Annihilator vs Striker

^This

Annihilator is NS... the fact that NC and VS can have a nerfed version of TR's ESRL while there is NO NS version of Phoenix or Lancer means the VS and NC have more capability.

So the annihilator is a bit weaker... BFD... just add 1-2 soldiers to your AV/AA crew.

Enough Annihilators to take out a Lib in 2 volley's is all you need....

that's not even that many really. Any outfit capable of fielding a platoon should be able to do this easily.

Course... prolly better off fielding a few ESRL's and then a small squad of AA lock-ons...

or hell... frack the lock-ons... just use dual-bursters since a dual-burster is STILL better than a striker.

Way to be biased.
What about the fact NC/VS ESRL are immune to flares?
What about the fact that they don't give you any warning at all before you're hit?
What about the fact they can both hit infantry, MAXes, turrets while the striker can't?
What about the fact the phoenix can more or less ignore cover (just lost yet another prowler to this)?
What about the fact it's nearly impossible to evade the lancer?

So your argument is that everything I've said is invalid because the Striker has drawbacks? So does the Lancer and Phoenix. Except the Striker can do AA better than anything the NC/VS have, even AA specific launchers.

Stop acting like the Striker isn't an AV launcher.

Striker is an AV launcher that deals far more damage than the Lancer at a longer range than a Phoenix.

Then I would like a reasonable alternative to the Lancer and Pheonix

Striker > Annihilator

'nuf said.

As I've already explained, the TR have effective AV and better AA than ANY launcher in the NC/VS arsenal, all on one launcher.

If anything, I should be demanding that NC/VS AA launchers deal 3000 damage since the Striker, which is both AA and AV, deal 2500.

However, I'm being humble and I'm asking for the Annihilator to be buffed.

I fail to see how this post is illogical, so enlighten me.

Striker is an AV launcher that deals far more damage than the Lancer at a longer range than a Phoenix.

Am I wrong? According to the actual numbers, I'm completely right.

Everything has drawbacks and things they're better at than the others, that's called asymmetrical balance. Get over it already.

Your point being? I said I want a reasonable alternative to the Lancer and Pheonix. You shouldn't even be able to buy a rocket launcher that can do the exact same thing as the Striker.

That's my point.

The striker is an AV Launcher too. Just because it isn't the Phoenix or Lancer, it doesn't mean it's not an effective AV weapon. Asymmetrical balance, you're right.

However, unlike the Phoenix and Lancer it is AA. And, it is far superior to the Annihilator.

You have a reasonable alternative. It's called the Striker. That launcher that is better than all other AV lock-ons and can wreck vehicles passed 500m. Sounds reasonable. It is an alternative.

As a bonus, it's also the best AA launcher in the game.

If you think it's not an alternative AV weapon, then why did people ever use the Annihilator for AV? Why do NC and VS still use their AV lock-ons? Because it's a reasonable alternative.

It's not the same functionality, but it still does AV quite well.

The striker is both an AV and AA launcher BECAUSE it has the drawbacks I listed. The phoenix and lancer trade their AA capabilities for other strengths, stop trying to ignore those.

And once again, the annihilator was a mistake, stop trying to use that argument.

TR have the only ESL that is totally counterable.

Also, right now it's bugged.... in TR's favor... so it's seemingly much worse than it really is.

Bursters are still better than Strikers for AA, and for AV, the Phoenix is better within 300m and the Lancer is better at AV past 300m... furthermore, both Phoenix and Lancer are effective vs MAXes (at range obviously... biolab fights you should always use default or Decimator if you have it).



Lock-ons are a boring, and easily counterable mechanic. Sure, it's annoying as all hell mechanic on the receiving end but frankly the Striker is probably my least favorite ESL (I own and use all 3).

It's more reliable in some ways... sure....

But FFS you act like running up to a terminal to hotswap loadouts is such a big frackin deal. Oh noes!!! A mossie swarm? Lemme run inside and grab my AA launcher.. .or better, my Burster MAX. Oh, now an armor column? 10 seconds later I have my Lancer plinking away their armor without any hope of countering at 700m


Strikers may be obnoxious to pilots (I should know.. I fly Reavers and Scythes too) but FFS a lot of you guys like to over-react

You're trying to tell me that the Striker is a bad AV weapon, but I've yet to see that be the case at all.

It also contradicts the fact that people use AV lock-ons other than the Striker.

Actually more than 3x the number of players that use the Striker, use other AV lock-ons.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AmUavphHXmIxdFhHUzJfN1VYalRnWS0xMnBUdTJpM1E&gid=66

Can I do the exact same thing that the Lancer and Pheonix can do? Can I snipe vehicles over 1000m away? No. Can I camera guide a missle and hit vehicles that I am not even near or looking at? No. And I shouldn't be able to. But apparently, the NC and VS should be able to do exactly what the Striker can do. Yea, that makes sense.

You're putting words in my mouth, it's neither good nor bad, it's balanced, just like the phoenix and lancer.

Annihilator is the worst rocket launcher of them all and this is due to the high misfire rate. 5/10 rockets will just make puffs of smoke and some noise but produce no rocket.

Yes, that's exactly what you implied. That the Striker is bad.

You said "The Striker is both AV and AA because of the drawbacks I listed". If it is balanced, then it must mean the drawbacks are enough to make it bad at AV (because it isn't bad at AA).

Therefore, you're saying the Striker is bad at AV. Otherwise, absolutely nothing in your post makes any sense whatsoever.

I fail to see how you can claim that the above is wrong... you're the person who typed that. Unless you now disagree with yourself?

Feels like I'm talking to a brick wall, I give up, it's a waste of time.

NC and VS should have a launcher that can fight air and ground on a similar level as the Striker. However, I'm not even asking for that. I'm asking to have something even 60% as effective.

How would it be if our tank was as strong as a skyguard against air but also had AP rounds and an AV secondary? The best you could bring would be:

1.) A skyguard and an AV tank.
2.) A tank with AP rounds and a flak secondary.

So your choices would be to use 2 different vehicles, each LESS effective than our tank, or use a vehicle that CAN fight air and ground at the same time (like our tank) but is just flat out worse.

That's the exact situation we have now with launchers. Do you understand my analogy? Do you understand why that tank would be imbalanced?