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

Nanoframe spam is a problem

16 posts, 624 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
20 days ago
BAN nanoframe spam.

Nanoframe spam is still to overpowered, and abusive. At this point an artifical cap of something like 2 nano every 5 seconds per con is needed.
+2 / -0
20 days ago
I don't think it should be a rule, it should be something solved with game mechanics. Ideally low value nanoframes would not exist at all other than visually for the opponents, unless they deliberately want to attack it. Projectiles could phase through (while still damaging them), units could be able to trample them, and it should not effect pathing. Also have a-move ignore them, and not emit radar blips either.
+5 / -0
The way I saw this post, thought "I bet if I go to his profile there's going to be a game he lost against USrankfahx within 10 minutes of him making this post", went to Tarkin's profile, and found a game he lost against fahx 7 minutes before making this post.

He's totally right though, it's very stupid and should be mercilessly obliviated from the game.
+5 / -0

20 days ago
Is it that big of a deal?

Like... At this point... There is always going to be a discussion surrounding how we should change the game. If a change goes through => next complaint. If no change goes through => continue to complain. Balance discussions are an outlet for perennial gamer cope.

So what is the actual issue? Be specific. What does the existence of _ in the game allow for that shouldn't be in the game?
+0 / -0
Nanoframe spam is bad because unlike the vast majority of tactics in Zero-K, it relies 100% on unit stupidity to work (since the physics based part of it where you'd physically block units from advancing with nanoframes was already patched out). The 0 value (okay, technically 7 value or whatever) nanoframes are fundamentally worthless, but units (typically skirmishers) with substantial reload time will shoot at them anyway instead of at the con (usually a commander) making them, allowing it to delay until reinforcements arrive, or outright escape. While use of ignore bad targets unitstate is supposed to prevent units from shooting at nanoframes, ignore bad targets is itself ignored if the unit is on fight move, and as it just so happens the units which nanoframe spam is already the most effective against (skirmishers) are also the ones you'd want on fight move the most (as it ordinarily allows them to take advantage of their superior range). This means that working around a nanoframe spamming com requires giving the units an attack command specifically targeting the commander, which also means that they're more vulnerable to being led into a trap if their controlling player shifts attention somewhere else, compared to if they could be left on fight move.

In principle, any tactic which only ever works because of the stupidity of the units its deployed against has no place in Zero-K.
+5 / -0
Idea: for nanoframe which is not in build (no builder is building them) and in 600m range of enemy, remove them and turn into wreck or return resources, or decay fast.
+0 / -0


19 days ago
See I want to say that people should at least watch the replay before suggesting solutions, because it is very easy to make wrong guesses. But CArankTarkin didn't provide any information so I can't really fault people for not seeing USrankStuart98's reply.

Perhaps I should just link this: https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/693144755752665606

My two principles for nanoframe spam mechanics are:
  • They should address actual rather than theoretical issues.
  • They shouldn't cause bugs or weird behaviour for "ordinary" play.
Basically, the ideal would be that nobody does nanoframe spam because it doesn't give any benefit, for a bunch of obscure edge case reasons, but that once nobody does it anymore nobody has to think about those reasons.

Anyway, try this: https://github.com/ZeroK-RTS/Zero-K/commit/8d35f54567d2fcbd3cf6830e397b561d8d177c3a

I want to see what kinds of bad edge cases it might cause.
+1 / -0

16 days ago
A few arguments for it being an issue.

- It doesn't make much sense thematically.
- It relies on micro to make happen.
- It relies on unit stupidity for it to work and on player micro to counter it.
- It isn't interesting or clever micro, it's just micro.
- Zero-K game design appears to support removing it on this basis.

Not sure how to do it. Maybe make a nanoframe not exist except for visually (and not on radar) until there is 10-20 metal in it or something. That feels worth shooting and there are few enough units it would matter for. Perhaps make it manually targetable, but have units avoid them and target them last or not at all.

Having them decay quickly if under 20 metal value or something or a percentage could also work well.
+0 / -0
15 days ago
I really hate the idea of frame decay. I am the kind of person that can place a couple of frames for them to be constructed later by caretakers, I think that making the frames neutral for the initial 15 metal can work and I think google already implemented that, mostly. It should be in the test build
+4 / -0

15 days ago
Yeah I think frame decay is a poor solution, there are legitimate tactics involving mass placing frames near a caretaker before sending your con (often an engineer com placing blueprints) off to do something else that you'd be getting rid of that way.
+2 / -0
15 days ago
What's nanoframe?
+0 / -0
15 days ago
GoogleFrog,

Why not just make all units ignore low metal nanoframes, instead of attacking them? Nanoframes themselves are an edge case, so this solution shouldn't be too bad (unless there are some code-specific roadblocks)?
+0 / -0
https://github.com/ZeroK-RTS/Zero-K/commit/8d35f54567d2fcbd3cf6830e397b561d8d177c3a
^check this SErankNokonoko
+0 / -0


15 days ago
On nanoframe decay: nobody who watched the replay would be suggesting it. The decay would have to be essentially immediate to have any impact.
+1 / -0

14 days ago
Concerning Multiplayer B2528121 4 on Red Comet Remake 1.7


key moments may be 5:00, 9:45, 10:05.

at 10:05 I find something particulary strange, the ronins are pointing at a nanoframe and not firing and not moving. This is because the nanoframe is doomed to die to a sling shot, and by overkill prevention they are blocking shot but retaining the attack order. The enemy Fahx Machine is retreating. It's a tinny litle micro thing, but something that I would believe is what's making Tarkin scream. Potentially a rocket fired by a ronin would have killed the nanoframe earlier? but the movement pause is super annoying. Generally, I start linemoving my skirms at this point to keep the advance going.

I think nanoframes eating projectiles is a non-issue at this point. When annoys me personally about nanoframe spam is I need to consciously remember what buildings can shoot at me or not, and if I need to avoid the range circle.
+0 / -0
14 days ago
SparkezelPL,

The question is, who can pump metal into a neutral nanoframe (i.e. how is ownership decided)?
+0 / -1