Will Bombers ruin GSF once more?

[CaliJoe]

The dev post made me cringe. It will throw GSF completely off because you are throwing flying tanks into the mix.

[NathanielStarr]

Bombers sound like something that will be a problem for scouts and strikers and another easy kill for gunships. As if people needed more of a reason to play gunships.

[Hambunctious]

You mean ruin it even more? Yes they will.

 

Bombers are meant to do one thing, and that's shoot missiles/rockets/bombs at targets. Usually at cap ships, stations, or large targets while in space. They can also hang back, and carry a payload of concussion missiles to back up the fighter types. They're not meant for dogfighting. They deploy their payload, and head back to their carrier for reloading.

 

Mine laying duty belongs to other ships. Usually of a transport type, and having enough cargo space to fit the duty.

 

EA is killing the lore.

[mattycutts]

my main concern is them having ability to drop a new respawn spot, thats a really bad idea will make capping objectives far harder and defending far easier.

 

rest of their tools, i never tested the bomber so im kinda stabbing in dark,

 

Mines/Drones are targetable

 

If you are ONE player im sure youll struggle, but its a team game.

 

i know alot of gunships go for kills and damage over most things, but there are also lots of gunships like me out there that play as a team, i rarely see figures close to 100k damage, not because im not skilled but way i like to play my gunship, ill take the time to pick my targets such as a scouts/fighters attacking team friends, etc,

 

Now with bomber being released, if i was to work as a team with my scouts/fighters and as they approach a base, what if instead of looking just for the kill of a bomber if i actually picked off all the drones/mines, im sure one mine wouldnt take more than a 50% charged railgun blast, and similar with drones, so basically i and any other gunships take the drones/mines out u know what that means CLEAR PATH for my team to get to their bombers. Im pritty sure a bomber with drones/mines on cool down would go down quickly with a few fighters or scouts in his face.

 

Just my 2cents. Yes they could be seriously over powered, but if someone is a solo player i think they will always find a bomber OP no matter what devs did.

 

I think the key will lie with how good is your gunship as a team player.

[Sharee]

 

If you are ONE player im sure youll struggle, but its a team game.

 

I'm not sure i agree with that kind of reasoning. The bomber has a team as well. If one player cannot handle one bomber, then two players won't be able to handle two bombers. Etc. etc.

[mattycutts]

I'm not sure i agree with that kind of reasoning. The bomber has a team as well. If one player cannot handle one bomber, then two players won't be able to handle two bombers. Etc. etc.

 

thats picking one sentence, which is followed by my reasoning.

[IceGanon]

First off, they really nerfed the damage on the drones.

 

Second, they upped the range on missiles. So, consider Strike fighters the counter to bombers. They should be able to pick them off from a distance.

[Nethgilne]

You mean ruin it even more? Yes they will.

 

Bombers are meant to do one thing, and that's shoot missiles/rockets/bombs at targets. Usually at cap ships, stations, or large targets while in space. They can also hang back, and carry a payload of concussion missiles to back up the fighter types. They're not meant for dogfighting. They deploy their payload, and head back to their carrier for reloading.

 

Mine laying duty belongs to other ships. Usually of a transport type, and having enough cargo space to fit the duty.

 

EA is killing the lore.

 

If they could've done it all again I would have preferred if they replaced Gunships with bombers that fire heavy guided payloads from afar and bombers stay as they are but just called "minelayers" or "area denial vehicles" or something like that.

 

Oh well. The general roles and and strategies would be about the same though. Everything else is semantics, so I can happily deal with what we have assuming that "Bombers" are balanced when they come out.

[Nemarus]

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.

 

Actually I may have recalled incorrectly. Looking back at my data I think only one variant of the Bomber has access to heavy lasers, and it's not the minelayer or dronecarrier.

 

Those two will probably only have Laser Cannons, Rapid Lasers, or Light Laser Cannons. And with no Range capacitor, their max range with Laser Cannons will be 5250m. So Strikes using Quads with Range Capacitor or Heavies will still have a unique niche.

 

That being said, the Missile Drone will have a missile range of 7000m, and the Railgun Drone even longer (hopefully not the full 15k).

[xyrmagus]

The main issue I still see is that looking at the datamined numbers, bombers have 2000/2124 (or so) health/shields by default, where as scouts have 1026/914 and fighters have 1450/1260. Given that a fully charged gunship rail gun can 1-shot a scout, and bombers are supposed to be slow, I still see gunships as the hard counter to bombers.

 

Which leaves strike fighters in this "niche" of not being great at anything, which is wonderful in principle, but none of the game modes promote this balanced nature. Gunships and scouts are just as good (or better) at taking out objectives like turrets in the current game mode, scouts can get across the map and dogfight better (they may be structurally weaker, but higher evasion and more maneuverability actually makes them much tankier than strikes).

 

Sure, protorps can bypass shields and armor, doing pure hull damage. But it would take THREE of them (assuming when the first one hits is when you start the timer, and not the lockon/travel time, this is AT LEAST 12+4+12 = 28 seconds by default, definitely over 20 even if you max upgrade reload time) to kill a bomber, assuming it doesn't heal it's hull... which is a big assumption. Yes, you can get in closer and also use blasters/cluster missiles, but so can anyone else; and then you're exposed to mines/drones.

 

Point being, the introduction of the bombers, IMO, actually makes strike fighters an even WEAKER choice now compared to before. I'm strongly considering buying a gunship now and just abandoning my pike.

[mr_sim]

I personally think strikers will be more important then ever.

 

GS will definitely be the greatest static counter to Bombers. However once you add line of sight to the equation GS suddenly becomes far less efficient a bomber killer. More To the point I think that Bombers will be fairly terrible at attacking GS but GS will still need to evade.

 

Now strikers will likely be the second best bomber killer and immune to the LOS evasion that GS are affected by.

 

Scouts it seems will have an uphill battle against bomber so again 1 point to strikers. There has been debate about scout role vs striker role, the issue being too much overlap and the scout coming out ahead.

 

Bombers should help define the strikers role far better then ever I think.

[tunewalker]

I personally think strikers will be more important then ever.

 

GS will definitely be the greatest static counter to Bombers. However once you add line of sight to the equation GS suddenly becomes far less efficient a bomber killer. More To the point I think that Bombers will be fairly terrible at attacking GS but GS will still need to evade.

 

Now strikers will likely be the second best bomber killer and immune to the LOS evasion that GS are affected by.

 

Scouts it seems will have an uphill battle against bomber so again 1 point to strikers. There has been debate about scout role vs striker role, the issue being too much overlap and the scout coming out ahead.

 

Bombers should help define the strikers role far better then ever I think.

 

Not to mention I feel the Strike "multi-role" idea now means they are just as suited to take out Bombers as they are to take out Gunships. While Scouts can beat GS's and Strikes, Gunships beating any one at a range but heavily bombers., and Bombers beating Strikes and Scouts that get to close which heavies on Scouts.

[Kaivers]

The main issue I still see is that looking at the datamined numbers, bombers have 2000/2124 (or so) health/shields by default, where as scouts have 1026/914 and fighters have 1450/1260. Given that a fully charged gunship rail gun can 1-shot a scout, and bombers are supposed to be slow, I still see gunships as the hard counter to bombers.

 

Which leaves strike fighters in this "niche" of not being great at anything, which is wonderful in principle, but none of the game modes promote this balanced nature. Gunships and scouts are just as good (or better) at taking out objectives like turrets in the current game mode, scouts can get across the map and dogfight better (they may be structurally weaker, but higher evasion and more maneuverability actually makes them much tankier than strikes).

 

Sure, protorps can bypass shields and armor, doing pure hull damage. But it would take THREE of them (assuming when the first one hits is when you start the timer, and not the lockon/travel time, this is AT LEAST 12+4+12 = 28 seconds by default, definitely over 20 even if you max upgrade reload time) to kill a bomber, assuming it doesn't heal it's hull... which is a big assumption. Yes, you can get in closer and also use blasters/cluster missiles, but so can anyone else; and then you're exposed to mines/drones.

 

Point being, the introduction of the bombers, IMO, actually makes strike fighters an even WEAKER choice now compared to before. I'm strongly considering buying a gunship now and just abandoning my pike.

