Definition: Vehicles and Bots?

I've been wondering, how do we define a vehicle versus a bot, and how are we going to individualize them? In terms of how we design new units for either factory that is. As I see it there are a couple of ways to do it, but i'm wondering what you guys/Uber has to say about it.

Method 1:

Vehicle: Everything with wheels or treads is a vehicle.

Bot: Everything with legs is a bot.

This definition is pretty straightforward, and easy to understand. However, it means that things like the AT-AT from star wars is considered a bot, even if it's a vehicle. That's not too big of a deal, but there are a few other definitions we could use, which could lead to interesting points.

Method 2:

Vehicle: Slow and tanky, lots of health, pretty high damage, but expensive.

Bot: Cheap, fast, disposable. Low health, low damage, but fast.

This definition gives a unit designer more leeway when designing the units, it would allow vehicles to have legs, but would force unit roles into certain categories, for example, there would be no tanky bots.

Now this gives us two definitions to work with, the second one doesn't have to be as specific either, but you get the idea. One definition puts certain units into the "vehicle" category based on model, while the other one via gameplay. Which one do you guys think is being used, and would you prefer using the other one?

I don't really agree with the second definition. To me bits aren't that fast, they can better adapt to terrain and are generally more maneuverable, but they aren't fast. Vehicles on the other hand now they're fast! The downside is that your ability to turn and accelerate are much more limited.

If you need to traverse steep slopes and doubt mountain paths, you'll want bots, but if you have a wide open plain you'll want vehicles.

Mike

I think that the method that is being used is gameplay, and this is the method I would prefer they used.


I think this because games with two factions, while not necessarily exactly the same as this situation, resemble it slightly.

Essentially having two factions that look completely different but play exactly the same because they have the same stats but a different model is quite boring game design.

The def. I saw last was bots are suppose to be like infantry. The new play tests show some of this off I feel like. The combat medic is a cool idea. and the idea that bots can walk through sections.

+2!

Last I checked, bots are faster than tanks...

repost

Yes, but what i'm wondering, is will that lead to a situation where each bot has a vehicle counterpart? Because I think that would be boring, and less tactically variable.

Also, they mentioned tanks that were supposed to soak up damage, and I think it would be cooler if they were bots (IE had legs, going by that definition), rather than something with wheels.

That was my personal opinion, not a summary of PA's current state, which we should remember isn't really indicative of what well get later.

Mike

I see, thanks for clarifying!

Let's just think about this

Bots are slower than vehicles.
Bots are more fragile than vehicles
Bots do less damage than vehicles.
The bot factory is only marginally cheaper than the vehicle factory to run


Why would you ever build bots?

I agree with the idea. If bots are supposed to be infantry than they should be better in rough terrain and maybe even have the ability to jump into an APC and go careering over the battlefield.

I just don't think it will ever work in practice.

Well no, it won't, because that isn't difference driven by gameplay, that's difference driven by model.

I don't see a problem with "vehicles" having legs, other than it being confusing. If units are supposed to soak up damage, yeah I see the cool factor in lumbering AT-ATs.

Consider Sins.

There are 3 factions, they all have units that basically do the same roles.

However, the TEC faction relies on economy. It's capital ships are weaker, it relies on frigate spam. The other factions rely less on frigate spam and more on strong capital ship abilities.

Each faction has "counterparts", but each faction has a different playstyle

I agree with the schema of bots being like infantry, and tanks being focused armored divisions. Infantry are small, cheap, versatile, and efficient, but they are slow and carry small weapons. Vehicles are bigger, faster, more expensive, and carry larger weapons. But vehicles are more constrained by terrain, are less maneuverable, and so on.

For the same cost, a group of bots would have more bodies and more total HP and DPS. But a tank has more range, more damage, higher speed, and more individual HP. The downside being the tank is more expensive, less maneuverable, poorer on bad terrain, its cannon is less flexible, slower rate of fire, poorer at close range, etc. The tank is vulnerable to different weapons because there are fewer tanks with more HP, and they have different combat properties, like poor turret tracking at close ranges.

