Noob traps and why we need to avoid them.

Pointing out a game breaking flaw I wouldn't consider unnecessary trouble. This remember was before many changes to the transport and the commander which makes the main flaws obsolete now.

But we need to keep our biases in check while talking about this because while to someone like us with a lot of RTS experience might be able to pick up on the issue and note it's domino effects, someone who has never played TA or Supcom, or only played Starcraft until PA, or is even getting PA as thier first RTS might not be able to grasp that properly and while some might be able to figure out aspects of the issue many might not care or even notice it for many games and it will sour thier experience to a point.

I think in the end we can agree that Bots should have an AA option and that removing it for the sake of Diversity just doesn't make sense.

Mike

I disagree with the OP' reasoning.

This is a strategy game, not an arcade game. If a 'noob' or using the better term new player is not analyzing and adjusting his play style, then no matter what, he will always fall into some trap.

Learning the meta game and knowing the relations between and functions of units is an important part of the game. If someone is ignoring this, he or she is probably playing the wrong game.

Adjusting games to these people is flat out impossible. No matter what build and units they use, there should by definition always a counter unit or unit composition. And their lack to analyze and adjust in the current build will also hold true in a different balance.

How good or bad the current balance is, is a different topic and certainly also a matter of personal taste ( tiered vs. functional etc.). In case it won't work, it is certainly not because of the reasons stated by the OP.

Just my opinion.

I duno,

I don't think the current balance is *that* bad... I've actually been using T1 Air + Bots combo quite a bit lately to great effect (although you do need vehicles slightly later in game) and is especially dangerous on planets with forests (thanks to the combat fabber only using 1e for 60m / s reclaim... early metal boost ftw!). Bomb bots are awesome for harassing expansion, though a little weak to do much damage to buildings, and a few dox are good for raiding the mex after the boom bots kill the fabbers. Grenediers, although outclassed by tanks, provide enough fire power to hold the line if your opponent comes forward with small groups of tanks for raiding.

The whole idea of the above strategy is speed and suppression. Going hard tanks *is* probably the safer option but I get tired of 'bots aren't viable' argument. I think if anything they're more 'situational' than tanks. Having more terrain features (e.g. like the cliffs mod) would give bots a good buff without changing anything as the grenadiers would be great for firing over cliff edges and such.

The thing I'm noticing now perhaps more than earlier builds is that there are a number of distinct plays emerging. If you watch the stream from last night's king of planets that does highlight this- Clopse loves his full on aggressive rush, Matiz tends to play for large expansion / a little less aggressive early on.

To my mind a good balance is one that gives players lots of different options which I think is something most of us agree on. Remember as well that even in a 1 v 1 getting orbital can be vital (even if *just* for orbital radar- it's much easier to counter your opponent when you can see what he's up to!). A well placed anchor or 2 can swing a game as well (as once you have an anchor above your base it's hard to kill it)....

Going fast T2 can also be effective, especially on maps with lots of choke points. I do think this is a key point here actually- maps... many players appear to dislike maps with any features on them. I got criticized for the first map in the Weakest Link featuring trees- why? They restrict movement of tanks, so adjust your strategy accordingly. I find it frustrating to hear 'there is one viable strategy' and then get players refusing to play any maps that restrict that chosen strategy. Smaller units (like bots) do work better around trees than tanks do for example.

There is a difference between a "trap" spawned by ignorance, and one laid out by the developer, they might have a similar effect but the "fault" lies in 2 very different places.

Mike

Certainly true, but in my opinion does not apply to the current game version.

I do agree that aa should be in the bot factory so each start is more viable however I think players that have never played rts games you mentioned are less likely to fall into the bot factory must have aa trap.

Does the Tank factory have a similar "trap" that you can fall into with regards to a missing unit role?

What is the typical time frame of a game for this discussion?

Nope, tanks outclass bots at the minute. But I don't think anyone can argue that bots are finished( except cdrkf). It's hard to see the direction scathis is going however it could be a paper scissors rock situation. Bots have the artillery and veh the aa so you need more than one type of factory. I'm not sure.

Vehicles can't get landmines, and die to them pretty quickly if there is no radar. You don't see much landmines at all because radars are cheap and combat fabricators expensive and vulnerable. I think players already feel at risk if they use bots (because they are vulnerable to air and vehicle attacks) and they just don't want to make that risk bigger by making a combat fabricator that costs more then a factory. I mean, sure the combat fabricator is a powerfull unit at the moment, but a factory is cheaper and way harder to take out.

