The Energon Pub

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:12 am**

I agree that Fireblast is an awful name, please change.

Some of the tactics are ...well what's really the difference?
I guess some of them make sense if we will have alt mode tactics and robot mode tactics.

• Slash - Slash at a target
• Bite - Bite your target causing large damage
Is this the same tactic with different names? Or is one for alt modes and the other robot?

• Absorb - Absorb some of the damage from hits with your alt mode. ? ...Is this a tough dodge, why?

• Fireblast - Fire your turrets. Can hit multiple targets
• Anti-Aircraft - Ground units hit air units. Can hit multiple targets
• Strafe - A continuous attack on one or more targets. This tactic always hits at least one opponent, and has a possibility of hitting more. Only targets ground units
• Dogfight - Hit other aircraft alts by fighting them in the sky. Hits multiple air alts

Ok if I get this straight all of these work simular to current strafe (though only strafe above says you are going to hit at least one guy) and Fireblast hits everything, Anti-Aircraft is ground-air, strafe is against ground only( is it supposed to be air to ground?) ,and dogfight is air to air only.

I hope that there is more effects than that to make tactics different from each other that aren't listed in the short description.

And remember I love you guys.

:grin:

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:22 am**

we did agree on fireblast being called shell, as in artillery, but Mkall keeps forgetting.

and i keep telling them about how crap the current selection of tactics are, mainly being name substitutions,

it just doesnt make sense to me to have tactics that only hit guys in the air/ground/whatever.

maybe if the game was different so that at you did have periods where you where in a certain mode, but the way the game is setup now doesn't seem compatible with this idealogy.

I'm not a jet, i'm not a robot, i'm a transformer.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:50 am**

Tammuz wrote:we did agree on fireblast being called shell, as in artillery, but Mkall keeps forgetting.

I don't keep forgetting. Last I heard, that was the name that was still in the development site. So until that changes, I won't.

and i keep telling them about how crap the current selection of tactics are, mainly being name substitutions,

Well that's between you and OS, I don't have much of a say in it. Though you gotta remember, there's two sides to the game. The first is mechanics and the second is fluff. I see some animals slashing at targets instead of biting them. As for avoid/absorb. There might be mechanical differences, there might not be. But do you really see a tank, or a transformer that transforms into a tank avoiding an attack?

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:03 am**

Warpath dodging Thrusts rockets.

later in that episode Smokescreen Hit's thrust on the wing with his shoulder mounted cannons(as does a Fake wheeljack) does this mean sports cars can have anti air, or does it mean that tactics shouldn't be quite so closely linked to alt mode.

but i don't see the difference between rhinoceros ramming something and a tank ramming something

or a plane strafing someting, and a tank strafing something.

we've pretty much been told that Fireblast, strafe, anti-air, dogfight. and slash are all pretty much strafe knock-offs

how is thrust doing this;

different to Thrust here?

EDIT: megatron's master plan is awesome!

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:19 am**

Tammuz wrote:

Warpath dodging Thrusts rockets.

later in that episode Smokescreen Hit's thrust on the wing with his shoulder mounted cannons(as does a Fake wheeljack) does this mean sports cars can have anti air, or does it mean that tactics shouldn't be quite so closely linked to alt mode.

but i don't see the difference between rhinoceros ramming something and a tank ramming something

or a plane strafing someting, and a tank strafing something.

we've pretty much been told that Fireblast, strafe, anti-air, dogfight. and slash are all pretty much strafe knock-offs

how is thrust doing this;

different to Thrust here?

EDIT: megatron's master plan is awesome!

All I've seen with this is that you've proven that in robot mode, you can dodge and attack targets no matter where they are on the Y axis. Which they're doing already in this game

And yes, Meg's Master Plan was a good episode

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:29 am**

I don't mind some tactics being mechanically the same as others, just with a different name for flavour. Seems like a good way to increase variety while keeping things relatively simple.

Are the prices for the Tactics going to be based on general utility or some other method of determining cost? For example, a tactic that only targets airborne alts costing less than one that targets both airborne and landbound alts, because it is only useful against certain opponents rather than both.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:42 am**

kaijubot_uk wrote:Are the prices for the Tactics going to be based on general utility or some other method of determining cost? For example, a tactic that only targets airborne alts costing less than one that targets both airborne and landbound alts, because it is only useful against certain opponents rather than both.

As of right now, tactics will have a base cost of 1,000/3,500/6,000 for primary/secondary/tertiary. and this is universal. all altclasses will cost the same so there's no more complaining about some classes levelling up faster than others.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:44 am**

and you still haven't said why we need 4 different versions of strafe?

the M61 vulcan the US principle canon on it's aircraft for 50 years, does it dog fight, oh yes it does, does it fire on ground units oh yes it does, and is it mounted by the US navy as an air defence unit, oh yes it does.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:58 am**

Tammuz wrote:and you still haven't said why we need 4 different versions of strafe?

