2.6.1 and no bomber nerfs/fixes?!

[DroidDreamer]

Not sure why we're talking scout vs. bomber. If you're in a scout, you should be killing gunships or chasing them away. Rolling into a well-guarded node with three defense turrets up plus and entrenched bomber is just dumb for a scout, especially one with the shortest range weapon in the game.

 

Now a bomber on the way to the node or away from his nest... easy pickin's.

[Armonddd]

Not sure why we're talking scout vs. bomber. If you're in a scout, you should be killing gunships or chasing them away. Rolling into a well-guarded node with three defense turrets up plus and entrenched bomber is just dumb for a scout, especially one with the shortest range weapon in the game.

 

Now a bomber on the way to the node or away from his nest... easy pickin's.

 

Ideally, yeah. But when my team is huddling on the one point we own and refuses to get off, well, someone's got to take matters into their own hands.

[Zharik]

Ideally, yeah. But when my team is huddling on the one point we own and refuses to get off, well, someone's got to take matters into their own hands.

 

Yeah I can understand that being frustrating, but is that the fault of a game mechanic? Actually, maybe now that people see that time on a satellite = more req (defense points) they're not willing to lose those "guaranteed rewards" for a possible win.

 

What if defense points were halved for a loss? That would reward defenders who stuck to their satellites when the team needed them to, and not reward people as much for "accepting a loss" and just trying for a few extra reqs for the last half of a match.

[Deimos_Olympian]

Bombers are in no way OP, sadly its mostly inexperienced pilots who aren't using their ships and the available pieces to their best use. Gear your scout or strike correctly and you will be erasing bombers as easy as a defensive turret.

Drones and mine or easy enough to kill only takes like two to 4 shots with a lasercannons

[Armonddd]

Yeah I can understand that being frustrating, but is that the fault of a game mechanic?

 

Well, the problem is that instead of GSF being a team game, GSF is a game played by teams of solo players. The difference is that a single player can get a kill fairly easily. In "real" team games, you run up into 4v4 and 6v6 and 8v8 confrontations, and if you want people to split off to handle another objective, you think hard about it because that means fewer people contributing to your killing power at the primary objective. That's simply not a thing in GSF, because we don't need six of our eight team members contributing to one kill (with the other two spending that time making sure your guys aren't dying before the spike goes through).

 

Because each player has a lot of relative power, organization isn't necessary. Because organization isn't necessary, organization isn't expected. Because organization isn't expected, rallying forces is more difficult. Because rallying forces is more difficult, solo players (particularly over-cocky aces like myself) train to defeat threats on their own. Because relative power is so high, it usually works. When something acts as a complete shutdown to that solo player, it's incredibly frustrating because it feels like the game works one way until this guy mashes his buttons and gimps you. When that frustration kicks in, coordination with pugs tends to (in my experience) not come to mind very easily.

 

I'm trying not to turn this into "I should be able to kill anyone and anything because buff me please", but I really think that the way the game is set up right now, a sufficiently skilled player should be able to take a build that works well and that he enjoys playing and run it to great success in any situation. If he can't make it work in a certain situation, it should be his own fault for not being skilled enough (or for flying against opponents more skilled than him). Blowing up because bombers right click in his general vicinity while doing circles around satellites does not feel like I'm losing because I'm not doing things right or because I'm being outplayed, it feels like I'm losing because the game decided to take a dump on me.

 

And you know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe my idea of rewards for skilled play isn't appropriate for the game for some reason or other. Maybe I'm just handling bombers badly because I'm not actually learning how to fight them. Maybe some of my previous posts have been garbage, too. I've spent a fair amount of today being upset at various things, including BioWare for kicking me from matches, so maybe I've been letting my fingers run before my brain. Feel free to call me out on it.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Armonddd

[Zharik]

Maybe I'm just handling bombers badly because I'm not actually learning how to fight them.

 

Yep, you brought a shotgun to a landmine fight and walked the same path as the guy with the landmines who is hiding on the other side of that tree. Best thing about these landmines? They miraculously blow up when the guy laying them dies...

