Reverse T1 Bomber nerf Immediaty! And some game analysis!

[Evildrew]

The T1 bomber nerf makes T1 bombers completely useless. It takes too long to build (3 engineers instead of 2), costs more (+50%) and has 0 benefits in exchange for this (No HP Buff/ it already dies in less than 3 seconds when an inti has locked on, so it does not get a second pass.
Does 1 T1 bomber kill a T1 Pgen in 3 seconds? -NO
Does 1 T1 bomber kill a T1 Mex in 3 seconds? -NO
Does 1 T1 bomber kill a T1 Tank in 3 seconds? -Depends

Intis are the natural counter to bombers and are cheaper (with players being equal, the defensive player wins/ i.e. Initiative is punished as counter is even cheaper/ i.e. Turtle POWER!)

The nerf might work on maps that are 5kx5k with only 2k between players, but on any reasonable team game map where distance to enemy plays a role it makes T1 bombers completely USELESS, especially considering that intis are OP at shooting them down anyway!

Facts:
*Increase in cost and build time deters good players from making T1 bombers, not only early bombers, but T1 bombers in general are a bad choice now.
*T2 Fighter bomber are more cost efficient as bombers now despite the fact that they serve dual use, have more speed and more HP. (No one uses fighter bombers because they are too expensive=> T1 bombers even more useless than fighter bombers)

T2 1200 damage/420 mass as bomber (2,85 Damage per mass) vs
T1 300 damage/120 mass (2,50 Damage per mass)

Problem: Different size maps make the meta different for values of troops. Current nerf only serves 1v1 players needs, not the whole community.
Poor assessment: Noobs are convinced of this stupid idea that a bomber only has to kill 2 engies to pay for itself. That is false because the reclaim is still there and if the bomber gets shot down, that reclaim goes to the defending player too. There has to be a probability of success applied to estimate the fair value of initiating an attack with a T1 bomber. These not so obvious facts are often left out when making a decision as to what equals what. Truth is that on different maps and with different situations, the parameters change of the equation and good players use their experience and sound judgment to make superior decisions which help them beat their opponents. 5x5 maps do not have the same parameters as 10x10 maps!

Why the current mega nerf is a terrible idea:
1) It seems that all possible options of nerfing the T1 bomber were applied, where one would have shifted the balance in the non-scouting, pro-turtle players favor, 3 nerfs were applied.
2) Making the game meta favor the defensive player even more will not make the game more fun. It will be thermo on every map greater than 5x5.
3) The natural counters to T1 Bombers is so inexpensive and bombers do not do a lot of damage unless all engies are grouped up, or opponents dont know how to build any AA to counter it when they see it fly over (only terrible players take damage from a bomber in that case (the very ones we are supposedly trying to protect with these nerfs / I have had opponents throw out the gg when I had 1 bomber in there base while they had enough resources and time to easily counter it!!!!)

On a side note. If Ras is nerfed too, we will have dull and boring games, as 20-45minute 4v4 / 5v5 / 6v6 games turn into 3-6 hour games due to the slow growth rates resulting from the nerf. A lot of people will only get to play 1 or max 2 games a night instead of the usual 5 or 6. Some will even not play because they know they will not be able to stay for 3 hours to play 1 game!!!!

Solutions:
Hoverbombing: To eliminate hoverbombing, make settings for T1 bomber that it can only bomb at full speed.
Early bomber: If hover bombing is eliminated, T1 mobile AA will build faster than bomber gets back for 2nd pass. With current buff of 2x HP it will also not die in 1 pass. A defensive T1 mobile AA costing 55 mass is superior to T1 Bomber costing 120 mass (This is pro turtling!). T1 Bombers need to be cost effective for the game to make sense, so man up and deal with it!

Important facts to consider:

THE GAME - Supreme commander was designed as a large scale war game (i.e. 10x10 & 20x20), not as a 5x5 sandbox for players to play T1 & T2 troops vs each other all day.

THE METAs - 5x5 maps favor building lots of troops over teching mexes, 80x80 maps favor teching mexes and building paragon and arties over troops. Why is that? Simply said the META, there is one variable that affects the value of troops on the different sizes of maps, which is obviously distance (therefore time to maturity, known as (n) in the NPV calculation). For an 80x80 map to play the same as a 5x5, troops build speeds and travel speeds would have to adjust for the distance, this is why SC2 was a fail!
Any troops value is greater on a smaller map than on a larger map that is simple math. The point at which teching a mex equals building a given amount of troops on a plain map is always a fix value, when we move away from that infliction point we have a situation where teching mexes or building troops becomes more favorable to our situation.

Solution for the META:
The solution lies simply in the rate of return of techning a mex, and how many mexes we place on maps of given sizes.
That means, looking at my table below of current rate of returns on mex upgrades, we can make T1 mexes be suitable for 5x5 T2 mexes suitable for 10x10 and T3 mexes suitable for 20x20 maps by changing the ratio of mass income generated by cost of upgrade (mass fabs also need to be considered but not going into that right now).

