Bombers abusing interdiction + seismic combos

[HuNtOziO]

How does one in a full pug match counter 3 of the enemy team running bombers abusing the fotm (OP) seismic and interdiction mine combo?

 

Seeing this alot now, the 2.8 interdiction nerf is insanely welcome but until then, this abomination of a build is completely ruining domination games.

 

The only counter to is is a premade of gunships using team speak pincering them from above and below the nodes, or more popularly, running the same OP combo yourself on a bomber and charging in there also.

 

Pretty game breaking currently, thats why team death match is way superior until 2.8 hits

 

Also EMP missiles need an insane boost, only emp field is decent and that needs a small boost, coming in 2.8

 

Damned bombers....

[General_Brass]

How does one in a full pug match counter 3 of the enemy team running bombers abusing the fotm (OP) seismic and interdiction mine combo?

 

..

 

Don't be in a full pug group and don't kid yourself the 2.8 changes are going to help you one damn bit. The way the bombers can be countered if you can organize it is 2 gunships

[SammyGStatus]

More so killing them before they get to the sat, but you really don't stand a chance as a pug against a coordinated bomber premade. Sorry, just not going to happen unless you get grouped with a bunch of well experienced players who know how to tackle these beasts

[HuNtOziO]

Even then if they have a good team around them (the bombers) the enemy scouts will tear the **** out of your teams gunships before they can even get in positions above and below the node.

 

You will basically have to fly bodyguard for your gunships.

 

I dont know any premades on the red eclipse for GSF that i can fly with, I run nova there but not many people in my guild play GSF.

 

Currently ive resorted to making a striker (the support one) designed purely to face tank mines and bombers, repair drones, charged plating, uber shield buff talents + crew, DR increasing talents/buffs too. fly in there, activate stuff blow up all mines then chase bomber or try to line up a thermite torpedo shot, thermites mess bombers up something rotten but actually getting one fired off is nigh impossible.

 

Ah well

[General_Brass]

Even then if they have a good team around them (the bombers) the enemy scouts will tear the **** out of your teams gunships before they can even get in positions above and below the node.

 

You will basically have to fly bodyguard for your gunships.

 

I dont know any premades on the red eclipse for GSF that i can fly with, I run nova there but not many people in my guild play GSF.

 

Currently ive resorted to making a striker (the support one) designed purely to face tank mines and bombers, repair drones, charged plating, uber shield buff talents + crew, DR increasing talents/buffs too. fly in there, activate stuff blow up all mines then chase bomber or try to line up a thermite torpedo shot, thermites mess bombers up something rotten but actually getting one fired off is nigh impossible.

 

Ah well

 

Well if you are willing to do that all you need is someone competent in a scout to follow you and unload on the bomber. If you are not in a premade though good luck on that. I can't count the times I have cleared the defenders on a satellite, cleared the turrets had it flipped or nearly flipped only to see the entire enemy team rushing at me to congratulate my efforts. All the while my team is unable to decipher the fact they need to either capitalize on the fact the enemy is weak everywhere else or should come help defend my position.

[Nemarus]

All I can advise is to come to TEH. We had a brief spat of people spamming these Bombers, but once the forums reached consensus that they were broken, the vast majority of pilots and premades stopped using them.

 

You'll still find the occasional hold-outs, especially those who've recently come from other servers--but for the most part, people realized that they suck the fun out of the game, and at this point, easy wins aren't nearly as enjoyable and rewarding as challenging ones. I think that's why Strike Night was a success on TEH.

 

We all know the FOTY builds at this point, most of us have them mastered ... what's the point in continuing to field them?

[phoenixjon]

Roll a bomber and spank their bomber

[Ramalina]

Anything with range and armor ignore is fairly decent against a bomber if you can hit them while they're weaving around a satellite.

 

It really helps to get at least one other person to help you out. If you both have armor ignoring weapons with enough range to stay away from the mines it is possible to burst down a bomber with a coordinated attack.

 

If you can't get a team of two people then either a mastered bomber of your own, or an anti-bomber build of a type 2 or type 3 strike is probably your best bet.

[TheGreatSatan]

Quell/Pike with heavy laser cannon, proton torpedoes and concussion missiles is excellent at killing bombers. You can slowly pick them apart with missiles and heavy lasers and never even get in range of their mines.

 

If you're having trouble getting missiles off, work on the direction you approach the bomber from. If you do it correctly you can usually get a concussion off before they can LoS you. I hit even very good bomber pilots with proton torpedoes all the time.

 

Just be smart and don't get closer than 5k or so. Fire a missile, hit a couple times with heavies then back off and line up another missile. I mean, if they just sit there and let you hit them, great, but odds are they're going to circle the satellite, so you need to break off and realign yourself for your next missile. Some of them will get bold and charge you, but if they do it just gives you even more time to line up a missile, as they turn and move extremely slowly.

