Being a bombardier should cost cert points

[PR24]

I think there should be a cert needed to be the Bombardier to help "control" the mass number of players wanting to be the Bombardier.
This will make game flow better and force a specific role to each solidier like PS should have.

It should cost 1 - 2 cert points.

What does everyone else think?

[Knuckles]

Uhh...

No.

Why should we have a cert for this when all other gunner/whatever positions are free? Keep it as it is - only vehicle certs should cost points. Besides... It would be a hassle to find bombardiers for Your Liberator.

[Trebor95]

Originally posted by Knuckles
Uhh...

No.

Why should we have a cert for this when all other gunner/whatever positions are free? Keep it as it is - only vehicle certs should cost points. Besides... It would be a hassle to find bombardiers for Your Liberator.

Indeed, I doubt if I'll be voilunteering for a gunner - what with all these skyguards that are gonna be running around and the AV weapons everyone seems to have :D as well as the automated phalanx turrets

[PR24]

Originally posted by Knuckles
Uhh...

No.

Why should we have a cert for this when all other gunner/whatever positions are free?

Because NOTHING will dish out the massive amount of firepower the bomber will provide. The bomber will "carpet" bomb a whole base, thats massive firepower.

I am also one for forcing some teamwork and planning into this game.

[FearTheAtlas]

And also nothing will pop those things down like a pinata like the un-godly amount of AA and AV weapons, not to mention spitfires all over the ground :) I don't think people are gonna sit by with their thumbs up their asses as the pretty Liberator blows them to hell :eek:

[KaozReign]

I have to say I don't see a point in making it 3 or even 2 certs personally. Heck leave it off the positions requiring points. That's like requiring the Prowler or Vanguard gunners to have cert requirements.

But if they even do put something like this in at most I can only see it costing 1 cert in all honesty.

[SmilingBandit]

The first week or so will be a great time to rack up some air-to-air kills against the libs. After that I'll pick up the cert.

[Jounar]

That is a terriable idea. No gunnar slots should cost cert points.
As for the comment about spitfire turrets being the bane of the bombers, I think not. I forsee bomb runs being made at very high alltiudes. Sadly I can also see GPs going through the roof from carpet bombing friendlys.

[beavis88]

I am also one for forcing some teamwork and planning into this game.

Don't do this by proposing changes that don't fit AT ALL with the current game environment. Make it WORTH OUR WHILE to use teamwork and planning, and it will happen. Make it required via annoying game mechanics, and people will leave.

[WritheNC]

Heh, Liberators are going to have their own problems.

I imagine after the first week of the Skyguard being out you'll see lots of pissed off Reaver pilots.

Then after that, I'm sure Liberator pilots will rack up massive grief by accident.

I can just see the bad ones doing bombing runs across the entire quarter of a courtyard filled with their allies rofl.

[Infernus]

I'm gonna be a liberator pilot and the good thing about the pilot is... He don't drop the bombs, thats no grief for me.

[FearTheAtlas]

Yeah, the pilot gets the nifty chaingun :D

[Trebor95]

Originally posted by FearTheAtlas
Yeah, the pilot gets the nifty chaingun :D

hehe :) yeah but it'll be slow you'll hear cries of:

"Incoming enemy aircraft!!!!"

followed by 5 minutes of looking about while the liberator closes the distance :D

[Jounar]

I dont think the AA buggy will bother pilots any more than the AA maxs, various AA weapons or other aircraft will.

As far as Im concerned I would rather fight a AA max than a grunt with a AA weapon for the simple reasion thats its easier to spot the Max over the grunt.

The buggy is going to stand out even more and will just be a big red target for reavers, skeeters and bombers.

[Trebor95]

but the AA buggy will be ahrder to hit ... much much harder. It is also going to be able to kill air borne vehicles much easier as well.

:) i.e it will be a major hassle to reav/mosq/gal/lib pilots

[Happy lil Elf]

Because NOTHING will dish out the massive amount of firepower the bomber will provide. The bomber will "carpet" bomb a whole base, thats massive firepower.

