Laser turrets are too cheap/T1 land armies have vanished

Eh?

War decided by single combat == use of drones. Rather than risk your army, you risk one man. Rather than risk 4-5 human lives, you risk one drone.
It's not related to the separate issue as to why you would put your most efficient weapon on the front lines, even if that meant risking certain defeat. Risk < Reward.

Continue in PM if you wish, but I'm sorry, if that's the best "good for gameplay" concept you can think of, it exists in real life, it looks like you can't discount the realism argument out of ignorance.

I am actually still to see a well formed argument about that though? Every argument is based on ignorance or discounting stuff.

Why? Because I'm right?

Because mobile units are a finite resource. It comes down to opportunity cost. You could use your units to defend, or you could use them to attack. So the tactical decision is "do I leave these tanks here? Or do I move them elsewhere?". Static defences allow you to build a purely defensive army which you'll never accidentally send on an attack.

Err... No. It annoys me immensely that you can move 100 units into an undefended area, and static defences start sprouting up like mushrooms.

I don't really see any point in building static defences somewhere your enemy will never attack or move through. (like the devs do) Static defences themselves discourage an attack in that area or movement in that area. Hence my sig. If you create the Maginot line, no one in their right mind will try and steamroll it. They'll go around it. Or they'll force a gap and march right through.

I think I'll reference the way Sins did it as an example. (I'll ignore Vasari, because their static defence is actually mobile)

In that game, you built static defences. A mobile fleet would always win against static defences. A mobile fleet can run around the static defences, and there were quite a few units that the static defences were outranged by. So you never ever ever had any reason to lose an engagement against static defences.

However, if your static defences are forcing your opponent to move on and attack another target,either within the same gravity well, or deeper in your territory, you've bought time. If he does attack static defences, you've bought time as well. You gain the time you need to get your reinforcing fleet in the area to defend.

Static defences don't actually secure you from attack however. It's not really economical to build enough static defences that your territory is impenetrable.

As far as I can see it, the problems with SD in PA is that there isn't a cost effective counter.

Yes. Good. Thank you. That comes down to a limitation of the simulation however. (Air units have no volume)

And that, is all I have ever wanted.

Good siege gameplay, although I will admit that turrets are especially good for their cost, I would rather have a weaker turret for one of them, and expensive other ones, as I really do like having cheap anti-raiding defence.

Me too.

To be honest I would prefer that static artillery had the same range as mobile artillery. I've been advocating that for quite some time.

I don't think the previous cost:effectiveness was all that bad. I think you only needed 7 Doxen to take down a double turret.

BTW, have you ever killed enemy laser towers with land scouts? They die in one shot, but are very easy to amass and zerg with.

It's loads of fun.

People have done it to me and it has failed miserably. I was totally unprepared for it too. Because of that, I've never really seen it as a great idea.

Defiantly need to go for the knees, and focus fire.

But It can be done relatively quickly, as they do have good dps for their cost.

Most important thing to do is to get the turret to turn, wasting precious shooting time.

Wait, what? It isn't childish. Perhaps a little cliché but not childish. If you're avoiding SupCom (or any RTS for that matter) because of the story of all things, you're making a massive mistake and in the case of SupCom, you're missing out.

Okay, I'll present the argument just for you; unfortunately, I can't present a deductive one with flawless premises that is undeniable. So I will have to resort to examples. How many examples do I need to go through until you agree with me? I'll go through a few off the top of my head.

Ammunition

• Units never replenish their ammunition stocks (Except for bombers due to balance reasons)

Economy

• You can spend mass on a distant planet that wasn't mined there. (Conservation of mass and energy)

Scale

• Assuming the systems we play are on some sort of consistent scale, elements will travel faster than light.
• Assuming radii are in km, the planets we play on can't maintain an atmosphere, unless they are made of some non-existent materials.

Scifi

• Radar isn't blocked by terrain
• Commander spends energy and metal to make more.

