Discovery Gaming Community

can this thread be moved to flood

(01-26-2020, 01:14 PM)Capt. Henry Morgan Wrote: [ -> ]If you ask me, Disco's whole bomber concept was flawed from conception. Bombers should be large (like GB large), slow, designed to engage capital-sized targets at range, and do devastating amounts of damage, but should be glass cannons unable to operate effectively on their own. If the enemy has fighter cover or the bomber gets too close, they should get shredded. Think of the large resistance bombers at the start of The Last Jedi, but give them torpedoes instead of those weird bombs.

I totally agree with this concept. I think that if Bombers had the same armor stats as a HF but the size and maneuverability of a GB, they could be very effective as intended. Bombers shouldn't be able to use high end shields or have a lot of armor. In RP, their ordinances are highly explosive, and so require additional storage space, and specialized handling gear that takes up a lot more space than a laser cannon.


But let's go back to the first argument here. "Bomber energy guns need to have faster projectile speeds because we can't hit fighters effectively". Let's break that down, first you want the free weapons that don't incur a per shot credit cost to be improved. I get it, I don't want to have to spend more time farming to fly my ship but it's worth noting. Next part is that you want the projectile speed buffed because it's hard to hit fighters. To me, that sounds like it's working EXACTLY the way it's supposed to! The bomber guns aren't intended to be used as a primary weapon, bombers are meant to shoot lotsa torpedoes to do damage. So it makes sense that they'd be not particularly effective against fighters, or even GBs or really agile cruisers. They're meant for like... repelling a really angry freighter or something when you've run out of torpedoes. Heck, I almost don't see a reason for bombers to have those guns in the first place. Especially that they have a pulse option that can drain shields rapidly, then fire off huge damage torpedoes all while still being small enough, nimble enough, and of course armored enough to survive most fights?

Think of it this way, bombers are like a catapult. They're meant to bombard big, slow moving or stationary targets. If a group of infantry run up to the catapult, it's pretty much doomed unless its attending crew are WAY better swordsmen than the infantry, which should be highly unlikely as their jobs are to fire the catapult. If a group of cavalry rides up to it, it should be all but guaranteed to be doomed. Even if a chariot with a group of archers comes up on it, despite posing a larger target to potentially hit it's highly unlikely that the catapult will come out on top. That's akin to a bomber vs a LF, HF, or GB. Now say the catapult sneaks up on a small encampment of troops. The catapult might be able to get enough shots off before the camp is organized and can react enough to effectively cripple the encampment. More than likely, survivors of the initial assault will react and kill the catapult operators, but there's a decent chance that with the proper cover, tactics, and a bit of luck they could wipe out the encampment. That's like them going up against a Cruiser, there should be the potential for a really poorly run Cruiser to be destroyed, but more than likely the bomber won't win, but will do serious damage. Now picture the catapult comes up against a castle with a full brigade in it. They're screwed, unless they've got a couple other catapults to help them keep the castle occupied. That's bombers vs a large cap ship, doing major damage, but shouldn't be able to wipe them out without assistance.

Bombers should be the ship of choice of a TEAM. VHFs to provide covering fire, other bombers to provide additional backup and damage, and maybe a GB to provide some sort of shield and anti-snubcraft protection. A lone bomber should be as effective as a lone catapult... pretty much screwed unless they can get really lucky, or happen upon a more or less unarmed village they can lob projectiles at.

Your entire argument is founded in a flawed mindset, to wit, that we have an ongoing player base that can support it. Unless you mean to only have bombers on Saturdays, your comparison to the 11th century is an argument for removing bombers from the server.

Additionally, fighter/bombers of the 20th/21st century aren't as fragile as you make them out to be. Why would they be less than they are now?

(01-27-2020, 04:40 AM)Alestone Wrote: [ -> ]Your entire argument is founded in a flawed mindset, to wit, that we have an ongoing player base that can support it. Unless you mean to only have bombers on Saturdays, your comparison to the 11th century is an argument for removing bombers from the server.

Additionally, fighter/bombers of the 20th/21st century aren't as fragile as you make them out to be. Why would they be less than they are now?

When was the last time you heard of a modern bomber shooting down an air superiority fighter? Never, because modern bombers don't even have guns.

