Fighter-bombers were a black sheep among DN sup tech for a long time. Originally, figbombers couldn't use minepacks. They couldn't use cruise booster, either - the latter was designed as an alternative for figs to boost long distances, as a sort of heavier light booster, but was ultimately eclipsed by the int-like boosting capabilities of heavy booster. We buffed them through several patches because they sucked, people weren't using them properly (if at all) and were generally a total waste of money, and XRM heavy bomber TP2s or just plain rushes were better. Now, teams have turned to the alternative of figbombers, which have been buffed through several later versions of DN and haven't been tweaked balance-wise since.
Now, they're godlike: You can drop a tp2 5k away from a techbase out in the open, which can't be killed before it activates, rip in 10-15 fig bombers and you're guaranteed to kill the base unless the defenders have something ridiculous like capital ships with longtoms sitting in between the tp2 and the base. This isn't realistic at all. The high cost of figbombers isn't very prohibitive, either, considering the general game settings that are used in most games. (1.25/1.25/normal seems to be the 'standard' now.)
I don't think the initial design intent of the game, if you look at what was available in the original MS cores, was to have certain techs so powerful that they're guaranteed to win you the game if you obtain them. SBs can be countered by diligent scout positioning/pulse probes. HTTs can be countered obviously by the same, and ramming the @#(! out of them when they make their runs. Even the original iteration of TP2 had a checks-and-balances system applied to it (for you voobs that weren't around back then): Any ships ripping into it had a chance to destroy the probe itself, making it necessary to deploy more than 1 to get a meaningful amount of bombers/whatever in the sector, and why it was ill advised to rip in anything BUT bombers to them, lest they pop prematurely. This was subsequently removed during an early FAO code change. Several things that can be examined in order to reign them in:
-Figbomber speed. Revert them back to only being able to use light boosters, or reduce their inherent top speed/maximum speed with cruise booster. Alternatively, increase their mass, keep their base thrust as-is, and increase the thrust potential of cruise boosters. End effect: it takes them longer to accelerate, same top speed, and they're harder to turn. Additionally, this would also increase the viability of cruise booster for all fighters.
-Figbomber HP. They're notoriously harder to hit than bombers because they use their faction's standard fighter models.
-Figbomber scale. Same as above.
-Figbomber payload. Weaker AB missiles would work, similar damage to GT's PT bomber MRM torpedoes. Bring more FBs for the same effect, or each FB would have to launch 2-3 missiles instead of 6-7 getting in range and launching 1 a piece.
-TP2 activation time, or a detriment to a scout carrying them, like giving the probes in cargo increased mass values.
-Heavy/advanced scout signatures or speed. 50% base without shields/missiles loaded is pretty stupid, considering how fast they are to start, and generally how easy it is for them to get into sectors and hide.
-TP2 probe cost. Raise it significantly. $1500-2500 per probe. Or, increase the base cost of researching them from $5000 for tp1/tp2 to $10000.
Each option should be considered individually. All or multiple at once would be stupid and, most likely, complete overkill.
Fighter-Bombers.
While I agree they are severely overpowered, shouldn't we make people play sup (instead of exp) before we worry about nerfing it? 
As for possible nerfs, I would instinctively agree to weaker missles. That way, you need to get them to survive. However, this could lead to the XRM problem of them being useless in anything but a big game.
Maybe lower speed/increase hitbox?
As for possible nerfs, I would instinctively agree to weaker missles. That way, you need to get them to survive. However, this could lead to the XRM problem of them being useless in anything but a big game.
Maybe lower speed/increase hitbox?
Last edited by sambasti on Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
I don't think they are so severely overpowered. If a team can afford 12 figbbrs and able to get a tp2 alive close to the base that is almost the same feat as hvy int camping and then capping, or having 6-7 sbs set up on one base. Unstoppable, yes, as it should be. Even in my limited time with alleg I have seen too many failed tp2 drops to think they are overpowered.
-
CronoDroid
- Posts: 4606
- Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
- Contact:
A major problem is the fact that most people can't simutaneously boost and shoot FBs well, leading to either lots of overboosting or taking too long to kill FBs. I think their scale and/or mass should be increased significantly. FBs should have a knock out punch, but only if they're used at close distances. They shouldn't be able to make 4K runs (which is possible now if lots of them rip in).
If they're much larger, the average player will be able to kill them better. So they'll be mincemeat if they have to fly 3K or more, but up close (which is how they're meant to be used), they can get into range and kill the base quickly before dying. It is much harder, after all, to drop a TP2 2K next to a base than it is to drop it 4K, mainly because you can quite easily get to the TP2 if it's that close.
Let's face it, most of you fools can't hit crap, especially not boosting figs. In my experience, while TP2 drops are prone to failure (especially if I have to rely on other people to time drops properly which they almost inevitably fail to do), they have a significantly higher success rate than HTTs. I still don't like TP2/FB as much as SBs because SBs can be used to solo small bases whereas with Sup you have to galv and all that teamwork nonsense. You also require less people to SB. However, with large teams FBs are notoriously powerful.
If they're much larger, the average player will be able to kill them better. So they'll be mincemeat if they have to fly 3K or more, but up close (which is how they're meant to be used), they can get into range and kill the base quickly before dying. It is much harder, after all, to drop a TP2 2K next to a base than it is to drop it 4K, mainly because you can quite easily get to the TP2 if it's that close.
Let's face it, most of you fools can't hit crap, especially not boosting figs. In my experience, while TP2 drops are prone to failure (especially if I have to rely on other people to time drops properly which they almost inevitably fail to do), they have a significantly higher success rate than HTTs. I still don't like TP2/FB as much as SBs because SBs can be used to solo small bases whereas with Sup you have to galv and all that teamwork nonsense. You also require less people to SB. However, with large teams FBs are notoriously powerful.
