I posted a lot in the Strike thread, and my own ideas went through quite a lot of iteration based on what others said. I thought--in that way--that the main thread was very useful and productive, and hopefully the devs can parse it well.

I think that I've reached a stable state on my own personal recommendations (which are largely aggregated from others' suggestions), and though I already posted them in the main thread, I was hoping to get feedback from the other aces on them. And honestly I'm not sure they will get noticed in the main thread anymore.

So here they are again:

1) Make Strike after burner activation/sustain cost equal to Scouts. They will still be slower and less maneuverable than Scouts, but at least they will have similar endurance.

2) Give Strikes a flat damage boost to both primaries and secondaries, to make ignoring a Strike a dangerous proposition, at any range. Strikes need to be able to accomplish SOMETHING under a satellite, so that is why the flat damage boost is still necessary, even in addition to the below suggested Range and Accuracy buffs. The damage boost need not be 100% like Damage Overcharge, but I think it needs to be at least +25% to move the needle on Strike presence and influence in a battle under a satellite.

3) Give Strikes a significant Range boost to both primary and secondary weapons. Range would help Strikes do more damage (even with melee weapons like Rapids, LLC, and Ions) from mid-range, where they are comfortable. It would also make their missiles easier to lock on with. I think the range boost needs to be anywhere from +10-30%.

4) Give Strikes a significant Accuracy boost to primary and secondary weapons. . Accuracy would help them deal better sustained damage against Evasive targets, and would make up for the fact that they don't have many inherent Accuracy buffs on their weapons, nor access to Targeting Telemetry. I'd say +5-15%. (Why secondary weapons, too? Because one of my other suggestions below is to give the Pike Rocket Pods, and they wouldn't be very effective without extra Accuracy.)

I think #2, #3, and #4 could all be packaged in a single, perpetual buff that all Strikes enjoy. Functionally, it could work like a TDM powerup, but with unlimited duration.

As the above boosts are all specific to the Strike chassis, they do not present any threat to the other three classes of ships, and all of these changes would help new pilots significantly (without them having to do anything specific to take advantage of them).

Now for specific variant/component changes:

5) Remove Charged Plating from the Star Guard and replace it with Feedback Shield. Charged Plating is a trap on a ship that can't stack damage reduction. Feedback Shield is a good, solid shield that would synergize great with Ion Cannons and Cluster Missiles, and give the Star Guard some extra protection/teeth against Scouts.

6) Give the Star Guard Burst Laser Cannons. Not every Strike should have them, but this Strike--the primary weapon specialist--should have them.

7) Give the Pike Retro Thrusters. They synergize extremely well with acquiring missile locks, and they would give the Pike another medium cool down missile break.

8) Give the Pike Interdiction Missile. Currently, a Condor using both Clusters and Interdiction Missile can do quite well, due to both missiles having wide arcs and short lock-on times. You basically spam Clusters to drain lock-breaks, then hit with Interdiction. As the missile specialist, the Pike should have access to this combo. Alternatively (or maybe in addition), you could give Pikes Rocket Pods. Keep in mind their effectiveness will be limited, compared to Rocket Pods on a Scout, without Targeting Telemetry.

9) Give the Clarion Concussion Missile. Concussion Missile is not the ace dog fighting super missile it was originally conceived to be. There is no danger giving it to the Clarion, and it would give the ship a bit more offensive capability against all kinds of targets.

10) Give the Clarion Heavy Laser Cannons. HLC's are the quintessential Strike weapon, and every Strike should have them. They would cement the Clarion as a great anti-minelayer ship, as well as giving it more capability to assault satellites that have turrets.

Some may think that #9 and #10 make the Clarion too much of a dogfighter, when it is supposed to be a support ship.

I disagree. The fact that Clarions lack Thrusters will always be a hit against their space superiority credentials--do they really need to be so offensively neutered as well?

Giving them HLC's and Concussion Missiles would open up the kinda of Clarion you could make. You could make an anti-Bomber Clarion, a healing/support Clarion, a jousting specialist, or a mid-range harasser. And on that last option, you could complement the HLC's by taking Combat Command, or you could complement your Concussion Missiles using Remote Slicing, or you could just stick with Repair Probes for extra survivability.

At this point, I think that is about the best set of changes I can recommend, and I feel that most of them are relatively simple to implement (and simple to revert if they don't work out). As I said before, while some of these I originally suggested myself (or have been floating around a long time), many came directly from others' replies in the big thread.

For my part, I really enjoyed the main thread over the course of the last week. It got a bit heated at times, but I think, on the whole, it was very healthy debate. Good ideas were recognized. Not-so-good ideas (including some of my own) were appropriately challenged. Some minds were even changed. Way to go everyone!

Those ideas are going into the right direction only few things(more likely number tweeks)

1. Reducing the engine initial cost and sustain is a good thing. But it`s not enough. With lower base speed and terible regen, the would still be Ion GS fodder. Increses the powerpool to the lvl that it can "tank" one-two ion shots(from half a pool)

2. 50 % is way to much 10-15% would still be a significant boost, but not going over the top. Their dmg should be on pair not superior to other clases:

Basicly Strikes have acces to realy good guns HLC/Quad/LLC so the damage is not a problem.

