| 1 |
The point was:
|
1 |
The point was:
|
| 2 |
1. I had to do something.
|
2 |
1. I had to do something.
|
| 3 |
2. UI
|
3 |
2. UI
|
| 4 |
3. Interaction/Choice/Subtlety.
|
4 |
3. Interaction/Choice/Subtlety.
|
| 5 |
4. Buffing antinuke is not a problem.
|
5 |
4. Buffing antinuke is not a problem.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
1. Antinukes were broken and some sort of helper gadget was required to make them work. It took a bit more work to make flyover intersection instead of point target intersection but some work had to be done and I think it was worth it.
|
7 |
1. Antinukes were broken and some sort of helper gadget was required to make them work. It took a bit more work to make flyover intersection instead of point target intersection but some work had to be done and I think it was worth it.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
2. The antinuke UI used to be bad. It annoyed me that it was perfectly knowable whether a scouted antinuke would be intercepted but this knowledge was not indicated by the UI. The static circles were a mix of guesswork and application of safe margins. The new UI is 'interactive' in that it teaches people about antinukes by highlighting the enemy antinukes when giving the relevant order (firing a nuke) and indicating whether interception would occur.
|
9 |
2. The antinuke UI used to be bad. It annoyed me that it was perfectly knowable whether a scouted antinuke would be intercepted but this knowledge was not indicated by the UI. The static circles were a mix of guesswork and application of safe margins. The new UI is 'interactive' in that it teaches people about antinukes by highlighting the enemy antinukes when giving the relevant order (firing a nuke) and indicating whether interception would occur.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
3.
Flyover
intersection
adds
subtle
choices
to
the
system.
People
may
now
want
to
consider
silo
placement
in
order
to
get
the
best
approach
or
force
the
most
antinukes
in
response.
Of
course
the
choice
may
be
lost
of
many
people
but
that
is
ok.
Antinukes
have
choices
too;
further
forwards
antinukes
are
risker
but
cover
more.
Previously
if
you
wanted
to
protect
a
base
you
had
to
make
an
antinuke
fairly
close
to
it.
Now
there
is
more
risk/reward.
These
are
good
choices
to
have
in
ZK.
|
11 |
3.
Flyover
intersection
adds
subtle
choices
to
the
system.
People
may
now
want
to
consider
silo
placement
in
order
to
get
the
best
approach
or
force
the
most
antinukes
in
response.
Of
course
the
choice
may
ignored
by
many
people
but
that
is
ok.
Antinukes
have
choices
too;
further
forwards
antinukes
are
risker
but
cover
more.
Previously
if
you
wanted
to
protect
a
base
you
had
to
make
an
antinuke
fairly
close
to
it.
Now
there
is
more
risk/reward.
These
are
good
choices
to
have
in
ZK.
They
are
not
vital
choices
but
they
reward
attention
to
detail.
This
is
where
depth
comes
from.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
4. Compared to the benefits above, a buff to antinuke is not a bad thing. This also somewhat equalizes antinukes between different map sizes.
|
13 |
4. Compared to the benefits above, a buff to antinuke is not a bad thing. This also somewhat equalizes antinukes between different map sizes.
|
Zero-K v1.3.6.1