Tanks immune to t1 air.

Discussion in 'Balance Discussions' started by netpyxa, November 4, 2018.

  1. netpyxa

    netpyxa Active Member

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    37
    What do you think would happen if we had this feature when the ants and the levelers as well as infernos and vanguards take no damage from t1 bombers?

    t1 bombers would be used to attack engineers, dox, metal extractors and the energy plants.

    So you can always have your usual t1 game where rock paper scissors works like dox>fighter>bomber>dox. But at the same time the tanks play their own game for the most part.
  2. nimzodragonlord

    nimzodragonlord Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    16
  3. mwreynolds

    mwreynolds Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    312
  4. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,810
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    just no ...
    stuart98 likes this.
  5. burntcustard

    burntcustard Post Master General

    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    1,317
    T1 tanks are already great against air compared to T1 bots because there's no actual T1 AA bot (at least not since like 5 years ago... I'm still pissed off about that haha)
    NikolaMX, cdrkf and stuart98 like this.
  6. cdrkf

    cdrkf Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,743
    Likes Received:
    4,820
    Yeah I never understood why they decided to strip out the aa bot. I guess it was to prevent players going bot only however subsequent balance changes mean that was a moot point anyway.
  7. burntcustard

    burntcustard Post Master General

    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    1,317
    I think it could have also been a misinterpretation or mishandling of "the units aren't diverse enough" where instead of making the units more different they just removed one of them. I'd still like to see it ressureccted and one of the T1 AA get changed to burst fire (3 or 4 rockets then a short reload time). Would be an easy one to say "PA is still alive look we're adding new units!"
    cdrkf likes this.
  8. cdrkf

    cdrkf Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,743
    Likes Received:
    4,820
    So you back playing then, or just visiting?
  9. burntcustard

    burntcustard Post Master General

    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    1,317
    Not sure yet - I work and commute a lot nowadays so don't have much time for video games :(
    cdrkf likes this.
  10. lulamae

    lulamae Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    274
    Hate when that happens........
  11. DeathByDenim

    DeathByDenim Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,363
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    +1

    My lurking is strong though! :)
  12. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,810
    Likes Received:
    1,840

    personaly i just don´t see a real reason why to have a AA bot when there is a effective vehicle version
    i´m not a fan of having two models that have the exact same role .. even if you put burstfire on the AA bot what´s the difference to it than the dox continous rate of fire? the spinner already has burst and tracking ..

    what also matters is the map .. if you have maps that favor dox rush then there might be no reason at all to build vehicles if bots have their own effective AA option ..
    Clopse likes this.
  13. cdrkf

    cdrkf Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,743
    Likes Received:
    4,820
    My issue is it means the bot factory can't be used without vehicles if your opponent goes heavy air (Dox aa is rubbish).... There are plenty of maps where bots mobility and small size make them more practical than vehicles. On those maps I would like to play a bot focused build, but that means either investing heavily in fighters for aa, or also making vehicles which removes the mobility advantage due to spinners being so slow (in which case may as well go tanks for your main force as they are stronger, which relegates bots to light raiding duty).

    The thing is in TA you could focus on bot or vehicle as a start build, as both factories offered a complete (yet different) roster of units. Bots were cheap and handle rough terrain well, Vehicles cost more and were much stronger on the flat. It meant there was a choice and different unit combinations and counters.

    In PA the push to force players to use all the factories all the time greatly reduces the amount of diversity and choice for players. You have to use all 3 factories in pretty much every game. That's not very interesting in my opinion. I'd prefer bot and vec to have a bit more overlap, so that I can specialise in one or the other and not be at a stupid disadvantage by having a basic vulnerability like no aa or mine detection capability as a result.

    Honestly I really want factory choice to depend on the map and situation. That's the sad thing with pa, not really much depth to that side of the game imo.
    burntcustard likes this.
  14. cdrkf

    cdrkf Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,743
    Likes Received:
    4,820
    Haha yeah I can relate to that. I think back and I can't really work out how I used to have so much more time than I do now.
  15. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,810
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    there definetively should be a disadvantage in neglegting one or more factorytypes when your opponent uses them correctly imho ..
    also unlike PA TA had the terrain were these bots had their mobility use were PA's terrain is simply flat in general (or else it's too much of a PITA to deal with it considering this game's spherical play and any unit would need a firing arc for its weapon) ... but still TA's unitpool generaly wasn't ballanced as in many units were simply useless or others way too useful (f.e. samsons) not to forget EVERY unit was able to fire at everything which is simply silly for unitroledefinition ...
    personaly i don't see any depth in simply copypasting a unitrole of one factorytype to another and be equaly effective even with the single unitpool/faction PA has ..
    to me the idea of combined arms or use of varius unittypes matters more than the one factory fits all aproach ...