 

Pretty sure I'll be choosing another class to main also. Either they weren't able to make adjustments in time for this patch or someone just doesn't like Strike Fighters. The unbalance can't get any more clear than the results we are seeing on the records thread http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=703085 and I have yet to see dulfy's Strike Fighter build guide which says a lot imo. Lol.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Kaivers

[Nemarus]

The main issue I still see is that looking at the datamined numbers, bombers have 2000/2124 (or so) health/shields by default, where as scouts have 1026/914 and fighters have 1450/1260. Given that a fully charged gunship rail gun can 1-shot a scout, and bombers are supposed to be slow, I still see gunships as the hard counter to bombers.

 

Which leaves strike fighters in this "niche" of not being great at anything, which is wonderful in principle, but none of the game modes promote this balanced nature. Gunships and scouts are just as good (or better) at taking out objectives like turrets in the current game mode, scouts can get across the map and dogfight better (they may be structurally weaker, but higher evasion and more maneuverability actually makes them much tankier than strikes).

 

Sure, protorps can bypass shields and armor, doing pure hull damage. But it would take THREE of them (assuming when the first one hits is when you start the timer, and not the lockon/travel time, this is AT LEAST 12+4+12 = 28 seconds by default, definitely over 20 even if you max upgrade reload time) to kill a bomber, assuming it doesn't heal it's hull... which is a big assumption. Yes, you can get in closer and also use blasters/cluster missiles, but so can anyone else; and then you're exposed to mines/drones.

 

Point being, the introduction of the bombers, IMO, actually makes strike fighters an even WEAKER choice now compared to before. I'm strongly considering buying a gunship now and just abandoning my pike.

 

You can't really look at those numbers and glean anything from them, because shield capacity varies widely from component to component. A Blackbolt using Shield-to-Engine Transfer as its shield can have shields up to 1740. A Sting with Directional Shield and Reactor can have over 1800. A Strike using Directional Shield can get over 2200.

 

Quick Charge, Distortion, Fortress, Overcharged--all of those shield types have great active abilities, but they also all have huge 30% capacity penalties.

 

Of the shields in game right now, only Shield-to-Engine Transfer, Feedback, and Directional Shield offer 100% or greater shield capacity. I suspect Bombers will have one shield component option that gives 100% (with a weaker active ability), and then several capacity-penalized options as well.

[Nemarus]

Actually I may have recalled incorrectly. Looking back at my data I think only one variant of the Bomber has access to heavy lasers, and it's not the minelayer or dronecarrier.

 

Those two will probably only have Laser Cannons, Rapid Lasers, or Light Laser Cannons. And with no Range capacitor, their max range with Laser Cannons will be 5250m. So Strikes using Quads with Range Capacitor or Heavies will still have a unique niche.

 

That being said, the Missile Drone will have a missile range of 7000m, and the Railgun Drone even longer (hopefully not the full 15k).

 

Nope, I did recall correctly. Both Bomber variants have access to Heavy Laser Cannons, meaning they can get a range of 6300m, putting them well in the "medium-range" area occupied by Strikes. However, they cannot equip Barrel Roll, so that severely limits their relative mobility.

 

The Railgun Drone has a range of 10k.

[Nemarus]

You can't really look at those numbers and glean anything from them, because shield capacity varies widely from component to component. A Blackbolt using Shield-to-Engine Transfer as its shield can have shields up to 1740. A Sting with Directional Shield and Reactor can have over 1800. A Strike using Directional Shield can get over 2200.

 

Quick Charge, Distortion, Fortress, Overcharged--all of those shield types have great active abilities, but they also all have huge 30% capacity penalties.

 

Of the shields in game right now, only Shield-to-Engine Transfer, Feedback, and Directional Shield offer 100% or greater shield capacity. I suspect Bombers will have one shield component option that gives 100% (with a weaker active ability), and then several capacity-penalized options as well.

 

Oops, I was wrong about Overcharged Shields. They have a capacity bonus, not a penalty. Yay Bombers!

[Kaivers]

 

The Railgun Drone has a range of 10k.

 

Railgun drone? Say it ain't so!

