2.6.1 and no bomber nerfs/fixes?!

[RiVaN_]

I have to say that there does seem to be a huge problem with Bombers and their turrets and I am starting to notice some issues with Gunships lately too. I got one shot yesterday for the first since maxing out my FlashFire. The matches I have played in so far this week have been kind of a joke, I spend more time running from turrets and GS than I get to spend in actual dogfights. I hate to say it but I think that Bombers (In death match) have taken some of the fun out of playing as a scout...

[OpeningToEndgame]

I used to hate Bombers, and as a Sting player. I still do. However, if you try to go 1v1 against a Bomber holding a satellite. Then it's YOUR fault. Gunships can snipe the turrets and mines and a SF or Scout can easily mop the floor with a Bomber. Just takes coordination.

[Bleeters]

I used to hate Bombers, and as a Sting player. I still do. However, if you try to go 1v1 against a Bomber holding a satellite. Then it's YOUR fault. Gunships can snipe the turrets and mines and a SF or Scout can easily mop the floor with a Bomber. Just takes coordination.

Here inlies my problem: that requires two people. Neither the gunship nor the scout in that scenario is going to be able to pull that off by themselves. It also requires a reasonable degree of co-ordination between players to pull off, certain ship component setups and/or correct positioning.

 

And yes, in principle this is fine. The problem I have, it's entirely disproportionate to the amount of effort the bomber has to exert in order to play node defender: next to nothing. I don't have any huge problem with bombers for what they are myself, but the low skill ceiling/high payout ratio being so out of wack can get a little frustrating. Most domination matches I've played in the last couple of weeks or so have been decided within the first two minutes by how comparatively easy it is to hold a node vs take one.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Bleeters

[Brewski]

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.

 

Well, in it's purest form, maybe. However if that were the case then all of us should be flying the exact same ship with the exact same capabilities. When you introduce variations you begin introducing elements of build vs build, and when you further split into roles, the skill in creating a useful build becomes a major factor. Tack in the fact that GSF allows you to carry up to five separate builds into a match to choose from and switch around, and GSF is really better classified as a combination of a tactical space combat game and skill based dogfighter.

 

You can't win without both elements, and it's actually one of things I like best about it.

 

Here inlies my problem: that requires two people. Neither the gunship nor the scout in that scenario is going to be able to pull that off by themselves. It also requires a reasonable degree of co-ordination between players to pull off, certain ship component setups and/or correct positioning.

 

And yes, in principle this is fine. The problem I have, it's entirely disproportionate to the amount of effort the bomber has to exert in order to play node defender: next to nothing. I don't have any huge problem with bombers for what they are myself, but the low skill ceiling/high payout ratio being so out of wack can get a little frustrating.

Actually, in a 1 on 1 gunship versus bomber, the gunship should win every time hands down. A gunships weakness is fast moving, close in fighting, and a bomber has neither the speed nor maneuverability to exploit that. Add in an Ion rail with the AoE upgrade, and you can clear a satellite in almost no time. Heck, I'm one of the worst GS pilots in GSF history, and I can clear a node defended by just bombers if I'm left unmolested.

 

The only reason it seems to take a disproportionate amount of effort to combat bombers is that they are new. People are developing new tactics every day, and it's getting harder to fly a bomber. When I do, for example, I find a lot more people can clear me off with Type 1 scouts or strikes now too. Protons and EMPs stink if your are defending a node without support.

[Pilgrim_Grey]

I used to hate Bombers, and as a Sting player. I still do. However, if you try to go 1v1 against a Bomber holding a satellite. Then it's YOUR fault. Gunships can snipe the turrets and mines and a SF or Scout can easily mop the floor with a Bomber. Just takes coordination.

 

Your strategy with this is basically saying two ships have to take on one, which is problematic. One ship should have strengths against another's weakness, but it shouldn't trump it completely.

 

Of course the debate is where things are at--trumping territory, or strengths vs. weakness? Bombers should have a lot of strengths in close, since they're not fast or long ranged (at least versus a gunship). But it's more a matter of them being a little too strong up close (not unlike the aoe ion cannon for gunships is a bit too strong). Even if you adjust your tactics as a scout well and take out a gunship's mines, they can and probably will pop out more as you are attacking them. Drones do take long enough to take out that a decent bomber pilot is going to chew you up while you are targeting them.

 

And it is to the point where I have to ask myself why I'm flying a type 1 strike or type 2 scout if there are bombers around. Even then, the EMP options do have a lot of big shortcomings against what a bomber can do, even though they're supposed to be the hard counter to bombers.

