Assisting Nukes/Anti.....calmly

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by beer4blood, December 28, 2013.

  1. beer4blood

    beer4blood Active Member

    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    201
    what??? im simply saying that i understand your reasoning and that making both launchers have no assist is a much simpler solution instead of some crazy formula that suddenly makes fabs less efficient when assisting them....
  2. beer4blood

    beer4blood Active Member

    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    201
    my example would probably never happen. it was perfect world example to show how one sided fabber assist can be. with both players being entirely even at every aspect except for that decision on the nuke game. its quite obvious that the win falls to the nuke player Heavily. also progress of your missile would still be available, the only thing being suggeested here is keeping constructioni in a silo so fabs can not nano assist it.
  3. brianpurkiss

    brianpurkiss Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    7,438
    It's not a simple solution. It's a lazy solution.

    It makes sense to have fabrication assistance be less effective the more fabbers you put on a structure.
  4. beer4blood

    beer4blood Active Member

    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    201
    yea it may be ten nukes all at once but the player defending actually has more than five minutes to prepare for such an assault and if they didnt then thats their problem. yes its inevitably up to the player to properly defend against nukes but five minutes from start to finish, with a t2 factory dedicated to assisting the nuke launcher, just isnt enough for newer players. also lends a hand to the player that was fighting someone else in a 4ffa. their resources are more than likely drained and units practically vanished if their first toe to toe was with a nicely matched player. so with fab assist not allowed the turtlees are no longer super rewarded for their cowardice..... how do you guys not see that as the biggest issue??? you must look beyond the 1v1 my friends this is a game of epic scale. atm the optimal choice in anything past a 1v1 is to just not bother anyone hit nukes and start flinging them.... how can you not notice the problem in that????
  5. beer4blood

    beer4blood Active Member

    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    201
    i remember saying the same thing about trying to use more fabs than your resources allow but was shot down. if the resources are there and you put twenty fabs to assist how does it make sense they magically become less efficient???i mean thats completely backwards from all other buildings in game.
  6. beer4blood

    beer4blood Active Member

    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    201
    MAGIC!!!!! NO!!!! this aint final fantasy
  7. brianpurkiss

    brianpurkiss Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    7,438
    How is it "their problem" if nukes aren't assisted but it's not their problem if they are assisted? The first nuke always takes a while to build unless nukes haven't been built 30 minutes into the game. And if players aren't expecting nukes 30 minutes into the game then it's most definitely their fault.

    You still seem to think that turtles win. You're wrong.

    You also claim I only watch/play 1v1s. That's also wrong. As the sole site administrator of PA Matches, I've watched a helluva lot of Planetary Annihilation Matches. People who expand and gain map control win – not players who turtle.

    And as for your "lends a hand to players who fight

    "Just make it not assistable" is not the magical fix you make it out to be.

    You're making gameplay claims that are not true. Making incorrect statements about our experience and stances.

    Turtles are never rewarded. Players who gain map control are rewarded.
  8. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,857
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    First please stop multiposting
    Second as brian said your suggestion bout assisting nukes is just straight out lazy ...
    Third the way of how i personaly think nukewarfare should work is definitively not limited to just 1v1 but if it doest work in 1v1 who says it will in team or ffa's?
  9. beer4blood

    beer4blood Active Member

    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    201
    actually meant in the situation currently its up to you o perform the proper intel moves it always is. thats the number one reason we have neww players showing up and creating gripe threads just because they havent fully understood scouting or expanding. im not makin any incorrect assumptions about your experiences, sorry you guys think thats so. im simply speaking from mine and what ive seen. ppl who hide in large matches rout the win with a slew of quickly assisted nukes. players playing aggressively usually cant expend resources to construct enough anti to efficiently defend with all resources being poured into their attacking/defending armies.call it lazy if you want, perhaps an actual attempt maybe giving something a try!!! but whatever you guys have obviously gotten way to sensitive on the matter and think im somehow trying to insult and make assumptions about your preferences. im merely relaying what i perceive and using my experiences as my reasons.

    again just merely suggesting give it a try..... tell me how you know it just wont work i have to actually hear that, just ah fawk that!!! and what difference does lazy make??? if something works it works....
    Last edited: December 28, 2013
  10. eratosthenes

    eratosthenes Active Member

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    181
    I'll just start with my assertion from the other thread: The ability to assist buildings is all about having the ability to balance your economy how you see fit. Do you choose to build twenty T2 fabs to build a nuke, or do you build orbital, or more factories, or assist factories.

    Every decision has consequences and what's more important than the properties of this unit or that unit is intelligence. Is your enemy building a nuke? If so you should probably make one too. BUT, if you have 50 levelers and 300 tanks on standby and your enemy has dumped all his economy into a nuke... then you've basically already won. Just walk into his base which, all things being equal, will be woefully undefended. If your enemy has an economy that's so strong he can rush a nuke while also matching your army... then you lost before you even started because clearly your opponent is just a better player.

    Additionally, it's a much easier argument to say that orbital is OP (not that I think it is). I mean, the first guy to build orbital and develop another planet has an enormous advantage over everyone else... whatever the game type.