Should I talk about other games? How about abstract games like Tetris? How can those games be any good if they don't resemble reality at all?

If you want to talk about the future, and technology then I can't help you, because you would be obviously overlooking my point here. Uber has stated, if not multiple times, that realism does not always make for good gameplay.

No, because we are talking about PA. This isn't the comments section of the latest Fox News/MSNBC Youtube video about Obama.

Really? What is this about an infinite war, and never ending metal or energy?

What you have to understand is that your opponent has the potential to be your mirror. Therefore, the opportunity cost is null, because you both have to consider it, and turrets still don't solve a specific problem.

Is this really a valid point? Isn't this just hand holding, like I mentioned in my last post? So you're opting for a turret thats equal to it's tank opportunity value just so you don't make an input mistake? REALLY?!

So then why are you disagreeing with me? I'm saying that turrets should be removed because they no longer serve their purpose in the genre. At the very least they should be nerfed into the ground.

A strong tower will make turtling the optimal/dominant strategy. (Turrets that we have now in PA)

A weak tower increases the cost of raiding/attacking (more units are needed) (replace it by tanks, no need to have two elements that do the same job)
They also mislead new players as to where and when a weak tower should be built. (it shouldn't be built)

While an apparently strong tower (one that is dispatched by special tools, like the T1 mobile arty from FA) only serves as an entry barrier for newer players, and a time sink for those that need to deal with it. Because all you need is the knowledge of the proper way of dealing with PDs and the clicks to execute the command.

Sup2's storyline was childish. The Sup1/FA storyline was not.

I liked Commander Gauge.......the main bad guy.

That is not the fault of the turrets, that the fault of the massively powerful T2 economy that allows you to support it.

And Id much rather have defending be the optimal strategy, then rushing.

But as it stands, booming is outlandishly superior to turtling.

So you would rather play Sim City? Because both players defending is what that's going to turn into.
Rushing is balanced by commander strength, nothing wrong with it. Rushing wasn't a problem in FA.

Rushing is to counter booming, booming to counter turtling, turtling to counter rushing.

And it's only sim city, if you are bad at turtling, as 90% of people are.

The stratigys I have mentioned above, are starting strats, the way you start a game.

The problem that most turtles have, is they think it's a good idea to continue past the first 10 mins, this is down to a number of things:

• Player inexperience of the turtle (Duh)

• Player inexperience of the non-turtle (Learn to siege)

• Lack of good siege options (Combat fabbers and artillery are both great against buildings, but most people throw 5 tanks at something and them moan why it didn't die)

• Good economic upgrades (T2 economy, power satellite stacking)

Now, I'll admit as I have earlier on: The single a double towers are out of wack, and would rather see a nerfed single, and more expensive double to give a solid tower, and anti-raiding cheap *** tower.

But other then that, I find that most players are relatively bad at sieging a base (Not that I am insulting you of course, but there are units designed to do this job), and could do with more practice.

But I also would like to see additional option for siege war fair be implemented on the basic and advanced levels in order to give players more choice in how to confront enemy defensive types. Mortars, missile tanks, em weapons, drone carriers ect...

Also, T2 eco.........burn that stuff, because I am of the opinion that it currently, totally ruins the fun of the game......building massive bases, and securing land.

I guess it was ok, the acting sucked balls though, just god aweful And it doesn't take that much acting to impress me since I consider the acting in SC2 to be pretty good lawls.

Oh and did any of you guys ever play DOTA? I once seen one of these PA games resemble a dota game lol. Ya know you have the barracks spawning units, than they fight down the middle and die at the other guys Towers ha ha. And you even had your Hero (the commander) that fights back and forth and run to your own towers to get healed by your engineers ha ha. Only now its way to expensive to repair your commander so you have a DOTA game without the hero LAWLs. Unless you rush T2 air of course and don't run into flak

Aww bless.

Ammunition

• Units never replenish their ammunition stocks (Except for bombers due to balance reasons)

Units use lasers, ammunition stocks don't exist. The game isn't expected to go for such a time that the power generator of your units stop working.

