Assisting Nukes/Anti.....calmly

I'd like to claim myself as competitive, but a thousand hours of UT 2004 many summers ago has sort of ruined any chance of me playing intense games again. Besides, I get more fun from breaking games than playing them, and some games are much easier to break than others.

You know, that's actually a very good point. Nuke spam has always been a pretty dull way to end games. If only there were some other type of role for nuclear weapons to fill. Perhaps something that relates to the planetary destruction theme of this particular game. Oh, I can't think of anything. It's hopeless.

This is my argument for anti-nuke defenses. If the enemy is doing it right, they'll make sure to protect a nuke launcher with everything they can. They'll also do their hardest to prevent you from scouting their nuke. There should be some counter to it, though I believe it should be a cheaper, ammo-less solution. Possibly even multi-purpose in use. That way it's not just an anti-nuke, but has another use. It would definitely change the strategy around a lot if it were harder to nuke a player, but still a game altering event.

Perhaps if it were made much harder to nuke a player, cheaper defenses, etc., then it should be made more rewarding to nuke a player as well. More damage or aoe? Thought I'd throw that out there since I just thought of it.

Yes. I totally agree.

Right. And that's why I suggested the alternatives to limiting fabs as I did, such as possibly having to launch a satellite first before being able to launch, therefore another way to counter nukes would be to take out the satellite that provides that ability, even if he has missiles in the tube already. Ya know, maybe make some sort of objectives for the nuke player to achieve that will essentially make him earn it, while allowing the opponent many different options to be able to counter the nuke, not necessarily with just an anti-nuke silo. I think this will also give the other units (tanks, fighter satellites, etc) a stake in being able to prevent the opponent from acquiring nukes than just simply driving up into his base, or building an expensive anti-nuke when you could be building nukes yourself.

And that, sir, is what I want in the end.

Nukes should definitely be able to have extra fabs build them, to not is just going to take something away from the game. Making up a theoretical situation with all things being even is also not a good way to back up your argument.

I actually got into this situation with a friend when we were doing a 4 player FFA. Anti nukes build quicker then nukes, and its easier to quickly build multiples since you can build 3 per building. He ended up taking out that base of mine simply because he had gone for bombers while i went for a ground force (t1 ground AA units suck!) so he bombed my anti nuke silos. But he eventually lost because he never got his commander off world and one of the other guys crashed into the planet buahahaha.

I find nothing wrong at all with being able to quickly build nukes with extra fabs since you can build anti nukes even quicker and easier (Qing up build orders on multiple nuke silos doesn't work you either have to manually tell them to start building when a nuke is done or have them patrol and have multiple nukes building at various speeds).

What you need to understand is that if a guy who went for anti nukes quick and has guys constantly building he WILL end up filling up that silo. Nukes have travel time you need to take into account as well. Several times an anti nuke finished building literally before the nuke hit or during transit. To kill a base with a full anti nuke silo you have to shoot FOUR nukes at the same time.

/end thread

Ok then we can see eye to eye on this issue like gentlemen now

I am but human, if not a gentleman.

Well, that was quicker to resolve than I thought! Haha.

The overall detail is easy to agree with.

But I will get my knife out over the specific details!

Lol! Why not keep this going then? If you had an ideal anti-nuke building/unit/ability/etc., what would it be?

Personally, I like an idea I saw in another thread about having a flak or other defensive structure that could destroy nukes after either a few shots or a set period. No ammo, but not good at taking out more than one nuke at a time. Not a strong building, but if it were flak or something like that, it could be mulitpurpose.

Nukes are pretty much the size of a small whale. Just about anything should be able to shoot at them.

How is my situation no good??? It proves that head to head, you will lose if you go anti, plain as that. It was a head to head face between the anti and nuke. You only need one nuke launcher to overcome the guy who went anti. You guys are failing to see that.

TA escalation mod made a nice move on the nuke game and placed the nuke launcher at t3 and left anti at t2. Perhaps a change of that nature would help. Make nuke launcher a unit built by the orbital launcher, and leave anti where it is.

I also highly favor igns long running idea of multiple types of anti.

I can't say I agree that you automatically lose if you choose to build an anti-nuke at any time during the game. There is nothing that guarantees the other guy a win if you build an ant-nuke silo. There is also nothing that says you can't build a nuke and an anti-nuke at the same time or use the anti-nuke as a shield while preparing to even the playing field (assuming you are behind the other player). It just all depends on the situation.

If you have one nuke launcher, you can only build one nuke at a time, while anti-nuke silos hold up to three interceptors and comes equipped with one already. So I cannot vouch for your statement saying that even having one nuke silo up is a guarantee one-up to the guy who decides he needs to protect himself.

I don't mind changing the nature of the relationship between nukes and anti-nukes, or their characteristics, such as how many resources it takes to build them or on what tier level they become available. I simply believe that having the option to protect myself from incoming nukes does not guarantee me a loss or that it is a dumb idea and should be evicted from the game.

You will lose if you go anti ... you will lose if you build defensetowers you will lose if you Build walls on chokepoints .... because thats THE ONLY THING YOU ONLY EVER FRIGGIN DO YOU KNOW! !!!!!! ... did i already mention that people have a very black and white way of seeing things? I thought this games is about nuances a game where EVERYTHING does matter .... yet i see sooooo many peoples arguing about ONE particular buildng only

Smdh..... you just aren't getting it @r0ck1t yes there's a number of things you can do differently in any situation. The point in trying to get across to you is that heads up the anti will lose to the nuke, with a constant stream of fabricators assisting. Yes you can get three anti missiles up on one launcher. But breaking your assist power to build another anti you will fall behind the nuke players reproduction of missiles and your base will start getting blown away. Head to head with fab assist the person with the nuke will have the advantage, due to a combination of things, the nuke range, anti range,price of anti missiles, and biggest of all fab assist. So my point is something needs to change somewhere to make this binary action between the two more balanced, cause currently it isn't.

you're right it is about nuances and decisions. The discussion at hand however is the balance between these two in particular. As I've said multiple times the situation given us merely to portray the lack of balance they currently have with each other..... nothing more. There are going to be situations where deciding between the two will actually decide the game. Currently that answer is nuke asap then spam missiles with one factory, because in the current setup you can with enough fab assist almost instantaneously have a missile as soon as you fire one..... that's lame that one unit can bring such un ending constant destruction to the battlefield.

Then simply wait for more unittypes to be added in ..
some people realy act as if the game is featurecomplete alredy when it clearly isnt
It's not like we may not get tick/firebeatles or nukeships/vehicles
Or smaller caliber tacmissiles (even though we kinda have those already)

Yes yes I know that's the infamous line around here WIP I use it constantly towards others myself. No harm in discussing things as they aren't currently though. Putting ideas in one's mind, then when uber decides to grace us with more units we can modify said ideas, keep them, or simply throw them in the trash. No harm no foul my friends....