 

This is only tricky at all if they're already at the sat, btw. If you spot them on their way between satellites, you can kill them with absurd ease with just about any ship, but with the type 2 strike you don't even have to get close.

[magecutter]

How does one in a full pug match counter 3 of the enemy team running bombers abusing the fotm (OP) seismic and interdiction mine combo?

 

Damned bombers....

 

by yourself? obviously you can't. however, the short answer is repeated hit and run strafes of the target sat. if you wait till all the bombers mines / drones are off cool down before you try this you'll never really have a chance.

(many other tactics work as well, this is just one).

 

if one of your bombers drops a hyper-space beacon near the target (not so close as to get picked off as soon as it's set) then it's just... * dive in / evasion (crew or ship ability) / emp field / shield quick recharge / die *... rinse and repeat. an attack of attrition.

of course most bombers leave a mine or two in reserve so there's that to deal with as well.

(obviously this is not a great tactic but it does work. two scouts and a strike can pull it off and other ship combos work as well)

 

there is no one tactic that will work in all situations. no silver bullet. with so many variables, pilot skill, ship level, the way the match is unfolding ect, it really is a matter of adapt and overcome. in other words, tactics.

 

the best way to counter a ship is to learn to fly that ship imo.

 

I fly scouts mostly and was fed up with bombers and these stupid mine fields. so, I started to lvl a bomber of my own. now I understand their strengths and most importantly their weaknesses. once you kill all their mines / drones / heals ect then you need to tear down their shields as fast as possible.

 

bombers are painfully slow, have an even worse turn rate and a relatively small power pool. use these things to your advantage.

 

I have a Novadive that's built to counter defense turrets/gunships/bombers and does it quite well all things considered. all of these targets have many things in common so a single build seems to work against all 3.

 

the strike build you mentioned sounds really good and will give it a try. your tactics are sound as well (if it works, it's a good tactic - )

 

specialty builds are a great way to counter a specific problem and having 5 ships available for every match means you're able to adapt more easily.

(one pilot on my server flies with one and only one ship every match and is without question a top notch ace. no way will I ever be that good).

 

lastly, in a pug use chat. most pilots will respond to simple easy to understand instructions. sometimes you'll have up to a minute before the match starts. use that time to school your team on tactics and what they need to do to win. makes a huge difference in most cases. (swarm and hold C. then move to B... scouts, focus gunships only... ect)

 

also, you know who the good pilots are on your server/faction. talk to them outside of the match and plan ahead. if you find yourself in a pug with one or more of them you'll have a plan or two ready to counter those damned bombers and their stupid mines

 

hope this helps at least a bit and good luck !

[Asbetos]

For 1 bomber, all you need is 2 ships, 1 of them being a gunsheep and the other strike/scout (strike better maybe because it can eat a mine or 2 if the gunsheep messes up). Have the gunsheep clear up the node with ion rail aoe and fighter moving in after that to finish the bomber while gunship is watching to clear out any new mines that the bomber poops out.

 

If the bomber has backup, well, sorry to disappoint, but you need backup on your own, can't really beat 4 people with 2 people (assuming same skill levels, of course).

[Zharik]

All I can advise is to come to TEH. We had a brief spat of people spamming these Bombers, but once the forums reached consensus that they were broken, the vast majority of pilots and premades stopped using them.

 

You'll still find the occasional hold-outs, especially those who've recently come from other servers--but for the most part, people realized that they suck the fun out of the game, and at this point, easy wins aren't nearly as enjoyable and rewarding as challenging ones. I think that's why Strike Night was a success on TEH.

 

We all know the FOTY builds at this point, most of us have them mastered ... what's the point in continuing to field them?

 

1. People still spam the bombers.

2. The "hold-outs" are making the game not fun.

3. I wish 1 and 2 would reference 3.

[Verain]

All I can advise is to come to TEH. We had a brief spat of people spamming these Bombers, but once the forums reached consensus that they were broken, the vast majority of pilots and premades stopped using them.

 

Oh give me a break. No one avoids bombers because they "aren't fair". Nice way to throw an insult into the thread.

 

If people stop doing something, it's because it doesn't work for them. I think that as people figured ways around the less coordinated bombers, bomber pilots didn't find it as rewarding in the same numbers as before. Do I know this? Not at all, but it's MUCH more likely than what you say.

 

You'll still find the occasional hold-outs, especially those who've recently come from other servers--but for the most part, people realized that they suck the fun out of the game, and at this point, easy wins aren't nearly as enjoyable and rewarding as challenging ones. I think that's why Strike Night was a success on TEH.

 

 

I disagree with all that junk. Bombers aren't unfun, they are challenging to play as and against, challenging to coordinate properly, and much much better than "scouts circle a satellite until burst laser crits twice".

 

 

Strike Night was successful because it was a great idea.

 

We all know the FOTY builds at this point, most of us have them mastered ... what's the point in continuing to field them?

 

Play to win! Bombers will remain solid at nodes, even after the nerf. I'm still opposed to the style of the nerf (redesign of component from being full shield ignore to no shield ignore), but it will allow enemies to live on the node longer than on live.