 

That puts it all in trump territory, to my mind. Bombers do require a change in tactics that is a great addition to the game, but even with an adjustment there, there is too much strength on the bomber's part.

[FridgeLM]

Your strategy with this is basically saying two ships have to take on one, which is problematic.

 

No it isn't. This is a team game, and what is the point of entrenching a position if it doesn't make you difficult for a solo player to deal with?

[Zohkar]

I'm in a fully maxed out gunship that hit a bomber with three direct hits (2200 1600 and 1600) and it skated away in a domination match I played. In another domination match the enemy was using bombers defensively and offensly to the point we couldn't recapture or barely hold a satellite. They would drop so many drones and turrets around the sattelites no one could get close, the sniper (me) couldn't take them down fast enough before enemys targeted me forcing to run. They used there bombers offensively flying in and dropping ther payloads on our sattellite doing massive damage.

 

This was 12 republic players 8 of them having 5 ships and 4 of them haveing 3 ships vs. 1 imperial player with 5 ships (myself) 1 with 4 ships and the rest had 2 ships. This match was just disgusting and so frustrating. People yelling learn to play quit GSF, this is BS matchmaking etc. Its these matchs that are driving people away and so far I have not seen a team thats that superior even attempt to make matchs fair for everyone.

[Armonddd]

No it isn't. This is a team game, and what is the point of entrenching a position if it doesn't make you difficult for a solo player to deal with?

 

So what happens when more than half the team is bombers?

 

Besides, this isn't really a team game. It's a game with teams of solo players.

[FridgeLM]

I'm in a fully maxed out gunship that hit a bomber with three direct hits (2200 1600 and 1600) and it skated away in a domination match I played.

 

I don't believe you.

 

You're either leaving something out, like the time between hits, or you missed something that happened.

 

Also I'd expect to lose on a team where only two people have more than two ships, you were doomed from the start.

 

So what happens when more than half the team is bombers?

 

Besides, this isn't really a team game. It's a game with teams of solo players.

 

You can describe literally every team game in the history of the universe that way. Dota. League. Ground PVP. Pick up basketball.

 

And if more than half the team is bombers, fly a missile strike fighter. You'll eat them alive.

[Brewski]

It all comes back to matchmaking in the end. If matches were better balanced, with people of roughly the same experience and upgrade level on both sides, you would not have anywhere near as many issues. Heck, even if bombers are as OP as some people seem to think if you had the same number of players with access to them on both sides.

 

The problem is that more often than not you have one side with mostly experienced players, and the other side with mostly inexperienced players. If they solve this, then most of the other issues become moot, or at the very least, less of an issue.

[Brewski]

I'm in a fully maxed out gunship that hit a bomber with three direct hits (2200 1600 and 1600) and it skated away in a domination match I played.

 

The math on this is a bit difficult to follow unless he was a field of multiple repair drones and using both the converter for shield power and the hull repair crew skill. (And maybe even another bomber with shield projector int he area as well.) Even then he would need a decent amount of time between shots.

 

In any event, a more successful strategy would have been Ion/Slug/Slug, especially if you have the Ion AoE upgrade. Strip his power first, and a bomber is practically useless. When I fly my bomber, I die more often to gunships than any other ship, and I can personally swear to the fact that I've never eaten and survived three slugs in a row.

[Zohkar]

I don't believe you.

 

You're either leaving something out, like the time between hits, or you missed something that happened..

 

Just the time between charging the weapon to max and also the 1st shot I hit my by-pass ability. I rarely use my ion cannon because alot of people ***** about it and honestly swapping between the two is hard to tell which mode your in so I rarely switch.

[Armonddd]

You can describe literally every team game in the history of the universe that way. Dota. League. Ground PVP. Pick up basketball.

 

And if more than half the team is bombers, fly a missile strike fighter. You'll eat them alive.

 

Nope. Pick up basketball (along with pretty much every other irl sport) is a team game. Guild Wars was a team game. Though I honestly haven't run into many other truly team games.

 

The difference is, in a team game, you can't complete objectives without working together. In GSF, an ace can clear a node or carry a team in TDM. Same for League and dota. In Guild Wars, people had 500-600 hp, your frontline warrior did 200 damage on a spike if everything went through, the healing/defensive/support class was super powerful (heals for 300+, 50% melee block chance buffs, negate next attack buttons, the works), and most classes had some sort of defensive ability of their own. There was no way to get a kill without the entire team working together to both deal damage and prevent various defenses. GSF flat out lacks that level of required coordination.

[FridgeLM]

In GSF, an ace can clear a node or carry a team in TDM.

