Replace evasion with having to lead the target and gunships would have a lot bigger problems targeting things which moved fast. That, and resistance to drain/debuffs and shield piercing.

 

Do you mean turning off the targeting computer's lead? I'm almost certain most pilots wouldn't hit anything then with their blasters.

 

Or do you mean giving railguns a lead like blasters have?

 

What to do then with tracking penalties, weapon accuracy and copilot abilities? What would the chassis/components/upgrades give instead of evasion then?

Edited July 16, 2015 by Danalon

Do you mean turning off the targeting computer's lead? I'm almost certain most pilots wouldn't hit anything then with their blasters.

 

Or do you mean giving railguns a lead like blasters have?

 

What to do then with tracking penalties, weapon accuracy and copilot abilities? What would the chassis/components/upgrades give instead of evasion then?

 

Make it so railguns have to lead like blasters.

 

The accuracy mechanic is so ingrained in the game, a lot of talents would have to change, both on the weapons and the crew.

Do you mean turning off the targeting computer's lead? I'm almost certain most pilots wouldn't hit anything then with their blasters.

 

Or do you mean giving railguns a lead like blasters have?

 

What to do then with tracking penalties, weapon accuracy and copilot abilities? What would the chassis/components/upgrades give instead of evasion then?

 

I think we're talking making rail guns have to lead their targets.... I mean it's rail gun not laser cannon, so it could have a 'flight time' and thus need to lead the target.... which would make a lot of scouts happy, some strike fighters, no bombers, and no gunships.

 

Kinda off topic for 'how do we improve strike fighters' Since it's just a nerf to the death star fighters

Replace evasion with having to lead the target and gunships would have a lot bigger problems targeting things which moved fast. That, and resistance to drain/debuffs and shield piercing.

 

Pretty much this too. I don't know if rail guns are insta-hit weapons now or just very fast projectile speed, but if evasion stat is dumped, then I suppose rail guns bolts will need a travel time now. But, that is an entirely different topic

There is never a reason to bring a fighter. They don't out-damage, out-survive, outmaneuver, outrun, out range, anything. Scouts slaughter them, bombers slaughter them, GS slaughters them.

 

Their primary weapons are too weak, their secondaries are too slow to lock on and are easily avoided, they can't outfight a scout, which seems ridiculous.

 

FIGHTERS should be the kings of dogfighting, but they are worst than GS at it. They need effective and strong damage shields to provide protection from those scouts (esp those flashfires and stings with that ridiculously powerful burst cannon), so that when those scouts blitz fighters from across the map with their kill gun, the scouts can feel the pain. Otherwise, the scout can just outmaneuver and kill the SF with ease. Then they need heavy enough speed and maneuverability to deal with GS.

 

As things are with ships, scouts are the best fighters, which seems strange. Scouts should be..well..scouts, but they're not, they are the fighter ships of the game, killing bombers, GS and SF, particularly the flashfire and sting.

Pretty much this too. I don't know if rail guns are insta-hit weapons now or just very fast projectile speed, but if evasion stat is dumped, then I suppose rail guns bolts will need a travel time now. But, that is an entirely different topic

 

All blasters as well as railguns and rocketpods hit instantly. The only weapons with travel time are missiles. Travel time for blasters and pods is simulated by having a lead indicator.

Come to think of it, we could just change what the evasions stat would do. Instead of it rolling dice, it would combine with speed to determine how far ahead your lead indicator is to anyone trying to shoot you. It would be [Accuracy/Evasion] * [Velocity vector] or something like that.

 

That would change the scout-vs-gunship fight. A lot of them like to dead-stop to pop cooldowns and unload stuff into gunships, and this mechanical change would make that not work-scouts would almost have to kill by snap shots if we did that.

Come to think of it, we could just change what the evasions stat would do. Instead of it rolling dice, it would combine with speed to determine how far ahead your lead indicator is to anyone trying to shoot you. It would be [Accuracy/Evasion] * [Velocity vector] or something like that.

