| 1 |
[quote]Even with a wide range of underwater weapons, I still expect the underwater domain to dominate. Even if half the sea artillery is underwater, being immune to half of the long range attrition options is really powerful. This seems fundamentally bad to me since underwater units interact less with the rest of the game. I think sea is at its best when most fighting revolves around armies on the surface, with units that fire underwater acting as support.[/quote]
|
1 |
[quote]Even with a wide range of underwater weapons, I still expect the underwater domain to dominate. Even if half the sea artillery is underwater, being immune to half of the long range attrition options is really powerful. This seems fundamentally bad to me since underwater units interact less with the rest of the game. I think sea is at its best when most fighting revolves around armies on the surface, with units that fire underwater acting as support.[/quote]
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
I don't think attrition immunity is all that powerful. Weapons like big bertha or impaler is immune to almost all attrition but they are not always game winners, and often as n00b traps that lose games in inefficient metal use.
|
3 |
I don't think attrition immunity is all that powerful. Weapons like big bertha or impaler is immune to almost all attrition but they are not always game winners, and often as n00b traps that lose games in inefficient metal use.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
There
is
a
wide
range
of
low
attrition
assets
that
can
be
invested
in
zero-k
and
a
invulnerable
weapon
only
makes
sense
if
it
pays
itself
back
more
than
alternatives.
If
the
unit
kill
50
metal
per
minute
and
equal
cost
in
underwater
fusion
makes
55
metal
per
minute,
the
latter
is
a
better
investment.
Now
energy
generation
counts
as
the
baseline
interest
rate
of
metal,
with
early
investment
in
combat
unit
you
can
gain
greater
advantages.
For
example,
rush
out
a
heavy
unit
and
get
early
attrition
advantage,
which
can
invested
in
snowballing
a
win
or,
if
defensive
terrain
and
excessive
force
density
prevents
it,
investment
in
eco,
end
game
weapons
and
so
on.
There
is
also
the
investment
in
defenses,
if
you
invest
1000
metal
to
not
break
regen
of
600
metal
of
shield,
the
shield+unit
overruns
you
and
evict
you
from
sea.
|
5 |
There
is
a
wide
range
of
low
attrition
assets
that
can
be
invested
in
zero-k
and
a
super
standoff
weapon
only
makes
sense
if
it
pays
itself
back
more
than
alternatives.
If
the
unit
kill
50
metal
per
minute
and
equal
cost
in
underwater
fusion
makes
55
metal
per
minute,
the
latter
is
a
better
investment.
Now
energy
generation
counts
as
the
baseline
interest
rate
of
metal,
with
early
investment
in
combat
unit
you
can
gain
greater
advantages.
For
example,
rush
out
a
heavy
unit
and
get
early
attrition
advantage,
which
can
invested
in
snowballing
a
win
or,
if
defensive
terrain
and
excessive
force
density
prevents
it,
investment
in
eco,
end
game
weapons
and
so
on.
There
is
also
the
investment
in
defenses,
if
you
invest
1000
metal
to
not
break
regen
of
600
metal
of
shield,
the
shield+unit
overruns
you
and
evict
you
from
sea.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
For really low damage artillery, there is a window between where "econ-interest rate is higher than expected rate of kill" and "can't make cost before super race ends". That is hardly meta-defining even if survivable.
|
7 |
For really low damage artillery, there is a window between where "econ-interest rate is higher than expected rate of kill" and "can't make cost before super race ends". That is hardly meta-defining even if survivable.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
The category of underwater attacker already exists, it is called the Scylla. Now imagine a Scylla 2 that have free missiles, but costs 10k metal with reload of 3 minutes. Is this a better if not op unit? Well if the game lasts another 30 minutes, but most games don't last another 30 minutes after a 10k strider, so it is no good.
