Remove Bombers from Galactic Starfighter

[DEATHICIDE]

I've had several battles in Starfighter pvp now in which I can say the enemy won completely because of their bomber. The battle I just lost a few minutes before posting this was the final straw for me; a single bomber using a Warcarrier bomber ship had set up healing probes, a railgun turret and a rocket turret around the two satellites that his team controlled. This, in addition to defensive turrets and player defenders made assaulting the two satellites completely impossible. Even with my entire team gunning at the one satellite, (which had only two enemy players defending it) we were unable to take it; the enemy was being healed, and defended by railguns and rockets.

 

I've had about a dozen battles go like this within my past 30 played, and I am sick and tired of it. Either remove the bomber ship type, or severely tone down the effectiveness of their abilities. And it's worth mentioning that in the battle I just lost, while piloting a reasonably upgraded Scout fighter, said bomber was able to kill me in four shots. I was full health before it started shooting.

 

This has to STOP, Bioware. One ship can now monopolize the entire field, and it's ruining the fun of Starfighter pvp. Of course, you'll never hear complaints from the people who actually pilot these bombers. But speaking from the general SWtoR community, I can say that the bomber class is in need of some serious nerfing to bring it back into a balance with the original three ship classes.

 

For SHAME!

 

What, you were playing ring around the rosey with enemy bombers and lost, so now you want them nerfed or removed?

 

I am sorry, but even in a scout, I have a good shot at taking out 2 camping bombers solo.

 

If you MUST have your cowboy moment vs bombers:

Get yourself an emp field on the scout

Get a pike with EMP

Try a gunship

Don't play circle the satellite with an enemy that craps explosions.

 

All you really need is the right approach with any ship.

"stick and move champ, stick and move"

 

Lastly, you can't expect to attack sat circlers who have heavy armor without downing the turrets first, and attempting this alone in a mastered ship is still stacking the odds against you.

If nobody else is willing to help, you better suicide, grab a gunship or pike and take care of the turrets, because clearly someone is going to have to do the daddy work.

 

End of the day, your faction was just being outplayed, and bombers are not the root of the problem.

The bomber pilot on a headset with 6 other guys VS your team of novices is your real problem.

[Bachannal]

I really need to start playing my Imp bomber if they do that much damage.

 

Full disclosure...I'm a mediocre pilot at best. I almost always get points/awards, but rarely ever break into the top bracket. I do find that scouts versus bombers are more or less a joke (mainly because I don't play enough GSF to properly gear out my scout), but my Strikefighters have put MANY a bomber out of commission, and I'm not even using the proper weapons!

 

In conclusion...play more OP. Play a lot more. Take some of the advice that has been suggested and reiterated many times in this thread (because the people who know how to build out their ships properly tend to really be able to run circles around a player like myself), but don't ask to have the class totally nerfed or gotten rid of. All that says is you're not really putting effort into your battles.

 

I think the real issue is that a lot of the battles are poorly matched between folks who have totally maxed out ships, and n00bs that don't even have a single upgrade. My opinion is that the whole queuing process is the source of more of the GSF problems than any other factor.

[draxcil]

forget the bombers guys I play both sides for g s and well I do like the imperial bombers better that the pub side take out the gunships too many people are using them in galactic star fighter and a lot of players have complained and have said its not worth ones time to play it at all with people constantly using gunships its an unfair advantage for the other team to dominate < in under 4 mins ive seen a whole team use gunships with a few strike fighters and win > question is this is it fair to have everyone on an opposite team use gunships to dominate in fact ive seen some friendfs leave gs cause of this on going crap

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I think the real issue is that a lot of the battles are poorly matched between folks who have totally maxed out ships, and n00bs that don't even have a single upgrade. My opinion is that the whole queuing process is the source of more of the GSF problems than any other factor.

 

well that and people not understanding ship roles and the limitations those roles impose. Pretty much the same deal as seeing a sniper who only has frag grenades in an FPS raging that they can't kill an M1 Abrams.