You do not know this. You have never seen a Liberator. Youi have never seen a liberator drop a bomb. Youi have never seen a Liberator's bombs explosion. You're assuming this.

I am also one for forcing some teamwork and planning into this game.

Forcing people to spend cert point on something like being a gunner does not force teamwork. The fact that it has a gunner forces teamwork. Spending certs on something as limited as being a bombadier for an aircraft you can't fly is a bad idea. I only get so many cert points, this would be a dumb thing to spend them on in my opinion and, I would imagine, many others as well.

[MrVulcan]

1st: There will be many counters for the bomber (buggy, aa maxs (work better vs slow big target that skeeter/reaver) )
2nd: no other vech need to have a certed gunner and this is because:
3rd: People who are bombers do not need to spend 3 hours looking for a gunner, nor do gunners need to spend 3 hours looking for a piolit. That is silly, and why none of the gunner positions require a cert, this one will be no different.
4th: It will be ballanced! Stop thinking the bomber will be the endall to things in game, I have no doubt that the devs will make it fit in the game.

[PR24]

Originally posted by Happy lil' Elf
You do not know this. You have never seen a Liberator. Youi have never seen a liberator drop a bomb. Youi have never seen a Liberator's bombs explosion. You're assuming this.


Well hate to burst your troll bubble but yes I do know. The Dev team has said on more the one ocasion that there WILL be carpet bombing. Unless your definition of carpter bombing is different then the rest of the world this means "a lot of destructive power."

[PR24]

Originally posted by Happy lil' Elf
I only get so many cert points, this would be a dumb thing to spend them on in my opinion and, I would imagine, many others as well.

This is why leveling games are so bad. Everyone is SO worried about every single point they can get. :lol:

[beavis88]

This is why leveling games are so bad. Everyone is SO worried about every single point they can get.

You might say something similar about MMORPGs. Everyone is so worried about teamwork and cooperation, that they'd rather cook up half-baked, inconsistent ideas to try and FORCE people to cooperate, rather than giving them good reason to do so.

[Bad Mojo]

Originally posted by PR24
I think there should be a cert needed to be the Bombardier to help "control" the mass number of players wanting to be the Bombardier.
This will make game flow better and force a specific role to each solidier like PS should have.

It should cost 1 - 2 cert points.

What does everyone else think?

I think that the cert requirement to FLY the bomber will help "control" the number of players who GET TO *BE* the bombardier. Nothing can "control" the number of people who WANT to be the bombardier.

[MrVulcan]

Originally posted by PR24
Well hate to burst your troll bubble but yes I do know. The Dev team has said on more the one ocasion that there WILL be carpet bombing. Unless your definition of carpter bombing is different then the rest of the world this means "a lot of destructive power."

Actually, the Devs said many many times that there will be no weapon in the game that can spam death, nor that you cant bring down with another weapon in game.
Carpet bombing is most likely going to be similar to fireing reaver rockets while crusing around (no poticular target, just light dmg to a larger* area)
*larger than current weapons dmg radius, but still not base sized dmg radius

also, carpet bombing does not always meen "a lot of destructive power." it actually means "a wide area of dmg" now your def of wide area of dmg probally comes from the idea that it will be like real life carpet bombing, this will not be the case. I assure you that this will be ballanced, and it will not be the end all of vechs in game.
Also, you must be right over your target to dmg it, unlike the reaver, etc, thus AA weapons have a much greater time to bring it down before it reachs them, also things like the skyguead will prob be able to outrun it so it will have NO chance to do dmg when 1 of them are around.

Stop worrying about this stuff, it will be fine, the devs/programers/etc are not going to ruin the game, they are going to add another level to it.

[Deadlock]

some people seem to think that carpet bombing means that huge explostions are going to occur over a large area... the second fire mode of the rocklet could be considered carpet bombing.

no one knows the damage this thing's going to cause. also, no one knows the altitude this thing needs to be at to be effective.

say the ai bomb seperates into 5 other bombs... at max hight thats going to be usless by the time it hits the ground. ull have 5 pathetic explosions 10 miles away from each other.

im sure the bomber's been made to fit the game, have faith in the dev team for christ's sake

edit: ah well, the pointy eared guy got to this reply first... good man

[PR24]

Originally posted by MrVulcan

also, carpet bombing does not always meen "a lot of destructive power."