 

The best thing coming in the new patch is probably the new bomber, a true heavy fighter. I have a suspicion that it will actually be able to make a cattlescout run away with his intermittent mines. By denying both ranges to a scout, I think he'll have decent game against them without absolutely needing to maintain almost intimate contact with any spherical object or approximation. I think a bomber that can actually be in the open for more than six seconds without being absolutely blasted from the sky by a positive rainbow of missiles will be pretty great.

 

 

Or maybe the'll just get TT/BOed down in three seconds. Time will tell!

[Nemarus]

Oh give me a break. No one avoids bombers because they "aren't fair". Nice way to throw an insult into the thread.

 

If people stop doing something, it's because it doesn't work for them. I think that as people figured ways around the less coordinated bombers, bomber pilots didn't find it as rewarding in the same numbers as before. Do I know this? Not at all, but it's MUCH more likely than what you say.

 

 

 

 

I disagree with all that junk. Bombers aren't unfun, they are challenging to play as and against, challenging to coordinate properly, and much much better than "scouts circle a satellite until burst laser crits twice".

 

 

Strike Night was successful because it was a great idea.

 

 

 

Play to win! Bombers will remain solid at nodes, even after the nerf. I'm still opposed to the style of the nerf (redesign of component from being full shield ignore to no shield ignore), but it will allow enemies to live on the node longer than on live.

 

The best thing coming in the new patch is probably the new bomber, a true heavy fighter. I have a suspicion that it will actually be able to make a cattlescout run away with his intermittent mines. By denying both ranges to a scout, I think he'll have decent game against them without absolutely needing to maintain almost intimate contact with any spherical object or approximation. I think a bomber that can actually be in the open for more than six seconds without being absolutely blasted from the sky by a positive rainbow of missiles will be pretty great.

 

Or maybe the'll just get TT/BOed down in three seconds. Time will tell!

 

So cynical!

 

And I think I know my server better than you do. Before the four of you arrived, SIM's had fallen into pretty rare use. Aimbot and friends don't generally use them, except for Swansea here and there. The vast majority of Eclipse don't use them. Same with Saberwing. And I can't think of any noted freelancers that use them anymore either.

 

And it isn't because they were effectively countered or because people sucked with them. It's because they were boring to play with and against. Most of us have all ships mastered at this point. There is no material difference between winning and losing. The only difference is that winning generally involves more dopamine. But I get far more enjoyment from losing in a Strike or Blackbolt than I do from winning in a Razorwire or Sting.

 

If others did not share that sentiment on at least some level, Strike Night would've been a failure, because there would be too many people who put winning above trying something different, and as soon as they started losing they'd revert to their safety ships. But for the most part, no one did. Maybe some people can only do that one night a week. Maybe others can do it every day. I probably fall somewhere in between.

 

Maybe it is less about any honor or nobility and more about trying to mine some new experiences from a game that threatened to grow stale.

 

If you still think flying a SIM is challenging, especially against anyone but the most elite opponents, then I don't really know what to say to that. They have a very low skill requirement to use effectively, and a very high skill and coordination requirement to counter.

 

What I can say is that on TEH, I rarely see more than one SIM per team, and that sounds more accessible than the situation the OP is describing. If your experience is different, it's because those you are flying with are the exception.

 

Of course, you have always been a person of hyperbole and extremes, who puts "winning", be it in GSF or forum posts, above such lowly sentiments as kindness or patience or civility, so I'm not surprised if you have a hard time believing or even comprehending what I am trying to say.

[ForceChuckle]

Use, not abuse.

[Verain]

And I think I know my server better than you do.

 

Maybe, but amidst your complaints there's no way to tell when you are busy thinking some anecdote or momentary experience requires sweeping changes.

 

And it isn't because they were effectively countered or because people sucked with them. It's because they were boring to play with and against.

 

Nonsense. You can't prove any of this. If you see less bombers, it's probably because people were having less success with them, not because everyone- from players whose strategies are 'fly forward slowly and call people hackers' to actual pilots who clearly field ships they consider optimal, up to aces who coordinate massively- suddenly they all decide to avoid bombers spontaneously.

 

That is not reality. There is no gentleman's agreement at work. That's not how gamers work, it's not how games work, and most importantly, it's all in your head.

 

Most of us have all ships mastered at this point.

 

Mastered is when they start being fun! Then you can go get all the things and try different stuff each game.

 

There is no material difference between winning and losing.

 

Lol. Okayyyy!

The only difference is that winning generally involves more dopamine.

Dopamine is more part of the "seek a reward" part of the brain than the actual reward itself. But quibbles aside, did you seriously step into this thread and claim that a mental activity granting a mental reward is out of line?

 

Ultimately everything is a mental experience. From great jobs to successes in your personal life. All is "just neurotransmitters".

 

 

But I get far more enjoyment from losing in a Strike or Blackbolt than I do from winning in a Razorwire or Sting.