 

That would change the scout-vs-gunship fight. A lot of them like to dead-stop to pop cooldowns and unload stuff into gunships, and this mechanical change would make that not work-scouts would almost have to kill by snap shots if we did that.

 

How does that help strikes and how does that help scouts? Are we talking giving the GS a pipper to aim at so it can 99% hit scouts with high evasions?

 

If we're trying to help strike fighters, how about a shotgun/chaff shield that does damage to anything within 2k that's in the target cone regardless of evasion.... (or target sphere but it cuts one level of shields right off your ship and gives a missile break...)

Edited July 19, 2015 by JasonSzeremi
extending

There is never a reason to bring a fighter. They don't out-damage, out-survive, outmaneuver, outrun, out range, anything. Scouts slaughter them, bombers slaughter them, GS slaughters them.

 

As things are with ships, scouts are the best fighters, which seems strange. Scouts should be..well..scouts, but they're not, they are the fighter ships of the game, killing bombers, GS and SF, particularly the flashfire and sting.

 

in a nut shell this is the problem... in making strikes 'generalists' they made every system second best. System cool downs are the domain of scouts and specialist ships. The strike most feel is most useful, is the one with system cool downs. The other two and a half models use the same weapons as are shared by lighter and heavier hulled ships but on the scouts the cool downs super charge their weapons making them more effective, and they mount a larger variety of weapons that are potentially more effective. These strike's compensation is being able to switch between different under performing weapon systems. While there is something to be said for that ability, they obviously need more. Better weapons to choose from? An across the board upgrade (reduction) to missile lockons? Higher ammo for strike's missiles (lower ammo for scouts.... seriously, lighter faster, more tightly turning chassis=lower available payload weight). An ability to drop strike's missile reload time with a cool down? Say by pressing 1 if there is a missile on CD it resets it and starts a 60 second debuff that prevents it from happening again and or firing missiles triggers a 10 second buff that drops all cool down times for missiles to 0... with the same debuff to prevent it from procing again for 60 seconds....

 

To BE a generalist they need the firepower to out fight the light weight specialists. If missiles could hit, that might be the edge you would need. A few more missiles in the racks might compensate also for the trend of wasting missiles on enemy missile breaks....

 

incidentally, could we get credit for 'participating' for _FIRING_ missiles? I got kicked from a match because none of my torps hit, but I locked and fired them contiously... I was participating, I was making the other guys blow their missile evasions hot and heavy. I would have gotten more credit if I had fired on a mine or drone, which is kinda crazy.

 

What strikes need.... is burst damage around the 1500 mark that gunships do with a single shot. They would have to be in the 10k-0 range band, preferably around 8-4k but damage should not decline with closer range.... they are strike fighters not archers (that would be the gunships who could possibly use a damage nerf under 6k? just saying...)

 

With this much damage, IF they can hit a scout, they would do serious damage to it, perhaps not kill it outright.... but that's enough to get them on the table. If they do 1500k in a burst, two or three such hits would take out most strikes.... and several would deal with a bomber (any gunship ace could give you better numbers for the damage to kill anything) But if a scout can do MORE damage then a strike (granted only the T2 scout) and a gunship can do more damage over time then a strike (divide 1500 by the recharge/reload period of the gunship) then you can see why choosing a strike over a gunship or scout wouldn't give you the killing power to out perform them regardless of speed and turning.

 

As it is, a scout parked at a dead stop (no speed or turning), can face tank a strike and win. I think it should be the other way around.... and that's just to make a strike at-least a generalist

Edited July 19, 2015 by JasonSzeremi

How does that help strikes and how does that help scouts? Are we talking giving the GS a pipper to aim at so it can 99% hit scouts with high evasions?

 

If we're trying to help strike fighters, how about a shotgun/chaff shield that does damage to anything within 2k that's in the target cone regardless of evasion.... (or target sphere but it cuts one level of shields right off your ship and gives a missile break...)

