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

Forum index  > General discussion   >

The current state of tank

35 posts, 1265 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (35 records)
sort

PTrankraaar
7 years ago
quote:
raaar: The friendly fire from the Kodachis offsets their usefulness. They generally do more damage to their own ball than any enemy.


this was a significant problem when it had 15s burn time before the latest changes, now it's less. (is the wiki up-to-date?)

quote:

quote:

toad is terrible

I thought this was the consensus?


if it is, then why isn't this fixed immediately?
+2 / -0

PLrankZenfur
7 years ago
(edited 7 years ago)
The main problem for me with using kodachi + blitz is the speed difference - its often hard to use different units together when they keep getting ahead of each other. Yes we have tools for that (like holding control while ordering), no, they are not enough. It requires extra attention and micro. That comes at premium.

Also because vehicles have slow turning rate it means more often than not that your tanks will enter the flames. They also have different fight behavior - kodachi is hit and run, blitz is run and chase - so by default you'll chase through fire when not looking. Blitzes are not regenerating and while are tanky for a raider, it all adds up to more frustration.

@edit: also it means like with all other mixes: if you fight with say 1 kodachi 3 panthers, if the kodachi is killed (like by a lotus before fight began) the strength of your army drops disproportionally. Same if you loose the outlaw in your rogue ball.

+1 / -0

USrankOflameo
7 years ago
I don't even know how to use the blitz correctly after the damage nerf.
+0 / -0

PLrankZenfur
7 years ago
(edited 7 years ago)
USrankOflameo as anti air for ravens instead Ettin.

PTrankraaar
quote:
if it is, then why isn't this fixed immediately?


I think it's because we have dictatorship balance, not a community-driven balance. It is limited to one person's feelings, thoughts and most important - time for testing.

[Spoiler]

@edit2: also to add to this: it will probably stay this way until few things happen, among which:
- we should think of a protocol to get the community driven suggestions as something more reviewable and structurised than the forum discussion.
At first the suggestions should be vague like whether unit should perform better or worse in X scenario, or whether its in general too weak or too strong. Then if that's agreed upon; the brainstorm of ways to achieve that balance could be proposed/rated and if some suggestion is the most prevalent or similar - test it.
- we should help the experimentators that wish to experiment with changes with helping to test dev versions that aren't official - help with redistribution
- AUrankAdminGoogleFrog would need to step down from his dictator powers in place of something like admin summits - at least 3 admins, majority of votes to approve suggested balance change. Admin summits would review community changes chosen by the protocol. They don't have to be actual summits, just a vote with comments.

That's not full community-driven but a moderated-community-driven model.
+2 / -0


GBrankdyth68
7 years ago
Blitz+Kodachi results in more headache than it's worth in my experience. A single Glaive wandering into the path of your blitz+kodachi ball can do 1000hp of damage to you through friendly fire.

USrankOflameo: After making this thread I found them to be useful as raider interceptors on Comet Catcher. Just one big ball can both intercept raids, do my own AND fight actual assaults (rather than needing two different types of units for these things). Didn't matter that I was using inferior combat units because I could make a lot more of them thanks to greater map control.
I suspect this wouldn't work against good players though...

@zenfur: I'm not sure balance dictators are a bad thing. Introducing any form of democracy introduces a ton of politics (though these are also present with dictatorships...).
It'll also introduce inconsistencies (in theme, design, etc.) as the panel changes. You'll probably get a lot more catering for high level play rather than look&feel and things that make the game better for low level play.
Provided balance dictators mostly listen to and follow reasoned consensus (which can admittedly be difficult to distinguish from a couple of people making a lot of noise) they can work.
+2 / -0
AUrankisaach
7 years ago
I havent been around ZK long enough to really comment on it specifically. In the old days however of AA, it got worse the more say the community had. The people making balance complaints/requests are usually not at all impartial and are arguing from standpoints where they are emotional that they lost a game, or are arguing in favour of balance changes that personally benefit their playstyle.
+6 / -0


USrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng
7 years ago
(edited 7 years ago)
Almost nobody understands the game well enough to make sane & sensible balance changes, its a very complex game - even the conservative & sober balance moderation delivered by GF tends to introduce broken units on a regular basis, and he's been doing it for years. Democracy is not the correct tool for balancing RTS
+2 / -0

