Domination on The Ebon Hawk is now a farce

[Ramalina]

 

Now sure, two Strikes, working in perfect tandem to cover the bottom and top of a satellite with HLC's, can cut through 2000 Hull faster than 50 seconds. The thing is, so could two attacking SIM's. While I pop Charged Plating, the two attacking SIM's could move to top and bottom of the satellite and HLC me down. Once again, anything a Strike could do to counter me, another SIM could do equally or better.

 

Let's look at the math again. Bombers have either 2000 hull with 39% DR or 2400 hull with 19% DR. Either one is going to last a lot longer against Seismic and Interdiction Mines than even the burliest Scout (950 hull, 29% DR) or Strike (1450 hull, 34% DR).

 

 

Your general point is valid, but there are some holes in the details.

 

One thing a strike can do better is use armor ignoring secondary weapons, p-torps, upgraded concussion missiles, thermite torpedo. So making the rather big assumption that the strike(s) managed to both strip the bomber's shields and lock on missiles with very slow lock on times without getting LOSed, a strike in theory has the potential to take down a bomber with charged plating up much faster than another bomber could.

 

Another point, seismic and interdiction mines aren't much of a threat to strikes unless the pilot is being a bit stupid. The strikes with good damage reduction builds can reach 85-94 DR with charged plating, and 99% DR with nullify. Based on how their weapons are set up it doesn't make any sense for a strike to be inside of mine range while the DR is unavailable due to cooldown, they can be doing energy regen and maneuvering for missile locks during that window. So while the math is correct, it's also irrelevant. Another bomber has strong incentive to stick around and eat the opponent's mines, a strike has strong incentive to spend a lot of time outside of mine range to reposition for attacks even without DR cooldown management. The result is that in a complete engagement with at least marginally competent pilots the bomber is going to eat a lot more unmitigated mine volleys than the strike will, so the strike's smaller hull value isn't that much of an issue.

 

The exception is a particular type three strike build, but given the complete lack of armor ignore on their blasters there's not really a point to them being in blaster range of a bomber once the bomber's shields are down. At 1% damage you might as well boost out and try for a proton or thermite lock.

 

The problems of bombers being maybe too reliant on LOSing attackers for survival, too durable against their 'natural counters' when cover for LOSing is available, and the objective itself providing adequate cover for LOSing in domination game modes is of course, not affected at all by the quibbly little details I pointed out.

 

There's really 3 values that they can potentially work on to solve this, bomber survivability in cover, bomber survivability out of cover, and power scaling of hull damaging mines.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Ramalina

[Kuciwalker]

I wonder how much this problem could be mitigated by forcing satellites to be (mostly) convex, in particular getting rid of the little nooks on the underside. I feel like ships hiding motionless inside those nooks is very anti-thematic.

[Fractalsponge]

What if you swapped seeker and interdiction mines in the loadouts? Then a minelayer would have to choose 1 of the direct-hull damage mines, and use either seeker or concussion as a secondary mine option. Maybe with a small buff to interdiction if this happened, to make it an actual choice over seismic.

[Ramalina]

I wonder how much this problem could be mitigated by forcing satellites to be (mostly) convex, in particular getting rid of the little nooks on the underside. I feel like ships hiding motionless inside those nooks is very anti-thematic.

 

In general I don't find that to be a situation of anything other than easy targets.

 

Bombers are a bit of a special case though. You want to use weapons where your effective employment zone is 11000 to 5000 m from your ship. You also don't want to get much closer than 5000 m because the mines are painful to run into. The trouble is, if you approach from below to have line of sight into all of those nooks under the sat, on most of the domination maps there isn't enough space to be in an ideal long range missile launch zone when approaching from the bottom without running into the exhaustion zone. For anything other than a bomber it's not a big deal because shorter ranged missiles are just as good, as are medium to short range blasters. If you flipped the sats upside down it would be less of a problem because on most maps there's enough room to do a good approach from above with appropriate bomber removal tools.

 

Hm, I guess that's a very strike centric viewpoint there, but the concern holds just as much or moreso for gunships.

As for scouts, well I'm not sure there's much help for them vs bombers other than amazing piloting and rocket pod or thermite torpedo use.

 

Even flipping the sat wouldn't help against a good bomber pilot though. With the bomber flying well executed fin weaving the missile weapons suitable for use against bombers just have lock on times that are too long to achieve a reliable lock.

