Will Bombers ruin GSF once more?

[Lymain]

Those write-ups are basically advertisements. Let's hope they got some balancing in while bombers were disabled.

[Kain_Turinbar]

There are Sensor Beacons which are dropped by Blackbolt/NovaDrive. They provide sensor data to their team and minimal debuffs/buffs nearby them.

 

There are Sabotage Probes which are a missile type. You lock onto someone and fire. It prevents them from turning and does moderate damage over time. They are quite hard to use though due to short range and moderate lock on time.

 

What Bombers have are drones... which are like Sensor Beacons in that they are dropped and sit at a location. Except unlike Sensor Beacons, they fire missiles, railguns and lasers and kill people, all while the Bomber hides in a corner with shields maxed out.

 

Ok, got it. The only scout I've really messed around with is the one from the CM, I never saw any probes in the secondary weapons slots because quite honestly I've spent 90% of my time in strike fighters and when I do fly a scout I take the IL-7 w/clusters.

[Brewski]

Let's not all chicken-little on bombers. Beta proved they were way over powered, and hard to balance, which is why they were removed.

 

So, instead of assuming they have left everything as it was, why don't we start with the assumption that the devs aren't complete @%#$ and have spent the last couple months internally testing changes intended to bring bombers into balance? Furthermore, lets assume the write up is exactly what it appears to be: A commercial intended to highlight a new feature being added to the game.

 

If we start with these assumptions, we don't have to spend weeks foretelling doom to no purpose, and can instead spend the remaining time enjoying ourselves.

 

Once they launch, or even if we just wait until the official stats are put out, we can argue whether or not enough balancing was done, when we can actually see what has changed.

 

I know, it's a bit radical, but it's just crazy enough it might work.

[Kain_Turinbar]

From what you guys are saying that played the beta with them was it ever proposed (in an attempt to balance them) to cap the # of bombers that could be deployed at any given time?

 

If they were as dominant as you guys say 1-2 per team would be manageable. Sure would make taking a sat much more complicated and require more coordination........seems like it could be fun.

[TUXs]

Let's not all chicken-little on bombers. Beta proved they were way over powered, and hard to balance, which is why they were removed.

 

So, instead of assuming they have left everything as it was, why don't we start with the assumption that the devs aren't complete @%#$ and have spent the last couple months internally testing changes intended to bring bombers into balance? Furthermore, lets assume the write up is exactly what it appears to be: A commercial intended to highlight a new feature being added to the game.

 

If we start with these assumptions, we don't have to spend weeks foretelling doom to no purpose, and can instead spend the remaining time enjoying ourselves.

 

Once they launch, or even if we just wait until the official stats are put out, we can argue whether or not enough balancing was done, when we can actually see what has changed.

 

I know, it's a bit radical, but it's just crazy enough it might work.

Right, because Bioware has done such a great job of balance in other areas of this game that we should give them the benefit of the doubt? I disagree...once it's live and unbalanced, it will remain that way for a year minimum. Bioware has a track record that we can look at for evidence of their inability or lack of desire to ever address balance once it's out of whack. Speak up now...in a week, it's too late.

[Slivovidze]

So, instead of assuming they have left everything as it was, why don't we start with the assumption that the devs aren't complete @%#$ and have spent the last couple months internally testing changes intended to bring bombers into balance?

 

Let me just check here... Uh-huh. Smash Marauders, Sweep Sentinels, insanely powerful since no one can remember until now.

 

Well, we can sure hope for the best, but I am scared, because I love GSF so far!

[Nemarus]

Let's not all chicken-little on bombers. Beta proved they were way over powered, and hard to balance, which is why they were removed.

 

So, instead of assuming they have left everything as it was, why don't we start with the assumption that the devs aren't complete @%#$ and have spent the last couple months internally testing changes intended to bring bombers into balance? Furthermore, lets assume the write up is exactly what it appears to be: A commercial intended to highlight a new feature being added to the game.

 

If we start with these assumptions, we don't have to spend weeks foretelling doom to no purpose, and can instead spend the remaining time enjoying ourselves.

 

Once they launch, or even if we just wait until the official stats are put out, we can argue whether or not enough balancing was done, when we can actually see what has changed.

 

I know, it's a bit radical, but it's just crazy enough it might work.

 

The correct fix to drones was to make them buffers/debuffers which would tip the scales of combat but never fundamentally kill on their own.

