When me and armond discuss collision physics we mean ordinance cannot hit through otherwise invincible objects.

Except that's not what we're talking about in the quotes and you completely failed to quote and understand the following that I posted earlier:

MMO engines are, at this point, not designed for dynamic physics and dynamically destructible environments.

Dynamic physics are systems as seen in, to use an old example, Half-Life 2 to model realistic physical reactions between objects. Not hitscan attacks or simple geometric "am I in this aoe" modeling. The topic came up because armondd objects to the fact that satellites and asteroids don't get destroyed or damaged by mine explosions. They don't because of the game engine, and it's an intentional design decision.

I'm not posting specifically to disagree with you, and if you think I am your ego is enormous. I'm posting to argue with you because I think you're wrong and I think you're blind not to see the looming threat of battle scout dominance in a meta with vastly weakened bombers.

p.s. when a game uses hitscan to calculate whether projectiles hit, it assumes the projectiles travel at infinite speed in a perfectly straight line. It's not really physics, it's a programming shortcut that's much much easier to implement and model than actual ballistics.

That's why you can't run into stray laser fire in GSF. The visual effect of laser fire doesn't really exist, it's just an illusion meant to visually portray the attack that already hit.

Nem your forgetting that even before SIMs became a thing, back when Dronecarriers where all the rage. Type 2 scouts where not the kings of dominion. As I posted in another spot, as long a bombers exist scouts will not run rampant. The current SIM implementation is pure overkill.

Stacking Dronecarriers are a hard counter to BLC Scouts, yes. But a single Dronecarrier can be dealt with pretty easily. Get close enough to destroy its drone and it may not be able to summon another for up to a minute. Seeker Mines are still going to cause some attrition on the Scout, but not enough to stop it from BLCing the Dronecarrier to death.

Dronecarriers function more as a source of wide area of harassment/attrition, as opposed to a Minelayer which is a tight area of denial.

Because of LOS issues, the fastest way to kill any Bomber is with BLC's. A Minelayer can protect itself against that--a Dronecarrier can at best make you pay for it with some colored hull.

Really? How often does choosing to take the damage let you win the node?

It lets you hold the node for a few more seconds, which admittedly can be time for allies to back you up. But it also gives the bomber time for his allies to back him up.

You're right, though, it's an illusion of choice. Either way you lose. That's why it's a problem.

I am not suggesting abandoning the node, I am suggesting not flying into mines. There's a difference.

I mean, technically, yes.

Let's do a bit of math, shall we? The "capturable range" of a satellite is, maybe, 4 km wide x 4 km deep x 6 km tall. (I'm guesstimating, but I think those are reasonable, even generous, figures.) That's 96 km^3. I already calculated the space mines deny; compare their 65.4 km^3 blast "volume" to the 96 km^3 you have to hold the satellite. There's really not much room to maneuver there, and you certainly don't get much, if any, chance to dive towards the "safe zone" once the mine is released.

If you're on the point while the bomber is there, you're probably taking massive hull damage. If you're not, you're forfeiting it.

It's worth noting, on the side, that the satellite itself occupies a semi-cylindrical dead zone where neither the pilot nor the mine can go, so in actuality both the 96 km^3 and 65.4 km^3 figures are overestimates. Practically speaking, however, since mines don't respect line of sight, this has little effect on the situation.

The best response to a bomber is to shoot the bomber, but to do so without running over mines as if they give some kind of bonus points. It's not that difficult to outrange some of the shortest range weapons in the game. The problem is that shooting the bomber enough times to kill it with the weapons best suited to that task takes too long at a satellite because cover offers disproportionately good defense against those weapons.

Yes, certainly. However, this thread isn't about intercepting bombers on their way to the point (which is the best defense against any bomber, regardless of build); it's about how problematic this specific build is once it's on the point.

