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

Long ranged commanders

81 posts, 2334 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 5 (81 records)
sort
15 months ago
what is wrong with turning a commander into an artillery unit? when fighting LLTs, hover has a super poor artillery. Sometimes I upgrade my commander to play this role. Its bulkier and has a much better ROF then lance; however, it still dies to raid units. If we nerf artillery commanders, we are nerfing any factory that can't use artillery well vs LLTs.
+0 / -0
To be clear, my position at this point is that I don't think I am as convinced of the need for change as GoogleFrog is, but none of the arguments against change have impressed me very much either.

quote:
Here is some testing. Against 14 Glaives:
A 7x range 1x speed beamlaser commander (2200 cost) survives with about 20% HP.
A Grizzly dies and 8 Glaives survive.
A Cyclops dies and 10 Glaives survive.

This seems to me like the clearest argument why a change is desirable.

quote:
Sometimes I upgrade my commander to play this role. Its bulkier and has a much better ROF then lance; however, it still dies to raid units.

The point is that the commanders we are discussing don't die to raiders, at least not easily. If you're using a long range rocket com, I don't think that is the subject of this thread.

quote:
I don't see how commanders are unique in this. ZK's unit set has several units that suppress a wide range of other units hard. It's very hard to use most early game units when getting shot at by a pair of firewalkers, or having a dante throw its incendiary rocket barrage in your general direction every 20s. Grizzly and cyclops's only major weaknesses to raiders can be fixed by adding 20% cost in cheap riots. Tank factory cries against moderators.

All of these units are clunky to use which imposes some pretty important constraints on the player using them. For example, Firewalker and Dante hinder both teams' ability to use light units. They are also all available to a player who happens to lose their commander while expanding in the early game.

quote:
ZK's full of this. The early big unit that dies or gets away, the likho bomb that hits the shield or gets through and kills a bunch of units, the surviving geothermal, the surviving superweapon. Some of them are even blind decisions, like guessing if/where the cloaked lances, ultimatums, widows or skuttles are.

In a way these high impact events create tension and make the game more fun.

As somebody who opposes morphed commanders much more often than I use them, I don't find the way this typically plays out with commanders very fun. Of course this is a matter of taste.
+1 / -0

15 months ago
I also agree disruptor bomb stands out as extremelly useful and relatively easy to use (even without range mods) but at this point suspect that if we keep pointing it out it'll end up getting nerfed again...
+3 / -0
On the topic of specialized weapons and range, the shock rifle is... meh. Of all things that I expected to be OP with range, that'd be the one.

-With max damage and range upgrades, the eng comm costs over 5k metal
-Phantom's single shot does 1500 (88dps) vs the commander 2700 (225dps) -- Two phantoms have more burst damage!
-700 elmo range for the phantom vs 960 for the comm.
-The decloak basically destroys the value of 260 extra elmo.
-Even with max speed boosts, the phantom is only 2elmo/s slower!

Buying seven phantoms for the same cost gives:
-10,500 burst damage vs 2,700 burst
-Similar total health 3,920 vs the comm at 5k.
-The phantoms would probably kill half of the 14 glaives. The comm.. 1, maybe 2?


Also, I noticed the other day while playing with a range comms that hellfire grenade's fire damage doesn't scale with damage mods -- sadde.
+1 / -0
quote:
As somebody who opposes morphed commanders much more often than I use them, I don't find the way this typically plays out with commanders very fun. Of course this is a matter of taste.

A certain degree of unpleasantness is par for the course, the things that usually get me swearing are lances, spammed impalers and the sudden arrival of a crab. (Also snipers, but I like that nerf that made them slow after firing, I have swept up so many after that.) (Edit: Actually maybe I sort of replied to something you didn't say, oh well.)

I support nerfs if certain builds are too powerful, but also I would like to see something given back in return, to some other build. In my particular world, I would like a guardian to be a bit more survivable at higher levels, but thats just me.
+0 / -0

15 months ago
Repeating myself,

NERF THEM ALL cause we had a "revelation" due to sleep deprivation!
See what I just did? a rhymeeee
+1 / -0

15 months ago
I don't see the reason why put any nerf for commanders at all.
They're a unique unit, you only get 1 per player and once they're gone they're gone. You rarely ever see anyone resurrect the commander instead of reclaiming outside of PvE games and even there that's rare. This is IF the corpse doesn't get destroyed into scraps that most anti-heavy weapons or attacks do.
If the Grizzly from comparison dies it's dead ok, but you can build 50 of them and you can reclaim the corpse to speed up the building of new ones without needing to invest into resurrection unit that costs 1300 metal just to get the 1st one constructed.

