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

tunewalker's Avatar


tunewalker
07.11.2015 , 09:29 PM | #491
See I think this just adds never ending anoying beeping to the game. And it can turn on and off dependent on things especially when people start lerning to shoot you with gunships with out targeting you and stuff like putting a cursor way off to the side and then zipping it back real fast for a shot. I just dont like the kind of gameplay that encourages, its fine in Tie Fighter because the shots arent instant allowing you to dodge them, but that's basically what evasion is for in this game. its automatic instead of player reacting.

Ramalina's Avatar


Ramalina
07.11.2015 , 10:32 PM | #492
Quote: Originally Posted by tunewalker View Post
So guys we have talked a lot about what we can do with strikes for making them good "generalists" but I was kind of curious what Idea's people had for if they WERENT a generalist. What kind of role would they have... and WHY would you want that role.. and how would YOU guys think of pulling that off.
Armor/Bunker buster, is a role, probably once intended for the "heavy weapon ships" but they went back and removed the mechanics that created that role without doing anything for the weapons and ship builds designed around filling that role.

In a way strikes, bombers, and the T2 gunship all suffer from making armor binary, giving armor piercing to all ships, and not having armor piercing be of sufficient value in achieving game objectives.

At some point, from the way the game is made and the way the descriptions are written, it looks like armor was supposed to be a powerful defense, and armor piercing was a limited circulation attribute associated with, "heavy weapons." That's sort of a lore/historical/rock-paper-scissors approach to armor and piercing as game mechanics.

Then someone pointed out that if you don't have AP, dealing with seriously armored opponents is an exercise in frustration, and they slapped AP on almost all of the most desirable (for other reasons) weapons in the game.

Unfortunately, they neglected to make corresponding changes to the "heavy weapons" and the ships based on heavy weapons. So right now all that "heavy" is just dead weight.

Take AP off of everything but HLCs, Proton Torpedoes, Thermite Torpedoes, and Plasma Railgun, and double both the health and armor value of sat turrets, drones, and mines, and then bombers, strikes, and the T2 gunship would have a decent chance of becoming more relevant in the meta. Might also have to consider reducing magazine capacity of torpedoes by 50 to 75% on scouts while you were at it.

In reference to bombers, it might free them to come off of cover and play more like a B-wing and less like a skunk hiding in a hollow log trying to get a would-be-predator to go away.

The thing is, reverting balance mechanics to that design phase iteration of GSF would involve changing a whole lot of componets (and their code), and would shake up the meta enough that a few more balance passes would be needed to deal with it if we're being realistic.



A more workable role revisit might be mid-range firepower. Meaning hitting pretty damn hard at between 5 km of range and 10 km of range, and being able to hit very consistently at those ranges. That's not too far from what strikes often try to do now, but with weapons that don't hit that hard, or reliably, or that far. A lot of the suggestions in the thread already sort of aim at that. Best to make the changes apply only to strikes if possible. Give strikes a baseline increase of 1/3 to range on any equipped primaries, reduce torpedo lock time to 3 seconds baseline and reload to 8 seconds baseline, give strikes a passive hull based accuracy buff of 5-15%, change the range breakpoints on strike primaries from 500 - 3000 - Max to (12.5% *Max) -(75%*Max) - Max.

In general just turn up their firepower in that range until T1 gunship and T2 scout pilots start screaming about imbalance, then turn it up another 10% and call it good. In the same way that you want to get close to a gunship, or stay away from a scout or bomber, people should be highly motivated to not linger in the ideal range of a strike. For that to work though the strikes need an ideal range that doesn't overlap with the ideal ranges of other ships and they need to be deadly enough in that range to not be readily ignorable.


Edit: I don't think it's likely to be a problem without the super-charging of offensive systems abilities, but if you were worried about mid-range specialist strikes being too strong at close range, the easy way to deal with that would be with a minor firing circle penalty for strikes, -2 degrees or something like that, perhaps only to primaries.
"A padawan's master sets their Jedi trial, Rajivari set mine."
- Zhe Lian, Sage.

Twitch

JasonSzeremi's Avatar


JasonSzeremi
07.12.2015 , 08:47 AM | #493
Quote: Originally Posted by CommanderKiko View Post
I think I get what you're looking at. Something simple like:

Radar lock: someone is targeting at you (orange dot no sound)
Target lock: Someone is looking at you and shooting at you (red dot, no sound)
Tow and/or attempted lock: Someone is attempting to lock a guided weapon on you (same as it is)
Launch warning: Someone fired a self-guided weapon. (Same as it is)

I could see something like that helping in general, but not exactly helping strikers - if anything, it would make strikers easier to predict and kill. Don't get me wrong, though, I like the idea.
If possible... I'm thinking of not using or not just using tracking/targeting but also aiming... gunships are known to target things they aren't shooting to spoof their targets also all/most? weapons seem to hit their targets nearly instantly when fired so knowing if someone has their cross-hairs on your carrot would be useful intel.