 

 

That's your choice, not mine. Playing a competitive game to lose? Whatever floats your boat!

 

If others did not share that sentiment on at least some level, Strike Night would've been a failure, because there would be too many people who put winning above trying something different, and as soon as they started losing they'd revert to their safety ships.

 

There's a big difference. That's like saying that people must like losing at football because they don't cheat publicly.

 

Maybe it is less about any honor or nobility and more about trying to mine some new experiences from a game that threatened to grow stale.

 

We all like the weaker aspects of the game because they are different. A comet breaker has great strengths, but the ship overall is not that great. It's still fun to play, but in a serious game I haven't found a role or it.

 

If you still think flying a SIM is challenging, especially against anyone but the most elite opponents, then I don't really know what to say to that.

 

Boost from 12km away into a seismic mine and then complain on the forum? That's what a lot of people seem to say to bombers.

 

They have a very low skill requirement to use effectively, and a very high skill and coordination requirement to counter.

 

This is accurate, but not relevant. The ship DOES have a low skill floor- it's easy to be moderately effective on it. But I can absolutely devastate substantially weaker bombers- just tear them utterly to pieces.

 

 

Of course, you have always been a person of hyperbole and extremes, who puts "winning", be it in GSF or forum posts, above such lowly sentiments as kindness or patience or civility, so I'm not surprised if you have a hard time believing or even comprehending what I am trying to say.

 

You're the one claiming to speak for literally your whole server, and I'm the one at the extremes?

 

 

Winning gets a capital letter, not quotation marks. The game has objectives, and winning and losing are binary!

Edited May 28, 2014 by Verain

[Kalphitis]

Ironically, I've found that it's somewhat easier to take over satellites held by bombers IF you're in a PUG with new-mediocre players.

 

If you play with other good players, they keep their distance and shoot from afar, which often doesn't work out that well and just takes time.

 

But if you're with a bunch of newbies...they basically serve as mine fodder for you Watch them dive in and soak up the mine damage, then follow and clear the bomber out yourself.

 

These brave souls should get medals in Domination matches for taking the most damage.

[Danylia]

That is not reality. There is no gentleman's agreement at work. That's not how gamers work, it's not how games work, and most importantly, it's all in your head.

This is Nemarus

This is Verain

I don't want to get into debate about either of these approaches, since it would go far beyond this thread (and be off-topic anyway). I just want to illustrate that both of them exist, and saying that one of them is "only in someone's head" is, in fact, wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

The counter to Verain's whole thesis on it being a fun and normal strategy is that if you actually look at games where the strategy is used against smart non-bomber opponents (but still wins), two things are notable:

 

1. The winning side has far fewer kills and more deaths than the winning side.
   
2. If the respawn timer were substantially longer, the winning side likely would not have won (using the strategy they did).
   

 

This isn't to say that the mass bomberball strategy doesn't require skill to win, but that its skill operates in ways that the game really did not envision and that do not sit well with the basic premise, which is that shooting down the enemy should be the major component of victory (and that tactics should consist mostly of shooting down the right enemies, in the right places).

 

There was one match (which we did end up winning) on Lost Shipyards where I observed the bombers actually suiciding to get from A to C and vice versa when the other was under attack. I got 32 assists that match, because I was ion AOEing all of the bombers and getting credit for the subsequent suicides.

 

IMO respawn timers should be recalibrated so that this sort of thing is not viable. If bombers are given a mobility penalty, that penalty should actually obtain.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Altheran]

Nonsense. You can't prove any of this. If you see less bombers, it's probably because people were having less success with them, not because everyone- from players whose strategies are 'fly forward slowly and call people hackers' to actual pilots who clearly field ships they consider optimal, up to aces who coordinate massively- suddenly they all decide to avoid bombers spontaneously.

 

That is not reality. There is no gentleman's agreement at work. That's not how gamers work, it's not how games work, and most importantly, it's all in your head.

 

Sorry, but gentleman players DOES exist. I am one myself, I bound myself to some rules of conduct :

- Never call focuses. Focuses make one player's experience a real hell in GSF.

- Never using blatantly OP tactics like old Ion tap.

- Never chain kill the same player unless he's clearly asking for it.

- Avoid chasing pilots who avoid me. Recognize one's superiority takes some pride. I honor them.

- Remember people's names and acts. And show that you remember them when they speak to you. That's the most basic way to show respect when one speak to you after the match, even if they changed factions.

- Apologize when failing at one of the above.

 

What Nemarus saw on his server, I see it as well on mine (Darth Nihilus). Minelayers were all about SIM, and now they're almost extinct despite their extreme effectiveness. Some that I'm sure they were using Interdiction are now using Concussion or even Ion.

[Sidenti]

How does one in a full pug match counter 3 of the enemy team running bombers abusing the fotm (OP) seismic and interdiction mine combo?

