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

How to use the Cerberus?

21 posts, 1153 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (21 records)
sort
5 years ago
Hi, I don't understand the Cerberus. Its range is really small and thus doesn't seem useful as an offensive artillery.


To build it in a firebase requires two fusion reactors attached, which puts it about the same cost as a Bertha, which you can build in your base and still hit the enemy.


The wiki page claims it's not a defensive turret, and a Lucifer probably does a better job in those situations?


So what is the Cerberus supposed to be used for?
+0 / -0

5 years ago
see! see! we need to remove the bertha!
+3 / -0
5 years ago
I like the Bertha, though :P

It would make more sense to me for the Bertha to need the 50 power and the Cerberus to have no requirements...

Or the Cerberus to rapid fire with its three cannons.
+2 / -0

5 years ago
1850 range is small? I don't think so.
This unit is designed as artillery counter unit. Its range is larger then any field artillery. Even impaler don't have such range. Also its used vs chickens.
Difference between two fusions and big Bertha is dat energy is still going overdrive and you got more metal. Cerberus doesn't take this energy for itself. It just require grid to operate. Also you don't require build grid yourself. Every ally energy building can be used.
Cerberus can be used as offensive unit and defensive unit. You can make porc nest with shields and it can stop large armies. So enemy will be forced to rush silo. Defensive cerberus is staple in chicken games.
Cerberus differs from big bertha that you can use it in two firing modes. Arc trajectory mode can be used behind terraform.
Cerberus is tactical building, bet BB is strategical.
+2 / -0

5 years ago
#make bertha require a grid
+5 / -0
5 years ago
I use Cerberus for two basic roles.

1) Base consolidation. Usually in FFA. A Cerberus has a really long range so it can engage hostile units all around your perimeter if its built in the centre of the base. Having instant heavy artilley on call is pretty good.

2) Porc push. In this case Cerberus is used to engage another player's units or defences from beyond their weapons range. I'd usually supposrt it with caretakers, shields and AA because it will become a priority target. The desired outcome is for the other player to clear out of the area which will then be flooded with fleas and cons to reclaim metal.

Why Cerberus and not Bertha?

Cerberus is cheaper, faster firing and much more accurate.

If you want to break up massed attacks at range, it will be your go-to static unit.

Once the base is consolidated, then yeah, Bertha will work for general long range suppression.
+2 / -0

5 years ago
The 3 defensive weapons that require grid energy are basically all overpowered. Did you know that Desolator and Lucifer can close up and only take 25% damage when doing so? That is totally OP as it basically renders them immune to bombardment with a little micro and attention. At least you can destroy the Pylons to disable them.

It wouldn't change much if Big Berthas would require a grid. If you can disable the grid to a Big Bertha you could probably just kill it instead, since Big Berthas don't need to be at the frontline. Also preventing the enemy from just rebuilding the grid a few seconds later would require you to basically have won the area anyway.
+2 / -0
5 years ago
Agree with Godde. I used to think it was crazy that Bertha had no E requirement. But would it make a difference? No. Bertha has such long range that it can be built right next to in-base energy structures and still be useful. I suppose it could be done for "flavour" reasons but the effect on gameplay would be tiny.
+0 / -0

5 years ago
If its built near energy then its easier to blow up. The grid has more vectors to attack - like scythes. It's also much harder to protect all the time so while killing the gird connections wouldn't neutralise bertha it would add more vectors to attack it/prevent it from firing. It would also mean that Bertha rushes are less likely because you have to provide that energy as well.

Big bertha alone can get aspis and terraform to protect it. It's much harder to protect grid connections. If that forces you to build fusions next to it then great - if you manage to kill it the reward is higher as fusions will likely explode as well.

Simple change, simple consequences.
+0 / -0

5 years ago
Sure it is a simple change but it doesn't really affect gameplay in a substantial way. A Bertha is rarely more than 2 Pylons away from the main grid so we are effectively talking about a 200-400 metal cost increase for the Bertha with potential downtime when the grid is damaged.
By the time a Bertha is finished, having a grid with 50 energy really is not much.

Sure, if you wanna nerf Bertha, go ahead, but don't expect it be considered more than a 5-10% cost increase.
+0 / -0

5 years ago
I don't expect it to be very impactful either more than cost increase, but consistency wise it was always disturbing. You'd think that bigger guns need more energy but it appears that only middle guns need energy?
+1 / -0

5 years ago
Well superweapons don't need a grid either but I don't care too much either way.
+0 / -0

5 years ago
Logically you'd think bertha would need something like 100 energy on the grid to function
+0 / -0


5 years ago
quote:
#make bertha require a grid
This is an interesting topic because, as SErankGodde pointed out, a grid requirement for Bertha (and larger superweapons) would be fairly irrelevant. The grid was initially added to allow the frontline 'tactical' super-turrets to be powerful without being rushable, and to give players more ways to disable them. A Bertha without sufficient energy is going to be very rare, and the pylons required will be quickly rebuilt if destroyed.

