Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Component swapping or Ship build pre-sets please

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
Component swapping or Ship build pre-sets please

Verain's Avatar


Verain
06.28.2014 , 11:40 AM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
If we got more gametypes, I could see us having different readied bars for each one. But again, the more slots you give people, the more safe they will feel in building a fleet of specialized ships, which (I believe) decrease the chance anyone would build a generalist ship.
So, here you go again.

For those not familiar, Nemarus is pretty much CONSTANTLY chewing on the idea of ship diversity, roles, and how to deepen the choices on each one. That's a great goal, but I genuinely and frequently disagree with his assessments and how they will work out.


But now we have a track record to examine- it's not just Verain blabbing versus Nemarus blabbing.

Nem has older threads where he asks for MINES to not pierce shields.
http://www.swtor.com/community/showt...=738888&page=2

He actually made a thread where he had some pretty thought out redesign material for the mines, with the goal to keep scouts down. The assumption was that strikes would have a lot more viability at the node if their shields mattered more.
http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=738389


So here we are, with TWO big nerfs, both begged for on the forums. The first is that interdiction mine went from 100% shield piercing to 0% shield piercing, gaining not overmuch damage in the exchange. The second is that mines respect LOS in their explosions and their triggers, making it safe to be on a node with a bomber as long as you don't fly incorrectly.

...and did the meta shift to strikes?



We know it did not. I had several posts asking for strike fighter direct buffs- none of those happened. But the threads asking for massive boy bomber nerfs were acted upon. What happened?


Gunships, who actually got a nerf this patch, are a bit better in the meta. Scouts, who had no changes, are a LOT better in the meta. And here we have more damned threads asking to crap up the game in the hopes that someone will play a strike fighter without feeling like they are ultimately hurting their team.




Here's the problems:

1)- Strikes are actually too weak. Their role is mostly the same as a scout, but they are worse at it. They have to chase just as much, because 7km and 3km are the same distance from the perspective of "closing to that range from 40km". Their longer range doesn't help much when their limited turning is factored in, and they are always out of breath because they have the same boost consumption as bombers and gunships, and regen thrusters only go so far. The solution here is a buff to strikes, and SEVERAL have been proposed, most of which would work.

2)- Everyone starts with a type 1 scout and a type 1 strike. The double req has been the biggest boost here, because players are actually running more ships now than before, but this is still the biggest deal. If I go into a game with 7 two shippers on my side, versus a team that isn't very good, I can carry, but not normally on a strike fighter. Why? Well, plenty of my team is on strikes, and those that aren't are on a ship doing the same thing as a strike, because a lowbie type 1 scout isn't very interesting. So by being a strike, I'm just the best strike on the team of noobs, but our team has PLENTY of strikes. If I get on a bomber, I can define a region that heals allies and damages enemies, and if my strikes fly towards it, I can defend them. Now we have complementary jobs. If I get on a gunship I can hide behind the WALL of strikes, dragging my pursuers back and forth in front of Strike Noob Army, while sniping enemy strikes. The actual power of the ships isn't the reason I can't play a strike effectively here- buffed strikes wouldn't change this. But it's frequently MISTAKEN for that. The solution here is to make it so that everyone can have a bomber and a gunship.

3)- Scouts burst too hard. Part of this is the latency thing, where the enemy's client lets him take several shots at you before your client knows, even if YOUR latency isn't the bad one. This can result in you escaping the moment you start to take damage, and then you dying 10km away as the server "catches up" the playback of the burst damage you took. They can't fix the underlying model (well, probably not), but they could still change the burst system component to something less bursty, even if this is a straight up nerf.

4)- Gunships are still hitting a bit too hard with slug railgun. Ion is still a bit too powerful, but at this point I don't want the ion nerf, because at least there's a lot of choice with that gun. An appropriate ion railgun nerf might be reducing the range to 13km. An appropriate slug nerf might be reducing the damage. An appropriate plasma buff is just to add that accuracy talent, that thing is so damned mandatory. I personally think that they should have added a railgun that ignores a lot of shield, and another that ignores the armor, and one that ignores evasion, but we're way too late for that (except the evasion ignore, which would still have to come at a big cost).





