These single target mines suck, make everything into seeker mines.

[Altheran]

You don't see them, they are gone, they are deleted.

Mind tricks won't work on me.

 

I know that you, and many others, secretly wanted bombers to be gone from the one job they had, and this has mostly happened. Of course you wanted them "put in place". You'd prefer their "place" be "not a thing".

Gone from being best at defending, dealing area damage, and shaping the battlefield ? No.

Making them to not excel too much ? Definitely.

 

Of course he didn't forget that.

I'm pretty sure he did :

1. The only build that lost efficiency against Scouts are SIM. Seismic and Concussion is still as much of a nearly guaranteed death than before

2. Stating that a Dronecarrier is better because it has Seeker Mines makes no sense when the Minelayer have it too. It's as nonsensical as saying that a Starguard is better than a Pike because of Clusters Missiles...

 

 

The whole point of the thread is that the Seeker Mine mechanic is the only damned aoe left to the mines, so it needs to share the wealth.

I get that mines have a limited AoE value, that since its not possible to make it blast through the most improbable locations, it has become less likely. It's a fair concern.

 

But you're basing your point on the mines only having 500m of extra radius for detonation range (2000m of blast for 1500m of trigger). However, Seismic is not like that : it has 1500m of extra radius (3000m detonation radius). Its extra range here is definitely something that may engulf more ships in the blast.

 

So... Wouldn't it simpler, more logical, and as efficient, to just give all the mines the same 3000m detonation radius, and letting Seeker to be the seeking mines ?

 

I get that the meta is thin. But I really think this change thinned it out heavily. There are simply less ships worth playing, less strategies to play as and counter. The game got worse with the patch, because there's less game.

I just don't get your point.

Should I take it that the more it looks like rock/paper/scissors, the best you think it is ?

Because the only change I saw is that it became milder in this area.

[Verain]

M1. The only build that lost efficiency against Scouts are SIM. Seismic and Concussion is still as much of a nearly guaranteed death than before

 

I'll assume you mean Seeker and Concussion. While seeker, previously generally weaker, did not get nerfed much at all, concussion most certainly did. The inability of a concussion to strike multiple targets is huge. Previously it wasn't uncommon to see a concussion mine get two simul kills once every few games- I have yet to see a mine perform similarly postnerf.

 

So yes, concussion mine builds got MUCH WEAKER as well. The interdiction nerf was not a very smart idea either, but I'm not touching on that here- I just want all the mines to use the more favorable seeker mechanics, with commensurate adjustments (likely small nerfs) and aoe adjustments (mines would be single target with a talent that would make them aoe for half damage).

 

 

2. Stating that a Dronecarrier is better because it has Seeker Mines makes no sense when the Minelayer have it too. It's as nonsensical as saying that a Starguard is better than a Pike because of Clusters Missiles...

 

No one is arguing that, actually. The point is that of Seeker and Seismic, Seismic was the more potent mine. Seeker still does much more damage, and seismic still ignores hull, but the problem is that seeker can still aoe, and seismic really can't.

 

Gunsheep brought up dronecarriers to point out that interdiction drone still plays by the rules of all the other aoe in the game (except mines), and interdiction mine doesn't, and that you can reliably snare someone with the drone. Here was all he said about seekers:

Seeker mine actually moves to enemies before it AOEs (if specced) and therefore has more opportunity to AOE then SIM does.

 

SIM means Seismic / Interdiction Minelayer. He's saying that this good build is mostly trashed by another build that does its job better, plus more. That's a fair and correct complaint, and isn't mitigated by the fact that minelayers can also deploy seekers.

 

 

 

But you're basing your point on the mines only having 500m of extra radius for detonation range (2000m of blast for 1500m of trigger). However, Seismic is not like that : it has 1500m of extra radius (3000m detonation radius). Its extra range here is definitely something that may engulf more ships in the blast.

