Discovery Gaming Community

' Wrote:Speaking of not doing full reports on the subject, you seem to be leaving out the fact that the bomber can AVOID anything the cruiser can throw at it, wheras the cruiser is rather large target and unless the bomber is snapping off shots at maximum range, isnt going to be able to avoid it.

Player skill is not quantifiable, you cannot base equations on player skill because there will always be bads and pros at a game. It's usually the people who are bad at the game complaining the most that things are unbalanced and such, which the people who are good at the game are the ones who learn to deal with what they're given.

In otherwords, stop flying your ships with your statistics and start flying them with your skills. The imbalances we have in-game currently are very minor and they certainly don't break the game.

Ashes, my point was not at the refire and efficiency of the SNAC versus LM, it was about their SIZE. A LM is a gigantic weapon, possibly several times larger than a human being, whilst a SNAC is roughly a human's size. Now, they're BOTH antimatter weapons, yet one of them costs 30k energy, and the other costs 1 million. I know the bomber can't fire a bloody LM and thank Jesus for that, but wouldn't it be odd if people made a hand-grenade sized nuclear bomb with 90% of a real, big nuke's firepower?

Now, a cruiser can dodge snacs at 2k range, but only certain cruisers. Say a battlecruiser (any other than geb, cause of the bs shield) can be food for a single bomber, as I've almost been flying around in o-7. I was of cours armed with anticap weaponry on the bullhead, and a SINGLE praetorian almost did me in. You can't dodge his snacs at 1.5k range, nor can you hit him with anything at said range, cause he kept behind me at all times, effectively dodging my bs turrets. In a Thresher, I had no problem taking out bomber, since that thing is as agile as a gunboat with almost triple firepower.

You tell me, Ashes, which AVERAGE (since that's what I am at least) cruiser/battlecruiser pilot can avoid being killed or forced to retreat by one bomber, also an AVERAGE pilot (meaning he doesn't stick at 500 or 2k range).

' Wrote:but wouldn't it be odd if people made a hand-grenade sized nuclear bomb with 90% of a real, big nuke's firepower?

Suitcase Nukes.

"While the explosive power of the W54—up to an equivalent of 6 kiloton[6] of TNT—is not much by the normal standards of a nuclear weapon (the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were around 16 to 21 kilotons each), their value lies in their ability to be easily smuggled across borders, transported by means widely available, and placed as close to the target as possible."

Do read, Akura, please. This is today's suitcase nuke. I see a 6 kiloton power, yet the OLD WWII nukes are 16-21. Today's nuclear warhead; "A modern thermonuclear weapon weighing little more than 2,400 pounds (1,100 kg) can produce an explosive force comparable to the detonation of more than 1.2 million tons (1.1 million metric tons) of TNT."

Now tell me, is 6000 tons of TNT 90% of 1,200,000 tons of TNT?

Thank you for reading.

Negative, but a Suitcase Nuke isn't an A-Bomb either. It's Nuclear.

It's possible to fit what can level cities into a suitcase, where it might be the size of a milkcart normally. About 90% of the power, condensed into something you can carry.

To tell the truth, it scares the pants off the US of A.



Although, comparing anything in Disco to real life just makes you look kind of silly. We have petty thieves and criminals piloting massive, military-grade warships.

It would be like saying that Disco Fighter Dogfights are much like WWII Dogfights, when in reality, Disco Fighter Dogfights are like WWII Dogfights on steroids, in space, with physics that are about as realistic as the Force in Star Wars.


Point is, it's a simple balance thing, bombers need the 'umph' to take out capital ships that can nearly do the same job as them, dock on the same bases, fight the same fights etc.


Everything is fine between bombers and capital ships now, and for 4.86. Caps need to be nerfed more to be more resiliant. For example, restricted docking to only large, cap-supporting stations, slower cruise etc.

...how about we wait for 4.86 and see what changes are there...

All this rage nerf request is kinda moot at this time.

PEACE

[color=#FFFFFF]The big deal about the suitcase nuke isn't the blast itself it's the emp will sends you back in the stone age quite effectively.

And yes as I said Freelancer is WWII combat in space...and yes I believe it should be possible for a single SKILLED bomber to blow up a dread. And srsly people think about it. If you want to nerf snubs against caps who on earth will want to fly an uselles fighter since everyone can go in insta-God mode with capital ships. I know I wouldn't fly a fighter if it couldn't do squat agaisn't a cruiser. Some people even go as far as suggesting that at least 10 bombers should be neccessary for bring down capital ships...srsly now when was the last time you saw 10 Xeno bombers, 10 LR bombers or 10 LH bombers?

This is more a thread about crappy Capital pilots being killed by good Bomber pilots. Which isn't a balance issue. Skill should not be a part of balance, it's something you can't control.

You balance based on the average player.

I facepalm at the inaccurate description of nuclear weapons here. Atomic bomb = nuclear bomb. And a suitcase nuke will NOT level a city. Heck a normal nuke can't level a city.

While I do agree with the people who say the SNAC is more or less balanced against big ships, I vehemently oppose the notion that it should be a practical weapon against fighters at all. No way should a bomber be able to kill fighters with its main weapon. There needs to be some mechanic in place that makes SNAC not practical against fighters at all. Give it a 1-second charge-up maybe, or some sort of firing delay. Or make the nova torp actually better than the SNAC, seeing as how it's currently worse in every way.