Bombers Will Be Nerfed When?

[Korithras]

OK so here's just a list of problems with bombers right now:

 

1 - Very tough to kill, it takes forever to chew through their shields and armor to score a kill.

 

2 - They can drop quite a number of turrets, but their offensive ones, namely the gun and missile turrets are a the biggest problems. They:

a) rarely if ever miss when it comes to the laser turrets and

b) provide no warning until a missile has been fired by the missile turret

 

3 - Like gunships, these ships should be slow and hard to kill, but they can't have high-powered engines to boot. I.E. no booster at all preferably, or if not then they need to be gas guzzlers and consume their fuel faster than any other fighter class, and I mean more than they already do. But no evasion techniques. Period. They're supposed to be slow fortresses not nimble, evasive craft. So no abilities that break missile lock, and no armor or abilities to increase evasion. Just make them flying tanks.

 

4 - Limit the number of bombs/turrets they deploy for crying out loud or make them easier to kill. They're not very big they couldn't possibly soak up as much damage as I see them needing to take before they get killed.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Korithras

[Mikla]

OK so here's just a list of problems with bombers right now:

 

1 - Very tough to kill, it takes forever to chew through their shields and armor to score a kill.

 

2 - They can drop quite a number of turrets, but their offensive ones, namely the gun and missile turrets are a the biggest problems. They:

a) rarely if ever miss when it comes to the laser turrets and

b) provide no warning until a missile has been fired by the missile turret

 

3 - Like gunships, these ships should be slow and hard to kill, but they can't have high-powered engines to boot. I.E. no booster at all preferably, or if not then they need to be gas guzzlers and consume their fuel faster than any other fighter class, and I mean more than they already do. But no evasion techniques. Period. They're supposed to be slow fortresses not nimble, evasive craft. So no abilities that break missile lock, and no armor or abilities to increase evasion. Just make them flying tanks.

 

4 - Limit the number of bombs/turrets they deploy for crying out loud or make them easier to kill. They're not very big they couldn't possibly soak up as much damage as I see them needing to take before they get killed.

 

I suggest you try flying one before you go suggesting nerfs, you clearly have no idea how vulnerable a bomber is and how limited the number of drones that can be deployed is.

[Ravenschild]

OK so here's just a list of problems with bombers right now:

 

1 - Very tough to kill, it takes forever to chew through their shields and armor to score a kill.

 

2 - They can drop quite a number of turrets, but their offensive ones, namely the gun and missile turrets are a the biggest problems. They:

a) rarely if ever miss when it comes to the laser turrets and

b) provide no warning until a missile has been fired by the missile turret

 

3 - Like gunships, these ships should be slow and hard to kill, but they can't have high-powered engines to boot. I.E. no booster at all preferably, or if not then they need to be gas guzzlers and consume their fuel faster than any other fighter class, and I mean more than they already do. But no evasion techniques. Period. They're supposed to be slow fortresses not nimble, evasive craft. So no abilities that break missile lock, and no armor or abilities to increase evasion. Just make them flying tanks.

 

4 - Limit the number of bombs/turrets they deploy for crying out loud or make them easier to kill. They're not very big they couldn't possibly soak up as much damage as I see them needing to take before they get killed.

 

1:Yes it does because they have no evasion ability and are far larger than a strike or a scout (I fly all 3) as well as are incredibly slow.

2: You do realize that other than the drones all they have are guns and a mine or proton torpedo correct?

A:The drones are 1 offensive (gun or missile),1 repair or shield and with the first tier of each in the tree the cool down is 90 seconds. ( a minute and a half). The mines have a cool down of about 60 sec (tier 1) and if you have seeker mines you can have 2 up unless you max the tree and that means one mine is about half gone at tier 1 until you can drop the next mine. I believe seeker mines are the only mines that can do this.

B:Yes they do give a lock on sound. I have been killed by the missile drone enough times since launch.

3:Bombers are slower than gunships,do not have evasion and they drain thrusters far faster.

