Nemarus Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Brian, Chris ... tweaking the numbers didn't work in beta, and it's not going to work now. Drones that deal damage and kill on their own are fundamentally broken and have no place in GSF. Closed beta proved that, week after week. No one but the laziest players wants them to be here. Damaging drones will allow botting of GSF matches. Drones will reduce the dynamic nature of matches, with satellites switching hands often up until the end. Every match will be Alderaan. Please put the brakes on before you crash GSF into an asteroid. Make Bomber drones into super-versions of the Scout Sensor Beacon. Have them debuff speed, evasion, accuracy, regen-rate. Do that and Bombers become incentive for smart, team play. Don't do that ... and Bombers swing the pendulum from the excellent balance of skill/RPG into a mess of chaos, confusion, frustration, and disproportionate rewards for unskilled, uncreative play. Just as a reminder, I'm going to reply to this thread with some of the posts from beta... can you really promise us these issues have all been resolved? Edited January 9, 2014 by Nemarus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemarus Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 FIRST BIG BOMBER BETA POST There are lots of threads already saying "Bombers are OP" or "Mines or OP" or "Drones are OP". The fact is ... there are multiple overlapping issues with Bombers right now, and I'd like to break them out so they can be discussed debated more clearly. Because I'm writing this, it will of course be rooted in my own experience, but it will also be informed by the many other posts there have been on these topics. On to the issues: Mines Issue M1) "Mines are one-shotting me with full shields!" This one is simple. Only one type of mine has the ability to bypass shields, and that is the Seismic Mine, the Minelayer's default Secondary Weapon. Only one Seismic Mine can be deployed at a time, but once deployed it will home in on the nearest fighter within 1-2k. Potential Counter: Seismic Mines have a fairly short activation range, and so can be shot before you get in range of it -- if you are aware of its presence. Problem with Counter: A smart Minelayer really has no reason to drop a Seismic Mine until it knows a potential target is already in range. Most Minelayers will be found closely orbiting the objective satellite. It can wait there, weaving in and out of LOS, until enemies show up to try and cap the objective. Then it can drop its mines just beneath the "skirt" of the satellite. A few moments later (after what seems like a brief arming delay) the mine will inevitably home in on someone who didn't even know it was there. Unless they can pull off a very quick evasive maneuver, the Seismic Mine will shred their hull. Issue M2) Seeker Mines put out tremendous effortless damage Both Bomber types can choose Seeker Mines as their Secondary Weapon. While it doesn't avoid shields like the Seismic Mine, a Seeker Mine still does as much damage as a Concussion Missile. The difference is that the Seeker Mine doesn't need to be aimed or locked on. The Bomber can simply wait until an enemy is within 5000 m (i.e. blaster range) and release a Seeker Mine. After a short arming delay, the Seeker Mine will home in on the target and do its considerable damage. Three Seeker Mines can be deployed at once, and (for some strange reason) they have infinite capacity. I believe Seeker Mines are responsible for a large portion of the "passive damage" that Bombers seem to rack up with very little effort. Essentially, if an enemy is shooting at you, he is in range for your Seeker Mine, and there is very little chance he will shoot it down before it hits him. Potential Counter: Like all mines, it only takes one shot to kill a Seeker Mine. If you know they are there, you can clear them out pretty easily. Problem with Counter: There is no real reason for a Bomber to put out mines "early". Instead, it is better to wait for the enemy to come to you and then, while they are in the midst of dogfighting and distracted, release the mines. Other Mines I haven't had a chance to test other mine types (Interdiction, Ion), and I don't think anyone else has bothered to either, given that Seismic and Seeker Mines are so powerful. But they would likely have the same issues which are common to all mines: easy to place such that they will hit someone attacking an objective ... very hard to counter or avoid. Drones Issue D1) Drones putting out tremendous automatic damage It is difficult to ascertain just how much damage Drones are doing vs. Mines. The key difference between a Mine and a Drone is that a Mine does its damage just once and is then gone (but has a short cooldown). A Drone may linger around for a long time and do sustained damage over the course of its duration--or it may be destroyed very early and not able to be replaced due to its long cooldown. That being said, the key issue many have with drones is that they essentially dogfight for the Bomber pilot, and in some ways they are a better dogfighter than any ace human pilot can be. They don't seem to require a lock on time to use their missiles, nor do they have any issue tracking a fast moving target. It also seems like many of their attacks don't even need LOS, meaning they can be placed amidst the satellite "fins" to make it harder to destroy them. Potential Counter: Clearly destroying a Drone is the best way to deal with it. Doing so means the Bomber loses a substantial source of offense for the duration of its long cooldown. Problem with Counter: Like Mines, Drones can be