 

Let's leave aside that none of your other examples are necessarily true, especially for mobas, and that you're basically playing no true scotsman.

 

If what I quoted above is true, why aren't these aces riding roughshod over bombers (according to you)? How is it bombers are able to shut down these wunderkind?

 

Could it possibly be that there are counters and, if the ace doesn't want to switch craft, they need to rely on teammates to achieve an objective together?

 

the tl;dr of this entire discussion is that, as I see it, you're upset your playstyle is no longer as richly rewarded as it was pre-2.6 and that there are easier ways to deal with your dumb little battle scout other than having to fly a gunship or another battle scout.

 

This is a good thing for the game. Bombers themselves are meat for ships that are not your preferred one, and your preferred ship is still roughly as good against everything else as it used to be (strikes still can't contest you and gunships ate the evasion nerf just as hard as you did).

 

That's why I reduced your attitude to "square peg won't fit in round hole, please nerf round hole."

 

 

The secret subtext to this whole discussion is that battle scouts can, played properly, easily dispatch bombers too. They just can't approach them like they approach other ships.

 

Edited February 27, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Pilgrim_Grey]

No it isn't. This is a team game, and what is the point of entrenching a position if it doesn't make you difficult for a solo player to deal with?

 

Wow, nice snip out of a post and acting like you answered the whole thing (I'll try not to do the same to you). I noted in that post that a bomber should be tough up close, because that's what they're about. Scouts should have a tougher time against Bombers and Bombers should have a difficult time against Gunships, each are a counter to the other... but the problem is more that bombers are too good, even in a 1 vs 1 situation versus a scout.

 

Your next post throws out an EMP Strike Fighter like they're the be-all, end-all savior to taking out bombers clustered on a satellite (or any other part of the map they want to make a fortress). While you're flying in, targeting with your fancy EMP missile, you have to wait 2.7 seconds for a lock and then wait for it to fly in (and yeah... there's going to be some shooting going on in your direction if your opponents have even half a brain). And if your opponent has half a brain, they probably have their mines or drones spread out so your EMP blast won't take them all out (not hard to do with its radius). Even if you luck out and get most of their drones, mines, and any turrets that are on the satellite, the cooldown on drone and mine abilities is so low that it's not going to be hard for them to drop more of them, and by then your lovely strike fighter is up close and will have a much harder time getting a lock if it's not on cooldown (and you'll probably have to stop if you want to get a lock in 2.7 seconds, unless the bomber is being cooperative and flying right on top of their stuff in a way you can follow and keep a lock the entire time).

 

And that's just in a 1 vs 1 situation. It gets more difficult and more complicated the more fighters (particularly bombers) you add.

 

And before you go there, is it impossible to take back a node with a few bombers on it? No (and I know, I've done it with teammates). But it's far, far tougher than any other ship class would make it. Also, just so we're clear, the answer isn't weakening bombers drastically, it's just tweaking them. They should be tough up close--just not as tough as they currently are.

[FridgeLM]

Wow, nice snip out of a post and acting like you answered the whole thing (I'll try not to do the same to you).

 

I don't know what you mean by acting. You're inferring what was not implied.

 

Your next post throws out an EMP Strike Fighter like they're the be-all, end-all savior to taking out bombers

 

I didn't type EMP. I use ions and concussions to kill the bomber directly.

 

If you insist on using EMP, target the mines and drones, not the bomber. Mines and drones won't go behind cover.

[Armonddd]

If what I quoted above is true, why aren't these aces riding roughshod over bombers (according to you)? How is it bombers are able to shut down these wunderkind?

 

I ignored most of your post cause it seems like you're doing the same to me.

 

When did I ever claim that? Lol, have you ever actually flown with an ace? I've specifically said only close range scouts have trouble with bombers. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've (at some point, possibly a few days ago, before I noticed you start posting but not necessarily before you started reading) that it's exclusively me having trouble with bombers, because I'm too stubborn to change my build and/or playstyle to accommodate them. I could name a half dozen aces off the top of my sleep-deprived head that have zero trouble with bombers.

[FridgeLM]

I ignored most of your post cause it seems like you're doing the same to me.

 

When did I ever claim that? Lol, have you ever actually flown with an ace? I've specifically said only close range scouts have trouble with bombers. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've (at some point, possibly a few days ago, before I noticed you start posting but not necessarily before you started reading) that it's exclusively me having trouble with bombers, because I'm too stubborn to change my build and/or playstyle to accommodate them. I could name a half dozen aces off the top of my sleep-deprived head that have zero trouble with bombers.

 

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not responding because I don't care to do point by point when I'm attacking the premise.