DAMAGE DELIVERY IS.

50% damage for rapids would be good, but it would overtune HLC and Quad(LLC propably as well)

As for missile`s, incressing their base speed to reduce reaction time and add/increase crticical chance would be a good start.

As for strikes, lets don`t forget about clasters, with 50% dmg boost they would hit for 1,2k and still being spamable

3. yes,yes,yes! Tune HLC to 8,5k, quads to 7k, LLC/Ion/rapids to 6k

With damage boost/engine boost/accuracy boost it would strongly increses their time in superior range to scouts and their ability to hit even evasive targets

4. 20% would be a bit to much 5-8% would be a better number to incres damage delivery.

All of those changes afects t1 strike which is good, the ability to hit something would strongly increse the quality of GSF first encouter.

5. Works for me.

6. Not needed change, even with engine effciency boost SG will have hard timestaying in really efective range. With accuracy/dmg bonus LLC would be a nice touch as a close quaters gun to synergise with ion. Also without systems slot they wouldent be as good a scout ones. Also it would be confusing for "fresher" pilots to have two main guns with diferent firing styles. Give T1 LLC in place of rapids instead!

7. Give pike retro thrusters AND powerdive

8. Give pike ID missile and thermite torps as for pods, i like the concept of pods being exclusive to t1 and t2 scouts, also even with improved boos T2 would still have a problem with keeping a terget in pod optimal range. Also bad turing on pike wouldent help with keeping 5-6 fast targets in range

9. Fully agreed

10. Propably a bit to much for a support tanky ship, but i`ll not defend that point strongly. HLC conc, HLC/Thermite are all fun concept but...i`d prefer it to be on pike where you could have HLC/Thermite/Concs.

I agree on all points but not exactly on giving pikes rocket pods, I actually think they should get double damage rocket pods if they get them due to the nature of how they need to be deadcenter-ish to hit and how not very maneuverable the pike is.

Agreed, otherwise pods would be a trap for a t2 strike

Personally I like them all, though probably the best way to introduce the global "class" changes would be gradually: slowly phasing in each change to avoid overshooting the mark and turning GSF into a strike-fest (though keeping in mind that it WILL turn into a Strike fest for a while the moment any improvements are made... but things should balance out as people return to their favourite class in due time).

After all, let's not forget that it IS possible to excel in a Strike, so any upgrade should be fairly gradual.

Beyond pure balance changes, I think the best thing that could happen to strikes would be a new game mode that makes Protorps significant, such an assault mode that requires destroying hardened objectives (thereby making a multi-role starfighter actually useful).

Either way, I certainly hope the devs follow through with this discussion. It would certainly help breathe new life into GSF.

Thank you.

It's a really nice list and I'm glad you extracted it from the above thread for those of us not wanting to read 20+ pages of replies. I agree with most of the changes, but I think some of the increases are a bit extreme. If all changes were implemented a strike would be one hell of a ship and a very dangerous hybrid class.

Propositions 2-4

Are all of these necessary? I don't think strike DPS is an issue, it's the accuracy of the strikes primaries and the high evasion on so many other ships that can make engagements difficult. If you pop WM@6000m with HLC you can do a nice bit of damage against any scout or GS. Now imagine if you have increases to range, damage and accuracy? With your low side buffs you'd get HLC hitting at 8280 meters (using the current Range Capacitor) with 111% accuracy dealing >1k DPS along with the perks of Armor Ignore and 15% shield piercing--OP. You made a highly mobile medium range GS with no charge time

I think tamer changes to accuracy and range will suffice. The changes need to be component specific too. For example, HLC's dmg +10%, RFL = +30% and give them 15% shield piercing. I think Quads and Ions are OK atm in terms of damage. Range could be +5% for HLC, and +40% for Ions--see below for HLC/Ion pairing.

I don't think secondary weapons stats should be touched. Those aren't the issues with the strikes, I agree with adding more missiles (e.g. Pike with interdiction missile) though. Also imagine if the stats were changed on nearly every missile only for a strike? Then every time a player swaps ships he has to remember all the buffs the weapons no longer have. This would increase the learning curve and cause all kinds of confusion.

On that note, I don't like implementing all that via a perpetual buff. It's going to be weird if a player switches ships (say T1 strike to T1 bomber) and suddenly HLC's feel like a different weapon. If the changes were modest, like the ones I suggested above, implementing them in the component tiers might make sense without breaking other classes. Granted, it's a concern that such changes could increase the effectiveness of other class builds--testing would have to be done to some extent.

6) Give the Star Guard Burst Laser Cannons.

I don't think this is a good idea. If a pilot can run HLC and BLC, then say goodbye to any other weapon combination. It also defangs the scouts in terms of uniqueness-- yes I know GS have BLC too. However, the overall changes you're proposing are making the Strike = Scout.

I rather see the current weapons better complement each other. For example, the range of Ions should be increased close to HLC, hence the +40% above. As is, their range difference (2300 meters) is annoying and limits the effectiveness of using Ions to lower shields and then hit with HLC.

RFL need to have their damage increased, close range accuracy increased (110->115% base), and tracking penalty dropped to 0.25 % per degree along with shield piercing (15%). That would make them better under satellites.

