Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

The Hybrid Gunship (Missile Boat)

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
The Hybrid Gunship (Missile Boat)

Verain's Avatar


Verain
02.06.2015 , 01:12 PM | #11
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
This statement proves just how far a Quell/Pike needs to be buffed before it would ever be worth playing.
No, not at all. The fact that strikes are crap is what proves that.

Simply put, railguns aren't meant to be drop in replacements for missiles. You can tell this because only one ship class has access to railguns, and it pays for it in stats. Even if the Pike was fixed, my statement would still be true. The type 3 gunship doesn't have access to the shield, hull, turning radius, or max speed of the strike fighters. You would absolutely expect it to need access to the railgun to be good- by being a gunship it has "paid" for the railgun.

That the double missile type 3 gunship is better than any build available on the type 2 strike isn't because the double missile type 3 gunship is too good, it's because the type 2 strike is so weak.


Quote:
Even with the Gunship's crappy chassis, the Jurgoran/Condor is a better missile-boat.
Exactly. Obviously you'd improve almost any ship that doesn't have a railgun by adding one, just as you would likely improve a gunship by making the 1 button into "switch between slug railgun and seismic mine". It really seems that the strike frame pays way too much for the stats that it has.

Quote:
It gets a better selection of missiles, it gets a better selection of Shields (Distortion and Feedback would both be amazing for Strikes!), it gets a better short range laser, it gets better engine components.
I dispute the engine component statement, to a degree. I think that of your top tier components, you have Barrel Roll, Retro Thruster, and Power Dive. The twin turns have uses, but I think they are a little more niche. The other components are way weaker in general. The Pike has access to barrel roll, but lacks access to power dive and retro (and it could REALLY use retro, as lining up missiles is its big thing). The type 3 gunship would be improved with a barrel roll option, but the lack of it makes it very distinct compared to the other two gunships (and the presence of power dive gives it a playstyle versus melee that the Pike can't choose).


Meanwhile, interdiction missile is mysteriously missing from the Pike, despite it being an obvious inclusion.


Quote:
And yet with all this stacked in its favor--making it perhaps the best "Strike" in the game, the missile-Jurgoran is still the "gimp" build of its class, because a Slug Railgun is always better than a second missile.
And that part is fine. As long as the devs charge a lot for being able to load a railgun on your ship, you would expect that you'd benefit from doing exactly that. Don't try to make this somehow some gunship QQ- it's offtopic enough to turn a double missile type 3 gunship thread into strike tears, but at least the strikes are unambiguously weaker than they should be- and it's because they are missing components and likely base stats.


But could we cry about strikes in like, all the OTHER threads? :P
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
02.06.2015 , 03:15 PM | #12
Not QQing about Gunships at all.

Just pointing out that this "for fun" build is the best Strike in the game, and that is part of the reason why it is fun.

But I would even say that if you took an optimal Jurgoran with Clusters and a Railgun, but then prohibited it from using its Railgun and force it to just melee with Clusters and BLC, it would still be superior to any Strike, including the Rycer.

Is the Jurgoran chassis slightly weaker than the Rycer's? Sure. Less Evasion, very slightly lesser shields, and a little bit more sluggish. But BLC and Feedback Shields make up for any turning deficiency, since they let you attack at high deflection, and make the Jurgoran far more dangerous to Scouts and Bombers than other Strikes are. Again, not even considering the railgun, which is an axis of gameplay the Strikes can't even compete on.

And with Power Dive, the Jurgostrike is far more resilient to the Rycer's chief bogeyman, the Ion Railgun.

Again, my point here is not to say that Gunships are OP. But rather to say that for me to equip a Rycer in my hangar, at the bare minimum it would need to compete with a Jurgoran that ONLY uses Cluster Missiles! To say nothing of competing with a double missile Jurgoran, or a Jurgoran that uses its railgun.

And without adding components like BLC, DF, or Feedback, the only way to do that is to give the Strike chassis some truly unique and desirable capabilities. Repair Probes is the only reason anyone flies a T3. T1 and T2 need something that vital. Just increasing Strike turning radius or afterburner efficiency would not be enough to make it better than a Jurgostrike (or a Sledgehammer for that matter). It either needs a lot more top-tier components or some new unique ones.
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."

MiaowZedong's Avatar


MiaowZedong
02.06.2015 , 03:25 PM | #13
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
I dispute the engine component statement, to a degree. I think that of your top tier components, you have Barrel Roll, Retro Thruster, and Power Dive. The twin turns have uses, but I think they are a little more niche. The other components are way weaker in general. The Pike has access to barrel roll, but lacks access to power dive and retro (and it could REALLY use retro, as lining up missiles is its big thing). The type 3 gunship would be improved with a barrel roll option, but the lack of it makes it very distinct compared to the other two gunships (and the presence of power dive gives it a playstyle versus melee that the Pike can't choose).
Seriously?

Barrel Roll is far more niche than the turns, IMO. The cost and CD are ridiculously high and make it probably the worst engine manoeuvre, and I have trouble seeing how that's even arguable. Having a sudden speed burst is helpful, but if you use it for that you can't really save it for missile locks—and if you save it for missile locks, you have to keep more engine power on hand, gimping your mobility. That's really niche compared to being able to regularly break missile locks and execute some manoeuvre.