Outside of node control bombers are if anything, underpowered. For that reason a heavy nerf to their primary offensive capability seems unwise to me. It's sort of an overall mess. There's no place where there's an easy change that dials back a bomber's node defense ability without potentially crippling bombers elsewhere or giving other ship classes excessive power.

I agree that bombers need more defenses while they're not on the node (primarily in the form of mobility), and that cover is extremely strong defense against the main checks to bombers. As a matter of fact, I think a lot of ships just don't have good responses to fairly common situations (off the top of my head, T2 scouts vs bombers, bombers without cover, gunships vs high mobility foes, and T1 strikes when not defending a location), while others are simply too good at responding to other common situations (gunships vs foes with low hull or clustered around a node, bombers on the node, scouts' high mobility during a dogfight, BLC's extreme power in a dogfight). I'd like to see the advantages weakened and the disadvantages less crippling, ideally.

How do we go about changing bombers to that end? Making mines respect shields while boosting base bomber mobility would be a start. Buffing the bomber counters (by reducing the lock-on time for EMP missile and increasing the radius, at least against mines and drones, for EMP field) would also help.

It just rubs me real bad that a support class can do so well by completely ignoring anything related to team support. It's bad design in the sense that it takes a theme and doesn't stick with it.

Dying to a tactic purely because you're too stubborn to take readily available countermeasures is not indicative of the tactic being overpowered in game balance. Gross differences in survivability in an element of gameplay where survivability is a primary determinant of success is a problem.

None of the countermeasures are readily available. Once this bomber is on the point, he wins unless he is vastly outnumbered. That's overpowered. Transitioning from a patch where one attacker or defender can be countered by one enemy to requiring a minimum of two enemies to remove a threat is straight up power creep (in the more meta sense of the word). And this transition isn't just because of survivability; it's also because the bomber's offense is so good that he simply can't be countered by a single opponent unless the bomber flat out plays badly.

If the bombers were a bit more killable and the anti-bomber weapons worked this really wouldn't be a problem. Anyone not flying a type 2 scout would have a decent toolset available to challenge bomber controlled sats with a reasonable chance of success if they fly well. Type 2 scouts would still be screwed in that respect, but that's the predictable consequence of picking the worst possible ship build for the job, and similar to a bomber pilot complaining that they have trouble dogfighting in empty space.

Part of the problem with anti-bomber weaponry is that, with the exception of ion railgun, it's rather bad against anything else. EMP missile and EMP field just do not, in my experience, do very much when you're not fighting bombers. You also, unfortunately, only get one of each ship these components appear on; you can't have a burst damage Novadive and a Novadive with EMP field, for example, and that sucks for a lot of people. There's also a large cost associated with switching ships (dying [which grants the other team a point], waiting for respawn, and flying back).

Story time for those interested:

Whether strikes are viable (in the current meta) was not in question, the point is battle scouts are strictly superior at dogfighting. Why am I making this point?

 

Because dogfighting is the only type of combat strike fighters and scouts can engage in. Since battle scouts are objectively superior at it, it means that if there aren't credible threats to battle scouts outside of dogfighting, there's no reason to fly anything but a battle scout if a person wants to be competitive and not just a battle scout punching bag.

That's not true, though; strikes have a variety of roles they can fulfill that scouts can't, and not all of them involve dogfighting. T1 strikes are excellent at node defense (heavies/ions/concs/directional/turbo/range cap punches holes in things on the approach). T2 strikes have the munitions to reward skilled play (especially in group situations) by drawing out missile locks and punishing with torps. T3 scouts not only have a good chunk of mobility (I spent a lot of engine power chasing an Imperium with Power Dive last week, it was surprisingly difficult), but also heavy weaponry, strong defenses, and group healing, all of which again reward skilled group play.

When it comes to dogfighting, scouts reign supreme thanks to a combination of BLCs and enormous mobility (and even without BLCs, the Blackbolt/Novadive does similarly well with burst damage and mobility). I think the burst damage should be toned down, and I'm starting to think that things like boost recharger and S/E converter should be toned down. That doesn't mean that strikes can only engage in dogfighting combat; they have a number of other options they can do well at.