[Nemarus]

What if you swapped seeker and interdiction mines in the loadouts? Then a minelayer would have to choose 1 of the direct-hull damage mines, and use either seeker or concussion as a secondary mine option. Maybe with a small buff to interdiction if this happened, to make it an actual choice over seismic.

 

It would reduce the magnitude of the problem by about 40%, but the inherent problems would still be there. A single Seismic Mine still deals enough burst AOE hull damage to clear out all drones, takes more than half a Scout's hull, more than a third of a Strike/Gunship's hull, and more than a fourth of a Bomber's hull. In the case of a single Minelayer, all it does is extend the time it takes that Minelayer to kill everything on the node by 15 seconds. But the Minelayer, by virtue of defense and LOS, will still be able to outlast any non-Minelayers on the node.

 

And you're still in a situation where two stacked Minelayers, with either mine, can make quick work of a large group of ships with minimal skill or effort or risk to themselves.

 

The problem here, quite simply, is that Shields are a vital part of defensive gameplay. It's one of the three pillars of energy management and one of the five major components. Having an AOE burst weapon, with infinite ammo and short cooldown, which completely ignores shields, is always going to throw things out of balance.

 

This is why Concussion Mines and Seeker Mines are balanced. They still pack a huge punch (which is rightly too much for most Scouts to handle), but because they don't ignore Shields completely, Strikes and Dronecarriers can endure them long enough to be a threat to the Minelayer.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Nemarus

[Rollory]

Having an AOE burst weapon, with infinite ammo and short cooldown, which completely ignores shields, is always going to throw things out of balance.

 

I know you've touched on this in in-game conversations, but making seismics and interdiction mines be limited ammo, comparable to protorp quantities (or even fewer), would seem to be an obvious solution. It also makes ammo refill suddenly much more interesting.

 

Rhodogast / Kelril

[General_Brass]

I wonder how much this problem could be mitigated by forcing satellites to be (mostly) convex, in particular getting rid of the little nooks on the underside. I feel like ships hiding motionless inside those nooks is very anti-thematic.

 

Ending satellite barnacles would be the obvious solution.

[Verain]

What if you swapped seeker and interdiction mines in the loadouts? Then a minelayer would have to choose 1 of the direct-hull damage mines, and use either seeker or concussion as a secondary mine option. Maybe with a small buff to interdiction if this happened, to make it an actual choice over seismic.

 

This idea is awful, as it removes the only thing a bomber is good at: direct hull damage to people who opt into that by swarming too close.

 

It's intended that these mines both be available, both ignore shields, and make you die. The devs understood that when they made two shield ignoring mines available.

[Verain]

I know you've touched on this in in-game conversations, but making seismics and interdiction mines be limited ammo, comparable to protorp quantities (or even fewer), would seem to be an obvious solution.

 

Because limited ammo on primary weapons deletes a ship, and you want to delete bombers.

 

"Maybe the devs won't realize this! It's only fair to compare it to proton torps, because those are totally the same things!"

[Armonddd]

This idea is awful, as it removes the only thing a bomber is good at: direct hull damage to people who opt into that by swarming too close.

 

It's intended that these mines both be available, both ignore shields, and make you die. The devs understood that when they made two shield ignoring mines available.

 

Because limited ammo on primary weapons deletes a ship, and you want to delete bombers.

 

"Maybe the devs won't realize this! It's only fair to compare it to proton torps, because those are totally the same things!"

 

...I really wish I thought you were joking.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Armonddd

[Nemarus]

 

It's intended that these mines both be available, both ignore shields, and make you die. The devs understood that when they made two shield ignoring mines available.

 

So why do Seeker, Concussion and Ion Mines exist?

[Kuciwalker]

This idea is awful, as it removes the only thing a bomber is good at: direct hull damage to people who opt into that by swarming too close.

 

It's intended that these mines both be available, both ignore shields, and make you die. The devs understood that when they made two shield ignoring mines available.

 

If that is the designer intent then they are bad at designing games.

[Verain]

So why do Seeker, Concussion and Ion Mines exist?

 

Seekers are for girl bombers, the others are not for anything at all.

 

 

Don't believe me? They are traps, much like Rapid Fire Laser, Laser Cannon on any ship that has Heavies, Missile Sentry Drone, Rotational Thrusters, Engine to Weapon Converter, Sensor Beacon, Power Thruster, Power Pool Extender, Munitions Capacitor on any ship without munitions, Ashy, Risha, Tharan, Andronikus, Aven, Ensign Temple and at this point I'm just too tired to keep typing out totally crap components and companions.

