Why I respect the bomber...

[reavengitair]

If you're using the 6 key to SNAC, you're doing it wrong

Apart from that, bravo.

Erm... thats what I do.

Im doing it wrong?

[Jinx]

yes - bomber should be better vs. capships... BUT not require less skill

i would always support it when capital ships had tiny "weak spots" - that would actually destroy the ship in only a few hits.

but a bomber hitting vaguely "somewhere" all around the hull ... sometimes on a little fin or thick armour shouldn t cause much damage.

if bombers were forced to actually AIM and WORK for their kill vs. capships, - no problem to have a battleship die to 3 supernovas. -... IF the supernovas hit small subsystems!

you wouldn t need 10 bombers to kill a battleship, but yes - 10 bombers would increase the chance that one of them hits t he weak spot.

if battleships could only be disabled by destroying their subsystems - but were immune to hull hits. - you could virtually decrease the hitpoints of the subsystems to a bare minium.

think of it...

battleship hitpoints : infinite
subsystem hitpoints : 100.000

that way - you d probably end up actually using the nova torpedo, cause 90% of the bomberpilots are not good enough to aim with their supernova - most of them wouldn t even hit a turret the size of battlerazor from 1k... ( come to that - many players never really pick subsystems at all )

but as long as you can hit the battleship whereever you like - it is very easy.

---

Shipdesigns made for DiscoveryGC

[Eternal]

While this thread serves no purpose , I wish to kindly turn the attention of the author towards the following thing he should know before making threads like this in order too ... I don't know , attract attention and so forth and so forth.

This entire discussion is held up by nothing more then empty , void and in no way solid evidence. There is nothing to suggest that if bombers are to get nerfed , the entire server will start abusing Capital ships. That is and to this day forward has been - The only line of defense against nerfing this particular ship type.

While you may not believe that there are people who use Battleships for something other then shoot stuff around with large cannons , you should know that plausible escorts can't , in no way , protect their leader , be that a battleship or a battle cruiser , before 2-3 bombers destroy it and flee.

The escort part is really getting old , find another excuse.

---

[swift]

But is that possible to achieve in this game, Jinx? It sounds like a great idea, but I don't know how we could do that and trigger ship death by subsystem death.

In any case, a world where fighters reigned supreme over bombers and skilled bombers could take out battleships with ease unless they have fighter escorts would be an ideal world.

---

<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">

<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.

</span></span>

<span style="color:#33FFFF">The CFF</span>

<span style="color:#33FF33">CFF Communication Channel and RP Collection</span>

[Marcus Lindberg]

If people want their fighter to be able to own a bomber in every situation, even though the bomber pilot has much more skill than you, than you must also be willing to allow the bomber to own a battleship in every situation, simple as that.

Ok yeah I agree with the rest of the stuff you said, but that part I quoted there is the wrong thinking. Yes bombers are meant to take down battleships, but VHF's are meant to take down bombers, not the other way around. The way you said it, you made it sound like bomber's are meant to take down everything.

Heres the thing, Bombers should never win over fighters. EVER. I dont care if its "rare". VHF's are meant to take out bombers. Currently, 2 VHF's cannot kill two bombers fast enough before it kills the BS. That is not how it should be. This is why fighter's need access to weapons with 1,000 M/s shots so it is far harder to a bomber to keep concentrated on the capital.

If that happened, I guarantee you, VHF's will become all the craze to take down gunboats. Why? You would have VHF's have 6 improved debbies on them, while you have another VHF with magma's (or archengels wtv) that destroy the hull of the GB. GB's can find it hard to target VHF's already because of their maneuverability, and now you wil see a couple of VHF's take down entire GB's. At this point, GB's will only be able to take down bombers, and only if there 1 bomber as Nighthawk said, this would virtually destroy the GB and no one would use them anymore. We don't want that, since the VHF's at this point would ALSO be able to take down bombers, thus, pirates won't have anything good enough to other than VHF's. Oh but guess what, at that point, since VHF's can't use SNAC's, transports will be able to run away easily and actually not get pirated. This would anger the pirate community.

Although, speaking from an LPI perspective, this would be awesome!