It would be nice if HLC/RFL was good for dom matches and HLC/Ions were the logical choice for TDM.

I didn't see any increases to evasion mentioned in OP. Maybe I missed it, but I'm thinking +8 base evasion.

I think the rest of the suggestions are good and thanks again for compiling the list.

Those ideas are going into the right direction only few things(more likely number tweeks)

 

1. Reducing the engine initial cost and sustain is a good thing. But it`s not enough. With lower base speed and terible regen, the would still be Ion GS fodder. Increses the powerpool to the lvl that it can "tank" one-two ion shots(from half a pool)

 

Without nerfing Ion Railgun in any way, it's always going to be rough for Strikes (unless they are all given Power Dive or Distortion Field). That being said, hopefully with increased afterburner efficiency, greater damage, and greater range, Strikes will be able to function while keeping a bit of extra engine energy in reserve--enough so that even after an Ion Railgun hit, they would have enough gas left to engine-maneuver or boost to cover.

2. 50 % is way to much 10-15% would still be a significant boost, but not going over the top. Their dmg should be on pair not superior to other clases:

 

Basicly Strikes have acces to realy good guns HLC/Quad/LLC so the damage is not a problem.

 

DAMAGE DELIVERY IS.

 

50% damage for rapids would be good, but it would overtune HLC and Quad(LLC propably as well)

 

As for missile`s, incressing their base speed to reduce reaction time and add/increase crticical chance would be a good start.

 

As for strikes, lets don`t forget about clasters, with 50% dmg boost they would hit for 1,2k and still being spamable

Propositions 2-4

 

Are all of these necessary? I don't think strike DPS is an issue, it's the accuracy of the strikes primaries and the high evasion on so many other ships that can make engagements difficult. If you pop WM@6000m with HLC you can do a nice bit of damage against any scout or GS. Now imagine if you have increases to range, damage and accuracy? With your low side buffs you'd get HLC hitting at 8280 meters (using the current Range Capacitor) with 111% accuracy dealing >1k DPS along with the perks of Armor Ignore and 15% shield piercing--OP. You made a highly mobile medium range GS with no charge time

 

I think tamer changes to accuracy and range will suffice. The changes need to be component specific too. For example, HLC's dmg +10%, RFL = +30% and give them 15% shield piercing. I think Quads and Ions are OK atm in terms of damage. Range could be +5% for HLC, and +40% for Ions--see below for HLC/Ion pairing.

I ardently believe that without a significant flat damage boost, Strikes will never be chosen in Domination.

Out of all ten changes, only the damage buff actually helps a Pike or Clarion peel defenders off a node.

Why? Because under a satellite, all combat is burst combat. You get maybe one or two shots to connect before your opponent breaks LOS, and those shots are often at high tracking penalty.

I know some will say that a Strike should fly above or below a node and then turn around to shoot back at foes vertically, but this simply doesn't work well in high stakes, competitive matches. A Strike off the satellite is naked to Gunships, and the target can always just flip sides to break LOS again. Meanwhile, the Strike isn't even on the satellite to threaten or block capture.

Unless all Strikes have BLC's, then the only other way to help them clear a node is by giving all of their weapons a damage buff.

If people are concerned that such a buff makes Strikes too powerful at range, then perhaps that damage buff could be greater at short range, and weaker as range increases. But honestly I just don't think that is necessary. Only food sits there to let you shoot it with HLC's from 6k out. Any competent target will pop DF, move closer, or simply turn on the Strike and kill it with superior burst damage.

My goal is that Strikes, just like Gunships and Scouts, must be noticed and dealt with BEFORE they start shooting at you from their optimal range. If you allow one to get into its favored position and to start shooting at you, then you need to suffer damage or potentially die. Just like how if you ignore a Scout or Gunship, you risk suffering surprise burst damage.

Right now, you don't need to take any preemptive action against a Strike. You only need react (and not even immediately) to avoid letting it kill you. If that remains true, then Scouts and Gunships will always remain superior offensive choices.

6. Not needed change, even with engine effciency boost SG will have hard timestaying in really efective range. With accuracy/dmg bonus LLC would be a nice touch as a close quaters gun to synergise with ion. Also without systems slot they wouldent be as good a scout ones. Also it would be confusing for "fresher" pilots to have two main guns with diferent firing styles. Give T1 LLC in place of rapids instead!

 

6) Give the Star Guard Burst Laser Cannons.

I don't think this is a good idea. If a pilot can run HLC and BLC, then say goodbye to any other weapon combination. It also defangs the scouts in terms of uniqueness-- yes I know GS have BLC too. However, the overall changes you're proposing are making the Strike = Scout.

Since a Star Guard would presumably have BLC and one long range weapon (Heavies or Quads), it doesn't need to chase its prey like a BLC Scout does.

But having BLC protects it from that same Scout, especially if combined with Feedback Shield.

BLC would also help the Star Guard be productive under a satellite. Unlike the Pike or Clarion, it can't run a real Charged Plating build, so it needs to be able to kill Bombers quickly.

As for HLC/BLC becoming the "only" choice for a Star Guard, I disagree. A huge reason people take HLC's is for the Armor Piercing. If you can get those on BLC's, then that frees you up to consider other weapons besides HLC's. Sure, HLC's are still great and many would choose them. But Quads would also be nice to combine with BLC's. Even Ion Cannons, especially if their range is increased, could work well with BLC's, as they are a great spray-and-pray weapon.

