Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Domination on The Ebon Hawk is now a farce

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
Domination on The Ebon Hawk is now a farce

Morgrid's Avatar


Morgrid
04.14.2014 , 10:51 PM | #31
Quote: Originally Posted by tunewalker View Post
simple fix.... make capture radius 6km-8km.
Another simple fix: Make Interdiction mines a secondary weapon.
Darth ImperÓus of The Ebon Hawk.

Galactic Champion of "Chase the Bomber"

Verain's Avatar


Verain
04.15.2014 , 12:56 AM | #32
I see the type 2 battle scout class forums have isolated the next problem: a bomber on a node cannot be trivially soloed with skill laser cannons alone.

Clearly, since bombers already dominate the traditional scout roles:

Bombers move effortlessly between nodes.
Bombers have two missile breaks, like scouts.
Bombers have excellent maneuverability.
Bombers have amazing speed.
Bombers dominate at turn fights.
Bombers dominate at unpredictable burst damage.


Given all that, it's too much that a bomber can pop two mines on a node, and, if a type 2 battle scout happens to be asleep there, might actually bleed his own blood. If only there was some method to move away from a mine. If it perhaps had an onset time, or less than 10k explosion radius, you know, any of those.




Keep being upset, because as long as you've broken down the math on seismic and interdiction mines to "more than my hull", the only obvious conclusion is that the devs were incapable of adding these two numbers together and comparing the resultant sum to the hull of the type 2 battle scout. Since type 2 scouts can't get 29% damage reduction from armor and crewman (which works fully on mine damage), and can't take 20% extra health- in fact, the poor battle scout has NO OPTION but to gear fully for dogfighting supremacy with evasion stuff at all times. Since he has no other choice, he should obviously be super amazing at bombers despite having chosen to literally choose every single option to be as poor as possible.


And definitely the idea that maybe bombers are supposed to have a role in this game- something that is currently limited entirely to holding nodes- should be given no consideration.

Llama-Eight's Avatar


Llama-Eight
04.15.2014 , 03:48 AM | #33
Quote: Originally Posted by Armonddd View Post
What scout uses HLCs or quads these days?

More importantly, what scout can shoot mines from the other side of the satellite?
To me, this comes off as a complaint that you can't take on any given scenario in a particular ship/build. Maybe you should switch your Sting/FF's BLCs out to Quads? You'll be a lot more effective against mines.

Kalphitis's Avatar


Kalphitis
04.15.2014 , 03:53 AM | #34
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
And definitely the idea that maybe bombers are supposed to have a role in this game- something that is currently limited entirely to holding nodes- should be given no consideration.
Just because the bomber may be designed to hold nodes, doesn't mean it should have the discrepancies being discussed in this post. Bombers with concussion/seismic mines can hold satellites fine -- so why should somebody be able to choose interdiction/seismic instead for a significantly better advantage?

What you said Verain, is like saying "The Gunship was made to shoot targets at long distance, stop whining about it being overpowered." Well, yes, I agree -- but that didn't change the fact that one of its components was overpowered and has since been adjusted (and rightfully so).

Just like the Ion railgun, Seismic currently goes too far and needs toned down a bit.

tunewalker's Avatar


tunewalker
04.15.2014 , 04:46 AM | #35
Actually I dont know that seismic needs a tone down, as much as EMP weapons need a boost up. Currently no one takes these to become competitive they only do 180 damage (i know what the tool tip says, but i have never ever seen a fighter/bomber/gunship or anything save turrets take that level of damage from them so I refuse to say they do damage that simply put they dont do. Its not armor either as EMP is supposed to have 100% armor pen) Also they only lock out 1 mine and only for 15 seconds. The long lock time + laughable damage and debuff is why no one really takes EMP missiles if they want to be competitive.


Example: you could hit 8 people with an EMP missile and still only do 960 damage, thats less overall damage then any other missile at that range and lock time. Ion's litterally obliterate shields and Concussive hit for 1k. EMP same range assume ALL of your enemy group up to insane close distance and you manage to get a 3 second lock on time with out getting blown to bits and your reward.... still less damage then any other missile at that range and a minor anoyance to the enemy that will soon be gone.

Armonddd's Avatar


Armonddd
04.15.2014 , 05:04 AM | #36
Quote: Originally Posted by Llama-Eight View Post
To me, this comes off as a complaint that you can't take on any given scenario in a particular ship/build. Maybe you should switch your Sting/FF's BLCs out to Quads? You'll be a lot more effective against mines.
At the cost of doing extremely little to anything else in the game, yeah.

