Ok then think about this: you say that making scatterguns 450 meters would still make them OP since most fighter duels happen within this range yes? Well, thats where a damage nerf to 600/300 comes in, as it would be the lowest damege dealing 4:0 in game. Any other 4:0 is faster and deals more damage. Now add the fact that Scattergun SCATTERS, so you get fewer shots in as well. You have a situation where VHF is almost certain to win. This is where balance comes in. If you are experianced and skilled, you might win against less skillful VHF. Most skilled fighters will still win a bomber, but atleast bomber would have had SOME chance.
2nd. Using 4 scatterguns would make you useles against almost anything, excluding Mastodon, Whale, Colossus and similar ships that have 3 weapon mounts or less. Using the new nerfed scatterguns against gunboats?? With 450 meters range?? Are you serious?? We all know that if the weapon range states 650 meters for instance, you dont hit at 650 meters, because you target the center of the ship, thats where hitboxes are. So if you wanna hit a gunboat with 700 meters range weapon you have to be in 600 - 650 range from it.
in a same situation versus a cruiser you have to be in 550 - 600 range to actually hit it. So the person that would opt for a 450 range, 600/300 damage, version of the scattergun, would severely limit himself deshielding wise, against anything bigger than a bomber.And even in a 2 bomber scenario, the EMP/SNAC using bomber will deshield a scattergun/SNAC using bomber faster.
3rd. I didnt only say " Use this as a base for new scattergun rebalance ", i just gave numbers that i thought might work to a certain degree, which was the plan in the first place.
I would also appreciate that skilled people and long term players gave their stats and numbers with which they think the scattergun would find middle ground between OP and totally useless.
We have a wide variety of scattergun change available, lets do something. Most of you here talk about how they were OP and how now they are crap. WE ALL know and agree on this. But that is also not in question, since we all ( i feel like im repeating myself XD) know this. What we dont know is how to rebalance them, hence this much needed thread, and change.
(11-29-2019, 08:28 AM)Lucas Wrote: Ever since I started playing on this server, I have never understood why people think that Bombers should be able to compete with Fighters when it comes to protecting themselves or other ships from anything smaller than a gunboat.
The fact that currently bombers can win against a fighter if they are skilled enough is fine as it is, in my opinon at least. Scatters were so horribly unbalanced before that many of the good pvpers started actually flying bombers instead of fighters just because they are so versatile and could do anything that a fighter could, and more. This is no longer the case because of the SNAC and Scattergun nerf, and I think it is fine as it is.
Bombers are already very painful to kill for fighters (if it runs and is not something like a Waran that is 2 million meters long and has the shape of a brick) because they have so much more base-hull and an absurd amount of Regenerations that fighters, especially ones unexperienced in groupfights with mediocre or bad aim, can basically not chew through.
450m range would just make Scatterguns broken again. Not because they can delete Gunboats as easily as before, but because 450m is the range that most Fighter duels happen at. If you watch the top notch pvpers fight, you won't see many, if any, shots flying right after they turn ( at which point the distance between them is the highest) because they would just waste energy, and instead they start firing on each other when they get closer.
TL;DR: Keep it as is, Bombers should not be able to fight a Fighter : )
I agree that bombers shouldn't have a conventional and convinient (efficient high refire guns) way of killing fighters. SNAC was something that required skill and could be avoided, while giving skilled bomber pilots to threaten fighters on the back. Because when I let's say fly Cougar and getting Templar on my ass, there's simply no way to do anything but just die to it. Since Templar cannot even be double nuked, and yeah I simply stopped fying bombers. And considering amount of caps in that area I stopped flying there in general.
SNAC should be brought back to what it was in terms of killing fighters to just make bombers flyable and Scatters were a mistake from the beginning. They sort of can be there since no one is using them anyway.
A bomber, even pre-SNAC nerf, will basically never win a fight against a fighter that flies well. The opponent needs to massively slip up to actually get hit in a duel, or just be completely oblivious to the environment if it's a group fight.
Scatters (and most bomber weapons in general, except for EMPs) are just completely pointless to use. If you're against fighters, you're just completely inferior. If you're against caps, you're begging to get insta'd or severely punished for being close enough to use them.
I guess the current meta is risking it all with being super close with scorchers or semi-afking with torps on the corner of a fight and praying you'll never have a fighter on you.
Alright, scatter guns. Do you all know why they were so OP? Not because you could 1v1 a fighter easily, but because in a fight between 5 bombers vs 5 fighters, bombers easily won. Why? Because you could get on a fighters ass and hit constantly because scatters have a spread and multiple shots, meaning you had to get to about 200m and aim in the general direction of your target. This is why they have 150m currently, so this isn't so very easy to do.
(If you fight someone who actually bothered to try the new scatters, like Durandal, you would see that they are still useful in 1v1s.)
If any of you would come to this with a unbiased opinion you would easily see that no, fighters SHOULD NOT be able to win against a fighter in a duel. That is not what they are meant to fight. However, you can, to this day, still do it. And the way is front nuking. You have way more nanos and batteries, along side way more armor. Unless you are fighting someone above average who can counter this effectively, you will win. And you shouldn't be able to win against someone actually good in fighters no matter what weapons are available to you on a bomber.
