I held off this post to try to embrace GSF but you devs ruined it with the bombers. I use to love playing GSF and was a hardcore player of it now i dont wanna know it is even in the game thanks a lot for ruining the one aspect of pvp i love.

WTG bioware F for effort

why dont you just ruin operations too so i can go play something else not made by you guys

God I wish we could embed in this forum

I held off this post to try to embrace GSF but you devs ruined it with the bombers.

So you managed to hold off posting for nine months and now decided to come here to spew the usual battlescout nonsense about how bombers ruined the game. That's mighty commendable of you, it's just too bad for the rest of us that your epic restraint now finally fell apart.

I use to love playing GSF and was a hardcore player of it now i dont wanna know it is even in the game thanks a lot for ruining the one aspect of pvp i love.

I used to be so hardcore but then I took a seismic mine to the hull.

F for effort

True, totally an F just not the way you think it is.

Might even make tabloid history. Can you imagine the headlines?

Stunning Discovery In Star Wars The Old Republic:

" Seismic mine exploded in my face and knocked me out for nine whole months!"

- Shocked players report on total imbalance in Galactic Starfighter.

SWTOR: Hot Topic!

"Debate of the Season: Gunships or Bombers, which are worse?"

- Read up on the hottest debate this winter.

Follow us on #ninemonthslate, #gunsheep and #lamecampers. Facebook at facebook.com/HowToRuinGSF. Instagram and tumblr featuring the worst unbalanced matches up shortly.

I held off this post to try to embrace GSF but you devs ruined it with the bombers. I use to love playing GSF and was a hardcore player of it now i dont wanna know it is even in the game thanks a lot for ruining the one aspect of pvp i love.

 

WTG bioware F for effort

 

why dont you just ruin operations too so i can go play something else not made by you guys

Ok, I'll bite.

What about bombers in particular bothers you? Perhaps we can offer you some strategies to help you counter them. Because aside from the few top-tier bomber pilots out there, they aren't really hard to deal with - if you know what you're doing. Lots of folks in this forum are VERY knowledgeable and would be happy to assist.

Ok, I'll bite.

 

What about bombers in particular bothers you? Perhaps we can offer you some strategies to help you counter them. Because aside from the few top-tier bomber pilots out there, they aren't really hard to deal with - if you know what you're doing. Lots of folks in this forum are VERY knowledgeable and would be happy to assist.

Hey!!! I ressent that!!!! I'm no top tier and can still kick asses on my bombers!!! My gunships.... My scouts....... My strikes.................

all the things

This post is so good, it makes this thread worthwhile. Solid punt of OP's class QQ post.

I think the funniest thing is that the bombers have been out for basically the whole of the game's existence. They came out like 10 months ago for a 12 month old game or something? Maybe 9? I dunno. The game before bombers was so much worse. Battle scouts are still heroes, but at least there is a way to deny them an area now.

But it's just funny that he was, I guess "hardcore" for like a month, and then had it "ruined" by bombers, and like four whole new ships later he decides to show up and make this post.

Anyway, turning this into a "how to play against bombers" thread seems ambitious. Most of our "how to play against bomber" threads become class QQs within a page though, so I guess coming into a class QQ thread and reversing the trend isn't a bad idea.

Here's my advice: If a bomber is in space, go towards him and hurt him. If he drops mines, fly away from those. If he drops drones, line of sight those. A bomber can't outrun or out turn anything in the whole game, and as such he is very vulnerable when sprinting around places, but has weapons that deny an area once he is in a place he wants to defend. This means you can use area attacks and EMP weapons to dislodge the bomber, or you can use a special bomber build that is good against other bombers but generally weaker against most other ships as part of a team to push bombers away.

Hey!!! I ressent that!!!! I'm no top tier and can still kick asses on my bombers!!! My gunships.... My scouts....... My strikes.................

lol, you're being modest. i'm not sure i've ever actually seen you play a bomber, but you're knowledgeable enough about the game such that I'm sure you're just as solid on those as you are on a GS (I think that's the only ship type I've seen you play regularly, though I know you play everything).

Fact is, most bombers are bad. Or, if not exactly bad, then not good enough to avoid the kind of simple strategies Verain describes above. Conservatively, I'd say 80% of bombers are fairly easy to deal with if you know what you're doing.

I don't think bombers are bad at all. In fact, I think they are extraordinarily vital support. The girl bomber features soft denial of large areas plus heals in way that signals to players silently that an area is worth being in- friendly players see the heals and realize that they can get healed, but also that a taunt drone has been placed and will soon attract some targets, enemy players don't want to let a nest sit there. If the rest of your team is terribad they will ignore those weak little drones and try to find corners of the map to get shot by gunships in, but if they instead realize that the topography of that area is VERY DIFFERENT than before the drones are placed, then suddenly things are going to go better.

