these two things are two major annoyances current ZK has. Dirtbags - they are here just to annoy you, clog shit up, make game less enjoyable, make stalemate, ruin pathing. Nukes - they are OP and annoying there is harldy any team game which doesnt end with nukes... thats just stupid. Increase cost a lot or buff anti a lot.
+0 / -0
|
i guess you played vs @saabir recently ;)
+0 / -0
|
not recently, when building cloak was removed nuke and anti interaction wasnt changed -> nuke OP. At first nobody abused this so much, now simply making antinuke isint enough they are scouted easily and killed easily too... thats just stupid. Maybe anti should have cloak exception just like cloaker. Actually anthena adds really much to this nuke thing, scouting with it is like walking in the park I say its way too easy. Scouting should be done with scout plane or scythe which actually needs micro and time not like anthena. And about dirtbags there was something like dev vote everybody voted for removal and it still here?
+0 / -0
|
Also dont you think that anthena flea pooping in colvols is rather bad idea? Now only real protection is to make outlaw. I think anthena shouldnt be able to make fleas in the first place so no more pausing because flea is unkillable and so on.
+0 / -0
|
___DELETED___250908#old#250908
11 years ago
until a better solution is found how about giving anti an armor bonus while closed?
+0 / -0
|
i suggested fake buildings to balance nuke. but nobody liked it. looks like here nobody likes any new ideas. devs just to lazy, so they prefer to say "its a bad idea", or "prove me it is good" rather then do something.
+0 / -0
|
___DELETED___250908#old#250908
11 years ago
How about drastically reducing nuke damage except for the very centre while giving it massive impulse?
+0 / -0
|
As someone who also abuses nuke a lot I agree it is quite OP atm. And athena is OP scout too. Imho we need mobile antinuke on land just like we have in sea. A unit costing 3000M with vehicle movetype, built by strider hub or athena, with range smaller than normal anti would work. It is silly that people dig to sea and make Leviathans just to have a safe anti. Decrease of cost of normal anti would help too.
+0 / -0
|
nukes are meant to end porcwar, if there is an unkillable, unstunable, unstunable, constantly moving, cloaked, antinuke... lets just remove nukes and porc to starlight... that is basicaly what you are asking for mobile antinukes are totaly op, and imposible to destroy(when used even semi properly) [[color=red]and the major problem[/color]] and since mobile antis do not leave antinuke circles, its also invisible... [[color=red]and the major problem[/color]] ........^^^^....^^^^..... tl:dr ^^^^this^^^^ unless that has been somehow fixed the answer is "fuck no, do not want"
+0 / -0
|
Static anti for next stable:
-
Coverage 2000 -> 3000
-
HP 3300 -> 3750
quote:
devs just to lazy, so they prefer to say "its a bad idea", or "prove me it is good" rather then do something |
yeah we don't want to implement fake buildings because we're too lazy it can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the proposed idea is, in fact, fucking terrible
+0 / -0
|
Nuke is simply too cheap to be ultimate game ender. Yes porc to starlight or detri.
+0 / -0
|
nuke is cheap :P and people say im smoking...
+0 / -0
|
Yea, they always come up with the reason, its anti-porc. What happened to artillery being anti-porc?. And it is so cheap you can reliable build it behind a bit of porc. I find nuke-games more boring than porcgames. And porcgames are already boring. I hope the coverage increase will keep the Shockley attacks better out of range.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
What happened to artillery being anti-porc |
Anni, Behe, Shields and Co. There are like 3 arty pieces in the whole game that can sometimes assault an Anni, of which one doesn't do much DPS against a shieldstack, another doesn't do reliable kills because of all that dispersal, and third costs more than anni and shields together. (above doesn't include warlord and reef, because sea itself is almost as bad as dbags). 50% buff to anti is an unlikely thing to pass the revert council, and who cares for nukes anyway; but dirtbags should be put to the axe.
+0 / -0
|
Here's my proposal: The problem with anti-s now is that they are too easily scoutable and too easily sniped, if I read it right. So here's my solution. Nerf anti. =P Ok ok, let me explain: Halve cost Halve range Now you need 4x the cost to cover the original area, but there are also 4 times as many antis you need to snipe. Plus, an anti that is 750m gets almost not-cost-efficient to snipe with a tacnuke or athena, since those are expendables. It also gets much cheaper to have double coverage to make stunning them with shockleys harder. Additionally, most of an anti's range is going to be blank ground if the game isn't stupidly crowded. So you won't even need to cover ALL of its original area with anti coverage anyway, so the nerf on paper looks alot worse than it actually is. With the ability to put up an anti very quickly since it costs less, you can also have much less warning of a nuke and still get away with covering your base. So, in a way, it also a buff.
+0 / -0
|
>it can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the proposed idea is, in fact, fucking terrible and balancing dirtbags is also fucking terrible idea? ALL players from 1300elo nub to godde, saying you that dirtbag is op, but you dont do anything about it. yeah you don't want to implement anything because you're too lazy
+0 / -0
|
quote:
yeah you don't want to implement anything because you're too lazy |
Why don't you do that yourself? It's a few simple widgets and gadgets to write :)
+0 / -0
|
quote:
and balancing dirtbags is also fucking terrible idea? |
cool non sequitur 8/10
+0 / -0
|
actually balancing dirbag is few numbers to change. If anyone could bypass actual devs and balance units, it already would be done.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Ok ok, let me explain:
Halve cost
Halve range
|
Jseah you forgot that an anti with half of its range would be killable by nuke by nuking at the edge of range.
+0 / -0
|