 

I'm throwing ideas around to see if people like them and/or poke holes in them. And, yes, that's kind of the idea. It's probably not a good one, because of peoples' love of gunship walling. If you're diving at an angle at a gunship, it would have to shoot waaaay outside of its firing cone if you stacked evasion. Another one will have a better shot.

 

The other reality is how scouts seem to like slowing down to attack gunships, even firing from a dead stop, or maybe while strafing. If you watch Scrab's stream, you'll see he does this and stacks up kills that way-this change would eliminate that tactic for facetanking gunships cause attacks wouldn't RNG out any more.

Edited July 19, 2015 by ALaggyGrunt

A scout can press two buttons (cool downs) and suddenly be nearly invulnerable and deadly, even come to a complete stop in-front of enemy guns (stacked evasion with distortion field, targeting telemetry with the defensive buff)

Can a strike fighter do this? It could have if it's components worked. Charged plating is supposed to provide a damage reduction during it's up period, it's a cool down so the excuse scouts give 'well it's not all the time' applies too. But armor piercing is too common, it's available even on weapons that should not have armor piercing and it's 100% so anything with armor as a defense is naked before them. Anything that does high dps is already armor piercing even if it shouldn't be like: burst lasers, a weapon supposedly using multiple small energy pulses.... is armor piercing when that is the opposite of a dense co-inherent penetrating weapon. (Shotguns typically don't piercing armor plates.... but low tech polish lances can and in fact did.)

 

So armor and armored targets becomes virtually useless to anyone using one of these high dps weapons.. if you want to bring back armor into the light, some of these weapons, especially the ones used by light weight fighting vehicles should get less.... perhaps only 75.... 50.... or 25 percent armor piercing. If that happens bombers will suddenly come off the floor as being tough enough to take the abuse scouts can dish out, and strikes, with their torpedoes and missiles (weapons most bombers can't even dodge) might have a role engaging them.... not to mention strikes with armor (not the T1 unless the damage reduction of charged plating becomes a non-armor factor since it can't stack it with an armor comp) will be more of a factor in the game.

 

Rail-guns do have the right physics for armor piercing.... but if you want more game balance perhaps they should also only get 75 or 50 percent armor penetration.... then someone with charged plating who's getting hit by a gunship won't be surprised to find out their super damage resistance cool down, doesn't resist damage dealt by gunships. Who knows, perhaps the T2 gunship with it's proton torps might get new life as it will need to lob those torps at bombers and strikes, and gunship walls might become less of a fixture of the battle field

 

(since when was stationary fighters firing away at range ever seen in any star wars movie?)

You have to be either delusional or incredibly bad as to not to be able to hit a scout that's popped its cooldowns but is sitting still. Seriously.

A scout can press two buttons (cool downs) and suddenly be nearly invulnerable and deadly, even come to a complete stop in-front of enemy guns (stacked evasion with distortion field, targeting telemetry with the defensive buff)

Can a strike fighter do this? It could have if it's components worked. Charged plating is supposed to provide a damage reduction during it's up period, it's a cool down so the excuse scouts give 'well it's not all the time' applies too. But armor piercing is too common, it's available even on weapons that should not have armor piercing and it's 100% so anything with armor as a defense is naked before them. Anything that does high dps is already armor piercing even if it shouldn't be like: burst lasers, a weapon supposedly using multiple small energy pulses.... is armor piercing when that is the opposite of a dense co-inherent penetrating weapon. (Shotguns typically don't piercing armor plates.... but low tech polish lances can and in fact did.)

 

So armor and armored targets becomes virtually useless to anyone using one of these high dps weapons.. if you want to bring back armor into the light, some of these weapons, especially the ones used by light weight fighting vehicles should get less.... perhaps only 75.... 50.... or 25 percent armor piercing. If that happens bombers will suddenly come off the floor as being tough enough to take the abuse scouts can dish out, and strikes, with their torpedoes and missiles (weapons most bombers can't even dodge) might have a role engaging them.... not to mention strikes with armor (not the T1 unless the damage reduction of charged plating becomes a non-armor factor since it can't stack it with an armor comp) will be more of a factor in the game.

