Striker 10-17 Changes Discussion

Tested the above briefly in VR on the test server, noting the following:
-Ammo capacity is now 6/24, so 30 rockets by default
-With maxed out munitions pouch (or whatever it's called), you have 54 little red rockets. #praisethespam
-Two full clips will take out an ESF. So getting a full clip of striker into a low-flying ESF will take it to half, should be enough to make the pilot strongly regret his life decisions.
-3 full clips to kill a valk, 5 full to take out a liberator. Full munitions pouch striker cannot take a galaxy to burning by itself.
-2 full clips kills a harasser, but good luck ever pulling that off live, heh.
-COF buff helps a bit, but I still found myself missing tanks less than 100m away when going full-auto. Had to pace my shots to about the old Striker's ROF to keep reliable accuracy.

Overall, I like the direction its going. The extra rocket really helps, and the COF reduction is also good. Nix the COF bloom a bit, and I'd personally like to see a bit more velocity on the rockets to deal with moving air targets a bit better, and I think it'll be getting to a place where I could see myself genuinely using the Striker instead of just goofing off with it for laughs.

TBH I'm perfectly fine with it as is now.

COF is GREATLY improved. My complaints about its COF have now ceased. Even full auto the rockets are nearly spot on except the last two. There is SOME randomness to full auto but if you aren't used to a bit of random recoil during shooting while playing TR....I'm not sure what to tell you, LOL. I find that shooting 3, split wait, then 3 makes it nearly a laser with minor deviation.

6 rockets in a clip is something I've hoped would happen. Gave it what it needed without buffing dmg per rocket. A much more TR way to buff its output. Still gives it its exposure disadvantage but rewards you for it if you aim true. Sounds good to me.

In fact...I think its damage versus ESFs need to be tweaked so that 12 rockets set ESFs in "on fire" mode.Two clips to straight up murder a ESF may be pushing it.

COF and dmg per clip is perfect on everything else.

I like the direction it had taken. We'll just have to see its performance on live to determine if it needs further buffs.

This is looking a lot better now, the only real thing that i want to see it possibly do a heat seek similar to what we see now for the aircraft, but maybe only within 5 meters

I'm not certain it would need much else.

After a while of using it live I've gotten better at judging its velocity in terms of my target.

The current test version of it is pretty damn nice, and finally makes me think before pulling a grounder over it.
I could go over grounder versus current-pts striker but it'd take quite a bit as I see both having their pros and cons compared to eachother in most situations.

The current live striker almost makes it a no brainer to go grounder.
The current pts striker...not so much. IMO. (still think 2 full clips should set esf on heavy fire, not kill)

Coyote vs ground AND air is what I initially imagined the striker would be. After getting to its current PTS incarnation, I do not think ground coyote is a good idea. Hard to make sure you hit what you want and may be a little cheesy IMO. If they ever did it would have to be crazy small....like 3-5 meteres TOPS.

3-5 meters would be extremely tiny - by that point, I'd just argue to adjust the COF so they go to the target in the first place.

I'd rather the COF fix so I don't have to slow down my shots to ensure they hit the target. At six rockets, its got just slightly more exposure time than before, on top of already having much more exposure time compared to the default dumbfires & the deci. As such, I think its only fair that the COF RNG should be minimal. Just touch it up in some manner to keep it reliable, which is something that's been plaguing the current live implementation.

Don't you see anything wrong in this sentence???

Striker = fixed.

I'm not sure what you mean?

If this is some joke about TR accuracy, then har-dee-har-har, but let's save that until after the Striker's fixed.

If it's a serious statement, then I don't see the issue in what I said. I'm guessing you might mean that going full-auto with the Striker is expected to incur some downside, to which I'd argue that the Striker already has the downside of significantly greater exposure time compared to any other dumbfire - it already has enough going against the user by design, no need to hamper the damage output further by making it inconsistent when trying to maximize DPS.

God damn it why didn't they buff the damage to 250-300 per rocket instead of this capacity upgrade??!! And if they're gonna add this then they should decrease the reload to short 3 sec. and long 4 sec. or something like that. But the best thing would be for the capacity to stay the same and increase the dmg to 250 or 300.

The only problem i see right now is that the Striker is nearing a direct upgrade from the ML-7 at 9/10 scenarios, and in the remaining 1/10 the Decimator is a direct upgrade.

It now have pretty much the same DPS as the ML-7, higher velocity and anti air capabilities. Drawbacks is 1.5s longer exposure and a CoF that becomes relevant at ranges where the ML-7 is gonna miss anyways.

And in the cases where the Exposure time is a problem, the Decimator is just gonna do better than the ML-7 anyways.