There are so many viable options to shutting down commanders that using one as a combat unit is just throwing away your one unique personal unit.
Just the knowledge of which factory the enemy has forces you to invest at least twice the factory counter worth into defending from that possibility.
If the enemy team has Gunships you need enough AA to prevent a commander kidnapping.
If they have Spiders you have to get thick line of patrol units running circles around the commander to prevent a single widow stunning you for half a minute.
If they have Hovercraft you have to have shields at all times to prevent cloak lances from just assassinating you out of nowhere.
If they have Cloakbots you have to worry about Snipers the same way as cloak Lances and Scythes are a constant threat from the start of the game.
If they have Shieldbots a single Racketeer hard-counters your commander from frontline action.
If they have Airplanes you are always one bombing run away from death before you can even react, you'd need to deploy all your metal income into AA just to get enough protection to deal with their air players investment into air.
If they have Jumpbots you have to worry from start to end of the match for Puppies, Placeholders, Jacks, Skuttles and Jugglenauts.

I don't see how Commanders being able to infinitely kill LLTs due to range is an issue then I don't know what to tell you about a 1000-1500 cost metal unit being a problem when you can do the same for half the price with regular units.

TLDR: Commanders already shit, no need to poop them up more.
+3 / -0

15 months ago
I think the nerf question is specific (-ish?) to the dual long-range laser strike build, which IMO mostly should hinge on whether or not sufficient skill is required to obtain sufficient benefit from it.

Anyone want to amuse themselves describing small buffs that other builds could get without being overpowered?

It is a bit sad to see in the source all the old weapons and modules which are no longer available. :(
+1 / -0
Sniper com was strong, they nerfed it
Bombard com was strong with arty cannons, they nerfed it
Bombard com was strong with riot canons, they nerfed it
Bombard com with lasers, they are going to nerf it either way since they do what they want.

Do you see a pattern here? Why bother with commanders in the first place?
Just remove them entirely and stop calculating/justifying their constant nerf AUrankAdminGoogleFrog since it's your game anyways.
I am at least happy that I have the game version which I desire developed by unknownrankShaman .
+0 / -0
quote:
I am not sure where this "revelation" that commanders should be less useful came from. As far as sleep deprivation is concerned, I think it is related.

quote:
NERF THEM ALL cause we had a "revelation" due to sleep deprivation!
See what I just did? a rhymeeee

ROrankForever if you have nothing better to contribute to this thread than personal remarks, please stop posting here.
+1 / -1

15 months ago
It's not personal remarks, I just stated that for no reason we are focusing on nerfing stuff with "investigations" that don't make sense and I am not the only one concluding the same idea. For the other persons here who wrote isn't it a "personal" opinion as well? or do I fit in a special category that is regarded as "I hate this guy, need to find a reason to block/ban him"

No worries AUrankAdminAquanim, I know you hate me, and it's okay. We don't have to like everyone in this world!
+0 / -0
ROrankForever you can say that you don't recognise or agree with the reasons for this thread, but everybody else (with the exception of CZrankpsaniac, who apologised afterward) did not make any personal assertions about AUrankAdminGoogleFrog along the way, much less repeat them like you did.

Do not derail this thread any further with (a) personal remarks or (b) whinging about being called out for your personal remarks. This is a warning.
+0 / -0

15 months ago
quote:
this is a warning
. Ok, AUrankAdminAquanim I agree and apologize for telling people they are sleep deprived.

I still consider it a waste of time to create tons of reports just to nerf a unit which doesn't make sense at all.
+0 / -0

15 months ago
We can at least conclude that commanders are a hot topic.

You know, I was pretty pleased with the recent krow buff, just try something out and see. I'm not a fan of pure nerf-o-rama, but its possible just to try some adjustments, both up and down, and roll back as appropriate.