[Eldrenath]

Begging for bombers to be removed is utterly futile. There will also NEVER be a separate "Scout/Strike only" queue. It's not going to happen--you can complain all you like, but it will never happen.

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't love it if they were removed. I hate bombers. I'm not a fan of gunships either, but I hate bombers. Prior to bombers I played 5-10 matches a night, every night. Since bombers I've played maybe 10-20 matches total, and none in the last month. I have no intention of doing so, either.

 

You can say "learn to fly, change tactics, etc etc etc.". I did change my tactics, and I did learn to deal with bombers and had good matches. But I didn't have fun, so I quit. Domination matches in particular simply weren't fun. I know many people disagree with my opinion, that's fine. GSF with bombers AND gunships I simply find not to be fun at all, so I don't queue anymore. I tried flying bombers and it was incredibly boring (and insanely easy--25+ assists, 10+ kills and tons of damage per match regularly, and I never really did anything except fly in circles). I don't like flying gunships, so I don't want to do that. And while I can still be successful in strike or scouts it just isn't fun for me. I actively dislike it.

 

Would I like to see bombers removed? Absolutely I would. I'd love it. I'd be queueing 10 times a day again. But they absolutely are not going to be removed, and I absolutely am not going to start queueing again. I recognize many will, I'm not saying NO ONE will queue. I'm saying I won't and I don't. And I almost never see my guildies queuing anymore either--and we used to run together most nights. Now we only have a couple that still do the weekly then don't queue again all week, and a lot more (like me) that don't queue at all--weekly or not. I don't know of any guild members that still run GSF even if they've already finished the weekly. And most I've spoken to say the same thing I do--they used to like it, but don't like it at all with bombers. They don't complain or rant about it, they just don't queue.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Eldrenath

[Kaivers]

Something "odd" is definitely happening (or happened) on my server. After not playing for weeks I decided to queue a few times yesterday (and the day before) and was "shocked" to see none of the GSF aces and fanatics who were regulars before 2.6 in a single match! I figured that they might be on alts but the performance of these pilots made it apparent that most of them were relatively new to GSF. The other shock was that hardly any of these players were using Gunships or Bombers. I played about 3-4 matches each day and 90% of the ships were Strikes or Scouts, except for I think one match where the other side loaded Gunships and Bombers. I actually had a match where almost all of the ships were Strikes (in all honesty this was a very fun match)! Anyway, not sure what's going on and zero speculation...I'm just saying it was very odd. The only reason I kept queuing was to see if I would catch any familiar names but I only came across one or two.

[Zharik]

I'm not saying I wouldn't love it if they were removed. I hate bombers. I'm not a fan of gunships either, but I hate bombers. Prior to bombers I played 5-10 matches a night, every night. Since bombers I've played maybe 10-20 matches total, and none in the last month. I have no intention of doing so, either.

 

Yet here you are, posting on the GSF forums...

[Eldrenath]

Yet here you are, posting on the GSF forums...

 

You're point being what, exactly? I didn't say I wouldn't talk about GSF, just that I don't queue anymore. Does the fact that I don't queue for GSF because I don't like the state of it somehow mean I am not allowed to talk about it either? I was an extremely avid GSF player that quit because I didn't like bombers. You certainly don't have to agree with my opinion, it is my opinion and nothing more. And I fully admit that many others disagree with me. But as someone that loved GSF and doesn't now and still has a sub, I still have an opinion about it.

 

Then again, this is the internet. And folks are allowed to say what they want--even if what they say is nonsense that makes a completely inaccurate observation that misses the point in its entirety.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Eldrenath

[Urglab]

Prior to bombers I played 5-10 matches a night, every night. Since bombers I've played maybe 10-20 matches total, and none in the last month. I have no intention of doing so, either.

 

You can say "learn to fly, change tactics, etc etc etc.". I did change my tactics, and I did learn to deal with bombers and had good matches.

 

Does not compute. You need way more than 20 matches to properly learn how to deal with bombers.