 

Seeing this alot now, the 2.8 interdiction nerf is insanely welcome but until then, this abomination of a build is completely ruining domination games.

 

The only counter to is is a premade of gunships using team speak pincering them from above and below the nodes, or more popularly, running the same OP combo yourself on a bomber and charging in there also.

 

Pretty game breaking currently, thats why team death match is way superior until 2.8 hits

 

Also EMP missiles need an insane boost, only emp field is decent and that needs a small boost, coming in 2.8

 

Damned bombers....

 

Scouts with rocket pods are insanely effective from 3-5k at taking out minefields. I do it all the time. Stop, pop, clear, make the bomber pop more, clear those, kill the bomber.

 

It only sounds difficult. Gets pretty easy with practice. -bp

[Nemarus]

This is Nemarus

This is Verain

I don't want to get into debate about either of these approaches, since it would go far beyond this thread (and be off-topic anyway). I just want to illustrate that both of them exist, and saying that one of them is "only in someone's head" is, in fact, wrong.

 

Cute.

 

The thing is, in a life or death battle (i.e. a highly competitive, balanced GSF match), even I'll choose my best ship.

 

But the vast majority of GSF matches are basically friendlies, whose victor is determined at time of matchmaking. And from my experience, on TEH, the vast majority of pilots recognizes when that occurs and choose to fly something less than optimal.

 

Though I haven't had my Minelayer on my readied bar for weeks now. Because even in a highly competitive Domination match, I know that if I fly a SIM, I'm really not going to earn much respect from my wingmen or the other side. And honestly at this point, that respect is more valuable to me than requisition.

 

So yes, Verain, in response to the OP, who was complaining about PUGs vs. SIM's, I believe The Ebon Hawk is a much more accessible place, because most of the pilots here would not field SIM's against a PUG.

 

And since I know you have trouble with human emotions, and respond much better to theorycrafting, you can look at it from a game theory perspective. The ultimate meta goal of any GSFer should not be to win or lose a match, but to ensure matches are plentiful and varied in the long-term. That means nurturing a community, and that requires restraint sometimes, even if it means the occasional suboptimal game--or even loss--in the short term.

 

And frankly, if someone cannot comprehend or accept that, then in my opinion they should get off of The Ebon Hawk (an RP-PvE) server and commit to one of the dedicated PvP servers. Because there is a very real, qualitative difference in our community.

 

SIM's are about the biggest threat to nurturing a community, followed by Gunships, followed by Battle Scouts. Why? Because they all kill new players so quickly and mysteriously that new players get frustrated, learn nothing, and resent GSF.

 

With 2.8, SIM's will not be quite as hard on new pilots, since all ships will have some warning (in the forum of sudden hull damage) that they need to move away.

 

I don't think Gunships are in a bad place in terms of competitive meta, but I do think they are a threat to GSF's accessibility in their current state. Right now their burst damage is extremely hard on new players, who feel cheated when they take a huge amount of damage with no warning. I do think perhaps their burst damage could be reduced in exchange for more sustained damage and survivability.

 

I think the whole world agrees Battle Scouts need adjustment of some form or another.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Nemarus

[Verain]

1. The winning side has far fewer kills and more deaths than the winning side.
   
2. If the respawn timer were substantially longer, the winning side likely would not have won (using the strategy they did).
   

 

(1) is a natural result of the limitations of bombers- a pilot might extend into a minefield when he thinks he has an advantage (and can be punished for it), but by and large that's the ONLY time that the minefield will be engaged. Meanwhile, a gunship is proactive in choosing targets. A bomber surrounded by enemies at 10k is trying to figure which one is the biggest threat in a pincer and call that. A gunship surrounded by enemies at 10k is charging the railgun!

 

(2) is something that I only sort of agree with. I have always claimed that the respawn time is generally too short. However, bombers are the absolute worst at going anywhere... unless there's a hyperspace beacon. When I've played in games where it was like three of us on bombers versus six of you guys on everything (including bombers), a lot of it is calling out hyperspace drops. One assumes that is the actual goal of hyperspace beacon- in general, it's very common for a beacon to be dropped, summon two ships instantly (who were sitting on their spawn button for a few seconds each), and then get blown up. That's not a spawn time issue- if it is any kind of issue, it's that the hyperspace beacon is powerful if coordinated.

 

The other side of this that I have seen is uncoordinated bombers spawning constantly and zerging down a node. In these cases, the game is entirely different: players trying to counter this should be focused on long ranged missiles and snares, and are usually on a team with only a few good players and a ton of bad ones. Since this is not based on coordination and more based on a bunch of players who are running bombers, you really can run into a situation without a full premade where many of your team members are entirely ineffective at bombers, meaning that you have to deal all the shield and hull damage yourself versus six to eight players with a lot of hull and a surprising amount of shield.

 

At the end of the day, if you aren't bringing a full premade and many of your pugs don't know how to kill the enemy pugs, you're in for a very hard carry, or even a loss.