[Sharee]

Railgun drone? Say it ain't so!

 

10km range, 650 dmg/hit, 20% shield pierce, 4sec to charge, 2 sec CD, lasts 3 mins

 

Upgradeable:

30s CD reduction

lifespan +1min

+20% stronger shields

+8% more shield pierce OR armor ignore

+10% railgun damage OR 0.5sec less charge time.

 

Fun times ahead.

[Kain_Turinbar]

10km range, 650 dmg/hit, 20% shield pierce, 4sec to charge, 2 sec CD, lasts 3 mins

 

Upgradeable:

30s CD reduction

lifespan +1min

+20% stronger shields

+8% more shield pierce OR armor ignore

+10% railgun damage OR 0.5sec less charge time.

 

Fun times ahead.

 

A ship that drops AI controlled turrets/drones seems so different than all 3 other ship types where there are no "freebie" or "skilless" kills.

[Starbros]

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.

 

This is honestly the smartest idea I have heard, and may be a viable solution to the awful gunship problem there is right now in GS. Gunships and Bombers should be capped, maybe dependent on the size of the group (2 for a team of 8, 3 for a team of 12?) to prevent these terrible debacles with four gunships camped in formation, guarding each other and able to shoot at two separate satellites... I've been on the receiving end and it was impossible to win even with 4 other veteran aces in my group.

 

I fully support a cap for the number Gunships and Bombers that can be deployed at one time.

[Argonloris]

I tested in beta as well, but I didn't see problems with the bombers being as bad as the OP is suggesting. I wouldn't say that they can lay a minefield for starters. The maximum deployable was 2 of any type of mine/drone ( Its possible that the number could have been increased to 3 or 4 through upgrades but I don't think that was the case). As for destroying them, it was relatively simple to do as long as you didn't stay right on their tail. I regularly took down multiple bombers solo in matches. It was a bit harder when they modified to a shield heavy spec but a decent strike fighter with ion cannons and a second primary of lasers could still tear through them with little effort.

 

Bombers play a great defensive roll but are simple enough to counter if a player learns to anticipate and adapt.

[Kaivers]

This is honestly the smartest idea I have heard, and may be a viable solution to the awful gunship problem there is right now in GS. Gunships and Bombers should be capped, maybe dependent on the size of the group (2 for a team of 8, 3 for a team of 12?) to prevent these terrible debacles with four gunships camped in formation, guarding each other and able to shoot at two separate satellites... I've been on the receiving end and it was impossible to win even with 4 other veteran aces in my group.

 

I fully support a cap for the number Gunships and Bombers that can be deployed at one time.

 

I was also on the receiving end of this type of play the other day and it wasn't fun. At least four or five Gunships spread out to provide full coverage of all Sats and each other, plus all were close enough to the respawn points to enable them to escape every pursuer while giving their GS wingmen time to line up kill shots during the pursuit. I chased one all the way back to to his/her Capital Ship and when I peeled off to avoid the turret fire a wingman got shots on me and after I exploded I saw the same GS I had pursued shooting my teammates from safe cover of the Capital Ship.

 

I'll just say....if my Strikefighter brethren/sistren and I are given the right tools we can use skill to help dismantle this tactic. We are built to be tough but just don't have the right offensive capabilities to close the deal in these kinds of situations. Getting in close while under railgun fire was difficult enough so I should have been capable to finish off that GS either before he could escape and/or before his wingman could respond but as is, he was my virtual equal in jousting (survived long enough to damage me and run) AND I couldn't catch up to him after he turned tail.

 

p.s. And as per another thread, there should definitely be some penalty for running to the Capital Ships for cover

Edited January 11, 2014 by Kaivers

[NalRethak]

If GS was a spac combat sim with no aiming, no evasion and stuff, a real space combat sim, balancing out Gunships, Bombers, scouts or strike fighters wouldn't be much of a problem.

 

Once again Bioware failed heavily on trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Zoom_VI]

I think they won't be a problem b/c bombers are just too plain ugly to be used.

[mr_sim]

I think they won't be a problem b/c bombers are just too plain ugly to be used.

 

lol, I'm calling the one republic bomber the flying remote control.