bombers? really?

are you going to let missles do their own thing next where we can fire them willy nilly and they'll find their own targets?

hell if all i had to do to win was fly in a circle and right click over and over i have rolled a bomber sooner..

serisously bioware... if they were to OP on the test server why would they be less OP now..after you changed nothing. it's hard enough for a new player to actually want to play a GSF game since there is..for some reason..such a massive difference between two exact same ships .. (i served in the military for 12.5 years and my crap didn't get better just cause i was in longer) but now the new players don't stand a chance. Players in these team death match games are literly warping in, cutting engines and sitting at the capital ships waiting for it to end so they can, hopefully one day, upgrade their ship enough to survive combat long enough to actually hit someone.

Game after game they have advanced players vs our "2-shippers" and we'll end the game with 5/6 of the players 0 kills 0 assists...

what's the addiction on MMO's for such a gear gap? why? what's the point and where's the fun?

i reccomend ya'll devs go back to all your pre-launch info releases...read what you said...then do that. that's why a lot of us came...and even more left..

Sad, but your points are kinda overshadowed by your tone. Try constructive criticisms and/or suggestions. Be open to others' suggestions as well.

Oh and your point about not getting better gear for time served in the military is true, but you ever play Battlefield, COD, etc? Same thing.. it is a game thing... reward for playing keeps people here.... it is that upgrade reward that is working at the moment.

bombers? really?

are you going to let missles do their own thing next where we can fire them willy nilly and they'll find their own targets?

hell if all i had to do to win was fly in a circle and right click over and over i have rolled a bomber sooner..

serisously bioware... if they were to OP on the test server why would they be less OP now..after you changed nothing. it's hard enough for a new player to actually want to play a GSF game since there is..for some reason..such a massive difference between two exact same ships .. (i served in the military for 12.5 years and my crap didn't get better just cause i was in longer) but now the new players don't stand a chance. Players in these team death match games are literly warping in, cutting engines and sitting at the capital ships waiting for it to end so they can, hopefully one day, upgrade their ship enough to survive combat long enough to actually hit someone.

Game after game they have advanced players vs our "2-shippers" and we'll end the game with 5/6 of the players 0 kills 0 assists...

what's the addiction on MMO's for such a gear gap? why? what's the point and where's the fun?

i reccomend ya'll devs go back to all your pre-launch info releases...read what you said...then do that. that's why a lot of us came...and even more left..

I agree with your point wholeheartedly and I understand that your tone comes from watching a game that you really like in a spiral toward it's demise. I am right there with you on that.

This thread deserves more consideration.

You deserve a time-out...

Your postings have reached near-spam levels...

In my opinion.

Sadly, I feel like Bombers have really killed off a lot of the fun.

Matches where it is mostly strikes and scouts and even some gunships are great fun, but as soon as bombers enter the mix it just feels like it becomes tedious. A nuisance. Instead of fighting each other you're now cleaning up all these drones, or just throwing up your arms and conceding the area to the other side and going off to do something else.

You can't even dogfight because all these drones will just kill you, and so you have to go and try to destroy these hard-to-hit things. Whoops! The guy you wanted to dogfight has blown you to bits. Too bad, so sad, and oh look: the drones you blew up are replaced already.

You can't even dogfight because all these drones will just kill you, and so you have to go and try to destroy these hard-to-hit things.

How, exactly, are they hard to hit? You target them, you hit them once, they die.

You can see them from a mile off. You can tab target them. They don't even hit that hard.

How, exactly, are they hard to hit? You target them, you hit them once, they die.

 

You can see them from a mile off. You can tab target them. They don't even hit that hard.

Because it's rarely just a drone or two that you're fighting. You're trying to fight off multiple enemies AND multiple drones and possibly the guns around the sats, and the damage comes very quickly. So you have to try to take out the drones/guns fast, but I typically find that by the time I've gotten 2 of them, I'm dead because someone else was free to line you up and your shields/hull are weakened from the drones.

The ability to defend areas is too strong now. Even if you show up in a Gunship the defenders are free to leave and nail you because they do not have to worry about leaving the Sat to get capped since it takes so much time and effort to clear it for a cap now.

You deserve a time-out...

 

Your postings have reached near-spam levels...

In my opinion.

Totally agree.

Theres voicing dissatisfaction, and then theres just cluttering the forums with repeated ramblings on certain agendas. Holo has passed into the second case long ago, perhaps a timeout would benefit him.

it would certainly benefit us.

The devs, or at least moderators that talk to the devs do indeed read this stuff. Given that they made a career of game design, there's a pretty good chance that they play it too.

If you make well considered and articulate posts about what you think problems are, and what you think solutions are, there's a decent chance that the devs will hear about it.