That's why I am against any measures taken to address threats to battle scouts - because of the impact it'll have on the meta if we don't also nerf battle scouts. [...] Would I like strikes to be able to contest battle scouts directly rather than relying on bombers and (to a lesser extent) gunships to hard counter them? Absolutely.

I completely agree with this. I would much rather, however, argue for fixes to the actual problems; reducing the power of BLCs and engine recharging abilities would make strikes a lot more viable, for example, and then we can stop having frustrating mechanics in the game. I'm fairly certain that the devs read (the front page of) most threads, so I think that finding solutions for the base problems and starting threads about them is the right thing to do.

They can't attack a defended node, they're too slow and you can see them coming a mile away. Virtually any ship type can intercept them on their approach and there's much less cover until they actually reach the satellite. I know, because I've done it on a speed scout with regular laser cannons and rocket pods.

But I do it all the time. I mean, yeah, in theory you can intercept them (and I do that a lot, too), but in practice, most people don't, and then they're on the node and blowing everything up and it's terrible. And I can't always blame them; if there's an enemy on the point, it's almost imperative that you stay on the point to defend it. Running out to intercept the bomber can lose the node.

You should probably re-read. The poster was not making your point.

I didn't say that he was.

Charged plating is not a choice I take on any ship. Overcharge shield, in my opinion, is strictly superior. I'm not interested in damage reduction in any sense in a world where all the best weapons have 100% armor pen - I'd rather have max HP and gigantic shield pools.

Charged plating is extremely strong against mines. It's silly that it's one of the only times it's worth considering as a component, but in the current meta that's enough to make it a viable option on the right build.

For the most part, overcharge shield will do you a lot more good. If you're specifically trying to take on another SIM bomber, though, overcharge shield does you approximately zero good (unless the other guy is weakened when you get there and you just need to survive non-bomber threats long enough to get out a set of mines).

And note you said drones are only good if pilots are stupid and ignore them - which pointedly isn't why I said drone carriers suck. Drone carriers suck because if a pilot has the attention span of a terrier he'll notice the drone and kill it in a few laser blasts and then it's on cooldown for a thousand years, as opposed to mines which have much shorter cooldowns. That's why they're worse at attacking and defending nodes.

Ignoring a drone is not a universally stupid decision. If you can kill the bomber quickly, and there's a good chance the drone isn't targeting you personally, or if a number of people are taking advantage of the bomber's support, taking out the bomber can do as much good as taking out four drones (repair drone, hyperspace beacon, railgun/missile/interdiction drone, plus the bomber itself is essentially a heavily armed and armored mobile defense turret). Further, I'd rather take out a gunship, BLC scout, or minelayer than a drone in most situations, which takes away some of my opportunities to shoot the drone.

I'm also not sure why "people leave the nodes up so they can handle other threats" doesn't address the point that "dronecarriers are bad at defense because their drones are so easily killed, which leaves them toothless". Please note that I don't disagree with that statement, though -- I just don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be.

I don't accept the premise that being a support ship precludes you from competing for the top of the leaderboards. So, no, I don't agree that only people who primarily rely on shooting things in their reticle are allowed to shoot for personal performance.

There's a huge difference between "you can optimize your personal performance" (which is a good thing) and "I'm going to play a class that's designed to support my team and never ever support my team" (which is directly against the design intent and comparable in mindset to spamming tracer missile to the exclusion of almost everything else). You don't bring a healer spec operative, commando, or sage to the game because you want him to DPS; you bring him so he can heal.

The only case in which I'll accept your premise that bombers are better off taking personal performance choices is in the case of hyperspace beacon.

This entire thread is about a build that ignores any semblance of team support in favor of selfish damage components so it can -- this is the important part -- do excessive amounts of damage. The whole point of this thread is that this bomber does better at playing solo than it does at playing in a group. If you want to disagree with that premise, that's fine -- but you've already admitted you haven't flown against them very much, so please forgive me if I take the word of TEH's aces (who regularly fight them) over yours.

