[Suggestion] How about bombs for ESFs?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by BlizardX, Jan 10, 2017.

  1. BlizardX

    Today ESFs are useless against any base because of sky shield emitters.
    What If we will equip ESFs with limited amount of drop bombs can can pass trough and ignore sky shields emitters?

    How about that?
    • Up x 1
  2. Valenz

    1. If you get a weapon that can ignore the shield emitters then you void their purpose entirely, as well as IPC's
    2. Libs are good bombers
    • Up x 1
  3. BlizardX

    there for I said "limited amount" and you can nerf a weapon in countless ways as DayBreak already proven over the years.
  4. Valenz

    Yeah but the notion not only hurts the shield emitters, it also hurts libs and IPC. Though this thought only came after I posted.
    There's also the topic about ESFs being too rich in the A2G department.
    So yeah...
  5. Pikachu

    0:17 & 0:50
    • Up x 1
  6. Valenz

    ^ The NC national Anthem.
  7. Demigan

    Bombs that go through shields? No.
    Bombs for ESF and Valkyries? Yes.
    I would especially like the idea of replacing Rocketpods with a bunch of bombs and Hornets with a smaller amount of bombs. This solves one of the big problems in the A2G/G2A balance: It allows ground units to dodge the aircraft fire. Currently most aircraft fire is practically laser-accurate or the aircraft is so fast that it's nigh impossible to truly avoid the aircraft reticule and make the aircraft miss, this means that ground units, who already don't sport G2A weapons 95% of the time, can't do anything to protect themselves. But with bombs they could dodge the aircraft fire.

    The amount of bombs and how they work could be changed ofcourse. The AV bombs for instance could use a larger AOE that works similar to the C4 explosion (not in damage but with the fact that the AOE can hit vehicles, which most explosives can't). AI bombs could function similar to the TB or even a shotgun in that you fire multiple bombs per ammo count that spread around the area a little, and the height from which you drop determines how close together the bombs drop. Flying low means a smaller more concentrated area and more chance on a kill, flying high gives you a larger pattern where the bombs fall but infantry get caught in less explosions. Bombs could inherit the momentum of the aircraft (basically functioning as if the Pilot ejected without ejection seat). You could equip a modification that allows the bombs to fall straight down without inheriting your momentum if you so please.

    ESF would start functioning more like fighter-bombers rather than flying super-turrets that can escape the area. The higher skill required to actually hit the ground target also balances it out. Flying high is safer but reduces your accuracy and potentially your damage, doing dives-bombs makes you more accurate and allows you to throw more bombs on the same place.
  8. Zenith

    Unguided? Yes. Pass through shields? No.
  9. DeadlyOmen

    No replacements. Additions.

    Napalm would be quite cool. You could even slide napalm under sky shields.
  10. Daigons

    I can just imagine the new "fun night" for Outfits by riding the dropped bombs down to the target. YEE-HAH!

    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    [IMG]
  11. Demigan

    The problem with making them addons is that you would have to make the bombs just as useful as the Hornets and Rocketpods but with less hits. Hornets and Rocketpods are too good for their current functioning because it's not really possible to dodge the shots. So the bombs would have to be immensely powerful in some way to make them a choice people would want to pick instead of Rocketpods or Hornets. That would make them quickly OP, especially if the ESF pilot can do things like dive-bomb on top of the target and hit it for what amounts to an instant-kill.

    So unless you have an idea to make the bombs viable alternatives to Hornets and Rocketpods without overpowering them they either have to be replacements or they can't be build on top of the ESF at all.
  12. Klondor

    How bout we focus on giving the Liberator; the dedicated bomber, more bombing options instead of catering to solo pilots in fighter aircraft?
    • Up x 3
  13. DIGGSAN0

    How About a usefull counter for ESFs?
    • Up x 1
  14. BlizardX

    I will gladly except this idea but there might be one problem. PS2 is a game based on future and although the game already isn't perfect in that but the mechanic you suggest here is reminding technology limits of WW2 and not the year 2426.
  15. LaughingDead

    Giving AI bombers better area control than before? That seems like the exact opposite of what people want imo. Unless you mean to tell me that yall want pods in bomb form (which I could see for ES types considering all the pods are practically the same) then it would just make pods played less.

    Idk what the thread goal is, people just hate ESFs, OP wants ESFs to perform better in player base fights, people want bombs.
    Honestly, for ESFs to do well in base fights, glaives ought to be buffed so that the skywall is down faster so that ESFs participate more in the fight.

    Btw hornets are getting a damage nerf on pts for people that do not know (yay).
  16. DemonicTreerat

    You do realize that even today the majority of bombs in the USAF inventory are "dumb" right?
    The heavy use of "smart" weapons is chiefly due to the two requirements to reduce collateral damage and the sheer difficulty of hitting a moving tank-sized target from 5+ km up when you are also moving at 400 mph and have to deal with unpredictable crosswinds. Since PS2 aircraft fly much lower and don't suffer from atmosphere they really don't need "smart" weapons.

    The liberator in PS1 used two types of "dumb" bombs, an cluster-type AI and conventional AV, and did just fine. Personally I don't see why the belly gun couldn't be shifted to the Galaxy (which is tough but also slow and ungainly) and in its place a bomb bay be fitted to carry a number of such weapons. The ESF's could also be given the same options, albeit drastically fewer in number and/ or smaller (aka less damage).

    As to a possible fix for the Hornet & rockets. For rockets definitely reduce the blast radius of individual rockets and probably increase their "cone of fire". That way gaps open up so that unless the aircraft is extremely close (and thus very vulnerable to ground fire) its likely the vehicle/ grunt will survive a single run. To balance that out a bit provide an AI version that has a higher blast radius for a more thorough saturation but does less damage (requiring being in the blast range of multiple rockets for an complete kill) and no damage to armored vehicles (lightnings, MBTs, etc). For Hornets, reduce their agility so that even if the pilot can keep the tank in their crosshair after a sharp turn the missile might not be able to execute the turn needed to stay on target.
  17. adamts01

    ESF are one of the best Hive killers out there. Launch your Hornets then switch optics to take cover and let the missiles hit where they were last aimed. If there's a hill you can take out a shielded hive before an AA turret can kill you. If you have a wingman you can out dps a turret. They're broken good at the moment.




    I think Hornets are possibly the best weapon in the game, mostly because they work how they should. I'd rather see a minor adjustment like you're proposing than a straight damage nerf like Daybreak is doing, that'll absolutely kill the weapon. Right now, with much skill and pre-planning, you can take out an unaware tank in a single dive bomb even in a large fight at close to top speed. but that requires reconnaissance and accurate ranging of the target. With the proposed number changes, you'd have to practically stop to get a 3rd salvo off. It really is an ignorant knee-jerk nerf. So, I don't even think they needed a change, but rather ground AA needed to be able to counter air. We're getting to the point that everything will be on par with infantry, and that sucks. They're ****nig it up.
  18. BlizardX

    that's what I want.
  19. BlizardX

    right, but before they get fired the aim is done with the help of smart systems.
  20. BlizardX

    well in this case maybe we don't need bombs, but my intention was to propose a bomb with special ability like in my original proposal.