 

I know this. But it... doesn't ever actually do this, really. It's clear that the right click mines are supposed to be the scarier mines, as they have always been tuned higher, and a 3500m explosion with a 2000m trigger could hit players in that 1500m shell.

 

But like... does it? I've been watching, and the only times I see this happen are when the mine is deployed with bad players chasing too closely. None boost away or target the mine, and they get hit all at once as the mine goes live. This is rare, and requires some serious misplay.

 

In practice, this mine is single target now too.

 

So... Wouldn't it simpler, more logical, and as efficient, to just give all the mines the same 3000m detonation radius, and letting Seeker to be the seeking mines ?

 

Bigger blast radius would be a valid buff as well, tbh. I think that if seeker is generally better than seismic, that is not the end of the world, though its lame.

 

The reason I suggest the seeker mechanic is that it allows for the mines to actually aoe sometimes again.

 

 

 

Should I take it that the more it looks like rock/paper/scissors, the best you think it is ?

 

No, not at all. I don't think hard counters are a great design. I think that ship and strategy diversity is admirable, and this patch shrunk it.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Verain

[Altheran]

The point is that of Seeker and Seismic, Seismic was the more potent mine. Seeker still does much more damage, and seismic still ignores hull, but the problem is that seeker can still aoe, and seismic really can't.

Actually, when accounting the homing time, 2000m around the triggering individual is not much different than 1500m at t=0, as usually the triggering individual dives further in trigger zone.

I dare say that if you're caught in a Seeker AoE, then if it were a Seismic Mine triggered, then you'd very likely be caught too.

 

If I'd were to be about pure theory, I'd add that a Seismic can catch a ship in the opposed direction between the mine and the triggering individual, in a bigger blast area, making it actually more able to hit multiple ships... But Seeker has its own pros, like the very wide trigger range.

 

For me, they're really even about AoE... Different, but even.

 

 

That aside, I'll be frank : I admit I see a category of people who moved from flying Minelayers to Dronecarriers. But I tend to not give credit to their choice as these individuals are specialists of a "tactic" I hate.

They're those who park their ship in a corner of a satellite, just refreshing mines and drones. They can't use the AoE of mines in that place anymore, so they now use the range of drones and Seeker.

 

I don't know if it's that tactic that you miss, but in all honesty, it's the only one I saw more or less disappear (not it can't exist, but Drones do it better now), and I really don't miss it.

Not sure if I don't hate the Dronecarrier version even more as my Strikes are not protected by their greater range anymore when dislodging them - Ah, if only there weren't these four "things" in the lower part of the Satellites... No satellite parking, less LoS obstruction for heavy missiles and mines...

Edited July 20, 2014 by Altheran

[Verain]

Actually, when accounting the homing time, 2000m around the triggering individual is not much different than 1500m at t=0, as usually the triggering individual dives further in trigger zone.

 

 

The triggering guy can be flying a lot of places though.

 

I dare say that if you're caught in a Seeker AoE, then if it were a Seismic Mine triggered, then you'd very likely be caught too.

 

Theory or practice?

 

I didn't post this junk before the patch, because I hadn't seen it. Post patch, I see seekers hitting multiple targets (the others for half damage) with some degree of regularity, and I see it happening with all other mines ludicrously rarely. The mines are basically single target. If your argument is that it would make no difference, why not get behind the thread? Why not go along with it? No difference, right?

 

 

For me, they're really even about AoE... Different, but even.

 

You actually see this? That's your postpatch experience with seeker and seismic, is that both of them aoe roughly similarly? Or are you just going on the shell you just visualized, and the conditions you just thought of?

 

 

That aside, I'll be frank : I admit I see a category of people who moved from flying Minelayers to Dronecarriers. But I tend to not give credit to their choice as these individuals are specialists of a "tactic" I hate.

They're those who park their ship in a corner of a satellite, just refreshing mines and drones. They can't use the AoE of mines in that place anymore, so they now use the range of drones and Seeker.

 

And now the crux of the issue- you don't like bombers. Your real argument is "I want bombers weak, deleted if possible, because I dislike that they can sit in place and create an area threat zone for no skill or effort."

