[PSA] Striker changes from last nights Higby Pls

TBH it's silly for this to have the same dps as a lancer (or LESS in some cases) when its shots fire at no where near the speed.

All rockets hitting should do more per clip then lancer versus ground targets, period. Not asking for the world. Asking for 20%-25% more damage then something much easier to use...if all rockets hit. The damage versus air is fine as is tbh...the problem when targetting air is the scope. (Dmg between ground and air vechicles could be dealt with via resistances I'd think)

If scope was "open-scope" you could LEAD your targets correctly. In its current incarnation the scope does not allow for enough view to lead air when your shot travels 180 m/s, making the coyote portion nearly useless for actual application. You have to scope this weapon...hip fire is horrible due to COF and rocket speed.

Oddly enough Higby on twitter commented that he thinks the current PTS striker might be too powerful.....I'm not sure how he came to that conclusion since it's a far far slower Lancer with the same DPS if you can actually hit.

But this basically seems like they are being extremely cautious if they think the PTS striker is too good.

I would trust Higbys opinion over any players opinion when it comes to Balance. Especially given some of the suggestions ttat have been proposed here.

Do i agree with him? No. But i still trust him to know far more than i do.

Higby is a nice guy but trusting him unconditionally on balance is pointless. After all we've ended up with the ZOE, original striker, marauder, Vulcan, NC nothing but shotguns etc etc while he's been around.

As is the Striker is a lancer versus VR targets and worse than a lancer against anything that moves. I understand waiting to buff it. But this is the same guy who said MBT's would take an AOE nerf so that AV could also be nerfed. Instead we now have self propelled nerf spam which isn't satisfying for the tanker or the infantry.

As is the striker is an inferior Lancer and is likely to remain so if we trust the devs like we have in the past.

I don't trust him unconditionally. I just trust him above the average player who thinks that the Striker would be totally balanced with 2x the DPS of a decimator.

The Striker is, from my understanding, primarily intended to be an Anti Air launcher. It never will, and never should be as good as the Lancer against ground. That is the price you pay for having a lockon mechanic, or a Video guiding mechanic like the Phoenix.

The Striker should be better against air, and right now it pretty much is. Not enough, but still better.

And if we trust the TR players on balance, then every single VS and NC tank will be wiped from the face of the game and cease playing the game altogether out of frustration.

I'd rather have the Striker released UP and then buffed, than have it released so OP that it makes the first ZOE seem balanced.

And you've made multiple flawed assumptions. First you took random player suggestions as gospel and try to use those to halt any striker discussion.


Second. If the striker were primarily anti air why would it not have its velocity significantly buffed and it's ground damage nerfed? Or it's homing effect buffed to make it easier to hit moving targets? As is its dual purpose and mediocre at both. If it's primary purpose was AA they could and would have done a number of other things than buff velocity by 30m/s.

It is being modeled between the Fracture and the coyote. Even Higby suggested a magazine increase, RoF buff etc etc making it more like a Fracture. At the moment it's got the strengths of neither. Nor even the DPS or velocity to warrant its dumbfire mode vs afk targets.



If your only rationale is someone suggested something foolish and your own assumption that it's primarily an AA weapon. Then your posts are merit less.

People will be concerned about an uber striker until it goes live. Then you will have threads saying is OP and UP depending on their perspective.

As long as its not a straight upgrade to the dumb fire, which I have seen people ask for, its ok. Higby already addressed my biggest concern in its AI capabilities. Ideally its DPS should be similar to the default if not slightly lower if it has really high velocity or not.

If it had either just slightly less, the same or slightly more ground DPS than dumbfire (depending on if you think hard to hit multi shot weapons deserve a slight DPS edge) this conversation wouldn't be happening. People are comparing it to the Lancer since it has similar TTK with none of the benefits or ease of use.

So we can agree on that aspect.

I have not tried to halt any discussion. I've tried to make it reasonable and tried to get people to understand just how unbalanced some of their suggestions would be. Opposing an idea is not trying to halt a discussion.

I'm making the assumption based on how its special trait only applies to air. It doesn't need lower damage against ground and it already have the second highest RL velocity in the whole game.

Yeah. Higby said that it MAYBE would need that, IF it needed it.

"Strengths of neither"

Of course it will not have the strnegths of neither. You cant have a Striker with the strength of a Fracvture who ALSO locks onto aircraft. IT will, and should alwayas be worse than the dedicated counterparts.

Strength of a fracture? What strength? It is the worst AV max weapon by far.

It does not do its damn job at all.

You still seem hinged on that 1/3 of the SLOWEST speed a lancer can do = "2nd place".
More like booby prize.

No one is gonna use the thing if you get the same DPS IF you have to land 5 shots instead of just using a grounder for one. This is why it needs more dps then current dumbfires. Why aim 5 times when I can just hit once.

Right now we are still at square one. Current PTS striker < Grounder is as Currnet live striker < Annihilator.

