Lets talk about the Inferno

To be Honest, I wouldn't mind a Speedy flame bot and a tanky plasma cutter tank for flame units if we add them into the game.

Darling, just wait until we have full modding capability.

Hey, I'm not having a rant. All I'm saying is let's call a spade a spade. As an engineer, you don't call it optimisation when you look at a building, say "Oh, yeah it's not Earthquake proof enough, let's do this and this and this, and now it's less earthquake proof than it was before", or say "Yeah it's earthquake proof, but there's no such thing as a magnitude 50 earthquake, let's cut costs and make it only capable of withstanding a magnitude 3 earthquake" when you're expecting frequent earthquakes of 5 and above.

There were balance changes in the last patch. And there were changes to make some units not viable at all. And those changes are definitely two different things.

Wow. Dude, I know that most of the posts I have made in this thread/recently/ever are pretty dickish. But is that kind of language necessary?

Yes, so teleporter tanks fixed the movement issues by improving mobility. You see the point of my post in regards to naval now?

My take on the Inferno: I mostly agree with the OP. I believe that inferno flame tank should be fast and short rqnged with a moderately low amount of HP. I see it as a response unit for countering the mobility of bots or supporing them. I do not agree with flame tank being the hp bag (basixally as I already stated I belieave tangs themselves should be hp units. If you need more range and damage - build an assault gun or supplement with the new t2 artillery. It is extremely useful for dealibg with clumps of tanks although it falls agains bots, which is gpod and as it should be. )

I believe the point of the OP was Knight feeling like a flame weapon doesn't suit the unit's type, rather then the other-way around.

That is......basically the same thing.both weapon types are valid, in the right circumstances and both unit roles are also valid, I just felt they were mis-matched in this case.

Mike

That's it! That is what I was supposed to say...

Sorry for the off topic posts guys.

I dunno... If you think about it in terms of say, classical warfare (Phalanx's and so on), the light infantry would engage with spears by throwing them, and the heavier infantry would engage at shorter range with melee weapons, even if those melee weapons were also spears.

So if you think of it that way, it makes sense.


And in reality anti-tank weapons have somewhat made speed irrelevant on the battlefield, armor is more important. So it doesn't really make sense to give something a short range heavy hitting weapon unless it has the armor to back that up.

traditionally flame tanks are slow because of the extra wieght. read actung panzer by heinz guderian the father of modern warfare.

Listen, I assume that's your style and you don't give a damn about it. Still, let me tell you this: it is a bad style. Simple as that. I also assume you're well aware of that. You can write smart things and I enjoy read your posts, good logic most of the time. But this one above isn't any close to a decent one.

Look, I'm not going to begrudge someone on their particular skill set. Everyone excels at something different, it's how the world works. But the kind of balance issues that come out of Uber are not some kind of obscure, archaic interactions that involve a glitch or some strange meta timing that is only visible when experts rip the game down to its core components. They are game issues where someone can look at a balance sheet for two seconds and go "Oh. Wow. That's not going to work."

I am being as nice as I possibly can when I say it's time to find someone else to work on that.

I wonder, how much experience do you have, and I mean actual first hand experience, of professionally balancing video games? Write that down.

Now go and open Scathis' resume.

Now compare them.

Now stop talking.

I think Bobucles made a fair and valid point. I don't agree with his message. Further, I think that the forums have confused the issue, not made it more clear.

As defined by Wikipedia, the definitive information repository on anything, gameplay balance is achieved by preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable in relation to their peers.

In the last patch, there were changes that did achieve that goal. And there were changes that did not achieve that goal. E.g. the complete nerfing of Naval economy, when really it needed a buff.

I don't think that we should confuse the issue by saying that every change made was a "balance change", because that leads to Bobucles conclusion. I think we should acknowledge that some changes were balance changes, but others were made to make some of the component systems ineffective so the focus was placed more on the areas that Scathis wants to balance at this time.

great idea

This is a good point, my (rather angry) post was due to his personal attack on scathis and his role and skills at uber.

I agree, and I do not condone the personal attack.

That's much better talking. Thanks having taken the time to write it down.

And I feel otherwise.

If the only foundation for this thread is an informal opinion poll, I'd say we have both sides represented! Or at least two of four possible sides.

I don't get it - you realise they haven't even started balancing the game, right?

...and FaF's balance continues to be worked on to this day.

That's not really accurate. or rather, it's misleading. FA did pretty good all told, I think it ended up getting patches for about a year or so if I recall correctly, but then there was nothing for years until the "Beta patch" and then again nothing until FAF got set up.

Mike