build pre-sets please


Recommended Posts

I'd really like to be able to swap components on a ship during a match (between spawns obviously).

 

Either through the hanger window, same as if I was unqueued on Fleet, or through a system of pre-sets (each additional preset requires a Cartel Market unlock?).

 

There are times I need my bomber-hunter Blackbolt build, there's times I need my 'boost forever' Blackbolt build. Sadly, I don't know which I'll need until I find out if I'm playing Domination or a Team Deathmatch.

 

Or just let me spend 5k fleet req on another Blackbolt for my hanger please.

 

Even just being able to swap co-pilots between spawns would be a great boon.

Edited by dancezwithnubz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree. This would only further increase the power of specialty ships and components. It's already bad enough that we can have five distinct ships ready to go.

 

If you want to be able to handle any situation decently, bring a Strike or other ship that is built to be a generalist.

 

If anything would improve the game, it would be decreasing the number of readied ships we can bring to 3. Even then, we'd still see everyone bring a Flashfire, a Quarrel, and a Razorwire.

 

And you can't field respec a ground character in the middle of a warzone.

Edited by Nemarus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything would improve the game, it would be decreasing the number of readied ships we can bring to 3. Even then, we'd still see everyone bring a Flashfire, a Quarrel, and a Razorwire.

 

i wouldn't bring those three, although a T1 gunship would definitely be part of my load out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree. This would only further increase the power of specialty ships and components. It's already bad enough that we can have five distinct ships ready to go.

 

If you want to be able to handle any situation decently, bring a Strike or other ship that is built to be a generalist.

 

If anything would improve the game, it would be decreasing the number of readied ships we can bring to 3. Even then, we'd still see everyone bring a Flashfire, a Quarrel, and a Razorwire.

 

And you can't field respec a ground character in the middle of a warzone.

 

Wait, what? Why would dropping to 3 slots improve ship variety? Like you said, almost everyone would just have the big 3. If you increased the number of slots, then it would encourage people to try new ships.

 

I'm feeling the pinch myself, since I have all 12 of the non CM ships mastered, some of which I would really like to fly more often, but not at the expense of removing my Mangler or Sting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wouldn't bring those three, although a T1 gunship would definitely be part of my load out.

 

I bet you had to give some careful thought to which three you'd bring though, right? And your choices might be distinct from others, and those choices of yours might cause unexpected and surprising outcomes in matches.

 

Personally I think it would make the game far more interesting. Hmm, sounds like a neat thread idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet you had to give some careful thought to which three you'd bring though, right?

 

A T1 gunship is pretty much a given. I dislike flying a gunship and would much, much rather get about in a T1 or T3 scout.

I keep a T1 gunny & T2 scout online simply because they're my go-to "help, i'm in a pug with total nubs" ships.

I just cracked 1,000 matches played. I would hate being restricted to only three ship choices with such a huge variety of ship builds available. heck, i'd have a hanger of three Blackbolts and two Bloodmarks if I could.

 

Perhaps a second version of a given ship should be a reward for "completing" that ship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd really like to be able to swap components on a ship during a match (between spawns obviously).

Yes, I support.

 

But I would welcome a hangar expansion even more. Initially, there were 6 different ships and 5 places in the hangar. Has fitted.

Meanwhile, we have 12 ships and still only 5 places. This is clearly not enough.

I would like my ships specialize even more and each bring a custom setting for the situation. Motto: Thinking work triumphs over brute force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I support.

 

But I would welcome a hangar expansion even more. Initially, there were 6 different ships and 5 places in the hangar. Has fitted.

Meanwhile, we have 12 ships and still only 5 places. This is clearly not enough.

I would like my ships specialize even more and each bring a custom setting for the situation. Motto: Thinking work triumphs over brute force.

 

Which could also be read as "swapping to the most specialized build for any task, which you got off of these forums" triumphs over "pilot skill".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which could also be read as "swapping to the most specialized build for any task, which you got off of these forums" triumphs over "pilot skill".