 

Personally, the notion of a Bomber that aids itself and its allies (by putting out evasion debuffs, slows, regen debuffs, etc.) is far more interesting than a Bomber that drops turrets which kill for you. A buffer/debuffer Bomber would further encourage team-based play, even in PUG's.

 

With Bombers being just another type of lone wolf that deals damage (requiring less skill to do so than existing ships), it's just not that interesting.

[Itkovian]

The correct fix to drones was to make them buffers/debuffers which would tip the scales of combat but never fundamentally kill on their own.

 

Personally, the notion of a Bomber that aids itself and its allies (by putting out evasion debuffs, slows, regen debuffs, etc.) is far more interesting than a Bomber that drops turrets which kill for you. A buffer/debuffer Bomber would further encourage team-based play, even in PUG's.

 

With Bombers being just another type of lone wolf that deals damage (requiring less skill to do so than existing ships), it's just not that interesting.

 

Agreed. I'm hoping the notes were mistaken, but that's a thin hope indeed.

 

But I guess we'll see how it goes. My main hope is that bombers actually allow the Strike fighters to come into their own, with their longer range and better missile weaponry.

[Nemarus]

Agreed. I'm hoping the notes were mistaken, but that's a thin hope indeed.

 

But I guess we'll see how it goes. My main hope is that bombers actually allow the Strike fighters to come into their own, with their longer range and better missile weaponry.

 

If I recall, Bombers also had access to Heavy Laser Cannons (the longest range lasers, perfect for clearing mines and drones) and Concussion Missiles.

 

So the best counter to Bombers are ... MOAR BOMBERS!

 

GOOD DAY SIR. YOU LOSE.

[Itkovian]

If I recall, Bombers also had access to Heavy Laser Cannons (the longest range lasers, perfect for clearing mines and drones) and Concussion Missiles.

 

So the best counter to Bombers are ... MOAR BOMBERS!

 

GOOD DAY SIR. YOU LOSE.

 

To be fair, I don't mind them getting those. Of course bombers will get access to heavy lasers and protorps and the likes. It's to be expected that they can carry the heavier weapons.

 

But at least they should be less maneuverable and mobile than strikes, meaning in theory strikes are better suited to dogfight and going after gunships than bombers. This would place them somewhere between bombers and scouts, able to deploy the powerful long range weapons like bombers, and able to dogfight/hunt gunships like scouts (though not as well as either in their respective roles, of course).

 

So in theory, at least, Strikes should be able to deploy the powerful stand-off weapons to take out bombers, and have the mobility to disengage from bombers when THEY turn their weapons on the strikes. The point being that it would bring some value to the "multirole" nature of the strike fighters.

 

Granted, the real value will come with new game modes that reward having some flexibility (like an assault mode that requires us to damage objectives... having a Pike that can lob torps at objectives AND go on dogfighting would be quite valuable).

 

Anyway, here's hoping.

[Sangrar]

Panic over something that we don't know the full extent of at this moment is not exactly going to help anything, just spread mistrust and misinformation, we cannot make too many assumptions as the bombers back in testing, were, in testing and not final, we don't know the extent of the changes so we cannot worry about balance now, we have to wait until we have more info to the extent of the changes before we run away in a trail of paranoid thoughts. Edited January 10, 2014 by Sangrar

[Nemarus]

Panic over something that we don't know the full extent of at this moment is not exactly going to help anything, just spread mistrust and misinformation, we cannot make too many assumptions as the bombers back in testing, were, in testing and not final, we don't know the extent of the changes so we cannot worry about balance now, we have to wait until we have more info to the extent of the changes before we run away in a trail of paranoid thoughts.

 

Drones that deal damage will either:

 

1) deal too much damage and be too powerful and disruptive, such that everyone will play it and the game will fundamentally change for the worse

2) deal too little damage and make the class useless, such that no one will play it and the game will remain the same

 

On the other hand, if Drones caused debuffs on enemies or buffs for your team (as was suggested numerous times in beta), then the decision of whether or not to fly a Bomber becomes a much more interesting question. If you fly on a coordinated team, then you'd want to have at least one Bomber to increase the effectiveness of that team. On the other hand, a Bomber by itself might be underpowered.

 

Or heck, if you're flying something else and you see someone flying a Bomber, then you would feel compelled to be its wingman, so as to take full advantage of the buffing/debuffing it creates. Its very presence would encourage teamwork and coordination.

 

One implementation of Bombers just creates another DPS class that is either overpowered or underpowered.

