| 1 |
@skuggmodzer0 those principals sound ok. I think I would replace vulnerability with juicy target though, as they are valuable to take out but are relatively tanky.
|
1 |
@skuggmodzer0 those principals sound ok. I think I would replace vulnerability with juicy target though, as they are valuable to take out but are relatively tanky.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
[q]maybe we can have themed weekend, with strong commander stats, for the lulz? [/q]
|
3 |
[q]maybe we can have themed weekend, with strong commander stats, for the lulz? [/q]
|
| 4 |
Sure. Part of the idea of tweakunits was to make weekend mods easy to apply.
|
4 |
Sure. Part of the idea of tweakunits was to make weekend mods easy to apply.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
[q]You're underestimating how much the cost to get there matters (assuming you'd keep the 150m cost and the -1 speed penalty, which is about 2.5%). In your case i'd have to pay over 2x as much and would end up with 10% less range.[/q]
|
6 |
[q]You're underestimating how much the cost to get there matters (assuming you'd keep the 150m cost and the -1 speed penalty, which is about 2.5%). In your case i'd have to pay over 2x as much and would end up with 10% less range.[/q]
|
| 7 |
I said this:
|
7 |
I said this:
|
| 8 |
[q]I don't see any reason to let beam laser go beyond 440 range. This corresponds to eight modules with 4% range each. If we want to flatten the ranges somewhat then a combination of 2% base range + 6 absolute range would also work. [i][b]The module could be a bit cheaper to compensate[/b][/i].[/q]
|
8 |
[q]I don't see any reason to let beam laser go beyond 440 range. This corresponds to eight modules with 4% range each. If we want to flatten the ranges somewhat then a combination of 2% base range + 6 absolute range would also work. [i][b]The module could be a bit cheaper to compensate[/b][/i].[/q]
|
| 9 |
I don't think the module would stay at 150m.
|
9 |
I don't think the module would stay at 150m.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
What is actually wrong with nerfing all range caps, rather than just setting an arbitrary cap on beam laser? If the specialised long range (380+ base range, like missile launcher or sniper) need more base range then couldn't they just have it?
|
11 |
What is actually wrong with nerfing all range caps, rather than just setting an arbitrary cap on beam laser? If the specialised long range (380+ base range, like missile launcher or sniper) need more base range then couldn't they just have it?
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
[q]I don't think this is significant. In ZK mobile build power is dirt cheap. Welders and shieldbot builders are particularly effective at front line repairing and reclaiming. It's much better to have the commander cloak and keep the enemy guessing.[/q]
|
13 |
[q]I don't think this is significant. In ZK mobile build power is dirt cheap. Welders and shieldbot builders are particularly effective at front line repairing and reclaiming. It's much better to have the commander cloak and keep the enemy guessing.[/q]
|
| 14 |
On paper yes, but it doesn't seem like it in practice. Constructors take a long time to walk to the front and are juicy targets. It is not uncommon for mobile BP at a front to mostly or entirely commanders.
|
14 |
On paper yes, but it doesn't seem like it in practice. Constructors take a long time to walk to the front and are juicy targets. It is not uncommon for mobile BP at a front to mostly or entirely commanders.
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
[q]In a way these high impact events create tension and make the game more fun.[/q]
|
16 |
[q]In a way these high impact events create tension and make the game more fun.[/q]
|
| 17 |
Yes, but there is such a thing as being too swingy, and a lack of counterplay. Take the Glaive example. Against Cyclops or Grizzly you can dodge or spread to mitigate damage, but against beam laser comm there is none of that. If Cyclops or Grizzly have riot escort then you can can try to pick off or pressure them out of the way, but when the comm is also a [i]decent enough[/i] riot (ie beating half its cost) then there is none of that.
|
17 |
Yes, but there is such a thing as being too swingy, and a lack of counterplay. Take the Glaive example. Against Cyclops or Grizzly you can dodge or spread to mitigate damage, but against beam laser comm there is none of that. If Cyclops or Grizzly have riot escort then you can can try to pick off or pressure them out of the way, but when the comm is also a [i]decent enough[/i] riot (ie beating half its cost) then there is none of that.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
[q]I don't see how commanders are unique in this. ZK's unit set has several units that suppress a wide range of other units hard. It's very hard to use most early game units when getting shot at by a pair of firewalkers, or having a dante throw its incendiary rocket barrage in your general direction every 20s. Grizzly and cyclops's only major weaknesses to raiders can be fixed by adding 20% cost in cheap riots. Tank factory cries against moderators. [/q]
|
19 |
[q]I don't see how commanders are unique in this. ZK's unit set has several units that suppress a wide range of other units hard. It's very hard to use most early game units when getting shot at by a pair of firewalkers, or having a dante throw its incendiary rocket barrage in your general direction every 20s. Grizzly and cyclops's only major weaknesses to raiders can be fixed by adding 20% cost in cheap riots. Tank factory cries against moderators. [/q]
|
| 20 |
Firewalker is awkward and very vulnerable to snipers, bombers and raiders. Dante is a strider, so it does nothing for 3500 metal. Grizzly and Cyclops aren't [i]only[/i] weak to raiders, and having to support them with riots is the [i]whole point[/i] of how ZK units are designed.