placed in very difficult-to-find-and-hit places, and yet the Drone itself does not seem hindered by that placement at all. Issue D2) Drones are hard to target Destroying Drones is the key to countering them, but it is very hard to target them. We see constant spam of "X's Drone killed Y" and yet we have no way to act on that information. We have no button that lets us target X's Drone. It is also very hard to tell if the lasers and missiles damaging your shields are coming from a Drone or Fighter. The "R" key, to target whoever is shooting at you, seems to work very inconsistently when trying to target a Drone. Radar is no help if you can't target a Drone, so we are left with blindly hoping one falls into our field of view while we are maneuvering. That is not a dependable counter. Potential Counter: None at the moment. Finding and targeting a Drone is almost always based on luck. Bomber Defense vs. Offense Issue B1) Bomber defenses are extremely difficult to get through This is due to a combination of factors: a) Bombers have naturally tough shields. b) Bombers have very, very powerful defensive components, such as Overcharged Shields and Engine-to-Shield transfer. c) Bombers are best suited to flying close around objectives. This means maintaining LOS on them for any length of time is difficult. d) Bombers need not devote power to lasers in order to be offensive powerhouses. Because the bulk of their damage comes from Mines/Drones, Bombers can put all power to Shields, further increasing their shield capacity and recharge rate. e) Bombers have thick hulls, meaning even shield-piercing weapons are slow to kill them. f) The Hydrospanner co-pilot ability allows Bombers to repair hull damage. Potential Counter: Ion Cannons/Missiles/Railgun can help eat through their shields a little bit more quickly, but.... Problem with Counter: ... the Overcharged Shields component easily negates it, especially when the Bomber is still frequently breaking LOS and dropping mines/drones. ** NOTE ** Those who argue that multiple ships should be required to take out a Bomber are just proving that the class is broken. I do not view "bring friends" as a viable counter. Especially as it usually takes 4 skilled pilots to overcome a turtled Bomber, and 1 or more of those attackers will likely die in the process. Issue B2) Bombers can be simultaneously defensive and offensive at once This was touched on in Issue B1, but it's worth mentioning on its own. Every other ship class in the game must respect the L/S/E power transfer system. If you are going full offense, then it means you're going to sacrifice some Shield capacity/regen and some engine speed/regen. A Bomber does not respect this system. It is able to maintain the bulk of its offensive potential (infinite mines/drones) while putting all power to Shields. It can do massive damage, outstripping any other class in a match, while never firing a shot from its lasers. Effectively, it has its cake and eats it too. Potential Counter: None. Bomber Impacts on Fun The following issues do not cover specific components or counters, but rather the aggregate impact of Bombers on the "fun" of GS. This is based on my opinion of course, and on my experience as someone who has been testing for several weeks--I've played the game with and without Bombers, and I have to say I preferred it without. The following are my reasons why: Issue F1) A small number of Bombers can lock down an objective Once an objective is captured, a small number of entrenched Bombers can hold it indefinitely, even against vastly superior numbers. This can often mean that a match is settled in its first few minutes. This is a far cry from pre-Bomber GS, when objectives could be flipped often, creating exciting matches. In pre-Bomber GS, it seemed like all ship classes could "play defense". Gunships could destroy/weaken attackers from range. Scouts could detect incomings with their long-range sensors and jet from node to node as needed. And Strikes, being jack-of-all-trades, could either move to intercept incoming attackers or play defensive close to the satellite. Tactics and roles were alive and well, and were determined by player skill and positioning, not purely by class. Bombers have become the de-facto node defenders (and in some cases node attackers), and even an unskilled Bomber pilot can hold a node alone for a long, long time. Defending with any other class is now a waste of time. Issue F2) Bombers require disproportionately high skill/strategy to counter/destroy, but almost zero skill to play effectively The gap between an experienced Bomber pilot and a rookie Bomber pilot is actually quite small, due to the very limited skills required to play the class optimally. Circle the node close. Drop mines/drones when enemies are in range. Keep shields up. Break line of sight. Issue F3) Bombers de-emphasize skill (and may end up being botted) There is ample evidence in these forums, both anecdotal and with numerical data, saying the same thing: "I can have the match of my life in my Scout/Strike/Gunship, and yet my kills/assists/damage will pale in comparison to what I do in an average match as a Bomber." It's frustrating and discouraging. GS is a wonderful game with elegant systems that reward tactical thinking, dynamic resource management, and dogfighting/twitch talent. Flying a Bomber effectively requires NONE of these things. A bot could easily do it--in fact bots probably will. Issue F4) Drones and Mines create noise, frustration, and a sense of confusion Before Bombers, it was much easier to have a spatial awareness of the situation. How many enemy fighters are near