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

Do commander modules really need downsides?

15 posts, 217 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

DErankTopkack
9 days ago
Title.
+1 / -0



GBrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng
9 days ago
introducing a downside allows the upside to be more significant without being imba. The alternative is modules that have smaller upsides, or OP coms 4 lyfe.
+0 / -0

DErankTopkack
9 days ago
For the sake of consistency, yes?
+0 / -0



GBrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng
9 days ago
?
+0 / -0


USrankFealthas
9 days ago
I really don't like that modules have tradeoffs. Just make it cost more if it proves to be strong.
+2 / -1

ATrankSkasi
9 days ago
(edited 9 days ago)

I still wanna see the concept where a commander's arm is either a weapon/dgun or a nanolathe and where each module is actually visible on the model turned into reality. Stacking all and everything only creates units without any weaknesses, that's definitely a no-go. Even morphing isn't a weakness, 'cause comms can be active while morphing. The only weakness being cost is boring.

Duh but why am I even posting here. Silly me. I wanna see comms removed altogether anyway.
+0 / -0


USrankaeonios
9 days ago
quote:
introducing a downside allows the upside to be more significant without being imba. The alternative is modules that have smaller upsides, or OP coms 4 lyfe.


Nonsense. The modules that got downsides added also got their main stats nerfed, so obviously that was not the case. More significant was the change to infinite commander levels, which is stupid and made commanders lame in general.
+0 / -0



GBrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng
9 days ago
quote:
Nonsense. The modules that got downsides added also got their main stats nerfed, so obviously that was not the case.


The timeline of changes isn't really important. A downside is another form of cost. Most modules are cheaper than they used to be in metal and energy. If you removed the disadvantages, you'd need to alter the metal/energy cost or stats to keep the module the same power as it is currently (or it would get better or worse when you removed the disadvantage).

Not saying this as a promotion of downsides, just pointing out that removing downsides would mean either

> making the module better
> increasing cost of module to keep parity
> decreasing the benefit of the module to keep parity

given module costs went down and downsides were introduced, I assume there was a line of thinking behind the change.

+0 / -0

PLrankOrfelius
9 days ago
Witty answer.
+0 / -0


unknownrankSnuggleBass
9 days ago
To my knowledge none of the modules with downsides are relevant in 1v1.

I like downsides, but they need to give you a significant advantage. Recon (used to have) really low health to make up for the jump, and that felt like a downside with sufficient upside.
+0 / -0

DErankTopkack
9 days ago
quote:
To my knowledge none of the modules with downsides are relevant in 1v1.


Then why do they exist? To make noobs insecure about them?
+0 / -0



GBrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng
9 days ago
(edited 9 days ago)

Apparently ZK can also be played in teams.
+1 / -0


AUrankAquanim
9 days ago
They're hardly alone in that I would say. To my mind the relevant modules in 1v1 are:

Lightning Rifle
Shotgun
Rocket
HMG
Ablative Armor
Advanced Targeting System
Nanolathe
High Power Servos
Disruptor Bomb

(A case could be made for Riot Gun, Multistunner, Cluster Bomb and Field Radar Module.)

I don't think the purpose of Commander upgrades has ever been for them to be viable in competitive 1v1 (or in high-level teams games, for that matter).
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
5 days ago
(edited 5 days ago)

Laser and Particle are also relevant options if you start with a Support chassis, which is itself a viable option in many cases. LG has its downsides (overkill, range).

HPB builds nicely on top of that, as well.
+0 / -0


AUrankAquanim
5 days ago
(edited 5 days ago)

Light Particle Beam I'd agree with (and potentially HPB, though I've rarely seen it used for effect). I've never been a fan of the Laser.
+0 / -0