 

 

Of course that isn't the skill and tactics of being a bomber, much like there's no skill in a flashfire outflying a bomber. That's what you get for being that class.

 

 

I don't know if it's that tactic that you miss, but in all honesty, it's the only one I saw more or less disappear (not it can't exist, but Drones do it better now), and I really don't miss it.

 

So you like the narrower meta better. That's my point, and you don't even disagree- you just like the game better without bombers.

[Kuciwalker]

That seismic/concussion/interdiction mines never hit more than one person doesn't necessarily imply that they are ineffective as multi-target mines, fyi. Edited July 21, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Altheran]

The triggering guy can be flying a lot of places though.

 

 

 

Theory or practice?

 

I didn't post this junk before the patch, because I hadn't seen it. Post patch, I see seekers hitting multiple targets (the others for half damage) with some degree of regularity, and I see it happening with all other mines ludicrously rarely. The mines are basically single target. If your argument is that it would make no difference, why not get behind the thread? Why not go along with it? No difference, right?

 

 

 

 

You actually see this? That's your postpatch experience with seeker and seismic, is that both of them aoe roughly similarly? Or are you just going on the shell you just visualized, and the conditions you just thought of?

 

Have you really tried to use Seismic lately ? Or are you basing your posts on merely seeing less Minelayers ?

 

I can't tell the number of time I kill 2 ships in one go with these, or when there's a random kill while the ship I launched that mine for got hit without dying.

 

So to answer you : it's practice.

 

 

And now the crux of the issue- you don't like bombers. Your real argument is "I want bombers weak, deleted if possible, because I dislike that they can sit in place and create an area threat zone for no skill or effort."

 

 

Of course that isn't the skill and tactics of being a bomber, much like there's no skill in a flashfire outflying a bomber. That's what you get for being that class.

 

 

 

 

So you like the narrower meta better. That's my point, and you don't even disagree- you just like the game better without bombers.

Not quite. I'm just tired of seeing people not "flying a Bomber", but "AFK'ing in a Bomber", and get respectable results.

It's the same annoyance than when Scouts were using these spots to semi-AFK and kill ennemies without effort thanks to the protection of Distortion Field (which was absolute protection at that time).

No more, no less.

 

It's not making Bombers useless, neither deleting them, to unallow them to use that so-called tactic on a satellite.

They can fight "openly" around the satellite, it's working fine, and are still unrivaled at clearing a satellite from ships when doing so. But they face opposition, that is.

I dare you to say that a Seismic/Concussion Minelayer is not able to trivially wipe multiples Scouts/Strikes around a satellite, at the moment.

 

You said earlier, in an other post, that hard counters were bad design...

But a Dronecarrier parking under a satellite IS a hardcounter to anything that is not a Gunship or a long-range Pike/Quell.

It is, because all the fire power of the Seeker mines, the Drone and ship itself, is directed in the only direction the ennemies can come from... ...so if they don't have the range of those mentionned earlier, they'll lose.

If defeat does not comes from the mines and drones, thanks to an EMP, it will come from the superior resistance of the ship.

And the effectiveness of doing so is un-arguable, as facing the Dronecarrier iteslf is unavoidable because of the game mode rules.

So by your own words, IT'S BAD.

(Paradoxally, they can do that in TDM, it won't be a big deal as they'll mostly get ignored... if they can find such a spot actually)

 

The Minelayer variant *was* barely different. It allowed some room for ennemies to attacks, but it was wiping people before they try to attack, so in the end it was even stronger.

Something better than something that is already too good (so bad for the game), is even worse for the game.

Yes, it was WORSE, than the "bad" that still exists.

Now it's not like that anymore.

 

Does it make me a hater of Bombers who want them deleted because I like Minelayers' new state ? No. Just someone who realized how bad design it was.

If I were a hater, why would I be arguing that the proposal is a non-improvement (on Seismic that is) and proposing to improve the blast radius of the system ones to the level of Seismic ?

