Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Let's talk about Strike Fighters

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
Let's talk about Strike Fighters
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
05.29.2015 , 11:10 AM | #111
Quote: Originally Posted by tommmsunb View Post
I do want them to make them OP but currently with DO you need one ion hit and one heavy hit to kill most ships in the game. If you gave that DO you'd only need one hit to kill anything in the game. That's simply too much.

You conveniently didn't mention the 2 weapons that make strikes good, strikes are actually very bursty if played correctly, the issue is that they need to get too close to get their burst off properly.
You mean Ion/Cluster/HLC build? Yes, that is one specific build, available on one of three Strike variants, which can dish out burst damage within 4400m. I think it's quite competitive in Domination, actually. I called that out in my original rainbow vomit.

But I would hope this thread would have greater aspirational goals than buffing one specific build of Star Guard. I would hope that the devs attempt to make all three variants of Strike competitive ... perhaps with each variant even having more than one desirable build.

If you're referring to some other means of Strike burst damage, then it's one I'm not familiar with, and I hope you'll elaborate!
Shayd / Callem / RK-4X / "Trynt" - Leader of <Eclipse Squadron>, The Ebon Hawk
http://EclipseSquadron.enjin.com Imperial GSF-focused guild

"Serve the Emperor above all others."

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
05.29.2015 , 11:20 AM | #112
Quote: Originally Posted by RickDagles View Post
Yes please stop crapping on what already works. I think Nem's idea wasn't to nerf ion railgun against Scouts and Bombers, just to nerf it against Strikes. Which is totally called for, but would also be super difficult to pull off.
That is correct. The change to Ion Railgun I proposed would ideally be tuned such that ships with ~2000+ shields would not receive engine energy drain, while craft with under 2000 shields would. Perhaps it could even be tuned such that very lightly shielded Scouts (like DF and Quick Charge) would suffer more dire energy drains than they do today.

I know Verain thinks I hate Railguns and Gunships. I really don't. I'm not a fan of Evasion (I think it confuses and frustrates new players). If you must assume I'm coming to this thread with some kind of agenda, assume it's against Evasion, which does post a large obstacle to effective Strikes.

Even putting the DF missile break discussion aside (which I am willing to do, since I concede that removing it would destabilize the status quo too much), let's remember that Strikes don't have Targeting Telemetry, and the bulk of their primary weapons have poor inherent accuracy. Without Wingman, a Strike can't hit much.

I think that needs to be solved somehow. Either a nerf to Evasion generally (which would hurt Scouts and help Gunships), or a buff to Strike accuracy.
Shayd / Callem / RK-4X / "Trynt" - Leader of <Eclipse Squadron>, The Ebon Hawk
http://EclipseSquadron.enjin.com Imperial GSF-focused guild

"Serve the Emperor above all others."

Verain's Avatar


Verain
05.29.2015 , 11:29 AM | #113
Quote: Originally Posted by Firolas View Post
They ignore everything and just hit people with changes that no one asked for and pretend that we all love it.
Going through all the class forums its a epic saga of people pulling hair out due to theyre specs being messed with and left broken.
This complaint is levied at the devs of every game. It's true that Bioware doesn't have the same depth to their manpower that, say, Blizzard does, but neither is your opinion neutral in any way.

One of the problems with "class forums" is the same problem of "classes" in the games- you simply MUST invest so hard in a single character (who in almost all the wowlikes, has a single class), that a bad implementation for even a week will destroy your fun.

In GSF, everyone has every ship, and as you level one ship, the others level a little bit too. I have every ship complete on both factions- this would be the exact equivalent of having every advanced class (on both sides) at max, with every single piece of pvp and pve gear available. That's been the case for a few months now, because GSF isn't a gear treadmill, and making a mastered ship is a sneeze compared to maintaining a fully kitted out ground game guy.

There's still guys that are on one side or another- some players focus hard on their scout or gunship- so it's not like we are neutral. But we all want strikes to be better because we all have strikes, and (mostly) we all like playing as them.