Oh good. For a second there I was worried that balance in vanilla PA wasn't actually as terrible as I think it is.

Talking about the current state of the game or talking about an over powered unit or the fact that bots don't have AA are all fine and well. But is insulting the devs really helpful? I don't think the "Scathis balance" as you are calling it is complete at all. I want to talk about the issues that are in the current build and hopefully help to resolve them with you and the rest of the community. Balance is obviously still a WIP and not any where near finished. It is helpful to talk about where the current build falls short in terms of balance, but it isn't helpful to over exaggerate and insult the devs.

If we knew for certain that Scathis was done balancing and that he was 100% happy with how it was then maybe your comments would be acceptable. As it stands we don't know what his direction is, we only know the current state. (Which I agree has some problems).

How can we foster a relationship between the devs if we are always complaining or insulting? Personally I believe we need to try to be constructive in our criticism.

That said, I agree that not having something as simple as a unit that can protect against air in the bot factory is very unintuitive.

We are not insulting the balance, we just want to help make it an easier transition for noob players. If tanks are the first factory to build, no matter what, then the commander doesn't need bots, air, and naval. If your commander can build it, then that is the base and most generally it's what you start with. Imagine if the commander built t2 facs, yet trying to build them you find out they're horribly expensive, well if I can't start the game with this, why do I have it? Bots are a similar situation, tanks are the bulk of the army it seems in Uber's balance, whilst all else serve support functions.

This is the reason Zero-K has one of the steepest learning curves in the TA-Like genre. It's absolutely punishing to be a newcomer in ZK, since you can build literally everything from the word go, but 9 units out of every 10 are the " wrong " thing to build at that time.

I don't care about insulting the balance, I care about insulting the devs. I understand your concern and think it has some validity.

There would be more roles, but there isn't a SINGLE unit in the game featuring these roles yet - and neither is there proper support by the engine:

• Spotter - allowing units to make use of their weapon range, but unfortunately the engine has no support for collecting intelligence on individual units. Also the significant issue of each single unit (except Boom Bots) having tremendous vision range of its own.
  
• Ambush - yet again lack of support by the engine, there is no such thing as stealth units due to lack of diversity in intelligence. And don't even start with the SupCom approach on stealth. That one sucked.
  
• Armored mass transports - given the neck-braking speed of most units: Pointless. Just look at how fast they made the Pelican so it could at least compete at all. That thing is by far the cheapest and fastest scout unit in the game, but good for nothing else.
  
• Air refill stations - fuel system would have added MUCH to air combat. Fast reaction, limited area coverage. Would have been so simple. Now we are stuck with two different T2 gunships instead.
  
• Deploy-to-build units - there is nothing like that in the game. Just think about it, e.g. a REAL "Anchor" which actually drops from orbit and forms a short range flame tower when landed (and the existing one could be renamed to "Urchin". Because that is what it looks and feels like). Or mobile, deployable walls which can just move in place.
• Auto-kiting - it's plain ridiculous that you have to MICRO T1 bots extensively for them to become useful. That's against the fundamental design principles of PA.
• Pure body blockers - just form a broad wall of cheap units with huge space consumption. For when you want to delay enemy advance as long as possible, and may it just be by clogging the path with wreckages.
• Mobile radar - and while at it: Cut back vision range for about ALL combat units. Knowing what you are shooting at should be a privilege, not the default case.
• Short range teleporters / jetpacks - for flanking otherwise unflankable formations.
• Mobile one-shot anti-orbitals - for when you don't wanna bring engineers to build Umbrellas just for taking down Anchors.
• Real 360° rotatable upper bodies for bots - you know, just like Ants have. For real drive-by and flanking maneuvers opposing to the pure head-on maneuver tanks should be limited to.

There are quite a lot of not-so-specialist roles open for bots, quite a lot of them which would even synergize with vehicles and/or aircraft in many different combinations (but still replaceable by units from other tech trees with partially overlapping roles). And there is also quite a lot of room for more diversity in the other tech trees too.

