Why havent strikers been fixed yet?

You're dragging outfits in this discussion? B*tthurt much? Did the BRTD member touch you in bad places?

As I've written multiple times (even once in this thread) is that the 750 damage is the damage it does to infantry, whilst it actually does 1500 to vehicles. Quite a difference I would say. So yes, it adds utility that the AV turret doesn't have, in that it travels faster and I'll be able to hit targets I normally won't be able to hit with the AV turret (the AV turret then can hit other targets perhaps, but that's another story), just to name a few of the gains in utility I would gain by utilizing the Lancer over the Striker (not even including a much more rewarding weapon to use, in terms of enjoyability).
I'm actually reasonably sure that I've corrected you on that damage before, and if I haven't, it has still been written multiple times in the threads you frequent (about the Striker being OP) so you should've noticed by now.
And for the record, you aren't totally defenseless against air with the Lancer as Libs and inattentive flying ESFs (more often than not they are the ones dying to the Striker and lock-ons in general, not the more experienced ones), just not to the degree offered by the Striker or the other lock-ons.

As far as i'm concerned, Striker threads follow the current pattern:
-SoE please fix strikers (and by fix i mean: please nerf them into oblivion, make rockets fire 1 min consecutively after or something like that)
- I don't care if they have been altered before any other lock-on, i don't care if it requires to keep visual sight of the target for the duration of the last rocket hitting, it blew my scythe up while i was hovering it has to be broken.
Fast forward some 6 months from now and strikers being nerfed some more:
-OMG the Grounder is so broken, it lock-ons to my Reaver. SoE please fix, the HAWK is nowhere near that strong.

When I post on the official forum I do not post as a BRTD member nor do I post as a PSU moderator. I post as a rational individual capable of making up my own mind about issues as they are presented. So perhaps you shouldn't drag WASP into a pointless outfit drama battle.

It might also be hard to believe that someone who mainly plays as a TR actually wants the game to be as balanced as possible. Funny thing is that unless the game is fun to play for everyone I won't be having as much fun as I could have.

I was joking.
Sorry your getting so angry.


You guys are flooding this thread with silly defence of the striker when it shouldve died like all the others.
Sadly your actually flooding it with more bad points when we all know the striker is boring as **** but dominating. Perfect for mindless zerglings and not fun for anyone else who actually plays the game "properly" (imo)

Your making stuff worse imo so i think you need calling out for trolling
Your biting kinda says it all though and i wonder if you actually believe that TR is the generally weaker empire and its just your hard work and ability that has caused such population imbalances and general success on nearly all servers.


The Nerfs coming hard guys. Might want to prep your blind ones. Remember the Pounder?

And Chip im similar to you mate and I dont find it shocking at all. I think you have some people who clearly dont think of balance though. Its obvious from this thread.

The lock-on range of the Striker is the same as the Annihilator, e.g. 500m for aircraft, and 400m for ground targets. You make it sound like it locks onto any target at 500m. Either you are trying to make it sound more powerful than it is, or you haven't done your homework, not very smart when you want to argue balance.

Also, I'm not denying that it was stupid to introduce the TR ESRL as a lock-on, as it would be a pain to balance against the other 2 ESRLs, and furthermore, it's just not very interesting nor fun to use.

Also, since the new "patch" you have to maintain the target in your sights until your missiles connect with the Striker, but you don't with the other lock-ons. Just putting it out there as it is often forgotten.

The Phoenix got changed because it was used in a role that wasn't intended, not because it was too strong. They buffed the AV damage simultaneously to compensate. Why they introduced it in the state they did is a mystery to me though, but it wouldn't be the first time SoE introduced something silly.

And you are making posts solely consisting of a "joke", who is trolling now?

I'm sorry, I didn't know that you had passed said verdict on this thread and the discussion within. Why exactly should the thread die?
Bad points? Good. All lock-on weapons are broken atm. That's a fact. I've never (Or rather I became bored with it very quickly) personally liked the Striker as I've always seen it as being boring when compared to the Lancer and Phoenix, so why wouldn't I state my opinion on the matter when that is in fact what I think? Plus we already had lock-on weapons for every concieveable situation, why on earth would we need one more?
The Striker is the most userfriendly of the three and lock-on weapons, especially when bugged, have a tendency to make those on the recieving end rather miffed. That is also, more or less, fact.

You shouldn't throw around cinder blocks while living inside a glass pyramid.

You do know it takes 22 seconds to kill a ESF with lancer even in VR? When its standing completely still... (faster TTK with any LMG)

Still dominating? Even thou now it does same DPS as Annihilator, and self-distruct all rockets if any object comes between you and target?
I fail to see how this is dominating.

I don't mind being called out mate, I did so as a response after all and If you noticed i didn't quote you in any post at all.

Anyway who says chivalry is dead. One person posts and 10 guys all come in to save the day?