 

The other implementation of Bombers creates a new layer of tactics and strategy on top of the already-relatively-balanced game.

 

We can see from the text description that they are stubbornly pressing on with the first unfortunate implementation, despite the many protests and suggestions of the closed beta audience. Our only hope now is that the Bombers are underpowered, so that everyone can just ignore them, and we can continue to enjoy GSF.

 

Why am I protesting now? Because now is when change can be made. Once Bombers are out and people have spent fleet req and/or cartel coins to unlock and upgrade them, changing them significantly is much harder to do.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Nemarus

[mr_sim]

Dev blog just released bomber class info http://www.swtor.com/blog/developer-update-bomber-class-starfighter

 

Sorry OP but it's not going to be buffs. It looks like strikers with long range heavy weapons are going to be a hot commodity.

 

As a Striker pilot I say "Bring The !#@& On." I'm ready for it.

[CyberneticDucks]

I tested GSF before Bombers came in. It was great then and relatively balanced (much as it is now).

 

Then Bombers were added, and they absolutely ruined GSF. If you think Gunships or Burst Laser Cannons are overpowered now ... neither of them comes anywhere close to how bad Bombers were.

 

Twice, the devs attempted to balance them, and twice they failed. I'd say 95% of testers wanted them delayed/removed, and that's likely why they were.

 

While I like the visual designs (at least for the Imperial Bombers) and am eager for new ships, I am very wary of Bombers returning. If they have not been drastically nerfed/redesigned, then the GSF we all love may once again be ruined.

 

What was so bad about Bombers, you ask? They completely destroyed the need for good piloting/dogfighting/power management skill and rewarded boring, simple play.

 

The minelayer variant could drop seismic mines which ignored shields and armor, doing enough damage to one-shot most Scouts and some Strikes. These mines didn't require any lock-on time, and would automatically hit anyone who came within 1500m of them.

 

The drone carrier could deploy missile or railgun sentry drones which would proceed to rack up insane DPS/kills without any required skill from the pilot (nor any power devoted to lasers). The drone carrier could also deploy a Repair Drone that would repair shields (and if upgraded enough, hull!).

 

Both bombers could drop seeker mines, which would lock onto any target that came within 3000m and then do more damage than a concussion missile.

 

Mines and drones had no ammo limitation (for some unfathomable reason)--just a brief cooldown and a limit on how many could be deployed at once.

 

Both Bombers had super strong shields and hull, and what's worse, they could just put all power to shields while their mines and drones did damage and got kills for them. And don't forget the Repair Drone, healing them.

 

It wasn't long before novices and experts alike just loaded up on Bombers and turtled at satellites. Begun, the Drone Wars had.

 

Scouts couldn't go anywhere near a node without being vaporized by mines and drones. Strike fighters could survive for a while, but didn't have the firepower to get through Bomber defenses before succumbing to the Bombers' "pets". One Bomber you might take out--but two of them made a Fortress, especially if one or both had Repair Drones.

 

Gunships were the only possible counter to Bombers, but they weren't very effective at the time (though admittedly, Gunship damage was much less back then). Most Gunships couldn't do enough damage to a Bomber before it retreated behind the satellite and fully regened its shields.

 

Nodes never switched ownership after the initial land grab. Matches were decided early and then either boring or frustrating, depending on which side you were on. Many people just started ignoring objectives so that they could go back to having fun dogfighting in open space with Scouts and Strikes.

 

And when Bombers were once again removed? Joy returned. Fun returned! The test forums shifted from a place of gnashing teeth and torn hair to a realm of happiness and minor quibble posts.

 

I really hope the devs have made substantive, dramatic changes to Bombers--simple tweaks of the numbers won't do it. GSF is a skill based game, and having any components (like mines and drones) that auto-target and auto-kill is just a bad, bad idea.

 

This is their third chance to balance Bombers, but this time if they fail, matters are much worse. People will spend fleet req and cartel coins to unlock and upgrade these ships ... and if they turn out to be overpowered, it'll be hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

The easiest way to balance drones especially is to make them not do damage, but instead make them apply debuffs that make it easier for the Bomber or its allies to get kills. Slows, evasion penalties, accuracy penalties, regen penalties. All of these are great things for drones to do. But doing the actual damage and getting the actual kills should be up to the players and skillful targeting with ship-board weapons.

