Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Munitions Capacity Extender on a Bomber?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
Munitions Capacity Extender on a Bomber?

Verain's Avatar


Verain
06.25.2014 , 09:06 AM | #11
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
You truly lack the imagination to see how a well-shielded fighter with double-turning radius and BLC's, able to spam two short range missiles--one of which puts on a crippling slow--isn't an effective build for short-range dogfighting and satellite control?
Would it be improved by swapping one of the short range missiles for a railgun?


I'm pretty sure it would. You gain like, +10k threatened range at the cost of the second short range missile.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
06.25.2014 , 10:00 AM | #12
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
Would it be improved by swapping one of the short range missiles for a railgun?


I'm pretty sure it would. You gain like, +10k threatened range at the cost of the second short range missile.
You created a thread saying the Pike and Starguard need more components. If the devs gave the Pike access to Interdiction Missile, BLC's and Power Dive, would you call it a crazy build? I don't think so. Those would all be great additions to the Pike, and I'm sure quite a few people would run Clusters combined with Interdiction Missiles--it'd be a great anti-Scout build.

Unfortunately, the Pike doesn't have those options, so the closest you can get is a Condor. It has slightly less shielding than a Strike, slightly less hull, slightly less Evasion, and slightly less mobility. But in return it gets a combination of short range weaponry that no other ship has. Its sustained DPS sub-5000m is very effective, as you are able to chain Cluster->Interdiction->Cluster with no reload cooldown, all while spamming BLC's. And because you can use Cluster to draw out targets' missile breaks, the vast majority of your Interdiction Missiles actually hit--which largely mitigates the Interdiction Missile's main drawback of having a small capacity and longish reload. The effectiveness of missiles stacks with each additional missile, since people only have so many missile breaks.

Is that tradeoff worth sacrificing a railgun? I don't think there's a clear static answer. It depends on preference and what you're going to use the ship for. I usually dislike leaving satellite defense/capture to others, and I usually get focused too much to stand still in one place for long. Of the three T3 Gunship builds I'm trying (railgun/IM, EMP/IM, CM/IM), I've had the most obvious success with CM/IM. Much more success than I've had with the EMP/IM T3 or the double torpedo T2 (which I agree are both "crazy" builds).

If your argument is that a railgun is always better than anything else all the time forever no matter what, then there's really no justification for ever flying a Strike, Scout or Bomber, is there?
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
06.25.2014 , 08:01 PM | #13
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
You created a thread saying the Pike and Starguard need more components. If the devs gave the Pike access to Interdiction Missile, BLC's and Power Dive, would you call it a crazy build? I don't think so.
No, that's a great build.

Quote:
Those would all be great additions to the Pike, and I'm sure quite a few people would run Clusters combined with Interdiction Missiles--it'd be a great anti-Scout build.
Again agree. Would be solid on the Pike.

Quote:
Unfortunately, the Pike doesn't have those options, so the closest you can get is a Condor. It has slightly less shielding than a Strike, slightly less hull, slightly less Evasion, and slightly less mobility.
It also has less turning and is slower, in addition to the 5% less evasion, weaker shields, and weaker hull.


More importantly, it has a railgun, so it should use that, because that's better.

Quote:
Is that tradeoff worth sacrificing a railgun?
No.

Quote:
I don't think there's a clear static answer.
The two missiles are both similar in range and even somewhat similar in role. The railgun means that someone boosting away from you gets a slug round, and you can threaten an area, forcing cooldowns, side approaches, etc. Without the slug, you lose all of this for.... a second missile with similar damage, similar lockon, identical range.

Quote:
It depends on preference and what you're going to use the ship for.
The non-railgun variant is simply worse than the one with the railgun. There are situations where it is nice to have two missiles, and the railgun won't help- but these are rare, and can often be avoided with a railgun.

Quote:
If your argument is that a railgun is always better than anything else all the time forever no matter what
Yes

Quote:
, then there's really no justification for ever flying a Strike, Scout or Bomber, is there?
No.


If the Pike had a railgun, then every good Pike build would use that railgun. The gunship frame turns slower, boosts slower, has less shields, has less hull, than a strike. It's much weaker than a bomber, and it's much slower than a scout. In exchange, it gets railguns.

A railgun as an option means, you take a railgun or you are just screwing around.


It doesn't mean "don't even pick a strike, bomber, or scout". These ships have plenty of reasons to pick them over a gunship, so don't pretend that this is my argument. We are talking about "you can have a railgun, or instead, you can not have a railgun". Straight one for one component swap.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."