Bomber Arsenal

[Kaivers]

Gunships have a railgun which is a long range forward firing weapon that hits really hard. The "forward cannon" that you described as forward facing long range weapon that hits hard. They are effectively the same thing except the gunship has 5k more range.

 

Your suggestion would be turning bombers into basically a gunship variant with insane hull and shields with mines and drones to defend itself.

 

How are they the same if Railguns have to be charged, hit instantaneously, do more damage and have a much larger firing arc?

 

That's like saying Concussion missiles and Proton torpedoes are the same because there's only a 3km difference in range.

[Wainamoinen]

General point, off topic and not really aimed at anyone in the thread.

 

I've noticed that when someone claims something should be introduced/thrown out because it is, or isn't, "Star Wars canon", then that's a pretty good indicator that they haven't any good arguments and their proposal would wreck game balance.

 

Something to add to my Forum/English dictionary after "slap in the face". "Star Wars canon" = "I want this and don't care about the consequences".

[Kaivers]

How are they the same if Railguns have to be charged, hit instantaneously, do more damage and have a much larger firing arc?

 

That's like saying Concussion missiles and Proton torpedoes are the same because there's only a 3km difference in range.

 

The extremely accurate (95% Max range) Slug and Plasma Rails do between 1600-1800 dmg.

 

The relatively accurate (75-95% Max range) variety of Laser Cannons, with exception of Ion, do anywhere between 400 - 900 dmg.

 

There's no room for a highly inaccurate (50-75% Max range) Light Turbo Laser Cannon that can do between 1000 - 1400?

Edited January 15, 2014 by Kaivers

[Wainamoinen]

On topic: people should stop worrying that the "bombers" don't bomb anything. Who cares?

 

We haven't really got any static high-value targets (cities, death stars) that would merit real bombing. Closest to a "real" bomber is the Pike/Quell. As stated, gunships already fill the long-range, massive destruction slot.

 

Bombers in SWTOR are chunky, slow-moving whales so that's a similarity. Their function actually seems more defensive than that of "real" bombers, providing AI area defences and support in the form of repair and respawn nodes for the team.

 

Just let them fill a different role and use the bomber name, it' s not important. If they can't perform their actual role, or that role itself is ill-conceived, that's an actual reason to adjust them.

[Kaivers]

General point, off topic and not really aimed at anyone in the thread.

 

I've noticed that when someone claims something should be introduced/thrown out because it is, or isn't, "Star Wars canon", then that's a pretty good indicator that they haven't any good arguments and their proposal would wreck game balance.

 

Something to add to my Forum/English dictionary after "slap in the face". "Star Wars canon" = "I want this and don't care about the consequences".

 

LOL! I brought up canon not as a crutch but to further substantiate the validity of my argument. Canon completely aside I think the suggestions I have made simply and plainly make sense.

[Wainamoinen]

LOL! I brought up canon not as a crutch but to further substantiate the validity of my argument. Canon completely aside I think the suggestions I have made simply and plainly make sense.

 

Good to try and think of new ideas, but I agree with the guy who said that gunships already have the "long range uberdeath" function covered. Slightly shorter range guns that hit even less reliably isn't a compelling design.

 

edit: a Flying Fortress might work, but as a different battle mode rather than a ship type. You'd need to have two rounds and a reason you're flying this space tank with multi turrets from A to B, but that's not insurmountable. Maybe have a fighter escort, but need to decide how you'd choose who gets to fly and who gets to sit in a turret. Other side all fighters. Something to complete to destroy the FF, failing that %age or number of turrets destroyed, compare the two runs, fastest if both nuked the FF.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Wainamoinen

[Kaivers]

Good to try and think of new ideas, but I agree with the guy who said that gunships already have the "long range uberdeath" function covered. Slightly shorter range guns that hit even less reliably isn't a compelling design.

 

Its not about design its about balance and variety. As I stated before these laser cannons should not be some type of super weapon. Gunships would still have the long range "uberdeath" function covered if these designs were implemented.

 

Edit: And now there are Gunships that have access to both Railguns and fire and forget Protons!

 

Edit: The Devs should create a flying fortress version based on the suggested arsenal and then let players take both versions for a ride in PTS. Then players could be allowed to vote as to which version is more fun and fulfilling to play.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Kaivers

[Kaivers]

edit: a Flying Fortress might work, but as a different battle mode rather than a ship type. You'd need to have two rounds and a reason you're flying this space tank with multi turrets from A to B, but that's not insurmountable. Maybe have a fighter escort, but need to decide how you'd choose who gets to fly and who gets to sit in a turret. Other side all fighters. Something to complete to destroy the FF, failing that %age or number of turrets destroyed, compare the two runs, fastest if both nuked the FF.

 

If the bombers were flying fortresses, that had the suggested capabilities, players using Strikes and Scouts would naturally organize themselves by assigning flight wings to escort/protect friendly bombers...likewise flight wings would be formed to take the opposing side's bombers out.

 

The flying fortress concept would be useful in any game mode imo, whether its trying to fend off attackers while repairing your teammates or performing tactical bombing runs utilizing laser guided rockets to AOE a Satellite or Capital Ship. It would add a very engaging dimension to GSF.

[Kaivers]

If the bombers were flying fortresses, that had the suggested capabilities, players using Strikes and Scouts would naturally organize themselves by assigning flight wings to escort/protect friendly bombers...likewise flight wings would be formed to take the opposing side's bombers out.

 

The flying fortress concept would be useful in any game mode imo, whether its trying to fend off attackers while repairing your teammates or performing tactical bombing runs utilizing laser guided rockets to AOE a Satellite or Capital Ship. It would add a very engaging dimension to GSF.