 

That's a little harsh.

 

Setting up a Blackbolt for bomber clearing duties in domination deprives me of that ship in tdm.

 

Heck, just two different hangers. One for each game mode?

 

I'd have both my emp/thermite domination ship and a recharge boost for eternity setup I like for tdm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which could also be read as "swapping to the most specialized build for any task, which you got off of these forums" triumphs over "pilot skill".

 

I'm actually pretty sure that there are more and no less "Pilot Skill" is required for the effective use of a variety of ships. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which could also be read as "swapping to the most specialized build for any task, which you got off of these forums" triumphs over "pilot skill".

 

Most of the builds are fairly obvious from sufficient experience. Stasie's thread is convenient for new players, but most of the variations have been tried by all the veterans already.

 

And, seriously Nemarus? Are you really implying that people who like to specialized builds for their ships aren't good pilots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Nem is saying specialty builds > pilot skill, not saying people that use specialty builds are bad pilots. If you reduce the number of slots you can bring you reduce how many specialties you can have and might force people to go a more general route instead. I think it would just increase the use of the OP ships though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would just increase the use of the OP ships though.

 

Don't thinking it would change anything. Those who would put OP ships "just in case" are mostly already doing so.

 

If restricted hangars can show BioWare which ships are the most OP in a better way than now through metrics (fewer underdog in hangars), I'm for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the builds are fairly obvious from sufficient experience. Stasie's thread is convenient for new players, but most of the variations have been tried by all the veterans already.

 

And, seriously Nemarus? Are you really implying that people who like to specialized builds for their ships aren't good pilots?

 

No. I was rebuking the notion that hot-swapping components would cause theorycrafting to triumph over "brute force". I don't know what "brute force" can possibly be referring to except pilot skill. And as for throrycrafting, there are maybe 15 people across all servers who do the work and experimentation to identify the best builds. Everyone else is a follower who can't even seem to take the time to read every tooltip, let alone do simple math.

 

At least on my server, there were just three of us flying SIM's for a good two months after 2.6 came out. I don't know how a build could be more obvious, and yet only when I explained in a post how I was obliterating everyone did we suddenly see an explosion of SIM's in Domination. It's the same reason I don't go into great detail about any of my builds on public forums anymore. I might hint at something, to invite people to do their own exploration, but I don't believe in playing half the game for people.

 

I've actually never even looked at Stasie's guide, because it would ruin half the fun for me. I am fine with other players using it, but honestly I think most find it to be information overload. I know it talked about SIM's long before I mentioned them, but on my server, they only spread once I really hammered home why they are so effective, which lead to their being openly discussed and shared on TEH Gsf channels.

 

I don't know how hot swappable components would change the game, but I know it would not make anyone a better theorycrafter, or make theorycrafting a bigger part of the game. The people who persist in flying bad builds now would still do so. The people who look to others to tell them what to fly would still do so. Those of us who actually figure out what works best for what situation would have slightly more flexibility than we do now (since we could make two Blackbolts, for example), but I don't think it would change much for us. With five ships, good builders and good pilots should be able to handle anything, at least so long as we are stuck with these two game types.

 

If we got more gametypes, I could see us having different readied bars for each one. But again, the more slots you give people, the more safe they will feel in building a fleet of specialized ships, which (I believe) decrease the chance anyone would build a generalist ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I was rebuking the notion that hot-swapping components would cause theorycrafting to triumph over "brute force". I don't know what "brute force" can possibly be referring to except pilot skill.

 

I meant more the way of playing. I am pleased when playfulness, unconventional configurations and absurd maneuvers lead to profits. Significantly more than if the game is won purely by damage and pure superiority.

 

The fewer places in the hangar is even less room for crazy ship configurations. The few courts must of course be filled with the strongest ships.