Which just leaves artillery. Once again, nano-fabrication is a thing.

Economy

• You can spend mass on a distant planet that wasn't mined there. (Conservation of mass and energy)

Logistics systems are present - you don't magically generate metal from nowhere. Supply lines aren't shown in the simulation.
Scale

• Assuming the systems we play are on some sort of consistent scale, elements will travel faster than light.
• Assuming radii are in km, the planets we play on can't maintain an atmosphere, unless they are made of some non-existent materials.

Actually valid, well done. But that has very little on the gameplay other than as an aesthetic effect. The same game would still exist after you corrected the scale.

Scifi

• Radar isn't blocked by terrain

With sufficient energy, you can bounce electromagnetic waves off the ionosphere. There's no reason why Radar should be blocked by line of sight.

• Commander spends energy and metal to make more.

Please research the ATP cycle, basic chemistry, basic biology and human industry. The human body spends metal and energy to obtain more. The ATP cycle requires an input of energy in order to gain a netprofit of energy. Biology relies on the idea that you spend energy and metal as efficiently as possible to make more. Mining technologies rely on an investment of material in order to gain a netprofit. What were you thinking?

But um... science fiction robot war set in the far and distant future? How can any argument be made by forgetting that fact?

And what about? The only place I've seen that comment is that air units should not have volume, which a significant voice in the community is in favour of, and in reality the argument is "the resources required to make air units have volume are not beneficial for the resulting benefit", which is a different argument entirely.

If you want to get political, that's not my problem.

Not a counter argument. It's common to all military doctrine. You don't throw away the lives of many to save a few. You use the lives of a few to save the lives of many. It's the reason why the New Zealand Navy policy is to shut the doors on an engine fire and flood the compartment regardless of human life in the engine room. Because the guaranteed deaths of 3 sailors are better than the risk of human life to put out the fire plus the high probability of the loss of the ship.

Again, time scale. Relative to your lifetime, when will the earth run out of atmosphere, and when will the sun run out of fuel? Both will happen. As far as I'm aware, in all of the hours I've played of PA, the sun has never once run out of fuel, the atmosphere has never disappeared into space.

Infinity isn't a number. It is a concept. In real terms, it is approximated by very large numbers. One day the PA universe will end, or machinekind will go extinct. Nothing lasts forever.

You are familiar with Zeno's Paradox? An objecting moving half the distance to another object will take an infinite amount of time to reach that object.

Eh? That makes no sense whatsoever. That's not what opportunity cost means. Every choice you make had an alternate choice you did not make. Opportunity cost is never nullified.

You have mobile units.

Why would you leave them where they are not needed, when they could be moved somewhere they are needed?

Jeeze you're unpleasant to debate with. Cut the sarcasm and the attitude. An "accidental send on an attack" also comprises moving your defences out of position. I.e. moving your defences somewhere they aren't needed.

Shouting gets you nowhere, except makes me lose respect for you. Peace out bro.

There isn't a counter because of a discrepancy in the unit balance. They are too good because of a discrepancy in the unit balance.

I agree with your sentiment. I personally oppose the change to the uber cannon because it does not encourage a build up of t1 land (rushing as a winning strategy was virtually wiped off the table)

We are in balance discussions.

Ultimately you are advocating removing a part of the game entirely because it is currently not balanced correctly. I disagree with that philosophy.

hold on. so the reason turrets should be removed, is because we are supposed to use land armies to defend?

that's like telling someone, "hey if you have to use turrets at all, you're a noob."

you label turrets as a crutch, as if we're not supposed to eb using them at all.

you're effectively calling us all noobs, methinks......


just my take, feel free to chip in a rebuttle.

It can be more successful than using bots and tanks since scampers can shoot over walls. If we lower HP of turrets a bit and buff scout DPS a tad they could be an effective counter. Since walls are almost always built in conjunction with turrets anyhow, things would remain almost the same with other T1 land units.