 

Shoot him from a distance, use a Pike/Quell, use a type 1 scout with EMP. But you knew this already, you were being overly stubborn (and probably frustrated from other things, I am guessing). Bombers are situationally powerful and domination with a lead is their situation of choice!

 

More importantly, this is a game, to be played for fun. If it is that frustrating for you, take a break. Go read a book, surf youtube, etc... you'll thank me later.

[Helig]

If battle scouts are one thing, it's prolific on the forums.

They've already been nerfed hard. You can stop crying yourself to sleep, reliving the moments the big bad Stings/Flashfires had their way with you. Never understood the overblown fear for them on both, Starguard and Mangler.

 

As for the original post, Bombers, by themselves, are fine. The problem is stacking with Gunships and eachother. Basically, it's like Smash all over again. Requires basic instinct-level organization, but takes something more than PuG-level teamplay to counter. The "exploits" (if we're thinking about the same phenomenon) are not critical, and will likely be fixed with future polishing patches.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Helig

[Armonddd]

Yep, you brought a shotgun to a landmine fight and walked the same path as the guy with the landmines who is hiding on the other side of that tree.

 

That's kind of the exact opposite of what I said.

 

I'm trying not to turn this into "I should be able to kill anyone and anything because buff me please", but I really think that the way the game is set up right now, a sufficiently skilled player should be able to take a build that works well and that he enjoys playing and run it to great success in any situation. If he can't make it work in a certain situation, it should be his own fault for not being skilled enough (or for flying against opponents more skilled than him). Blowing up because bombers right click in his general vicinity while doing circles around satellites does not feel like I'm losing because I'm not doing things right or because I'm being outplayed, it feels like I'm losing because the game decided to take a dump on me.

 

You're saying (paraphrased) "their build beats your build; deal with it, because that was something you chose when making your build". I'm saying "my build should be able to beat any other build, with appropriate difficulty given class variety and relative player skill". If you disagree with my statement, that's fine, but please don't imply that my thesis is correct (by quoting the part where I say I should learn the skills to fight them properly) and immediately directly contradict it (by implying that my build is at fault).

 

I'd also like to point out that both strike fighters and gunships can answer and overpower any build currently in the game with superior player skill.

 

Other ships, even other builds on the same ship, aren't as fun to me, so I don't play them very much, per your suggestion. If I really wanted to win at GSF, I'd learn to play a gunship, but that frankly sounds exceedingly boring (and dipping my toes in that water has only supported that impression).

 

In short, I want to be able to do well with my chosen build and playstyle against any opponent, instead of being forced to pick a build I don't enjoy in order to succeed. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Lytewraith]

well you know the definition of crazy right and you know your my homey and guild here but honestly armond what was you thinking man lol you know better then that and now your giving them ammo to get flamed if you don't mind some advice from some one that gets it and I do don't go head to head with a ship you know your chosen class and build is not desgined to fight 1 v 1 if you cant get peole on your team to work together then you know where to fly

imp or pub homey if you don't have teamwork then your going to lose aginst skilled players who work together voip or not if they dnt get it then there is nothing you can do but load a ship p to handle the situation properly and a flash vrs a bomber is insane under a node following him around letting him drop the mines get a blackbolt/nova and emp pulse them and then they cant drop them for 15 secs and they are dead or wait on the new scout 3 and get a emp missle and bam they will be dead I play a masterd one when needed as well but they are situational sucker them away from there node and put the odds ever in your favor and use your cover I know you know how

[Zharik]

well you know the definition of crazy right and you know your my homey and guild here but honestly armond what was you thinking man lol you know better then that and now your giving them ammo to get flamed if you don't mind some advice from some one that gets it and I do don't go head to head with a ship you know your chosen class and build is not desgined to fight 1 v 1 if you cant get peole on your team to work together then you know where to fly

imp or pub homey if you don't have teamwork then your going to lose aginst skilled players who work together voip or not if they dnt get it then there is nothing you can do but load a ship p to handle the situation properly and a flash vrs a bomber is insane under a node following him around letting him drop the mines get a blackbolt/nova and emp pulse them and then they cant drop them for 15 secs and they are dead or wait on the new scout 3 and get a emp missle and bam they will be dead I play a masterd one when needed as well but they are situational sucker them away from there node and put the odds ever in your favor and use your cover I know you know how

 

Ow my eyes...

