Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Constructor Buildable Light Transports?

51 posts, 700 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 3 (51 records)
sort



AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
2 months ago
What if constructors could build light transports (like current Athena)? It sounds crazy but ponder for a while and you'll find something worth trying in the crazy. CZrankAdminLicho and I would like to add it experimentally just to see what happens (and as a bit of fun).

I could write a long list of factors I've considered, from use cases ranging from "this breaks the game" to "that would be fun" but for now I'll leave that to others. I don't know the relative importance of each factor and, as I know from Djinn, I overestimate the importance of changes to logistics. Let the neonstorm begin.
+6 / -3


CHrankAdminDeinFreund
2 months ago
I can already see it coming. More reclaim delivered straight into base, can't wait.
+0 / -0

PLrankFailer
2 months ago
I thought adding the surfboard would be a good idea too, but after a while I realized taht I'd never want to use a surfboard over the Valk.
+1 / -0


USrankFealthas
2 months ago
On athena would be cool.

When are multi unit transports coming?
+0 / -0

RUrankivand
2 months ago
How about this one rather?
* Remove valkiries. They are mostly useful for early chees stuff like warrior drops or roach/skuttle sling,
* Vindi becomes a multiunit treansport and carry variable number of units depending on their weight,
* Athena gets a wreck transport side arm.
+1 / -0

AUrankhedgehogs
2 months ago
Make Athena construct the transports instead of them being built straight out of builder to stop noobcom flyaways.

Make Valkyrie and Vindicator multiunit-3max for Valkyrie, 2000Mass, 6Max vindicator, 10000 mass.

Speedreduction at max is only 35%, so the transports are still viable.
+1 / -2

ITrankmanero
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

googlefrog dear, with all due respect to the great work you've done in this game, really remarkable, I thank you for that. But lately the latest changes, both to the units, both to the rules generally sull'elo, are not for me shareable. in chess using the same rules from about 1500 years, and except for a few changes to the clock race, remains the most fascinating game of all time. in recent changes the wyvern has become a war machine, stronger than Krow, much slower and subject to 'AA, and now this variation. I think it's much more challenging for a player, also grow in his elo in team battles, more frequent than the rare cases of matchmaking, and not deter the players , as the most famous, firepluk etc., removing the hat napoleon. what does it mean? is not important to add fun variations, it is not a show, but to secure the rules to the game. and then organize tournaments. is not that before the Wimbledon tennis tournament will change the rules on the score or the international rating. in the end you do not understand anything. I'm sorry, but I'm used to saying what I think.
+0 / -0


unknownrankSnuggleBass
2 months ago
Chess references are almost as bad as Einstein references.

How is chess even close to the best point of reference? What about all the other good computer games in the last 1500 years that have had changes? Bleagh.

AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
I don't know how much difference making it available to athena would make. Athena already has a whole bunch of useful units and is hardly utilised. If it were on normal workers that could be interesting? But that would make riot drop cheese a little too attainable I guess?


+3 / -0

RUrankxxzcc
2 months ago
quote:
What if constructors could build light transports (like current Athena)?
Trollcom-resignrushes would get a new airlifted variante.

Now the game has an almost meaningful skill-rating-system but the balance changes too randomly often. Elo-changes should be disabled for a week after changes so players can get used to new game version.
+0 / -0

PLrankFailer
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

Ability to adapt to changes quickly is a part of the skill too.
+0 / -0

ITrankmanero
2 months ago
einstein? but how do you confuse a game with one scientist ???
the problem are the rules, they never change underway. point
+0 / -0



GBrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

I don't like this idea at all, unless the transports are constructed in factories like other units - and even then. Requiring multiple factories in order to drop scallops into someones base is a useful limitation, the game will become very cheesy if it becomes possible to perform all these rushes from the get-go.

It will also devalue the already devalued air facs even more, and the AIs wont be able to make use of cons building units directly with any intelligence.
+0 / -0


unknownrankSnuggleBass
2 months ago
Air factories are some of the most valued in the game? They don't get made first in 1v1, but they get made second 90% of the time, and are made in teams of 4v4 and up 90% of the time too.

quote:
einstein? but how do you confuse a game with one scientist ???
the problem are the rules, they never change underway. point


I'm saying that just like Einstein is considered an expert on everything despite being in a highly specialised field, to the extent that people take his words out of context to grant authority to their beliefs, chess is used as some sort of exemplar strategy game beyond the point where it's valuable to do so.

Chess doesn't get balance patches. It's not even a computer game. That doesn't mean computer games shouldn't receive balance patches.

quote:
Ability to adapt to changes quickly is a part of the skill too.


"You can't understand something until you've seen it change" ~ Albert Einstein
+1 / -0

CNrankqwerty3w
2 months ago
I support this idea, It's gonna be interesting to make AAs useful in purely land game.
+0 / -0

USrankSetokaiva[IVL]
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

Currently, I like the system the way it is. Constructor-buildable light transport craft would still be useful, certainly, and it would save a lot of hassle of having to make the ships with an entirely new factory. However, considering that having transport ships available to me allows me to ship units to any location on the map at speeds greater than any land unit, ignoring all terrain obstacles in the way, I think that it qualifies as a tactical (and even strategic) boon on par with building an entirely new factory to have access to a new array of units that may help you win battles more reliably.

tl;dr -- Having transports is powerful enough already, as long as people know how to use them.

