Should USA Laser Tank require power?

[ZekeDlyoung]

In VZH Laser Tanks require 1 power to operate, this is not only a weird mechanic, but it creates a few issues:

1. It makes Laser Gen pretty defenseless when low powered
2. Even while you are low powered, Laser Tanks will still continue to build and clog up your War Factory for a while even after your power returns
3. It requires a larger investment to build an army with Laser Gen as you have to build power plants as well, which seems like a lot for a unit that's only marginally better than a Crusader

Proposal 1

Remove power requirement entirely

Proposal 2

Give it a global control rods upgrade that cancels out its power consumption, so it still gets disabled when you get low powered, but it doesn't slowly eat up your power when spammed

Proposal 3

Improve its performance to make it worth having to go through all the trouble of building power plants (i.e. give it explosion damage to make it good against infantry as well)

Proposal 4

Keep Laser Tank Power consumption, but do not power them off on low power.

Proposal 5

On low power, disable turret but keep the ability to drive.

Proposal 6

Reverse of proposal 5: Keep immobilization but keep turret operable.

Proposal 7

Increase attack range of Laser Tank: more then rocket defenders, less than artillery. Proposed in #2522

[xezon]

I expect heated discussion :p

[ZekeDlyoung]

I expect heated discussion :p

Me too 😛

[commy2]

It makes Laser Gen pretty defenseless when low powered

That is the whole point. That's pretty much the entire lore of Lasergen xD

[ZekeDlyoung]

It makes Laser Gen pretty defenseless when low powered

That is the whole point. That's pretty much the entire lore of Lasergen xD

Indeed. The bigger issue for me is the "require 1 power". I can live with them being disabled, but I hope the requirement can be canceled out at least 🙃

[xezon]

Laser Tanks typically come in lower numbers in matches. It is a risk to build them due the risk of power outage, therefore it is almost always better to just spam Humvees instead.

[Stubbjax]

It is a weird, counterintuitive and often frustrating mechanic that lowers strategic diversity and tends to catch a lot of players off-guard. I don't see many upsides to the behaviour. It felt much nicer to play when ShockWave removed it.

It would certainly help in common early team-game situations where laser crusaders are fending off sneaky gattling tanks and a GLA bombs the power, effectively ending Townes' ~carrier~ career.

[xezon]

Perhaps they could have a different penalty for low power?

[ZekeDlyoung]

Perhaps they could have a different penalty for low power?

Not possible afaik

[ImTimK]

in 1.06 they increased power requirement still, but didn't power off on low power.

Idk Laser Tanks aren't that special, they're obviously very strong but not sure if low power should be that punishing, especially if he spammed more of them. Direct competitors don't have this downside.

[ImTimK]

Perhaps they could have a different penalty for low power?

Would be cool if turret can still operate, but can't move.

[penfriendz]

I am in favour of simply removing the power mechanic. While it will change gameplay, and I don't hate the mechanic, it is a little strange and will simplify the game. From a balance perspective laser tanks aren't terribly overpowered or overused.

[ImTimK]

More Laser Tanks means less Vees :)

[MTKing4]

Laser tank Spam owns in late game big economy games though, in FFAs especially, combo-ed with avengers, they crack every other army like biscuits, even Air force, and power is no big issue there.

[ImTimK]

Laser tank Spam owns in late game big economy games though, in FFAs especially, combo-ed with avengers, they crack every other army like biscuits, even Air force, and power is no big issue there.

Yes, however USA can do the same, albeit more expensive, but at this point this doesn't matter as much anymore in huge eco games.

[MTKing4]

Laser is better because it's not just about Laser tanks, you also have the best defense in the game, laser Patriots

[ImTimK]

Laser is better because it's not just about Laser tanks, you also have the best defense in the game, laser Patriots

Overall laser is better in ffa for sure. Offensively the only problem he has are nuke cannons and infernos, which tomahawks can take care of easy.

[commy2]

Laser Power Plant produces 8 power (16 with upgrade). Normal and AFG USA Power Plants are 5/10 respectively.

It would feel weird if Lasergen cared less about power than other USAs.

[xezon]

It is nice though that Laser Powerplant already compensates a bit for the Laser Tank power requirement. This makes it appear less of a burden. If Laser Tank power consumption was removed, Power Plant likely would need tweaking too.

[Stubbjax]

Laser Power Plant produces 8 power (16 with upgrade). Normal and AFG USA Power Plants are 5/10 respectively.

It would feel weird if Lasergen cared less about power than other USAs.

It should also be noted that Laser Defense Turrets consume 5 power (despite what the tooltip says) vs 3 for Patriot Batteries.

[ImTimK]

It is nice though that Laser Powerplant already compensates a bit for the Laser Tank power requirement. This makes it appear less of a burden. If Laser Tank power consumption was removed, Power Plant likely would need tweaking too.

In the 1.06 example I mentioned above they made it so that laser tanks still add to the power requirement, but don't shut off when power is low.

[xezon]

Proposal 4

Keep Laser Tank Power consumption, but do not power them off on low power.