 

i definitely hope that that won't happen, GSF should be about skill and only skill. i love your idea of debuff and buff probes, especially the idea of a regeneration probe. my only three real complaints about the game are the whole capture and hold idea (it's just like warzones but in space!), how hard it is to hit a moving target, and always getting missiled every second of flying around. the first two are quite annoying, but the last one is infuriating. i really hope they don't add another weapon that combines with missiles to make pure rage.

[Nemarus]

Dev blog just released bomber class info http://www.swtor.com/blog/developer-update-bomber-class-starfighter

 

Sorry OP but it's not going to be buffs. It looks like strikers with long range heavy weapons are going to be a hot commodity.

 

As a Striker pilot I say "Bring The !#@& On." I'm ready for it.

 

In beta Bombers had Heavy Laser Cannons and Concussion Missiles too. If that's still true, Bombers will be their own counter--or Gunships using Ion Railgun. But there will be little reason to play a Strike.

[CyberneticDucks]

Drones that deal damage will either:

 

1) deal too much damage and be too powerful and disruptive, such that everyone will play it and the game will fundamentally change for the worse

2) deal too little damage and make the class useless, such that no one will play it and the game will remain the same

 

On the other hand, if Drones caused debuffs on enemies or buffs for your team (as was suggested numerous times in beta), then the decision of whether or not to fly a Bomber becomes a much more interesting question. If you fly on a coordinated team, then you'd want to have at least one Bomber to increase the effectiveness of that team. On the other hand, a Bomber by itself might be underpowered.

 

Or heck, if you're flying something else and you see someone flying a Bomber, then you would feel compelled to be its wingman, so as to take full advantage of the buffing/debuffing it creates. Its very presence would encourage teamwork and coordination.

 

One implementation of Bombers just creates another DPS class that is either overpowered or underpowered.

 

The other implementation of Bombers creates a new layer of tactics and strategy on top of the already-relatively-balanced game.

 

We can see from the text description that they are stubbornly pressing on with the first unfortunate implementation, despite the many protests and suggestions of the closed beta audience. Our only hope now is that the Bombers are underpowered, so that everyone can just ignore them, and we can continue to enjoy GSF.

 

Why am I protesting now? Because now is when change can be made. Once Bombers are out and people have spent fleet req and/or cartel coins to unlock and upgrade them, changing them significantly is much harder to do.

 

GSF needs more teamwork, desperately. everyone, including me, would just fly around and shoot enemies at random because the 'capture and hold' idea is stupid. the other team would be slightly more coordinated and capture everything and would win by 950 points. also, all of the current classes are only designed to deal damage, like you said, but a support ship would change both of these problems.

[Applejacxs]

Honestly with matches still scoring in the single to low digits maybe a ship that main purpose is to protect tank and hold a point is not a bad thing . Satellites i have thought were always way easy to flip. I have seen it to many times to ships 1 come in an flip a satellite like its nothing with two people guarding Edited January 10, 2014 by Applejacxs
forgot something

[mr_sim]

In beta Bombers had Heavy Laser Cannons and Concussion Missiles too. If that's still true, Bombers will be their own counter--or Gunships using Ion Railgun. But there will be little reason to play a Strike.

 

So I'm a stick my feet in the mud til It works or it gets fixed, if i like it I'll stay with it. and I like striker and I've got a lot of L2P taken care of so I'm confident.

[JadedJasper]

Why not makes bombers actually be bombers? Fairly useless against Scouts and Strike Fighters, maybe with some dangerous if you're not careful automated turrets out the back, but essentially their role would be damaging large ships. Fighters could fly escort or intercept.

 

That's a time honored and effective approach, and avoids the healer/tank MMO-isms in favor of something closer to the WW2 aesthetic that Star Wars starfighting draws its power from.

 

Of course this would require a new game mode aside from Satellite Humping, but wouldn't that be a good thing?

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Assuming that the mines bombers lay aren't completely broken I think it would actually have a lot of potential in helping establish class roles.

 

Currently there isn't anything offensively that strikers can do that scouts can't also do. Which is problematic since even though strikers are multirole starfighters there currently is no real niche they exclusively fill as all current non-starfighter targets can be killed by the scout too. So if bombers enter the tactical role of fortifying objectives in addition to turrets it may give strikers an offensive role as multirole starfighters by making them easily the most capable starfighter for attacking fortified objectives.

 

Right now I think the situation will favor the use of bombers as a counter to scouts solo capping sats by laying mines/drones to supplement turrets and in so doing prevent scouts from capping sats on their own. This in turn will alter the tactical situation to place much greater value on having multirole starfighters/strikers so a team has the flexibility to both dogfight and (re)capture sats as a match unfolds.

