| 1 |
Please no. That's the whole point of them. That's why they're fun.
|
1 |
Please no. That's the whole point of them. That's why they're fun.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Mexes and geos are a fight for horizontal territory. Windgens are a fight for vertical territory. And solars are just boring and meant as backup. Fusions are large boring solars with more fragility. Singus are beautiful liability nukes that require planning for isolation+defense, which is cool, unless maybe terra+razors defends them too easily in a boring way? (idk, I haven't really played FFA-speed-lobster much)
|
3 |
Mexes and geos are a fight for horizontal territory. Windgens are a fight for vertical territory. And solars are just boring and meant as backup. Fusions are large boring solars with more fragility. Singus are beautiful liability nukes that require planning for isolation+defense, which is cool, unless maybe terra+razors defends them too easily in a boring way? (idk, I haven't really played FFA-speed-lobster much)
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
However, can we please remove the random changing wind? and just make it alternate between 25th percentile and 75th percentile every 30 seconds? As in, if the range in the old silly random-wind days (what were we thinking back then?) of ZK was 0.1-2.5, now it switches between 0.7 and 1.9 (average 1.3), if 1.3-2.5 -> then alternate between 1.6 and 2.2 (average 1.9). That way you have the exact same averages, but no randomness, and all you variation fanboys get to keep your variation.
|
5 |
However, can we please remove the random changing wind? and just make it alternate between 25th percentile and 75th percentile every 30 seconds? As in, if the range in the old silly random-wind days (what were we thinking back then?) of ZK was 0.1-2.5, now it switches between 0.7 and 1.9 (average 1.3), if 1.3-2.5 -> then alternate between 1.6 and 2.2 (average 1.9). That way you have the exact same averages, but no randomness, and all you variation fanboys get to keep your variation.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
Also, while we're at it, let's nerf solars. Seriously, who wants to see solars be the best option on almost every map even for your main base energy? Solars should be for vulnerable or isolated territory (such as overdrive for single mexes), like they are in real life as power sources for isolated electronics. Solars ingame can also be good connecting power to the frontline, which is fine, although I think that can be made a lot better, too.
|
7 |
Also, while we're at it, let's nerf solars. Seriously, who wants to see solars be the best option on almost every map even for your main base energy? Solars should be for vulnerable or isolated territory (such as overdrive for single mexes), like they are in real life as power sources for isolated electronics. Solars ingame can also be good connecting power to the frontline, which is fine, although I think that can be made a lot better, too.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
Speaking
of
map-dependency,
the
way
the
wind-map
algorithm
combines
with
the
maps
we
tend
to
have,
makes
it
so
that
there's
a
ton
of
maps
with
a
wind
range
of
0.
0-0.
8
or
whatever,
a
few
with
1.
0-2.
4,
and
not
a
lot
in
between.
I'd
be
interested
in
an
overhaul
of
the
wind-map
algorithm
so
that
there's
an
approximately
even
distribution
of
wind-power
among
our
map
pool
(
either
biased
towards
less
wind
or
honestly
I
wonder
if
a
mostly
even
distribution
of
map-averages
wouldn't
be
so
bad)
.
|
9 |
Speaking
of
map-dependency,
the
way
the
wind-map
algorithm
combines
with
the
maps
we
tend
to
have,
makes
it
so
that
there's
a
ton
of
maps
with
a
wind
range
of
0.
0-0.
8
or
whatever,
a
few
with
1.
0-2.
4,
and
not
a
lot
in
between.
I'd
be
interested
in
an
overhaul
of
the
wind-map
algorithm
so
that
there's
an
approximately
even
distribution
of
wind-power
among
our
map
pool
(
either
biased
towards
less
wind
or
honestly
I
wonder
if
a
mostly
even
distribution
of
map-averages
wouldn't
be
so
bad)
.
[Edit:
Tell
me
if
I'm
mistaken
here,
I
don't
have
all
the
map
stats
in
a
table
in
front
of
me.
