Double the cost of orbital. Maybe triple.

So I've played a good few games now, usually on 2 planets (because that's what people host a lot!) and there is definitely a theme developing. here is how it goes...

"Enemy doesn't want to fight over this planet, so they turtle and rush an orbital. I stomp over the world, encircle, crack the turtle and crush/nuke them. In the meantime they are busily fortifying a moon with orbitals so I can't easily follow. Cue irritating and long orbital slinging match...atm accompanied by a s**t ton of lag, but I totally get that that is beta for you and net optimizations haven't even begun yet."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

My real problem with the above is that abdicating from the fight on a world is really, really easy right now. An Orbital Launch/Lander is simply far too easy to get. You can do a simple turtle and get off world before the other guy can get together a big enough force to crack you, or kill you by other means.

Perhaps it's just because the interplanetary stuff is in its infancy and that's making it frustrating to fight someone between worlds with such limited mechanics. Even then, though, when the mechanics are improved, shouldn't there be a better incentive to fight over the world we started on first?

At the moment we're at Turtle, run, fortify, ==========================> die of old age.

Orbital stuff should be EXPENSIVE. I'm talking "John OMFG HE'S BUILT A MAVOR!" expensive. After all, the core principal of the Commander is that it is much cheaper to send a 1 man factory/fighter in and have him build an army on the world than it is to transport entire armies using spaceships of some kind. So, shouldn't going OFF world again be a bit later down the line. Or a kind of "Final Solution."

Feel free to shoot me down.

I have to agree with you... and the worst bit is the starting planet is usually bigger and has more metal points on it and since you already have a base you can quite easily out tech and build them with orbital units so he is already dead automatically... well unless they can throw a planet at you but then you are both dead assuming you can't get your commander off planet...

I partially agree with you, but I do not agree in that ALL orbital stuff should be more expensive. Launching the basic sat shouldn't be all too costly to do. I want to see more area that the 10sqft offered by land radars, and the next obvious step is the basic sat.

However, launching a unit into space could be a larger burden and therefore more costly. There's much more of this game's features yet to be seen so balancing all these annoyances probably aren't high on uber's list as of now.

A lander costs as much as fifteen advanced fighters (23 if you count the cost of the launcher), which kill a lander in one pass more than twice over. Peregrines are basically immune to land-based AA, so if he really is turtling, you can swoop in and kill any lander he tries to build before it can pick up a worker. And each time he does this it puts him further behind in eco, and you were already ahead of him in eco because he's turtling. If a turtle gets offworld before you, it's because you let him.

I think your mixing up the lore from supcom. Also there scale is different. Its one thing to transport a unit anywhere in the solar system, its anougher thing to transport them between solar systems.

I think orbital costs should be dramatically decreased.

At the moment orbital is in the early stages. They only added enough to get basic interplanetary game play. It will receive a lot of polish and changes.

At the moment it is kinda silly/broken. The best thing to do is host games on a single planet solar system.

You're going about this entirely the wrong way. Increasing orbital cost only delays this turtling process, and makes it take even longer for you to catch up when you realize its happening. You also have to increase its power to make up for this cost difference (otherwise nobody uses it), which is why orbital is grossly overpowered right now. Orbital should not be on the level of T3 or experimentals in cost or power.

If they were much cheaper, then when you notice your enemy going orbital, you can just as easily build your own in the same way you would build an air factory to counter bombers. Making it more expensive turns it into an arms race like nukes/anti-nukes (which is also bad but for a different thread).

Orbital should also be much less powerful. Orbital radar completely eclipses T2 radar in range and survivability, as well as being the only mobile radar (of significant range) not to mention moving relatively quickly and unhindered by terrain. Add in the fact that it also grants vision and there is absolutely no reason to build T2 radar anymore. The same can be said of orbital solar panels. They are over 5x more powerful than a T2 powerplant, as well as being able to avoid the enemy by moving or fleeing the planet entirely. As well as being safe from nukes.

Orbital should not replace T2, it should provide a strategic alternative (mobile radar/energy should be less efficient, but more safe from ground attacks).

I agree sir.... you let them. The game doesn't favor going straight orbital ASAP. It puts your economy in the toilet if you do. If you can't halt their rise to space evaluate your tactics you should have the advantage by implementing t1 until your economy is ready for the jump to t 2 then orbital. At the same time I feel the build time of the orbital platform should be double or at least 1.5 times as long. Just the platform though I like everything else as is.

This I disagree with.... then what's the point of t1 and t2 when you can build five mex and two energy and then be in orbit???

Orbital is definitely expensive enough already and I think it should even be standard that players expand across the system instead of tank rushing, after all this game is about large scale strategy.

The name of this game is Planetary Annihilation, so the point is to destroy planets. For that you need moons => orbital to get to and protect while building halleys. We don't want Supreme Commander 3, we want PA.

