I would say Tarantula is at the border of useless. Vs planes they are ok but they are nearly unable to stop Brawlers. Replay of Tarantula vs. Brawlers:http:   B280760 8 on BadlandsI would say make them faster. So that they can at least run in front of a Brawler and not sneak around and get killed by everything.
+0 / -0
|
tarantulas is silly. deal with it. i demand them webs to trap air and slowly suck hp out of it.
+3 / -0
|
point out that rush bawler killed 2 noob comms before 2 minutes in that game point out that the enemy tarantulas repelled first bawler quite well point out that the landbound friends of the bawler did not want bawler to shed tears of pain, and killed the evil AA point out that like in DF even if the bawler sheds tears at the horror over what it is doing, it is still a DF adventurer and can break you in half with its bare hands point out that bawlers are white, and it has already been proven that Kuybey is OP, so Kyubeys units with a white paint job are even more OP point out that even in the simple and primitive game of chess, asuming that both players are playing perfectly, the player that takes the first move will allways win. In this game, i took the first move. you lost the initiative, and never recovered it 
+1 / -0
|
quote:
in the simple and primitive game of chess, asuming that both players are playing perfectly, the player that takes the first move will allways win |
Sauce?
+0 / -0
|
sauce=basic logic player that moves first will allways be the "attacking" player, while player that moves second will allways be the racting player. the reacting player can not win in balanced game with a finite number of actions... and chess only has ~10^43 posible moves remember quote:
asuming that both players are playing perfectly |
ie both players are chess playing super computers from the future when its at that level, chess and tic tac toe become the same game, and as evryone knows... in tic tac toe the player that does the first move allways wins
+0 / -1
|
While it is generally viewed that first move is an advantage, and first move has a large number of possible states to choose from- making it very likely it will always win, it is not certain that it will win. In many simple games, second player has an advantage because the default position (which must be changed) beats the positions which you move to from the first move.
+1 / -0
|
true there are some games where the fist move is blind, and some games where this start state is acknowledges, and the rules take it into acount to make starting and reacting player on even footing such as forcing the stating moves in positions where the firs move can not take a decicive advangage in a single go and zk is alot like that, but its still true that the first player to sucsessfully attack usualy sets the tone for the battle, and there are no easy ways to break out of this... countering air start is not imposible, but it does require a bit of planing to prevent the air player just having you run in circles chasing their air units
+0 / -0
|
quote:
in the simple and primitive game of chess, asuming that both players are playing perfectly, the player that takes the first move will allways win |
quote:
units with a white paint job are even more OP |
+1 / -0
|
:P a brawler that was painted black would not have the blessing of kyubey, and thus be uterly usless see: usless:  OP:  give any unit a stylish white paint job and it will become much more OP then it was before
+2 / -0
|
...what does the scanner say about it's powerlevel?
+1 / -0
|
|
|
quote:
sauce=basic logic
player that moves first will allways be the "attacking" player, while player that moves second will allways be the racting player.
the reacting player can not win in balanced game with a finite number of actions... |
 http://xkcd.com/1112/quote:
and chess only has ~10^43 posible moves |
That does nothing to prove your point. In a human vs human match, being able to "set the tone" and start aggressively may be an advantage. In game theory, there's no such thing. And your perfect players are exactly the case for game theory. All your arguments also apply to this situation: http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php?p=A____________________p______________P____________________________0(fuck the kings, you get the point). See the issue? quote:
chess and tic tac toe become the same game, and as evryone knows... in tic tac toe the player that does the first move allways wins |
Lol. I mean, aside from the fact that chess and tic-tac-toe are not the same game from a game theory standpoint, the player that moves first in tic-tac-toe does NOT always win. If the other player plays perfectly, it's always a draw. Seeing as you're not even getting these basic facts straight, it pretty much disqualifies you from even talking about the game theoretical aspects of chess. Lol again, that statement is just too cute. xD
+3 / -0
|
quote:
In a human vs human match, being able to "set the tone" and start aggressively may be an advantage. |
I think that was his main point all along (and the rest was just a failed attempt at explanation)
+0 / -0
|
Maybe the problem is not Tarantula but Brawler? You know, the last buff was extremely big.
+2 / -0
|
Yeah, Brawlers seem to be chewing up most forms of ground AA without many issues. Long range, fast and high DPS AA like Copperheads seem to still do well though.
+0 / -0
|
Brawler does have above Defender weapon range (650 vs 610), more altitude than most raiders' range (250) and raider speed (3.7) making even shooting it a huge problem without dedicated AA, unlike other gunships. Having 2800 health and 200-ish DPS with some AoE to boot doesn't help either. What is its weakness, exactly?
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Brawler does have above Defender weapon range (650 vs 610) |
Don't forget that range is increased to ~730 due to flight altitude, even more when positioned on high ground and that's really feasible for gunships.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
What is its weakness, exactly? |
<590 LOS, its quite blind, it cant take advantage of its improved range without something to spot targets for it quote:
In a human vs human match, being able to "set the tone" and start aggressively may be an advantage. In game theory, there's no such thing. And your perfect players are exactly the case for game theory. |
what i mean by set the tone is: there are moves A-Z player A executes move R move X removes A-R from player B's arsenal of choices to stay competetive player B must make move S-Z so by making the first move you limit you oponents choice of action from 1/26 to 1/8, if you are doing this to maximise you would also chose an action that increases the maximum complexity of your next move and prepare a counter strategy to deal with S-Z moves because those are the only moves an oponent can take and stay competetive
+0 / -0
|
what would be wrong about a tarantula speed buff? I mean it is not even near OP because it's only targets are at ground.
+0 / -0
|
tarantula is probably one of the nastiest anti-bomber AA units in ZK
+0 / -0
|
