Something needs to change with nukes.

I think you misunderstood me, I'm not talking about trying to solve the balance issues of the current implementation of Nucks, I'm talking about completely new implementations of Nucks.

Mike

• I like the idea of nuke silos exploding like nukes
• I like the idea of a mobile satellite that takes out nukes while they travel in orbit
• I don't like the idea of limiting assistance on either nukes or anti-nukes, which stems from my dislike of all arbitrary limits....

If nukes double as a defensive structure against asteroid slamming most players won't be as quick to spam missiles as soon as they are built.

Last I checked TA wasn't on a sphere.

The issue of multiple directions doesn't exist in TA. You don't have to guard your backside, in PA, you do. You can protect your valuables by walling them off with anti-nuke in TA. In PA you would have to build an additional anti-nuke for each possible angle of attack.

The counter to assist building nukes should be... get this... assist building anti-nuke. It isn't as effective now because of the range difference.

And with the current implementation of anti-nukes coming preloaded, that would mean you can assist build anti but NOT normal nukes. That hardly seems right.

We are told there will be different classes of nuke (forget which stream, recent one I believe); with a limit of one missile per silo (should be the case already), each nuke would be a choice, and take up time spent otherwise spent on a different nuke; how about short-range nukes cheap (as nukes go) but with short range, long range nuke 3-5x range of short range nuke, more expensive, longer to build (still can't hit anywhere on large planets), interplanetary nukes can hit anywhere on surface of a orbiting planetoid (including the launching planet?), takes a long time to build and is very expensive. I also think they should automate anti-missile production (since it as only one kind of munition), and leave the nuke launcher as a manual build - this would go a long way to leveling out the nuke/anti playing field.

I really wish Uber would weigh in on weather the current implementation of nukes is just a placeholder (and if so, what their vision for release is) or if the current design is the template for how they will work on release. I don't think it's too much to ask to hear their thoughts in an abstract sense regarding the design direction of this unit set and indeed this forum at this time is the perfect place to discuss this. So where is Uber in this discussion?

I know Uber gets quite a reputation for engaging the community but I've not found that to be the case on hot topics like this, which I hope changes. I don't like waiting until the last minute to hear about their plans only to discover they aren't adequate and I think it's better to involve the community in the brainstorming process from the start. Isn't that why we are here? At least that way, if the final solution isn't super popular we can all at least see how we arrived at the final decision.

After my last thread dedicated to the nuclear unit set (around January 7th) I got a PM from Garat telling me he would try to take the time to post his thoughts on the matter. I know hes a busy guy but that was nearly 4 weeks ago.... I'm a patient person, but that's just taking advantage...

The game is in Beta. This is far too late a stage in development for the community to still be completely in the dark about the direction of any part of the game, let alone be completely unable to solicit an official response to a serious design issue. Even if they have absolutely no clue what to do with it, we deserve to hear that from them. Complete silence is unacceptable.

They could make nukes less powerful but have them detonate when intercepted. This will change them from a binary effect to one where a failed strike still hurts. Combined with cheaper anti-nukes, nukes would then become useful for clearing around a fortified base without actually threatening anything inside it.

I think your Projecting a lot here to be honest.

Mike

Again bro, I don't understand why you believe nukes are broken or placeholder. We can have a much better discussion once we can hash that part out. And what do you mean by the direction of this unit set? Our goal, in general, with expanding the unit roster is to give people more awesome options to annihilate each other. We want sprawling, multi-planet battles that force you to make interesting macro-level decisions on how to conquer and counter your foes.

By "nuclear unit set" I was specifically talking about the units that deal with nuclear game play. Ie. Nuke launchers and anti-nuke launchers (and possibly any other units that may, in the future, interact within that dynamic).

I've expressed a couple of times as clearly as I can the issues I have surrounding those units in this thread alone. Even Mike went on to elaborate about a lot of the things I brought up better than I ever could. Can you break down your understanding of the issue as far as you can tell Brad so I can try to clarify anything you might not be understanding? It's hard to tell where you might be getting lost without specifics.

I just read through the entire thread and I still don't have a grasp on exactly what it is you don't like about the nuclear gameplay. Mike doesn't like that it's binary. I get that and see his point. We have to weigh everything when making decisions about the game. I can assure you there are a ton of moving parts. We work very agile so things can change at any time. The nuclear gameplay will change in the future.

The next build we push out is very balance heavy because I've started getting in a ball-park balance in the game.
That said, the balance will not be perfect. Balance work will continue to happen, I've only started on it recently. Balance is something that is always in flux, even after we 'ship'.

As Brad said, expect there be many more ways to annihilate your enemies in future builds.

I, simply, like how you addressed it. I am excited about balance, yet reserved because it might leave work and there will always be something you can add to art to make art better of course. I just mainly like seeing responses, and had to say it aloud.

Thanks for the response Scathis. I can apreciate balance being foremost in your minds other there in Uber at the moment, but lets take a step back and consider how we actually want the mechanics of nukes to play out during a game.