 

Rail-guns do have the right physics for armor piercing.... but if you want more game balance perhaps they should also only get 75 or 50 percent armor penetration.... then someone with charged plating who's getting hit by a gunship won't be surprised to find out their super damage resistance cool down, doesn't resist damage dealt by gunships. Who knows, perhaps the T2 gunship with it's proton torps might get new life as it will need to lob those torps at bombers and strikes, and gunship walls might become less of a fixture of the battle field

 

(since when was stationary fighters firing away at range ever seen in any star wars movie?)

 

Charged plating is meant primarily as a counter against mines. The fact that it works against some of the lasers and missiles is a bonus. The Rampart/Razorwire with charged plating is an extremely effective build.

incidentally, could we get credit for 'participating' for _FIRING_ missiles? I got kicked from a match because none of my torps hit, but I locked and fired them contiously... I was participating, I was making the other guys blow their missile evasions hot and heavy. I would have gotten more credit if I had fired on a mine or drone, which is kinda crazy.

 

What strikes need.... is burst damage around the 1500 mark that gunships do with a single shot. They would have to be in the 10k-0 range band, preferably around 8-4k but damage should not decline with closer range.... they are strike fighters not archers (that would be the gunships who could possibly use a damage nerf under 6k? just saying...)

 

Strikes have blasters too. There is no reason to change participating mechanics. If you don't hit with torpedos, try closing in as you lock on. Or choose better targets. Good targets are bombers (except the T3) and gunships that are under pressure and have used at least one of ther breaks.

 

We don't need more burst in this game, scouts have burst, gunships have burst, bomber mines can be placed to detonate at the same time and burst. If strikes get their damage buffed, then either they should get a bonus to blaster damage to increase their sustained damage or they should get a mechanic bonus to missiles (shorter relaod, shorter lockon or something). A shorter missile lock on would actually make them a bit burstier, but ther would be a warning before the burst, it might turn out ok.

 

 

(since when was stationary fighters firing away at range ever seen in any star wars movie?)

I'm relatively sure the reason we don't see stationary fighters in the movies is because it would be boring to watch. Stationary things need a lot of guns to be exciting, like star destroyers. Or they need to be really big with an even bigger gun, like the death star.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Danalon

Charged plating is meant primarily as a counter against mines. The fact that it works against some of the lasers and missiles is a bonus. The Rampart/Razorwire with charged plating is an extremely effective build.

 

You mean it's mostly effective against mines in the current meta. It is also effective against weapons that don't have 100% armor piercing. what is intended and what is a bonus is a matter of opinion, is it better that light weight weapons like burst lasers ARE 100% armor piercing? Do gunships NEED 100% armor piercing or rather does the game need gunship walls and stationary fighters? I think less armor piercing would help strikes.

This is one advantage they could have had over scouts that is nerfed because of the high armor piercing on the highest dps weapons (burst lasers, rail guns).

The counter argument I have heard is that lower armor piercing would make bombers harder to kill (for scouts)

but if strikes gain more firepower and have armor piercing weapons like heavy lasers, they may be needed for engaging bombers that scouts can't handle.

(course that also means rocket pods might become more popular but without an armor piercing laser not sure it would make a difference)

 

 

As for not being able to 'hit' a scout that has maxed light weight armor, popped distortion field, is using an evasion boosting crew member and targeting telemetry's defensive buff. Perhaps it's not as much that I can't hit such a scout at all, as the damage I can do with my strike when they park right in-front of my guns doesn't amount to much, but the damage they deal kills me quickly. So perhaps it is not so much that they are completely invulnerable but that their burst damage is completely unbalanced compared to mine. Why else would they park in-front of enemy strike fighters and gunships and win. This isn't just a pilot skill thing or the good pilots who select scouts would be doing the same thing with strike fighters, they know this and don't necessarily want strikes to become more competitive because it would make them have to change their tactics or take up flying strike fighters

