Jump to content

Interdiction Interjection!


RickDagles

Recommended Posts

I've been flying the double missile boat Condor/Jugoran a lot lately. As others have already pointed out, it is much better than Strikes. It certainly makes the Pike obsolete. I've found that the build is extremely good at killing bombers, especially the T1 CP Bomber build. Why? It's the Interdiction Missile. This thing is almost as effective as hitting a bomber with upgraded ion railgun. Not only does it steal 1/5 of his engines, but it leaves him as a sitting duck for you to pelt with armor piercing BLCs. Even decent bomber pilots can't boost away from your optimal BLC range. Another thing that's cool is that you actually have the ability to escape if you get hit by an interdiction mine or ion railgun while you're around the satellite. You can just use powerdive and/or DF to achieve a LoS.

 

Ok so here we go, another buff Strikes post... but what if the Strikes were given the specialized role of being snare artists? The Pike with CP, HLC, and Interdiction missile would be a really cool bomber hunter. It already kinda works sometimes with CP/HLC/Concussion snare, but the shorter lockon and more significant snare would help so much. The Starguard with Interdiction lasers? Obviously the snare on the laser would have to be lessened (maybe 5-10%?), but it would add a cool new dynamic to the game and give them an answer to BLC scouts. Maybe morph the Clarion's Combat Command to give teammates' lasers a 5-10% interdiction affect. And that could synergize with the Starguard's lasers to create 10-20%.

 

Strikes need a role!

Edited by RickDagles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big objection I have is you're basically suggesting that strikes should specialise in making people want to quit. That feeling of intense frustration pilots get when ioned and interdicted is probably not something that should be more common, and adding more stacking snares to the game is definitely a bad idea.

 

That said, you're not the first person to suggest Interdiction Missile on the Type 2 strike, and you won't be the last. Regardless of any general changes to strikes, that's something that needs to happen. In this game, there are relatively few missiles worth using, and it's an utter joke that the ship that's supposed to rely most on missiles doesn't have access to one of these few worthwhile missiles.

Edited by MiaowZedong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crippling losses suck. Being the only one on the team able to clear out a minefield sucks. Not being able to do so because no one is covering me sucks. Getting 1000-10'd sucks. Not being able to move off spawn without eating railguns sucks. But I can live with all of these.

 

I have legitimately quit playing GSF entirely for weeks at a time because the meta on TEH shifted towards snares and I felt like I couldn't actually do anything when I launched or got to a point. And in some cases that was true; 100% snares mean I am essentially dead. If I don't die to a mine or something before they wear off, I'm low on engine power because I've panic-spacebar'd in the hopes of getting out of dodge. Oh, and during that panic, I'm not paying any attention to my lasers or missiles.

 

I wouldn't mind adding more interdiction effects to the game if no snare effects stacked. I would mind spammable lasers that meant I'm flying at 90% speed as long as I'm in a dogfight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good idea on paper, but bad in practice. Too many people would get pissed and leave.

 

Still. I like your train of thought. It is logical and sound, this idea specifically just wouldn't work due to the fact that humans are emotional and fickle creatures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still. I like your train of thought. It is logical and sound, this idea specifically just wouldn't work due to the fact that humans are emotional and fickle creatures.

 

Taking it a bit deeper, I think it wouldn't work because this suggestion runs contrary to the intended experience of "you are piloting a fast ship in a kill-or-be-killed environment". I could babble for a while about details, but someone already wrote a book about it for anyone who's interested. (There's a second edition, but I don't have that one... yet.)

 

Full disclosure: I have an addiction to zoom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if adding snares to Strikes the logical places would be by giving the T2 Interdiction missile and adding a snare component to Ion Cannons.

 

T3 strikes could use AP on a primary weapon more than a snare, and the normal suggestions are either HLCs or BLCs.

 

 

On the whole though, strikes suffer from snares more than the other classes, so I'm not sure having more snares would be good for strikes as a class even if those snares are mounted on strikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pikes wouldn't go well with interdiction missile, anyway, at least not against charged plating bombers. They would have to snare, re-establish range, and then start firing HLC. With lighter guns, they would be a lot more threatening to not-CP bombers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting idea however I actually don't think it would help the Quell/Pike very much as it already has the ability to use 2 snare missiles currently and no one does it.

 

You're first missile in a "snare" Quell/Pike's arsenal would be a concussion missile with the snare/drain upgrade.

 

This snare is a 30% slow and lasts for 15 seconds. It also drains 25 engine power from the target.

