Thuds and hammers

Yes yes, thuds and hammers. (i usually say thuds because it does seem to be a more appropriate name)
Everyone complains that they are OP(over powered). Some say they need to be less powerful by attack, some say they need less range, some say they need more build time. I say they need less hp.
But everyone agrees that thuds are the NOTA spam unit. i've seen it a million times. a new person asks what to do, and someone says "spam thuds"



Lets look at a few of these things.
Thuds deal decent damage on their own, plus with a large range, they can kill units before they get a shot off.
They use less metal then their counterpart - storms(rockos)

They are the perfect spamming units... which sucks because EVERYONE spams them.

Now, speak your mind of this subject and LET THIS BE THE END TO THIS!

^^; sorry... my firefox crashed just before i selected "send" so i was quickly trying to get this back up and didn't notice which "balance" i went to... ^^;

Moved to NOTA balance

Well, I think they need to do less damage to armor. This would differentiate them more from rocket kbots while providing something of a counter to a pure thud/hammer army.

123v thinks they should have a higher buildtime, as that is one of the factors that makes them so easily spammable.

I want to have it know that some one has not called peewees OP because their thuds got owned. That was [teh]Wise[PiRO]. My point is that thuds are not the best unit but a unit good for certain needs only. Early game there have been less weapons that put thuds in a very vulnerable position.

I do not think the following has been throughly taken into account.

First I will have you know that I did not consider the thud/hammer to be well balanced.

You should know harsh op cries did not come from people who were use to the game design on NOTA and did not understand the game play. They are use to a BA unit balancing where kbots are only used when there are steep hills that veh have trouble on. In this manner BA give kbots an advantage not because of cost or damage but because veh simply can not attack a rocko sitting happily on a hill shooting away to his hearts content. In BA veh have all the best values, what they lack it the maneuverability of the kbots.

In NOTA Tanks have not been the cheapest unit for dps, but they have been the stronger unit that can make a powerful assault on a fortified position, and the unit that can get to key points with speed. On a decent sized NOTA map a veh assault force it more dangerous than a kbot force. A tank force can easily run around a kbot army and then strike the soft targets behind.

Where as in BA the tanks have been the center of the battle field NOTA has the units that can be created at a lower cost to field more dmg power at the sacrifice of durability and speed. This is very logical as it is what happens naturaly in the real world.

Kbot attributes gave them weaknesses that prevented tehm fromg being overpowered. As kbots start to mass in number and their dps rises so does their vulnerability to aoe attacks. Napalm or fighter bombers can scrap huge kbot investments. Late game t2 units poses attributes that the slow and lol ph t1 kbots have no hope to compete with. There were natural counters to kbots already built into the game. Hammers were called op because Players who thought the costly veh with speed and armer should instantly beat thuds were disappointed. NOTA has not been link BA there are much greater unit differences in NOTA than other mods. The elements that make units successful or unsuccessful are much greater. You can see here some of the common basics things which create unit uses and weaknesses: http://spring.clan-sy.com/wiki/NOTA_players_guide#Factors_to_consider_when_choosing_units_to_be_produced

In reality the stumpy was not designed to kill kbots! The weapon is not an AOE weapon and it does not fire in a mander to deliver the shot to a maneuverable unit as a kbot which could side step a great number of shots. While the stumpy is poor as shooting such things as a hammer, the hammer is a kbot that can side stem shots unlike vehicles. The thud is also designed for the chaotic battle field and has very good accuracy so that it can hit targets such as a peewee while the stumpy still is not capable, further more the stupy provides a much better target to hit. Next, if I do not play for armor, heath or speed I can get more guns for the price of the other. Once all this is in mind only a pitiful fool would say that thuds are op vs t1 tanks. Thuds are designed for the form of battle that the stumpies are not. Now it a t1 tank is suppose to be strong vs kbots a small weapon adjustments would make a tremendous difference. If a stumpy shot had just a little aoe, just enough to explode an area the size of a stumpy it wouild quickly dominate the battle field. for the cost of oen stumpy it could easily inflict dmg to kbot forces more than 2x the cost of the stumpy. This is because the aoe would allow the stumpy to attack multiple hammers every shot. this way 3 stumpies could go head to head with 12 tuhds and have a close fight that would be a 2:1 cost value tn the stumpy's favor and a 1:1 overall dmg value provided that each stumpy shot hit 4 thuds due to aoe. clumping is always a huge danger to any kbot and is why tanks to have a safety advantage purely because they each take up more space meaning that aoe shots cqn not hurt as many of them at one time. Do I think stumpies should have a high explosive shot? No that was not my idea, tho id did think that such a tank was a neat idea. The core field cannon could be called op due to this, but I prefer to call it efective at its job and not op because just as the hammers before, it to can be taken out very easily by another unit that does its own job well.