Nemarus maintains that the strikes are "generalists". I actually think they are intended that way, but the net effect is, no, they are not. The type 3 bomber is a generalist- he has a dogfighting missile and good lasers, he can break many missile locks with power dive, yet he keeps a mine that he can deploy for node defense. He's actually not amazing versus strike fighters, but stronger than other dogfighters against scouts, because the mine can peel a scout sometimes. He's a missing chunk of the meta, missing mostly because he's not THAT good, and it would be hard to make him such without completely writing strikes out.


Here's your roles:

Area denial: A scout and a strike both are poor at this.
Burst damage: A strike can't provide this.
Node defense: A strike is rather poor at this- a scout can actually be better because he can evade targets longer and burst harder.
Artillery: Gunships can do this, strikes cannot. A strike trying to missile boat at 9km is trivial to counter without even having to make a dive at him. A gunship demands action, demands you dive at him to knock him off the roost. The strike can be allowed to make his ranged attacks and simply missile break them, or LOS is far more effective.
Pursuit: This is a role that isn't needed to win any games, but it would be very important if we had capture the flag or murder ball modes. This is the sole domain of the scout.
Support: A strike can provide this pretty well, and the Clarion pretty damned well. This is the strike's only role, and it doesn't really exceed the scout much here.


Strikes are not generalists. If I could queue only one ship, I would need to be in a group to even put req on my strikes. And you don't need to ask about three, or two, or four, or whatever- the more restricted you make it, the less you can afford to play a strike fighter.




If you want strikes to be good, ask for strike buffs. Figure out what actually you think would make them fun and good, and ask for that. The devs certainly have jumped to implement your bad ideas, which have just made scouts more mandatory and powerful, so maybe they'd actually chase your good ideas too, if you pounded your drum loud enough.



If you want interesting stuff with the hangar, the solution would be to either just make it bigger or make it so that spots of it were reserved a bit. If our hangar was six ships big, with four of them being "must be a strike", "must be a scout", "must be a gunship", "must be a bomber", with two that could be anything, that would definitely result in people putting a healthy variety of ships on their bar- much more so that restricting it to three, which would crush this.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

Ryuku-sama's Avatar


Ryuku-sama
06.28.2014 , 11:54 AM | #22
@The most despicable person on this forum.

You're right, at least in my own opinion, you're right.
"If it wasn't broken, we shall break it. If it is balanced, we shall beat it until slow and painful death follows. If it is overpowered, it is working as intended." - Bioware 2015

SammyGStatus's Avatar


SammyGStatus
06.28.2014 , 01:45 PM | #23
I like that Nem stands up for what he believes in. That being said, strikes are scouts-that-aren't-scouts and we do need to buff ships rather than just components. The fighter needs a beef up, as they aren't viable (imo) compared to the other ships.
Renegade-One / Leggogurl / Aimbot / Even'ess / Status

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
06.28.2014 , 02:46 PM | #24
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
So, here you go again.

For those not familiar, Nemarus is pretty much CONSTANTLY chewing on the idea of ship diversity, roles, and how to deepen the choices on each one. That's a great goal, but I genuinely and frequently disagree with his assessments and how they will work out.


But now we have a track record to examine- it's not just Verain blabbing versus Nemarus blabbing.

Nem has older threads where he asks for MINES to not pierce shields.
http://www.swtor.com/community/showt...=738888&page=2

He actually made a thread where he had some pretty thought out redesign material for the mines, with the goal to keep scouts down. The assumption was that strikes would have a lot more viability at the node if their shields mattered more.
http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=738389


So here we are, with TWO big nerfs, both begged for on the forums. The first is that interdiction mine went from 100% shield piercing to 0% shield piercing, gaining not overmuch damage in the exchange. The second is that mines respect LOS in their explosions and their triggers, making it safe to be on a node with a bomber as long as you don't fly incorrectly.

...and did the meta shift to strikes?



We know it did not. I had several posts asking for strike fighter direct buffs- none of those happened. But the threads asking for massive boy bomber nerfs were acted upon. What happened?