 

 

Now Interdiction missile has less range then Concussion missile and heavy's coming in at 5500, so it already doesn't sync very well.

 

Interdiction's snare is 50% and lasts 10 seconds. It also drains 20 engine power from the target.

It does 690 damage and takes 1.7 seconds to lock on, with a reload time of 9 seconds.

 

 

Now the other snare missile the Quell/Pike has access to is Ion missile, most players avoid this missile like the plague. Most of it's stats are inferior to Interdiction missile however it does fit the range of the build much better coming in at 7700.

 

Ion's snare is 40% for 6 seconds. It also drains 20 engine power and 5 weapon power from the target.

It does 1580 shield damage, 197 hull damage and takes 2.6 seconds to lock on, with a reload time of 11 seconds.

 

 

So while Ion isn't quite Interdiction missile it would be very easy to go out and test whether having 2 snare missiles would in fact help the ship that much.

 

I mean if we look at the missiles side by side there isn't that much difference between them.

 

Interdiction / Ion

Range: 5500 / 7700

Damage: 690 / 1580 or 197

Lock on: 1.7 / 2.6

Snare: 50% 10 seconds / 40% 6 seconds

Drain: 20 engine / 20 engine + 5 weapon

Reload: 9 seconds / 11 seconds

Critical chance: 0% / 10%

 

 

Now I'm not saying Interdiction and Ion are on equal footing in any way. I'm just trying to show that giving the Quell/Pike a close range, very slightly improved Ion missile isn't exactly the shot in the arm I think the ship needs.

 

As for everyone groaning about snares stacking and giving this ship that much snaring power would make the game unfun. Let's remember these are still missile snares, they are the hardest snares in the game to land on players. Not to mention this build pretty much already exists and no one plays it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buff Ion missile: 50%, 10 seconds, slightly shorter lock on (2.2 seconds, not as short as interdiction), possibly increase the arc by 2 degrees.

 

Perhaps this is not enough or too much, but surely ion missile could be buffed to a place where people want it as much as interdiction missile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that ion missile and concussion missile snares only affected ship speed but not turning? The tooltip seems to convey this. Since it's so rare to get hit by a mastered ion or concussion missile I honestly don't have much experience to draw on. The interdiction missile really does seem to snare the turning a lot harder, but maybe it's just a matter of 50% vs 30 or 40%?

 

I think snares are a really fun element of the game. It would be nice to have something that can somewhat counter the scout players who love to just evasively fly around the satellite and not fight. Right now the only solid counter to that is choosing a bomber. Interdiction lasers would also be a bit of a round about way to counter high evasion since it would help you center targets more easily. They would have a really cool synergy with StarGuard HLC.

Edited by RickDagles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that ion missile and concussion missile snares only affected ship speed but not turning? The tooltip seems to convey this. Since it's so rare to get hit by a mastered ion or concussion missile I honestly don't have much experience to draw on. The interdiction missile really does seem to snare the turning a lot harder, but maybe it's just a matter of 50% vs 30 or 40%?

 

I think snares are a really fun element of the game. It would be nice to have something that can somewhat counter the scout players who love to just evasively fly around the satellite and not fight. Right now the only solid counter to that is choosing a bomber. Interdiction lasers would also be a bit of a round about way to counter high evasion since it would help you center targets more easily. They would have a really cool synergy with StarGuard HLC.

 

Well the slow talents on Concussion missile and Ion missile both have the exact same wording as the slow talent on Ion railgun. In my experience when I get hit by an Ion railgun with the slow talent my turning seems affected.

 

If anyone else has had a different experience please let me know.

 

After looking over the tooltips you might be right here. The slow talents on Concussion, Ion missile and Ion railgun all don't explicitly that they slow ships turning rates as well. I guess I'll have to try to test it with someone at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean if we look at the missiles side by side there isn't that much difference between them.

 

. . . . . . .

 

Lock on: 1.7 / 2.6

That is much of a difference.

 

 

Reload: 9 seconds / 11 seconds

 

So is a 22% increase in rate of fire.

 

 

 

If Interdiction were available on the T2 strike I think you'd see a lot of Interdiction - Cluster builds and a few Interdiction - other missile builds.

 

 

I don't think the T2 strike's place in the meta would change though. The T3 gunship has a dogfighting toolkit that's almost identical to that of the BLC - Cluster battlescout, but without the mobility of the scout frame and Interdiction missile in the place of a system ability. The T2 strike would still be missing about half of the components in that kit, and the more powerful ones at that.