Meanwhile, boy bombers features hard denial of small areas plus the amazing h-beacon (which isn't even worth equipping if your team is derp, but can, if placed correctly, swing a game for sure), placing the very few weapons in the game that ignore the insanely evasive scout defenses and providing an area where they can't freely enter and must instead take out the mines via a more circuitous route (for instance, flying down below a vane, then back up and popping the mine at max range). This prevents them from bringing their mighty burst to bear without effort. They also feature a charged plating build which makes them completely invincible versus certain attack types, including the otherwise dominant cluster missiles and enemy mines, but at the cost of being very vulnerable to weapons with armor ignore, such as pods, BLC, and slug, and greatly vulnerable to thermites.

Finally, the baby bomber is a fun heavy fighter, with mines or a drone to give a bit of extra survival versus scouts and the ability to fight at medium range in open space like a strike fighter. This ship actually is an interesting niche in the meta, because it's one of the few ships that is kind of threatening to a flashfire that the flashfire can't just walk away from and be totally and completely safe, while also being enough of a target that a strike fighter is an interesting and generally strong choice against it. A solid ship, but not really in the league of the other two.

I really like what bombers add to the game. What ticks me off is players who fly into stationary targets such as mine and drone range, or who stick around right behind a bomber who is pooping those things out, get vaporized, and then complain. It's not like these are drones in the sense of actual things that have AI. They are entirely predictable state machines that are fully stationary.

lol, you're being modest. i'm not sure i've ever actually seen you play a bomber, but you're knowledgeable enough about the game such that I'm sure you're just as solid on those as you are on a GS (I think that's the only ship type I've seen you play regularly, though I know you play everything).

 

Fact is, most bombers are bad. Or, if not exactly bad, then not good enough to avoid the kind of simple strategies Verain describes above. Conservatively, I'd say 80% of bombers are fairly easy to deal with if you know what you're doing.

You saw me on Bastion on Ela'iza.

@Verain - I'm not sure if you were responding to me, and my comment that most bombers are bad - but just to clarify, I meant that most bomber pilots are bad. That is, they're frequently easy kills if you apply some common sense (which is the point I was trying to make to OP). I completely agree that all three bomber types are good ships...when piloted by people who have a clue, and know how to use them.

Personally I literally never flew bombers at all until about a month ago. I think I had a total of four bomber matches under my belt at that point. They just seemed slow and boring to me...I'd rather zip around in a scout or put up stupid numbers in a GS.

Anyway, several weeks ago I watched one of JC's better bomber pilots in action (hi Sal!) and became inspired to give it a try. These days you're as likely to see me in a bomber as anything else. They're actually fun, especially the T3, or the girl bomber when played aggressively.

You saw me on Bastion on Ela'iza.

Yes, but as we established, I had no idea that was you at the time. And it was only, like, 4 games - I don't even remember what you were flying.

@Verain - I'm not sure if you were responding to me, and my comment that most bombers are bad - but just to clarify, I meant that most bomber pilots are bad. That is, they're frequently easy kills if you apply some common sense (which is the point I was trying to make to OP). I completely agree that all three bomber types are good ships...when piloted by people who have a clue, and know how to use them.

 

Personally I literally never flew bombers at all until about a month ago. I think I had a total of four bomber matches under my belt at that point. They just seemed slow and boring to me...I'd rather zip around in a scout or put up stupid numbers in a GS.

 

Anyway, several weeks ago I watched one of JC's better bomber pilots in action (hi Sal!) and became inspired to give it a try. These days you're as likely to see me in a bomber as anything else. They're actually fun, especially the T3, or the girl bomber when played aggressively.[/QUoTE]

 

Try a boy bomber.. Offensively they are deadly.

 

Yes, but as we established, I had no idea that was you at the time. And it was only, like, 4 games - I don't even remember what you were flying.

 

Bombers.

Try a boy bomber.. Offensively they are deadly.

That's why I hate them.

I have been trying one out, but I never get much done with my own bomber.

That's why I hate them.

 

I have been trying one out, but I never get much done with my own bomber.

It takes a while to get good at it... But a Rempart with CP, Seismic, Conc or Inter, HLC can solo cap most of the time. Give him a gunship support to pawn scouts and other Sheeps and he will do it in time.

@Verain - I'm not sure if you were responding to me, and my comment that most bombers are bad - but just to clarify, I meant that most bomber pilots are bad.

