|
Post by mijapi300 on Mar 15, 2017 10:58:30 GMT -5
You're running multiple Gareths in your hangar then, right? in fact, I don't, which makes me an observer a tad more objective than someone with a conflict of interest in the discussion like one who has one or more of them, like you seem to be. Are you finished with the ad hominem? So there is a bot so overpowered that it easily defeats most bots in the game, and you don't run one? Seems strange. Here's an example. What was the most well-known overpowered bot? How many of those did people have in their hangar? Granted, it wasn't the bot itself that made it overpowered, but more the tier it was allowed to play in. But when it was situationally overpowered, people had five of them in their hangar. It's extremely rare to see more than one Gareth in a hangar, and even more rare to see more than two. I've personally never seen more than two.
|
|
|
Post by Conflict's Student on Mar 15, 2017 10:59:46 GMT -5
Looks like someone has a hangar full of bots from old metas (gepard, rogatka) and is trying to drum up support for buffs under the guise of pricing discussion, along with nerfs to the platforms he can't handle (britbots, and admittedly that's based on comments seen in other threads). If you're asking for buffs and nerfs to shift game balance in your favor, please just admit it up front and don't try to sneak it in under the cover of discussing entry costs - which are minimal in the grand scheme of hangar cost (i.e. upgrades). Yes, I'm a cynic... but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I don't know if it's cynic, but lame and wrong, yes it is.
I think it would be nice if we could leave the "you want this because of this" and other knee-jerk "you don't know how to manage it so you want to nerf" out of here. This is ridiculous. I am in diamond now with a much lower hangar than people around, so I guess I know how to play the game at a very solid level. I have enough gold to buy a Gareth right now, and I could buy an army of Griffins. But that's not the point... at all.
The point is that there are significant unbalances in characteristics, or at the very least mismatched values. I see two gold light bots sold at the same price with completely different levels. I see a medium (Rogatka) which is not used anymore. I see avalanches of Griffins everywhere including in TT, while the bot is a silver robot sold at the same price as a Leo or a Natasha. I could go on. I think starting from there, it can be a very relevant topic of discussion to discuss the value of the bots, if OF COURSE, everybody act as an adult and drop the cheapshots. Which is not a given on internet, sure.
1. I think it's entirely valid to consider the motivations behind any discussion. When you open with a discussion of making pricing fair but sneak in nerf and buff suggestions, that makes me question what your suggestion is trying to accomplish. Would you really be satisfied if a level 12 Gareth cost 1500 Au and 31,511,250 Ag instead of 1250 Au and 31,511,250 Ag but kept its same abilities? Maybe this example is a better illustration of how ridiculous it is to pretend that initial purchase cost is a significant factor in game balance that you describe all the way to TT (seriously, how long would it take for someone who doesn't already have Griffins to make it to TT??? ). Or maybe the fact that an overwhelming number of players already have the bots you are discussing, so changing the cost of entry now does little to adjust the balance of gameplay. These factors indicate to me that you probably wouldn't be satisfied by pricing changes because they wouldn't change the nature of the game. It's apparent to me that you are pushing for nerfs and buffs under the guise of a pricing discussion. 2. What league you play in is irrelevant to this discussion. And just because you can afford something doesn't mean you know how to handle it. You've admitted elsewhere that you think Gareths are overpowered because they can't be hit by rockets... despite plenty of other players at all levels contradicting you. 3. If you're going to quote me and complain about cheapshots, you ought to be sure that (a) I've actually made a cheapshot; and (b) you've taken the high road yourself. I disputed your premise and showed why I suspect an ulterior motive in your suggestions. If I was incorrect in that assessment, please show me how changes to entry-level pricing would logically lead to a change in the game meta all the way through TT (since you felt TT was important enough to bring up) in a realistic timeframe. There's a reason I was skeptical initially... and your post quoting me certainly hasn't persuaded me otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by miscanthus on Mar 15, 2017 11:01:55 GMT -5
I like Gary how he is. I don't own one, but can appreciate the skill it takes to pilot it well. It wasn't 6 months ago that I rarely saw Gary in play. Ace Thunder's videos showed how good Gary could be. Combine that with 4 mph buff and now they are common place. I know the shield is strong, but my RDB can take Gary out in one salvo. Tridents also eat Gary up. IMHO there is no reason to nerf the little guy. He adds some variety to the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Mar 15, 2017 11:03:49 GMT -5
Very well written response. You summed up why I called the "it's a light bot" argument stupid. There is no reason that all light bots and medium bots should be inherently obsolete, just because they aren't heavy bots. I've never understood this whole "mine's bigger so it should be better" mentality. Yours is bigger, so it's different. You can get away with more head on engagements. In my light bot, I have to play more strategically to get my little bugger to last longer. And I have less firepower than you. If and when I beat your heavy bot with my Gareth, it's because I played the situation better than you did, not because my bot was OP.Honestly the bolded is just not true, and BTW, it is in direct contradiction with the thread in which you talk about how great the Gareth is.
In 1/1 confrontations, the Gareth is a killer. I see no medium able to compare (except Galahad), and with heavies, a pure 1/1 situation is a VERY dangerous situation in which the heavy is certainly not the favourite to come on top. The Gareth can dodge missiles because of the speed and is basically immune to plasma because of the shield, so the only way a heavy can come out of here victorious is if he played the situation better than the Gareth. True 1/1, I'd take a Gareth even before a WSP heavy like the Rhino. Much faster, much more flexible and even better firepower when shielded.
Anyway the goal is not to have another thread about the Gareth. It is a fact its abilities far exceed its class, some will like that fact, some will find it lame, but what cannot be denied is that if you would want fair values between Gepard and Gareth for instance, then we certainly would have to change something at one point.
Or the point is just to kill the Gepard. But the original idea of the thread is exactly to do the opposite and give a fair ground and value for each robot.
I said several times in that thread that it isn't overpowered. And that it doesn't run away with the title. And that the game is extremely well balance, so no bot in the game is vastly better than the rest. I also said many times that it requires a lot of skill to make it the best bot in the game. In inexperienced hands, it's one of the most useless bots in the game. If you want to go to the flip side, I can pick a Griffin, and I'll win most 1v1 scenarios with a Gareth. I play and study the game frequently, so I have great situational awareness. Most pilots in the game aren't very good. Not because I'm better than they are. But because most people play casually. So when I say I can win most 1v1s, I can also do that in several other bots. It's because I pick my battles wisely and choose my attack plan wisely based on what I'm running and what they're running. I just have the most success in the Gareth, and what I've seen it capable of when piloted very well, I believe it edges out other bots as the best bot in the game. That does not in any way you look at it mean that it needs to be nerfed. So I would appreciate it greatly if you could refrain from trying to reword or misconstrue things I have said in other threads, going forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 11:04:05 GMT -5
Gareth should be getting a slight buff along with lights and mediums.
What really needs to be nerfed are the Griffins and Furies.
|
|
|
Post by AηɗυηєɗнєƖ [ǀƬA] on Mar 15, 2017 11:08:54 GMT -5
in fact, I don't, which makes me an observer a tad more objective than someone with a conflict of interest in the discussion like one who has one or more of them, like you seem to be. Are you finished with the ad hominem? So there is a bot so overpowered that it easily defeats most bots in the game, and you don't run one? Seems strange. Here's an example. What was the most well-known overpowered bot? How many of those did people have in their hangar? Granted, it wasn't the bot itself that made it overpowered, but more the tier it was allowed to play in. But when it was situationally overpowered, people had five of them in their hangar. It's extremely rare to see more than one Gareth in a hangar, and even more rare to see more than two. I've personally never seen more than two. From ad hominen to straw man, alright. You do realize that OP doesn't mean absolutely OP, but relatively OP? Of course you do. No one is saying the Gareth is the best bot in the game and can defeat everything at any level. Most are saying the Gareth is OPed in a wide range of tiers. I intend to end up playing in a tier where the Gareth becomes a liability and, getting there, I see no reason to waste 1200 gold for a transitional bot. That doesn't mean the gareth, from recruit to mid, possibly high, gold is not an OPed bot relative to the other bots generally seen there, because it is, considering it's size, speed, armor and alledged lightness. But you do know that, you just like to argue for argument sake and defend your pet bot, don't you?
|
|
hulkz1
GI. Patton
Posts: 136
Karma: 46
|
Post by hulkz1 on Mar 15, 2017 11:12:44 GMT -5
I think interesting times for gaming are on the horizon. Nerf this....buff that...at some point the powers that be are going to acknowledge that purchases of "cyber space" goods is as inviolate as the purchase of material goods. Money and time invested. How would you feel if the car dealership showed up at your house and removed 2 cylinders from the engine in your car? Because 8 is to many they say.
|
|
|
Post by AηɗυηєɗнєƖ [ǀƬA] on Mar 15, 2017 11:16:06 GMT -5
Gareth should be getting a slight buff along with lights and mediums. What really needs to be nerfed are the Griffins and Furies. Furies are fine, they are slow hunkering big targets. What you might mean is that tridents and, maybe, zeus should be nerfed. Griffins... now that's an argument I haven't heard often, if ever. Why? As I see it, they are capable of decent fire, but inherently fragile, so overall balanced. Arguments for the nerf?