Agreed everything has a decent cost except the launcher I feel..... now, disagree with the instant grant of large scale battle. Rushing is a proven strategy of any RTS ever. Its just tactically sound to keep your enemy busy to stop them expanding, granted this game is about large scale warfare but that just be earned not simply given.... Obama probably isn't still dictator in this future....

This is not any RTS... THIS IS PLANETARY ANNIHILATION!
I agree that large scale battles are something that must happen in almost every match (if you don't like that you can use a system with only one planet), since we will even have whole galaxies to fight over. And that is why you don't play Sup Com 2 but PA. We don't want to have that guy (another thread) be right saying this is the same as Sup Com.

a whole planet isn't large scale???? Yes large battles are a must and I love leaving planet as much as the next guy, but it should be earned not given. A long game should be caused by constant skirmishes over every step you try to take, not because you are simply allowed orbital with a small eco and then all players split to different ends if a system and turtle up for two hours. Nope that's not strategy at all just weak.....

And What is the problem with that? Do you want to have to build an Eco for 15 minutes before you can actually fight your opponent on another planet?

The problem with the Current Orbital stuff overall is that it's so expensive and powerful they are basically the Experiementals that the guys at Uber said they wanted to stay away from because of the effect they had on the Gameplay in SupCom.

Why do satellites have to be these super powerful and expensive units? Why can't they be individually weak and cheap like every other unit we have so far?

As already said, making Orbital more expensive doesn't solve the problem, it only delays when the consequences surface. What we need to do is solve the problem, not try to mitigate it's effects.

Mike

Orbital is waay to expensive to be of use in 1v1 for the most part right now actually.

A whole planet is smaller than the whole map in most other RTS games, which is why you can have multiple planets in PA. And everything besides doing nothing is a strategy. Actually doing nothing is a strategy too, you just use it very rarely.

I have been hosting with 7 planets and have had about a 65% success rate of finding players that can make it all the way through the loading screen without crashing. Of those games, about 85% of them have concluded with a win either through a military victory (70%) or a planetary annihilation victory (30%). Of the 7 planets, 3 require 3 haley engines and 1 requires 25 haley engines to become a kinetic missile. Often players set out to the same planets in a space race to assimilate, but sometimes we end up on separate planets and then the real fun begins. A couple of games I was able to create 2 moon missiles and collide them into enemy planets at roughly the same time to secure a victory. I was hoping a 25 haley engine missile would do more complete destruction of it's target than a 3 haley engine missile, but so far no. Other than that, this game is amazing and I have to often remind myself it's still in the beta phase!

The point is that orbital should not be the "be-all-end-all" of units. They should just be another layer that complements the other layers, not completely dominates it. I think we can all agree that the game is more interesting if a player that builds multiple layers of units should have an advantage over a player that only builds air or land or orbital. If orbital dominates other units, it will be the only thing built in the endgame. If it is expensive, then they will have to dominate other units to justify the cost.

I'm just suggesting the launcher build time increase..... also I don't see the individual orbital units as over priced. We're playing on unfinished systems missing resource generating gas giants,etc. I only see the orbital being turned into a guild
Gimme as creating more problems. Then you essential have space based battles where someone tries to rush to the closest asteroid and hurl it..... increasing the platform cost does solve it in my opinion. It makes you sit back and fight for the resources to make such an expensive move, and at the very least defend yourself from others. I'm tired of getting teamed with people who think orbital should be first priority which just delays our inevitable defeat. Sure you get to New ground first but you essential start over since you forgo fighting over the original resources by rushing orbital, and tanking your economy. Meanwhile the team you left behind already has steady eco and is free to grow even more while you make the long trip to another place. Then they simply spam50+ fabs and then spam orbital, then units. All the while you're starting over with a new eco...... you simply can't catch up at that point and their spammed orbital units are inbound on you just as your first new orbital goes up. Cheaper platform doesn't solve it either. Then every one runs straight off planet tone just spreads and builds this 15 minute eco you speak of Mike....o

Orbital isn't something you see the enemy do and then try to catch up to it should always be on your list of things to build, and ifyou see your opponent putting up orbital, as you should be constantly scouting, then your properly planned economic decisions should have amassed quite a force at this point to seek and destroy the launcher or inhibit there economy to slow them down and you speed ahead....... tactics people tactics not changing the game into an automated turtle fest.

Nope, even the launcher is expensive enough and takes quite long to build already, and while rushing might be a proven strategy, so is turtling and teching up, it just depends on which playstyle you prefer. And as others have mentioned already I also think that PA should focus on the large scale of interplanetary warfare early enough before most games end by spamming cheap units (which I find kind of lame if you have such a nice arsenal at your disposal)