 

Those mines all need massive buffs. Probably they should make the boy bomber better on the TDM openspace maps, where boy bombers have a hard time finding a role.

[Delta_V]

This idea is awful, as it removes the only thing a bomber is good at: direct hull damage to people who opt into that by swarming too close.

 

It's intended that these mines both be available, both ignore shields, and make you die. The devs understood that when they made two shield ignoring mines available.

 

Whether or not something is "intended" behavior has zero relevance to if it is balanced, good game design, or if it needs to be changed. Maybe the Devs intended for Ion Railguns to deal 50+ energy drain at 25% charge, maybe they didn't, either way, it was broken as hell and eventually got the change it needed. In this case, maybe the Devs intended Bombers to be able to stack over 1,000 AOE direct hull damage, or maybe they didn't, either way, I and many others feel that it is unbalanced and needs to be changed.

 

And being able to stack AOE hull damage is hardly the only thing that makes Bombers viable. Seeker Mines are decent, if maybe a touch underpowered; they only seem like crap because they get compared to Seismic Mines. A Bomber using Concussion Mines is perfectly viable; the only reason they're not used is because stacking Interdiction Mines' hull damage with Seismic Mines is so insanely good.

 

The only mine that really needs help is the Ion Mine, and that is mostly because it is paired with either Seekers or Seismics. Seekers' range means they tend to hit before the Ion Mine (this is the same issue Ion Cannons run into - they need to be used *first*, to strip shields so your other weapons can hit hull, but lack the range to fill this role). Seismics, on the other hand, always do hull damage anyway, making shield damage irrelevant (this is like pairing Ion Missiles and ProTorps - why bother stripping shields if your next shot is going to hit hull no matter what). Buffing the radius of Ion Mines so that they can strip shields before Seeker Mines hit, and maybe introducing more Secondary Mine choices (that could have more synergy w/ Ions' shield stripping) would help make these more relevant.

 

 

As for changes, I see no reason Interdiction Mines need to deal direct hull damage. Even if they had to go through shields, they still hit everyone in the radius w/ a 60% slow for 20 seconds. That is incredibly powerful, and any enemies attempting to fight near the satellite become easy kills. Right now, the power of that debuff largely goes unnoticed because things just die so quickly from all the AOE hull damage that it doesn't get a chance to come into play. I'm not a fan of Seismic Mines either, but I'm not sure how to adjust them while keeping them an interesting option. I just think that Shields are such an integral part of your defenses in GSF that having weapons that ignore them entirely is a bad idea. ProTorps are special case due to the difficulty in using them; if you let yourself get hit by one, it's your fault, full stop.

 

 

edit: Concussion Mines, when mastered, do ~1100 shield damage w/ 20% shield piercing in a 2,500 meter radius. Calling that a "trap" is.... idk how to even respond to that.

 

edit 2: You are absolutely right, however, that the "boy bombers" desperately need help in TDM. Right now, their only use is forming those stupid GS + Bomber balls that make gameplay degenerate into stupidity. How you could buff them w/out making them even more ridiculous in Domination, IDK. Maybe by adding some more interesting Secondary Mine choices beyond Damage and AOE Hull Damage? Or more support-type Shield/Engine choices?

Edited April 25, 2014 by Delta_V

[Verain]

They need to go through hulls because if they didn't, it would be easy to ignore them entirely. The only way you are dying to mines where you can go "get full shields, body pull, repeat" is if you are seriously clueless.

 

 

Shield ignore is a fundamental part, fully intended, and needed.

[Armonddd]

They need to go through hulls because if they didn't, it would be easy to ignore them entirely. The only way you are dying to mines where you can go "get full shields, body pull, repeat" is if you are seriously clueless.

 

Or, y'know, the bomber's team is coordinating. Kind of like what might be expected out of a class designed around "laying tactical traps and supporting your team".

 

I really don't get why supporting your team means "sacrifice offense for party utility" on the T3 scouts and strikes, but for bombers and gunships it means "kill things dead".

 

BioWare's advertisements regarding the capabilities of bombers were honestly borderline lies, in practice if not in theory.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Armonddd

[Kuciwalker]

They need to go through hulls because if they didn't, it would be easy to ignore them entirely.

 

This just straight up isn't true. It would just mean that the minefield alone is unlikely to kill you in a single volley.

[Verain]

This just straight up isn't true. It would just mean that the minefield alone is unlikely to kill you in a single volley.

