So how does the striker feel after the patch?

In the Patch yesterday the followign changes were made to the the Striker:
·Striker changes
oADS COF recoil decreased from 0.2 to 0.1
oADS Standing COF decreased from 0.5 to 0.25
oADS crouch walking COF decreased from 1.0 to 0.5







And I was wondering if anyone who has used the striker more extensively after the buff think that these changes make a noticeable difference.

It's nice to be able to actually make use of the RoF, though it didn't make it an amazing option all of a sudden either.
Dunno, I like using it but it's still nowhere near the realm of the phoenix or lancer.

Teamwork with another striker to take down ESF's feels amazing watching them swoop then unload on them to watch them explode raining debris. Great stuff love it.

I really like it.
I didn't use striker after the nefr, but now it is really effective against attacking aircraft. I even think it is more effective than it was with the lock on. BUT if the said aircraft is just passing by not on attack strife, then grounder would be better

It's still trash.

The damage output per second is vastly lower than either the ML-7 or the Decimator against ground targets.

It still can't hit air targets because the seeking radius is way too low to be effective. Even if you had a stationary target in the air, if all six projectiles track and hit, congrats you've done about the same damage as an Annihilator but exposed yourself four times as long to do it with a longer fire/reload cycle.

Firing SIX BRIGHT RED FLARES is a big "shoot me" sing and the damage they do to anything is laughable.
Stick with the Annihilator for air, it does a better damage cycle, and stick with the ML-7 for dumbfire ground.

For ground targets further out? Get an Archer. It plinks vehicles like the Striker, but the shots will land consistently and without announcing "TR here shoot me".

Call me crazy: I like it. It is bad against infantry because of high exposure time and small aoe but it's an excellent aircraft deterrent without being OP. It's also nice against tanks I often disturb them by shooting 2-3 rockets.
And I also got some nice kills.

Its still a case of, Why would i use it. You will never get more than three rockets to hit, weak output and now you have the swarm its just redundant and when you compare it to the VS/NC you feel cheated.

It's still meh. I still have to crouch to be able to shoot for mid-long ranges.

it's better, but still it has nothing to compensate for being the worst launcher available versus max units, infantry and ground vehicles (at long distance due to CoF bloom and bullet drop, and close distance due to giganormous exposure time).
the striker could have a purpose only if G2A launchers weren't dumb-fireable or didn't exist.

Well I used it for 2 h and I find it effective enough.

The fact that the ES G2A & G2G lock ons can be dumbfired is a problem anyways.

If they made it so that ES G2A and G2G lockons could not dumbfire, then why would you use them over the NS Annihilator?

The ES G2G lock on has a faster velocity.

Technically the ES G2A lock on's velocity should be buffed to be the same as the ES G2G lock ons velocity.

That way if the dumbfire is removed the ES Lock ons have a advantage over the NS Annihilator.

So much hyperbole and BS, I'm getting sick of people spitting on the Striker because of it's historical inferiority. It's not that terrible now, indeed I'd argue that it does it's advertised job more than good enough.

First of all, if DPS is the only metric to decide what launcher is worth it, then only one launcher has value for AV, and only one has value for AA, and perhaps, PERHAPS, a third one for the versatility of both, like the Annie. Analyze all launchers for all their functions and judge based on the overall merit that those functions offer you.

Secondly, given it's ROF, COF (that just got improved, I've not tested the new changes but I use this with the OLD 6-missiles and track to air changes and liked it) and it's projectile velocity, this launcher is about as effective against air-targets at mid range (anything from point-blank to about 200-300 meters) as any other launcher, with the added benefit of being able to more reliably hit semi-stationary or fully stationary targets from 200 and outside of those 300 meters that dictate the limits of lock-ons, AND doing more damage per mag than any other anti-air focused launcher.

Meaning it's more potent outside that range, given the fact that even if you dumb-fire your Grounder, odds are greater you will hit with a full Striker mag due to the tracking inside of 25 meters - in other words, you can miss by a full 24 meter gap, and the missiles will still track the target and hit - a Grounder miss is a miss, and is a 100% loss of damage.

Thirdly, it takes about as long to aim and fire 6 rounds from a Striker as it does to aim, lock onto and fire on enemy aircraft with any other launcher - and that lock can be disrupted by LOS, broken by flares or delayed by stealth, giving the Striker an advantage at close AA duties like chasing away or killing enemy aircraft bombarding you.

