The "New" Striker: What makes it better than the alternatives?

Discussion in 'Test Server: Discussion' started by Pseudo Neo, Sep 8, 2014.

  1. Pseudo Neo

    Greetings Folks,

    Romas here with a quick talk about the new Striker. I've just come off an hour of testing on the PTS with it and armed with the experience I've gained from trying to shoot down some very slippery pilots (thanks to both the NC and VS for providing some targets to shoot at) I'm going to attempt to explain what makes it better or worse than the alternatives available to the TR Heavy Assault. Lets start with some........

    - It doesn't require a lock on to hit aircraft so it's capable of doing damage where an Annihilator would refuse to fire.
    - The rockets will track to aircraft if they get close enough meaning you have a much better chance of hitting one than with Grounder/ML7/Decimator.
    - It is able to dumb fire which gives it the potential to hit vehicles without the need for a lengthy lock-on which would normally result in your death.

    All pretty cool. It is an interesting middle ground between dumb fire and lock on functionality. Lets wander over to the pessimistic side of this post and look at the....

    - The rockets move too slowly to reliably hit any aircraft moving in any sort of an evasive maneuver. Simple skidding, diving, or any change of direction really will condemn the rockets you just fired to oblivion.
    - The damage of the rockets aren't much of a deterrent. You can hit with 2-3 of the rockets but at any distance beyond 100m an ESF or Valkyrie can move away before the other rockets get in range to "lock-on" the vehicle.
    - The rockets do not track ground vehicles. This gives the Annihilator and Skep a serious edge at hitting anything beyond point blank range.
    - Rocket damage vs Ground vehicles occurs so slowly compared to an ML7/Decimator/Grounder/Skep that by the time you've launched your 5 rockets at the vehicle it's able to move aside resulting in much less damage than was possible with a single shot from the other launchers.
    - When fired "from the hip" The rocket fire is so inaccurate that it's a toss up whether your rockets will lock onto an enemy aircraft at anything beyond point blank.

    Not very cool at all.

    I want to like the "new" Striker but what it does is lackluster in every way it's supposed to be awesome. While at The Crown firing at ESFs, Galaxies, and Valkyries around 15-20 of us were unable to shoot down ESF's with mass Striker fire. It looked damned impressive but so does a belly flop. (Hint: Neither are very effective at anything but looking cool). When I finally pulled a Burster I was able to keep the aircraft at bay way better. In fact the enemy aircraft stayed far enough away that hitting with the Striker was as close to impossible as it gets.


    While neat looking it ultimately doesn't offer me anything that I can't get elsewhere. The only area it really performs better is that it will get SOME damage down where other launchers wouldn't be able to. That being said that damage is rather insignificant. I'd rather shoot at the ESF with a dumb fire than with the Striker. It just doesn't do enough damage to warrant all the fiddly leading the target business. If I want to lead the target I'll do it with an ML-7 or forget that all together and use a lock on launcher that will do away with that all together.

    How can it be improved?

    This is the tough one. It's damage would be a start. It just needs to feel like you're doing something. Improving it's chance to hit is also a great idea. The Lancer, as an example, isn't the most accurate when fired from the hip either but when you charge that puppy up it's able to make any vehicle pilot/driver crap their pants and look for cover. As it stands with the Striker you could shoot at that enemy vehicle but they can dodge/seek cover way too quickly before you get your full damage down. It will do a fair amount of damage to something when you do hit with all 5 rockets but the range you have to be at to accomplish this feat is right in the butter zone for another launcher; The Decimator.
    • Up x 8
  2. Chrispin

    Well-said. The Striker isn't particularly good at doing the job it's designed to do. Decreasing the TTK values by a few seconds might justify using it purely for the damage potential against ground vehicles, but honestly I'd like to see the missiles track ground targets instead. This would change the role of the Striker to being an all-around good AV weapon if the vehicles stay still or park themselves too close to the edge of a wall. It would essentially be a vehicle suppressor in the same way that the Lasher is an infantry suppressor.
    • Up x 2
  3. Ztiller

    I want to point out that the new Striker have the second fastest Dumbfire RL-velocity in the game, after the Lancer.

    The Grounder have 100 m/s, Decimator 60m/s, Dumbfire 75 m/s. The new Striker have 150 m/s.

    The Problem with doing this is that then you are treading on the "Striker: ***** everything" concept that was the cause of the first Striker apocalypse and eventually its undoing.

    If you make the Striker useful agaisnt literally everything, then every TR heavy will once again carry a Striker with him. And when they do, we would once more have those massive no-fly zones around every TR base and sunderer in the game.
  4. Chrispin

    Pretty much everyone thought that the Striker missiles were going to lock onto ALL vehicles the second they heard it was being reworked, and people playing in all empires were fine with it. I've never seen you comment directly about my suggestions, so in what way would it create a "Striker: ***** everything concept"?

