Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

"New" Strike Fighter Balance


Verain's Avatar


Verain
11.13.2019 , 03:00 PM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by Stellarcrusade View Post
The current build gave the dog-fighters an easy lateral move into various BS fighter builds. Seemed silly to me to feature a dog-fighter, to a new patch where it features a dog-fighter, but so be it.
The difference here is that the type 2 scout in the older meta had no effective answers that weren't heavy rock-paper-scissors. They were completely immune to missiles, could trivialize seeker mines (to the extent that seeker mines mostly served to pull a cooldown and allow peels to actually occur), could out turn any other meaningful fighter threat, could outrun any meaningful fighter threat, all while having literally every single piece of anti-railgun and anti-gunship tech on them. That was way way way too much.

Currently, type 2 scouts are still fine dogfighters- arguably the best in low-numbers fights in real games, still able to choose the pace of gameplay, still able to quickly move around the map, still excellent versus gunships. What they've lost is the immunity to missiles, which allows other ships to actually interact with them. They also get to choose a hull that lets them survive a single proton hit, or instead reduce their survivability versus railguns.

Meanwhile, the current meta has included a bunch of other dogfighters. For node builds, we have a node type 3 strike and a node type 2 strike, of which the type 3 strike is probably a little bit better, as it is more defensive in nature and can bring slicing instead of clusters- less damage, but way better at holding off an assault upon your ship for long enough for reinforcements to arrive. Meanwhile, the type 2 strike build can alternate between clusters and EMPs to get enemies to break, take damage, and spread controls. The piledriver can run around and attack nodes, using retros. The EMP field scout can spread CC in a much more guaranteed fashion than the tensor scout, who lives on the node. There's just so many meaningful dogfighters in this pen now. And the type 2 scout is still total hotness here in dom, getting from node to node.

For TDM builds, we saw the double speed EMP/proton type 2 strike build get a lot of adoption, but at this point it seems many pilots kinda have its number. Again, the type 3 strike has edged it out of position, and again, with slicing being a better method to guarantee the landing of a missile along with offer a very threatening control. Piledrivers are good here. Gunships are good here. Bomber nests aren't as good as before, but they are still worth building. The spread of viable ships in TDM seems to me to be a bit smaller than the spread of viable ships in dom.

Quote:
One issue is that by switching the feature from scout to fighter, really pushes the bomber down in viability.
So, I agree that bombers aren't great... but there are times when they are. We've certainly seen people complain about huge numbers of bombers, especially the less experienced pilots. And everyone has reason to believe that in a full premade versus premade- like 8v8 or 12v12 of really good pilots- that bombers are the real threat in Dom. The issue is that these games are rare, and if you have two 4 man premades swimming in the middle of the 12v12, it is often not worth bringing your own type 1 bomber, instead asking one of the non-premade members to run beacon, because of how punishing it is for 25% of your premade to be married to one node mostly. In the full premade v premade team, anyone you occupy is roughly as good as you, roughly as good as anyone else. Anyone attacking you, again, same thing. In the games where each side has 5 or less really solid pilots and the remainder are not so wonderful, it's easy to simply not engage the good enemy bomber, and instead bring more force to where their bomber isn't.


Quote:
The fighter is the anti-bomber.
The gunship is really the anti bomber. A type 1 scout with EMP and rapids will wreck a bomber really good too. Solid play from a type 2 scout with bursts will still wreck bombers just like before- heck, the scout gets to close faster with the better F3. Basically, bombers are team support ships, whereas previously they had a strong enough advantage versus most scouts that you could survive long enough for backup to arrive.

Quote:
Bombers - very important to team, but too weak to play - not viable.
I just disagree with that assessment.

Quote:
As for the perfectly legal laser switching that a fighter build can do, that really is BS and should be not used and should be "fixed" by game devs.
I think it's really great. Given how rigid the requirements are for piledriving, I think it's a really solid emergent piece of play. Almost any lateral motion completely wrecks the strategy.