 

The problem I have now with five seats and must leave some ships at home, I would like to fly out of pure fun. Well, I manage myself so that I kept free for the 5th place in the hangar for experimental configurations. With only three places I would actually take only rely on the OP ships. That would be more than boring ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I was rebuking the notion that hot-swapping components would cause theorycrafting to triumph over "brute force". I don't know what "brute force" can possibly be referring to except pilot skill. And as for throrycrafting, there are maybe 15 people across all servers who do the work and experimentation to identify the best builds. Everyone else is a follower who can't even seem to take the time to read every tooltip, let alone do simple math.

 

At least on my server, there were just three of us flying SIM's for a good two months after 2.6 came out. I don't know how a build could be more obvious, and yet only when I explained in a post how I was obliterating everyone did we suddenly see an explosion of SIM's in Domination. It's the same reason I don't go into great detail about any of my builds on public forums anymore. I might hint at something, to invite people to do their own exploration, but I don't believe in playing half the game for people.

 

I've actually never even looked at Stasie's guide, because it would ruin half the fun for me. I am fine with other players using it, but honestly I think most find it to be information overload. I know it talked about SIM's long before I mentioned them, but on my server, they only spread once I really hammered home why they are so effective, which lead to their being openly discussed and shared on TEH Gsf channels.

 

I don't know how hot swappable components would change the game, but I know it would not make anyone a better theorycrafter, or make theorycrafting a bigger part of the game. The people who persist in flying bad builds now would still do so. The people who look to others to tell them what to fly would still do so. Those of us who actually figure out what works best for what situation would have slightly more flexibility than we do now (since we could make two Blackbolts, for example), but I don't think it would change much for us. With five ships, good builders and good pilots should be able to handle anything, at least so long as we are stuck with these two game types.

 

If we got more gametypes, I could see us having different readied bars for each one. But again, the more slots you give people, the more safe they will feel in building a fleet of specialized ships, which (I believe) decrease the chance anyone would build a generalist ship.

 

There are so few possible combinations in gsf that the "best" builds are derived pretty quickly. Maybe not by the people that never bothered to get any more than 2 ships, but the top pilots? The forums will popularize the best builds for everyone, and there can be some argument about secondary component types that actually require some computation to figure out "optimal", but I think the core of the original builds were pretty obvious to people playing many different ship types at a high level. At least they should have been. In any event, gsf is so situational that personal preference can often trump builds that are mathematically highest dps/etc.

 

As for promoting generalist ships - you'd have to drop the number of slots way down before that happens. 3 won't cut it, since there are only 3 basic functions: dogfight/sniper/node holder - and they are filled by specialized builds. And if you do drive the number of slots all the way down, everyone would just run Stingfires.

 

I think giving more *slots* as opposed to on-the-fly build changes, would encourage other hulls to be flown in gsf - I for one would take out my Rycer a lot more if I didn't need to keep Mangler/Sting/Razorwire/Non-mastered ship on the bar all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we got more gametypes, I could see us having different readied bars for each one. But again, the more slots you give people, the more safe they will feel in building a fleet of specialized ships, which (I believe) decrease the chance anyone would build a generalist ship.

 

So, here you go again.

 

For those not familiar, Nemarus is pretty much CONSTANTLY chewing on the idea of ship diversity, roles, and how to deepen the choices on each one. That's a great goal, but I genuinely and frequently disagree with his assessments and how they will work out.

 

 

But now we have a track record to examine- it's not just Verain blabbing versus Nemarus blabbing.

 

Nem has older threads where he asks for MINES to not pierce shields.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=738888&page=2

 

He actually made a thread where he had some pretty thought out redesign material for the mines, with the goal to keep scouts down. The assumption was that strikes would have a lot more viability at the node if their shields mattered more.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=738389

 

 

So here we are, with TWO big nerfs, both begged for on the forums. The first is that interdiction mine went from 100% shield piercing to 0% shield piercing, gaining not overmuch damage in the exchange. The second is that mines respect LOS in their explosions and their triggers, making it safe to be on a node with a bomber as long as you don't fly incorrectly.