If and Only If, they agree with your assessment based on them probably knowing more about game design in general and definitely knowing more about this particular game AND your proposed change fits with their overall larger development plan for the evolution of the game, you may see the change you proposed or something very like it implemented in a future patch.

They definitely listened when it came to the nature of burst damage being disproportionately good, distortion field as an offensive cooldown, the relative value of evasion vs. shields, and the uselessness of ion missiles.

They also at least partially listened on ion railgun aoe spamming.

What they need to know is:

What's causing the effect, and why it isn't/can't be dealt with via existing counters.

How the effect is causing unbalanced or unpleasant gameplay.

If the problem is balance, some sort of theorycraft example illustrating what you think the nature of the problem is might help (getting your math right counts a lot in that case).

Oh, and in addition to being articulate, being reasonably polite probably helps too.

I don't know why Bioware is against Star Wars style dogfights and have to include these weird ships that slow things down.

Gunships are bad enough with easy sniper (80% is average accuracy for a decent gunship) and now bombers that are boring to play, but easy to get kills with. I'd honestly rather chase people around satellites than sit in a slug bomber hiding counting how many die to my rail gun.

I still like GSF but I like it less after this update.

Because it's rarely just a drone or two that you're fighting. You're trying to fight off multiple enemies AND multiple drones and possibly the guns around the sats, and the damage comes very quickly. So you have to try to take out the drones/guns fast, but I typically find that by the time I've gotten 2 of them, I'm dead because someone else was free to line you up and your shields/hull are weakened from the drones.

 

The ability to defend areas is too strong now. Even if you show up in a Gunship the defenders are free to leave and nail you because they do not have to worry about leaving the Sat to get capped since it takes so much time and effort to clear it for a cap now.

I just did a match where I kamakazi the 'pub sat that had 3 turrets, 1 interdiction drone, 2 sentry drones, a missile drone, AND a Flashfire hanging out. I full boosted, EMP burst w/ my Imp scout, wiped 2 turrets in the process before I blew up. It's really, REALLY bad now. Thanks for not paying attention BW. You screwed this up with a hasty launch.

I just did a match where I kamakazi the 'pub sat that had 3 turrets, 1 interdiction drone, 2 sentry drones, a missile drone, AND a Flashfire hanging out. I full boosted, EMP burst w/ my Imp scout, wiped 2 turrets in the process before I blew up. It's really, REALLY bad now. Thanks for not paying attention BW. You screwed this up with a hasty launch.

Prior to the update you most likely would have been dead before you could have killed 2 turrets if there was a skiiled flashfire there so I don't get what you are complaining about.

You did something dumb and you died. What did you expect to happen ?

He probably expected the 2 bombers worth of AI weapons to miss as often as the pilots would miss if flying any other ship.

It's now tricky for a scout to burn down the turrets on a bomber infested sat. Prior to 2.6 it wasn't all that hard to clean out turrets even at 3:1 or 4:1 odds of defending ships (as long as they weren't gunships with upgraded ions). Liberal use of boost and rocket pods would get you in, kill a turret, and get you back out before people could land more than one shot on you.

Un-aimed proximity weapons though, don't have trouble with fast moving erratic targets.

The devs, or at least moderators that talk to the devs do indeed read this stuff. Given that they made a career of game design, there's a pretty good chance that they play it too.

 

If you make well considered and articulate posts about what you think problems are, and what you think solutions are, there's a decent chance that the devs will hear about it.

 

If and Only If, they agree with your assessment based on them probably knowing more about game design in general and definitely knowing more about this particular game AND your proposed change fits with their overall larger development plan for the evolution of the game, you may see the change you proposed or something very like it implemented in a future patch.

 

They definitely listened when it came to the nature of burst damage being disproportionately good, distortion field as an offensive cooldown, the relative value of evasion vs. shields, and the uselessness of ion missiles.

They also at least partially listened on ion railgun aoe spamming.

 

What they need to know is:

What's causing the effect, and why it isn't/can't be dealt with via existing counters.

How the effect is causing unbalanced or unpleasant gameplay.

If the problem is balance, some sort of theorycraft example illustrating what you think the nature of the problem is might help (getting your math right counts a lot in that case).

 

Oh, and in addition to being articulate, being reasonably polite probably helps too.

I totaly disagree with you. Patch 2.6a will be a nerfbat. Not because of well considered Posts. Just because of cancled subscribtions. Only a nice mail or call from a pissed EA Beancounter let the Devs jump to Lightspeed and react to their mistakes.