And I see where you're going with the fighter/bomber thing, if we want to go that route modern fighter/bombers are configurations of fighters, without additional armoring or anything like that. If Bombers were to have the same stats and shields as a fighter but with the ability to mount their torpedoes and a reduced handling to match, I suspect things would be a lot more equitable. A fighter would have a far superior weapons loadout for attacking smaller, faster craft, the bomber would be more hopeful of fending off an attacker with its short range armaments than destroying them, as a result of having the ability to carry a large payload of weapons. But we'd be In the same position as we are now where people are complaining that their bomber can't easily destroy VHFs,

I get that the server population is low. I also get that part of the reason is that newer players are often chased off when trying to get themselves started. If we put ourselves in the mindset of newer players, endless swarms of pirate bombers that ruin every trade run wanting huge portions of your profit, or just to blow you up, without giving you any chance to RP your way out of it, or any hope to fight back acts as essentially a glass ceiling. You might get away with trading through a freighter, or maybe even a small transport, but when you get to owning a medium or large transport, any encounter with a pirate bomber ends up with your time being wasted either via credit demands, or being blown up. And that's when the fun of the game ends, because you can't afford whatever ship it is you're trading to afford.

How about if we turned all non house military bombers into SHFs, and gave the house bombers the upgrades being requested. I suspect that would be a less agreeable option than doing nothing, because what it boils down to is people flying pirate bombers want to be able to fighter off VHFs with relative ease, and also pirate transports with ease.

Honestly, balancemagic should be removed and for SNAC to be reverted by proxy for the sake of improving server performance.

(01-27-2020, 04:22 AM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]But let's go back to the first argument here. "Bomber energy guns need to have faster projectile speeds because we can't hit fighters effectively". Let's break that down, first you want the free weapons that don't incur a per shot credit cost to be improved. I get it, I don't want to have to spend more time farming to fly my ship but it's worth noting. Next part is that you want the projectile speed buffed because it's hard to hit fighters. To me, that sounds like it's working EXACTLY the way it's supposed to! The bomber guns aren't intended to be used as a primary weapon, bombers are meant to shoot lotsa torpedoes to do damage. So it makes sense that they'd be not particularly effective against fighters, or even GBs or really agile cruisers. They're meant for like... repelling a really angry freighter or something when you've run out of torpedoes. Heck, I almost don't see a reason for bombers to have those guns in the first place. Especially that they have a pulse option that can drain shields rapidly, then fire off huge damage torpedoes all while still being small enough, nimble enough, and of course armored enough to survive most fights?

Think of it this way, bombers are like a catapult. They're meant to bombard big, slow moving or stationary targets. If a group of infantry run up to the catapult, it's pretty much doomed unless its attending crew are WAY better swordsmen than the infantry, which should be highly unlikely as their jobs are to fire the catapult. If a group of cavalry rides up to it, it should be all but guaranteed to be doomed. Even if a chariot with a group of archers comes up on it, despite posing a larger target to potentially hit it's highly unlikely that the catapult will come out on top. That's akin to a bomber vs a LF, HF, or GB. Now say the catapult sneaks up on a small encampment of troops. The catapult might be able to get enough shots off before the camp is organized and can react enough to effectively cripple the encampment. More than likely, survivors of the initial assault will react and kill the catapult operators, but there's a decent chance that with the proper cover, tactics, and a bit of luck they could wipe out the encampment. That's like them going up against a Cruiser, there should be the potential for a really poorly run Cruiser to be destroyed, but more than likely the bomber won't win, but will do serious damage. Now picture the catapult comes up against a castle with a full brigade in it. They're screwed, unless they've got a couple other catapults to help them keep the castle occupied. That's bombers vs a large cap ship, doing major damage, but shouldn't be able to wipe them out without assistance.

Bombers should be the ship of choice of a TEAM. VHFs to provide covering fire, other bombers to provide additional backup and damage, and maybe a GB to provide some sort of shield and anti-snubcraft protection. A lone bomber should be as effective as a lone catapult... pretty much screwed unless they can get really lucky, or happen upon a more or less unarmed village they can lob projectiles at.

The dynamics you are describing may be fun when commanding npc catapults, pikemen, and cavalry around.

It's not fun when you're playing the catapult, and your adversary will get to destroy you without you having the slightest chance, simply because he got to choose his class after being told that you're a catapult.

(01-27-2020, 03:52 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]But we'd be In the same position as we are now where people are complaining that their bomber can't easily destroy VHFs,...
... what it boils down to is people flying pirate bombers want to be able to fighter off VHFs with relative ease, and also pirate transports with ease.