If the devs wished to disable piledriving, they would simply do whatever is necessary to keep the thing that tracks "where you are in the weapon cycle" and move it over to the new weapon. Maybe that's hard, and they simply don't want to bother. Or maybe they are fine with it, because it is an awesome playstyle with literally a giant pile of counters.

Quote:
Really doubt the featured ship type should also do enormous burst damage with lasers.
The only ship to feature double the lasers of any other ship shouldn't do good laser damage?

Quote:
Adept players can still lead the war in kills without ever using this mechanic.
Of course, no one is saying the piledriver is the best thing ever. It's great damage, it's great burst, but it has so many requirements to get this lance charge to line up properly.

Quote:
I worry a little about new players, many start with bombers while they perfect use of lasers/aiming it is nice to be able to drop a few mines out and actually do a little damage. They come in, get insta-killed by a mechanic they do not understand, and move on to other games.
If someone gets gibbed by a mechanic they don't understand in GSF and immediately leaves, bye felicia. GSF is filled with a huge assortment of mechanics that can kill a new pilot without them understanding what is happening. Here's a list:

1- Gunships. New players don't understand gunships, and often cry endlessly about them.
2- Scouts shooting lasers. New players don't understand that being shot with lasers requires them to move, and often die.
3- Strikes shooting lasers. Same problem with (2)
4- Interdiction drones deployed near new players. Drop a drone behind a new player, and not only will the drone frequently solo the player, the player will often accidentally suicide.
4- Slicing.
5- EMP aoe. New players often don't understand they can't break a missile when afflicted by the EMP debuff.

If a new player leaves the moment he stares down a strike fighter who is shooting at him and blows him up, he will never play GSF period, because at some point he will die to something he doesn't understand. There's nothing particularly novel about this.

Quote:
gave bombers some sort of breaker which allowed them to remain still
Bombers already have an engine component which does this- they simply can't bring the gamechanging beacon at the same time as this. Bombers generally don't need to be rewarded for holding still any more than they already are, IMO.

Quote:
Bringing a third class back into viability can only add to the game.
Bombers are viable today in all game modes. They are not viable on all four man premade teams, but that's because pugs can and do play bombers pretty good. When our premade fights another in a game in the live queue, the allied and enemy bombers are going to have a huge say in how that game turns out, both the type 1 and the type 2 bombers.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

Verain's Avatar


Verain
11.13.2019 , 04:16 PM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by Linuxizer View Post
The T1F (Rycer / Star Guard) is very strong, with or without the quick-switching "Piledriver" mechanic. I'm still mostly using the old Ion Cannon + HLC combo, as I haven't had enough practice with the Piledriver. It is plenty powerful enough already.
This stuff sounds great, but then you get to:

Quote:
I did some calculations (hopefully correctly) to compare the two builds.
There's a lot to dislike about your comparison. I don't know that it's wrong, but it is discomforting to see dps numbers used to draw a conclusion, as the further you get from a pure continuous stream of energy, the further dps becomes lame compared to damage per shot.

When you open up with ion cannon, you hit someone with ion cannon. After a delay, you hit them with a second ion cannon. Ion cannon shoots at the same rate as quads, I think, so this seems fine to compare.
When you open up with heavy leaser, you hit someone with a heavy laser, switch, and immediately land the quad. After a delay, you hit them with a second quad. At this point, you switch back, and a heavy will be with you shortly.
If you are using ions and heavies, what will normally happen is, you will likely switch to heavies after landing that second ion cannon, or sometimes after the third. At this point your heavy should fire immediately- the weapon swap here basically being a piledrive. But don't wait to see hits landing for jack squat against bare hull, don't even wait for the number to pop up- once they've taken their prescribed ion dosage, switch to heavies.

