What we really want
It seems I jumped the gun, at least a bit, in my previous post when discussing tech 2 unit rebalancing. I have had the chance to play some more games, and it seems that on smaller maps, games now do tend to go through at least something of a tech 2 phase. While siege bots still eat tech 1 and 2 units for breakfast, the tech 2 units are now much more effective against tech 1. This is primarily because they have been made faster, more accurate, and more maneuverable.
Unfortunately, on larger maps I still don’t think we’ll be seeing much in the way of tech 2, because tech 3 is really not much more expensive than what it was pre-patch. However, the more I think about it, the less I think that this fact is really the problem. In all games that last long enough, players will eventually move to tech 3.
What we really need, then, is more variety in tech 3 unit selection. CydeWeys and I have written about this several times, but let me reiterate. Instead of one all purpose siege bot (and make no mistake, siege bots are still all purpose killing machines, even after the patch), we should have a variety of units with complementary abilities. These old posts by CydeWeys and myself still make valid points.
A variety of units available at tech 3 would much improve endgame gameplay in SupCom. While GPG may bring us this in an expansion pack, better tech 3 battles should be a priority for any large modding project.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I totally agree, at the end game all of the battles are pretty much contests to see who can survive the most siege bots and still produce enough to overrun the opponent. Tech 3 is in MAJOR need of a boost as are experimentals I think.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:48 am
You can bet any mods that come out with have a huge range of third tier weapons. And that they’ll be utterly rubbish.
We’ll have to wait until there’s an expansion pack. Core Contingency improved on vanilla Total Annihilation in a huge way, especially on water maps.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:57 am
My t2 usage is more prevalent then pre-patch. I really like it. t3 is still good but i don’t use it that much and i still win some games. Amazing how much damage few t2 missile launchers can do.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I feel this could be resolved quite simply, make t2 units produced at a t3 factory have 20-50% more hitpoints, or do more damage.
Same could be done for t1 units produced in t2/t3 factories.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Interesting Idea Kremjarinn. I have had the same thought myself. However this could make it frustrating, you would somehow have to know which units are the souped up ones, and which ones you built at a T1 or T2 factory and have no “bonus” as it would make a big difference in how you use them.
Another way would be to give higher level factories a price decrease for building lower level units.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I think variety plays a part, and that could be done with factory upgrades (just like the cybran sheild gens). Once the factory reaches level 3 you can research for example :
tech 1 increased armour
tech 1 increased accuracy
tech 1 increased shields
then
tech 2 increased armour
tech 2 increased accuracy
tech 2 increased shields
then
tech 3 increased armour
tech 3 increased accuracy
tech 3 increased shields
then
experimental regen upgrade or something similar.
A nice elegant progression, like the system seen in Dawn of War/Company of Heroes.
then we would have the choice of heavy armoured/sheilded/accurate missile launcher/gunship/obsidian vs SAB.
That sounds fun to me.
instantly double the choices available.
Could even go crazy with options like “SAM upgrade to tech 2 AA tank”, “improved generator = +25% more fire power from point defenses” etc.
and this nice vast choice all on a simple button like the ACU upgrades/sheild upgrade button for the factory!
May 24th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
@theShiznit: T2 missile launchers didn’t change at all. They do the same damage now that they always did, they cost the same, and maneuver just as poorly as ever. T2 hasn’t been buffed any against T3, so using them against T3 is a good way to lose. Bad players will lose to anything, so beating them is not a good judging factor of how effective T2 is or isn’t. T2 units get absolutely mauled by T2 PDs now, and all it takes is a TMD to completely nullify your MML spam.
You can, however, now skip T1 for T2 tanks since they are actually a threat to T1 units. This halts the “rush” of T1 unit spam pretty effectively and forces the enemy to tech up so they don’t fall behind.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
@T2A’ i know they didn’t change. I just like using them. especially for remote base assaults which generally don’t contain TMDs (from whatever replays i watch). T3 mobile arty FTW!
fo shizzle!
May 24th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
T2A’:
Some T2 tanks do very well against some T3 right now. For example, Rhinos kick ass against Harbs and Titans mass for mass, as do Obsidians. Loyalists are too fast for the T2 tanks though, and Pillars are too slow against all of the T3 bots.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Even with concentrated fire Obsidians can’t match Harbs mass-for-mass. You get three Obs (and then 10% left over for the next) for the cost of a Harb, and the Harb will win that fight. With Rhinos you can’t even get three out for the cost of a Harb, and that’s only 110 combined DPS, certainly not enough to take a Harb down.
