| 1 |
Honestly I think validating your point of view by taking the time to argue against it is a mistake and a waste of my time. I'm a sucker for arguments though.
|
1 |
Honestly I think validating your point of view by taking the time to argue against it is a mistake and a waste of my time. I'm a sucker for arguments though.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
I imagine it's possible to find some formula which the costs of units in zeroK [i]approximately[/i] follow. Units get more expensive as they become healthier, as their damage increases, and as their range increases. Units with more area of effect damage and more manouverability are also more expensive.
|
3 |
I imagine it's possible to find some formula which the costs of units in zeroK [i]approximately[/i] follow. Units get more expensive as they become healthier, as their damage increases, and as their range increases. Units with more area of effect damage and more manouverability are also more expensive.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
There will be deviations. Different damage types behave differently; a missile has different properties to a laser. Some units turn more quickly than others, or are larger and more cumbersome. Some units are too specialised for their stats to mean much of anything meaningful (Infiltrator, for instance).
|
5 |
There will be deviations. Different damage types behave differently; a missile has different properties to a laser. Some units turn more quickly than others, or are larger and more cumbersome. Some units are too specialised for their stats to mean much of anything meaningful (Infiltrator, for instance).
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
Even then, there will be some units which are simply worse than others. [b]That is fine[/b]. Some factories have weaknesses in some areas (e.g. tank does not really have a skirmisher) to compensate strengths elsewhere (e.g. Reaper).
|
7 |
Even then, there will be some units which are simply worse than others. [b]That is fine[/b]. Some factories have weaknesses in some areas (e.g. tank does not really have a skirmisher) to compensate strengths elsewhere (e.g. Reaper).
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
To be honest, I don't even know what you want from the game. I'm not sure you do either.
|
9 |
To be honest, I don't even know what you want from the game. I'm not sure you do either.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
EDIT:
The
point
of
design
and
balance
is
so
that
we
have
an
interesting
game
to
play.
The
"making
my
tools
for
victory
weak"
argument
is
not
a
good
one.
Why
don't
the
robots
just
nuke
planets
from
orbit?
Because
that
would
be
boring.
|
11 |
EDIT:
The
point
of
design
and
balance
is
so
that
we
have
an
interesting
game
to
play.
The
"making
my
tools
for
victory
weak"
argument
is
not
a
good
one.
Why
don't
the
robots
just
nuke
planets
from
orbit?
There
is
no
reason
to
think
they
don't
have
the
capability
to.
Or
use
some
other
superweapon
they
built
elsewhere.
|
|
|
12 |
\n
|
|
|
13 |
The reason why is that it would be boring. Totally pointless to play. But you'd have strong tools to win with.
|
Concept of sidearm applied to 0K