And as for the changes turning the Star Guard into a Scout ... to some extent that needs to happen. The Star Guard is billed as the premiere space superiority dogfighter. There is simply no way for it to do that without BLC's. Not when so much of the game is determined under the fins of a satellite.

I ardently believe that without a significant flat damage boost, Strikes will never be chosen in Domination.

 

Out of all ten changes, only the damage buff actually helps a Pike or Clarion peel defenders off a node.

 

Why? Because under a satellite, all combat is burst combat. You get maybe one or two shots to connect before your opponent breaks LOS, and those shots are often at high tracking penalty.

 

I know some will say that a Strike should fly above or below a node and then turn around to shoot back at foes vertically, but this simply doesn't work well in high stakes, competitive matches. A Strike off the satellite is naked to Gunships, and the target can always just flip sides to break LOS again. Meanwhile, the Strike isn't even on the satellite to threaten or block capture.

 

Unless all Strikes have BLC's, then the only other way to help them clear a node is by giving all of their weapons a damage buff.

 

If people are concerned that such a buff makes Strikes too powerful at range, then perhaps that damage buff could be greater at short range, and weaker as range increases. But honestly I just don't think that is necessary. Only food sits there to let you shoot it with HLC's from 6k out. Any competent target will pop DF, move closer, or simply turn on the Strike and kill it with superior burst damage.

 

My goal is that Strikes, just like Gunships and Scouts, must be noticed and dealt with BEFORE they start shooting at you from their optimal range. If you allow one to get into its favored position and to start shooting at you, then you need to suffer damage or potentially die. Just like how if you ignore a Scout or Gunship, you risk suffering surprise burst damage.

Right now, you don't need to take any preemptive action against a Strike. You only need react (and not even immediately) to avoid letting it kill you. If that remains true, then Scouts and Gunships will always remain superior offensive choices.

 

 

Since a Star Guard would presumably have BLC and one long range weapon (Heavies or Quads), it doesn't need to chase its prey like a BLC Scout does.

 

But having BLC protects it from that same Scout, especially if combined with Feedback Shield.

 

BLC would also help the Star Guard be productive under a satellite. Unlike the Pike or Clarion, it can't run a real Charged Plating build, so it needs to be able to kill Bombers quickly.

 

As for HLC/BLC becoming the "only" choice for a Star Guard, I disagree. A huge reason people take HLC's is for the Armor Piercing. If you can get those on BLC's, then that frees you up to consider other weapons besides HLC's. Sure, HLC's are still great and many would choose them. But Quads would also be nice to combine with BLC's. Even Ion Cannons, especially if their range is increased, could work well with BLC's, as they are a great spray-and-pray weapon.

 

And as for the changes turning the Star Guard into a Scout ... to some extent that needs to happen. The Star Guard is billed as the premiere space superiority dogfighter. There is simply no way for it to do that without BLC's. Not when so much of the game is determined under the fins of a satellite.

Assuming the middle ground with your changes (35% range boost, 50% damage boost, and 15% acc boost) HLC's will look like this:

Range = [776, 4657, 9115] (using range capacitor)

Accuracy = [126, 121, 116] (using pinpointing)

DPS vs Shields = [1182, 1059, 993]

DPS vs Hull = [ 1277, 1143, 1071]

Just imagine a target 9k away and you pop WM and have 136% accuracy and no charge time on a laser. You're right it would make a strike something another player could not ignore. Are the BLC's going to be more powerful than on a scout due to the umbrella buff to all strike weapons you're proposing? Or will the BLC's be exempt from the buff? On top of the above suggestions, there's the secondary weapon buffs, which would make the strike even more dangerous. Do you think strikes are really that underpowered? I think the suggestions are good, but your values are too high and they go pass the point of buffing. Also why would a T1 pilot ever pick quad and BLC? Quads don't have the range, armor ignore, accuracy, or shield piercing of HLC and they have higher power draw than HLC. I don't see those two weapons being favored by many even if quads have slightly higher DPS. BLC and Ions maybe, it would definitely be cool to try.

I don't think you can just "buff the strikes" and only change these values for strikes. People already complain about the learning curve and this will make it worse. Smaller changes to the weapon component tiers makes the material easier, doesn't risk tipping the scale too far, and doesn't involve having a messy obfuscated "buff" do deal with strikes.

Nem what are your thoughts to this collection

http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=8225462&postcount=283 (obviously the link is to the first 19)

Nem what are your thoughts to this collection

 

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=8225462&postcount=283 (obviously the link is to the first 19)

I like it all, but I think it's too ambitious, and goes beyond just fixing Strikes. I don't want to give the devs such a huge list that they become frightened and flee into the woods.

Also needs more colors.

I agree on all points but not exactly on giving pikes rocket pods, I actually think they should get double damage rocket pods if they get them due to the nature of how they need to be deadcenter-ish to hit and how not very maneuverable the pike is.