 

 

operates in ways that the game really did not envision and that do not sit well with the basic premise, which is that shooting down the enemy should be the major component of victory

 

In fact, shooting down the enemy is absolutely clutch to dealing with coordinated bomber strategies. It rewards hard swaps, burst damage from cooldowns, and positional coordination.

 

There was one match (which we did end up winning) on Lost Shipyards where I observed the bombers actually suiciding to get from A to C and vice versa when the other was under attack. I got 32 assists that match, because I was ion AOEing all of the bombers and getting credit for the subsequent suicides.

 

So, I heard tell of a match where this accusation was wrongly levied at some of my teammates. So if you think that they were doing this, then you are wrong, full stop.

 

If you are thinking of a game where this actually occurred (and it sounds like you are), then I'll add this:

I don't really know if that strategy is intended or not. I certainly see nothing wrong with it inherently, but I can't imagine that suiciding to get to a hyperbeacon to be where you are needed is that common. It's a risky strategy as the beacon could be destroyed, but it trivializes the intended tools for this task (notably tensor field).

 

 

I'd be totally fine with a different type of respawn timer than we currently have. I think if your death absolutely killed you for 10 seconds, after which you were dumped in the current queue, then that would be just fine. I will also add that this strategy ALSO has tons of counters, notably the fact that the hyperbeacons at A and C should have the lifespan of about 3-5 seconds, less if you are charging a shot when one is dropped, and I think it's amusing that you came in here to ask for the whole game to be changed because you can't adapt to yet another thing you saw happen one time, you think, maybe.

 

 

 

Sorry, but gentleman players DOES exist.

 

Right, and I didn't say that they didn't. I said gentleman's agreements don't exist. Individuals, of course, can have honor and be treated honorably. But as a COMMUNITY, there's no such thing. Nemarus WILDLY assumes:

 

1)- Bombers are so OP that they have no counters

[if he didn't believe this, the rest of the argument would fall apart: he needs this to argue about a gentleman agreement, or for nerfs]

2)- Bombers make the game worse for everyone, the bomber pilots and the opposing pilots

[if he didn't believe this he wouldn't have argument for his pretend-agreement]

3)- Players on TEH switched from running a lot of bombers to running a few

[The only one on the list that could be true entirely]

4)- THEREFORE the players spontaneously and without any prompting or organization swapped OUT of the bombers because they perceived them as TOO EFFECTIVE and NO FUN, both of which Nemarus happens to agree with entirely.

 

I'm saying, this is not how gamers work, this is not how games work. Mostly, gamers play the game the way they have the most fun, and in enough cases to matter, this will be winning. I'm not saying you won't say "screw it, comet breaker", I'm saying that, as a community, this doesn't happen much.

 

It's all in his head because he's assuming that because he believes things a certain way, everyone else does. That's not true: he's not been appointed King of the Complains About Bombers Guy, he doesn't speak for a faction. In fact, if someone was losing to a strategy- gunship overwatch, bomber ball, whatever- and they didn't counter it or adopt it, but instead tried to convince me that they are trying to rise above it because they have a whole system that just so happens to make them right even when they lose...

 

 

 

Why would I believe that?

[Verain]

But the vast majority of GSF matches are basically friendlies, whose victor is determined at time of matchmaking. And from my experience, on TEH, the vast majority of pilots recognizes when that occurs and choose to fly something less than optimal.

 

I agree with this exactly halfway. If I'm on a side that will win if I afk, then I will often take a "wins more" ship to peel or heal allies to minimize their deaths, or a req ship to build up.

 

But on the other side, when winning is up in the air? I'm on one of the ships that's going to make us win.

 

Though I haven't had my Minelayer on my readied bar for weeks now. Because even in a highly competitive Domination match, I know that if I fly a SIM, I'm really not going to earn much respect from my wingmen or the other side. And honestly at this point, that respect is more valuable to me than requisition.

 

So you literally queue up to get farmed and then cry about it on the forums?

 

Final answer?

 

 

"respect of your wingmen"? Do they "respect" you if you can't help them when you would have been able to otherwise?

 

Why is this about req? Winning and losing are the goals of the game. Fun is related to that to a degree. But requisition is like "this ship needs something, so I'll barrel over to that node we just cleared so I get some requisition, instead of going 180 degrees away to be available faster".

 

I enjoy playing with a team, coordinating offensive and defensive, winning, and having a great time. I don't really think you are that far from that, but this sophistry is pretty absurd to read. The only interesting part about your prose is that you have a high density of insults for a post that is ostensibly about whatever side of the argument you need to get on in order to make yourself "correct".

 

 

So yes, Verain, in response to the OP, who was complaining about PUGs vs. SIM's, I believe The Ebon Hawk is a much more accessible place, because most of the pilots here would not field SIM's against a PUG.

 

On THAT note, I'll agree- but only because the PUGs have no chance at winning. In fact, the boy bomber has a hard time diving and getting kills with just heavy laser and an area denial, and you might end up sitting at a node with nothing to do because the enemy pugs are without meaning.

