Strikers and the numbers.

Get a grip man, so your saying we are all complete useless players, yet you're awesome, cos you know what to do?

I know what to do too, redeploy elsewhere away from the TR and fight the NC, or dont pull vehicles against the TR.

Its got to the point on Miller where ( and i understand them doing this totally, you know who you are ) the TR will gal drop on a point where they have no business being whatsoever, on a very difficult point to reach, and spam the **** out of the striker, and rip apart an NC/VS confrontation, because theres nothing you can do, any vehicle is destroyed too quickly!

It needs sorting ASAP!

Dude. gonna lay it down real... Im a way better gunner than pilot... but i GUARANTEE a Lancer user would NEVER take down my lib... a pheonix user would NEVER take down my LIB when i pull my MOJO no ******* thing will... but a coordinated ESF-Skyguard-Shrike sneaky trap from NC... OR! Dropppods! But on TR side Strikers.... bep beep beep
OR! 2 anchored Prowlers in a mountain 2km away that hits for 50% lib health /salvo each.... Yes i know thats fair caus if i aim 6 cm above your lib 8 seconds in advance i will achieve the same result... you cretins ***** bout "well Lancer gives no warning!" (750 mighty damage!) W T F does dual ANCHORED AP PROWLER ROUNDS GIVE FOR WARNING HITTING WITH 3000 DAMAGE OUT OF NOWHERE?

I don't know what I've "lost", but the ridiculous conspiracy theories and uncredible statistics being posted is not staying on topic. End this charade, it's just another "Nerf Striker!" Thread.

No, I'm just tired of people like Vixxing who makes a weapon out like it is 'god mode' and harps bad arguments like it is etched in stone as the universal truth that it happens this way ALL THE F-ING TIME.

Look at the argument he puts there... "Oh, the piddly AV turret doing 750 damage over the AWESOME Striker's 2500 damage." Sort of ignoring the whole 'Hey, 2 second lockon warning to try and DO something, versus... I am hit with 750 already and first wondering what the hell hit me and from where?' part.

As for the TR gal drop on a point where they have no business, happens too. Same with why the hell is there a scythe in the middle of a TR/NC battle on connery where their next closest base is not even two links away. The EXE makes it a nightly habit of either trying to warpgate camp the NC or the VS, sometimes even when they have no base or a platoon of Mosquitos.

But unlike the you, I face it like a friggin pissed off Smurf/Barney instead of curling up in a fetal ball and whining about it here in forum like some pansy and do something in the face of it, giving them the finger while I am at it. At the same time, I'm fed up of hearing how you guys keep making it sound like it always hits with that much damage ALL THE TIME. If it does it all the time like that to you, of course I would calling you completely useless players as an NC or VS player going against the TR. I do it all the time in game when I expect people to be covering the flanks or doing something a bit smarter like getting out of a tank and shooting the damn LA that did C4 damage to my tank, not shooting at the LA and hitting me with a damn HEAT round at an ALREADY SERIOUSLY DAMAGED TANK.

It's called 'COMMON SENSE'.

Let's point out something here... Notice... You stated 'A'... Yes, I highlighted and point this out.

Guess what Vixxing... A striker user will also not take down your lib. No SINGLE AV user will bring down a lib. Nor will ANY Phoenix user will take down a lib in general because any intelligent Lib pilot would be engaging an NC outside 300m or constantly moving.

While we are at this entire foolishness, I will repeat again, explain HOW IS IT, since I keep asking this and you failed to answer this, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, the TR get kicked out of places and don't constantly hold a position unless it involved them having population advantage, just like the NC and VS, on all the continents?

How is it, every night, prime time, the TR do not always win the alert across all the servers, or have continent domination if they have the Air and Armor Superiority with the use of Strikers giving them the clear advantage?

How is it, time and time again, Crimson Bluff, Crater Firing Range, Dahaka, Indar Excavation, when the TR hold those places, where they would have CLEAR advantage being the defender with nearly 90% clear view to hit armor and air targets to prevent even most infantry getting in close, even with equal numbers, with the BETTER EQUIPED HAs, they get kicked out of there?

And again, this is on the level of F-in MONKEYS, since everyone wants to make the TR seem like no-skilled, brainless monkeys, cause the striker and the overpowered HA in general... The obvious answer should be the TR don't need much to fight the VS or NC, yet... You cannot explain WHY the TR fields Non-HA infantry (And I am not talking the people who are driving the tanks or flying libs and ESFs), are running around on the battlefield, because an F-in infiltrator contributes NOTHING against armor or Air, nor does a Medic or a Light Assault unless in close, but then again, according to you, the HA is the best equipped to deal with infantry, ignoring the fact it is the Infiltrators, the LAs and Medics and even Engineers fighting as Infantry outside of vehicles. And the ONLY time you can explain engineers is if they are bailouts or trying to repair base gens, but again, failing to explain why TR still has infiltrators INSIDE a base they are defending or LAs in defense or in offense of a base as well.

As for an Anchored prowler hitting you from out of nowhere, like also harassers setup with Saron HRB-H and Enforcers which also hit hard with fair deal of accuracy at range. The problem here is you are arguing the WRONG points for the wrong reasons and still failing to grasp the point hammered, TIME AND TIME again. You want to argue how a striker, which has to hit you with all 5 rounds to do 2500 and gives you at least a 2 second warning to do something before it even gets 500 of those 2500 points of damage to a guided round or aimed shot that gives little to no warning until you take the damage right off the bat, and now you are comparing a cannon that will have to have sight of you, locked down to accomplish this (Which also puts them into view) and depending on the range, has to target you appropriately and also hit you a certain way in order to do the most maximum possible damage.

