Mines Cannot Ignore Shields

[Korithras]

I'm sorry but this is OP BS when it comes to bombers. A missile slamming into a fighter directly doesn't ignore shields, but a mine going off further out from the ship does? They do too much damage that they shouldn't have to chew up a fighter's shields first.

[Altheran]

Ignoring shields is fine. The amount of damage it does while ignoring shields is not.

[Verain]

If a mine didn't ignore shields, I would just walk into it, press F2, and be fine well before the next mine is planted.

 

If minelayers couldn't push people off nodes, they would never be flown at all.

[Zoom_VI]

If a mine didn't ignore shields, My shield stacked strike would just walk into it, press F2, and be fine well before the next mine is planted.

 

If minelayers couldn't push people off nodes, they would never be flown at all.

 

fixed

[Rollory]

OP, this is the thread you are looking for:

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=735568

[Verain]

fixed

 

Depends on the damage, but generally yes- or a bomber would do that (bombers would be unable to hurt each other).

[Nemarus]

Depends on the damage, but generally yes- or a bomber would do that (bombers would be unable to hurt each other).

 

Bomber base shield is 1500. Base regen is 75/second. It's second worst in the game. Bombers can get high shield capacity using Overcharged or Charged Plating, combined with a Large Reactor and Engine-to-Shield Transfer, but they can't regen shields for **** under sustained damage. E2S helps a little, but not enough, and if the Bomber is also having to boost to break LOS, it soon runs out of engine power.

 

In fact, it ends up that it's better to keep power to engines, so that you can feed that energy to your shields. The only time it's worth putting power to shields is when your arcs are maxed out and you want to boost max capacity. But as soon as you start taking damage, it's better to put power to engines.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Nemarus

[Kuciwalker]

If a mine didn't ignore shields, I would just walk into it, press F2, and be fine well before the next mine is planted.

 

No, you would be shieldless and vulnerable.

 

How is it that you manage to consistently, on every subject, position yourself to defend inexcusable mechanical flaws?

[Sidenti]

In fact, it ends up that it's better to keep power to engines, so that you can feed that energy to your shields. The only time it's worth putting power to shields is when your arcs are maxed out and you want to boost max capacity. But as soon as you start taking damage, it's better to put power to engines.

 

Not enough bomber pilots realize this. It saves lives. Especially if you have your power plant set to prioritize engine regen ("hitting F3", I believe, is the local parlance).

[TrinityLyre]

I'm sorry but this is OP BS when it comes to bombers. A missile slamming into a fighter directly doesn't ignore shields, but a mine going off further out from the ship does? They do too much damage that they shouldn't have to chew up a fighter's shields first.

 

Sure they can, because they do. Scouts can't be master of everything, weak to nothing. It's sad that despite Verain being attacked for his constant posting of "battle scout forums," that's practically what this has become. The only ships that die to S/I combo instantly are battle scouts with no additional HP (or damage reduction) on their armor. Bombers need to be able to stand up to battle scouts on nodes unless everyone wants a battle scout circle jerk every domination match. Screw that.

 

Accept that you can wreck gunships, fellow scouts and strike fighters and that bombers MIGHT ACTUALLY POSE A SERIOUS THREAT TO YOU. Accept that if you had approached said bomber on the way to the node instead of under it he might actually be much easier to deal with. Maybe once people stop crying about bombers and adapt to reality they might change their component choices (SHOCKING!) or choose something else to fly. Because you know, battle scout is apparently the only thing in everyone's lineup.

 

Enough with the bomber QQ already. They aren't being deleted from the game and they won't be reduced to uselessness. Keep the QQ to one thread and bump another that actually has decent ideas/alterations.

Edited May 2, 2014 by TrinityLyre

[Kuciwalker]

Shield piercing is not an anti-scout mechanic. It's an anti-strike mechanic. Without shield piercing, mines are still scary to scouts (because they lose all of their shields and possibly some hull, leaving them dangerously exposed) but not that scary to strikes (because they retain a decent margin of shields and all of their hull).

