For Backers Only: Megabot Experiment

Thanks, doesn't make my point any worse.

If anything it just gives me the edge.

Umm, take this on for size.

Remove the word megabot and put in the word bot.

You argument is the same for any hypothetical unit, not specifically a megabot, not that most of your point mace sense anyway, motivational force? LOL yes I want a unit that causes my enemy's to play better, that's a good addition.

If you are creating a megabot just to have one, then it is more then likely to be overlapping with the roles of another unit.

Don't design a mega bot, design a normal bot.

Please, becuse thats what you want, the size doesn matter, if there is a neice that needs filling, then fill it.

But don't design a mega bot, becuse of somthing retarded, becuse you think it will look cool.

That

Was a really bad argument to make specifically for a mega bot.

I think a specific special unicorn fairy suggestion thread would be better than arguing here.

So that people can argue over specific special unicorn fairy proposals and not the entire concept as a whole.

Dude are you even engaging in our shouty match, or are you having your own with the whole thread?

I'm sensing a joke in there.

I've posted several times in this thread, and nobody seems to look at my points. So I'm making a thread that I think will be easier to stay on topic with.

That way, I can be ignored in a thread that has coherent arguments.

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/special-unicorn-fairy-suggestion-thread.56149/

Hes saying talking about the "How" instead of the "If" is more productive

Oww burn.

No need to be so deconstructive, we do have coherent arguments here. I might not agree with arachnis, but I'll dam well defend his right to argue his position.

You keep chest pounding but I'd be happy to accept your challenge.

I'll build only economy buildings, vehicle factories, and tanks.

You only build economy buildings, bot factories, and nukes.

No defensive structures, unless you want to change your challenge. Even if you do change your challenge, I'd still beat you.

Are you challenging me or the other guy?

I think he ment the other guy.

You misunderstood my challenge lol. You don't get to build nukes. You build only tanks offensively (as in you can only attack my stuff with tanks).
I build only nukes offensively (I can only attack you with nukes). We both get to build defenses, but can't attack the other player's structures with them. Still wanna fight?

Attacking might be hard, but the attacking player with vehicles literally cannot lose this scenario.

Yes they can! easily. If your spending all your money on anti nukes to keep up with my nukes your attacks will get smaller and smaller. Meanwhile I can defend by replacing my defense as they (rarely) die and nuke your tanks when they get close while spending all my cash eventually overwhelming your defenses since you have to keep spending money to have them work. I can pour all my resources into attack, nuking your armies without fear of them defending against it while you slowly get whittled away

How do you plan to expand without building anti-nukes 1st? i'll send 3 nukes at your expansions and any anti-nuke capability you have will be limited to your main base until i out eco you and over nuke your defenses

The other guy.

I understood your challenge. I had a mind fart when typing that out.

I'll build only tanks.

You're changing the challenge by adding in defensive structures.

But yes. I'll challenge you and I'll beat you with ease.

It'd be even easier if I could use the full unit roster. But yes. I'd beat you with ease.

Why would I bother building anti-nukes?
Just expand all over the map and force you into a corner, you can't scout because you only have nukes, and so you don't know what to nuke.

I expand and explore with tanks, building bases all over the map, and then hit you with a never ending death ball because you sat in a corner.

GG.

No1 said i can't scout with scouts, just can't attack with them. Same with defenses

Please, arrange your duel via pm. Don't derail this thread with it.

Well, we kinda did already

There is also the question of skill. Neither of us are the best of the best players, so if we really wanna test this balance we should use the best players. Why not have player A be godde and player 2 be Gandalf. That would be the best test of balance

Because they would never waste their time on something we already know.

Being aggressive is the way to win.

If your strategy were the best, the tournament players would be doing that, rather than what they already do – which is constantly attack with units.