Constructive Feed back for the Striker

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Borsty, Oct 2, 2014.

  1. siiix

    It was not OP , just so many people used it that when you where in the air and you see 75 projectiles locked on to you , you know you will be dead, if people use other lockons in that quantity it would have the same effect

    they could have matched the damage from 1500 (thats combined all 5) to what ever other lock on have , i think 1350 .. that 150 extra damage does not make the stricker OP
  2. Flag

    It dealt twice the damage of the comparable Annihilator.
    And no, it didn't take longer to get all the striker missiles airborne than the single Annihilator one.
    (if you need a refresher, the striker began firing after 2.25 seconds, the Annihilator after 3).

    So no, the striker was undeniably OP.
  3. Zotamedu

    I agree with all of it. They completely messed up the risk reward mechanic for the Striker. Now it's high risk and no reward. I've been wondering what would happen if they just straight up doubled the damage per rocket and removed the air lock on. That way you could kill infnatry by unloading everyhing at him, giving you the worst DPS against infantry in the entire game but still giving you a chance. As for the lock on, they can flat out remove it and make life much easier for themselves. It's useless and will continue useless unless they give it an insane lock on range and then they will have a pain to balance damage. So they can save themselves a lot of work by just removing that feature completely.
  4. Ztiller

    Even without the bugs it was a massive, direct upgrade from the Annihilator.
  5. MasterDk78

    Free to play. Your way.®
    Our philosophy is simple. Free games. No commitment. And if you want to buy, it's on your terms.

    this statement was copied directly from soe main page.
    take a moment to think about these words as you think about your striker you bought before the total revamp...
  6. Mxiter

    It was a too heavy upgrade i agree.

    -lancer is a straight upgrate to the G2G launcher (Hades?)
    -Phoenix is a mix between the hades and the deciamtor.

    Both are straight upgrades than others ranged launchers at AV/Anti maxes roles.

    TLDR: ESRL are way better than others launchers.
    • Up x 1
  7. Ztiller

    No, it's not. The Lancer requires a chargeup time to deal the same amount of damage that a Hades can immediately dish out by dumbfiring. At Close range, the Hades is far better than the Lancer. The Hades is also much more reliable to hitting fast-moving targets like Harrassers and Flashes. They are both bebtter and worse at different things.

    Phoenix requires the user to stand completely still, have the lowest velocity in the entire game and can be shot down.

    The first Striker did everything the Annihilator did, just better in every single way without any tradeoff.
    • Up x 1
  8. gartho33

    so.. standing in plain sight for a slightly reduced duration for the first lock-on and then remaining in plain sight for the duration of a mag dump was not enough of a trade off? you do realize that one was exposed for 7+ seconds and inherently had tunnel vision when using this right?
  9. BaldGibbon

    Highly disappointing to see iconic or faction unique weapons being messed about like this.

    Yes I had purchased this a fair while ago, and yes I am seriously not impressed that my purchase has been changed to such a degree that apart from trying the new Striker for 10 minutes and recoiling in absolute horror at it crapness....I have decided to never, ever, use it again.

    Maybe its just a mistake and got released 2 months early, and was really meant to be an all faction snow-ball launcher?
  10. Ztiller

    Tunnel vision to what threat? Nothing could even get close to TR territory during the Striker days. Pilots gave up flying alltogether and the Scythe and Reaver got butchered so hard that SOE nerfed the Mosquito.
  11. Flag

    Ah, but you forget the AI on those missiles back then was very, no hilariously overpowered.
    LOS broken? No problem, fire anyway and in 99/100 cases of broken LOS (which doesn't include all the times when LOS wasn't broken the missiles would find their way to the target.
    Meaning that after the 2.25 seconds it took to establish the lock, the full damage was almost guaranteed.

    It was very broken, and overpowered.
  12. gartho33

    yes it did need a nerf from its first introduction to the game... but that is beside the point that the "down side" was "continued exposure" to threat. And yes there was a threat.. infantry are still a part of this game, and one of my favorite things to do during that time was find a striker nest on the other end of my 12X scope.

    wile i do acknowledged that your point is true (if only for vehicles), their is still a risk in using this weapon, one (that i will point out) is still prevalent in this remake.
  13. Movoza

    I haven't read the thread. I'm a NC only guy, and I have to say that the striker nerf has gone too far. I'm not sure if it needed change from the start, as normally I would not see much strikers. They did good damage and I tried to stay away or kill them quickly. Now when I meet them (in a tank), they do nearly no damage per rocket and miss several of them. They seem better off with a stock rocket launcher with a 7 second reload. I haven't met the striker in the air yet, but I suspect that dumb-fire from their anti-air launcher has done more damage than the striker since the change.
    Buff the thing a bit.
  14. SpectreGhostWTR

    i'd like to ask you a question, so i can decide if i should take you serious or not:

    how many threads about ZOE being horribly OP did you create before ZOE went from PTS to live and until it got nerfed?
  15. gartho33

    what does that have to do with the striker? how is this relevant to his opinion on the striker?
  16. Mxiter

    the hades needs to lock =the lancer needs to charge.
    The hades can dumbfire = the lancer can fire without charging.