 

Shields are the key to strike fighter durability, and mechanics that ignore shields negate that.

[Nemarus]

Sure they can, because they do. Scouts can't be master of everything, weak to nothing. It's sad that despite Verain being attacked for his constant posting of "battle scout forums," that's practically what this has become. The only ships that die to S/I combo instantly are battle scouts with no additional HP (or damage reduction) on their armor. Bombers need to be able to stand up to battle scouts on nodes unless everyone wants a battle scout circle jerk every domination match. Screw that.

 

Accept that you can wreck gunships, fellow scouts and strike fighters and that bombers MIGHT ACTUALLY POSE A SERIOUS THREAT TO YOU. Accept that if you had approached said bomber on the way to the node instead of under it he might actually be much easier to deal with. Maybe once people stop crying about bombers and adapt to reality they might change their component choices (SHOCKING!) or choose something else to fly. Because you know, battle scout is apparently the only thing in everyone's lineup.

 

Enough with the bomber QQ already. They aren't being deleted from the game and they won't be reduced to uselessness. Keep the QQ to one thread and bump another that actually has decent ideas/alterations.

 

As someone who loathes Battle Scouts in Domination as much as the next person, I still think that it's silly to claim that you MUST do shield-piercing damage to deal with Battle Scouts. That argument makes no sense.

 

Scouts have the worst shields in the game (1300 base, 65 regen). The most Shield capacity a Scout can possibly get is ~1800, and that's only if it sacrifices Evasion. Strikes have the best shields in the game (1800 base, 90 regen), and can get shields of ~2400 or higher.

 

100% Shield-piercing is not an anti-Scout mechanic. It's an anti-Strike mechanic.

 

If Minelayers are really meant to be an anti-Scout counter (and not an anti-EVERYTHING counter), then their mines just need to do a ton of normal damage (with no piercing)--too much damage for Scouts to absorb, but not so much that a Strike or Bomber built for heavy Shields can't take a few mines without significant hull damage. Concussion Mines are a great template for this. They do significant normal damage with 20% shield piercing. Two of them would still wreck an Evasion Scout, but they aren't as destructive to heavily shielded targets. If every mine was based on the Concussion Mine, trading out shield piercing for various other debuffs or secondary effects, there'd actually be an interesting choice as to which mines to use. Scouts would still be shut down, but Strikes could actually have a function close to the node.

 

Right now, S/I mines just outright ignore a fundamental defensive pillar of the game--the one Strikes are best at,, and not even one that Scouts can focus on.

 

So please stop saying 100% shield piercing is necessary to counter Battle Scouts. There are a ton of other ways you could do so.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Nemarus

[Armonddd]

The only ships that die to S/I combo instantly are battle scouts with no additional HP (or damage reduction) on their armor.

 

So in order to stand up to one class, I need to make myself considerably weaker against literally everything else in the game?

 

How is that a fair choice for anyone to have to make?

 

The problem here isn't that scouts are dying to bombers, the problem is that scouts are too good at everything else and BioWare has decided to address that problem by making it not fun to play a scout instead of, you know, making scouts worse at the things they're too good at.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Armonddd

[TrinityLyre]

claim that you MUST do shield-piercing damage to deal with Battle Scouts.

If you read closely I never actually said that. I said they can have shield piercing weaponry because they already do. If the devs felt this was something that urgently needed to be adjusted they wouldn't have touched EMP Field and Ion Railgun when there's a zillion-page thread about how Domination sucks on The Ebon Hawk because of bombers. Clearly they don't feel the same. I don't feel the same. I'm OK with bombers being changed in some way to still combat battle scouts while removing shield piercing, but I don't think changes need to be taken that far to begin with. There's so many other knobs to tweak without completely overhauling components (because, you know, that makes people happy).

 

100% Shield-piercing is not an anti-Scout mechanic. It's an anti-Strike mechanic.