[Eldrenath]

Does not compute. You need way more than 20 matches to properly learn how to deal with bombers.

 

Really? It takes way more than 20 matches to learn not to circle behind them under and around satellites? To use different attack vectors and learn their weaknesses and not walk right into their mines or drones? It certainly didn't take me way more than 20 matches. It took me around 20 matches.

 

I certainly didn't become a master of dealing with them--and never claimed I did. I just said I learned to deal with them OK and still had good matches despite the bombers, which I did. Not amazing matches, but good ones. Didn't change the fact that I personally didn't find it fun. I didn't enjoy flying in or against bombers. I am NOT saying bombers are objectively bad or that anyone that likes the game with bombers is wrong. I'm saying I tried it and didn't enjoy it very much. I certainly didn't become a master against them--I was never a record-breaking pilot. All I'm saying is I tried it, I had some OK success but I didn't enjoy it at all.

[Xolido]

i dont agree with the poster !

 

i would rather see that the Base sentry turrets got a Dps nerf 25-35% and a slightly Hp buff 10-15% ...

One Bomber camping base with con and seeker mines and 3 base sentry turrets = u need at least 3-4 players to cap it.. Depending what ships they are in and how good the Bomber pilot is at kiting..

 

The sentry turrets should not doo so much damage that a scout gets one shot after one pass by..!

A Scout imo should be able to kill at least one turret. Fighter two. Gunship/Bomber 3..

 

And i think there should be an ability that could disable mines for 30 sec in a 8000m radius - uhmm if there is one please let me know..

Edited March 21, 2014 by Xolido

[Gavin_Kelvar]

i dont agree with the poster !

 

i would rather see that the Base sentry turrets got a Dps nerf 25-35% and a slightly Hp buff 10-15% ...

One Bomber camping base with con and seeker mines and 3 base sentry turrets = u need at least 3-4 players to cap it.. Depending what ships they are in and how good the Bomber pilot is at kiting..

 

The sentry turrets should not doo so much damage that a scout gets one shot after one pass by..!

A Scout imo should be able to kill at least one turret. Fighter two. Gunship/Bomber 3..

 

And i think there should be an ability that could disable mines for 30 sec in a 8000m radius - uhmm if there is one please let me know..

 

Scouts can kill a single turret with the right set up, but in the situation in question the scout shouldn't be attacking the sat's defenses because it's heavily fortified. You're basically trying to have a scout do a strike fighter's job in that situation so it's quite balanced that such an endeavor ends badly.

 

One of the problems pre-2.6 was that scouts could clear a sat's defenses solo (as in kill all 3 turrets) and that left strikers without any identifiable role. And to be fair against any guy who knows how to be a sat tick it can take 3+ enemy fighters to clear them so it's not like bombers are the only ones that can make it difficult to cap a sat.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Urglab]

Really? It takes way more than 20 matches to learn not to circle behind them under and around satellites? To use different attack vectors and learn their weaknesses and not walk right into their mines or drones? It certainly didn't take me way more than 20 matches. It took me around 20 matches.

 

I certainly didn't become a master of dealing with them--and never claimed I did. I just said I learned to deal with them OK and still had good matches despite the bombers, which I did. Not amazing matches, but good ones. Didn't change the fact that I personally didn't find it fun. I didn't enjoy flying in or against bombers. I am NOT saying bombers are objectively bad or that anyone that likes the game with bombers is wrong. I'm saying I tried it and didn't enjoy it very much. I certainly didn't become a master against them--I was never a record-breaking pilot. All I'm saying is I tried it, I had some OK success but I didn't enjoy it at all.

 

Yes, in 20 matches you'll have barely scratched the surface of the different loadouts bombers can use, not to mention using different loadouts yourself to experiment with. There are so many variables, 20 matches is nothing.

[Armonddd]

Yes, in 20 matches you'll have barely scratched the surface of the different loadouts bombers can use, not to mention using different loadouts yourself to experiment with. There are so many variables, 20 matches is nothing.

