Some bomber issues

[ryoken]

All bombers mentioned need work. But the Upholder is the worst of them all. Huge top bottom profile, and crap armour. It cannot run 10K from a fighter without getting killed. You just cannot miss when shooting at it, and if you use the guns at all, you cannot use torp or SNAC.

---

[mjolnir]

Tbh I couldn't quite believe what I was reading here...........from Joe!!!!

yes some bombers are worse than others and might need changes.

But in general are you saying that Light Bombers are too weak and need to be faster????????


4.85 FA bomber, Jaguars before nerf, RoC before nerf or 4.84 Catamarans much?

---

Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.

[dodike]

I personally lack access to a true heavy bomber.

[Tachyon]

I can agree on the Cupholder/Broadsword issue here. Why didn't the LibBomber get a buff in .86 already ? I thought it was common knowledge by now, that it sucks.

---

[Jihadjoe]

Tbh I couldn't quite believe what I was reading here...........from Joe!!!!

yes some bombers are worse than others and might need changes.

But in general are you saying that Light Bombers are too weak and need to be faster????????
4.85 FA bomber, Jaguars before nerf, RoC before nerf or 4.84 Catamarans much?

No, not quite.

The intended purpose of bombers is to rip up caps. In that role, bombers with a medium plant have a clear advantage. They generally come with far more armour and bots, as well as the larger plant.

Light bombers do less damage than medium bombers over the same amount of time, by virtue of being able to fire less frequently.

The difference between the handling and size of light bombers and medium bombers, is not great enough to give light bombers a survivability advantage. Infact, the extra armour and bots that medium bombers have, cause them to last longer.

This means that you have medium bombers, which survive longer than light bombers, meaning they stay on the battlefield for longer.

As a result of the extra powerplant, each second a medium bomber is in combat is more valuable in terms of damage than a light bomber.

Therefore medium bombers are currently outright better than light bombers.

---

[Implosion]

I couldn't agree more with you,Joe.
Especially the part with the Interceptor/Broadsword.
However,I doubt they would receive the buffs you mentioned.
Because,you know,people don't like getting their fighters insta'd by bombers.
Imo,there's no differnce if one gets shot down by a skilled player with a bomber or a by a skilled player with a VHF.

---

| [Youtube Channel] | [Daniels] [X] [X]  | [Jessica Scarlet] |

[CommanderX]

I couldn't agree more with you,Joe.
Especially the part with the Interceptor/Broadsword.
However,I doubt they would receive the buffs you mentioned.
Because,you know,people don't like getting their fighters insta'd by bombers.
Imo,there's no differnce if one gets shot down by a skilled player with a bomber or a by a skilled player with a VHF.

Well, heavy bombers were not mentioned in here, but from experience of other players I know, rouge bomber is the worse heavy bomber there is.
Even with nice armor, many regens and heavy fire power, it is big and low agile, with make it very easy target for fihgters and gunboats, or even for cap fire itself.

So it practicaly mean that medium bombers can hit hard enogh and survive very long under fire when heavy bombers survive alot less and can not focus on bombing when escort get in the way, and light bombers can not hurt caps and not last as long as medium bomber what make tham to snipe subcrafts.

I m not sure do other heavy bombers have troubles like rouge bomber have, but it practicaly mean that heavy bombers are working like bombers ( hit capital ships hard but have troubles when fighter or gunboat escort get in ), this is how bomber should work, I think that rouge bomber need buff since it is worse one, but it is not topic of this treat.

And at the same time, it make some medium bombers alot better than heavy bombers because they can survive longer and fighters or gunboats do not posses so much treat to it.

And it leave light bombers who survive and do less damage to caps than medium bombers, with make tham worse and force tham to snipe fighters and bombers instead.

I think that we need bombers to go in the direction of:
1) heavy bombers ( strong again caps and weak when fighters or gunboats interfere, this is how bombers should be ).

2) Light bombers just can not do they job, they should befome medium bombers as Joe sugested.

3) Balance medium bombers to heavy bombers ( so that medium bombers wont be OP compared to heavy ones ).

4) Do not leave some ships to be OP like RM bomber and do not leave crappy bombers like upholder and rouge bomber and some others what Joe probably mentioned ( it is after all for balance team to evade making OP or far underpowered ships in the first place, still can not belive no one from tham noticed how underpowered upholder is ).

---

[McNeo]

Without getting into specifics, I have to say that given the community's intolerance for insta-kills in general, the concept of a light bomber looks like an oxymoron to me. And then, looking at the sub-classes, there isn't very much in the way of survivability to tell them apart, unless we want to rebrand light and medium bombers as "weak bombers" and "strong bombers" in that order.

I personally believe the upholder to be a deathtrap. When the havoc II was introduced as the Liberty Navy bomber before the upholder, the person who wanted me to fly it had to get on their knees and beg. The upholder has looks on its side and nothing more.

On the other hand, I still have my sweet but ultra-nerfed bergelmir - compared to how good it was in the past at least. Of course, people still think it's OP now (and it is when you look at the competition), but then they would have an absolute heart attack at its first incarnation: about 25% smaller than it is now, fighter guns, double nova cannons (not torpedoes), around 28000 base armour and 145bb. And it turned faster too. Yummy. Who remembers when everyone was mounting a full rack of Colada Del Cids on these things?

So far we have come. In the wrong direction in my opinion, since those things were still deathtraps back then, just people didn't cotton on to their weakness. Shame really.

Whoops, had a bit of a moment there.

Righto, time to add something a bit more than blind reminiscing to this post:

Light bombers, as I said, are generally pointless. Personally, I find the easiest targets on that list to be the Orchid, the Broadsword and the Upholder (in that order). I agree that they need to be strengthened, but given that they all have this weakness because of their size rather than their statistics, my personal preference would be to ditch the idea of a light bomber all-together. Given that we don't want fighters to start dying to these, no matter how much of a wet dream that would be to me, doing this avoids the consequences of making any of them faster.

[Knjaz]

I personally lack access to a true heavy bomber.

A true cloak-capable heavy bomber.
Much needed.

[Black Widow]

Cougar is a very good bomber for cloak, with Cloak and AU8 MOUNTED I still have enough space for 55 Secs of Cloak Time. Fkin Perfect and teh SEXSHY

Also I agree with Joes original post, some bombers need an upgrade. Like the Cutlass could do with some more cargo space, armour.

In fact they should get rid of the Falcata altogether coz it suks ass model wise and skin is dated. Cutlass should take Falcatas place as the BW Bomber!

The 3 Tier Bomber system should also be scrapped, there should be a 2 Tier System: Light Bombers and Heavy Bombers.

With all Light and Medium bombers been given the same stats! with Heavy Bombers left as they are.