Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: [A] Teams All Welcome
Host: Nobody
Game version: Zero-K v1.7.9.5
Engine version: 104.0.1-1398-g7442945
Started: 3 months ago
Duration: 32 minutes
Players: 30
Bots: False
Mission: False
Watch Replay Now
Manual download


Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
sort
3 months ago
So many people very bravely fought on the battlefield. However, one man decided to use nuclear weapon, so the game was ended in a moment.

Why anti missile could be protected so much against electro magnetic pulse weapon?
+4 / -0
Nux landed right in middle of the lobster nest in the corner :D
Deep grill, instant win :P
+3 / -0

3 months ago
i think it´s way to easy to stun and bypass antinukes as well.
see also this game:
http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/784055?ShowWinners=True
+0 / -0

3 months ago
Make multiple antinukes and protect them with Funnelwebs.
+0 / -0

3 months ago
hoooray
+0 / -0

3 months ago
Let's see, widows can be easily stopped with half a dozen solars and a few laser turrets. It might cost more than the widow, but if it denies a 3K nuke a target, so what? Missile silo can be stopped by controlling a wide enough perimeter that the missile can't reach the anti. If you're not controlling a wide enough perimeter to protect an anti, you're probably losing anyway and the nuke just ends it quicker.

I always get worried if a game bogs down because I know that means the other side gain an opportunity to build a near front silo. In turn that means antis intended to protect the front are suddenly at risk- and maybe the ones at the back protecting eco as well.
+1 / -0

3 months ago
did you watch the ccr-replay?
the first nuke was send to the edge of anti-range, so they lost the control over that area, then a silo was build on the nuked ground, next anti was stunned and so on.
+0 / -0

3 months ago
Nukes have also map specific problems, such as the larger the map, the more it costs to get proper anti coverage against the nuke, which on some larger maps is much larger than the cost of trinity + nuke alone.

The larger the map, the easier it is also to sneak widow to stun anti nuke around the side of the map, though this doesn't affect the cost of covering the antinuke with buildings and units to prevent widow stuns.

Likewise, on smaller maps, such as Icy run, the map is so small that silo range becomes dominant in stunning the anti with shockley.
+1 / -0

3 months ago
The use of the nux is justified since now the games in wellcome team room are a copy of the battles of the 1st world war: too many defenses shield stinger faraday + funnel ..... boring ... zzzz ..
And little use of units, not to mention the terraform that creates trench-type earth walls.
How can you win against such defenses?
And here after 1 hour of play it is almost a relief that you use nux or rave party etc to end the game.
The real problem is another: is this kind of game fun?
The answer is no.
Much better, as already proposed, to create other small team rooms with a maximum of 8 players each.
There is no time in these maps to create the Chinese wall, because the games are very fast and fun (and firepluk would not have time to create nux)
If you lose you can always make another to get your revenge! :)
+3 / -0
we should buff porc,make all porc survive nuke and the problem is solved.then further buff arty.
i propose to make emisary as fast as glaive and as tanky as goliath and triple its AOE and shell speed so that we wont need useless assault or raiders anymore.
Sling should have enough range to counter berthas.
berthas would gain the ability to napalm areas and have triple AOE and dmg to offset the fact that sling counters it.
tremor should become mapwide arty with 6x the ROF.
Lance should be able to instakill any porc and if it hits terrain it should terraform like starlight dose in order to not need tremor to use lances.
then we need to make ddm have double range and 60x more HP so it dont die to the now impossible arty.
with these changes you wont need antis or nukes,just make arty
+4 / -0
3 months ago
Arty should be changed to more reflect its role. Arty should do the following:
-area denial
-bombardment
-soften up targets
-cause massive splash

artillery should deal good damage, high aoe with some after lingering effect.
to balance it, it should be costly, slow and low hp and long reload.
+0 / -0

3 months ago
quote:
we should buff porc,make all porc survive nuke and the problem is solved.then further buff arty.
i propose to make emisary as fast as glaive and as tanky as goliath and triple its AOE and shell speed so that we wont need useless assault or raiders anymore.

Just give them a badger sidearm. :P
+0 / -0

3 months ago
DErankkatastrophe
That just proves my point - nuke cleared ground and the other side were unable to re-establish the necessary perimeter, so they deserved to go on to lose.

Why is shrewd strategic use of nukes to clear stalemated ground a problem? Clearly RUrankFirepluk had a plan and he stuck to it. Nuke front- take territory, build silo, zap the next anti, nuke the next place. Repeat until victory. The other side either had no plan or it was demonstrably inferior.

I would also suggest that anti cost effectiveness should be seen as being less about the value vs the other side's nuke and more about the value it protects.
+1 / -0

3 months ago
Comparing anti nuke cost to nuke is really important comparison because anti nuke is meant to counter nuke.
For example, lets assume Reavers costed 800 metal. It would still counter raiders, but it would not be cost effective. Having more expensive anti nuke "coverage cost" leads to similar scenario.

If there is a map where it is cheaper to build a nuke than get anti coverage to protect all valuable targets, the nuke will be no brainer as it will always make cost by solely existing.

Of course you want to anti nuke the most valuable positions first, but that doesn't change the fact that you can force opponent to spend more metal on antinukes than you are spending on nukes, and if opponent doesn't manage to build the anti nukes, your nuke will have free spot to wipe.
+1 / -0

3 months ago
Maybe antinukes could be cheaper than the missile?
+0 / -0
3 months ago
The point is that enemy team could fast build Silo and EMP missle, speed it up with engineers. However protect the antinuke from EMP missle nearly impossible, even Funnelwebs could pass it through.
+0 / -0