 

...and did the meta shift to strikes?

 

 

 

We know it did not. I had several posts asking for strike fighter direct buffs- none of those happened. But the threads asking for massive boy bomber nerfs were acted upon. What happened?

 

 

Gunships, who actually got a nerf this patch, are a bit better in the meta. Scouts, who had no changes, are a LOT better in the meta. And here we have more damned threads asking to crap up the game in the hopes that someone will play a strike fighter without feeling like they are ultimately hurting their team.

 

 

 

 

Here's the problems:

 

1)- Strikes are actually too weak. Their role is mostly the same as a scout, but they are worse at it. They have to chase just as much, because 7km and 3km are the same distance from the perspective of "closing to that range from 40km". Their longer range doesn't help much when their limited turning is factored in, and they are always out of breath because they have the same boost consumption as bombers and gunships, and regen thrusters only go so far. The solution here is a buff to strikes, and SEVERAL have been proposed, most of which would work.

 

2)- Everyone starts with a type 1 scout and a type 1 strike. The double req has been the biggest boost here, because players are actually running more ships now than before, but this is still the biggest deal. If I go into a game with 7 two shippers on my side, versus a team that isn't very good, I can carry, but not normally on a strike fighter. Why? Well, plenty of my team is on strikes, and those that aren't are on a ship doing the same thing as a strike, because a lowbie type 1 scout isn't very interesting. So by being a strike, I'm just the best strike on the team of noobs, but our team has PLENTY of strikes. If I get on a bomber, I can define a region that heals allies and damages enemies, and if my strikes fly towards it, I can defend them. Now we have complementary jobs. If I get on a gunship I can hide behind the WALL of strikes, dragging my pursuers back and forth in front of Strike Noob Army, while sniping enemy strikes. The actual power of the ships isn't the reason I can't play a strike effectively here- buffed strikes wouldn't change this. But it's frequently MISTAKEN for that. The solution here is to make it so that everyone can have a bomber and a gunship.

 

3)- Scouts burst too hard. Part of this is the latency thing, where the enemy's client lets him take several shots at you before your client knows, even if YOUR latency isn't the bad one. This can result in you escaping the moment you start to take damage, and then you dying 10km away as the server "catches up" the playback of the burst damage you took. They can't fix the underlying model (well, probably not), but they could still change the burst system component to something less bursty, even if this is a straight up nerf.

 

4)- Gunships are still hitting a bit too hard with slug railgun. Ion is still a bit too powerful, but at this point I don't want the ion nerf, because at least there's a lot of choice with that gun. An appropriate ion railgun nerf might be reducing the range to 13km. An appropriate slug nerf might be reducing the damage. An appropriate plasma buff is just to add that accuracy talent, that thing is so damned mandatory. I personally think that they should have added a railgun that ignores a lot of shield, and another that ignores the armor, and one that ignores evasion, but we're way too late for that (except the evasion ignore, which would still have to come at a big cost).

 

 

 

 

 

Nemarus maintains that the strikes are "generalists". I actually think they are intended that way, but the net effect is, no, they are not. The type 3 bomber is a generalist- he has a dogfighting missile and good lasers, he can break many missile locks with power dive, yet he keeps a mine that he can deploy for node defense. He's actually not amazing versus strike fighters, but stronger than other dogfighters against scouts, because the mine can peel a scout sometimes. He's a missing chunk of the meta, missing mostly because he's not THAT good, and it would be hard to make him such without completely writing strikes out.

 

 

Here's your roles:

 

Area denial: A scout and a strike both are poor at this.

Burst damage: A strike can't provide this.

Node defense: A strike is rather poor at this- a scout can actually be better because he can evade targets longer and burst harder.

Artillery: Gunships can do this, strikes cannot. A strike trying to missile boat at 9km is trivial to counter without even having to make a dive at him. A gunship demands action, demands you dive at him to knock him off the roost. The strike can be allowed to make his ranged attacks and simply missile break them, or LOS is far more effective.