No, nobody ever said they want bombers to win against VHFs with ease, they said they want to at least have a slight chance to survive against the guy that got to choose his class after knowing what class they were. Or even if you don't survive, to not be 100% useless cannonfodder unless flying against caps.

(01-27-2020, 03:52 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]When was the last time you heard of a modern bomber shooting down an air superiority fighter? Never, because modern bombers don't even have guns.

Today's "modern bombers" have as little to do with the game we're playing as do WW2 bombers, catapults, or chariots.

It's not even about realism, it's about fun.

(01-27-2020, 03:55 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly, balancemagic should be removed and for SNAC to be reverted by proxy for the sake of improving server performance.

If it really causes performance issues, there's also the option of turning SNAC into something with lower per shot damage and higher refire rate, which doesnt insta snubs in one hit.

For the great justice, disco bombers' IRL analog are neither fighter-bombers, neither bombers, but shturmoviks, aka attack aircrafts in virgin english. And for example, both A-10 and Su-25 could carry few AA missiles. Tho, only A-10 has something flying removed during career, and it were some poor transport/recon helis.
In same time attack helis have some really ridicolous wins over jet fighters, but this tbh rather show how helicopters took place of main ground attack crafts, and attack planes used mostly when expected shit level require higher armor and speed (i.e. they became very specific tool, when its too hard for strike helis, but too unworthy for real bomber).

p.s. you can see where its all doomed. IRL fighter-bombers, made on fighter chassis, cant really go in low altitude combat cos have neither armor neither aerodynamic for it, so its best shot is guided missiles/bombs/torps. Its also means, while good at removing different targets on frontline, being not really crappy against other fighters, cos have basically the same chassis, can't really provide tight cover for ground forces. And from other side, attack aircrafts can operate at low altitude, armored to uphold bullets, could effectively provide close support to troops, but just slow and have minisculine chances against other fighters because of all of that. In disco that important gap seems not really achievable in same size.

(01-27-2020, 04:19 PM)Karlotta Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2020, 04:22 AM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]But let's go back to the first argument here. "Bomber energy guns need to have faster projectile speeds because we can't hit fighters effectively". Let's break that down, first you want the free weapons that don't incur a per shot credit cost to be improved. I get it, I don't want to have to spend more time farming to fly my ship but it's worth noting. Next part is that you want the projectile speed buffed because it's hard to hit fighters. To me, that sounds like it's working EXACTLY the way it's supposed to! The bomber guns aren't intended to be used as a primary weapon, bombers are meant to shoot lotsa torpedoes to do damage. So it makes sense that they'd be not particularly effective against fighters, or even GBs or really agile cruisers. They're meant for like... repelling a really angry freighter or something when you've run out of torpedoes. Heck, I almost don't see a reason for bombers to have those guns in the first place. Especially that they have a pulse option that can drain shields rapidly, then fire off huge damage torpedoes all while still being small enough, nimble enough, and of course armored enough to survive most fights?

Think of it this way, bombers are like a catapult. They're meant to bombard big, slow moving or stationary targets. If a group of infantry run up to the catapult, it's pretty much doomed unless its attending crew are WAY better swordsmen than the infantry, which should be highly unlikely as their jobs are to fire the catapult. If a group of cavalry rides up to it, it should be all but guaranteed to be doomed. Even if a chariot with a group of archers comes up on it, despite posing a larger target to potentially hit it's highly unlikely that the catapult will come out on top. That's akin to a bomber vs a LF, HF, or GB. Now say the catapult sneaks up on a small encampment of troops. The catapult might be able to get enough shots off before the camp is organized and can react enough to effectively cripple the encampment. More than likely, survivors of the initial assault will react and kill the catapult operators, but there's a decent chance that with the proper cover, tactics, and a bit of luck they could wipe out the encampment. That's like them going up against a Cruiser, there should be the potential for a really poorly run Cruiser to be destroyed, but more than likely the bomber won't win, but will do serious damage. Now picture the catapult comes up against a castle with a full brigade in it. They're screwed, unless they've got a couple other catapults to help them keep the castle occupied. That's bombers vs a large cap ship, doing major damage, but shouldn't be able to wipe them out without assistance.

Bombers should be the ship of choice of a TEAM. VHFs to provide covering fire, other bombers to provide additional backup and damage, and maybe a GB to provide some sort of shield and anti-snubcraft protection. A lone bomber should be as effective as a lone catapult... pretty much screwed unless they can get really lucky, or happen upon a more or less unarmed village they can lob projectiles at.