4:With the respawn time on mines(or the limited amount of proton torpedoes which is about 10 if they choose not to take mines),the respawn time on drones (as listed above) and the fact that emp missles or the scouts emp ability can shut them down/take them out and the fact that they only have lasers,heavy lasers or light lasers (no quads) they need that armor and shield. Its also balanced by the fact they are so slow and burn thrust so quickly and have no evasion ability to break lock. They can duck behind something or around something to break the lock but thats about it.

 

Admittedly my experience is with the 5k fleet req one not the 2.5k one. Mine is also only tier 1 (in 2 places with 1 tier 2). The gun and the missle drone do far less damage than a standard rail gun shot or concussion missile and have long cool downs. They are also fairly easy to kill before you engage the bombers. So are the mines. The only problem you run into is if those cool downs are done with the probes up. They can be dealt with.

[-Streven-]

OK so here's just a list of problems with bombers right now:

 

1 - Very tough to kill, it takes forever to chew through their shields and armor to score a kill.

 

2 - They can drop quite a number of turrets, but their offensive ones, namely the gun and missile turrets are a the biggest problems. They:

a) rarely if ever miss when it comes to the laser turrets and

b) provide no warning until a missile has been fired by the missile turret

 

3 - Like gunships, these ships should be slow and hard to kill, but they can't have high-powered engines to boot. I.E. no booster at all preferably, or if not then they need to be gas guzzlers and consume their fuel faster than any other fighter class, and I mean more than they already do. But no evasion techniques. Period. They're supposed to be slow fortresses not nimble, evasive craft. So no abilities that break missile lock, and no armor or abilities to increase evasion. Just make them flying tanks.

 

4 - Limit the number of bombs/turrets they deploy for crying out loud or make them easier to kill. They're not very big they couldn't possibly soak up as much damage as I see them needing to take before they get killed.

 

I hate bombers BUT everything you say you want already exists. They don't have a missile break. They do have a very limited supply of drones. They have no evasion that i'm aware of. They are slow tanks with almost no dogfighting ability. I guess the only thing you don't have yet is an early warning for missile locks. They are slow enough, taking away boost would make them absolutely useless which is not how you balance something.

[Sangrar]

OK so here's just a list of problems with bombers right now:

 

1 - Very tough to kill, it takes forever to chew through their shields and armor to score a kill.

 

2 - They can drop quite a number of turrets, but their offensive ones, namely the gun and missile turrets are a the biggest problems. They:

a) rarely if ever miss when it comes to the laser turrets and

b) provide no warning until a missile has been fired by the missile turret

 

3 - Like gunships, these ships should be slow and hard to kill, but they can't have high-powered engines to boot. I.E. no booster at all preferably, or if not then they need to be gas guzzlers and consume their fuel faster than any other fighter class, and I mean more than they already do. But no evasion techniques. Period. They're supposed to be slow fortresses not nimble, evasive craft. So no abilities that break missile lock, and no armor or abilities to increase evasion. Just make them flying tanks.

 

4 - Limit the number of bombs/turrets they deploy for crying out loud or make them easier to kill. They're not very big they couldn't possibly soak up as much damage as I see them needing to take before they get killed.

 

they already DON'T have abilities to break missile lock, no boost would mean that you would spend half the match crawling to the node, just for a gunship to pick you off before you could do anything, its ship BALANCE, not ship MAKE-WHATEVER-SHIP-THAT-MIGHT-BE-OP-INTO-A-SHIP-WORSE-THAN-ALL-OF-US!! Seriously, and they are flying tanks that why they got damage reduction like they do, to give them a chance. You also write this assuming every bomber is a dronecarrier, what about the minelayers that have significantly less utility that the dronecarriers? What do you plan to do with them? And the number of mines and turrets deployable at once already IS limited. And even a gunship can easily outrun a bomber, you say they should be slow like gunships, but the truth of the matter is they already have less engine capability than them. Lastly, the only reason mines and drones are hard to hit is because they are small and from a distance easy to miss, still you can easily see them fro ma distance and hitting them is still very possible. Question have you even played a bomber and how much do you know about them?