 

Correction:

Bomber Escort may actually best fit the new Gunship variant that can equip missiles. Especially if the Gunships and Bomber are stealthed out/running silent and operating from the fringes of the zone.

 

I can imagine these Gunships standing sentry while the bomber pilot tries to guide (via laser targeting) a proton rocket to a target area (friendlies to AOE heal or enemies to AOE damage). If pilots from the opposing side notice this slow moving rocket (possibly distinguished by whitish-blue ball of light) incoming maybe they could visibly track it back to its point of origin (rocket would only be able to travel on a straight path along the laser guidance los). Then the hunt would begin and we would see fierce battles being waged between the sentry gunships and a variety bomber hunting fighters.

 

Did someone say that the new Gunship variant is of virtually no use? And again...why do bombers need AI controlled Sentry Drones? Lol.

 

Last and final post on this....happy hunting!

Edited January 17, 2014 by Kaivers

[Caernos]

I realize I'm "necro-ing" a thread but after doing a couple of games on the PTS I was sitting back thinking about bombers and their armaments and your suggestions and I thought I might throw my own thoughts into the mixing pool.

 

I think that if they ever decide to put our personal ships into the matches, or larger multi-person fighters into the matches, then the idea of turrets would be more viable. I also thought I had heard (keywords are I thought I heard) that Bioware had trouble developing AI that could fly in three dimensions.

 

As for guided weapons, this in itself isn't a bad idea. In ACE combat, there's a type of missile that is essentially laser guided. No lock on time necessary, you target a bogey and fire and the missile tracks them. The trick is that you have to keep the bogey in your targeting circle for the missile to track them, and even then it could still miss. So, having some kind of long range instant launch then guided proton torp (maybe call it a baradium missile or something) I think would be viable. Having to switch to a turret to fire it though, not so much.

 

Myself, I'd like to see some minor tweaks to the bomber's existing weapons, particularly the minelayer's. I'd like to take the proximity sensors off of the mines and instead put them on timers. In Episode II we saw Jango dropping Seismic charges behind his ship which exploded after a few seconds releasing their destructive power. Why couldn't bombers do something like that. They fly to a sat and drop a bomb near a turret, the defenders then have to chose whether they want to try and weather the blast or flee to safety. Or a bomber could fly into a cloud of dog fighters and drop one, causing everyone to scatter.

 

This would also allow for all kinds of different varieties of bombs too. You could have an ion bomb that disables enemies (similar to Gunship's stupid ion AOE), a proton bomb with strong damage and a blast small radius, a concussion bomb with average damage and blast radius and a cluster bomb with minimal damage but a large blast radius. You could make them ammo dependent just like missiles, and they would still be viable for defending as if an enemy was pursuing you, you could drop a bomb to take them out.

 

Now, I have no idea how they would implement any of this, I'm not a programmer. But I thought I would throw in my two cents.

[Kaivers]

I realize I'm "necro-ing" a thread but after doing a couple of games on the PTS I was sitting back thinking about bombers and their armaments and your suggestions and I thought I might throw my own thoughts into the mixing pool.

 

I think that if they ever decide to put our personal ships into the matches, or larger multi-person fighters into the matches, then the idea of turrets would be more viable. I also thought I had heard (keywords are I thought I heard) that Bioware had trouble developing AI that could fly in three dimensions.

 

As for guided weapons, this in itself isn't a bad idea. In ACE combat, there's a type of missile that is essentially laser guided. No lock on time necessary, you target a bogey and fire and the missile tracks them. The trick is that you have to keep the bogey in your targeting circle for the missile to track them, and even then it could still miss. So, having some kind of long range instant launch then guided proton torp (maybe call it a baradium missile or something) I think would be viable. Having to switch to a turret to fire it though, not so much.

 

Myself, I'd like to see some minor tweaks to the bomber's existing weapons, particularly the minelayer's. I'd like to take the proximity sensors off of the mines and instead put them on timers. In Episode II we saw Jango dropping Seismic charges behind his ship which exploded after a few seconds releasing their destructive power. Why couldn't bombers do something like that. They fly to a sat and drop a bomb near a turret, the defenders then have to chose whether they want to try and weather the blast or flee to safety. Or a bomber could fly into a cloud of dog fighters and drop one, causing everyone to scatter.

 

This would also allow for all kinds of different varieties of bombs too. You could have an ion bomb that disables enemies (similar to Gunship's stupid ion AOE), a proton bomb with strong damage and a blast small radius, a concussion bomb with average damage and blast radius and a cluster bomb with minimal damage but a large blast radius. You could make them ammo dependent just like missiles, and they would still be viable for defending as if an enemy was pursuing you, you could drop a bomb to take them out.

 

Now, I have no idea how they would implement any of this, I'm not a programmer. But I thought I would throw in my two cents.

 

Great ideas, thanks!

 

The timer on mines would really add to the action, requiring real piloting skill to drop mines at the right place and time while bandits are giving chase.

 

As for turrets, each bomber could have a single bottom turret. This would mean the pilot in many cases having to position his bomber at the proper angles or even flip "upside down" or "sideways" to get the best los to return fire.

 

To launch a laser guided rocket at a target from off angles (positive/negative x, positive/negative z and negative y and all areas in between), he would also have to flip his ship "upside down" or "sideways". EDIT: I suggested having control of the laser guidance via the turret for balance purposes (switching to this system would mean loss of flight control).

 

Real bomber hunting aces will take advantage of this as a weakness (attacking bombers from outside of the turret's los)...irl most, if not all, WWII bombers also had this weakness in their defenses. Edit: In WWII many fighter bombers had forward machine guns and a top turret for defense/offense.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Kaivers