Pursuit: This is a role that isn't needed to win any games, but it would be very important if we had capture the flag or murder ball modes. This is the sole domain of the scout.

Support: A strike can provide this pretty well, and the Clarion pretty damned well. This is the strike's only role, and it doesn't really exceed the scout much here.

 

 

Strikes are not generalists. If I could queue only one ship, I would need to be in a group to even put req on my strikes. And you don't need to ask about three, or two, or four, or whatever- the more restricted you make it, the less you can afford to play a strike fighter.

 

 

 

 

If you want strikes to be good, ask for strike buffs. Figure out what actually you think would make them fun and good, and ask for that. The devs certainly have jumped to implement your bad ideas, which have just made scouts more mandatory and powerful, so maybe they'd actually chase your good ideas too, if you pounded your drum loud enough.

 

 

 

If you want interesting stuff with the hangar, the solution would be to either just make it bigger or make it so that spots of it were reserved a bit. If our hangar was six ships big, with four of them being "must be a strike", "must be a scout", "must be a gunship", "must be a bomber", with two that could be anything, that would definitely result in people putting a healthy variety of ships on their bar- much more so that restricting it to three, which would crush this.

Edited by Verain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like that Nem stands up for what he believes in. That being said, strikes are scouts-that-aren't-scouts and we do need to buff ships rather than just components. The fighter needs a beef up, as they aren't viable (imo) compared to the other ships.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, here you go again.

 

For those not familiar, Nemarus is pretty much CONSTANTLY chewing on the idea of ship diversity, roles, and how to deepen the choices on each one. That's a great goal, but I genuinely and frequently disagree with his assessments and how they will work out.

 

 

But now we have a track record to examine- it's not just Verain blabbing versus Nemarus blabbing.

 

Nem has older threads where he asks for MINES to not pierce shields.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=738888&page=2

 

He actually made a thread where he had some pretty thought out redesign material for the mines, with the goal to keep scouts down. The assumption was that strikes would have a lot more viability at the node if their shields mattered more.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=738389

 

 

So here we are, with TWO big nerfs, both begged for on the forums. The first is that interdiction mine went from 100% shield piercing to 0% shield piercing, gaining not overmuch damage in the exchange. The second is that mines respect LOS in their explosions and their triggers, making it safe to be on a node with a bomber as long as you don't fly incorrectly.

 

...and did the meta shift to strikes?

 

 

 

We know it did not. I had several posts asking for strike fighter direct buffs- none of those happened. But the threads asking for massive boy bomber nerfs were acted upon. What happened?

 

 

Gunships, who actually got a nerf this patch, are a bit better in the meta. Scouts, who had no changes, are a LOT better in the meta. And here we have more damned threads asking to crap up the game in the hopes that someone will play a strike fighter without feeling like they are ultimately hurting their team.

 

 

 

 

Here's the problems:

 

1)- Strikes are actually too weak. Their role is mostly the same as a scout, but they are worse at it. They have to chase just as much, because 7km and 3km are the same distance from the perspective of "closing to that range from 40km". Their longer range doesn't help much when their limited turning is factored in, and they are always out of breath because they have the same boost consumption as bombers and gunships, and regen thrusters only go so far. The solution here is a buff to strikes, and SEVERAL have been proposed, most of which would work.

 

2)- Everyone starts with a type 1 scout and a type 1 strike. The double req has been the biggest boost here, because players are actually running more ships now than before, but this is still the biggest deal. If I go into a game with 7 two shippers on my side, versus a team that isn't very good, I can carry, but not normally on a strike fighter. Why? Well, plenty of my team is on strikes, and those that aren't are on a ship doing the same thing as a strike, because a lowbie type 1 scout isn't very interesting. So by being a strike, I'm just the best strike on the team of noobs, but our team has PLENTY of strikes. If I get on a bomber, I can define a region that heals allies and damages enemies, and if my strikes fly towards it, I can defend them. Now we have complementary jobs. If I get on a gunship I can hide behind the WALL of strikes, dragging my pursuers back and forth in front of Strike Noob Army, while sniping enemy strikes. The actual power of the ships isn't the reason I can't play a strike effectively here- buffed strikes wouldn't change this. But it's frequently MISTAKEN for that. The solution here is to make it so that everyone can have a bomber and a gunship.

