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

ff explosives

9 posts, 225 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

AUrankSmokeDragon
22 days ago
(edited 22 days ago)

..would it be a bad idea.. if units that are intended to explode like tick, roach ect also have resistance to friendly fire from the same unit or explosive type..

otherwise i emp my own ticks or cause chain roach.. it would make using these units en mass way stronger and sending in balls of roach would work better. and some units like emp raider veh would be better in balls
+0 / -0



CHrankAdminDeinFreund
22 days ago
There are no intentional armor types or damage resistances in the game. The only thing that might be possible with current mechanics is to use the "dig in" mechanic that is being used by units like or

This could for example mean that dug in roaches are harder to kill by both enemies and their peers. Moving roaches should still be handled as a dangerous goods transport.
+1 / -0

AUrankSmokeDragon
22 days ago
(edited 22 days ago)

i guess this makes sense.. i guess explosive units are going to have to stay micro intensive units.. when massed anyway

+0 / -0




AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
22 days ago
One of the design constraints on ZK is to avoid armour types in the form of weapons that deal variable damage to units based on the units type or allegiance. So for example we can't make Ravager better at assaulting defenses by increasing the damage it deals to turrets. We've put these balance levers aside, instead relying things like cost, raw damage and projectile physics. I think this constraint has been worthwhile because it has resulted in a balance that depends a lot on visible physical attributes. To contrast, armour types can be difficult to see because they are a somewhat 'hidden' attribute of units.

This approach is a pushback against the hodgepodge of armour types that spread throughout various mods of TA. I get the impression that some modders would tweak damages when balancing over years, resulting in a mess that would take someone a long time to learn. Armour types were especially prone to gathering around the commander, I think in some mods commanders took extra damage from LLT to balance attack and defense in comm pushing. I don't know much about the armour in FAF but I think it at least has some special cases around commanders.

Starcraft II does armour types well. From what I recall, there are two armour types for mobile units and a fair portion of the units deal significantly more damage against one of the types of armour. The significance of the damage is important as it makes the existence of the system more obvious. There are two armour types so it is not too hard to keep track of which units are of each type. The UI has two big buttons which have a tooltip telling players which type of armour a selected unit has and what, if any, bonus it has against one of the types.

Anyway, we're too deep into reducing armour types to start adding them now. We do have some legacy mechanics that look a bit like armour.

Pyro, Kodachi and some fire chickens cannot be set on fire. They still take direct damage from fire weapons and damage from standing in fire. Technically submarines cannot be set on fire as well, but this is only apparent when you bring a sub onto land because being underwater also grants immunity to being set on fire.

Anti-air weapons deal 10% damage to non-air units. This is rarely visible because anti-air units cannot target non-air units and there are rarely enemy non-air units in their line of fire. I think target restrictions are much better than armour types, at least if the restrictions are clear, because being unable to fire at a certain class of units is highly discoverable. Just watch your units not fire. If instead they had much reduced damage you would have to look closely at how much damage they deal. This 10% damage exists mainly to discourage people from figuring out how to circumvent this target restriction. Anti-air deals 100% damage to shields.

Shields take damage from status effects but they do not simply convert the status effect damage to normal damage, as status effect damage tends to be much higher. Shields take 1/3 damage from EMP, disarm and slow. When a weapon deals both normal and status damage the multiplier is applied to the status effect portion. Shields also (for some reason) take extra damage from penetrating weapons. The multipliers are 1.5x for Gauss and 3x for Flamethrowers. The shield damage multipliers and conversions were set a while ago and could do with reassessment.

Outlaw deals no damage to allies, I think it is the only weapon with this feature. Many relatively short ranged AoE weapons deal no damage to their wielder, I think this was a required change for some stupid targeting AI. Penetrating weapons (Dgun and Flamethrowers) have somewhat janky damage as they deal damage for every frame they spend inside a unit. Capture health (against Dominatrix) is based on cost instead of health and I think low health units take more damage from Dominatrix. I wouldn't have added this myself but KR thought it was necessary.
+8 / -0

AUrankSmokeDragon
22 days ago
well said and i agree. hidden armors begone and all that.. however .. my point is also still valid in that some units are really hard to use in groups.. mainly emp on death units.. im going to use a second however here and mention pyro doesn't burn pyro.. so that they can be used in groups.. ticks do emp ticks.. i guess now all the facts are on the table its time to eat it and tell you i like it.
+0 / -0

LVrankSenaven
21 days ago
I don't see any reason for this. Roach have very large aoe range and combining it with its low hp pool makes no sense for it. Roach is unit who need to be fragile against all damage types. Its niche unit.
But tick should be immune to emp. It make more use for them.
+0 / -0

LUrankAnir
21 days ago
Tick may be the only unit, where i think this change would be useful, because at the moment, they're underused...

The only problem that i see is, Cloakys, a factory that already possesses many good units (Glaives, Warriors, Snipers, Scythes, Gremlin etc... they are basically all good) would become even stronger...


I would prefer to see new units added to the spider and amph factory, because those lag the possibilities to play different tactics... or at least to play more then 3 or 4 standards...
+0 / -0


USrankAdminSprung
21 days ago
(edited 21 days ago)

A group of Imps will successfully blow up if you give them all a self-D order. (In the past only one Tick would go off and stun all others but this has been fixed.)

One thing AUrankAdminGoogleFrog hasn't mentioned is that subs only take 5% damage from some forms of AoE such as Shogun (aka Warlord). This is to prevent people from force-firing at the surface.
+0 / -0




AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
21 days ago
Actually I think subs take 5% damage from all forms of weaponry that do not have water-penetrating projectiles.
+0 / -0