 

Having the only really worthwhile snaring missile doesn't do much good if you don't have the tools to capitalize on a snared target in a highly effective way.

 

If you made the T2 strike a more-or-less clone of the T3 double missile build ( add BLCs, DF, and Retro or PD) you get a bigger meaner version of it, and might even start nudging at the bottom end of the meta. That's pretty much just a, "clone an imperfect clone of a batllescout," approach though.

 

 

Mmm, so minor quibble with your characterization of Interdiction as being "about the same" as Ion missile. It's really quite a lot better.

 

As far as general meta and anti-bomber specific conclusions go I agree that Interdiction on it's own isn't enough to shift things in a major way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm, so minor quibble with your characterization of Interdiction as being "about the same" as Ion missile. It's really quite a lot better.

 

As far as general meta and anti-bomber specific conclusions go I agree that Interdiction on it's own isn't enough to shift things in a major way.

 

You're right I guess I was a tad too generous in the wording. All I really wanted to convey is that if you wanted to test using 2 "snare" missiles you could do that on live at the moment and in my opinion you'd see it still isn't very good.

 

My point was really if you buffed Ion missile to be better then Interdiction missile, the Quell/Pike still wouldn't be a good ship. Also in my opinion this ship would still "snare" less targets then an Ion railgun set to snare or a Bomber with Interdiction Mine/Drone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Armonddd wants you to know he uses the snare option when he's running concs. I've actually got a ship set up that way myself, but for what it's worth, it's my "even further from being competitive" build. I feel the armour piercing is a better choice overall, for concs.

 

Also, the complaints aren't about more snare missiles, because all your points about missile snares are broadly correct. I don't think anyone's afraid it would be overpowered. Obnoxious, yes, but not overpowered (and obnoxious is a very bad thing on its own). While some new snares would not necessarily be a bad thing, the problem comes from being able to stack them, even up to 100%. If multiple snares in GSF only applied the strongest snare, it would be a lot less of a killjoy.

 

Also, I seem to recall, months ago, proposing a new ship in one of those speculative threads that would be basically what Siraka is proposing now. I'll reiterate what I (IIRC) said about it then: a snare-ship would be extremely trollish, it would have a real niche but its overall power and utility would be fairly low, and above all, it would be extremely trollish.

 

Edit: found it. I'd like to point out it's not a serious solution to ship imbalance, but a proposed trollship for trolling people with loads of snares, component disabling and power drains.

Edited by MiaowZedong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went and did some experimenting tonight props to Aquilon-Tune for helping me test stuff on him.

 

The slow's on Concussion missile, Ion missile and Ion Railgun all DO NOT affect turning rates.

 

If you hit the target with a Concussion missile it applies the 35% slow, if you then hit him with an Ion missile it erases the 35% slow and applies the 40% slow from the Ion missile. They DO NOT stack.

 

Even stranger is if you hit with a Ion missile first it applies the 40% slow, if you then hit with a Concussion missile it erases the 40% slow and applies the 35T slow from the Concussion missile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's weird. Now I'm curious: what slows do stack? I'm fairly convinced Interdiction Mine is involved, because I don't think I've ever been at 0% speed without eating one.

 

I couldn't properly argue my point last night (there were complications with my authenticator), but I feel that the slow effect on concussion missile is enough to guarantee a kill from HLCs, while the armor penetration is not enough to guarantee a kill on most ships, even against newer players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to favor the AP on concussion missiles, mostly because I tend to run Bypass as well and it works out to more than 400 hull damage on a hit no matter what the target is or what their shield state is, with fairly reasonable cooldown and uptime.

 

I view it as a matter of dumping in a lot of damage when the target is poorly positioned, because with boost a good pilot has a decent chance of making it to a better position even with the slow applied. If boost were disabled by the slow or HLCs had better burst damage I might tend more toward the slow. I don't feel there's a huge advantage either way for a strike, and I feel there's more value for a team in being able to be a fraction faster downing a bomber that's helping the noobs massacre themselves than there is to a small advantage in terms of harassing scouts and gunships.

 

That's informed by current ship demographics where I've been playing though. I've been seeing a lot of bombers lately, but not enough really good gunships to feel pressured by them much. At around 3-4 good gunships the balance starts to favor the slow more, although at that point it also favors flying something that's not a strike.

 

 

Edit: Now that I think about it, I should probably check for alts that are running Wingman instead of Bypass and switch from AP to snare on them. I should also set up at least one Pike somewhere as a Conc snare + Lockdown trolling build, maybe add Ion missile too.