If you ever saw this in Rl you would change your thinking :p

[beavis88]

If you ever saw this in Rl you would change your thinking

That's always a great argument for making changes to games :rolleyes:

[PR24]

Originally posted by beavis88
That's always a great argument for making changes to games :rolleyes:

Well Carpet bombing in other games I have played has been massive and strong. T2 could whipe out a large area if done correctly.

beavis, stop trolling. If you have something worth while to say by all means do so, otherwise don't hit "reply".

[NoSurrender]

well im AA NC max and lemme tell u the NC does not have a probelm taking out Air and the VS AA max is pretty annoying and can kill u.... i dunno bout TR

[PR24]

Originally posted by Pyro_Man
well im AA NC max and lemme tell u the NC does not have a probelm taking out Air and the VS AA max is pretty annoying and can kill u.... i dunno bout TR

Ours is nice too.

[beavis88]

beavis, stop trolling. If you have something worth while to say by all means do so, otherwise don't hit "reply".

Obviously you don't have a grasp of the meaning of "trolling". I've replied to SPECIFIC points you've made in your posts. I've written exactly why I thought said points were bad ideas. You've responded with more mindless speculation, and declined to address my replies.

I can troll just fine, thank you very much, but I assure you, this is not trolling.

[PR24]

Originally posted by beavis88
Obviously you don't have a grasp of the meaning of "trolling". I've replied to SPECIFIC points you've made in your posts. I've written exactly why I thought said points were bad ideas. You've responded with more mindless speculation, and declined to address my replies.

I can troll just fine, thank you very much, but I assure you, this is not trolling.

That's always a great argument for making changes to games

^^^ This is constructive how?

[Tryndamere]

^^^ This is constructive how?

Because it shows your idea is dumb.

[PR24]

Originally posted by Tryndamere
Because it shows your idea is dumb.

Thank god for the ignore feature :lol:

[PR24]

http://membres.lycos.fr/anthonyetcedrine/trolls.jpg

:rofl:

[beavis88]

This is constructive how?

It's a polite way of telling you I think its stupid to make assumptions based on reality, when you're applying those assumptions to a game set 1000 years in the future, on a fictional planet.

Obviously you don't like the fact that I don't think much of your idea. I'm a big boy, I can take it if you want to disagree with me. I can even take it if you want to have a well reasoned debate about it. But if you think calling me a troll is going to scare me off or shut me up....lol :)

[MilitantB0B]

Originally posted by PR24
If you ever saw this in Rl you would change your thinking :p :rolleyes:
I have seen this in real life, but this is a game! In real life, one pistol shot to the head will kill someone, in the game you have to drain a whole clip into them regardless of position. In real life, when you die, your dead. in the game, when you die, you respawn. In real life, nobody worries about balance. in the game, everybody worries about balance.

Real life has nothing to do with this game.

[PR24]

Originally posted by MilitantB0B


Real life has nothing to do with this game.

Ok did you read all my post before hitting the reply button? I backed up my facts by saying games like T2 had carpet bombing and they did massive distruction.

Tribes was based in the future too if I recall correctly :lol:

[EarlyDawn]

Originally posted by PR24
Well Carpet bombing in other games I have played has been massive and strong. T2 could whipe out a large area if done correctly.

beavis, stop trolling. If you have something worth while to say by all means do so, otherwise don't hit "reply".

Don't shoot him down because he's right. He's also not the one posting giant troll collages, but instead is the one generating useful input. Stop being a brat because someone disagrees.

[PR24]

Originally posted by LNS0388
Don't shoot him down because he's right. He's also not the one posting giant troll collages, but instead is the one generating useful input. Stop being a brat because someone disagrees.

Calm down sally, it was a joke.

[EarlyDawn]

I don't think you have any idea what your posting anymore.

Blocked.

[Warborn]

Originally posted by PR24
Because NOTHING will dish out the massive amount of firepower the bomber will provide. The bomber will "carpet" bomb a whole base, thats massive firepower.