Not many would likely even notice nerfing peak range on a weapon or two, but you could make a buff people would notice. What exactly, I feel a bit unqualified to wade into, but I could see the old arty cannon with range comparable to the rocket launcher, and nice slow arcing trajectory. Seems like water weapons are currently absent, how about a nice gauss for the engineer? Also nice "free" slow upgrades past level 5. Something....
+0 / -0

15 months ago
maybe we can have themed weekend, with strong commander stats, for the lulz?
+1 / -0

15 months ago
One weekend of Future Wars commanders in standard Zero-K.

This will be interesting!
+0 / -0
NOrankskuggmodzer0 those principals sound ok. I think I would replace vulnerability with juicy target though, as they are valuable to take out but are relatively tanky.

quote:
maybe we can have themed weekend, with strong commander stats, for the lulz?

Sure. Part of the idea of tweakunits was to make weekend mods easy to apply.

quote:
You're underestimating how much the cost to get there matters (assuming you'd keep the 150m cost and the -1 speed penalty, which is about 2.5%). In your case i'd have to pay over 2x as much and would end up with 10% less range.

I said this:
quote:
I don't see any reason to let beam laser go beyond 440 range. This corresponds to eight modules with 4% range each. If we want to flatten the ranges somewhat then a combination of 2% base range + 6 absolute range would also work. The module could be a bit cheaper to compensate.

I don't think the module would stay at 150m.

What is actually wrong with nerfing all range caps, rather than just setting an arbitrary cap on beam laser? If the specialised long range (380+ base range, like missile launcher or sniper) need more base range then couldn't they just have it?

quote:
I don't think this is significant. In ZK mobile build power is dirt cheap. Welders and shieldbot builders are particularly effective at front line repairing and reclaiming. It's much better to have the commander cloak and keep the enemy guessing.

On paper yes, but it doesn't seem like it in practice. Constructors take a long time to walk to the front and are juicy targets. It is not uncommon for mobile BP at a front to mostly or entirely commanders.

quote:
In a way these high impact events create tension and make the game more fun.

Yes, but there is such a thing as being too swingy, and a lack of counterplay. Take the Glaive example. Against Cyclops or Grizzly you can dodge or spread to mitigate damage, but against beam laser comm there is none of that. If Cyclops or Grizzly have riot escort then you can can try to pick off or pressure them out of the way, but when the comm is also a decent enough riot (ie beating half its cost) then there is none of that.

quote:
I don't see how commanders are unique in this. ZK's unit set has several units that suppress a wide range of other units hard. It's very hard to use most early game units when getting shot at by a pair of firewalkers, or having a dante throw its incendiary rocket barrage in your general direction every 20s. Grizzly and cyclops's only major weaknesses to raiders can be fixed by adding 20% cost in cheap riots. Tank factory cries against moderators.

Firewalker is awkward and very vulnerable to snipers, bombers and raiders. Dante is a strider, so it does nothing for 3500 metal. Grizzly and Cyclops aren't only weak to raiders, and having to support them with riots is the whole point of how ZK units are designed.

Let me belabour this point as it is an important one. When someone says "Well a mix of units X and Y is more powerful than just Z" or "Well a weakness of unit X can just be covered by unit Y" my answer is "Good". This isn't a problem, it is by design. Compositions are meant to be much more powerful than individual unit types. The more unit types the better. This is to reflect how much harder it is to coordinate and maintain an army that depends on many unit types being present.

An army of one unit type is trivial to manage. Just set your factory to repeat, spam Ctrl+Z, draw some line formations, and make sure it fights what it is good against. There is very little to keep track of. But once you add even one extra unit type there is so much more to consider. Different units have different speeds, optimal fighting ranges and spreads, enemies that they prefer to fight or run away from, and want to retreat at different points. Compositions tend to lose units at different rates (consider Ogre + Minotaur), which has dynamic implications for a factory repeat queue - another thing to manage. The more defensive units of a composition can be picked off or pushed out of position, until you suddenly realise that you don't have enough riots or AA. None of this happens with a viable army of one unit, or, with a single commander. With three or four required types it gets even more complex, and army power is the payoff for this complexity.

So I don't care if it is in fact true that some combination of Grizzly and Reaver can do everything better than any commander. A commander is one unit, while Grizzly and Reaver are two unit types. The combination is supposed to be better. I only care when the statement goes the other way, that is, if there was a commander that was about as powerful as a (reasonable sounding) combination of units.

