Idk, would it have ended otherwise? The nukes seemed fine to me. The superweapons, well they're also designed for maps as closed as LLTA Complex, so it is hard to get right.

Also it wasn't just superweapons, it was Starlight, and both teams made one. So it wasn't really showing that Starlight is good, since we don't know whether the team with a slower Starlight could have just pushed and won instead.

I made a ticket about Starlight. Seems like a new bug.

quote: The winning move was to play safer with less front line army, cede some ground if necessary and rush the superweapon faster

Sounds to me like a dream game for a significant part of the player base (the ones that start in the back, porc in base, and do mostly bertha/detri/eco).

While I personally also prefer different types of games, I can't ignore the fact that other play-styles and preferences exist. Maybe we should just look for more ways to "cluster" people together by play-style rather than change the balance to allow "mostly" one play style.

Nuke question: is it currently possible for the team that gets nuked to determine sooner where the nuke will fall? (ex: by checking the direction the moment the nuke reached the highest point).

One nuke nerf would be to make it less effective against mobile armies (so, show where it will land "a bit sooner"). Then a reactive player could try to do something...

quote: --- the more complicated one tries to nerf OP stuff that keeps other OP stuff in check: - nerf nuke radius and buff anti-nuke radius by 10% - increase long range superweapon cost by another 10% (or something more complex where cost scales with team size) - nerf area shield cost - increase special damages modifier vs shields from 33% to 50% or 66% - nerf area cloaker cost - nerf silo's stun missiles (slight radius + duration nerf) - nerf silo's zeno missile range to keep it in line with the others, but make the lingering effect drain shields over time - buff silo's quake missile slightly - nerf bertha, maybe cerberus too, slightly

I think nuke is pretty good, but also that it is good that it is good. It is needed to generate single points of failure. I also think it has a good number of balance levers, so we're not going to run out of ways to tweak it. I have been thinking about nuke and my main thought is a slightly cheaper antinuke (200 metal?). Increased antinuke radius would seem to mainly be a missile silo nerf, as antinukes could be built further back.

Increasing superweapon cost by 10% feels like it would do almost nothing. Remember that this game didn't say whether spending 60k on a Starlight was good, since both sides did it. The losing team even assaulted the opposing Starlight with a Detriment, and it almost worked. They could have made that assault with an extra two Detriments. If a Starlight cost 70k then both sides would spend 70k. It wasn't about what is good. I think what you want is a superweapon that enables armies.

Area shield cost could be tried. I don't think too many people would object, but we do need some shields. I assume the aim would be to make stacking them less appealing. Modifying the non-damage to charge conversion is an interesting idea, and 50% is an enticingly round number. I don't think people would say that status effects are particularly good vs shields at the moment, except Shockley, which would still go right through. It would mess with Zeno though.

I think cloakers are doing ok at the moment. I don't see as many mobile cloakers as I used to. I wouldn't nerf them so soon again. Shockley and Zeno also seems fine to me, they're doing their job. They can stop pushes, but that is the risk/reward back and forth. I would want to see replays for these.

What isn't Quake doing, and would would Bertha and Cerberus need to be worse?

I don't think cerbs need a nerf. They are quite weak generally I think, but useful in certain situations, generally related to map control.

There is an essentially full map one that is twice as expensive, and a shorter ranged one.