I completely agree with Nemarus's list of changes, as well as this bit from Tomm. A few other ideas popped into my head as well, some I've probably mentioned before & some that others probably did, but some of this might be "new". These changes would be chassis-specific, so the buffs for T1 would not apply to T2/T3 and vice versa.

T1

since it is the only ship that has access to ion gun, make ion gun "free"/"unlimited" - no energy cost at all, thus saving the blaster power pool for the HLCs (or BLCs if those are added), access to ALL blaster types including BLCs

T2

double capacity for ALL missile types, significant reduction in lock, cool down, & reload times (~50% sounds good) of all missle types, access to all missle types including pods

T3

no new ideas here, but would really like access to HLCs maybe BLCs too, in addition to other general strike buffs

As one of the few strike aces on the Progenitor server, and perhaps the only one to specialize in the Pike, this list of concepts gets my full thumbs up.

My imagining of a NewGSF domination match goes something like this:

One or two scouts, perhaps the classic battlescout, still deadly as ever, streak towards points, attempting to capture them for their team. Behind them, a bomber follows, perhaps heading for a point that is easily secured by mines or drones. A lone gunship takes up a station from which it can dominate a 30km sphere between two points.

The scouts suddenly meet, and clash, the modern equivalent of light horse as they duel, each trying to outmaneuver the other. Then the Strike Fighters arrive, guns blazing. One scout gets lucky, and manages to wriggle free of the ensuring brawl, and sneak off to be repaired by a drone. The other is caught between the two warring walls, and torn apart in a few heartbeats, it's lack of armour and shielding proving no match for the heavy hitters.

Strike fighters too begin to explode, beaten down by the massive crush of firepower.

Two aces pinwheel clear of the wall, locked in mortal combat, each striving for those fractions of a degree, for fifty or sixty metres more that will prove decisive. The duel lasts for several furious minutes, before finally, one fighter dies, after a heartbeat of inattention.

The scouts continue to fight, dashing in with lasers and rockets, offering their own brand of rapid death, but no longer able to duel strike fighters as they once did. Some pilots succumb to the sudden attacks from behind, while others survive and attack, the speed and maneuver differential ultimately bringing their guns onto their fleeter attackers, before hammering them apart.

A gunship takes his eye off of the map for a moment too long, too focused on the bomber orbiting an enclosed point, and suddenly is fighting for his life, slower, and less maneuverable, he succumbs to the strike fighter on his tail within twenty seconds, even doing all he can.

Ultimately, the match is won. Loss rates were as high and low as they always were, but the strike fighters are equally represented for the first time. The scouts have done well, their quick attacks accounting for a number of all types of craft, but their losses represent them equally as well.

This is what GSF should be about. Duels, brawls and melees, with all classes represented in every match, and each performing well against all targets.

Under these suggestions, strikes will be the brawlers and workhorses, still as vulnerable, but with teeth even the best scout must beware of.

At the risk of cluttering up this thread too - I have to wonder what types of changes are actually feasible. I think we largely agree that entirely new systems/components are probably outside the scope of the kind of fix Alex is looking for. But maybe switching components around is too tall an order as well. Like, swapping the Star Guard's charged plating for feedback...what are the ramifications behind the scenes? Anyone with req in the plating tree needs to have that refunded (or do they automatically receive upgraded feedback?). Adding missiles to an existing SF template (i.e. interdiction to the Pike) could be trickier than we might assume. Maybe there simply aren't quick/easy ways to do these things.

Obviously I have no idea, and I'm just speculating, but we do know that dev time is (extremely) limited. Alex & the devs are the only folks who can tell us for sure, but maybe it's safer to operate under the assumption that ultimately, numbers tweaks will be all they'll have time for, along the lines of suggestions 1-4. If that's the case, then we should focus our collective attention on refining those ideas. Though the ones above sound pretty solid to me.

Assuming the middle ground with your changes (35% range boost, 50% damage boost, and 15% acc boost) HLC's will look like this:

Range = [776, 4657, 9115] (using range capacitor)

Accuracy = [126, 121, 116] (using pinpointing)

DPS vs Shields = [1182, 1059, 993]

DPS vs Hull = [ 1277, 1143, 1071]

 

Just imagine a target 9k away and you pop WM and have 136% accuracy and no charge time on a laser. You're right it would make a strike something another player could not ignore. Are the BLC's going to be more powerful than on a scout due to the umbrella buff to all strike weapons you're proposing? Or will the BLC's be exempt from the buff? On top of the above suggestions, there's the secondary weapon buffs, which would make the strike even more dangerous. Do you think strikes are really that underpowered? I think the suggestions are good, but your values are too high and they go pass the point of buffing. Also why would a T1 pilot ever pick quad and BLC? Quads don't have the range, armor ignore, accuracy, or shield piercing of HLC and they have higher power draw than HLC. I don't see those two weapons being favored by many even if quads have slightly higher DPS. BLC and Ions maybe, it would definitely be cool to try.

 

I don't think you can just "buff the strikes" and only change these values for strikes. People already complain about the learning curve and this will make it worse. Smaller changes to the weapon component tiers makes the material easier, doesn't risk tipping the scale too far, and doesn't involve having a messy obfuscated "buff" do deal with strikes.

Maybe #2-4, when combined, are too high. They should definitely be tuned.

