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

Post edit history

Zero-K v1.9.12.0 - Bolas Tweaks

To display differences between versions, select one or more edits in the list using checkboxes and click "diff selected"
Post edit history
Date Editor Before After
12/9/2021 2:11:48 PMPLrankZenfur before revert after revert
12/9/2021 2:10:38 PMPLrankZenfur before revert after revert
Before After
1 My main point is - in the current environment supers almost win vs Detriments in team games, due to multiple factors. I think that we can all agree that it's boring. Yes, the simplest solution would probably increase the length of those usually degenerative games that require the superweapons to end. I mean here games which reach mostly sufficient artillery saturation that face off each other with all other units dying without coordinated effort of team members. Stalemate of shields and artillery. In the current scenario Detriment has way too many weaknesses, counters and slowness in its usage to compete with superweapons, and I think that would be still true even at lower price tag (like 20k), so I suggest changing supers instead. 1 My main point is - in the current environment supers almost win vs Detriments in team games, due to multiple factors. I think that we can all agree that it's boring. Yes, the simplest solution would probably increase the length of those usually degenerative games that require the superweapons to end. I mean here games which reach mostly sufficient artillery saturation that face off each other with all other units dying without coordinated effort of team members. Stalemate of shields and artillery. In the current scenario Detriment has way too many weaknesses, counters and slowness in its usage to compete with superweapons, and I think that would be still true even at lower price tag (like 20k), so I suggest changing supers instead.
2 \n 2 \n
3 Apart from all usual points regardings pros and cons that I've discussed in Detri vs supers, I want to let you consider another point of consideration: assuming that both Detriment and superweapon are game ending after x time after meeting the enemy, superweapons have another advantage that they are useful the instant they are built, and Detriment has to slowly tred first to the front, and then to anything meaningful behind the front to do damage. On many battlefields it can be between 30 to 60 seconds, which in usual economies of 200m/s translates to extra 6000-12000 metal cost before it is useful ( in race of building super vs building detriment teams to end the game) . 3 Apart from all usual points regardings pros and cons that I've discussed in Detri vs supers, I want to let you consider another point of consideration: assuming that both Detriment and superweapon are game ending after x time after meeting the enemy, superweapons have another advantage that they are useful the instant they are built, and Detriment has to slowly tred first to the front, and then to anything meaningful behind the front to do damage. On many battlefields it can be between 30 to 60 seconds, which in usual economies of 200m/s translates to extra 6000-12000 metal cost before it is useful ( in race of building super vs building detriment teams to end the game) . If you add that metal to Detri cost it is currently comparable in price to DRP. Yes, there are ways to speed it up like Djinns, but I haven't seen anyone actually bothering to do it.
4 \n 4 \n
5 It could prolong these games or it could promote looking for other solutions like shifting meta more toward nukes instead freezing all gameplay for x minutes to finish building the superweapon funneling all eco into it. 5 It could prolong these games or it could promote looking for other solutions like shifting meta more toward nukes instead freezing all gameplay for x minutes to finish building the superweapon funneling all eco into it.
6 \n 6 \n
7 I agree that extending these degenerative games is usually a pain and negative thing. I've updated my previous post with other, less popular suggestion that tries to sidestep that problem. 7 I agree that extending these degenerative games is usually a pain and negative thing. I've updated my previous post with other, less popular suggestion that tries to sidestep that problem.