|
9 |
The category of underwater attacker already exists, it is called the Scylla. Now imagine a Scylla 2 that have free missiles, but costs 10k metal with reload of 3 minutes. Is this a better if not op unit? Well if the game lasts another 30 minutes, but most games don't last another 30 minutes after a 10k strider, so it is no good.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
And resistance to some of long range attrition does not translates to well protected at all. Unit characteristics like mobility, range, and hit points is still very important. If a unit is really fragile to direct attack you'd see it being done, with exciting things like flanks or sirens being dropped/lobstered/newtoned on top of a camp and all kind of fun stuff.
|
11 |
And resistance to some of long range attrition does not translates to well protected at all. Unit characteristics like mobility, range, and hit points is still very important. If a unit is really fragile to direct attack you'd see it being done, with exciting things like flanks or sirens being dropped/lobstered/newtoned on top of a camp and all kind of fun stuff.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
In a numbers game it is always possible to balance the power level, the real question is whether players would like the gameplay results.
|
13 |
In a numbers game it is always possible to balance the power level, the real question is whether players would like the gameplay results.
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
[quote]Basically, the land weapon designs seem like they won't work. New things would be required. Maybe burnblow, maybe lua that explodes a projectile when it surfaces.[/quote]
|
15 |
[quote]Basically, the land weapon designs seem like they won't work. New things would be required. Maybe burnblow, maybe lua that explodes a projectile when it surfaces.[/quote]
|
| 16 |
It does seem like significant coding work is needed to make good feeling sea weapons. What kind of learning curve is z-k modding? I may have some significant free time in a few month.
|
16 |
It does seem like significant coding work is needed to make good feeling sea weapons. What kind of learning curve is z-k modding? I may have some significant free time in a few month.
|
| 17 |
\n
|
17 |
\n
|
| 18 |
[quote]I think there is scope for a new sea factory to have a bit more capability on land than the existing ship factory (for example, a hybrid-terrain assault unit that helps to expand a foothold for a beach landing), but making it another fully hybrid factory like amph/hover seems like it is making that space pretty crowded, without increasing the variety of plops in 1v1 games on mostly-water maps. [/quote]
|
18 |
[quote]I think there is scope for a new sea factory to have a bit more capability on land than the existing ship factory (for example, a hybrid-terrain assault unit that helps to expand a foothold for a beach landing), but making it another fully hybrid factory like amph/hover seems like it is making that space pretty crowded, without increasing the variety of plops in 1v1 games on mostly-water maps. [/quote]
|
| 19 |
I think there is lost opportunity for sea-hybrid mixed plop-able maps. We know that you can have a land map that is not traversable except by spiders: sure all spider mirror here, plus some random gunships. So you add flatter features until other factories become competitive.
|
19 |
I think there is lost opportunity for sea-hybrid mixed plop-able maps. We know that you can have a land map that is not traversable except by spiders: sure all spider mirror here, plus some random gunships. So you add flatter features until other factories become competitive.
|
| 20 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 21 |
Similarly in theory you could start with a sea map that is 100% ship dominated, and add land until hybrids becomes viable, perhaps some land short cuts to parts of the map or even land only mexes.
|
21 |
Similarly in theory you could start with a sea map that is 100% ship dominated, and add land until hybrids becomes viable, perhaps some land short cuts to parts of the map or even land only mexes.
|
| 22 |
\n
|
22 |
\n
|
| 23 |
It just seems to me that faction by map driven balance is more robust than balance by plain old playtesting. Map-based balance on differential mobility means that all factions can always have a role in some map or some part of a map while the underpowered faction in symmetrical terrain elements may be ignored completely.
|
23 |
It just seems to me that faction by map driven balance is more robust than balance by plain old playtesting. Map-based balance on differential mobility means that all factions can always have a role in some map or some part of a map while the underpowered faction in symmetrical terrain elements may be ignored completely.
|
| 24 |
\n
|
24 |
\n
|
| 25 |
If there is to be a new ship type faction I wonder if a dredging ship would be a good idea (free terra-make land into water).
|
25 |
If there is to be a new ship type faction I wonder if a dredging ship would be a good idea (free terra-make land into water).
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
\n
|
27 |
\n
|
Unlock the potential of SEA: a Pitch for new additions