[Suggestion] Striker needs more tuning

Hello everyone,

so I tried the Striker after the 23.07 patch and was hoping for a good ESL for TR. I have to say, that I'm still disapointed with Striker.

The damage buff to the Striker is ok'ish, but not really noticeable. The acceleration buffs seems more noticeable. But both don't make the Striker a worthwhile weapon. The coyote mechanics make it still hard to hit an fast moving/evading aircraft. It can be used against Galaxies and slow moving Libs - a lock on is of course still way more effective. The time I need to fire all the rockets and expose myself against tanks/harrassers are better spent with a lock on launcher, which may take 1 second longer to aquire, but my rocket will nearly hit 100%.

In my oppinion the Striker is so specific, thats its almost not worth using. What I mean:

I mostly run the Grounder (TR launcher that locks on aircraft and can be dumbfired), if I'm outside. I can defend myself against aircraft and in a pinch can fire on Max-units and vehicles. I only switch to the Annihilator if I am against Magriders, because TR hasn't the long range AV options and the Grounder can't reliable hit a dancing Mag at 60+ meters.

(That Fractures are also more or less worthless doesn't help either).

If I'm inside (Biolab), I will use a Decimator, because it does more damage to MAX-units.

So when would one use the Striker? Not inside buildings: Before you fire all your rockets you are dead against MAXes or other infanterie. Outside it is ok against vehicles - but as I explained the exposure time could be used on a lock on launcher more effectivly.



What can be done about it? Right now I don't see a reason to use the Striker.

a) Perhaps buff the damage a bit more, that the disadvantages: Cof-bloom, long exposure time, semi-bad AA are
outweight with the reward of higher damage. I'm aware, that the Striker right now does more damage than the
average other launcher - but I just think its not enough.

b) Improve the coyote mechanics, that the rockets lock on aircraft better/further away Right now the Striker is only
effectiveagainst hovering/slow moving aircraft.

c) Reduce the Cof-bloom, that the rockets can be fired faster - that reduces exposure time.

Hi CaptAmazing,

The striker right now has a hybrid role.

• CQC AV: It has significantly higher alpha damage than the decimator if you land all of your hits (which is pretty easy at close range). If you ambush a tank from behind with 6 rockets, you can quickly cut its HP by ~45%.
• AA: I've been using the striker almost exclusively since the initial dev forum on the striker opened and I've gotten used to leading air sufficiently that I can hit an ESF with about 50% of my rockets at ~300m assuming they're traveling in a straight line and not actively evading fire. The increase to acceleration and velocity has made this even easier.

The problem is the TR need a long range option for AV that doesn't rely on locks. Instead, we got a Decimator replacement with some AA capacity.

Do not try to use the striker for long range AV; you will have a bad time.

The problem with CQB Striker is that you expose yourself for the entire clip, where as with the deci its only for a spit second.
And if you have to land all your shots, you have to ads making things worse.
In CQB its certain death. With the Deci its not.

Very fun AA weapon though. Seems the best option for grinding HA Air Deterrence.

Only thing i wish for the striker is that it had a Baron style'd shotgun reload system.

Or maybe make the reload faster based on how many rockets were left in the mag.
For example:
0/6 normal reload.
1/6 +5% faster
2/6 +10% faster
3/6 +15% faster
4/6 +20% faster
5/6 +25% faster
Also tweak the base reload speed so that its balanced.
I think it would make it more fun and exciting.

I think you are right with analysis - I think thats the supposed role of the Striker.

But still other Launchers are better (have fewer downsides): The Striker CQC AV damage potential may be higher (I don't have the numbers, but in my opinion its not very significant more) - but so is the exposure time.

You said it yourself: You hit around 50% of your rockets on a straight line flying aircraft - and you are an experienced user! I think thats a pretty bad result (it doesn't say anything about your abilities, but the effectivness of the Striker). A TR player is better of with the Grounder against air.

