The problem here isn't getting SNAC'd in a fighter as far as I'm concerned, I learned my lesson after eating antimatter a fair few times, but it hasn't happened since.
' Wrote:Um actually from an RP and PvP standpoint here is the big issue...
VERY HEAVY FIGHTER
HEAVY FIGHTER
LIGHT FIGHTER
when it comes to it, most pilots should be flying HF's. Bombers get rocked by HF's by the way, and a HF pilot with skill can knock around VHF's.
VHF are -very heavy- fighters and therefore are missing much of the advantage that HF's have over a bomber, maneuverability.
The problem is that everyone thinks a VHF is the interceptor class fighter that should rock a bombers socks and it aint, its like a gigantic F-15 loaded with heavy aranment. When your planning to knock out some attack ships, or even huge heavy fighters like oversize MiG's, you use an F-16. A heavy fighter that is still light enough to run circles around most other planes.
HF-your dream interceptor that lolrapes bombers
VHF- your gigantic fighter that barely outturns a bomber but hits like a rock.
P.S. anyone who doesn't know the difference, try SNAC'ing a HF instead of a VHF. Its about 500% harder for me, maybe a bit better/worse for others.
Whilst I do love this post, and agree with it, the problem with HF's is the fact that the gen craps out far too quickly to down a bomber in the critical time before the capitals are destroyed. Considering the large amount of regens the bomber has, the HF may not get hit by the bomber but the cap that's on your team is in danger of exploding before the bomber can be neutralized, because it can't be pinned down by the fighter effectively.
Yeah I've never understood the ridiculous underpowerdness of the HF powerplant.
You trade armor, bots/bats, cargo space, and better guns for maneuverability and a size advantage.
How in god can we power a VHF with codenames or all class 9's and yet a HF has trouble with just a pair of 9's and all 8's.
In my opinion HF's should have a much better powerplant, the lack of armor, bots, cargo, better guns is plenty of balance for its upped turning ability. Just cuz we made a ship that use smaller guns doesn't mean we put the 30 year old powerplant on it:(
-
[5:57:11 PM] InfernalTater (Lewis) [Formerly TLI-Inferno]:meanwhile, Aces 'I don't always miss my destinations, but when I do, I'm on the other side of house space.'
I think people should do more extensive testing now that bomber powercore is lowered, so that equipping 4 Imp. Debs (or 4xcodes) is not self-explanatory anymore. Meaning that you can not anymore fire the main guns to strip the shield and then finish the guy off in the same pass with SNAC.
I bet we are going to see more missile bombers (1xparalyzer to rip the shields, 1xCB to spam them)
' Wrote:@Elgatodiablo, people here never look to RL for balance support for that very reason. That said, note you say a well placed shot on a Large Ship. Have you ever seen a bomber of any kind in RL to torpedo a Fighter? I'd like to see the video / official report for that.
Not exactly a bomber torpedoing a fighter, but BF-109s bombed B-17s during the air war over Europe...
' Wrote:I think people should do more extensive testing now that bomber powercore is lowered, so that equipping 4 Imp. Debs (or 4xcodes) is not self-explanatory anymore. Meaning that you can not anymore fire the main guns to strip the shield and then finish the guy off in the same pass with SNAC.
I bet we are going to see more missile bombers (1xparalyzer to rip the shields, 1xCB to spam them)
I've noticed this too and was pleasently surprised. Attacked an Order cruiser the other day with a SNAC and by the time my Bomber's energy restored, the Cruiser's shields were too. I think this change should bring about a lot of balance to the game.
I agree with AceofSpades in that our ship classification system needs fixing. If we want to use real-world comparisons... there are two types of fighter, 1 (applicable) type of bomber, and one in the middle.
Light fighters: these are interceptors, analogous to the F-106. They're light, maneuverable, and can fight equally matched opponents, as well as take out bombers. They main attribute is their speed, and therefore their response time. They can get to the battle fast, or chase down enemies that are fleeing.
Heavy Fighters: these are air-superiority fighters, like F-15s. They're meant to mop the floor with light fighters, and clear the skies so that friendly bombers can operate. They are the heavy hitters, not as fast as the interceptors, but much tougher and with a greater weapons loadout for killing interceptors and other air superiority fighters. And they can take out bombers much more easily as well.
(Torpedo) Bombers: They launch torpedoes at ships. They're not equipped to handle head-on air to air combat. They might have a rear gun for shooting the enemy as they're trying to run away. They are very vulnerable to interceptors and air superiority fighters, but just a few of them can take out a big ship in a matter of minutes.
