Seriously, why?

Sure, mines and drones can be destroyed by enemy fighters. But that's equivalent to a fired missile being wasted on an enemy that uses an evasive engine ability.

So why do mines and drones have infinite ammo? What makes them different from missiles? They don't use laser energy or force the Bomber to stop moving like railguns do.

And they do AOE damage, which only one other missile and one other railgun do.

Plus this would make the Magazine choice interesting for all Bomber builds--not just those using torpedoes.

Many of the current perceived Bomber balance issues would be mitigated, or at least reduced in severity, by an ammo limitation on these weapons.

/signed

That would really also help clearing minefields, particularly in domination. Eventually the bomber would run out so at the very least a team could take a sat from a bomber through attrition. repair drones that resupply ammo could of course counter this and ensure the mine bomber could keep a minefield up indefinitely but at least it would require some amount of coordination.

It would also give greater value to EMP weapons since suddenly taking out a minefield in one go would be more than just an inconvenience to a bomber.

ITT "/signed" means "I don't understand the game much and want to nerf bombers, and this sounds like I'm doing it in the name of equality".

The ammo mechanic is already lame. The only ships that really have ammo are the ones that pick clusters or rocket pods. Of those two, only rocket pods are semi-interesting.

"But I run out of thermites!" Me too, no one cares. To shoot away all your protons, thermites, or concussions means you have lived so much longer than median (and scored so many kills) that it's fine if you have to seek out a yellow (TDM) or kill yourself (domination).

Is that a GOOD mechanic? I'd say no. I'd say, if you really want ammo, then you should do some way to refill them- capital ship, friendly satellite, even a small capturable area in TDM could be added that grants such numbers. This would NORMALIZE the effort required to refill.

But lets pretend that mines could run out. Boy bombers would be AWFUL to play. You'd have to have a girl bomber or a type 3 strike running ammo around, and of course, the pugs don't have that. Your strike or scout without missiles is fundamentally still an ok ship. A boy bomber without mines is an absolute waste of space.

We can tell, based on some of the talents and displays, that at some point not only were mines finite, but likely so were railgun shots. All of these didn't work out, and for the same reasons- these are the primary weapons of these ships, no matter how they are categorized.

We want less ammo garbage, not more. Take your "delete bombers in the name of equality" QQ out of the forums.

delete

Oh man, after six paragraphs I almost had my hopes up that you wouldn't resort to this most retarded of arguments.

He's right in this case. Both on the point that ammo is a stupid mechanic and that adding a serious ammo constraint to boy bombers would be crippling.

You and he are both right that ammo is a stupid mechanic, and you're right that adding a serious ammo constraint to bombers would be crippling. But he didn't say that adding a serious ammo constraint to bombers would be crippling -- he said it would be deleting them, which is both stupid hyperbole and flat wrong, even when considered in a vacuum (and I don't think any developer would ever seriously consider making a change of this magnitude in a vacuum).

Don't get me wrong, I think he's an OK guy when he's making valid arguments, but this is really getting old.

It's deletion that's being asked for, so I call it out. If people would stop doing that, I wouldn't have to make the argument so much!

Look, if you wanna speak Verainlish on your own time, that's fine, but these forums are the English forums, and words have certain specific definitions here.

Well, it probably wouldn't be that game-breaking to have an ammo limit, but remove the lifespan timer on the mines. Or maybe it was and the mechanic got changed?

I wish Morgan Freeman were around to explain the hows and whys behind some of these decisions.

assuming that the ammo wasn't absurdly low but say something like 50 of each type of mine it wouldn't be deleting them. What it would be doing is removing their ability to lock down an area indefinitely with infinite mines. It would mean that in a game mode like domination a team could eventually take a sat through attrition by eventually using up the bomber's mine ammo. EMPs would also get an indirect buff in usefulness since being able to wipe out a group of mines at once would suddenly have value in speeding up a battle of attrition and would not just be an inconvenience to the bomber (this would also mean the value of clustering as many mines together could be lessened).

People seem to see a balance problem with domination being decided in the first few minutes since once bombers gets entrenched at a sat they'll be very difficult to dig out, and for a pug team that can be nearly impossible. By adding an ammo count it would mean even a pug team could eventually take a sat from bombers through attrition if they lack the coordination to take it with superior tactics. Bombers would remain very capable in their role of area denial, they just wouldn't be able to do it indefinitely without support from a resupply ship.

assuming that the ammo wasn't absurdly low but say something like 50 of each type of mine it wouldn't be deleting them. What it would be doing is removing their ability to lock down an area indefinitely with infinite mines. It would mean that in a game mode like domination a team could eventually take a sat through attrition by eventually using up the bomber's mine ammo. EMPs would also get an indirect buff in usefulness since being able to wipe out a group of mines at once would suddenly have value in speeding up a battle of attrition and would not just be an inconvenience to the bomber (this would also mean the value of clustering as many mines together could be lessened).