 

3)- Scouts burst too hard. Part of this is the latency thing, where the enemy's client lets him take several shots at you before your client knows, even if YOUR latency isn't the bad one. This can result in you escaping the moment you start to take damage, and then you dying 10km away as the server "catches up" the playback of the burst damage you took. They can't fix the underlying model (well, probably not), but they could still change the burst system component to something less bursty, even if this is a straight up nerf.

 

4)- Gunships are still hitting a bit too hard with slug railgun. Ion is still a bit too powerful, but at this point I don't want the ion nerf, because at least there's a lot of choice with that gun. An appropriate ion railgun nerf might be reducing the range to 13km. An appropriate slug nerf might be reducing the damage. An appropriate plasma buff is just to add that accuracy talent, that thing is so damned mandatory. I personally think that they should have added a railgun that ignores a lot of shield, and another that ignores the armor, and one that ignores evasion, but we're way too late for that (except the evasion ignore, which would still have to come at a big cost).

 

 

 

 

 

Nemarus maintains that the strikes are "generalists". I actually think they are intended that way, but the net effect is, no, they are not. The type 3 bomber is a generalist- he has a dogfighting missile and good lasers, he can break many missile locks with power dive, yet he keeps a mine that he can deploy for node defense. He's actually not amazing versus strike fighters, but stronger than other dogfighters against scouts, because the mine can peel a scout sometimes. He's a missing chunk of the meta, missing mostly because he's not THAT good, and it would be hard to make him such without completely writing strikes out.

 

 

Here's your roles:

 

Area denial: A scout and a strike both are poor at this.

Burst damage: A strike can't provide this.

Node defense: A strike is rather poor at this- a scout can actually be better because he can evade targets longer and burst harder.

Artillery: Gunships can do this, strikes cannot. A strike trying to missile boat at 9km is trivial to counter without even having to make a dive at him. A gunship demands action, demands you dive at him to knock him off the roost. The strike can be allowed to make his ranged attacks and simply missile break them, or LOS is far more effective.

Pursuit: This is a role that isn't needed to win any games, but it would be very important if we had capture the flag or murder ball modes. This is the sole domain of the scout.

Support: A strike can provide this pretty well, and the Clarion pretty damned well. This is the strike's only role, and it doesn't really exceed the scout much here.

 

 

Strikes are not generalists. If I could queue only one ship, I would need to be in a group to even put req on my strikes. And you don't need to ask about three, or two, or four, or whatever- the more restricted you make it, the less you can afford to play a strike fighter.

 

 

 

 

If you want strikes to be good, ask for strike buffs. Figure out what actually you think would make them fun and good, and ask for that. The devs certainly have jumped to implement your bad ideas, which have just made scouts more mandatory and powerful, so maybe they'd actually chase your good ideas too, if you pounded your drum loud enough.

 

 

 

If you want interesting stuff with the hangar, the solution would be to either just make it bigger or make it so that spots of it were reserved a bit. If our hangar was six ships big, with four of them being "must be a strike", "must be a scout", "must be a gunship", "must be a bomber", with two that could be anything, that would definitely result in people putting a healthy variety of ships on their bar- much more so that restricting it to three, which would crush this.

 

Yes, we do have a track record. We had me saying Minelayers needed a nerf--which was driven far more by concerns over accessibility and fun than they were about Strikes alone. And we had you fighting me at every turn, saying that ANY nerf to mine shield piercing would "delete Bombers" and calling my posts "cry threads", despite the fact that I'd been abusing SIMs myself for weeks.