me? Who is engaging whom? Who is attacking me and where are they? Drones and Mines muddle that spatial understanding with chaos and static. When you are near a Bomber, your shields are constantly wilting away, suffering attrition from X mines and drones peppering you (or sometimes one-shotting you). You get constant warnings of missile locks--are they from fighters or drones? Will boosting help? Should I seek cover, or does it matter? Space combat should be chaotic, but for it to be fun, we have to have some measure of understanding and control about what is happening around us--and more importantly--to us. As it stands now, Mines and Drones make that very difficult--and they are an especially onerous burden on new players who are still trying to find their footing, and will be limited to flying Scouts or Strikes. It has a high probability of souring their experience and making them quit. Is there a fix? Some may disagree with some or all of my above points. That's fine. This is a beta and all voices should be heard. But having played GS pre-Bombers, my very strong and certain opinion is that the game is much less fun since Bombers were added. Last week we all thought it was just due to Drones being untuned. But this week, we see that even with Mines and Drones having been tuned, it doesn't change the fundamental problems, nor does that tuning even attempt to address some of the fundamental flaws with regard to the Bomber's durability (especially the ability to be both offensive and defensive). A Drone build might be viable if Drones were purely there for support--applying debuffs to enemies, doing moderate healing, or allowing other tactical advantages (like the hyperspace beacon). Then, at least, a Drone could not be compared apples-to-apples to a manned dogfighter. But the moment a Drone or Mine automatically does damage without player aiming skill involved, balance becomes very difficult. Either the Drones or Mines will be too weak to be effective, or they will be too strong. The sweet spot will be very hard to find, and many players will have a different opinion of where it is. Any kind of damage-dealing pet or bot will always fundamentally be controversial in a reflex-based game--there will always be some who call them aimbots or PvE crutches that taint the PvP experience. I don't know if I'd use that language myself, but I'm not sure I'd argue with it either. Conclusion There have been many suggestions about how to address Drones or Mines or Bomber durability; however, at this point I think that the balance issues with Bombers are so broad and multi-faceted that the only solution is to take them back to the drawing board for a complete redesign. Instead of trying to create a role for "Bombers" to play when there is in fact nothing to bomb, the class should be withheld until a later date, when there are hardened objectives that need heavy weapons assault. In the mean time, it is my advice that Bombers be pulled from the beta and the idea of damage-dealing Mines and Drones to be scrapped. Right now it is simply too hard to test other aspects of the game with Bombers being such a dominating force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemarus Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 SECOND BIG BOMBER BETA POST (after "balancing") After last week's testing, I posted a comprehensive list of what I believed were all issues facing Bombers, along with a recommendation that they be withheld from release and given a redesign. You can find that thread here: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=695190 I played for all 4 hours on 11/11, and I thought it'd be good to follow-up on my original list of issues, as I do think at least some of them have been satisfactorily addressed. Issue M1) "Mines are one-shotting me with full sihelds!" -- RESOLVED It seems that the damage of Seismic Mines (the one type of mine that outright ignores shields) has been reduced such that it cannot one-shot even a Scout. I was definitely severely damaged in my Scout by Seimic Mines, and in many times that damage led to my death, but it felt fair. Granted, I only ever went up against a single Bomber at a time, it seemed, so I was only ever hit by one of these things (as each Bomber can only put one out). Still I think they are okay (as long as they remain limited to 1 out at a time per Bomber). Issue M2) Seeker Mines put out tremendous effortless damage -- UNKNOWN (and I suspect UNRESOLVED) I believe Seeker Mines had their radius reduced from 5000 to 4000, and their damage was reduced as well. That being said, it is hard to judge how much of an issue these still are, since neither type of Bomber was able to earn any requisition, and thus the only way to unlock them was with Fleet Req (and I don't think anyone got enough of that). Personally I still think a range of 4000 is too long. Many laser cannons have a range of 4000, meaning the moment you are in range of shooting one, it is coming at you. Can you even shoot a mine after it has locked on, especially as Seeker Mines actually launch missiles at you as they detonate? I recommend reducing the range to 3000-3500m. Issue D1) Drones putting out tremendous automatic damage -- UNCERTAIN This one was hard to judge as well. I played a couple matches in a Legion to compare. In one, on the asteroid match, I stayed alive orbiting objective B almost the entire time. I'd say my Missile Sentry drone was destroyed quickly after I put it out 50% of the time. Meaning if I deployed the drone 6 times in the match, 3 of those times it was destroyed almost instantly, and 3 of the times it endured until I was ready to deploy