[NotThatOne]

So you're here again, begging for sitting ducks. Dude.. learn to play.

[Tenacity]

I suggest you try flying one before you go suggesting nerfs, you clearly have no idea how vulnerable a bomber is and how limited the number of drones that can be deployed is.

 

One bomber, yes.

 

Two bombers, no.

 

Three or more bombers, hell frakking no.

 

The problem with bombers and gunships alike is that their power multiplies exponentially in groups, rather than linearly. This compounds with the fact that bombers require absolutely no skill on the player's behalf to get kills or contribute to the team - at least gunships required -some- amount of aiming proficiency (though, due to apparently having lightspeed railguns, not as much as I'd like).

 

Compare them to the amount of personal skill required to do well in a strike fighter or scout, it's absurd.

[reclipsed]

One bomber, yes.

 

Two bombers, no.

 

Three or more bombers, hell frakking no.

 

The problem with bombers and gunships alike is that their power multiplies exponentially in groups, rather than linearly. This compounds with the fact that bombers require absolutely no skill on the player's behalf to get kills or contribute to the team - at least gunships required -some- amount of aiming proficiency (though, due to apparently having lightspeed railguns, not as much as I'd like).

 

Compare them to the amount of personal skill required to do well in a strike fighter or scout, it's absurd.

 

just stop.

[Tenacity]

just stop.

 

How about no?

[silvershadows]

How about no?

 

How about you learn what you can do to counter bombers?

 

Like, I dunno, flying a strike fighter with EMP missiles?

 

Good gods people, I fly a burst cannon flashfire and I have ZERO issues with bombers. If they kill me, it's my own damn fault.

 

 

All the whiners in the world flock to GSF - a shooter game where skill actually matters far more than what buttons you can push and how fast. This isn't ground pvp, and I am so glad for that.

 

Perhaps instead of whining, people should try harder, learn to play better, practice more. That, or just admit you aren't good at it - because there is no shame in not playing a shooter well, there are a lot of people who suck at shooters - and most of them are also MMO players

 

Typically, MMORPGs and RPGs in general require a different skillset and mindset than shooter games. Shooter games require that you don't get overly annoyed when you die, because it's going to happen. Even the best pilots get shot down - if you are being targeted by 4-5 people, you're not going to live, that's just how it is.

 

People who play shooters regularly understand that, in an FPS you basically go out, shoot people, die, respawn, go out, shoot people, die, respawn - over and over. They don't freak out and scream for things to be nerfed if they die, they just... respawn.

 

Then you get the people who can't handle it, who don't have the patience for it. They freak out, scream for nerfs, cry hacks, whine whine and whine some more, and eventually quit. That quitting turns out to be the best thing for them cause then they aren't stressed anymore.

 

So yeah, maybe you should just quit if you hate it so much.

[Tenacity]

Like, I dunno, flying a strike fighter with EMP missiles?

 

I would, if they'd give those missiles to my enforcer. I paid 20$ for that ship, I'm not going to just go fly something else because the devs dont know what the **** game balance is.

 

Good gods people, I fly a burst cannon flashfire and I have ZERO issues with bombers. If they kill me, it's my own damn fault.

 

And how do you feel when you get into that team deathmatch where your allies are complete noobs and the enemy is nothing but a thousand meter furball full of gunships, bombers, drones, and mines? It's suicide even trying to attack, and you cant win by sitting at your base playing with yourself.

 

All the whiners in the world flock to GSF - a shooter game where skill actually matters far more than what buttons you can push and how fast. This isn't ground pvp, and I am so glad for that.

 

Skill DID matter, it doesnt anymore, not with the addition of bombers. Just look at the "Bombers are awesome!" post on the first page - someone with pretty much no upgrades getting high end achievements by doing nothing more than dropping drones and running.

 

Perhaps instead of whining, people should try harder, learn to play better, practice more. That, or just admit you aren't good at it - because there is no shame in not playing a shooter well, there are a lot of people who suck at shooters - and most of them are also MMO players

 

My average k/d ratio pre-2.6 was 4:1, flying nothing but strike fighters. I also had a 75% win rate.