I don't think there's any skill difference between the average bomber pilot and the average anything else pilot. That doesn't mean I disagree- I think that plenty of pilots will let you get behind them, not see the tactical play, etc.

Good to hear you trying out the bomber. I really think all the class playstyles in this game are great.

When I saw the OP I thought this was a necro!

While I recognize the power of bombers and keep one in my hanger just in case the team needs one I HATE flying them.

They combine the acceleration of a Yugo with the steering of a tractor trailer. I feel like I'm flying with the starfighter equivalent of a "kick-me" sign on my back.

The problem isn't, I don't think, with bombers themselves being OP. As many people have pointed out, there most certainly are counters to bombers, just as there are counters to gunships. They can be dealt with, and as with most team games its all about balance and reacting to the situation: if a team is running a bunch of bombers, fly the types of ships that are effective against bombers. Adjust your tactics: what works against a team of scouts doesn't work against a team of bombers.

Now, I hate bombers too. I hated gunships when the game released and the introduction of bombers was enough to chase me out entirely. I was able to deal with gunships and bombers, I just didn't like the gameplay with them in the game. Personally, I'd much prefer GSF with scout and strike type ships only. Bombers and gunships change the way you have to play the game. For some people that's great, they love it. For some, they end up not liking the dynamic and so they stop playing. That's the case with me: I absolutely LOVED GSF when it came out, despite my hatred of gunships being in the game. Bombers tipped it enough that it wasn't fun, so I quit queueing. I came to realize over time that it wasn't about bombers or gunships being too powerful, it was just that they changed the dynamic of the game and made it not fun for me personally based on my tastes and preferences. I hated being in a dogfight around a satellite, each of us at around 50% or so health when KABOOM the fight is over because a gunship showed up and sniped me, ending the combat. Add mines to that mix and it was even less fun. But some people enjoy the dynamic of the game with gunships and bombers.

My personal opinion is that the existence of gunships and bombers have made it so GSF is and always will be a niche game that appeals to a very small segment of the playerbase. This is for two reasons: 1. Because some people feel like I do, the gameplay is less fun with gunships and bombers in it. 2. (In my opinion the more important one) is that the learning curve with gunships and bombers in the game is exponentially tougher. GSF has a steep learning curve without gunships and bombers, adding them in and combining that with no real matchmaking system means that the barriers to entry are simply too high. Again, this is purely my opinion based on personal experience and what I hear from others I play with--I'm not pretending this is objective fact. What i have heard is that on many servers queue times are slower and slower and you tend to see many of the same people again and again whenever you play.

So that's my two cents. I don't think it's an overpowered/underpowered issue. It's an issue that the gameplay is different with gunships and bombers in the mix, and lots of people simply don't like the playstyle. They also make the gameplay more complex and thus harder for new players to enjoy, chasing a lot of people away. There's nothing wrong with the game being complex: complex adds more challenge, and many players love that. But SWTOR has lots of casual players and GSF is EXTREMELY unfriendly to casual players. It's almost like GSF doesn't fit in SWTOR.

Now, I hate bombers too. I hated gunships when the game released and the introduction of bombers was enough to chase me out entirely. I was able to deal with gunships and bombers, I just didn't like the gameplay with them in the game.

This is a fully legit complaint. And I think there's a decent number of players that sort of share it. I will say this- it's my experience that dogfighting remains a ludicrously important part of the game even now. On a bomber or gunship, I routinely have to dive at enemies and dogfight them. In the case of a scout or strike, this can push them away or make them evasive (or kill them if low), but in the case of another gunship or bomber the dogfighting is still very important. Charged plating bomber needs to be hit with heavy lasers, that's pure dogfighting. Several times I barrelled out to enemy gunships in order to deroost or kill them with burst lasers, and multiple times I had to take down enemies in melee as well. So even with the ships that are a lot worse at it, the dogfighting never goes away or becomes not relevant.

Meanwhile, the scouts are always a huge part of the game, and a lot of that is dogfighting other scouts or the rest of the crew.

Personally, I'd much prefer GSF with scout and strike type ships only. Bombers and gunships change the way you have to play the game. For some people that's great, they love it. For some, they end up not liking the dynamic and so they stop playing.

I'll add to your phrasing and say- a game without tactical elements brought by gunships and bombers would make OTHER players stop playing, and fail to attract some. Personally, I thought it was pretty lame when scouts would just scoot around the satellites largely unable to be hit by anything but a tripod of gunships, and I told myself that the game would get better when bombers came out- and IMO, it absolutely did.

