Free Allegiance Forums

QUOTE I voted for keep as is. I'm new, but I'm going to add my opinion anyways and get flamed for it. I'm actually ok with that.[/quote]

Die noob!

QUOTE When it comes to techpaths and opinions about game tactics, I will always defer to Aarmstrong and Spidey by default. So far in both threads, which I have read, neither Aarmstrong nor Spidey believe TP2 to be overpowered. In fact, iirc, both commanders believe figbees are more powerful. That by itself is reason enough to disbelieve tp2 is overpowered.[/quote]

lol, spidey hates XRM with a passion I don't believe I've heard him say "XRM ISN'T overpowered". In fact he just said a few posts above you "TP2 can be pulled off by sucky commanders, all you need is a good TP2 scout".

QUOTE During pugs (which are the only games I've played in, though I have seen a few squad games) I've seen TP2 XRM both work and fail. I've also been assigned to create probe nets to stop TP2. If a team were able to do dedicated probing, and used proper placement, TP2 scouts would always be eyed (except the BIOs versions). What is a TP2 scout going to do against a probe that is immediately behind the aleph? Go around the aleph and shoot it? Of course if your opponent has an advanced sup and you see a lone scout wandering in your home sector and you let it go, and get TP2ed, I have no sympathy for you. Hell, droning alephs seems like it'd be effective at stopping TP2 scouts. Also what Psychosis said about the droning of the bases to stop the XRMs.[/quote]

You read my "All Inclusive Guide to TP2'ing", right? This is why I specifically say "always have an escort". They will fly ahead of you and clear threats (or at least warn you of them). Granted this has little to do with how effective XRM is but it just is evidence you do need a pilot with brains to use TP2 properly, which in itself makes it weaker than SBs, as the brainpower needed to TP2 properly is a fair bit greater than the brains needed to SB properly.

QUOTE During squad games I've only ever seen two strats used: heavy int bombing and shipyard. I find it really hard to believe that the reason TP2 XRM isn't used in squad games is because it's 'cheap.' I think in terms of squadgames TP2 wouldn't be used often because it requires the team to go sup, though I'm not sure why supspansion isn't used more... So far every team I've seen play has gone expansion of one flavor or another, usually splashing tac in.[/quote]

I've played a fair few SGs where we (SF) and the enemy have used TP2 to win. Not often as my SG record is somewhat woeful due to a combination of factors but I have seen it used, and effectively. The only reason Exp is used much more often is because SGs, moreso than PUGs are decided within the first twenty minutes, and Exp is unsurprisingly the strongest techpath in the first twenty minutes. Also this is why IC is used often, because they have the best starting ship.

QUOTE If I had to pinpoint on why TP2 XRM is as effective as it is, it's because it's one of the few endgame strategies that really requires shooting down before it gets into place, and the average player hasn't got the situational awareness to see it being placed. Much like SBs, it's hard to stop once it gets set up. But whereas SBs are obvious (you see a stealth walking towards your Exp sector, you're going to start searching your Exp sector for SBs), a single scout tends to go unnoticed by teams, which is why TP2 is so deadly.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with TP2/XRM being effective, it's a combination of factors, which IMO make the whole package a little strong at times. Like I have always said, Sup is the middle ground in terms of Startgame-Endgame strength. It's stronger than Tac at the start but weaker than Exp. It's endgame tech is stronger than Exp, but weaker than Tac's. However XRM/TP2 comes close enough to the effectiveness of SBs, that along with other perks Sup has been getting (more fuel, smaller fig hitboxes) it adds up into a techpath that could be considered altogether stronger than Exp or Tac.

Personally I believe XRM should be kept as is because if it's seen less, it serves the same purpose as it being taken out. Yes you will see it once every so often but the pricetag and its rarity keeps it from being a massive problem, even if its effectiveness at killing bases is not addressed. It's there for commanders who need that extra curbstomping power to break the stalemate, but only if they've commanded well enough to afford it, or the game has been prolonged long enough that ending it would be a favour to both teams.

As discussed in the other thread, there's no way xrm tp2 is weaker than sbs for end-game. Its the simple numbers man - sneaking 1 stealth scout in versus 3-5 sbs. Its just way easier to sneak the scout in.

Change the ship that deploys tp2 from a reg scout tp a "tp scout".
Whenever you see an sb, you know that it is definately going for your base, same for htt, and once they are eyed you almost always get podded or have to set up again.
But a scout is a scout. It's quick, has lower sig that an htt, and has many roles (such as probing, deprobing, eyeing miners for ints). So not every scout that is eyed on the map tells you which base is going to be attacked. But if you see a "tp scout" then you know you have to camp the aleph, chase it down, pulse it out or whatver. I know you may say that seeing a low sig scout is as obvious but it isn't and not to everyone, also there is no team warning for that. make a slightly nerfed scout that has the ability to drop tp2 (researchable under garr, which will take care of the belter stealing tp2 that i don't like) and you make the setting up much more difficult, which is the big problem with regular htt runs and sb runs.

A nice idea, but it would make TP2 drops a helluvalot harder. I don't think that's where the problem is. Sneaking the TP2 scout in already is hard, especially when alephs are camped. It's trying to defend after the drop that is nearly impossible with XRM.

CronoDroid wrote:QUOTE (CronoDroid @ Oct 29 2008, 04:11 AM) It's there for commanders who need that extra curbstomping power to break the stalemate, but only if they've commanded well enough to afford it, or the game has been prolonged long enough that ending it would be a favour to both teams.

That is probably the best reason I can think of for keeping it in, although if you did that I would probably advocate a slight increase in research costs to ensure XRM isn't purchased unless the purchasing team is really dominating economically.

Hey guys,

I finaly got time to log in from Iraq from the Internet Cafe... and saw that you might be removing XRM... EEEEP! I think it's important to SUP end game and shouldn't be removed... however... (and I don't know because I'm not currently playing) if it seems it is too powerful try nerving it in small increments. Personally I don't feel SUP is overpowered... I mean I didn't feel it was last time I was playing. I'll let you know when I get my sat connection set up here ( I went in on a deal with a group of people here and we're purchasing a sat ).

Hope all goes well... that's my 2 cents... may not be worth much but there it is :-). Take care.

Well Crono, since the "keep as is" is outweighing "remove" + "nerf," the CC team will either have to pull an executive decision, or xrm won't be getting nerfed. And how do we reduce it's effectiveness if we can't nerf it?

Perhaps add something to help counter xrm attacks? Maybe a missle, that's like a LRM hunter, but has more tracking that can shoot down the XRM missiles.

afaik, missiles can't track missiles. (code change)

lexaal wrote:QUOTE (lexaal @ Oct 27 2008, 06:28 AM) maybe you can make the missiles a bit slower at the same range so it is easier to shoot them down.

Or allow missile on missile lock to actually work.