The mines are area denial, and they work effectively against not only scouts and strikes, but gunships as well. I don't think nerfing mines will just make strikes magically become viable. Even if they were to survive mine explosions (which have a radius far shorter than strike fighter ranged weaponry) strikes don't have decent short range weapons that can actually kill a bomber. So by nerfing mines all you've effectively done is turn Domination into a "let's all just sit on satellites and be stupid until a few gunships come and Ion Railgun our armada off the node." Pass? I think Domination needs the tweaks, not just the ships.

 

If Minelayers are really meant to be an anti-Scout counter (and not an anti-EVERYTHING counter), then their mines just need to do a ton of normal damage (with no piercing)--too much damage for Scouts to absorb, but not so much that a Strike or Bomber built for heavy Shields can't take a few mines without significant hull damage.

Again, I think they're more meant to be area denial, not an explicit counter to scouts (which still happens to be nice given the relative power of scouts, and yes I do play scouts as well, as you've seen on the peen-thread I stopped following).

 

Concussion Mines are a great template for this. They do significant normal damage with 20% shield piercing. Two of them would still wreck an Evasion Scout, but they aren't as destructive to heavily shielded targets.

And 2 of them require you sacrifice your ability to detonate mines at-will, which I find is one of the few entertaining things on a bomber. Like Armond has said in the past, having everything on the bomber do your work for you isn't fun. Having that control is.

 

Strikes could actually have a function close to the node.

Trying to lock on clusters that deal next to no damage to bombers, or concussions they won't be able to hit with while firing rapid-fire lasers because you know, those are good, or... what, exactly? Letting strikes get onto the node for more than the time it takes to be hit by 4 mines doesn't address fundamental issues with strikes.

 

So please stop saying 100% shield piercing is necessary to counter Battle Scouts. There are a ton of other ways you could do so.

Not necessary. But it's in the game. Until a developer comments on it I don't see a reason to make such a radical adjustment as removing all or most shield piercing from mines. Or Slug Railgun. Or Heavy Lasers. Or Proton Torpedoes.

 

So in order to stand up to one class, I need to make myself considerably weaker against literally everything else in the game?

Because losing that extra evasion will force you to manually dodge shots more often instead of letting the game do it for you? Come on man, you're the one who's argued drones are ******** for exactly that reason. Scouts are not hard to play and greatly reward skillful flying. I think it's a fair trade-off if you want to play BLC battle scout against Razorwires. You should always lose something to gain something else. Being great against anything and everything all the time is kind of silly, because most ships just can't do that. Do you think those Razorwires have any legitimate way to counter gunship pincer movements? Nope. Do you think gunships can do anything against decent scouts once they've closed into range (without assistance)? Nope. At least your option is available.

 

How is that a fair choice for anyone to have to make?

Play other ships and realize that that choice is made consistently, unless you're a battle scout. Heck, here's an example: From what I've read Nem loves playing a Blackbolt, he sacrifices a second missile break and evasion for more mobility, which gives him an advantage against relatively immobile ships. Against ships that launch missile barrages (Pike/Quell) his ship has a hard time staying and fighting. He gave up something to get something else. It's not rocket science.

 

The problem here isn't that scouts are dying to bombers, the problem is that scouts are too good at everything else and BioWare has decided to address that problem by making it not fun to play a scout instead of, you know, making scouts worse at the things they're too good at.

If you can find a solution to it I'm all ears. I personally think there's enough scouts in the world that other ships could stand some fair representation (like strikes), but I'd be happy to see a playing field where you could choose a ship and be happy with it regardless of enemy composition or game mode. I don't think that's ever going to happen, though.

 

As an aside, this is why I don't like Domination: There's absolutely nothing Star Warsy about flying circles around satellites or dropping armadas of mines over the "objectives." I'm an avid Star Wars fan (like many of you) and I'd like to see more Star Wars. Star Wars is about huge space battles and epic events (destroying the Death Stars, Executor, etc.). It's actually the biggest reason I prefer TDMs over Domination matches. It's not because of bombers or even satellite humping, which this forum has already beaten to death.