Gunships, who actually got a nerf this patch, are a bit better in the meta. Scouts, who had no changes, are a LOT better in the meta. And here we have more damned threads asking to crap up the game in the hopes that someone will play a strike fighter without feeling like they are ultimately hurting their team.




Here's the problems:

1)- Strikes are actually too weak. Their role is mostly the same as a scout, but they are worse at it. They have to chase just as much, because 7km and 3km are the same distance from the perspective of "closing to that range from 40km". Their longer range doesn't help much when their limited turning is factored in, and they are always out of breath because they have the same boost consumption as bombers and gunships, and regen thrusters only go so far. The solution here is a buff to strikes, and SEVERAL have been proposed, most of which would work.

2)- Everyone starts with a type 1 scout and a type 1 strike. The double req has been the biggest boost here, because players are actually running more ships now than before, but this is still the biggest deal. If I go into a game with 7 two shippers on my side, versus a team that isn't very good, I can carry, but not normally on a strike fighter. Why? Well, plenty of my team is on strikes, and those that aren't are on a ship doing the same thing as a strike, because a lowbie type 1 scout isn't very interesting. So by being a strike, I'm just the best strike on the team of noobs, but our team has PLENTY of strikes. If I get on a bomber, I can define a region that heals allies and damages enemies, and if my strikes fly towards it, I can defend them. Now we have complementary jobs. If I get on a gunship I can hide behind the WALL of strikes, dragging my pursuers back and forth in front of Strike Noob Army, while sniping enemy strikes. The actual power of the ships isn't the reason I can't play a strike effectively here- buffed strikes wouldn't change this. But it's frequently MISTAKEN for that. The solution here is to make it so that everyone can have a bomber and a gunship.

3)- Scouts burst too hard. Part of this is the latency thing, where the enemy's client lets him take several shots at you before your client knows, even if YOUR latency isn't the bad one. This can result in you escaping the moment you start to take damage, and then you dying 10km away as the server "catches up" the playback of the burst damage you took. They can't fix the underlying model (well, probably not), but they could still change the burst system component to something less bursty, even if this is a straight up nerf.

4)- Gunships are still hitting a bit too hard with slug railgun. Ion is still a bit too powerful, but at this point I don't want the ion nerf, because at least there's a lot of choice with that gun. An appropriate ion railgun nerf might be reducing the range to 13km. An appropriate slug nerf might be reducing the damage. An appropriate plasma buff is just to add that accuracy talent, that thing is so damned mandatory. I personally think that they should have added a railgun that ignores a lot of shield, and another that ignores the armor, and one that ignores evasion, but we're way too late for that (except the evasion ignore, which would still have to come at a big cost).





Nemarus maintains that the strikes are "generalists". I actually think they are intended that way, but the net effect is, no, they are not. The type 3 bomber is a generalist- he has a dogfighting missile and good lasers, he can break many missile locks with power dive, yet he keeps a mine that he can deploy for node defense. He's actually not amazing versus strike fighters, but stronger than other dogfighters against scouts, because the mine can peel a scout sometimes. He's a missing chunk of the meta, missing mostly because he's not THAT good, and it would be hard to make him such without completely writing strikes out.


Here's your roles:

Area denial: A scout and a strike both are poor at this.
Burst damage: A strike can't provide this.
Node defense: A strike is rather poor at this- a scout can actually be better because he can evade targets longer and burst harder.
Artillery: Gunships can do this, strikes cannot. A strike trying to missile boat at 9km is trivial to counter without even having to make a dive at him. A gunship demands action, demands you dive at him to knock him off the roost. The strike can be allowed to make his ranged attacks and simply missile break them, or LOS is far more effective.
Pursuit: This is a role that isn't needed to win any games, but it would be very important if we had capture the flag or murder ball modes. This is the sole domain of the scout.
Support: A strike can provide this pretty well, and the Clarion pretty damned well. This is the strike's only role, and it doesn't really exceed the scout much here.


Strikes are not generalists. If I could queue only one ship, I would need to be in a group to even put req on my strikes. And you don't need to ask about three, or two, or four, or whatever- the more restricted you make it, the less you can afford to play a strike fighter.