In a dogfight, there is less time to react to someone shooting at you, but if they are aiming from a far any warning is better then what we have now. Although it would ruin some sneak attack runs unless the pilots are good at aiming at the last second.

Nethgilne's Avatar


Nethgilne
07.13.2015 , 08:20 AM | #494
Quote: Originally Posted by JasonSzeremi View Post
If possible... I'm thinking of not using or not just using tracking/targeting but also aiming... gunships are known to target things they aren't shooting to spoof their targets also all/most? weapons seem to hit their targets nearly instantly when fired so knowing if someone has their cross-hairs on your carrot would be useful intel.

In a dogfight, there is less time to react to someone shooting at you, but if they are aiming from a far any warning is better then what we have now. Although it would ruin some sneak attack runs unless the pilots are good at aiming at the last second.
A lock on indicator is not a bad idea, but might add even more information overload for a new player. Not to mention making GS's even MORE of a pain to sneak up on (in strike fighters) Maybe leave it as a equipment slot for strike with some added benefit of extra defense or shielding?

Nethgilne's Avatar


Nethgilne
07.13.2015 , 09:00 AM | #495
Quote: Originally Posted by tunewalker View Post
its fine in Tie Fighter because the shots arent instant allowing you to dodge them, but that's basically what evasion is for in this game. its automatic instead of player reacting.
I think this highlights one of the limitations of a game like GSF in the current engine. I always assumed that the RNG hit system was put in place to compensate for the engines inability to do any sort of reasonable hit detection. I can only guess that the dev's solution was to make all the ship's hit boxes similar in size and program different defense values to simulate the evasion capabilities of a small fast scout, vs the slow- easy to hit bomber.

Pretty clever actually, but when the devs also decided on the speed and boost capabilities of each ship, they didn't realize how much that would compound to make the scout that much more effective than the strike fighter. That is to say ship surviveability scales a lot better with speed x Boost capacity x evasion, than Armor x shield capacity.

Frankly, I'd really like to see how a game plays out when you simply turn off the evasion stat.

arkanone's Avatar


arkanone
07.16.2015 , 12:44 AM | #496
Strikes just need significant lock-on speed, distance and damage bonuses to stationary and slow-moving targets.

Bull_Five_Golf's Avatar


Bull_Five_Golf
07.16.2015 , 11:20 AM | #497
1) Increase range of ion cannons to match quads or heavies so a type 1 strike can strip shields at a range that synergizes with their other weapons.

2) Buff strikes so that once a missile is fired from any strike it can't be evaded.

Leave everything else alone and see what happens.
Cota'Dan - Sara'Dan

JasonSzeremi's Avatar


JasonSzeremi
07.16.2015 , 12:04 PM | #498
Frankly, I'd really like to see how a game plays out when you simply turn off the evasion stat.[/QUOTE]

no evasion=gunship game.... every shot is a hit.... scouts wilt like flowers in the field.... strike fighters soon after.... bombers have some survivability as they run for cover.... you end up with gunships in bomber nests.... the least favorite scenario of most pilots I've spoken too.

JasonSzeremi's Avatar


JasonSzeremi
07.16.2015 , 12:24 PM | #499
Quote: Originally Posted by arkanone View Post
Strikes just need significant lock-on speed, distance and damage bonuses to stationary and slow-moving targets.
I see no reason strike fighters shouldn't do damage to moving targets.... perhaps such a bonus suits bombers or any fighter that isn't being devastated by less armed and armored scouts.

if the idea is to preserve the dominance of scouts the limitation makes sense, but strikes still will have problems with mobility... getting around the battle field, following fleeing enemies, surviving when gunships single them out.
They don't need limitations on directed firepower, they need more. What heavy fighter/strike fighter is less well armed then the recon ships?
Right now scouts are taking up the role of main combatant because out out gun and out run anything in their range.

Strikes need to out gun. Let the scouts out run and see if it isn't a better game for all.

ALaggyGrunt's Avatar


ALaggyGrunt
07.16.2015 , 01:28 PM | #500
Quote: Originally Posted by JasonSzeremi View Post
Frankly, I'd really like to see how a game plays out when you simply turn off the evasion stat.
---
no evasion=gunship game.... every shot is a hit.... scouts wilt like flowers in the field.... strike fighters soon after.... bombers have some survivability as they run for cover.... you end up with gunships in bomber nests.... the least favorite scenario of most pilots I've spoken too.
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.