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

Claymore is OP

31 posts, 901 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (31 records)
sort

SErankZnack
2 months ago
Too much damage
Too much health
Homing Barrel

Nothing in water could counter it. "cost-wise"

Please, prove me wrong.
+1 / -0

AUrankSmokeDragon
2 months ago
does mobile shield counter it?

scouts spread out?

i feel like they are not currently able to stop sea from dominating sea because i tried to use them to counter sea and failed.. might just mean i dont have the skills tho =P

+0 / -0


USrankfenrave
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

quote:
does mobile shield counter it?

scouts spread out?

i feel like they are not currently able to stop sea from dominating sea because i tried to use them to counter sea and failed.. might just mean i dont have the skills tho =P



Mobile shield would just be a priority target.
A claymore can be toggled to not fire and just sent in to kill an aspis, its projectile homes and it fires pretty quickly.
Claymore is just half the cost anyways, and would 1 shot an aspis, along with multiple other units.
Spreading out is surely a good counter, however due to how unit movement in the game seems to work, units will always move into columns before splitting up to get to their positions(i don't know why they do this and its very annoying, i have to basically make walls of attack orders to just get around this), so in the end, a claymore could attack when the enemy are moving around.
The only time they fail at controlling the sea is when:
A. you are not supporting them and stronger units are just killing them
B. a lack of AA, so bombers are killing them
C. Relying on them solely to control the sea, they can operate just fine when spread out.


They should be a glass cannon, not some aquatic cyclops.
+1 / -0


CHrankAdminDeinFreund
2 months ago
The only "effective" counter I've seen is suiciding very cheap units like daggers in the hopes of having the claymore kill itself. This requires you to closely micro those units to have them stick right next to the claymore. For me, the APM requirement is too high to match a mid-game claymore spam. At that point it's best to just give in and build claymore yourself, hoping the early-game suicide micro gave you enough of an economy advantage.
+3 / -0

PTrankraaar
2 months ago
the claymore power level was probably meant to try and keep up with strong ships before they got nerfed.

it's pretty hard to fight them with amph bots.




+0 / -0

AUrankAquanimTest
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

The current numerical state of Claymore dates from a time when its behaviour was a lot more janky and difficult to control IIRC. I believe it used to kill itself a lot more.

At the moment I would consider something along the lines of a cost increase.

(I also remember somebody abusing the depth charge mechanics to increase effective range or something... did this get fixed? Can anybody provide a reliable means of replication?)
+0 / -0


NOrankKingstad
2 months ago
haha yes just manual fire. The barrel will speed towards the target location and launch out of the water into the air landing further ahead
+1 / -0

AUrankSmokeDragon
2 months ago
the picture of a chicken above me looks like it has a head for a head... a penis head

im sorry i said penis so loudly

on land these suck allot .. if they did not have homing they would defs not be op
+0 / -0

USrankDrDuck
2 months ago
I've found buoys to be reasonably effective against claymores (obviously spread out in a line to avoid splash damage). Not 100% sure buoy can win at 1:1 cost, but seemed to be sufficient to at least act as a deterrent (slow damage & 60hp/s regen helps).

Theoretically, microed halberd(s) on hold fire could work as well. The claymore either drops the depth charge and damages itself more than the halberd(s), or the halberd(s) can wait until they are right next the claymore and then fire on it. Well, that would work if halberds were faster than claymores (96 v 99 elmo/s, respectively)...

Part of the problem seems to be that hover has exactly two units that can attack underwater units (dagger & claymore). This may be less of an issue in 1v1 or small teams (where raiders are more relevant), but in large teams that progress to heavier units more quickly, dagger essentially becomes ineffective rather quickly (e.g. once scallops can be quickly spammed). Then hover only has claymore to answer underwater units. And claymore makes underwater units irrelevant...

Maybe hover just needs a third unit that can attack underwater units, and then the claymore can be nerfed to be more reasonable?
+2 / -0


USrankfenrave
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

quote:
I've found buoys to be reasonably effective against claymores (obviously spread out in a line to avoid splash damage). Not 100% sure buoy can win at 1:1 cost, but seemed to be sufficient to at least act as a deterrent (slow damage & 60hp/s regen helps).




The problem here is that the claymore is faster than the buoy and will normally fire first without micro.
I'm basing this off the fact that amphbots are delayed in when they rise to fire, a good example of this is with archers, they only rise when the claymore is already in range, and they just effectively push it out of combat after its done its dirty work.
While i'm not sure about a similar problem with the buoy, i'm almost certain it still exists.