But I feel like Strikes can really be overbuffed without much danger. A Scout will ALWAYS be able to flank and get behind one. A Gunship will always be able to cripple or kill one from 15km out. A Bomber will always be able to use cover and mines and drones to slow and snare and damage a Strike in a protracted chase around an obstacle. At the end of the day, there is still always a way to beat the Strike, regardless of how fearsome its weapons are. It can't shoot behind itself, it can't shoot at something 15km away, and it cannot shoot through walls. For those reasons, the other ships will always have a way to counter it.

Will we see fewer ships trying to joust Stikes? Yes, and we totally should. Strikes should always have been the best jousters. That means they need to beat a Scout with Quads/Pods and TT/Wingman. That's a lot of DPS to beat.

Will more people start using heavier shield components, like S2E, Directional and Overcharge (and maybe even Fortress?!) instead of DF, so that they have time to react to a Strike bearing down on them? I hope so!

Distortion Field will remain strong because Evasion. But using it will come with more risk. If your Evasion fails, some Strike may drive a couple shots of HLC into your hull.

Just like pilots have to have situational awareness about Gunships, so will they need to have awareness about Strikes.

Also, keep in mind that Star Guards and Pikes have no access to Dampening Sensors, so you will always have a chance to see them coming before they can shoot you.

Right now, no one says "oh crap!" when they see a Strike targeting them. That needs to change, and I don't think it does without a pretty substantial buff to damage.

And honestly... If the buffs go too far, and the best premade is always 4 Strikes... I just don't see that happening. Not against experienced pilots.

But if every non-ace ends up in a Strike, I think that would be fine and fun.

BLC are just broken-they do everything.

If BLC swaps talent trees with LLC, the two guns become a lot harder to choose from: LLC for charged plating/turret bashing (or shield penetration), BLC for shooting at stuff with evasion. It wouldn't hurt if LLC also picked up some 50% armor penetration totally stock, so it wasn't a binary useful/fail choice.

If a T1 strike had to choose between both of those weapons (and a lot of others-MLC/HLC/quads/ions/etc), that wouldn't be the only build, and scouts would have to mix it up too.

Ok going to say this, because I see these suggestions every where. I HATE suggestions that add damage or range or something as a Chasis Adjustment. If some one has a component on EVERY OTHER SHIP that component does the same through out every Chasis. Quads on EVERYTHING works the same way. So having Strikes be the only ship different in that respect to me is BAD.

If its a damage problem, then its a component problem fix the components that makes damage bad. If its a Range problem then either A its a component problem or B its an engine efficiency problem, fix those. If its an Accuracy problem... its a component problem fix the components.

Be it to strong defense or to strong offense. If it has to do with Accuracy or damage its a component problem. If it has to do with Range, its probably a mobility problem. If it has to do with Survival it could be either a component or a chasis Problem. But giving passive accuracy or damage or range to a chasis is BAD design.

Ok going to say this, because I see these suggestions every where. I HATE suggestions that add damage or range or something as a Chasis Adjustment. If some one has a component on EVERY OTHER SHIP that component does the same through out every Chasis. Quads on EVERYTHING works the same way. So having Strikes be the only ship different in that respect to me is BAD.

 

If its a damage problem, then its a component problem fix the components that makes damage bad. If its a Range problem then either A its a component problem or B its an engine efficiency problem, fix those. If its an Accuracy problem... its a component problem fix the components.

 

Be it to strong defense or to strong offense. If it has to do with Accuracy or damage its a component problem. If it has to do with Range, its probably a mobility problem. If it has to do with Survival it could be either a component or a chasis Problem. But giving passive accuracy or damage or range to a chasis is BAD design.

Then it is impossible to balance Strikes--because Strikes do not have any unique components except Ion Cannon, Repair Probes, and Remote Slicing. What's worse, most of the component combination the Strike can do (which might produce some unique result) is already possible on the Sledgehammer, which comes standard with a super useful mine or drone and super-mobile Power Dive.

Buff Rapids or LLC's? You've buffed half the game, including all the Scouts.

Buff Quads? Yay the Sting is even better.

Buff Clusters? More love for the Sting, and the Condor and Sledgehammer thank you for your support.

Buff Ion Missile? "This Spearpoint is now the ultimate power in the universe."

Buff EMP Missile? Yay Spearpoint again--and Condor too!

Buff HLC's, Proton Torpedoes, or Concussion Missiles? Yes that will help Strikes, but it also helps the Sledgehammer. And the Sledgehammer still threatens to be the better choice, due to mine/drone and Power Dive (not to mention more overall health points).

The only thing unique about the Strike chassis is that it's called "Strike". Its shield and hull are barely better than those on Gunships, it has the same engine efficiency as Gunships and Bombers, and it still turns much slower than a Scout. And apart from the three components above, all of its components can be found on other ships, often to be combined with unique class-specific components like mines, drones, railguns, BLC's, and Rocket Pods.

There is no way to buff Strikes through buffing individual components. Not without ripping those components off half the ships in the game. That probably is the best course, but it's too late for that now and--I suspect--beyond the scope of changes BioWare is willing to do.

Yes, the proposed "chassis fixes" are bad design, but in this case two wrongs are needed to make a right. Giving so many Strike-themed components away to Bombers and Gunships and Scouts was the original sin. That can't be undone now.