 

Now I'm struggling to even break even on kills/deaths each match, and this week I've only won two games.

 

Skill isnt the problem here, it's the addition of a factor which has unbalanced what was fine to begin with.

 

Typically, MMORPGs and RPGs in general require a different skillset and mindset than shooter games. Shooter games require that you don't get overly annoyed when you die, because it's going to happen. Even the best pilots get shot down - if you are being targeted by 4-5 people, you're not going to live, that's just how it is.

 

I dont get annoyed when I die, I get annoyed when I lose because I'm on a team full of morons and the enemy is exploiting cheap tactics that should have been considered by the developers.

 

Then you get the people who can't handle it, who don't have the patience for it. They freak out, scream for nerfs, cry hacks, whine whine and whine some more, and eventually quit. That quitting turns out to be the best thing for them cause then they aren't stressed anymore.

 

So yeah, maybe you should just quit if you hate it so much.

 

I honestly loved GSF before we started having to deal with the bomber deathtraps, and now that they're being backed up by gunships they have no weaknesses.

 

As I said, the game went from being fun to nothing short of completely frustrating, and a change like that doesnt happen because of player skill, it happens because of developer changes which were poorly thought out.

 

People complained about this crap throughout the GSF beta, and they went ahead and added bombers anyways.

[Verain]

I really like how there's things that are actually effective against scouts now. I think bombers are a big improvement.

 

 

Bombers I think have a relatively high skill floor- it's hard to be terrible with a bomber, a noob could contribute a lot more with a 7k req bomber than a 7k req finesse scout or niche strike. I'm not sure if the skill cap is lower though, but I suspect it.

 

Either way, I think bombers are an interesting addition to the game, and I really like something that sets up turrets or mines and demands that there be a reasonably clever solution. I will say that the the EMP missile and EMP blast seem too much investment for not a very good counter- the EMP missile should probably have a lot more ammo and a very fast reload time, especially given all the mine type targets it can't meaningfully attack. Even having one of these options doesn't scare a good minelayer as much as it should.

[silvershadows]

I would, if they'd give those missiles to my enforcer. I paid 20$ for that ship, I'm not going to just go fly something else because the devs dont know what the **** game balance is.

 

So you bought a carbon copy of a ship already available to you, and you fell into the trap where you paid real money for it rather than 600k credits on the GTN - and this somehow means that everyone else should be punished for YOUR choice?

 

You're the one who wasted money, that's on you. Why on earth you would have purchased a cartel coin ship instead of just fly the identical ship available for free is beyond me - and the reason cartel ships exist, to sucker you out of cash. Glad I'm not a sucker.

 

 

And how do you feel when you get into that team deathmatch where your allies are complete noobs and the enemy is nothing but a thousand meter furball full of gunships, bombers, drones, and mines? It's suicide even trying to attack, and you cant win by sitting at your base playing with yourself.

 

In a team deathmatch where my allies are complete noobs, I fly around, grab powerups, and waste everyone I can. Just because they're incompetent doesn't mean I can't put on a good show.

 

 

Skill DID matter, it doesnt anymore, not with the addition of bombers. Just look at the "Bombers are awesome!" post on the first page - someone with pretty much no upgrades getting high end achievements by doing nothing more than dropping drones and running.

 

Skill DOES matter, perhaps even moreso than before. It takes skill (or maybe just common sense) to understand what you should and should not engage in a particular ship.

 

I can take out bombers - minelayers that are dropping mines right on top of me - just by watching what they do and boosting away before their mines can lock onto me and explode. That's in a FLASHFIRE, which by design is best in combat at ranges closer than 3000m.

 

 

My average k/d ratio pre-2.6 was 4:1, flying nothing but strike fighters. I also had a 75% win rate.

 

Now I'm struggling to even break even on kills/deaths each match, and this week I've only won two games.