If you want strikes to be good, ask for strike buffs. Figure out what actually you think would make them fun and good, and ask for that. The devs certainly have jumped to implement your bad ideas, which have just made scouts more mandatory and powerful, so maybe they'd actually chase your good ideas too, if you pounded your drum loud enough.



If you want interesting stuff with the hangar, the solution would be to either just make it bigger or make it so that spots of it were reserved a bit. If our hangar was six ships big, with four of them being "must be a strike", "must be a scout", "must be a gunship", "must be a bomber", with two that could be anything, that would definitely result in people putting a healthy variety of ships on their bar- much more so that restricting it to three, which would crush this.
Yes, we do have a track record. We had me saying Minelayers needed a nerf--which was driven far more by concerns over accessibility and fun than they were about Strikes alone. And we had you fighting me at every turn, saying that ANY nerf to mine shield piercing would "delete Bombers" and calling my posts "cry threads", despite the fact that I'd been abusing SIMs myself for weeks.

And while not all of my suggested changes were made, some were. And did Bombers get deleted? No. Did Domination become more fun and accessible? I think so. I haven't seen anyone say they preferred 2.7 to 2.8. Have you? Does anyone think the change to Interdiction Mine or mine AOE was bad for the game? Because Verain of old seemed to think any such nerfs would bring about the Scoutpocolypse.

I fully admit that when I said fewer ships would help people play more generalist builds, I was thinking about Strikes in the ideal case--that they are actually multirole fighters than can perform any role reasonably, and that they are especially useful against Bombers. But I agree that is not currently the reality.

The problem is that even if Strikes got all the buffs you requested, Verain--even if a StarGuard became a better generalist than a Flashfire, there is no reason to fly one when you can bring 5 specialist ships into battle and change between them at will.

But others have correctly pointed out that as there are really only three specialized roles, even reducing the hangar to 3 wouldn't help. Before anyone would play a T1 or T2 Strike to actually win (rather than for funsies), you would have to buff it to be a better generalist than the Flashfire and you would have to reduce hangar size to two or even one. That, or you would have to create a new role for which Strikes are the undisputed masters.

While your idea of requiring everyone to ready one ship of each major type, along with one wildcard, is neat, it wouldn't do anything to encourage people to play T1 or T2 Strikes in a competitive match. I think everyone would just declare the T3 as their token Strike, since it actually has some "best at role" builds for satellite defense.

I also agree that the new T3 Bomber and Gunships can be multirole generalists--better than the Strikes can. But I don't know that anyone is going to use a Sledgehammer or Decimus in a serious match. Not when they could pick one of five super specialized builds instead. In short, I suppose the conclusion you are driving me to is that there is no reason to have generalist ships--of any class--so long as you can ready 3+ ships. In that case, I think Strikes.are doomed to suck unless we get a game type that somehow caters specifically to their strengths. Maybe a minefield clearing race?

I do agree with your four numbered points, and I'm glad you acknowledge that slugs are still hitting a little too hard, especially given the lack of warning. I again maintain that shield piercing is the big culprit here. If slug had no piercing, then strong shields (which are a Strike specialty), would make them more resilient against slug railguns. Unfortunately, no amount of shielding can save a Strike from the huge energy drain from an ion railgun hit. That itself is a sort of shield piercing as well.

And as far as general forum posting strategy goes, I throw a lot at the board, sometimes before I have even fully explored the idea and its consequences myself. That is because I post when I can't play. When I am at work or waiting in line at the grocery store or on the can.

But I like to start conversations and thought experiments. I don't even mind when people challenge my assertions or prove them wrong. What I do mind are people who cannot disagree without coming off like combative jerks. And Verain, it seems like 50% of the time, you can't reply to someone you disagree with without resorting to snide insults, hyperbole or distortion. You're getting better, but I still wish you could not turn everything into such a battle.