another one. Given that, at the end of the match I'd still done 60k damage--and the vast, vast majority of that was done by my Missile Sentry Drone. Compare this to my best "ace" matches in a Sting, where I never died and dominated the leaderboards--in those matches I got around 35k damage. But the Sting took a lot more effort and skill to get 35k than it did in the Legion to get 60k. That being said, there were other matches where I played a Legion and was shut down pretty heavily--though I still managed 20k damage in even those matches. I'd say the issue here isn't that the Drone is doing too much damage... the issue is that it still requires very little investment or skill from the Bomber pilot. I'll touch on that more below. Issue D2) Drones are hard to target -- RESOLVED The red danger spheres around the enemy drones immensely helped me to target them. It also helped me have a much better spatial awareness of the battlefield. The only issue is that the spheres did not seem to match the trigger radius of mines. I'm not sure how to do that appropriately for a drone, since it has quite a long range, but for the mines at least, I'd expect the sphere to represent the trigger radius of the mine. Issue B1) Bomber defenses are extremely difficult to get through -- MIXED Previously, I broke out Bomber durability as coming from a variety of sources. Some have been fixed, some are still an issue. a) Bombers have naturally tough shields -- RESOLVED: Bomber shields are still tougher than any other class, but not unreasonably so b) Bombers have very, very powerful defensive components, such as Overcharged Shields and Engine-to-Shield transfer -- UNRESOLVED: Both of these abilities still allow very effective turtling when combined with... c) Bombers are best suited to flying close around objectives. This means maintaining LOS on them for any length of time is difficult -- UNRESOLVED: It is very, very hard to kill a Bomber that is slowly orbiting the objective, because you can't maintain LOS long enough to keep their shields down (excepting a Bomber using Charged Plating) d) Bombers need not devote power to lasers in order to be offensive powerhouses. Because the bulk of their damage comes from Mines/Drones, Bombers can put all power to Shields, further increasing their shield capacity and recharge rate -- UNRESOLVED: This is still a HUGE, HUGE issue. If this were resolved, it would fix many of the Bomber's other issues. Bombers need to either choose to have their cake or eat it, just like everyone else. e) Bombers have thick hulls, meaning even shield-piercing weapons are slow to kill them. -- RESOLVED: Bombers have the strongest hulls of any class, but it is reasonable for that to be so. f) The Hydrospanner co-pilot ability allows Bombers to repair hull damage. -- UNCERTAIN: I didn't test the Hydrospanner ability on the latest build so can't comment. Issue B2) Bombers can be simultaneously defensive and offensive at once -- UNRESOLVED This is still the single biggest issue with Bombers. If this were fixed (i.e. if mines and drones had reduced effectiveness when a Bomber has full power to shields), then many of the balance issues of the Bomber would disappear. It would also discourage Bomber pilots from doing nothing but slowly orbiting under the skirts of an objective satellite. That's not fun for them, but right now it is simply the optimal way to play. Like I mentioned above, I turtled up under a satellite and still did 60k of damage. It wasn't fun, but it was the most optimal use of my time. In other matches of similar duration, I'd dogfight in my Sting and top the kill and damage charts, but I'd still do only 35k max. I had a lot more fun doing that, but I'm guessing I could have done more damage and fully secured an objective just by doing a Legion orbit. But if my drones and mines did reduced damage, or had longer cooldowns, or otherwise required laser charge to function optimally, then turtling would not be the obvious choice. If you fix one thing, fix this, please. Issue F1) A small number of Bombers can lock down an objective -- UNRESOLVED While it is harder for a single Bomber to hold an objective, if you get two in the same place, it becomes a much harder nut to crack, especially if both Bombers are orbiting tight under the objective satellite skirt. With two Bombers, the number of mines and drones double, and one Bomber can cover the aft of the other one. Plus if they use repair drones, they can cross-heal each other. Again, this issue could mainly be resolved if you fix Issue B2. Issue F2) Bombers require disproportionately high skill/strategy to counter/destroy, but almost zero skill to play effectively -- UNRESOLVED The tuning closed the gap for sure, but it's still far easier for a player to earn medals and post big numbers in a Bomber than it is in anything else. That being said, a skilled pilot of anything can now take down a Bomber 1 on 1 in open space, which is a major improvement over past weeks. Killing them once they get under an objective is much harder though. Issue F3) Bombers de-emphasize skill (and may end up being botted) -- UNRESOLVED Again, the tuning somewhat reduced a newbie-piloted Bomber's effectiveness, but fundamentally they still disproportionately grant rewards and battlefield effect for low amount of skill, compared to other fighters. And they still might end up being botted. Issue F4) Drones and Mines create noise, frustration, and a sense of confusion -- UNCERTAIN The "danger spheres" around mines and drones massively helped provided warning and awareness of a mined area. Obviously they still create chaos and noise, but it's