The binary issue is clearly a good place to start, but even with that solved there are still some things that need to be considered:

• Such as the ammo system. Uber has done away with ammo systems for planes (like we used to see in sup-com) and with good reason. It adds needless micro to insignificant units and is widely regarded as a good step forword. Why then, has Uber chosen to continue using ammo for Nukes and anti-nukes? Having to babysit defenses with ammo isn't fun in practice.
• Theres also the issue of an ongoing maintenance cost for anti-nukes and is the only defensive structure that has a metal operational cost. That means in order to defend against nukes it requires you to divert resources away from offensive operations.
• Limiting assistance to nukes and anti-nukes is the wrong direction to go IMO, because having arbitrary limits on any unit is silly is a game as scalable as PA.
• There is nothing to discourage having many launchers within a small area (which is easier to defend) meaning someone with a relatively small base, almost no scouting and no army whatsoever can win an FFA game without leaving the tiny base (this happens consistently).
• there is no viable way to protect armies or expansions from nukes
• In order to successfully attack with nukes, you must have more nukes than the target has anti-nukes. In order to defend against nukes, you must have enough anti-nukes to outnumber all enemy player's nukes. It's therefore nearly pointless to compare costs of nukes to anti-nukes because the # of anti-nukes required is exponentially higher than the number of enemy nuke launchers in the game.

In summry we need to find a way to make sure it is not viable to skip building an army and still win the game with nukes. No matter what we change to balance the nuke units we currently have in the game it will not fix the above problems as they transcend stat values. Defending against nukes shouldn't take my active focus. Just as I don't watch my towers blow up tanks in fear that the won't shoot at an approaching enemy, I shouldn't have to watch my anti-nuke defense to make sure I'm still protected form nukes in that area. Nukes shouldn't drain my metal reserves as it hinders my options to actually respond to the threat (the launchers) instead of just dealing with the symptoms (the missiles). Successful nuke launches should work in conjunction with conventional attacks and not replace them.

First thing I do when an anti-nuke or nuke site builds is put it on continuous build and queue it up. Now it will auto build. Then I add whatever fabbers I want to make it go faster. If I have several in an area I have them patrol that area to assist them all.

We're pretty sure of how we want nukes to work. There are some changes coming down the pipe. Which we aren't quite at liberty to say right now. More info coming "soon".

This, to me, is the crux of your argument. This is purely about balance. Numbers can be adjusted and will be adjusted greatly in coming builds.

Have you played the last build? Building armies is much more viable than it was in previous builds and you should be able to build an army and take out enemy bases before they have a chance to build nukes. That said, the game setup varies these strategies greatly. Smaller planets/systems cater more towards armies where larger ones tend to be end-game/super weapon friendly.

Next build will make other strategies much more viable.

Thats good news. I've played a handful of games on the latest build. Most of the games I play are 10 player games with a starting planet on the high end of scale 3 and 6 other celestial bodies in the system. In that situation I find anyone who decides to hunker down and just nuke everyone else on the planet and moon come out on top, which I dislike. when 2/3 out of 10 players start doing it, no 1 can hope to be covered for long.

I think the main argument is still the one KNight made. It feels very binary right now. There are many suggestions in this forum regarding on how that could be changed. But the most reasonable ones are all suggesting to have a completely different implementation of nukes than we're having right now.

Smaller, cheaper and less destructive nukes are something, that has been mentioned very often. They would require a very different kind of counter, though.

It's just that building anti-nukes doesn't really feel like a choice. But rather something you just have to do when the game reaches a certain point.

This is one of the things I am driving at changing with the latest balance changes. There will be other strategies to counter this. I won't say what I think they are because it's better to see what you guys come up with.

Also, playing 10 player games on large planets and systems, you have to expect that games will come down to game-enders like this.

Yes, I was just hoping that would be planet smashing around 1-2 hours in and not a triple nuke 30 minutes in

Lots of good ideas in this thread. Thanks for taking some time out to respond Uber! Your input is always greatly appreciated.

While I wouldn't say this game being good/fun hinges on nuke mechanics being changed, I'd certainly agree there are a few solid ideas and changes I can get behind:

• Making multiple nuke strength classes with varying ranges. I like the idea of the 3 tiered system brought up earlier, with maybe a quarter-strength tactical nuke with a range a bit longer than a catapult (cheap-ish and dirty, great for creeping close with some engineers and setting up for a siege), a medium range nuke (somewhat expensive, with a little less strength than the current nuke and maybe half planet range on a size 800), and an impressive interplanetary nuke (very expensive, but no range limits, can hit orbiting bodies, and a bit stronger than the current nuke).

• No ammo concerns for the anti-nuke! It really is a pain to have to babysit it. Once you've made the investment decision that nukes are a threat and have built one, further attention is just a micro sink. My preference would be that anti-nukes don't fire missiles at all, but are a directed beam weapon that melts nukes out of the sky once they get in range, but require energy to do so and have a long cooldown time. Since this would make the anti-nuke only able to shoot down one nuke at a time or so, I think it'd make sense to make a it a little cheaper. Perhaps even make interplanetary nukes buff enough that only 2 anti-nukes can take it down in time, I don't know. Again, making it more of a strategic decision of how many to build/invest in, and less about micro-ing missiles to be built.

• Regarding assisting nukes, maybe something slightly less binary than can or can't could be done? In TA, the nuke stayed shielded inside the launcher until it was ready to fire if I remember correctly. Perhaps it could be a player to choice to either let it build steadily and unassisted inside a redesigned shielded launcher, or expose it to the outside to allow assistance from fabbers, but if it got destroyed while exposed blew up with maybe the strength of the tactical nuke. And maybe the player can re-shield the nuke if they see an attack coming, but it takes a bit, so if you get caught with your pants down you get punished.

• I really like the idea of mobile nukes/anti-nukes, but I would prefer to see them restricted to something like a tactical nuke class if implemented, or at least make them large, very slow moving vehicles otherwise. Or implementing both would be cool. Hopefully these get put in soon as I think they'll have a decent impact on gameplay.