I agree that ion/heavy is a fine build. But it's not piledriving, and a dps analysis really leaves out that initial mapping of H+Q, Q+H being compared to I, I. Heavies are a slower laser than quads and ions, but the numbers of heavies that shows up in this space is roughly equal to the number of ions over the span that matters. The dps numbers discuss a world where a number of shots have been fired where that important initial "charge" doesn't matter. Basically, heavies does way more dps out of the gate than the dps number gives it credit for.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

Linuxizer's Avatar


Linuxizer
11.15.2019 , 07:08 AM | #23
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post

There's a lot to dislike about your comparison. I don't know that it's wrong, but it is discomforting to see dps numbers used to draw a conclusion, as the further you get from a pure continuous stream of energy, the further dps becomes lame compared to damage per shot.
...
Sure, why not?

Here are some calculations for the time-to-kill. I changed the HLC level 4 upgrade from Improved Tracking to Ignore Armor, and corrected the gunship's armor (5%, not 0%). This gets a bit long compared to the dps metrics, because the accuracy-evasion check gives a probability distribution for the number of shots required.

Build 1
- Ion Cannon (Drain Engine, Drain Weapon)
- Heavy Laser Cannon (Ignore Armor, Shield Piercing)
- Range Capacitor
- stream of ion, quick-switch once, stream of HLC

Build 2
- Heavy Laser Cannon (Ignore Armor, Shield Piercing)
- Quad Laser Cannon (Reduced Power, Increased Hull Damage)
- Range Capacitor
- quick-switch repeatedly

Ion reload time = 0.370s
HLC reload time = 0.500s
QLC reload time = 0.370s
assumed quick-switch time = 0.000s

The target is a stationary gunship at 6000m, dead center, it has 23% evasion, 5% armor, 1870 shields, 1250 hull, and we don't have Wingman.

Build 1 minimum time-to-kill from the first hit = 2.111s
(1.111s for 4 Ion hits + 1.000s for 3 HLC hits)
The probability to land 4 consecutive Ion shots + 3 HLC shots with none evaded = 26.7%

Build 1 average time-to-kill from the first hit = 2.750s
(1.394s weighted average for 4 Ion hits + m Ion evasion misses
+ 1.356s weighted average for 3 HLC hits + n HLC evasion misses)

Build 2 Minimum time-to-kill from the first hit = 1.500s
(1.500s for 4 HLC hits + 5 QLC hits, 0 shots evaded)
The probability to land 4 HLC + 5 QLC shots with none evaded = 7.3%

Build 2 average time-to-kill from the first hit = 2.4s approx.
This is approximate because the maths got really long.
Starfighter videos on youtube


Referral link: https://www.swtor.com/r/jBHrWL

Drakkolich's Avatar


Drakkolich
11.21.2019 , 11:34 AM | #24
@Linuxizer

It seems i missed your math post a few days ago I really like it, it's the exact math I was doing for days after Audson introduced me to Piledriving!

Just so you know we actually run Damage Capacitor and not Ranged with it, because it does change the TTK's to use one less shot, so it makes it even faster. What that also does it help us consume less weapon power because the build is just starving for weapon power.

The other thing and the reason I absolutely love Heavy + Quads in Deathmatch. Is that vs the exact same Gunship setup you put up here for your test. (You know the ideal Piledriver target :P ) If you have Damage Overcharge and Damage Capacitor it only takes Heavy switch Quad, Quad switch Heavy to kill them. It's a 0.5 second kill on a Gunship, there's almost no way to react to this in time if you don't see them coming before they shoot. Since a Piledriver ship is an excellent ship to scoop up Damage Overcharges constantly this is a very important marker for the build, learning to get the 0.5 kill often makes the build go absolutely nuts.


Now even without that, using only your math we can see that Heavy + Quads have superior kills times. The next huge reason I prefer to not use Ion is because of the lockouts, being Sliced or EMP'd into Ion Cannon only is absolutely brutal. Since you're often flying around in Ion's because you want to open with them it happens so often too. Where as with Heavy + Quads, you're always sitting on Heavy's since you want to open with that, and that's your preferred laser anyways so being locked into that is no big deal. If the worst does happen though and you get locked into Quads at some moment, having only Quads is still much better then only Ion.