The point of the forum is to make strike fighters a viable option, if they become a logical choice for some missions then that would be success on our part. At the same time, we don't want to make scouts useless, but as long as they are faster, quicker to nodes, and possibly turn better (although the T1 strike could use that turning radius and not threaten the scouts recon mission)

 

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

 

Many of the good pilots avoid strike fighters now because experience has told them they are better off in the strike scout: Flash fire, sting. Other scouts remain on the battle field because being faster, more agile, and more versatile are real advantages still. Now if you want to talk supposed to the T2 scouts are 'supposed to' be second best to the T1 strike in dog-fighting and firepower. We know that's not the case in the current meta and that argument seems to have no weight, it's an opinion that was posted in text files that describe the craft but isn't supported by code.

While I am not going to write a whole long page on this, I will get to the point, and that is speed. The gunships make new pilots lives a living hell, and as a result drive them away, because no one likes to get blown out of the sky suddenly at extreme range.

 

So what area to look into, as I move from bomber to strike fighter, I would have to say its speed and distance. To counter the gunships I would have to say the strike fighter needs to be able to get to its target, with at least half of its speed boost left in the tank, and then use what its got left to get back to friendly lines. There is a whole slew of other issues I could point out but you asked for one, and so there it is.

You mean it's mostly effective against mines in the current meta. It is also effective against weapons that don't have 100% armor piercing. what is intended and what is a bonus is a matter of opinion, is it better that light weight weapons like burst lasers ARE 100% armor piercing? Do gunships NEED 100% armor piercing or rather does the game need gunship walls and stationary fighters? I think less armor piercing would help strikes.

This is one advantage they could have had over scouts that is nerfed because of the high armor piercing on the highest dps weapons (burst lasers, rail guns).

The counter argument I have heard is that lower armor piercing would make bombers harder to kill (for scouts)

but if strikes gain more firepower and have armor piercing weapons like heavy lasers, they may be needed for engaging bombers that scouts can't handle.

(course that also means rocket pods might become more popular but without an armor piercing laser not sure it would make a difference)

 

 

As for not being able to 'hit' a scout that has maxed light weight armor, popped distortion field, is using an evasion boosting crew member and targeting telemetry's defensive buff. Perhaps it's not as much that I can't hit such a scout at all, as the damage I can do with my strike when they park right in-front of my guns doesn't amount to much, but the damage they deal kills me quickly. So perhaps it is not so much that they are completely invulnerable but that their burst damage is completely unbalanced compared to mine. Why else would they park in-front of enemy strike fighters and gunships and win. This isn't just a pilot skill thing or the good pilots who select scouts would be doing the same thing with strike fighters, they know this and don't necessarily want strikes to become more competitive because it would make them have to change their tactics or take up flying strike fighters

The point of the forum is to make strike fighters a viable option, if they become a logical choice for some missions then that would be success on our part. At the same time, we don't want to make scouts useless, but as long as they are faster, quicker to nodes, and possibly turn better (although the T1 strike could use that turning radius and not threaten the scouts recon mission)

 

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

 

Many of the good pilots avoid strike fighters now because experience has told them they are better off in the strike scout: Flash fire, sting. Other scouts remain on the battle field because being faster, more agile, and more versatile are real advantages still. Now if you want to talk supposed to the T2 scouts are 'supposed to' be second best to the T1 strike in dog-fighting and firepower. We know that's not the case in the current meta and that argument seems to have no weight, it's an opinion that was posted in text files that describe the craft but isn't supported by code.

 

I agree with what you're saying. But buffing charged plating and/or nerfing armor piercing is not the solution. The game is already perfectly balanced between the Charged plating Rampart, Ion GS, and T2 Scout. If you start making changes to their components, it throws off that delicate balance. They just need to find another way to make Strikes more relevant.

 

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

Edited July 20, 2015 by RickDagles

All blasters as well as railguns and rocketpods hit instantly. The only weapons with travel time are missiles. Travel time for blasters and pods is simulated by having a lead indicator.

 

Huh, good point. How would rail guns be affected if they too had to aim for a lead indicator instead of the ship itself? It'll probably only make it a little harder to hit.

