Sorry for getting off topic, but there is nothing much left to argue and it could easily end within 2 or 3 posts, so I keep the discussion in this thread. Anarchid didn't explain how is that worse than rushing heavy units in team games, which is a effective tactic but certainly beatable with 2 commanders, 2x resource and 2x BP. 1v1 and team games are played quite differently in 0K, so I think being able to have team gameplay in 1v1 could be a good addition.
+0 / -0
|
  qwerty3w, you start out with 20 BP. You start the game with 3/4m from comm and 3x2=6m from mexes, for 10. You'd reclaim the second factory with your comm, and if you skip the mexes to rush out lots of units, you have even more spare BP. You can also easily morph while you reclaim the second factory with your commander, which for an e-cell is practically a no-brainer. This is all pretty obvious and frankly shouldn't have to be explained, so no more derailing thx.     GoogleFrog so much of the philosophy behind Zero-K has been about breaking down borders and restrictions, making a free-flowing game based on physical properties. It has worked really well, we should apply our design philosophy to sea. Ships and sea are different enough to make a different game just on that: The units are really different, the factories are really different, the map (essentially huge and flat) is always really different, and there are lots of 'quasi-cloaked' units underwater. IMO Zero-K is amazing. More Zero-K is just better. This is why I want viable Tank and Hover and Jump and Spider factories, it's just more units, more options, more variety, more Zero-K. When Godde plays the 'handicap' factories and is competative with them (Which nobody else can do), it's amazing, it feels so good and so fun because it's so different to playing vehicle mirror matches over and over.
+3 / -0
|
Saktoth, You still need to explain why reclaiming your factory and share resource to an ally haven't been the optimal way to play team games. It seems additional 300m don't mean much when your opponents have 2x power for early defense, so long term benefit from one more factory become more important, with 2x expanding speed, your team would need that build power pretty soon, and having more unit options is valuable too.
+0 / -2
|
Who says it isn't optimal? It's just not the meta, except on Icy Run. Being fairly low elo you probably don't get to play with 2 comms in team games very often, but this is not theoretical. This is what actually happens. When you get 2 comms and 2 factories, you generally go air with one, rush out some scout, then reclaim your air or land factory depending on which is needed, and spend that reclaim metal to morph one of your commanders or rush out a unit. The only reason to keep the factory around is to do some stupid cheesy switch into or out of air. You simply cannot support -30 BP on +10 metal (Or even -40 on +14, with two support comms).
+1 / -0
|
My last post on the multi-facs topic: So the single best way to play 2v2 is to sacrifice one player's unit production for early rush? Which is some kind of inequality forced by the game mechanisms, some players would ask their teammates for a sacrifice once the community get used to that optimality. Perhaps the ploppable factories should only value 1m, they are free anyway.
+0 / -1
|
|
|
Well I'm not quite sure what would be best. I don't think sea needs to be exactly like land, but I also think it could benefit from some of the theories used to balance land. Unfortunately I find that sea has two main problems. Firstly ships are straight up more powerful for cost than other options. Second, other factories are pretty much incapable of interacting with each other. As to the power of ships it's unfortunate that they are more powerful than other factories per cost. This is sort of based upon the fact that ships cannot interact with land, however I think that this can be remedied somewhat. If ships had several bombardment type vessels (less than strider power but with significant range) and then ships no longer need to be more powerful than hovers or amphibs for having limited domain. I'm unsure if this would be easier to work with than ships with limited domain, but I think that allowing the sea to affect land battles would make naval combat more worthwhile and ships players would not have to be advantaged in open water. As to the second option, I've already talked about how I think amphibs and hovers need to interact more than they do now. Primarily it's painful to watch both sides contest some water with mexes inside and neither can do anything but build turrets to attack the other.
+0 / -0
|
Warlord and Reef used to be in ship factory. Sea has some of the best artillery in the game if you count those. The problem is this makes static defenses in the sea much weaker.
+0 / -0
|
Why don't you just try for a couple of days with your idea to make torp-launching units to have to surface to shoot, just to have actual battle to discuss? (like the "raider week-end")
+1 / -0
|
porkwise: sea is not land. why cant it be different? and its liquid and moving.
+1 / -0
|
If sea really should be different to land, they shouldn't basically share the same set of defense structures, sea could have its own version of llt, which can defense against all those air, ship, hover and amph startings.
+0 / -0
|
qwerty3w - originally (in AA) there were only 4 naval defenses - an OP Stinger HLT, the torp-launcher, a shoreline torp-launcher, and an underwater torp artillery. ZK merged the shoreline torp-launcher and the sea torp-launcher, nixed the underwater one, and let some of the land defenses build on water to replace the OP HLT. Then there was feature-creep of more of the land D going to water and here we are today.
+0 / -0
|
We can have a sea defense structure with 2 weapons, the first weapon can target anything in sea include hover and submerged units but cannot target units on land, the second weapon is AA. With these it could be a good generalist sea defense without being a OP threat to land units near shoreline.
+0 / -0
|
|
|
Now I think the main problem might be the domain based themes of factories shouldn't coexist with domain based hard counters, perhaps amph can have some bots that always float or have to float to move, while hover can have some partly-submerged units too, it's not like factory theme in this game has to be about terrain or domain.
+1 / -0
|
replacing or augmenting torp launcher with an all purpose sonic turret could help. ships sprouting wheels, legs and rollers so they can very slowly traverse land would help and be lulz. more interaction between amph, hover and sea would make sense and improve fun. torps are awful and boring. sonic, AoE attacks and other wizard means of letting all the differet types hit eachother would be good. changing ships to be more enjoyable to use would be great. changing corvette weapon so corvette combat is no longer 'bludgon eachother to death' would be great. especially if new weapon added fun micro of some kind that interacted well with other ships.
+0 / -0
|
|
|
Stinger could be a sonic-gun turret without changing its gameplay on land. Rename it the Bell to keep with the scientist-turrets convention. Also, 
+0 / -0
|