............................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

I has some spares, here is a present for you!

 

Oh yeah, and I'm pretty sure that Armonddd knows that I am not "flaming" him.

[Zharik]

If you disagree with my statement, that's fine, but please don't imply that my thesis is correct (by quoting the part where I say I should learn the skills to fight them properly) and immediately directly contradict it (by implying that my build is at fault).

 

Hmmm, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was trying to say you cannot use the same tactics that you've used against every other ship up to this point (which all have zero way to defend their rear ends) with your current build. So either learn to use your chosen load out more effectively (new tactics), or change your load out (new gear) when facing a bomber who had time to entrench at a satellite.

 

That make more sense?

[Lytewraith]

maybe not but you know as well as I do some body that don't know him well enough to aggervate him will over this one lol Edited February 26, 2014 by Lytewraith
misspell

[Ravenschild]

Quad cannons max range is over 5k (without range capacitor). Clusters range is also 5k. Seeker mines max range is 3500. thats 1500m out of their range. Use the S key and slow down and you kill the mines in 1 shot. Its dropping 1 mine every 20 sec with a max of 3 (if they spec into it). I fly both scout and bomber. Its all in your layout. If you are using the regular scout (rather than the adv with cluster missles)you have the option of the emp charge as well which disables the mines and the drones.

[Llama-Eight]

You're saying (paraphrased) "their build beats your build; deal with it, because that was something you chose when making your build". I'm saying "my build should be able to beat any other build, with appropriate difficulty given class variety and relative player skill". If you disagree with my statement, that's fine, but please don't imply that my thesis is correct (by quoting the part where I say I should learn the skills to fight them properly) and immediately directly contradict it (by implying that my build is at fault).

In which case I disagree with you, some builds should be able to beat some other builds. For example, I shouldn't be able to beat any other scout/strike fighter in my gunship if they come at me from the rear/sides & I wasn't paying attention (ie, they get into their firing range while I'm concentrating on someone else), assuming similar levels of player skill. Sometimes I do, but I put that down to either luck or aforementioned player skill.

 

I'd also like to point out that both strike fighters and gunships can answer and overpower any build currently in the game with superior player skill.

I'm confused as to whether you want player skill to trump ship choice/upgrade/gear or not?

 

In short, I want to be able to do well with my chosen build and playstyle against any opponent, instead of being forced to pick a build I don't enjoy in order to succeed. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Even a more skilled opponent? Or a better "geared" opponent? Or one that's designed as a counter to your chosen build/playstyle? I think it's understandable, but short of all ships/builds/playstyles being identical, I don't think it's reasonable. I personally think that better/more skilled players should give you a run for your money (ie, you do less well), as should better "geared" ships & some builds (but certainly not all builds). Likewise, your ship/build should have an easier time against certain ships/builds.

 

Edit: Also, to respond to one of your earlier points about "one bomber" being able to turn a node into an unassailable fortress, given that they can drop either 1 offensive drone & a repair drone, or 3 mines (none of which is unassailable, though they may be to a single scout), you know this, so please stop saying that a single bomber can turn a node into an unbeatable fortress.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Llama-Eight

[Zoom_VI]

Why should particular scout builds be hardcountered by other builds, while the big gunship build has no counter build and is optimal in every single situation a gunship will find itself in. Double-standard if you ask me. You can make the same argument about strikes albet strike's only selling point is versatility so we can let that slide.

[Armonddd]

Hmmm, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was trying to say you cannot use the same tactics that you've used against every other ship up to this point (which all have zero way to defend their rear ends) with your current build. So either learn to use your chosen load out more effectively (new tactics), or change your load out (new gear) when facing a bomber who had time to entrench at a satellite.

 

That make more sense?

 

I'm desperately trying to figure out those new tactics (because new gear is boring and that mindset contributes to developing dominant strategies, which is bad design) and I'm not coming up with much. Maybe there's something obvious I'm missing, but when the bomber is circling the satellite dropping mines every 15 seconds, I'm really not sure how many options I have.