    At the end of the day it's ALL about economy management and expansion. If you are equal in eco you can beat an enemy rushing a nuke easily. If you didn't scout, or stalled your eco, or have done nothing productive you will lose nukes or not.
    MrTBSC, r0ck1t and Antiglow like this.
  11. Antiglow

    Antiglow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    319
    Thank you for bringing common sense into this, and I totally agree.
  12. r0ck1t

    r0ck1t Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    51
    Nukes are a game changer, so of course a nuke player would have a major advantage at his disposal and would likely win the game with such overwhelming firepower. But, there are many games where a person that has no nukes has beaten a guy with nukes. I try to see from you guys' perspective how fabs make the game one sided in favor of the guy who builds nukes. If every game was decided based on the launching of a nuke weapon, I could understand, but there's many other ways to fix this problem other than limiting fabs.

    Yes, TA had unassisted nuke building, but that wasn't the singular reason I loved to play TA. However, I'm open to the idea of nuke in a closed silo where the progress is unseen and unassisted better than just limiting the amount of fabs you can put on it for the sake of limiting fabs.

    let's just see what the devs come up with as far as the nuke/anti-nuke balance goes. I'm sure it will be cool either way.
  13. r0ck1t

    r0ck1t Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    51
    Spot on.
  14. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    Why shouldn't nukes be assistable? Because the value of a nuke launcher is NOT the same as the value of raw construction power. Construction power is cheap. A nuclear facility is not cheap. The two are completely incompatible. Worst of all, the differences are completely irreconcilable with PA's current economic system. You can not have more nuke launchers desirable against a massively assisted single launcher.
    PA's economic system makes that completely impossible. There is no such thing as "build power", you can only provide X resources and will always provide that amount of resources.

    Arbitrary numbers are not a problem. Used well, they can create exactly the desired gameplay you want. The problem is when every situation and circumstance has an arbitrary number assigned to it. It is a fundamental sign that the dev has no idea what he's doing so he has to special case everything.

    Good example: Every fabber can only assist production at 50%. End result- base and structure production is cheap, factory/nuke/etc. assistance automatically requires twice the number of workers.

    Bad example: Every fabber uses 10 metal per second, except on factories it's 5 metal per second, and on nukes it's 2/s, and on a commander it's 20/s, and on air factories it's 6/s, and so on and so forth ad nauseum.

    Another good example: All dedicated anti air weapons do double damage against air. No exceptions. (That's exactly what TA did, except it more like 2.5x damage.)

    Bad example: AA missiles deal double damage against air, normal damage against structures, but half damage against tanks, a quarter damage against commanders. The d-gun deals full damage, except only does 500 on structures, and 100 on other commanders.
  15. YourLocalMadSci

    YourLocalMadSci Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    766
    Likes Received:
    762
    I'm afraid I don't see any good examples here. Only bad examples, and even worse examples.
  16. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    Why must you hate TA so much? AA damage multipliers is exactly what they did.

    There is no obligation to like the ideas. I'm simply pointing out that clear and concise rules are very important. If you need a special rule for every unique circumstance, then your core design philosophy is fucked.

    The best rules are the ones that can be leveraged in lots of different ways. One of the best examples is WYSIWYG. By simply changing how something is portrayed, you can alter its behavior in the most dramatic of ways. Tall units can be easier to hit behind short units, mountains can block missiles, and so on and so forth. Units can be completely redesigned by simply behaving in a different way. It's simple to explain, and the ideas which extend from it are countless.
    Last edited: December 29, 2013
  17. YourLocalMadSci

    YourLocalMadSci Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    766
    Likes Received:
    762
    Precisely. Special casing the assistance of nuke construction is exactly the kind of system which doesn't need to be special cased.
    MrTBSC likes this.
  18. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    A nuke that can be assisted has to be more expensive than one with a fixed production rate. There are no two ways about this. Supcom already showed what happens when nukes are both fairly cheap and can be assisted at full speed. One of them had to give, which is why the assist rate was demolished.
    But it wouldn't be a special case at all. Ammo based weapons already exist, which recharge at a fixed rate and consume resources to fire. A nuke weapon without assistance is no different from any other ammo weapon in that regard.
  19. Slamz

    Slamz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    520
    I'm not particularly fond of this game's ammo model and I wouldn't be too keen on applying it to nukes.

    The ultimate problem as I see it is that anti-nukes are far too expensive. If I have 1 nuke launcher and you want to be sure to protect your base from it, you'll probably need 5+ anti-nukes, both to account for covering your whole base and to account for me simply bombing 1 or 2 of them before you can stop my bombers.

    If I have 5 nuke launchers, it's much worse for you because you need at least 5 anti-nuke missiles loaded up in every area you want to protect.

    So basically anti-nukes are a very weak counter to nukes. There's no reason that something so weak and yet so specialized should also be so expensive.

    Once anti-nukes reach the price of sanity I don't think nuke assisting and nuke-spam will be quite so easy.
    zack1028 and r0ck1t like this.
  20. Slamz

    Slamz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    520
    Oh, another reason nukes are so strong right now is that ground attacks are so easily killed. It doesn't take some amazing array of death to stop 25 Levelers (which cost more than a nuke). Like 1 Holkins and a smattering of other defenses can pretty well handle that. Or a few bombers if they don't have air cover.

    Part of why people can spend so much metal on nukes is because they don't need to spend it defending against ground attacks. Right now ground attacks are by far the least efficient way to attack anyone and so there's very little pressure being put on these would-be nuke spammers.
    r0ck1t and beer4blood like this.

Share This Page