Edited by Ramalina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't disagree that the T2 Strike should have access to Interdiction Missile, that wouldn't be close to enough to make it a competitive ship. Rama already pointed out that part of the reason the double missile T3 GS is a "better" striker is that it has access to Disto, Retro/PDie, and BLC. The range on Interdiction gels pretty well with BLC, but not so well with HLC. And truth to tell, BLCs tear up bomber plating a LOT better than HLCs, so I don't think I buy the argument that hitting a bomber with an Interdiction Missile to finish them off with HLCs is really a viable strategy. I'd say it's probably less viable than thermite/quads on a T3 Striker (Yay PDie!).

 

I'll also note that sans some kind of interdiction laser (which I would be almost completely against) at acc/range ratings similar to BLC, adding Interdiction Missiles to more ships would probably not do anything about the sat humping scouts, because you're not going to hit them with the missile. If the person is very good at doing the LOS thing around a sat, you're not going to be able to lock missiles on them long enough to connect, or simple Cluster spam would clear them out, and it generally doesn't.

 

BLCs are pretty much the only way to interact with those sat humping pilots outside of bombers or Gunsheep because of the amazing acc at high deflection and close range, and that wouldn't change.

 

I'm biased because of what I enjoy playing (scouts), but I'm largely with Armonddd. Add more interdiction effects*, and I will stop flying scouts, and just fly Gunships, especially since I think I'm actually better at this point in a GS than I am in a Scout. But there is NOTHING that is fun about being hit by the AoE of an Interdiction mine someone else set off, then getting popped by another interdiction effect, and frantically sitting still for 12s or until some enemy decides it's time to stop laughing at you and shoot you a few times to kill you. More interdiction effects would decimate the short range game, especially if they do stack**. Losing 40-50% of your speed sucks, but isn't a death sentence. Losing 95-100% of your movement is a frustrating death sentence.

 

People already don't much like getting shot out of the sky or suddenly losing speed plus all your boost from 15km with no warning. "I can't do anything about it!" the say. Imagine the cries, "I had to sit there for 10s watching my killer eat a sandwich and wave before he finally came in for the kill, and there was nothing I could do. Forget not being able to boost, I couldn't even move..." At that point, might as well change the name to Galactic Bomber Ball***.

 

*I already don't care too much about interdiction missile, so not really talking about that in relation to the T2 Strike with that statement.

**Interesting that Ion/Conc missile slows don't stack, or take the higher of the 2. Be curious to figure out what exactly does stack, though.

***A bit of hyperbole, for sure, but I can't imagine that it would be a fun to fly anything other than a bomber or a GS if interdiction was pushed too far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to favor the AP on concussion missiles, mostly because I tend to run Bypass as well and it works out to more than 400 hull damage on a hit no matter what the target is or what their shield state is, with fairly reasonable cooldown and uptime.

 

I view it as a matter of dumping in a lot of damage when the target is poorly positioned, because with boost a good pilot has a decent chance of making it to a better position even with the slow applied. If boost were disabled by the slow or HLCs had better burst damage I might tend more toward the slow. I don't feel there's a huge advantage either way for a strike, and I feel there's more value for a team in being able to be a fraction faster downing a bomber that's helping the noobs massacre themselves than there is to a small advantage in terms of harassing scouts and gunships.

 

That's informed by current ship demographics where I've been playing though. I've been seeing a lot of bombers lately, but not enough really good gunships to feel pressured by them much. At around 3-4 good gunships the balance starts to favor the slow more, although at that point it also favors flying something that's not a strike.

 

 

Edit: Now that I think about it, I should probably check for alts that are running Wingman instead of Bypass and switch from AP to snare on them. I should also set up at least one Pike somewhere as a Conc snare + Lockdown trolling build, maybe add Ion missile too.

 

Yep I totally agree that AP is the better choice. I have also played around with bypass and I think it's quite good on concs, railguns, and HLC. Wingman is by far a better choice for railgun and HLC because you just land way more shots and end up getting more total shield piercing than you would have with a bunch of missed Bypass shots. If your goal is to spam HLC+concussions and only focus on bombers then bypass might actually be the best choice. The only problem is you become pretty useless against all the other ships. Imagine being able to shoot one Interdiction missile and then followup with the HLC+concussion+bypass combo. It's quite easy to land Interdiction missiles on Scouts and Gunships. The lockon time is the same as a stock cluster missile and I have lots of practice with those. Once the enemy is snared then your centered HLC are quite difficult to evade, even with high evasion.