[jdftheman]

Ok yeah I agree with the rest of the stuff you said, but that part I quoted there is the wrong thinking. Yes bombers are meant to take down battleships, but VHF's are meant to take down bombers, not the other way around. The way you said it, you made it sound like bomber's are meant to take down everything.

Sorry, my lack of English probably caused the misinterpreting. What i mean is that, in my opinion, some people want a fighter with a noob pilot to be able to take down a bomber with a pilot who has allot of experience. And with that i have no problem, on the condition that the same is applied to the bomber, a noob bomber should than be able to take down a cruiser on its own.

I do believe that bombers shouldn't stand much of a chance against fighters, and honestly, i have yet to meet a bomber who is capable of destroying me in my LF (why do people insist on using VHF's?). However the same should apply to capital ships. If a bomber goes 1 on 1 with a cruiser, he doesn't stand much of a chance of wining while in theory, it should be able to take it down, granted it would take some time.

[reisiger_duke]

Hum... I like the idea of seriously increasing a BS's hitpoints to where it either takes another BS to kill it, a few disciplined destroyers/cruisers/battlecruisers, or a wing of bombers who know which subsystems to blow up...
heck, maybe even give it parts that can be blown off like wings from a fighter... blow of the armour plate covering the reactor, blow up the shields protecting it SNAC the reactor and voila... firework. :cool:


Other than that... a single bomber going at a transport with 2 VHF's on his neck should not be able to blow up the transport and then still get away with it, that's plain ridiculous.

As I stated in another of those posts... modify the SNAC to have an explosion radius (make it a pseudo missile projectile) and you'll suddenly have a lot SNAC bombers refrain from doing kamikaze-like near collision-SNAC attacks.

---

[center]

<span style="color:#eabf67">OSI Wiki :: OSI Recruitment :: OSI Feedback :: OSI Official Faction Charter :: OSI Message Dump</span>

[/center]

[Marcus Lindberg]

This entire discussion is held up by nothing more then empty , void and in no way solid evidence. There is nothing to suggest that if bombers are to get nerfed , the entire server will start abusing Capital ships. That is and to this day forward has been - The only line of defense against nerfing this particular ship type.

Ok, maybe the entire community won't start whoring capships if bomber's do get nerfed. However, the only way to destroy a capship at that point would be to use another capship, which is not always available to everyone. Bomber's are a cheap ship which the average disco player can afford, and thus they keep the balance as well, discouraging people to use capships, or at least encouraging to come along with support (as I stated before). But if you can suggest any other outcome, my ears are listening.

While you may not believe that there are people who use Battleships for something other then shoot stuff around with large cannons ,

I never said I think people use battleships to just blow stuff up. This thread was directed at those people who had battleships and complained they stood no chance against bombers because they went without support thinking battleships were supposed to be godlike and destroy everything in their way, not the players who knew the weaknesses of the battleship and chose intelligently to use them only with support, just as proper RP should dictate (in my opinion).

you should know that plausible escorts can't , in no way , protect their leader , be that a battleship or a battle cruiser , before 2-3 bombers destroy it and flee.

The escort part is really getting old , find another excuse.

On that part, I agree with both Jinx's proposal, and Reisiger's proposal that the SNAC should have an explosion radius. I'm not sure, but I think the explosion radius might've been debated before, but I'm not sure.

[schlurbi]

I agree with that. If you are bad enough to be hit by a Snac in your VHF then get a LF and i promise you, you wont be a hit by a Snac.

And yeah, Kamikaze Pilots. I am one: I always kill myself while using Novas.

---

"Who is it doing this synthetic type of alpha beta psychedelic funkin'?"

[Tovig]

I'm agree but still, bombers shouldn't win against VHF. It's ridiculous. Now, we see many players using just Bomber and SNAC everything... Bomber should be a ship that have an escort otherwise, it should be defenseless against others small crafts (and Gunboats). The solution ? Create bombers weapons, the turrets class 6. Make them very slow projectile speed (to be useless against VHF) but big damages (ti be efficient against cap) like a Pulse bomber turret (infernos stats?) and one hullbuster bomber turret (mini razor stats?). It could change somethings.