Something needs to change with nukes.

10 players man, more than once. They couldn't all be noobs! Heck, if they we all on average, average players it's still bad. It shouldn't take a pro to beat that strategy

You overestimate people getting to grips with a beta.

Erm, how are they broken? They have features to be implemented. So does orbital, so remove nukes AND orbital AND any new units they are trying to flesh out like inferno and vanguard and gil-e?

Nukes function as far as functionality goes. Nukes aren't terribly overpowered, technically they were released more powerful than what they are.

If it were possible, I would give it a damage drop off, where instakill is only what it hits and the large AOE only does most a ant's health so it doesn't completely kill mexes even. At least then one would have use for vehicle fabbers, they would survive nukes if balanced right.

Your fighting the most extreme of the arguement in order to "comprimise in the middle" at removing them. Their use doesn't cause catastrophic glitches in the game engine. Don't portray them to be broken on a fundamental level like that.

In my opinion, if they want to find the extreme ranges of balance numbers, reduce nuke radius by half, that would make a lot of people happy and some mad but at least we could see the "extreme range" for nuke nerf and can comprimise to come up from there. It would be worth the happiness it would bring.

So i've watches this "argument" and i must say @iron420... everthing will be balanced so stop complaining. This game is in BETA and when you dont want to see this, dont play the BETA and wait for the finished game. This is part of to-be-BETA.

Then those players must have sucked.

And way to continue to use the Straw Man logical fallacy and to also continue to ignore my main points.

Changing the subject will not make you right.

I had nothing to say about your other points. I'm only 1 man, and if my "share value" means nothing to Uber I wasted my money

Its okay you can say thing, this helps Uber to balance the game better with other opinions, but once is enough and so wait...

An idea to make nukes a little more defendable: make their presence known on radar at all times. Someone starts building 10 nukes on the other side of the planet? You see their completion progress.

Unbalanced is not the same as "broken", and a "feature" is where the real debate between Alpha and Beta lies. If you consider the ability to read .json files into the game at run time a "feature" then adding and removing units, or balancing units is Beta work because you are simply balancing the properties of the feature already added.

You don't have to agree with my interpretation of Alpha and Beta, because it doesn't matter. You purchased a game knowing it was unfinished and are now being very unfair in your critique that it's not balanced as a finished product would be. Even if the nukes never changed they are better implemented now than many other RTS games I have played, and have better mod support than most of the gaming industry.

Yes, with the express purpose of voicing my opinions before everything is set in stone. I've played the game just to know what I'm talking about but I didn't back to play the game. I backed to help shape it which is what I'm doing now.

I don't think so. This is a test implementation of nukes as a proposed way of having them work in the final game and I'm saying as the concept now stands it's trash. Which I'm well within my right to say and support with reasons.

Iron i think we could have a healthy discussion if we all just calm down
What the others are trying to say is You have all the right in the world to express your opnion as you like as long as you do it politely i know it wasnt your intention to offend anyone and belive me those things happen by accident but the main core of reporting a problem is also offering solution

therefore i need to ask you besides removing it from the game what solution can you think about that will help fix the problem

And just one more thing before i know its kind of annoying and boring and i know it dosent work all times but this topic has been see a lot just a little search ok

My solution is to take it out. I can literally think of no other way to fix this right now (aside from my idea of removing the anti-nuke launcher and letting umbrellas shoot down nukes but that already got shot down). That's 2 suggestions now I've given, and I haven't seen any other viable 1s given.

Iron if we just take out the nukes we would be taking out an important unit of the game we must also think about the positive impact that nukes have without then it might be impossible to destroy a base were a player has strongly turtled himself into it nukes also help balance making large blobs of land units inefective and therefore making the players diversify their strategy taking off a unit causes more problems than solve it

Any other solution please

My 2nd 1 is viable and keeps nukes in, but was unpopular. Do you have a 3rd?

making anti nukes cheaper and have longer range soo that nukes wouldnt be that op thats all i´ve got

There are two general kinds of points made about the balance of a particular unit and mechanic.

The first is that this thing is broken and needs to be fixed now. This presumes that the game is fun for all at the moment, and that it is meant to be played rather than tested. It is foolish to expect every mechanic in the game to be functional or well balanced at the moment, and such suggestions seem to want to fix issues now by ruining potential mechanics for later.

The second is this thing doesn't work now, how do we fix it? This acknowledges that the game is unfinished and needs work. That even if a feature has a detrimental effect on the current state of the game it will likely have a positive effect once it is finished. Accepting this, there is nothing whatsoever wrong in suggesting how these things may be tweaked and then hoping to see decent ideas trialled in the future.

I hope people can see the difference between these two kinds of discussion points, and why the former is silly while the latter is sensible.

The point brought up here, is the former. If you want an example of the latter, I personally would recommend this thread which, if you are interested, includes some points I made here.

This how I'm trying to approach this, but at the moment I don't feel confident Uber even know how they want nukes to work. Having nukes in the game now feels akin to if they make the megabot model they posted buildable in game without any way to fire or take damage. Cool, they got the unit model in, but it makes no sense to be able to build it in the current game build until they have an idea of how they want it to be used. I think it should be in the game, but until they have an idea of how they want it to work there is no point in testing it. If the current version of nukes IS how they want it to work, I'm suggesting a complete overhaul to the point that they should take it out until that has been done like they did with subs because that experiment failed and is even preventing the proper testing of the rest of the features.

Also MadSci I made another post with my suggested solution before, a little more in line with your method:

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...uke-launcher-from-the-game.55650/#post-853505

it was unpopular, and had Devs vote against it (without commenting), and still produced no good suggestions for a solution to the problem. Now I've made this post as a second solution suggestion. I'm feeling pretty powerless and really discouraged about the direction of the game

Well, I get your opinion but how exactly are nukes broken? The anti-nuke is cheaper and when finished building it, you do have on in the oven right away. Would say nukes are unbalanced if they would be cheaper than the defense against it.

Answer to another idea mentioned by someone here earlier:
Why would I need to see a nuke being build permanently... why not scout? All I personally would wish for is a warning sound that a nuke has been launched... the rest is up to me.

I can build only nukes, turtle in a single base and win the game. It's the only unit/structure you can build exclusively (and by that, I mean as far as offensive units are concerned) and still win the game. It adds micro with building nukes and anti-nukes individually and makes me babysit those defenses to make sure I always have enough. Not to mention the anti-nuke launcher is a structure that is a hard counter (and the only counter) to nukes and only nukes. I could go on but that's more than enough!

I really like that idea.

Stop saying that. You're 100% wrong on that. There is video after video on PA Matches that shows you're wrong.

If what you're saying really was the best method, then all of the best players would be doing that. Instead, they use lots of units and constantly expand.

And I still find it hilarious that you continue to ignore most of my counter points. If you don't acknowledge them, then they must not exist, right?