[ZekeDlyoung]

It is nice though that Laser Powerplant already compensates a bit for the Laser Tank power requirement. This makes it appear less of a burden. If Laser Tank power consumption was removed, Power Plant likely would need tweaking too.

Speaking of which are there plans of using Laser Gen's unused purple control rods for this patch to visually show that he has better reactors? https://www.moddb.com/mods/nproject-mod/images/advanced-cold-fusion-reactor#imagebox

[commy2]

It should also be noted that Laser Defense Turrets consume 5 power (despite what the tooltip says) vs 3 for Patriot Batteries.

Fixed Russian. The others seem already to be correct.

[xezon]

Speaking of which are there plans of using Laser Gen's unused purple control rods for this patch to visually show that he has better reactors?

Can do. Superweapon General also has different color.

[commy2]

SWG produces 5 only. The difference is the Control Rods upgrade. So any visual difference should exist before Control Rods.

[ImTimK]

Speaking of which are there plans of using Laser Gen's unused purple control rods for this patch to visually show that he has better reactors?

Can do. Superweapon General also has different color.

Red would be cool, best associated with Laser I think.

[xezon]

• 861

[ReLaX82]

I am totally against the removal as imo it adds game depth and contributes to different, unique play styles vs Laser for example as Chinav, Tank or Nuke.

I agree with less Vees overall is a good approach.

For me there are a few propsals thinkable.

1 Reduce Power consumption of Laser Tanks (mabye to 50% only)

2 Reduce Cannon Fire rate and/or speed if Laser gen in low Power condition as its not too drastic this way then powering off completly.

[ZekeDlyoung]

Reduce Power consumption of Laser Tanks (mabye to 50% only)

Laser tank power consumption is already set to 1, and decimal values can't be used, so it can't be lowered further

Reduce Cannon Fire rate and/or speed if Laser gen in low Power condition as its not too drastic this way then powering off completly.

Not possible. Though I once had a similar idea where Laser Tanks would have Gattling Tank rapid fire, but backwards to they fire slower over time to simulate overheating

[ReLaX82]

Is it possible that it still shoots and not moves OR still moves and not shoots?

[ImTimK]

Is it possible that it still shoots and not moves OR still moves and not shoots?

Actually non functional turret would make the most sense then, I like this idea.

[ZekeDlyoung]

Afaik, it's not possible to invoke any other low power penalty on an object other than full shut down, as the system is closed. Objects either use power or they don't, it doesn't have other fields that can be modified, and there is no "low powered state" that can be used as a trigger for other systems

[ReLaX82]

What about an upgrade that you can get somewhere to be free from Power consumption?

[ZekeDlyoung]

What about an upgrade that you can get somewhere to be free from Power consumption?

That's proposal 2 more or less

[penfriendz]

I don't like adding a new upgrades for this. It is kinda feel changing in a more obvious way than balance. Making it not use any power but disable when on low power feels good to me.

[xezon]

From my understanding this Upgrade is nothing that player sees.

[penfriendz]

I wanted to be clear about the effect. In that case I agree

[FDPUser443]

Proposal 5 ? Laser Tanks Power requirement = Max(LTC, 7); LTC - Laser Tanks count

[xezon]

I doubt cap is possible. Each unit acts on its own and consumes whatever it consumes.

[RisingZH]

I don’t like this, what problem are we trying to solve with this change? Seems unnecessary.

[Stubbjax]

Does the weakness not also seem unnecessary? I think Zeke summed it up pretty well. The fact that it disincentivises tank usage over Humvees is also important to consider.

[RisingZH]

I tried to start a discussion a while ago and it didn’t really get off the ground, but aren’t we still trying to keep the new patch feel like 1.04 as possible and fix the biggest imbalances?

This change would make the new patch feel less like 1.04. If you play the generals challenge Lasers whole weakness is meant to be low power. And it doesn’t fix any imbalance, nobody is playing 1.04 thinking laser sucks because my tanks need power.

Just think if we go down the road of changing stuff like this we’ll end up with patch notes 50 pages long and a lot of people will be put off because it’s not the game they are used to.

[Stubbjax]

Very good points. The change would be fairly visible and the campaign would be negatively impacted. I think this outweighs any benefits in this case.

Regarding the patch notes, they ironically have to be longer for any respective balance tweaks to be less visible. Players are less likely to notice 100 subtle balance tweaks than 10 major ones.

[xezon]

Laser General does not have Tomahawk in its arsenal, so it is nice to have stronger tanks at least.

[ReLaX82]

Thinking this over again makes me think we dont need this change at all.

[xezon]

Proposal 3 is not a bad idea on first sight. Then it performs more like the Nuclear Battlemaster, which is a special variant with Radiation Shells - better against infantry units.

[xezon]

Object	Seconds to kill 1 Missile Defender
USA Crusader Tank	32
USA Laser Tank	24
USA Laser Tank + Hellfire Drone	4
Battlemaster	32
Nuke Battlemaster	3
GLA Scorpion + Rocket	1
GLA Scorpion + Anthrax Beta Shells	3
GLA Marauder	32

[MTKing4]

I'm not sure this is a good idea, laser tank is already the one of best tanks in the game

[xezon]

Close?

[MTKing4]

Yeah you can close