|
|
Post by Strayed on Oct 21, 2016 10:53:55 GMT -5
From what I've seen, the balance of power in the game is shifting. You guys have seen the complaints about rdb griffs and trident furies on the old forum. It seems that midrange is gradually becoming more powerful for some reason. Knife fighters will always be useful, but it seems that midrange is shaping up to be more versatile.
The biggest factor in this I would say are the shield bots. They have speed, health, and firepower for their respective bot classes.While all of them have their own quirks, when piloted correctly, they are almost always the strongest bots in the game. They were originally evolved to counter plasma, and it seems that the current meta has evolved into splash to counter them. Just like how it took sometime for the meta to evolve against plasma, it has now taken some time to evolve against shield bots.
While a db setup will take out the rhino quite easily and the lancelot most of the time when it doesn't have rush. The gareth and galahad are all but immune to the db setups because of their speed and since they don't have to close up like a lancelot. That's not to mention that other bots are now able to dodge db setups as well, such as other medium bots and the griffin.
The biggest factor of midrange splash I would say would be the face that they are almost undodgable. As soon as you walk into range, you can kiss goodbye to at least 1/3 of your health. While with conventional dbs, you can at least avoid some of the damage by backpedaling. Another factor of the shield bots is that they can nosell snipers, meaning that you have to get up close to destroy them. Midrange splash negates this advantage as well. Midrange splash can also directly fight against snipers as well, since they outrange shield bots by at least 150m-300m.
In addition, they negate plasma as well, by being able to take out plasma wielding bots before they can get within range. The only bot that carries plasma that can avoid taking rocket damage without an anicle in a heavy slot is the fujin. And even then, it has to stay still when its shield is activated. The carnage has a built in anicle as well, but its range is too short and its base health is too little. And then there's the fury, which has the dpm of a conventional db, but with twice the range and is undodgable. Experienced trident fury pilots can and will hit a jumping griffin, rogathka, or cossack. And finally, just one of them can completely lock down a beacon, as shown by clan battles on yamateau and canyon. When paired with effective shield bots, they are all but unstoppable except by other midrange bots as well.
The question is, how will the meta evolve to counter the renaissance of midrange bots?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zhøu™ on Oct 21, 2016 11:24:38 GMT -5
I guess snipers? Trebs or even KwK. Adrian is using the KwK Fury to great efficiency.
|
|
|
|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Oct 21, 2016 11:30:22 GMT -5
OK, this is off the cuff:
Other than bringing out ranged bots like the triple Kwk Fury (which isn't a bad setup really since the Kwks are so fast to reload) I could see Stalkers getting a bit more life from this as they are so fast and, once stealthed, can possibly get from cover to cover without getting hit... and if they are loaded with CRVs then they could, at the least, bother the mess out of the Tri-Fury and cause it to either get into cover or attack the stalker. In theory, the stalker could eventually take it out... but the chances are slim by itself... Especially if the Fury has a team mate that is acting as close support that could go after the Stalker. Maybe a Stalker/Gareth team, both outfitted for 500m range rockets since the Gareth can field the Tulum...but it would probably a single job setup... as it just takes too long to kill other bots with that weapon loadout. But if the Stalker had CRVs and the Gareth had CRVs/Tulums, then it could conceivably be viable strategy... for squads and clans that can communicate the strategy, at least. Or possibly 2 Stalkers working together...
So, they could either aim to
1. Distract
2. Eventually take out
But that is just off the top of my head... would have to play some more where the TriFurries are dominant and see what else comes to mind... but long range rockets and speed seem to be the best counter short of going all SuperSniper or fielding another TriFurry.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperHero on Oct 21, 2016 11:49:20 GMT -5
I've been tempted to try a triple KwK Fury. Soon as I get my second Fury, i shall try that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2016 12:16:12 GMT -5
I think this adds more realism to the game. There are various duties, tactics, strategies, and weapons in a militaries arsenal.
While many have argued against this as a game, I think it does not matter. We all come from different backgrounds. I like a bit more realism. Mid range should be effective, and long range should be effective. Thats reality, so why alter a game thats counter balanced. A sniper can wreck such havoc, many cannot even fathom. So in some ways, excluding glitches, and MM, weapons are getting better in some ways. Even though or if the Mags were buffed, I am used to it, and I kill as well as I used to.