The only thing I agree with you on here is that adding the option of BR to a ship without taking anything away would be an overall improvement, adding more niche utility (especially for a ship with DF).
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
Just pointing out that this "for fun" build is the best Strike in the gam, and that is part of the reason why it is fun.
Not sure about that...the Decimus/Sledgehammer has a claim to being the "best strike" too!

Verain's Avatar


Verain
02.06.2015 , 04:22 PM | #14
The type 3 bomber is better at the "medium range" supposed niche, because not only does it have heavy lasers and solid missile options, the mine/drone is simply far better at pushing an enemy ship away than anything the strikes have. And the bomber frame is a lot less useful in a dogfight than a scout, strike- or even a gunship. Even with those limits, the type 3 bomber has (IMO) a much better time in a dogfight than the dogfighter strikes.

The type 3 gunship that is being discussed here has three short range options, plus disto missile break. This allows the ship to really capitalize on any situation where it can get the enemy to even fly past it, something strikes are pretty poor at. The other piece is being able to switch between FAST lockon missiles means that you are almost always able to threaten a missile, something that the Pike very much lacks.

I would very much dispute barrel as a poor engine maneuver. The big deal is that it crosses serious distance, and a lot of the game is positional based. If barrel gets you a DO, it is worth quite a bit, right? If it gets you to a node to hold it neutral, what about that? Obviously it is worse in a dogfight.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

Ryuku-sama's Avatar


Ryuku-sama
02.06.2015 , 04:39 PM | #15
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
I would very much dispute barrel as a poor engine maneuver. The big deal is that it crosses serious distance, and a lot of the game is positional based. If barrel gets you a DO, it is worth quite a bit, right? If it gets you to a node to hold it neutral, what about that? Obviously it is worse in a dogfight.
Power Dive + skill beats Barrel Roll. You can cross almost the same distance with the same engine, a lower CD and be way harder to hit. And still get your DO if you plan your run. Additionally, Power Dive can basicly makes you unkillable in 1vs1 and even 2/3vs1. It counters Ion railgun quite well. It's almost impossible to get a lock on missile through Power Dive. Barrel Roll is only better in one specific situation. When reaching a certain position isn't an engine challenge but a time challenge. Power Dive is better in every single other situation.
"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

Verain's Avatar


Verain
02.06.2015 , 04:48 PM | #16
Oh not the "skill" argument again. Power Dive makes you put yourself in different places than barrel roll would let you, a power dive for distance is nowhere close to a barrel and also requires more setup (meaning it's nowhere comparable on speed), and there's just a lot of "red paths" that end with you exploding compared to barrel.

Yes, power dive is probably (in general and assuming a high level of skill with both) the better component. It brings you a nice distance, moves you out of LOS much faster than barrel roll, and has half the cooldown and zero energy cost. Those are all great things about it, but the claim that power dive is wholly better (especially dismissing the ability to cross distances rapidly, which barrel roll is unparallelled at) is not a fair assessment.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

MiaowZedong's Avatar


MiaowZedong
02.06.2015 , 05:05 PM | #17
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
The type 3 bomber is better at the "medium range" supposed niche, because not only does it have heavy lasers and solid missile options, the mine/drone is simply far better at pushing an enemy ship away than anything the strikes have. And the bomber frame is a lot less useful in a dogfight than a scout, strike- or even a gunship. Even with those limits, the type 3 bomber has (IMO) a much better time in a dogfight than the dogfighter strikes.

The type 3 gunship that is being discussed here has three short range options, plus disto missile break. This allows the ship to really capitalize on any situation where it can get the enemy to even fly past it, something strikes are pretty poor at. The other piece is being able to switch between FAST lockon missiles means that you are almost always able to threaten a missile, something that the Pike very much lacks.
No question the T3 GS is a better dogfighter than the T3 Bomber, but the latter is the best at the midrange engagements that are the nearest thing strike fighters have to a niche. I really am not sure which of the two is better overall, but I'm certain they both outperform "real" strikes for their roles.
Quote:
I would very much dispute barrel as a poor engine maneuver. The big deal is that it crosses serious distance, and a lot of the game is positional based. If barrel gets you a DO, it is worth quite a bit, right? If it gets you to a node to hold it neutral, what about that? Obviously it is worse in a dogfight.
That is why it is "niche" rather than "useless". It is massively inferior in all other ways, including overall mobility (two Power Dives will take you further and leave you with much more power than one Barrel Roll) but it gives you a burst of forward speed unmatched over a couple of seconds so it's not entirely without merit. It has a niche. Notice that I didn't say it's worse overall, but its niche is far more restricted than the turns (notably because it's more or less useless in Domination, where a T3 scout will sprint faster than any BR-capable ship).

Still, I feel Interdiction Drive is a fairer comparison than PD: BR is better in open space, ID is better on a sat or around a rock, the main function of both is the same (making you move faster than other people). BR is admitedly probably better than ID because you can sometimes break locks with it and the ID snare is too weak, plus ID's CD is just too long. Oh, and another common point is both need to be upgraded or they are utterly garbage.

