Average bomber vs a Good VHF

[frozen]

As far as I can tell, the bomber was doing a better job hitting the fighter than the fighter was hitting the bomber, because the fighter had to dodge around so much. The fighter wasn't going to kill the bomber without an hour long dogfight, if then.

Yeah. been a while since i flew ingame on fl or had a proper fight, so my aim = fail at the moment. had i been able to aim, artur would have been dead rather fast. the reason the fight lasted as long as it did was due to my complete inability to hit ****. as you can see, i was having a fine time dodging his shots and i was not flying into his supernova shots (though artur glorified his one hit on my shield with the supernova, i have to point out supernova'ing a shield and hull is two different things, since the shield = bubble, hitbox for hull = shape of ship, and thus smaller)

The VHF needs better razor aim!

And it's a nomad in a wraith with a mix of nomads and hornviper guns? The wraith is above average speed however (it's big, fairly easy to hit and has 5 guns, so fast).

Try it in a templar, slowest VHF in game (though, it's easy to SN in joust, but hard to hit outside of joust).

or a Titan, second slowest VHF in game (basically the opposite of a templar, hard to hit in a joust and easier outside of joust).

Also, just to note, the Roc is slightly above average (in duel).

FFUUU! >.< mah aim r bad at the moment though:(im practicing, gimme credeet? D:

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.

1. wrong. A fighter that can aim will take the bomber fast enough so as to not have hour long fights. for proof, i challenge you to fly the fastest bomber against my cousin and see the result.

2. wrong again. ive seen a single Lib bc survive against 4 falcatas with only an eagle as support (sure, it was because 2 bombers ate razors, one ate a LM and final got gunned down by the eagle), and ive seen a lib bc with 3 guardians as support withstand 3 rocs and 3 sabres, AND win the fight.

3. the reason bombers and fighters are similar is because they use the same guns. if you make a custom weapon group for bombers, restrict the razor and inferno to fighters only and deny bombers the ability to mount missile turrets, they become forced to being specialized toward anti cap (ofcourse, with such restrictions you boost the anti cap abilities even further).

if bombers have slow guns (say.. 280 speed), no razor or inferno, they -cannot- deshield a fighter which dodges, strafes and utilizes certain well known tricks of freelancer to survive and attack (however, they -might- be able to deshield a slow bomber perhaps).

---