Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Air fac is no fun anymore :(

87 posts, 4244 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 5 (87 records)
sort
The air fac changes over the last 6 months have imo made air much less fun and also less balanced than it used to be. It doesn't feel like an air fac should. These are the problems as I see it:

-Almost everything hits air now. In fact the best defences against air in some cases arent even AA. The most silly is puppies and faraday.

-Because everything hits air, and because shadows feel sluggish (especially dive), air fac feels more like using hovercraft than actual flying units.

-Stiletto often dies to shieldballs now. Isn't that a major part of its role?

-Why should felon hit air at all its silly.

-Air has limited role late game other than singu snipe.

-Balance discussions seem to centered around com sniping, but the nerfs/changes have left that intact while making everything else seem wrong or unbalanced.


I suggested a more complex set of changes earlier but most people thought they were a bit nuts. So could we just consider:

-Remove dive from shadows, nerf damage a little but make bomb track?
-Remove AA ability from faraday, puppies and felon?
-Give Licho/Eagle a better defined role?
+2 / -1
quote:
Almost everything hits air now. In fact the best defences against air in some cases arent even AA. The most silly is puppies and faraday.

Has been like this always. Also did you try Newtons? Those are amazing.

The idea that non-dedicated units can serve as kinda AA is awesome.

quote:
air fac feels more like using hovercraft than actual flying units.

What?

quote:
-Stiletto often dies to shieldballs now. Isn't that a major part of its role?
-Why should felon hit air at all its silly.

So dies Raven as well, but that's a problem with felons i believe. The bitches are just too good against everything.

quote:
Balance discussions seem to centered around com sniping, but the nerfs/changes have left that intact while making everything else seem wrong or unbalanced.

Care to elaborate?

quote:
-Remove dive from shadows, nerf damage a little but make bomb track?

/give bomberstrike

quote:
-Remove AA ability from faraday, puppies and felon?

Also since riots are for killing raiders, riots should not be able to target structures and skirmishers. Because it's unfair.

Also Maces should not be able to target commanders because commanders are not raiders and it's unfair that Maces can kill commanders.
(warning: sarcasm above)

quote:
-Give Licho a better defined role?

Eagle is fine, it has much less damage/cost than Raven, so it can afford to have some extras.

But Raven itself currently is a low-weight antiheavy assault that can do almost everything.

I think it's the shadow Raven that should be split into an accurate anti-unit Kestrel missile strike bomber, and a heavier weight inaccurate assault bomber (aka zeppelin, aka Eclipse).
+1 / -0
9 years ago
quote:
-Stiletto often dies to shieldballs now. Isn't that a major part of its role?

If the stiletto wasn't killed by felons it would go a long way to solving the problem with shieldballs.
+1 / -0


9 years ago
Alternate (stiletto-related) solutions to the bomber-melting ability of Felons:

A) Higher flight height.
Advantages: doesn't afect resistance to AA.
Disadvantages: requires fickle rework of the weapon to not increase AOE hilariously.

B) More health
Advantages: straightforward.
Disadvantages: can still fail vs multiple felons; increases AA resistance

Buffing health might also be seen as a way to compensate for Stiletto's loss of real stun.
+2 / -0
quote:
Has been like this always. Also did you try Newtons? Those are amazing.

I know you're the dev, but no it hasn't. There was a conscious decision to make shadows dive so they would interact with ground more, for example. You often seem to say "things were always this way" to many queries. Also, see your next point:
quote:

The idea that non-dedicated units can serve as kinda AA is awesome.

Well I disagree because it makes air seem very similar to ground units rather than being distinct.



quote:

air fac feels more like using hovercraft than actual flying units.
What?

They interact with normal ground all the time, and the basic bomber (shadow/raven) is sluggish feeling. Apart from needing to reload, isn't sluggish air that gets shot by all ground units basically an all-terrain ground fac?

quote:
So dies Raven as well, but that's a problem with felons i believe. The bitches are just too good against everything.

So would a start to fixing this be stopping felon shooting air?

quote:
Care to elaborate?

