Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Vote(s) - 3.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Heavy" isn't worth the costs
08-04-2012, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2012 09:20 AM by calmon.)
Post: #1
"Heavy" isn't worth the costs
Like the topic says this thread is for discussing unit balance in outwitters.

I think after a lot of played titan matches I've a very good feeling which unit is needed in which situation. For me nearly every unit is useable. But one unit lacks usability and is only build in situations very rarely occurs: The Heavy.

Main problem is the fact that 1 damage more and 1 health more (compared to soldier) is good on paper but the disadvantage of only moving 2 cancels out this bonus nearly completely.

The movement 2 is such a big disadvantage:

- it costs more wits to reach opponents base/bonus with heavy compared to soldier (and it takes longer time)
- it can be outmanovered easily
- even in defense its mainly only good when opponent sit exactly besides your spawnplace and have exactly 3 health. Most other cases runner/soldier/sniper defend better for the costs

In moment I mass soldier and for sure build the other units as well but don't touch the Heavy in 98% of my games. My opponents use it very rarely. I usually be very happy seing it built on opponents side! Smile

My suggestion would be to make him 3 wits. Not sure it was 3 in beta but I really can't believe this would be overpowered in any way (on the contrary it may underpowered nevertheless). I would still go for soldiers because of range but may mix some heavy in.

Discuss.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
"Heavy" isn't worth the costs - calmon - 08-04-2012 08:44 AM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - Syvan - 08-04-2012, 09:06 AM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - swimj - 08-04-2012, 01:29 PM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - Harti - 08-04-2012, 09:56 PM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - calmon - 08-04-2012, 10:01 PM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - Harti - 08-05-2012, 01:16 AM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - Harti - 08-05-2012, 03:27 AM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - Harti - 08-05-2012, 04:18 AM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - calmon - 08-05-2012, 05:08 AM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - calmon - 08-05-2012, 07:35 PM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - Syvan - 08-06-2012, 09:31 AM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - calmon - 08-07-2012, 10:41 PM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - Cookie - 08-08-2012, 01:56 PM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - yasw - 08-08-2012, 06:57 PM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - SC-FTW - 08-18-2012, 10:44 AM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - Cookie - 08-22-2012, 05:47 PM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - Magnum - 10-15-2012, 12:18 AM
RE: "Heavy" isn't worth the costs - Gf!sh - 12-23-2012, 02:50 AM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Return to TopReturn to Content