Ryuku-sama's Avatar


Ryuku-sama
02.06.2015 , 05:23 PM | #18
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
Oh not the "skill" argument again. Power Dive makes you put yourself in different places than barrel roll would let you, a power dive for distance is nowhere close to a barrel and also requires more setup (meaning it's nowhere comparable on speed), and there's just a lot of "red paths" that end with you exploding compared to barrel.

Yes, power dive is probably (in general and assuming a high level of skill with both) the better component. It brings you a nice distance, moves you out of LOS much faster than barrel roll, and has half the cooldown and zero energy cost. Those are all great things about it, but the claim that power dive is wholly better (especially dismissing the ability to cross distances rapidly, which barrel roll is unparallelled at) is not a fair assessment.
Have you read what I said? I said exactly that. The only point going for Barrel Roll is its ability to cross distance when the only factor is time. If the distance is big enough to make engine a factor, Barrel Roll loses to Power Dive.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ryuku-sama View Post
Barrel Roll is only better in one specific situation. When reaching a certain position isn't an engine challenge but a time challenge.
Yeah.. It sounded better in my head.. Guess I'll have to practice my English some more.....
"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

Drakkolich's Avatar


Drakkolich
02.06.2015 , 06:44 PM | #19
Some interesting conversations going on in here.

What this is really showing to me is how important the components a ship has are in it's overall balance to other ships/classes. The frames while differing are important but it seems nowhere near as important as the actual components on a ship. As Verain pointed out the Strike frame is nowhere near powerful enough for the awful component choices the Strikes have.

I mean the Bomber Frame gets 50% extra missile ammo for free, why can't we see buff's like this on the Strikes. Someone had mentioned adding free 10% accuracy to all lasers on a Strike that sounded like a neat idea. I'm not usually one to theory craft on what changes could be done so it's definitely not my area to talk about. I'm more of a what's good right now theory crafter.


As for the age old Power Dive vs Barrel Roll I really feel this is a player specific choice, I don't think one is better then the other. I myself choose Barrel Roll over Power Dive on the two ships that have that choice. I'm a Damage Overcharge whore and Barrel makes you win the race to get there every time.

I can be totally honest in saying that if the Jurgoran had both Barrel Roll and Power Dive I would absolutely use Barrel Roll. One of the reasons I don't play this ship in death match (Competitively speaking) is specifically because it lacks Barrel Roll and I always lose the races to the Damage Overcharges.
DrakolichDrakolích
The BastionTwitch Stream

Ramalina's Avatar


Ramalina
02.07.2015 , 01:11 AM | #20
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
Just pointing out that this "for fun" build is the best Strike in the game, and that is part of the reason why it is fun.
No. No it is not.

You sir, have made an error in classification.

It is not a pseudo-strike, it is one of the flavors of second rate imitation battlescout. That is to say, basically a battlescout without boost endurance and high burst damage. The T1 strike with Ion, Cluster, turning thrusters, and Quads (or RFLs) is another flavor of second rate imitation battlescout.

Imitation battlescout can be a lot of fun, but it's imitation battlescout not, "best strike."

That's why I definitely wouldn't be a fan of your list of changes to make the T2 strike much more like the T3 gunship double missile build. With two flavors of imitation battlescout already out there, I don't feel any desire for a third. I'd much rather have a viable missile boat.

To have a viable missile boat, you don't need the traits of a good close in dogfighter with low boost and mediocre burst, you need a range of viable missile weapons systems. I'll grant that would take more development effort than an imitation battlescout makeover for the T2 strike, but as long as I'm dreaming impossible dreams I figure I might as well go for the more ambitious ones.

There are components that would be nice on a T2 strike Retros, Interdiction, and Thermite for example. Those are luxuries though, not necessities. What it needs is for missiles in general to work well as a weapon system.
Either that or an option for the second missile to be changed to something useful instead (though chances are that makes it not much of a missile boat playstyle anymore).

The way the other double missile ships become competitive isn't by having better spaceframes, better engine options, or better shield options, it's by ditching the second missile for a weapon that's significantly better than the first missile and that makes the ship play more typically for it's class. The problem with the T2 strike is that the only options it has are missiles that are slightly worse than the first missile or significantly worse than the first missile. I suppose that does make it play more typically for the strike class, but it doesn't do much good for competitiveness.

Quote:
But I would even say that if you took an optimal Jurgoran with Clusters and a Railgun, but then prohibited it from using its Railgun and force it to just melee with Clusters and BLC, it would still be superior to any Strike, including the Rycer.
All I can say to that is that I have never seen a scary T3 double missile gunship or a scary T3 bomber, and that's bearing in mind that those are usually seen flown by very good pilots who happen to be fooling around. Slippery, a pain to kill, and good at gobbling up foodships, but not scary. I have on the other hand, seen strikes that are scary. Not as scary as those same pilots in scouts or gunships, but still scary.
"A padawan's master sets their Jedi trial, Rajivari set mine."
- Zhe Lian, Sage.

Twitch