I thought that's what my post was doing.


quote:
/give bomberstrike

What?


quote:
Also since riots are for killing raiders, riots should not be able to target structures and skirmishers. Because it's unfair.
(warning: sarcasm above)

Funny, but poor comparison. No-one is claiming structures are UP or feel wrong.




quote:
Eagle is fine, it has much less damage/cost than Raven, so it can afford to have some extras.

But Raven itself currently is a low-weight antiheavy assault. I think it's the shadow Raven that should be split into an accurate anti-unit Kestrel missile strike bomber, and a heavier weight inaccurate assault bomber (aka zeppelin, aka Eclipse).

I'm not comfortable with one of the two low-weigth options being mainly anti-heavy. Early planes should be worse against coms and better against smaller units.
+0 / -0
quote:
Funny, but poor comparison. No-one is claiming structures are UP or feel wrong.

Thing is that you are proposing to add a hard targeting restriction. I was just extrapolating your argumentation.

Bottom line, things like special damages and hard targeting restrictions are not only boring, but also very much against what ZK stands for. Thus the chances of such solution of ever being implemented are close to zero.

quote:
What?

... is a command that spawns a Kestrel. Try it. Needs cheats.

quote:
I'm not comfortable with one of the two low-weigth options being mainly anti-heavy. Early planes should be worse against coms and better against smaller units.

Where did you read "antiheavy" in "an accurate anti-unit Kestrel missile strike bomber"? :|
+0 / -0
quote:
Thing is that you are proposing to add a hard targeting restriction. I was just extrapolating your argumentation.

But in doing so you are misrepresenting it. I feel I successfully pointed out the difference? Also, AA units have a hard targeting restriction.

quote:
Bottom line, things like special damages and hard targeting restrictions are not only boring, but also very much against what ZK stands for

Other units are able to dodge certain types of fire through other game mechanics, such as kiting, why shouldn't air be able to dodge stuff (planes being hard to hit is usually their whole point)? How is that boring? I feel that your application of ZK philosophy/approach is a little restrictive/selective. Why not argue each point on its merits?


quote:
Where did you read "antiheavy" in "an accurate anti-unit Kestrel missile strike bomber"? :|

My mistake I misread that. Are we bringing back Kestrel?
+0 / -0
quote:
I feel I successfully pointed out the difference?

Your "difference" is that "nobody claims that porc is underpowered"? What if people start claiming so? Or let's turn the tables.

Sniper is a cloaky artillery unit. It costs about same as Pillager, but has more DPS and can act as antiheavy. But it's artillery, right? So it shouldn't be able to target mobiles! Problem solved!


quote:
Also, AA units have a hard targeting restriction.

I've been campaigning for abolition of this since 2012.

A few months ago you would also be able to invoke "but torpedoes also have hard targeting restrictions". Guess what happened to those...

quote:
Other units are able to dodge certain types of fire through other game mechanics, such as kiting, why shouldn't air be able to dodge stuff

The devil is in the details. How do you propose to prevent, say, Faradays from shooting fast targets that fly without losing ability to shoot fast targets that run?

I just assumed that your solution was to prohibit them from ever trying, feel free to prove me wrong.

Also, planes already have some dodging mechanics with how avengers can Displace out of missiles range and lose them.

quote:
Are we bringing back Kestrel?

I was just proposing it as a better solution. By the way it also flies low just like Raven does, but since it's not anti everything, that's a bit okay. If you want to bomb hardened defenses, in this proposal, you use Eclipses that both fly higher and have the armor to withstand.
+0 / -0
I kind of agree.. the shadow is still fun, but the phoenix is too nerfed to be fun, the disarm bomber is too toothless to be fun, the radar plane was never fun, the licho would be more fun if it had a more specific role and the air vs air game is the least fun thing in existance.
+3 / -1
I don't object to bringing back Kestrel and having a range of roles for low cost plane units. Your idea seems good I would love to see us give it a try.

Yes I am proposing hard restriction - but it is not unlike the restriction of AA units like screamers not being able to shoot ground, which an objection to hard restriction would also seem to oppose.
+0 / -0
9 years ago
quote:
Your "difference" is that "nobody claims that porc is underpowered"? What if people start claiming so? Or let's turn the tables.


