| 1 |
[q]What i don´t understand is that it is possible to morph them basically indefinitely until you run out of modules. they suck for cost then AND WHY IS THIS OPTION IN THE GAME?[/q]
|
1 |
[q]What i don´t understand is that it is possible to morph them basically indefinitely until you run out of modules. they suck for cost then AND WHY IS THIS OPTION IN THE GAME?[/q]
|
| 2 |
Yeah
I
complained
about
that
2
years
ago
when
they
were
developing
it.
They
nerfed
coms
to
death
and
then
turned
them
into
the
ultimate
noob
trap
with
infinite
levels.
Coms
got
nerfed
even
more
since
then
with
changed
to
weapons
modules
too.
|
2 |
Yeah
I
complained
about
that
2
years
ago
when
they
were
developing
it.
They
nerfed
coms
to
death
and
then
turned
them
into
the
ultimate
noob
trap
with
infinite
levels.
Coms
got
nerfed
even
more
since
then
with
changes
to
weapons
modules
too.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
My opinion is basically that I don't like coms, but if you're going to have them and have them be customizable then they ought to at least be able to do something cool/unique to justify their existence. Instead any time a com does something interesting and viable they remove it or nerf it to make it useless. It just makes coms generic and crappy. Character building is a whole other skill set that's interesting in its own right even if it's orthogonal to RTS, and dynacoms robbed us of that.
|
4 |
My opinion is basically that I don't like coms, but if you're going to have them and have them be customizable then they ought to at least be able to do something cool/unique to justify their existence. Instead any time a com does something interesting and viable they remove it or nerf it to make it useless. It just makes coms generic and crappy. Character building is a whole other skill set that's interesting in its own right even if it's orthogonal to RTS, and dynacoms robbed us of that.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
[q]having something to expand that not dies to the first few raiders is quite a thing and they are still vulnerable to the second or third raider-wave. I can also live with the flipside of not being able to raid in team-games.[/q]
|
6 |
[q]having something to expand that not dies to the first few raiders is quite a thing and they are still vulnerable to the second or third raider-wave. I can also live with the flipside of not being able to raid in team-games.[/q]
|
| 7 |
That might be less of an issue if you removed fac plops so you no longer have instant raiders. Admittedly that might lead to a pathological case in the other direction where you can expand, or even naked expand, completely unimpeded. Like, forget facs just have your workers take half the map and porc up before the enemy can get their fac down. Impossible to say how that would balance out without testing though.
|
7 |
That might be less of an issue if you removed fac plops so you no longer have instant raiders. Admittedly that might lead to a pathological case in the other direction where you can expand, or even naked expand, completely unimpeded. Like, forget facs just have your workers take half the map and porc up before the enemy can get their fac down. Impossible to say how that would balance out without testing though.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
I mean starcraft does it that way, but SC's economy is so different from TA/ZK that it's not directly comparable. The early game in SC also sucked, but I think that was more due to general design and balance issues.
|
9 |
I mean starcraft does it that way, but SC's economy is so different from TA/ZK that it's not directly comparable. The early game in SC also sucked, but I think that was more due to general design and balance issues.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
[u]Back to the actual topic here[/u], this isn't the first time this issue has come up. A related issue is that, when balancing uneven teams the balancer seems to think that the side with more players should get more lower rated players (ie bigger team = stronger), when in reality that means that lower rated players get a bigger chunk of the team's income. I've seen some recent games where more than half of a team ended up being made up of storage spammers, leaving the competent players completely unable to do anything. The smaller team got all the reasonably competent players and won by default.
|
11 |
[u]Back to the actual topic here[/u], this isn't the first time this issue has come up. A related issue is that, when balancing uneven teams the balancer seems to think that the side with more players should get more lower rated players (ie bigger team = stronger), when in reality that means that lower rated players get a bigger chunk of the team's income. I've seen some recent games where more than half of a team ended up being made up of storage spammers, leaving the competent players completely unable to do anything. The smaller team got all the reasonably competent players and won by default.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
For example @B782696
|
13 |
For example @B782696
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
Apparently this wasn't an isolated incident, either.
|
15 |
Apparently this wasn't an isolated incident, either.
|
Petition to change metal share in uneven teams