 

Skill isnt the problem here, it's the addition of a factor which has unbalanced what was fine to begin with.

 

Hyperbole much? The common issue in these games is YOU, my friend. You realize that your side has equal access to bombers AND the equipment necessary to deal with them.

 

YOU are the one who is refusing to accept that you must play differently than before. YOU are the one who expects nerfs to be handed out so that you can continue to use unviable tactics. YOU are the one who seems to think that just because you paid 20 dollars for a ship you could have bought off the GTN (lol!) that that ship should have every single missile/weapon/ability available to it.

 

YOU are the issue here.

 

Adjust your expectations, adjust your attitude, and fly the right ship for the job you want to get done, or quit. It's really that simple.

[Verain]

So you bought a carbon copy of a ship already available to you, and you fell into the trap where you paid real money for it rather than 600k credits on the GTN - and this somehow means that everyone else should be punished for YOUR choice?

 

His point is valid. I also don't know how he managed to pay twenty bucks for a ship that costs 1440 cartel coins, when 20 bucks buys you 2400 cartel coins.

 

But the reason his point is valid is this: he bought that ship expecting it to be good. The niche strike (type 1 strike) needs buffs. I spent real money on a gladiator, real money on an enforcer, and lots of requisition and games played on those guys, the Starguard, and the Rycer, and you know what? They are too weak.

 

However you are spending- time, money, credits, req- these ships need buffs. I doubt he bought the enforcer expecting it to be a pay to win ship. But he does deserve better- all type 1 strike pilots do.

 

Why on earth you would have purchased a cartel coin ship instead of just fly the identical ship available for free is beyond me - and the reason cartel ships exist, to sucker you out of cash. Glad I'm not a sucker.

 

I think they exist to look interesting. I really like the look of the gladiator/enforcer, in fact- it's certainly better looking than the Rycer, although the Starguard also is cool. I think that the req perk on them could actually have been increased a bit or something- ex, "you earn 50% more requisiton, this bonus goes away once you have earned 25k req with it". That would be more than the current "you gain 10% extra requisition, up until this perk stops working after making around 13,600 req".

 

 

 

But, the type 1 strike being crap is by no means based on it being available on the cartel market. Of the eight ships live in game, there's cartel market versions of five of them. This doesn't mean that the other three ships are allowed to be bad or something- all the ships should have roles, and I really feel that the type 1 strike feels lame. I think some people are ok with it because they view the ships as being "tiers", and the "second tier should be better than the first", which is opposite the stated intent and the rest of logic (What are those ships for then? Just traps for new players to waste req on?). It's also pretty obvious that while having access to an ion railgun is sweet, having access to an ion blaster is not.

 

 

The rest of your post I mostly agree with- expecting the flashfire to be able to continue serving as a butt-seeking missile that is uncounterable except by a gunship he wasn't aware of was a worse game, balance wise, than what we are seeing now for sure. The game is much deeper with the bombers, and I would probably say better.

[McAllist]

I would, if they'd give those missiles to my enforcer. I paid 20$ for that ship, I'm not going to just go fly something else because the devs dont know what the **** game balance is.

 

 

 

And how do you feel when you get into that team deathmatch where your allies are complete noobs and the enemy is nothing but a thousand meter furball full of gunships, bombers, drones, and mines? It's suicide even trying to attack, and you cant win by sitting at your base playing with yourself.

 

 

 

Skill DID matter, it doesnt anymore, not with the addition of bombers. Just look at the "Bombers are awesome!" post on the first page - someone with pretty much no upgrades getting high end achievements by doing nothing more than dropping drones and running.

 

 

 

My average k/d ratio pre-2.6 was 4:1, flying nothing but strike fighters. I also had a 75% win rate.

 

Now I'm struggling to even break even on kills/deaths each match, and this week I've only won two games.

 

Skill isnt the problem here, it's the addition of a factor which has unbalanced what was fine to begin with.

 

 

 

I dont get annoyed when I die, I get annoyed when I lose because I'm on a team full of morons and the enemy is exploiting cheap tactics that should have been considered by the developers.