 

It doesn't take 20 matches to realize you're not having fun, and it barely takes 20 matches total played to realize that the best way to fight a bomber is at range with armor piercing weapons (which aren't especially good against anything else, unless you're a gunship).

[Eldrenath]

Yes, in 20 matches you'll have barely scratched the surface of the different loadouts bombers can use, not to mention using different loadouts yourself to experiment with. There are so many variables, 20 matches is nothing.

 

What is your point? I can only think you read the first couple sentences then didn't read the rest. I never said I mastered it. I certainly did not. But I did play it enough to know that I did not enjoy it at all. I learned to deal with bombers in my scout and strike and was able to modify my playstyle to make it work and have decent--again, decent, not amazing--stats. But what remained was that I did not like it at all. It wasn't fun. I wasn't failing to have fun because I couldn't deal with bombers or was getting stomped by them--I was failing to have fun because the dynamics of the game when bombers AND gunships are present simply are not fun for me personally.

 

It takes more than 20 matches to get REALLY good against bombers, but it does not take more than 20 matches to simply learn to deal with them in a passable way. And it does not take more than 20 matches to learn that the way the game works with bombers might not be fun for an individual. I know that some people love them and think they've brought an interesting dynamic. That's great, I fully respect that. But for me they destroyed the game and made it almost entirely unenjoyable. That is my personal opinion based on my personal preferences and not an objective fact.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Eldrenath

[Dragaunus]

I'm starting to see a drastic increase in queue times for GSF. Since this all started to happen around the time when Bombers were implemented along with growing concerns being posted on the GSF Forum about Bombers as a whole, I think there's indeed a correlation here that needs to be taken into consideration. Edited March 23, 2014 by Dragaunus

[misterbeefy]

Just get one or two gunships up and focus fire on the bombers, easy peasy.

 

Smack them with a slug round and then a plasma round and lol as they warp away. Even if it doesn't kill them, the sheer w t f factor from them can cause them to slip up. Unless they fully know what they're doing, then just keep smacking them in the face with slug rounds until they explode.

Edited March 24, 2014 by misterbeefy

[Korithras]

Scouts can kill a single turret with the right set up, but in the situation in question the scout shouldn't be attacking the sat's defenses because it's heavily fortified. You're basically trying to have a scout do a strike fighter's job in that situation so it's quite balanced that such an endeavor ends badly.

 

One of the problems pre-2.6 was that scouts could clear a sat's defenses solo (as in kill all 3 turrets) and that left strikers without any identifiable role. And to be fair against any guy who knows how to be a sat tick it can take 3+ enemy fighters to clear them so it's not like bombers are the only ones that can make it difficult to cap a sat.

 

It was hardly a problem of scouts killing turrets because even though they could, it's not like they did it and came out unscathed.

[Zharik]

It was hardly a problem of scouts killing turrets because even though they could, it's not like they did it and came out unscathed.

 

If you cannot kill turrets with a scout and not take hull damage... practice more.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

It was hardly a problem of scouts killing turrets because even though they could, it's not like they did it and came out unscathed.

 

with the proper use of DField with a set up with armor piercing weapons it was entirely possible to go against turrets and take minimal damage because you could get full invulnerability to turret fire.

 

It was a problem because some scout pilots went so far as make claims that boiled down to that it was the class role of scouts, not strikers, to destroy armored targets. Which left the class role of strikers somewhat obscurely defined since scouts could do everything a striker could do with equal or better efficiency. To be clear I'm not saying it was any one factor that made scouts a problem, just that this is a good example of the problem that existed and how class role was unbalanced.

 

I suspect a lot of the problem with bombers (that don't involve LOS issues or exploiting drones as deployable cover) are due to scout pilots that still haven't grasped that they were never meant to have the power they did pre-2.6 and that they weren't meant to be equal or better than strikers at destroying armored targets.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[Dragaunus]

As this thread has progressed, I realized that what's needed isn't a 'nerf' of one class of vessel or having one completely removed or it's most valuable abilities taken away.

