bombers (discussion only)

[Tenacity]

A thought struck as another alternative for 'balancing' from your post. Raise the damage of pulse and other shieldbusting weapons, but also raise the shield strength of transports, gunboats, cruisers and battleships. At this point, once you grind down the shield it is effectively useless as a single SNAC will bring it back down and allow for the pilot's companions to unleash once more. However, this would then bring in balancing issues where small numbers are concerned. Perhaps lowering the regen value?

Bah. I stand by my point. Theoretical balancing is much too fiddly.

The ability for a snac shot to drop a just-regenned battleship shield hasnt ever been a huge issue IMO. The problem is that once a capship has lost it's shields, every little spec of dust that hits the hull causes an insane amount of screen shake.

My Order Carrier, once it loses it's shields in a pvp event (like our BHG vs Order events in lost) becomes incapable of shooting at anything with any amount of accuracy. Now, my aim isnt the greatest even when the screen isnt shaking - I'm an average gunner - but once that shield is gone, I couldnt hit a planet at point blank range.

We really do need to figure out how to get rid of the screen shake. I know it can be done, as other mods have accomplished such, I dont really see why we've procrastinated about that so much around here... other than the fact that the bomberwhores know it gives them yet another advantage and they dont want to lose it. We all know this server is run by bombers, and overpopulated with bombers =P

---

[JakeSG]

Oh, I'm all for removing the screen shake. While I don't use a cap, I do have a Liner and know how much of a pain in the arse it becomes to fight off that persistant gunship once your shield's down. I'd say that's one of the few changes that can be made without requiring a total rebalance to make effective. However, once more comes the Dev factor. Getting somebody with the power to make the change to actually acknowledge the request, and then following whatever process it is they do to determine whether or not something should be implemented, put it into practice.

---

For the Core.

[Eternal]

Edit - Very good! You've found a flaw in my argument, and taken a broad statement as a personal offense! Congratulations!

Honestly , do you really think I was offended? Hardly so , I'm just giving you the other side of things.

In reality , I do believe that you are against any sort of capital ship buffs and bomber "nerfs" , only because you have , as you said , no experience with capital ship , ergo you have no way of knowing exactly why we request this/that and so forth. Watching a capital ship fight and fighting in one yourself , are two very different things. A lot of arguments and meaningless topics , like this one , could have been avoided if people understood that difference better.

---

[JakeSG]

If you dub this as a meaningless topic, then surely you yourself don't think bombers need a nerf, or capital ships a buff, and hence we reach a self-contradictory stage.

No, I do not fly caps. However, I have been in situations where I might deem bombers overpowered, but also situations where I might deem nearly every other ship class as overpowered. It is a matter of perspective and there will always be somebody who is not happy, hence I'm not so much anti balance changes as pro leaving things be. Double standards are human nature. Understanding this is the first step to a proper discussion.

Oh well. That's enough from me. Seems I've taken over/derailed a topic which is still in the realms of sanity.

---

For the Core.

[Eternal]

The first five or so threads regarding this might have served a purpose of some sort. But after a hundred or so , we just keep grinding on the same piece of information again and again. Problem is , every time people decide to start discussing bombers and their possible downgrade , someone , you in this case , jumps in to fearlessly defend that class. Usually the person in question doesn't have any idea what it is on the other side of the capital ship , but never the less , for the sake of argue and so called "balance of the universe" that the bomber is to them , they knock threads like this down and give no chance , what so ever for further development of other ship classes. This is not directly pointed towards you , Jake. It just so happens that you're the one doing exactly that , this time.

---

[Athenian]

The shaking screen is a real pain for cap pilots.

The flipside of nerfing bombers is that you are effectively buffing caps - and a range of large, well armoured ships with powerful weapons that are freely available creates plenty of problems.

The problem has to dealt with holistically - you can't have everything in one ship. Maybe boost VHF power plant and increase minirazors speed.

---

Former member of "the most paranoid group of people in the community"
Discovery Community Forum Rules

[reavengitair]

I would give a very big yes to buffing minirazor speed. Possibly lowering SNAC speed.

But I won't give a yes to buffing VHF powerplants.

Alternativley, we could make Light fighters more powerful...

[blubba]

Regarding dual use of the MR being easy meat for gunboats etc, the loadout still gets used. It's no-more easy prey than my Manta is. In fact, it's still better off because it has better hull strength and twin Razors against my single razor. That fact coupled with it's use in fighter combats tends to suggest that it does get used as an anti-fighter weapon and it doesn't matter about the GB's.

I'm not sure you can include skill in this arguement.
The skill is in the pilot, not in the ship. Skill has nothing to do with balance of the ship within the disco universe.
It appears that the suggestion is that although the bomber is superior, you shouldn't complain because you're not skilled enough to take it down in a fighter/cap ship, despite it being just about possible.
I'm sorry but I don't buy into that. The ships are balanced or not. The skill must be taken as 'like for like', i.e, equal so the only deciding factor should be the ships. Then you see the balance. If the bomber combo comes out on top more than the fighter, it's the bomber thats overpowered and vice versa. From reading through this thread, it appears that most people seem to think that it's the bomber which is overpowered. Looking at the stats and my experience, I'd have to agree and I fly all three ship types.

As for caps, many bombers are expected to take down a cap, not just two or three. I do believe there should be a weapon introduced for capital ship commanders which would make their life a little easier against the smaller ships but it would need some serious balancing within the game system.

---

[Ash]

Anyone in a cap that moans about getting killed by a bomber or two doesn't quite get that just because your in a cap, doesn't make you good against everything.

---

[ophidian]

In reality, bombers should be needing fighter escorts because bombers deliver heavy power, sacrificing manueverability for punch like firepower.

In our gameworld, as Lancer said, only the Order and Rheinland bombers fit to this role.

I mean, if a BHG, Keeper bomber can outmanuever any VHF and cause deathly pain to small crafts, why do we need small crafts?

Therefore, I guess ALL BOMBERS shall have reduced manuevering abilities, they should have a true role as bombers rather than being a super multi role epic fighters bombers.

A Bomber can kill -> A GB without a cap armor in 2 snac shots, including shield.
A Bomber can kill -> Any VHF except for the very very good pvpers and even they have the chance to get snaced to death.
A Bomber can kill -> any capital craft when grouped with 1-2 other bombers while evading turret fires and escorts.


This is a bit too much. I mean if GB pilots, VHF pilots, Transport pilots, Battleship Captains are afraid of bombers, let us have a bomber server and nuke each other till death.

A good example of bombers being overpowered in general is using the RM Bomber or Sekhmet against another bomber means death. So the "real" bomber gets "pwned" immediately by the "super bomber".

---