 

Incorrect. You see, shields regenerate- quite rapidly, in fact. Mines by their nature hit once every cooldown cycle. If the mines actually cleared your shields from both sides guaranteed, the next mines would be hitting around a 600 shield, almost 800 with turbo reactor, and around 700 with regeneration. The mine would have to be able to chew through all that shield and THEN do the hull damage.

 

If you had quick charge shields? The shields would regen in about four seconds with F2 active.

 

 

Because the bursts of damage are SO infrequent and can even be triggered at whichever time is optimum for the blastee, the mines have to do hull damage, or they are bad.

 

 

 

Hence the fact that they DO exactly that. Because shield damage isn't gonna cut it, and bombers would have precious little role.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Verain

[LilSaihah]

Because the bursts of damage are SO infrequent and can even be triggered at whichever time is optimum for the blastee, the mines have to do hull damage, or they are bad.

 

Hence the fact that they DO exactly that. Because shield damage isn't gonna cut it, and bombers would have precious little role.

 

Or maybe they're not supposed to be the bomber's only source of damage, and you should be supplementing your mines with Drone attacks, NPC turrets, your own lasers or your allies' lasers.

 

I don't like this idea that bombers should be able to so readily murder someone by just pressing two buttons without caring about aiming, and I don't care much for the notion that you can pick a time which is "optimum" to detonate them. In an objective based game in which you can't decap while someone's on point, it doesn't make sense.

[Verain]

Or maybe they're not supposed to be the bomber's only source of damage, and you should be supplementing your mines with Drone attacks, NPC turrets, your own lasers or your allies' lasers.

 

Nope.

 

The problem here is that in this world, a bomber is bad on a node, because he can't kill anything at all ever. So instead the bomber has to go into the open and plant bombs, which terribles will I guess go fly into for no reason? And then you can shoot them? In the ship that can't be in open space or get torplocked.

 

If you are a minelayer, you don't have "drone attacks". And I hope you NEVER get to design this game, or scouts or whatever won't be able to score a kill without "NPC turrets and your allies lasers".

 

Mines need to make an area DEADLY. Not just turn your shields warmer colors. Every request like this is just such a thinly veiled class deletion demand that it's honestly ludicrous. We KNOW what would happen if bombers couldn't hurt the other ships- no one would play them.

 

I don't like this idea that bombers should be able to so readily murder someone by just pressing two buttons without caring about aiming

 

A bomber puts his mines on nodes. If you are dying to them, try flying anywhere that isn't where the mine is. Then the mine doesn't do damage to you.

 

There is a massive difference between a ship that can deny an area- with a massive windup, I might add- and a ship that just runs around gibbing people.

 

and I don't care much for the notion that you can pick a time which is "optimum" to detonate them.

Of course you don't, you want the class deleted.

 

"Out of 120,000 cubic kilometers, this 100 cubic km range was just SO TEMPTING I just HAD TO FLY IN THERE AND DIE welp better head to the forums and post in all the threads where we cry endlessly about bombers!"

Edited April 25, 2014 by Verain

[Kuciwalker]

Incorrect. You see, shields regenerate- quite rapidly, in fact. Mines by their nature hit once every cooldown cycle. If the mines actually cleared your shields from both sides guaranteed, the next mines would be hitting around a 600 shield, almost 800 with turbo reactor, and around 700 with regeneration. The mine would have to be able to chew through all that shield and THEN do the hull damage.

 

Sure, if you're only ever getting hit with mines. And then, only from a single bomber.

[Kuciwalker]

Nope.

 

The problem here is that in this world, a bomber is bad on a node, because he can't kill anything at all ever.

 

Wrong, and ridiculous. Nodes have all kinds of supplemental damage flying around - especially if you're defending.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course you don't, you want the class deleted.

 

Oh my *********** god will you give up this goddamn meme? Even I'm sick of it.

 

Also, If your theories about bombers are correct, then yes, they should be "deleted".

[Verain]

Bombers need to solo you on a node. You can solo them anywhere else, right? It's their one job. You just want them to not have it.

 

That's why their mines do hull damage. That so many players can cry about this but can't be arsed to take the 29% reduction generally available to them is of course also hilarious.

[Kuciwalker]

Bombers need to solo you on a node. You can solo them anywhere else, right? It's their one job. You just want them to not have it.

 

The node is the only space that matters. Their "one job" is to do the thing that wins the game.