Devs: Please consider ways to reduce effectiveness of mine/drone stacking

[Nemarus]

While I believe Bombers are relatively balanced, there's still the issue that multiple Bombers stacking drones and mines in an area (such as around a satellite or Gunships) is very hard to overcome.

 

I know EMP Field and EMP Missile are designed to counter this somewhat, but right now they just don't have a big enough area, or disable drones for a long enough time, to really deal with the problem.

 

Plus, stacking Bombers can be very effective even if they are stock ships without any upgrades and flown by unskilled pilots (or bots, for that matter). But using an EMP Missile effectively really requires a few upgrades and quite a bit of skill.

 

Just something to keep in mind.

[SammyGStatus]

Yeah - kinda think with the consensus of everybody that bomber's drones should see a bit of a reduction

[Kuciwalker]

Remove shield piercing on seismic mines would be a good start.

[Armonddd]

Remove shield piercing on seismic mines would be a good start.

 

Agreed. I'd also like to see it gone from concs, but at least those aren't protons minus lock-on time.

[Altheran]

My problem with mines, it's they are very effective, as a weapon by dealing serious damage (even if the AoE hits only one person), and also as a system by forcing the ennemy to do usually unnecessary moves, wasting time, energy, losing accuracy (non-straight trajectories inducing more tracking penalties)...

 

And so, having mines is like having a weapon and a system at the same time. And so, using a Razorwire or Rempart since they have two mines, is almost as effective as two "regular" ships... The everlasting properties of mines and mines that can be laid multiple times don't help either...

And so, obviously, stacking them becomes almost an automatic win.

 

So I think that two things can be done :

- Reduce significantly their damage so that they only stand as system/support component (unnecessary damage is still unnecessary, ennemies can't ignore them easily even with lower damage)

- Leave them extremely deadly, but make them double-edged so that they lose most of the support aspect, by making them neutral and blast anyone regardless of team (who thought it was a good idea to sit in the middle of explosives without expecting any backlash ?)

 

The second idea probably won't have many fans, although I think it may be the best for various reasons :

- No more parking bombers. They'd suicide by trying.

- Extreme stacking = suicide

- People were bored of satellite buzzing. Mines created unbeatable "buzzers"

Still I know that's not newcomer friendly, would allow playing for the ennemy team and such... So I'm not disillusioning myself, it will likely not happen.

 

So for damage reducing, I think the nerf should affect non seeker mines. Seeker are somewhat okay since they do not AoE and leave a short timeframe for a counter. But for Seismic doing 75% of Proton Torpedo and Concussive mines doing 90% of Concussion missiles while both being AoE and sudden... That's going a bit too far.

Going for 50% of the missiles they are mimicking would probably be much more reasonable.

[Zharik]

This is like asking for multiple ships to have a penalty to attack one enemy.

 

At least with bombers you are mostly in control of where you fight (hint: don't fight in their minefield).

[Armonddd]

This is like asking for multiple ships to have a penalty to attack one enemy.

 

No, it's like saying BLCs and slugs do too much damage, please fix.

[Zharik]

- Leave them extremely deadly, but make them double-edged so that they lose most of the support aspect, by making them neutral and blast anyone regardless of team (who thought it was a good idea to sit in the middle of explosives without expecting any backlash ?)

 

Two points here:

1. Nothing hits friendlies in this game... as it is a game, just like the ground game.

2. You want an avenue for trolls to attack their wing-mates?!? Really? You new to the internet or something?!?

[Zharik]

No, it's like saying BLCs and slugs do too much damage, please fix.

 

Mines aren't really effective as burst damage, they are only effective as area denial (that's what mines do...). They certainly aren't sneaky either.

[Armonddd]

Mines aren't really effective as burst damage, they are only effective as area denial (that's what mines do...). They certainly aren't sneaky either.

 

And that means they don't have problems? You new to game design or something?

Edited April 3, 2014 by Armonddd

[Nemarus]

Mines aren't really effective as burst damage, they are only effective as area denial (that's what mines do...). They certainly aren't sneaky either.

 

You do realize that one of our two gametypes REQUIRES us to sit and fight in a small area for extended periods of time, right? You can't cap from 6000m out.

 

And I say this as someone who abuses the CRAP out of mines. My Minelayer sits under a satellite with ~2900 shield (which it constantly refills using engine energy it doesn't need), 2400 hull and Hydrospanner (meaning it takes FOUR proton torpedoes to take me out), dropping seismic and interdiction mines to deal ~1000 direct hull damage to everyone within 2000m every 15 seconds. If I get hit by an EMP weapon, I lose a third of my mine DPS for a little while. Big deal. It is not a counter.

