Poll: Are Nukes too strong?

So, people will probably jump at me because there's already a ton of other threads going on about nukes.
But the thread that ledarsi created for example is based on his ideas on how to improve the system. This thread will only try to answer one single question:

Do you think nukes are too strong (as in too powerful)?

There's not a single one I found that has a poll. And the reason why I think a poll is necessary, is because it's easier to get a summary on how the community feels about this subject. In a discussion it's mostly the same people arguing, but with a poll you can get a wider spectrum of people to participate. This thread doesn't want to find out what the solution to the problem is, but whether or not the community agrees that there is one.

It's a simple question, and a simple poll.

You can leave a comment about why you feel one or the other way if you feel like it.

Greetings

Strong in what sense? Strong as in too effective in game terms, or strong as in large/powerful?

I would say nukes are not overpowered. But they are too powerful, and could certainly do with a cost and strength reduction.

I don't feel like they are strong in what they actually do, but they do have lots of bad knock on effects from the very limited selection of defences against them. (Only 1)

Much like the current orbital units (Only 2, one of which is in the layer).

And I feel like this is detrimental to gameplay as a kind of unavoidable snipe weapon that relays on preventative tactics to withstand and would prefer a more broad range of lighter counters to bring the weapon into the realm of a siege tool rather then a game ender.

Strong as in powerful.

I don't think they're too strong, but they're not as dramatic as I'd like them to be.. maybe some more blinding light, a slow rising mushroom cloud or something to spice it up.

There is always many ways to get around the feeling that nukes are powerful. Personally i'd like to see holkins upped. Just like i think the whole controversy surrounding walls a couple of patches ago could have been avoided by some sort of t1 artillery.

Nuke have to be powerful but, to balance them, they have to be expensive.
At this moment i haven t olay enough to check if their actual cost is fine.

An other idea could be to increase a lot the cost of nuke and remove anti-nuke from the game, mainly to prevent endless turtle vs turtle play.

What do youthink about this ?

Yes they are too strong due to their spamability.

I think this is manageable in PTE. I played a game with Brad and Mered. Mered wiped us up over time (well I got brad actually), but he had a nuke building yet finished off the game without using it. They eat up big eco and are 3 minute builds still in PTE, you can get them any lower than that and/or get multiple nukes.

I'd like to see nukes changed to do something like 75% of a units max HP in dmg when it hits. That way it is more for softening things up rather than just outright killing them, or make the dmg 100% at the center and then drop-off to around 50% at the edges. This would make it take a lot more nukes to completely kill somebody, but they would still be good at destroying critical targets and terrorizing your enemy.

Also, basing the nuke dmg off of max unit HP instead of a fixed dmg number makes nukes much better against T2 units (which usually have more HP) than T1 units (in terms of dmg per metal). I think this would be an interesting twist on gameplay to help keep T1 units useful when the nukes start to fly.

75% of a dox's HP is very diffrent to 75% of a commanders HP.

They're far from spammable in the PTE build. You can build over a thousand ants for the same cost as a nuke launcher + nuke. Just figured I'd mention that.

I know that. You're going to have to expand on your point because I'm not seeing what you're getting at...

If you expect to have a good balance from a atomic explosion, you are going to have a bad time, because this is a super obscure rule to impose upon people.

Also, killing 75% of stuff, doesn't kill the last 25%.

Holy necro Batman.

Well somebody wanted to discuss it.

I don't see the problem.

Oh no, no problem, I just spotted that the thread was authored by Arachnis and he hasn't been active on the forums for a while

Firing nukes at other planets is obscure too (it is not mentioned anywhere ingame). Both could be remedied by adding them to the tooltip. Are there any other cons you can think of to counter the pros I listed out above?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The point of my suggestion was to change the nuke from an all encompassing killer super weapon to a significantly powerful weapon that can't stand on it's own. (The KEW is now the all encompassing killer super weapon so nukes should be bumped down a notch IMO.) Since a nuke would deals 75% of max unit HP, it is most efficiently used as part of a "one-two" punch, where the second punch is either another nuke or a force of units to mop up whatever is left. (Or it could be the second punch after an army softens up a base).

You seem to simply be arguing against change, rather than weighing the pros and cons of my suggestion. Would it be awkward at first for nukes to do % dmg instead of absolute dmg? Yes, of course, but people would get used to it. I'm genuinely asking you to come up with cons for my suggestion, so don't see this as an argument, I just couldn't come up with any at the time.

nukes outright destroy things ... they don´t soften up ... if you want to soften up make clustermissiles ... but don´t ever call that nukes ...
and what you seem to forget about asteroids they are ABSOLUTE one offs ... you can´t ever rebuilt a moon/asteroid and the ammount of resources invested and lost with it is huge ... you dont just simply throw a rock like that ...
and depending on planetsize the may not be cataclismic in effect ...

I want a nuke-launching Holkins... because...