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

Superweapons cost vs strider cost

17 posts, 937 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
I feel like striders are much more fun element of the game rather than giant superweapons that just force resign and they should appear more often. Detriment never gets built in team games, even though it is in a much better spot than before. I don't play a lot of FFA so I'm not commenting its balance, but for team games there is like 0 consideration what to build - it is always DRP - the cheapest, safest and most reliable and best out of options. It can kill enemy from the safety of your base without much risk once it's built and it counters absolutely everything.

I really wish that all superweapons costed closer to 2x the Detriment cost so the bigger striders have more incentive to be built in comparison. My suggestion is that the cheapest superweapon should start at 50k pricetag.

Also in another thread concerning Zenith there was a little bit of talk about superweapon balance and I brought a small detail to attention that I wanted to restate here. DRP is clearly the best in team games (and probably in a lot of FFA scenarios). I suggest a very small nerf to it that will help by taking a little bit of its power away to allow for more counter play. It's the most offending feature for me is the EMP stun time - it's almost equal to the Shockley at 25 seconds, which is way more than necessary to keep things stun locked when focused. It also brings all striders that attempt to escape it to a halt. I suggest to cut it down to no more than 10 sec. In some clutch scenarios I saw it would make a difference, mainly in trying to counter play it with a silo. I probably should have saved the replays so I have some more concrete evidence for AUrankAdminGoogleFrog that it matters.

Another small nerf that it could use would be make its range a little bit lower so it needs to be in a more risky spot compared to other superweapons.

I suggest 7500 -> 7200 or 7000. For reference, Big bertha is at 5600 range (using wiki numbers).


Another small change I'd make for all superweapons is to increase their footprint (by +1) to make them harder to wall off/terraform and protect from cloaked enemies. Basically introduce a bit more weaknesses that could be used for comeback in some clutch scenarios. Also bigger = more epic.

What do you think about those changes?
+12 / -2

2 years ago
good idea but detriments suck and superweapons are the only way to end a 45 min+ game. one thing i would like to see is drp and zenith be the same cost and see which one they pick.
+0 / -0

2 years ago
Maybe have mini DRPs as shoulder cannons on the detriment that give it longer range
+3 / -0
2 years ago
Just decrease the metal cost of striders. Usually a game has gone for over 30min. before teams can field even a DRP, let alone a starlight.
+2 / -0


2 years ago
I think superweapons are important to bring games to a climactic close and don't think increasing price would be a good thing, eternal fields of isis games sound no fun.


A bigger footprint would be nice to make walls less good at blocking missiles and berthas, but it's still quite possible to wall off a superweapon, making assault very hard...

Maybe superweapons should emit a gradual quake-like leveling effect that slowly terraforms everything within 400 elmos to be the same height as the superweapon? This could also make them appear in the fog of war.


Reduced stun time for DRP does sound good, I don't get why it has the stun bullet really apart from that it's pretty.
Should maybe be 10k damage and 10 seconds. Great for that army of minotaurs but not otherwise great.
+2 / -0

2 years ago
I completely agree that heavy striders like Detriment rarely get used. I mean, I have seen a few Detriments in team games, but they certainly never end the game, they always end up as a big metal donation, and I even saw once that when the enemy's detriment died they resigned. Detriment is certainly much better than it was, but it still somehow doesn't compare to superweapons, although, maybe it doesn't have to, I mean, do we want it to be a walking superweapon that ends games? If used correctly, it can actually be better than superweapons, and win the game, but that is only in a veeerry specific circumstance. Although, it only takes like 10-15 gnats to make quick work of them, maybe it's AA should be buffed a little? Ooh, I know, it could have some AOE AA, so then it could deal with things like gnats easier, but it would make no difference with everything else unless a cloud of 50 Likhos comes up.

But you know what I have never ever ever seen in Team games, FFA, 1v1, or any other game mode?

[Spoiler]
+2 / -0
2 years ago
This problem is also tied to map choices. I mean, if you play on a narrow porc map with one to two fronts, you have to start a DRP at some point. LLTA Complex and Storm Siege are perfect examples of such maps. It would be nice to try raising the cost of DRP and other SWs to 50k as PLrankZenfur suggested, maybe as an experiment for 14 days. It would not affect 1v1 at all and I think that most lobpot players would prefer games that do not end with a SW being built -> thus they would welcome this experiment. We could make a pool for that.
+1 / -0

2 years ago
That's a good idea, also what if Detriment could jump slightly higher and farther?
+1 / -0

2 years ago
I agree that striders are more balanced and fun. But if you increase only superweapons then we see nuke increase.
+0 / -0
It feels like the lobpot has "matured" enough to the point where some maps feels like they basically come down to super weapon rushes on maps like Stormsiege, Colorado, EvoRTS-Deserted_Gully-v01, Lost_v2 and Fields of Isis. I have even seen a super weapon on a small low economy map like Zed, lol.