The dynamics you are describing may be fun when commanding npc catapults, pikemen, and cavalry around.

It's not fun when you're playing the catapult, and your adversary will get to destroy you without you having the slightest chance, simply because he got to choose his class after being told that you're a catapult.

(01-27-2020, 03:52 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]But we'd be In the same position as we are now where people are complaining that their bomber can't easily destroy VHFs,...
... what it boils down to is people flying pirate bombers want to be able to fighter off VHFs with relative ease, and also pirate transports with ease.

No, nobody ever said they want bombers to win against VHFs with ease, they said they want to at least have a slight chance to survive against the guy that got to choose his class after knowing what class they were. Or even if you don't survive, to not be 100% useless cannonfodder unless flying against caps.

(01-27-2020, 03:52 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]When was the last time you heard of a modern bomber shooting down an air superiority fighter? Never, because modern bombers don't even have guns.

Today's "modern bombers" have as little to do with the game we're playing as do WW2 bombers, catapults, or chariots.

It's not even about realism, it's about fun.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this "get to pick their ship after knowing what you have". I guess there might be some people out there who memorize what every ship out there is, but isn't it against server rules to encounter someone, and then immediately switch to another character to combat them? I don't see how people are picking their ship based off you unless you go into an event saying "I will be flying this bomber btw please don't bring VHFs to kill me", and frankly if that's the case, you should either not tell people that ahead of time, or work with your side to make sure you're got some covering VHFs.

I get the fun argument, I think fun is most important. But to say that you're not having fun because you can't defeat a ship that is INTENDED to be the counter to your ship? That seems silly. It sounds to me like the real root cause of this issue isn't bomber performance, its your concern that people are changing ships to attack you.

(01-28-2020, 08:53 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this "get to pick their ship after knowing what you have". I guess there might be some people out there who memorize what every ship out there is, but isn't it against server rules to encounter someone, and then immediately switch to another character to combat them? I don't see how people are picking their ship based off you unless you go into an event saying "I will be flying this bomber btw please don't bring VHFs to kill me", and frankly if that's the case, you should either not tell people that ahead of time, or work with your side to make sure you're got some covering VHFs.

The reality many people face is that if they log first and go out looking for interactions, other people will be able to choose the ship class that is best to kill the person who is already logged:

- by looking at the level of the player in the player list: below level 50 probably a a fighter, between 50 and 60 a fighter or a bomber, level 60-70 a GB, and so on.
- by being told via pm, group chat, or discord what ship someone is flying by people who saw them and are possibly already fighting them. Official factions have "alert channel" specifically for this purpose.
- by being seen, and then having the person run to log a more suitable ship class. Even docking right in front of someone and changing chars to attack them is legal, as long as they havent already started a pvp engagement.

This is why rock-scissor-paper balancing is bad if skill has less to do with the outcome than choice of ship: People dont pick simultaneously at random, but after they saw what they other person has.

(01-28-2020, 08:53 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]I get the fun argument, I think fun is most important. But to say that you're not having fun because you can't defeat a ship that is INTENDED to be the counter to your ship? That seems silly.

You can still give fighters an advantage over bombers when they fight each other. But the magnitude of the advantage is what upsets people.

Same goes for fighters. You can give bombers an advantage over fighters when fighting caps, but here again, the magnitude of the advantage can be altered so one class doesnt become totally useless.

It's even possible to change the magnitude of the advantage a skilled player has over an unskilled one, by changing the effectiveness of "fire and forget" missiles vs "difficult to aim with" guns that require a lot of practice.

(01-28-2020, 08:53 PM)fauee Wrote: [ -> ]It sounds to me like the real root cause of this issue isn't bomber performance, its your concern that people are changing ships to attack you.

There is little you can do against it, except:
1. Avoid putting yourself in situation where you make it very easy for people to see you and then choose their ship. Like parading in front of your enemy's base, and then getting upset when they kill you with overwhelming force. Many times have I told people this before.

2. Ask for a balanced fight, where both sides agree on the terms before the fight can start. I've also recommended this to people so they dont get upset when the other side doesnt behave the way they wanted after they provoked a fight.

The third alternative is to not make choice of ship the win-all of all situations, but to make all classes more survivable against each other. This is what I'm trying to convey now, but especially the people who cry the loudest when things dont go their way are the ones who refuse to listen to possible solutions to their problems (as well as the previous 2 options).