I don't know why. Flavour perhaps but that's OS's department. I just put his tactics into altclasses.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:02 pm**

Mkall wrote:
kaijubot_uk wrote:Are the prices for the Tactics going to be based on general utility or some other method of determining cost? For example, a tactic that only targets airborne alts costing less than one that targets both airborne and landbound alts, because it is only useful against certain opponents rather than both.

As of right now, tactics will have a base cost of 1,000/3,500/6,000 for primary/secondary/tertiary. and this is universal. all altclasses will cost the same so there's no more complaining about some classes levelling up faster than others.

To quote Pirates of the Carribean, I don't believe that was the answer to the question I asked.

What I mean with my question is: is the tactic with the lowest cost (so, 1000xp for the first level) going to be the one with the narrowest range of use? Because I doubt people will bother with an expensive tactic that is only useful against certain alts that they have no guarantee of facing.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:05 pm**

kaijubot_uk wrote:
Mkall wrote:
kaijubot_uk wrote:Are the prices for the Tactics going to be based on general utility or some other method of determining cost? For example, a tactic that only targets airborne alts costing less than one that targets both airborne and landbound alts, because it is only useful against certain opponents rather than both.

As of right now, tactics will have a base cost of 1,000/3,500/6,000 for primary/secondary/tertiary. and this is universal. all altclasses will cost the same so there's no more complaining about some classes levelling up faster than others.

To quote Pirates of the Carribean, I don't believe that was the answer to the question I asked.

What I mean with my question is: is the tactic with the lowest cost (so, 1000xp for the first level) going to be the one with the narrowest range of use? Because I doubt people will bother with an expensive tactic that is only useful against certain alts that they have no guarantee of facing.

and that also throws the levels off, based on the number of upgrades your anti air tank might be a level 2, but against enemies only on the ground, all the upgrades in anti-air and FP are near pointless, so he's only a level 1 in terms of useful upgrades.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:34 pm**

kaijubot_uk wrote:
Mkall wrote:
kaijubot_uk wrote:Are the prices for the Tactics going to be based on general utility or some other method of determining cost? For example, a tactic that only targets airborne alts costing less than one that targets both airborne and landbound alts, because it is only useful against certain opponents rather than both.

As of right now, tactics will have a base cost of 1,000/3,500/6,000 for primary/secondary/tertiary. and this is universal. all altclasses will cost the same so there's no more complaining about some classes levelling up faster than others.

To quote Pirates of the Carribean, I don't believe that was the answer to the question I asked.

What I mean with my question is: is the tactic with the lowest cost (so, 1000xp for the first level) going to be the one with the narrowest range of use? Because I doubt people will bother with an expensive tactic that is only useful against certain alts that they have no guarantee of facing.

Yup faced with that kind of choice (admittedly based on the current amount of information) I'd still be opting for plain old vanilla strafe for my bots.

These "strafe variants" would need a specific advantage in some way. For example "Anti-Air Strafe" or whatever it's called - if that did more damage to Air Alts than strafe or 'grounded' them (meaning they couldn't transform :twisted:

) you could see the benefits. Currently it sounds like they have only disadvantages over plain old strafe.

N.B. I've gotta say that having tactic attakcs being so specific to Air/Ground etc alts does make it sound a bit more Rock/Paper/Sicissors than I'd personally like. Granted none of this is my decision but he who does't speak up doesn't get heard.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:43 pm**

te problem with grounding, is that it's very hard to balance, screws with the level; it's not good that in a single attack you've rendered someone action master, and rendered some of their upgrades useless.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:44 pm**

I split this into its own thread as this is starting to take on a life of its own.

On the subject of lack of viable opponents. I've combed through almost all of my troops recent missions (60 missions). Out of all of them that had decent opposition i.e. 3+ enemy mechs. There were at least one air and/or one ground in almost all of them. Sure joining tag teams or jumping into the arena is slightly riskier, but I've seen people place medics in the arena before

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:51 pm**

Mkall wrote:I split this into its own thread as this is starting to take on a life of its own.

On the subject of lack of viable opponents. I've combed through almost all of my troops recent missions (60 missions). Out of all of them that had decent opposition i.e. 3+ enemy mechs. There were at least one air and/or one ground in almost all of them. Sure joining tag teams or jumping into the arena is slightly riskier, but I've seen people place medics in the arena before

that's not exactly an applicable argument, now that it doesn't matter where you send your bots(too much anyway), people don't look past numbers, but once it starts becoming obvious that tactics need targets it'll start seeing the I'm not going to join the losing side syndrome we currently have, but not only with less numbers but with specific alt types too.

as for the arena where tactic choice does have alot more effect, looking right now, i see only rammers waiting for combat.

anything that puts people off joining missions is bad.