I'd have no problem with the build if it sacrificed party support for piddly damage. But, as I said above, support classes should support -- you shouldn't bring them for non-support roles.

If you think it's a mistake you really don't know how mmos are made. MMO engines are, at this point, not designed for dynamic physics and dynamically destructible environments.

 

Why? Technical limitations. Games that have those features have servers that are typically not tracking the actions and variables of literally thousands of players. Physics take a pretty respectable chunk of processing power, so not incorporating them was a design decision made at the moment of the engine's inception.

The various game engines out there (both those designed for MMOs and those not designed for MMOs) are, as you say, not designed for dynamic physics. I'm not asking for dynamic physics (I never have) -- I'm asking for mines to respect line of sight. That's a very basic functionality that doesn't require much in the way of realtime processing. It should be doable in O(n) runtime (have a function call to check line of sight, and in that function check the spaces between the two objects for anything that would block line of sight; runtime increases linearly with distance), though I admit I've never worked with a game engine and so could be completely off.

You seem to think that when I said "AoE should either destroy an object or not go through it", I was asking for AoE to destroy objects. I assure you I was not. I was always asking for AoE to not go through objects because it didn't make sense. I really don't know why you picked up on the "let's make a physics simulator" thing and ran so far with it, but I'm done debating that.

As Ramalina said, trying to put realtime physics into the HeroEngine is an exercise in futility (though I think mines respecting line of sight would be closer to realtime physics than not), so I make my argument for mines respecting line of sight from the perspective that mines don't need to ignore line of sight to be dangerous. Line of sight should primarily be implemented because it would fix the current issue of mines having too much area denial, and for no other reason. If mines end up overall too weak with line of sight + shield damage, the reasons for this should be analyzed and addressed as appropriate. If they no longer deny significant areas of space, their radius can be improved or the line of sight change reverted. If they're simply not punishing enough for the space they do deny, their damage should absolutely be improved.

Also, nearly every instance of technical limitations can be attributed to the developers (or their bosses) not coding things more robustly (thus saving time and money) because the target audience is complacent enough to accept the limitations without complaint. If you look at World of Warcraft, for instance, you'll see a ton of limitations that people simply don't make noise about, and a ton of advances in areas where people do make noise. That's why I asked why we as gamers are ok with just saying "oh, it's a technical limitation, that's fine, we'll just shut up and deal with it".

So it's only okay that they can do a bunch of stuff you can't do when you're not arguing against them at this very moment.

No, object design and object implementation are two completely different things, honest. I have different problems with each.

I mean, this is game design 101 stuff, really -- questioning whether you should overhaul a problematic element or simply tweak the existing implementation.

My opinion is you're complaining about them because they're most effective against your favored ship type and it has colored your perspective.

While that's a very valid perspective (and possibly true, despite my best efforts), it's utterly unrelated to the basic design of mines and drones, which is what we were talking about.

Also, I really wish I didn't have to constantly remind people that I fly five different ship classes (T1 and T2 scout, T1 gunship, minelayer, and T2 strike), and am considering picking up the T3 strike as well.

Dogfighting is the only type of combat that exists in GSF in a GSF with ineffectual bombers and gunships. Bombers and gunships have to be threatening for battle scouts not to be the objectively best ship.

Literally zero people in this thread are asking for that, because that's not balance.

as long a bombers exist scouts will not run rampant.

hurr hurr hurr

Because of LOS issues, the fastest way to kill any Bomber is with BLC's. A Minelayer can protect itself against that--a Dronecarrier can at best make you pay for it with some colored hull.