 

That's not honor, that's not pity, that's not kindness.

 

 

That's boredom in a game where nothing can threaten you. Well, nothing threatens you on ANOTHER ship in those games either- so you just hop onto the ship that is better at dogfighting. It's not like you are gonna lose the node you were going to sit at, and now you get more kills.

 

"Instead of guarding a node, I farm them. For great honor!"

 

 

 

And since I know you have trouble with human emotions

 

Ladies and gentlemen, Nemarus! Clear king of the forums with such powerful prose as this! Come queue Ebon Hawk one and all, but know this: should you defeat him in battle, it is truly he who has vanquished you!*

 

 

 

 

*By his own internal standards, not those recognized by the game. Internal standards may change without notice. Certain restrictions may apply. Not available in some states.

 

 

 

 

The ultimate meta goal of any GSFer should not be to win or lose a match, but to ensure matches are plentiful and varied in the long-term.

 

No, that's on Bioware. Keeping a product line in business isn't my job, I don't get paid for that, others do. Whomever isn't implementing three new game modes, a PvE side of this game, a bunch of new maps, some new ships, and carefully balancing components, along with a lack of advertising- those are the things that will ensure that stuff. "my part" in that is to play the game. That I try to help new players, that I try to recruit players, those are not my job.

 

 

And frankly, if someone cannot comprehend or accept that, then in my opinion they should get off of The Ebon Hawk (an RP-PvE) server and commit to one of the dedicated PvP servers.

 

I give the following courtesies to RP servers, and that is all:

I don't generate a name or character meant to mock, I don't mock RPers who are doing their thing, and if I walk into an event I will respond in character and extricate myself.

 

But your pvp queues are not an RP zone, nor will they be treated as such. And I guess you're King of Ebon Hawk Population too, as you're actually trying to tell me (us?) to leave now? What a riot!

 

 

Because there is a very real, qualitative difference in our community.

 

Is it the one where lesser members of TEH log over and accuse us of hacking, words that I can't type on the forum, and otherwise have a population of players that behave with absolute certainty that they are the only sentient being and that no one else matters at all? Is it the thing where someone plays objectively badly, gets farmed, and then gets so angry about it and blames everything but the fact that they just didn't play correctly? Is it the thing where we can kill the queues by queuing four times in succession (if premades aren't around, ofc), whereas Bastion isn't full of rage quitters that create lowbies to insult and threaten us?

 

Qualitative difference indeed!

 

 

 

The rest of your post is actually kind of interesting. I'll briefly say that boy bombers don't kill mysteriously, and if they do, it's an animation issue where the mine isn't clear about the explosion radius when it explodes. If the animation filled the sphere with red, I think you'd see players responding very fast in the future and treating mines with the caution they deserve at lower skill levels (decent players don't have that issue, but I believe this is an animation issue).

 

Even gunships suffer from this problem, as the railshot is visibly detectable after it fires. If I had a starfighter, I'd have like, some webcams on it? And if a railshot went right past me and I visibly detected it, I'd whistle or chirp or something.

 

Battlescouts at least make noises when they do their thing, but recognizing the sounds for their self buffs takes a lot of time and isn't intuitive.

 

I don't think Gunships are in a bad place in terms of competitive meta, but I do think they are a threat to GSF's accessibility in their current state. Right now their burst damage is extremely hard on new players, who feel cheated when they take a huge amount of damage with no warning. I do think perhaps their burst damage could be reduced in exchange for more sustained damage and survivability.

 

I disagree. But I will say this: if I shoot a railgun at a scout and he evades it (his ship does), whether he keeps flying or swaps to LOS me is entirely a function of whether he saw the railshot. Given that a strike fighter makes everything beep just by THINKING about shooting a missile, I think it would be reasonable to fix that.

 

i think almost all of this games "accessibility" issues are a result of a lack of UI elements or in game warnings that "should" properly be available. Railguns are fine. Bombers are mostly fine. Battle scouts are mostly fine. The bomber nerf will likely be an overnerf, but bombers will still have roles. Battle scouts need attention, likely to their TTK with cooldown.

 

Want to make newbs have an easier time?

 

Threespace map or bugeye map

Artificial horizon

Compass

Altimeter

 

Right now, you learn the levels by playing so many games that you memorize every rock from every direction. That's pretty hardcore. Maybe a starfighter would have something better to help with that, you know?

 

 

Ship balance is a mile away from this game's top accessibility issues. UI issues, the ability to understand what is going on, graphics issues including mines with inaccurate signalling spheres, lack of documentation of when to aim at the targeting circle and when to lead it, lack of more than two ships and a tricky requirement to spend at least a few cartel coins early on or never have the fleet you want, lack of noobs starting with a gunship and a bomber so they can actually try the different classes.

 

Those are issues new players face. "We tie you in a sack and beat you" is the current way the game is set up. You're like "as a gentleman, you should be using a smaller bat to beat the new player".