 

The ONLY single-ship counter to me is another person flying the exact same build (even another Miner running Concussion Mines, or a Dronecarrier, have no chance). Every other counter requires multiple ships carefully coordinating to cover multiple angles of the satellite so that they can whittle me down wherever I go. And even then, without an Ion Railgun suppressing my shields and mines, they don't have much of a chance.

 

The only way I lose a Domination match is if the rest of my team is so awful that they can't collectively hold the other node on their own. The only reason this isn't a huge problem on my server yet is because only one other person seems to play this build, on the other side. Every other person keeps wasting their time with drones or concussion mines.

 

That will likely change now, but if that's what's gotta happen for people to realize how broken some Bombers are, then that's what's gotta happen.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Nemarus

[Loc_n_lol]

One thing I'd like to see personally, is reducing mine damage across the board, while also reducing the cooldown on all mines. Reduce burst, maintain 'dps', if such a thing exists for a bomber.

Let's say about half for both damage and cooldowns.

The advantage would be that for one thing, stepping into a minefield would be a little less immediately lethal. For another thing, the bomber pilot would have to take a little more proactive role, pushing buttons more often, with a better chance of manually detonating mines.

Also that would make the system disabling on EMP weapons more effective without increasing its duration.

[Zharik]

You do realize that one of our two gametypes REQUIRES us to sit and fight in a small area for extended periods of time, right? You can't cap from 6000m out.

 

So... you agree.. they are used for area denial. (and anyone attacking a fortified position solo is cocky at least)

[Armonddd]

So... you agree.. they are used for area denial. (and anyone attacking a fortified position solo is cocky at least)

 

I don't think anyone in this thread has said that mines are used for anything but area denial.

 

The problem is that they're too good at it.

 

And why is it good tactics to attack a node with a scout or strike on it, or a gunship overlooking it, but if there's a bomber on it, all of a sudden it's "cockiness" to try to, you know, win the game?

 

Bombers are just flat out too good at area denial and position fortification for not enough skill investment.

[Zharik]

I don't think anyone in this thread has said that mines are used for anything but area denial.

 

The problem is that they're too good at it.

 

And why is it good tactics to attack a node with a scout or strike on it, or a gunship overlooking it, but if there's a bomber on it, all of a sudden it's "cockiness" to try to, you know, win the game?

 

Bombers are just flat out too good at area denial and position fortification for not enough skill investment.

 

Because that is what bombers are made for... if I said I was gonna dogfight a T2 scout in my gunship you'd look at me funny (and with good reason).

[Nemarus]

Because that is what bombers are made for... if I said I was gonna dogfight a T2 scout in my gunship you'd look at me funny (and with good reason).

 

Yes, but when a ship is SO GOOD at area denial, and one of the two game modes depends SO HEAVILY on area control, things get out of whack.

 

Keep in mind, my Bomber isn't just a defender. It is the ultimate node attacker as well.

 

Let's say there's a node guarded by 3-4 ships. It really doesn't matter how many. I'll approach slowly and quietly, using environmental cover to get to within about 10k of the sat. Then I put power to shields, use Overcharge Shield's active (pushing my shields over 3500). I boost toward the node and use my HLC's to kill two turrets, 3 shots each. Maybe the defenders are shooting at me at this point--it doesn't matter.

 

I swoop under the satellite and calmly eat any mines or drones that are there. Unless there are any seismic or interdiction mines, I don't take any hull damage. Meanwhile I drop my own two mines and then curl around to take out the third turret. I am now done with the phase of this node capture which requires me to aim or shoot lasers.

Three to five seconds after I dropped my mines, EVERYONE on the node (except me of course, because my mines are smart in who they explode) takes ~1000 hull damage. Every enemy mine, drone, and Scout(!) are now dead. Any Strikes or Gunships on the node are now slowed with only a couple hundred hull points left, and they have 15 seconds to decide whether they leave the node or die to my next volley of mines. Most people aren't accustomed to a single ship telling them, "Concede the node to me or die" so they stay ... and they die.

 

Any other Bombers are down to 1400 hull now. They drop their Seeker Mines or whatever--I don't care because I've got full shields that I pump engine energy into every 6 seconds. My mines hit, and those Bombers are down to 400 hull. I'm still fine.