    To put it into perspective, the Striker is basically a Lancer with slower rockets and a mediocre (though good in concept) ability to proximity-lock onto aircraft, which hardly makes up for the slower rocket speed.

    Let's say it does get the ability to proximity-lock into ground vehicles. Great, now the Striker has accuracy comparable to the Lancer against ground vehicles, but that isn't to say that the Lancer is just a Striker that can't proximity-lock into aircraft. Lancers still have the ability to do burst damage by charging their laser. This is a huge advantage since they can deal massive damage before the ground vehicles have time to react, and the Lancer user can even take cover in-between charges. Then they also have the added ability to hit faster moving targets than the Striker due to the laser velocity.

    It all balances out and preserves a unique niche for the Striker: Low DPS and low burst damage (lowest of all launchers in PS2) in exchange for reliable accuracy against slow vehicles and vehicles slightly behind cover.
    • Up x 2
  5. Ztiller

    Eh no. I had never heard it even be mentioned or even discussed before. Just because you believed that you were getting it doesn't mean that everybody did.

    By creating a weapon who completely replaces the standard Dumbfire, by being effective against all targets. Andn when spammed tto such a degree thata the old Striker was, creates massive no-vehicle zones.

    The inability to reliably hit aircraft is one the the Lancers biggest weaknesses. The Striker you are suggesting would have a ~200m zone aroundn evry launcher where any vehicle, air or tanks, will gget hit. When spammed, it would be ridiculous.

    Did you guys really not learn ANYTHING from the first time your Striker completely screwed over the entire two factions for months on end?

    It also now has the ability to shoot around corners and with ease shoot down fast moving air.

    "Massive damage" "Lancer" pick one.

    You are asking for a Striker that is as good against the Lancer against ground, but who ALSO dominates all nearby aircraft. Yes, you are asking for a blatantly OP weapon. When the weapon you are asking for have hardly any downsides, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

    You are constantly sayign "The Lancer can do this, The Lancer can do that"

    This isn't the Lancer. Stop asking for the Striker to do what the Lancer can do. I'm not complaining that the Striker can lock onto air and my Lancer can't.

    Burst damage is not necessary when no vehicle can get within 250m of any TR base due to uncounterable, corner-turning missiles.

    You seem to be under the impression that low damage somehow compensates for the fact that the Striker is good against literally everything. That's now how spam works, and you should have learned this by the first Annihilator and Striker apocalypses.
  6. Alarox

    Go watch Higby Pls.
  7. Elrobochanco

    It's not supposed to be better, it's supposed to be unique. There is a reason most VS/NC don't run Phoenix/Lancer 24/7

    There is one specific place the striker will shine that the others can't quite, and that's being in a base below a giant hovering airball. All other cases (just like lancer/phoenix, it's poorer than dedicated lock ons for distance, or dumbfires for close range stuff.
    • Up x 1
  8. Jube

    There are literally thousands of Strikers already in TR hands right now. TR is the only faction that consistently uses mass fire.

    Are you really suggesting that SoE balance a weapon based on that? Because if you are then you are asking for them to punish the TR because they utilize teamwork.

    The Striker should be as powerful as either of the other ESRL's.

    No other launchers should even be considered when balancing the ESRL's, because they are all in a class by themselves.
  9. Frosty The Pyro

    are you trying to tell me that you think the lancer and pheonix are not balanced around the other launchers?

    A launcher is the HA tools slot. All things that go into the same slot should be balanced agaisnt each other. Thats how balance works.
  10. BarxBaron

    Actually, no they aren't. Why?

    Name another camera guided launcher.

    Name another easy-hit render range launcher.

    That's what I thought. They do stuff nothing else can. The striker...not so much:

    The striker is basically a weaker grounder you have to hit more then once with, without true lock-on potential at this point.

    This is why I'd rather they scrap the coyote part and make it a good dumbfire.
  11. HamOnRye

    I have tested the new striker as well on test. Right now I would have to say its going to end up in the same dustbin as the current version is on live. Couple of problems that make this weapon a novelty but not something I am ever going to place in a loadout.

    While the coyote mechanics are sound, the lack of velocity makes it a difficult shot to on ESF's. The speed of a standard Coyote is 150 m/s but it is also mounted on a moving platform (aka an ESF) which itself has speed. If I am correct are is the actual speed of the projectile cumulative? Example an ESF moving at 200m/s shoots a coyote at 150 m/s result in a 350 m/s projectile? The issue with the speed feels terribly off. Can any veteran pilot weigh in here on this issue?