GBrankAdminDeinFreund
7 years ago
(edited 7 years ago)
quote:
Almost nobody understands the game well enough to make sense & sensible balance changes, its a very complex game

Sounds like you'd only want those with good understanding of the game to have a say. Why don't we use playerstrength to weigh votes then? That way @Godde would have as much weight as the next four players combined, because if you did round-robin 1v1s between those 5 players, Godde would win all matches 50% of the time.
+0 / -0


SErankPLT_Godde
7 years ago
Just because I'm highest rated doesn't mean I have a holistic view of the balance and the goals for balance that should be aimed for when changing the game.
I have become rather conservative when it comes to balance. Don't fix it if it ain't broken.
However, agreeing where the gameplay and meta breaks down isn't always easy because we don't all share the same vision for Zero-K.

I think the soul of the game lives in the community. Personally I am in favor of community driven balance changes but that isn't exactly a democracy either. It is more like a cult whose thoughts are shaped by the gods in the machine and the rituals that praise them with mouse and keyboards for blessing in virtual battle of win or loss.

Interpreting the machine spirits is fraught with nebulous intentions and many a soul have been led astray be evil forces.
This is especially common with zealous newer followers as they explore Zero-Ks soul in depth and with high intensity.
Disciples like DErankNeonSturm and unknownrankDrKran become false prophets as they are led astray by other gods and forces.
They seek to uncover the holiest of places but end up on paths that diverge from the path of Zero-K.

We were left tablets by previous prophets but they also have to be interpreted.
https://zero-k.info/mediawiki/index.php?title=Balancing_Guidelines
They do not tell us if artillery duels are blessed.
They do not tell us if raider domination on macro maps such as Comet Catcher Redux is divine.
They do not tell us the true diversity and the focus of every map and corner of gameplay.
We have to stumble in the dark here without a leader to show us the light.
We perform rituals but don't know if we actually do it because we love Zero-K or if the rituals themselves have become our second nature.
+10 / -0

USrankOflameo
7 years ago
That is a good point @Godde, what metric do we use to balance things?
+0 / -0
AUrankisaach
7 years ago
"They do not tell us if raider domination on macro maps such as Comet Catcher Redux is divine."

Definitely is
+3 / -0

PLrankZenfur
7 years ago
(edited 7 years ago)
USrankOflameo :
quote:
I'm not sure balance dictators are a bad thing. Introducing any form of democracy introduces a ton of politics (though these are also present with dictatorships...).
It'll also introduce inconsistencies (in theme, design, etc.) as the panel changes. You'll probably get a lot more catering for high level play rather than look&feel and things that make the game better for low level play.
Provided balance dictators mostly listen to and follow reasoned consensus (which can admittedly be difficult to distinguish from a couple of people making a lot of noise) they can work.


That's why I described autocracy - group of admins has the absolute power through vote (their own proposals) + they review/vote formalised, fleshed-out ideas that were forged by community's discussion.

I don't think it would help the situation much (the community suggestions) - community cant reach any consensus and most balance discussions (as you can tell from experience) are futile waste of time.

Balance dictatorship improves stability and consistency of the design but makes everyone (at least myself) feel not engaged in the process which works in the opposite of the open-source, community sourced project spirit.

If it were more people than 1 (Say 3 admins) the individuals could be more easily convinced to some viewpoint (by the community).

^^^^^ all of this is highly subjective stream of consciousness of depressed mind, dont take it seriously.
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
7 years ago
(edited 7 years ago)
quote:
That's why I described autocracy - group of admins has the absolute power through vote (their own proposals) + they review/vote formalised, fleshed-out ideas that were forged by community's discussion.

Nitpick: this is oligarchy

quote:
If it were more people than 1 (Say 3 admins)

Triumvirate!
+0 / -0

PTrankraaar
7 years ago
maybe they could submit a draft for public vote before it gets implemented, even if just to get a general idea.

all options have their issues.

The forum +1/-1 system is somewhat unreliable. For example, I often +1 dev posts about new versions to cheer for the fact they did work, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the changes, and avoid giving -1 as that would discourage people from posting at all. Most probably do this in a way or another.

+2 / -0

USrankOflameo
7 years ago
We can use it for free advertising and draft proposals as IETF RFCs.
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (35 records)