Well I said structures, but yes if they had valid reasons for saying too much stuff was hitting and destroying porc that absolutely would be a fair argument. But that's not the case (only artillery outranges porc, and it has many weaknesses)
+0 / -0
9 years ago
quote:
A few months ago you would also be able to invoke "but torpedoes also have hard targeting restrictions". Guess what happened to those...

They fucked up the sea balance to a state even worse than before?

Air is useless beyond early game because AA can easily escalate into heavier things like chainsaw, while bombers cannot. Air is like raiders, and the entire class gets countered by one other unit class.


Calling air OP is as valid as calling bandits OP because they are fast and 900m worth of bandits can kill a lonely com. Bandits stay valid only until the other team gets some riots. In the same way, air stays viable only until the other team gets some AA.
+0 / -0
quote:
Yes I am proposing hard restriction - but it is not unlike the restriction of AA units like screamers not being able to shoot ground

How? (note that i already voiced the approach of increasing flight height)

quote:
Calling air OP

Who does that?
+0 / -0
9 years ago
quote:
I've been campaigning for abolition of this since 2012.

Are you seriously proposing allowing AA to shoot ground? Eg. screamer. I don't understand that seems absurd.

I'm uncertain, but you seem to be in favour of removing air as a distinct category entirely?
+0 / -0
quote:
Yes I am proposing hard restriction - but it is not unlike the restriction of AA units like screamers not being able to shoot ground
How?

... ... ... .... it is also a hard restriction....
+0 / -0
quote:
Are you seriously proposing allowing AA to shoot ground? Eg. screamer. I don't understand that seems absurd.

If it was that easy, it would have long been done. So far the restriction stays alive because nobody figured out a reasonable way of dealing with it.

That, however, is no excuse to add more of those.

quote:
They fucked up the sea balance to a state even worse than before?

The current state of sea is not final.

quote:
that absolutely would be a fair argument

Unfortunately, that doesn't fly. Also giving bombers 90% armour vs ground weapons doesn't work either.

quote:
.... it is also a hard restriction....

Good luck with that.

quote:
I'm uncertain, but you seem to be in favour of removing air as a distinct category entirely?

Not just air, all "categories".

I'm in favour of having the game determined by its physics. Air being a special restriction currently leads to things like fighters being able to attack landed gunships, but unable hit things sitting right next to them.

You are asking to introduce more of such nonsense cases. Like Faradays being unable to attack landed planes.
+2 / -0
9 years ago
quote:
If it was that easy, it would have long been done. So far the restriction stays alive because nobody figured out a reasonable way of dealing with it.

Or, no one can find a reasonable way because actually it makes more sense to have a quite reasonable restriction like air is distinct from ground?


quote:
Good luck with that.

quote:
Unfortunately, that doesn't fly.
what why?

I guess you got sick of discussing this.
+0 / -0


9 years ago
quote:
what why?
I guess you got sick of discussing this.

I'm just saying that this will never be accepted because it goes against every design decision ever made on ZK.

quote:
Or, no one can find a reasonable way because actually it makes more sense to have a quite reasonable restriction like air is distinct from ground?

Mmm, so AA shooting landed planes is reasonable, and ground units not shooting landed planes is too?
+0 / -0
9 years ago
quote:
I'm just saying that this will never be accepted because it goes against every design decision ever made on ZK.

There is currently hard-restrictions, like AA can't shoot ground, so clearly there has been multiple design decisions supporting hard restrictions throughout most of ZK's history.

quote:
Mmm, so AA shooting landed planes is reasonable, and ground units not shooting landed planes is too?

Now you are pretty blatantly mispresenting my argument. Removing hard restriction on AA seems to do far more damage than these minor problems.

In the end you're the dev, I feel you have a vision for where air is going, and I guess the players just have to deal with it. Fine.
+0 / -0
Dedicated AAs are basically the most boring units in this game, mostly because of their target restrictions.

I think the direction the developers want air to go is a bit unclear, they seem like the current target restrictions based airplay, which encourages air/land switches and tend to make air efficiency decrease over time, but they also try to add more flex AA elements to the game by making shadow or raven diving etc.
+0 / -0
Page of 5 (87 records)