Laser turrets are too cheap/T1 land armies have vanished

Which thread which patch?

This I agree with, but I think the cost equation is too much in their favour right now. They should be affordable to use in limited numbers, where as now I feel they're affordable everywhere.

This one:
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/adv-laser-defence-turret.56825/

I agree with your point, but when are we allowing the cost difference of things to affect the strategy of unit counters?

Or just strategy in general? Like, mobile units can avoid turrets for the most part, and bombers can deal with them easily (Kinda).

And I must ask, which of the turrets do you feel is affected by this? Just the single barrel one, or also the double and triple ones?

Indeed, so we could allow the turret to be one, that is easily spammed, but still repetitively easily dealt with in comparison to the double and triple ones.

As I d feel like base expansions would be harder, at least for me, if I don't have a throw away turret to put up in the mean time to defend against raiding and light attacks.

You're going to have to point me at the post, because I don't see anywhere in there where I suggest laser towers and T1 are balanced.

I'm sorry, I meant the enemy has no support from an army helping the defenses

We are indeed missing Thuds, despite them being in the files. As far as I can see, most of the work is already done. Is neutrino or scathis holding the unit guy back? The T1 thud look-alike bot's been in the game files since Alpha AFAIK.

The drawback of a stationary turret is so often overlooked. Since it can't move, if no units come nearby then it's wasted metal.

I think we should ad basic siege tanks and then re-evaluate whether they're OP or not.

Should it be artillery bots or artillery tanks? The former has a more unique model and the latter wasn't in TA, so bots makes more sense to me. T1 artillery is hard to differentiate, and I don't know that we need another spinner, a unit where the bot version is identical in everything except for speed, maneuverability, and metal cost/build speed.

I vote vehicles. This would be a siege role, and Uber wants bots to be like infantry, and vehicles to be heavy hitters.

Which is why the Stomper was changed to the Gil-e and switched from artillery to sniper.

The new siege unit could be another artillery, or it could be a missile barrage style vehicle. Fires a few missiles close together for a bunch of damage, and then has a long reload time. Or better yet, the barrage style could be the Advanced Siege tank and the current Sheller could get a range and damage nerf and be bumped down to basic.

There are already files in the game for "bot_artillery" and "tank_heavy_artillery" (The gil-e is "bot_artillery_advanced" and the sheller is "tank_heavy_mortar"). The tank one looks like a sheller with a few details absent, while the bot looks like a stomper holding two artillery cannons instead of just one. The latter is more interesting and readily identifiable than the former. The reason they are never talked about compared to the recluse, albatross, etc. is because they lack unit.json files.

Going to have to agree with the OP here. It is to quick and easy to start pumping out laser turrets and a wall when units are first detected by radar. Once the radar gets visual, 2 or 3 engineers can have sufficient walls and turrets to destroy most bot brigades or destroy enough to make sure no damage is done to the main base. Turrets need to have inefficient metal costs in their construction and ultimately supplement units instead of annihilate them.

I have to add that cheap t2 mexes also means that you can rely on your starting mexes to provide your income without much need to expand until lategame. The cheap defense and long range radar means that you can reactively defend with turrets and transition into the lategame without slowing down.
Now if expansion were more important, strong defense might actually be kind of okey.
But there is also the fact that T1 is simply weaker for cost than t2 which means that turrets are even better at countering t1 for cost. So right now, why make t1 units when they die easily to defense when you can rush t2 to get better units?

I absolutely agree with you Quitch XD




I have an issue about t1 and t2.

It is increasingly looking like t1 will be t1. And t2 will be t2. None of this "all units viable all game" scenario. Just straight up advance to T2.


I hate to say "I told you so" guys, but the trend in Uber's balancing has been to nerf rushing into the ground and making building a turtle base and teching the best way to play the game.

This is no drawback if it is that cheap, that you can simply wait for the radar to detect the enemey and then place the turret. Even if a surprise attack hits you, you just give up 1 or 2 buildings and gather some fabbers to build a turret behind it. So the loss won't be huge.

So which tower is this about?

The T1 ones.

The one barrelled T1 ones or the Two barreled T1 ones?

I think both of them are being referred to.

The single laser ones are much less effective than the dual ones, but are easily able to prevent harass when coupled with the ZOMGOP cheap walls that we have right now. Surround the double laser ones with walls and they're stupidly good.


Make no mistake here, the problem isn't with the laser defense towers, which are flimsy enough, but with the walls which you can surround them with for the nominal price of 200 metal that increases their HP by roughly 300%.

Maybe I should be more clear.

Being stationary is a huge drawback. If I build a bunch of defensive structures in one spot and no enemy units ever come by that way, that was wasted metal. That's a drawback.

Defensive structures do need further tweaks. I just don't think we can know what tweaks are needed until we have a full roster.