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

Cloakbot Imp

46 posts, 918 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 3 (46 records)
sort
Lynx
I would like to propose that consideration is afforded to Cloakbot Imp behaviour.

Suppose a user gathers a selection of Imp units for the purpose of EMP'ing a large unit. Suppose they are all fairly close together. Now suppose, with all of them selected, the user issues an attack command on the large unit. What is expected from the issuance of this command is that you will see a synchronised detonation and massive EMP injection.

What instead the user sees is that the first of the bunch detonates, stunning the rest of the bunch, which sit there doing nothing and die. Which is rather a disappointment.

As an example of the poor behaviour, please see:

http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/902031

I created about half a dozen Imps, with the expectation rightly or wrongly that this would be enough to stun a detriment. I had a bunch selected and managed to sneak up to the otherwise occupied detriment under cover of a bombardment of all manner of units form my team mates. I believe I got a clump very close to the detriment and that I issued an attack command with said clump selected. Rather than massive injection of EMP, one Imp detonates stunning the rest, which was rather disappointing.

So that is the problem. For the solution, how about either:

1) EMP stun of Imp effects detonation; or

2) Imps within proximity of each other that have attack order active will give rise to synchronised detonation? I suppose this could be achieved by enabling 1) with live attack order.

+3 / -0
4 years ago
balancing this game seems to be done in some way i dont understand. some units are rarely made by the top ranks.. and yet those units never get a buff.
+2 / -0

4 years ago
The meta follows trends aswell. Just because something isn't used a lot doesn't mean it is underpowered. Also some units are purposely nerfed as they might be detrimental to gameplay if they were widely used while they might still hold a niche in their underpowered state.
+3 / -0
+ at the moment balancing seems more about creativity. Balance-patches come very fast without giving players proper time to work out counters. in other games with way more players, it took around a year or 2 to find viable counters to specific things, but i guess people here don`t have the patience.
Also, "balancing" here also contains throwing units in the mix that are clearly overpowered. Look bolas and no further. No one can tell me that a player of frogs caliber did not realise how broken that unit was when he introduced it.
+2 / -0
4 years ago
Makeing Imp imune to stun is worth a try in my opinion. Just test it out 4 like a week and see how it turns out.
+3 / -0


4 years ago
Being able to safely stack imps would differentiate them in an interesting way from snitches. While immunities are generally against ZK design philosophy, I think it might be acceptable in this case.
+3 / -0

4 years ago
Imp should be immune vs its own emp. But it can make also problems. However as imp is underused then maybe it will not cause them.
Limpet doesn't hit its own units. Friendly units is immune to limpet slow.
+4 / -0
USranknop
4 years ago
Balance changes come from different people and from different motivations, and yes it happens rapidly.

Often changes come in response to feedback from players, when data supports the hypothesis. Sky Lobster nerf in response to the days of Lobster-K is an example of a highly demanded change to a unit that was stealing the spotlight almost every clusterpot round. Hover and Locust nerfs have been in response to their domination of certain maps in the 1v1 rotation (the speed meta). Merlin health was dunked because people were tired of losing their armies to it in FFA.

Sometimes changes happen when a unit is under/overachieving its design goals. Raptor combat speed and maneuvering changes make it work better at what it's designed to do, while being careful not to significantly change the unit's "on paper" value or matchup with Trident.

In the case of Imp, we're talking about a bomb unit which walks out of a factory with cheap area cloakers. It is the early game force multiplier from hell and is only balanced by the amount of micro needed to use it effectively. Making Imps immune to each other's stun damage would make it a redundant anti-heavy option for Cloakbots and a less efficient version of Widow in that role.

If you need to counter Detri you are solidly in The Late Game. Send in some Ultimatums and go to town. Send in 10 Phantoms and kill it in six shots. If you didn't know the Detri was coming and you don't already have an army that can kill it then you've already lost The Late Game.

Even if Imps were immune to each other's stun damage it would be cheaper to build a Spiderfac and 11 Widows than the 35 Imps it would take to stun the Detri.

