Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Intended gameplay?

2014-02-07T22:04:29+02:00

Oh god, there is already a 20 pages thread about it. Go there.
Closing this thread.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 07 Feb 2014, 22:04

Re: Intended gameplay?

2014-02-07T19:47:52+02:00

I don't think his comment was about countering it, but rather the way it's played in general. That is, he thinks it's just a stupid mechanic and should be removed on that principle alone.

Statistics: Posted by rockoe10 — 07 Feb 2014, 19:47

Re: Intended gameplay?

2014-02-07T11:00:12+02:00

Iszh wrote:
Is that really what you call intended gameplay with a t1 bomber? A person can win a game with 1 unit?!?

this bomber killed 3 BUNCHED engys with the first bomber without serious micro, then it was microed to kill another

honestly sorry for beeing direct in advance but:
1. 3 engys bunch up - fail
2. no scout, despite enemy having PD and map has an esy defendable area and is there for optimal for bomber first - fail
3. no doding - fail
4. you still are ahead around minute 6 - no fail, just fun fact

I wish people would finally stop bitching around about first bomber, here are a few replays from yesterday whit first bomber countered very well:
1828636
1827593
1827533

+ the video i posted about 100 times already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URILRb0gXCU

And here is a replay with real bombermicro, not this pseudo bombermicro in your replay:
1812127

And for the sake of it here is a LAB killing a tank:
1824793

and now, can we close this thread pls?

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 07 Feb 2014, 11:00

Re: Intended gameplay?

2014-02-07T09:31:50+02:00

No, it is not intended. However, despite my fighting against it, we do seem to have a very high concentration of jackasses in this community who value abusive, unfun, unintentional but fundamentally skill-dependant gameplay over the greater good.

Unfortunately, they do have some things right though.

1 - We don't currently know how to fix this without causing even buggier behaviour. That is the biggest reason the asshole arguments hold water at the moment, it is the lesser of two evils.

2 - That player wasn't even great at Bomber micro. Although I'm nowhere near as good as you as a player, had that been me microing the Bomber, or another player who is good at it, you would be raging even harder. Bomber micro can be far, far stronger than that was.

3 - You did make the mistake of bunching up your PGens, something some top players are now very careful to avoid because of this.

4 - Bombers have now been balanced with the gameplay in existence. Yeah, it's not a perfect world, and I really dislike it, but the fact remains that if we remove this ability, we will have to DRAMATICALLY strengthen Bombers in order to have them viable.

5 - First Bomber is good for gameplay diversity. First Bomber only exists as long as A: This glitch is around or B: Bombers are insanely stronger than they are now. Until we find a way of fixing this in a bug-free manner... Again, lesser of two evils.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 07 Feb 2014, 09:31

Re: Intended gameplay?

2014-02-07T09:27:03+02:00

yes

edit: to seeing the lab game that is

Statistics: Posted by Deering — 07 Feb 2014, 09:27

Re: Intended gameplay?

2014-02-07T09:24:31+02:00

I simply dont like this playstyle of course it cannot win alone but in former times it was not happening. Playing supcom was more or less relaxed. This shit is stress i am playing piano on my mouse not to lose immidiately. I dont want stress i want to play a game. Make this bomber back to its 3599 energy price!

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 07 Feb 2014, 09:24

Re: Intended gameplay?

2014-02-07T09:21:01+02:00

You want to see a replay of someone winning with only a lab?

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 07 Feb 2014, 09:21

Intended gameplay?

2014-02-07T09:19:31+02:00

Is that really what you call intended gameplay with a t1 bomber? A person can win a game with 1 unit?!?

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 07 Feb 2014, 09:19