My Solution to Balance and Gameplay

Discussion in 'Balance Discussions' started by Arachnis, January 22, 2014.

  1. Arachnis

    Arachnis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    442
    Hello everyone,

    These units are ment to create balance and variety.
    If you're too lazy to read it all, just scroll to the bottom, read the conclusions section and agree with me. :)

    I've talked about those in other threads, as you might have noticed. But I wanted to create a compilation of those ideas in the balance forum. Usually I would just post it in the new unit ideas thread, but all of the units suggested here are ment to improve balance overall and to fit into the current unit-roster.


    So here we go, if you have problems with the word "Megabot", then just keep in mind the following:
    They are not like experimentals in SupCom, they're much more like T2 units, just bigger, more expensive and further down the tech-tree.They all have special abilities that no other units have atm and they all fill very specific roles.

    They're not overpowered. All of them are ment to support armies instead of replacing them.
    That's the way I wanted to design them.

    If you still have a problem with the word "Megabot" then I have to link you to this
    https://forums.uberent.com/threads/superweapon-types.55878/

    and this
    https://forums.uberent.com/threads/end-game-mega-units.55641/page-7
    thread where we already had a discussion about this.

    Why two different types of mobile artillery? Because an expensive barrage artillery for big, slow moving blobs and clumped up structures is a different role than a cheap mobile artillery for stationary defences.
    Why on a Megabot? Because why not? It's a matter of when you should be able to aquire this technology. And I assumed that Megabots would be T3.

    Notice: Higher tiers should not mean more powerful, but more diversification. This unit is not ment to be overpowered, so that you don't have to build it when reaching the necessary technology level. But there should be a good reason to building it. All a matter of balance imo.

    There's a very fine line between UP and OP with this one, I think. Basically it would give us additional methods to invade a planet, while still setting the focus on massive armies (setting up the teleporter). The orbital fabber is the cheap version and would not become obsolete.

    Why this Megabot?
    Because artillery (especially the Holkins) is very strong atm. Ofc that could change. But I see no reason for it to change. I want artillery to be scary.
    Why not use a T2 unit for that?
    Because I think that it will be much easier to balance if getting access to that ability requires you to build one expensive unit instead of many. It's also a question of when you should be able to have access to this technology.

    In conjunction to this, there should be two other units implemented:

    Now the other units:

    All those units are ment to improve balance and gameplay and to support massive armies instead of replacing them. What would have improved?

    In conclusion:

    - More importance for the orbital layer
    - Removed most if not all stalemates with the orbital dropship
    - Implemented a unit against commander rushes
    - Created a mobile defense against nukes and artillery
    - Created a stationary defense against tactical missiles
    - Gave the catapult a role to fill.
    - Created a unit to invade planets despite of bomber patrols that is not the unit cannon, see it as the step between orbital fabbers and the unit cannon.
    - Gave players the need to have more defenses on their newly colonized planets, instead of just building one teleporter, air and orbital fighters and then spamming mexes.
    - Created a mobile artillery against big slow moving blobs and clumped up structures, a role that was not filled, yet. Just for more variety and more awesome.

    So tell me what you think, but don't turn this into a "why Megabots" discussion, because we already had that in the two threads that I linked to. Those changes are all interconnected and only make sense together imo.

    Greetings
    Last edited: January 23, 2014
  2. Arachnis

    Arachnis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    442
    Update:

    - Removed most mistakes
    - Megabot 3 is not able to defend against tactical missiles anymore. It shouldn't be good against the unit that's supposed to be good against it. :)
  3. LeadfootSlim

    LeadfootSlim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    349
    My main concssion to the concept of megabots as a whole is whether or not they'd help keep the game ground oriented. On the one hand, they'd be a large asset that can only be obtained on the ground. On the other hand, they might just spook the opponent into pushing harder for orbital, air, or nukes.
  4. Arachnis

    Arachnis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    442
    My reasons for Megabots were:
    - To give the catapult a role to fill
    - To be able to implement the spider-bot
    - To make the game more interesting visually
    - To be able to use a third tier, further down the tech-tree, I think a third tier can help in being a motivational force in longer games. Like I said repeatedly, they'd be balanced like every other unit. There is no attempt to make them OP. You'd also have two units (spider bot, catapult) that deal with them pretty easily. The spider bot would also be there to deal with commander rushes in team-games.

    I think it's hard to give the catapult a meaningful role (besides a structure-killer) without some more important singe-target units. But just giving it longer range than the Holkins doesn't really work, because then it's just too good. That's why we need more targets for the catapult, and at the same time something that can deal with the Holkins' range.