    also both bots AND vec have minedetection
    also also there is no "no AA" disadvantage but the dis/advantage of more or less effective AA ..
    Last edited: November 10, 2018 at 1:38 AM
  16. cdrkf

    cdrkf Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,743
    Likes Received:
    4,820
    AA bot shouldn't be copy paste. It should be a faster, lower damage aa unit than can keep up with Dox.

    This argument you make results in the situation we have now. What I'd say though is OK, OTA was unbalanced, yet it has 10x the depth of PA. Unit interactions were complex and yes everything can shoot at everything (ish), but that makes much more logical sense. I cannot articulate how strongly I hate forced RPS unit role mechanics for the sake of it. If you want to see what TA could be with carful balance and a bit more time, try the Balanced Annihilation mod for spring. More units than in OTA yet all have a role (yes some are more useful than others, some units will always be situational). The idea we have to be forced to use all factories and units at all times isn't deep, it doesn't require thought, it just teaches players to copy paste the build order and the player that executes fastest wins (aka starcraft). The annihilation series has always been the antithesis of that, I think PA should move away from RPS and a bit closer to TA in the way it handles units. Give us the ability to get more out of units with a bit of micro (that makes micro vs macro play a choice). Allow units to fire at anything its weapon type can realistically fire at. Unit roles should fit naturally based on its design. If you have to force a role via arbitrary RPS nonsense then the design is blatantly wrong for the intended purpose.

    Edit: reworded a few bits
    Last edited: November 12, 2018 at 5:48 AM
    stuart98 likes this.
  17. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,810
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    so a AA unit that you have to spam more and otherwise does nothing else.. this is exactly the unittype i hate most.. in that case keep the dox that is a jack of all trades master of none instead of a specific role unit that is only good in suffiecient numbers for it ..


    i just hate it from looking at it with its too many instahitbeams (same problem with zero-k among others)


    spam one factorytype isn´t deep either .. ... if all you do is spam doxes and whaterever the ditched aa bot´s name was ... ultimately that´s just a different color of a zergrush .. so thoughtful, such deep! it´s merely a bit of a choice


    i entirely disagree on going away from RPS .. i said before i don´t want having units be capable to shoot at everything ...
    that´s not depth either that´s shootinggallery the game .. and we had that with the realm ballancemod and (no offense stuart) with galactic annihilation ...

    what PA realy and truely needs imho is to adapt its unitpool to allow players to actualy engage in any theater in a fun way ...

    naval and pure orbital are the prime offenders to that as one is limited to its theater and the other lacks options were general surfaceplay isn´t and doesn´t, though there could be more options for more interaction between naval and land ..

    and while adding AA bots or more options to the botfactorys would offer more choice it wont offer that much more depth as you think .. that would rather require complex unit/weaponclassification ..


    also .. "realisticaly"? realy? with the mariogalaxy-esque battlefields we have? no ... the game already has to "cheat" in order to be functional and still in the real world WE DO HAVE RPS and unitroles !! ...
    you are in a sense asking to win games purely with infantry .. which may be possible but is far from efficient ..

    also also this being a sci fi game with the factions in lore having assimilated and optismised technology to what might be possible we might as well have just flying spheres with lasers that shoot at everything ..
    going back to what you asked .. this would make many units just less defined and the game boring ..

    also x3 back in the betadays units were capable to fire at everything ... and no one build air back then because of that ..
    Last edited: November 12, 2018 at 11:00 AM
  18. Clopse

    Clopse Post Master General

    Messages:
    2,516
    Likes Received:
    2,858
    Nor is there with TA. People have these false notions that TA was perfectly balanced. Can't think of any map where you would go bot first for their T1 units. Or a map where clCore is better than Arm.
  19. stuart98

    stuart98 Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,018
    Likes Received:
    3,900
    This is true, but balance =/= depth and it's not hard to make the argument that TA has more depth than PA.
  20. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,810
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    more depth yes ... but not THAT much more ...

Share This Page