LOCK ME!

[Dusty Lens]

That or we could replace all bombers with frigate like ships that're gunboat sized and mount nothing but two torps and a CD.

Or we could make all bombers like the fafnir.

Or we could remove the snac and make better torps.

And so on.

I can only assure you that the thought process on this one is involved and has been an ongoing convo well before 85 was -finally- released.

Bombers. A bane on Disco since Ench and Frozen figured out how to shoot someone with a .000030042389423--0342423423u8(>^.^)>42390DUCKBANANA21 refire slow frikin gun.

[Grumblesaur]

Bombers. A bane on Disco since Ench and Frozen figured out how to shoot someone with a .0000321 refire slow frikin gun.

<strike>
Give it a speed of 2000m/s.</strike>

It's .17 refire.

---

A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

[Dusty Lens]

they are an interesting piece of equipment. their range is supposed to be under 2k but i've seen them being shot effectively from around 3k. no i was not thrusting toward the bomber

what is the actual range of those things?

Ayuh, what Kurosora the wise said. Gun stats are added by teh gamezorz. Not by players.

As opposed to shipstats, for example.

Edit: Thanks, fixed the refire.

[Grumblesaur]

We'll need someone who's familiar with modding this.

---

A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

[eyvind]

EDIT: Well, I think the gist of this has been covered more concisely in the several posts made while I was writing this. *bows courteously*

In my opinion, the SNAC is too simple. It's just a super-powered gun, and nothing making it truly unique. It seems to me as though the bomber-capital ship relationship would become much more interesting if bombers had torpedos that were more than just guns. Nova Torpedos seem better as far as design goes, and while I recognize the difference between Novas and SNACs that might make the latter's existance as it is legitimate, I feel there could be much beneficial change.

The design should be done with two general assumptions, I feel: (1) that capital ships are not expected to use dodging as their primary defense against bomber weaponry, and (2) that bombers should be able to do significant damage to capital ships without being in too much danger from capital ship weapons. The current design takes the second point well into consideration, but not so much the first, I think.

To reiterate, I don't think the fundamental problem with SNACs is that of their damage or usefulness against fighters, I think it is due to its simplicity. A more fun type of anti-capital ship torpedo would be a large, tangible torpedo capable of long flight times and devastating destruction. The Nova torpedo is something like this, as far as I know, but I feel the concept could be taken further with good results. This idea has certainly been brought up before, but I am unsure what the arguments against it are, so let me bring it up once more.

I propose a large, slow, long-range torpedo with some tracking ability. The most effective defence against it should be intercepting it.

This poses somewhat of a problem since shooting large, slow things moving in a straight line is generally quite easy. The solution to this would be to simply make it durable and partially resistant to large capital-ship weapons (perhaps with forward-facing shielding). This would leave the bomber with a choice of firing the torpedo close to the target with high chance of hit or farther away with a higher chance of interception. Said interception would need to be done by smaller craft, since the capital ship would otherwise have to devote substantial time to destroying the torpedoes himself.

To solve the problem of using such a torpedo against smaller craft, I propose tweaking the proximity fuse (or whatever it is that triggers it to explode) to be sluggish enough for fighters to easily evade the blast with little effort.

This torpedo should likely also be quite advanced in it's effectiveness against capital-ships. That is to say, it should not have the problem of being largely ineffective against capital ships with slivers of shield-strength left. Would it, perhaps, be possible to give the torpedo a fused (I believe the term is) series of explosions over the course of a few short seconds?

A torpedo such as this would leave bombers in their position as the absolute best counter to capital ships. Bombers would still be able to survive alone against capital ships, and pose a considerable risk, but would still have trouble with the big ones on their own.

Capital ships, or groups of capital ships, would still not stand any chance (perhaps much less chance) against groups of bombers. Capital ship battles will require varied and balanced forces on both sides, essentially. The way I see it, much more so than currently.

The way it is now, bombers can quite easily take on capital ships without much help. Even if the capital ships have a few fighter escorts, the bombers can usually score enough hits on the big ships for me to question the sanity of the respective military financial departments. Fighter escorts can, with coordination, harass bombers quite efficiently, and usually enough to tip the battle. This harassment aspect of battles seems to be a bit one-sided, however, and simplest and quite possibly most effective counter by the other side would be to simply field more bombers. I believe, fighters have too much trouble escorting bombers effectively, is my point.

With my proposed torpedo, fighters might not be able to escort the bombers either, but they would be able to escort the torpedos. Those torpedos would require effort on the part of the interceptor fighters to destroy, and if they are harassed the effort they could effectively produce would diminish drastically. I feel this would add much more fun in the form of complexity to battles that, from where I sit, seem to be mostly of the type "several BSs here, let's get a bomber swarm."

I don't mean to propose a replacement for the SNAC, just an alternative that would potentially be more effective with good tactical coordination and leadership.

EDIT 2: It should be noted that I have never flown a bomber or capital ship in combat.

---

<span style="font-family:Agency FB">Good Morning!</span>

[Guest]

Problems with Torpedoes:

They can only damage shields if they hit the shield hardpoint which on some capitals requires a rather large explosion to do. They can miss very easily simply due to tracking. Not only that but their low speeds make it easy for gunboats to avoid unless fired on collision. And last, they're simply uncommon use due to putting the firer at risk.

Basing Bomber stats off the Fafnir would be a decent way to go. Able to dodge capital ship fire, but unable to dodge fighter gunfire (not completely unable, just has a hard time doing so).
--However, changing the bomber does not change the weapon. Meaning while a bomber might be more vulnerable to a fighter, it can still instakill a fighter if one should get in its aim or even still another bomber with its reduced dodging.