|
20 |
Firewalker is awkward and very vulnerable to snipers, bombers and raiders. Dante is a strider, so it does nothing for 3500 metal. Grizzly and Cyclops aren't [i]only[/i] weak to raiders, and having to support them with riots is the [i]whole point[/i] of how ZK units are designed.
|
| 21 |
\n
|
21 |
\n
|
| 22 |
Let me belabour this point as it is an important one. When someone says "Well a mix of units X and Y is more powerful than just Z" or "Well a weakness of unit X can just be covered by unit Y" my answer is "Good". This isn't a problem, it is by design. Compositions are meant to be much more powerful than individual unit types. The more unit types the better. This is to reflect how much harder it is to coordinate and maintain an army that depends on many unit types being present.
|
22 |
Let me belabour this point as it is an important one. When someone says "Well a mix of units X and Y is more powerful than just Z" or "Well a weakness of unit X can just be covered by unit Y" my answer is "Good". This isn't a problem, it is by design. Compositions are meant to be much more powerful than individual unit types. The more unit types the better. This is to reflect how much harder it is to coordinate and maintain an army that depends on many unit types being present.
|
| 23 |
\n
|
23 |
\n
|
| 24 |
An
army
of
one
unit
type
is
trivial
to
manage.
Just
set
your
factory
to
repeat,
spam
Ctrl+Z,
draw
some
line
formations,
and
make
sure
it
fights
what
it
is
good
against.
There
is
very
little
to
keep
track
of.
But
once
you
add
even
one
extra
unit
type
there
is
so
much
more
to
consider.
Different
units
have
different
speeds,
optimal
fighting
ranges
and
spreads,
enemies
that
they
prefer
to
fight
or
run
away
from,
and
want
to
retreat
at
different
points.
Compositions
tend
to
lose
units
at
different
rates
(
consider
Ogre
+
Minotaur)
,
which
has
dynamic
implications
for
a
factory
repeat
queue
-
another
thing
to
manage.
The
more
defensive
units
of
a
composition
can
be
picked
off
or
pushed
out
of
position,
until
you
suddenly
realise
that
you
don't
have
enough
riots
or
AA.
With
three
or
four
required
types
it
gets
even
more
complex,
and
army
power
is
the
payoff
for
this
complexity.
|
24 |
An
army
of
one
unit
type
is
trivial
to
manage.
Just
set
your
factory
to
repeat,
spam
Ctrl+Z,
draw
some
line
formations,
and
make
sure
it
fights
what
it
is
good
against.
There
is
very
little
to
keep
track
of.
But
once
you
add
even
one
extra
unit
type
there
is
so
much
more
to
consider.
Different
units
have
different
speeds,
optimal
fighting
ranges
and
spreads,
enemies
that
they
prefer
to
fight
or
run
away
from,
and
want
to
retreat
at
different
points.
Compositions
tend
to
lose
units
at
different
rates
(
consider
Ogre
+
Minotaur)
,
which
has
dynamic
implications
for
a
factory
repeat
queue
-
another
thing
to
manage.
The
more
defensive
units
of
a
composition
can
be
picked
off
or
pushed
out
of
position,
until
you
suddenly
realise
that
you
don't
have
enough
riots
or
AA.
None
of
this
happens
with
a
viable
army
of
one
unit,
or,
with
a
single
commander.
With
three
or
four
required
types
it
gets
even
more
complex,
and
army
power
is
the
payoff
for
this
complexity.
|
| 25 |
\n
|
25 |
\n
|
| 26 |
So I don't care if it is in fact true that some combination of Grizzly and Reaver can do everything better than any commander. A commander is one unit, while Grizzly and Reaver are two unit types. The combination is supposed to be better. I only care when the statement goes the other way, that is, if there was a commander that was about as powerful as a (reasonable sounding) combination of units.
|
26 |
So I don't care if it is in fact true that some combination of Grizzly and Reaver can do everything better than any commander. A commander is one unit, while Grizzly and Reaver are two unit types. The combination is supposed to be better. I only care when the statement goes the other way, that is, if there was a commander that was about as powerful as a (reasonable sounding) combination of units.
