A TR admitting that the striker is a little stronger than the annihilator is like an alcoholic admitting to a doctor that he drinks a few beers everyday.
Or just revamp striker and make life fair again for all esf pilots... I.E. TR pilots no longer get to rule the skies of auraxis, while the other empires are eternally grounded
On helios sure striker squads work but two lolpods flown with any skill can decimate any striker squad. That's usually how it goes. OP needs to team up with another or two more LOLpodders and bam they are dead. not that hard people.
Some usage numbers from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AmUavphHXmIxdFhHUzJfN1VYalRnWS0xMnBUdTJpM1E&gid=66 Striker: 1159 players used it for an average of 2 hours and got an average of 9692 points per hour. Annihilator NC: 750 players used it for an average of 2.77 hours and got an average of 3763 points per hour. Annihilator TR: 678 players used it for an average of 2.64 hours and got an average of 3744 points per hour. Annihilator VS: 663 players used it for an average of 2.69 hours and got an average of 3785 points per hour. Annihilator Total: 2091 player used it for an average of 2.70 hours and got an average of 3764 points per hours M9 SKEP(TR G2A): 637 players used it for an average of 2.57 hours HAWK(NC G2a): 1014 players used it for an average of 2.53 hours Nemisis(VS G2A): 826 players used it for an average of 2.61 hours When you lump all of the AA capable RLs together by faction TR: 5745 player-hours of AA RL usage NC: 4642 player-hours of AA RL usage VS: 3939 player-hours of AA RL usage Data for the other ESRLs Phoenix: 778 players used it for an average of 2.16 hours and got an average of 8080 points per hour Lancer: 478 players used it for an average of 1.78 hours and got an average of 9177 points per hour Striker: 2318 player-hours of usage Phoenix: 1680 player-hours of usage Lancer: 1384 player-hours of usage So from that data I draw these conclusions: The Striker is a significant upgrade over the annihilator(2.5x increase in average score). Most of the people that use the annihilator are 4 factioners who wanted one launcher for across all factions(the annihilator numbers are very even across the factions). The striker performs only slightly better that the other ESRLs, but it is carried a lot more frequently. The NC and VS use their G2A launcher to counter enemy air(25-50% more usage than TR). This weapon is no better than the default RL for dealing with ground targets, and thus leaves them vulnerable to a ground assault. When flying against the TR your are 24% more likely to have to deal with lock-ons over the NC, and 46% more likely than the VS. So, yes the striker is giving the TR a huge edge against enemy aircraft. Sure a good pilot can avoid getting killed, but against the TR it is flares or die, and even then you spend half your time hiding out waiting for your flares to recharge.
The key problem with the Striker is that it's effective against air and ground. I have no problem with squads of troops the other faction AA launchers - they sacrificed some of their anti-ground ability for anti-air, it makes sense that they are good at what they do. Strikers sacrifice none of their anti-ground ability. They're everything that was wrong with the original Annihilator, only more so. It makes it doubly annoying to fight against TR Mosquitos - they are free to use things like scout radar while we're stuck with flares or death.
Air + Ground is not an issue in and of itself. No one complains about the annihilator. The problem is that... A. The striker is a significant upgrade over the annihilator. B. The striker is at least equal to the anti-air launchers against air targets while still being good against ground targets. If they buffed the G2A launchers and made them 20% better than the striker against air, all of the pilots would be pissed off, but the empires would be balanced. If they buffed the annihilator to nearly the striker's level, things would be balanced. If they removed the striker's ability to lock on to air entirely, and let them dumbfire it, things would be more balanced.
To be a good squad they do. The best way to use them is the same with any lock-on rocket squads. Hold fire till everyone has lock and let them go. Simple but actually really hard to do for the zerg. Before TR had strikers we would use the annilators to the same effect. It was easier with them since you didn't have to hold lock for all 5 rockets. At the same time if your ESF and your not TR after you pop flares G T F O of the area. We get our kills from dumb esf and for ***** sake use cover. buildings or cliffs work well.
This right here is the problem. Our options are: A) Leave and go bother another faction B) Die Like you said, no smart ESF pilot sticks around near TR. Any TR advance inevitably turns into a giant no-fly zone. No other faction can lock down an airspace that quickly and easily. It's frustrating as hell.
All SOE needs to do is watch any large battles between TR and another empire to see that TR has shut down a lot of opposing air. NC on Mattherson for instance have very few aircraft in large fights while there are a lot of Mosquitos and Liberators flying around for the TR. I really can't speak for VS vs. TR.
Same for Miller, every bigger battle including vehicles is favouring TR, especially since the missiles don't render when the source isn't rendered, and in your field of view while the missile is fired, and that the Launchers has a higher lockon range then the infantry has rendering range....
I disagree wholeheartedly with this. An air unit comes in range of my Striker and I fire 1 rocket at it. Then they move away using flares to stop it..... THEN the friendly pilot on my side takes him/her/it down. Only unfair part of it is that I don't get any xp for it, just the satisfaction that they're dead.
Make Strikers non-fire and forget, instead they have to maintain a lock even on launched rockets. Make the interval of launching effective only after the first one is destroyed either by hitting target or other object. They should not be able to hit a tank that hides behind a rock and there is no line of site., it would hit the hill instead of what looks to be it going through the object.
Striker ruins air game, and Phoenix ruins ground game. I'm not sure I like the design of either of these weapons.
Does any one remember the problem with burster maxs a few months ago? How you shouldn't be able to be attacked by something you couldn't see. And they upped the view distance that bursters could be seen so air craft couldn't be rapped by a non stop rain of AA rounds that no one could tell the direction of. Again we seem to be at a similar problem with the striker, except now the rockets can fly through the mountains, buildings, and any other object in the game. I don't spend that much time in an ESF but when I do I would much rather be shot at by annihilators then the striker any day. For the love just fix the rockets flying through every thing to hit my ESF, Tank, or any other vehicle I'm driving at the time. I hope the TR and the NC guys/gals would agree. Being hit by any thing you couldn't avoid by flying low or around any object is cheep.
These were exactly the stats I was waiting for, a comparison between G2A launchers and not just the different ESRLs.
As I said before and nobody seem to care: nerf the Striker lock-on damage to 375~400 per rocket, add dumb-fire to it with 325~350 damage per rocket (or just fire all rockets at once/make it a bigger and single red dot). I would be OK with it, what about you NC and VS? To be honest, it would be balanced for both sides as I see it. Would give us the ability to kill infantry and turrets, also quick fire when we're trying to blow up Sunderer, for example, when you need THAT hit after 2 bricks of C4. And, of course, would be weaker - but still very effective in groups - against aircraft. Deal? Can we all sign up a petition to SOE?
