|
|
1 |
I'll add my own flavor to things that have been said already, because I agree with a lot of what has been said so far but still hope I can add something through my own perspective:
|
|
|
2 |
\n
|
| 1 |
[q] I think it boils down mostly to being not interactive enough. It's not really a balance thing.
|
3 |
[q] I think it boils down mostly to being not interactive enough. It's not really a balance thing.
|
| 2 |
Theres just not too much you can do on the receiving end of a magpie strike compared to say a raven/phoenix/tb strike where riots can still shred a few planes. [/q]
|
4 |
Theres just not too much you can do on the receiving end of a magpie strike compared to say a raven/phoenix/tb strike where riots can still shred a few planes. [/q]
|
| 3 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 4 |
Yes, that was my major complaint when they were introduced. Even Likho gives you a bit of room and even if you just don't manage to save a single unit of your blob, you still know that you were given a chance.
|
6 |
Yes, that was my major complaint when they were introduced. Even Likho gives you a bit of room and even if you just don't manage to save a single unit of your blob, you still know that you were given a chance.
|
| 5 |
When a swarm of magpies approaches your army, you might as well just queue up some solars.
|
7 |
When a swarm of magpies approaches your army, you might as well just queue up some solars.
|
| 6 |
Now, diving Ravens are also virtually undodgeable, but 1) as Stiofan already said, you can at least reposition your units to deal damage in return and 2) just because you have one virtually undodgeable unit does not mean you need more of that.
|
8 |
Now, diving Ravens are also virtually undodgeable, but 1) as Stiofan already said, you can at least reposition your units to deal damage in return and 2) just because you have one virtually undodgeable unit does not mean you need more of that.
|
|
|
9 |
\n
|
|
|
10 |
\n
|
|
|
11 |
[q] Besides playing against Magpies, I also don't enjoy having a Magpie player on MY team. Personally I don't enjoy what the existence of Magpie does to Zero-K. [/q]
|
| 7 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
|
|
13 |
I share that, but I think there are some "objective" reasons for that as well. Sure, how you want a game to be is always going to be a subjective opinion. But I do think that from a design perspective, there are a few things that could be improved on. Here, you can first look at what the intention behind the unit was and how well it fulfills it.
|
| 8 |
If I remember correctly, Magpies were introduced to give the air-player some easy to access offensive capabilities in the early game. (So, if I am wrong about that, you can ignore this paragraph.) I don't think this idea works well right now.
|
14 |
If I remember correctly, Magpies were introduced to give the air-player some easy to access offensive capabilities in the early game. (So, if I am wrong about that, you can ignore this paragraph.) I don't think this idea works well right now.
|
| 9 |
In the very early stage of a game, the only thing Magpie is good for is killing raiders. In smaller teams on open maps, this is probably not too usefull because the number of raiders will increase quite dramatically very soon and just outscale Magpies. In TAW sized games, raiders are already suppressed by a multitude of other things (including some anti-raider raiders like Bandit and Pyro) that magpie is not just the last nail in the coffin, but simultaneously the most severe, because you can't really avoid an engagement and you can't dodge at the same time. Sure, there is no need to have raiders be good in TAW openings (at least on most maps), but that is not really the point here. What I mean is that Magpies work too well here, while not even being needed in the first place.
|
15 |
In the very early stage of a game, the only thing Magpie is good for is killing raiders. In smaller teams on open maps, this is probably not too usefull because the number of raiders will increase quite dramatically very soon and just outscale Magpies. In TAW sized games, raiders are already suppressed by a multitude of other things (including some anti-raider raiders like Bandit and Pyro) that magpie is not just the last nail in the coffin, but simultaneously the most severe, because you can't really avoid an engagement and you can't dodge at the same time. Sure, there is no need to have raiders be good in TAW openings (at least on most maps), but that is not really the point here. What I mean is that Magpies work too well here, while not even being needed in the first place.
|
| 10 |
After the raider stage - so, quite fast in most team scenarios - Magpie enter their lowpoint, where most units get a bit too beefy for them and they need to scale up for a good bit to be really useful again.
|
16 |
After the raider stage - so, quite fast in most team scenarios - Magpie enter their lowpoint, where most units get a bit too beefy for them and they need to scale up for a good bit to be really useful again.
|
| 11 |
TLDR; I think Magpie's role is a combination of overkill and underwhelm at the same time + being frustrating for players at the recieving end.
|
17 |
TLDR; I think Magpie's role is a combination of overkill and underwhelm at the same time + being frustrating for players at the recieving end.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 13 |
Lastly,
a
more
general
thing
about
air,
but
since
that's
a
bit
derailing,
I
will
put
this
in
spoilers.
If
anyone
wants
to
discuss
the
following,
please
ask
me
to
make
a
separate
threat
or
make
one
yourself.
|
19 |
|
| 14 |
[spoiler]
|
20 |
Second,
the
(
more)
subjective
part
based
on
how
I
experience
playing
the
game:
|
|
|
21 |
\n
|
| 15 |
I know that the old swiftspam meta leaves a lot to be desired, but in teams, I still rather have a good swift player than the current bomber focused meta. First, air-players on average still monospam, just a different unit type now; second, air being focused on something that is geared to fight the opposing air-player while still being able to do other things (mostly scouting and harrassing raiders) just integrates better into the game. With the bomber focused meta, groundplayers are basically forced to build their own aa. Which would not be that bad if it didn't mean that almost every single player needs enough to not get wiped by a sudden airstrike. Swiftspam means that aa is basically centralised and fast enough to respond over long ranges.
|
22 |
I know that the old swiftspam meta leaves a lot to be desired, but in teams, I still rather have a good swift player than the current bomber focused meta. First, air-players on average still monospam, just a different unit type now; second, air being focused on something that is geared to fight the opposing air-player while still being able to do other things (mostly scouting and harrassing raiders) just integrates better into the game. With the bomber focused meta, groundplayers are basically forced to build their own aa. Which would not be that bad if it didn't mean that almost every single player needs enough to not get wiped by a sudden airstrike. Swiftspam means that aa is basically centralised and fast enough to respond over long ranges.
|
| 16 |
As a ground player, the current air feels even more disconnected to the rest of the game and often like a slot machine. "Oh this swarm of Magpies could save my front from the army that is rolling over me right now... Ah, great, they just fly past me to bomb some commander somewhere else." Even if they don't do much in terms of direct damage, I feel more supported by swift-players like @Helwor than Magpie/Raven users that deal more damage overall, but don't provide anything else.
|
23 |
As a ground player, the current air feels even more disconnected to the rest of the game and often like a slot machine. "Oh this swarm of Magpies could save my front from the army that is rolling over me right now... Ah, great, they just fly past me to bomb some commander somewhere else." Even if they don't do much in terms of direct damage, I feel more supported by swift-players like @Helwor than Magpie/Raven users that deal more damage overall, but don't provide anything else.
|
| 17 |
I think a desirable state for airplay right now would be to at least do something about the monospam tendencies. Air players should profit the most from having multiple types of units.
|
24 |
I think a desirable state for airplay right now would be to at least do something about the monospam tendencies. Air players should profit the most from having multiple types of units.
|
| 18 |
NOTE: of course this is not just a thing of gamedesign, but the decisions of individual air-player themselves. Still, the design provides the incentives for those decisions.
|
25 |
NOTE: of course this is not just a thing of gamedesign, but the decisions of individual air-player themselves. Still, the design provides the incentives for those decisions.
|
| 19 |
[/spoiler]
|
26 |
|
Magpie & AA & Air