Now having said all this, your initial point was that the Rycer/Starguard is still plenty powerful without Piledriving, and you're absolutely right. It's just that little bit better with it, propelling it up to the top of the meta with the likes of the Mangler/Quarrel Gunship and Slicing Clarion/Imperium Strike fighter. One of which (The slicing one) is a really good counter to Piledriving for those of you out there looking for a really great way to counter it.
DrakolichDrakolích
The BastionTwitch Stream

Linuxizer's Avatar


Linuxizer
11.25.2019 , 08:24 PM | #25
Quote: Originally Posted by Drakkolich View Post

Just so you know we actually run Damage Capacitor and not Ranged with it, because it does change the TTK's to use one less shot, so it makes it even faster. What that also does it help us consume less weapon power because the build is just starving for weapon power.
This is a good point I somehow overlooked for the last two years. It's been a useful thread for me if no one else

It also reminded me, I forgot to include the Power to Blaster (F1) bonus to damage (+25%). So I updated numbers, and also included Wingman, and changed the target distance to 5500m (because Ion Cannon with Drain Engine and Damage Capacitor only have 5750m range).

Build 1
- Ion Cannon (Drain Engine, Drain Weapon)
- Heavy Laser Cannon (Ignore Armor, Shield Piercing)
- Damage Capacitor
- F1
- Wingman is active
- stream of ion, quick-switch once, stream of HLC

Build 2
- Heavy Laser Cannon (Ignore Armor, Shield Piercing)
- Quad Laser Cannon (Reduced Power, Increased Hull Damage)
- Damage Capacitor
- F1
- Wingman is active
- quick-switch repeatedly

The target is a stationary gunship at 5500m, dead center, it has 23% evasion, 5% armor, 1870 shields, 1250 hull.

Build 1 minimum time-to-kill from the first hit = 1.741s
(0.000s) Ion +637 shield damage
(0.370s) Ion +637 shield damage
(0.741s) Ion +596 shield damage + 5 hull damage
(0.741s) HLC + 592 hull damage
(1.241s) HLC + 592 hull damage
(1.741s) HLC + 61 hull damage
The probability all 6 shots are not evaded = 99.1%

Build 1 average time-to-kill from the first hit = 1.744s

Build 2 Minimum time-to-kill from the first hit = 1.111s
(0.000s) HLC +466 shield damage +89 hull damage
(0.000s) QLC +367 shield damage +23 hull damage
(0.370s) QLC +367 shield damage +23 hull damage
(0.500s) HLC +466 shield damage +89 hull damage
(0.741s) QLC +205 shield damage +201 hull damage
(1.000s) HLC +592 hull damage
(1.111s) QLC +234 hull damage
The probability all 7 shots are not evaded = 66.3%

Build 2 average time-to-kill from the first hit = 1.370s
Starfighter videos on youtube


Referral link: https://www.swtor.com/r/jBHrWL

Drakkolich's Avatar


Drakkolich
11.26.2019 , 02:15 AM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by Linuxizer View Post
This is a good point I somehow overlooked for the last two years. It's been a useful thread for me if no one else
I'm glad it's been so useful to you, if you ever want to get in voice sometime and talk strategy or what not let me know we can set that up. I've been watching a couple of your videos lately, if you ever want it I'd be happy to offer some advice that I think could really help you out. I do video analysis for a lot of players these days, let me know if something like that interests you as well.
DrakolichDrakolích
The BastionTwitch Stream

Linuxizer's Avatar


Linuxizer
11.28.2019 , 11:18 PM | #27
Quote: Originally Posted by Drakkolich View Post
I'm glad it's been so useful to you, if you ever want to get in voice sometime and talk strategy or what not let me know we can set that up. I've been watching a couple of your videos lately, if you ever want it I'd be happy to offer some advice that I think could really help you out. I do video analysis for a lot of players these days, let me know if something like that interests you as well.
If you want to post some video analysis and advice on my videos, that would be awesome! Just don't expect much (or any) improvement from me though, as I have not improved in the last 4 years of GSF averageness. Also let's do that in the other thread.
Starfighter videos on youtube


Referral link: https://www.swtor.com/r/jBHrWL