Edited May 2, 2014 by TrinityLyre

[Nemarus]

 

 

And 2 of them [Concussion Mines] require you sacrifice your ability to detonate mines at-will, which I find is one of the few entertaining things on a bomber. Like Armond has said in the past, having everything on the bomber do your work for you isn't fun. Having that control is.

 

 

I wasn't referring to building a field of 2 Concussion Mines. I was saying that if all 5 mine types were roughly equivalent to Concussion Mines, then two such mines could wipe out a Scout. I could've been clearer

 

I think that, regardless of other ships, there is clearly a problem when Interdiction Mine (which is designed around slowing your target) ends up being the mine everyone takes, not because of its utility but because of its raw offensive potential, especially when combined with Seismic Mine.

 

I think that even if you left Seismic Mine alone, but changed Interdiction Mine to have comparable damage to Concussion Mine (but no shield piercing), that would help matters immensely. Right now taking Concussion Mine (or Force help you, Ion Mine) is self-gimping. Not because of Interdiction Mine's awesome slow, but because for some odd reason Interdiction Mine was chosen as the one System mine which outright ignores the major defensive mechanic of the game.

 

Here's an analogy with ground PvP (it won't be perfect): Imagine if, in ground PvP, Snipers had the choice of two skills: one that does 1000 damage and one that does 400 damage. Obviously they'd take the 1000 damage one. Now imagine that the 400 damage skill deals damage that cannot be healed. I'm pretty sure every sniper would take that second one, because it would essentially ignore a renewable defensive pillar of the game (healing).

 

One can certainly argue about whether any 100% shield-piercing belongs in the game or not, but I think we can agree that Concussion Mine and Ion Mine are woefully inferior to Interdiction Mine purely because of the latter's 100% shield piercing.

[TrinityLyre]

I wasn't referring to building a field of 2 Concussion Mines. I was saying that if all 5 mine types were roughly equivalent to Concussion Mines, then two such mines could wipe out a Scout. I could've been clearer

If they did manage to get them roughly equal in terms of power (but vary them enough that they were actually different from one another) I'd be happier with minelayers. I don't think their function should change, but I could certainly stand to have more reason to choose Ions or Seekers or something other than S/I.

 

I think that, regardless of other ships, there is clearly a problem when Interdiction Mine (which is designed around slowing your target) ends up being the mine everyone takes, not because of its utility but because of its raw offensive potential, especially when combined with Seismic Mine.

I don't disagree with this, but that slow is vicious. I love it. I might even still use it were it to be nerfed (depends on the changes). To be fair (and actually agree with your point), I was discussing bomber builds with Drakolich the night before the bomber patch and immediately noticed the two mines that dealt direct-to-hull damage. How do you go about choosing two alternatives to that? Heck yes? Nothing else compares. Nothing else synergizes.

 

Right now taking Concussion Mine (or Force help you, Ion Mine) is self-gimping.

I agree, to an extent. Concussion Mine isn't an awful choice, it just feels inferior to the harmony that S/I have with each other. However, I think it's hard to argue these (mine) choices in a vacuum where Legion/Warcarriers/other ships aren't present, which is why I never tried. The game just doesn't work that way. I could see Interdiction Mine being changed and still being ridiculously powerful.

 

Here's an analogy with ground PvP (it won't be perfect): Imagine if, in ground PvP, Snipers had the choice of two skills: one that does 1000 damage and one that does 400 damage. Obviously they'd take the 1000 damage one. Now imagine that the 400 damage skill deals damage that cannot be healed. I'm pretty sure every sniper would take that second one, because it would essentially ignore a renewable defensive pillar of the game (healing).

