Anti nukes were buffed 2 times in a row - first increased static anti radius - second intercept nukes that fly through anti coverage not just that hits inside anti coverage - there is a mobile anti nuke called reef, which got a huge buff with the second mentioned change - nuke was nerfed, price increased by 1k so?! it makes nukes totally useless
+9 / -0
|
Just build  ,  ,  ,  ,  or  instead.
+4 / -2
|
As anti nukes became so powerful let's reduce nuke price to 4k ^^
+1 / -0
|
At 33 minutes a single anti stops two nukes at once in this battle: http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/361422Although that might be the intended behavior.
+0 / -0
|
Is anti too hard to tacnuke?
+0 / -0
|
    Sprung pls. At least make a long list of options! Is anti too hard to be disabled with  ,  ,  ,  ,  or  ? But hey, this gave me a random new idea that might be completely overkill: Add an energy grid requirement for antinukes to increase the number of possible targets for counters.
+9 / -0
|
quote:
But hey, this gave me a random new idea that might be completely overkill:
Add an energy grid requirement for antinukes all that is static and shoots to increase the number of possible targets for counters. |
+8 / -0
|
   [XIV]FlorisThe problem is that the low-end energy generators are too vulnerable - solars shut at the sign of trouble, and windgens are made of paper. Requiring low-end power to support MTs and Lotuses would make it too easy to shut the power off. I mean, such a change could be done, but it would require a heavy rebalancing of the low-end defenses and energy structures.
+1 / -0
|
|
|
Could reduce radius, now that radius also includes area behind it
+1 / -0
|
quote:
- there is a mobile anti nuke called reef, which got a huge buff with the second mentioned change |
Applicable only on sea dominant maps. Building a reef instead of an anti on a land majority map pretty much is an invitation to death as total cost would outweigh any benefits. quote:
- nuke was nerfed, price increased by 1k |
Nuke could probably see a 2-3k reduction in total cost.
+2 / -1
|
Would like the idea of static defence to require energy in order for them to function. Lotuses, Defenders, Faraday, Newtons and many more...Would bring a drop of realism to the game and less porcing :). Also if it will be implemented i think that all static defences( anti air and anti ground) will need a buff because of the energy cost they need and the grid needed for them to be powered up.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Would bring a drop of realism to the game |
We have been before here    Forever. Zero-K is not strafing for realism :| irl there is not need for giant robots. Other than that some limits to building medium level porc would be nice (HLT, Faraday etc.). It could be something trivial such as 10e in the grid or maybe slightly more. It could discourage newbs from making HLT fort around their spawn too. On topic: I do not think that nuke needs to be buffed.
+0 / -0
|
From my Point of view: - anti nuke from reef should be removed - static anti nuke should be floatable, so we could easily build it on water - as antis are cheap and have pretty huge radius we could have something better for scouting, as the most major problem with antis is that it's hard to scout all of them being cost effective(chainsaws, screamers, whatever) giving vulture a dgun same as on swift would be nice
+8 / -1
|
I think nuke is fine. If I build a nuke, and you build the appropriate anti, then I may be down in cost (depends on the scenario) but they absolutely have to protect that anti from everything or lose the game. It can also be very effective defensively, as the types of games conducive to nukes are also the types of games conducive to enormous armies and forward porc positions. If you need to build and protect two+ antis then the argument could be made that the nuke is making cost without firing. In team games where the map is large, a single nuke can require 3+ antis to protect against it, making cost by default. Anti's are dead resources, giving zero potential to forward your position in the game. Nuke's force particular responses and provide threat for so long as you've got one.
+3 / -0
|
quote:
- anti nuke from reef should be removed
- static anti nuke should be floatable, so we could easily build it on water |
Was about to suggest that
+0 / -1
|
quote:
as the most major problem with antis is that it's hard to scout all of them being cost effective(chainsaws, screamers, whatever) |
"1000 cost into Swifts, line move over target area, press D" is pretty much a no-brainer, and you get 2000 metal left to build silo + eos. Anti costs 3k iirc? That's cost made.
+0 / -0
|
leviathan should get its anti back because its much cooler than reef. also its way overpriced for being a mobile silo with just 1 missile type. you very rarely need it for more than 1 target, and in this case terra+cloaker+silo is still cheaper. reef almost has same range. could also use extended sonar range so people have something from it while its sitting around eating metal.
+4 / -2
|
I am 100% against mobile anti-nuke I would be 100% for leviathan having all missile types
+8 / -1
|
the suprise factor on the mobile submerged anti is great tho, thats pretty much the point. antis being mobile is insofar not a real problem as they will typically be in 1 place and not be able to get close enough to nukes that are being fired elsewhere (and they have small coverage). also, what about both? having all missile types and anti would justifiy a price way above the original 3000 (which used to be cheaper than protector afaik).
+1 / -0
|