Because it's rarely just a drone or two that you're fighting. You're trying to fight off multiple enemies AND multiple drones and possibly the guns around the sats, and the damage comes very quickly. So you have to try to take out the drones/guns fast, but I typically find that by the time I've gotten 2 of them, I'm dead because someone else was free to line you up and your shields/hull are weakened from the drones.

 

The ability to defend areas is too strong now. Even if you show up in a Gunship the defenders are free to leave and nail you because they do not have to worry about leaving the Sat to get capped since it takes so much time and effort to clear it for a cap now.

Pike with a couple EMP missiles will take care of that in no time.

People seem to think the job of a scout is to attack a satellite. Guess what, that isn't your job - at least it isnt the job for a Flashfire.

Flashfires are interceptors. Their job is to rush forward and take out slower-moving targets on their way to objectives - not AT the objective.

Interceptors. Interception.

That is what they are for - not attacking satellites. That's what Strike Fighters are for.

I would tend to agree that there needs to be some balancing in regards to bombers, despite this I like how 2.6 changed the meta of GSF. Previously the battle space was open, you could gather near a node and try to defend it, but this involved intercepting enemy ships as they come in, sometimes they would get through snip the turrets kill the defenders and call it a day (Had a lot of experience on the giving end of this one) . Bombers are the entrenched defense, slow as balls covered in elephant hide and armed to the teeth.

I play mainly as a scout with burst lasers, I found out pretty quickly that attacking an objective or player with a full compliment of drones / mines is a very quick death. In fact without long range weapons the scout is not really capable of de-rooting a dug in bomber (not without very serious risk, if you survive you will be a smoking ruin)

But IMO this is fine, bombers are the rock to scouts scissors, even moreso than gunships (since good scouts dont stand still with a GS in range, they make em work for the shots) - A team working together and given enough time to setup can effectively take over an area and force the enemy team to make a coordinated push in order to remove them.

I don't call this overpowered, I call this tactics. And this game desperately needed some more of that. IMO it has gained something toward that goal, people need time to adjust to the new meta as it is literally a different game now with the bomber support role.

I see a lot of heavy handed deathmatch losses, but honestly I think this was expected. The skill gap really shows badly in deathmatch, good pilots shine and new / bad pilots tend to be the whipping boy(s). Not sure what can be done about this other than people learning from their mistakes / reading about builds strategy etc. But Domination on the other hand has become much more dynamic. I am seeing far less of the 3 cap wins and more 2 cap / defense games where both teams had a reasonable chance to win.

Bombers issues notwithstanding, I think they are a great addition. The devs now just need to do a little fine tuning, IMO engagement range for mines and drones could definitely be looked at, not mention the drones themselves could take a look or two before they are perfect. All in all still love the game, and loving the tactical aspect keeping me on my toes.

Pike with a couple EMP missiles will take care of that in no time.

Here's where I run into difficulty. EMP missiles are supposed to be designed to take out mines, turrets, and drones, but they suffer from some major flaws which hamper their abilities.

1. Range- The range of these missiles is too short to deal with railgun drones. By the time you're in range you've been nailed at least tonce (if not twice) by the can't miss drone, which leaves you vulnerable for a missile/mine/other player kill while you're still lining up your shot.

2. Lock-on time- again, too long considering what the purpose of this missile is. Flying into a mine/dronefield gets you nailed pretty quickly, even if there are no other ships around. The fact that you have to fly straight to get lock-on while drones target you with computer precision doesn't make for a very survivable encounter. And before someone says l2play noob why are you flying toward the dronefield? I'm just trying to use the EMP as intended- to take out an area of missles/drones.

These difficulties, added to the fact that it's harder to target drones until you've been hit by one and many gunships are using mine/dronefields as their new killing area reduce the effectiveness of the EMP missile dramatically, making them marginally useful at best.

Addressing either or both of these issues would make the EMP missle more viable for its intended purpose without making them OP (if used against ships, even fully upgraded, they are a little more than a nuisance). It's a shame because these missiles are supposed to be a balancing factor against creating an impenetrable mine/dronefield, but I often get blown out of the sky before being able to fire even one off. (Again, I'm sure I just need to lurn2plainoob, but I have been playing GSF from the start and have moderate success against all types of player ships, so it's frustrating to be taken down so quickly and consistently by AI-driven obstacles.)

(P.S. I will admit to finding one technique that serves as an occasional workaround- if I can get to a bomber while it's deploying or sometimes immediately after (depending on positioning), I can sometimes take out the mines/drones by targeting the bomber itself and letting the field do the work. This cannot be relied upon, however, as often the bomber has moved away from the field or has retreated into it, forcing you to face the drones and the bomber (and probably a GS or two) to get into range.)