I get what you're trying to say, but there is healing in this game (and it's powerful, to boot). It makes it really hard to draw a comparison because of that. I'm actually all for giving heal-type ships more of a reason to be present (and Hydrospanner, for that matter, which bleeping sucks relative to other Copilot abilities). Changing Interdiction Mine would give individuals less of a reason to play with Repair Probes/Drone/Spanner, and I'm wary of that because I don't even care to play those ships much as it is. Here's another one my friends have discussed at length on our Mumble server: Healing Power-Ups. Same idea there (less reason to play heal-capable ships), but the idea sounds cool in concept. Unfortunately, there's far-reaching consequences for even a minor change like that.

 

One can certainly argue about whether any 100% shield-piercing belongs in the game or not, but I think we can agree that Concussion Mine and Ion Mine are woefully inferior to Interdiction Mine purely because of the latter's 100% shield piercing.

Ion Mine more so, but I can agree with the general statement you're making. I feel like what sets Interdiction Mine apart is the ridiculous utility it has against other bombers (and anyone on a node, for that matter). Concussion Mine's extra damage to shields doesn't match that. When almost all of your damage (except some of Heavy Lasers) skips shields, who cares if you can add damage to shields?

 

Another aside: Why does every single Ion weapon aside from Railgun suck so bad? Fix that first, please.

Edited May 2, 2014 by TrinityLyre

[FridgeLM]

Another aside: Why does every single Ion weapon aside from Railgun suck so bad? Fix that first, please.

 

I use ion missiles in conjunction with concussions on my Quell. I call it the one-two punch. Getting hit by even one of them makes a ship easy to finish off, getting hit with both is almost certain death.

[Lendul]

I'm sorry but this is OP BS when it comes to bombers. A missile slamming into a fighter directly doesn't ignore shields, but a mine going off further out from the ship does? They do too much damage that they shouldn't have to chew up a fighter's shields first.

EMP and Proton missiles ignore shields and armor as well. Just say'n. In fact I ran the "U DED" spec on my pike for a while. Every 11 seconds a scout or gunship dies. Edited May 2, 2014 by Lendul

[Altheran]

EMP and Proton missiles ignore shields and armor as well. Just say'n. In fact I ran the "U DED" spec on my pike for a while. Every 11 seconds a scout or gunship dies.

 

Unless you use EMP for its effect, I suggest you to put Concussion instead of EMP and get greater killing power, while not being hindered too much by a 11s CD on the shorter-range missile.

[Delta_V]

If they did manage to get them roughly equal in terms of power (but vary them enough that they were actually different from one another) I'd be happier with minelayers. I don't think their function should change, but I could certainly stand to have more reason to choose Ions or Seekers or something other than S/I.

 

 

I don't disagree with this, but that slow is vicious. I love it. I might even still use it were it to be nerfed (depends on the changes). To be fair (and actually agree with your point), I was discussing bomber builds with Drakolich the night before the bomber patch and immediately noticed the two mines that dealt direct-to-hull damage. How do you go about choosing two alternatives to that? Heck yes? Nothing else compares. Nothing else synergizes.

 

 

I agree, to an extent. Concussion Mine isn't an awful choice, it just feels inferior to the harmony that S/I have with each other. However, I think it's hard to argue these (mine) choices in a vacuum where Legion/Warcarriers/other ships aren't present, which is why I never tried. The game just doesn't work that way. I could see Interdiction Mine being changed and still being ridiculously powerful.

 

 

I get what you're trying to say, but there is healing in this game (and it's powerful, to boot). It makes it really hard to draw a comparison because of that. I'm actually all for giving heal-type ships more of a reason to be present (and Hydrospanner, for that matter, which bleeping sucks relative to other Copilot abilities). Changing Interdiction Mine would give individuals less of a reason to play with Repair Probes/Drone/Spanner, and I'm wary of that because I don't even care to play those ships much as it is. Here's another one my friends have discussed at length on our Mumble server: Healing Power-Ups. Same idea there (less reason to play heal-capable ships), but the idea sounds cool in concept. Unfortunately, there's far-reaching consequences for even a minor change like that.