How can you say that when you've never really seen how good it is? Just because it's a bomber doesn't mean it'll be insanely overpowered. It can be balanced in terms of having a limited payload, weak(er) bombs, only able to be bought at a Dropship Center, and a horribly easy target for any type of anti-aircraft weapon.

[PR24]

Originally posted by Warborn
How can you say that when you've never really seen how good it is? Just because it's a bomber doesn't mean it'll be insanely overpowered. It can be balanced in terms of having a limited payload, weak(er) bombs, only able to be bought at a Dropship Center, and a horribly easy target for any type of anti-aircraft weapon.

You maybe right. Just seems it would defeat the purpose of what a bomber is "supposed" to do if it did not unleash a huge powerful payload.

[Kaikou]

I doubt the bomb blasts will be gigantic, because one bomb would then have the ability to kill many teammates and probably get you 200+ grief per bomb impact. I honestly don't see much use for liberators at the moment. They seem only useful for a pre-strike type of thing before any teammates arrive to destroy spitfires/motion sensors/mines, otherwise, it will be the weapon with the ability to get you weapons lock in 10 minutes flat.

[Tryndamere]

PR24, I think you need a nap before you post more. You're getting a little too emotional.

[NoSurrender]

lol hes right ok some get some valium ~circles PR24~

[Happy lil Elf]

Originally posted by PR24
Well hate to burst your troll bubble but yes I do know. The Dev team has said on more the one ocasion that there WILL be carpet bombing. Unless your definition of carpter bombing is different then the rest of the world this means "a lot of destructive power."

Gald I won't have to burst your troll bubble, Mr V already did it for me :)

[Warborn]

Originally posted by PR24
You maybe right. Just seems it would defeat the purpose of what a bomber is "supposed" to do if it did not unleash a huge powerful payload.

The purpose of a PS bomber differs from the purpose of a RL bomber, as do most things in PS compared to RL (like snipers, for instance). In PS, the bomber will, as you actually displayed, be similar to the sniper. Like the sniper, it'll be lethal to its target, and also like the sniper, it will not be so easy for its target to retaliate effectively against it. That will lead to the bomber being as much a combat weapon as a psychological weapon; even though it will be balanced, the fact that there is a vehicle overhead which could kill at a moments notice will change the climate of the side being attacked by bombers.

With infantry under sniper fire, the prospect of being killed by a sniper will be one of the more immidiate concerns for said infantry, and their behaviour will change to reflect that. Infantry under sniper fire tend to zig and zag to avoid the sniper, usually zigging themself into a mine or some other unfavorable spot in the process (if the sniper doesn't get'em first). They make themselves less effective soldiers while the threat of snipers exists, or they toy with the possibility of becoming a dead soldier if they do what they perhaps should do in a given situation. I would suspect that infantry under bomber attack would behave the same way. Even though they probably aren't in any immidiate harm, they'll be scanning the skies often, trying to get something over their head to shield them from bombs, and in general allowing the ground-to-ground behaviour to be adversely affected. Hell, who knows, maybe an infantryman under attack by a bomber will end up screwing themselves over by becoming perfect sniper fodder, taking cover under a tree or in a bunker while a bomber flies overhead, only to be plinked by the sniper on the hill they forgot about once the shadow of a bomber swept toward them.

Either way, bombers will be good for killing ground stuff (especially AMS's), but their presence will be a weapon as well, I'm sure. Reavers will probably find a bomber ally a welcome relief, as more AV weapons will likely end up directed at the bomber than the Reaver, even though the Reaver may be the greater threat at the moment.

[Sleepwalker]

i've lurked here for about ten days, and that is simply the smartest thing i've seen posted. :dance:

[MrVulcan]

Originally posted by PR24
If you ever saw this in Rl you would change your thinking :p

Please read my entire post, I was refering to games, and mentioned the RL factor.

"also, carpet bombing does not always meen "a lot of destructive power." it actually means "a wide area of dmg" now your def of wide area of dmg probally comes from the idea that it will be like real life carpet bombing, this will not be the case."