Nevertheless, players have kept asking for Bertha to require the grid. I can see why, it has been established that large weapons require the grid, so why don't larger weapons require the grid as well? Bertha could require 50 power, superweapons could even require 100 (or 150? Who knows). This may raise peoples enjoyment of these weapons even though the gameplay effect is minor. It may even create some rare cool situations where the power is dropped for just long enough to do something amazing.

The flipside of this is accessibility and noob traps. Alongside requests for Bertha to require the grid, we've received reports of new players being confused about how to power their large turrets. These reports have died off, possibly due to the campaign, energy icon, and improved tooltip, but some remnant of them likely still exists. Also, the "rare cool situations" I referred to earlier would mostly be made possible by people not spamming out enough Pylons. At a cost of 5K, a Bertha easily justifies a few redundant pylons. For a superweapon I'd expect good players to spam so many Pylons that a Pylon snipe is effectively impossible.
+4 / -0

5 years ago
BB could use energy for each shoot. Dat would make more impact as nerf.
+0 / -0
I still regularly see newbies misunderstanding the grid or not getting their heavy towers to do anything. It's definitely lacking UI. The grid is effectively invisible outside of the economy overlay.

The inconsistency with only some medium towers requiring a grid doesn't help though.
+0 / -0


5 years ago
yea, make all super weapons incl. bertha to require grid with certain E output... at least for consistency reasons
+4 / -0
quote:
It may even create some rare cool situations where the power is dropped for just long enough to do something amazing.

Even momentary interruptions to Zenith power supply could create beautiful meteor storms.

quote:
The grid is effectively invisible outside of the economy overlay.

Powergrid-requiring things should convey their poweredness status in the world:

1. Do a power-up/shutdown sound when transitioning between states. This just requires an addition of the sound and two-three lines of Lua

2. Have actual animations for the state changes. For Desolator and Lucifer, the armor state could be used to convey this instead. I don't think armored superturrets are practical anyway. Cerberus, Bertha and up will require more involving changes.

3. Have the models go dark when unpowered. Shader their emissives black (and conversely, pulse them when active). Withhold any particle emission when dark. This is a bit more involved than just doing a sound, but much less involved than creating proper animations.

Overall i think 1&3 could be practical and sufficient.

CZrankAdminLicho also wanted power grid to be drawn as actual cables on the terrain. That'd be great. Especially if wires could be destroyed separately; however, that's a fairly massive design change and a decent amount of work.
+4 / -0
I've been comparing the Cerberus and the BB as well.
I haven't used the Berta much yet, but I used (or tried to use) the Cerberus a few times to break porcy stalemates.
Once shields are up tho it feels like trying to chew thru wood.

5k Metal happens to be the exact price of 2 Cerberus or 1 Berta.
Heres what you get for your 5k:

2x Cerberus 1x BB
HP: 7500 - 4800
DMG: 3606 - 2002
Reload Time: 10 sec - 7 sec
DPS: 360 - 286
AoE: 96 - 96
Range: 1850 - 6200
Projectile Speed: 400 - 1100

My conclusions regarding the stat differences:
HP: A clear advantage for the 2 Cerberus, however we should not forget that 1.) You just need to do 3750 dmg (i.e.: 5 Ravens, 2 Lances in a cloaking field, etc) to destroy 50% of the value of the 2 Cerberus.
2.) The BB will be built much farther back, making it a lot easier to shield from air and ground units. Actually, most of the time it will be so far back that it won't even draw fire. Even if it may be poorly protected - its so far back, you don't always have up to date scouting on that.

DPS: 2 Cerberus have 1,25x the DPS of a BB.

Range: BB has 3,3x the range of Cerberus.
In a small to midsized map it can comfortably be built in your own base.
In a large map it can be built a bit forward of your base - or perhaps at worst in the middle between the frontlines and your own base - and still reach the enemy base after smashing the enemy frontlines.
Actually why bother kill the frontlines first? Tear that base to pieces right away.

Projectile Speed: BB has 2,75x the Projectile speed of Cerberus.
If the target of the BB is not at the absolute edge of its range its shells are going to hit at about the same time as the ones from the Cerberus.


The explaination for the use of Cerberus instead of BB in Chicken seems to me: In Chicken, you want a cannon you can leave on Fire at Will with good range - but one that will not shoot the enemy spawn, as u dont want to anger the hive.

But for PVP games it seems and feels as if Cerberus could use a buff.
Either in DPS - so it becomes a bit better at beating lightly shielded targets, wrecking frontlines.
Or in Range - so it stays useful a bit longer/can be built in a safer spot.
Or by cutting DMG & Reload time in half and making it a bit more useful for crowd control at least.
A increase in AoE would have the same effect.
Even a projectile speed buff could help it catch retreating lances that became uncloaked after firing. Tho after that happens your Cerberus usually doesnt get to "Return fire" anymore.
Actually currently BB is better at this role as well, cuz apart from not being dead after lances did a hit n run on your frontline it only needs 7 seconds to fire again.

+1 / -0

5 years ago
How would a Cerberus play, if while keeping its DPS, it gets the alpha to bypass fully loaded shields?
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (21 records)