The light defenses are too cheap at this moment. Turret spam always pays off and is too easy to pull off with wandering cons. Artillery (morty) takes too much time to take them down. Zero K would be much more interesting if you had to think before plopping down an LLT or defender. Now, don't get me wrong, they are not ZOMGG OP OP OP!!!11!1 They result in a type of game that could be better. As a general goal for defenses i'd like to state "one should think carefully and be very sure it is worth the investment to make turret X over here" which is not the case atm. It is a hard problem (or matter of taste, just state what you think) that exists in almost all TA mods. One posible solution is binding light defenses to the energy grid as well or just increase cost. Feel free to discuss. A lot has been said on the subject already but the discussion is far from over.
+3 / -0
|
Have been thinking about what ZK would be like if all defenses needed an energy grid. To keep it simple and to not change DDM/Anni too much the idea was 1E per 50m cost, so a solar would provide enough energy for all llts/defenders in the grid. Newton/Faraday would need two solars, Stardust three, Gauss four, HLT five, DDM 12 and Anni 22, or alternatively Pylons to connect them to the home/eco grid. That way striking Pylons would play a bigger role on offensive maneuvers and make the game less grindy. The price of LLTs/defenders would basically double, unless many are built, in which case taking out local energy output, or pylon lines can be a very huge blow. Just something I had to share after I read your post, not sure if it satisfies you. :)
+1 / -0
|
quote:
Artillery (morty) takes too much time to take them down. |
The cheapest arti which is Hammer need only 2 shots to kill a defender. Firewalker can easily kill a whole field of light defense. Wolverine is pretty effective and Impaler oneshots any ligh defense. Pillager easily kill any ligh defense in 1-2 shoots. Penetrator isn't good for light defense, but a single Halberd can tank all damage from Defenders. Also, Phoenix can be useful. I don't feel like light defense is a problem, because arty is not that expensive and if enemy's have really lots of light defense, you can always make arty which gonna kill it very very fast.
+0 / -0
|
Ah with "Morty" i mean "Hammer" :P i think a mex will provides enough metal in the time a hammer takes a defender out. (thats why you aim for mexes first btw)
+0 / -0
|
Defences needing energy to fire? I talked about that a long time ago Skasi, people were trolling me , but why? Because my nickname is forever. But when you talk about it just watch the difference. Anyway what i mentioned in that thread was this: All defences need some kind of energy to work( a solar or some kind of windfarm) But what i mentioned is annihilator can constantly shoot if it has enaught energy:D so 1 annihilator can easily pwn a detriment:D if you have the energy for it.
+0 / -0
|
Disagree. ZK's cheap defenses are one of the few things that keep the game from being all raiders all the time... which I appreciate is definitely a popular mode for many players, but personally I like a game with more than 1 kind of combat unit.
+7 / -1
|
|
|
quote:
Defences needing energy to fire? I talked about that a long time ago ATrankSkasi, people were trolling me , but why? Because my nickname is forever. But when you talk about it just watch the difference. |
You want to play Evolution-K? quote:
i think a mex will provides enough metal in the time a hammer takes a defender out. (thats why you aim for mexes first btw) |
12 seconds per defender, but you can make 2-4 hammers. Are u going to rebuild every killed defender?
+0 / -0
|
|
|
In most decent 1v1s both players end up with tons of turrets, that's true. But if you increase their cost then they won't be cost-effective against the units they are supposed to stop, so there will be no point on making them and the game will be even more raider-heavy More than light turrets being too cheap, the problem would be that they are too spammable (low weight), right? Increasing it would be a big change but it might be interesting to see how it plays TL;DR: damn randy and his defenderspam
+0 / -0
|
Defender spam has been a problem since 1997
+2 / -0
|
cost increase would, of course, be accompanied by weight increase. you need to think before plopping down a defender
+0 / -0
|
quote:
But if you increase their cost then they won't be cost-effective against the units they are supposed to stop, so there will be no point on making them and the game will be even more raider-heavy |
Are you sure? I really wanna see a ~10% or so cost increase to LLTs and defenders, just to find out what happens. A weight increase as suggested by Floris might not be needed. Remember that increasing their power means defenses can be more concentrated and assaults will have a much harder time at chokepoints, especially when they can no longer kill one llt/defender, retreat, repair, repeat without taking losses.
+0 / -0
|
I would prefer it if turret spam/creep were less viable. A lot of high skill 1v1 games end in over 9000 defenders and I don't think that is much fun. I think increasing the weight of LLTs and defenders would improve the game.
+1 / -0
|
Replays would, as always, be cool here. Yes, I know, Randy spams defenders like mad, but to show it's OP you should be trying to use it yourself and beat better opponents with it (as in, not   Kyubey style of beating a random nub and presenting that as evidence).
+0 / -0
|
quote:
but to show it's OP you should be trying to use it yourself and beat better opponents with it |
I don't think anyone is strictly saying that light turrets are OP, just that the way they are spammed makes the game less fun than it could be.
+0 / -0
|
It sounds like defenders are more the problem than Lotus turrets - the Lotus can be easily removed by skirmishers, but MTs require just overwhelming them, and as they get layered deeper and deeper they cover each other.
+0 / -0
|
I do agree that it feels like defenders are a bit too hard to take out in high numbers/ too good in high numbers. Not every factory has a good counter to them (like the morty is), because they very strongly outrange many skirmishers. Likewise, because defenders also target air. they become difficult to counter at high concentrations and preemptively counter an air switch.
+0 / -0
|
Defenders are such a teeny tiny little fragile stick in the ground, which are weaker than most mobiles. Maybe some people here have a point and it would be nicer to distinguish turrets (heavy, powerful, armored with decent levels of HP) from mobiles (lighter, less powerful, easier to kill). There are of course variations which cause overlap, but the lowest end of the turrets - defenders - is so very low. The lowest end could stand to be a bit higher.
+0 / -0
|
the issue with defenders being fragile is simply their range. Forces that are not properly sized will get annihilated before getting close. This causes a snowballing effect where attackingthem becomes hopeless. JJ, Amphib, and (to a lesser extent because of hermit) Spider all have issues with efficiently killing defender spam. JJ and Amphib can sorta counter this with Grizzly and Firewalker, but these involve high investments and have their own problems.
+0 / -0
|
