I would suggest 50 dmg per shot at the least.
Fighter-Bombers.
Oh dur damnit I messed with my numbers like 3 times because I kept doing the math wrong. Needs to do 1k dps for 10 f/b I guess.
Get over yourselves, don't try to win arguments on the internet where the option of a punch in the mouth is unavailable
"It is not that I cannot create anything good, but that I will not." And to prove this, he created the peacock.
QUOTE This gives defenders that exhilarating "I'm defending a base yo!" feel like you get from Galv runs.[/quote]I always get a deadening "this base is gone" feeling when I defend against galvs.
Last edited by juckto on Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Usually though, "skill" is used to covertly mean "match the game exactly to my level of competence." Anyone who is at all worse than me should fail utterly (and humorously!) and anyone better is clearly too caught up in the game and their opinions shouldn't count.
I did mention something about "Except without feeling that there's no point in what you're doing" I think. It was in one of my drafts
But the purpose of it all is to make it different enough from XRM that people see it as a distinct tech, and keep it exciting to defend against. Everyone likes defending against F/B runs because it feels epic, but people hate defending against galv runs because they're a bit nuts damage wise and it feels pointless. That is 30 seconds with all 10 F/B making it to the base and none dying during the 30 seconds. On a team of 14v14 you'll probably have just as many or more defenders as F/B and I think they'll be able to wittle down the numbers quite a bit. If we decide to go the way of Adv Galv for F/B we'll have to end up changing dmg to make it so that attackers stand a chance.
But the purpose of it all is to make it different enough from XRM that people see it as a distinct tech, and keep it exciting to defend against. Everyone likes defending against F/B runs because it feels epic, but people hate defending against galv runs because they're a bit nuts damage wise and it feels pointless. That is 30 seconds with all 10 F/B making it to the base and none dying during the 30 seconds. On a team of 14v14 you'll probably have just as many or more defenders as F/B and I think they'll be able to wittle down the numbers quite a bit. If we decide to go the way of Adv Galv for F/B we'll have to end up changing dmg to make it so that attackers stand a chance.
Get over yourselves, don't try to win arguments on the internet where the option of a punch in the mouth is unavailable
"It is not that I cannot create anything good, but that I will not." And to prove this, he created the peacock.
I think that making figbombers able to reach a base like figs can galv a base is the complete opposite of what should be done.
I think I said something similar before, but it'd make it impossible to scale FBs.
Currently: The way to stop FBs is to kill them before they reach the base. The number of FBs and the number of defenders are both related to team sizes and will naturally scale. Although it's far from being 100% true, you can assume that it's as easy to stop 10 FBs with 10 hvy ints than 20 FBs with 20 hvy ints and that if FBs gets into range, the base is dead.
Proposed changes:
You could still asume that it takes as long to kill 10 FBs with 10 Hvy ints than it takes to kill 20 FBs with 20 Hvy ints. However, 20 FBs will kill a base 2X faster than 10 FBs, making it 2X harder for the defenders to defend. Balancing it for different team sizes would then be impossible.
Galvs don't scale well either, but since they don't work on large bases they can be countered by expanding with tech bases.
It's the same logic for any base killing tech: If you want it to scale decently, you have to allow the defenders to stop the attackers before they can do any damage the base. That will be true untill we get a code change that makes base armor and shield scale with team sizes.
I think I said something similar before, but it'd make it impossible to scale FBs.
Currently: The way to stop FBs is to kill them before they reach the base. The number of FBs and the number of defenders are both related to team sizes and will naturally scale. Although it's far from being 100% true, you can assume that it's as easy to stop 10 FBs with 10 hvy ints than 20 FBs with 20 hvy ints and that if FBs gets into range, the base is dead.
Proposed changes:
You could still asume that it takes as long to kill 10 FBs with 10 Hvy ints than it takes to kill 20 FBs with 20 Hvy ints. However, 20 FBs will kill a base 2X faster than 10 FBs, making it 2X harder for the defenders to defend. Balancing it for different team sizes would then be impossible.
Galvs don't scale well either, but since they don't work on large bases they can be countered by expanding with tech bases.
It's the same logic for any base killing tech: If you want it to scale decently, you have to allow the defenders to stop the attackers before they can do any damage the base. That will be true untill we get a code change that makes base armor and shield scale with team sizes.
The confusion argument doesn't work very well because there's very little incentive to coordinate fire before the figbees are in range. Plus 10% aren't making it, 10 figbees usually results in a dead base in my experience.
Don't find fault, find a remedy; anybody can complain.
Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Apr 1 2009, 09:35 PM) But I don't read the forums I only post.
@Phoenix your objection doesn't change sambasti's argument.
VLYs Argument:
P1. Ships that mount galvs don't scale well
P2. FBs with galvs won't scale well
C FBs won't scale well
Sambasti's counter-argument:
Sambasti rejects P2, by saying it essentially presupposes that FBs already scale well, since FBs don't already scale well P2 is false, and so we can reject the argument as unsound. Thus while 10 fbs will normally kill a base. It does seem that FBs do not scale well, in the sense that when X number of defends fight X number of fighters X% survives. This percentage will change into a different amount of FBs making it to the base, and so a different amount of damage done. So while Sambasti may have plugged in the wrong percentage his objection still works.
Although I think your right that the confusion part is hard to speak about, or factor in.
VLYs Argument:
P1. Ships that mount galvs don't scale well
P2. FBs with galvs won't scale well
C FBs won't scale well
Sambasti's counter-argument:
Sambasti rejects P2, by saying it essentially presupposes that FBs already scale well, since FBs don't already scale well P2 is false, and so we can reject the argument as unsound. Thus while 10 fbs will normally kill a base. It does seem that FBs do not scale well, in the sense that when X number of defends fight X number of fighters X% survives. This percentage will change into a different amount of FBs making it to the base, and so a different amount of damage done. So while Sambasti may have plugged in the wrong percentage his objection still works.
Although I think your right that the confusion part is hard to speak about, or factor in.
Last edited by slap on Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Scaling for Sup is a big issue, and while the Galv thing doesn't scale well neither does the current F/B solution. It does however switch the area of fighting to right around the tech base as opposed to strung out along a line in space. About the only thing we can do to balance the Sup end games is mess with the costs of every run.
Get over yourselves, don't try to win arguments on the internet where the option of a punch in the mouth is unavailable
"It is not that I cannot create anything good, but that I will not." And to prove this, he created the peacock.
I just plugged in a random precentage for the arguments sake. 
The idea was to prove FBs don't scale well, which I did.
@DasSmiter: That wouldn't scale well either, since bigger games dont equal more He. In a 100 vs 100 (I KNOW THIS WONT HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON, FOR ALL THOSE ABOUT TO ARGUE, IT IS FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE) You won't have enough money to fund even 40 FBs, but there are still 100 hvy interceptors waiting on the other side of that rock. In other words, sup endgame will not be good in very big games.
Currently, the price of fbs means 40 fbs cost 10k. You rarely have that much money. The current price limits it eventually, and makes sup endgame really expensive.
The idea was to prove FBs don't scale well, which I did.@DasSmiter: That wouldn't scale well either, since bigger games dont equal more He. In a 100 vs 100 (I KNOW THIS WONT HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON, FOR ALL THOSE ABOUT TO ARGUE, IT IS FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE) You won't have enough money to fund even 40 FBs, but there are still 100 hvy interceptors waiting on the other side of that rock. In other words, sup endgame will not be good in very big games.
Currently, the price of fbs means 40 fbs cost 10k. You rarely have that much money. The current price limits it eventually, and makes sup endgame really expensive.