Bomber first

[wetlettuce]

Is the t1 bomber first an issue that needs serious looking into?

(Bah. I go writing this thread then realize I can't add polls. Damn you Zep!)

Please reply with at least a YES or NO.

I will quote Zock, as he did summarize it quite nicely.

Its a design decision. The first bomber is the only unit which forces the opponent to micro to defend against it. With LAbs or other units, the atacker can choose to micro to increase the effectivity, but the defender can just build tanks and choose not to micro but defend against it with a counter unit. A single tank + the engy he should protect may still be killed by microed LABs, but thats not as bad as a vet1 bomber over your base that destroyed a multiple of its costed mass already.

To defend against a microed first bomber, you are forced to micro, and i wouldn't say the engy/aa/scout micro is easier then micro a single bomber. If you don't micro every single unit, the first bomber will most likley give its owner a huge advantage. Even a not microed first bomber against a not microing defender will kill very likley a multiple of its cost.

I don't like games beeing heavily affected or even decided by micro in the first 5 minutes, thats not what FA should be. Especially for people who can't micro perfect this makes a bomber rush a strategy wich can decide the game early with a huge random factor and has nothing to do with strategy anymore.

To add my 2 cents, from the looks of it the top players are fine with bombers, semi good to noobs aren't happy. Thus, pros will beat average players regardless, but at least if we nerfed t1 bomber first a bit more the win a pro has over a noob wont entirely be summarized as:

"a strategy which can decide the game early with a huge random factor and has nothing to do with strategy anymore"

[Ze_PilOt]

The problem is not what "pro" think. "Noob" vs "noob" (or medium) (equal skill). The one doing bomber first is more at ease than the one that must countering it. Tha'ts not a good thing.

[FunkOff]

(Bah. I go writing this thread then realize I can't add polls. Damn you Zep!)

My bad

And yes, I agree it is an issue that needs looking into.

[ToejamS]

Yes.

Yes, yes and yes. After having to stop production of engies to build aa, the break even cost of a bomber is one engie since all engie production is ceased to construct aa. Any eco/build power advantage the defender has over the aggressor is removed when all production is ceased (except by the acu ). If the bomber first player is not greedy, kills one engy, he is free to fly around killing any expansions, raiding, killing basically anything that isnt surrounded by aa at will. I think the micro cost is even since every one of the defenders units must be micro'ed while the bomber is a single unit that needs micro. Defender must stop all construction until the bomber threat is removed. Building labs to raid with "may" be a counter as long as they are continually micro'ed to avoid the bomber. I feel strongly that the defender is severely more handicapped than the aggressor bomber rushing.

[wetlettuce]

The problem is not what "pro" think.

I do not refer to what "pros" think in terms of game balance, but as to the issue into addressing t1 bombers in the first place as far as the balance team goes. The general impression I did get is that they aren't a problem, however players of lesser skill feel it's cheap and horrible way to lose.

I never saw any complaints before when t1 bombers weren't as commonplace going first. Part of the reason it's now an issue again is that we went from 5000 to 4000 energy startup, thus making the bomber first impossible. Thus it's energy was reduced to an extremely low amount to make it viable again. Being too viable is the question we're asking here.

Now factoring in dual bombing is getting becoming common place, we're discovering multiple issues that weren't really considered an issue before.

Oh wait, but then someone did go and add radar (which was done to fix a bug) which makes bomber first even more incredible - making hunting those stray engineers incredibly easy.

[Amphok]

i think it's fine, maybe some tweaking in the veteran-department but nothing more

[Pavese]

Theres an easy fix: reverse e cost to 3599.

It never needed the cost decrease. It was possible to play early bomber in 3599. Bomber was fine and is fine, expect its e cost.

[wetlettuce]

Theres an easy fix: reverse e cost to 3599.

It never needed the cost decrease. It was possible to play early bomber in 3599. Bomber was fine and is fine, expect its e cost.

If you reverse it's e cost, then bomber first is made outright impossible. The entire reason the bomber first costs a ridiculously low amount of E was to make it plausible after 3603 base energy went from 5000 to 4000 (this 1000 energy would of gone to making the bomber, thus the opposing guy not making bomber first had a 1000 energy advantage)

[thygrrr]

If the effective real-world breakeven point for a T1 bomber is killing 1 engineer (I find that quite believable, actually!), they are vastly superior to land units first. (labs can do only so much harm since the ACU one-shots them).

Now if the ACU could one- or two-shot bombers... it'd defuse a lot of early air problems.

[Pavese]

Theres an easy fix: reverse e cost to 3599.

It never needed the cost decrease. It was possible to play early bomber in 3599. Bomber was fine and is fine, expect its e cost.

If you reverse it's e cost, then bomber first is made outright impossible. The entire reason the bomber first costs a ridiculously low amount of E was to make it plausible after 3603 base energy went from 5000 to 4000 (this 1000 energy would of gone to making the bomber, thus the opposing guy not making bomber first had a 1000 energy advantage)

implying that this game needs bomber first. If you open air factory first you still can harass expansions with an early bomber. Its a valid opening.