No longer can you raise your finger and mock the "noobs" that go for the shiniest biggest weapons with the biggest price tag.

It is not uncommon to end up in a super weapon duel and even those can be quite fun IMHO although they are usually won by the first player to target the other teams superweapon. However scrambling shields, funnelwebs and terraform is a team effort or trying stun or bomb the enemy superweapon.

Personally, I would like to see this meta evolve. People are learning to use shields and terraform to protect their superweapons which can make superweapon duels last for quite a while.
If you give up too much territory to make a superweapon, the anti-nukes and the superweapon itself might end up in Shockley range, with subsequent stuns to the super weapon or even deep crippling nukes landing on the team that rushed the super weapon.

I agree that especially Detriments feel sad in the face of superweapons. Even though it might not be a Starlight that just annihilates any number of Detriments with ease, the other superweapons still causes a lot of damage and kill all supporting units which makes the Detriment easy pickings for an Ultimatum or 2 if the Detriments goes to deep.

In FFA, super weapons are still a big "Attack Me!" sign while the player who makes it, might come under attack from multiple different players where the striders have time to close the distance to the superweapon if that player doesn't have a large enough territory buffer.
+6 / -0
I spectate a lot big lobster games so from my perspective...

Agree. DRP sucks in bad way. It is default choice to end game. It should cost at least as much as starlight. Or make Detri cheaper.

At least from teamgames perspective make 3 big weapons more expensive by 10K so more detris would appear. And detri is so counterable cant say same about other superweapons. So it is not instaresign.
+2 / -0
2 years ago
quote:

I agree that striders are more balanced and fun. But if you increase only superweapons then we see nuke increase.


Trinity is one of the best and most balanced units imho (and it is counterable/preventable) I have no problem with Trinity being built more often.

quote:

It is not uncommon to end up in a super weapon duel and even those can be quite fun IMHO although they are usually won by the first player to target the other teams superweapon. However scrambling shields, funnelwebs and terraform is a team effort or trying stun or bomb the enemy superweapon.


Well I do not think that super weapon duels are fun, as you said, it usually comes down to who built the super weapon first. If the victory comes dowm to which team was 5k metal ahead or behind in superweapon being built, it feels kinda hollow. Nuking the enemy team is much more of a team effort than protecting a SW. Someone needs to scout with swifts, other player needs to build a silo or a widow, and then he needs to coordinate shockleying or stunning enemy antis with the player who has the Trinity, and to make the most out of nuking an enemy, its good if the rest of the team is prepared to storm the nuked territory. In order to protect a SW, you just need to spam (without any system) a bunch of shields and farradays around it, make a wall and send there a funnel. The most strategic thing of all, which is where exactly is the SW located (at which side of the map, whether it is behind a mountain, etc.) is decided by the first player to place a nanoframe. And he usually does not take this into account, he usually builds it right next ot his base.
+2 / -0
REMOVE ULTI AND STRIDERS HAVE MORE CHANCE TO END GAMES !

#PAAAARAAADIIIIINS !
+0 / -0

2 years ago
Ya true, but ulti can also be used to kill superweapons, I mean, every superweapon is one shot for ulti while Paladins and Detriments are a lot more.
+1 / -0
I wouldn't mind if Ulti had the same cooldown as commanders do with cheaper price tag (and maybe a pewpew gun to defend from fleas), so you need 2 for Paladin (increase damage if needed) and more for Detriment, but that's another discussion. They would still be a counter but not a very hard counter that can wipe your whole heavy army in a second when u don't pay attention.

Realistically increasing the price tag from 36k to 50k does not increase the game length that much - usually from around 6 minutes to 8 minutes with around 100 m/s delivered (half of team income on many medium+ maps with some grid and eco). In return we would see more nukes and Detriments.

Also DRP could use a spin-up mechanic - make it's base rate of fire much lower and increase it the longer it fires without rotating (with graphic feedback of cannons spinning faster, and still spinning & slowing down when firing stops to change aim). That way it's worse vs mobile targets and better vs static and funnelwebs.
+0 / -0
quote:
a very hard counter that can wipe your whole heavy army in a second when u don't pay attention.

When was the last time you used Ultimatum

quote:
REMOVE ULTI AND STRIDERS HAVE MORE CHANCE TO SHOOT EACH OTHER ENDLESSLY BEFORE GOING FOR REPAIRS !

ftfy
+2 / -0


2 years ago
quote:
Realistically increasing the price tag from 36k to 50k does not increase the game length that much - usually from around 6 minutes to 8 minutes with around 100 m/s delivered (half of team income on many medium+ maps with some grid and eco). In return we would see more nukes and Detriments.

Being down 50000 metal on the frontlines for 2 minutes can make a huge difference.
+1 / -0