    Ofc there could be a structure that deals with the Holkins. But wouldn't that just be a binary counter, like the anti-nuke? I really like multi-purpose units more, than units for one single use.

    Units that cause destruction are an exception.

    Besides, all the megabots that I suggested fill support roles for ground armies. So why wouldn't you want to go ground with them? :)
    Last edited: January 24, 2014
  5. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    Other then the anti-building anti-ship role?
  6. LeadfootSlim

    LeadfootSlim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    349
    The distinction between Holkins and Catapults for anti-building is fairly narrow, to be fair. And some have suggested letting Catapults fire at air units, which could help some of the current problems of T2 bomber supremacy... though that might be overkill.

    T3 as a motivational force, however, I can understand. Planetary Annilation plays best as a game of escalation; when something doesn't work, there is always a more drastic measure to resort to. And I'm certain that Megabots would interact very, very nicely with teleporters, making it dangerous to leave one open for even a moment (or at least, more dangerous than it is now.) For the specific bots you've mentioned;

    Mobile super-artillery sounds nice on paper, but as with the normal ground units, there's a design goal to prevent units from being "+1" versions of other units. Using the space alotted by a Megabot for such an overlap would feel criminal. Having a barrage attack sounds like a bunch of vehicle artillery with more health.

    Despite my prior comment about overlap, an anti-air bot sounds absolutely lovely, if only because ground AA tends to die after being bombed. But it'd feel like a one-trick pony, I think.

    The third one is the winner, I think. It'd provide a role not covered by any other unit, and hopefully an iteration of shields (oft requested) that isn't conducive to turtling, as its selective defense would be useless against ground armies. To balance it out, however, why not make it a "sky shield"? It could protect against bombers/gunships, artillery, and orbital satellites - but not nukes, nor ground armies. This would make it an ideal unit for army escort or Commander bodyguarding, but far from an infallible one. Plus, it wouldn't directly buff ground armies - it'd only assist them in getting to their destination.
  7. Arachnis

    Arachnis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    442
    It wouldn't have relatively more health. If vehicle artillery had 100 hp, and the megabot would be as powerful as 10 of those, then he'd have 1000, maybe more like 800 hp.

    It would always be flexible enough imo, because of the ability to set up a teleporter and fly wherever it wants to.

    "sky shield" sounds nice, I thought about that, too. Would have to be tested.

    Edit: Actually, I don't think it's a good idea. Then I'd have 2 megabots with anti-airs roles. Also there are other units taking those roles already.

    Ships are very map dependant. And whichever piece of artillery has the higher range will be the one that fills the anti-building role. So you'd have to give it more range than the Holkins. And then imo it becomes too strong. I just don't want to go back to the days where everyone just built catapult creeps.
    Last edited: January 24, 2014
  8. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    The Holkins damage doesn't compare for cost to the pinpoint accuracy and damage of the Catapult, a dedicated turret killer in my opinion, where as the Holkins is much more suited to softening up enemy army's as the move.

    And there is a real reason to use both, or either one as the time till each one effectively deal with a target can make one much more important then the other.

    A Holkins might not eveen hit a single building target with a single shot, a Catapult is accurate with pinpoint precision.
  9. Arachnis

    Arachnis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    442
    True, I just usually build more than one Holkins if I want to creep an enemy base. And their numbers justify the inaccuracy. Also they do pretty nice aoe damage, deadly against powerplants and stuff.

    I just noticed that I never build the catapult. I think making the choice to build a catapult is not intuitive enough.
  10. LeadfootSlim

    LeadfootSlim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    349
    I actually have the opposite opinion - Catapults are better for total unit suppression (especially against naval), as there's no hope of outflanking a homing missile. Meanwhile, Holkins get to fire at stationary targets, and have superior range - meaning they can destroy everything that's in front of the enemy's Holkins.

    This is distracting from the question of bots, though. BTW, perhaps you should change the thread title.
  11. Arachnis

    Arachnis Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    442
    I think Holkins are very good against armies, and imo they should be. Artillery is artillery, it has big range and big boom, but is very weak in close combat. Inaccuracy isn't an issue if you build multiple of those. The caused destruction is just delicious. :)

    You're right with their role against naval, but to be totally honest, I don't really play with much naval (my favorite biome is moon).

    This would have been my attempt on creating the necessary units for the final unit-roster. Everything I suggested here I deemed necessary to balance the game. Maybe that sounds a bit arrogant, and I'm in no way insisting that I'm right, or that there's only one way. But it just made the most sense to me.

Share This Page