That being said, this is still a game, and I think it'd be cool to have transports be more available. It could radically change how games are played. Maybe even make it feel a bit more like Supreme Commander, where transports are commonly used. Or even better, allow us to actually USE the Ferry command and drop-to-factory-rally-point features ZK has gathering cobwebs right now because the only people who ever build transports are roach/Zeus droppers, Detri cheesers and lobstercomnappers.
+1 / -0


USrankFealthas
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

I don't think access to transports is what hinders their use. Gs factory is very commonly built. Valks saw some use, but then an unspecific nerf made them disappear. Maybe undoing the cost nerf would help a bit. I understand that this was nerfed because of teamgames, in that people refuse to work together or build 3 llts and these type of strategies exploit that. Not much time was given for the meta to adjust though. Transports on non-athena would make teamgame rushing even worse, and wouldn't punish the players for doing that strategy.
Things that prevent me from using transports are:

1: I still don't know how their more advanced features function(ferrying- Ive never used it). I've never seen anyone use it.

2: Even if it functions well, cost makes me think its not worth the effort to reduce travel time by like 10 seconds.

3: Multi unit transports pls. Transporting units 1 by 1 is very strange. I think a slot system of sorts would be the best. Say valk gets 20 TS(transport space) and vindi 125. Then just assign transport values to units. Most raiders around 6...riots around 15...striders around 100...wiggle up and down based on the unit. The general values for unit classes will allow for people to intuitively figure out what will fit in a transport(1 riot per valk, but 3-5 riots per vindi, depending on the unit). The ts value for scallops would for example be a little higher than for things like levelers - but this makes sense in a way that doesnt involve numbers. Using mass or cost doesn't make sense even though it would please the realism people. Nobody is going to pull out a calculator and add up the super random mass values for units.
4: Transports tend to die easily(in drop situations), so again with the cost thing; I would feel much more comfortable using them accepting that they would probably die after 1 use.

Buff it till people are forced to use it, and then nerf to a point at which they are balanced.
+2 / -0

USrankSetokaiva[IVL]
2 months ago
Mmmm... Maybe... we could have three transport types?

1) Valkyries. Same as they are now. Light, cheap, very fast and can carry small units, but die easily.

2) Vindicators. Heavily armored and armed to protect themselves. Can carry up to heavier units, but is not very fast or maneuverable.

3) The multi-unit transport. Make it expensive, able to hold at least 6-8 units at a time; about the size of a decent strike force. It'd be middle-of-the-road in terms of speed and durability, but it would sacrifice armaments, heavy armor, and the ability to carry heavy units (like the Vindicator can) in favor of lifting many light- to medium-weight units.

One possibility would be to make this multi-unit transport available to the Strider Hub, because it would have to be pretty damn big to haul multiple unit frames like that. Also, this transport would not be able to haul the super-heavy units the Strider Hub can build, which might help balance a bit; Dante drops are no joke, after all.

One good possibility for extra defensive value, if needed, would be to have the transport assume armored stance when it's not carrying any units (because its transport clamps are not in use, it "bunkers up" its armor plates to protect itself). This would let it survive extra AA fire after it drops its cargo, because aircraft tend to die after they've finished their runs. It might also be an option to panic-drop units prematurely to get the armor needed to survive an interceptor attack long enough for AA to come and cover the transport.

I'll chuck in a name for it, too. "Deliverance." Cheeky, considering its role, and it loosely fits with the naming convention. C'mon. We have Valkyries already. ^^
+0 / -0


unknownrankSnuggleBass
2 months ago
Roles of transport:
1) Dropping high power low mobility units to places they have no business being (hot drop)
2) Conservatively transporting units to more relevant positions (logistical)
3) Scouting
4) Microing units (currently doesn't exist, but is big in starcraft)
5) Comnapping
6) Com hot drop (cheese)
7) Assisting cons in getting to otherwise unreachable places (doesn't really happen atm, since you can just make wasp, but if it were available to all factories this would represent real utility)
8) Manipulating opponents position by feinting drops
9) Ghetto wyvern (roach drop)
10) Skuttle drop (com snipe skill shot)
11) Getting stranded units out

Anything else?

The only real problems I can foresee happening are the cheese type plays. Hot drops, roach drops, and skuttle drops. Everything else would be either moderated by weight restrictions, or fair.

It would give a way for HT to scout without losing a whole kodachi, which I think would be an improvement in the game (a problem I've been thinking about recently).
+0 / -0


JPrankgajop
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

The large variety of maps is one aspect of what makes ZK's matches different each time. On the other hand, transports are used to work around terrain topography. Therefore I think it would be hurtful to ZK if you can build transports easily (without a considerable upfront cost), as it would have an effect of reducing variety. So perhaps this should be locked to specialized constructors (like Athena) or kept in factories.
+0 / -0


AUrankAquanim
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

I think this makes map terrain and unit speeds less relevant in general. I am very dubious that it will make the game more interesting or fun.

Also, a public service announcement: The reason why multi-unit transports are not in the game is AFAIK not because any dev thinks they are a bad idea, and not because devs can't come up with a good design - it's mostly because they are non trivial to implement.

I would be careful about learning the wrong lesson from Djinn. Under the right circumstances (e.g. a large and broad map where it's awkward to move from one front to another, like Akilon Wastelands) Djinn is pretty gamechanging even at 800 metal.
+0 / -0
Page of 3 (51 records)