In 49499 and the subsequent version, bots--even T2 bots--are next to useless against a vehicle-based army, though their superior speed makes them marginally worthwhile for raiding early in the game. With their expensive and relative performance, T2 bots seem useless even for that, however. Bots could use something to make them more worthwhile; a buff or some other increase in usefulness.
Last time i checked there was only two bots....one bot being an artillery bot and the other just being a bigger version of the t1 bot. The artillery is good for its mobility, but i never found the second bot really that useful, although i have hardly used them at this stage, as i was just playing around with tanks and air units.
The third bot, the one that was taken out, was incredibly OP. Building even 10 of them you could walk them through an army and they'd have destroyed it before they even reached them. They had a huge range and amazing fire rate / fire power. Wait until they are back in and we'll have some fun. Obviously balance is very up in the air atm so its a bit pointless asking for changes to be made. We've got things like building stacking and mass points not working yet, once those things are in the game. Then we can talk about balance, but uber are aware of the issues re balance.
alpha is the time to iron out vehicle-bot dynamics though. It'd be nice to distinguish them in such a way that neither replaces the other. Bots could be more mobile, less hp for metal, less range and do more damage per metal while vehicles could be less mobile, more hp for metal, more range and less damage for metal. This would make the optimal composition a pretty healthy mix like the kickstarter visualization without pigeonholing vehicles or bots into certain tactics. I'm a big fan of the Spring RTS style unit classes.
exactly... those issues should be priority besides the usual core mechanic updates and fixes, but yeah! I win due to exploiting that haha spam metal points and stack them inside each other to not take up much space :twisted: haha I seem to win all the time however Imy rein of conquest will be short lived :evil:
I agree, fixing technical issues absolutely takes priority. That doesn't mean it's not worth taking note of balance issues, though; we can open the conversation and air some ideas so that there's more to go on when the time comes to focus on them. The Zero-K unit classes are indeed pretty great. It's worth looking very closely at a game of similar structure whose balance has been being refined for several years, and I hope Uber will take many lessons from it, with regard to gameplay and UI both. Do artillery bots even work, though? I had a mixed army and it died almost instantly to a tank swarm so I can't be sure, but I never saw any of the telltale arcing shots that tank artillery goes for, nor had I earlier been able to get them to engage at long range.
They should not direct fire anymore. But I agree that bots are currently extremely weak. T2 assault bots lose fights vs t1 aa vehicles. Maybe a typo in the bot dps? xD
I feel like T2 bots should have to focus on dps like the T1 bots....I really want to see them being analogues for Pyro or Zeus bots. Surprisingly their names also really stir up the image of what the unit actually does...I can't say the current names in PA really jump out at me, only the Catapult and Albatross I can remember, and they hardy fill in the image of a TML and ASF.
Yeah, the names feel very much cheap super-market brand right now. Supcom had great names - try and tell me "Klink Hammer" isn't awesome! I think PA may be trying too sound too epic, and ends up being just a little cheesy.
As long as we don't go all SupCom2 aeon on the names, I think we will be fine. Besides, I quite like some of the UEF sc2 names, like the Rockhead tank. It just a name that gets things done by head butting people.
people say the names in SupCom are bad - honestly if the gameplay is good you'll eventually remember the names of units. Just look at the unit names in any WW2 game.
When mexes have to go on metal spots, bots will become much more useful again. Being able to zip around the planet and destroy enemy mexes and fabbers quickly will favor the one who uses bots over tanks.
My opinion about bots. They are very mobile and very fast to make. so u could harass someone the entire time by just building the cheap *** bots. as I think the artillery of the t2 bots is a little small. the T1 aa bots are just so cheap and with 2 bot fabricators u get around 200 really fast, no more air unit in my base because they are protected by the aa bots. worked for me. Kind Regards Quevin
I think bots vs. vehicles is also a question of tech. Things like mortars, tanks and alike clearly belong to the vehicle faction. Large barrels require a solid structure. But vehicles aren't just heavy, they also can deal quite a punch. Focus is less on precision, focus is on devastation. Piercing projectiles, splash damage for normal tanks, flak based anti air. If a shell has to be fired, it is fired by a vehicle. Vehicles work best versus and in large groups. Also always have defensive capabilities, just in case. Can't hurt to be able to defend yourself against aircraft too. T2 sacrifices speed for even further increased AoE effects and more healthpoints. T1 is for quick expansion, T2 is for large scale assaults. Bots are specialists. They serve a single purpose and have the perfect equipment for that specific job. High precision rocket artillery to snipe enemy defenses? Get yourself a bot. Need a mobile surveillance station? Get yourself a bot. Want to hunt down that enemy spyplane? Get yourself a bot. Need some cheep canon fodder with a laser gun? You guessed it. Need to go stealth or to defend against tactical missiles? What else... Trying to build an army just from a single type of bot is pointless. They are not general purpose and each individual bot type has distinct weaknesses. Combining them however eliminates those issues. They also make great support units when combined with vehicles. Just imagine a surveillance bot which uncovers targets for your mortars or a rocket artillery which takes out the most dangerous enemy units while your vehicles serve as meatshields. T1 bots need to be more versatile than T2 bots, for the simple reason that you don't necessarily have T1 vehicles at the same time to combine with. Every single T2 bot is dangerous on its own, but also easy to take out by the use of appropriate countermeasures. T1 focuses on intelligence and defense, T2 focuses on offensive support. Gameplay wise, you would happily send vehicles straight in. They have sufficient health to take a few shots and their splash damage makes them most effective versus dense structures and formations. Bots are designed for the backline, you can't just throw them at the enemy defenses and hope that they would survive, they won't. Positioning is more important, but better intelligence, longer weapon range and precision help you with achieving that goal. Assault bots are just a weird thing... Armor AND high damage weapons on a single bot? And then also slow moving? Sounds more like a tank than like a bot. Well, it pretty much is.
I think the problem is that one of the main advantages of bots in previous games isn't in PA. Vehicles were notoriously poor performers on extreme terrain, and bots were good climbers. With just flat terrain everywhere there isn't a lot of sense in having two 'types' of land units.
An advantage bots should have over tanks and the like, should be the ability to go under water. Tracks don't work well under water, while legs work fine. I think that should be a major difference between the two. Another thing, I have never seen a two-legged biped move faster than anything with wheels. So the advantage for bots should not be speed... Perhaps bots should be able to traverse more rugged terrain, with the ability to step over rocks and stuff, which would obviously slow down wheeled vehicles. EDIT: Semi-ninja'd