]
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
I have a lot more thoughts on this and not the time to explain everything, but here's what I'd like to test out:
|
11 |
I have a lot more thoughts on this and not the time to explain everything, but here's what I'd like to test out:
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
- Windgen changed to non-random as described above
|
14 |
- Windgen changed to non-random as described above
|
| 15 |
- Wind-map algorithm changed to either
|
15 |
- Wind-map algorithm changed to either
|
| 16 |
A) (very roughly, these numbers are just an example of the algorithm's style) 40% of common maps with an average 0.3 wind, 30% with .8 average, 20% with 1.2 average, and 10% with 1.7 average
|
16 |
A) (very roughly, these numbers are just an example of the algorithm's style) 40% of common maps with an average 0.3 wind, 30% with .8 average, 20% with 1.2 average, and 10% with 1.7 average
|
| 17 |
or B) 25% 0.3 wind-average, 25% .8, 25% 1.3, and 25% 1.8
|
17 |
or B) 25% 0.3 wind-average, 25% .8, 25% 1.3, and 25% 1.8
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
- Solars cost increased 20% (test a range between 15%-40%) from 70 -> 85
|
19 |
- Solars cost increased 20% (test a range between 15%-40%) from 70 -> 85
|
| 20 |
- Solars grid range increased +25%
|
20 |
- Solars grid range increased +25%
|
| 21 |
\n
|
21 |
\n
|
| 22 |
- Windgen health increased +10% (test a range between 10%-30%)
|
22 |
- Windgen health increased +10% (test a range between 10%-30%)
|
| 23 |
\n
|
23 |
\n
|
| 24 |
- Pylon cost reduced 50%, 200 -> 100
|
24 |
- Pylon cost reduced 50%, 200 -> 100
|
| 25 |
- Pylon nuke-on-death damage reduced 50%, bullshit -> bullshit/2
|
25 |
- Pylon nuke-on-death damage reduced 50%, bullshit -> bullshit/2
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
- Fusion cost reduced 25% (25%-50%) [intended to make fusion not such an unrealistic jump in 1v1 or competitive settings]
|
27 |
- Fusion cost reduced 25% (25%-50%) [intended to make fusion not such an unrealistic jump in 1v1 or competitive settings]
|
| 28 |
- Fusion's stats all reduced 25% (25%-50%) (energy production, health, explosion damage)
|
28 |
- Fusion's stats all reduced 25% (25%-50%) (energy production, health, explosion damage)
|
| 29 |
\n
|
29 |
\n
|
| 30 |
- Geothermal's cost decreased 25% (10%-50%)[They don't seem remotely useful to me in a competitive setting, given their underwhelming cost benefits over solar/wind, low health, pylon connection requirements for overdrive, their coarse-granularity cost-jump (expensive things that come in large chunks means that you have to build them way too early or spend time with a power deficit, and spend much longer without payback during construction), their inability to choose their location in an convenient and defendable location, and their obvious locations marked with massive beacons for the enemy)
|
30 |
- Geothermal's cost decreased 25% (10%-50%)[They don't seem remotely useful to me in a competitive setting, given their underwhelming cost benefits over solar/wind, low health, pylon connection requirements for overdrive, their coarse-granularity cost-jump (expensive things that come in large chunks means that you have to build them way too early or spend time with a power deficit, and spend much longer without payback during construction), their inability to choose their location in an convenient and defendable location, and their obvious locations marked with massive beacons for the enemy)
|
| 31 |
- [this one's just something I'd like to see] Eliminate geo's explosion-on-death (reduced to the minimum appropriate range+damage) [it's absolutely infuriating to me that something labeled "geothermal" would be dangerous. Geothermal plants IRL are the safest, tamest, most boring, most innocuous things you could possibly imagine. Flagpoles are more dangerous than geothermal plants.] Either that, or change the name to fusion reactor, and name fusions geothermals and make them safe.
|
31 |
- [this one's just something I'd like to see] Eliminate geo's explosion-on-death (reduced to the minimum appropriate range+damage) [it's absolutely infuriating to me that something labeled "geothermal" would be dangerous. Geothermal plants IRL are the safest, tamest, most boring, most innocuous things you could possibly imagine. Flagpoles are more dangerous than geothermal plants.] Either that, or change the name to fusion reactor, and name fusions geothermals and make them safe.
|
| 32 |
\n
|
32 |
\n
|
| 33 |
- Current heavy weapon power requirements reduced from 50 E to 10-40 E, but have them actually consume energy while firing (after each shot, they consume their respective energy while reloading)
|
33 |
- Current heavy weapon power requirements reduced from 50 E to 10-40 E, but have them actually consume energy while firing (after each shot, they consume their respective energy while reloading)
|
| 34 |
- Give power requirements to Bertha (50?), Nuke (for stockpile; not for firing), Anti-Nuke (for firing, although anti's mechanics are so janky), DRP (100?), Zenith (500?), and Starlight (1400?), and have them consume said energy while firing. Discount their prices by their equivalent cost in fusion construction.
|
34 |
- Give power requirements to Bertha (50?), Nuke (for stockpile; not for firing), Anti-Nuke (for firing, although anti's mechanics are so janky), DRP (100?), Zenith (500?), and Starlight (1400?), and have them consume said energy while firing. Discount their prices by their equivalent cost in fusion construction.
|
| 35 |
\n
|
35 |
\n
|
| 36 |
\n
|
36 |
\n
|
| 37 |
Actually yeah, I love that. Make it so that Starlight is practically free (1000 metal-ish) and just an energy-focusing laser that is entirely based on energy infrastructure. I actually love that so much, I would love to see this.
|
37 |
Actually yeah, I love that. Make it so that Starlight is practically free (1000 metal-ish) and just an energy-focusing laser that is entirely based on energy infrastructure. I actually love that so much, I would love to see this.
|
| 38 |
\n
|
38 |
\n
|
| 39 |
So like, you have to build a massive energy farm and defend it to keep starlight operational. You can have other projects using the energy in the meantime, and then when you turn on Starlight, you choose to cannibalize all the energy from those projects and divert it to the starlight. So to get starlight up as soon as possible, you power-down all your overdrive, berthas, antis, cloaked units etc. and have to continuously maintain your energy grid requirements. Have Zenith be similar but not as extreme, so enemies can power it down and make any stockpiled comets fall on you.
|
39 |
So like, you have to build a massive energy farm and defend it to keep starlight operational. You can have other projects using the energy in the meantime, and then when you turn on Starlight, you choose to cannibalize all the energy from those projects and divert it to the starlight. So to get starlight up as soon as possible, you power-down all your overdrive, berthas, antis, cloaked units etc. and have to continuously maintain your energy grid requirements. Have Zenith be similar but not as extreme, so enemies can power it down and make any stockpiled comets fall on you.
|
| 40 |
\n
|
40 |
\n
|
| 41 |
Typed on phone, pardon the typos.
|
41 |
Typed on phone, pardon the typos.
|
Can we make windgens not depend on altitude?