| 1 |
[quote]This is perhaps a problem of intuition and slippery slope. [/quote]
|
1 |
[quote]This is perhaps a problem of intuition and slippery slope. [/quote]
|
| 2 |
Dunno, from the inside it felt pretty much like this:
|
2 |
Dunno, from the inside it felt pretty much like this:
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
1) Cyclops appears. I realise i have Blitzes and that they do nothing vs Cyclops. The only counter to Cyclops in Tank is More Cyclops.
|
4 |
1) Cyclops appears. I realise i have Blitzes and that they do nothing vs Cyclops. The only counter to Cyclops in Tank is More Cyclops.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
2) I realise that because the enemy already has More Cyclops, and that they are actively pushing my territory, i cannot just have More Cyclops.
|
6 |
2) I realise that because the enemy already has More Cyclops, and that they are actively pushing my territory, i cannot just have More Cyclops.
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
3)
It
feels
that
Cyclops
is
an
assault
unit
that
isn't
very
accurate
against
raiders
and
has
a
low
rate
of
fire
and
kills
only
one
raider
at
a
time,
so
it
can
be
very
effectively
taken
with
dart/scorcher
(
at
about
the
same
rate
as
other
assaults)
so
i
try
that.
Obviously
it
fails
because
*all*
of
these
assumptions
are
wrong:
Cyclops
is
accurate
vs
both
Scorcher
and
Dart,
it
has
AoE,
and
fairly
good
RoF.
Also
it
has
enough
range
to
work
with
the
square
law.
It
can
only
be
practically
attacked
at
about
the
same
cost,
which
makes
Scorcher
not
really
a
counter
if
you
consider
that
it
does
have
much
cheaper
counters.
|
8 |
3)
It
feels
that
Cyclops
is
an
assault
unit
that
isn't
very
accurate
against
raiders
and
has
a
low
rate
of
fire
and
kills
only
one
raider
at
a
time,
so
it
can
be
very
effectively
taken
with
dart/scorcher
(
at
about
the
same
rate
as
other
assaults)
so
i
try
that.
Obviously
it
fails
because
*all*
of
these
assumptions
are
wrong:
Cyclops
is
accurate
vs
both
Scorcher
and
Dart,
it
has
AoE,
and
fairly
good
RoF.
Also
it
has
enough
range
to
work
with
the
square
law.
It
can
only
be
practically
attacked
at
about
the
same
cost,
which
makes
Scorcher
not
really
a
counter
if
you
consider
that
the
Scorcher
does
have
much
cheaper
counters.
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
4) Realising that, i try the weird counters, but it's too late, and also the nuke gets scouted. Game over.
|
10 |
4) Realising that, i try the weird counters, but it's too late, and also the nuke gets scouted. Game over.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
I think it is uneconomical to try countering an already deployed Cyclops with Scorcher at this efficiency with a fairly even economy. You need to facswitch and produce a Cyclops worth of Scorcher while the enemy Cyclops is already pwning you, during which time, the enemy does his best to produce 2000 cost of another Cyclops, so now you're again at a disadvantage unless he overextends. So now you repeat the moves, and you have a 3:2 ratio that could already work if not for the fact that the Cyclopses have taken a third of the map from you by now.
|
12 |
I think it is uneconomical to try countering an already deployed Cyclops with Scorcher at this efficiency with a fairly even economy. You need to facswitch and produce a Cyclops worth of Scorcher while the enemy Cyclops is already pwning you, during which time, the enemy does his best to produce 2000 cost of another Cyclops, so now you're again at a disadvantage unless he overextends. So now you repeat the moves, and you have a 3:2 ratio that could already work if not for the fact that the Cyclopses have taken a third of the map from you by now.
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
It's just too much of a qualitative leap in a tank mirror. I don't think Cyclops is this nasty elsewhere or that it is *the* problem with Tank.
|
14 |
It's just too much of a qualitative leap in a tank mirror. I don't think Cyclops is this nasty elsewhere or that it is *the* problem with Tank.
|
B546363 2 on Eye of Horus v13 (Multiplayer)