    Ok for inside building anti max duty: the hades won.

    It's easyer to hit fast moving stuffs with the lancer: you only need to get it 0.5 sec in LOS.
    You needs to get a lock to use the hades on fast moving stuffs wich often move behind rocks, hills, trees ect.

    Don't needing LOS to hit a target at 300m is a drawback??
    A lock on user is almost still too during few seconds and have to face snipers, tanks and some infantries.

    We never saw the fire and forget striker without bugs (it was always going throught flares, terrain and others stuffs).
    It was buggy from the first day and was only fixed when they nerfed it when the user needed to hold the target on aim.

    Hard to makes an clear opignion when something don't works as intended.

    If they fixed those bugs, it would be much easier and less fustrating for everybody to balance the striker.

    Now we have a different weapons wich sucks more than any weapon ever had.

    If only it coulded be a soulder mounted fracture with 5 rockets, a bit less COF, slightly higher velocity wich would dealing 50% less damages to infantries, everybody would be happy.
  17. Ztiller

    Yes, but a Hades without lock still deals as much damage as a hades with lock. The same can not be said about the Lancer, who needs to charge up and then fire within a set time-window for that to happen.

    No, not really. The Lancer is not nearly as easy to hit with as people make it out to be. I use my Annihilator when faced with Harrassers and Lightnings within the 300m range. That 0.5s in LoS doesn't apply due to the chargeup delay and the timewindow. Once you get a good LoS with the Lancer, you need to already have the shot charged to make use of it, wheres the Hades can fir as soon as it gets a lock and aim indefinitely. You really have never used the Lancer if you think that the Lancer is some sort of good-vs-everything, always weapon. That's what people who only look at the paper values think.

    Why are the forums so completely flooded with people who talk about weapons that they have never used? My main occupation right now is to lead Lancer squads on Cobalt. I know exactly what the Lancer is good for, and when i'm setting ourselves up for failure by trying to gather one. More often than not, i find myself unable to find a suitable combat scenario for the Lancer.

    No, not needing LoS is also the primary advantage of the Phoenix. I never said it was a drawback, what are you talking about?

    A Lockon user CAN move and would be a fool not to. A Phoenix user is physically incapable of moving.

    The Striker was better than the Annihilator in every single statistic. It had better range, lockon time and damage output. It wouldnt have been balanced even if it wasn't broken.

    If that's the worst weapon you've ever had, consider yourselves lucky. Just look at the embarrassingly bad Spiker and ZOE that the VS have, or what the Lancer, Cerberus and Vortex used to be on release

    The Striker is getting there. SOE is going to buff it, just like everybody who had half a brain knew they would. It's just a bunch of people who don't have the patience or are too spoiled to wait 2 weeks to get a properly balanced weapon, complaining on the forums.
  18. SpectreGhostWTR

    current live complaints are the same complaints it got from PTS before the release. nothing new actually. as most PTS testers said before: hitting stuff with it is the main problem, the low actual damage output (note: not TTK) is the other problem and was also mentioned before release.
  19. gartho33

    while I agree with this... I can't blame them for wanting to get a larger pool of opinions on the matter.. after all... those of us who do participate (in however small a portion) in PTS don't quite reflect all of the opinions out there. not to mention many of us can be quite opinionated.

    it just so happened that this time around, both opinions line up across the board. witch is not always the case.
  20. Konstantinn

    Striker is pretty useless at this point, only thing I killed so far is an unoccupied enemy flash.

    Tanks literally ignore striker, where as I can usually make them run for repair with any other launcher in same situation.

    I can't seem to hit air with more than 1-2 rounds per clip if lucky, which translates to very negligible damage.

    Going up against Max with striker is suicide. You won't kill Max even if you hit him 5 times. In the time it takes to hit him 5 times then reload, alert Max can kill you several times over quite easily. Striker simply doesn't have the advantage of firing off at a max, hide behind corner, reload, and hit with another finishing rocket since it requires you to stay exposed much longer.

    Overall, Striker is worse than it was before. It doesn't do well against any of the 3 primary targets for launchers (armor, air, max). It's usefulness is comparable to explosive bolt crossbow against these targets. It's completely useless against infantry.

    It is not a unique weapon, it's simple dumbfire with a negligible tracking component for air. There are 2 other dumbfire launchers in game already. Before, it was pretty much a slightly worse version of annihilator.

    I'd suggest allow it to track like it did before, lock on air or ground. Leave dumbfire component as is, maybe slight damage increase. That way it would be unique in that it would be the only weapon in game that can lockon on anything and dumbfire at same time, with drawback of more exposure time, inferior damage, and having to keep locked on as your missiles are flying (instead of fire and forget).