When a unit fails to meet expectations, it can mean the expectations were wrong because the game was misleading. I do see that the Imp's description text suggests "it can paralyze heavy units" which is kind of misleading. This might be worth fixing.
+1 / -0
Lynx
Is it not reasonable to expect that with several imps selected and proximate each other issuing an attack command will result in simultaneous detonation rather than the first that impacts detonating and stunning the remainder that were also just about to impact anyway? I accept your points USranknop above, but I still think that their behaviour is not in keeping with expectations. I presume a widget could be made to solve this issue but I am against unfair advantage being obtained through widgets fixing problems or providing other advantages not readily attainable and distorting the playing field.
+0 / -0
USranknop
4 years ago
No widget required, select all the Imps and press D key to make them all explode.
+1 / -0
Lynx
I appreciate that in the wiki using self-destruct is described as an alternative way to use mobile bomb units. The use of this mode here is not a reasonable workaround to the problem described above because of the time taken to self-destruct. Getting Imps up to the target unit without being destroyed on the way is a challenge enough, let alone pressing self-destruct at exactly the right moment such that by the time they reach the target they will detonate together. I suppose a widget could resolve this by detecting proximity at which point to initiate the sequence. Or whatever.

In any case, it still seems to me that selecting a bunch and ordering an attack from that bunch should not result in just one exploding on the target and stunning the rest. That is a little dumb.
+0 / -0
USranknop
4 years ago
When you press D on a bomb unit the explosion is instant, no delay like most units self-destructing. It is one of the few manually triggered D-abilities in the game. Trying to do this with 35 Imps would be pretty hard, but you might manage with a handful.
+2 / -0
USranknop
4 years ago
I wouldn't want bomb units to be "too good" because this makes the game not so fun.

However making bomb units "hard to use" is just as bad as making them "too good" because it makes the skill gap unnecessarily wider and requires more arcane knowledge of game mechanics to execute (as seen here).

That said, Imp isn't made for bombing heavy units, it's inefficient at it, and it being hard to do it is a hint that you shouldn't do it.

I do think that making Imps immune to each other's explosions without any other changes could punt them into the "too good" category especially when compared to Snitch, Skuttle and Limpet. By the time you compensate for this ability appropriately, Imp is probably nerfed into ineffectiveness.

If you play nothing but Cloakbots in 1v1 or small teams for a while you may come to find that victory can be carried on the back of Imp.
+0 / -0
4 years ago
I'm not sure I agree about the behavior of bombs being unexpected. You can think of the attaack command as being "take the fastest possible path to get in range of this unit to fire and then engage in fight behavior". Bombs have very little range so they are going to clluster up and run into approximately the same spot to begin an attack, at which point any behavior you gave them wouldn't matter because their range is too small to avoid detonating on each other. A widget could maybe be written to control bomb behavior differently, or perhaps they could get a D attack order that would handle their attack, but by the normal mechanics of the game I would expect exactly the current behavior. Zero-K is already much smarter about unit AI than virtually any game so you're asking quite a lot here.
+2 / -0
Lynx
I had not realised that pressing D gave instantaneous detonation.

Talk about weeing all over my bonfire!

Perhaps I have been barking up the wrong tree.

Anyone want to take up my argument any further?

If not, I will simply fold and call it a day.
+0 / -0
4 years ago
am i the only one who cant read that blue^?
+1 / -0

4 years ago
If having them immune to their own EMP is too much, perhaps have their own EMP dmg do real hp damage to allied imps so they all blow if one goes.
+0 / -0
USranknop
4 years ago
quote:
If having them immune to their own EMP is too much, perhaps have their own EMP dmg do real hp damage to allied imps so they all blow if one goes.


I think overall that would be a nerf because it would cause a chain reaction much like Snitch. If you've ever tried to run a mass of cloaked Snitches you've probably had your Iris (and more) blown up by one Snitch setting off all the rest.
+1 / -0

4 years ago
I can read the blue.
+0 / -0
4 years ago
All bombs could use automatic coordination when attacking in swarms, but that would be far more intelligence than any other unit is given. Bombs just don't stack well (except maybe limpet since it doesn't friendly fire)
+0 / -0
Page of 3 (46 records)