I do know that rl carpet bombong is very powerful, however this is a game, and thus what carpet bombing will look like in a game will be very very different than carpet bombing in RL.

Have some faith in the people at SOE, they created this great game, they wont destroy it like that.

[FearTheAtlas]

Originally posted by Warborn
The purpose of a PS bomber differs from the purpose of a RL bomber, as do most things in PS compared to RL (like snipers, for instance). In PS, the bomber will, as you actually displayed, be similar to the sniper. Like the sniper, it'll be lethal to its target, and also like the sniper, it will not be so easy for its target to retaliate effectively against it. That will lead to the bomber being as much a combat weapon as a psychological weapon; even though it will be balanced, the fact that there is a vehicle overhead which could kill at a moments notice will change the climate of the side being attacked by bombers.

With infantry under sniper fire, the prospect of being killed by a sniper will be one of the more immidiate concerns for said infantry, and their behaviour will change to reflect that. Infantry under sniper fire tend to zig and zag to avoid the sniper, usually zigging themself into a mine or some other unfavorable spot in the process (if the sniper doesn't get'em first). They make themselves less effective soldiers while the threat of snipers exists, or they toy with the possibility of becoming a dead soldier if they do what they perhaps should do in a given situation. I would suspect that infantry under bomber attack would behave the same way. Even though they probably aren't in any immidiate harm, they'll be scanning the skies often, trying to get something over their head to shield them from bombs, and in general allowing the ground-to-ground behaviour to be adversely affected. Hell, who knows, maybe an infantryman under attack by a bomber will end up screwing themselves over by becoming perfect sniper fodder, taking cover under a tree or in a bunker while a bomber flies overhead, only to be plinked by the sniper on the hill they forgot about once the shadow of a bomber swept toward them.

Either way, bombers will be good for killing ground stuff (especially AMS's), but their presence will be a weapon as well, I'm sure. Reavers will probably find a bomber ally a welcome relief, as more AV weapons will likely end up directed at the bomber than the Reaver, even though the Reaver may be the greater threat at the moment.

Well put WB! :stupid::clap:

[Intruder]

I cant wait for the Sceen Shots you will be able to take while in the bombardier slot :D

[MrVulcan]

Those will be very nice.

[NoSurrender]

Originally posted by Warborn
The purpose of a PS bomber differs from the purpose of a RL bomber, as do most things in PS compared to RL (like snipers, for instance). In PS, the bomber will, as you actually displayed, be similar to the sniper. Like the sniper, it'll be lethal to its target, and also like the sniper, it will not be so easy for its target to retaliate effectively against it. That will lead to the bomber being as much a combat weapon as a psychological weapon; even though it will be balanced, the fact that there is a vehicle overhead which could kill at a moments notice will change the climate of the side being attacked by bombers.

With infantry under sniper fire, the prospect of being killed by a sniper will be one of the more immidiate concerns for said infantry, and their behaviour will change to reflect that. Infantry under sniper fire tend to zig and zag to avoid the sniper, usually zigging themself into a mine or some other unfavorable spot in the process (if the sniper doesn't get'em first). They make themselves less effective soldiers while the threat of snipers exists, or they toy with the possibility of becoming a dead soldier if they do what they perhaps should do in a given situation. I would suspect that infantry under bomber attack would behave the same way. Even though they probably aren't in any immidiate harm, they'll be scanning the skies often, trying to get something over their head to shield them from bombs, and in general allowing the ground-to-ground behaviour to be adversely affected. Hell, who knows, maybe an infantryman under attack by a bomber will end up screwing themselves over by becoming perfect sniper fodder, taking cover under a tree or in a bunker while a bomber flies overhead, only to be plinked by the sniper on the hill they forgot about once the shadow of a bomber swept toward them.

Either way, bombers will be good for killing ground stuff (especially AMS's), but their presence will be a weapon as well, I'm sure. Reavers will probably find a bomber ally a welcome relief, as more AV weapons will likely end up directed at the bomber than the Reaver, even though the Reaver may be the greater threat at the moment.

damn i dont think that ive heard anything so thought provoking on this whole site