Lets talk about the Inferno

If bots are suposed to play role of infantry then I would see flamethrower (plasma torch) tank as a direct counter to dense bot squads (T1 at least), this implies that they should deal AOE damage (not necessary DOT), be availalbe at T1, move quite fast (to catch up with them), have decent range (subject to range/speed-difference balance); this features exclude them from role of damage absorbing units.

Tough short ranged flamer-like units are only good option in case opponent uses even closed-range units with single target damage (melee?) and i don't think we want to see that kind of units. (They could also work with drops like in Starcraft but I don't see it in PA either).

As for damage absorbing units (in tank technology) i would say they should belong to T2 as efficient unit compositions (synergies) should be at cross-tier level generally (making T1+T2 compositions prefered over T2 units alone).

I think it would be interesting to have a medium speed-medium health flame tank (plasma torch at a closer range, but with no AOE would work too, I think) that explodes when killed would be an interesting way to do it. The explosion wouldn't have to do that much damage, it could maybe take out a dox or two, but other flame tanks wouldn't get insta-gibbed by it. That way you have a decently tanking somewhat fast unit, (a little faster than it it now, so that it can actually get in range, but It shouldn't be able to run down a dox or a skitter) that is capable of heavy damage at short range. It might be very effective at taking down walls, but the turrets behind the walls wouldn't have too much trouble taking them out while they approached. Then if you kill one of them, the tanks around it take a bit of damage, but they are fast enough to still be able to do something unless they are being kited.

Check the unit stats.

The flame tank ammunition doesn't have AOE. It's designed to burning a hole through defence, not to attack units.

Interesting thread, don't feel I have much to add though.

As a side note, I wonder why uber feel confident about adding plasma torch effects but not continuous beam laser effects. I would imagine they behave in a similar way, although I don't really know.

Anyone care to shed any light on this?

It really comes down to range, Beams work fine at shorter ranges because the curvature of a planet doesn't matter, but the long the range gets the more of a problem it because until the weapon just can't shoot to it's full range.....dependent on planet size.

Mike

That makes... A lot of sense. Well now I feel stupid.

Just to continue hijacking your thread for a moment (forgive me) but why can't orbital laser platforms have continuous cutting beams? Surface curvature shouldn't affect them as they fire almost directly downwards.

Or is it just that uber don't want to, or haven't yet, created a beam graphic that only one unit will use?

EDIT: it would make sense for the umbrella to use this too. And orbital fighters (if they're going to make final release, which looks increasingly likely). And defence satellite (ditto). Ok, there are a wealth of implementations for this graphic

Beams would also work in orbit or the air layer, but Uber haven't implemented it yet.

Personally I think weapons like those should fire epic beams of death.

I think it mostly comes down to the fact that it's not quite "required" in the same way other weapon types are like Cannons and Missiles. I think it's a fairly safe Bet that we'll get Beams, at some point, and it's just a matter of when.

Mike

There does seem to be a lot of community support, and I think 'real' beam lasers are great aesthetically. We all have fond memories of that sweeping red monkeylord beam carving through ranks of bots

Let's hope uber are listening and like teh lazorz as much as we do.

I was referring to the AOE suggested by KNight, I know that there is no AOE currently implemented for the inferno.

Just had an idea, and I thought I ought to get this thread back on track seeing as I derailed it.

It just occurred to me that an inferno/vanguard style unit (they're currently identical in role) would actually be the perfect mobile defence against the type of light flame tank suggested by knight in the OP.

A ring/vanguard/rearguard of these high armour vehicles would not only absorb damage from towers for advancing armies of tanks, but also prevent high DPS short range units such as scampers, slammers and AoE flame units getting in among your main force with short range weapons. Perhaps give these defensive vehicles high stopping power weapons, but with low velocity, to force them into a defensive role.

This seems like a sensible role for a heavily armoured and slow but short ranges tank, leaving the 'flame tank' to fill a fast, fragile anti-swarm tank as knight envisaged.

Heavily armoured tanks could also act as a minesweeper, should mines stay in the game, making it more of a multipurpose utility vehicle than main offensive unit.

I think knight's point is that the flame tank is essentially being tasked with two very different roles as an antiswarm and as an assault unit.

The role of dealing lots of damage to many small enemies, such as using high-DPS AOE effects like fire, should probably be distinct from the role of an assault unit, or a close-combat unit with a lot of HP.

The reason for this is that the antiswarm unit should probably be vulnerable to ranged enemy weapons, while the assault unit should probably be vulnerable to swarms. A front-line assault unit with powerful antiswarm capability arguably doesn't have a weakness. Short range isn't a weakness for a unit that has the HP to close to range anyway.

But the flame tank doesn't have AOE, so it is clearly not antiswarm, and that is where my confusion lies.

My point was that as a flame tank, it not having AOE and it being named after "a large fire that is dangerously out of control" is that it doesn't feel right.

Mike

Why don't we change the flamethrower out for a smaller short range version of the monkeylords sweeping laser.

A weapon change of some sort is a possibility. Chances are that would also require a name change as well, if the intent really was for it to be more of a blow torch, Inferno just isn't a accurate name.

Mike

I agree that the Inferno should be fast high damage.

It'd also be cool if there was a burn damage. So if a flame tank shoots fire at an Ant and the Ant destroys the Inferno, then the Ant still takes damage.

er.

Pounder.

...

Whatever.

The Vanguard's role will slightly change. It'll stay high armored, but I'm looking into POSSIBLY giving it some anti-missile capability and some some short-range radar. I like the idea of having them in front, not only for their health, but so that artillery tanks can have radar vision and be able to shell things from farther away.

This could be interesting if we see an increase in missile using units, right now we're a little bare. I'd think at that point if you want it to remain high armor I'd seriously consider lowering the speed a bit.

Mike

Cool. That's cool.That's really cool. That's the unit I'd like to see. Thank you scathis. With that post, you have just reassured my faith in you.

Seriously, thank you so much.


I am confused however.

Most units aren't OP because of high health and damage, they seem to be OP because of the range they fire at, because faster units just run into a line of death. Also economic cost

In particular, a Naval start isn't viable, you're better off going for the strong economy of a bot start and then going amphibious. While as the game progresses it's increasingly difficult to get into water in a small lake. Pelters are beaten by Bluebottles not because bluebottles are "fast", but because Bluebottles have a huge range. It's very difficult to push yourself into a lake, because ultimately you need a naval factory, and it's very difficult to build that factory under fire.