The Definitive XRM Poll

DasSmiter · Post by **DasSmiter** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:32 pm

QUOTE (Vortrog)PROPOSAL:
1. That XRM missiles are increased in damage to make them a viable endgame tech and;
2. BIOS XRM research is tied to AB2 research

Background:
XRM Missiles were used effectively in cores DN4.60 and CC_03 as a endgame strategy highly effective against any ADVANCED Tech. Although it could be used in conventional bombing runs, it was primarily used in conjunction with Teleport Probes to rip a large number of bombers into a enemy techbase sector and from 4km out deliver a massive volume of long range antibase missiles that generally was considered a 'win' strategy.
In CC04, it was decided that XRM was too powerful. the discussion can be found below:
http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...showtopic=43233

the facts and comparisons with previous Cores.

DN 4.60
XRM AB1: 120 damage, $0/ea
XRM AB2: 150 damage, $0/ea

CC_04
XRM AB1: 60 damage, $20/ea ($100/rack)
XRM AB2: 75 damage, $20/ea ($100/rack)

XRM damage levels were lowered in CC04 in order to:
- Increase the use of other game ending tech as XRM was perceived as a guaranteed win solution by the CC team at the time

DISCUSSION
Since the nerf of XRM in CC_04, XRM use has not regularly featured as a viable end game strategy and as such is rarely used, overtaken by more Fighter bomber use for Sup.
As a result of community concerns, the following posts have been made and extensive discussion had in relation to making XRM's useful again. The links to these discussions are as follows:
http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...showtopic=49941
http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...st&p=378356

Subsequently, a number of proposals have been posted, which in addition to the damage perk have included revisions to range, access to XRM through the an extended tech tree (effectively to increase their cost and time as an endgame tech) however the general consensus is that a damage perk should be pursued. HOWEVER, there is concern over Bios should this perk be enabled and the community should consider wether XRM research for BIOS should be linked to another tech (eg AB2) to bring bios into line with other faction research times for XRM. Other factions have not been specifically addressed in concerns.

Although a quite worthy proposal for a 20% perk (Damage XRM1/XRM2 = 72/90) by Xeretov has been noted, many have requested a 50% (Damage XRM1/XRM2 = 90/112) perk to be able to compensate, assess and further revise if needed.

An incremental increase is required, and it needs to be one that should it not be adequate, the solution in easy to implement. Using this logic, a 30% perk is proposed (Damage XRM1/XRM2 = 78/98). If this does not make XRM feasible, then it gets another 30% in future subject to poll and at least we know we are there. We also have the issue of figbees coming, so we dont want to get into trouble and be scaling this back as well (as Jukto so rightly pointed out).

As noted above the proposed 30% damage perk results as follows : XRM1/XRM2 = 78/98 (30% increase from CC04) and cost remains the same.
This number is between the purists requested increase of 0% and the compromised number of the "game ending tech" crowd of 50%, yet it should be low enough to satisfy those who DONT wish to see XRM more effective, but give it enough of a boost so that those who do want the perk, will see XRM as an option....albeit an expensive one.

As such, it is proposed that XRM's have their damage only upgraded for the next CC release. In addition, to slow the BIOS XRM 'rush', tie development of XRM1 to AB2 for all factions.

This proposal is submitted for polling and final discussion prior to implimentation / rejection.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion, particularly those who have done the hard legwork in modelling XRM scenario's to determine the best balance for keeping XRM in the core. Particular thanks to Xeretov, Broodwich and Phoenix for their detailed analysis. And to MrC for smelling like fish.[/quote]

Buffing XRM dmg by 50% will make XRM dmg be 90/112 (for XRM1, XRM2)
Buffing XRM dmg by 30% will make XRM dmb be 78/93 (for XRM1, XRM2)

DasSmiter · Post by **DasSmiter** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:45 pm

A vote for 30% increase is a vote for Hitler!

lexaal · Post by **lexaal** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:27 pm

DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Jun 12 2009, 06:32 PM) Buffing XRM dmg by 50% will make XRM dmg be 90/112 (for XRM1, XRM2)
Buffing XRM dmg by 30% will make XRM dmb be 78/93 (for XRM1, XRM2)

After the lead indicator voting and the discussion about it ... this is really needed.

for those who arent able to read and understand a simple question.

I'd like vote for a 37.93 % increase ind damage.

Shizoku · Post by **Shizoku** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:51 am

How many missiles would either perk take to kill a standard tech base? Assume a standard kb like 10%

Vortrog · Post by **Vortrog** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:20 am

DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Jun 13 2009, 07:45 AM) A vote for 30% increase is a vote for Hitler!

Is this a vote or a lobbying contest?

Bathawk · Post by **Bathawk** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:13 am

Shizoku wrote:QUOTE (Shizoku @ Jun 13 2009, 02:51 AM) How many missiles would either perk take to kill a standard tech base? Assume a standard kb like 10%

XRM AB 1/2 with KB 10 against adv techbase
CC05: 46/37
CC03: 23/19
+30%: 35/30
+50%: 31/25

so basically, 50% needs 1.2 additional bbrs and 30% needs 2.4/2.2 more than before the nerf

50% might be a bit too much, but it would probably result in a higher number of games using them which would make it easier to determine how strong they really are

Edit: damn, i just ruined my perfect postcount

Post by **zombywoof** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:25 am

DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Jun 12 2009, 02:45 PM) A vote for 30% increase is a vote for Hitler!

First off, does that mean if we vote for anything else we die?

Second off, I accidentally voted for a 30% increase, thinking that "50%" was revert. :oops:

Third, numbers for Shiz:

20000 hull for an adv techbase (before faction)
10000 shield for an adv techbase (before faction)
Hull Repair Rate 40/s
Shield Repair Rate 100/s

XRM 1 proposed damages: 90 and 78.
XRM 2 proposed damages: 112 and 98.
DM class for XRM: 08 (*10 multiplier)

So,
with XRM 1 we're looking at 34 and 39 missiles
with XRM 2 we're looking at 27 and 31 missiles

Other things to note: it takes a second to reload missiles, and six seconds to load a new rack, which means that for smaller numbers of bombers it may take more missiles than the numbers represented (only by like, one or two though). For instance, from 34 bbrs, it will take exactly 34 XRM 1 but with 1 bbr it will take 58 missiles because of reload times. The shield regen is small but does eventually come into play.

In other words: these numbers are merely representative, and not exact. They give a good idea of what's going on.

TurkeyXIII · Post by **TurkeyXIII** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:56 am

75 * 1.3 = 97.5

Post by **zombywoof** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:21 pm

Bathawk wrote:QUOTE (Bathawk @ Jun 13 2009, 01:13 AM) so basically, 50% needs 1.2 2 additional bbrs and 30% needs 2.4/2.2 3 more than before the nerf

Can't have a partial bbr

Broodwich · Post by **Broodwich** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:27 pm

if i didnt already say this now that we are removing tf leads i dont really see a use for xrm. It was pretty clear once xrm was nerfed and people started using fbs that they were at least as effective, and it was only a matter of time before people started whining how they were overpowered. As it stands the only time xrm would be used over fbs is for bios and them rushing it. Unless people decide to change the way fbs are used xrm is rather redundant