I hated being in a dogfight around a satellite, each of us at around 50% or so health when KABOOM the fight is over because a gunship showed up and sniped me, ending the combat.

I also see this complaint a few times- you are definitely joined in your frustration. From my perspective, those ships circling sats are playing a slow game, and I like that they are vulnerable to something to disrupt the stalemate. A turn fight around a node is not, to me, that interesting past the very early part of it, even if you can eventually wear down the other guy.

What i have heard is that on many servers queue times are slower and slower and you tend to see many of the same people again and again whenever you play.

During a November, I would expect this. Dragon Age, Smash Brothers, GoD Factory: Wingmen, Warlords of Draenor, and like a zillion other big titles just launched, updated, or are otherwise huge. Also, the REST of this game has heavily incentivized the ground game, with 12x story xp bribing alt rollers.

Does GSF have less players, adjusting for that? I don't know. I think if nothing else changes, you'll see more queues in two weeks regardless, as there will be more SWTOR players and they won't all be bribed into playing alts super hardcore.

And no, I don't think it's related to the gunships and bombers. While I see your sentiments echoed, I also see a lot of folks who like the game much better in the current mode.

The thing is, almost no one quits for balance. I have quit badly balanced games for balance, but I'm in the minority- many who love a game will just switch to a fotm, or play a counter comp, or whatever. So when you see something that you THINK is going on- "are there fewer GSF queues than before" - and come to the conclusion that it is because of your pet peeve, the odds are just super duper low of that.

Here's things that would likely make GSF take off like crazy:

1- Full PvE environment, including quests, integration, etc.

2- Full cross server setup.

3- Rewards that were interesting to more ground guys, such as mounts, decorations, and cosmetics. Currently nothing from GSF makes anything a ground guy is interested in (and no, fleet tokens definitely don't count).

4- A better method of tying performance to outputs at every level- shots display as "evade" when the character (not the player) misses, UI that prevents noobs from being lost, UI that better documents the three-space and rectangular prism than just a flat map, amazing tutorial, ability to replay games from multiple perspectives and save replays to analyze from all angles, blah blah blah. This would be a multipronged version of shrinking the learning curve, because right now the players all spend a lot of their time learning how to learn.

These are all really expensive, though. GSF was obviously developmental judo: reuse the existing assets to make an arcade space simulation inside an MMO engine. Any of these except (3) would be very hard, and the rewards for (2) would be immense to the whole game, including those ground pvp guys. (1) would be the biggest pusher for GSF, in fact, but would be commensurate with a whole expec of design, if not more.

And not to be too hostile, but I seriously think that a lot of the gunship/bomber QQ is just scout mains complaining that they can't just tunnel someone, making use of the fact that their ship is better at turning, damage, survival, focus target, escape, and persuit, and just totally be victorious. The tactical additions of the gunship and bomber mean that choosing someone besides the best dogfighter has merit, which is nice.

But SWTOR has lots of casual players and GSF is EXTREMELY unfriendly to casual players. It's almost like GSF doesn't fit in SWTOR.

To a degree it doesn't, actually, and I'm still surprised how good GSF is compared to the rest of the game. To put a fully skill based three space game in a game with global cooldowns and autotargetting is really appealing to two different audiences. There's an overlap of players who are avid at both- many are on this very forum- but it's still interesting. Certainly better than WoW-kemon, and that critter battling feature in WoW is pretty fun too.

But this is way betta!

I'll add to your phrasing and say- a game without tactical elements brought by gunships and bombers would make OTHER players stop playing, and fail to attract some. Personally, I thought it was pretty lame when scouts would just scoot around the satellites largely unable to be hit by anything but a tripod of gunships, and I told myself that the game would get better when bombers came out- and IMO, it absolutely did.

 

I also see this complaint a few times- you are definitely joined in your frustration. From my perspective, those ships circling sats are playing a slow game, and I like that they are vulnerable to something to disrupt the stalemate. A turn fight around a node is not, to me, that interesting past the very early part of it, even if you can eventually wear down the other guy.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. Truth in advertising, I never played GSF until after gunships and bombers were introduced so I don't remember the halcyon days like many on this forum. BUT, I think the absolute most boring aspect of this game is when I am on my T1 scout flying around a Sat evading folks to prevent it from being capped. If there weren't gunships and bombers to disrupt me I am pretty sure I could do that for the entire game against 4+ normal players and not die and do very little damage in the meantime. I think that that sort of gameplay could just as easily drive players away, or at the very least make Dominations something that people dreaded doing.