In the ground game, if you are a Foozle and your friend is a Doozle, and Doozles are underpowered, you might wish they were buffed so that Doozles were balanced, but it's not like you would be like "alright, lemme play MY Doozle, FINALLY" if they get fixed. We are all invested in strikes being good because we all have strikes, and we can't bring them out to play.


So in this regard, their job is a lot easier here than the ground game.


Also, coming in off the dev tracker to promise ruin is really low class. The few times we've gotten dev feedback, the discussion has improved greatly, and the few times we've had devs mess with game balance, it's been better. In fact, part of the problems on live are due to unresolved bugs:

> Sab probe "snare" talent, if selected, makes the move do nothing.
> EMP Field was buffed in response to player feedback and dev playtesting on stream, to have a bigger radius. A summer patch broke the range back to the old value (the tooltip claims the same value as it did post-buff, but it is not true, we have tested). This hurt EMP field a lot.
> Ion missile has an older version of both its snared duration, and the stated snare duration on the tooltip. This balance tweak was not needed and not communicated, so my *assumption* is, it's a bug. If a dev was like "nope, didn't want a snare that long", then, well, I won't argue (I mean, I disagree, but whatever)- but there was nothing in the notes, so probably a bug.
> The same patch that nerfed EMP Field (but left the tooltip a liar) and Ion missile also broke the tooltips of many moves with duration. Plasma railgun's text is truncated, missing a whole sentence, and the fact that it deals the damage over *6 seconds*. This is why we generally assume that the commit from summer was right when the dev team got distracted by kitten pictures.
> Ion railgun launched with talents that let you pick between "stop enemy regen for 6 seconds" and "snare enemy lightly (40%) for 6 seconds". Then it was changed to "reduce enemy regen by 55% for 6 seconds" and "snare enemy heavily (55%) for 12 seconds". We mostly started using the snare, because it was now playable, and the 55% reduction is meaningless. But NOW (and for several months), the tooltips CLAIM the second set of data, but actually DO the first. I have literally no idea what is intended here. Nominally I'm in favor of the values being set in the middle of the buffed and nerfed versions of each, but honestly, I'd be thrilled just to have the tooltips match the ability, or the ability match the tooltips.


These bugs impact balance, and they are (at least in some cases) contrary to helpful dev intentions. Your ground game experience isn't going to map over, even if it was unbiased and correct, which I doubt.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

-GMRZ-Rancor's Avatar


-GMRZ-Rancor
05.29.2015 , 11:31 AM | #114
Building on my previous suggestion I want to explain somethings.

Spoiler


Every strike fighter would come equipped with the default passives those cores provide, for the acceleration.
When your at 0, you'd gradually turn faster, when your at 50% you'd gradually hit better and at 100% you'd gradually go faster. The idea is giving players the ability to buy a component in the form of Speed Core, Turn Core or Accuracy Core that better improves ONE stance. You'd be locked into the enhanced tree for the round in which hitting the particular speed will trigger the better stance but the other 2 would remain unchanged. You'd be basically picking between playstyles before a match like normal.
Darkfive-rancor, Uryu-minene, Yuno-gasai, Rider-servant, Dr'stein,
Sanae-dekomori, Mirajane'straus, (GSF toons) Kallen-stadfeld
Francisdrake Jack'theripper Alelujah'Haptism
Imperial Gamerz

Verain's Avatar


Verain
05.29.2015 , 11:35 AM | #115
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
TI know Verain thinks I hate Railguns and Gunships. I really don't. I'm not a fan of Evasion (I think it confuses and frustrates new players). If you must assume I'm coming to this thread with some kind of agenda, assume it's against Evasion, which does post a large obstacle to effective Strikes.
I like the concept of evasion- it's an RPG, the characters should be meaningfully impacting the mechanics by critting and missing- but I hate HATE hate HATE HATE hate hate HATE Hate haAAaaaaaaaate that we can't see when our characters miss, versus when we as the players miss. The lack of this flytext is... UGH. It's the worst thing in the game. If it just SAID MISS, your brain would get the feedback it needs. Players would learn so MUCH faster to distinguish between a correctly targeted shot, and a missed shot, such that their aim would improve. How much faster? I have no idea, but I know enough of learning to guess, VASTLY faster. Top players know ahead of time whether their aim was good, but it takes kilogames to get there. Put this flytext in, and evasion wouldn't be nearly as frustrating.