 

What are the complaints about if the above paragraph is true? Is it your position that Bioware should do something about it?

[Pilgrim_Grey]

I don't know what you mean by acting. You're inferring what was not implied.

 

You wrote a short, two sentence post commenting on something I didn't even claim and threw it up there. Unless you have some less common standards for how you post (most people click submit when they feel like they've responded adequately), you acted like you shot down everything I said in that that short, little post. The tone of your language suggests it as well: "No it isn't. This is a team game, and what is the point of entrenching a position if it doesn't make you difficult for a solo player to deal with? "

 

I didn't type EMP. I use ions and concussions to kill the bomber directly.

 

If you insist on using EMP, target the mines and drones, not the bomber. Mines and drones won't go behind cover.

 

My misread, then. That's usually what people throw out when they reference strikes countering bombers. With your example here, though, I'm not sure how a decent bomber pilot couldn't counter that pretty well. Ions are nice versus shields, but the method you mention is going to take awhile and you're not doing anything about the mines or drones while the bomber is responding to you. I don't see that as being easy, and it'd be a lot more work for you than a Strike going up against any other ship.

 

Not saying your tactic can't work, just noting that a decent bomber should be doing a lot of damage to you while you're getting in range with those up close ions...

 

Oh, and all I said in the previous post still counts if you target mines or turrets with your EMP... that is what I target, unless the bomber is being dumb and just sitting there.

[Armonddd]

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not responding because I don't care to do point by point when I'm attacking the premise.

 

What are the complaints about if the above paragraph is true? Is it your position that Bioware should do something about it?

 

For like... the fifth time.

 

It's not cool that bombers are low skill, high reward. Tangentially related, it's not cool that part of those high rewards include gimping close-range scouts. It's also not cool that bombers, especially dronecarriers, are weak unless they get some time to set things up. Finally, it's not cool that bombers clutter up space and rely on the (absolutely flawless) AI to do what other classes consider the heavy lifting. Bioware should fix these things.

[FridgeLM]

My misread, then. That's usually what people throw out when they reference strikes countering bombers. With your example here, though, I'm not sure how a decent bomber pilot couldn't counter that pretty well. Ions are nice versus shields, but the method you mention is going to take awhile and you're not doing anything about the mines or drones while the bomber is responding to you. I don't see that as being easy, and it'd be a lot more work for you than a Strike going up against any other ship.

 

Not saying your tactic can't work, just noting that a decent bomber should be doing a lot of damage to you while you're getting in range with those up close ions...

 

Oh, and all I said in the previous post still counts if you target mines or turrets with your EMP... that is what I target, unless the bomber is being dumb and just sitting there.

 

I don't find drones or mines to be much of a concern on my Quell. None of them rip me apart the way I see scouts get ripped apart. They also die in a few quad laser blasts while I reserve the missiles for the bomber.

 

It's all situational, if the bomber's evasive then I blow apart his toys first but if I can ion and conc combo him that's what I go for first.

[Pilgrim_Grey]

I don't find drones or mines to be much of a concern on my Quell. None of them rip me apart the way I see scouts get ripped apart. They also die in a few quad laser blasts while I reserve the missiles for the bomber.

 

It's all situational, if the bomber's evasive then I blow apart his toys first but if I can ion and conc combo him that's what I go for first.

 

Why are you bringing up a Quell? That's not a Strike Fighter, which is what we were discussing. I would hope you aren't getting ripped apart by mines or drones on a satellite if you're flying a gunship...

 

and if you meant a Pike or a Starguard, you can take a lot more punishment than a scout, but you are going to notice it if a drone and a bomber are targeting you. I'm also surprised sometimes how many hits a drone can take from my quads, even when I'm at close range.

[FridgeLM]

Why are you bringing up a Quell? That's not a Strike Fighter, which is what we were discussing.

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/F-T2_Quell

 

I've built my quell specifically to take a beating. This means that I use shield power converter and have a crew oriented toward abusing it and quick-charge shields. Drones are very much not a problem (seriously, they barely tickle), and I've been alert enough not to be hit by many seismic mines.

Edited February 27, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Llama-Eight]

Why are you bringing up a Quell? That's not a Strike Fighter,

 

?? Dulfy would disagree with you, the Quell is the Imp equivalent of the Pike (2x missile slots rather than 2x blaster slots).

[Armonddd]

Why are you bringing up a Quell? That's not a Strike Fighter, which is what we were discussing. I would hope you aren't getting ripped apart by mines or drones on a satellite if you're flying a gunship...

 

You're thinking of the Quarrel.