Then scampers would actually be useful in a standing T1 army.

Who said anything about removing them?

libthebaselord.

Really? You realize that if solar systems were to scale, we would be restricted to one planet and maybe a few moons per game. What were you thinking?
I'm not going to have a nerd-off with you on a video game balance forum, there is nothing to be gained for both of us. Let me say thing though; don't bring the ATP cycle into this. Assuming the commander is getting his energy from the ATP cycle, it still limits him to the wattage of the sun per square unit of the surface area on the planet. There are physical limits to biological systems(http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701757/), no way you're building an army from a few, even 100% efficient, solar panels.
Just because you can speculate on futuristic technologies and use them as explanations for the plausibility of a video game, that doesn't support or even explain why realistic concepts are always a good gameplay idea. (Like you said)

My main point was the direct contradiction to your claim:

I do not agree with that on any level, and you're not presenting any valid arguments to sway me otherwise.
Stuff that makes sense in real life war does not make sense from a gameplay perspective by default.

I wasn't the one who got political. You were the first person in the thread to bring up US drones. This is irrelevant to gameplay and balance. This will be the last time I respond to this topic.

I'm not sure what you're talking about there, or what you're responding to. What you quoted me saying was aimed at your claim that mobile units are finite. I mentioned the infinite war because both resources don't end in the game. There is no practical limit to mobile units. Maybe one, that would be the practicality limit, no reason to build more.

What I meant there was that you have the potential to do the same thing to your opponent as he does to you. Therefore, you both partake in the same decision but make different choices, therefore, one of you must make the better chain of choices, and less mistakes. The better player is decided with a mixture of the two.

What I meant by saying that the opportunity cost is nullified I will illustrate with this example and an analogy.
If we both make the decision between building tanks or turrets, we both pay the opportunity cost of our respective choice, assuming the game is balanced, we both paid the same amount, and our "wealth" doesn't change relative to each other.

Because I admit that I can't play perfectly, have comprehensive scouting or flawlessly predict my opponent. Therefore, I invest in a lifeline if I make a mistake. At the end of the day, if that lifeline is unnecessary I can realize that and further push my advantage. Whereas the turret building player is stuck with his wasted resources.
So then why confuse the player and give him the choice of leaving tanks or building turrets?
In any fate of the turret, there will be a mathematical optimum, there will be no decision making beyond a "to defend or not". It will only serve as a barrier to entry for new players that aren't informed about which unit to use.

So when building a turret you want to restrict your choices in the future? That's like locking your keys in your car so that you don't make the wrong decision of going somewhere later. Why build anything when you land if you have a chance of building the wrong thing?

In any case, if you make an input mistake, or you make the wrong decision, turrets are still playing the same detrimental role. They are holding your hand. I touched upon this in my previous posts.
They still don't solve a specific gameplay problem. This is my main point for this topic, please address it.
Anything turrets can do, tanks should be able to do better. Why not?

Bolding important text isn't yelling, as far as I'm aware only capital letters are, and that's only if you want to interpret them that way.

No, you're misinterpreting my argument. What you mentioned in the above quote only addressed some of my supporting arguments.
I'll state it again in the fullest, yet most concise form possible.

Balanced turrets do not serve a purpose that can't be fulfilled by tanks.
If the above statement is true, then why have two elements that overlap in application? Surely one of them is mathematically better, then using the best tool is the obvious choice. So then why confuse players by giving them the option of an inferior choice?
The first half of this post is aimed at debunking the idea that realism is a good reason to build gameplay in a certain direction.

10k char limit

Am I the only one who thinks that turrets should not only be nerfed by increasing their cost?
How about we increase their cost, aswell recude their damage and/or rate of fire?
(Numbers are to be played with of course)

With the current situation of easy metal all over the place a price increase will only do so much, but I still
find it frustrating to get an army of T1 units shred instantly by 2 or 3 turrets. How about we make towers not 1-shot everything?