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

Forum index  > General discussion   >

Finish the removal of targetting restrictions

42 posts, 2080 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 3 (42 records)
sort
RUrankpaShadoWn
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
This post has been downvoted below -5 and collapsed, click here to expand
You nabface should have been playing CoD4 campaign years ago where they dunk a tank with a Javelin.

Gunshits are in no need of rebalancing as in my last 1v1 i raped banshit mob with Stardust. Their low altitude and slow movespeed makes even bandits kill them.

After some thought i had came. To a conclusion that 0K would benefit from increased ranges on everything appropriate. I would go make a new topic on it.
+0 / -9


MYrankAdminHistidine
11 years ago
quote:
dunk a tank with a Javelin

What does an ATGM have to do with the topic?
+0 / -0
RUrankpaShadoWn
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
This post has been downvoted below -5 and collapsed, click here to expand
Some certain nabface wrote that SAM cannot be used vs ground targets. Javelin was an example of anti-air launcher used on tank.
+0 / -6


MYrankAdminHistidine
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
quote:
Some certain nabface wrote that SAM cannot be used vs ground targets. Javelin was an example of anti-air launcher used on tank.

The ATGM Javelin and SAM Javelin are two completely weapon systems.

Of course, there are actual dual-role missile systems such as the ADATS, just as there are units in ZK (Slasher and Defender) that can hit both air and land targets. You'll note that both groups are a distinct minority, however.
+0 / -0

AUrankAdminSaktoth
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
paShadoWn is the new neonstorm. Look at his post ratings. When someone drops to -6 it means you can stop reading their posts already.

This coming when I actually agree with him and think AA should be integrated with land, but it can't be done with current air mechanics. We'd have to change the game too much.

Stop encouraging him. We should grey out the posts of people with such poor ratings, honestly.
+4 / -1

DErankAdminmojjj
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
is
quote:
nabface
considered an insult?
+0 / -0

GBrankTheEloIsALie
11 years ago
It is taken as one.
+0 / -0
RUrankpaShadoWn
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
Exactly what i had faced all my life. You like the content, but you dislike the package. So you take content and thank me with mutes. I would speculate that you wont ban me because you like free food too much.

Btw nabface is a scientific term and refers to the specific enchantment placed on the subject's face, specifically forehead and eye sockets, with the goal of debilitating him. Prolonged exposure causes drop in free thought, willpower and loss of eyesight.
+1 / -2

GBrankTheEloIsALie
11 years ago
I'd ask you to stop whining about your life, but since you very openly admit to just be here in order to denounce people, i won't even bother with asking you to do anything. You'd happily start a flamefest instead.
+2 / -0

CHrankConnetable
11 years ago
This guy is obviously bad-mannered, which is indeed sad because it does not incline one to agree with him.

There are (only?) two notorious situations of targetting restrictions in ZK:
- AA defences vs land
- torpedoes-firing units/defences vs hover

I do not classify hover vs underwater units as a targetting restrictions (hover could sports a torpedoes launcher like the ship) but as a design choice.

Seems like the dev team is of the opinion that these restrictions should be removed but the implications/alterations to balance that this removal would bring about are not clear/need a lot of work to be figured out.

Meanwhile, no need to write post about this.
+0 / -0
UArankbrroleg
11 years ago
To work this we need to implement armor thickness, so aa cant hurt tanks, but can fleas.
+1 / -3


USrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng
11 years ago
alternately, we can ignore all the dribbly nab suggestions like this and get on with our lives
+4 / -0


AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
In light of this suggestion I went back in time and persuaded various engine developers to implement armour thickness. Here is the system in practice; This unit has thin armour http://code.google.com/p/zero-k/source/browse/trunk/mods/zk/units/armflea.lua#43 while this one has much thicker armour http://code.google.com/p/zero-k/source/browse/trunk/mods/zk/units/armorco.lua#43
+4 / -1
DErankNeonSturm
11 years ago
hp is not armour (did you forgot crabe?)
+0 / -0

GBrankTheEloIsALie
11 years ago
Crabe armour is HP for all intents and purposes.
+0 / -0

USrankAdminCarRepairer
11 years ago
quote:
Crabe armour is HP for all intents and purposes.


Wrong, not for all intents and purposes. When you repair it, the speed is based on its real HP, not its "multiplied" HP. When you damage it with 30 damage and it only takes 10 because it's armored, awards are calculated based on that 10 damage, not the 30.
+1 / -0

CArankPxtl
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
I thought repair rate was based on unit cost, not HP? That is, if you have two units that cost the same but have different health, they'll go from 50% to 100% in the same amount of time. Am I wrong about this?

That is, the reason the Halberd repairs so fast is its horrifying effective-HP-to-cost ratio.
+0 / -0


USrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng
11 years ago
uh.. its hp/cost ratio is waank. when closed it takes less damage, but generally its a pretty crap unit
+0 / -0


MYrankAdminHistidine
11 years ago
quote:
I thought repair rate was based on unit cost, not HP? That is, if you have two units that cost the same but have different health, they'll go from 50% to 100% in the same amount of time.

Yup.
+1 / -0

AUrankAdminSaktoth
11 years ago
Try using holdfire Halberds vs Archers and tell me hp/cost ratio is wank.
+0 / -0
Page of 3 (42 records)