 

 

Ion Mine more so, but I can agree with the general statement you're making. I feel like what sets Interdiction Mine apart is the ridiculous utility it has against other bombers (and anyone on a node, for that matter). Concussion Mine's extra damage to shields doesn't match that. When almost all of your damage (except some of Heavy Lasers) skips shields, who cares if you can add damage to shields?

 

Another aside: Why does every single Ion weapon aside from Railgun suck so bad? Fix that first, please.

 

Interdiction Mines - Yeah, I've said the same thing in other threads. They're supposed to be a "utility" option, and they're actually really, really good at it - that 50% slow lasts for 20 seconds and is absolutely vicious. Hitting somebody w/ it pretty much turns them into a free kill for either you allies or even your own heavy lasers. But the power of that debuff largely goes unnoticed because the S/I pair just does so much hull damage that everything dies before the debuff has a chance to become relevant. Interdiction Mines could lose their shield piercing, and they'd still be perfectly viable.

 

Concussion Mines - These are in a decent place, they're just overshadowed by Interdiction Mines atm. They're enough to hurt Strikes, but not completely ban them from the node, while Scouts really can't afford to take one of these to the face. The only issue is how being able to deploy more than one at a time interferes w/ manually detonating mines. Manual detonations are, IMO, one of the few entertaining aspects of flying a bomber, and I want that mechanic to stay, but right now, it actually makes the "Additional Active Mine" upgrades detrimental to gameplay. Preferably, we would get a way to manually detonate mines that is separate from deploying new ones (so you could, for instance, detonate your first concussion mine before you deployed your second).

 

Ion Mines - These are in desperate need of a buff. For anti-shield weapons to be useful, you need to be able to hit a target w/ them *first*, so your other weapons can hit hull. Right now, Ion Mines have a similar detonation radius as the other mines, so it's a crapshoot whether they'll hit first (especially when paired w/ Seeker Mines, which have a huge radius). An extended detonation radius, such that they can reliably strip shields and allow other mines to hit hull, is necessary for these to be effective. However, they also suffer from a lack of synergy w/ Seismic Mines. If your Seismic Mine is gonna hit hull no matter what, who cares about stripping their shields first? They could really use a secondary mine option to synergize with.

 

Seeker Mines - These could use a small buff. Their ability to be deployed in larger numbers and their large trigger radius make them more useful in open spaces, but they really need a shorter CD relative to the other mines to make up for their lack of AOE damage. In a prolonged engagement, where all of your pre-deployed mines have been destroyed, would you rather be putting out one Seeker Mine or one Seismic Mine every 15 seconds? You can't buff their damage too much, or you risk turning them into dumbfire concussion missiles, which would be stupid, but reducing their CD might help keep them from being overshadowed by Seismics.

 

Seismic Mines - As others have pointed out, 100% Shield Piercing is actually an anti-Strike mechanic, not an anti-Scout mechanic. All AOE mines are inherently anti-Scout, since they ignore Scouts' best defense - Evasion. But shield piercing renders one of Strikes' few advantages, a large shield pool, irrelevant, and the only weapons that should get it IMO are incredibly niche weapons like ProTorps that have other serious drawbacks. However, I'm not exactly sure how to get rid of the 100% Shield Piercing while keeping them distinct from Concussion Mines. Maybe just play w/ the damage vs radius, so maybe Concussion Mines do more damage, but over a smaller area, while Seismics do less damage, but over a wider area?

[General_Brass]

If a mine didn't ignore shields, I would just walk into it, press F2, and be fine well before the next mine is planted.

 

If minelayers couldn't push people off nodes, they would never be flown at all.

 

QFT. The only effect reducing the power of mines would have is to increase the power of t2 scouts even more.

[Zoom_VI]

QFT. The only effect reducing the power of mines would have is to increase the power of t2 scouts even more.

 

type 2 scouts run high evasion builds

type 2 scouts have the lowest shields

 

strikes have the highest shields

 

mines that deal higher amounts of damage without the shield piercing would hit scouts just as hard as now because we don't have the shields to deal with it. Strikes have the shields so they would be far better off with mines that respect shields.