 

What we should be doing is offering more constructive suggestions and compromises that changes and balances the Bomber Class yet makes it a very effective starship capable of handling more Player vs. Player scenarios as opposed to Player + PvE Aid vs. Player.

 

Suggested Proposals:

1) Removing the AoE Powers and Weapons utilized currently to destroy mines, requiring 'line of sight' firing on each individual mine to destroy them.

2) Removing all AI Controlled Combat Mines (Turret Mines, Missile Drones, Rail Gun Turrets, Etc.)

3) Bolstering the power of Healing Mines and Proximity Mines.

4) Providing the Bomber with new benefits such as: Evasive Action Engine Abilities, Heavier Blasters, Increased Selection of Ship-to-Ship Missiles, Increased Number of Missile Banks (maybe even exclusive access to Heat Seeker Missiles that don't require a lock on before firing), Increased Missile Capacity, Heavier Armor, and Heavier Shields.

 

Summary:

These proposed changes would change the role of the Bomber Class from a PvE Mine Layer into a PvP Missile Boat with a few mine laying tricks still up its sleeves!

 

Ideal Outcome:

Hopefully this line of thinking helps promote some healthy, constructive replies to this post so we can reach some common ground that makes everyone happy.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

As this thread has progressed, I realized that what's needed isn't a 'nerf' of one class of vessel or having one completely removed or it's most valuable abilities taken away.

 

What we should be doing is offering more constructive suggestions and compromises that changes and balances the Bomber Class yet makes it a very effective starship capable of handling more Player vs. Player scenarios as opposed to Player + PvE Aid vs. Player.

 

Suggested Proposals:

1) Removing the AoE Powers and Weapons utilized currently to destroy mines, requiring 'line of sight' firing on each individual mine to destroy them.

2) Removing all AI Controlled Combat Mines (Turret Mines, Missile Drones, Rail Gun Turrets, Etc.)

3) Bolstering the power of Healing Mines and Proximity Mines.

4) Providing the Bomber with new benefits such as: Evasive Action Engine Abilities, Heavier Blasters, Increased Selection of Ship-to-Ship Missiles, Increased Number of Missile Banks (maybe even exclusive access to Heat Seeker Missiles that don't require a lock on before firing), Increased Missile Capacity, Heavier Armor, and Heavier Shields.

 

Summary:

These proposed changes would change the role of the Bomber Class from a PvE Mine Layer into a PvP Missile Boat with a few mine laying tricks still up its sleeves!

 

Ideal Outcome:

Hopefully this line of thinking helps promote some healthy, constructive replies to this post so we can reach some common ground that makes everyone happy.

 

the one problem is the Type 2 striker is essentially the game's missile boat. So it's entirely possible you'd be making it obsolete by transforming bombers into missile boats. Honestly it would fit the name "bomber" more if they did implement the suggestion, I'm just saying it's highly unlikely that they would.

[Pilgrim_Grey]

They're also not going to want to throw out how bombers are designed entirely. If they're going to change anything, it's their existing powers and abilities to some extent.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

the one thing I've been seeing a lot lately is bombers glitching into the environment (typically the Kuat Messa TDM map) and camping with their mines/drones (or glitching things like repair drones into the environment so they can't be destroyed). I dunno whether they're just doing a good job at finding holes in the scenery or whether there's a case of a delay in the object collision function activating on mines/drones when they get deployed.

 

Either way it's something that needs to be looked at as it's kinda cheap. Granted you'll be at the bottom of the scoreboard if you glitch the bomber into the terrain but it will certainly hurt your team by making them in all essence short by one player.

 

Not really a case for removing bombers but something to add to the list of things the devs need to look at.

[-Streven-]

I used to hate bombers but the more I play the more I see bombers as easy kills. Their damage numbers do seem high on the scoreboard still but to me that just means Drone dmg output should be slightly lowered. That's the only thing that should change about them. Really bombers would be a very weak class if the general populace had better spacial awareness.