 

People seem to see a balance problem with domination being decided in the first few minutes since once bombers gets entrenched at a sat they'll be very difficult to dig out, and for a pug team that can be nearly impossible. By adding an ammo count it would mean even a pug team could eventually take a sat from bombers through attrition if they lack the coordination to take it with superior tactics. Bombers would remain very capable in their role of area denial, they just wouldn't be able to do it indefinitely without support from a resupply ship.

Not really, since if you are in a group team, some one should be running ammo replenish in this case, a clarion or drone carrier, and still they are never going to add ammo to your number 1 key, no one has ammo there, it would be stupid to makesome one with one.

It would make a difference pug to pug but pug vs premade wont change ever.

Not really, since if you are in a group team, some one should be running ammo replenish in this case, a clarion or drone carrier, and still they are never going to add ammo to your number 1 key, no one has ammo there, it would be stupid to makesome one with one.

 

It would make a difference pug to pug but pug vs premade wont change ever.

I'm not assuming it would make much, or any difference, against a premade. Still even if they have little more than a snowballs chance on Tatooine it doesn't justify leaving a mechanic as is to ensure they have no chance versus changing it and opening up the possibility for an (unlikely) comeback.

Regardless it does seem important to make it so that a pug vs. pug isn't such that the first team to entrench bombers at 2 sats pretty much autowins unless the other team has unusually good coordination (or luck) to dislodge the entrenched bombers at 1 of the sats. Ammo count would help decrease the difficulty of dislodging entrenched bombers. And unless the objective is to make GSF for premades only making it easier for sats to change hands so a team can stage a comeback can only be a good thing.

In any event OP is answered: mines need to be infinite because bombers without mines are without value.

Gross hyperbole.

Gross hyperbole.

Take your boy bomber, pick both mines but don't use them. Tell me how much you like your immobile no missile break bad turning bad top speed can't boost heavy laser platform.

Come try, if indeed it has merit.

Take your boy bomber, pick both mines but don't use them. Tell me how much you like your immobile no missile break bad turning bad top speed can't boost heavy laser platform.

 

Come try, if indeed it has merit.

That experiment is what has no merit, not the proposed bomber changes.

Limited mines is not the same as no mines, so I don't know why you're asking me not to use them. Limited mines likely means different mines from live. No mines means missiles and/or torps and/or drones.

I also have no idea what you mean by "boy bomber", which is an absolutely retarded term.

But, just to humor your straw mans, I have in fact played a seismic/interdiction minelayer without dealing any damage with mines on at least two occasions (in both I laid two mines that eventually expired). Both matches were exceptionally boring wins.

Boy bombers are the razorwire/rampart, the others are the girl bombers.

Limited mines is not the same as no mines

I said a bomber who is out of 1 and right click mines is without merit. You disagreed. Go play a bomber without those mines.

But you won't, because you know it's worthless.

Boy bombers are the razorwire/rampart, the others are the girl bombers.

That's the stupidest terminology I've ever heard, and I played a game with a skill called Nonsensical Spear.

I said a bomber who is out of 1 and right click mines is without merit. You disagreed. Go play a bomber without those mines.

You said:

In any event OP is answered: mines need to be infinite because bombers without mines are without value.

I called that gross hyperbole, which is true. Bombers with zero mines -- a completely impractical situation that nobody is proposing or advocating -- have value in the form of HLCs, which do a good chunk of damage even before mastery. Mastered, as we know, they punch holes in things.

"BUT ARMOND YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN STOP BEING SO NITPICKY ANY OTHER SHIP WITH HLCS COULD DO BETTER"

Yeah, this is exactly why I called it hyperbole.

And, of course, when you claimed that the OP was answered, your answer failed to address the question: you answered why bombers have mines (incorrectly, but hey), not why bombers should not have infinite mines.

I do rather hope you can see the difference.

But you won't, because you know it's worthless.

And now you're not even bothering to fully read my posts, which aren't even all that long?

Just to reiterate.... I do not think any one should ask for limited ammo on the 1 key. You dont have a limited number of times people can swap weapons. Scouts dont have a limited number of times to use target telem. It would be stupid to give any ship ammo on their systems ability. It would be like giving ammo on your lasers.

At the same time, no other systems ability is an actual attack.

Also, lasers do have ammo, of a sort -- they're limited by your blaster power pool.

At the same time, no other systems ability is an actual attack.

 

Also, lasers do have ammo, of a sort -- they're limited by your blaster power pool.

and mines are limited by a CD and argueably not as strong as things like Target telem.