|
|
|
27 |
\n
|
|
|
28 |
Finally, a bit of nuance. Armies aren't made of only one, two, three etc... unit types. An army might be primarily one unit type with a little bit of support from a second. In this case you could remove the second unit type and the army would mostly be fine, for a while. It depends on how much power the army loses, or vulnerability it gains, if the second unit is removed. It isn't strictly about cost ratios. So I would still consider Ripper + Fencer to be a two-type army, since the few Rippers are protecting against being overwhelmed by raiders. This is relevant to commanders because the best ones don't act completely alone. The beamlaser commander in the replays I linked had Buoy support, but to my eye the Buoys were secondary. It was the commander that was doing the heavy lifting.
|
| 27 |
\n
|
29 |
\n
|
| 28 |
@Majo yes you can shut down commanders, but you can also shut down anything else. It isn't a question of whether counters exist, it's about whether counters are efficient enough to deploy. It is about momentum and pacing. Where is your opponent going to find two cloaked Lances if they have been pressuring you all game while morphing up?
|
30 |
@Majo yes you can shut down commanders, but you can also shut down anything else. It isn't a question of whether counters exist, it's about whether counters are efficient enough to deploy. It is about momentum and pacing. Where is your opponent going to find two cloaked Lances if they have been pressuring you all game while morphing up?
|
| 29 |
\n
|
31 |
\n
|
| 30 |
Does anyone else have anything to say about this?
|
32 |
Does anyone else have anything to say about this?
|
| 31 |
[q]Burst is important. Consider a bunch of Glaives running at a commander or other heavy unit.
|
33 |
[q]Burst is important. Consider a bunch of Glaives running at a commander or other heavy unit.
|
| 32 |
* The beam laser commander kills a Glaive every 0.8 seconds.
|
34 |
* The beam laser commander kills a Glaive every 0.8 seconds.
|
| 33 |
* A Grizzly is lucky to kill more than two Glaives every 6 seconds.
|
35 |
* A Grizzly is lucky to kill more than two Glaives every 6 seconds.
|
| 34 |
* A Cyclops probably kills a Glaive every 3.5 seconds, unless they dodge.
|
36 |
* A Cyclops probably kills a Glaive every 3.5 seconds, unless they dodge.
|
| 35 |
\n
|
37 |
\n
|
| 36 |
Here is some testing. Against 14 Glaives:
|
38 |
Here is some testing. Against 14 Glaives:
|
| 37 |
* A 7x range 1x speed beamlaser commander (2200 cost) survives with about 20% HP.
|
39 |
* A 7x range 1x speed beamlaser commander (2200 cost) survives with about 20% HP.
|
| 38 |
* A Grizzly dies and 8 Glaives survive.
|
40 |
* A Grizzly dies and 8 Glaives survive.
|
| 39 |
* A Cyclops dies and 10 Glaives survive.
|
41 |
* A Cyclops dies and 10 Glaives survive.
|
| 40 |
* A Scorpion (no dgun) survives with about 40% health.
|
42 |
* A Scorpion (no dgun) survives with about 40% health.
|
| 41 |
\n
|
43 |
\n
|
| 42 |
Things are much more complicated against skirmishers. I tried Ronin, but the commander can dodge Ronin at max range near-indefinitely. So here are results with the Ronin trying to close distance to increase accuracy, while the defender tries to dodge and retreat.
|
44 |
Things are much more complicated against skirmishers. I tried Ronin, but the commander can dodge Ronin at max range near-indefinitely. So here are results with the Ronin trying to close distance to increase accuracy, while the defender tries to dodge and retreat.
|
| 43 |
* A 7x range 1x speed beamlaser commander (2200 cost) survives with about 15% HP.
|
45 |
* A 7x range 1x speed beamlaser commander (2200 cost) survives with about 15% HP.
|
| 44 |
* A Grizzly dies and 10 Ronin survive.
|
46 |
* A Grizzly dies and 10 Ronin survive.
|
| 45 |
* A Cyclops dies and 13 Ronin survive.
|
47 |
* A Cyclops dies and 13 Ronin survive.
|
| 46 |
* A Scorpion (no dgun) dies and 7 Ronin survive.[/q]
|
48 |
* A Scorpion (no dgun) dies and 7 Ronin survive.[/q]
|
| 47 |
A lot has been said about commander power in general, but my primary concern is the way that the particular commander tested above appears to outclass similarly priced demi-striders at a really common task (fighting light units). I contend that the above is violating the principal of commanders being less efficient than units, so it seems like a good basis for a targeted nerf. If commanders are much much less efficient than units at some other role then they could be buffed, but here it seems like they are more efficient so should be nerfed.
|
49 |
A lot has been said about commander power in general, but my primary concern is the way that the particular commander tested above appears to outclass similarly priced demi-striders at a really common task (fighting light units). I contend that the above is violating the principal of commanders being less efficient than units, so it seems like a good basis for a targeted nerf. If commanders are much much less efficient than units at some other role then they could be buffed, but here it seems like they are more efficient so should be nerfed.
|
Long ranged commanders