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Mar 15, 2017 11:18:22 GMT -5
So there is a bot so overpowered that it easily defeats most bots in the game, and you don't run one? Seems strange. Here's an example. What was the most well-known overpowered bot? How many of those did people have in their hangar? Granted, it wasn't the bot itself that made it overpowered, but more the tier it was allowed to play in. But when it was situationally overpowered, people had five of them in their hangar. It's extremely rare to see more than one Gareth in a hangar, and even more rare to see more than two. I've personally never seen more than two. From ad hominen to straw man, alright. You do realize that OP doesn't mean absolutely OP, but relatively OP? Of course you do. No one is saying the Gareth is the best bot in the game and can defeat everything at any level. Most are saying the Gareth is OPed in a wide range of tiers. I intend to end up playing in a tier where the Gareth becomes a liability and, getting there, I see no reason to waste 1200 gold for a transitional bot. That doesn't mean the gareth, from recruit to mid, possibly high, gold is not an OPed bot relative to the other bots generally seen there, because it is, considering it's size, speed, armor and alledged lightness. But you do know that, you just like to argue for argument sake and defend your pet bot, don't you? You want to nerf a bot that you consider useless in the endgame. How am I the only one that feels like that makes no sense? As far as the lower tiers, it's not the bot that's overpowered. It's the pilots that don't belong in those tiers. I could easily take my Gareth, and pilot it the way my opponents are playing, and I would have no success. In Silver tier(iOS), which most people would consider the very bottom tier for frequent players, I see Trident Furies from time to time, Lancelots, Rhinos, Carnage. There isn't a bot that I don't see in those tiers. You may see them less frequently than in top tiers, but they are there. The problem you're referring to is the fact that experienced pilots can easily place themselves in those tiers and beat up on new and casual players that don't know what they're doing. I could run a hangar full of Taran Cossacks and get 10 gold most games in those tiers. No matter what the bot, skilled pilots prevail in that tier. It isn't until you reach the top tiers that the bots you choose to play with have a severe impact on how the game goes. Because all the pilots are skilled. And when you get to that tier, as you and many others put it, the Gareth becomes useless. This isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of the masses. The fact that I believe the Gareth is the best bot does not make it overpowered. It means that I can beat people with it with my skill level and play style. Quite evidently, most pilots cannot do the same with it. So tell me again, how it is overpowered and warrants a nerf.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 11:19:32 GMT -5
Gareth should be getting a slight buff along with lights and mediums. What really needs to be nerfed are the Griffins and Furies. Furies are fine, they are slow hunkering big targets. What you might mean is that tridents and, maybe, zeus should be nerfed. Griffins... now that's an argument I haven't heard often, if ever. Why? As I see it, they are capable of decent fire, but inherently fragile, so overall balanced. Arguments for the nerf? Because Griffin is probably the best bot in game. Costing the same value as crappy bots like the Leo and Natasha, it should be on-par with them.
|
|
|
Post by petevb on Mar 15, 2017 11:22:12 GMT -5
This entire thread is turning into a request to make the game "pay to win". Is that seriously what you guys want?
|
|
|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Mar 15, 2017 11:28:52 GMT -5
Why is it an absolute in your mind that a Heavy should be better than a Medium and a Medium should be better than a Light? Where does it say that in the rules of War Robots? I'm not picking on you, I'm serious. There are competitive bots in every class. As there should be. Well, truly, there's no War Robots rules in general. However, it's not written anywhere in the rules of war that a jeep shouldn't be better than a tank or that a destroyer shouldn't be better than a battleship (pre 1950, not counting carriers and planes), or a gun than a rpg... yet that tends to be the actual rule on the ground and when the opposite happens, it tends to be under exceptional circumstances or with heavy tradeoffs (the sniper gun is better than an RPG when resources invested in training skyrocket, mobility goes to zero and rate of fire drops dramatically, for instance). Usually, speed, heavy armor and heavy armaments don't go together well, you usually have to sacrifice 2 to maximize 1 and that's a rule generally followed in the game as well. The Gareth, on the other hand, has the second best speed in the game, armor and in general survivability that is better than all lights and, arguably, mediums and several heavies and and not to shabby of an armament as well. Yet, what is a Tank Driver's biggest fear in an all ground engagement, other than another tank? That one team of grunts that have guided anti-tank weapons (AT4 with a HEAT round would work), a good ambush spot, and a covered egress route, stands out in my mind. Heck, even a Humvee with a HEAT launcher will mess up a tank... smaller, faster, less armored, and armed, but can negate a tank if used well. These are not "exceptional circumstances", just using the weapons that you have in a way that benefits you, and not the enemy. If either of those examples I mentioned are engaged before they get prepared to face a tank, they will die. Same with a Gary. Or a Stalker... which, btw, has been doing what Gary does for longer... no it doesn't have a shield, but that stealth, a cover filled map, and a good pilot can ruin a Red team's day, almost single handedly. Go back to my above post... one Destroyer can decimate whole Navies now... even some modern ones can't hold up to the tech that the Aegis and newer boats can field. Down to the Infantry stage... an easy example... Automatic weapons are scary, yet the common infantry tactic of well aimed shots wins the day in most firefights. Especially in combination with the big automatic weapons providing less accurate but suppressive fire... A semi auto M4 can take out several people in 10 seconds, while a spray and pray SAW gunner can fire off a whole drum and not hit a thing. He might keep heads down... but unless he slows down, and fires in short, controlled, bursts, he will just be scaring the enemy. Or Hell, take the 21 foot rule that is very commonly referred to in Self Defense circles. While there are definite counters to it... and exceptions, at 21 ft or less, a person with a knife will beat a person with an undrawn pistol. Circumstances may not be the most favorable for the best weapons or weapon systems, every time. I am not trying to be argumentative just to do it... but to get my point across that it is not so cut and dried.