The reason so many aces just pop TT/DF and facetank things from a dead stop is: it works, especially with BLC. The killzone on those is so shallow it's hard to stay there doing anything else-the footwork is very touchy, and usually takes more time than doing it properly. I used to do it quite a bit, and still do when I'm out of other options (tick bomber).

 

If most of the ships had a gun choice with serious accuracy as its special stat, that wouldn't work against just about everything not-a-scout.

 

That, and lag makes snap shots with any short-range gun at boost speeds iffy at best. At boost speeds, I'll have a scout lock clusters on me from 7km, and not be able to lock on 4km, range talent or no.

Edited July 21, 2015 by ALaggyGrunt

I agree with what you're saying. But buffing charged plating and/or nerfing armor piercing is not the solution. The game is already perfectly balanced between the Charged plating Rampart, Ion GS, and T2 Scout. If you start making changes to their components, it throws off that delicate balance. They just need to find another way to make Strikes more relevant.

 

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

 

Honestly, do you think scouts deserve armor piercing lasers? If BLC didn't have armor piercing it would make bombers harder for scouts to kill, which would open the door for other platforms to be bomber busters.... say platforms with heavier shields and hull and or charged plating themselves. Or can you think of a better way to go about this? I know you're happy with having a high damage and armor piercing point blank shot gun weapon on your scout and if at all possible, improvements to the strike fighter should be done without nerfing someone else.

 

My hope is to increase the firepower of strike fighters... say perhaps a new high dps mid range laser, and faser locking, reloading, and higher ammo missiles...

I'm imagining the starguard and rycer could use better turning... it's not like they have as much armor as scouts

but if they also got the engine capacity boost one pilot has asked for would that be overkill? Or would scouts still have a role? That the current scout pilots can live with?

Perhaps the engine capacity boost could go to the T2 and T3 strikes only? or would it be best if the Starguard and Rycer turn no better then now, but get the long legs to hit and run?

If strikes have this much boost, would they be neck and neck racing to nodes with scouts? Would that be a problem?

[...] and if at all possible, improvements to the strike fighter should be done without nerfing someone else.

 

That's a good point. This thread somewhat derailed into complainging about other ship classes and what they can do. Personally I think it's not a good idea to nerf 3 well working classes to balance the fourth instead of buffing the fourth to a well playable level.

 

At the moment there are three classes that have (imho) one very good and one good subclass to choose from and those classes fulfill roles that are relatively easy to narrow down (melee specialist/support, melee assassin, range assassin/specialist). Currently Strikes have close-to-mid-range ignorables as their role, with the T3 strike being able to fulfill a support role. They don't have high burst, that's ok, we already have two classes with that. They don't create area denial, that's also ok. This is a team game and if they should become viable they'll need something different than the others - In other words, there is no reason to make them like scouts because there are already scouts. So what should they do? Is there even a place for another role in this game?

 

 

In my view strikes should be sturdy fighters specialized on mid range combat but more specialized on keeping pressure on an enemy than to actually deal the killing blow.

 

- Give them +2km range for any Blaster (Ion cannon is not a Blaster) making them truly mid-range. This would have the added benefit of slightly pushing up damage and accuracy (because of dropoff mechanic) and probably would make them easier to play for new players.

- Give them resistence against negative effects. Includes all interdiction effects, ion rail debuffs and drains and whatever things there are that apply debuffs. Depending on debuff either the effectiveness or the duration should be reduced - for example interdiction effects have full duration but less effect and debuffs affecting your regeneration have the same effect but don't last as long; direct power drains (ion rail for example) are reduced in effectiveness.

 

Those two changes should be enough for making strike fighters able to run away easier when hit by an ion rail as well as making it a bit easier attacking gunships. They'll have an easier time against bombers when interdicition effects are up; also they will eat tick bombers because of range advantage. They will also have an easier time to keep pressure on an enemy without having to get too close. And without having to get close there will be less time when they run out of engines. As this is a team game, they will be able to help their teammates via protecting fire and without having to directly join a dogfight (something they can fulfill now but they'll get to close most of the time).