And so while it may need to be nerfed, and is arguably too good, and strangely has no counter except mines and drones, which you can't chase an evasive target with, I think that just seeing hits and misses would be the first step in that fight.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

RAZIM's Avatar


RAZIM
05.29.2015 , 11:37 AM | #116
Here are my general feelings when it comes to strike fighters.

Scouts took their role. Scouts have a lot of burst and mobility when they should have mobility and near endless blaster pools. The harassers that will kill you if you don't get out of their sights.

What I think strike fighters need:
  • Strikes should be the slower bursty attack ship. They'll lack speed but light you up if you're in range.
  • Limit their afterburner top speeds but keep their overall engine pools balanced. They'll be slower than scouts overall but won't get engine pool starvation as easily.
  • Give them shielded systems ( A bit of resistance to subsystem/energy attacks )
  • Rebuild Directional Shields for Strikes vs Gunships... in some cases Attack Bombers
    (Directional Shields need to supercharge frontal shields [maybe 10-12 second duration? 2m cooldown?] but keep the standard shield mechanics. I'm not sure the current swap mechanics work as well as they should. It should absorb a heavy amount of all damage/effects for the total duration. It should be visible to an attacker so they can tell that jousting with this ship isn't going to be fun.)
  • Increase the range on the support strike repair/shield abilities.

p.s. Please correct the Imperial Quell/Rycer selection icon problem, the wing configuration doesn't match the active ship.

Verain's Avatar


Verain
05.29.2015 , 11:45 AM | #117
Quote: Originally Posted by RAZIM View Post
[*] Strikes should be the slower bursty attack ship. They'll lack speed but light you up if you're in range.
They've got the first part. They need the second.

Quote:
[*] Limit their afterburner top speeds but keep their overall engine pools balanced. They'll be slower than scouts overall but won't get engine pool starvation as easily.
Are you proposing strikes get nerfed? They are already way slower than scouts. This nerf is out of line.

Quote:
[*] Give them shielded systems ( A bit of resistant to subsystem/energy attacks )
Very cool idea. Nemarus has an idea with ion railgun and shielding to give them a bit of protection from status effects, but if they just cleared status effects faster and/or suffered them in less magnitude and/or lower duration, that would be pretty aces.

Quote:
[*] Increase the range on the support strike repair/shield abilities.
The repair feels ok. It's a powerful effect and closing in on enemies is reasonable. The other two systems are pretty lame at this. Combat Command is frustrating because for it to get any extra damage out of your team, there must be a melee ball, and you must be in it at the start of the encounter. Repair probes is just, find people you think are damaged- doesn't matter if they are finishing a fight, heading over to one, or on a node. Combat Command could use a huge range boost, repair probes are fine. Remote Slicing should be much greater in range. I'm sure it has a short range because the effect of it can be frustrating, and there's no greatly obvious effect for new players to show that their systems are mangled (ex, if the engine button got a big red X over it, and an effect played over your ship so you understood insntantly what was going on).

Quote:
p.s. Please correct the Imperial Quell/Rycer selection icon problem, the wing configuration doesn't match the active ship.
Please don't change any icons! Ever! I don't want to relearn GUI stuff.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
05.29.2015 , 11:47 AM | #118
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
And so while it may need to be nerfed, and is arguably too good, and strangely has no counter except mines and drones, which you can't chase an evasive target with, I think that just seeing hits and misses would be the first step in that fight.
Missiles do not take Evasion itself into account. Perhaps missiles were meant to be the counter to Evasion. This is precisely why the discussion keeps looping back to Distortion Field's missile break.