I'll try to address this on a point-by-point basis:

• Spotter: There is an extent to which we have that on Skitter and Firefly, but I also feel they need to be buffed. Likewise, I feel that Dox should receive radar coverage.
• Ambush: I feel that some units could benefit from radar stealth (like a T2 stealth fighter, perhaps, or a stealth bomber)
• Armored Mass Transports: I agree with your assessment; honestly, I almost feel like Teleporters provide the same benefits; I would almost like to see a unit designed specifically to turn into a Teleporter at a remote location to facilitate territory invasions (though this could be subject to abuse, of course, and would almost make the Pelican obsolete)
• Deployable Units: Aside from the above example (mobile units designed to permanently deploy as Teleporters), there is an extent to which deployable units might complicate things, both from a micromanagement standpoint and from a bloat standpoint. That said, I can easily see Orbital Fabricators provided with additional construction options to do the same thing, from walls to defensive structures.
• Auto-Kiting: To be honest, this is a matter for its own thread, and a subject on which I'm sure there can be a lot of lively discussion
• Pure Body-Blockers: I can easily see units added or repurposed for this -- The Can comes to mind.
• Mobile Radar: In general, I agree; see my comments on Spotters
  
• Short-Range Teleporters / Jetpacks: The only unit on which I see this implemented is Dox, but depending on how it was implemented, this is potentially problematic:
  • How would the teleporters/jetpacks be controlled -- manually or automatically? If manually, it would add a lot of micromanagement overhead to the game to employ them effectively.
  • Would it drain energy or not?
  • To what extent is it really necessary? There are so few terrain impediments (and so many that you can simply go around) that I don't see it being a particular advantage
• Mobile One-Shot Anti-Orbital Weapons: Though I understand your desire to get rid of Anchors from the ground without Umbrellas while on the attack, this is really an issue that deserves its own thread because it's tackling a fundamental question: should players be able to simply ignore the Orbital tech tree if they so wish? It's a complicated question:
  • On the one hand: if the only counters to Anchors are Avengers and Umbrellas, does this not mean that players are basically forced to go Orbital or build Umbrellas to cover an army's advance?
  • Counter-point: this represents a combined-arms solution to a combined-arms problem; why should a player who diversifies be defeated by a player who is unwilling to do so
    
  • Answer: Because this effectively outlaws a given playstyle
  • Counter-point: But from a practical perspective, how often is this a problem? There are many, many combat scenarios in Planetary Annihilation; how often do players reach a stalemate where a ground-based commander can't simply walk through a player who is diverting part of their resources to orbital structures?
    
    That said, the issue itself might be moot later -- I heard a rumor that nukes will soon be able to target orbital structures, essentially giving you a long-range ground-based counter to orbital
• 360-degree torso twisting for bots: I'm amazed this is not in the game already.

Your thoughts?

• Mobile radar: Giving radar to the Dox doesn't sound like such a smart idea. After all, it's a combat unit. It's not supposed to be a jack of all trades. There is scouts for this job, and they shouldn't be invalidated that easily.
  
• As for the whole stealth thing: Don't fall for offensive stealth weapons. Stealth bombers sound like the one great weapon - that is because they are. These unit are designed for performing hit&run maneuvers under the radar which is very frustrating for a defending player since you have extremely short reaction times. If at all, stealthy units belong in defensive positions for the sake of levering the current hard border between not knowing anything about your enemy at all - and instantly seeing not only the general position of his base but also the precise location of every single stationary defense and unit.
  
• Mobile One-Shot Anti-Orbital Weapons: It's not only this specific example which could use more different ways to achieve a certain goal. Like it was said in a different thread, 4 would be a great number of possible counters to every single strategy in the game. It's the same as with bots against air, it's perfectly valid to have partly overlapping unit roles (in that case with the Spinner), as long they are still behaving differently. Bot's could e.g. go for denying bombs and missiles instead of shooting down the actual planes (no luck with denying REAL gunships though) (denying enemy AA missiles also sounds great, doesn't it ) (and seriously: Counters for T2 tech don't belong into T2. They belong into T1. T2 rush isn't something you should be forced too). Diversity is not about making "native" units the strongest in their field, but to raise the number of possible choices and meaningful combinations for the sake of less predictable encounters. Either way, the most effective strategy is to go all paths and to look for synergies between seemingly overlapping unit roles. In the case of orbital: Hunt down Avengers the traditional way, but go Boom Bot style on the Anchors and factories.
  
• 360-degree torso twisting for bots: Guess what, I didn't expect that feature to be missing either. Not only the Dox could use that, same goes for the Slammer. Only our Gorilla rocket bot (not going to call them Bluehawk, neither is it blue, nor does it look like a hawk) doesn't need this.

Guys, the way the devs got rid of the Vanguard was both offensive, disrespectfull and very very much insulting to those people doing all that hard work, taking hours and hours of their time without a thank you or anything. I wonder what Brad would think if Uber got rid of him like how the Vanguards dissappeared. You guys should do your homework before posting here (VORELL225) because i am getting sick of these 1 sided story's.