Fourth, I already had an easier time launching Striker rounds on enemy armor at mid to long range in two bursts of 3 rockets, than I had landing a single other dumb-fire rocket. Striker rockets have a higher velocity AND less drop, and now they tightened the COF even more, making this job even easier.

Lastly, for the complaint that you have to hit 6 times to do slightly more damage than a single hit from a Grounder or ML-7, keep this factor in mind:

Some hits and some damage is better than no hits and no damage. With any other dumb-fire it's an all-or-nothing gamble. If you fire with the ML-7 or Grounder and miss, all you have done is give away your position with a nice thick smoke trail. If you fire and only get a few hits with the Striker, you have given away your position with bright red rockets, BUT actually scored some damage for your trouble.

Secondly, the Striker ignores flares and vehicle stealth for aircraft, if you get your rockets inside of 25 meters of your target you have hit that target, effectively making your target's hit-box extend to 25 meters in all directions for your AA pleasure.

Lastly, consider this: Enemy ESF's are bombarding your base. Two TR Heavies with Grounders work together to deal with them.

With two Grounder locks and hits on an ESF a sliver of health will remain, the pilot could pop flares and/or move out of the way when they noticed the lock.warning. A sliver of health is not much, but it's not a one-salvo kill.

Two Strikers firing in unison will not only laugh in the face of any flares or stealth builds, but it won't alert the enemy to the incoming damage until the ESF is literally taking that damage, and 12 rockets hitting is enough to bring an ESF from full health to zero heatlh in one mag-dump. This is a faster TTK than even a dual-Burster or SkyGuard, and it's free. The only TTK that beats it is hitting a said ESF with a Deci round. Those are extremely rewarding to pull off because they are very hard to make.

All in all this makes the Striker the superior mid-range AA launcher WITH good AT abilities thanks to the highly stable COF now, easily a competitor for the Grounder.

The only area the Striker sucks in is anti-MAX potency (because you have to hit several times when a Deci or ML-7 or whatever only have to hit once) and long-range AA/AT duties, but then all launchers suck in that area, Bursters and AV Turrets do that job better anyway.

The only time I'd take the Grounder is if I run around solo or if I don't know if I have any allies around that I can coordinate fire with for maximum effect, the Striker makes for a beastly launcher with a little team-work, and you won't ever see all your launchers rendered impotent all together due to one, little, flare.

If your going to complain, please bring some arguments next time.

Right now the main reason to use the ES G2G and G2A lockons over the NS Annihilator is their ability to be dumb fired which lets you engage targets that you would not be able to with the Annihilator and with out that I would be willing to bet that with out the ability to dumbfire anyone that already has the Annihilator would use it over the ES G2G and G2A lock ons even if they do have a faster velocity than the Annihilator.

Don't you find it abit silly that you can be killed by a G2A lock on RL inside a building, inside a bio-lab?

Sure it is a bit annoying when that happens, but I don't feel that it is a good enough reason to remove the dumbfire capability from the ES G2G and G2A lockons especially when their ability to dumbfire is the main reason to take them over the NS Annihilator.

If your dead set on having the dumbfire ability removed from the ES G2G and G2A lockons I would also suggest the get buffed in some way to set them apart from the NS Annihilator, perhaps decreasing the lockon range, decreasing the time it takes them to lockon, and making the missiles start seeking their targets after they have a certain distance like they do with the Swarm to give the ES G2G and G2A lockons more of a point defense role and leave the longer range engagements to the Ns Annihilator.

Your in SNA, the last floor and you died to a G2A lock on RL.

Just..... just let your mind process that.

Well first things first.

The G2A lock ons velocity should be increased to 115 m/s to be equal to the G2G lock ons velocity of 115 m/s.

I've been killed inside a bio lab by an NC heavy using the Hawk before so I'm aware of what that feels like, again that said I don't find that enough of an issue to remove the ability for ES G2G and G2A lockons to dumbfire.

Even after that velocity buff your going to need more than a 15 m/s faster velocity to make people want to use the ES G2G and G2A lockons over the NS Annihilator if they can't dumbfire.

Not a good feeling is it?

The faster velocity does help.