Speaking of units not being op so much as just doing their skill well brings the need to address the rocket kbots. This is a unit that poor survivability design and a weapon that does not deliver dmg effectively. because of the stats it is called anti armor, but how it performs on the battle field does not make it good at delivering its dmg. If we are trying to turn NOTA on its head we can give the rocket kbot more range than the thud as it is in BA. Oh! is that a reason people called the thud op? In BA the range makes rocket kbots a choicely unit. In NOTA the rocket kbots lake attributes that would make them good in some area. No speed, no armor, no superior range. For stats it does full dmg to all armor. but that does not mean you will be able to do so. You will almost never see it as a beneficial unit vs heavy armor as it will not live to come in range to take many shots if any
and to take out light armor it must first it the target. If the tanks are charging a peewee line should do better because rang will soon not matter and the peewees have excellent dps once they are close enough to shoot. Peewees will also serve multiple purposes where as rockets could do but one. The idea is old and simple; short range defends long range, and at the same time short range finds safety from enemies under the blanket of the long ranged units. The point is that rockos do not bring useful skills or abilities ot the battle field. The units that do bing uesfu, or uniquel abilityes and skills to the field are the unit that are valuable.

Giving medium tanks aoe was an idea we played around with a bit, but abandoned for a few reasons. There are already tons of aoe weapons in nota, like levelers, artillery, aircraft, etc. Too many aoe weapons creates a situation where the ability to keep your units from bunching up becomes the dominant micromanagement skill that determines the course of the battle. It's a kind of micro that I don't think is particularly interesting or rewarding. In your example, you're saying that each stumpy hit would on average hit 4 thuds. This would never happen vs. a competent player. If stumpies had that kind of aoe, people would simply be forced to pay more attention to keeping their troops separated, and as long as that was done, stumpy performance would remain the same.

I've seen rocket kbots used to great effect vs. armor. Once, in those tests we were doing recently, 20 storms vs. 5 reapers won with only 2 losses. Even when microed to stay out of storm range (something that is less practical on the real battlefield) reapers were still handily defeated, killing 9 storms. How is that useless? I don't see why you believe they won't deliver damage to armor. Are you trying to use them vs. goliaths or something? In that case they do have problems due to range, but that's what the goliath is designed for. For cost, it's terrible compared to a bulldog or even reaper for fighting other armor.

lol, yes that is my I am mad the gols win against the anti armor kbots! (jk :p)

My point is actually that it should not be surprising that the rockos/storms would not be greatly used in combat because they simply do not fill a largely helpful niche. Further more if they were given a niche it would likely throw off the rest of the balance.

I've seen them used effectively quite a bit recently. I guess that is why I didn't get what you meant.

ummm the first game i played i was owning thuds with rockos to such an extent that one of the opposing team started trying to spam me with rockos in return. rockos on hills seem quite strong vs. thuds, and that is just a single example of t1 vs. t1. thing seems to be that the usefulness of a given bot is quite situational, in that one bot that cana hit something on the lee side of a hill will be good in that situation where it may well get owned by the same opposing unit in a different situation. i would have hated to see what those same thuds would have done to my rockos had the map terrain been flat! as it was, once the hill was crested and my rockos got on the near side, the battle turned quickly away from the thuds' favour.

I must say I found that odd when I first read it, and I find it odd again now. Thuds have a trajectory while rockos have direct fire. In terms of DPS rockos and hammers/ thuds have been nearly identical. I has been the dmg delivery that has been different.