Alternative Bomber Type

[Guest]

Bombers in atmospheres have down-flying bombs. I see no need for space ones to have them - after all, why not use the increased momentum (of forward flight) in a forward projectile? Firing it backwards/below just seems silly.

Um.......good question, wait no.... Because its the same crap over and over.
Is it an unwritten rule somewhere within Freelancer itself that all guns must be fireable parallel to the ship? I think not. The concept is unique compared to the general idea of a forward firing gun, and therefore it must be unacceptable? I will add those two to the list at once, good sir. Thank you for informing me.

As Yue said, the backward torp-firing capability shown in the video is essentially what the Thrudgelmir (aka Fafnir) was designed to do. Which in hindsight is where the idea came from.
------------------------------------------------

Unwritten Rules of Freelancer:
All ships must be longest on their Z Axis (just an observation, outside the few corsair fighters there arent really any ships that stray from this)
All guns must fire parallel to the ship's plane
All unique concept ideas are, for lack of an outside-the-box interest, unacceptable

[Darkard]

I quite like it actually. Remind me of Starwars where the TIE Bombers carpet bomb the asteroids to try and flush out the Millenium Falcon.

Tinks idea of the slow/heavy mine would alliviate the need for a 'Bombing HUD' and allow the pilot to concentrate more on doging incoming fire.

This type of close range passing Carpet bomber would be countered easily by well placed Flacks tho.

It would be nice if this was a unique weapon for certain bomber ships. The Bombers in question getting a Frighter Shield slot to assist in them getting up close. Fighters would still be able to counter it much better, They can outmanouver it and CD its bombs before they 'Activate', potentialy harming the bomber.

---

0-499 posts: Your posts will be completely and utterly ignored.
500-999 posts: People will read your posts, but will never care for the content.
1000-2000 posts: Your posts will be read, your points may be considered, if you're lucky.
2001+ posts and custom title: Your opinion matters.

<div align="right">QFT</div>

[darthbeck]

i would rather have bomber guns, that deal similar DPs to the SN. (it would need to be balenced.)

---

<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">Violence is Golden</span>

[Guest]

If your going on about the Class 6 Turrets.
Let me make note of something no one else seems to have noticed before:

Freighters and other small transports able to hold up to Class 7 turrets would have to be modified so that they cant use Class 6's

Balance 4 bomber C6 Turrets, to do 5610 damage per second each (combined, 22400 dps, equal to 132000 damage every 6 seconds)
Hello Armored Lolwut Transport weighing in at approximately 39270 damage per second, capable of damaging a ship more than anything else in FL. Then just the general idea that the bomber still has his SN which just fails the thought completely.

-------------------------------------------------

Darkard, what your suggesting, is basically the same old generic mine we have now, slow moving, able to be TCD'ed to damage its firer.
But what this is, isnt a slow moving mine, its a torp that moves as fast as other torps. The Nova of which being unTCDable.

[khran]

If your going on about the Class 6 Turrets.
Let me make note of something no one else seems to have noticed before:

Freighters and other small transports able to hold up to Class 7 turrets would have to be modified so that they cant use Class 6's

Balance 4 bomber C6 Turrets, to do 5610 damage per second each (combined, 22400 dps, equal to 132000 damage every 6 seconds)
Hello Armored Lolwut Transport weighing in at approximately 39270 damage per second, capable of damaging a ship more than anything else in FL. Then just the general idea that the bomber still has his SN which just fails the thought completely.

Was discussing this with a fellow brother-in-arms and this is what he had to say about this:

"rofl no class 6 turrets because... a few fields would need to change? WTF"

Seriously, it isn't like we're talking re-doing all the class6-mounting ship models here. If anything, the only real argument about Class6 Bomber guns is that someone else might come up with a better use for the Class6 Turret slots. :rolleyes:

Anyway... I think this bomber idea is awesome. I'll even go a step further and suggest that ALL torp slots should be modified to perform in this fashion. :yahoo: This would more or less fix the current SNAC vs Fighters issue and would force Bombers to get in close against Capships. I believe it could also help fix current issues with GB's having a poorly defined roll. A GS/GB would have an easier time staying out of the cone of fire of the "bombs" and would serve capship fleets as a better bomber/fighter deterrent than they currently are. It would also give GBs are reason to mount things other than a full complement of Razors and Pulses. :P

---

Just as we reap the golden wheat, must we also cut free of the chains! [eS]

[Malleus]

Was discussing this with a fellow brother-in-arms and this is what he had to say about this:

"rofl no class 6 turrets because... a few fields would need to change? WTF"

Seriously, it isn't like we're talking re-doing all the class6-mounting ship models here. If anything, the only real argument about Class6 Bomber guns is that someone else might come up with a better use for the Class6 Turret slots. :rolleyes:

Anyway... I think this bomber idea is awesome. I'll even go a step further and suggest that ALL torp slots should be modified to perform in this fashion. :yahoo: This would more or less fix the current SNAC vs Fighters issue and would force Bombers to get in close against Capships. I believe it could also help fix current issues with GB's having a poorly defined roll. A GS/GB would have an easier time staying out of the cone of fire of the "bombs" and would serve capship fleets as a better bomber/fighter deterrent than they currently are. It would also give GBs are reason to mount things other than a full complement of Razors and Pulses. :P

Agreed that this is one of the most interesting proposals I've heard in a while.

Would that we could get some statistics on what's actually in use on the server... A lot of unsubstantiated claims are floating about. I really don't care what a "skilled" person can do with a particular ship/weapon, etc. It's averages that interest me, because they determine the flavor of the server.

Right now, I see gunboats and bombers galore. Why? They're versatile when you're flying solo. There's no rock-paper-scissors about it, for your "average" pilot; bombers don't get eaten alive by fighters, for example. And as things have tended towards piracy, there's pretty much no way for your prey to escape either of those ship classes -- or even to mount an effective defense. Transport turrets are for show, and they're not in vanilla.

That said, once you give your playerbase a toy, they get pretty salty when there is any discussion about altering how things work in any way. It's up to the devs to determine what the game steers people towards; they set the tone. I'm just hoping that design decisions are being made with towards a vision of how the game should feel, rather than whose feelings will be hurt by any particular change.

Anyway, here's hoping people keep an open mind.

---

Just as we reap the golden wheat, must we also cut free of the chains! [eS]