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

Post edit history

B1769993 20 on Starwatcher 0.9 (Multiplayer)

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
12/3/2023 12:34:32 PMAUrankAdminGoogleFrog before revert after revert
Before After
1 [q]--- the more complicated one tries to nerf OP stuff that keeps other OP stuff in check: 1 [q]--- the more complicated one tries to nerf OP stuff that keeps other OP stuff in check:
2 - nerf nuke radius and buff anti-nuke radius by 10% 2 - nerf nuke radius and buff anti-nuke radius by 10%
3 - increase long range superweapon cost by another 10% (or something more complex where cost scales with team size) 3 - increase long range superweapon cost by another 10% (or something more complex where cost scales with team size)
4 - nerf area shield cost 4 - nerf area shield cost
5 - increase special damages modifier vs shields from 33% to 50% or 66% 5 - increase special damages modifier vs shields from 33% to 50% or 66%
6 - nerf area cloaker cost 6 - nerf area cloaker cost
7 - nerf silo's stun missiles (slight radius + duration nerf) 7 - nerf silo's stun missiles (slight radius + duration nerf)
8 - nerf silo's zeno missile range to keep it in line with the others, but make the lingering effect drain shields over time 8 - nerf silo's zeno missile range to keep it in line with the others, but make the lingering effect drain shields over time
9 - buff silo's quake missile slightly 9 - buff silo's quake missile slightly
10 - nerf bertha, maybe cerberus too, slightly[/q] 10 - nerf bertha, maybe cerberus too, slightly[/q]
11 I think nuke is pretty good, but also that it is good that it is good. It is needed to generate single points of failure. I also think it has a good number of balance levers, so we're not going to run out of ways to tweak it. I have been thinking about nuke and my main thought is a slightly cheaper antinuke (200 metal?). Increased antinuke radius would seem to mainly be a missile silo nerf, as antinukes could be built further back. 11 I think nuke is pretty good, but also that it is good that it is good. It is needed to generate single points of failure. I also think it has a good number of balance levers, so we're not going to run out of ways to tweak it. I have been thinking about nuke and my main thought is a slightly cheaper antinuke (200 metal?). Increased antinuke radius would seem to mainly be a missile silo nerf, as antinukes could be built further back.
12 \n 12 \n
13 Increasing superweapon cost by 10% feels like it would do almost nothing. Remember that this game didn't say whether spending 60k on a Starlight was good, since both sides did it. The losing team even assaulted the opposing Starlight with a Detriment, and it almost worked. They could have made that assault with an extra two Detriments. If a Starlight cost 70k then both sides would spend 70k. It wasn't about what is good. I think what you want is a superweapon that enables armies. 13 Increasing superweapon cost by 10% feels like it would do almost nothing. Remember that this game didn't say whether spending 60k on a Starlight was good, since both sides did it. The losing team even assaulted the opposing Starlight with a Detriment, and it almost worked. They could have made that assault with an extra two Detriments. If a Starlight cost 70k then both sides would spend 70k. It wasn't about what is good. I think what you want is a superweapon that enables armies.
14 \n 14 \n
15 Area shield cost could be tried. I don't think too many people would object, but we do need some shields. I assume the aim would be to make stacking them less appealing. Modifying the non-damage to charge conversion is an interesting idea. I don't think people would say that status effects are particularly good vs shields at the moment, except Shockley, which would still go right through. It would mess with Zeno though. 15 Area shield cost could be tried. I don't think too many people would object, but we do need some shields. I assume the aim would be to make stacking them less appealing. Modifying the non-damage to charge conversion is an interesting idea, and 50% is an enticingly round number. I don't think people would say that status effects are particularly good vs shields at the moment, except Shockley, which would still go right through. It would mess with Zeno though.
16 \n 16 \n
17 I think cloakers are doing ok at the moment. I don't see as many mobile cloakers as I used to. I wouldn't nerf them so soon again. Shockley and Zeno also seems fine to me, they're doing their job. They can stop pushes, but that is the risk/reward back and forth. I would want to see replays for these. 17 I think cloakers are doing ok at the moment. I don't see as many mobile cloakers as I used to. I wouldn't nerf them so soon again. Shockley and Zeno also seems fine to me, they're doing their job. They can stop pushes, but that is the risk/reward back and forth. I would want to see replays for these.
18 \n 18 \n
19 What isn't Quake doing, and would would Bertha and Cerberus need to be worse? 19 What isn't Quake doing, and would would Bertha and Cerberus need to be worse?