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

QuinMantha's Avatar


QuinMantha
04.14.2014 , 03:32 PM | #21
Okay, I stand corrected. DoTs rather than burst damage.

I would think, though, that they'd probably want to keep the burst nature of mines in place. You know. Where they blow up. That kind of makes sense to me.
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 , 04:10 PM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by QuinMantha View Post
Okay, I stand corrected. DoTs rather than burst damage.

I would think, though, that they'd probably want to keep the burst nature of mines in place. You know. Where they blow up. That kind of makes sense to me.
It does to me too, but in Star Wars it makes more sense to fire a missile that deploys a bunch of robots which slowly dismantle a ship, rather than just firing a missile that blows up.
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."

Altheran's Avatar


Altheran
04.14.2014 , 04:36 PM | #23
I don't mind Interdiction Mines to do direct hull damage. I see them as the mine version of Sabotage Probe, and it does direct hull damage.

What I find bothersome, is that there's only few utility tax (area denial)/AoE tax on the damage of mines compared to the missiles they're based on...
When we compare EMP missile to Concussion or Proton, it suffers a 50-70% of the damage.
Maybe not all the mines should have such a drastic loss, but when we see Concussion Mine only suffering 10% compared to Concussion Missile, Interdiction Mine doing as good damage as Sabotage Probe, that leaves me wondering how nobody forsaw the bomber issue coming.


If I'd were allowed to change mines to my ideal, multiple mines of the said kind would forbidden unless talented. The dumb fire aspect would be counterbalanced with longer CD than the missile they're mimicking. Then would come an AoE damage tax.
Basically it would be :
- Seeker : Cluster damage - 10s CD
- Concussion : 70% of Missile damage - 15s CD
- Seismic : 60% of Proton damage - 20s CD
- Ion : 70% of missile damage - 20s CD
- Interdiction : 70% of probe damage (also half DoT) - 20s CD
Seismic in my example get an extra tax because Proton is not the average 3s-lock w/ medium firing arc.

Sure the mine layers would probably have an harder time playing in Deathmatch, especially if they're only relying on mines, and my ideal is probably not "good-to-go"... But it's not like they're that unplayable already.
A Razorwire, can get more than decent results in Deathmatch. It is clunky but not that bad.

Armonddd's Avatar


Armonddd
04.14.2014 , 05:13 PM | #24
Quote: Originally Posted by Altheran View Post
I don't mind Interdiction Mines to do direct hull damage. I see them as the mine version of Sabotage Probe, and it does direct hull damage.

What I find bothersome, is that there's only few utility tax (area denial)/AoE tax on the damage of mines compared to the missiles they're based on...
Yeah, interdiction mines currently do 2.4 times as much damage as sab probe.

That's over twice as much.

It's also all at once, so you have no chance to avoid dying or take out an enemy if you surprise seismic.
Space Ace of <Death Squadron>, <Black Squadron>, <Eclipse Squadron>, and <solo da>

Korithras's Avatar


Korithras
04.14.2014 , 06:20 PM | #25
Yet more proof of the fact that the best matches when it comes to GSF will always have few (if any) bombers or gunships in them. Because then it becomes what everybody always wanted to see: dogfighting. Not people playing snipers in gunships, and not people acting like engineers in TF2 letting their automated sentries doing all the work for them when up against a bomber.

Nemarus's Avatar


Nemarus
04.14.2014 , 06:45 PM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by Korithras View Post
Yet more proof of the fact that the best matches when it comes to GSF will always have few (if any) bombers or gunships in them. Because then it becomes what everybody always wanted to see: dogfighting. Not people playing snipers in gunships, and not people acting like engineers in TF2 letting their automated sentries doing all the work for them when up against a bomber.
Whether others agree with you or not, please try not to derail this thread with broader topics.

This thread is about Seismic and Interdiction Minelayers, and nothing else.

No amount of soapboxing is going to make the devs suddenly remove all Bombers and Gunships.

But targeted, measured feedback, with mathematical evidence, may get the devs to make desperately needed balance changes to the most egregious problems.

More posts does not make better.
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."

-Streven-'s Avatar


-Streven-
04.14.2014 , 07:31 PM | #27
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.

*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.
This, this, and so much of THIS! I'm mildly shocked that anyone flies into mines. They glow big and red. When you see a minefield you should slow down and shoot the mines. HLCs pop mines in one shoot from 6900m away. Quad lasers can do it from 5600m away. Once the mines are gone engage the poop bandit and take him out. Every time he poops shoot the mine first then continue ramming lasers up his tail pipe.

Anyone who flies close to a satellite when a bomber is present has some serious lack of tactical problem solving skills.

I do agree that the real issue with bombers in domination is the amount of time it takes to clear them out. You usually can't finish the job without his backup arriving first to run you off. Go ahead and nerf bombers but if people would figure out how to deal with them in general, they wouldn't be nearly so dominate in domination maps. .
Ben-sindu Harbinger

Armonddd's Avatar


Armonddd
04.14.2014 , 09:10 PM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by -Streven- View Post
This, this, and so much of THIS! I'm mildly shocked that anyone flies into mines. They glow big and red. When you see a minefield you should slow down and shoot the mines. HLCs pop mines in one shoot from 6900m away. Quad lasers can do it from 5600m away.
What scout uses HLCs or quads these days?

More importantly, what scout can shoot mines from the other side of the satellite?

Quote:
Once the mines are gone engage the poop bandit and take him out. Every time he poops shoot the mine first then continue ramming lasers up his tail pipe.
And in the meantime, he's stalling you -- and stalling means winning in domination.

Quote:
Anyone who flies close to a satellite when a bomber is present has some serious lack of tactical problem solving skills.
So we're being punished for playing the objectives in an objectives-based format, and that's not a bad thing?

...Seriously?

Quote:
I do agree that the real issue with bombers in domination is the amount of time it takes to clear them out. You usually can't finish the job without his backup arriving first to run you off. Go ahead and nerf bombers but if people would figure out how to deal with them in general, they wouldn't be nearly so dominate in domination maps.
You can't simply "deal with them in general". They head for a satellite, and they take it. If they don't actually flip it for their team, they cause massive amounts of disruption, often requiring two or three enemies to abandon their other fights and objectives to deal with the bombers.

A bomber on a point is, quite simply, unreasonably powerful. This is partly due to the fact that his weapons are overpowered, and partly due to the fact that sitting on a node is an ideal tactical position that requires zero skill to recognize or take advantage of. Say what you will about gunships, but finding a vantage point that's both out of the way and gives a clear view of the battle isn't always easy. Bombers, though? Just go sit on the point (which you're required to do anyway) and lol as your buttons kill everything.
Space Ace of <Death Squadron>, <Black Squadron>, <Eclipse Squadron>, and <solo da>

tunewalker's Avatar


tunewalker
04.14.2014 , 09:49 PM | #29
simple fix.... make capture radius 6km-8km.

Morgrid's Avatar


Morgrid
04.14.2014 , 10:47 PM | #30
Quote:
Alas, recently in another post on these forums, I described my build--someone on my server saw the post and quickly spread word of the build to the rest of the server.
And now Shayd, you see why I never talked about what build I used on my bomber?

Alas, I'm going to write up a nice long reply to this, but the gist of it is going to boil down to "people need to step outside of their comfort zone".
Darth ImperÓus of The Ebon Hawk.

Galactic Champion of "Chase the Bomber"