Finally, a bit of nuance. Armies aren't made of only one, two, three etc... unit types. An army might be primarily one unit type with a little bit of support from a second. In this case you could remove the second unit type and the army would mostly be fine, for a while. It depends on how much power the army loses, or vulnerability it gains, if the second unit is removed. It isn't strictly about cost ratios. So I would still consider Ripper + Fencer to be a two-type army, since the few Rippers are protecting against being overwhelmed by raiders. This is relevant to commanders because the best ones don't act completely alone. The beamlaser commander in the replays I linked had Buoy support, but to my eye the Buoys were secondary. It was the commander that was doing the heavy lifting.

HRrankMajo yes you can shut down commanders, but you can also shut down anything else. It isn't a question of whether counters exist, it's about whether counters are efficient enough to deploy. It is about momentum and pacing. Where is your opponent going to find two cloaked Lances if they have been pressuring you all game while morphing up?

Does anyone else have anything to say about this?
quote:
Burst is important. Consider a bunch of Glaives running at a commander or other heavy unit.
  • The beam laser commander kills a Glaive every 0.8 seconds.
  • A Grizzly is lucky to kill more than two Glaives every 6 seconds.
  • A Cyclops probably kills a Glaive every 3.5 seconds, unless they dodge.

Here is some testing. Against 14 Glaives:
  • A 7x range 1x speed beamlaser commander (2200 cost) survives with about 20% HP.
  • A Grizzly dies and 8 Glaives survive.
  • A Cyclops dies and 10 Glaives survive.
  • A Scorpion (no dgun) survives with about 40% health.

Things are much more complicated against skirmishers. I tried Ronin, but the commander can dodge Ronin at max range near-indefinitely. So here are results with the Ronin trying to close distance to increase accuracy, while the defender tries to dodge and retreat.
  • A 7x range 1x speed beamlaser commander (2200 cost) survives with about 15% HP.
  • A Grizzly dies and 10 Ronin survive.
  • A Cyclops dies and 13 Ronin survive.
  • A Scorpion (no dgun) dies and 7 Ronin survive.
A lot has been said about commander power in general, but my primary concern is the way that the particular commander tested above appears to outclass similarly priced demi-striders at a really common task (fighting light units). I contend that the above is violating the principal of commanders being less efficient than units, so it seems like a good basis for a targeted nerf. If commanders are much much less efficient than units at some other role then they could be buffed, but here it seems like they are more efficient so should be nerfed.
+0 / -1

15 months ago
quote:
One weekend of Future Wars commanders in standard Zero-K.

DEAR LORD

I don't play much FW, but that bombard comm is insane.
+2 / -0

15 months ago
quote:
A lot has been said about commander power in general, but my primary concern is the way that the particular commander tested above appears to outclass similarly priced demi-striders at a really common task (fighting light units).

How about disallowing the 2nd base laser? One line in code. That might not be quite sufficient to meet your goal, but it would take a chunk out of the effect at longer ranges, which is probably the powerful part anyway.

Feel free to add a commander christmas present somewhere else!
+0 / -0
quote:
Here is some testing. Against 14 Glaives:

A 7x range 1x speed beamlaser commander (2200 cost) survives with about 20% HP.
A Grizzly dies and 8 Glaives survive.
A Cyclops dies and 10 Glaives survive.
A Scorpion (no dgun) survives with about 40% health.

Why are you comparing the anti-raider capability of Cyclops/Grizzly (heavy skirmisher) against a beam commander? (heavy riot)
Why not juggle or dante?

And the tests have a bias anyway - since you are claiming the com has a 2200 cost, you should be doing a Grizz + lvl1com vs 14 Glaives encounter in comparison to the morphed com encounter.

quote:
but my primary concern is the way that the particular commander tested above appears to outclass similarly priced demi-striders at a really common task (fighting light units). I contend that the above is violating the principal of commanders being less efficient than units, so it seems like a good basis for a targeted nerf. If commanders are much much less efficient than units at some other role then they could be buffed, but here it seems like they are more efficient so should be nerfed.

There is so much wrong with this, why are you hurting my soul with bad statistics, a level 1 commander isn't worth 0 metal, commanders are horribly inefficient...

Also...
Cheap strike 1550 5200 429 288 42 3.355 0.186
Mid strike 2200 5800 503 288 42 2.636 0.131
They can't both have 42 speed. Range module reduces speed.
+2 / -0
Page of 5 (81 records)