 

 

While I don't disagree that the T2 Strike should have access to Interdiction Missile, that wouldn't be close to enough to make it a competitive ship. Rama already pointed out that part of the reason the double missile T3 GS is a "better" striker is that it has access to Disto, Retro/PDie, and BLC. The range on Interdiction gels pretty well with BLC, but not so well with HLC. And truth to tell, BLCs tear up bomber plating a LOT better than HLCs, so I don't think I buy the argument that hitting a bomber with an Interdiction Missile to finish them off with HLCs is really a viable strategy. I'd say it's probably less viable than thermite/quads on a T3 Striker (Yay PDie!).

 

No it's not a complete solution but it's certainly a rational start. And yes I mentioned in my initial post the value or DF and power dive on the Condor. HLC frequency capacitors have a 6200 range and Interdiction missiles can get a 5500m range. It meshes pretty well IMO. My Starguard and Sledgehammer both use HLC freq + ranged clusters. It has better synergy than you'd think. Besides, you could always hit X and switch to HLC + concussions after you land the interdiction missile. Thermite/Quad is bad IMO. I can only get it to work once or twice a game unless the enemy team is bad.

 

I'll also note that sans some kind of interdiction laser (which I would be almost completely against) at acc/range ratings similar to BLC, adding Interdiction Missiles to more ships would probably not do anything about the sat humping scouts, because you're not going to hit them with the missile. If the person is very good at doing the LOS thing around a sat, you're not going to be able to lock missiles on them long enough to connect, or simple Cluster spam would clear them out, and it generally doesn't.

 

I agree that the missiles wouldn't be game changing. I was mostly referring to the lasers. It is very possible to land interdiction missiles on scouts humping SATs though. I do it fairly often in the Condor against good opponents. If the enemy is already distracted by someone else then it's super easy.

 

 

BLCs are pretty much the only way to interact with those sat humping pilots outside of bombers or Gunsheep because of the amazing acc at high deflection and close range, and that wouldn't change.

 

Right, but if the enemy was interdicted 5-10% from someone else's lasers, then it would be easier to hit them with every type of laser. So BLC might not be the only viable laser choice.

 

 

I'm biased because of what I enjoy playing (scouts), but I'm largely with Armonddd. Add more interdiction effects*, and I will stop flying scouts, and just fly Gunships, especially since I think I'm actually better at this point in a GS than I am in a Scout. But there is NOTHING that is fun about being hit by the AoE of an Interdiction mine someone else set off, then getting popped by another interdiction effect, and frantically sitting still for 12s or until some enemy decides it's time to stop laughing at you and shoot you a few times to kill you. More interdiction effects would decimate the short range game, especially if they do stack**. Losing 40-50% of your speed sucks, but isn't a death sentence. Losing 95-100% of your movement is a frustrating death sentence.

 

Scout is my favorite ship as well. But I don't want to pretend that Scouts deserve to good at holding nodes. They really don't have any business being so strong around nodes IMO. Their job is to hunt Gunships, and they do that well enough that you'd still need a few on your team. I want to play in a world where the most balanced Domination team is 2 scouts, 2 gunships, 2 bombers, and 2 strikes. Right now it's like 4 Scouts, 2 Bombers, 2 GS. Make the Strikes the 2nd best ship around nodes and the game gets better IMO.

 

If the changes make you switch from flying scout to flying gunship then that's great. If lots of people make that change then the meta will briefly shift to GS heavy meta. And that will give Scouts a more focused but very important role (taking out all these new gunships).

 

I get it though, the Scout is a fun ship to use when solo queuing because you can carry games very easily with it. It's a multi-role ship. But that's supposed to be the Strike's role.

 

 

People already don't much like getting shot out of the sky or suddenly losing speed plus all your boost from 15km with no warning. "I can't do anything about it!" the say. Imagine the cries, "I had to sit there for 10s watching my killer eat a sandwich and wave before he finally came in for the kill, and there was nothing I could do. Forget not being able to boost, I couldn't even move..." At that point, might as well change the name to Galactic Bomber Ball***.

 

I gotta disagree with you here, I don't think we should be catering to people who don't know how to play or get better. As you know, there are counters to everything you mentioned. Instead of dumbing the game down for noobs they should release a proper tutorial that addresses counters to some of this stuff.