 

Does it puts the ship out of your "meta". Maybe. But it's not out of mine.

Does I like it better ? Definitely.

But try to consider this :

- If to be in your "meta", a ship has to have -by your own words- bad design like the Dronecarrier, is the meta you're aiming for, really that good ?

- Doesn't it make your meta only a recollection of what is bad design/OP, actually ? (Not necessarly blatantly)

Edited July 21, 2014 by Altheran

[Nemarus]

Just want to pop in and compliment the main participants in this discussion. Nice to see people disagreeing and making counterpoints, but doing so in a pretty civil manner.

 

It's a fascinating discussion!

 

I want to try my own Minelayer to see how she feels, but haven't really had serious enough competition to warrant any valid conclusions

[FridgeLM]

Not quite. I'm just tired of seeing people not "flying a Bomber", but "AFK'ing in a Bomber", and get respectable results.

 

This never happened unless the enemy was bad or insisted on flying battle scouts - and even then you can't just sit there in a bomber if they fly in.

 

Evasive flying around a satellite is not as easy as you seem to think it is, especially in the slowest, least-maneuverable ships in the game.

 

I don't want this change. I want the AOE to go through static objects again, because that change was completely pointless. If every mine becomes essentially a seeker mine, what is the niche of a seeker mine?

[Verain]

I don't want this change. I want the AOE to go through static objects again, because that change was completely pointless. If every mine becomes essentially a seeker mine, what is the niche of a seeker mine?

 

Obviously a reversion of the overnerf would fix the problem, but I feel that's unlikely at this point. I don't particularly feel the seeker thing is that likely either- I'm just pointing out that it would, at this point, be better.

[Asbetos]

I've been flying T1 strike and T2 scout almost exclusively since the patch and the way I see it playing Minelayer actually requires careful mine positioning now, so that they can trigger and blast people, but not be out in the open to get shot down from afar easily. Also, you can't just barge in against 2-3 ships and blow them all to pieces if only 1 makes a small mistake.

 

Well placed mines and the bomber that evades well are still a nuisance to clear out, almost impossible 1v1, but you don't need a squadron of fighters or a gunship+few fighters anymore.

 

As Altheran said:

it's practice.

[Verain]

No, it's more like a few games until you realize that mines only have a few places that they should live now, versus a decent number with tradeoffs before. Again, this shrunk the game, MOST importantly including the payoff for actually being good at a minelayer.

[Asbetos]

No, it's more like a few games until you realize that mines only have a few places that they should live now, versus a decent number with tradeoffs before. Again, this shrunk the game, MOST importantly including the payoff for actually being good at a minelayer.

 

Exactly, but I see it as raising the skill needed to play the bomber effectively instead of shrinking the game, same as the BR nerf did.

[Verain]

No, it definitely did not. Making something HARDER doesn't mean you made it take more skill.

 

 

Look, I'm done being polite on this topic. I'll admit that I don't know the right way to fix the bombers- the topic in the thread would give some power back, but mostly I'm pointing out that these mines are basically single target now, and that's pretty much awful. They would all be better off as seeker mine mechanics is a pretty big deal, given that it's single target baseline, talented aoe for half- but these mines don't aoe.

 

 

So like...

 

Previously, I was playing distance games with my enemies. Bad minelayers got totally worked over by me, because they would eat my mines during plating's deadzone way more often than I would, and the majority of that was timing and placing mines properly. Meanwhile, versus most enemies, you would seek to put the mines somewhere, and then manually detonate when an enemy was in range of it, often after baiting him into overextending.

 

 

Now?

 

 

You put the mines in the mine places. There's only a few. You fly around. The game that you guys thought was minelayers, was not the actual game. The nerf sort of made it into that. Every trick to outplay and outfly and time is worthless now, because the mines are so nerfed. These ships are just mine pooping derps, and they were geometry warriors before. I'm sorry that the GSF forums and community MOSTLY never understood how to play a damned minelayer, because your ludicrous tears got all the skill stripped entirely away.