 

The third wave of mines hit and anyone who did not leave the node is now dead. I am alone at the node and capturing it after ~45 seconds. And that's only if there were other Bombers defending it. If there weren't, then the time is much shorter.

 

Now sure, other reinforcements are likely on their way. Most likely they'll roll into the node and die to my mines just like everyone else. A few smart ones might try to use a Gunship or Strikes to kill me from range, but all it takes is skillfull weaving around the satellite and that becomes very slow and difficult work for them.

 

So here I am, one lone ship ... at worst, I am requiring a large portion of the enemy team to defend one node from one ship. At best I take it myself.

 

My team wins the match and I get 15-19 medals.

 

So far the ONLY thing that has been reliably able to challenge this build/tactic is someone running the exact same thing.

[ScipioAemilianus]

This is not a good idea, just a complaint from a bad player. the drones have long cool down times, and are not moveable. if you don't want to hit them, don't fly into them. you can take out rail gun/missile drones from range. the bombers are not near as maneuverable as other ships so it's a big slow target. adapt and over come

[Armonddd]

This is not a good idea, just a complaint from a bad player.

 

Your ad hominem not only detracts from the validity of your argument, it's also flat wrong. Nemarus and I are two of the best pilots on The Ebon Hawk, and as I understand it, Kuciwalker and Sammy are both aces on their own server(s). That's not bragging; that's facts backed by a number of leaderboards.

 

the drones have long cool down times, and are not moveable.

 

That doesn't mean they're not extremely effective. Did you know that a railgun drone will knock out about a third the base hull of a scout solely because of its shield piercing? Further, the long cooldowns and immobility are both negated by the lack of need for shorter cooldowns or any mobility whatsoever when fortifying a position (either a satellite to gain points, or a gunship platform from which to just murder things).

 

if you don't want to hit them, don't fly into them. you can take out rail gun/missile drones from range. the bombers are not near as maneuverable as other ships so it's a big slow target. adapt and over come

 

If you read Nemarus' previous post, he very clearly explains why this isn't a viable counter to semi-skilled bomber play. The short version is that area denial is, on its own, an extremely powerful tool, and with even a little bit of cover a bomber's maneuverability issues become significantly less pertinent. Further, attempting to destroy mines or drones at range simply makes you a target (this is why EMP missile is so underused).

[Armonddd]

Because that is what bombers are made for... if I said I was gonna dogfight a T2 scout in my gunship you'd look at me funny (and with good reason).

 

If you told me you wanted to attack at range from a gunship, I'd say that's a good tactic in the current meta, because gunships are so good at it. Likewise for dogfighting with BLC and node defense with bombers.

 

I'm not saying don't do the things you're good at; I'm saying certain builds are simply too good at what they're good at, which negatively affects the meta by reducing the number of viable counterstrategies.

 

I had a match last week where my opponents in TDM spontaneously formed a bomberball after about 18 kills. They just all rolled into one spot, dropped a ton of mines, and sat gunships on the mines. Anyone who came close was obliterated, and their one or two scouts and strikes were the only ones we could kill (because they foolishly left the safety of the bomberball).

 

Literally the only viable response to that strategy was to pull out our own bombers and gunships and mimic their actions while hoping to find the one damage overcharge on the map before they did (which wasn't likely, since we'd been pushed back so far). Except no one on our team had AoE ion but me, and I refused to switch off my scout for a while (partly to deny them the point, partly because I hate gunships), so we lost.

 

If mines, drones, and railguns didn't scale better than anything a scout or strike can bring to the table, there would have been more than one possible response to that situation.

[ScipioAemilianus]

Your ad hominem not only detracts from the validity of your argument, it's also flat wrong. Nemarus and I are two of the best pilots on The Ebon Hawk, and as I understand it, Kuciwalker and Sammy are both aces on their own server(s). That's not bragging; that's facts backed by a number of leaderboards.

 

the debate of "ace" and what it is can go on for ever.

 

 

That doesn't mean they're not extremely effective. Did you know that a railgun drone will knock out about a third the base hull of a scout solely because of its shield piercing? Further, the long cooldowns and immobility are both negated by the lack of need for shorter cooldowns or any mobility whatsoever when fortifying a position (either a satellite to gain points, or a gunship platform from which to just murder things).

 

I can take out rail guns in a slow bomber, maybe use a less fragile ship. I'm saying this as some one who has seen no problems with these ships. A skilled player can take them out and not cry. Maybe they just aren't good. I opted out of rail guns because I don't see them as effective. long cool downs are a pain and lack of mobility is a pain when I get caught where I shouldn't be or have one of the skilled players taking out my drones. so it's very valid.

