Nemarus Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 See my posts in PTS forum: Comparison of Old Gunship to New: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=713210 Comparison of Minelayer to Dronecarrier: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=713204 Are the devs drunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_sim Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Comparison of Old Gunship to New: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=713210 You catch more fies with honey you know, that said I did still read it despite your antagonistic tone. The dustmaker almost sounds like a GS fighter bomber I;ll discuss what I mean but first I'll mention the 2 thing I agree with. I agree your comments on shields and engines losing an option each but not gaining anything makes Zero sense. I think what we are looking with with this class is a bomber killer, I haven't been on pts so I haven't fought bombers but my understanding is that range will be key, and the Dustmaker is clearly all about the range. I'm a believer that in coordinated squads your GS work very well in 2 ship teams. A mangler and a dustmaker would in theory make a very powerful team. That said I agree that in 2.5 GSF it seems to be an inferior craft, but I leave my verdict out for 2.6 GSF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_sim Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Comparison of Minelayer to Dronecarrier: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=713204 I'm not going to comment on this too much as I have zero bomber experience. Though you are coming at it very harsh for PTS being out like 1 day. Personally I think it is good that BW is giving players more options for game play style whether or not it's inferior. I think there is many orders of magnitude of L2P developed among the player base, compared to October Novembers beta and PTS release. This combined with whatever changes that have been made since 2.5 release means bomber need to be freshly evaluated before they can be accurately judged. You do have some constructive feedback especially about the components on the GS, but you tone does poison it and you have said the same things about bomber before the current PTS release as you say one day in, making it seem like you haven't given them fresh evaluation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemarus Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) I'm not going to comment on this too much as I have zero bomber experience. Though you are coming at it very harsh for PTS being out like 1 day. Personally I think it is good that BW is giving players more options for game play style whether or not it's inferior. I think there is many orders of magnitude of L2P developed among the player base, compared to October Novembers beta and PTS release. This combined with whatever changes that have been made since 2.5 release means bomber need to be freshly evaluated before they can be accurately judged. You do have some constructive feedback especially about the components on the GS, but you tone does poison it and you have said the same things about bomber before the current PTS release as you say one day in, making it seem like you haven't given them fresh evaluation. I was very patient and constructive back in the beta. I thought I'd been rewarded when Bombers were delayed, assuming that BioWare was going to conduct a serious and thoughtful redesign, using the many excellent suggestions the beta community made on how to improve Bombers. Now, it's clear that all they did was reduce the numbers with the same flawed designs. It may be that Bombers do not ruin GSF as wholly as they did in beta, but it IS clear to me that the Minelayer is straight up inferior to the Dronecarrier. The Dronecarrier should've never made it back into the game in this form, in my opinion, regardless of how much damage its drones do. BioWare should've dipped its toe in the water with just the Minelayer first--it at least requires some level of skill and thought to play, and the risks of it destabilizing the game are far lower. The Dronecarrier is far riskier... and the fact that on paper it is not even balanced against its sibling Bomber indicates BioWare hasn't given much thought to its balance in the game at large. And the absolutely objective, obvious inferiority of the new Gunship should indicate that someone at BioWare does not understand the current way GSF is played on the live servers. If I sound angry, it's because I am. I love GSF. I loved it in beta. Bombers ruined it then, and I very much fear they will ruin it now. Edited January 10, 2014 by Nemarus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 You catch more fies with honey you know Gonna try things on the PTS before I make comments on the bomber, but this is actually a myth. Flies are more attracted to vinegar than honey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_sim Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I still want to hold out judgment, though this may be the lowest level of nerfs that Bioware will try on the bombers. If they are using deductive balancing not inductive balancing then you would see bombers loosing more and more as PTS revisions progress, rather then gaining more and more. I think deductive balancing is better as it is less skill dependent as a database factor. But I am seriously behind my theory of the L2P factor because that factor didn't exist in the pre 2.5 and now it does, especially where bombers are concerned. Now that we know how to play we can more accurately evaluate better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuciwalker Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Personally I think it is good that BW is giving players more options for game play style whether or not it's inferior. No, it isn't. BW should not be creating trap options that are terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verain Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) No, it isn't. BW should not be creating trap options that are terrible. This. I'm truly puzzled as to the new gunship. Here is what I thought it would have: 1)- Better pitch and yaw. Possibly better speed. 2)- Weaker hull and/or shields 3)- A primary slot (choice of some blasters), a secondary slot (choice of slug and plasma), and a tertiary slot (choice of proton, concussion, and cluster, or proton, concussion, and a new short range option). 4- Components: Capacitor Armor Shield Thruster Now, (1) and (2) are probably out because EVERY ship has this dumb "baseline stats" concept, where they start with the stats common to the class. But (2) made a lot of sense to me- certainly not what they came up with. The ship has two more dogfighter style options, with no advantages that help with that, and gives up primary and secondary components that would help with that role- (4) is a far cry from reality. I'm very disappointed. Also the Imperial version of the ship is like wearing some 1800s collar or something. Edited January 11, 2014 by Verain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToMyMa Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 See my posts in PTS forum: Comparison of Old Gunship to New: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=713210 Comparison of Minelayer to Dronecarrier: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=713204 Are the devs drunk? You in a rage? But yes, when I read through your comparisons... I could easily see which ship was superior. If nothing changes 'till launch, I'm glad you warned me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts