NUKES!! WAY TOO O.P.

if its unprotected, only fools build such an asset unprotected....... real players youre probably never going to catch sight of it until BOOM TOWN!!!! no assist i cry yet again!!!

I think he means the silos, not the missiles.

Are you suggesting giving the other guy enough time to find the nuke sites by limiting fabs?

Its a far more effective way to cover up for a bad game mechanic.

In that scene, if the only way to prevent something it to destroy it before it ever gets built then you have indeed created something that the whole game is based around.

I completely don't understand the way you think igncom.
What is bad about destroying things to prevent them? That's what the whole game is about?

This is complete and utter ****, which comes from someone who obviously does not play the game. Even in its current state, the game does not revolve around nukes. A nuke SHOULD be an end game 'unit' which is designed to cost less and be less effective than an asteroid.

I'm pretty sure cola_colin was talking about the nuke launcher, not the missile. Which is why he was talking about bomber raids.

I cannot comprehend how you guys cannot get why I certainly feel like the nuke mechanics are totally flawed.

But I will have to disagree regardless, as gunshin one again proved why I still hate playing multiplayer and why I still think a global chat is a horrific idea.

I know he was, I wasent and he still answered to destroying the silo, when I was and still am talking about the missile.

I don't think anyone is having trouble understanding your stance. However they don't have to agree with your reasoning, and they are free to try and change your view.

Always feels one way with that one.

So you dislike it when people reason against your ideas?

Why would anybody argue solely about stopping the missile in flight? That's a very narrow view. Ofc you cant stop a bullets when it is always flying towards you. You need to start thinking a bit broader to find solutions to the gameplay-problems at hand.

If 'you are bad at the game and so are automatically wrong' is a valid reason, then I don't want to be right.

And this is where I can only give up. Whats the point when you are talking to be be CLAIM they are reading what you say and then say this without considering that 80% of the whole game is about doing exactly that.

This is so beyond pointless, I am talking to a wall of moderators, competitive people who don't want to lose their edge by changing the game and 'vanguards' who can be one and both.

If 'you are bad at the game and so are automatically wrong' is a valid reason, then I don't want to be right.

And this is where I can only give up. Whats the point when you are talking to be be CLAIM they are reading what you say and then say this without considering that 80% of the whole game is about doing exactly that.

This is so beyond pointless, I am talking to a wall of moderators, competitive people who don't want to lose their edge by changing the game and 'vanguards' who can be one and both.

That argument wont win you any points.

Few people agree on how they should work, but the majority of people think they should be in the game in some way.

I have not said that. I suggested a multitude of ways of how to deal with nukes. So far you always just ignored them using upper case statements like "ITS A FLAWED MECHANIC"?
What is that even supposed to mean?

I really did not even consider you were talking about the nuke missile in flight. I don't see what there is to discuss about a missile in flight. Do you want multiple ways to stop it? Other ways? You are still not providing any actual argument to the discussion, all you constantly do is say things like this:

I don't see why moderators or vanguards should have any special position in this discusison. Competitive people usually dont care as much and generally just adapt to whatever the game throws at them. In example when the game throws nukes at them they adapt by doing the things I suggested like:
a) spread your base out so a 30k metal nuke cannot kill buildings worth 30k metal
b) scout a lot to know that a nuke is coming
c) build bombers and snipe the nuke (launcher ofc). Killing it will hurt your opponent a lot and it is pretty low hp (1500)
d) use the 30k metal to make tanks and just spam your opponent to death

So can you respond directly to these points? Without upper case and with a logical argumentation I can follow?

I agree with igncom than the nuke system is definitely a major issue. However the issue isn't that they are overpowered. The issue is how expensive and powerful they are, resulting in a very decisive single launch. It puts nukes into a role that is already largely going to be occupied by asteroids.

I would like to see both sides using lots of nukes over the course of a game, and with lots of nukes being intercepted. That means making lightweight nukes and cheap antinuke. Nukes should be a factor in most games, much like how land and air are factors. The missile dimension of the game should be further developed to make it a more conventional component of the game that can be exercised more often and with less game-deciding impact for a single action.

The current problem is that the planet-killer is the destabilizing game-ender role. In order to work at all, nukes must be smaller than Halley-powered asteroids, or else players will never use nukes and will instead use planet killers. Therefore, nukes are cheaper. But if they have enough punch to end the game, then they simply serve as a cheaper destabilizing game-ender. Which seems to be, more or less, what is happening now.

The asteroid is PA's nuclear missile, going by the gameplay role that nukes played in TA, SupCom, and other games. PA is larger-scale, spanning multiple planets. And it makes sense to me that on a game with such larger scale, a single nuke is less consequential than a nuke was in TA, and also relatively easier to acquire.

The nuke is not necessary as a destabilizing game-ender like in TA, where sniping the antinuke allows a highly-developed player to be quickly destroyed using a nuke. Instead, an asteroid can be used to quickly destroy a highly-developed planet. A nuke should be repurposed to only destroy a base or an army, with many nukes being used. Compared to the planet's size, and the size of the whole map, a single nuke shouldn't be such a large weapon, nor should it be so expensive.

@ledarsi:
I fully agree, even though I don't think that nukes are one level with asteroids right now. They are still a bit too strong for the role you are suggesting (ah very nice role I must say), but they are not like asteroids.

@igncom1
I just saw the edit of your post a few pages ago.
I think you need to realize that we are not trying to directly attack you.
Please explain your ideas, we are willing to listen. But if all you ever say is that you are feeling that we are talking from high above we cannot really answer to that. I still don't even understand your problems with nukes because you are always only answering as if I had personally attacked you.

Now you have noted the ways that players change the way they play based on the current mechanics:

And I will say that B, C and D are infeasible when your opponents knows this as well. An opponent that is going for a nuke isn't going to put one where it is easily found, where it is easily attacked, and will most certainly not be putting them in the way if they are going to be easily destroyed.

And when all is done and dusted, when your forces are scrambling to destroy this weapon, it get used in a defensive nature, destroying your army and air-force as it tries to prevent it from firing.

Leaving yourself open to a second shot.

My experience for this derives form many games of SupCom, where the best strategy is not to be so blunt and allow an opponent to scout you, not to allow they to find your silos until it is to late to respond.

And as for option A, that strategy just goes to prove that the anti-nukes are worthless to begin with, because players have the actively design bases that can be nuked.

Yes, just as many ways as players can stop any attack for any other unit.

It would be insane to have a bomber that can only be physically killed by a single unit, so why are nukes an exception?

Because you feel like they are game enders? So they automatically get a free pass?

Then what is the point of the commander? That is the game ender, not clearing out a base, killing the commander.

So why do we feel the need for extra clean up tools when we have planet clearing asteroids and sniping the commander?

Whether you can or choose to follow it up to you.

Once again, my translator.

This statement seemed unwarranted, especially from a moderator.


As far as nukes go I liked the idea of orbital fighters being able to shoot down nukes. Can we expand on this more?

I cannot see how my statement is problematic. I have not seen an argumentation I can follow so far. Now igncom has started to provide me things that I can answer to, so I think it was pretty successful to say that.
How would you price orbital fighters to shoot down nukes? Consider they have to also be balanced vs other orbital stuff.

@igncom1:
I missed your first post about the %.
My answer to that is pretty simple:
Yes randomly playing things is bad gameplay so scout your opponent.

I think just neglecting b, c and d as "the nuke will be protected" as a bit too simple.
Yes ofc the nuke will be protected. But that is not an easy task.
Also yes he might nuke my army. But my army can move. It can avoid the nuke. Or maybe a part of it can avoid it.
One nuke is worth 32400 metal:
That amounts to 180 dox or 144 ants or 20 Levellers. Quite big armies, it is very likely that a much smaller army is enough to kill a nuke. So if you have an army like that you can easily split it up into i.e. 3 or 4, maybe even 5 groups. Nuking one such group will do pretty much nothing (use 32k metal to kill 1/4 * 32k metal is a very bad trade), even if it is a perfect hit.
Also i.e. one perfect hit of a hornet (~1200 metal, 2200 damage vs nuke 1500hp) is enough to kill a nuke.

I have played quite a lot of FA, and at least there nukes are not like you describe them. In SupCom Vanilla they are more dangerous but mostly in rather weird late game situations where players have enough resources to spam out pretty much anything in 1 or 2 seconds.

Designing your base so that it works out best is actually a pretty general thing. It is also good vs any other kind of attack to not focus all your power generators in one spot, cause they would make an easy target. So it is not just a concept vs nukes.

Also I am starting to understand that you seem to think of the "nuke" as the missile. That's something that is completely not matching up with my thinking. The missile is just ammunition. The building that shoots it is what counts.
You are saying there are multiple ways to stop i.e. a bomber. Yes there are, all of them amount to: Kill the bomber in one way or another.
Same with nukes: Kill the nuke(launcher ofc). The actual rocket we are seeing is just a bomb. You cant stop a bomb that was dropped by a bomber, can you? You kill the bomb-launcher (bomber) just like you have to kill the nuke-launcher. The fact that you can actually shoot down nukes with anti nukes is already an extra way to fight nukes. So I would argue that there are more ways (to be precise: one way more) to fight a nuke than there are ways to fight a bomber.