 

If you read Nemarus' previous post, he very clearly explains why this isn't a viable counter to semi-skilled bomber play. The short version is that area denial is, on its own, an extremely powerful tool, and with even a little bit of cover a bomber's maneuverability issues become significantly less pertinent. Further, attempting to destroy mines or drones at range simply makes you a target (this is why EMP missile is so underused).

 

even something as simple as backing your players up heck I did it in a gunship popping drones and mines. . I don't see what the issue is. perhaps you guys should take the ape off the self granted titles and think of some other way to counter mines/drones. . .a good player will do that. as of now I hear /cry my bad game play can't beat his so nerf him so I can. how about get better dude.

[Kuciwalker]

If you told me you wanted to attack at range from a gunship, I'd say that's a good tactic in the current meta, because gunships are so good at it. Likewise for dogfighting with BLC and node defense with bombers.

 

I'm not saying don't do the things you're good at; I'm saying certain builds are simply too good at what they're good at, which negatively affects the meta by reducing the number of viable counterstrategies.

 

I had a match last week where my opponents in TDM spontaneously formed a bomberball after about 18 kills. They just all rolled into one spot, dropped a ton of mines, and sat gunships on the mines. Anyone who came close was obliterated, and their one or two scouts and strikes were the only ones we could kill (because they foolishly left the safety of the bomberball).

 

Literally the only viable response to that strategy was to pull out our own bombers and gunships and mimic their actions while hoping to find the one damage overcharge on the map before they did (which wasn't likely, since we'd been pushed back so far). Except no one on our team had AoE ion but me, and I refused to switch off my scout for a while (partly to deny them the point, partly because I hate gunships), so we lost.

 

If mines, drones, and railguns didn't scale better than anything a scout or strike can bring to the table, there would have been more than one possible response to that situation.

 

The gunship/bomber combination turns the game into a weird version of trench warfare in space. This is a bad thing.

[Armonddd]

even something as simple as backing your players up heck I did it in a gunship popping drones and mines. . I don't see what the issue is. perhaps you guys should take the ape off the self granted titles and think of some other way to counter mines/drones. . .a good player will do that. as of now I hear /cry my bad game play can't beat his so nerf him so I can. how about get better dude.

 

How about actually read the thread and make informed arguments?

 

Half the people here are arguing to nerf the tactics they use, because they're stupidly good.

 

I don't see why you think it's ok that the only realistic way to un-trench a bomber lolling his way around a satellite is to use a gunship in careful coordination with other ships. And, currently, that is the only way to counter mines and drones -- the EMP weapons don't do a very good job of it, and AoE ion railgun (which requires t4 and knowing what you're doing) is the only other counter in the game.

 

We can't "think of some other way" because no other way exists. It's like if I wanted to make lasagna but had no pasta of any kind and you were all "lol you have an entire kitchen here why don't you think of something". There's just no solution that results in anything resembling actual lasagna.

[Delta_V]

The gunship/bomber combination turns the game into a weird version of trench warfare in space. This is a bad thing.

 

Pretty much any time I see a match where one team (whether mine or the enemies') is made up of over half gunships and bombers, I know that yeah, this is going to be stupid.

 

At least if its only gunships, scouts at least have a *chance* at breaking them up (although Strikes are pretty much screwed) since they can try to rush in and get inside the effective range of the railguns. When you throw bombers into the mix though, if you rush in close, you get exploded by mines; if you try to stand back to deal w/ the mines, you get shredded by the gunships. As others have said, pretty much the only way to counter this strategy is to bring more gunships w/ Ion AOE than the other team, at which point the gameplay becomes patently absurd.

[Armonddd]

As others have said, pretty much the only way to counter this strategy is to bring more gunships w/ Ion AOE than the other team, at which point the gameplay becomes patently absurd.

 

Any time the only answer to "they're stacking this thing!" is "WE NEED TO STACK HARDER", my desk gets thumped. Usually repeatedly.

 

It's just such bullcrap design.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Armonddd

[FridgeLM]

The only thing keeping battle scouts from being the FOTM is mines. Leave them alone or nerf battle scouts at the same time.

 

Related: Ion railgun shouldn't do anything to mines. It's complete nonsense that the AOE does any hull damage at all.

Edited April 4, 2014 by FridgeLM