Orbital fabber/launcher

I've been thinking this for a while and now it just annoys me,

I find splitting the orbital constructions between the two is really annoying and just forces a whole load of un-necessary micro which is really frustrating.

I propose that the orbital launcher can just build every type of orbital unit and the same for fabbers. This would allow you to micro it all easier from your factories producing orbital, and leave fabbers still with their niche for helping you land on planets and giving you access to orbital tech on planets you've just landed on without needing an orbital launcher.

Thoughts?

I honestly think orbital needs to be fleshed out a lot more, and that letting the orbital factory build all orbital units won't help with that. I do agree that the orbital fabber probably shouldn't be the way to construct a lot of orbital units (such as the anchor, which many players will want to spam).
Instead, I think introducing multiple types of orbital launchers for orbital or interplanetary (if going from planet to planet wasn't just a shift-click away), or introducing an orbital factory for T2.5 orbital might help, but it's very hard to say. I don't know what the vision is, so I can't say what "should" or "shouldn't" happen since I don't know which approach Uber wants to take, but I think something needs to change.

Make the cost of anchors and advanced radar commensurate with what would have been the cost of building the orbital fabber first, and I think it sounds grand. More experienced minds will probably have more constructive input, however.

I dunno. I see both sides of the argument.

On one hand, it'll make managing orbital a lot easier – and cheaper since assisting an orbital factory uses a lot less energy than using a bunch of orbital fabbers. For that reason alone I'm inclined to support this idea.

But at the same time, orbital fabbers were introduced for a reason. They were introduced to implement a semi basic/advanced tier. We used to completely bypass basic radars (kinda do still) and by putting everything into an orbital factory, Avengers will be completely pointless as we'll build anchors... But that's kinda a balance issue.

The more I think on this as I write... I like it.

It'll require some big balance changes, like the nerfing of Anchors, speeding up of Avengers, and tweaking the radar satellites – but I like it.

It'll make Orbital management TONS easier.

I don't see a need for a fabber at all. Just have the teleporter act like an Astraeus, it lands and sets itself up. There you go, everything is in the factory.

I'm hoping that things will be changed so that orbital units not built in the launcher can't be assisted from the ground; obviously if you can assist everything from the launcher that wouldn't be the case. Assuming that change isn't made though, I don't see why not.

I think that they should remove the anchor, orbital fighter and one of the radars and maybe even the solar panels, then make the Astraeus a single use only launcher to hit a spot on another planet and deploy the commander or fabber, thus making the orbital layer what it should be only for intel and getting around to other planets and you can counter it with umbrellas and it would be easier as there would be no orbital fighter to soak up the fire from them.. oh then perhaps we could even get another version on the single use launch system to launch a teleporter to another planet on another spot but it will only work if there is nothing there to block its placement thus you can't just land a teleporter in someones base and destroy everything... also the single use launch for the commander and fabber means you can't just bounce back and forth in orbital to keep the commander safe.. as you would need to orbital launchers and to keep building the unit to do it constantly...

I guess it's true that it would make basic orbital radar even more obsolete than it is now, but perhaps that can be fixed with cost and balance changes. It is true that having to build the orbital fabber feels like a flimsy and artificial barrier to orbital tech, and I think that's because... hm.

I think that's because right now, it's very seldom worth it to build anything that the factory can produce besides the astraeus. By the time you've got an orbital factory, you've probably got a fair amount of radar on the ground, so who would build the early orbital radar? Likewise, for orbital fighters to be very effective at the moment, the other guy needs to have entirely neglected to build anchors and umbrellas, and both of those are relatively easy to produce. So, you really just want to move immediately past the factory, and get to the truly useful orbital units produced by the fabber ASAP.

I guess that's really one big issue with the game in general right now, no? That T1 units (and orbital fighters, radar) feel useful only in very specific scenarios, whereas the more advanced tech is useful almost all of the time, and it should be the other way around. Or at least on parity. But that's a topic being discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, I suppose...

While I agree that building anything with t2 orbital is annoying an micro intensive I don't think orbital fabbers should be abolished. Rather current T2 orbital units should feel more like orbital structures structures - I don't mind that they aren't stationary, actually I like that, it makes orbital feel different, but I do think that they shouldn't be allowed to break orbit with the exception of SXX laser satellite but that is perhaps the only true T2 orbital "unit" we have and we need a T2 orbital mining satellite what would take the role T2 Mex, to make orbital and equal option to go for when teching to T2. We need a different set of units that would fill the role of T2 orbital units and an orbital dry dock/ space station that would produce them and the units should be:
T2 aerospace fighter (ASF)- As efficient at fighting orbital unit as the Avenger, maybe less, maybe not at all but can enter arial level and fight aeroplanes with a lesser efficiency, but similar power as T2 fighter
SXX Laser Satellite - I count is as a super weapon or at least artillery, because it is possible of orbital bombardment.
Dropship - You land it and it acts as any T1 ground factory.
Orbital fabber - So you aren't screwed if oyu lose your ground launcher
Orbital destroyer - Something to take on the OP anchors. Still vulnerable to Umbrellas