Ok going to say this, because I see these suggestions every where. I HATE suggestions that add damage or range or something as a Chasis Adjustment. If some one has a component on EVERY OTHER SHIP that component does the same through out every Chasis. Quads on EVERYTHING works the same way. So having Strikes be the only ship different in that respect to me is BAD.

 

If its a damage problem, then its a component problem fix the components that makes damage bad. If its a Range problem then either A its a component problem or B its an engine efficiency problem, fix those. If its an Accuracy problem... its a component problem fix the components.

 

Be it to strong defense or to strong offense. If it has to do with Accuracy or damage its a component problem. If it has to do with Range, its probably a mobility problem. If it has to do with Survival it could be either a component or a chasis Problem. But giving passive accuracy or damage or range to a chasis is BAD design.

I would agree, except every gun you can put on a strike works massively better when paired with TT/BO. Buff quads and rapids, and it won't matter: scouts will still be able to use these guns a lot better because of accuracy and/or damage cooldowns (TT/BO) and the ability to dictate range. If we buff just these guns, scouts will be able to melt things even faster unless we also nerf TT/BO.

I would agree, except every gun you can put on a strike works massively better when paired with TT/BO. Buff quads and rapids, and it won't matter: scouts will still be able to use these guns a lot better because of accuracy and/or damage cooldowns (TT/BO) and the ability to dictate range. If we buff just these guns, scouts will be able to melt things even faster unless we also nerf TT/BO.

If the strike is able to dictate range just as well (Engine efficiency buff on chasis, it is a chasis buff but such a thing exists in game) and the damage on those weapons worked BEST against scouts, it doesnt matter that scouts can take it because unlike the strike they actually have to give something up for it... burst lasers which are good on other ships that have armor that if they took lights or rapids instead woulnt match up against (look at bombers or... wouldnt oyu know it... charged plating STRIKES)

T1 should have BLCs 100% agree!! Right now the 2 biggest threats to strikes are sniping gunships and in-close scouts. The first should be a threat but the latter should only be a threat if attacking from flanks or rear, a strike fighter should be out-maneuvered by a scout but never out-gunned, that's ridiculous!! As it is now, scouts just fly straight toward a strike fighter, pop distortion field and cackle as they hit burst lasers.

I also agree 100% that T1 Strikes should get Feedback Shield and I'd even take it a step further and say Feedback should get a missile break. A lot more pilots would grab feedback if it had a missile break, this would also help T2 gunships along the way and maybe more pilots would enjoy the T2 gunship then. Feedback would be the mirror to distortion field then, disto is super defensive with evasion & missile break but feedback would be more offensive with a missile break.

Also, scrap the capacitor components on T1 Strikes and give it armour components. The added evasion from lightweight armour wouldn't hurt and charged plating might be worthwhile if you could grab damage reduction.

It's a very good list Nem. It mostly solves almost all of the problems that I feel current missile break mechanics inflict on strikes without touching missiles or distortion. Well enough that I think I'd be happy with it.

As far as engine energy management goes, I'd prefer reducing the current efficiency gap with scouts by about 50%, but also boosting regen a healthy amount. This is just a flavor matter though. Something to differentiate between the efficiency that allows scouts to run for a very long time without stopping vs. a Strike style of shorter sprints with short pauses to catch one's breath. In the end overall boost endurance is overall boost endurance, but if it could be a bit different in how it plays for the two dogfighting classes I'd like that.

 

My goal is that Strikes, just like Gunships and Scouts, must be noticed and dealt with BEFORE they start shooting at you from their optimal range. If you allow one to get into its favored position and to start shooting at you, then you need to suffer damage or potentially die. Just like how if you ignore a Scout or Gunship, you risk suffering surprise burst damage.

Right now, you don't need to take any preemptive action against a Strike. You only need react (and not even immediately) to avoid letting it kill you. If that remains true, then Scouts and Gunships will always remain superior offensive choices.

Agree 100%. Maybe I'll go out and find some extra % just so I can agree more.

For the components I'd like to see some sort of defensive buff to the T2. Armor => Reactor or else make DF available to it. Even with the nice additions in Retro and Interdiction, I don't think it gets enough offensive punch to justify giving it glass cannon style weakness in survivability. So make the Shield slot and Defensive minor slot ones that work well together. Shield + shield or evasion + evasion, go for positive interactions.

For the T3 more offensive punch might be nice, but the existing design is sort of biased in favor of the short range game. I could see going with Clusters instead of Concussion in order to preserve that tendency, and either leaving the blasters alone or giving it Ion Cannon or BLCs. It has builds that do fairly well hanging out on the node with bombers, and I'd sort of like to see that enhanced rather than making it a typical strike that has component options that suggest mid-range strength is a specialty. The type 3s are all supposed to be a bit atypical for their classes.

For those worrying about the magnitude of the flat offensive output buffs, keep in mind how the mechanics work. To create the sort of ability to peel or pressure that you get from primaries + secondaries + system or from railguns, or from a minefield you have to give a very large buff to strike primary sustained DPS if you're not really doing anything to increase their on demand burst capability. If primaries are what strikes get, then strike primaries need to be very, very good.