 

In which case I disagree with you, some builds should be able to beat some other builds. For example, I shouldn't be able to beat any other scout/strike fighter in my gunship if they come at me from the rear/sides & I wasn't paying attention (ie, they get into their firing range while I'm concentrating on someone else), assuming similar levels of player skill. Sometimes I do, but I put that down to either luck or aforementioned player skill.

 

If they successfully sneak up on you, that's tactics (i.e. skill), not build. I mean, a bomber could do that, if he really wanted to, and you'd find yourself with a face full of mines, and it would be pretty hilarious. And, as a gunship, you can barrel roll around to get an angle on another gunship that he's not expecting.

 

I'm confused as to whether you want player skill to trump ship choice/upgrade/gear or not?

 

What I meant was, any strike fighter or gunship can adjust their tactics to get an advantage against any other ship. Scouts can't do that without building for range, which is making range the dominant strategy for a scout. Dominant strategies are bad because they present an obvious solution to the problem, and a large part of the fun of a game comes from solving presented problems.

 

Even a more skilled opponent? Or a better "geared" opponent? Or one that's designed as a counter to your chosen build/playstyle? I think it's understandable, but short of all ships/builds/playstyles being identical, I don't think it's reasonable. I personally think that better/more skilled players should give you a run for your money (ie, you do less well), as should better "geared" ships & some builds (but certainly not all builds). Likewise, your ship/build should have an easier time against certain ships/builds.

 

This is essentially what I was getting at. The problem is that a particular component (not even an entire build) just hard shuts down all scouts that aren't built for range, without much that the scout pilot can do about it. (Of course, I could be missing something. There could be a really obvious way for me to deal with a satellite circling bomber who's set up or is setting up camp, and then wouldn't I feel dumb?)

 

Edit: Also, to respond to one of your earlier points about "one bomber" being able to turn a node into an unassailable fortress, given that they can drop either 1 offensive drone & a repair drone, or 3 mines (none of which is unassailable, though they may be to a single scout), you know this, so please stop saying that a single bomber can turn a node into an unbeatable fortress.

 

You're right, that was off of me. It's certainly possible, though tricky, to take out the bomber and retake the node (once he starts circling it, he's either getting repairs from his drone, or dropping mines on anyone who wants to play the objectives, or both). The problems I have with it are a. it takes significantly more skill to assault the node than to defend it (but then, given the mechanics of things like defense turrets, this is probably not something I should expect BioWare to change), b. the majority of pugs won't be able to do anything about the bomber, especially if he's smart and uses lasers in addition to his mines and drones

[FridgeLM]

I'm desperately trying to figure out those new tactics (because new gear is boring and that mindset contributes to developing dominant strategies, which is bad design) and I'm not coming up with much. Maybe there's something obvious I'm missing, but when the bomber is circling the satellite dropping mines every 15 seconds, I'm really not sure how many options I have.

 

What is it about the Scout role that makes you think that it's one that should, assuming close skill levels between the parties involved, be able to attack a fortified position by itself and win?

 

Do also you think Scouts in TF2 should be able to go toe to toe with T3 sentry turrets, or heavies with a medic?

Edited February 26, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Sidenti]

I'm desperately trying to figure out those new tactics (because new gear is boring and that mindset contributes to developing dominant strategies, which is bad design) and I'm not coming up with much. Maybe there's something obvious I'm missing, but when the bomber is circling the satellite dropping mines every 15 seconds, I'm really not sure how many options I have.

 

One of my favorite tricks is to blast 'em from underneath. This works against 90% of bomber pilots because all they do is circle underneath - flying 'em in a topside/bottomside loop like a sat-hugging scout isn't as easy to do.

 

Still, it should be noted that a bomber is never an ideal target for a lone scout simply because of their loadouts - in my opinion, bombers require a type 1 or 2 strike fighter with ion loadouts. And even then, it's gonna be a bit of work.