During a November, I would expect this. Dragon Age, Smash Brothers, GoD Factory: Wingmen, Warlords of Draenor, and like a zillion other big titles just launched, updated, or are otherwise huge. Also, the REST of this game has heavily incentivized the ground game, with 12x story xp bribing alt rollers.

 

Does GSF have less players, adjusting for that? I don't know. I think if nothing else changes, you'll see more queues in two weeks regardless, as there will be more SWTOR players and they won't all be bribed into playing alts super hardcore.

I think GSF does have fewer players than it did even 2 months ago, but I am not sure that that is GSF's "fault". A friend of mine who works at EA told me that SWTOR's peak concurrent users is down 25% from this time last year. That impacts all aspects of the game. GSF queue times may be longer because fewer people are queueing, but fewer people may be queueing for reasons other than gunships bombers: there might just simply be fewer people.

To a degree it doesn't, actually, and I'm still surprised how good GSF is compared to the rest of the game. To put a fully skill based three space game in a game with global cooldowns and autotargetting is really appealing to two different audiences. There's an overlap of players who are avid at both- many are on this very forum- but it's still interesting. Certainly better than WoW-kemon, and that critter battling feature in WoW is pretty fun too.

 

But this is way betta!

I think that this, more than anything is ultimately why GSF has not been a raging success. There is such an extreme amount of dissonance between GSF and the rest of the game it is astounding. Virtually none of the skills required and/or learned in the ground game translate to GSF. Because the ground based game is pretty much a requirement for entry (an minute few people bought and subscribed to SWTOR solely for GSF) you are starting with a pool of people who have a desire to play a certain type of game. That pool of people is some small fraction of the population at large. Now you take a small fraction of THOSE people who are also interested in a space sim and THAT is your GSF player base. You don't need to be a mathematician to know that a small fraction of a small fraction is a really small fraction.

They will never do it, but if they could make it so that GSF could be played completely outside of the realm of SWTOR the community would be far more robust. Let SWTOR players play as usual. Have ships tied to characters and server, whatever. But then allow folks from this external client (that they have to pay a nominal monthly fee that is a fraction of the current sub cost) to play. Hell, make their characters tied to servers/factions too. GSF has enough juice to stand on its own, but it will never get that opportunity because it is doomed to reside inside of a game with a niche playerbase.

To be fair, I don't think we have seen the complete vision from the developers. The huttball / capture the flag (Smugglers Run) game type would have totally changed the requirement for ships like a gunship or a bomber. The addition of the infiltrator (still in the game files) would, if it works like the descriptions and what we assume, would level the playing field of low skill players taking on mastered gunships.

If you don't like the current meta, blame the lack of good introduction. The learning curve is very steep, alienating new players by the 1000s in the first game. If the devs would have spent the time / money to build a good flight school then more people would play, more people would spend money on req transfers and we'd have got the completed vision. One small oversight by whatever the powers-may-be doomed the game to a niche.

.

Would you like to buy a vowel?

I really like what bombers add to the game. What ticks me off is players who fly into stationary targets such as mine and drone range, or who stick around right behind a bomber who is pooping those things out, get vaporized, and then complain. It's not like these are drones in the sense of actual things that have AI. They are entirely predictable state machines that are fully stationary.

Seconded and signed.

I almost never have equipment envy going against bombers. It's always wishing for teammates not to not kamikaze into the mines and drones and some teamwork in helping take the bombers down, or at the very least trying to keep burst scouts and gunships off of people who are taking the bombers down.

There is bomber kryptonite in GSF. It's the combination of teamwork and medium or long range armor piercing weapons.

The only ships that are arguably bad at bomber hunting are T3 gunships, T3 bombers, and drone carriers.

All the other ships have adequate to excellent performance with the right build, working in a well composed team of at least two ships.

The basics are a ship with thermite torpedoes and a ship with medium range to long range direct fire weapons. Open with the thermite, then pour as much damage as the two ships can put out into the bomber and watch it explode.

The complaint that comes out of this is that it shouldn't be so hard for another ship to 1v1 vs a bomber. Well, the balance is that in a 2v2 situation the bombers are likely to be crushed quickly if the 2 ships hunting them know what they're doing, work as a team, and have appropriate builds.

The one common element of a two ship hunter-killer team made to go after bombers it that it will require builds that are suboptimal for dogfighting and countering gunships on one or both of the hunters' ships. So support of some kind from friendly scouts or gunships is really important to let the bomber hunters do their job efficiently.

Personally, I'd much prefer GSF with scout and strike type ships only. Bombers and gunships change the way you have to play the game.

I'm with you, and that although I do love my own Gunship.

My personal problem is, that I'm only good with the Gunship. With the rest, I'm garbage.