MaD
- In Z and Z Exp, the pyros had the
same range of a tough, just slightly less armour and a higher
damage output - although costing 50% more. In Z:SS pyros
doesn't seem to have good armour (although the stats aren't
in the manual, could you send them to me? :), and are basically
short ranged units that have a hard time getting close,
making them very specialized units.
Were the Z:SS pyros inspired in the Starcraft's Firebat?
Mike
- Not directly. Again, it was quite
early on that the spacing of units was decided, and the
eventual stats were derived from this overall scheme. The
Pyro in Steel Soldiers was designed to be a fairly "cheap
and cheerful" attacker, just a little above the basic
Psycho. They do have one of the shortest ranges, but they
have the added bonus of setting things alight,
which causes damage to something even after it's stopped
being fired upon.
The trick to using them really effectively is to make sure
that they're in firing range before the enemy gets into
line of sight with them - the terrain plays a huge part
in this.
MaD
- Many players and reviewers get totally
flabbergasted when they see the toughs efficiency, specially
in large groups - even though he can be countered by light
tanks and mortars. The tough certainly needs its great armour
and attack power to stand tank fire. But with all that pluses
in just one unit - specially long weapon range - it renders
most other robots less
attractive, even while useful. How do you analyse the toughs
role in Z:SS matches, and can't anything be done to somewhat
limit the toughs abuse we so often see in multi games?
Mike
- You can't accuse us of inappropriately naming our units!
[Editor note: ROFL :)]
The Tough was always designed to be quite a hard nut. He
does have a number of weaknesses, though, like his slow
movement, slow fire rate, and huge minimum range. One thing
I don't know if you guys have noticed is that robots can't
fire and
move at the same time, whereas tanks can. This makes tight
groups of Toughs (especially if they're in a bunker or an
APC) relatively easy to take out if you can get a tank,
preferably a quick one like a Jeep or Light Tank, inside
their minimum fire range. The toughs then can't move quick
enough to get into a firing position, and your tank can
just follow them, firing all the time.
Even so, possibly we over-did it a little with the Tough,
we might be looking at toning him down a little for a future
patch.
MaD
- The Laser, with his short to medium
range and weapon recharge time is quite a mistery for me.
Only good things I've seen it do is inside APCs and near
bridges entrances. Could you shed some light into some good
and cost-effective uses for him?
Mike
- The Laser is actually a really hard unit if you use him
right. Their shots penetrate and pass through their targets,
so you can hit multiple enemies with each shot - it makes
them really good against rushes! The best way to use them
is to get them around the enemy - this way you get a good
scatter of shots behind the unit you're concentrating on.
MaD
- In Z the robots efficiency linearly
increases with their cost. In Z:SS units have variable efficiency
against different targets and in different situations, theoretically
implying into more refined gameplay and more thought involved
in the production strategy of the units. How do you feel
this turned out to be in the final game? Did it increase
the number of different units you need for best efficiency,
in equal proportions, or did it narrow down the units you'll
build the most and set the other units as co-players?
Mike
- There are a number of units that could be considered "general-use",
but each of these have their weak points. They're great
for covering the more specialised units, or those really
strong units with complete blind spots, too. None of these
general-use units are the strongest on their own, though,
that's why combinations work so effectively.
Next: Z:SS
balance considerations - Part II