So the only advantage the Striker has, is the higher damage in CQC AV - with the higher risk. A Decimator would be more balanced in this situation. Especially if the TR-problem is longe range AV, the Striker is not worth using

It may need more buffs, or to be tinkered with, but personally I wouldn't do anything at all for a few weeks to see how it performs statistically - remember there where plenty of people that "felt" the Striker 1.0 was "fine".

The prior Striker 2.0 was only really needing a small AV buff to be on-par with Lancer and Pheonixes performance over all.



I wouldn't buff Striker AA though, it is already the best non-MAX weapon for killing close range A2G ESFs, and buffing it long-range would just make it better than the Lock-ons which heads down the road of the Striker 1.0.

You can't really balance like that though, because if you do then things like the Phoenix only advantage is you can fire from cover as it is subpar in every other way......... but, of course, the Pheonix can't really be balanced like that.

Or to put it Striker-wise you cannot have it, for example, equalling a Deci in CQB and retaining longer distance use (and AA use), because it then becomes a use-all/do-all weapon (which again leads back the Striker 1.0), which none of the ESRL are.

Out of the 3 ESRL's two of them share the common trait of long ranged accuracy but the Striker does not. That is the biggest issue that it has

Equally though Pheonix and Lancers have little AA ability, or indeed try using the Phoenix while moving or in a remotely exposed place. That's not to say that the Striker shouldn't have long range AV ability.

Just that the problem with the Striker 1.0 was that you took it and it cleared (when taken by a decent % of the population) the Air and Ground of enemy vehicles, and it became a ridculous force multiplier to the point it bascially broke the game.

Looking at ESRL now (or up until the recent Striker buffs anyway) the performance is/was:

Lancer: good AV, poor AA, poor AI
Pheonix decent AV, poor AA, decent AI
Striker ok/decent AV, decent AA, poor AI (the Striker did and maybe still does need a small AV buff however)

People seem to be wanting (or heading to wanting) the Striker 1.0 back - that can never happen.

Need to remove the CoF completely at least. possibly give it a weaker coyote mechanic then it has on air against ground vehicles one of those two would improve it in the range department.

I used the new Striker last night and was pleasantly surprised at the difference. The increased rocket projectile speed was very noticeable, both visually and in the increased number of hits I was getting on aircraft at closer ranges. I took out two aircraft (one esf and one Valk) in quick succesion which is more than I have learned to expect...........but two battles don't make for a statistically robust sample. Give it time.This double XP weekend should see a few more concentrated opportunities to try it out a bit more

Lancer was hardly poor at AA with that projectile velocity

Although the Striker does a tiny bit more damage than the Deci now, I'd still rather a Deci for the simple reason of DPS.
If I see a MAX/MBT I can shoot it in the face and do a instant 1100 damage and reload in safety..
With the Striker, I have to be infront of the MAX/MBT and remaining in the firing line for more than 5 seconds, it's slash damage isn't even great..

Good against MAGs though trying to do the whole spawning thing by peaking over or around hills..

But all in all, I'd still prefer to have a Long Range AV weapon TR desperately needs..

Wire guided rockets or rocket machine gun with awesome high speed and firerate, 30 minirockets clip and no recoil. This whole thing about Striker is laughable, us TRs are without special RL, thus disadvantaged.

After using the Striker considerably yesterday, while I appreciate the acceleration and velocity buff, the Striker really was not made any more usable.

Its biggest problem is the exposure time. That launcher needs to fire off the rockets as if it were a machine gun. Any user consistently trying to land shots on a target (which is required to get the same alpha as a normal RL) will have to stand there for 2-3 seconds exposed. Granted, it has decent AA capabilities - but lets be honest, the coyote mechanic rarely works to your advantage. You have to practically skim a rocket off the hull of the ESF or other aircraft in order to get it to lock properly.