EDIT: also the way strafe currently works is that the more enemies/less freindlies you have the better. this isn't true for dogfighting, the more wingmen you have the better, or for anti-aircannons either.

EDIT2 actually take a look at the distribution of medics across the levels, becuase it's target limited to high end bots you tend not to find it amongst the lower levels, i see something akin happening with the target limited strafes becuase it will be harder to make them work effectively less people will use it, meaning less targets will be available for it, creating a spiral that decreases the effectivnes of the target limited strafes. it's crap becuase no one uses it, and becuase no one uses it it's crap just like the endurance repair duo at lower levels.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:14 pm**

I dont see how land air tactics have to be a problem.
I mean just make it so they never use in on somone its not effective against.
They are suposed to have some intelligence, they wouldnt knowingly use an ineffective attack against an enemy.

the only problem I see with these abilities is that strafe is just too useful. Its even able to hit the same target multiple times, possibly even killing them in a single use.
You could nerf strafe, but that would just make people angry.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:23 pm**

i don't think you understand wwhat's going on with this, basically if i have dogfight version of strafe i can ONLY strafe air alts, no air alts in the mission, no dogfighting.

i agree strafe needs nerfing, but screwing with it's target list is not the way of doing(in fact the way that it's proposed to work in V2 will do exactly what you say makes it too useful; it'll be concentrated on its viable targets). I have suggested a strafe mechanic that keeps strafe on average doing the same damage as ram in the support forum

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:55 pm**

but isnt that the point of learning an anti-air tactic?
to purposly gain advantage only over a certain type?

You dont have to learn it and be specialized,
don't all alt types get three tactics each now?

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:59 pm**

Yeah, all alts are going to get 3 tactics.

The way I see it, if you're in a situation where one of your tactics is useless (ex: No air units), the other two tactics you have may make up for the deficit in some way.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:09 pm**

Honestly I'm on the fence with this one. While I can understand the logic behind it; it's practicality in this type of game has me a little woried.

(For those wondering about said logic lets use battle ships as an example. Most carry two types of weapons of varring sizes; Ship to ship, aka main guns, and anti-aircraft. Both are effective for their specific use but not for the other. In other words you don't use your anti-aircraft for ship to ship & vice versa)

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:12 pm**

Windracer wrote:Yeah, all alts are going to get 3 tactics.

The way I see it, if you're in a situation where one of your tactics is useless (ex: No air units), the other two tactics you have may make up for the deficit in some way.

cos that's gonna work, just like it works for repair in this version.

but isnt that the point of learning an anti-air tactic?
to purposly gain advantage only over a certain type?

You dont have to learn it and be specialized,
don't all alt types get three tactics each now?

anti-air is just strafe that only hits air alts for ground alts you don't gain any advantage by having it unless the rest of your attacks only hit ground alts, but considering weapon attacks can hit everyone, and the rest of the tactics(except the other nerfed strafe variants) can hit everyone it doesn't actually have an advantage.

jar using the battle ship example again isn't one of the possible anti air weapons basically an m61 vulcan turret, which also used by the AC130 gunships as a ground support weapon, and by most yank fighters as it's dogfighting weapon?

similairily the Tomahawk missile is launched from ground, air, sea, and submarine platforms?

and which weapon would a ship use against a giant flying robot, who probably can swim under water too?

EDIT: if the game somehow worked on character being either in robot or alt mode i can see this working but even then it's all bit too crude.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:31 pm**

Wait you mean to tell me that the M-61 vulcan can penetrate Battleship armour? :lol:

The Tomohawk isn't an anti-aircraft it's considered a ship to ship/land weapon

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:39 pm**

Jar Axel wrote:Wait you mean to tell me that the M-61 vulcan can penetrate Battleship armour?

The Tomohawk isn't an anti-aircraft it's considered a ship to ship/land weapon

nah the M61 is pretty much used agianst anything that isn't too heavily armoured by by pretty much anything, basically i'm saying what battleships use for anti air is the same as what the jets use for dogfighting and planes for gound support, and arnie against cop cars, an example of all strafes being pretty much the same weapon just used differently, i'e strafe shouldn't be limited to targeting only certain alts

the tomahawk being an example of all alts having the same tactic becuase while the tomahawk is target limited, you can fire one from pretty much anything.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:40 pm**

"Shell" could confuse people. Call it "volley fire" or something.

Also, is the primary, secondary, and tertiary tactics statically defined by the alt class or is dynamically based on the player leveling up the tactics? Like the tactic with most points would automatically be primary, regardless of which of the three tactics it is, next in line with the most points would be secondary and obviously the last would be tertiary.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:43 pm**

yeah, someone suggested "barrage" and i think they found a winner.

The Energon Pub

Land/Air Tactics. Good or bad?