SNACs, once again the same thing. If your play style is based around this one weapon and the mechanic of instaing someone, then I'm afraid you won't be getting this back. It simply makes no sense to let bombers who are meant to fight caps easily remove any fighter that might come chasing them. And let's remember that not everyone has the skill to fight a bomber with a insta SNAC. I remember Rax mentioning a fight he was in where he killed multiple fighters alone simply by instaing them one by one and picking up the regens. So as long as you avoid the better people and kill off the worse, you could simply go through whole groups. Instead of basing your opinion on "This weapon is very strong but if you are actually good then no you won't die" instead you should think about how newer people will react to getting removed with such ease. I imagine the reason so many people go to caps first when they start the game is because they get removed easily from fights and have no fun. So they take something that won't die so quickly and actually experience this game.
All of you seem to talk like you want to play this game in constant 1v1s, instead of playing in a group of multiple ship classes, each dong their part.
And no, bombers shouldn't be invincible when they fight a cap. So yes if you want to hit it you have to get well inside the range of it's defensive weapons, otherwise how are we ever going to consider a cap fighting off bombers? Should 2 bombers win against a single battleship? In my opinion no, and currently they generally can't.
I mean you can call your own opinion unbiased while killing off an entire ship class. As for justification of SNAC you take one Rax who once mentioned that he did a thing. I assume you never did SNAC bomberwhoring against snubs yourself since you crealy don't understand how unreliable that was and how easy is this to counter. At least from the way you put it.
Newbies being instakilled by caps is fine, but by bombers it isn't. Because unbiased.
I have no clue where you got the idea that the bomber ship class is being killed off. But I guess you simply have to have the one thing you had so much joy from to consider them useful.
And no me mentioning what Rax said he did isn't a simple justification for everything. But then again Rax isn't the only one is he. The amount of people that have dominated snub fight by going around and catching people unexpected with a SNAC is pretty damn high.
(11-29-2019, 03:02 PM)Black Smoke Wrote: The amount of people that have dominated snub fight by going around and catching people unexpected with a SNAC is pretty damn high.
Yeah, even for them it's months and weeks of trying to manage a fight in which they can achieve what you described.
As for the class, well, I know some people including Ramke who posted here who simply stop flying the class.
You are making an axiom of bombers should be a threat to fighters. In which case I don't understand why Cruisers should be a threat to Gunboats if we apply the same logic. Yet battleship SHOULD be and is a threat for everything, which you specifically pointed out few posts ago. Why don't we make battleships without anti-snub weaponry so we get them to play with other classes like you are argumenting for bombers? Then again it's me failing to understand unbiased approaches of a person who never did cetrain things in this game and yet is somehow a balance dev. Excuse me on that, but you seem to be way too flatly with your decisions.
(11-29-2019, 03:02 PM)Black Smoke Wrote: The amount of people that have dominated snub fight by going around and catching people unexpected with a SNAC is pretty damn high.
Yeah, even for them it's months and weeks of trying to manage a fight in which they can achieve what you described.
As for the class, well, I know some people including Ramke who posted here who simply stop flying the class.
You are making an axiom of bombers should be a threat to fighters. In which case I don't understand why Cruisers should be a threat to Gunboats if we apply the same logic. Yet battleship SHOULD be and is a threat for everything, which you specifically pointed out few posts ago. Why don't we make battleships without anti-snub weaponry so we get them to play with other classes like you are argumenting for bombers? Then again it's me failing to understand unbiased approaches of a person who never did cetrain things in this game and yet is somehow a balance dev. Excuse me on that, but you seem to be way too flatly with your decisions.
Because a Cruiser's role is to support larger capitals while being a threat to anything smaller, and a Bomber is not meant to threaten a Fighter. What's the point in flying a Fighter if a Bomber does the same job and can severely cripple caps on top?
(11-29-2019, 03:02 PM)Black Smoke Wrote: The amount of people that have dominated snub fight by going around and catching people unexpected with a SNAC is pretty damn high.
Yeah, even for them it's months and weeks of trying to manage a fight in which they can achieve what you described.
As for the class, well, I know some people including Ramke who posted here who simply stop flying the class.
You are making an axiom of bombers should be a threat to fighters. In which case I don't understand why Cruisers should be a threat to Gunboats if we apply the same logic. Yet battleship SHOULD be and is a threat for everything, which you specifically pointed out few posts ago. Why don't we make battleships without anti-snub weaponry so we get them to play with other classes like you are argumenting for bombers? Then again it's me failing to understand unbiased approaches of a person who never did cetrain things in this game and yet is somehow a balance dev. Excuse me on that, but you seem to be way too flatly with your decisions.
Because a Cruiser's role is to support larger capitals while being a threat to anything smaller, and a Bomber is not meant to threaten a Fighter. What's the point in flying a Fighter if a Bomber does the same job and can severely cripple caps on top?
As I said I am against bombers to be able to do conventional damage to fighters aka having them guns who can actually damage fighter unironically. But SNAC hits is not replyable and is at least allowing to get a fighter to shieldrun for some time and get some time to breath. But I am against of them completely useless against the fighter as they are now.
And come on, cruisers are good against everything, you are calling that a 'support' ship.
Cruisers are not good against everything, the first thing to point out being battlecruisers. And they are not even good against gunboats, for that matter. Also saying bombers are completely useless against fighters is not true. Are you unable to win without heavy damage and probably a bit of luck? Yes, but it shouldn't be any other way. This is why you have someone fly fighters to cover you on a bomber.
![[Image: loyolabully.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/loyolabully.gif)
![[Image: Q5rd5YU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Q5rd5YU.png)
![[Image: Ramkerawr.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Ramkerawr.gif)