Denial
This is the way you have posted for months. Your not worth a reply because you don't seek balance. You just see through red goggles.
If you look as cause and effect then compare the stats with an open mind you will come to the appropriate conclusions. I doubt you can by choice though. I guess you find it fun.

I haven't checked the exact time no, your point is? You specifically wrote "totally helpless", that implies not being able to do anything, like the Striker has it with infantry and turrets for example, or how the Kobalt cannot damage tanks. The Lancer can actually fight back against ESFs (especially in packs). I guess I'll just assume that you agree with me on the other points I made, since you only replied to that specific part.

Oh, excuse me. I assumed you have read the post before jumping in, bashing TR players. If not, please go to page 3 of this post and locate my post clearly explaining why Striker in this current form is worst lock-on launcher in game.

And tell me again who's in denial...

TTK of new Striker is not much higher then this too, you know. And if you loose a direct sight for a fraction of a second, you do 0 damage.

You are mate
Go read your own threads for the last 6 months. All i care about is balance but you clearly dont. Your even in this thread because someone "bashed TR players" heh.
Role play much?

Jesus fraggin' Christ. This is such a basic math what it makes me wonder if you people actually ever went to school...

Okay, kids, let's learn numbers!
1...2...3...4...5!

Here's a "damage cycle" of average lockon launcher in game:
1. Lock time
3. Reload time

Here's a "damage cycle" of a Striker:
1. Lock time
2. Launch time
3. Travel time
4. Reload time

Some not very smart kids may ask "But why no travel time for other launchers?". Here's the answer: Because while your first rocket is flying, you're already reloading second rocket, so travel time and reload time add up. And with Striker, you can't reload while rocket is flying. If you un-zoom, your rockets will self-destruct.

Now, let's calculate the time of 1 cycle for Annihilator:

1. Lock time 3 sec
3. Reload time 4.7 sec
In 1 cycle it does 1200 damage.
Calculate DPS: 1200 divided by 7,7 equals 155

Now, let's calculate the time of 1 cycle for Striker:

1. Lock time 2.5 sec
2. Launch time 3.3 sec
3. Travel time 4 sec (using average number here)
4. Reload time 5 sec
In 1 cycle it does 2500 damage.
Calculate DPS: 2500 divided by 14,5 equals 172. Which is almost the same as Annihilator. And significantly lower then G2A and G2G launchers.

But that's not all. While you firing Striker, you're standing almost still, in the open for 15 seconds (launchers got very small ADS speed). You can't un-zoom. And if within those 14.5 seconds some tiny object, like antenna or tree branch or even a rock (if you're shooting at tank), or some random guy pass between you and target, all your rockets will instantly self-destruct.

You may ask, does extra 17 DPS make up for all the downsides of Striker? No. If you want a reliable lock-on launcher with high DPS, get Grounder or SKEP, and if you want universal tool, get Annihilator.

That is all, kids! Today you all have learned something new!

So you are defenceless against infantery with a striker? Yes, indeed you are just a HEAVY ASSAULT with shields and best weapons for infantery, that might been the dumbest post i ever read...

Most likely a bug or ********.


That's like saying "The PPA is bad because it's glitched"

Whilst I'm using the Striker I cannot fire at enemy infantry. Using the Striker now requires you to be zoomed in for at least 8-12 seconds if you want your rockets to actually hit anything (see math above if you disagree), whilst you are being assaulted by people with their weapons ready (that can actually harm enemy infantry). If I had any of the other lock-ons or another rocket-launcher in general I would have a higher chance of seeing them coming beforehand (due to not being zoomed in for as long and risking tunnelvision), I would be able to take a dumbfire potshot (due to the other options having a dumbfire option), just before I would switch weapons anyways. If you are caught with the Striker in your hands, you are dead, unless your opponent is slightly tarded or something like that (don't worry, my ex-wife is tarded, she is a pilot now).

And feel free to be of the opinion that my post is the dumbest post you have ever read, but you just made a post yourself saying your are defenseless against air whilst using the Striker. Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass-house or however it goes.

Well, they want all lock-ons to become "maintain constant lock" system eventually. But at the same time they want to increase lock time for nearby targets and starting rocket speed, so it'll be easier to hit close targets, but harder to hit targets at distance.
It seems what somehow "maintain constant lock" leaked in from test build into live, but only for Striker and without any speed and lock time buffs. I also think what eventually it will be reverted back, but this is how things are now. Striker is worse then Annihilator.

No i most certainly did not, you are defencless against air when using a LANCER... (btw you are no better off against infantery when zooming in with lancer for 4-5 s to hit armor, while still beeing defenceless against air, AND doing lower damage towards armor than with striker) Its fascinating that a weapon that takes no aim/skill do more damage than weapons who does take aim/skill... (no matter how you try to defend that!)