[Suggestion] Either reduce the strikers damage or make it an Ns weapon

Dear nerf-callers - There is also another thing I thought of.

You can basically stop priducing your tear-filled posts because striker is getting nerfed anyways (Like every other lock-on rocket launcher).

The real problem with Strikers is that in addition to doing the most damage of any lock on launcher, it's equally as effective vs ground and air.

The other factions are forced to pick a ground or air launcher or go with the noticably weaker dual purpose one. TR basically never have to switch the Striker out, meaning that they are 100 % effective vs whatever flies or drives their way without needing to find a terminal or buy another launcher. Add to that the ridiculous range.

I along with two friends trialed the Striker on my TR alt and spawned at a friendly vehicle push. We just camped the Vanu, and everytime one of their vehicles dared to pop out of cover we launched strikers at it from atop a hill. Even though we were pretty evenly numbered they just got whittled down by striker spam combined with friendly tanks. Scythe tries to fly in and kill the Strikers? Just fire at it - no need to switch out the weapon.

But the worst thing about the Strikers is perhaps how boring it is to use. I think I got kills on a Magrider and a few lightnings with basically no effort. Just find am ammo pack at safe distance and wait for the reticle to turn green. It's mindnumbingly boring and basically takes no skill.

I've only used a Striker lately after being shot down in a mossie by multiple Scythes using A2A pods. Running out there and harassing them with lock-ons seems appropriate.

Funny thing is everyone was calling the annihilator OP and it got nerfed. Now that only TR have something even better than the annihilator was before the nerf they say it's fine and everyone else is calling for a nerf.

One striker will not down an ESF. It's the mass use of it that causes complaints. It's the distinct several rockets firing from one position that draws the attention to the weapon.

One clip from a Striker does not down an ESF, fly away. If you've smartly certed in flares, flare.

The reason people cry for the nerf is because there is a term, at least on Woodman; "Striker Squad". Everyone in the platoon that has one, grabs one. Firing in concentration, hundreds of rockets will scare away ESFs/Tanks regardless if they are the target or not. It's a deterrent, no smart minded pilot is going to fly near that nest of G2A after seeing that display.

If anything, I find your statement that the argument is ridiculous, as you said; cringe worthy.

Thanks for backing up my point that weapons en-mass are powerful, which is when the striker is used the most.

Why?

No it doesn't back up your point at all, in fact you're contradicting yourself.

Well done for stating the obvious that all weapons are more people when used as a group, so then, WHY is the striker singled out? After all, ALL weapons are powerful in a group.

What's more powerful. One annhiliator or one striker? One striker.

What's more powerful. A group of annhiliators, or a group of strikers? Group of strikers.

And what exactly do you think the reason is that "everyone in the group grabs one" why does "everyone" have one? I guess everyone just bought them because it's bad.

But sure, you can use your argument that an ESF can flare, and fly away. Oh, right, just like with a regular lock on. So why are you even trying to use it as an argument? Now, one guy with a striker locks on, ESF flares and flies away....And now there's another guy a large distance away, locks on, and hits. Now reverse the roles with an annhiliator. Strikers once again, come out on top.

It's an absolute ridiculous argument since you're trying to defend the striker as though it's bad points are limited to the striker. They are not. Whatever scenario you use for the striker or another G2A, solo, as a group, a couple guys spread across the map...whatever, the striker comes out on top.

Do I think the striker needs to be nerfed? Don't care either way, but trying to defend the striker in that manner is, as said, cringe worthy.

Comparing a common pool rocket launcher is a bit of a narrow minded view, considering it is for use by all factions, it has to be versatile in other ways. I personally choose the grounder/annihilator so that I can fire my rocket quickly and move on, whereas I don't have to stand around with the striker waiting for all the rockets to launch. If you happen to run into a big group of them, you're as dead as you are with a group of strikers.

If you run into another ball of G2A rockets after avoiding the first, that's bad luck and it's part of the game. If you fly around expecting to avoid anti air measures then that's plain stupid, therefore your point is mute. I've had plenty of scenarios the exact same as this in my mossie, with Vanu G2A squads.

Defending the striker in this way is perfectly valid, as that's how they are commonly used except for the odd randy using it on his own accord. It's used this way the most because it's effective. The reason you notice the striker so much more is that people tend to use it more than an NS weapon or different variant of rocket launcher, as it's a faction specific also fires pretty red rockets, of which you notice a hell of a lot more than the traditional rockets.

No, the problem with the Striker is that it's exactly the opposite of what you wrote. The problem is, a single Striker is pretty much a hard counter to an ESF which by itself is just ridiculous.

Sure change it so there is no practical difference between it and the annihilator, and then remove the Phoenix guidance system resulting it being a dumbfire, and while we are at it, reduce the travel speed of the Lancer rounds to make it more like what we TR have (dumbfires again).
You do realize that if your change went through there would be no reason to use the Striker since it takes quite a bit longer to lock on and fire you missiles leaving you more exposed.