 

Now. What to do with the chassis.

 

T1 Strike is specialized on primary weapons.

- Additional +1km range for all primary weapons.

- Better Blaster regenearation.

- Ion cannon should have a cleave (see: Ion rail) with 1km radius. This should make it easier to take out mines and will support others in close quarters fights.

 

T2 Strike is pecialized on secondary weapons.

- Reduce lock on time for all secondary weapons. (I was thinking about reduced cooldown, but this ship already has two secondaries which more or less means reduced cooldowns). Reduction should be around 1 second depending on weapon.

- Add 2 degress lockon arc for all secondary weapons.

- More ammo by default.

 

T3 Strike is specialized in Support

- Add 2km radius for all beneficial team effects to make them easier to use.

(- I was thinking about something like a reverse seeker mine that locks on to allies and restores their shield, but the T3 strike is in a relatively good position right now and I'm not sure he needs additional buffs when he has the two general strike buffs mentioned above)

 

 

 

Edit: sorry for editing so many times, I hope no one has read it during that and got confused.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Danalon

That's a good point. This thread somewhat derailed into complainging about other ship classes and what they can do. Personally I think it's not a good idea to nerf 3 well working classes to balance the fourth instead of buffing the fourth to a well playable level.

 

At the moment there are three classes that have (imho) one very good and one good subclass to choose from and those classes fulfill roles that are relatively easy to narrow down (melee specialist/support, melee assassin, range assassin/specialist). Currently Strikes have close-to-mid-range ignorables as their role, with the T3 strike being able to fulfill a support role. They don't have high burst, that's ok, we already have two classes with that. They don't create area denial, that's also ok. This is a team game and if they should become viable they'll need something different than the others - In other words, there is no reason to make them like scouts because there are already scouts. So what should they do? Is there even a place for another role in this game?

 

 

In my view strikes should be sturdy fighters specialized on mid range combat but more specialized on keeping pressure on an enemy than to actually deal the killing blow.

 

- Give them +2km range for any Blaster (Ion cannon is not a Blaster) making them truly mid-range. This would have the added benefit of slightly pushing up damage and accuracy (because of dropoff mechanic) and probably would make them easier to play for new players.

- Give them resistence against negative effects. Includes all interdiction effects, ion rail debuffs and drains and whatever things there are that apply debuffs. Depending on debuff either the effectiveness or the duration should be reduced - for example interdiction effects have full duration but less effect and debuffs affecting your regeneration have the same effect but don't last as long; direct power drains (ion rail for example) are reduced in effectiveness.

 

Those two changes should be enough for making strike fighters able to run away easier when hit by an ion rail as well as making it a bit easier attacking gunships. They'll have an easier time against bombers when interdicition effects are up; also they will eat tick bombers because of range advantage. They will also have an easier time to keep pressure on an enemy without having to get too close. And without having to get close there will be less time when they run out of engines. As this is a team game, they will be able to help their teammates via protecting fire and without having to directly join a dogfight (something they can fulfill now but they'll get to close most of the time).

 

Now. What to do with the chassis.

 

T1 Strike is specialized on primary weapons.

- Additional +1km range for all primary weapons.

- Better Blaster regenearation.

- Ion cannon should have a cleave (see: Ion rail) with 1km radius. This should make it easier to take out mines and will support others in close quarters fights.

 

T2 Strike is pecialized on secondary weapons.

- Reduce lock on time for all secondary weapons. (I was thinking about reduced cooldown, but this ship already has two secondaries which more or less means reduced cooldowns). Reduction should be around 1 second depending on weapon.

- Add 2 degress lockon arc for all secondary weapons.

- More ammo by default.

 

T3 Strike is specialized in Support

- Add 2km radius for all beneficial team effects to make them easier to use.

(- I was thinking about something like a reverse seeker mine that locks on to allies and restores their shield, but the T3 strike is in a relatively good position right now and I'm not sure he needs additional buffs when he has the two general strike buffs mentioned above)

 

 

 

Edit: sorry for editing so many times, I hope no one has read it during that and got confused.