|
|
|
Post by carnage on Mar 15, 2017 11:30:12 GMT -5
I don't know if it's cynic, but lame and wrong, yes it is.
I think it would be nice if we could leave the "you want this because of this" and other knee-jerk "you don't know how to manage it so you want to nerf" out of here. This is ridiculous. I am in diamond now with a much lower hangar than people around, so I guess I know how to play the game at a very solid level. I have enough gold to buy a Gareth right now, and I could buy an army of Griffins. But that's not the point... at all.
The point is that there are significant unbalances in characteristics, or at the very least mismatched values. I see two gold light bots sold at the same price with completely different levels. I see a medium (Rogatka) which is not used anymore. I see avalanches of Griffins everywhere including in TT, while the bot is a silver robot sold at the same price as a Leo or a Natasha. I could go on. I think starting from there, it can be a very relevant topic of discussion to discuss the value of the bots, if OF COURSE, everybody act as an adult and drop the cheapshots. Which is not a given on internet, sure.
1. I think it's entirely valid to consider the motivations behind any discussion. When you open with a discussion of making pricing fair but sneak in nerf and buff suggestions, that makes me question what your suggestion is trying to accomplish. Would you really be satisfied if a level 12 Gareth cost 1500 Au and 31,511,250 Ag instead of 1250 Au and 31,511,250 Ag but kept its same abilities? Maybe this example is a better illustration of how ridiculous it is to pretend that initial purchase cost is a significant factor in game balance that you describe all the way to TT (seriously, how long would it take for someone who doesn't already have Griffins to make it to TT??? ). Or maybe the fact that an overwhelming number of players already have the bots you are discussing, so changing the cost of entry now does little to adjust the balance of gameplay. These factors indicate to me that you probably wouldn't be satisfied by pricing changes because they wouldn't change the nature of the game. It's apparent to me that you are pushing for nerfs and buffs under the guise of a pricing discussion. 2. What league you play in is irrelevant to this discussion. And just because you can afford something doesn't mean you know how to handle it. You've admitted elsewhere that you think Gareths are overpowered because they can't be hit by rockets... despite plenty of other players at all levels contradicting you. 3. If you're going to quote me and complain about cheapshots, you ought to be sure that (a) I've actually made a cheapshot; and (b) you've taken the high road yourself. I disputed your premise and showed why I suspect an ulterior motive in your suggestions. If I was incorrect in that assessment, please show me how changes to entry-level pricing would logically lead to a change in the game meta all the way through TT (since you felt TT was important enough to bring up) in a realistic timeframe. There's a reason I was skeptical initially... and your post quoting me certainly hasn't persuaded me otherwise. Look, I'm in my car now and will not enter a flame war with you. You made several wrong assumptions (for instance I don't have a rogatka), you questioned my ability to manage a robot just because I say it is OP compared to the other light gold bot, and so on. Simply put you go with low, lazy assumptions missing completely the point of the thread. Let's leave it at that. I'll just focus on people who would actually have relevant inputs to the discussion. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Mar 15, 2017 11:42:13 GMT -5
Very well written response. You summed up why I called the "it's a light bot" argument stupid. There is no reason that all light bots and medium bots should be inherently obsolete, just because they aren't heavy bots. I've never understood this whole "mine's bigger so it should be better" mentality. Yours is bigger, so it's different. You can get away with more head on engagements. In my light bot, I have to play more strategically to get my little bugger to last longer. And I have less firepower than you. If and when I beat your heavy bot with my Gareth, it's because I played the situation better than you did, not because my bot was OP.Honestly the bolded is just not true, and BTW, it is in direct contradiction with the thread in which you talk about how great the Gareth is.
