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

Itkovian's Avatar


Itkovian
04.14.2014 , 12:48 PM | #11
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
The point of this thread isn't to say nothing can kill a single one of these Bombers ... it's to say that it's far easier and better for your team to just fly one of these Bombers than anything else in Domination. It's the best counter to itself, and it shuts down a large swath of ships/builds with minimal skill/upgrades/effort required. The component choice does 80% of the work for you.
Agreed. The issue here isn't that they can't be killed, but that they are extremely effective at their role while requiring almost no skill to use effectively (its mostly down to knowing how to LOS the gunships). Meanwhile, they require extensive skill to dislodge, so there is a massive disparity in skill required.

All in all, the suggestions for Seismic/Interdiction mine seem most sensible, particularly the Interdiction one (it is astounding that they do direct hull damage, quite frankly, given their primary effect).

An excellent post as always, Nem.

Armonddd's Avatar


Armonddd
04.14.2014 , 12:48 PM | #12
Also don't see why seismics need 100% shield piercing. They're basically dumbfire protorps with massive area denial capabilities... in exchange for about a third the range, which is ok because you don't need huge range with area denial.
Space Ace of <Death Squadron>, <Black Squadron>, <Eclipse Squadron>, and <solo da>

Elly_Dawn's Avatar


Elly_Dawn
04.14.2014 , 01:26 PM | #13
with one of the main GSF Devs having espoused his love of the Bomber on video, as his favorite ship, i doubt very seriously that we will ever see anything get any kind of advantage over the bomber... nor will it ever take a hit from the Nerf Bat, sadly...
if all the great fashion designers have gone over to the Darkside, then i will too...
Jedi Covenant: The Ashtear Legacy:

Elhaym - Shadow / Shinoa - Scoundrel
Dawnaria - Assassin / Adawn - Mercenary / D'jour - Operative

DresG's Avatar


DresG
04.14.2014 , 01:35 PM | #14
Quote: Originally Posted by Nemarus View Post
But do the devs? We've been telling them this since October of last year in closed beta.
I think they do, at least partially. Class stacking used to be a big problem on PvP, its not such a big issue right now. Maybe someday they will be able to reduce the effectivity of certain ships stacking (GS and bombers), its too bad that this will probably mean nerfs instead of a cap on the number of GS and bombers allowed during a match relative to the amount of players.

General_Brass's Avatar


General_Brass
04.14.2014 , 02:00 PM | #15
First world problems I guess ?

Yesterday, I was leveling up a new character on Prophecy of the Five, and must have had 10 domination matches where my side didn't even have a bomber to field. The other side would have 3+.

Complaining about individual ship balance in GSF, to me looks like complaining about the flower arrangements on the Titanic. 95% of the time the teams are so unbalanced you can tell who will win before the battle starts. Just poor game design.

Ramalina's Avatar


Ramalina
04.14.2014 , 02:12 PM | #16
I realize that the traditional scout approach to sat circlers has been to swoop around the sat in close range high speed pursuit. However, unless you are trying to maximize the sex appeal of your flight pattern to barn swallows, that has never been the best solution to sat humpers except on C in Lost Shipyards.

The effective way to clobber sat circlers is to take two or more ships with medium or long range weapons, and do a pincher maneuver in the vertical plane. Do it correctly, and the sat circler will always be in the field of fire of either the top side group or bottom side group of your sat clearing team. Fin weaving can still make missile locks a pain, but it doesn't do much good against blasters and railguns.

Mind you, I'm not disputing that it's a disproportionately large pain in the rear to dislodge a swarm of minelayers, but with C at Lost Shipyards a possible exception, some of you have been exaggerating the impossibility of doing it with anything other than an equal swarm of minelayers. Maybe even exaggerating the difficulty.

As far as the lack of oomph from the anti-mine components, I'd fully agree that they could use a buff. Standoff range and length of effect seem to be the most common requests. Not sure that lingering effects would be easy to work out balance wise though. I'd start with a hefty buff to range/radius, say 10-30% and then work from there.