Have I explained my situation correctly? I didn't want to come off as whining, but I probably have. I'm just saying that if you make a weapon that is a specific counter to another weapon, it should be designed in a way that gives it a fair chance to do its job.

Here's where I run into difficulty. EMP missiles are supposed to be designed to take out mines, turrets, and drones, but they suffer from some major flaws which hamper their abilities.

 

1. Range- The range of these missiles is too short to deal with railgun drones. By the time you're in range you've been nailed at least tonce (if not twice) by the can't miss drone, which leaves you vulnerable for a missile/mine/other player kill while you're still lining up your shot.

 

2. Lock-on time- again, too long considering what the purpose of this missile is. Flying into a mine/dronefield gets you nailed pretty quickly, even if there are no other ships around. The fact that you have to fly straight to get lock-on while drones target you with computer precision doesn't make for a very survivable encounter. And before someone says l2play noob why are you flying toward the dronefield? I'm just trying to use the EMP as intended- to take out an area of missles/drones.

 

These difficulties, added to the fact that it's harder to target drones until you've been hit by one and many gunships are using mine/dronefields as their new killing area reduce the effectiveness of the EMP missile dramatically, making them marginally useful at best.

 

My biggest issue with the EMP missile is actually its reload time. Flying my Pike, I put all power to shields, fly in on a fortified satellite, lock onto a defense turret (because they have the most hp and are most likely to still be alive at the end of my lock), let the missile fly, and barrel roll away, letting the rest of my team close in on the satellite while the drones/mines are disabled. Then I will come in again and do the same thing.

Range could be improved some yes, but I find with all power to shields and quick-recharge shields I can get in and out with only minimal damage.

There are a few buffs that the EMP missile could use - range and reload time are the most important ones. I don't have an issue with the lock-on time since I am locking onto a stationary target most of the time, so it isn't like it has a chance to get away from me.

Now see, your post did not come across as whining because you are addressing a legitimate concern regarding the viability of one of two options available for dealing with drones and mines. You present your argument without making demands or expecting bombers to take a nerf - you just want the EMP missile boosted to true viability. You also manage to do all this without threatening to quit, or questioning the intelligence of the game developers.

That isn't a whine. You see the difference?

... bombers are the rock to scouts scissors ...

While I generally agree with the statement, everytime I see it I wonder if the poster doesn't actually mean "bombers are the rock to tier 2 scouts scissors.

The tier 1 scout was an underdog before 2.6, and probably continues to be it post 2.6 as well (but I still think it's mostly because there's no game mood where its advantages - Shield to Engines, Sensor Component and Sensor Beacon - would truly shine). It got EMP Field as a weapon against bombers, but I think it's somewhat underwhelming weapon, because:

- it locks Systems component, and is mostly aimed at Domination; in Deathmatch, I'd like to have either Booster Recharge or Targeting Telemetry. Alas, there is only one tier 1 scout, so I cannot have two of them with different loadouts

- the cooldown, even when updated, is too long (though I understand it cannot be shorter due to secondary effects - the ones hitting ships)

- the range is too small - 3500 (when boosted with a tier 4 upgrade). Seeker mines have range of 4000.

The names of these craft are wrong, if you relabel them in your head everything becomes clear.

Scout == it's a light fighter designed to provide intelligence and surgical strikes, it's an F-16

Strike Fighter == Attack Fighter, Think A-10, this is what you use to take objectives.

Gunship == Heavy Fighter, We don't use these today really. This would be like a P-38 Lightning from WWII

Bomber == Gunship, This is the AC130, it provides heavy support to the F-16s and slow moving A-10s via working as a hub for comms and devastating amounts of support fire.

What is missing is an interceptor, Bioware has said we're going to get them. This would be the F-14, the bomber killer. For now the heavy fighter role is doing what the interceptor is for, rather than getting up on the bomber with speed and armor piercing ordnance it's doing it from a range.

While I generally agree with the statement, everytime I see it I wonder if the poster doesn't actually mean "bombers are the rock to tier 2 scouts scissors.

The tier 1 scout was an underdog before 2.6, and probably continues to be it post 2.6 as well (but I still think it's mostly because there's no game mood where its advantages - Shield to Engines, Sensor Component and Sensor Beacon - would truly shine).

I think the dummy rockets are a liftsaver.

But even if the tier 1 scout isn't as good as the tier 2 scout, it's not an underdog when you compare it to other ships. It's fast, maneuverable, and has decent damage. It's great at hunting down bombers and gunships. It's still useful for grabbing objectives. Because of its speed, it's often just as good at taking drones and mines as a striker.

I'd say that scouts, in general, are right where they ought to be, but strikers still need a bit of a buff.