In 1/1 confrontations, the Gareth is a killer. I see no medium able to compare (except Galahad), and with heavies, a pure 1/1 situation is a VERY dangerous situation in which the heavy is certainly not the favourite to come on top. The Gareth can dodge missiles because of the speed and is basically immune to plasma because of the shield, so the only way a heavy can come out of here victorious is if he played the situation better than the Gareth. True 1/1, I'd take a Gareth even before a WSP heavy like the Rhino. Much faster, much more flexible and even better firepower when shielded.
Anyway the goal is not to have another thread about the Gareth. It is a fact its abilities far exceed its class, some will like that fact, some will find it lame, but what cannot be denied is that if you would want fair values between Gepard and Gareth for instance, then we certainly would have to change something at one point.
Or the point is just to kill the Gepard. But the original idea of the thread is exactly to do the opposite and give a fair ground and value for each robot.
Even 1 v 1, the Boa Thunder/Ork, the Leo Thunder Pinata, the Gep Pinata, the TOP Golem, etc. etc., can take a Gary. You play smarter, not harder. Use cover, ambush, use team mates, whatever you have, to position yourself to be able to surprise or flank it. Yes it is faster. But if you can anticipate where it will be, and pump rockets into that space just before it gets there, it will take a lot of damage. And if you have a Thunder to finish them off, you should either beat it or come close to it. This isn't a theory, I have done it in each of those bots. And been killed in my Gary by even more examples. There is no need to nerf it. Just a need to understand it, learn it, know it. And as to the OP, the value is not the only factor... damnit like petev says, we NEED bots that cross the lines... the Griffon is a perfect example... the best dang bot in TT? maybe maybe not... but it IS a way to compete without having to jump across the pay wall. Adapt, and overcome. Be the Predator, not the Prey, in your mind... change your outlook from being in a hopeless bot, into being a surprisingly effective non meta killer. Countering bots is more than just knowing the bot you are in... you need to have situational awareness, and knowledge of the bot you are facing, and a decent guess as to how a pilot will play that particular bot. Most people play similar. You can use that to your advantage and do what you aren't expected to do, and change the flow altogether.
|
|
|
Post by [AurN]Zenotaph on Mar 15, 2017 11:45:22 GMT -5
Furies are fine, they are slow hunkering big targets. What you might mean is that tridents and, maybe, zeus should be nerfed. Griffins... now that's an argument I haven't heard often, if ever. Why? As I see it, they are capable of decent fire, but inherently fragile, so overall balanced. Arguments for the nerf? Because Griffin is probably the best bot in game. Costing the same value as crappy bots like the Leo and Natasha, it should be on-par with them. The Leo is not a crappy bot. It is a cheap addition of firepower and when played right, it could be devestating to almost any target. Not a Jack of all trades, like the Galahad. Not a mobile missile- or plasmaplatform like the Griffin. But he adds solid firepower with all right speed and health to be of some use. Oh, and nice for ambushing shielded bots with short range splash.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 11:52:59 GMT -5
Because Griffin is probably the best bot in game. Costing the same value as crappy bots like the Leo and Natasha, it should be on-par with them. The Leo is not a crappy bot. It is a cheap addition of firepower and when played right, it could be devestating to almost any target. Not a Jack of all trades, like the Galahad. Not a mobile missile- or plasmaplatform like the Griffin. But he adds solid firepower with all right speed and health to be of some use. Oh, and nice for ambushing shielded bots with short range splash. Compared to the Griffin, it is a crappy bot.
|
|
|
Post by [AurN]Zenotaph on Mar 15, 2017 11:55:36 GMT -5
Tell that the two griffs, I scrapped yesterday with my thunder/pinata Leo...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 11:58:12 GMT -5
Tell that the two griffs, I scrapped yesterday with my thunder/pinata Leo... Only two? Killed around 5-6 Leos on the field with Aphid Orkan Griffin a few hours ago.
|
|
|
Post by AηɗυηєɗнєƖ [ǀƬA] on Mar 15, 2017 11:58:17 GMT -5
Anyway, since the topic was "true value of teh bots" before devolving, let's try an objective system for power ranking, shall we?
Let's say a point system. I propose a simple speed*maximum health*cycle damage (as per wiki) of standardized weapons . (Happy to hear other suggestions). For maximum health I'll go for maximum frontal health, so health+shields. counting energy shield at 50% for simplicity and adding a 10% to dashing, jumping and cloacking bots.