I believe this just exemplifies an actual problem with amphbots, they don't rise to fire when the enemy is in range.
I can speculate that this is due to the attack range being a sphere, so when a hoverbot is coming towards your ball of archers and buoys, they will only rise when the hoverbot enters the attack range that is on top of the water. Ducks seem to not have this problem, they attack as soon as anything is in their immediate range, same goes for scallop, I believe this is only a problem with rise to fire units.


+0 / -0


USrankthe_green_squig
2 months ago
I've always found it odd that Claymore gets depth charge and Siren only gets a sonic cannon. It feels like it should be the other way round. Let Sirens obliterate submarines as destroyers are supposed to do. They're at a higher cost point and slower than Claymores which means they can't be everywhere (and like most riots, vulnerable to skirmishers as a result) at once and as it stands, they're not that good at clearing the sea anyway.

Sonic cannon Claymore would be able to deter a certain amount of sea power, but perhaps wouldn't send everything on the water fleeing (or forcing micro heavy suicide runs).
+1 / -0

USrankrecneps
2 months ago
The simple solution is to remove the projectile's homing. It wouldn't outright make the unit useless, but rather provide a way to counter it with micro, and make it need micro to use against fast units. This would decrease how well it could be spammed.
+0 / -0


USrank_Shaman
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

Claymore is pretty unfun to play against as Amphs. It pretty much shuts down your 3 best options (duck, scallop, even Grizzley) and forces you to spam buoys which are then countered by lance.

As ships, they shutdown subs, and typhoons.

As hovers, they only shut down daggers.

Edit:

YES, they shut down grizzley. 5-6 claymores can take down a grizzley with minimal or no losses.
+0 / -0

AUrankisaach
2 months ago

Its counter if you are ships is literally "Try and make it shoot itself".

Alot of its issues also come from the other capabilities of hovers. Its a fantastic anti-sub, but the hover raider is already perfectly good at killing subs. Its issue is that its a extremely powerful sea unit in a tree thats already better than boats on sea, and on equial footing with land factories on land. Its a factory that does everything as good as the other factories without any real terrain penalties to offset it.


Id increase its reload time so its not a viable front line weapon and stop scout hovers from being able to attack subs. I think it still deserves a place as anti-sub or anti-heavy but it needs to have a narrower scope of where its useful.
+0 / -0

AUrankSmokeDragon
2 months ago
if hover scouts cant kill subs and claymore reload is slowed then sub spam will hard counter hover imho
+0 / -0


USrankfenrave
2 months ago
So if we nerf hoverbots anti-sub capabilities, what will the sea dynamic be like?
Hoverbots will be at a distinct disadvantage against subs.
However, they still will be very strong options against boats.
So heres the dynamic as i see it now(if hovers got nerfed)
Hovers<--boats
Amphs<--Hovers
Amphs-><-boats (this one really just depends on whos playing and who got set up first honestly.)

So whats lost here?
Hovers no longer dominate the sea meta due to their decreased strength against ducks and scallops.

The biggest problem that this creates a power vacuum, with no real threat from hoverbots, amphbots can effortless control the seas.

I believe this could be a time for boats to shine, maybe boats could get a new anti-sub unit, or a cost effective all-round assault unit.
+0 / -0

AUrankisaach
2 months ago
I changed my mind my position is now: Buff Sea
+0 / -0

AUrankSmokeDragon
2 months ago
some reasonable things being said here..

however if subs become a hard counter.. and if i see hovers and im playing boats..

ill just make 20 subs and he has to fac switch.. by that time i have evicted him from sea.. i suppose sea is supposed to be owned by boats?
+0 / -0


USrankfenrave
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

Depending on how the claymore is nerfed, that could be the case.
If the claymore kept its homing and damage, then no.
The claymore does 900 damage, a seawolf has 600 health.

Chances are, the hoverbot player will still be able to kill seawolfs relatively easily.

+1 / -0


ESrankShyrka
2 months ago
Scalpels counter Claymores. A Scalpel can survive a Claymore's depth charge and fire its missiles. It can fire a 2nd time and destroy Claymore (Claymore 8s reload, Scalpel 10s). Claymore will also fire a 2nd time and kill Scalpel, but Scalpel is 100 m cheaper.
Vs 2 Scalpels, Claymore is destroyed and no Scalpel is killed. If they spread out a little, only 1 Scalpel is damaged.
+2 / -0
Page of 2 (31 records)