Is it just me or have dox lost ground in the latest patch???? Played one match last night and attempted my usual flank and overcome technique. This technique has paid off every time for me when out numbered. Last night though an ant, dox, blob crushed my dox like they weren't even there. Was this just a single case scenario or does anyone else feel the dox has lost to the almighty ant????
As a rule I think bots should be slightly weaker but faster than tanks, with about the same damage. Their advantage comes in raiding, kiting, and dodging.
Dox and ant stats haven't changed. Someone mentioned units aim differently now (I haven't played the latest build yet) and if they lead their targets then that may have nerfed dox' ability to avoid fire.
all this change means is that the default of all units in the game is to hit their target. the micro is now about dodging the fire rather than maneuvering to hit.
What Quitch said. Ants crush Dox now. Which I think is fair. Bots: Fast speed, easily killed. Best for raiding or as a quick reaction force. Vehicles: Slow speed, hard to kill. Best for augmenting a static defense or for pushing directly on enemy defenses.
wat If bots can do everything and vehicles are unnecessary then the game is simplistic. If you must understand that bots and vehicles both have their strengths and weaknesses and that different situations call for one or the other then you've made an interesting game. "lol t1 bot spam win game" would be simplistic.
I thought this was the view everyone had about Bots and Vehicles.... Its a general view but not a sole definer Have you discussed a different view point that is hidden on these forums?
Individual bots and vehicles shouldn't be generalised to such a degree. They should perform a role that is decided on a case-by-case basis. There's no reason some vehicles couldn't be spec'd towards raiding and fast movement. There no reason some bots couldn't be lumbering slow hiptpoint sponges. Lumping all bots into a single role, and all vehicles into a single role is more simplistic than having every bot and vehicle have its own particular strengths and weaknesses, nor should a factory set define the way you MUST play with a particular set of units. I am not advocating that bots = tanks and vice-versa, and certainly not that Doxes should be able to 1v1 Ants. Anyone suggesting that is obviously not using their brain at all.
Bot vs vehicles should not simply be a question of aesthetics. There should be some theme between the two sets. Presently that theme is "speed vs toughness". It could be something else, like direct fire single target damage vs ballistic explosive damage. I'm not picky about what the theme is; I just like that there is one and would like this trend to continue. This guarantees that there is always some interesting choice to make. The more interchangeable you make them, the less interesting the choice of "bot or vehicle" is going to be.
I see what you are saying, but at the same time its nice to have a general trend that distinguishes between two major classes of units. Uber mentioned several times that bots cost more energy and less metal than tanks, but this is suuuper vague. That said, what does this actually mean? Does it mean that if we hold hitpoints constant, bots provide more hitpoints per metal than tanks, at the cost of more energy? Or is the other way around- That if we hold the metal cost constant, bots have generally less heath AND cost more energy? Either way, the latter of the two is what is currently implemented, and I think thats a good thing. However, this shouldn't be the only thing separating the two, for sure. In my opinion, the major distinction should make sense with the unit design. A 'bot' shape, with all its arms and legs and stuff is enormously more complex than a tank. Therefore, it should generally cost more energy to manufacture. Also, this complexity would lead to fragility, one would think, so bots should provide less hitpoints too. So what do we get? Why add legs and stuff? For the simple reason animals evolved legs, not wheels- they can do lots more. Bots shouldnt be just 'lemme shoot whats in front of me' type units, instead, they should do all the crazy things that it wouldnt make sense for a tank to do. Read some pages out of the Unit Ideas thread for examples. So nanolathe, I don't think it would make sense for there to be a bot thats a big o'l damage sponge and nothing more. Leave the tank role to tanks. Instead, have a bot that carries a huge metal shield in front of it or something, that makes it practically invulnerable to head-on fire, or let it dig into the ground and trade mobility for durability. These provide tankyness, but in a way that a treaded 'tank' couldn't.
I think you have it backwards. Bots only being useable as raiding is specialising, what you ask for is generalising units. If you take a unit, and allow it to do everything (even if not at the same time) you have generalised that unit. if you take a unit, and remove functionality, you are specialising a unit. Dont mix these up with your argument.
I think the point is that nanolathe is talking about "bots" as a type of unit. Currently most people mean "dox" when they say "bots" and "ant" when they say "tanks". However I do think that it should be possible to give a meaningful summary of "what vehicles do" and "what bots do". Why have the differentiation between bots and tanks when both have all unit-roles anyway?
I never could understand why nanolathe was pushing towards this idea. He really REALLY hated the idea of tanks not being able to shoot at planes.
I feel the same sentiment about tanks shooting planes. The inability of tanks to successfully shoot down planes shouldn't come from an arbitrary 'layer' separation, but instead from how the units work. A combination of turret tracking, traversal, and angle limitations should prevent a tank from shooting down airplanes. Not relying on an arbitrary separation enforces a level of design honesty in the units.
If it is impossible for tanks to hit air there is no reason for them to even try shooting at it. So you end up with the exact same behavior we have right now.
Even if you disregard what colin said, because that is a long long time standing argument of my own, why should balance be based around what is and is not plausible? sure its plausible that tanks can shoot an aircraft out of the sky, but it is not realistic for it to do so. And even then if we disregard that, why stop at plains? the projectiles from these tanks can easily hit the orbital layor, and they would also likely be able to generate a trajectory to hit another planet. At what point do we stop? Do we make an exception at aircraft? or do we just not make exceptions at all?