 

 

 

Here's your postpatch boy bomber guide:

 

1)- Place mines where they have moderate line of sight.

 

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

And this is why I'm cross. It was obvious before the nerfs that there was a HUGE delta in how these ships were understood and flown, and everyone who claimed they were simple, or easy, or whatever, got owned when they flew against better bombers. We rolled naked bombers, went to their servers, and rolled them right off their nodes and onto the forums.

 

 

 

 

So yea, the meta is smaller. And the game is easier, and shallower. And minelayers are easier. And worse. Yippee. Great job.

 

 

The big thing is this: I'm cross at the forums for crying so hard, but I'm actually wondering whether the devs even intended minelayers to be deep at all. I really don't even know what the ship is supposed to be about right now... the hyperbeacon? It went from such a technical ship to so simple that it's just really a shock, so I'm assuming that the technical play was emergent and not even intended.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Verain

[tunewalker]

No, it definitely did not. Making something HARDER doesn't mean you made it take more skill.

 

 

Look, I'm done being polite on this topic. I'll admit that I don't know the right way to fix the bombers- the topic in the thread would give some power back, but mostly I'm pointing out that these mines are basically single target now, and that's pretty much awful. They would all be better off as seeker mine mechanics is a pretty big deal, given that it's single target baseline, talented aoe for half- but these mines don't aoe.

 

 

So like...

 

Previously, I was playing distance games with my enemies. Bad minelayers got totally worked over by me, because they would eat my mines during plating's deadzone way more often than I would, and the majority of that was timing and placing mines properly. Meanwhile, versus most enemies, you would seek to put the mines somewhere, and then manually detonate when an enemy was in range of it, often after baiting him into overextending.

 

 

Now?

 

 

You put the mines in the mine places. There's only a few. You fly around. The game that you guys thought was minelayers, was not the actual game. The nerf sort of made it into that. Every trick to outplay and outfly and time is worthless now, because the mines are so nerfed. These ships are just mine pooping derps, and they were geometry warriors before. I'm sorry that the GSF forums and community MOSTLY never understood how to play a damned minelayer, because your ludicrous tears got all the skill stripped entirely away.

 

 

 

Here's your postpatch boy bomber guide:

 

1)- Place mines where they have moderate line of sight.

 

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

And this is why I'm cross. It was obvious before the nerfs that there was a HUGE delta in how these ships were understood and flown, and everyone who claimed they were simple, or easy, or whatever, got owned when they flew against better bombers. We rolled naked bombers, went to their servers, and rolled them right off their nodes and onto the forums.

 

 

 

 

So yea, the meta is smaller. And the game is easier, and shallower. And minelayers are easier. And worse. Yippee. Great job.

 

 

The big thing is this: I'm cross at the forums for crying so hard, but I'm actually wondering whether the devs even intended minelayers to be deep at all. I really don't even know what the ship is supposed to be about right now... the hyperbeacon? It went from such a technical ship to so simple that it's just really a shock, so I'm assuming that the technical play was emergent and not even intended.

 

You and I both know the real solution.... revert change on mine LoS thing and buff EMP missiles to be faster lock on or something that isn't 100% worthless, crap, but last we heard dev's like EMP missile as worthless crap that no one seriously take so that's not going to happen.

[Caernos]

I'm sorry to hear that you're tired of being polite on the subject matter Verain. I have a lot of respect for your skills as a pilot as I know you can out-fly me in any of my ships. Again, I will also point out that I don't have anywhere near as much experience in the minelayer as you do, I can only speak as a pilot who has fought against them. Unfortunately, I still disagree with you on the subject matter.