 

And while not all of my suggested changes were made, some were. And did Bombers get deleted? No. Did Domination become more fun and accessible? I think so. I haven't seen anyone say they preferred 2.7 to 2.8. Have you? Does anyone think the change to Interdiction Mine or mine AOE was bad for the game? Because Verain of old seemed to think any such nerfs would bring about the Scoutpocolypse.

 

I fully admit that when I said fewer ships would help people play more generalist builds, I was thinking about Strikes in the ideal case--that they are actually multirole fighters than can perform any role reasonably, and that they are especially useful against Bombers. But I agree that is not currently the reality.

 

The problem is that even if Strikes got all the buffs you requested, Verain--even if a StarGuard became a better generalist than a Flashfire, there is no reason to fly one when you can bring 5 specialist ships into battle and change between them at will.

 

But others have correctly pointed out that as there are really only three specialized roles, even reducing the hangar to 3 wouldn't help. Before anyone would play a T1 or T2 Strike to actually win (rather than for funsies), you would have to buff it to be a better generalist than the Flashfire and you would have to reduce hangar size to two or even one. That, or you would have to create a new role for which Strikes are the undisputed masters.

 

While your idea of requiring everyone to ready one ship of each major type, along with one wildcard, is neat, it wouldn't do anything to encourage people to play T1 or T2 Strikes in a competitive match. I think everyone would just declare the T3 as their token Strike, since it actually has some "best at role" builds for satellite defense.

 

I also agree that the new T3 Bomber and Gunships can be multirole generalists--better than the Strikes can. But I don't know that anyone is going to use a Sledgehammer or Decimus in a serious match. Not when they could pick one of five super specialized builds instead. In short, I suppose the conclusion you are driving me to is that there is no reason to have generalist ships--of any class--so long as you can ready 3+ ships. In that case, I think Strikes.are doomed to suck unless we get a game type that somehow caters specifically to their strengths. Maybe a minefield clearing race?

 

I do agree with your four numbered points, and I'm glad you acknowledge that slugs are still hitting a little too hard, especially given the lack of warning. I again maintain that shield piercing is the big culprit here. If slug had no piercing, then strong shields (which are a Strike specialty), would make them more resilient against slug railguns. Unfortunately, no amount of shielding can save a Strike from the huge energy drain from an ion railgun hit. That itself is a sort of shield piercing as well.

 

And as far as general forum posting strategy goes, I throw a lot at the board, sometimes before I have even fully explored the idea and its consequences myself. That is because I post when I can't play. When I am at work or waiting in line at the grocery store or on the can. :)

 

But I like to start conversations and thought experiments. I don't even mind when people challenge my assertions or prove them wrong. What I do mind are people who cannot disagree without coming off like combative jerks. And Verain, it seems like 50% of the time, you can't reply to someone you disagree with without resorting to snide insults, hyperbole or distortion. You're getting better, but I still wish you could not turn everything into such a battle.

 

I vehemently disagree with the idea of hot swapping components, as posted by the OP. But I see no reason to attack him for it--he was just throwing an idea out there, as I often do myself.

Edited by Nemarus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that even if Strikes got all the buffs you requested, Verain--even if a StarGuard became a better generalist than a Flashfire, there is no reason to fly one when you can bring 5 specialist ships into battle and change between them at will.

 

incidentally, the best buff you can give a good strike pilot these days is another decent strike pilot or two as wingmen.

three strikes working TOGETHER and co-ordinating will crush any three scout opponents sent in against them.

one on one, a strike gets eaten by scouts.

I'd be all for strike fighters getting a decent buff. they need it.

 

But I stand by my initial idea, despite your 'vehement' objections.

If I could switch my components in a match, i'd actually be MORE likely to play strike fighters more often.

 

I keep an Imperium/Clarion on my bar. I actually really like that boat and am looking forward to mastering it in due course.

If the Quell were to receive Interdictions & Thermites, you'd have a hard time getting me OUT of the cockpit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...