How do you attack a water planet?

Even you have portal, you may not be able to build one on your planet(maybe no water), so this is not really necessary to add something that no use much in game.

are you kidding me? of course we'd use it.

for example why can't air go through the land portal??

then if and when it CAN how do you move them to a water planet if you can't build the portal on water??

yay portal strategy only ... how very not monotone and boring gameplay -_- ...

you're not taking into account that units and strategies will be added into the game.

possibly something thats as good at times, possibly it even negates gates at times. possibly even something that inhibits gates. why not?

more interesting gameplay.

and so is being able to invade water with air. so is being able to send ships from a water world to one that has lakes.

its enough to find and destroy them
having gates for every layer isn´t intresting at all ... it´s a rather lazy way of dealing with problems ... there WILL be better, more intresting and still challenging ways to be able to make invasions ...

really??

I mean...

you've got more interesting gameplay constantly Smashing it with an asteroid or sniping the com with SXX?

always always always?

I'm sorry but I can't see how I'm attacking variety here.

Just read through the whole thread. If you don't think shooting lava at water planets to make islands is the coolest thing in all of video game history, 1 v 1 me irl scrub.

yupp thx for putting words into my mouth when i clearly talked about future contend

You are right.

Constructable puddles anyone?

Most people grow out of that.

En... you did't get my point here. For a map that need interplanetary assault normally won't have a lot water planets. What I want to say is how do you build a water-only portal on a planet with no water. And what units do you want to move in(T2 bot?)? If your point is a universal portal that is absolutely good somehow, and I am agree air should be able to go though as land can.

If you want to like proper gameplay, start by providing some proper gameplay. Your idea of initiating an attack with a teleporter and ZERO units has never worked in the history of everywhere, circa never. Any kid who has graduated from kindergarten could have told you that it wasn't going to work.

But don't take my word for it. Have you seen the latest play casts against hard bots? They're awful. The entire premise of giant robot battles across space becomes irrelevant because the tools to use them aren't there. Instead what you get is this:

This new poster gets it. When a new guy comes around and says "It's just a tech race for artillery creep!" then something has gone terribly wrong.

So far Uber has given us the exact same gameplay mistakes that crippled Supcom. Players rush for unit A, then throw it away to get unit B, and discard all hopes of using it when unit C comes along. It is boring and predictable play which will fatigue any prospective player in no time flat. That is unacceptable.

You may disagree now for any number of reasons. Maybe I don't sound nice. Well too bad. I don't want to come back here in three months and see players complaining about the exact same issues that we've known about since day one. Chances are you will be among them pointing out the same thing.

There is nothing fictional about attacking from space. There is nothing fictional about landing big things on a large flat ocean. The science simply hasn't caught up with what is possible. Your ignorance can not change that.

Players need a way to attack naval planets. That means players NEED boats. The answer is as clear as day. JUST DROP THEM. There are no elevation issues to consider, no fear of burning up on re entry, and no excuse to not have a smooth landing. It's not that difficult a concept to understand. Besides, anyone who thinks that a hundred battleships raining in from orbit is somehow not cool isn't going to be thrilled at the idea of crashing planets in the first place.

So let the experts figure out what works good and what doesn't work good for the game. Making it look cool is a job for the art team (and yes, icicles crashing down from space leaving fragmented slush in the ocean sounds pretty damn cool).

No, that's not interesting. A poorly conceived vague invasion idea is not made better with a poorly conceived and equally vague counter. Just stop.

Astreus can transport air fabbers.

teleporter? zero units ? my idea? ... what? you sure you speaking to the right person about that?
because i am a person who rather dislikes being forced on building beachheads with teleporters all the time to get something started on a different planet ...

you don´t say ... not like i and others weren´t preaching for multiunittransports, carriers and the ferrysystem before
while i personaly play not much, i did play another round for testing how long it takes to get a propper
squad to a nonorbiting planet ... it definitively takes less then before and is easier but it´s not there were i personaly want it to ... and i think the devs are aware of that ... but it has been mentionet before ... this stuff takes the longest time and the devs dont just want to put clowncars into the game ...
also tested orbital siege with anchors ... what can i say, it simply works, isn´t too much fun and i hope we don´t get any more of that with further orbital bombartmenunits ... the rest is as always balance ..

and i don´t disagree
i myself critisiced units either overlapping in or not having propper roles and rather feeling like upgrades or simply different skins of existing ones

i don´t worry about how it may work or how it might be possible, i don´t care about that ... this is still a videogame and while using aspects of real life it is never grounded in reality entirely
this isn´t my problem at all

what i worry about is the very IDEA of dropping ships or large units, or even structures for that matter
because what i fear of it that mid to lategame meta may devolve into building orbital beachheads just dropping down stuff making things way easier than they should be and eventualy shifting the focus more on orbital ... and i rather want stuff to be transported from my planet into other planets

never said that? i mean just as a mere example ISS with nukes?

also have never stated anything of that sort ...
however something being cool is not a justification to have it in game ... if it is dificult to balance and leads to monotone metagameplay then it can´t be in or needs to be reworked ..

and/or transportable hovercrafts which will come ...
also they have other ways as well and you know them, they might be not as fun but they are there to be able to finish the match


also please use my name in at least one quote so i get a notice and not eventualy miss you post...

no, he realy means dropping as in (i think) having an orbital building produce them, let them fall into the planets ocean and have them then landing (that would be one way) with jets slowing down their fall before touching the water ... i still don´t like nor want it anything like it so long as future transport content proves to not be of help in breaking planetary fortresses without having to use or be entirely reliant on nukes, asteroids, ssx or anchors....

That really is not what I said. Just previous to that quote, I was talking about various ways to attack a water planet, and mentioned that if you didn't want to use nukes or killsats or planetary annihilation, T2 bots are a viable alternative.

I mentioned artillery creep as a fallback if you didn't want to (or didn't have access to in the case of galactic war) use T2 bots.

Outside of FFA, is artillery creep a viable primary combat strategy in even semi-serious multiplayer games? In multiplayer games involving a water based planet? I don't know.