I vehemently disagree with the idea of hot swapping components, as posted by the OP. But I see no reason to attack him for it--he was just throwing an idea out there, as I often do myself.
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."

dancezwithnubz's Avatar


dancezwithnubz
06.28.2014 , 05:46 PM | #25
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
The problem is that even if Strikes got all the buffs you requested, Verain--even if a StarGuard became a better generalist than a Flashfire, there is no reason to fly one when you can bring 5 specialist ships into battle and change between them at will.
incidentally, the best buff you can give a good strike pilot these days is another decent strike pilot or two as wingmen.
three strikes working TOGETHER and co-ordinating will crush any three scout opponents sent in against them.
one on one, a strike gets eaten by scouts.
I'd be all for strike fighters getting a decent buff. they need it.

But I stand by my initial idea, despite your 'vehement' objections.
If I could switch my components in a match, i'd actually be MORE likely to play strike fighters more often.

I keep an Imperium/Clarion on my bar. I actually really like that boat and am looking forward to mastering it in due course.
If the Quell were to receive Interdictions & Thermites, you'd have a hard time getting me OUT of the cockpit.

Verain's Avatar


Verain
06.28.2014 , 06:50 PM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
Yes, we do have a track record. We had me saying Minelayers needed a nerf--which was driven far more by concerns over accessibility and fun than they were about Strikes alone. And we had you fighting me at every turn, saying that ANY nerf to mine shield piercing would "delete Bombers" and calling my posts "cry threads", despite the fact that I'd been abusing SIMs myself for weeks.
They were, and are, cry threads. The fact that you yourself don't favor scouts doesn't matter- your threads were the focal point of monobattlescout players hoisting banners. The net effect of these threads, which the devs clearly listened to, was to shift the meta to scouts.

Quote:
And while not all of my suggested changes were made, some were. And did Bombers get deleted? No.
Like... kind of? I don't see them very often on Domination compared to before. Boy bombers, in particular, have very little role in the modern meta. In fact, the seeker mines being mostly not nerfed and everything ELSE continuing to ignore aoe mostly means that girl bombers are relatively stronger.

But I see scouts hiding in niches on nodes again, and taking a long time to root out. I see all the dumb crap where like one guy who is pretty good can hold a node for far too long, and require a pincer strat or multiple bombers. Maybe that junk is intended, but I really liked it when it wasn't there.

Quote:
Did Domination become more fun and accessible? I think so. I haven't seen anyone say they preferred 2.7 to 2.8. Have you?
I preferred 2.7 to 2.8. I don't think I'm the only one, either.

Quote:
Does anyone think the change to Interdiction Mine or mine AOE was bad for the game? Because Verain of old seemed to think any such nerfs would bring about the Scoutpocolypse.
I think 2.8 has proven my predictions correct. To the extent that it didn't is the extent that seismic didn't get trashbinned as well. But bombers just don't hold nodes like they used to... but they still are awful at everything else.

Quote:
The problem is that even if Strikes got all the buffs you requested, Verain--even if a StarGuard became a better generalist than a Flashfire, there is no reason to fly one when you can bring 5 specialist ships into battle and change between them at will.
Whatever. I'd be sad if the devs fell for this new crusade.

"specialists". Gimme a break. Your method of analyzing things is just broken. Strikes aren't generalists, and they aren't being selected against because the bar is too big. If anything, the bar is not big enough for the strikes.

Quote:
But others have correctly pointed out that as there are really only three specialized roles
Those distinctions aren't even correct. Your whole map is upside down and wet!

Quote:
While your idea of requiring everyone to ready one ship of each major type, along with one wildcard, is neat, it wouldn't do anything to encourage people to play T1 or T2 Strikes in a competitive match. I think everyone would just declare the T3 as their token Strike, since it actually has some "best at role" builds for satellite defense.
Yup. And that would be fine. Hey guess what: if you want the T1 strike, which is a bad ship, and the T2 strike, which is a worse ship, to be played, you need to buff them. The devs nerfed them MASSIVELY with that barrel roll nerf. Suddenly the Pike and Starguard lost any manner of 10 second missile break, and the Pike can't even have retros, because IT MIGHT ACTUALLY LAND A MISSILE OH NOES.

They weren't even good before that. But while you used to use a missile break, be immune for three seconds, and after that immunity, have seven seconds before your next cooldown- meaning a missile launched at 9.5 wouldn't hit you because your break would be back up- that actually meant you had about a four-five second window where you could be locked and hit. Post nerf, that window goes up to like fourteen seconds. While a scout can still chain distortion, the strike cannot. The net effect of these changes is that strikes are pretty damned vulnerable.


