Posted: 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)
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)