Trebs, large bore artillery, and rocket artillery need a buff. There is no quarter here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Team Alpha Strike on Oct 21, 2016 12:39:00 GMT -5
Strayed - You know my take on this from past posts - the Protolot will balance or cancel out mid-Range splash (specifically the Trident Fury).
Even if the Protolot is nerfed 15% it will still be able to take on mid-rangers at over 625m.
What is wonderful about the Protolot is that it doesn't work well at on a Fury or Tasha - so the same problem with the Trident Fury won't occur with the say a Protolot Fury.
I know you don't like the Protolot, but I see it as the one weapon that can will allow just 2 pilots to employ true advance under suppression fire tactics ---- so you don't need to clan, just 2 pilots that know the tactic and figure out their role in it. Sure you can lay down suppression fire with a Molots or Tridents, but the former is too weak and the later's cover time is too short for your assault mechs to advance very far.
Think of the Protolot as the SAW of a fire team - with it your common silver medium bots can lay down continuous lead while slowly advancing behind your Rhino. Any Fury trying to plink you will lose a third or half their HP just trying trying to target you.
Crazy as I sounds, a setup like a Protolot/Hydra Lancelot would would work very well in the fire suppression roll. Even a Protolot/MolotT Boa would be fearsome to a mid-range Fury. Lots of possibilities with tactics with ge new weapon and I think most of those tactics will be around mid-range Fury and shield bot suppression.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muhlakai on Oct 21, 2016 14:43:48 GMT -5
I think this adds more realism to the game. There are various duties, tactics, strategies, and weapons in a militaries arsenal. The problems with this argument are both the complete lack of reality to the victory conditions and the poor analog to reality. In reality, no one fights over beacons in a box canyon. Rather, they fight over supply lines, advantageous positions that provide a larger strategic advantage, the survival of key personnel, air superiority, etc. Real battles take hours, days, or even weeks and are slow. Also, in reality no one drops the entire team in the same spot, let alone over and over. In reality, war isn't fought with such a limited arsenal. In reality, wars aren't fought primarily with four-story bipedal robots. In reality, wars don't stop because one team wrecked a little more in a predefined 10-min period. So, you're right. War Robots is completely unrealistic. ...but take it from someone who owns a business in a related industry: you don't actually want realism. You just want it to feel realistic enough. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2016 14:59:27 GMT -5
Dont take me too literally. The beacons do represent territory. However, victory conditions are totally unrealistic at times. The realism I spoke of directly relates to the efficacy of basic weapons types. I would like a little more realism, but there are reasons for that, which are not important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muhlakai on Oct 21, 2016 15:44:52 GMT -5
The fundamental problem is not that what you're asking for is even unreasonable, just that it doesn't fit this game. A strong long-range game would make knifing and capping infeasible.
|
|
|
|
Post by trustmeimdoctor on Oct 22, 2016 15:27:17 GMT -5
Sometimes I wish I could just sit back and fire rockets. I feel like I can do good damage but I'm not able to have as much map presence. With random teammates it seems that close range weapons will always win me more games. I don't think Trident Fury or RDB Griffin would be better than any of the close range setups I use. I have far less ability to carry games in my opinion. I must say I have not used a Trident Fury but I have used RDB Griffins a good bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muhlakai on Oct 22, 2016 15:43:42 GMT -5
Sometimes I wish I could just sit back and fire rockets. That need for map presence? That need to cap beacons? It's exactly why rockets are almost simple silliness in this game. Kudos for spotting it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 17:00:12 GMT -5
The fundamental problem is not that what you're asking for is even unreasonable, just that it doesn't fit this game. A strong long-range game would make knifing and capping infeasible. Whats reasonable to you, may be unreasonable to someone else, and vice versa. Who determines what fits, you alone, or a mere group of people among millions?  ?? Strong long range problematic, uh, use of artillery in past wars and conflicts. One mans trash, is another mans treasure. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Etc. This is all opinion - from both sides. Scared of getting hit from afar, well keep your head down. |
|
|
|
Post by trustmeimdoctor on Oct 22, 2016 17:00:12 GMT -5
Sometimes I wish I could just sit back and fire rockets. That need for map presence? That need to cap beacons? It's exactly why rockets are almost simple silliness in this game. Kudos for spotting it. Exactly. Rockets may hurt but I can hurt you much worse up close and I'll take your beacons. When you're 500m away you cannot get to that beacon. You are support and support simply does not carry that many games. |
|
|
|
Post by Muhlakai on Oct 22, 2016 18:56:40 GMT -5