I don't mind when different lasers have different specialties, but the problem is that quad laser cannons and just plain regular laser cannons need a lot of support to provide anything near the level of firepower I need to do my job (which is, by definition of the scout chassis, to kill things dead quickly). That means I need to take rocket pods and targeting telemetry/blaster overcharge. Doing so means giving up booster recharge, which means I have to take barrel roll if I want any semblance of mobility.

That build was viable before 2.7, even though I hated it. Compared to a build with BLCs and booster recharge, it has more burst damage with cooldowns (and a lot less without), significantly less dogfighting capability (which is what I play this game for), and less than a third the mobility. Blackbolts can run a similar build, but because they have access to S/E converter, they lack mobility. Again, though, they're simply poor at fighting around any form of cover, which includes all objectives.

With the barrel roll nerf, there's just no reason to play it anymore, which means we're back to bombers hard countering scouts with very little effort or skill involved.

I would be almost OK with bombers being able to kill me with little chance of retaliation if it were hard to do so. As it is, these siege engines pick a point and I have to either burst them down before they get there (which is pretty hard and practically requires a crit streak), or I simply abandon that point. I can't use the range advantage from quads to pick off mines and then go for the bomber; either he's going to start shooting me with HLCs (which, against a scout, land a kill in about two and a half seconds, or about half the time it takes the scout to kill the bomber), or he's going to circle the satellite and stall until he gets his mines back, which resets the situation except his team now has more points.

You can't just say "oh, take different lasers and your problems will be solved". Changing laser choices on a T2 scout, with the exception of switching between RFLs and lights (which you shouldn't be doing), is a major decision that significantly impacts your playstyle and, thus, effectiveness.

Quads are pretty good at shooting mines out in the open and give you a range advantage when assaulting a point, sure; that doesn't mean they're good at shooting the bomber laying mines on the point. Scouts simply have no viable counters to a bomber that knows what he's doing.
Space Ace of <Death Squadron>, <Black Squadron>, <Eclipse Squadron>, and <solo da>

Akoga's Avatar


Akoga
04.15.2014 , 07:09 AM | #37
Quote: Originally Posted by Verain View Post
I see the type 2 battle scout class forums have isolated the next problem: a bomber on a node cannot be trivially soloed with skill laser cannons alone.
......
This guy gets it.

The game has evolved, try to keep pace.

Armonddd's Avatar


Armonddd
04.15.2014 , 07:15 AM | #38
Quote: Originally Posted by Akoga View Post
This guy gets it.

The game has evolved, try to keep pace.
Way to ignore the whole thread and only read the guy who ignored half the thread.
Space Ace of <Death Squadron>, <Black Squadron>, <Eclipse Squadron>, and <solo da>

Akoga's Avatar


Akoga
04.15.2014 , 07:26 AM | #39
Quote: Originally Posted by Armonddd View Post
Way to ignore the whole thread and only read the guy who ignored half the thread.
I read the whole thread. The gist is that people feel bombers are overpowered . I disagree with that. I feel the people complaining are most likely playing a ship and spec that is an an inherent disadvantage to bombers. I for example have no issues with bombers when I play them because I shoot their mines and find them to be tough to kill but balanced.

Eldrenath's Avatar


Eldrenath
04.15.2014 , 07:36 AM | #40
The one thing that I was going to keep my sub for in SWTOR once ESO came out was GSF. Bombers came out, made it drastically less fun, and my sub is now cancelled (I don't say this to open a discussion about ESO--I like it some do, others don't, I don't care about that. I'm talking about GSF here). Sure, I very well might come back to SWTOR in the future, it's a good game with a lot going for it. But were it not for bombers I'd have kept my sub active just to play GSF a few times a week. My favorite game style by far is domination, and it's simply not fun for me with bombers in the game.

I know some people like them, that's fine. And I was able to deal with bombers (I was no master but was able to compete with them by changing tactics, different builds, etc). But in addition to the imbalance described here, they just make the game dynamic much less fun in domination in my opinion. I play games to have fun, period. So, sub cancelled. As I said, I very well might come back to SWTOR--but if I do, I will not participate in GSF at all if it is in any way like it is now. It just isn't fun for me.