Do you REALLY think getting to dumbfire 2 tickle-rockets of 5 before the air moves is worth losing the lock fear factor, which makes people bug out more often even if they run flares? Versus ground the PTS striker also still has the problems of the live striker.....sit in sight of a 1-shot vehicle for an hour to unload. In live half the rockets don't hit. In PTS the rockets hitting are so laughably weak no one cares. I dare anyone to try using a PTS striker vs anything with a PPA lol

Dear lord, Higby actually has no intention of buffing the Striker before it hits live:
https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/512673641020928000

He thinks it could be overpowered in its current state when compared to a Lancer or Phoenix. That is so laughable. It's almost like he doesn't read the forums (oh wait). Even Ztiller thinks the Striker is slightly underpowered after the 180 m/s buff.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/2gn4jn/new_striker_gameplay_test_and_drop_with_180_ms/

We can only hope that their pages of Excel spreadsheet data somehow prove that the Striker's SPH or KPH is significantly lower than a Phoenix or Lancer after it hits Live.

You have repeatedly taken out of context/out of conversation statements like someone suggesting decimator level damage and keep dragging it back into any conversation about the Striker Revamp. You do so for no valid reason other than to try to frame the balance conversation as if people are being unreasonable with any further suggestions. So yes. Stop doing irrelevant things like that.


It's special trait only applies to air... that's nice and how does that make it AA only? What in that statement means it is ONLY supposed to be decent versus air? The Lancer has no lock on ability for aircraft.... so apparently it's not supposed to be decent versus Galaxies and Liberators. The Phoenix is Camera guided... therefore it shouldn't do so much damage to ESF's. That's what follows from using your line of logic. It's not applicable unless the Devs themselves say they are tuning it as an AA launcher. Which if anything they have shown not to be.

Higby said IF it would need it. And this is Higby who thinks the current revamped Striker is good. Despite even you saying it's too weak right now. So you have no point here. Higby is more than likely very cautious since past stuff that I've listed above has bitten us all in the butt. That doesn't mean a thing in regards to current balance.

"Of course it will not have the strengths of neither. You cant have a Striker with the strength of a Fracture who ALSO locks onto aircraft. IT will, and should always be worse than the dedicated counterparts." Your personal opinion and nothing more.

The Lancer shouldn't be able to fire past render range or at 600+ m/s .... it does. The Phoenix shouldn't be able to fire around cover or at least with nearly the damage it has..... it does. A dumbfire that has limited Aircraft homing is FAR from the worst balanced idea this game has had and your opinion does not invalidate it as an option. If anything it is a unique and unfilled role at the moment sort of like the Lancer and Phoenix.... Funny that...

Wow. More powerful then a camera guided low risk missle or near instant out-of-render AV weapon?

That is just plain hilarious....there are no other words.

The thought process just does NOT compute.


Oh well. Let it hit live. It will be a novelty for a couple days...even I will probably dust off the striker for the giggles, then ti goes back in the trash more then likely for 90% of the tr playerbase.

I have taken nothing out of context. The people asking for Decimator damage profiles have even supported it when i explained it to them. Some says that because it can't snipe vehicles like the Lancer, it somehow deserves to take 50% of a Vanguards HP in one clip.

I never said it was AA only, that is a blatant lie from you. I said it was PRIMARILY Anti Air. Just like the Grounder is PRIMARILY Anti Air. The Lancer isn't decent against Galaxies and Liberators. A fully charged shot deals almost no damage whatsoever.

The Phoenix and Lancer can deal the damage they do against air, because of how hard it is to hit air targets with them. The Decimator can also OHK ESFs and still be balanced, because it's so hard to hit them with it, even if it's PRIMARILY an Anti-Ground weapon.

They haven't said anything about it, and you're speculating just as much as i am when you ask the Striker to be good against literally everything with no downsides.

Yeah. And i trust Higby to buff the Striker if it needs it. Yeah, my opinion is that it's too weak. But i am not a dev and i don't know what they have planned for it. Neither do you. Higby is the one who knows, and therefor his opinion is worth more than yours or mine.

You can call it a personal opinion, but it's really basic logic and rational thinking. The fact that you even disagree with me on that point, the point that a weapon shouldn't be a straight upgrade to another one, proves what i have said before that the regular player should not be in charge of balance. You are asking for a straight upgrade.

The Lancer is balanced and so is the Phoenix. The Striker is still under development, and based this discussion i've concluded that this discussion is pointless and i will not answer you any more. You are asking for a straight upgrade and overpowered weapon. I trust Higby to properly balance the Striker and not make it overpowered and that's good enough for me.

Thread Locked. -04

Or is it?

Why did this thread get locked?

And why isn't it?

Well I'd say it's been unlocked since SOE realized the Striker is still in need of discussion and further balance. Good of them really.

But certainly it could still use some small buffs to it's TTK. Probably a magazine bump to ->6 and RPM increase could push it along nicely.

Yes, Larger mag, auto, less recoil and veloccity buffs.

On another note, to stop teh PPA from being a beast at range too, how about we nerf the velocity a small bit (like 50 or 70 less)?