| 1 |
I didn't say "burst isn't important", I said it has pros and cons and acknowledged that in the grizzly's case it does devalue the weapon A BIT relative to a 100% efficient instahit constant dps weapon. I'd roughly rate it as 80% dps efficient in general: it's worse than that if they're alone and being swarmed by some of their worst case enemies (highest dps and lowest weight), but better on other situations. Cyclops' cannon also has low projectile speed and low AOE, in ZK's terms i'd roughly rate that as 40% dps-efficient in general, but still consider the unit itself as broadly effective given the slow beam and its other attributes.
|
1 |
I didn't say "burst isn't important", I said it has pros and cons and acknowledged that in the grizzly's case it does devalue the weapon A BIT relative to a 100% efficient instahit constant dps weapon. I'd roughly rate it as 80% dps efficient in general: it's worse than that if they're alone and being swarmed by some of their worst case enemies (highest dps and lowest weight), but better on other situations. Cyclops' cannon also has low projectile speed and low AOE, in ZK's terms i'd roughly rate that as 40% dps-efficient in general, but still consider the unit itself as broadly effective given the slow beam and its other attributes.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Yes, this means i'm rating the current 250 dps bursty grizzly as worth the same as a 200 dps grizzly with a constant dps weapon. Hey maybe for ZK the fair value would be 170 not 200. It's natural for different RTS with different unit sets to weigh things differently, but there's a fair scale for ZK too in there somewhere.
|
3 |
Yes, this means i'm rating the current 250 dps bursty grizzly as worth the same as a 200 dps grizzly with a constant dps weapon. Hey maybe for ZK the fair value would be 170 not 200. It's natural for different RTS with different unit sets to weigh things differently, but there's a fair scale for ZK too in there somewhere.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
GF's arguments show a tendency to ban the efficient DPS case completely rather than try to give it a fair cost. To force "clumsyness" beyond 400 range. I think that reasoning is a bad design decision:
|
5 |
GF's arguments show a tendency to ban the efficient DPS case completely rather than try to give it a fair cost. To force "clumsyness" beyond 400 range. I think that reasoning is a bad design decision:
|
| 6 |
- limits unit variety : options across the range of clumsyness would still be used if given fair costs
|
6 |
- limits unit variety : options across the range of clumsyness would still be used if given fair costs
|
| 7 |
-
"clumsyness"
has
scaling
issues
:
as
the
map
gets
populated
and
numbers
grow
and
they're
given
a
bit
of
escorting
from
counter-counter
units,
they
go
from
failing
to
hit/kill
the
units
they
were
supposed
to
counter,
to
wrecking
the
units
they're
not
supposed
to
counter
(
rogue,
lance,
grizzly,
cerberus,
bertha)
|
7 |
-
"clumsyness"
has
scaling
issues
:
as
the
map
gets
populated
and
numbers
grow
and
they're
given
a
bit
of
escorting
from
counter-counter
units,
they
go
from
failing
to
hit/kill
the
units
they
were
supposed
to
counter,
to
wrecking
the
units
they're
not
supposed
to
counter
(
as
happens
with
rogue,
lance,
grizzly,
cerberus,
bertha)
|
| 8 |
- various inconsistencies in costs and how clumsy/inefficient units are
|
8 |
- various inconsistencies in costs and how clumsy/inefficient units are
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
In case of commander range mods, cost goes up linearly but weapon value increases non-linearly with relative range (generically something like *relativeRange^2). In other words, one increases the raw cost-effectiveness of the commander as a combat unit faster by stacking range mods than any other attribute although the unit can be more easily sniped or overrun (mixing hp, regen and speed also have sinergies, but the chassis gains some naturally as it levels up...at least the strike does).
|
10 |
In case of commander range mods, cost goes up linearly but weapon value increases non-linearly with relative range (generically something like *relativeRange^2). In other words, one increases the raw cost-effectiveness of the commander as a combat unit faster by stacking range mods than any other attribute although the unit can be more easily sniped or overrun (mixing hp, regen and speed also have sinergies, but the chassis gains some naturally as it levels up...at least the strike does).
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
Anyway, I've made my case for allowing efficient weapons across a wider range interval and that it'd be safer to reduce the amount of range mods they can stack instead of nerfing the cost-effectiveness the mods at lower levels and that most commander weapons need higher base stats for combat commanders to be a worthy investment. I'm curious what you'll do.
|
12 |
Anyway, I've made my case for allowing efficient weapons across a wider range interval and that it'd be safer to reduce the amount of range mods they can stack instead of nerfing the cost-effectiveness the mods at lower levels and that most commander weapons need higher base stats for combat commanders to be a worthy investment. I'm curious what you'll do.
|
Long ranged commanders