 

Reason I haven't posted in a while is above... it looks good, if it's do-able it would probably be enough to push the strike up to being something some of the very good pilots will try again. Two thumbs up.

Honestly that's really all I want my strike to be able to do at the very least. It would be nice for more, but if it were the ultimate peeler, whether its peeling a bomber off a node, a Gunship off its roost, or a Scout off another target, and then tanking/ running from what ever heat it gets is all I want from a ship. Its what I used my Pike for at Launch. My gunship ally would pew pew, and I just kept making enemy gunships either move, or getting the attention of Strikes and Scouts that came after him. I like being that piece of meat people want to eat, and then putting them right into the guns of my allies, and going around and doing it over and over and over again.

That's a good point. This thread somewhat derailed into complainging about other ship classes and what they can do. Personally I think it's not a good idea to nerf 3 well working classes to balance the fourth instead of buffing the fourth to a well playable level.

 

At the moment there are three classes that have (imho) one very good and one good subclass to choose from and those classes fulfill roles that are relatively easy to narrow down (melee specialist/support, melee assassin, range assassin/specialist). Currently Strikes have close-to-mid-range ignorables as their role, with the T3 strike being able to fulfill a support role. They don't have high burst, that's ok, we already have two classes with that. They don't create area denial, that's also ok. This is a team game and if they should become viable they'll need something different than the others - In other words, there is no reason to make them like scouts because there are already scouts. So what should they do? Is there even a place for another role in this game?

 

 

In my view strikes should be sturdy fighters specialized on mid range combat but more specialized on keeping pressure on an enemy than to actually deal the killing blow.

 

- Give them +2km range for any Blaster (Ion cannon is not a Blaster) making them truly mid-range. This would have the added benefit of slightly pushing up damage and accuracy (because of dropoff mechanic) and probably would make them easier to play for new players.

- Give them resistence against negative effects. Includes all interdiction effects, ion rail debuffs and drains and whatever things there are that apply debuffs. Depending on debuff either the effectiveness or the duration should be reduced - for example interdiction effects have full duration but less effect and debuffs affecting your regeneration have the same effect but don't last as long; direct power drains (ion rail for example) are reduced in effectiveness.

 

Those two changes should be enough for making strike fighters able to run away easier when hit by an ion rail as well as making it a bit easier attacking gunships. They'll have an easier time against bombers when interdicition effects are up; also they will eat tick bombers because of range advantage. They will also have an easier time to keep pressure on an enemy without having to get too close. And without having to get close there will be less time when they run out of engines. As this is a team game, they will be able to help their teammates via protecting fire and without having to directly join a dogfight (something they can fulfill now but they'll get to close most of the time).

 

Now. What to do with the chassis.

 

T1 Strike is specialized on primary weapons.

- Additional +1km range for all primary weapons.

- Better Blaster regenearation.

- Ion cannon should have a cleave (see: Ion rail) with 1km radius. This should make it easier to take out mines and will support others in close quarters fights.

 

T2 Strike is pecialized on secondary weapons.

- Reduce lock on time for all secondary weapons. (I was thinking about reduced cooldown, but this ship already has two secondaries which more or less means reduced cooldowns). Reduction should be around 1 second depending on weapon.

- Add 2 degress lockon arc for all secondary weapons.

- More ammo by default.

 

T3 Strike is specialized in Support

- Add 2km radius for all beneficial team effects to make them easier to use.

(- I was thinking about something like a reverse seeker mine that locks on to allies and restores their shield, but the T3 strike is in a relatively good position right now and I'm not sure he needs additional buffs when he has the two general strike buffs mentioned above)

 

 

 

Edit: sorry for editing so many times, I hope no one has read it during that and got confused.

 

 

Wow, very cool ideas. I think the ion AoE for T1 and super clusters for T2 might be a bit OP. But I absolutely love the idea of built-in snare and debuff defense.