Edited by RickDagles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not a complete solution but it's certainly a rational start. And yes I mentioned in my initial post the value or DF and power dive on the Condor. HLC frequency capacitors have a 6200 range and Interdiction missiles can get a 5500m range. It meshes pretty well IMO. My Starguard and Sledgehammer both use HLC freq + ranged clusters. It has better synergy than you'd think. Besides, you could always hit X and switch to HLC + concussions after you land the interdiction missile.

I play plenty of Rycer, opting for Conc/HLC/Ion/Retro. I've tinkered around with Strikes a good deal, because I quite enjoy flying them, and while there is some synergy between HLC/Cluster, that synergy is way behind BLC/Cluster, or even Ion/Cluster.

 

Thermite/Quad is bad IMO. I can only get it to work once or twice a game unless the enemy team is bad.

Personally, I like Thermite/Quad on a T3 Strike as an anti-bomber build stacking DR. You only really need to land the Thermite, and after that, I think Quads are much better in close quarters because of the higher RoF, and between the DR and heals, you can eat Seismics all day long. And this setup is only even an option on the T3 Strike. Would I take Heavies with Thermites? Sure would if I could.

 

That said, I would contend that taking any Strike against a good team is largely a mistake if you truly want to carry or perform.

 

It is very possible to land interdiction missiles on scouts humping SATs though. I do it fairly often in the Condor against good opponents. If the enemy is already distracted by someone else then it's super easy.

Distracted is a different story. If you're arguing that you could reliably land an interdiction missile on Tommm, Drak, or Scrabs while they are flying evasively at a sat when they know you are there and shooting at them (not that I think Tommm would be caught dead doing this :D), well... More power to you, but the majority of people won't be able to do that remotely reliably. Myself included. And I'm hardly a noob. In close quarters like that, BLCs are how I get those kills.

 

Right, but if the enemy was interdicted 5-10% from someone else's lasers, then it would be easier to hit them with every type of laser. So BLC might not be the only viable laser choice.

BLC isn't the only viable choice. But even if you added 5-10% slow, it would still be the superior choice, and that's the crux of the matter. Other lasers in the game are viable. BLCs, in general, are just superior.

 

But I don't want to pretend that Scouts deserve to good at holding nodes. They really don't have any business being so strong around nodes IMO. Their job is to hunt Gunships, and they do that well enough that you'd still need a few on your team. I want to play in a world where the most balanced Domination team is 2 scouts, 2 gunships, 2 bombers, and 2 strikes. Right now it's like 4 Scouts, 2 Bombers, 2 GS. Make the Strikes the 2nd best ship around nodes and the game gets better IMO.

W/regards to the bolded specifically:

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. One job of scouts is to shoot gunships. Another, specifically w/regards to the T2, is to be a superior dogfighter. If you remove bombers from the equation, what, if anything else, is sat humping other than dogfighting, and why should a Scout be bad at it specifically under a sat? Are you arguing that the T2 Scout is not meant to be the best dogfighter in the game?

 

If the changes make you switch from flying scout to flying gunship then that's great.

No, it's not. As I said previously, I do not really enjoy flying a GS. Why should I be punished for preferring knife fighting to sniper rifles? If given a choice between flying a module I used to love with a ship I don't really enjoy, and moving on, moving on is the easy choice. In effect, the changes make me leave the game, which is not great.

 

If lots of people make that change then the meta will briefly shift to GS heavy meta. And that will give Scouts a more focused but very important role (taking out all these new gunships).

Except I was referring more to a bomber-ball heavy meta, in which scouts have no real role. That would be my concern. I'm not thinking so much walls of 8 gunners, so much as 6 gunners, 2 bombers. That's a tough nut for a scout to crack. I would contend that adding more interdiction effects would border on nullifying dogfighting, which is what both Strikes and Scouts are supposed to do. Scouts just do it better. Removing dogfighting doesn't give Strikes a place.

 

If you cannot move for the interdiction, regardless of skill level, you simply cannot dogfight. So the range of engagement changes to the point where movement becomes less relevant, which pushes GS and Bombers. I may be completely wrong here, but my concern is that these types of changes would start to remove an entire style of play.

 

I get it though, the Scout is a fun ship to use when solo queuing because you can carry games very easily with it. It's a multi-role ship. But that's supposed to be the Strike's role.