 

 

 

I honestly loved GSF before we started having to deal with the bomber deathtraps, and now that they're being backed up by gunships they have no weaknesses.

 

As I said, the game went from being fun to nothing short of completely frustrating, and a change like that doesnt happen because of player skill, it happens because of developer changes which were poorly thought out.

 

People complained about this crap throughout the GSF beta, and they went ahead and added bombers anyways.

 

I couldn't agree more to your Post.

I'm flying a Ocula and cant equip an EMP Field. I feel betrayed and forgotten by BW.

[silvershadows]

I have two guildies who fly type 1 strike fighters - both of them are almost always in their Star Guards nowadays.

 

They consistently (and almost always have) put out more damage and kills than I do in my Flashfire, both pre-and post bombers.

 

Their use of ion blasters + heavy blasters and cluster missiles will strip a ship of its shield in seconds and then blow it out of the sky another couple seconds later. When I am in a game with them, they will often play support (which is what they are good at) by stripping shields for me and letting me take the kill.

 

That's how I see the type 1 strike fighter - as a support ship that isn't necessarily going to rack up a ton of kills (even tho my guildies do) but will most certainly get a ton of assists. GSF is a team game and our individual accomplishments mean little other than to stroke our already-inflated egos.

[Elly_Dawn]

all i would like is a position indicator for the bombers payloads when you target them... you can target them, they come up in the target window, but no indicator like when you target another ship... so you have no idea where it is until you get a damage cone, letting you know where you got shot from... a position indicator would be nice...

[Tenacity]

His point is valid. I also don't know how he managed to pay twenty bucks for a ship that costs 1440 cartel coins, when 20 bucks buys you 2400 cartel coins.

 

Because I didnt realize they were going to put it on sale, and bought it several days before. Off sale it's 1800 cartel coins.

 

But the reason his point is valid is this: he bought that ship expecting it to be good. The niche strike (type 1 strike) needs buffs. I spent real money on a gladiator, real money on an enforcer, and lots of requisition and games played on those guys, the Starguard, and the Rycer, and you know what? They are too weak.

 

However you are spending- time, money, credits, req- these ships need buffs. I doubt he bought the enforcer expecting it to be a pay to win ship. But he does deserve better- all type 1 strike pilots do.

 

I like the basic type 1 strikers too, I bought the enforcer for the skin, because it matches my smuggler's motiff. I wasnt expecting it to be any better than the starguard, but I DO expect strike fighters to be on par with other ship classes, and right now they're not.

 

We're outranged by gunships, outmaneuvered and outdogfighted by scouts, and outtanked and overpowered at close range by bombers. Strike fighters were marketed as multi-purpose versatility ships, yet they have fewer component and weapon options than any other class of ship.

[Verain]

I have two guildies who fly type 1 strike fighters - both of them are almost always in their Star Guards nowadays.

 

They consistently (and almost always have) put out more damage and kills than I do in my Flashfire, both pre-and post bombers.

 

This is mostly going to be explained by player skill (probably not in your case) and objective hunting (probably the decider here).

 

If you are seeing the Starguard as being a better ship than the flashfire in general, I have to question the meta as being pretty confused.

 

The ion cannon in particular is frustrating with a very low range. If the ion cannon range was increased, or rapid fire laser was actually good at its stated job, then I think the viability of the niche strike would be increased.

 

That's how I see the type 1 strike fighter - as a support ship that isn't necessarily going to rack up a ton of kills (even tho my guildies do) but will most certainly get a ton of assists. GSF is a team game and our individual accomplishments mean little other than to stroke our already-inflated egos.

 

Not totally relevant IMO. The type 1 strike and the type 2 scout have similar roles, but the type 2 scout is mostly better. I would say that the ability to shoot heavy lasers does actually help in the current meta- finally, with bombers around and evasion nerfed, the game isn't just a wad of flashfires versus a wad of stings, with a couple gunships for support.

 

 

I dunno really what to say beyond that. I've never really met anyone who thinks that the Starguard is fine until today, where you are basing it on a specific couple guildies and not what you personally run with.