One-third my hull is more than just "colored". Seekers and missile sentries force me to burn lock breaks I wanted to save for other things (such as defense turrets), and if there's a dronecarrier at the crowded satellites (mesas B/shipyards C), I'll hop on my gunship or bomber instead of my Flashfire. There's just too much noise going on to be worth the trouble as a scout (and I don't run EMP field on my Novadive because that means forfeiting TDM dominance, as you know).

I'm not saying don't buff dronecarriers; I'm just saying they're not pushovers, especially with support (which, you know, is the point of a support class).

also guys stop typing there's so much reading i have to do before responding

The various game engines out there (both those designed for MMOs and those not designed for MMOs) are, as you say, not designed for dynamic physics. I'm not asking for dynamic physics (I never have) -- I'm asking for mines to respect line of sight. That's a very basic functionality that doesn't require much in the way of realtime processing. It should be doable in O(n) runtime (have a function call to check line of sight, and in that function check the spaces between the two objects for anything that would block line of sight; runtime increases linearly with distance), though I admit I've never worked with a game engine and so could be completely off.

You persist in misreading the syllogistic logic presented, viz. "yes, AOE not damaging static objects is inconsistent with AOE passing through them, but that's OK because AOE damaging static objects would be too hard".

You persist in misreading the syllogistic logic presented, viz. "yes, AOE not damaging static objects is inconsistent with AOE passing through them, but that's OK because AOE damaging static objects would be too hard".

I have never played a game where damaging effects are allowed to pass through indestructible props to hurt things on the other side. Games that do not have support for destructible objects, simply do not allow player(s) to be killed through indestructible objects, because that causes a terrible player experience.

And trust me you can create vast diversity across different classes without resorting to having certain weapons ignoring fundamental mechanics that other weapons are forced to obey.

You persist in misreading the syllogistic logic presented, viz. "yes, AOE not damaging static objects is inconsistent with AOE passing through them, but that's OK because AOE damaging static objects would be too hard".

Did I not specifically say I don't care whether AoE damages static objects? Did I not bold that part? In the very section you quoted, no less?

Cause I was pretty sure I was asking for AoE to check LoS before dealing damage.

That could just be me, though.

I have never played a game where damaging effects are allowed to pass through indestructible props to hurt things on the other side.

False.

False.

It's true, Crinn, you've played GSF.

Quick Q, can Seeker Mines lock onto you through LOS? I'm just wondering how practical changing mines to not deal damage through LOS would be. I'm 99% certain that the other mines can pick up enemies through LOS.

If Seeker Mines can't lock onto you through LOS, that could be a way to make the rest of the mines not work through LOS without needing to rejigger them completely. Give them a lock-on window (can be 0 seconds probably) and a travel speed fast enough to be practically instantaneous.

It's true, Crinn, you've played GSF.

Aside from that, he's played the ground game. And a lot of FPSes also allow explosions to go through walls.

If you're on the point while the bomber is there, you're probably taking massive hull damage. If you're not, you're forfeiting it.

 

Yes, certainly. However, this thread isn't about intercepting bombers on their way to the point (which is the best defense against any bomber, regardless of build); it's about how problematic this specific build is once it's on the point.

That's why you don't stay close on the point. You give the mines their breathing room by running out and then turning around to shoot the bomber and maybe also the mines if you feel like it. Or if you can equip charged plating and you think bombers are too common in the meta equip it, use it and happily blast away while shrugging off the mines. When the bomber is dead, recapture the sat. It's much like dealing with a scout or strike that has better speed and/or maneuverability than your ship. If you hug the sat your chances of hitting them at all are very low. Solution: fly off the sat so you can get better LOS to them and then blast them out of the sky. Same principle applies for bombers except that the blasting out of the sky part takes far too long.

I agree that bombers need more defenses while they're not on the node (primarily in the form of mobility), and that cover is extremely strong defense against the main checks to bombers. As a matter of fact, I think a lot of ships just don't have good responses to fairly common situations (off the top of my head, T2 scouts vs bombers, bombers without cover, gunships vs high mobility foes, and T1 strikes when not defending a location), while others are simply too good at responding to other common situations (gunships vs foes with low hull or clustered around a node, bombers on the node, scouts' high mobility during a dogfight, BLC's extreme power in a dogfight). I'd like to see the advantages weakened and the disadvantages less crippling, ideally.