Yes and no. Scouts are indeed multi-role, but it is 2 specific roles. GS hunting, and dogfighting. They are good at GS hunting because of the burst damage, not because of the dogfighting and evasive potential. Strikes would not be terrible hunting gunships if their burst was good, but it's not. Strikes are simply incapable of dealing the amounts of damage needed to kill a good GS in the time window they have before the GS notices and moves. And because they lack the speed and endurance to chase that a Scout does, the engagement in general is already heavily weighted in favor of the GS.

 

When combined with their other weaknesses, they simply can't contend. It's an inherent flaw with the idea of "jack of all trades, master of none" when the module demands mastery. The burst really comes back to either access to Pods and/or BLCs, neither of which are available on any Striker.

 

I gotta disagree with you here, I don't think we should be catering to people who don't know how to play or get better. As you know, there are counters to everything you mentioned. Instead of dumbing the game down for noobs they should release a proper tutorial that addresses counters to some of this stuff.

In a way, I agree with you, but I think that without a dedicated ladder/ranked queue, the module, in order to be successful, simply must cater to the lowest common denominator in order to grow. The separation should be based on the experience level, which would require a population that would be able to make use of their pairing algorithms, or a separation of the queues into pro/non-pro. It's my opinion, but the inherent problem here is population, not who they cater to.

 

The larger problem here really is that you or I should not be allowed into games in which the opposition is nothing but n00bs with their upgraded RFLs because they didn't know any better.

 

Now, even though I've responded kind of point by point, I'm not really trying to start anything or be combative here, so if anything like that comes across, forgive, as that is not my intent. I may very well be wildly off base in my concerns about adding interdiction effects, but these are my concerns with just going with changes like these without some serious testing. You may very well be right, and we certainly could continue to break each others arguments down point by point and refute them.

 

But my final point here is kind of case in point to why I would be EXTREMELY wary of the types of changes you proposed with the added interdiction (outside of the missile to the T2 Strike, which I would be absolutely fine with, and would advocate, because I think it's ridiculous that the Striker that is supposed to specialize in missiles doesn't have one that's quite good/useful).

 

I don't choose the Scout because I like carrying matches (sure it strokes my ego like just about anyone else). I choose it because, like those old Mazda commercials, I like the zoom-zoom. In almost any game I play, and especially with PVP, I prefer high risk/high reward. Give me a speedy glass cannon. I love speed (perceived or real). I love bobbing in and out of objects, and one of my absolute favorite things to do in GSF is to try to get multiple people to chase me, lead them wherever I want them to go, and slowly bleed their group picking off 1-2 at a time. If it's just about carrying matches at this point, I honestly think I'm better in a GS, or more helpful in a bomber. It's just not what I enjoy.

 

Rather than sit in a tree playing God (snipers), I want to get in the midst of battle, and dance. It's why I'm so sensitive to interdiction effects, because they deny me even the chance to slide gracefully from place to place to place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's weird. Now I'm curious: what slows do stack? I'm fairly convinced Interdiction Mine is involved, because I don't think I've ever been at 0% speed without eating one.

 

Interdiction Mine and Seismic Mine stack. Not sure what else.

Edited by Danalon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play plenty of Rycer, opting for Conc/HLC/Ion/Retro. I've tinkered around with Strikes a good deal, because I quite enjoy flying them, and while there is some synergy between HLC/Cluster, that synergy is way behind BLC/Cluster, or even Ion/Cluster.

 

 

Personally, I like Thermite/Quad on a T3 Strike as an anti-bomber build stacking DR. You only really need to land the Thermite, and after that, I think Quads are much better in close quarters because of the higher RoF, and between the DR and heals, you can eat Seismics all day long. And this setup is only even an option on the T3 Strike. Would I take Heavies with Thermites? Sure would if I could.

 

That said, I would contend that taking any Strike against a good team is largely a mistake if you truly want to carry or perform.

 

 

Distracted is a different story. If you're arguing that you could reliably land an interdiction missile on Tommm, Drak, or Scrabs while they are flying evasively at a sat when they know you are there and shooting at them (not that I think Tommm would be caught dead doing this :D), well... More power to you, but the majority of people won't be able to do that remotely reliably. Myself included. And I'm hardly a noob. In close quarters like that, BLCs are how I get those kills.

 

 

BLC isn't the only viable choice. But even if you added 5-10% slow, it would still be the superior choice, and that's the crux of the matter. Other lasers in the game are viable. BLCs, in general, are just superior.

 

 

W/regards to the bolded specifically:

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. One job of scouts is to shoot gunships. Another, specifically w/regards to the T2, is to be a superior dogfighter. If you remove bombers from the equation, what, if anything else, is sat humping other than dogfighting, and why should a Scout be bad at it specifically under a sat? Are you arguing that the T2 Scout is not meant to be the best dogfighter in the game?

