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

Nuke and anti-nuke interaction

23 posts, 683 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (23 records)
sort


DErankPyrostasis
6 months ago
Currently, the probability of intercepting a nuke by an anti-nuke missile is 100%.
Would it be more fun to add some probabilistic effect and make this something like 90%?
Both teams will cross their fingers when they know a nuke has been fired on a protected area :)
I think some time ago I heard that "real" missile interception systems have a 50% hit ratio.
+0 / -0



AUrankAdminAquanim
6 months ago
(edited 6 months ago)

If I wanted to play a game where the outcome was conclusively decided by a coinflip, I'd play two-up. I don't play two-up.

In all seriousness I don't see how introducing ridiculous swings based on nothing the players can control is in any way fun.
+8 / -0


DErankPyrostasis
6 months ago
But doesn't your argument imply that fro example a Bertha should always hit the same spot when aimed there?
Or is it a limitation of the game physics that is is so inaccurate?
+1 / -0

ZArankAstran
6 months ago
You'd be lucky to get a 50% intercept of an incoming nuclear warhead with current missiles and ABM's. Modern warheads have decoys, evasive maneuvering and probably stealth built into them. MIRV is an old tchnology that scatters up to a dozen nukes per missile. Moreover they come in at a tremendous speed that makes the intercept window tiny. Real interception chances are all about boost phase interception, which is why countries - OK, the USA - is always trying to get its ABM systems closer to potential launch sites.

Anyway.

Regarding ZK nuclear interception, I agree with th devs. Having your antinuke fail is going to be a real bummer. Already people build and launch multiple nukes to overcome single antinukes. No need to make it even easier to beat.
+2 / -0

ZArankAstran
6 months ago
Pyrostasis has a point about sightly random physics being cool with things like Bertha.

But even if a 100% intercept rate is unrealistic, the fact is that not having a 100% intercept rate is UNFUN. It would suck to do everything right, expand and eco properly, and be just about ready to close the deal when the other team launches a nuke. No problem, you have an antinuke, built at the expense of offensive units. You're safe. Except that it fails, and the nuke takes out all the singus so carefully guarded, as well as the strider hub with the 90% Paladin and half the eco.

GG.

Well, that was fun.

+1 / -0



PLrankAdminSprung
6 months ago
quote:
But doesn't your argument imply that fro example a Bertha should always hit the same spot when aimed there?

No, because Bertha is rapid-fire compared to the nuke. The misses average out.
+3 / -0



SErankGodde
6 months ago
There is a way to make nuke play less binary without introducing random chance.
I think this still applies, but nuke play on really large or long maps is actually not that binary.
On large maps, nukes will travel towards the target at a shallow angle when fired at a distant target(unless it have been changed and the missile always stays at the same elevation until it reaches the target area).
This means that when the nuke is destroyed by the anti-nuke, the explosion will be pretty close to the ground, and the explosion radius will even overlap with the safe anti-nuke range.

I much prefer ranges that are more "physical" and not as binary.

If we wanted nuke play to be less binary, we could make the anti-nuke a laser weapon with spherical range that requires a certain amount of time to destroy an incoming nuke, for example. The anti-nuke would then start firing at the nuke well before the nuke is in the "safe" radius of the anti-nuke, but it would destroy the nuke before the radius of the explosion area would affect the safe radius of the anti-nuke.
A disadvantage of the system I mentioned is that you could stack anti-nukes in the same place to increase the safe area drastically.
+2 / -0


DErankPyrostasis
6 months ago

+1 / -0

LTrank[pikts]wolas
6 months ago
Pyrostasis you can increase nuke hit chance with spy.
+1 / -0



AUrankAdminAquanim
6 months ago
quote:
But doesn't your argument imply that fro example a Bertha should always hit the same spot when aimed there?
Or is it a limitation of the game physics that is is so inaccurate?

Games are not (frequently) decided by a single Bertha shot. A successful nuke rarely fails to decide the game.
+0 / -0


DErankPyrostasis
6 months ago
When Bertha aims at the other team's Singu I see approximately 4 out of 5 shots miss due to randomness. The game outcome depends on randomness in this scenario. When it misses a lot, the other team might have a chance to react. If not, they will blow up. Now my question is: Is it fun? I believe yes, although you can't control it. What is your opinion? I'm not talking about the nuke anymore.
+1 / -0



AUrankAdminAquanim
6 months ago
(edited 6 months ago)

I wouldn't want it to be a common scenario. Unlike the nuke example, there is counterplay in this situation, although it is pre-emptive: it is not necessary to place your Singus in a place which is vulnerable to Berthas.
+0 / -0

ZArankAstran
6 months ago
To reply to Pyrostasis: I agree that the idea of randomness to a certain extent makes games more fun. However, in the case of a nuke maybe not so.
+0 / -0


DErankkatastrophe
6 months ago
how is randomness fun in a competitive game?
are you guys sure you are playing the right game for your expectations?
+1 / -0


DErankPyrostasis
6 months ago
Katastrophe, rand() is part of our daily life.
It is just everwhere and we got used to it.
I didn't grep the source code of ZK for rand but I guess nearly every projectile has some random "salt" in it.
It just makes things interesting, non-boring and more natural.
+0 / -0



PLrankAdminSprung
6 months ago
Randomness can have a place but it needs to be designed for.

Consider windgens:
  • you can still mix in a few Solars to play around the "wind dropped to 0, you lose" scenario. The commander provides some base income as well to mitigate this even further in the early game. On the other hand, the "wind is high" case is not an autowin either because the opponent using Solars has a raiding advantage (windgens are fragile) that he can use to offset it.
  • wind averages out.
  • the advantage from any anomalies takes time to take effect (there's some feedback for the enemy).

Now compare to your nuke idea:
  • there is no reliable way to prevent a nuke. You can play correctly (ie. make anti) but still lose.
  • there are too few nukes in a typical game to average out.
  • the advantage from a nuke that pierces anti ends the game on the spot (without prior feedback to the enemy).

Windgen was designed with the points above in mind. Meanwhile you're trying to slap randomness onto a unit whose design does not permit it.
+3 / -0

USrankFealthas
6 months ago
Lets make glaive factories randomly make a detriment 1% of the time.
+6 / -0




EErankAdminAnarchid
6 months ago
Keep in mind that the nuclear missile itself costs roughly 3k metal. So does the anti. Also, so does Scorpion. Now, would it be fun to give Scorp a 10% chance to just randomly explode?
+0 / -0

LTrank[pikts]wolas
6 months ago
Lets some games be instnatly won due some natural disasters suddenly meteors start falling on whatever side of the map now and then. (Actually duke nukem is pretty close ot this).
+2 / -0


DErankPyrostasis
6 months ago
I do not understand how the last 3 posts are related to my (technically motivated) inital idea.
- Random Detri?
- Exploding Scorp?
- Natural Disasters?
They have randomness in common, I understand.
And they make fun of me and my idea.
That's sad. Upvotes for making fun of me. Sad.
Bye.
+3 / -0
Page of 2 (23 records)