The combat rating things in the unit database may work out to say they’re even or better just going by the stats, but with the lower health counts, the DPS of a group of T2 units will go down quicker than a group of bots. If you have any less than four Obs shooting a single Harb the Harb will win, barring random accuracy issues, and that’s not mass-for-mass.
Going simply by the stats, it’ll take nine Harb shots to kill one Ob. In that time three Obs will do 2100 damage to the Harb. Nine more shots will kill the next, while the remaining two Obs will do 1400 more damage for a total of 3500 damage. The final Ob will only get off 700 more damage before it’s killed, leaving the Harb alive with 900 health.
You need a 4:1 ratio of Obs to Harbs to kill the Harbs, and not only is that not mass-for-mass, but it takes twice as long to build them all. And then let’s not forget that the Harbs still out-range the Obs a bit, giving them the chance for earlier damage and an even bigger advantage.
The new T2 tanks do help against, say, a single Harb coming into your base before you’re even at T3, but on the field a group of Harbs should still beat up the Obs pretty well.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
this game has needed more Tech3 diversity in units since release. It’s pathetic to have two Tech3 combat units and they’re all the same type of units for all three races. Be at least a LITTLE creative and give some diversity there. Give one a sniper-type unit that’s fast and stealthy but low armor. Give one a shielded unit with a dual-use gun that can target ground and air units. Give one a unit that moves slowly but has a single vacuum gun attached to the front like the GC has on its arms. It’s not turreted and has to turn to face its target to try to suck it in. I dunno. Those aren’t even being very creative but good grief I came up with those as I typed this. GPG over the course of years managed what, one big mechanized robot of doom and an artillery piece. :(
May 24th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
T2A’:
You can’t simply go by the stats.
If you micro the tanks, wonders can happen. I did a lot of testing with Distant to look at just about every possible matchup. We went at it for more than 2 hours. I promise you, Rhinos and Obsidians do quite well against T3 bots.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Pics or it didn’t happen. ;)
May 24th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Grokmoo:
Does the improved accessibility of experimentals help the variety at all? From what I gather, experimentals are rare in ranked games against highly ranked players.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
ivan:
Yeah, experimentals are rare in ranked games and will probably remain so. Players who choose Cybran, however, may have the possibility of building the very cheap and now possibly useful Soul Ripper. I can’t yet comment on whether the Czar is now at all useful, but as far as I know Aeon and UEF are still limited to basically one useful experimental on land maps.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Something I’d like to see at T3 is mobile TMD. Maybe a special shield gen that’s ellipsoid instead of spherical, so that it covers more ground. An IFV sort of thing that you’d be able to put Mech Marines in would be fun, too. Then the Mech Marines would pop out right before it died, leaving random popcorn to distract fire from your more important units. Mobile radar would be good, too.
How about a resource production unit? It would be a small RAS upgrade, basically, but would come standard on, say, a truck. It would produce 1000 energy and 5 mass or something like that. A submersible AA unit that could dive optionally could be fun, too. “Oh no, torpedo bombers! *surface* Yay, torpedo bombers!”
May 24th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
I’d like to see a stormtrooper unit. Something small, fast and durable that runs around. It wouldn’t do much damage, but it would be annoying as hell and screw up PD.
Also, a flyover stealth unit. It would target an area on the ground and spray anti-radar smoke over the area, screwing up radar under the area. It wouldn’t be permanent, but it would be enough to cover an airdrop and a firebase, and provide spot cloaking for factions that don’t have mobile stealth.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:37 am
I do think t3 should be more powerful mass for mass than t2, otherwise what is the point in upgrading?
having said that i do think t3 diversity is a problem. the only mobile unit that kills SABs is more SABs, so it just becomes a resource war
maybe siege assult bots could be made into two different units, Siege Bots and Assault Bots
Siege Bots would be slow and unmanovrable but extremely heavily armored and and with a very heavy, slow firing cannon with a short to medium range. This would make them ideal for attacking bases and other relatively static positions, but poor against fast moving units, giving t2 a chance against them. They would also make a good counter for experimentals
Assault Bots would be fast and manouverable with rapid fire weapons and a longer range, but would be weaker armored and more vunerable to base defenses. These would then be good against both t2 and Siege Bots, but not suitable for base assaults.
This would mean both units would be needed to support each other, Siege bots for cracking the heavy targets and Assault bots for controling the battlefield. It would also give the defending player a bit more time to tech up if they are late going to t3 as thier t2 units would still be useful against the main threat to their base, the Siege bots
What do you think?
- Will
May 28th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I like Will’s idea. I’d also like some other units though. Maybe a unit that can travel underground or something.