 

 

No, it's not. As I said previously, I do not really enjoy flying a GS. Why should I be punished for preferring knife fighting to sniper rifles? If given a choice between flying a module I used to love with a ship I don't really enjoy, and moving on, moving on is the easy choice. In effect, the changes make me leave the game, which is not great.

 

 

Except I was referring more to a bomber-ball heavy meta, in which scouts have no real role. That would be my concern. I'm not thinking so much walls of 8 gunners, so much as 6 gunners, 2 bombers. That's a tough nut for a scout to crack. I would contend that adding more interdiction effects would border on nullifying dogfighting, which is what both Strikes and Scouts are supposed to do. Scouts just do it better. Removing dogfighting doesn't give Strikes a place.

 

If you cannot move for the interdiction, regardless of skill level, you simply cannot dogfight. So the range of engagement changes to the point where movement becomes less relevant, which pushes GS and Bombers. I may be completely wrong here, but my concern is that these types of changes would start to remove an entire style of play.

 

 

Yes and no. Scouts are indeed multi-role, but it is 2 specific roles. GS hunting, and dogfighting. They are good at GS hunting because of the burst damage, not because of the dogfighting and evasive potential. Strikes would not be terrible hunting gunships if their burst was good, but it's not. Strikes are simply incapable of dealing the amounts of damage needed to kill a good GS in the time window they have before the GS notices and moves. And because they lack the speed and endurance to chase that a Scout does, the engagement in general is already heavily weighted in favor of the GS.

 

When combined with their other weaknesses, they simply can't contend. It's an inherent flaw with the idea of "jack of all trades, master of none" when the module demands mastery. The burst really comes back to either access to Pods and/or BLCs, neither of which are available on any Striker.

 

 

In a way, I agree with you, but I think that without a dedicated ladder/ranked queue, the module, in order to be successful, simply must cater to the lowest common denominator in order to grow. The separation should be based on the experience level, which would require a population that would be able to make use of their pairing algorithms, or a separation of the queues into pro/non-pro. It's my opinion, but the inherent problem here is population, not who they cater to.

 

The larger problem here really is that you or I should not be allowed into games in which the opposition is nothing but n00bs with their upgraded RFLs because they didn't know any better.

 

Now, even though I've responded kind of point by point, I'm not really trying to start anything or be combative here, so if anything like that comes across, forgive, as that is not my intent. I may very well be wildly off base in my concerns about adding interdiction effects, but these are my concerns with just going with changes like these without some serious testing. You may very well be right, and we certainly could continue to break each others arguments down point by point and refute them.

 

But my final point here is kind of case in point to why I would be EXTREMELY wary of the types of changes you proposed with the added interdiction (outside of the missile to the T2 Strike, which I would be absolutely fine with, and would advocate, because I think it's ridiculous that the Striker that is supposed to specialize in missiles doesn't have one that's quite good/useful).

 

I don't choose the Scout because I like carrying matches (sure it strokes my ego like just about anyone else). I choose it because, like those old Mazda commercials, I like the zoom-zoom. In almost any game I play, and especially with PVP, I prefer high risk/high reward. Give me a speedy glass cannon. I love speed (perceived or real). I love bobbing in and out of objects, and one of my absolute favorite things to do in GSF is to try to get multiple people to chase me, lead them wherever I want them to go, and slowly bleed their group picking off 1-2 at a time. If it's just about carrying matches at this point, I honestly think I'm better in a GS, or more helpful in a bomber. It's just not what I enjoy.

 

Rather than sit in a tree playing God (snipers), I want to get in the midst of battle, and dance. It's why I'm so sensitive to interdiction effects, because they deny me even the chance to slide gracefully from place to place to place.

 

You're right, we could easily pick apart each other's posts for a few pages. I think our disagreement probably comes from difference in play style. For example, I dislike the ion blaster/cluster syngery because I feel like I am constantly struggling to have enough engines to get into proper range. And if I do get into range I compromise my ability to retreat if necessary. I like HLC/cluster because I can still do some solid hull damage for my team without overextending myself. I prefer to play quad/pod/range capacitor scout as well. I also play BLC/pod or BLC/cluster but I don't enjoy it as much.

 

 

I think one thing we can agree on is that there needs to be a better non-VOIP counter to the GS-bomber ball. The Clarion is half decent already, but it suffers from lack of engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...