 

This of course assumes that scouts have been balanced to be the interceptor of the game and strikers are balanced as the multirole starfighters and that this balance will play out in practice.

 

EDIT:

Why not makes bombers actually be bombers? Fairly useless against Scouts and Strike Fighters, maybe with some dangerous if you're not careful automated turrets out the back, but essentially their role would be damaging large ships. Fighters could fly escort or intercept.

 

That's a time honored and effective approach, and avoids the healer/tank MMO-isms in favor of something closer to the WW2 aesthetic that Star Wars starfighting draws its power from.

 

Of course this would require a new game mode aside from Satellite Humping, but wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

While I agree I'd prefer it if we had the classic trinity of the interceptor (A-Wing/Scout), multirole starfighter (X-Wing/Strike), and bomber (Y-Wing) this would require significant rebalancing. Whether such rebalancing ever occurs would depend on how close the devs envisioned GSF following this classic starfighter trinity.

 

For one it would require either nerfing scouts and/or buffing turrets so scouts could no longer solo cap sats and that it would take a en masse banzai charge for a team to cap a sat with only scouts (roughly speaking bring them in line with how A-Wings performed in the X-Wing series, ideal for dogfighting but almost certain death when used to attack anything more powerful).

 

Right now the ability of scouts to kill turrets just as well as strikes makes the multirole capabilities of strikes somewhat superfluous as there isn't an offensive niche they fill that scouts can't already fill. This would make a bomber in the traditional Y-Wing sense almost completely useless with the current balance. I don't think it's beneficial to create maps/game modes that are designed to highly favor any one ship class.

 

It's far better IMO to balance things so each ship class has a distinct role that no other ship class can overlap in with near equal capability and is useful for any match type. No one would think of suggesting that ground PvP match types make one role (such as healer) useless and the same standard should apply to GSF. Whatever ship role you prefer each match type should be designed so that ship type can contribute to their team just as much as any other ship type.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[CyberneticDucks]

Why not makes bombers actually be bombers? Fairly useless against Scouts and Strike Fighters, maybe with some dangerous if you're not careful automated turrets out the back, but essentially their role would be damaging large ships. Fighters could fly escort or intercept.

 

That's a time honored and effective approach, and avoids the healer/tank MMO-isms in favor of something closer to the WW2 aesthetic that Star Wars starfighting draws its power from.

 

Of course this would require a new game mode aside from Satellite Humping, but wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

good idea, maybe you could have maps like the atmosphere map in the game now but put up little bases on the bridges across those pillar things for you to drop bombs on. the bases would have little turrets and would repair and resupply ships. they would also increase power regeneration. nothing to make them ruin the game, but something powerful enough to encourage bombers.

[Sangrar]

lets just wait and see, honestly you guys ideas from what I have skimmed over would leave the bomber less than optimum compared to the other ships, I want ship balance, not make-the-new-guy-worse-just-because-the-test-version-was-op, I plan to at the very very least try out bomber, what is clear is it has the potential to change GSF strategy entirely, give gunships definitely more purpose because as stated ships that get in close range to try to take them out might hit mines which means gunships might serve as a check, and again we can't do more than speculate at this point, the only concern I have is with the potential to mine near the spawnpoint and make camping a little more possible, but lets just wait and see I am probably wrong.

[Srual]

Right, because Bioware has done such a great job of balance in other areas of this game that we should give them the benefit of the doubt? I disagree...once it's live and unbalanced, it will remain that way for a year minimum. Bioware has a track record that we can look at for evidence of their inability or lack of desire to ever address balance once it's out of whack. Speak up now...in a week, it's too late.

 

I underlined the point you appear to be missing.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Srual

[RebekahWSD]

Satellites i have thought were always way easy to flip. I have seen it to many times to ships 1 come in an flip a satellite like its nothing with two people guarding

 

This is a good thing as it keeps the game dynamic and evolving from moment to moment.

 

If a sat is that easy to capture, it's that easy to recapture and keeps everyone in the game.

 

Remember how maddening it was to take the side turrets in Alderaan Civil War when the enemy could reappear via the side speeders before you could cap?

 

A game where defense is insurmountable grows stale very quickly.

[Sharee]

My stance is that any ability that automatically targets and damages other players with no involvement from the attacker beyond the initial placing is a very bad design.

 

If you experienced the moment Animists were introduced into Dark age of Camelot, you understand why