User Tag List

View Poll Results: Shall charger replace base crusher?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Keep base.

    16 66.67%
  • Replace base.

    8 33.33%
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: (Poll) Should charger replace base

  1. #1
    Whitelisted Captain Total_Epicness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    81
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    (Poll) Should charger replace base

    As charger Crusher development continues, I have encountered a crossroads on whether to replace base Crusher or not. I need feedback to help me make a decision before next TM

    Initially, I was convinced by Walter's argument on replacing base, which is pretty valid.

    This is a copy and paste from the design doc that sums it up pretty well

    ....Both castes accomplish similar tasks, just with different ways to achieve them. Base is actually more powerful than charger due to better AoE abilities and not needing any distance to charge. Furthermore, doing this allows more design freedom as we can use some of the same abilities as base or base it off from them without needing to make it fill a differant role than base.
    Essentially..
    • conflicting purpose will lead to one being favored over the other
    • harder to balance both at the same time




    Here is the counter arguement..
    Several people have come up to me and made several decent points that base should remain.

    1. Base's AoE abilities actually provide it a unique purpose compared to charger
    2. Base can be a tanky AoE machine that suppresses pushes while charger can be a bowling ball that rolls through marine lines
    3. Base charge is better at sieging, replacing would nerf xeno sieging



    Here are my observations from testing

    • There are few areas where base is better than charger. Notably big red north LZ1 caves. This is mainly due to "drifting" that chargers can do.
    • Base has superior survivability while charger is more of a hit and run caste.
    • Charger deals more damage while base's abilities make it a better team player. Notably are some valid strategies that use base to cover charger in a deadly combo.
    • Base has a more versatile charge as they don't need to gain momentum


    Keep in mind, the primary arguement here is if base is different enough from charger to give then separate purposes rather than one being better than the other at the same purpose and being chosen over the other.

    I wrote this at the gym, so it's sloppy. Will update later.
    Benson 'Bengus' Gusman, Frankie 'LTB' Sulyard (old TC name)



  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the counter argument and your own observations are already a good justification on why it should be kept. They both play differently, they both have different weaknesses and play style where base is slow and tanky, while charger is a hit and run type of xeno.

    Assuming that Charger crusher has its charging bonus armor removed and the "mini charge", I see no issue why both base and charger would be similar enough to replace the other.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    143
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    why cant we have both?

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2022
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the counter argument and your own observations are already a good justification on why it should be kept.
    They both play differently, they both have different weaknesses and play style where base is slow and tanky, while charger is a hit and run type of xeno.

    Assuming that Charger crusher has its charging bonus armor removed and the mini charge.
    I see no issue why both base and charger would be similar enough to replace the other.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •