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

new unit needed - mobile anti

48 posts, 1170 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 3 (48 records)
sort


DErankChesti
2 months ago
Since the boringness of nukes in teamgames why shouldn't there be a mobile antinuke?
+4 / -0

NLrankWesley
2 months ago
#BringbackReef
+2 / -0

PTrankraaar
2 months ago
it's unreasonably hard to protect from nukes when the opponents use emp missiles and widows properly.

+2 / -0


CHrankConnetable
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

and a mobile nuke then? (that can only shoot once to balance it if needed)
+0 / -0



EErankAdminAnarchid
2 months ago
You're suggesting pretty much to remove the nuke, then.
+1 / -0


DErankkatastrophe
2 months ago
oh that would be great
+0 / -0

FIrank[ffc]
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

we have mobile nuke, its called detriment it has also has sidearms
+3 / -0


AUrankSnuggleBass
2 months ago
Because mobile antinukes inevitably get cloaked and become a non-interaction.

I do think defending against nuke feels terrible though. Investing 3000 metal+ because you have to, not because you want to, and then spending disproportionate attentional resources defending that investment... just to not lose. You could be doing something cool like strider...
+3 / -0


CArankballofdoom
2 months ago
I disagree SnuggleBass if you look at the cost effectiveness of the antinuke its not much of an investment. to be able to fire ONE nuke its like a 12K metal investment and like 3 mins of waiting while the anti nuke is only 3k. and even if it gets emp then that is like another 500 metal for the person who wants to nuke, you could build 3 anti nukes and it still wouldn't cost as much then trying you lunch one nuke

+2 / -0


AUrankAdminAquanim
2 months ago
Personally I kind of like the fact that games end at some point.
+11 / -0


AUrankSnuggleBass
2 months ago
It's not about how efficient it is, it's about how much it costs.

I'm not saying antinuke is bad against nuke. I'm saying antinuke costs as much as a strider and doesn't even move. I never want to build it, not because it doesn't work, but because it's boring and stops me doing anything else.
+2 / -0


GBrankdyth68
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

PTrankraaar
quote:
it's unreasonably hard to protect from nukes when the opponents use emp missiles and widows properly.

Is it?
Without giving anything away:
Anti-Widow protection can be trivially done for around 300 metal.
Anti EMP can be done for 2400 and some scouting and is just generally useful.
+0 / -0

DEranksnoke
2 months ago
quote:

Anti-Widow protection can be trivially done for around 300 metal.

i know some nice widget for this
+1 / -0

MXrankmoleculeman88
2 months ago
an mobile anitnuke well be waste of money and would easily be destroy, zero-k has a lot of capabilites and one is a see that there was a unit before. an air carrir unit, like the krow but bigger it would be a lot betterto get that back and with coding give it antinuke capabilites and nuke capabilites. an air mobile missile silo unit in the sky, i mean change some configuracion on the unused nebula and make that an antinuke missile silo. only air figthers or berthas can take it down.[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/%D0%A1-400_%C2%AB%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%83%D0%BC%D1%84%C2%BB.JPG
see s-4000 missile system a mobile system like this opreating like unit and not like anti nuke. it would be effective but it's better to see if u put an antimobile nuke defense it would be good to be able to have like nebula aa defense. but everyone would be complaining that it will be overkill. realtiy zero-k should also think about making a satelite unit. yes one that can shoot down missile and all missile silo attacks. inferno and emp misilles. nothign stop silo missile only shields. zero-k can creat a level above the sky that can be shown on the screen and with a unit in the air. that cannot be strike down bu normal aa defense but make lucifer defense aa be able to kill it becuase it uses lasers.that way zero-k open to a new gamma of space defenses.a spy satelite that can cost 100 metal and airbase can make it and the airbase can make a satelite missile unit in the air. and a new superweapon like a satelite that can fire solar heat and or kinetic blast. not like the the quake missile silo has. no one uses that i have never seen anyone use that before -_- and it's just there sitting like nothing. it should be augmented to make it more destructive like half destructive than a fire missile. like a medium size ratio blast than the fire missile and tears down locust and units.brings there hp half that way missile silo can send a bunch them and will be used finally ;D just positive feedback.
+0 / -0



RUrankFirepluk
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

We already had a situation with mobile anti nuke in sea on Reef which was removed for good reasons.
Mobile anti can be moved in a matter of seconds covering another area, can be cloaked and almost impossible to scout and destroy without destroying everything else in path to it. Such situation is ground for stalemates and porc festivals which are way more boring that nuke.

Proper and efficient usage of nuke requires - skill -., especially when you are in a situation where u are lacking metal.
Just going to describe what I do when managing my nuke under tight conditions.
1. Stockpile at high priority with metal reserve enabled.
2. Limit stockpiling to a single missile to allow scouting/anti disable.
3. Scout, depending on map it takes 5-10 swifts + air factory cost. Scouting alone works just for a short period of time as enemy may make new anti nukes and you have to re-invest in scouting. This obviously is not free and costs metal.
4. Now you need to disable/destroy previously scouted anti nukes. This again requires both time and metal, be it either silo or widow
5. Nuke

Failure at steps 3-4 leads to a failed nuke attempt and puts you back a fortune(5k or so metal - shot, scouting cost, disable anti cost). Nuking area covered by 3-4+ antis can be a real challenge and it's pretty interesting both to execute and watch.

So as you can see nuke never comes alone(maybe only if it was rushed and enemy was dumb enough to not scout it - well they deserved to be nuked then).
Nuke = silo cost + missile cost + scouting cost + disable anti cost + time to do all of this before the scales is tipped in enemy favor and you lose the game.