not an inappropriate amount. Of course, this may only be because fewer people were piloting Bombers this week. I do still have concerns that new players may get frustrated and feel like they don't know what to do if every objective ends up mined/droned. Should they be in at launch? I remain skeptical about the Legion (Dronelayer). I think the Razorwire (Minelayer) is close enough and can be included at launch. With regard to the Legion: I think that at launch, having Missile Drones everywhere puts a lot of first impressions at risk, both in terms of frustrating/confusing new players, and in terms of antagonizing PvP purists who will resist any kind of auto-aiming. With regard to the Razorwire: I think mines are an easier concept for everyone to understand and accept, and I think that having one durable, defensive ship adds valuable variety. I don't think we need two at this stage. That being said, I'd make the following changes to the Razorwire: 1) Change its Default Loadout Shield to something other than Charged Plating. Right now Charged Plating leaves the Razorwire too vulnerable to ... well... everything. 2) Change Mine capacity to be something other than Infinite. I've never understood why Mines and Drones are infinite capacity. Surely a Razorwire is no more dependent on its mines than a Quell is on its missiles? A Razorwire still has lasers, just like every other ship. If it survives long enough to exhaust all its mines, then that means it's already had a VERY GOOD MATCH. It can either start killing with lasers or self-destruct to respawn and reload Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itkovian Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) One thing I should point out, however: Then GSF was released, or near released, we got a series of posts about the other roles too. All of these posts contained mistakes about specific details that had changed in PTS. For example, the scout post mentioned how they had a tracking device, which was the earlier incarnation of Sabotage Probe (it used to make the ship it hit show up on everyone's radar, instead of the maneuvering freeze sabo probe does). Clearly that post had been written before scouts had been altrered, so maybe something like that is happening here. Or, hopefully, there is a bit of creative license, and the offensive drones are nowhere near as effective as they was, or as this article states. Edited January 9, 2014 by Itkovian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemarus Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 Well, looking at PTS, it's clear nothing has fundamentally changed. All of the above issues are still true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuciwalker Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Possible bomber health balance - make missiles lock on to bombers twice as fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lymain Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Just as a reminder, I'm going to reply to this thread with some of the posts from beta... can you really promise us these issues have all been resolved? I missed that part and thought those beta posts were reflective of their current state on PTS I'm patching PTS now...let's hope things have improved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanNV Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I missed that part and thought those beta posts were reflective of their current state on PTS I'm patching PTS now...let's hope things have improved! I flew one match with a bomber. 7 on our side, 6 on the other. We had 2 bombers, they had one. We cleaned house. They couldn't kill the bombers and theirs got bored and tried capping the node I was on. All he did was swap mines and drones with me, neither of us died, he finally flew off somewhere else. Talk about BORING. I flew the bomber because I wanted to see what they had changed. Te play style and operation is identical to BETA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyet Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I too am patching the pts. Part of me finds all of the "Chicken Little" posts to be a excellent advertisement for the Bombers, but part of me fears for the greater good of this part of SWTOR that I've come to love. However, looking over Dulfy's build calculator, both Bombers havea plethora of new and interesting components to try out, which is great in my opinion. Variety will always tickle my fancy. I guess my stance is that I trust that the devs have taken the time to balance Bombers until given a reason to doubt them. I played through several of their balance shortcomings, but I feel that nobody would hold something back from release, only to release a broken product later. I won't be surprised if the ship turns out to be a mistake, given all the info we currently have on how the beta went, but I will remain hopeful until I play the ships myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaivers Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) I wonder why they didn't opt to build the bombers with short range AI turrets, like the WWII B-17 Flying Fortress. This, with the OPs suggested buff/debuff drones. and damaging mines just makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps these turrets would have to be destroyed (they absorb all incoming damage) before the bomber's hull can be damaged. I don't know, maybe that would that be too difficult to implement? Edit: Do the drones fly alongside the bomber as escort or do they just hover wherever they are placed? Edited January 11, 2014 by Kaivers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts