Petition to revert mex cost to 50 - Page 3

Petition to revert mex cost to 50

A dynamic game undergoing constant development and refinement, that attempts to balance playability with fresh and innovative features.

Moderator: Content Developer

Journier
Posts: 214
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 19:15

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Journier »

i can agree with multiple points here.

CA is too turret spammy, Turrets are ridiculously fast to put up and ridiculously cost effective. A single LLT even when outnumbers by 5x its cost will always atliest get 1 flash/gator kill outta the deal, making cost. the other turrets are just gravy.

Check any replay of Det in 1v1 to see how he plays, as soon as a game with him turns against him, turret spamming is his new delight and it will work. Everyone does the same. The instant turret defense around a base is used in multiple games i see. Hell I do it as well, it works and is nearly impossible to break if the game isnt over yet.

Now expansion, yea whoever stated that now its a build a nano and expand with com from start type of beginning, is absolutely correct.
Every game i have played since i came back from a break from spring i have to expand with commander to not metal stall out of my mind. And it doesnt have to be a nano but a nano is a long lasting factory assister that you can turn off and on and you dont have to have a builder or 2 using factory time and lose out on the flash spam etc.

ALSO
Mex costs, and mex health. My god, you guys are silly about the better for people who raid bit, thats bullshit.

There have been games where i run through enemy territory with enemy army following my army the whole way, and ill run right past his mex's and those fucking things will survive, forcing me to leave a gator or flash behind to finish it. That shit SLOWS raids down to the point that I hate raiding.

Thats the main reason for nano starts.



i think your thoughts should rest on these few things personally

1) turret costs/dps i dont mention turret health because turret health feels great imo, they just have pretty insane dps.
2) mex cost- i really enjoyed 50 metal mex with less health.

I think you might want to rethink what your doing because I dont think your making the correct decisions on this.

Im pretty positive you guys are losing players left and right when 3+ months ago it was just about 8 player games all night long.

and i am "seeding" games every night. most of the time ill get 3 players. and sit there for over 30 minutes before another joins.
User avatar
KingRaptor
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 838
Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 03:44

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by KingRaptor »

Why do I get the feeling that a lot of this thread is based on the assumption that flash spam should cut through anything it encounters? :/

Early game stalls could be easiest (and probably best) resolved by increasing base metal income, perhaps from +3 to +5.
Google_Frog
Moderator
Posts: 2450
Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Google_Frog »

Just to be clear there are 2 things I don't want mexes to do. I don't want them to be really easy to rebuild after a raid to the point of making raiding not worth while. They cost 50 for a long time and after a lot of 1v1s I think that just doesn't work. I also don't want them to be snipeable from under llts. With their previous HP a lone raider could pop into llt range, kill the mex and run off without being in llt range long enough to die. It could then regen and do it all over again.

It's clear people don't think this new way works and it's been tried for 4 months, although some of those issues could be due to other things. The 2x Cost and 3x HP they have since then leaves quite a bit of leeway to reduce without going back to how it didn't work before. Also the rebuilding cost could be changed by changing how much wreckage they leave, although this breaks 60% wrecks so gives Core and advantage with rez, although rez doesn't really work either so may need a rethink.

There's also the stally start of the game. This could be an issue with the raid vs defence vs econ triangle, if it's an issue at all. If raid is much more powerful than defence or econ then people will do extreme raid strats and stall. If it's not a triangle issue then it could be fixed with tweaking comm m/e/bp income.

I agree that there's too much turret spam currently. Turrets are suppose to be good against raiders so I don't want them killing any less than one out of a swarm. LLT spam could be a reaction to people spamming raiders. Maybe raiders are so good that they can be spammed against defence and still be effective compared to how effective other units (assault, skirm etc..) are against defence. It could be just due to their massive tactical advantage of moving fast enabling them to respond more quickly and attack the least defended area makes them much more spammable compared to other units.
User avatar
Yogzototh
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 02:17

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Yogzototh »

CA is too turret spammy, Turrets are ridiculously fast to put up and ridiculously cost effective. A single LLT even when outnumbers by 5x its cost will always atliest get 1 flash/gator kill outta the deal, making cost.
And WHY the hell are you using flash/gators against LLT spam? These are raiders, not assault. They are SUPPOSED to lose against turrets.
Its like complaining that your gunships are being raped by fighters.
CA is NOT too turret spammy. Its just you suckers overuse the fucking raiders and then complain that they are raped by turrets.
You sure havent played enough BA to see what real turrest spam is.
It could be just due to their massive tactical advantage of moving fast enabling them to respond more quickly and attack the least defended area makes them much more spammable compared to other units
Its just becuse the only 2 maps we play are the fucking ccr and dsd. And both of them have huge flat empty fields, which are perfect for fast mobile units.
Try playing on any hilly map and see how effective raiders are there.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Pxtl »

KingRaptor wrote:Why do I get the feeling that a lot of this thread is based on the assumption that flash spam should cut through anything it encounters? :/

Early game stalls could be easiest (and probably best) resolved by increasing base metal income, perhaps from +3 to +5.
+1

I _like_ CA's raiding game. I think it's a good compromise between BA (the ultimate raiding game) and more conventional RTS games (where the mainline units are generally more assault/defense oriented than raiding-oriented).
User avatar
CarRepairer
Cursed Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3359
Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by CarRepairer »

I'm a crap player and I don't have any problems with early game stalls. There should be no problem putting up 100m mexes after you get raided because you have a buttload of wrecks to reclaim in order to pay for it. I don't understand the obsession with wanting paper mexes. Expansions should be built normally and require a a stable economy first, not be spammable like cloggers or fleas.
Journier
Posts: 214
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 19:15

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Journier »

Yogzototh wrote:
And WHY the hell are you using flash/gators against LLT spam? These are raiders, not assault. They are SUPPOSED to lose against turrets.
Its like complaining that your gunships are being raped by fighters.
CA is NOT too turret spammy. Its just you suckers overuse the fucking raiders and then complain that they are raped by turrets.
You sure havent played enough BA to see what real turrest spam is.
I believe ive played more BA and AA than you ever have. I always enjoyed it. Mainly AA i always enjoyed though.

Its sorta hard to raid and not run into LLT's in CA protecting single mex's or groups of them.
Ashnal
Posts: 104
Joined: 24 Jun 2008, 00:57

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Ashnal »

Why not just decrease mex hp and keep cost the same? Sure you get less hp per M, but that makes good raiding more devastating and because of the cost it is still hard to rebuild. So instead of 2x cost and 3x hp how about 2x cost and 2x hp? Or even 1.5x hp?
User avatar
flop
Posts: 335
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 05:44

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by flop »

In a normal CA game you get one shot at a flash rush and one shot at stumpy/janus. If you don't outright kill your opponent with one of those two you should still be at least far enough ahead that you can go T2 before he does and end it with your first T2 attack. If you make 2 attacks like that in T1 and then don't tech up you are throwing away your advantage.
luckywaldo7
Posts: 1398
Joined: 17 Sep 2008, 04:36

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by luckywaldo7 »

KingRaptor wrote:Early game stalls could be easiest (and probably best) resolved by increasing base metal income, perhaps from +3 to +5.
The more I think about this idea the more I like it. Right now the com is so powerful. I use my com extensively on the front-line to build defense, push assaults using his gun and build turrets aggressively, and use him as a kind of rpg "tank" to defend my more vulnerable units like slashers.

In general he is not as powerful as the BA com, but because there is no complosion you don't need to worry about his death destroying all your nearby units and defenses. He is a little better because he is not so valuable.

That and he is not used as storage anymore, so there is no economy blip when he dies. With a bit more metal production his value would increase, so people would hesitate to use him so aggressively.



I think this could cut down a bit on the excessive turret spamming without nerfing an interesting part of the game. It just adds more risk.

Anyway, just ponderings on an idea.
SirMaverick
Posts: 834
Joined: 19 May 2009, 21:10

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by SirMaverick »

KingRaptor wrote:Why do I get the feeling that a lot of this thread is based on the assumption that flash spam should cut through anything it encounters? :/
+1
Its sorta hard to raid and not run into LLT's in CA protecting single mex's or groups of them.
Continue your search for unprotected mexes. Use the information, that the enemy is spending resources and build time on llts to expand faster as him.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Pxtl »

If an enemy has lots of LLTs, that's a sign he's expanding slowly or has a very small army. Either way, that means it's time to set up camp outside of his permeter. Artillery will pwn him if his defenses are too static (and you only need 1 or 2 arty units to start chewing away at his front line) and meanwhile you're keeping him busy and free to eat the rest of the map.
User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng »

why dont you guys try a test rev where mex have lower hp?
User avatar
Noruas
XTA Developer
Posts: 1269
Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 02:58

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Noruas »

I agree with Ivory King, this is the generation of experimentation after all.
User avatar
Scikar
Posts: 154
Joined: 30 Jan 2006, 07:13

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Scikar »

flop wrote:In a normal CA game you get one shot at a flash rush and one shot at stumpy/janus. If you don't outright kill your opponent with one of those two you should still be at least far enough ahead that you can go T2 before he does and end it with your first T2 attack. If you make 2 attacks like that in T1 and then don't tech up you are throwing away your advantage.
:(
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by JohannesH »

Scikar wrote:
flop wrote:In a normal CA game you get one shot at a flash rush and one shot at stumpy/janus. If you don't outright kill your opponent with one of those two you should still be at least far enough ahead that you can go T2 before he does and end it with your first T2 attack. If you make 2 attacks like that in T1 and then don't tech up you are throwing away your advantage.
:(
why so sad?
User avatar
Scikar
Posts: 154
Joined: 30 Jan 2006, 07:13

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Scikar »

Because he's quoting a retarded statement I made on a different forum and would rather not be shared.
Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Saktoth »

LOL he be trolling, i thought he was serious (i was going to wtf).
It all depends on who would dare make such a change, some are more equal than others, and all.
Thats the idea behind a meritocracy yes. Only active contributing devs have a vote. It would be hard to catch up with the ridiculous amout of work jK or Licho have put into this project thus far, and honestly its almost criminal that KR (Im picking on you because of Halberd KR) has the same voting rights, but Licho put in the democratic voting system and i defer to him because of all the work he has done (also because we instantly overruled him on powerful coms the moment democracy went in ;)).
Yeah, I can't get even close to pushing this revert against Saktoth or Google Frog alone, much less both of them together. I hope you guys will at least continue to consider my points.
It would be stupid to not value the oppinions of the best players. Dets on your side (despite origionally supporting 100 cost mex) and we are ammenable. Myself mostly to the HP (esp jeffy/weasel/flea) and 'early game mstall sucks' arguments which ive both noticed. Early game smoothness is very important to me.

Thus, 75 cost mex.
And No, I wont use the swarmer widget. It breaks the whole hiding behind buildings when attacking an enemy base.
Doesnt do it vs instant hit units AFAIK (used to though).
It's obvious there is a problem here, so stop being so arrogant!
We would not be discharging our responsibility if we did not challenge you, explore other options, and consider the issue. Google has been very reasonable and explained his arguments well, with patience and concision. You should not be attacking him.

For those who want to contribute constructive and reasonable discussion (most of this thread) you might want check the ca ticket discussion timeline, where most of the descisions are discussed.
I would attribute that problem to wrecks leaving too much metal. Despite this long discussion on mexes I think in an actual game mexes become almost irrelevant after 10 minutes or so and the game becomes mostly about getting the reclaim.
Been saying this for ages, slower reclaim helps but its still 2-3x more effective than mexes. I wouldnt mind slightly faster reclaim (though it breaks 1-1-1 T_T) but less total metal (but i like the 'lots of wrecks around' it creates emergent terrain, so less metal per wreck rather than less wrecks). Seriously though, a few people are up in arms over 60%-50% when reclaim is only 6 m/s ATM? C'mon.

CA has way more wrecks than BA because our wrecks are never nuked entirely (debris is the lowest state) and on the whole have more HP.
Check any replay of Det in 1v1 to see how he plays, as soon as a game with him turns against him, turret spamming is his new delight and it will work
Try PLAYING against it. Hate this, det is OP. Mostly because he lags me to death in lategame.

Id like to get dets input on this though since if someone beats you with a strat they are obviously the authority on that strat.
User avatar
Otherside
Posts: 2296
Joined: 21 Feb 2006, 14:09

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Otherside »

ITT : people who play to much CCR either 1v1 or with insanely big teams
Journier
Posts: 214
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 19:15

Re: Petition to revert mex cost to 50

Post by Journier »

Saktoth wrote:LOL he be trolling, i thought he was serious (i was going to wtf).
Check any replay of Det in 1v1 to see how he plays, as soon as a game with him turns against him, turret spamming is his new delight and it will work
Try PLAYING against it. Hate this, det is OP. Mostly because he lags me to death in lategame.

i have played against it, and beat it sometimes but fuck one wrong push into his epic turret spam and you may lose the entire game
Post Reply

Return to “Zero-K”