I see the same thing happening when I’m in my Prowler, but I’m playing TR. I guess that means that either my opponents have somehow stolen Strikers (or the Striker lock on tech) or that other Launchers produce the same visual effect (mostly due to lag) and have been for as long as I can remember (In PS2 time that is). You chose.

Yet somehow I still encounter plenty of enemy vehicles without smoke that aren’t being instagibbed by the Striker everywhere I go. Are they utilizing something previously unheard of?
Oh, and when you are being “swarmed” by harassers, are you all alone? If so, a harasser swarm with Basilisks would do you in just as fine. If you aren’t all alone and you are actually sticking with friendly support, they can be focused down a lot easier than the Saron/Enforcer/Halberd variants due to them naturally seeking closer encounters to take advantage of the Vulcan.

You can't make that exact comparison, since the times have changed, so to speak. Back when the Anni was considered OP it was being compared to the other lock-ons of the time. The Striker should NOT be compared or balanced to be of equivalent power as the regular lock-ons, since it is an ESRL. If it was nerfed to Anni status, we would need a new weapon introduced as an ESRL, plain and simple.

This isn't necessarily a defense, more of a clarification as I dislike seeing improper comparisons being performed to support an argument that they actually don't. If you want to get into specific ESRL-balance that's fine, and is a whole other story than what most people are doing.. I would agree that the Phoenix is the lackluster one of the 3, with the other 2 definitely having their individual uses and ups/downs.

Edit: I've somehow managed to change the font without even noticing it before re-reading my post. My apologies and it won't happen again!
2nd edit: And now the quotes are also out of line, how the frick did I manage to do this?

You people are the reason I still use the striker.
http://imgur.com/r/animenocontext/YeZOU

Yea i kinda get the more exposed = more dmg of the striker, but its ridiculous that the striker does around 50% more dmg then an anni, while the anni still takes an age to log-on and only got 5 missiles.

The striker and anni needs to be brought closer together, so they both can kill an ESF in 2 "shots/salvoes". Lets not forget that the striker is better when fighting against smoke/flares since you wont lose as much dmg potential if the guy flares as soon as the missile is in the air.

An anni doing 90% of the dmg of 5 striker missiles will still make the striker the more potent weapon, but now balanced because of the current drawbacks. Tankers wont feel that big of a difference amd libs needs an amour buff against lock-ons.

Before they nerf it they just need to work the glitches out.

Example: I was locked onto a tank and it ducked behind a mountain. I was still able to fire five rockets even though it was behind a mountain. The rockets went up and over.

Do not nerf striker until the glitchiness with it is worked out.

If it only did 90% of the damage there wouldn't be much reason to use it still. Keep it mind it actually has a counter, that experienced people can use, unlike the Lancer for example. The importance of striking without warning is huge with coordination. We would have a slightly stronger Annih that we could use against people not wanting to employ countermeasures NOR play by the fact that they haven't equipped said countermeasures and thus stay closer to cover. In effect, we would get a noob-killing weapon. Before you (or someone else for that matter, as someone almost always does) say that the Striker goes through flares: Until SoE officially states that flares/smoke shouldn't effect the Striker, I refuse to include it in potential balance discussions.
Also, I dislike comparing the Striker to the Annih, as it should be compared to the other ESRL's. That they don't have similar utility is a story for another thread

Sure I am willing to nerf the striker if they heavily nerf or remove the ZOE.

just reduce it's damage. neutral weapons take away from the game.

and besides. if they just made it neutral then everyone would be spamming it instead of just TR.

This is not true. I spend the majority of my time using A2Am and only hunting aircraft, yet I constantly get killed by ground lock ons. They are litterally impossible to avoid on Southern Indar (they still lock at flight ceiling) and if you want to kill lolpodders as an ESF you must drop altitude to within HA lock on range to engage... Strikers are just the most obnoxious, but I constantly lose fights due to them when I haven't even looked at the ground - even more frustrating is the fact often times they force you to engage because you think it's an A2Am that you can't run from, but then you're stuck dead in the water trying to fight a mossy as the ground pounding striker users derp you from the sky.

I'm willing to bet more A2A focused ESFs (esfs who load A2Am or AB tanks) get shot down by HA G2A lock ons then rocket podders. I know I get killed by ground lock ons a lot less when I load rocket pods.

Come play on Connery... Play as TR... The only time I see the striker be a hard counter to air is when EXE does their Drunk Division Warpgate camping from time to time.

BUT, at the same time, I see VS and NC air pilots, the SMARTER one, seem to counter the Striker and Burster camps a fair deal of the time running them over, blasting them with shots, and not exactly stopping their air as well. So... the idea of it being a 'hard counter' is subjective to the types of pilots and their handling of the situation. If you can't deal with it, it suggests more the problem with how you are dealing with the problem than the problem itself.