Free Allegiance Forums

The way FB's are used depends on the pilot. The fact that we all only get fb's to do tp2 runs is because that's what the comm give you the money for. I've never seen anyone using FB as what you say it should be used to. Have you even tried?? On a real game?? I'm sure that with the turret, mines, and the stuff you can have a really deadly machine....that can solo tp's and op's. Try to do it if you want, i'm sure it could work.

Psychosis wrote:QUOTE (Psychosis @ Jun 3 2009, 05:38 PM) I would love to see Figbees more fig like and less bbr like, because as of now, they are nearly worthless as a fighting platform

There are only 2 real differences between figbees and regular fighters, 1) Mass (figbees are just inherently fatter regardless of cargo) 2) Speed, figbees are quite a fair bit slower.

You can dogfight with figbees in terms of staying relatively still and shooting, helps that you have lead indicators however on a tp2 run everyone is just concerned with boosting as fast as possible to base and don't dogfight, I think on an average figbee tp2 drop if all the figbees specifically went to dogfight the base defence they would be able to pod them and blow up the base.

Yeah having a figbee that can dogfight is a really bad idea, and asking for lots and lots of figbee runs to fail epically when the kiddies all dogfight instead of trying to bomb the base. It's contrary to the figbee's purpose. Plus you're talking about a pretty radical change rather than a fairly gradual one, which could have many unintended effects.

As to tp2 randomly exploding, its interesting how the wheel turns... I believe the randomness was initially taken out for a reason mentioned above, that the game should rely as little as possible on chance events rather than skill. I see no reason to revert it but its interesting that the same arguments get repeated over and over and the chance exists for things to keep swinging back and forth as people rehash old debates without even realizing it.

Personally I think figbees are an epically cool addition to the game (what's better than launching against multiple targets and trying to down as many as possible in a giant furball before they blow your base? or more exciting than guiding your figbee in range while trying to avoid a hail of minigun fire?) but if they work every time without fail, they are a lot less cool (what's the point of even launching to defend if that's the case?)

Along the lines of a special missile for figbees, it might be neat to have one but make it really short range (500? 300?) that way the figbees have to travel farther. This would have the added benefit of not allowing figbees to leverage the ubar power of AB2/3 upgrades. Along these lines, making figbees more manuverable would increase the fun factor for the figbee pilots, while still giving defenders a fair chance of shooting them down, given the limitations of the special missile.

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Jun 3 2009, 09:35 PM) It's contrary to the figbee's purpose.

FBs purpose is being Sup's game ending tech. That doesn't imply that they must not dogfight.

Maybe the price tag should be put on the missiles, so people can use FBs as 0$ turreted fighters without AB missiles.

If FBs shouldn't be able to dogfight, why are they named FBs?

Sure, it might be a bad idea to have them able to dogfight as well as a regular fighter - But the fact is that people try to dogfight in them anyway because they're a Fighter/Bomber.

If we don't want them to be able to be a fighter, then just rename them to something like Light Bomber

LOL. HSharp/TA wins. The rest of you fail.

Someone got it right that the classic definition of a Fighter-Bomber is a Fighter that has been converted into a bomber. All FBs in history have flown like ass... you know why?

CUZ THEY $#@!ING CARRIED BOMBS!!!!

You're a voob if you're flying around wasting money trying to DF in an FB (excepting ABs to the face). Rename if you want to remove the tard connotation. Call it a light bomber if you must. Personally, I wouldn't bother renaming it since most newbs won't know the diff anyway and will still try to buy it cuz it says "bomber" on it.

Just make them easier to shoot down and call it a day.

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Jun 3 2009, 02:35 PM) Along the lines of a special missile for figbees, it might be neat to have one but make it really short range (500? 300?) that way the figbees have to travel farther. This would have the added benefit of not allowing figbees to leverage the ubar power of AB2/3 upgrades. Along these lines, making figbees more manuverable would increase the fun factor for the figbee pilots, while still giving defenders a fair chance of shooting them down, given the limitations of the special missile.

I support this idea.

I also have a different approach, bear with me:
1. Sup has the theme of making the fig do all the dirty work by adding props to em (camping/mining alephs, galving the base, boosting like an int, etc)
2. We could make the fig be the one blowing the base, the only difference being that figbombers give you the chance to mount base damaging missiles which cost money (keep bearing with me).
3. We make Galvs able to damage major base shield (and shield alone) with a low modifier.
4. We make TA's ultra-short-ranged/low damage AB missiles which cost money a possibility.

This way, a tp2 fighter bombing run would consist of ripping in the figs, the figs galving the shields, the figs launching missiles at the base.

The defense would have the chance of killing the tp probes or killing the figs as they circle-galv-bomb the base.

The offense would have the chance of dropping successive probes as the defense is busy podding the ones already circle bombing.

Could give figs special missiles to carry that have the mass of Aleph Res (well not that heavy but you get the idea)

Bam fighter bombers that handle like crap.

This in conjunction with possibly changes to XRM could be interesting

Removing the whole separate "Fighter/Bomber" ship might work - Just instead of researching FBs, you research the FB missile. Missile costs money, so that stays essentially the same. Missile has decent mass, so the "FB" handles poorly. And you have the plusses of a FB-only missile as well.

Exactly!

The only difficulty, of course, would be that reg figs don't elicit the 'station at risk' code.

But maybe therein lies the beauty?