| 1 |
My main point is - in the current environment supers almost win vs Detriments in team games, due to multiple factors. I think that we can all agree that it's boring. Yes, the simplest solution would probably increase the length of those usually degenerative games that require the superweapons to end. I mean here games which reach mostly sufficient artillery saturation that face off each other with all other units dying without coordinated effort of team members. Stalemate of shields and artillery. In the current scenario Detriment has way too many weaknesses, counters and slowness in its usage to compete with superweapons, and I think that would be still true even at lower price tag (like 20k), so I suggest changing supers instead.
|
1 |
My main point is - in the current environment supers almost win vs Detriments in team games, due to multiple factors. I think that we can all agree that it's boring. Yes, the simplest solution would probably increase the length of those usually degenerative games that require the superweapons to end. I mean here games which reach mostly sufficient artillery saturation that face off each other with all other units dying without coordinated effort of team members. Stalemate of shields and artillery. In the current scenario Detriment has way too many weaknesses, counters and slowness in its usage to compete with superweapons, and I think that would be still true even at lower price tag (like 20k), so I suggest changing supers instead.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Apart
from
all
usual
points
regardings
pros
and
cons
that
I've
discussed
in
Detri
vs
supers,
I
want
to
let
you
consider
another
point
of
consideration:
assuming
that
both
Detriment
and
superweapon
are
game
ending
after
x
time
after
meeting
the
enemy,
superweapons
have
another
advantage
that
they
are
useful
the
instant
they
are
built,
and
Detriment
has
to
slowly
tred
first
to
the
front,
and
then
to
anything
meaningful
behind
the
front
to
do
damage.
On
many
battlefields
it
can
be
between
30
to
60
seconds,
which
in
usual
economies
of
200m/s
translates
to
extra
6000-12000
metal
cost
before
it
is
useful
(
in
race
of
building
super
vs
building
detriment
teams
to
end
the
game)
.
|
3 |
Apart
from
all
usual
points
regardings
pros
and
cons
that
I've
discussed
in
Detri
vs
supers,
I
want
to
let
you
consider
another
point
of
consideration:
assuming
that
both
Detriment
and
superweapon
are
game
ending
after
x
time
after
meeting
the
enemy,
superweapons
have
another
advantage
that
they
are
useful
the
instant
they
are
built,
and
Detriment
has
to
slowly
tred
first
to
the
front,
and
then
to
anything
meaningful
behind
the
front
to
do
damage.
On
many
battlefields
it
can
be
between
30
to
60
seconds,
which
in
usual
economies
of
200m/s
translates
to
extra
6000-12000
metal
cost
before
it
is
useful
(
in
race
of
building
super
vs
building
detriment
teams
to
end
the
game)
.
If
you
add
that
metal
to
Detri
cost
it
is
currently
comparable
in
price
to
DRP.
Yes,
there
are
ways
to
speed
it
up
like
Djinns,
but
I
haven't
seen
anyone
actually
bothering
to
do
it.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
It could prolong these games or it could promote looking for other solutions like shifting meta more toward nukes instead freezing all gameplay for x minutes to finish building the superweapon funneling all eco into it.
|
5 |
It could prolong these games or it could promote looking for other solutions like shifting meta more toward nukes instead freezing all gameplay for x minutes to finish building the superweapon funneling all eco into it.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
I agree that extending these degenerative games is usually a pain and negative thing. I've updated my previous post with other, less popular suggestion that tries to sidestep that problem.
|
7 |
I agree that extending these degenerative games is usually a pain and negative thing. I've updated my previous post with other, less popular suggestion that tries to sidestep that problem.
|
Zero-K v1.9.12.0 - Bolas Tweaks