The the TRs sake, i hope they dont spam this Striker too much, or SOE is gonna nerf it into the ground again.

If the changes are going to stay the same as of this posting then the reload should be shorter something like short 3 sec. long 4 sec. or something like that, but it would be damn better if it all stayed the same and the dmg was 250 or 300. And i'm gonna repeat myself 100 times until someone gives me a valid reason not too.

1: I wasn't talking to you

2: Nobody is going to respond to your suggestion because the same suggestion have been made a hundred times before, and have been explained why it's an outrageously bad idea an equal number of times. You don't understand resist value,s and you don't know the current actual statistics of the Striker, and that is why i'm not going to bother correcting you.

1. DPS with the striker is purely theoretical.

I still argue that practiciing and knowing the drop with a weapon......if I practiced both the striker and ML7 equally. The ML7 is going to have much more damage over time. Having multiple shots is both a advantage AND a drawback. Having to hit with multples means predicting the target movement during the entire salavo to do that dps. That said....trying to predict over an entire salavo is FUN and much more satisfying then the old "crap-annihilator" that was the old striker.

2. Do no discount exposure time. Right now striker is worse then ALL regular launchers TR can use at really close ranges due to it, period.

That is a pretty big deal........harassers and such do exist and some exist to purely get close to your infantry at high speeds, do a AI run, then speed off.

It has plenty of disadvantages. It is merely approaching a point where the advantages make the disadvantages worth it.
This will always be due to 1 rocket (all regular launchers) versus several in a magazine. There are some situations where you MUST play peekaboo if you want to be effective......tower air pads versus a large ground assault come to mind specifically. The striker is the worst at it probably...and that is counting the other ESAV launchers as well, which is fine.

Then, if you can trulyl learn that well to adapt, the Decimator shoulld be a direct upgrade to the ML-7 in every scenario. Which it isn't.

2: The Lancer have 2x the exposure time and a time window limit during which it has to fire. Plenty of TR and NC still demand it to be nerfed. I'm not discounting it, but i am saying that it's not even 10% as bad as many TR pretend it is.

No, it really doesn't have plenty of advantages anymore. The CoF and the exposure times are literally the only things that doesnt make this a direct upgrade form the ML-7

Ok bro, explain it to me then because i haven't seen any discusion regarding Striker's dmg buff, or what i have suggested, only a ROF increase and Coyote stile rockets. Please for the love of God, tell me why would it be an OUTRAGEOUSLY bad idea?

Maybe up the velocity to 210 and reduce the CoF a tad.

OR

Reduce CoF a tad and reduce reload time to 4s.

Those would probably be good final touches for the Striker. Either make it faster and more accurate at range or make it more spammy.

Except, you know, the fact that the deci is slower then snot m/s wise? Of course it isn't a direct upgrade...neither is the striker in its current PTS form. You can ignore the disadvantages if you want but they will still exist even if you cover your eyes.

BS.

You can charge it without being scoped. You do not have 2x exposure time. Charge it, right when you hit 3 step out, scope, aim n' fire. The fire window limit actually tries to make the nearly skill-less weapon take SOME modicum of timing and direction adjustment.

All "peak-a-boo" rocket combat is done with the general idea of where your target already is. If I can get a good shot off with the bad m/s of a deci in a split second you sure as hell can do it with a 800m/s laser.

Knowing the above I could say that a lancer is nearly always an direct upgrade over your default launcher but we both know it isn't true. Yet I have no doubt you will keep saying the striker is a direct upgrade.

Yeah, i know. And you said in your previous comment that if you know how to compensate for drop, then the ML-7 will be better than the Striker. And yes, then the Decimator will be better than the ML-7. I'm not ignoring the disadvantages, i'm telling you that your argument about learning to compensate for drops is not a valid one.

Literally the only people who talk about this Lancer tactic as if its viable are the TR and NC players who have never used it. You have a window of 1.5s after the shot is fully charged, to get out, take aim, find your target and release. It is just not realistically viable.

So no. The Striker have 2x the realistic exposure time off the Lancer and it's not a problem. If you're trying to play peekabo, then both the Lancer and the Striker, and even the Phoenix are incorrect choices. Having a 1.5s exposure time does not warrant being better at everything else.

My point was that you can't seriously expect to go full-auto at a target 100m away, and to not miss shots which you clearly implied was not supposed to happen.

Omg why you keep saying that everywhere? It's just completely false, the time you can shot a full charged beam starts just after the animation of the Second charge ends and ends when the beam is forced to be fired, its like 4 secs. I just came home from work but gimme some time to sleep i'm gonna record it and post the vid in this very thread for gods sake.