Ashes unit differentiation discussion

This is definitely beyond me; I'd wager you guys are well versed in what stats make the most sense. If all you can do to differentiate units is tweak their stats, they will all "feel" similar and choosing the one you want will come down to preference, not game mechanics. Rock, Paper, Scissors has worked before, but those imply some unnatural strengths and weaknesses against specific units, not pure stats. What will really differentiate units isn't stats, it's behavior. Take, for example, this excerpt from your Gameplay page:

I totally agree with eviator's quote from your Gameplay page. To me one of the biggest differences will be what buffs/bonuses each unit brings to the whole and to specific units.

Here is my take:

T1:

   Hermes(scout): Adds a 1 time (non-stack-able with additional Hermes) range bonus to both brute and archer at the expense of not using its weapons while attached to groups with either of those units in them. Adds LOS in ONE direction (up to eight directions)per Hermes for every unit in the group it is attached to.

   Brute: Adds a small but stack-able rate of fire bonus to the secondary energy weapons of zeus and all t3. Adds a small but stack-able engagement maneuver speed(target tracking) bonus to all other t1(except Hermes) and t2 units.

   Archer: Adds a small but stack-able rate of fire bonus to Artemis. Adds a small but stack-able evasive maneuvers speed bonus to all other t1 and t2 units.

   Energizer: I think it is fine as it is unless given further research and/or upgrades for more abilities.

T2:

   Artemis: Adds a small but stack-able area of effect bonus to Archer, adds a small but stack-able penetration bonus to all energy tier units firing on the same target as any Artemis(s) that is in the same group. And adds a small but stack-able rate of fire bonus to Centaur.

   Apollo: Adds a small but stack-able accuracy bonus to any unit adjacent to it and adds a small but stack-able anti-air accuracy for any unit capable of firing on air units.

   Nemesis: Adds a small but stack-able penetration bonus to Brutes, Zeus, Hercules, and Prometheus adds a stack-able range bonus to the secondary weapons of all t3 units and a moderate but non-stack-able damage bonus to all Archers and Artemises within the same group and firing at the same target.

   Zeus: Adds a small but stack-able damage bonus to brutes and to the secondary energy weapons of all tier 3 units. Adds a small but stack-able anti-penetration bonus to all other t1 and t2 units.

T3:

   Hercules: 1st off I think that the primary weapon quality of Hercules and Prometheus should be reversed in your chart Frogboy(unless that is, the names in our game version that we have is backwards.) It seems to me that Hercules would have a higher penetration, higher range weapon than Prometheus, and that Prometheus would have a higher dps or rate of fire. At any rate: Adds moderately high damage bonus to nemesis and moderate damage and small penetration bonus to brutes and Zeus. By default will always protect Archers, Artemises and Apollos first, unless manually selected to do something otherwise. Anti T3, repair function, target priority selection, or anti-air screen could be good secondary abilities.

   Centaur: Adds moderately high range bonus to both Archers and Artemis. Adds moderate penetration and small damage bonuses to all other t2 and t1 main weapon. By default, tries to assist Hermes, Brutes and Zeus first.

   Prometheus: Adds moderate rate of fire bonus to Brute, Zeus and Nemesis adds moderate armor to All units. (this one might be too much?). If 20% or more of meta-unit consists of Nemesis, Prometheus will protect them, otherwise Prometheus supports all units equally as it looks to me in the game to be a medium range unit, also both Brutes and Zues will rally with Prometheus

It seems to me that a good rule of thumb should be that if a meta-unit consists of less than 50% of Brutes and/or Zeus, that they should hang back and protect the longer range units. (The only exception being if Prometheus is the T3 in the unit). With +50% of brawlers though, they would rush to attack the enemy and leave a gap between them and the more ranged units.

Thank you Frogboy for starting this thread and allowing us to contribute. What I suggested, is obviously in no way perfect, or maybe even applicable. But I think something like these shared bonuses would allow each meta unit to have its own set of advantages and disadvantages. To me this is part of the intimacy or customization aspect that could make each army and thereby player unique in a sense. 

And we have not talked about meta-unit size limit, if there is one and if more than one T3 unit may be assigned to it.

I hope this adds something of value to the topic of this thread. 

thanks.

I want to expand on this as well but I can't right now because I just don't think the game is enough there to make any significant contributions.

