| 1 |
[quote]I didn't come here to argue. I was curious what is your stance about where do you want this game to go and how to make it evolve.[/quote]I meant respond as in 'respond to thread', not to respond to an argument.
|
1 |
[quote]I didn't come here to argue. I was curious what is your stance about where do you want this game to go and how to make it evolve.[/quote]I meant respond as in 'respond to thread', not to respond to an argument.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Spider doesn't have a real raider for a few reasons.
|
3 |
Spider doesn't have a real raider for a few reasons.
|
| 4 |
* Response and the ability to attack from any angle.
|
4 |
* Response and the ability to attack from any angle.
|
| 5 |
* Making many factories viable on each map.
|
5 |
* Making many factories viable on each map.
|
| 6 |
* The reasonabe viability of Spiders in 1v1 regardless of their missing raider.
|
6 |
* The reasonabe viability of Spiders in 1v1 regardless of their missing raider.
|
| 7 |
* Quant's rule (a conscious effort to maintain uniqueness).
|
7 |
* Quant's rule (a conscious effort to maintain uniqueness).
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
There
is
a
persistent
idea
that
a
spider
raider
would
be
too
hard
to
defend
against
on
cliffy
maps
due
to
its
ability
to
take
shortcuts
and
attack
from
otherwise
impassible
areas.
Usually
you
are
able
to
intercept
approaching
raiders
or
chase
them
away
with
your
own
raiders.
A
spider
raiding
force
could
sit
on
a
cliff
close
to
your
base
and
force
some
sort
of
static
defense
(
either
with
turrets
or
idle
units)
.
Defend
units
can't
run
out
to
engage
the
raiders
as
they
usually
would
in
other
situations.
The
spider
player
would
be
able
to
tie
up
their
opponent
without
any
active
way
to
respond.
This
is
why
I
don't
want
to
give
spiders
a
versatile
raider
which
is
also
able
to
fight
other
raiders
and
not-lose.
Of
course,
this
persistent
idea
has
been
around
for
years
and
it
might
be
wrong.
|
9 |
There
is
a
persistent
idea
that
a
spider
raider
would
be
too
hard
to
defend
against
on
cliffy
maps
due
to
its
ability
to
take
shortcuts
and
attack
from
otherwise
impassible
areas.
Usually,
you
are
able
to
intercept
approaching
raiders
or
chase
them
away
with
your
own
raiders.
A
spider
raiding
force
could
sit
on
a
cliff
close
to
your
base
and
force
some
sort
of
static
defense
(
either
with
turrets
or
idle
units)
.
Defending
units
can't
run
out
to
engage
the
raiders
as
they
usually
would
in
other
situations
o
the
spider
raiders
would
tie
up
their
opponent
without
any
active
way
to
respond.
This
is
why
I
don't
want
to
give
spiders
a
versatile
raider
which
is
also
able
to
fight
other
raiders
and
not-lose.
Of
course,
this
persistent
idea
has
been
around
for
years
and
it
might
be
wrong.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
Pyro
has
less
of
an
ability
to
use
cliffs
as
a
haven
because
its
jump
prevents
it
from
doing
light
raiders.
It
is
also
a
bit
of
a
glass
cannon.
Dagger
and
Duck
can
use
water
as
a
haven
but
maps
tend
not
to
be
designed
this
way.
Glaive
and
Bandit
can
use
hills
against
the
Tank,
Hover
and
Vehicle
raiders
and
there
are
maps
with
hills
that
make
the
low
slope
tolerance
factories
nonviable.
However,
this
is
seen
as
fine
because
there
are
enough
factories
within
each
of
low
and
high
slope
tolerance
to
make
interesting
matchups.
In
addition
to
this
the
low
slope
tolerance
factories
have
advantages
that
make
them
more
viable
on
large
maps
and
there
are
many
maps
where
both
types
of
factories
are
viable.
We
only
have
about
1.
5
all
terrain
factories
so
a
map
that
required
all
terrain
would
probably
just
see
the
spider
vs
spider
matchup.
There
are
many
maps
(
eg.
