Ressurecting

[PauloMorfeo]

Hovering over a reckage no longer shows how much metal it has but i think it must be less than the original metal cost of the unit.

So, when we are ressurecting it without spending metal (as it is now!?), we end up gaining that diference of metal for free.
That should not be.

[Doomweaver]

Agreed, you should have to pay the full energy cost of the unit, plus the difference in metal.

[mongus]

-Resurrecting a unit now cost half the energy of building it

only energy or metal too?

[Warlord Zsinj]

It is far too complicated; and it could confuse players during the game. Worse - it is actually part of the whole enticement to resurrect that it costs no metal. It adds an interesting element to the game on low-metal maps.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the unit is resurrected at its weakened state, and then repaired to full health using the usual replacement energy fee. Units on near-death health would likely have missing metal from impacts, etc; but no extra metal is charged for the repairing of the unit.

[zwzsg]

Ressurection is already rare and hard enough, I don't think it should cost more than nothing.

[FireCrack]

Yeah, i agree it doesnt realy make sense, and seems to reasonlessly introduce more free metal into the game, but as zwzsg said, resurection is already hard enough.

[FizWizz]

Ressurection is already rare and hard enough, I don't think it should cost more than nothing.

hear hear.

[Lordofinfinity]

Ressurection should not cost metal. Its should only cost the energy that it took to build that unit (Does it already? I never notice. ). Thats what makes ressurection deffrent then building. If it costs metal to ressurect it, then why not just build a fresh new unit instead of blowing green stuff on garbage?

[mongus]

i can tell you have never played against an "undead" player.

spending several small armys (4 tanks, +5 lrms + someothersht) on someones defenses, (usually this ppl build more defenses than army), and then have it back at your base to kill you, (plus the few army the other player may have), is frustrating.

what i mean, is that is too easy to pile wreckage, then resurrect it and win.

i dont do that, but ive seen it done, and it IS much easy and effective.

thus, should be harder to do. maybe little metal cost.

[Kuroneko]

i can tell you have never played against an "undead" player.

spending several small armys (4 tanks, +5 lrms + someothersht) on someones defenses, (usually this ppl build more defenses than army), and then have it back at your base to kill you, (plus the few army the other player may have), is frustrating.

what i mean, is that is too easy to pile wreckage, then resurrect it and win.

i dont do that, but ive seen it done, and it IS much easy and effective.

thus, should be harder to do. maybe little metal cost.

I've ressurected an army, then used it to repel thier next attack, and then used both armies combined to attack. The problem with relying on that is that a corpse may or may not be ressurectable. Therefor, the 'new' army will be nowhere near as strong. On top of that, unlike constructing units, adding more necros/farks will not speed up ressurection (as far as I can tell, maybe they changed something and I hadn't noticed)

[IMSabbel]

oh it _will_ speed up. At least that was my impression. Putting 10 farks on a krogoth will get it up fairly quickly.


But the point is: is fair. Yeah, the units are ressurected. But for that to be quick and efficient, the ressurector needs several farks.

Without ressourection, he could just reclaim it for the metal and let those farks help push out new units. That wouldnt be _that_ much worse in terms of yield, plus he could chose which units to build.


Not to mention that farks are expensive, and 1 or 2 merls and radar kbots that still linger in the distance can make the ressourection affair quite costly.