 

I still believe the LOS nerf to mines was not a bad thing. Before, if you were fighting on a sat, you could avoid taking some damage by LOSing players who were targeting you with railguns and missiles (and eventually drones). In a hypothetical 1v1 scenario with me in a strike and someone in a gunship, if they were up high above shooting at me, I could simply go to the underside of the satellite and avoid taking damage. To break missile locks I could weave between the obstructions and protect myself that way. However, putting a fin between and a mine meant I still took the damage, and in some rare cases (depending on how close to the sat I was flying and how close to the sat the mine was) you could still take damage through the sat itself.

 

Now, I agree that to really fly a minelayer well its not about just dropping mines when your CD is down or placing them will-nilly. That said, before the LOS nerf people could drop mines wherever, without skill and still wreak havoc in a sat fight. But now, post nerf, a minelayer really is a "geometry warrior;" a minelayer has to predict an enemies path and reactions and plant their mines in an area that will cause the most damage or disrupt their tactics. Mines can still do that when properly placed but a player can't just drop them wherever.

 

I will agree that as an AOE weapon, a mine should be capable of effecting multiple targets. If the blast radius was reduced along with the LOS nerf or something (I missed the patch notes when it happened) then the radius should be upped back to its original size or perhaps made larger so it can possibly encase more people. However, I do firmly believe the mine should still obey LOS in all things; if I'm above a satellite and I see a mine beneath it, that mine should not be able to damage me when it detonates. A gunship can't shoot me with a railgun through a sat, a missile can't lock on through a sat, why should a mine be different?

 

I also agree that the minelayer needs either some new components or a rework of existing ones to make it more viable in TDM. In my head it would be fun if a minelayer could get some kind of rocket pod component, where you could just spray rockets into a dogfight, barely aiming, and not worry about running out of ammo. Maybe a new missile or new mine to use in TDM but it could use something to make it more viable other than just hyperspace beacon.

 

So, TL;DR, I still disagree that the LOS nerf, any reduction to blast radius size in the nerf should be reverted back to original or possibly increased if data shows mines are consistently only hitting one person, and that the minelayer could use some tweaking to make it more viable in TDM other than just placing hyperspace beacons or cover for gunship balls.

[Danylia]

This thread reminds me of that one person who complained about Assassin tanks being suboptimal for Nightmare Operations (emphasis on "suboptimal" and "nightmare operation"). Bioware listened to him and significantly reworked the Assassin tank's mechanics ... oblivious to the fact that majority (I would dare to say vast majority) of assassin tanks will never ever see a Nightmare Operation.

 

OP talks like most of Bomber pilots can deeply perceive the nerf which happened to their ship. And more importantly, he talks like every pilot flying against the bomber can deeply perceive the nerf which happened to bombers. To be fair, it may indeed be his experience, based on the server and time he plays on. Well my own experience is quite different. The majority of bomber pilots is ... passable, and so is the majority of pilots flying against bombers. Bomber skill floor could be called "solid". That means in a battle of these two groups, given both have sufficient gear level (which often isn't the case - 2-shippers) the bomber will win. Even after the nerf. Because even after the nerf, the bomber skill floor remains high enough that the average (again, in my experience+opinion) pilot won't be able to acceptably deal with it.

 

Tl;dr: The thread makes sense if the majority of GSF population has both skill and gear to make significant difference between "state before adjustment" and "state after adjustment". I don't think that's the case.

[Kuciwalker]

This thread reminds me of that one person who complained about Assassin tanks being suboptimal for Nightmare Operations (emphasis on "suboptimal" and "nightmare operation"). Bioware listened to him and significantly reworked the Assassin tank's mechanics ... oblivious to the fact that majority (I would dare to say vast majority) of assassin tanks will never ever see a Nightmare Operation.

 

The rework wasn't because they were "suboptimal for nightmare", but rather because the assassin's mitigation mechanic was impossible to properly scale across gear and raid tier.

 

So are you saying this thread reminds you of another person who had a more accurate and detailed understanding of game balance than you do?

Edited July 23, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Asbetos]

Since I mostly agree with what caernos posted, I'll just add this:

 

Here's your postpatch boy bomber guide:

 

1)- Place mines where they have moderate line of sight.

