| 1 |
I
hate
to
be
callous,
but
having
your
metal
go
when
your
storages
die
is
kinda
the
point.
Your
opponent
was
able
to
get
in
to
destroy
them,
so
they
earned
that.
If
you
destroyed
your
opponent(
s)
'
storages,
wouldn't
you
want
that
to
be
worth
your
effort?
As
@Sprung
mentioned,
storages
are
a
tradeoff,
though
another
part
of
that
tradeoff
is
that
you
risk
that
versatility
getting
targeted.
|
1 |
I
hate
to
be
callous,
but
having
your
metal
go
when
your
storages
die
is
kinda
the
point.
Your
opponent
was
able
to
get
in
to
destroy
them,
so
they
earned
that.
If
you
destroyed
your
opponent(
s)
'
storages,
wouldn't
you
want
that
to
be
worth
your
effort?
|
|
|
2 |
\n
|
|
|
3 |
As @Sprung mentioned, storages are a tradeoff, though another part of that tradeoff is that you risk that versatility getting targeted.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 3 |
As a rule, Zero-K is designed such that as much of it as possible is interactive and carries some risk of destruction, since basically everything is on the map, rather than having upgrades or off-map abilities that your opponent can't touch. The flip side is that you can use that against your opponent, to deny their economy/stored resources/production capacity as well.
|
5 |
As a rule, Zero-K is designed such that as much of it as possible is interactive and carries some risk of destruction, since basically everything is on the map, rather than having upgrades or off-map abilities that your opponent can't touch. The flip side is that you can use that against your opponent, to deny their economy/stored resources/production capacity as well.
|
Commander storage upgrade