Free Allegiance Forums

Clay_Pigeon wrote:QUOTE (Clay_Pigeon @ Jul 1 2008, 03:43 PM) My theory is that once ints are brought out of the stratosphere (maneuverability wise), XRM will be unnecessary.

Eh? Both Adv Figs and Sfs can tear apart a bomb run with ease. DF3 and Hunt3 + 3-4k distance from the base = dead bomb run.

TB

Frooster wrote:QUOTE (Frooster @ Jul 1 2008, 01:07 PM) I don't think this would work. As far as I understood rip mechanics the ripcord receiver is selected when you hit the rip button. If the rip device dies, you won't rip to another available rip receiver, so you won't be able to rip to different tp2 probes as long as you cannot specify to which probe you rip.

After listening to much arguing on this issue I tested it myself. If the tp2 you are ripping to dies, you automatically rip to another tp2 in the sector (if available).

really? I was a dropper of that situation, and I heard some complaining from pilots that didn't get redirect to rip out to my opposite drop-mate's TP2.

Big and slow XRM's (Nuke sized), with increased damage but decreased rack size and fire rate, would be lovely. You could still do XRM runs, but the effectiveness of just using 1 tp2 will go down if all the incoming missiles are from the same direction, since shooting them down would be all the easier. You could even build AC tower drones to help deter them without needing to use skycaps.

Then you have the option, but there's some effective ways to defend against it without having to be expansion and being on top of the tp2 by boosting there.

Ramaglor wrote:QUOTE (Ramaglor @ Jul 1 2008, 03:06 PM) EDIT: also moving missile damage GA to tac would have hunter 3 and sbs being even more powerful.....so that might require more balancing.

Fixing hunt3 to take the GA into account would of course be necessary, but the improving sbs is intentional as a sup is not always possible and IC are a bitch to sb with ab1.

A straight swap of Ship Shield and Missile Damage would be fine.

Let's give the cost thing a try and if that doesn't seem to be enough of a deterrent, then we can implement a larger, slower missile that can be shot down a little easier. ATM when you have 8+ bombers ripping to a TP2 it's not feasible to shoot down the XRMs - you just can't shoot them down fast enough to make it practical.

I've said this before, I like that unstoppable game ending tech exists. Turtles suck.

So I'm much more in favor of fixing XRM2 by increasing its cost and prerequisites than by reducing its power.

WhiskeyGhost wrote:QUOTE (WhiskeyGhost @ Jul 2 2008, 05:00 AM) Big and slow XRM's (Nuke sized), with increased damage but decreased rack size and fire rate, would be lovely.

How about removing them and making heavy bomber capable of using XRM cruise.

This ties in with the interesting suggestion that one would need to have a shipyard to use this stuff. I actually like that one a lot, not just for the long range missiles, but so that one would actually need to have a shipyard to get heavy booster too. Probably means it should be under the shipyard tech-tree.

/edit Also, if we make TP2 have a limited amount of energy, that will partially solve the problem with huge, unstoppable runs in big games, won't it?

We should make tp2 randomly explode.