 

How do we go about changing bombers to that end? Making mines respect shields while boosting base bomber mobility would be a start. Buffing the bomber counters (by reducing the lock-on time for EMP missile and increasing the radius, at least against mines and drones, for EMP field) would also help.

 

All good points, though a lot of them are probably 'close enough' for balance purposes.

It just rubs me real bad that a support class can do so well by completely ignoring anything related to team support. It's bad design in the sense that it takes a theme and doesn't stick with it.

The minelayer is really a very poor ship for support. The SIM build is reasonably support oriented for a minelayer (they are using debuffing mines though I doubt most people notice that), all it really lacks is hyperspace beacon and Shield Projector, both of which are pretty situational and can reasonably be not chosen when making a minelayer build even if you come up with something to do other than hang around satellites.

None of the countermeasures are readily available. Once this bomber is on the point, he wins unless he is vastly outnumbered. That's overpowered. Transitioning from a patch where one attacker or defender can be countered by one enemy to requiring a minimum of two enemies to remove a threat is straight up power creep (in the more meta sense of the word). And this transition isn't just because of survivability; it's also because the bomber's offense is so good that he simply can't be countered by a single opponent unless the bomber flat out plays badly.

Distance is readily available, charged plating and other sources of damage reduction are moderately available, and armor ignoring weapons are readily available. Bomber offense is not good. Assume that you pick a fight with each ship type in GSF where your only objective is to survive. The two easiest opponents are the minelayer and the dronecarrier, in fact they are trivially easy to survive unless you're also flying a bomber.

I'll also note that a skilled sat humper is close enough to impossible to dislodge solo that as a practical matter you want more than one ship to take a sat held by a single ship even in a bomber free environment.

Part of the problem with anti-bomber weaponry is that, with the exception of ion railgun, it's rather bad against anything else. EMP missile and EMP field just do not, in my experience, do very much when you're not fighting bombers. You also, unfortunately, only get one of each ship these components appear on; you can't have a burst damage Novadive and a Novadive with EMP field, for example, and that sucks for a lot of people. There's also a large cost associated with switching ships (dying [which grants the other team a point], waiting for respawn, and flying back).

Personally I find that the CC properties of EMP field and EMP torpedo are pretty powerful against single targets even if not bombers. You have to build and fly for CC centric play for that to really work though. If you take them as a single anti-bomber components in an otherwise general dogfighting build the CC from them doesn't have any other CC to stack with while you're working on getting the kill. The CC builds don't always overlap perfectly with dedicated anti-bomber builds, but bombers are so reliant on cooldowns for their god-mode survivability that the CC builds are still much stronger against a bomber than a general dogfighting build would be.

I can see how if you love burst centric high mobility ships that's not a very satisfying answer, but if that's your preference, GSF incarnations of bombers are probably always going to be highly frustrating for you. They're basically designed to shrug off burst damage.

That's not true, though; strikes have a variety of roles they can fulfill that scouts can't, and not all of them involve dogfighting. T1 strikes are excellent at node defense (heavies/ions/concs/directional/turbo/range cap punches holes in things on the approach). T2 strikes have the munitions to reward skilled play (especially in group situations) by drawing out missile locks and punishing with torps. T3 scouts not only have a good chunk of mobility (I spent a lot of engine power chasing an Imperium with Power Dive last week, it was surprisingly difficult), but also heavy weaponry, strong defenses, and group healing, all of which again reward skilled group play.

 

When it comes to dogfighting, scouts reign supreme thanks to a combination of BLCs and enormous mobility (and even without BLCs, the Blackbolt/Novadive does similarly well with burst damage and mobility). I think the burst damage should be toned down, and I'm starting to think that things like boost recharger and S/E converter should be toned down. That doesn't mean that strikes can only engage in dogfighting combat; they have a number of other options they can do well at.