[Zharik]

We're outranged by gunships, outmaneuvered and outdogfighted by scouts, and outtanked and overpowered at close range by bombers. Strike fighters were marketed as multi-purpose versatility ships, yet they have fewer component and weapon options than any other class of ship.

 

I thought you quit like 2 and a half hours ago?

[BrotherJohn]

My initial rounds with the new ship in the mix weren't overly impressive. but now that i am continually playing i get to see more and more people only flying bombers and their counter gunships. and less and less diversity. in fact flew 8 rounds just before and very few matches had scouts and maybe a couple strikers.

 

sorta a shame because GSF was well balanced even with the addition of gunships. along came bombers and clearly they are in need of some seriously large balance. most in the nerf area some in maneuverability increase department to balance the decrease in long range attacks. bombers should be just that bombers not heavily fortified gunships.

 

so after just a couple days i can really say even playing with a bomber that gsf took a major turn for the worse in a single update that i can only assume bw devs thought would be super amazing.

 

enough with you need skill you need to learn. that is an accuse someone will use when they know there are major balance issues and they just want to keep their over powered unbalanced class untouched.

[elthenar]

There was little diversity before. It was all scouts, gunship and people who only had the starting two ships. Personally, and I've said this in a few threads, I love what bombers have done. My striker is tough enough to handle rail and missile turrets while going about it's business, scouts aren't. So everyone flying what was an "I win" Sting/Flashfire has just gotten a little bit of crap in their cheerios.

 

I fly primarily Strikes and my Gunship and I am loving it.

 

Edit: full discloser, both of my strikes are only half upgrades, but they are fully upgraded on their tanky mods. I can fly right through a field full of rail turrets.

Edited February 8, 2014 by elthenar

[BrotherJohn]

There was little diversity before. It was all scouts, gunship and people who only had the starting two ships. Personally, and I've said this in a few threads, I love what bombers have done. My striker is tough enough to handle rail and missile turrets while going about it's business, scouts aren't. So everyone flying what was an "I win" Sting/Flashfire has just gotten a little bit of crap in their cheerios.

 

I fly primarily Strikes and my Gunship and I am loving it.

 

Edit: full discloser, both of my strikes are only half upgrades, but they are fully upgraded on their tanky mods. I can fly right through a field full of rail turrets.

 

i think you dont realize it because you were trying to make the point that scout was over powered but you hit something right on the head, right now gsf has been sadly tossed way off balance. no class before had the i am the best edge in battle. each had their part and each could equally survive if you took time to work things up in skill level.

 

now as i see it one class has instantly become i dont have to do much but stand still and win. so instead of a full field of several classes of ships we have bombers and gunships oh my. was just poor planning yet again on their part and hopefully this increase in deployment time between patches allows them to see these errors before they are pushed live.

[HoloGrinder]

OK so here's just a list of problems with bombers right now:

 

1 - Very tough to kill, it takes forever to chew through their shields and armor to score a kill.

 

2 - They can drop quite a number of turrets, but their offensive ones, namely the gun and missile turrets are a the biggest problems. They:

a) rarely if ever miss when it comes to the laser turrets and

b) provide no warning until a missile has been fired by the missile turret

 

3 - Like gunships, these ships should be slow and hard to kill, but they can't have high-powered engines to boot. I.E. no booster at all preferably, or if not then they need to be gas guzzlers and consume their fuel faster than any other fighter class, and I mean more than they already do. But no evasion techniques. Period. They're supposed to be slow fortresses not nimble, evasive craft. So no abilities that break missile lock, and no armor or abilities to increase evasion. Just make them flying tanks.

 

4 - Limit the number of bombs/turrets they deploy for crying out loud or make them easier to kill. They're not very big they couldn't possibly soak up as much damage as I see them needing to take before they get killed.

 

They are OP when used in groups that work together. They give kills with out requiring skill in every scenario. I agree they should be nerfed. GSF is supposed to be about skill and team work.