Multirole fighters/VHFs: these are like the F-16s or F-35s. They can do everything, but not as well as the specialized ones. Their advantage is their flexibility, they can attack ground(naval) targets as well as shoot down enemy small craft. But they won't be able to do it as well as specialized fighters.
My proposal: take away the torp slot on HFs, and boost their powerplant a bit. Then balance HFs and VHFs so that HFs take out VHFs (equally skilled pilots, most of the time, etc). Then boost the max speed and thruster speed of LFs to 130/250, as opposed to 80/200. Leave cruise speed and maneuverability the same. As for bombers, well, the problem is that modern analogies of escorting and bomber interception don't work because of the disparity between offense and defense. Right now, fighters defend themselves by not getting hit, and shooting the other guy first. In Disco, our ships are much tougher, and can take a lot of hits. Unfortunately, this encourages everybody to fly bombers and try to SNAC everyone because that is the only weapon that actually poses a threat in the 40-50 seconds it takes a bomber to kill a tradeship, for instance.
' Wrote:I agree with AceofSpades in that our ship classification system needs fixing. If we want to use real-world comparisons... there are two types of fighter, 1 (applicable) type of bomber, and one in the middle.
<snip>
My proposal: take away the torp slot on HFs, and boost their powerplant a bit. Then balance HFs and VHFs so that HFs take out VHFs (equally skilled pilots, most of the time, etc). Then boost the max speed and thruster speed of LFs to 130/250, as opposed to 80/200. Leave cruise speed and maneuverability the same. As for bombers, well, the problem is that modern analogies of escorting and bomber interception don't work because of the disparity between offense and defense. Right now, fighters defend themselves by not getting hit, and shooting the other guy first. In Disco, our ships are much tougher, and can take a lot of hits. Unfortunately, this encourages everybody to fly bombers and try to SNAC everyone because that is the only weapon that actually poses a threat in the 40-50 seconds it takes a bomber to kill a tradeship, for instance.
This proposal looks very fun; a few thoughts:
Reduce cruise charge time for LF's for increased interception effectiveness perhaps?
I'd say for the HF gen buff I'd leave the capacity the same as it is now, but increase the recharge rate.
Oh, and buff the damn VHF gens, the rather poor ability to handle a bunch class 9's unless you're flyin a tank VHF makes missiles a bit too appealing. Trying to munch a heavy-armored bomber when your guns crap out on you every 10 seconds is a nightmare for defending friendly caps/transports. I think a small capacity buff would give VHF's a needed boost in effectiveness.
Example time:
Current:
Eagle
Power output 10,400 u
Power recharge 1,100 u/s
GMG(Taiidian) HF
Power output 9,000 u
Power recharge 900 u/s
Brainfart:
Eagle
Power output 12,400 u - roughly 10% buff
Power recharge 1,100 u/s
GMG(Taiidian) HF
Power output 9,000 u
Power recharge 1000 u/s - roughly 10% buff
Of course this would be applied to all HF and VHFs.
P.S. And I want a GB missile slot on my GC VHF kthx
' Wrote:Yeah I've never understood the ridiculous underpowerdness of the HF powerplant.
You trade armor, bots/bats, cargo space, and better guns for maneuverability and a size advantage.
How in god can we power a VHF with codenames or all class 9's and yet a HF has trouble with just a pair of 9's and all 8's.
In my opinion HF's should have a much better powerplant, the lack of armor, bots, cargo, better guns is plenty of balance for its upped turning ability. Just cuz we made a ship that use smaller guns doesn't mean we put the 30 year old powerplant on it:(
Lets not forget that very often, an HF will be using the same model of another ship, and thus, have no size advantage, but an overall stat Disadvantage.
Main examples being the House Fighters.
Executioner is the Liberty HF, however, it uses the same model as the Avenger VHF. Having no size advantage over it.
The only house that has a proper HF right now is Bretonia. While others have a duplicate model with stat changes.
' Wrote:I agree with AceofSpades in that our ship classification system needs fixing. If we want to use real-world comparisons... there are two types of fighter, 1 (applicable) type of bomber, and one in the middle.
Agreed with a few changes and additions.
130/250 on an LF would be too much. I believe a 100/220 would be less overpowering, only upping their speed on both by 20m/s
Bombers should have their armor points reduced, in between that of their HF and VHF counterparts. My reasoning for this can be found in one of my earlier posts here.
Cruise Charge Times:
LF - 3 seconds
HF VHF - 5 seconds
Bomber - 6 seconds
---------------------------------------------------------------
My proposal for a more specialized Anti-cap bomber design still stands. http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=120jhpw&s=5
note: Mute volume, forgot to remove sound from the video and due to slowmotion on some parts it sucks.
![[Image: 2ecf33o.png]](http://i59.tinypic.com/2ecf33o.png)