That's only one possible way to do it. I think everyone agrees that they want tanks and bots to play and feel different.

I'm pretty sure bots a faster than vehicles, otherwise, what would the point in them be?

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

I am aware of the counterparts in SINS, I play vasari all the time. However, a frigate is much different from a cruiser, and the frigates are different across each race. I just think we should avoid the whole thing that we see now with the anti-air bot and the anti-air vehicle. They are both pretty much exactly the same, only one is fragile and slightly faster, whereas the other is slightly slower, but a little more resilient. I think it would be better if, say, the anti-air bot was also able to hit ground targets, but its damage output and such remained the same, while its vehicle counterpart is able to do heavy damage, but only to air units. As it stands, they are currently nearly identical.

Well, if you want to get really technical, the vehicles in PA aren't vehicles at all, seeing as how they don't transport anything or anyone, so they're technically just tank-shaped robots.
This is of course pointless to bring up, and as such this post itself is pointless, so I'll just shuttup now and talk about the point made by the thread.
Pretty much the first definition.

FTR mis clicked option 3 that is a no-vote...

I think I should make one additional point about poll option 2. I don't think this is a good way to constrain entire factories. The bot factories should have access to slow, tough units, but they should play differently from the vehicle factories' slow, tough units. Conversely, the vehicle factories should have fast, weak units which play differently from the bot factories' fast, weak units.

Which units are more versatile or cheaper or more common can differ, of course. Making efficient, versatile units means players will use a large number of those units. So putting an efficient, versatile unit in the basic bot factory that is fast and weak will mean that the bot factory plays with a lot of those units. Slow, tough assault bots would be an interesting support option for those units to diversify your armies and give you more tactical options, such as allowing you to assault an entrenched position.

Likewise, putting an efficient, versatile tank in the vehicle factory that is slow and tough will mean that the tank factory will largely play with slow, tough units. Fast, weak vehicles in the vehicle factory would be a support option for tank armies, possibly to raid or scout.

What this means is that poll option 2 is not a good way to design the factories, whereas poll option 1 can be used to make bots and vehicles play differently without limiting the functional design of those units.

I think the defining part is speed and maneuverability aka, guerilla warfare, for the bots. Although, to enhance that further, you could have:

Jumpjets...formation Jumpjet ftw!
Paratrooper Mechs..
Stealth ambush bots...undetected while not moving
Commando units like in original C&C...great against buildings and other bots, sucky against vehicles
Heavy Walkers..like the Hoth Walkers from starwars, or the Sumo, Can and others from TA.

Most of the above have been talked about previously I think, and could really add diversity to the Walking bots

My let's just think about this was If bots are slower than vehicles, as Mike suggested, then what would the point of them be?

I'm not quite sure what you refer to: If a bot has a counterpart which is basically identical, than that isn't difference driven by gameplay, that's difference driven by model. The stats have to differ. Even though dox and ants have the same role, gameplay between the two is quite different because of different stats.

Oh good you actually play Sins! The frigates are only slightly different - each faction has a scout, light frigate, long range, flak frigate, siege, coloniser etc. They all achieve the same role. The gameplay differs primarily with how the factions play - I play tec mostly, and I only play against the AI, but I don't care about losing units as much as I do when I play Advent or Vasari.

And then there's the placing of frigates on the tech trees.


I agree partially about anti-air being boring, but does it need to differ significantly? They both need to be as effective as each other.

I was using the anti-air as an example, but it would be interesting to do it this way. If you think about it, the bot could have smart-fire rockets, with a reasonable fire rate, and decent damage, but the vehicle would have a much slower fire rate, but do much more damage. This would make the difference between bots and vehicles more interesting than it currently is. I'm not saying that the anti-air example applies in every situation, but I am saying that I want to avoid having every unit from the bot factory be a counterpart to a unit in the vehicle factory or vice-versa. I don't want to see a raider tank just because the bots got one, or a damage-soaking bot just because the tanks got one.

In passing, we should totally play some SINS sometime!

in my opinion, bot can adapt to extreme terrain where vehicle is not able to run in