 

That having been said, I'm finding Scouts have a lot of success against bombers if they can get WITHIN 1000m range from BEHIND with a loadout that ignores armor. Bombers handle like shopping carts. Staying behind one is easy one-on-one, plus the Burst Lasers do an uncannily efficient job of blowing up mines that get ejected at you in the process.

 

As far as gunnies being able to adjust on the fly (I won't argue against strike fighter pilots being able to do this; SFs are intended to be the "midfielders" on the great pitch that is GSF), those are largely the hybrid gunny pilots. BioWare simply made 'em too maneuverable; they should be on par with the Type 1 Gunship and the Type 1 Gunships should be on par with healbombers as far as pitch/yaw control does in my view.

 

And if they are on paper? It certainly doesn't seem like it in practice.

[Armonddd]

What is it about the Scout role that makes you think that it's one that should, assuming close skill levels between the parties involved, be able to attack a fortified position by itself and win?

 

Do also you think Scouts in TF2 should be able to go toe to toe with T3 sentry turrets, or heavies with a medic?

 

See my posts in the rest of the thread.

 

The short answer is yes, with effort or an outside advantage, but the situation didn't involve players of equal skill -- it involved me blowing up a bad player multiple times, until he switched to his bomber and let the game win for him.

[FridgeLM]

I translate your post as "my square peg won't fit in this round hole, bioware pls nerf round holes."

 

No. No they should not. Battle scouts should never again be kings of everything as they were before 2.6 - and there's plenty of evidence to suggest they need to be tuned down further. Your humblebrag post in that other thread is just one example.

Edited February 26, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Armonddd]

I translate your post as "my square peg won't fit in this round hole, bioware pls nerf round holes."

 

No. No they should not. Battle scouts should never again be kings of everything as they were before 2.6 - and there's plenty of evidence to suggest they need to be tuned down further. Your humblebrag post in that other thread is just one example.

 

Reading comprehension, please. Nothing you posted is correct.

[FridgeLM]

I directly disagreed with your opinion that battle scouts should be able to enter into any (1v1) situation and win. That would be bad design, because it'd mean we'd be at pre-2.6 balance.

[Armonddd]

I directly disagreed with your opinion that battle scouts should be able to enter into any (1v1) situation and win. That would be bad design, because it'd mean we'd be at pre-2.6 balance.

 

You're allowed to disagree with that idea, but please stop calling it my opinion.

[Brewski]

If I'm understanding your point (and correct me if I'm wrong), you are contending that there is no 1 to 1 direct counter for a Type 2 scout to take on a bomber, correct?

 

I actually agree this is true. Skills being equal, or even slightly in the scouts advantage, there is no direct counter. And as a primary Flashfire pilot, I have no issue with this.

 

Why not? Because the Rock-Paper-Scisors nature of GFS says that in order to counter some builds you will need to fly alternate ships. For example, bombers have no direct counter to Ion wielding gunships. Which is why I keep my gunship on my ship list. Bombers have no direct 1 to 1 counter against Type 1 gunships.

 

I am possibly the worst (well, maybe second worst) gunship pilot on my server, and yet I was able to clear three bombers worth of build up off a node two nights ago. All I did was Ion bomb the turrets over and over again from max range until everything but the bombers died. Then I alternated and started slugging bombers as they came over the top. It was great fun until a teammate finally arrived and finished off the second bomber, allowing me to boost in and burst the third one.

 

It's rare to be left alone that long, and if they'd had two bombers and a scout defending the node I would have been toast, but there you are. That's why you can gear and bring in five ships at a time. My Flashfire I use in dog fighting matches and gunship hunting, my bomber is for node defense, and increasingly my gunship is for node clearing.

 

Everything has a counter, but nothing can counter everything. I guess I just don't see this as a problem.

[okiobe]

I always thought the point of player vs player was that you pitted the skills of one against the other. So in a 1 vs 1 situation the player with higher skill should on average win. Unfortunately this game isn't that way. It's player skill weighted by the type of ship you have vs the opponent skill weighted by the type of ship he has. Having said that I think the game is fairly balanced. Even in my T2 scout I will beat a lone bomber of lesser skill. The only thing I really watch out for is the seismic mine since it ignores shield takes me from full hull to red hull.