I'll take Destrier, Gepard, Stalker, Gareth, Boa, Golem, Carnage, Galahad, Griffin Fury Lancelot. As weapons. level 12 pins for light, orkan for medium and Thunder for heavy (to keep everything in short range). It's crude, but just to give an idea. Again, happy to hear suggestions for other metrics.
Results are
Destrier: 87(k)*55*(2*22832) Gepard: 87*58*(3*22832) Stalker: 90*66*(2*22832)*1,1 Gareth: (80+160)*64*(22832+45664) Boa: 185*42*(45664+20550) Golem: 132*44*(22832+45664+81520) Carnage: (114+34)*46(avg)*(2*20550) Galahad: (120+199)*50*((2*22832)+45664) Griffin: 158*35*((2*22832)+(2*45664))*1.1 Fury: 158*30*(3*81520) Lancelot: (170+360)*36(avg)*((2*45664)+81520) Ancilot: (170+360+47,5)*36(avg)*(2*45664)
Which gives (/1000) Destrier 109,251 Gepard 345,630 Stalker 298,368 Gareth 1,052,098 Boa 514,482 Golem 211,222 Carnage 279,808 Galahad 1,456,681 Griffin 833,322 Fury 1,159,214 Lancelot 3,297,939 Ancilot 1,898,709
Notice any odd one out there?
|
|
[AurL] Valiant
Destrier
Posts: 101
Karma: 53
Pilot name: ValiantSr
Platform: Android
Clan: Aurora Luvenis
League: Diamond
Server Region: North America
Favorite robot: Griffin
|
Post by [AurL] Valiant on Mar 15, 2017 11:58:46 GMT -5
The underlying assumption (and the reason stated for nerfing the Gary) is that light bots should not be able to compete with heavies. I strongly disagree. Virtually all the heavies got a speed buff last year. Before that mediums (Rogs, Boas) and even occasionally lights (Stalkers) could compete in upper tiers due to their extra mobility. After the speed buff that diversity largely disappeared. The Gareth restores that balance- it has enough additional mobility to largely compensate for its lack of firepower and speed, and this makes it a viable option in top. That in turn adds another dimension to the game: you can viably use maneuver to win over brute force. That extra dimension alone makes it worth making lights competitive with heavies, but there's another reason not to nerf it. Speed makes for fun gameplay, and if anything we need more of it in top. Pix is going to continue to introduce new, better bots while letting old ones wither. It creates "churn" which helps keep things interesting and helps their bottom line. I'd consider removing the expectation that light bots should be inferior by either making certain lights weak at lower levels but stronger as you move up (so a new bot doesn't making everything else obsolete at all levels) and/ or charging by its effectiveness rather than its weight class. Long term that would create a problem as the pecking order moves around, but currently the Gareth would be roughly the 5th or 6th most expensive bot in the game... Very well said and my point exactly - we need bots in each level that are viable in the upper tiers, if properly equipped and played. (I don't think it should be just heavy on heavy either.) Which would lead me to suggest maybe we do raise the initial cost of Gary (to dissuade him from early purchase in the lower tier levels of play) but only if we buffed him to take him further into the game or as you seem to have suggested keep it all the same and increase the stats as he is leveled (in fact that maybe the better option anyway) could do the same with the Gep and others.
|
|
|
Post by gr3ygh05t on Mar 15, 2017 12:01:47 GMT -5
Gareth should be getting a slight buff along with lights and mediums. What really needs to be nerfed are the Griffins and Furies. The Fury is fine, it's the tridents that needs fixing. As for the Griffin well that's harder to fix without unbalancing it too bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 12:03:56 GMT -5
Gareth should be getting a slight buff along with lights and mediums. What really needs to be nerfed are the Griffins and Furies. The Fury is fine, it's the tridents that needs fixing. As for the Griffin well that's harder to fix without unbalancing it too bad. Fury and Griffin are too fast.
