buff light fighter armour and weapon level
buff heavy fighter energy (so it can fire bit longer) and give it 1k more armour and more HF with lvl 10 weapon capabiliteies
Leave bombers as they are....
NOW.... you get a fighter with more manouvering, more power, higher weapons
VHF is just.... to waste as i see it now....their too slow and durable for fighter vs fighter and too weak to take on a bomber/gunboat to have high chance of success
what remains is the fast and small light and heavy fighters....
(why are defender a HF??? it should clearly be a LF since armour is so low)
O rly, wanna challange my titan?
I see most of LF's and HF's as worsen VHF's.. One on one msotly they do not stand a chance.
Tenacity's suggestion is perhaps the best balancing idea I have ever seen in my relatively short tenure here.
It makes absolutely perfect sense, and as an added bonus it makes light fighters more useful again.
Fighters should be escorts, both to bombers and to capital ships (or freighters) to protect against bombers and their escorts.
IE;
1; Fighter role = to be ace and kill other fighters so they can help kill what those fighters are escorting
2; Capship role = to act as support/command/control to the fighters and knock out other cap-ships
3; Bomber role = to survive long enough to knock out cap-ships
As it is now;
1; Fighter role = to scramble to kill bombers
2; capship role = to kill each other until bombers come along, then cower at ships 1/100th their tonnage.
3; bomber role = to be uber and commit vehicular manslaughter with torpedoes.
' Wrote:1; Fighter role = to be ace and kill other fighters so they can help kill what those fighters are escorting
2; Capship role = to act as support/command/control to the fighters and knock out other cap-ships
3; Bomber role = to survive long enough to knock out cap-ships
That's what it works out just now with equal pilots flying.
' Wrote:Sindroms you, like everyone else around here participating in this bomber vs fighter argument, have completely missed the point.
1. Even if you keep it in a 1 on 1 duel, it's going to take half an hour or more for that fighter to win. Dodging snacs isnt the problem, it's killing the bomber in a reasonable amount of time.
2. Throw in 3 bombers vs 3 fighters and a capship (cruiser+) - the fighters will not be able to kill the bombers before the capship dies. Fighters have one role in this game - escorting - and they suck at it because they lack firepower.
3. Right now, bombers and fighters are too similar. Look at every other ship class and you'll see huge differences - from different shields to different weapons to different strengths and weaknesses. Bombers are, essentially, fighters with more power and bigger guns.
Bombers do need to be changed, and fighters do need to be buffed. The two ships should be, at first glance, noticably different in nearly all aspects other than relative size.
I stand behind my assessment of how things should be changed... Remove the SNAC, remove all bomber guns, and give each bomber 3-4 torpedo slots and a CD slot, then add in new torpedo types for the bombers to use. At the same time, buff all fighter gun projectile speeds. This lets the fighters kill the bombers more quickly than they can kill caps, and differentiates the bombers from the fighters at a base level - bombers are -only- supposed to be effective against caps.
@Tenacity: A very lucid analysis of the bomber issue. The only concern I have is is what attribute(s) will be buffed on the fighter. Personally, I'd just settle for a very slight increase in gun projectile speed and a more significant increase in the power core. Guns should be a fair option if you don't really like using missiles. Many class nines really tax the current VHF power core.
However, what will happen to the gunboats if the fighter is buffed to take on bombers more effectively? Right now your average gunboat (light gunboats, i.e. gunships are not as vulnerable is this case) has the agility of a wet sponge. As is, gunboats are pretty useless already, which is a shame. If fighters do get buffed (a big "if" considering the bomber lobby here) you might as well nix all the gunboats out of the mod. They will be rendered completely useless at that point.
Point of interest: During my short visit tonight in Delta tonight (20 mins), I saw a grand total of 6 bombers and 2 fighters. Some of those bombers and fighters in question were fighting amongst each other. The argument that bombers are common due to the largely exaggerated capspammage is a load of doo doo. I suspect that bombers are popular because they are a) very flexible and reward a pilot skillful with a SNAC and b) are optimal platforms for code weapons due to the beefier power core. I don't see any drastic changes for the bomber in the future, because bomber players would be livid if they lost all those advantages.
' Wrote:@Tenacity: A very lucid analysis of the bomber issue. The only concern I have is is what attribute(s) will be buffed on the fighter. Personally, I'd just settle for a very slight increase in gun projectile speed and a more significant increase in the power core. Guns should be a fair option if you don't really like using missiles. Many class nines really tax the current VHF power core.
However, what will happen to the gunboats if the fighter is buffed to take on bombers more effectively? Right now your average gunboat (light gunboats, i.e. gunships are not as vulnerable is this case) has the agility of a wet sponge. As is, gunboats are pretty useless already, which is a shame. If fighters do get buffed (a big "if" considering the bomber lobby here) you might as well nix all the gunboats out of the mod. They will be rendered completely useless at that point.
Point of interest: During my short visit tonight in Delta tonight (20 mins), I saw a grand total of 6 bombers and 2 fighters. Some of those bombers and fighters in question were fighting amongst each other. The argument that bombers are common due to the largely exaggerated capspammage is a load of doo doo. I suspect that bombers are popular because they are a) very flexible and reward a pilot skillful with a SNAC and b) are optimal platforms for code weapons due to the beefier power core. I don't see any drastic changes for the bomber in the future, because bomber players would be livid if they lost all those advantages.
/Signed
If bombers arent to be able to even pose a threat at all to a fighter, then its no point in having it....
once bombers get weak everyone gets a VHF/HF and then we go on complaining that the bombers are too weak, VHF's too powerful, Gunboats useless, too little variety... bla bla bla......
To be honest.... most people i see flies.
a: sabre
b: eagle
c: falcata
d: some wierd fighter like thingys
e: transport or bigger
now..... falcata might be more popular bomber.... but then again.... i see about 3 sabres for eery falcata.... now how many avg bomber pilots can take on 3 to 1..... none... not if their not horrible pilots
Bombers are meant to take out caps, and caps alone. Caps and bombers alike need fighter escorts. And no, gunships will not be useless because they can take out fighters and bombers with more firepower.
What? Who the hell thinks that thruster speed affects whether you get hit or not? The agility DOES matter, since that's what's stopping you from getting hit.
![[Image: sig.png]](http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss293/freelancergeek/Chrs/RYager/sig.png)
![[Image: v1zVWKX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/v1zVWKX.png)