In all honesty, I can't judge the damage profile because I can't accurately land all of the shots on target. But thats really besides the point. The fact is, the weapon is just NOT fun to use. There aren't any really flashy effects associated with it. You fire off 6 red pinpricks that tickle the target. Even the hit-detection symbol is the tiny little X for each rocket. It doesn't feel like you are doing anything! Thats a problem, especially when ESRLs are supposed to excel at a particular trait. VS get range, NC get control, we get...CQC/AA? I would argue against the CQC capabilities because the COF is still ridiculous. As far as AA goes, you won't hit anything reliably unless it is hovering less than 50m from your location. Thats a very small window of opportunity. At least with VS, I can blast tanks incredibly far away with a freaking laser. Or with NC I can tele-operate my missile to guarantee a hit almost every single time. I'm not even arguing about the damages. Its just a fact that the Striker does not fulfill its niche as well as the others do.

It needs less COF(which dooms the weapon).

Yes, the exposure time is a downside. But that's the price you pay for having the highest vehicle alpha in the game. Personally, I wait until the tanker shoots at something else before opening fire or if I can see that he's got a bad case of tunnel vision. This gives me enough time to empty my 6 round mag.

Currently, it takes 13 rockets to kill an MBT when shooting at rear armor. That means a 6 rocket salvo does 6/13 (46%) damage. That's ~10% more damage than the Decimator (or a 10/36 (27.7%) increase in alpha damage). That's significant.

So, the TR now have options for CQC AV. Either go the Decimator for quick peaks or the Striker for unparalleled damage output.

Personally, I would have preferred DGC to significantly reduce CoF and also reduce damage so that the gun was more skill and less RNG based. But I guess that encroached too much on the Lancers' style.

alpha damage is what you get from the start, not after 2.4 seconds (the time a striker empties its mag)

and if we take as correct the ingame stats and scrap out the dead time between a fire and the reload, a deci can fire three rockets in 5.7+5.7 = 11.4 seconds, while a striker fires 13 rockets in 2.4+4+2.4+4 = 12.8 seconds

so, even at close range and even connecting all the rockets you stay exposed longer and do less damage (13 striker rockets do way less damage than 3 deci's rockets).

you can see the problem with the weapon concept here. the striker trades its dps, anti-infantry, anti-max and long range power for that semi-useless coyote mechanic vs air vehicles.

Eh.... I've used it for plinking ranged targets and this was before the velocity and dmg buff.

It was defintely lack luster, but I was able to reliably hit tanks with 3-5 rounds of the 6 round magazine with .5 sec delay between shots at ranges I'd be incredibly lucky to land a default dumbfire (200m+)

With the increased velocity and ground dmg, this will be much more reliable.

Just like a Lancer, a single individual doing this is only going to annoy tanks and force them into cover every 15 seconds to repair.

A half squad of these I'm guessing could be quite dangerous.

But yeah, it's primarily best for AA IMO, and as a pilot, let me tell you that std G2A locks don't concern me, however a couple of strikers can ruin someones day (no warning dmg to the face).

They're kinda like no resource cost light bursters in a way.... but they damage armor (and come on HA of course)

I think people need to get a couple friends with them and practice a little and the results will likely speak for themselves.

More data is needed before you can just say that this buff wasn't enough though.

I feel like most people who say it's useless for AV are just clip dumping and complaining that every shot after the 2nd missed.

I don't get why ppl still thinks this. a lancer kills a sunderer in 5 charged lazers, same as the default lock-on common pool RL.

but it's ok if this blatantly wrong common view of the weapon prevents it to be mass-spammed on the battlefield.

It is slightly better than the Phoenix, but much worse than the Striker 2.0 at AA.

And bear in mind the changes this week will probably buff Striker 2.0 AA a bit too.

*In terms of rocket launchers, I count Alpha as the amount of damage you can do between reload cycles. That means 6 rockets for Striker and 4 Lancer shots (1x 3-charge + 3x 1-charge).

Also, the striker shoots all 6 rockets in 2 seconds. Not 2.4. Not that this makes a huge difference. Just pointing it out.

Yes, the Striker has higher alpha* damage at the expense of DPS. This is exactly the same trade off for the standard launchers and the Decimator.

Actually, they do similar amounts of damage. 3 Decimators do ~5% more damage than 13 Striker rockets to MBTs.

Yes, the weapon is a very niche weapon and it's a problem. That's why DGC are looking into it.