I will say this, I really like the idea of units giving other units a buff in a meta unit.  However, there is one problem with this.  If all units give buffs, then I feel it will always be in your best interest to create a mixed meta unit.  Meaning, you will always be better off just mixing at least 1 of everything into a unit for buffs, and not necessarily creating meta units for dealing with specific threats.  This could potentially get rather boring (since everyone will just have mixed meta units).  But again, we'll have to wait and see how everything plays out.  Just something to keep in mind really

Also, stack-able buffs could be a problem as well, as then you will always be trying to make the biggest meta unit possible to maximize the buffs to the meta group.  Also, it seems there in no range limit on creating a meta unit.  What is stopping me from forming everything single unit on the map into just 1 big meta unit when a fight starts?  I think buffs should work in proximity of their units (so if a scout increases range, only the units near that scout will get a buff, so you'd need more scouts the larger the unit gets to make sure all units are buffed.

Yes! I totally agree with everything you said shurtugalll, as far as it is possible, one way or the other. But that is why we have early access after beta release and can then start to really work on balance. Also, if you have ideas I would highly suggest you post them, because they will inspire others( I have been inspired by something everyone has posted thus far, that I have read). And if it is not the right time because the game still hasn't progressed enough wouldn't it still help to refine your ideas?

Anyways, thanks for your comments.

Hmmm the Truth is that i won't work at all, and in a way it will be stupid if all units give a different kind of buff, Why? its because not fun at all

I do think that only Advanced and Specialized units should give some kind of buffs while T1 and T2 should not in any way, and while playing AOTS the units need to be and feel unique, all of them have distinct purposes, i think this is really important.

There is one more thing i want to add, why no one Talks about the Air Units in the game? they should be an important and really big deal in the game.

Like why we cannot add Air units to a meta units? ( if i want to create a big ground only army and will want some air superiority fighters defending that meta unit, but i want them to be part of that meta unit and flight around this ground only meta unit, that's a strategy i want to try and make, It will be fun.

Another thing that i haven't tried yet is to make An only Meta Unit for Air units, (Bombers, Air superiority ) having bombers in the middle while you have the fighters flying around the bombers to defend them.

That's how real war work, you never send bombers without fighters escorting them or you never send an army or a tank without some helicopters defending them. We are not doing some king of tactical or espionage game, we have war going on and everything need to be in the table to use at the same time.

So what i am trying to say is to differentiate each unit, give each unit a special job to do but not alone, that's why meta units idea was created for AOTS, all the units inside this meta unit, being ground or air support each other in its own way.

I don't know anything about Rate of Fire, Weapon Range,Area of Effect, spread/accuracy (i.e. ballistics), Armor Penetration, Movement Speed,Targeting Priority, Special Abilities, Build Time, Cost, or Supply i think the game still need a lot of work before i can give any kind of numbers, and all that can be changed really fast and easy. but not the Unit Feeling and design.

One last thing, please do not forget about the second weapon to add to those units, being researched or upgraded. i do think it can give more in depth and some customization to make the game more interesting and fun.

Back in my post, I mention a lot about units having unique behaviors. Both based on unit type and a preset behaviour chosen by the player. Grunts, I think, need to be able to get within range easier. When in battle groups alongside long range units, they simply stick to formation without intuitively getting within range to make themselves useful beyond being cannon fodder. All too often I see my grunts simply soaking damage with what little armor they have, and most don't fire a single shot before they flat line. I'm sure this will get worked on in the future. Just wanted to give a clear example of a role that a unit should have and how it can go about owning and utilizing that role to better serve the commander.

Yep, it might not work, even if the devs are on that track or decided to go on that track, but... every unit needs something to differentiate the meta-unit composition, going by the quote that eviator originally posted at the beginning of the thread. It doesn't have to be in the form of buffs. Although I think it would be fun if done right, and I am not saying at all that what I have outlined is what "done right" is.

Yes, agreed.

I think it will be before the release of 1.0, now whether or not it's the way you mentioned further in your post, I don't know. But in the pre-alpha, I always escorted my bombers with fighters.

I never do! And I am totally with you on your previous posts about research and the C&C Generals T3 unit customization and your posts have inspired me quite a bit.

Thanks for responding to my post.

@ Andraeus92 agreed, and I think the game will go that way with the meta-unit.

Stackable buffs are in the game already.

Yepp, stackable buffs very quickly lead to particular 'builds', I think. Look at MMOs and combining skills/spells for their stacking, or EVE module stacking, as an example of how you quickly end up with only few viable options, and if you don't know them, you'll have a hard time.

EDIT: I decided to move the directional damage idea to its own thread to not clutter this one up. Everything below this line isn't important https://forums.ashesofthesingularity.com/471284/page/1/

--------

I much prefer the victory to come from strategy/tactics - what if the units had directional armour/damage? A very simple 'if shot from behind, receive 2x damage' type deal. Certain units could have different values for this - your powerful front-facing units would be vulnerable to the rear. You could have units that are more weak but with better protection coverage. This also enhances the 'ambushing' aspect brought up in another discussion.

Just a crazy idea! I realize that this doesn't utilize the above stats, but oh well