This post has been downvoted below -5 and collapsed, click here to expand
The point of war is victory. 0K is game about war. Sidearms were the part of armaments from times immemorial to give units fighting chance when caught out of optimal range. 0K deliberately ignores sidearm concept by making aa units unable to attack ground, air units unable to attack air (one of the most succesful bombers of WW2, IL-2 Assault, had a dedicated aa crewman) or utterly stupid disarming of sumo. Now dont start bsing me with "gameplay reasons". What i want is to give each and every unit a cheap subsystem covering its gaps. Goli needs a riot gun. Raven aa turret. AA bots a laser or machinegun. Etc till the end of unit list including facs and cons.
+0 / -9
|
Gameplay reasons. All units having auxiliary weapons to deal with anything thrown at them would wreck balance. quote:
Sidearms were the part of armaments from times immemorial to give units fighting chance when caught out of optimal range. |
Not true. An M9 isn't going to outperform an M4 at any range. Usually sidearms are meant to be used if your main weapon becomes unusable for some reason (*cough*L85A1*cough*).
+1 / -0
|
0K is a game about war. Supplies has been a part of battlefield since time immemorial. Supplies include food. Food is made on the farms. 0K deliberately ignores the concept of agricultural economy concept by forcing energy into the game. One of the most successful facebook games, Farmville was about agriculture an had farms. Now dont start bsing me with "gameplay reasons" or that robots don't eat food. What I want is to give each and every unit a possibility of eating a warm meal trough some kind of gap. Goli needs a big belly. Raven needs a rapid poop mechanism. AA bots arms to throw food at the enemies. Ect till the end every unit would consume food in some way and facs would become farms.
+17 / -0
|
Yes the expected pure bs and gameplay reasons bs with clueless talks of balance. "Usually sidearms are meant to be used if your main weapon becomes unusable for some reason" and one of these reasons being range. Like archer caught in melee. Or M16A4 being completely useless in close quarters. I have my fair share of CoD and shotgunning ppl with AR.
+0 / -0
|
Balance isn't even the question, the question is design goals. Zero-K is designed to have units that do one thing well, rather than every unit having a bunch of possible interactions. There are a few exceptions among the more expensive units, as they will be much rarer, but for pretty much anything under 2000m the idea is to keep things simple and direct at the unit level. The physics system and myriad status effects and weapon types create the complexity, rather than each unit having several different individual options.
+2 / -0
|
Well let us discuss the balance in depth. The definition of balance goes first: "Grenth teaches us the balance of all things. To every beginning, an end. To every prize, a sacrifice." It remarkably doesnt says here that one must be helpless vs something entirely in order to gain strength. Vulnerability would suffice and harmonic development is a thing. The first part of balance would not be upset by my suggestion in the slightest. As would be the second: sidearm gain will be balanced by its metal cost and inferiority to the specialized weapon. But overspecialization is a plain error if it serves no purpose which is victory in case of war. Deliberately making pointless vulnerabilities ostensibly for the sake of balance? Madness. Also talking of balance to 'me' is kind of ironic if you get what i mean.
+0 / -0
|
"Balance isn't even the question, the question is design goals. Zero-K is designed to have units that do one thing well, rather than every unit having a bunch of possible interactions." Thank you sir Cpt. Obvious sir. Another expected response: "it is so because it is so and it wont change". That is exactly what i want to discuss in this discussion: why units are overspecialized. So, why? For the sake of simplicity to cater to stupid? We have here an international community of a few scores of, i would dare say, chosen people and stupid all play chickens for few hours then leave.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
M16A4 being completely useless in close quarters. |
Eh? It wouldn't perform any differently in CQC than at 200m.
+0 / -0
|
Eh? Have you played CoD:MW?
+0 / -1
|
|
|
A quote from Skasi: "I wouldn't call it a waste of metal in its current form. Commanders can be extremely powerful, more cost efficient than units at specific jobs and on to of that create combinations of abilities that can not be be found on other units (examples, just to name a few: cloaked jumping tank, jumping radar/jammer, high speed dgunner, high speed builder, riot+artillery)." Here he says that having versatility is good. Interestingly enough he doesnt whines that it wrecks balance.
+0 / -0
|
I was not referring to how weapons work in other games. This whole thread is an appeal to realism after all. And no, I've never played any CoD game.
+0 / -0
|
Since when COD gamed were realistic???
+0 / -0
|
quote:
That is exactly what i want to discuss in this discussion: why units are overspecialized.
So, why? For the sake of simplicity to cater to stupid?... |
It is rather the opposite. Specialisation adds complexity and depth. By adding sidearms that counteract the weaknesses of the main weapon, you make the unit overall stronger, removing much of the interesting weaknesses which is against Quants' Rule:"Buff strengths, nerf weaknesses". You can read up on the balance guidelines if you haven't already: http://zero-k.info/wiki/BalanceGuidelinesquote:
Goli needs a riot gun. |
Goliath used to have a flamethrower which was pretty good against raiders. However this made the Goliath a pretty "boring" unit as it were good against pretty much all units. You didn't need to worry about enemy raiders as Goliaths could kill them easily. Having more specialized units forces you use a variety of units rather than spamming a single unit.
+2 / -0
|
Yep you havent. And still you boldly presume about M16A4 performance in CQC. Its a bad habit which may end abruptly.
+0 / -0
|
Godde himself visits my thread. I am honored. "Bored" robot? This is indignified catering to meatbags. Also error taking human emotions over cold, robotic reason. And a misinterpretation of the rule as i understand it. "Nerf" is synonimous to "decrease" yes? Thus "nerfing weaknesses" means "decrease weaknesses" which is exactly what addition of sidearms does. The history of flamethrower goli shows us that you had it right before some "bored" madman taught you otherwise.
+0 / -0
|
Yeah since a number of fatality number in CQC is rather high :P Btw you have to give some credit to   paShadoWn altrough he propably doesn't know jack squat about rl CQC capabilities of M16A4 or M4A1. They are in fact not that good in CQC because of the lengh of the whole weapon makes it hard to turn around the corners, thus actually submachineguns such as mp5 are much better than assault rifles in CQC. Arguably automatic pistols would also be slightly better at CQC but at the same time assault rifles have much bigger magazine so there is a bit of a tradeoff there.
+0 / -0
|
Well i read on Balance Guidelines. First off any talk of balance is bs when you dont even have equalized costs with pene costing an arbitrary lump thousand and so on. Second the concerns of averaging and overlapping: these are irrelevant as i do not propose giving 'full-scale' versions of weaponry, but "sidearms", scaled down in power versions. Thus armed aa bot wont win vs glaive 1v1 but the roving patrol of aa bots will stand against a few infiltrating glaives or a scythe.
+0 / -0
|
Aha Orfelius did some reading and now he knows that i am right. Of course he spoils the good impression immediately by making staright contradictory remark that "paShadoWn probably doesnt know jack". Again, assumption. Again, false.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
"Bored" robot? This is indignified catering to meatbags. Also error taking human emotions over cold, robotic reason. |
This game is designed by us meatbags so if you want to change Zero-K, you need to convince us rather than some cold robot. quote:
And a misinterpretation of the rule as i understand it. "Nerf" is synonimous to "decrease" yes? Thus "nerfing weaknesses" means "decrease weaknesses" which is exactly what addition of sidearms does. |
"Nerf" is not synonymous to "decrease". Nerf means to make something worse. In the case of Zero-K, "nerf weaknesses" means to make the weaknesses worse.
+0 / -0
|