OR we could get rid of the sack!

 

Scouts and gunships get kills in ways players don't understand and have to learn to prevent, while a new player should figure out pretty early on that mines are easy to avoid. I don't understand how bombers could be listed in the same setup as the other two tbh.

 

"Huh, I flew over to that big slow ship that drops little things out of him, and then I died. What happens if I don't go over there? Oh, he didn't kill me."

 

Versus railguns "My hull is glittering. Oh look I took damage. Augh!"

And scouts "I think my shield went away from the backside first? Oh, it tells me the name. Huh, ok."

Edited May 28, 2014 by Verain

[Kuciwalker]

(1) is a natural result of the limitations of bombers- a pilot might extend into a minefield when he thinks he has an advantage (and can be punished for it), but by and large that's the ONLY time that the minefield will be engaged. Meanwhile, a gunship is proactive in choosing targets. A bomber surrounded by enemies at 10k is trying to figure which one is the biggest threat in a pincer and call that. A gunship surrounded by enemies at 10k is charging the railgun!

 

That doesn't justify the difference of scale. I've seen matches where it's something like 60 kills for the losing team to 20-30 for the winning team.

 

(2) is something that I only sort of agree with. I have always claimed that the respawn time is generally too short. However, bombers are the absolute worst at going anywhere... unless there's a hyperspace beacon. When I've played in games where it was like three of us on bombers versus six of you guys on everything (including bombers), a lot of it is calling out hyperspace drops. One assumes that is the actual goal of hyperspace beacon- in general, it's very common for a beacon to be dropped, summon two ships instantly (who were sitting on their spawn button for a few seconds each), and then get blown up. That's not a spawn time issue- if it is any kind of issue, it's that the hyperspace beacon is powerful if coordinated.

 

Yes, yes, hyperspace beacon should make reinforcement easier and faster. However, I question if it should on its own enable this sort of zerg playstyle where bombers are only secondarily used for their mines, and primarily used as fat sacks of HP that tax your team's DPS.

 

(Yes, yes, our DPS would be higher but for the mines, but the result here is still disgusting.)

 

Additionally, this mechanic has a problematic interaction with GSF's cooldown mechanic, where they are reset on death. That means that a single bomber with a hyper beacon is probably a little bit weaker than it should be. However, as you scale the number of bombers hyperspace beacon gets better and better, because the rate at which the beacons spawn increases as you kill the bombers faster.

 

Ideally (IMO) hyper beacon would not disappear on death, and would not have cooldown reset on death. However, I think both are outside reasonable requests on the engine (and what happens if you plant a hyper beacon then suicide and respawn as a non-bomber?).

 

The other side of this that I have seen is uncoordinated bombers spawning constantly and zerging down a node. In these cases, the game is entirely different: players trying to counter this should be focused on long ranged missiles and snares, and are usually on a team with only a few good players and a ton of bad ones. Since this is not based on coordination and more based on a bunch of players who are running bombers, you really can run into a situation without a full premade where many of your team members are entirely ineffective at bombers, meaning that you have to deal all the shield and hull damage yourself versus six to eight players with a lot of hull and a surprising amount of shield.

 

The zerg strategy works even for premades, and hyper beacons just make it better. It's already possible even without them.

 

Bombers have a long way to fly, but they have a much easier time doing it on Kuat then on Denon or Shipyards. We had much less trouble against it on those maps. It's on Kuat that LOS is really, really cheap and bombers have lots of cover on approach.

 

At the end of the day, if you aren't bringing a full premade and many of your pugs don't know how to kill the enemy pugs, you're in for a very hard carry, or even a loss.

 

Dude, I'm talking about matches with me, Tom, Leggo, Pylan, and several others on one side all in mumble coordinating. The fact is that bombers are huge sacks of HP and sustained slug railgun DPS is low even before you account for dealing with LOS.

 

So, I heard tell of a match where this accusation was wrongly levied at some of my teammates. So if you think that they were doing this, then you are wrong, full stop.

 

If you are thinking of a game where this actually occurred (and it sounds like you are), then I'll add this:

I don't really know if that strategy is intended or not. I certainly see nothing wrong with it inherently, but I can't imagine that suiciding to get to a hyperbeacon to be where you are needed is that common. It's a risky strategy as the beacon could be destroyed, but it trivializes the intended tools for this task (notably tensor field).

 

I saw it directly, multiple times, unless the other team just had really stupid bombers who repeatedly fly into their nodes by accident. And it wasn't always to get to a hyper beacon (we were efficient at killing them), but rather to get to the regular spawn point on the other side without having to fly past B (which was space we held comfortably). Even the worst case that you lose the node before you get to respawn, and have to spawn at the main spawn location, you've still come out more or less even on travel time and you fly through marginally less hostile space.

 

And it certainly should not ever be intended for you to suicide in order to go somewhere faster. If bombers are slow as a balancing mechanic then that slowness has to actually obtain.