Wanderlust,
Hide
and
Seek,
Ilse
of
Grief,
and
Ravaged)
where
ignoring
cliffs
is
a
significant
advantage.
One
reason
to
keep
Spiders
down
would
be
to
preserve
diversity
on
those
maps.
|
11 |
Pyro
has
less
of
an
ability
to
use
cliffs
as
a
haven
because
jump
reload
time
forces
it
to
commit
to
an
attack.
It
is
also
a
bit
of
a
glass
cannon.
Dagger
and
Duck
can
use
water
as
a
haven
but
maps
tend
not
to
be
designed
this
way.
Glaive
and
Bandit
can
use
hills
against
the
Tank,
Hover
and
Vehicle
raiders
and
there
are
maps
with
hills
that
make
the
low
slope
tolerance
factories
nonviable.
However,
this
is
seen
as
fine
because
there
are
enough
factories
within
each
of
low
and
high
slope
tolerance
to
make
interesting
matchups.
In
addition
to
this
the
low
slope
tolerance
factories
have
advantages
that
make
them
more
viable
on
large
maps
and
there
are
many
maps
where
both
types
of
factories
are
viable.
We
only
have
about
1.
5
all
terrain
factories
so
a
map
that
required
all
terrain
would
probably
just
see
the
spider
vs
spider
matchup.
There
are
many
maps
(
eg.
Wanderlust,
Hide
and
Seek,
Ilse
of
Grief,
and
Ravaged)
where
ignoring
cliffs
is
a
significant
advantage.
One
reason
to
keep
Spiders
down
would
be
to
preserve
diversity
on
those
maps.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
The
single
biggest
reason
that
Spiders
do
not
have
a
raider
is
that
they
have
been
shown
to
be
powerful
on
the
right
map.
This
tends
to
trump
other
factors.
Their
lack
of
raider
makes
for
quite
a
different
style
of
game
and,
if
this
style
is
viable,
it
should
be
preserved
for
the
sake
of
diversity.
It
is
also
a
warning,
if
they
are
strong
now
then
a
raider
will
just
make
them
stronger.
There
have
been
other
changed
since
then
so
perhaps
they
are
worse
off
now.
I
would
still
want
to
see
some
examples
from
games
before
doing
anything.
|
13 |
The
single
biggest
reason
that
Spiders
do
not
have
a
raider
is
that
they
have
been
shown
to
be
powerful
on
the
right
map.
Their
lack
of
raider
makes
for
quite
a
different
style
of
game
and,
if
this
style
is
viable,
it
should
be
preserved
for
the
sake
of
diversity.
It
is
also
a
warning:
if
they
are
strong
now
then
a
raider
will
just
make
them
stronger.
There
have
been
other
changed
since
then
so
perhaps
they
are
worse
off
now.
I
would
still
want
to
see
some
examples
from
games
before
doing
anything.
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
It is interesting to consider how a spider raider would work. Venom already destroys other raiders so the raider would not need to be great against other raiders. It would also need to be reasonably expensive or risk sitting too close to flea. Hermit only costs 140 so you might end up with a fast, weak Hermit which is somewhat better against raiders.
|
16 |
It is interesting to consider how a spider raider would work. Venom already destroys other raiders so the raider would not need to be great against other raiders. It would also need to be reasonably expensive or risk sitting too close to flea. Hermit only costs 140 so you might end up with a fast, weak Hermit which is somewhat better against raiders.
|
| 17 |
\n
|
17 |
\n
|
| 18 |
If spiders needed more raiding power I would first look to buffing flea. Fleas are surprisingly powerful. They can have up to 2.5x their current healh and still die in one shot to a Defender. They could have more range with which to avoid Venom AoE. The worry with range is whether they gain the ability to kill infinite Glaives.
|
18 |
If spiders needed more raiding power I would first look to buffing flea. Fleas are surprisingly powerful. They can have up to 2.5x their current healh and still die in one shot to a Defender. They could have more range with which to avoid Venom AoE. The worry with range is whether they gain the ability to kill infinite Glaives.
|
Let's discuss spider raider unit