| 1 |
As the person more-or-less responsible for the current state of sea (although there are many things I can't really change) I have a few comments:
|
1 |
As the person more-or-less responsible for the current state of sea (although there are many things I can't really change) I have a few comments:
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
First, is this based on any games played under the most recent patch?
|
3 |
First, is this based on any games played under the most recent patch?
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
[quote]The problem is simple: long sea is not fun.[/quote]
|
5 |
[quote]The problem is simple: long sea is not fun.[/quote]
|
| 6 |
Long [i]anything[/i] is less fun IMO. It's true that most sea maps are pretty rubbish but I don't have the time to fix that by myself.
|
6 |
Long [i]anything[/i] is less fun IMO. It's true that most sea maps are pretty rubbish but I don't have the time to fix that by myself.
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
[quote]Troll sea - Con trolling on Ravaged. Fun and awesome.[/quote]
|
8 |
[quote]Troll sea - Con trolling on Ravaged. Fun and awesome.[/quote]
|
| 9 |
Defeated by a single skydust in your base. The only reason this strategy still lives is general incompetence on the part of defenders.
|
9 |
Defeated by a single skydust in your base. The only reason this strategy still lives is general incompetence on the part of defenders.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
|
|
11 |
[quote]such as the Urchin's power[/quote]
|
|
|
12 |
Is Urchin even good?
|
|
|
13 |
\n
|
| 11 |
[quote]One problem is the non-viability of hovers and amphs on sea maps.[/quote]
|
14 |
[quote]One problem is the non-viability of hovers and amphs on sea maps.[/quote]
|
| 12 |
Should hover and amph be equally as viable as ships on a map which is mostly water? The answer most people have given me is "no". Claymore is indeed a problem which hopefully the most recent patch has rectified a little. In my experience Duck, Grizzly, Halberd and Penetrator definitely play roles in sea battles.
|
15 |
Should hover and amph be equally as viable as ships on a map which is mostly water? The answer most people have given me is "no". Claymore is indeed a problem which hopefully the most recent patch has rectified a little. In my experience Duck, Grizzly, Halberd and Penetrator definitely play roles in sea battles.
|
| 13 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 14 |
It's true that Scallop is beaten badly by Siren but the previous Scallop-ball meta was incredibly stupid.
|
17 |
It's true that Scallop is beaten badly by Siren but the previous Scallop-ball meta was incredibly stupid.
|
| 15 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 16 |
[quote]The Siren/Ronin/Seawolf combo is deadly. Seawolf is not best used as a raider, as they would like you to believe. They are support - making the enemy easy prey. The enemies can be then easily killed by the Ronins or Sirens. [/quote]
|
19 |
[quote]The Siren/Ronin/Seawolf combo is deadly. Seawolf is not best used as a raider, as they would like you to believe. They are support - making the enemy easy prey. The enemies can be then easily killed by the Ronins or Sirens. [/quote]
|
| 17 |
Two of these units were nerfed in the most recent patch. I suspect that the existence of Limpet may make Seawolf weaker. Siren and Ronin may need to be weaker still but that requires more data. Reef disarm missile may possibly also impact this siren/roninball strategy.
|
20 |
Two of these units were nerfed in the most recent patch. I suspect that the existence of Limpet may make Seawolf weaker. Siren and Ronin may need to be weaker still but that requires more data. Reef disarm missile may possibly also impact this siren/roninball strategy.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
21 |
\n
|
| 19 |
[quote]Zephyrs are really good too - 400M for the DPS or two razors AND mobility? Also, it has radar and good HP?! [/quote]
|
22 |
[quote]Zephyrs are really good too - 400M for the DPS or two razors AND mobility? Also, it has radar and good HP?! [/quote]
|
| 20 |
I've also been told that Zephyr is terribad (though I must admit I don't really agree with that assessment either). I'd have to check on why it has radar.
|
23 |
I've also been told that Zephyr is terribad (though I must admit I don't really agree with that assessment either). I'd have to check on why it has radar.
|
| 21 |
\n
|
24 |
\n
|
| 22 |
[quote]The Cutter deals microscopic damage and the Hunter is secretly a Dagger. [/quote]
|
25 |
[quote]The Cutter deals microscopic damage and the Hunter is secretly a Dagger. [/quote]
|
| 23 |
These units see much more use in 1v1.
|
26 |
These units see much more use in 1v1.
|
| 24 |
\n
|
27 |
\n
|
| 25 |
[quote]Some additional things - when a sea is controlled completely by one team, its impossible to take it back.[/quote]
|
28 |
[quote]Some additional things - when a sea is controlled completely by one team, its impossible to take it back.[/quote]
|
| 26 |
This is a problem. It's not obvious how to change that without making ships underpowered though.
|
29 |
This is a problem. It's not obvious how to change that without making ships underpowered though.
|
| 27 |
\n
|
30 |
\n
|
| 28 |
[quote]The underwater weapons feel wrong. They don't really have a good noise compared to ground and are really hard too see. They just don't feel satisfying.[/quote]
|
31 |
[quote]The underwater weapons feel wrong. They don't really have a good noise compared to ground and are really hard too see. They just don't feel satisfying.[/quote]
|
| 29 |
This probably can't be fixed.
|
32 |
This probably can't be fixed.
|
| 30 |
\n
|
33 |
\n
|
| 31 |
[quote]Make units on the seafloor cloakable.[/quote]
|
34 |
[quote]Make units on the seafloor cloakable.[/quote]
|
| 32 |
Due to the mechanics of how decloak radius works I have been told this is not technically feasible. This does limit design space significantly but it's just a fact.
|
35 |
Due to the mechanics of how decloak radius works I have been told this is not technically feasible. This does limit design space significantly but it's just a fact.
|
| 33 |
\n
|
36 |
\n
|
| 34 |
[quote]But let me give you an example of good interactions. Imagine a slow, hard to detect, aquatic moving fortress. Near the shore, the fortress jumps out of the water with jumpjets and becomes a static building, only movable with jumpjets. Unless the ground reacts quickly, it destroys the shoreline. But they can counter it. The fortress would have one flaw - the jumpjets take 45 seconds to recharge. [/quote]
|
37 |
[quote]But let me give you an example of good interactions. Imagine a slow, hard to detect, aquatic moving fortress. Near the shore, the fortress jumps out of the water with jumpjets and becomes a static building, only movable with jumpjets. Unless the ground reacts quickly, it destroys the shoreline. But they can counter it. The fortress would have one flaw - the jumpjets take 45 seconds to recharge. [/quote]
|
| 35 |
I think you have mistaken complication for good design.
|
38 |
I think you have mistaken complication for good design.
|
| 36 |
[spoiler]
|
39 |
[spoiler]
|
| 37 |
[quote]I do have some more clear ideas what to do with sea (for another post). [/quote]
|
40 |
[quote]I do have some more clear ideas what to do with sea (for another post). [/quote]
|
| 38 |
These posts always seem to work out this way...
|
41 |
These posts always seem to work out this way...
|
| 39 |
[/spoiler]
|
42 |
[/spoiler]
|
Sea - the problem