Yet another spreadsheet arguer, where you want everyone to believe that the most 'ideal' situation happens all the time for the user and the 'worst' case scenario for the receiver happens.

When VS and NC are having conversations in Yell Chat talking about how great it is to NOT be facing the Striker, you know it's changed the game for the worse. I have never, ever seen anyone talk about how nice it is to not be dealing with Phoenixes or Lancers in the middle of a fight. I see it once a day when I'm pushing against the NC.

Stop defending the damn thing, it's done. It has to be nerfed. You're lucky you got to keep it for this long.

5 Striker users won't make the Striker any more dangerous for me if I'm prepared, as it is so easy to counter with the warning beforehand (unless you overextended against infantry, bad mistake). 5 Lancer users will still be quite dangerous to me. The fact remains, lock ons are easier to counter for experienced drivers/pilots than weapons hitting without warning. I responded to what Infantry unit is best equipped to deal with armor, and my reply was, the Striker is NOT the best equipment for putting me in danger, no matter how many it is used by. Using the Lancer would practically always be more dangerous to me. There was a reason I didn't respond to the AA part.

First of all, Lancers do 1500 damage to vehicles, the 750 is the AI damage. Secondly, over range the Lancer will have hit before the Striker has hit with all its missiles. Thirdly, as an experienced tanker, I know how much a warning before being hit is worth, simply due to the fact that I cannot be instagibbed without me seeing it coming. Fourthly, I get to use countermeasures (it is NOT a downside that smoke/flares counter the Striker 100%, I would give me right leg to have my smoke counter the Lancer). So yes, the Lancer is far more dangerous to me, than any lock on. You get plenty of warning from most C4 fairies if you equip Radar, or you simply watch your surroundings (unless they are dropping out of planes of course) and stay clear of easy cliffs for them to drop off. And yes, both Lancers and Engineer turrets have a crazy range, but that's another discussion. And why are you bringing AV turrets and c4 into this discussion when it was a comparison of the Striker and the Lancer. Just because something is (potentially) more scary than the Lancer, does that make the Striker more scary than the Lancer as well?

Sorry this is getting too frustrating. Conclude whatever you want based on whatever data you want. I refute so many of your arguments and you just ignore it and proceed with the same over and over. I'm done arguing with you, as this simply isn't worth it. Pretty much everyone accepted it was due to the Striker, is based on opinions, which is fine. They just shouldn't say it is based on the numbers if I ask what it is based on then. That's what they did. No matter WHAT you say, the data is based on a bugged state, which thus makes them unreliable for drawing conclusions. And that it took so long for you to even understand what my points were, just makes me unwilling to try to make you understand anything else. Sorry, and I'm going to ignore you to avoid falling into the same trap again (arguing with you).

Off-topic: And now I DON'T have an opinion? Can you make up your mind? Please don't respond as it was a rhetorical question.

Yes Shure dropped by and tried to argue with me about why bugged features should be included in a balance discussion. I mainly argued against that, but not against the other points he was making.
And that we are somehow just better vehicle drivers is probably not the case, there could be other explanations as to why the numbers are skewed than ONLY the Striker though. Furthermore, that the Striker has had SOME impact on the battlefield as a whole, is not something I've denied at any point in this discussion, I've even expressed my sympathies for your situation/frustration. However, when people conclude the numbers are skewed ONLY due to Striker solely based on the numbers (from a bugged state) and anecdotal evidence, I will claim my right to argue that they cannot be sure of that. And I didn't argue against people having their personal opinions, just like I've stated my own from time to time.

If people had just said "fine" like you are doing now, I would've been satisfied, but instead people went on and on and on about me being TR-biased, Striker-biased, implying that I think the Striker is fine/balanced, and whatever else, despite I find the Striker to be one of the most boring weapons to use in the entire game, and that I've stated the direct opposite multiple times. I apologize drawing out the discussion so much, but if no one takes the principal arguments, we risk our discussions devolving into something worse than the state we are already in. It was a fun experience to see how much certain people can misunderstand, even though I'm writing things plainly. It took so many posts for one of them to even understand my points, and then just ignore them again.

Couldnt have said it better myself.

It's not the number (although it is that too), it is the percentage that carry them, added to that is its raw power.

I agree that killing isn't always the result, but no-fly and no-drive zones most certainly ARE the result, which still effects the game and gameplay massively.

Again there is a massive difference between setting an impossible standard of data/proof/turnips (i.e a Strawman argument) and a reasonable argument.

Has SOE done exhaustive 10 year trials on the effects of the Striker and every possible area of its effect? No.
Does that mean the Striker is fine/shouldn't be balanced? No.

Lucky?!? I've been begging for the dev's to change the lock-on mechanic of this weapon since it was released, and you say we are "Lucky"
I say we were cursed with it. I bought the Striker when it was released and have regretted it every day since. As time goes by I use the ML-7 more often than any other rocket launcher simply because it if more fun to play with than the Striker.

Lock-ons are a bit boring, I suppose, but they certainly are effective.

This lock on change cant come soon enough

No, there's a third option here. The Mossie is harder to hit and far more agile than the Reaver or the Scythe. You can do things in a Mossie to keep your opponent in view that you simply cannot do in any other ESF.