Free Allegiance Forums

Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ May 7 2009, 05:19 PM) This really is a tough call, especially when you look at how durable hvy bombers are compared to figbees.

I don't think the damage needs to be increased too much from its current level, but I also admit that the few times I have seen XRM used after the nerf the runs didn't even manage to get the base shields down (with about 8 bombers on the run) before the defense podded us all. Before the nerf a good size run of about 12 bombers would take a base down well before half of the bombers died though. I guess its time to whip TEK out or just fiddle with ICE to get some numbers. More on that below, but as I mentioned in the thread Andon linked I believe a slight nerf to XRM range would help as well.

What is everyone's opinion about slowing XRM down in terms of time needed to get the tech?

As Broodwich pointed out (and I agree with) Bios can get XRM1 runs going particularly fast, since they can currently get TP2, Hvy Bbrs and XRM1 up at the same time they complete their enh. tech.

Tying the XRM research to the SRM AB tech might be the way to go - set SRM AB2 as a prequisite for XRM1, and SRM AB3 for XRM2. This would mean Bios would need to finish its enh tech before it could start working XRM1 (unless the other team bought SRM AB2 for them) and that Bios sup's endgame would be available at the same speed as the other techpaths (SBs & HTTs).

If another team buying them the SRM AB is an issue though (I like it because it adds a bit of risk to buying it vs. Bios sup) we could alternatively tie it to Enh and Adv fighter research. I'd rather have it tied to SRM AB though.


Ok, some numbers. Note that I'm ignoring all factional perks, and that I'm not counting shield regen or KB for the sake of simplicity.

Before the nerf, an XRM AB2 missile with both Missile damage GAs would do 181.5 damage. (150 * 1.1 * 1.1)
Your typical Adv. Techbase has a shield strength of 10,000 and a hull strength of 20,000.

XRM shares the same damage class as SRM AB, which has a modifier of 10 versus both techbase (major base) shield and hull. That means each missile does 1815 damage.

If we go with my above mention of 12 bombers, with a max range (~4K) drop, each individual missile volley from the group will do 21,780 damage. This means the base will be dead within 2 volleys assuming every bomber got both missiles off, or at the very least if even half of the bombers managed to empty 3-4 missiles out of their rack of 5. The exact number of missiles is actually 16.5, which we can round up to 17. Remember that this ignores shield regen, base shield/hull GAs and factional perks from either side.

With the current (CC04) system, the damage is half of the above - meaning each missile does 90.75 damage (or 907.5 to a techbase). The total number of missiles required jumps up to just over 33, or with 12 bombers about 3 volleys rather than 1 and a half. Due to the increased time between volleys though, the shields are able to regen a bit more than they did in the previous example.

On the other hand, an SRM AB2 (or AB3) does 5000 damage per missile to a techbase, meaning you need about 6 figbees to get through the defense and get one missile off each for the base to die. (Strangely enough, AB3 does the same damage as AB2: It just loads faster. I never knew that until I looked. The more you know!)

The above numbers look fine and are probably similar to what went up when the original nerf was decided. XRM got cut down and FBs didn't seem like too bad of an option either. So why are people complaining that XRM is useless? The cost is one item, especially in smaller teams. A hvy bbr with one rack of XRM costs $600 whereas an FB costs $250. Since the performance seems about the same most coms seem to want to spend less, and FBs don't require Hvy bbr research to use (I'm not suggesting they should either) which is $10K base. The other item is the problem of defense. Since most TP2 drops are done behind a rock and bombers are slow, the defense has a bit of time to get to the bombers before they can launch their XRMs.

Lets go back to my above example, using the CC04 values for XRM2 damage. Lets assume that since we have a run of 12 bombers that the teams are about 16 players each. Lets also assume that the defending team is alert and had about 10 people ready in interceptors, so they have quite a bit of firepower. (Quick note: A mini2 hvy int will kill a med shield 1, hull GA2 hvy bomber in about 13 seconds with perfect accuracy).

Lets also assume that a quarter (25%) of the bomber run dies to fast reacting ints before they fire any missiles off. That leaves our 12 bombers reduced to 9. All 9 bombers fire their first volley and rearm the next missile, which does 7260 damage total to the base. The second volley goes off and then 2 more bombers die. The total done to the base so far is 14520, or about half of the total hitpoints. We're also down to 7 bombers. Another volley goes out doing 6352 damage (total = 20872). 3 more bombers die. The remaining 4 bombers fire off the fourth volley and do 3630 damage (total = 24502). Even if all 4 bombers get their 5th missile off the base is going to live. However if you double the damage numbers (as they were pre nerf) then the base would have died by the third volley. This assumes the ints can react fast enough and none of the bombers had a decent KB.

The cost of XRM is already pretty high, but where do we want it fitting within the endgame scenario? I realize $100 a rack isn't much, but compared to 12 bombers thats the price of about 5 figbees. And even with the current damage nerf the numbers aren't too bad.

I'd say up the damage of XRM by about 20%. I'm not too worked up over the cost per missile or the range, but I don't think removing the cost would hurt or that dropping the range 10-15% would stop the runs much either.

With a 20% damage increase, XRM2 will do 1089 base to a techbase, making the total number of missiles 27.5 (round to 28), rather than the 33 it is now or the 17 it was before the nerf. That also drops the requirement to kill the techbase in my above example by about 1 volley. Alternatively we could reduce the cost of getting XRM to make it more comparable to FBs, although this introduces a slew of new problems such as Hvy bbr cost vs. FB cost and the above mentioned Bios XRM rush.

Edit: Another quick thought here. If we want to increase the risk of XRM runs a bit, we could reduce the rack size from its current 5 down to 4. That would mean the defense is less forgiving since a handful of surviving bombers wouldn't be able to get those last couple XRMs off due to reload. Going from the above numbers though, I don't see it as an issue, although I wanted to put it out there as another option we have.

CronoDroid wrote:QUOTE (CronoDroid @ Jun 10 2009, 01:51 PM) I think someone (like myself) once discussed XRM in a much more succinct manner. My conclusion was it needed a small damage perk...similar contention to the above post. I don't believe I needed a thesis to come up with it either!