I suspect that Fridge is using a definition of dogfighting (and a legitimate one at that) where any starfighter vs starfighter combat is counts as a dogfight. The only things in GSF that wouldn't count as dogfighting would be killing sat turrets and capital ship turrets. If you take that view of what constitutes dogfighting then GSF is basically free of multirole play. They'd likely have to introduce PvE elements for there to be things like escort, strike, S.E.A.D., D.E.A.D., and EW roles. For that matter they'd probably have to introduce new components/ships and new mechanics as well.

If there was true multi-role in GSF both strikes and the more recon oriented builds of scouts would be a lot stronger than they currently are. I think that's probably wall of crazy stuff for now though, maybe in a spot that corresponds to parts of Hoth or Tattoine when it comes to being far, far away. Lacking multi-role, countering bombers seems to be the intended substitute when it comes to things for strikes and less bursty scouts to be better than average at doing.

Aside from that, he's played the ground game. And a lot of FPSes also allow explosions to go through walls.

False, in the ground game objects block AoE effects.

False, in the ground game objects block AoE effects.

We've been over this already. With rare exceptions they do not. If you want to test this try dropping an AOE on one side of the pillar in Alderaan.

False, in the ground game objects block AoE effects.

Not *all* AoE effects are blocked AFAIK. I'm 95% sure Twin Saber Throw (a conal attack, so not a typical AOE) goes through walls, although you need to have LoS on the enemy you have targeted. I've accidentally pulled mobs on the other sides of walls when I've gotten careless with that ability. Also, I know Dreadtooth has a conal attack that goes through walls, since I've died to it several times in Section X when a group was fighting him on the other side of a wall.

But still, I've always thought having AOE attacks, whether Ion Rail or mines, go through solid objects was strange.

Not *all* AoE effects are blocked AFAIK. I'm 95% sure Twin Saber Throw (a conal attack, so not a typical AOE) goes through walls, although you need to have LoS on the enemy you have targeted. I've accidentally pulled mobs on the other sides of walls when I've gotten careless with that ability. Also, I know Dreadtooth has a conal attack that goes through walls, since I've died to it several times in Section X when a group was fighting him on the other side of a wall.

 

But still, I've always thought having AOE attacks, whether Ion Rail or mines, go through solid objects was strange.

Well that's more to do with how the engine calculates it. The way it seems to work is that if you where to throw your sabers straight into a wall/fence they will not hit anything on the far side, however it they are thrown towards say the edge of the wall so that a portion of the cone isn't blocked then the game considered the entire AoE to be unblocked. The exception is the Novare Coast bunker which is impervious to everything.

Either way I'd still prefer the spotty ground AoE collision over the current model where a mine that tucked so far into the recess on the satellite so that it is covered on all but one side, can explode and hit everything on every side of the sat.

We've been over this already. With rare exceptions they do not. If you want to test this try dropping an AOE on one side of the pillar in Alderaan.

I'm not counting the number of time I don't hit with AoE (and not have been) in Alderaan because of using the perfect spot where the character has perfect LoS break.

A necro on Halloween, how fitting.

Ya that's 2 in 3 days. You can feel the spirit

The trending of bombers in domination is really surprising. Even during Stock Night, it was clear that bombers had a decided advantage over the other stock alternatives. I wonder how this is faring over on The Ebon Hawk? Do situations like this come up with any regularity?

I had some serious issues killing the bombers that where cycling around the satellites like a turd in a loo. They kept dropping mines that I had to dodge before I could put 40 stock missiles into their hull for a kill. It took so long and I got dizzy from those downward spirals. They should remove bombers, what will happen to people with astigmatisms? All those patterns will cause them to get dizzy and fall off their chairs! This is not just a bad thing for GSF but for world wide health! You don't want people with astigmatisms falling off chairs!