 

 

Thanks!

 

Prepatch minelayer guide:

 

1)- Fly around the sat pooping mines (there's always a newb/noob around that will light everyone up)

 

Thanks!

 

 

So are you saying this thread reminds you of another person who had a more accurate and detailed understanding of game balance than you do?

 

I believe he's saying that the majority of players don't have an accurate and detailed enough understanding to understand and make use of the changes.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Asbetos

[FridgeLM]

Prepatch minelayer guide:

 

1)- Fly around the sat pooping mines (there's always a newb/noob around that will light everyone up)

 

Thanks!

 

I believe he's saying that the majority of players don't have an accurate and detailed enough understanding to understand and make use of the changes.

 

So given that you use this as your reasoning, it is not an unreasonable assumption to assume that you want the game balanced, at least partially, around people who don't know what they're doing.

 

Do you understand the problem with that position?

 

Bombers should not be punished because bads don't know enough to know they're bad. Revert the LOS change.

[Asbetos]

So given that you use this as your reasoning, it is not an unreasonable assumption to assume that you want the game balanced, at least partially, around people who don't know what they're doing.

 

Do you understand the problem with that position?

 

Bombers should not be punished because bads don't know enough to know they're bad. Revert the LOS change.

 

Yes, and I still haven't seen how playing something that IGNORES LoS requires more skill than something that ignores it. To me, it really seems ludicrous to even claim that.

 

Ok, let me rephrase the "tutorial": there is always someone who will make 1 tiny mistake and light everyone up while the bomber won't be even for making more bigger mistakes.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Asbetos

[FridgeLM]

Yes, and I still haven't seen how playing something that IGNORES LoS requires more skill than something that ignores it. To me, it really seems ludicrous to even claim that.

 

Ok, let me rephrase the "tutorial": there is always someone who will make 1 tiny mistake and light everyone up while the bomber won't be even for making more bigger mistakes.

 

Except in your example, the "everyone" getting "lit up" by a mine set off by "someone" are also making mistakes by being that close to an active minelayer in the first place. They're doing that because they don't know any better, and that's their fault.

 

Games should not be balanced around people who don't know how to play them.

[Asbetos]

Except in your example, the "everyone" getting "lit up" by a mine set off by "someone" are also making mistakes by being that close to an active minelayer in the first place. They're doing that because they don't know any better, and that's their fault.

 

But where are they supposed to be? You can't just blow up a sat humping minelayer from range (unless he's a genius that "hides" in 1 place and doesn't move, but we're not talking about that kind here).

[FridgeLM]

But where are they supposed to be? You can't just blow up a sat humping minelayer from range (unless he's a genius that "hides" in 1 place and doesn't move, but we're not talking about that kind here).

 

You actually can, and it's not that hard. A team of two can do it by parking above and below the sat in strike fighters. You'd be surprised how many minelayers are completely unaware that their evasive flying isn't accomplishing anything when you break enough distance to cancel most of the LOS blockers.

 

The answer to the question of "where are they supposed to be" when fighting a minelayer is anywhere that isn't in a mine's detonation radius.

Edited July 24, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Asbetos]

You actually can, and it's not that hard. A team of two can do it by parking above and below the sat in strike fighters. You'd be surprised how many minelayers are completely unaware that their evasive flying isn't accomplishing anything when you break enough distance to cancel most of the LOS blockers.

 

The answer to the question of "where are they supposed to be" when fighting a minelayer is anywhere that isn't in a mine's detonation radius.

 

The minelayer requires much less movement to stay out of LoS than you require to keep him inside, so he can just park behind a fin LoS-ing you both an barely move until you move in close

[FridgeLM]

The minelayer requires much less movement to stay out of LoS than you require to keep him inside, so he can just park behind a fin LoS-ing you both an barely move until you move in close

 

Pretty sure you didn't read what I wrote to do. Parking "behind a fin" doesn't LOS both attackers in the scenario I outlined.