Bomber first

Post here any idea about current FA Balance.
REMINDER : This is NOT a community balance forum. The thread ideas won't be used in a patch.
Forum rules REMINDER : This is NOT a community balance forum. The thread ideas won't be used in a patch.

Re: Bomber first

Postby X-Peri-MENTAL » 18 Apr 2012, 16:55

Maybe a bit of clarity is now required? I think this is developing into two issues with merging boundaries:

1: Building a bomber first.

2: Triple\Double bombing with that bomber.

With issue 1 I sit in the camp where I dislike the bomber rush but can accept the arguments.

Issue 2 is a different issue. it has been identified to me that it is an exploit as it violates the reload time of 2 seconds (see topic: http://www.faforever.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1041), I thought exploits were frowned upon as cheating and discouraged, like the old Mex upgrade bug of getting a T1, T2 and T3 mex on a single mass deposit, this too could have been argued as good micro. ;)

Players might be getting frustrated on being on the receiving end of a bomber rush but are in reality also being on the end of a triple\double bomb exploit?
User avatar
X-Peri-MENTAL
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 57
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 23:27
Location: England
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0 time
FAF User Name: X-Peri-MENTAL

Re: Bomber first

Postby AdmiralZeech » 19 Apr 2012, 16:04

One of my pet hates is people that call any sort of emergent gameplay behaviour an "exploit" to be fixed.

One man's "exploit" is another man's "engine trick." The key is whether the thing is good for gameplay or not.
There's a long history of games having unintended engine tricks that improve gameplay, especially at the top level. And of course, an equally long (if not longer) history of exploits that completely ruin a game, especially at the top level :)

Double/Triple bombing is borderline, I guess. If it wasnt combined with bomber first, and was just a nifty way of getting a bit of extra damage from a single bomber in a match with 100s of units flying around, then it would be a "not that useful but fun and cute" sort of gameplay feature. It's when it's done on the early bomber that it might be seen as negative.
AdmiralZeech
Priest
 
Posts: 364
Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 16:56
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 62 times

Re: Bomber first

Postby uberge3k » 19 Apr 2012, 21:04

You can outmicro an ACU's gun with a LAB. That's clearly "exploiting" the intent of ACU cannon's projectile, which no other unit can dodge.

You can make the case either way. Fact is, it's ultimately a balance issue.
Ze_PilOt wrote:If you want something to happen, do it yourself.
User avatar
uberge3k
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 13:46
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 48 times
FAF User Name: TAG_UBER

Re: Bomber first

Postby welder » 21 Apr 2012, 05:29

X-Peri-MENTAL wrote:Maybe a bit of clarity is now required? I think this is developing into two issues with merging boundaries:

1: Building a bomber first.

2: Triple\Double bombing with that bomber.

With issue 1 I sit in the camp where I dislike the bomber rush but can accept the arguments.

Issue 2 is a different issue. it has been identified to me that it is an exploit as it violates the reload time of 2 seconds (see topic: http://www.faforever.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1041), I thought exploits were frowned upon as cheating and discouraged, like the old Mex upgrade bug of getting a T1, T2 and T3 mex on a single mass deposit, this too could have been argued as good micro. ;)

Players might be getting frustrated on being on the receiving end of a bomber rush but are in reality also being on the end of a triple\double bomb exploit?

I think the fact that 2 exists is what makes 1 such an issue.

If it wasn't for triple/double drops I think bomber first would not have turned into such an issue.
welder
Crusader
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 08 Apr 2012, 19:20
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Bomber first

Postby uberge3k » 21 Apr 2012, 13:22

Anaryl wrote:Despite what Uber says, it takes at least 4 AA to put an early bomber to bed, and even then you need a bit of luck.

Would you like to, as you put it, "put your money where your mouth is with a 1v1" to test that?
Ze_PilOt wrote:If you want something to happen, do it yourself.
User avatar
uberge3k
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 13:46
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 48 times
FAF User Name: TAG_UBER

Re: Bomber first

Postby uberge3k » 21 Apr 2012, 22:58

Results:
76689-TAG_UBER.fafreplay
(61.3 KiB) Downloaded 204 times
Ze_PilOt wrote:If you want something to happen, do it yourself.
User avatar
uberge3k
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 13:46
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 48 times
FAF User Name: TAG_UBER

Re: Bomber first

Postby FunkOff » 21 Apr 2012, 23:14

uberge3k wrote:Results:
76689-TAG_UBER.fafreplay


What about that other game you played where he killed you?
FunkOff
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: 26 Aug 2011, 17:27
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 43 times
FAF User Name: FakeOff

Re: Bomber first

Postby uberge3k » 21 Apr 2012, 23:17

There was no such game. We played a second game, which he quit after a few minutes because he did not like his faction choice, and a third game which was unfortunately cut short by a crash before a winner could be decided.

Thus, the only valid replay is this one:
76689-TAG_UBER.fafreplay
(61.3 KiB) Downloaded 91 times


I'm happy to play more games with him when he has more time. I seriously doubt the outcome will differ, but more data is always good.
Ze_PilOt wrote:If you want something to happen, do it yourself.
User avatar
uberge3k
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 13:46
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 48 times
FAF User Name: TAG_UBER

Re: Bomber first

Postby FunkOff » 21 Apr 2012, 23:24

uberge3k wrote:a third game which was unfortunately cut short by a crash before a winner could be decided.


I watched that game and he had you dead.
FunkOff
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: 26 Aug 2011, 17:27
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 43 times
FAF User Name: FakeOff

Re: Bomber first

Postby uberge3k » 21 Apr 2012, 23:52

That is simply not true. Regardless, why should one incomplete result matter more than a complete result?

Sadly, it seems that this discussion stopped being about the facts themselves long ago...
Ze_PilOt wrote:If you want something to happen, do it yourself.
User avatar
uberge3k
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 13:46
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 48 times
FAF User Name: TAG_UBER

PreviousNext

Return to FA Balance Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest