Progressive penalization for overbuilding defences

Turrets could require more space between them to be build. Simply as that.

How would you do that? By increasing the size of the model?

I think that setting up a minimal distance between objects is quite simple (in the program). It is already not allowed to place a building overlapping an other. I guess it is defined something like area of influence, or whatever. Just making it bigger should not allow overlapping Turrets. Or building them too tight.

The same could be said for cluster/blob of bombers and any other units. It is not pretty to see units massing into each other. It is much more elegant when they keep a decent formation.

I guess it's about being the game in beta.

This seems like a very arbitrary to fix a potential imbalance.
It would feel strange if you couldn't build turrets next to each other when the individual turrets are really small but the footprints are really big.

Formations are coming although collision detection is always something that can break immersion. If unit collision volumes are too small the units will clip into each other. If they are too big the units will not visually collide with each other. If units don't exchange momentum it can seem just as they don't have any weight and just slide by each other.

Does it really matter? For instance, personally I feel very strange that a tank can fire no further than a couple of square away. Or that a plane can fly on a surface of a moon. Nevertheless it works 'cos it is a just game not a strict simulation of the reality, and everything in it is designed in order to entertain me.

Therefore I don't care much about which solution they will find to balance the game. Putting more distance between turrets seem quite reasonable to me.

Robotics and relative algorithms have been developed well enough to give us a good illusion on screen. I'm confident that once PA will be completed, it will be graphically very pleasant to watch.

Right now I'm playing a bit with Supreme Commander 2. The units arrange in formation by themselves, and it seems to work very well.

Yes. It matters to me. There can be lots of reasons for arbitrarily restricting ranges instead of allowing units to fire at maximum possible physical range. I would love to play a balanced game where this wasn't the case, where units range were only limited by their weapons physical capabilities. Also I don't think airplanes should work on planets without atmosphere for the sake of variety. If you want airplanes to be used; play on a planet with atmosphere.

You want an illusion but I there must be something that brakes this immersion even for you. People have different opinions about what feels good, look beautiful and plays well. I'm not gonna blame you for liking the way unit formations behave in SupCom 2 even though I myself wish for something else.

O course. I do respect yours.

If "Not-Turtling" is far superior to Turtling....shouldn't we be looking at ways to handicap Not-Turtling instead?

There is no balance in place and threads keep popping up designed to discourage a certain playstyle? I normally use just a few turrets but honestly if I meet anyone who doesn't like them I might as well build 10K of them just to psyche you out .

My opinion: freedom of choice. If someone wants to build 10K turrets or 10K tanks or 10 nukes then so be it.

I'm sure that once the technical side is more complete, Uber will refocus on balance and give units apropriate, and hopefully not variable based on unit amount, stats. Please remember, you're practically testing the technical layer, not the game itself right now.

EDIT: sentence correction

I agree with ambassador mollari!

Anyone who feels the game mechanics need to be altered to handicap someone else's playstyle needs to learn how to play the game better, instead of asking developers to make a game that ensures they always win with their strategy, and that no one can win using the strategy they ostensibly can't beat.

Get REAL.

Nobody likes the long games that result from turtling? Speak for yourself because you sure aren't speaking for me! Hell, I'd welcome a rush timer. Muahahahaaaa...

I'd just like some more siege units.

Your link is broken :S

I dont even want to know why you guys think defences are op. But what i do know is that you need to become better.

That's strange, I thought it worked when I posted it. Oh well, here it is: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

FFA turtles require a disproportionate amount of resources to pry off the surface of the planet


Or a decent attack by air units. But forget making progress with land.

I "turtle" almost every single game, I have no problem controlling enough map for resources and I tend to win more than I loose.

That's because T2 mexes are broken.

Honestly don't think overbuilding defense's is a bad thing. If it is lets add a cap on how many nukes u can have built... j/k since im sure alot of ppl will try to bash me if im not willing to see bothsides.

I see the problem but really don't like this as a full feature idea. Atleast make this idea an option not a requirement for everyone. I like seeing heavy defense even turtle style... it really adds to the struggle you could face in a massive war so why detract this. I love having games that become a challenge to take out the resident of the planet. I guess im one of the players who wants a massive war instead of a short battle so I wont force this. With the changes being added or atleast the posts they have made really kinda point out that there will be solutions and it sure looks like some fun ones!!!! For now I lend my voice to prevent a hard set system punishing people who overbuild defensively. But I dont want to offend those who may see this as a worse issue then I do.

Yeah, the ability to upgrade you current mex's means that expanding is less valuable.

So I totally agree.

Any confirmation from the devs about possible changed nano?