|
|
|
Post by AηɗυηєɗнєƖ [ǀƬA] on Mar 15, 2017 12:05:06 GMT -5
This isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of the masses. Coolio, you ran a poll among all the millions of War Robots players? Drats, I missed the questionanire... (incidentally, about the cossack hangar and 10 golds, no, you wouldn't, you'd be ahead for half of all of those games and then you'd lose all canyon and springfield maos and most of the others as your team mates would essentially play 5 to 6 and be meched out while you grasshopper around, assuming you wouldn't be trebuchetted or Zeused away once they enemy gets your game)
|
|
|
Post by [AurN]Zenotaph on Mar 15, 2017 12:08:33 GMT -5
Tell that the two griffs, I scrapped yesterday with my thunder/pinata Leo... Only two? Killed around 5-6 Leos on the field with Aphid Orkan Griffin a few hours ago. Two was plenty. They didn't get the beacon, they died in vain. They couldn't help their team. What else is needed? The super bot, that eradicates a whole squad? No thanks. I prefer equal matches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 12:10:55 GMT -5
Only two? Killed around 5-6 Leos on the field with Aphid Orkan Griffin a few hours ago. Two was plenty. They didn't get the beacon, they died in vain. They couldn't help their team. What else is needed? The super bot, that eradicates a whole squad? No thanks. I prefer equal matches. Two isn't really plenty when there are 10 more waiting to spawn. What's needed is a nerf to all heavies, and a slight buff to the Leo and Natasha. Even the extra ~20k health buff that Pix put isn't enough.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Mar 15, 2017 12:13:15 GMT -5
This isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of the masses. Coolio, you ran a poll among all the millions of War Robots players? Drats, I missed the questionanire... (incidentally, about the cossack hangar and 10 golds, no, you wouldn't, you'd be ahead for half of all of those games and then you'd lose all canyon and springfield maos and most of the others as your team mates would essentially play 5 to 6 and be meched out while you grasshopper around, assuming you wouldn't be trebuchetted or Zeused away once they enemy gets your game) When speaking on a forum, most discussions on general opinion are in reference to those with the medium to express their opinion. So, for the sake of where we're referencing here, yes. I have done polls on the best bot, and had several discussions about the Gareth. The majority of people with the means to express their opinion feel that the Gareth is a useless both in top tier play. I will go ahead and do a Taran Cossack game later just to show you. I will do one game and screenshot the results, regardless of what happens. I only have four Tarans, so one Cossack shall have an Ecu shield to make sure it's useless.
|
|
|
Post by AηɗυηєɗнєƖ [ǀƬA] on Mar 15, 2017 12:13:39 GMT -5
Well, truly, there's no War Robots rules in general. However, it's not written anywhere in the rules of war that a jeep shouldn't be better than a tank or that a destroyer shouldn't be better than a battleship (pre 1950, not counting carriers and planes), or a gun than a rpg... yet that tends to be the actual rule on the ground and when the opposite happens, it tends to be under exceptional circumstances or with heavy tradeoffs (the sniper gun is better than an RPG when resources invested in training skyrocket, mobility goes to zero and rate of fire drops dramatically, for instance). Usually, speed, heavy armor and heavy armaments don't go together well, you usually have to sacrifice 2 to maximize 1 and that's a rule generally followed in the game as well. The Gareth, on the other hand, has the second best speed in the game, armor and in general survivability that is better than all lights and, arguably, mediums and several heavies and and not to shabby of an armament as well. Yet, what is a Tank Driver's biggest fear in an all ground engagement, other than another tank? That one team of grunts that have guided anti-tank weapons (AT4 with a HEAT round would work), a good ambush spot, and a covered egress route, stands out in my mind. Heck, even a Humvee with a HEAT launcher will mess up a tank... smaller, faster, less armored, and armed, but can negate a tank if used well. These are not "exceptional circumstances", just using the weapons that you have in a way that benefits you, and not the enemy. If either of those examples I mentioned are engaged before they get prepared to face a tank, they will die. Same with a Gary. Or a Stalker... which, btw, has been doing what Gary does for longer... no it doesn't have a shield, but that stealth, a cover filled map, and a good pilot can ruin a Red team's day, almost single handedly. Go back to my above post... one Destroyer can decimate whole Navies now... even some modern ones can't hold up to the tech that the Aegis and newer boats can field. Down to the Infantry stage... an easy example... Automatic weapons are scary, yet the common infantry tactic of well aimed shots wins the day in most firefights. Especially in combination with the big automatic weapons providing less accurate but suppressive fire... A semi auto M4 can take out several people in 10 seconds, while a spray and pray SAW gunner can fire off a whole drum and not hit a thing. He might keep heads down... but unless he slows down, and fires in short, controlled, bursts, he will just be scaring the enemy. Or Hell, take the 21 foot rule that is very commonly referred to in Self Defense circles. While there are definite counters to it... and exceptions, at 21 ft or less, a person with a knife will beat a person with an undrawn pistol. Circumstances may not be the most favorable for the best weapons or weapon systems, every time. I am not trying to be argumentative just to do it... but to get my point across that it is not so cut and dried. You actually confirm my point, mostly, in particular: "it tends to be under exceptional circumstances or with heavy tradeoffs (the sniper gun is better than an RPG when resources invested in training skyrocket, mobility goes to zero and rate of fire drops dramatically, for instance)." Ambush is a pretty clear instance of exceptional circumstances. You need terrain, surprise, an unprepared enemy, possibly weather conditions. luck and bravery. So exceptional that successful ambushes are often the stuff of legend. The Humvee sacrifices armor for speed (tradeoff). The example of infantry is not really relevant, as, ported to War Robots, is essentially a case of same bot, different weapons loadout (let's say, destrier with punisher against destrier with molots). A more relevant example would be infantry against tank. Yes, the infantry will win sometimes, if it has terrain, surprise and luck but generally, one to one, I'd rather be in the tank than in the open levelled field with an RPG, won't you?