"Damn the torpedoes. ... go ahead. ... full speed.", has never been a particularly wise approach to dealing with minefields for those that are explosion averse. They are supposed to hurt if you fly into them.

*Edit
As a primarily strike fighter pilot I sort of feel like scouts and gunships 'normal' flying styles aren't well suited to dealing with mined sats. Basically, I've been going vertical on humped sats since about a week after early access for subscribers started, so I don't normally run into mines on my strikes. Hop, in my scouts, and it does happen, but it happens 'cause I'm derping along in scout mode rather than flying intelligently. Usually kissing a mine or two is enough to wake me up and start thinking again, at which point they're no longer a problem.

*Edit some more

What bombers really do from my view, is slow down clearing a sat to the point that it's relatively easy to reinforce the sat faster than it can be cleared. Spread out all the nodes by another 20 - 50 km and I probably wouldn't be bothered by them at all because the reinforcements would arrive too late. I guess you'd have to triple the length of the matches or something too. So bad solution, but I think time to flip node is actually much more of a problem than scouts using a LemmingsTM approach to mine clearing.
"A padawan's master sets their Jedi trial, Rajivari set mine."
- Zhe Lian, Sage.

Twitch

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
04.14.2014 , 02:39 PM | #17
Quote: Originally Posted by Ramalina View Post
I realize that the traditional scout approach to sat circlers has been to swoop around the sat in close range high speed pursuit. However, unless you are trying to maximize the sex appeal of your flight pattern to barn swallows, that has never been the best solution to sat humpers except on C in Lost Shipyards.

The effective way to clobber sat circlers is to take two or more ships with medium or long range weapons, and do a pincher maneuver in the vertical plane. Do it correctly, and the sat circler will always be in the field of fire of either the top side group or bottom side group of your sat clearing team. Fin weaving can still make missile locks a pain, but it doesn't do much good against blasters and railguns.

Mind you, I'm not disputing that it's a disproportionately large pain in the rear to dislodge a swarm of minelayers, but with C at Lost Shipyards a possible exception, some of you have been exaggerating the impossibility of doing it with anything other than an equal swarm of minelayers. Maybe even exaggerating the difficulty.

As far as the lack of oomph from the anti-mine components, I'd fully agree that they could use a buff. Standoff range and length of effect seem to be the most common requests. Not sure that lingering effects would be easy to work out balance wise though. I'd start with a hefty buff to range/radius, say 10-30% and then work from there.

"Damn the torpedoes. ... go ahead. ... full speed.", has never been a particularly wise approach to dealing with minefields for those that are explosion averse. They are supposed to hurt if you fly into them.

*Edit
As a primarily strike fighter pilot I sort of feel like scouts and gunships 'normal' flying styles aren't well suited to dealing with mined sats. Basically, I've been going vertical on humped sats since about a week after early access for subscribers started, so I don't normally run into mines on my strikes. Hop, in my scouts, and it does happen, but it happens 'cause I'm derping along in scout mode rather than flying intelligently. Usually kissing a mine or two is enough to wake me up and start thinking again, at which point they're no longer a problem.
I'm quite familiar with Strikes who think they can dislodge my Razorwire by flying above/below. Know what I do to them? Pivot down for a moment, power up Overcharged Shields, and open up on them with my HLC. As they hit me, I dump engine power into shields.

Unless they are using Directional, a Large Reactor, Power to Shields crew passive, and have their shields angled forward, I have far more shields than they do, and I replenish several hundred every 6 seconds using my engine energy. I'm also far less exposed to other enemy fire than they are. Most likely, I will win.

And if they don't have a buddy on the other side of the satellite, then I won't even bother engaging--I'll just flip sides.

Time is victory in Domination. As long as a Bomber can delay delay delay, it is winning. It holds the node for longer, and it gives its allies more time to come to its aid. And as long as it takes 2+ pilots with skill and coordination in one ship to counter 1 Bomber flying in derp-mode, Bombers will always have the advantage.
Shayd / Callem / RK-4X / "Trynt" - Leader of <Eclipse Squadron>, The Ebon Hawk
http://EclipseSquadron.enjin.com Imperial GSF-focused guild

"Serve the Emperor above all others."