Is the Distortion Field the shield that gives you extra Evasion?

Or is Distortion Field the shield that gives you an extra missile break?

Unfortunately, it's both. Which means the ships with the highest Evasion also are the only ships with two missile breaks. This alone is what prevents missiles from being the true anti-Evasion weapon. And this is why people keep proposing removing the missile break.

But I entirely understand your concern about doing that. I just want to make clear this is why it keeps coming up. It's not because the proposers hate Gunships. It's because they want missiles to be effective anti-Evasion weapons.

Verain, what would be your reaction if Feedback Shield had the missile break, instead of Distortion Field?
Shayd / Callem / RK-4X / "Trynt" - Leader of <Eclipse Squadron>, The Ebon Hawk
http://EclipseSquadron.enjin.com Imperial GSF-focused guild

"Serve the Emperor above all others."

RebekahWSD's Avatar


RebekahWSD
05.29.2015 , 12:20 PM | #119
Quote: Originally Posted by RickDagles View Post
Yes please stop crapping on what already works. I think Nem's idea wasn't to nerf ion railgun against Scouts and Bombers, just to nerf it against Strikes. Which is totally called for, but would also be super difficult to pull off.
One possibility in this regard might be an armor option, exclusive to strikes, that reduces the impact of Ion shots.

BCGaius's Avatar


BCGaius
05.29.2015 , 12:26 PM | #120
First, thanks for the GSF love! I can't stress enough how good this part of the game is, it just needs a little attention and support to push it into the realm of being more popular among more players. It's like a really amazing Kickstarter that hit 95% of its funding goal...

On the topic of Strike Fighters, I actually really like them. I don't necessarily agree that they need huge buffs. That said, I do see some areas where they could stand to be more effective.

As they currently stand, I see them as versatile missile platforms, very capable of medium-long range engagement. The problem is that they rely on missiles and torpedoes to do this, and missile-breaking maneuvers are too common on exactly the sort of targets they need to be hitting. Scouts are fine in this regard - they should break most missiles (although a nerf to Distortion Field's ability to do so might be in order), and a Strike that wants to hunt Scouts can and should equip Cluster Missiles to do so, which are perfectly capable in this role. Shooting at Strike Fighters is similar, with the added advantage of Concussion Missiles being more viable in this role. So against those two, I see no problem currently.

That leaves Gunships and Bombers, against whom the Strike Fighter could certainly stand to get a bit of a buff. Currently, missile-break maneuvers are too easy for Gunships to have and use. Start locking a Gunship, and wheee! Away he goes with Barrel Roll. Gunships should not have missile-break maneuvers - those that have them should be replaced with defensive powers more suited to the Gunship play style. This alone would help Strike Fighters in particular who rely very heavily on their missiles to kill targets.

Additionally, I'd propose a slight buff to Proton Torpedoes in the form of range. Extending their base range out to 11,000 or 12,000 meters would better allow Strike Fighters (and Bombers who eschew a pure mine/drone setup) to target Gunships and Bombers. Given the extremely long lock time, once you finish your lock you're often getting dangerously close to your target, and it can make the supposed role of Proton Torpedoes difficult to realize in practice. Finally, I'd also suggest a "blast radius" effect doing very minor damage to surrounding targets - just enough to knock out all nearby mines, and damage or maybe destroy drones. Bombers are extremely difficult to uproot once they're established on a satellite or defensible position and often require very specialized Scout builds to deal with. Enhancing a Strike Fighter's (or offensive Bomber's) ability to deal with clustered defensive Bombers and Gunships via a Proton Torpedo buff would do wonders to fix both Strike Fighters and the tepid stalemates that often occur against heavy Bomber/Gunship stacking.

I hope this doesn't get lost in this huge thread, and thanks again for listening!