Whats reasonable to you, may be unreasonable to someone else, and vice versa. Who determines what fits, you alone, or a mere group of people among millions? ?? Strong long range problematic, uh, use of artillery in past wars and conflicts. This is all opinion - from both sides. Scared of getting hit from afar, well keep your head down. Yes, dethhilt. You want lots of ranged zappy-pow stuff. The problem is: it's not opinion - it's fact. Real life has one set of victory conditions (among them, typically the desire of at least one side to preserve as much life as possible) and War Robots has different victory conditions (lots of damage, lots of beacons). Get over it. You want reality? Ask for distance and speed that are actually to-scale with one another. Ask for miles of battlefield and no idea where the baddies (or, in most cases, your buddies) dropped. I can sum up your cognitive error in one sentence: you keep thinking that this is a realistic war when the entirety of the rules actually makes it a small arena match. Seriously. Do you go to martial arts tournaments and complain about the padding, the fact that they aren't actually inflicting weapon injuries, or the fact that they stop when someone is genuinely hurt? Nope! Why not? Obviously, because it's not just someone's opinion that it's not an actual fight, but the fundamental structure of the event. Please stop being pedantic. |
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Oct 22, 2016 19:43:50 GMT -5
The fundamental problem is not that what you're asking for is even unreasonable, just that it doesn't fit this game. A strong long-range game would make knifing and capping infeasible. Whats reasonable to you, may be unreasonable to someone else, and vice versa. Who determines what fits, you alone, or a mere group of people among millions? ?? Strong long range problematic, uh, use of artillery in past wars and conflicts. One mans trash, is another mans treasure. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Etc. This is all opinion - from both sides. Scared of getting hit from afar, well keep your head down. Because this is a GAME, and there are game balance issues involved. Real life doesn't concern itself much with game balance. Or the fact that poor schmucks under artillery bombardment weren't having fun, or had a chance to actually *do* anything. Screw artillery, that's so 20th Century. I want orbiting bomb trucks full of LGB's. Death Button, indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Strayed on Oct 22, 2016 19:51:32 GMT -5
I want a super aircraft carrier on legs. Lol
Anyways, can we please stay on topic? I feel that this is an interesting topic. Back before the firearms nerf, the battle field was almost entirely dominated by midrangers like the molot griff and rdb griff. Long range was more useful then as well. The kangdae fury was the equivalent of our current treb fury, but with a shorter reload and no shield bots around. Not to mention the fact that there were two long range map(springfield and yamateau) and only one short-mid range map(Shenzhen).
The metagame did not change at all until the nerf of long range and mid range weaponry, so I am wondering how the meta will continue evolving from this point forward or if it will become a midrange stalemate like before. Obviously, knife fighters were still useful back then and they are useful now, primarily for capturing beacons, but they could not run down a molot griff much like they cannot run down a trident fury now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 21:22:00 GMT -5
Because this is a GAME, and there are game balance issues involved. Real life doesn't concern itself much with game balance. Or the fact that poor schmucks under artillery bombardment weren't having fun, or had a chance to actually *do* anything. Screw artillery, that's so 20th Century. I want orbiting bomb trucks full of LGB's. Death Button, indeed. Entropy is reality. One can correctly say its equilibrium, but then thats not the greatest place to be, as far as what can happen. Especially if you try to control chaos, or try to prevent it. But hey, thats thermodynamics, and it couldnt possible occur outside of a bubble. As far as artillery being 20th century, its the 21st century, and theres some hardcore artillery out there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 22:01:29 GMT -5
Yes, dethhilt. You want lots of ranged zappy-pow stuff. The problem is: it's not opinion - it's fact. Real life has one set of victory conditions (among them, typically the desire of at least one side to preserve as much life as possible) and War Robots has different victory conditions (lots of damage, lots of beacons). Get over it. Collateral damage, canon fodder, wars of attrition, destruction of cultures, are all reality. I like what I like, and I want what I want. I am well aware of victory conditions, otherwise Id be killin yall, and not cappin.You want reality? Ask for distance and speed that are actually to-scale with one another. Ask for miles of battlefield and no idea where the baddies (or, in most cases, your buddies) dropped. I can sum up your cognitive error in one sentence: you keep thinking that this is a realistic war when the entirety of the rules actually makes it a small arena match. No, this is not a realistic war, not by any stretch. Therefore there is no cognitive error, there is tactical desire. Polite way of calling someone stupid though - lol. Its a small arena, damn couldnt figure out why I could walk past a certain point.