Return (mass generated / cost to build) - (energy and energy drain of operations not considered)
T1 Mex return 5,55%
T2 Mex 0,64% with storages 0,52%
T3 Mex 0,39% with storages 0,5%

The problem lies clearly here in the T3 Mex with storages having an almost similar rate of return as T2 with storages, now due to compounding a T2 mexes with storage will generate more mass overtime than getting a T3 mex with storage but that is for another day.

I dont want to say I know exactly how much the rates of return have to be to make T3 mexes on a 10x10 look uninteresting vs making troops but interesting on a 20x20 compared to making troops but that could be approximated with some thorough analysis and testing over time. But this is the reason why T1 bombers and all other troops have a greater value on 5x5 maps and less on larger maps. It is all in the rate of return (i) and the distance (n)(i.e. time).

So for all the whiners about 1 early bombers, learn to click on the mobile AA icon in the land factory menu!
For hoverbombing -> bomber only releases bombs at full speed.

(Sorry for any typos - Very angry indeed!)

[keyser]

it's overall a buff of T1 bomber.

[Lieutenant Lich]

Yer jokin', Keyser, art thou not?

[yorick]

Keyser has a point, the new bombers can be devastating if left alone. They drop far more reliably and have a much smaller turn radius and therfore higher effective dps. We will have to see how it interacts with the new t1 mobile aa, but this is definately not a plain nerf for the bombers.

[KeyBlue]

Were is this coming from?

There were 2 threads regarding the T1 bomber change and almost all high rated players talk about a buff.
viewtopic.php?f=67&t=12946
viewtopic.php?f=67&t=12822

Zock even says here that there is no intention of removing first bomber, just to weaken them.
viewtopic.php?f=67&t=12946#p133087


Then you lost me with the rest of your post. I couldn't go on after reading about the 3-6h games.

[Evildrew]

You guys clearly are not reading my points and answering them in a serious way.

I do not need to hear this crap of it being a buff (keyser) what evidence are you refering to for that statement? NOTHING!

yorick, what context are you refering too for saying that a T1 bomber can be devastating if left alone (afk player not reacting to being bombed?) Droping more reliably should not be listed as a buff, if it was not dropping reliably when it should have then it was broken, fixing what is broken is not a buff! Why do you say it is not a plain nerf, the facts are undeniable:

T1 mobile AA 2x firepower & 2x hp for 2x cost, i.e. it is 4x stronger for 2x cost (doubled in value)
T1 Interceptor has same fire power, t1 bomber didnt gain hp, so 120 mass & 40secs bt will still die as fast to an inti which builds faster and is so much cheaper.
T1 bomber less costeffective than t2 bomber

Important point: Good players react fast, bombers usually dont get 2nd pass so supposedly increased dps....not always...

[IceDreamer]

You talk about game analysis and clearly have not played with the new patch for any serious amount of time.

When you do that, and have evidence to support your theories, come back.

As for how some could think it's a bomber buff? Well, overall, it is. Early bomber is nerfed quite hard due to the cost increases and need for proper scouting, but later on, bombers are now almost as effective with a simple attack command as they used to be with hover-micro. They turn much tighter and drop better, which means their DPS is a great deal higher. You can now easily attack multiple vectors with bombers and quickly out-APM your opponent. Additionally, though hover-micro is harder, new forms of turn micro have been introduced which make for some very interesting tactics indeed.

Give it a proper try. At least 10 hours of in-game time is generally recommended when it comes to a player getting used to a new game balance (Not just here, I'm talking across the industry. DOTA, LOL, Starcraft, TF2, Overwatch, they all have big balance shifts that take getting used to).

In short; no, the bomber isn't what it used to be. It's not completely useless either.

[biass]

Hello there, this is the link to the patchnotes for the balance beta, i suggest you have a read before making another post:
http://content.faforever.com/patchnotes/3655.html

Overall, besides being more reliable, the bomber also drops more bombs in a shorter space of time, giving a dps increase
its also way easier for general micro, and sharp turns will be less of an issue

Hope this clears up the frustration, as for the pain in ur butt, i recommend a nice warm shower. Thank you!

[Hawkei]

I have used the new bomber and changes serve more as a role adjustment than as a nerf. Whereas formerly the bomber was slow turning and naturally ineffective unless given precise control. Which meant that with hover-bombing and the like the game is more of a flight simulator than a strategy game.

The whole premise of the change is that the unit ought to be effective in a more macro oriented playstyle. Which brings us back to the idea of commanding large sweeping battles. The unit can turn more quickly, and can effectively engage targets on a manual attack order que, or attack-move order. Heck, they even work effectively when on patrol. Sure, it doesn't have radar, but put some air scouts into the mix and problem solved. Once you appreciate the new unit for its strengths I think you will appreciate that the change is an improvement.

[Evildrew]

Ok Icedreamer I will give it a try. BUT the fact of the matter is that early bomber is only a thing on 1v1 on small maps, any skilled player will look at score and see that their opponent is going airfactory so even on small maps you can prepare.

The only thing I will reiterate is that you are assuming for the higher dps that the bomber gets more than a first pass which in most cases it does not. If you consider that a T1 bomber usually gets shot down quickly it still has the same amount of damage as before just takes longer, so in that case it has less dps due to the build time and also the mass cost for that damage is higher.