QuinMantha's Avatar


QuinMantha
04.14.2014 , 02:53 PM | #18
A well-reasoned approach to an interesting problem, Nem.

I'm bound to agree with the whole 'pick one' response to Seismics. Maybe expand it to 'pick two', given that I'm not sure precisely how a fix would work that would limit it to a single one of those options. The bursty nature of mines pretty much precludes other potential reworks.

Also, to address a concern higher up in the posting, I'm confident that Chris and the development team at Austin can put away their personal preferences to address what is being cogently, thoughtfully, and without emotional import referred to them as a potential problem.

I think I also agree with the extension of satellite capture range, but only to an extent. It is pretty much always going to be advantageous to tuck right up into the fins for a measure of cover, and there's always going to be a need to pry people out of there. While this would allow players to put the satellite into jeopardy without risking close-combat mine-flavored death, somebody's still going to have to crowbar that Bomber out of there, else the extended range for capture will only serve to the Bomber's Team's advantage, since now, reinforcements can come to the rescue sooner by benefit of the increased range.

What about, instead, giving defense turrets a counter to enemy campers? Maybe a tractor beam to yank them out of where they don't belong? No idea if it could be made to work, but I do like the idea of more active and dangerous turrets. (Of course I say that from 15k off...)
Ebon Hawkin' And Totally Rockin'

- Cmdr. Rhint Mantha, Jedi Knight, <Blue Squadron>
- Mjr. Galbaldy Mantha, Trooper
- Tsun'pahn, Bounty Hunter and Smuggler

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
04.14.2014 , 03:08 PM | #19
Quote: Originally Posted by Elly_Dawn View Post
with one of the main GSF Devs having espoused his love of the Bomber on video, as his favorite ship, i doubt very seriously that we will ever see anything get any kind of advantage over the bomber... nor will it ever take a hit from the Nerf Bat, sadly...
Quote: Originally Posted by QuinMantha View Post

Also, to address a concern higher up in the posting, I'm confident that Chris and the development team at Austin can put away their personal preferences to address what is being cogently, thoughtfully, and without emotional import referred to them as a potential problem.
I respect Chris and what he has helped create too much to assume he'd intentionally turn a blind eye because of any personal class favoritism.

Also, the general impression I got from the stream was that Chris favors support roles and objective play, and at the time Bombers best fit that preference.

But the Bomber we're discussing here (Seismic/Interdiction) is not a support class. It is built for direct ship-killing offense and individual durability. It doesn't have Repair Drone, Shield Projector or Hyperspace Beacon, as taking any one of those would mean it could not have the same offensive and individual defensive potential. Instead it's a one-man node-taker in which I can routinely rack up 15+ kills, not to mention dozens of assists.

And ironically, this ship, more than any other, is the one that is so good at objective control that it disturbs the balance of Domination (the objective mode), but is not that useful in Deathmatch.

Right now TDM is actually quite well balanced--all ship types can perform well. I would think Chris would want the same to be true of Domination.
Shayd / Callem / RK-4X / "Trynt" - Leader of <Eclipse Squadron>, The Ebon Hawk
http://EclipseSquadron.enjin.com Imperial GSF-focused guild

"Serve the Emperor above all others."

Armonddd's Avatar


Armonddd
04.14.2014 , 03:28 PM | #20
Quote: Originally Posted by QuinMantha View Post
I'm bound to agree with the whole 'pick one' response to Seismics. Maybe expand it to 'pick two', given that I'm not sure precisely how a fix would work that would limit it to a single one of those options. The bursty nature of mines pretty much precludes other potential reworks.
AoE dot with no shield piercing. Bam.

Single target dot with shield piercing. Bam.

Single target splode with no shield piercing. Bam.
Space Ace of <Death Squadron>, <Black Squadron>, <Eclipse Squadron>, and <solo da>