Theres what it is, and what I would like it to be. It is my nature, my being to always fight for the later!Seriously. Do you go to martial arts tournaments and complain about the padding, the fact that they aren't actually inflicting weapon injuries, or the fact that they stop when someone is genuinely hurt? Nope! Why not? Obviously, because it's not just someone's opinion that it's not an actual fight, but the fundamental structure of the event. Train like you fight, fight like you train. Reality can only go so far, but a little blood and pain can be very motivating. But then, thats why some go one direction, and some the others. Those that make the cut, and those that fail.
"If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
Please stop being pedantic. Then I would not be as charming as I am! |
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Oct 23, 2016 0:06:18 GMT -5
It's the shield bots (or shielded bots, if you include rhino). They're the dominant Knifers, but are all vulnerable to midrange.
Knifers that might be better at taking out midrange than shield bots can't survive to get past shield bots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muhlakai on Oct 23, 2016 6:35:53 GMT -5
Please stop being pedantic. Then I would not be as charming as I am! I think you just won all the internets. Well played, sir! ? |
|
|
|
Post by 《₩hirl》 on Oct 23, 2016 6:52:32 GMT -5
Insofar as the meta goes, the rise of midrangers should beckon an increase of snipers, or prompt a buff in sniper weapons. At least try and maintain the balance of the distance to power ratio.
Shielded bots seem to be a paper/scissors/rock situation. Bullets/Plasma for Ancile type, Rockets for physical shields (and half my encounters I think "Bugger, shoulda picked that instead of this.") I said seem, havent nutted it all yet, so educate me if I'm wrong.
|
|
Neg0Pander
Site Designer!
Grab 'em by the Griffin
Posts: 329
Karma: 221
Pilot name: Neg0Pander
Platform: Android
Clan: WIKITTENS [WiKi]
League: Silver
|
Post by Neg0Pander on Oct 23, 2016 23:10:01 GMT -5
I really like the fact that the new bots made older weapons/archetypes more relevant again, rather than them just being overpowered and you had to have one too beat one. I think this shows good longevity and the desire for the devs to keep balance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zhøu™ on Oct 24, 2016 1:16:05 GMT -5
Well, bummer. Now the meta is full of Aphids. Even Aphids Geps are deadly in gold tier.
|
|
|
|
Post by zombiecyborg on Oct 24, 2016 7:11:54 GMT -5
My own two cents is that speed will be the issue. No doubt in my mind that midrange the 5-600m slice of the pie rules most maps currently. Center beacons are becoming graveyards and to me they seem to be changing hands less often and early lead means victory more often than not. Power plant and dead city are the only ones still favoring knifers because of the availability of cover.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 13:29:46 GMT -5
Shouldnt all bots and weapons be relevant to a degree?
|
|
Neg0Pander
Site Designer!
Grab 'em by the Griffin
Posts: 329
Karma: 221
Pilot name: Neg0Pander
Platform: Android
Clan: WIKITTENS [WiKi]
League: Silver
|
Post by Neg0Pander on Oct 24, 2016 13:45:15 GMT -5
Shouldnt all bots and weapons be relevant to a degree? Agree. |
|
|
|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Oct 24, 2016 14:26:54 GMT -5
Well, bummer. Now the meta is full of Aphids. Even Aphids Geps are deadly in gold tier. I love aphids... (Been using them on at least 1 bot in my hanger for a minute now...) unless I'm getting hit from multiple Patton Nukes...  |
|
?? Strong long range problematic, uh, use of artillery in past wars and conflicts.