A big boost to secondary damage does worry me a bit with regards to cluster missile, especially if strikes get the engine endurance to start running down any ships but the longest legged scouts. Clusters don't need that extra damage, and the other missiles have more trouble with hit rate, and rate of fire than with damage per hit (though I suppose torpedoes could stand to do a bit more damage). If Clusters on any ship are going to be doing significantly more damage than Concussions do on live, then they shouldn't be getting fired at a much faster rate than Concussions currently do. I don't want cluster to be as mandatory as it would be at 150-200% of its current damage. It's already overtuned, it doesn't need to get even worse.

Agree 100% that T2 Strikes need retro thrusters!! The added time on target will help land more missile hits, especially since a lot of scouts simply turn into you to escape missile lock if they already blew 1 or 2 missile breaks. It would also give the T2 some more engine power to help it fight or flee, something the T2 is sorely lacking atm. Having engine boost from retros would also allow the T2 strike to grab turning thrusters which helps a lot in landing missiles. Cutting engines & turning tightly makes a huge difference with keeping foes in your target reticule but then you gimp your mobility for maneuverability and often find yourself engine power starved.

The T2 Strike should definitely have rocket pods. It's sorely lacking an "ambush" weapon that can deal good initial damage without "announcing" itself with missile lock tone. You don't need TT for it, Wingman helps. An opening volley of rockets followed up by clusters would be pretty powerful. It would also help in gunship hunting and be effective against bombers or even taking out defence turrets.

You could also swap capacitors for shield components. I'd rather have better shields that help me survive then better guns on a missile boat.

Agree 100% that T2 Strikes need retro thrusters!! The added time on target will help land more missile hits, especially since a lot of scouts simply turn into you to escape missile lock if they already blew 1 or 2 missile breaks. It would also give the T2 some more engine power to help it fight or flee, something the T2 is sorely lacking atm. Having engine boost from retros would also allow the T2 strike to grab turning thrusters which helps a lot in landing missiles. Cutting engines & turning tightly makes a huge difference with keeping foes in your target reticule but then you gimp your mobility for maneuverability and often find yourself engine power starved.

 

The T2 Strike should definitely have rocket pods. It's sorely lacking an "ambush" weapon that can deal good initial damage without "announcing" itself with missile lock tone. You don't need TT for it, Wingman helps. An opening volley of rockets followed up by clusters would be pretty powerful. It would also help in gunship hunting and be effective against bombers or even taking out defence turrets.

You also don't need TT for Rocket Pods if you've got the damage and accuracy buffs proposed in the first section.

1) Make Strike after burner activation/sustain cost equal to Scouts.

2) Give Strikes a flat damage boost to both primaries and secondaries, to make ignoring a Strike a dangerous proposition, at any range.

3) Give Strikes a significant Range boost to both primary and secondary weapons.

4) Give Strikes a significant Accuracy boost to primary and secondary weapons.

5) Remove Charged Plating from the Star Guard and replace it with Feedback Shield.

6) Give the Star Guard Burst Laser Cannons.

7) Give the Pike Retro Thrusters.

8) Give the Pike Interdiction Missile.

9) Give the Clarion Concussion Missile.

10) Give the Clarion Heavy Laser Cannons.

This is a solid list. I think it is a bit too strong and I have some thoughts about this. First, one big change is enough to get things going, and the original request said only pick one section to buff.

2) Give Strikes a flat damage boost to both primaries and secondaries --> Still agree with primaries, no longer agree with secondaries.

Additional changes I consider as bonus improvements, not as significant but are good ideas and will be welcomed, if Bioware has the extra resources to do:

7) Give the Pike Retro Thrusters. --> Agree

8) Give the Pike Interdiction Missile. --> Agree

9) Give the Clarion Concussion Missile. --> Agree

10) Give the Clarion Heavy Laser Cannons. --> Agree

I would also add:

11A) Increase Ion Cannon range to 5000m

12A) Something for Rapid Laser Cannon and Ion Missiles

Now I will explain.

1) 3) 4) One big damage increase is enough and (may) keep things simpler for implementation and testing. These other changes combined will make the Strikes too good. Here I have a philosophical difference with Dres and Etrii, who want smaller improvements to multiple areas.

2) I've dropped the damage increase to secondaries because a gun-centric flight/space-sim is generally more engaging than a missile-centric one. Rise of Flight and Il-2 are fun largely because those planes don't have missiles. Missiles are interesting in Falcon 4 and DCS World for reasons not applicable to GSF, and I would still make guns-only scenarios at times. The X-wing series games also used missiles sparingly.

5) I expect the improved Strikes will largely displace Scouts. Removing Charged Plating is fine but adding Feedback Shield will hurt Scouts too much. Edit: I think Feedback Shield will also be buffed by the +50% damage to primaries.

6) In isolation, BLC on the T1 Strike is a great idea. Combined with +50% damage is too much. One-shot kill of a Scout with a critical hit would be possible and undesirable. It would also make the T1 Strike substantially better than the T2 and T3 Strikes, regardless if we buff the missiles or not. And later, if we try to fix the other weak ships (T2 gunship, T3 scout, T3 bomber), it would be harder to fix them, and it would be hard to justify not adding BLC on all of them.