Reduction of nuke power (or make anti-nukes better)

Was thinking about this as I was reading another thread...... The power of the nuke either really needs to dropped or the ability to get an anti-nuke need to be cheaper and on the T1 level units......

From my observation nuke can really really make the game not very fun..... Just played a game last night were my team mate and I got hit by 6 nukes from one team and then lost..... They really need to be dropped in power!!!!!

Any thoughts????

It has been discussed many times on the forums. The devs said they are not really focusing on balance right now. I can as most people agree with you that anti nukes should be cheaper and faster to build. Nukes and anti nukes are likely to be more balanced in the near future.

I see you're new to the forums, and welcome!

You should do a search before posting, in accordance with forum rules. This has been discussed a lot.

Anti nukes are pretty well known to be under powered. Uber knows this.

They will be improved. Uber is considering having the anti nukes come with an anti nuke pre built and increasing the range.

We are going to increase anti-nuke range and probably make it start with at least one missile.

I would suggest to make the Anti-Nuke more cheap...

This would be the best solution.


Keeping them at T2 level is fine and starting with a missile would be key. Range seems to be ok, its a nice area denial that you can work with to cover your base with 3-4 of them.

I use nukes like crazy, and love building them, but I also know how to counter them by having multiple anti nuke silos with all 3 missiles in them. Just one full silo counters 3 nukes alone, meaning its a 4:1 ratio of nukes to anti-nukes. When I see a silo, I check to see how many antis he has in it, if its full, I know I need to send at LEAST 4 nukes to get one to land, or 5 if I want to overcome the silo and get his commander thats sitting next to it.


Its not that Anti are underpowered or that nukes are OP, right now there about equal and seem to be the most balanced at the moment. Antis need a small adjustment (aka starting with a missile or speeding up the rate missiles build at) but overall the system is sound.

A concern I have with the whole nuke debate is about turtling. I see many people constantly bashing turtling as a way to play this game. However Nukes promote turtling by forcing commanders to hide under anti-Ns shields or get sniped by nukes. It's a weird result as nuke are their as base busters, but I keep seeing them forcing people to clump up. So you see thin string bases with tight cluster clumps here and their covered by anti-Ns.

If that's the way the game is meant to be played, then ok. But it feels off...

I do look forward to seeing these re balances to nukes and anti-Ns.

The nuke is fine. I've been in games with nonstop turtling for hours with anti nuke shields. I had to launch 28 nukes to get him. This them didn't even expand away from the main base. Just sat there under Anti nukes.

Although its odd that the Anti nuke takes so long.

Making the anti-nuke come with a missile pre-loaded is making them cheaper.

If you make the anti-nuke launcher come with a free anti-nuke missile, then it is cheaper to build more anti-nuke launchers for the free missile than it is to build a second missile (anti-nuke launcher is 4.5k, anti-nuke missile is ~17k). That's assuming they don't just bake the cost of the anti-nuke missile into the cost of the launcher though.

17,280 Metal cheaper to be exact.

Mike

Wow. Didn't realize anti-nuke missiles cost that much.

Nucks are 34,200 for reference.

Mike

So the Nuke costs twice as much, so if its lost. its quite an investment forgone.

I understand people don't want turtlers, but a anti nuke is quite a fragile structure by itself. I think 4 or 5 advanced bombers can take a nuke/anti nuke down quite handily in one pass. The lack of shields makes important structures that much more fragile and attack units that much more useful.

I would like it if they added a "Auto-build feature" for both the Nuke and Anti-nuke. It's also a lot less micro.

auto build would be v good!

That's true... INfinite queues will be SO good

I would like to see antinuke be reworked in such a way that you do not have to construct missiles. Either by making it fire missiles at a fixed rate which you do not need to construct, or by implementing antinuke as a gun-type weapon or rapid-fire missile launcher where there is a probability that each hit will intercept the nuke.

But in any case antinuke range needs to be large enough to actually protect the area, plus some buffer zone around it. And its cost needs to be vastly reduced- the nukes can kill you, all the antinuke does is stop the nukes from killing you. Antinukes can't make you win. And, the nuke can hit in a huge variety of locations while the antinuke only protects the area near where it is built. As a result they should cost a small fraction as much as the nukes do.

Antinukes don't force players to turtle. Just spread out so you don't have a target worth nuking. And if you do have one area worth nuking, protect it with antinuke.

I am against a gun type anti nuke. First of all you are making it work on luck, when dealing with nukes you don't want luck. You want to be sure you don't get hit. Second if you make enough anti nuke guns there is a chance that nukes will never get through.(This is but speculation.) Third, if the anti nuke guns work on power your fabber could unintentionally be your doom.

In the standard anti nuke situation I totaly agree with you. The range should be larger. The original circle should be everything that is 100% safe, this means the circle should be increased with the radius of the nuke AOE. About the cost of the anti-nuke, I am not sure. Too cheap and players would spam anti-nukes and nukes would be obselite too expensive and anti-nukes will never be build. Personally, I like the current set up. But I also wouldn't have a problem with a slight cost change.


Question:
Do anti nukes also kill nukes that are flying over?

The thing about a probabilistic antinuke is that it would fire many shots, with the rate of fire and probability tweaked to make it very likely to intercept a certain number of nukes. Such a system would be better suited to being used in variable quantity, with more antinukes overlapping to make a higher density area creating a higher probability of nuke interception, and allowing more nukes to be intercepted.

I am of the opinion that the nuke system should be designed to have many nuke launchers, nukes, and antinukes in play at once. The older system (and current PA system) of having nukes be very expensive, very limited-quantity game-enders is very binary, and also unnecessary since planet-killers are now the game-enders.

A nuke system using many nukes and nuke defense systems a la Defcon would be much more interesting than just having a redundant game ender for extremely high cost that is very expensive to counter.