Sup too powerful in CC07

Xeretov · Post by **Xeretov** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:40 pm

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Nov 13 2009, 11:56 AM) Halved bios paydays would be an elegant fix.

All I see that doing is dragging Bios games out longer. And I don't think anyone wants that.

Also, excellent points Drizzo. Nerfing dumbfires vs. bombers is something I'd personally like to do, but its a touchy situation. Nerf it too hard and Sup becomes to easily bombable. Too little and there isn't a noticeable difference. I do like the idea of reducing the DM against medium hull because thats also a perk to the int pilots who get hit by dumbfires on a regular basis or just by bad luck. The other possibility is to increase the arming time on dumbfires from 2 secs to something more, although that would probably need a (lesser) nerf to the damage vs. medium hull as well.

Drizzo · Post by **Drizzo** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:09 pm

It is touchy, but the way I see it panning out, halving the current effectiveness of dumbfires will make it:

Critical to attack nans when you have 6-8 fighters on defense. They will still take full damage from DFs and majority of people that nan in pugs are easy to smack in the face with a dumbfire.Spikes will only become a reality when you have an excess of 10 fighters on D. And even then it would be risky, since there is a possibility someone will not be on the same page.Sup will actually have a reason to actually *need* to buy minepacks and use them. Right now MP is just used for dogfighting mainly. It is a good tech to have, I won't deny that in any way, but it is luxury. It is not as effective for defense as gat2 dumb2 is. Meaning if I were put in a situation where I was sorely pressed for money, I would not purchase mp1 in lieu of the other two pieces of tech.Emphasizes using that EWS 2. Again, a good camp will stop a bomb run dead cold, regardless of tech path.

Would be ideal for the 20v20 pug, where at most your bomber will have 1 pilot + 2 gunners + 8 nans = 11 people.

And the defending team would have at least 8 fighters + 3-4 scouts on defense. For some reason it always seems to be never more then 13 people on either side on offense or defense (I really wish I knew what people were off doing sometimes, but alas that can not be fixed with core changes).

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:17 pm

I'm sure the CC team will be careful, but I'd be very careful about touching the way missile damage works. Nerfing the dumbfire vs. any hull type, and especially vs. bbr / int would shift the balance in Allegiance massively.

It's not like mini 3 heavy ints need to worry about nans either. Take a handful of heavies and you can minigun-spike the bomber from under the nans just like sup can. More reliably really. Sure exp needs to kill nans more then sup, but it's also way easier than with fighters in the "uneyed bombing run - boosting to intercept" scenario.

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:32 pm

Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ Nov 13 2009, 01:40 PM) All I see that doing is dragging Bios games out longer. And I don't think anyone wants that.

By that same logic killing miners makes games longer. It just makes bios less able to stand up when their econ has been raped, giving the enemies more of an opportunity to get their endgame or control tech up unopposed and rape.

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:55 pm

Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ Nov 13 2009, 06:40 PM) I do like the idea of reducing the DM against medium hull because thats also a perk to the int pilots who get hit by dumbfires on a regular basis or just by bad luck.

This sounds stupid, i'm all for DF's doing less damage on bombers but making them do less damage on ints is silly stupid, hey here's a newsflash mini chews up figbees pilots who get hit by miniguns on a regular basis or just by bad luck we should nerf the damage that does on light armour!

I think perhaps should make ints have light armour and give them a bit of a hp boost and then we can nerf df damage on med armour. I was actually thinking of a complete int overall for a new core perhaps where miniguns are still deadly but ints are more fragile but faster so they actually are good at intercepting instead of good at everything.

Exo · Post by **Exo** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:07 pm

Wouldn't halving damage on med hull make dumbs about as effective as seekers at killing a bombrun (running through TEK).

You could just take all guidance from them and make them unguided missiles, making it that bit less likely your precious int will be clipped as it flees the scene. The dumbfire is really meant for spiking operations; on cons, miners, medium and larger ship types.

It doesn't hit a nan unless they're flying in a straight line, and you're right ahead of them, or if you've ingeniously managed to get in their rear quarter. And if you're in that position, then you're in the middle of turning about to get another pass, have dropped to zero speed, and will be dead in short order thanks to turrets and opportunistic escorts.

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:08 pm

Its not like you can't dodge dumbfires in a bomber.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:51 pm

Malicious Wraith wrote:QUOTE (Malicious Wraith @ Nov 13 2009, 11:08 PM) Its not like you can't dodge dumbfires in a bomber.

And not like an int hit by a DF doesn't get exactly what it deserves.

Just get rid of Heavy Booster first, and see if anything else is needed later.

Xeretov · Post by **Xeretov** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:38 pm

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Nov 13 2009, 03:55 PM) This sounds stupid, i'm all for DF's doing less damage on bombers but making them do less damage on ints is silly stupid

As you've already alluded to, its this as a side effect or we put ints into a different armor class.

Did I mention it because nerfing dumbs vs. medium hull would perk ints? Yes.
Did I mention it because I thought it was an interesting idea? Yes.
Am I going to run off and do it right now, then release CC08 tomorrow? $#@! no. But the ease of "right click tech" like dumb spiking is one of the reasons Sup is doing as well as it is right now.

Exo: Yes, halving dumbfire damage would make it do the same damage as seeker. Except they're both in the same damage class, so it would effectively half seeker damage too. And DMs are at a premium right now so its not the greatest idea. But I still like where the train of thought is going in regards to sup nerfs.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:03 am

Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ Nov 14 2009, 12:38 AM) But the ease of "right click tech" like dumb spiking is one of the reasons Sup is doing as well as it is right now.

Xeretov's timezone is clearly better than mine. Dumbfire spike actually requires setting up correctly and a certain measure of coordination, and are hardly a sure thing.

5 enh-figs can dumbspike even a big bomb run if it succeeds, but if they mess up the base is usually screwed. Skill is involved. Five competent mini 2 armed ints will stop the same run in a different style but often more reliably. The figs fail when people don't stay together and volley from directly in front of the bomber. The ints fail when idiots shoot the bomber instead of the nans.

Making the figs always go for the nans instead would reduce them to really crappy interceptors. They are slower boosting to intercept, more fragile and have a harder time killing nans than ints.