|
|
|
Post by Conflict's Student on Mar 15, 2017 12:14:17 GMT -5
Look, I'm in my car now and will not enter a flame war with you. You've quoted me twice, first with no content beyond an ad hominem attack and second with little more content than mistakes I will proceed to debunk below. Any flaming has been one-way on your part; I merely continue to rebut what little content you brought in response to my comments. I have no desire to flame you whatsoever but do appreciate the opportunity to articulate the reasons I disagree with you. I even promise not to take cheapshots calling you lazy, lame, or acting unadult and will demonstrate how to disagree civilly. Does that sound fair? you questioned my ability to manage a robot just because I say it is OP compared to the other light gold bot, and so on. Simply put you go with low, lazy assumptions missing completely the point of the thread. No, I question your ability to manage a robot based on your own words: Leo is my robot so I know the problem well. Put a Thunder and three piñatas on your Leo. If you are lucky and/or the Gareth does a mistake, you may do strong damages with the Pinatas and finish it with the Thunder. All stars need to be aligned though, because touching the Gareth is a challenge, and even if you do, it is far from a guarantee that you will finish it with the Thunder. The Gareth destroys you generally before you can send the second Pinatas salvo. If you face a Galahad, search for help. I'm serious. Beating a Gareth one on one is already extremely hard, it is even harder facing a Galahad. So the best vs the britbos is either to search for teammates to have a 2 on 1 which could negate the shield, or to have a britbot yourself. In general, missiles are your friend. Problem is that those bots can easily dodge missiles, so this strategy still have strong limitations. Frankly there is not much you can do. And don't worry because we all have the same problem here. When I say this thread appears to be partially motivated by your relative inability to handle Gareths and Galahads, I'm only referencing what you've said yourself elsewhere. I'm not making anything up and I'm not assuming anything. I am, however, pointing out the possibility that your pricing recommendation carries with it a hidden agenda. Simply put you go with low, lazy assumptions missing completely the point of the thread. The point of the thread seems to be asking for nerfs to platforms you don't like, under a misleading title disguised to look like a request to change initial pricing. Am I wrong here? Would you indeed be satisfied with no nerfs or buffs - just an adjustment to initial pricing? Or are you actually asking for specific nerfs and buffs? This is the original question I raised and a question you still haven't answered after quoting it twice in different forms. So rather than trying to shut me down by implying that I'm taking part in a flame war, please just answer the questions: Are you calling for nerfs and buffs? And if so, why cloud an already-complicated topic with additional recommendations that are highly complex (in implementation) yet highly trivial (in effect on the game) like changing the price of just about every bot in the game? It just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by [AurN]Zenotaph on Mar 15, 2017 12:19:20 GMT -5
Two was plenty. They didn't get the beacon, they died in vain. They couldn't help their team. What else is needed? The super bot, that eradicates a whole squad? No thanks. I prefer equal matches. Two isn't really plenty when there are 10 more waiting to spawn. What's needed is a nerf to all heavies, and a slight buff to the Leo and Natasha. Even the extra ~20k health buff that Pix put isn't enough. I think, two kills with one bot is enough. I got four others to spawn. My teammates have bots, too. You really need a bot that can easily kill more? Tells me something about you: You don't want to rely on others, which is sad, because it is a team playing game. Second: You need technical superiority. Why? I aint got and clue, but maybe you might tell me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 12:23:41 GMT -5
Two isn't really plenty when there are 10 more waiting to spawn. What's needed is a nerf to all heavies, and a slight buff to the Leo and Natasha. Even the extra ~20k health buff that Pix put isn't enough. I think, two kills with one bot is enough. I got four others to spawn. My teammates have bots, too. You really need a bot that can easily kill more? Tells me something about you: You don't want to rely on others, which is sad, because it is a team playing game. Second: You need technical superiority. Why? I aint got and clue, but maybe you might tell me. Yes, it's a team playing game, but when half my team decides to sit in their Trebuchet Furies and the other half refuses to cap beacons, I don't rely on them. What I need is bots that can kill as easily as other bots.
|
|