The idea of this kind or orbital would be that it has it's beginnings in ground, isn't micro intensive, can be as Valid T2 path as any other and reduces the number of stalemates that can happen. It can be it's own thing, but is still hard countered by ground dominance. Not only umbrellas, but orbital units aren't as efficient (T2 air fighters could fight ASF with equal loses but greater numbers), orbital would consume a lot of resources, can be blocked off (T2 ground mex would block off an orbital mining laser) but is the best tool to launch an invasion of another planet (with respect to the unit canon) and T1 orbital only acts as ground support.

I do like this. I think sending a rocket at a planet that unfolds as a teleporter would be cool. Further more if we have T1 and T2 orbital factory's. T1 should be build by all fabbers and either T2 gets built by any T2 fabber or some sort of thing you can build(like the teleporter idea) in the factory and have land and unfold.

Dumb phone sent it twice.

I'd much rather see the use of Astraeuses than orbital fabbers and teleporters.
But orbital transports are somewhat tricky to use, easy to destroy, and extraordinarily expensive.
...Oh, and I'm not even sure they can carry combat units, because they weren't able to during the entire beta.

I like that idea a lot.

I find it completely ironic that what everyone is essentially saying can be summed up in this one phrase:

"We don't like the orbital changes. Bring back the old way of just an orbital factory."

Reasons why this is ridiculous:

Reason 1:

You'd never really be able to have an orbital layer. It really wouldn't matter what you have up there - because all your production is ground-based. You don't have a reason to care. The enemy would have to punch through all your defenses to get to your orbital. Why bother with it? This will encourage turtles.

Reason 2:

The anchor was originally introduced because orbital combat was binary - whoever had the most avengers won. It just needs adjusted. This is literally the third version of it. Give it some slack, guys.

Reason 3:

Half of the units in the orbital layer need fixed anyway. Why give up on this interesting idea? We have air, ground, and naval fabbers, so why not orbital?? Why not stick with this interesting mechanic that makes your space production totally separate from your ground production?

Reason 4:

This is a step in the wrong direction. What we should be asking for are two things:
- Easier ways to manage orbital micro without interfering with ground (maybe orbital-only hotkey?)
- A more definite line between advanced orbital and basic orbital. Maybe a space station or something. Have
the creative artist dudes at Uber have a field day making a model for it. That would be cool to see.
---------------------
In addition to *all the reasons*, orbital's animations and mechanics are yet to be completed. Wait for the finish before we decide this way won't work. Personally, I think it works. It's just too complex and needs to be simplified by drawing similarities between orbital and ground gameplay.
---------------------

Also, orbital travel speeds and/or cost of the astraeus and orbital fabber need fixed. We already get that.

The next time someone asks for any unit with the name ASF be introduced into this game, I will continue shaking my head in laughter.

That's actually a really good idea.
Kinda makes me wish the teleporter model wasn't changing, seeing the current teleporter unroll would make for an awesome looking animation.

i think this sounds nice so when it gets to orbital warfare you need more than just 2 or 3 orbital factories

Its weird to have a fabber build a unit like the orbital fighers, we don't have air fabbers build fighers either. (unless assisting a factory )
But the definition of whats a structure and a unit becomes a bit vague with orbital.

Logic would say orbital fabbers would only contruct non moving stuctures but since the anchors now also have mobility, the orbital fabber would only be able to build teleports and the orbital launcher everything else.

Maybe another aproach would work: orbital fabbers build intel (radars) and structures (teleport) while the launchers make offensive units. As radar is generally made by fabbers but on the orbital layer everything moves

Option 3 would be to give the orbital more land structures to build, it can build a teleport on the ground and assist other constuctions so it would be capable of making anything else as well

The orbital fabber is doing the work of a factory. Producing units. Currently the orbital launcher is the only factory used for space construction. The orbital launcher is at tech 1.5. So the fabber is forced into the tech 2 factory role.

1 or 2 more factories for interplanetary units are needed for a more natural and logical build order.

Why is that bad for orbital but okay for air?

Primarily because it's that I cannot see a way that orbital, a layer that sits above another layer, will ever be easily manageable. It only works when I hide the ground, and so being fiddly means I wish to limit my time there to making key decisions, not managing fabbers. No other layer has mobile units built by fabbers.

If I wait for the finished article then it's too late.