[Rudo]

My only real proposal would be to turn the Supernova into a really big honking pulse cannon. Leave the Inferno in its role as being able to be mounted on fighters, but if you want to hull a cap, you gotta either use regular guns, razors, or torpedoes.

Some upsides:
- It'd guide bombers away from mounting full racks of shieldbusters, no more one-shotting those fighters that still haven't learned not to joust when out of shields
- Offer a tactical option when dealing with enemy bombers -- nuking their plant so they can't fire that torpedo or fire their own SN at your friend
- In fleet fights, make caps more enduring

The big downside would be that most solo bombers would be that much less viable for solo piracy, and cap killing would need a measure of support in the form of other bombers/fighters or another cap.


I'm sure there's other downsides I didn't think of, that people will be itching to lay out in a pithy tone or in all caps right now, capped off with a thinly veiled "lol noob" or even a lolcats/FAIL meme picture. I've got my asbestos pyjamas on.

---

[douglas_brad]

Well, well, well... There's been a LOT of thought into that torp concept. I do have to say the average torpedo has been all but forgotten about. Sure there's a handful of Nova wielders out there, but just a handful. I'd be in full support of this High Explosive Anti-Cap Torpedo.

For the "Shield Sliver" issue, would it even be possible for a single piece of ordnance to have a second explosive charge? If so, what about a primary charge of EMP blast of maybe 2~3k Shield Damage with 0~10 Hull, then a rapid secondary charge of massive Cap Hull crippling awesomeness. I only say two charges as any more would be a lagoholic crash tool.

Now in the regard of use against fighters/bombers, would it be possible to create a "minimum" launch parameter? There already is a set maximum weapons range with tons of variables. Although, I do sense the "Get me the source code, then sure" comments brewing...

So to get back to the SNAC, everybody has one (once they can afford one) and it'd be nice for a bit of flavor.

---

[tansytansey]

I honestly don't think Freelancers' game play is designed for that kind of Torpedo, which as described was a long range, slow torpedo fired at a long range. This works well in Starlancer, because capital ship weapons are too slow to shoot down the Torpedoes effectively, and so the fighter escorts are required to shoot out the torpedoes and then the torpedo bombers. In Freelancer, however, you'd have to be completely daft to let a torpedo travelling at that speed hit you.

Not only that, but you've got to remember that Freelancer was built to be a fighter game, and the game engine is not designed for capital ships, which is why they basically fly as large, glorified fighters. The proposed suggestion of a bomber revamp would also require a complete revamp of capital ships and their roles. Ultimately it would leave Discovery feeling far from what the Vanilla experience once was, and I believe that Discovery was not supposed to be just another mod, but an extension of Freelancer its' self.

And that begs me to bring up another point, why fix (or rather, break) what's not already broken? Think about it, Bombers are what keep Freelancer in balance. They are the only thing that can effectively bring down a capital ship, without them, the majority of people would only fly capital ships simply because they are sick of being wailed on by Cruisers and the likes and not being able to fight back. That means we have no fighters, and whole mess of capital ships. That's not the freelancer I remember, that's not the freelancer I want to play. The existence of bombers as anti-capital platforms gives a purpose to having fighters.

I understand why you want to nerf bombers, but honestly, who in their right mind makes a direct joust at a bomber with their shield down? I think this is just another case of people trying to change game mechanics to make up for their own short comings. If the bomber is skilled enough, and if you're stupid enough to get SNACed in a fighter, then you deserve to die, and they deserve their blue message. Even if you nerf bombers, people will still find a way to kill you in them. That's the beauty of Freelancer, its' a skill based game, the only limits are your own abilities as a pilot. The time we spend ranting and arguing in another thread like this could be better used training, bettering ourselves and having fun. The balance between capital ships and bombers is a delicate one, be very careful what you wish for.

And yes, fighter escorts are probably a capital ships' best anti-bomber defense. Example: Me in my Falcata and a navy guy (I forget who, now, it was a while ago) in a Havoc versus a Liberty Cruiser and a OC Destroyer. Bombers win. Same match again, only this time the cruiser and destroyer have a VHF and LF on their side. Bombers loose.

---

http://i668.photobucket.com/albums/vv46/Ni...gcloudscopy.png
Image turned into a URL because it made your sig too tall. -Zuke
|Ashes and Draya's Epic Adventure|Ashes &quot;Nighthawk&quot; Yotaka|Nightfall|Eva Jones|
[5:50:49 PM] JakeSG (William Darkmoor) says: I like you, Ashes. You're more cynical than God.

[Friday]

Might I suggest that it isnt the ships - but the ordnance. You can give a missile great tracking - but with slow acceleration and fire-on-delay it wont do any good against fighters.

High top speed, slow acceleration and fire-delay biases a torp towards long range firing.

I put it to you that the 'bombers' in Freelancer are not bombers at all - they are more like Strike Fighters or Fighter-Bombers

I am going to put my hand up again here and suggest that Torpedoes have a cargo value.

This would automatically balance ANY ship with a torpedo hardpoint - from light fighters through to the freighters that have them. In theory any ship could fire any size torp - but would be limited in how many they can carry.

Freighters could then become 'true' bombers - much less agile, but tougher, and carrying a much larger payload. These ships would be the ones to fight at the longest, strategic ranges - being highly vulnerable to capital ship fire.

Current bombers would be fighter-bombers - good support craft against capital targets, with some anti-fighter capability.

Fighters too would be able to launch anti-cap torps to a limited extent - it would take a veritable swarm of smaller ships to carry enough payload to down the largest caps - and torps can still be exluded from smaller ship classes by power consumption.

And of course - if torps have cargo value - you can change the stats for a torp to fulfil different roles, and change the cargo value to suit!

---