Silencer range

So now we have some new big team maps. I think it is a good time to limit the range of the Silener.

For example on the map Dust_Bowl_v1 you will need about 6 anti nukes (= 18k metal) to get some good coverage when you are only having control of half the map. You can do it with less anti nukes, but then you get a lot of gaps where nuke still can fire on.


The range for silencer I have in mind is a range of 7500. This is the range of Disco Rave Party or about whole length of 14 X 14 map. Or about 5/8 of the map Dust_Bowl_v1. So if you place the silencer at the far back of your side (low risk) you can shoot 5/8 of the map.
So low risk low reward and high risk (silencer more on front), bigger reward. You need to control some land to reach its full potential. Which makes the silencer more end game, porc killer or game finisher than just mindless rush.


* I think silencer is OP in general, also on smaller maps, but want to address big maps only in this thread.

My vote in simple to let anti hit any nuke that pass over the protected territory, so you simple need a "line" on anti nuke and not spam all map with them.

At the end of a game you have more than enough metal on those big maps to build lots of protectors. Smaller maps could be a problem but there you need less protectors as well. And with good scout you can see a nukerush at start. Than you should be in a winning team because your team don't waste all this matal for a nuke. And you can build protectors for this nuke, to make it a useless waste of metal.
But if the general meaning is to lower the range of silencer than you should boost the aoe dmg a lot and make protectors more expensive.

You don't need to cover all the ground, swappan, only where a nuke missile would make cost. Only build antis where big bases are, if a nuke kills a couple mexes and LLTs it doesn't make cost.

Not to mention that even killing 2k worth of defenses with a nuke will mean your team can push forward into undefended territory. It completely breaks the defence line!

nuke already dose not make cost... you want it to make even less cost XD

nuke costs about the same as a bantha, but bantha always makes 2x cost(3-4x in my hands)

i havent seen an effective since fireman gave up on nuke trolling... so i really dont see nuke as a real danger, usualy cause noone buiilds them, and even if they do i can kill them due to 10k metal advantage for at least 5 minutes

Only protect things worth protecting. Failing that get a nuke yourself.

yea it is, also on smaller maps.

here http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/140110 . Even Skasi-pro or dabdabdab-pro or one of his high elo mates cant stop it. And we were actually loosing ground fast. But if Skasi-pros fail to build or even protect anti enough I think it is fine. Cant expect the simple things from people like protecting antis or killing silencer.

Or this one: http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/140639 . One of the most exciting games I played. I first had a hard time deciding going nuke or not, going not or better not, then I build one and had a very entertaining match, enemy too. Or watch one of sfiremans games.

Saktoth yes it is a no-brainer on big maps. That people dont do it says more about the people then about the nuke. Or that nuking is not exciting to most people.
Even on FFA maps it is good to have an incentive to get some territory. Rather then just porc and nuke. Will only make those games better.
And I agree that anti should be cheaper.

GoogleFrog. It makes no sense to say build one yourself. Why were things like Golly or sumo nerfed? Even if OP, just build them yourself. So I suggest reverting all changes to sumo and golly and skuttle and Krow and rapier and ...
Or just instead of buiding antis on a big map, just build nukes and make one big nukefest.

sure place another 1000+ metal in protection, makes nuke even more cost effecive.

we have. for sea