Fighter-Bombers.

Psychosis · Post by **Psychosis** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:29 pm

Koczis wrote:QUOTE (Koczis @ Jun 13 2009, 10:21 AM) That too. As I stated before use of FBs and XRM bombers is the same atm, we could actually just remove one or other. Or make them significantly different.

I disagree, they offer a different endpath for sup, perhaps give Figbees some different pre-reqs to further differ them from bombers.

choosing one or the other isnt a great idea, making them different enough to be USED differently would be wonderful

Shizoku · Post by **Shizoku** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:44 pm

I think simply increasing the size would balance things a bit better. Right now they are difficult for a pickup game team to shoot down, increasing the size would make things easier for those voobs who can't hit anything smaller than a bbr.

Weylin · Post by **Weylin** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:36 am

gunships work very well against fig bombers, but it's doubtful your commander will get any unless you go bios though.
Just one gunship, along with the normal defense can hold off a big figbee run.

It seems to me the biggest problem is closing range to the bombers quickly, not overshooting, and having to boost from one fig bomber to another after shooting one down. Gunships don't have that problem, they just sit there and kill anything within 2K

parcival · Post by **parcival** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:54 am

Shizoku wrote:QUOTE (Shizoku @ Jun 14 2009, 12:44 AM) I think simply increasing the size would balance things a bit better. Right now they are difficult for a pickup game team to shoot down, increasing the size would make things easier for those voobs who can't hit anything smaller than a bbr.

+1

Post by **Raveen** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:46 pm

Why not split the techs into two separate paths? The Galv tree ending with FigBBrs and the Bomber Tree ending in XRMs.

Hell, you could move Heavy Bombers and XRMs to Starbase if you like and make FBs the official endgame tech of Sup.

Shizoku · Post by **Shizoku** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:03 pm

Encouraging the idea that garr tech is a viable tech path is bad mmk?

Post by **Raveen** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:47 pm

Actually I was think that making Garr tech viable might not be a bad idea.

Shizoku · Post by **Shizoku** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:47 am

It has always been and always should be a supplementary tech path. The idiocy of people rushing hvy scouts, gunships and dumbass tech like that should not be rewarded by giving them a good end game tech as well.

Andon · Post by **Andon** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:59 am

Make it a viable tech path alone? No.

Make it not an act of idiocy to upgrade the garr in 99.99% of situations? Yeah, I'd support that.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:38 pm

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jun 14 2009, 07:46 PM) Why not split the techs into two separate paths? The Galv tree ending with FigBBrs and the Bomber Tree ending in XRMs.

Hell, you could move Heavy Bombers and XRMs to Starbase if you like and make FBs the official endgame tech of Sup.

Did I suggest this earlier, or did I just dream it? Anyway, it would be cool, as long as XRM isn't too powerful.