Mobile anti completely ruins any interaction between nuke offense and defense which is bad.
You could try to make static anti cheaper but it may ruin the balance and make nuke useless(it's already kind of been nerfed directly and non directly couple of times - anti now protects in all nuke fly-by area instead of just zone where anti placed and nuke silo used to be cheaper before)

There is also a concern about map size - the bigger the map, the more efficient nuke is. So, say, on 12x12 map 3k cost anti nuke is insanely cheap as a single anti covers most of the map, but on 20x20 map 3k cost anti may be pretty expensive to cover all vital areas.
But again, this is in the current meta-game where lobsters like to sit and make porc cities instead of making a dynamic movable army which is way less susceptible to a nuke. Let's say all lobsters will expand and make mobile army in 20x20 map, - nuking front will be almost useless and back can be protected just by 2 anti nukes which is very hard to destroy(out of silo range, covered by 200m flea line, team has air to intercept bombers).
+15 / -0

ZArankAstran
2 months ago
On the one hand Firepluk makes it sound like its really hard to nuke somebody. To a noob, maybe it is, but I can vouch for a fact that experienced players like himself, Izirayd, 4hundred and company have it down to a fine art. I've actually built as many as six antis before and had Izi disable them all in 2 silo salvoes and feed me the hot mushroom.

On the other hand the nuke / antinuke dimension to ZK is actually pretty cool and rewards scouting and systematic play. Playing the nux game means trusting that your team can do without the 10000 odd metal that nuking costs, and holding the frontline while you play simcity at the back. You also dare not mess up because that's an expensive toy you have there and its going to become a magnet for bombers, ultis, scythes and bertha. I dunno if it still works but pluk used to do some "interesting" things to nukes with Athena.

So I'm in two minds.

A mobile anti is clearly very strong, and it essentially removes nux from the game if its cloakable as well.

May I suggest that if this idea is taken seriously, the following criteria be considered for Mobile Antinuke:

1) Not cloakable. This makes sense because its probably using active sensors to sense incoming warheads
2) Much reduced intercept radius (at least half) of interception compared to regular anti
3) Slow, so that it can't be rushed from place to place. Yeah people might airlift. That's life.
4) Double reload rate compared to regular anti so it can't counter 2x nuclear silos on its own.
5) Singu-sized or fusion-sized explosion if it dies. This is to force allocation of resources to protect it.

What would the role of it be?

Clearly since every player will automatically set it to patrol a circle around their main base, it will be to provide some serious point-anti-nuke defence to critical areas. It gives a team a chance to survive a surprise nuke rush (is there even such a thing?) and to build regular anti coverage. It will be able to provide a degree of protection to frontlines and to masses of units like shieldballs.

I'm not entirely sure we even need a mobile anti, and really the deciding reason for making this is: does it make the game more fun or less fun? I'm 50-50 on that.
+1 / -0


CHrankConnetable
2 months ago
(edited 2 months ago)

I think static anti is fine, but what about decreasing slightly the covered area (and the cost) ?

Similar to AA, you could better choose which area to protect in priority and since you would not protect all antis the way you do for the current ones which are critical, nuke would be less "all-or-nothing" weapon for the attacking team. There would always be a bit of battlefield not covered or to be easily disabled.

Maybe also revert the change whereby anti blocks nukes which are only flying through its area or, better, make it a bit like air vs AA, so that nuke flying through an anti area (but hitting an uncovered space) would suffer a partial loss of damage, but not a complete stop. If you really need a RL explanation, you could say that the nuke lost a couple of warheads but not all of them (not very realistic I know but who cares).




+2 / -0

MXrankmoleculeman88
2 months ago
u know making a floating satelite ant air unit is quite hard to handle, i'm speaking a different dynamic to add a antinuke unit that moves. i say only to make the game more fun and interesting, if a anti mobile unit that destroy nukes is considered more serious. and we can add that and more to make effective and expand the zero-k universe. we have to give nuke more capabilities i see modern nukes have inside like 2 or 3 warheads to prevent interception, u know before a nuke gets intercepted the nuke splits its warheads and sends one in one direction and another in another direction. multiple warheads makiong the need of more anitnuke and better yet a mobile antinuke unit that gets accompanied by anti aa units. that way we create a new way of using the nuke. sending one nuke it too easy. as astran says 4hundred, izirayd, and firepluk can make nukes fast and kill the game easy . lets make it hard for the best of the best that way noobs and middle players can beat nuke strategy and enhance it and make it fun.we all shouldn't just have this discussion and all of just say no but be more open to have units, not new ones but old ones and change them and give this dynamic. nukes getan expansion in thier level. and giving the the right metal make a small unit that can carrry a breifcase nuke model, that infiltrates, i don't say to neglect the balance nuke strategy that already exist, but expand it to make micro tactics more affordable. give like an ultimatum and make it expensive like a paladin and make when it's destroyed it cna blow up like a nuke. expanding nuke capabilities. and give a player the ability after building a nuke to detonate a nuke on purpose on it's base that way if i go down i take my opponent with me -_- in glorious flame an epic end to a player. giving a kamikaze strategy as well.
+2 / -0


GBrankdyth68
2 months ago
MXrankmoleculeman88 : Please use punctuation and paragraphs, it's very hard to read otherwise. >_<
+9 / -0

MXrankmoleculeman88
2 months ago
sorrryyyyyiiii i had things to do and i write fast and i forget things were all human u know
+2 / -0
Page of 3 (48 records)