We have literally just seen a lot of strike nerfs. Every patch they are either nerfed directly or the meta makes them worse.

Quote:
But I don't know that anyone is going to use a Sledgehammer or Decimus in a serious match.
That's because they aren't amazing. And I actually could see them flown in a serious match, but I agree their total power isn't off the chart.

Quote:
Not when they could pick one of five super specialized builds instead.
No, there's more powerful builds. And plenty of builds aren't that specialized. Is burst/cluster/blaster overcharge/disto/barrel|retro "specialized"? No, quads and pods is specialized. But I see plenty of both. Not because scouts are "more specialized" but because they are too good.

Quote:
I do agree with your four numbered points, and I'm glad you acknowledge that slugs are still hitting a little too hard, especially given the lack of warning. I again maintain that shield piercing is the big culprit here. If slug had no piercing, then strong shields (which are a Strike specialty), would make them more resilient against slug railguns. Unfortunately, no amount of shielding can save a Strike from the huge energy drain from an ion railgun hit. That itself is a sort of shield piercing as well.
The energy drain is fine now. The snare and reactor disruption are a real choice. If someone is going for the reactor, he has a real bone to pick with gunships and strikes, at the cost of a huge support piece. I think the snare is generally better, and the nerfed disruption is just way more reasonable to be hit with as a strike.

Getting rid of shield piercing entirely seems lame, given the lack of railgun options. Slug is just too well defined by those things. If plasma ignored armor and slug had the shield piercing that would probably be a wiser setup. I will say that the shield piercing could come down some on slug, but if it did, you wouldn't want to mess with the damage. I'd rather have strikes have a mild inherent repair, like an R2 unit, rather than eliminate shield piercing. Again, the problem isn't "every component that pierces shields". We have a ship that has a lot of shields as its defense (the strike fighter), and then every weapon with shield piercing is too good against that ship. Does that mean the problem is shield piercing? Or that ship?


So yea, you're doing it again. And the devs are eating it up, because according to some metric that they won't share, strikes are fine. Hence, they are willing to nerf mines for all bombers, nerf railguns for all gunships, nerf engines for all ships period, all instead of fixing the problem. And your posts just encourage them to have faith in whatever model they used to balance the game in the first place, even though it CLEARLY gives the strikes the short end of the stick, probably because it overvalues shield or hull or something.

And so now you want fewer ships to choose from, a reduction in player power, because you think THAT will fix the issue? I'm actually afraid that they will be persuaded, I really am. It will make the game so much worse.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
06.28.2014 , 08:10 PM | #27
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post

So yea, you're doing it again. And the devs are eating it up, because according to some metric that they won't share, strikes are fine. Hence, they are willing to nerf mines for all bombers, nerf railguns for all gunships, nerf engines for all ships period, all instead of fixing the problem. And your posts just encourage them to have faith in whatever model they used to balance the game in the first place, even though it CLEARLY gives the strikes the short end of the stick, probably because it overvalues shield or hull or something.

And so now you want fewer ships to choose from, a reduction in player power, because you think THAT will fix the issue? I'm actually afraid that they will be persuaded, I really am. It will make the game so much worse.
The devs might pay attention to more of your posts if you didn't mix your intelligent suggestions and facts with the juvenile bile. Your signature alone shows you take too much pleasure in trolling and pissing people off and that kind of attitude is rarely going to be rewarded in any professional environment.

As for this topic, don't worry. This isn't some crusade of mine. It was a brief, idle musing written while I waited for a binary to deploy. And the comments, both from you and others, have convinced me that reducing the readied ships would not make anything better.

I do still believe that, if the devs truly intend the Strike's greatest strength to be its versatility, then it is doomed--because versatility isn't needed if you have a Sniper, a Speed Scout, a Dogfighting Scout, and a Node Holder in your readied bar. I think if the Strike is to be saved, then each variant needs to be able to stand up and say, "I am best at <thing>." Right now the T3 has a legit claim to being the best at healing/tanking/holding a node. The T1 and T2 do not have such a claim--what sketchy role they did have is now done best by the T3 Bomber and T3 Gunship.

