Jump to content

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


Nemarus

Recommended Posts

No the fact that its takes so many slugs to kill the bomber is the offset for the fact that bombers are literally incapable of threatening a gunship.

 

Perhaps a better balance would be to make it so other ships besides gunships can fight bombers effectively?

 

Completely agree with you, hence why I was saying that the most destructive ship in the game can't do much to the bomber, which implies those classes less geared towards straight burst dps would have an even more difficult time. I see what you're saying - don't make them easier for GSs when they could made easier for strikes and scouts, since they are the two classes of enemies that the bomber comes up against. Here's to hopes and wishes for a souped up EMP field / ion missiles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was saying that once a bomber has no more shields, I should be able to take it out with one fully charged slug that has 100% ignore armor and an inc to hull strength. And based of what Nemarus said, he has full shields pretty much constantly. Not so much specifically talking about strength of them, but more about the fact that they refill very quickly. The shields are always there.

 

Not being able to move you off a node is a seriously gameplay balance if the most destructive ship can barely dent you (considering my crit with slug is 2400 against a bomber)

 

Gunships, and particularly gunships flown by you, do not need any buffs against any ship types. ;)

 

Quite the reverse actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an idea, why not make it so that damping decreases the range at which mines trigger? With max damping you should be able to get within 500m of a mine without detonating it. this give the role of bomber buster to the baseline scout.

 

Because scouts are in a fairly good place right now (outside BLC being slightly overtuned). More importantly, strikes wouldn't get anything out of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's leftover from pre-2.6 when strikers really were at the bottom of the food chain. There are enough vets still around to preserve the bad rep strikers got back then and so you get a cycle of vets telling newbies that strikers are worthless who then tell other newbies. I suspect the vets who praise strikers are striker pilots that suffered through the pre-2.6 days and learned how to tap the striker's potential to the fullest to overcome rather harsh odds.

 

No, this is a current observation about how I feel when i see a strike fighter in the targeting window of my gunship: "oh yay, a free kill!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bombers and gunships are both "Force Multipliers". If you let them get set up, they're going to be a pain to deal with. A gunship should not have an easy time dealing with a ship that in entrenched in a fortified position from 15k out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nerf the bombers, nerf the gunships, nerf the scouts, nerf the sf, nerf everything. GSF is sounding more like ground pvp. One group thinks the other group is too strong or cheating. Why don't everybody take turns killing each other and lets not keep score so we don't hurt each others feelings. Pathetic, plz stop the crying and just play the game and learn new tactics. War isn't fair so fight dirty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scroll up a bit, I just answered why this isn't a good enough solution.

 

Yeah sensor dampening shouldn't affect mimes. I do think they should remove the mandatory minimum of 15k on each ship. Kinda defeats the purpose of dampening imo.

 

What if shooting a mine would make it do damage to the minelayer? Probably not a great idea but it sure would be satisfying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War isn't fair so fight dirty.

Here is the reason why your whole post is incorrect:

 

GSF is not war , it is a game.

 

Games are supposed to be fair. That´s why people play games. Now we must just wait for someone, who will bring balance to the Force...I mean GSF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the reason why your whole post is incorrect:

 

GSF is not war , it is a game.

 

Games are supposed to be fair. That´s why people play games. Now we must just wait for someone, who will bring balance to the Force...I mean GSF.

 

It's a war game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah sensor dampening shouldn't affect mimes. I do think they should remove the mandatory minimum of 15k on each ship. Kinda defeats the purpose of dampening imo.

 

What if shooting a mine would make it do damage to the minelayer? Probably not a great idea but it sure would be satisfying.

 

No, then you have Gunships that can shoot you without you being able to see them, visually or on sensors. They had this in closed beta, and it was terrible.

 

15k sensor detection range is table stakes for all ships.

 

Sensor Dampening is a *counter* to ships with longer range sensors. It's similar to how Accuracy over 100% is a counter to Evasion/Defense.

 

I run Sensor Dampening on my Blackbolt because it means I can reliably disappear for a pursuer's scanners when I get 20k away, no matter what class or Sensors they are using. I don't run Sensor Dampening because I expect it to make me invisible at anything greater than 5k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it a game? Yes.

 

Is it a game about war? Yes.

 

It's a war game.

You misuse the wording "war game".

 

A war game, as sometimes mentioned here and there, is a bad wording of what should be called "war simulation". A fictive war, done in all seriousness, but without actual motivation and casualties. Actually not a game at all.

 

Some people treat these as actual games depending on their own values of entertainment.

 

But a game with war as its thematic, doesn't make it a war game in the way you're implying. It doesn't have to discredit all principles of games, such as rules, or fairplay.

They're war games in a litteral meaning, but it has no implications, it's a game in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.