Hot Topic: XRM Missiles

aarmstrong · Post by **aarmstrong** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:33 am

How can we even compare XRMs to battleships (which are truly unstoppable)?

Think about it. I dare say XRM is only seriously considered by a team that has already pursued the supremacy techpath. You don't see an Adv Expansion team saying "It's time for some endgame tech, let's get a Sup and TP2!".

With that out of the way, here is the cost comparison (considering the team already has an advanced supremacy + bombers):

Starbase (10k) + Heavy Bombers (10k) + TP1 (5k) + TP2 (5k) + XRM1 (5k) + XRM2 (5k) = 40k - Development Cost
Heavy Bombers - 10 (5k) + XRM - 20 Racks (2k) + TP2 Scout - 2 TP2s (1k) = 8k - Deployment Cost

Now for the battleships:

Shipyard (15k) + Light Class (10k) + Medium Class (15k) + Heavy Class (20k) + Super Heavy Class (25k) = 85k - Development Cost
Battleship (10k) - Deployment Cost

This is not even considering Sky2/3/LT or LS2/3.

Now I'm not saying that XRM is unstoppable, but it is very difficult to stop. Especially when compared to other techpaths' endgame (save Rix SBs or BIOS HTTs).

Kltplzyxm · Post by **Kltplzyxm** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:40 am

The way I see it is a little different. XRM should have a high success rate at destroying the intended target. The main difference between XRM and a BS is that XRM should be hinderer from tp2'ing base after base after base back to back. Only a BS or several Caps should be able to do a rampage like that. Before the cost nerfs this kind of thing would happen on a regular basis. Have things go on a cost per rack basis forces the SUP team to work together to make the first run successful. It kills the intended target but the defenders should have a chance at recovering. This is my reasoning why I say that XRM should cost more per rack. $200 lets say. That should be prohibitve enough.

Sushi · Post by **Sushi** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:56 am

lexaal wrote:QUOTE (lexaal @ Oct 27 2008, 07:28 AM) maybe you can make the missiles a bit slower at the same range so it is easier to shoot them down.

This is my preference as well.

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:58 am

I think it should either be kept unchanged or nerfed, but absolutely not cut from the game altogether.

I, too like the idea of making XRM missiles easier to shoot down as a possible nerf. This means they will still be difficult to stop, as they should be, but a skilled team can stop enough to save a base. Since one complaint against XRMs as they are now is that a less skilled team can use them to overwhelm a more skilled team with raw numbers, giving the defenders a chance to use their skills to save their base seems fair.

The deployable anti-missile pods that scouts could buy and drop to shoot down some of the missiles were also a cool idea, I think. >_>

Drizzo · Post by **Drizzo** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:15 am

Make TP2 a low sig (about 50) drone-type probe that takes 3 minutes to "build", can only be deployed one at a time (basically its a constructor with set decay). You will still need a scout to clear the way infront of it, and you can sneak it around as you would with a scout, but this way you can only tp2 1 thing at a time, and if it gets blown up, that's another 3 minutes until the next one.

That will drastically change the power of TP2 in general, which may not be what you're going for. But I think it'll be interesting. Would be more enticing for me as a commander, since I don't have to rely on some random idiot who thinks they're invisible and flies by every enemy op.

Kltplzyxm · Post by **Kltplzyxm** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:18 am

The only problem with that is that it's possible to not need a tp2 dropper, nor even a screening scout. I think that's potentially hazardous as you don't require a pilot to do it anymore.

Picobozo · Post by **Picobozo** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:19 am

XRM and Battleships are both harbingers of inaction. A team needs a lot of money to get either one. Kill their miners. Blow up the tech base.

If you let Bios live for an hour, what happens?

If you let giga get Si mines and live for an hour what happens?

I have seen too many tp2 drops (XRM or not) foiled by good scout pilots and probe placement to say that it is unstoppable.

What I can say is that the threat of tp2 should pressure whore tactics towards the "win as fast as possible" mindset which is preferable over the "lets just whore a team for 3 hours until they #resign".

The heart break games that I have lost to xrm/tp2 I really never felt bad about when I thought about it. My team screwed around by either not putting enough pressure on miners early on or by killing bases piece meal that were unimportant, giving the sup team time to mine and set up.

I remember the days when regular SB's were considered unstoppable cheese. Tactics were modified and eventually the general playerbase adapted to defending much better against them. I think there needs to be a shift in tactics when the tp2/xrm threat is realised in game: scout and probe the rocks around your major bases, yell at int whores for camping ops or flying 4 sectors out from a base.

And like Aarm said, wtf isn't anybody saying anything about FigBombers? I've seen far more "sure things" happen "unstoppably" from FB's then XRM's (disregarding XRM + HugeStack).

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:32 am

Probing rocks inhibits tp2 use how?

Picobozo · Post by **Picobozo** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:02 am

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Oct 27 2008, 09:32 PM) Probing rocks inhibits tp2 use how?

It helps the scout that is dropping them find the scout that is carrying the tp2. While he is dropping probes, he is actively scouting that sector and making the approach and setup of a tp2 harder.

Correct · Post by **Correct** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:26 am

aarmstrong wrote:QUOTE (aarmstrong @ Oct 27 2008, 05:33 PM) You don't see an Adv Expansion team saying "It's time for some endgame tech, let's get a Sup and TP2!".

No, it's normally a Tac and SBs.