As for the current meta, it's still pretty fluid on The Ebon Hawk. I still see many Bombers of both types, and in Domination I still find Seismic Mines kill me a lot--not only in Scouts, but in anything without significant hull healing. But through attrition, the Bombers are dying.

In TDM, formations of Gunships and Dronecarriers still present a wall of invincibility to anyone but the most coordinated veteran teams.
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
06.28.2014 , 11:03 PM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
The devs might pay attention to more of your posts if you didn't mix your intelligent suggestions and facts with the juvenile bile.
Lol, I doubt that has anything to do with anything.


Quote:
Your signature alone shows you take too much pleasure in trolling and pissing people off and that kind of attitude is rarely going to be rewarded in any professional environment.
This isn't a professional environment, it's a video game forum, many of whom whine and complain instead of trying to get good. Even good players such as yourself have a pretty specific view of How Things Should Work, and honestly, they often just aren't correct.

I don't troll people at my work place, but at my work place people don't come in and try to crap up my job.

Quote:
I think if the Strike is to be saved, then each variant needs to be able to stand up and say, "I am best at <thing>."
You nailed it. That's exactly it. Those ships need a damned job. Being able to switch between two of four mediocre guns, or two of a zillion missiles, many of which are poor, isn't a thing.

Quote:
Right now the T3 has a legit claim to being the best at healing/tanking/holding a node. The T1 and T2 do not have such a claim--what sketchy role they did have is now done best by the T3 Bomber and T3 Gunship.
Specifically that T3 bomber. The T3 gunship is really not able to missile like a strike, but he has a nice railgun. I will say that the T3 gunship obsoletes the T2 gunship, but that one is pretty far behind the power curve in the first place.

Quote:
In TDM, formations of Gunships and Dronecarriers still present a wall of invincibility to anyone but the most coordinated veteran teams.

An uncoordinate gunball is pretty easy to shatter IMO, and a scout is a key part of that shattering. But TDM didn't have a job for boy bombers in the first place, and the meta there didn't change. Scouts are a big part of that meta.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

dancezwithnubz's Avatar


dancezwithnubz
06.29.2014 , 12:56 AM | #29
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
In TDM, formations of Gunships and Dronecarriers still present a wall of invincibility to anyone but the most coordinated veteran teams.
I'd prefer to think of it as "formations of Gunships and Dronecarriers provide a worthy challenge and a good fight"

PROVIDED i have the tools available in my hanger to have a serious crack at that "wall of invincibility".

Oh dear.

I've set my Blackbolt up with LC/Pods/Boost/Barrel/Disto/Speed for TDM and 'generic' Domination scouting duties.

If only I'd left it with LC/Thermites/EMP/Barrel/Disto/Regen, I could blow a huge hole in that "wall of invincibility" that even my PUG teammates should be able to exploit...

I'm not saying I'm in love with Bombers & Gunships.
I hate flying them, I know that much.
Bombers brought a whole new different dimension to the game, one I find occasionally frustrating but often rewarding.

What I find frustrating is being 'forced' to sacrifice a slot on my hanger bar for a T1 Gunship as a 'go-to general build that can handle anything'.

Given the choice, I'd have three Blackbolts and two Bloodmarks on my hanger bar.

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
06.29.2014 , 09:13 AM | #30
Verain, one thing to consider about devs implementing your suggestions--it takes time.

I was harping on Bombers for months, and patches both large and small went by without any changes.

They may be considering your Strike ideas, but just haven't gotten to them yet. Remember a big balance patch is coming.

My second piece of advice would be to spend less energy arguing with others deep in the replies of threads. You made some huge posts in this thread, filled with lots of good points--but all of that effort was just to convince me and other forumers. I doubt the devs are following this particular thread 3 pages deep.

If you go through the all that work to make a big list of items (with colored text ), then go ahead and put it in its own thread with its own thesis. That way the devs, or Musco, will have a better chance of picking it out as something worthy of consideration.
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."