Towers need to be stronger...

They are pretty useless at the moment. They disappear in seconds...

Not happy.

They are underpowered ATM.

But I'd rather their current state than last patch.

They are not useless. They have shifted purpose from full on 'come-at-me-bro' walls of death to more reasonable supportive defensive structures who get wrecked by infernos and grenadiers but still are quite cost effectve to other units.

They have been nerf too much imo.

I m not sure about their cost efficience.
300 metal the single laser tower
80 metal the grenadier

1 single laser tower = 3.75 grenadiers

personnaly i preferer to have 3.75 grenadier...

At least they don't eat T1 units like they used to.
I prefer underpowered towers and heavy unit spawn to overpowered towers and 15 t2 units.

They may be a bit under-powered. But just a bit. They needs to be backed up by units.

Build walls. I've noticed by playing online and watching streams that not many players are building walls next to their static defences. I've also noticed that walls are insanely strong and can massively increase the longevity of a turret.

*cough* grenadiers... *cough*

But anyway to the OP, first towers to powerful; now they're too weak... meh... I use grenadiers behind walls for defense- not worth it to build laser towers.

As somebody returning to the game after a break I've gotta say that if Ubers mantra is "WYSIWYG" then turrets are horrifically badly balanced.

They are basically the strength of 1-3 tanks.

I had a laser turret (the one which looks like the TA duel head laser turret) with walls in front and the enemy was so unconcern by it they just rolled past. It was trying its best to kill their units but they literally couldn't care less. They didn't see it as the remotest threat and just went about destroying my base ignoring it entirely.

In the end it took out 4 or 5 tanks then was destroyed.

Absolute farce.

I understand the need to avoid turtling... but territory control is the controling factor. A bigger economy is the reward which balances it... but nerfing turrets to this point is a joke.

It's also even worse because of the nature of PA... both firstly people play quite small maps so if you play a 2v2 you're practically on top of each other... so people go straight for the jugular 5 minutes in instead of both sides popping up turrets then fighting over 'neutral' territory.

Secondly you've got to defend 360 degrees around your base at all times... and if you can't rely on turrets to do ANYTHING AT ALL, not even slowing down the enemy, then it's just a HUGE mental weight which should not have to be borne. You literally know that their units move as fast as your own, so if they're closer to targets of choice than yours are - you're screwed.

This needs sorting as a major priority.

You act like you can't have perfectly balanced ones, so you rather than UP then OP.

I rather have UP ones if I cant. I really rather have ones slightly strong than UP, you know... balanced?

...what?
All I'm saying is that yes, they're bad now, but they were worse before, and I prefer them the way they are now to the way they used to be.

I'm sure Meta and Scathis will get the balance right sooner rather than later, but as I said, I prefer UP to OP.
I'm not sure where you got "Acting like we can't have perfect balance"...

Unless you balance via rock paper scissors, a unit being UP simply means that you don't use that unit. You still use all of the other units. If a unit is OP, then you start not using units because although they're good, the OP unit does it better. I'd always rather have a UP unit rather than an OP unit.

I would like to see them be buffed a bit. The fact that the defensive structures were actually good is something I liked, but I do admit they were a bit too powerful. Too far in the opposite direction though IMO, they feel useless now

They don't need to be stronger, and i would call them reasonably balanced as they are right now. They are not UP and instead provide interesting tradeoffs instead of being a no brainer choice. Like all other units, they have things they are not so good against (grenadiers/infernos), and things they are still good against (everything else)

I havn't seen a single gameplay based arguement in this thread for stronger turrets. Only a whole lot of "it doesn't feel good". Well, what 'feels good' is more often than not steeped in one's own biases, and not from any kind of fundamental logic.

For example, just look at this

Tell me again how much turrets and tanks cost?

You know what, let's take the scenario that is most in your favour: 1 double laser turret in trade for 4 tanks.
dbl turret = 450
4 tanks = 150*4 = 600

You got more than your moneys worth without even bothering to build walls, without bothering to position your units correctly, and it's an 'absolute farce'?

Well it isn't exactly rock paper scissors, its more like rock paper scissors knife wood fire water sand hammer.

As in, the towers could be a bit stronger, and grenadiers can counter them a bit. However, grenadiers having tower-breaking-like stats, would make them fall short against armies. So basically, you scout, then you use the right unit for the job, and if your opponent scouts, they can bait and switch, and it becomes "tactical". It isn't rock paper scissors, because grenadiers in a few numbers with ants can still help break the tower and thin enemy units, and the ants can kill units while still sponging some tower damage, and more grenadiers is better against towers while more ants are better against units, but the point is the job is done with direct correlation to what you used to do it.

If too many grenadiers and your enemy used more units, the enemy has advantage, and if too many ants and enemy doubled up on towers, then enemy has advantage. Then, the fact it isn't in a void, there are other solution to towers like pelters, and other solutions to units like infernos and combat fabbers.

So, if they just make the balance not-op and not-up, which I am sure they will do, then they won't be abused and overused, and they won't be neglected and never used, and other units will hopefully be used in colorful variety.

So 1 turret to stop a proper army? Would you send 1 tank to kill a set of defences?
Turrets need to 'hold the line' once the wall breaks, they crumble.

4-5 tanks in that situation isn't bad at all, you still got your money worth.

I think it's a good thing too that you can't invest in 360 degrees round defences and stop all armies. Proper defences need to be placed at chokepoints or spots you don't like to see attacked. And when I say proper I'm talking about multiple double lasers, walls, couple of pelters and decent AA. Mounting an attack against such should cost 2x to 3x the total defences cost worth of units for the attacker.

Problems however, by the nature of units like infernos and vanguards, defences will always be kind of useless...

that's the point. Moreso with mobile and static ranged units. Turrets can either go positive in cost per effect, or go goose egg due to snipe. They can't move. Grenadiers counter walls, infernos soak a lot, combat fabbers work both ways, units can overencumber, one can use units and walls together...

but, balance all that. If turrets can do well enough against armies, at least go slightly positive in cost, then they will balance out when they get wasted in a tactical takedown. They need to be breakable but threatening, basically.

I completely 100% disagree. In fact I'd say is they stay as they are right now they might as well be removed from the game. They're not worth the investment at all. They don't do what they should be used for - locking down an area.

Disagree entirely. They aren't an interesting tradeoff... they're a waste of time. You might as well build more tanks than a tower. That's the no brainer choice...

I did build walls.

And you can't just weigh up the mass cost... turrets are immobile. Tanks are not. Also I did 'position my units correctly'. He just outnumbered me because I stupidly put my mass into turrets instead of tanks expecting the turrets to hold ground.

In my opinion I SHOULD have lost because he avoided my turrets and simply took the mass spots around the map. Instead he just steamrolled into my base and ended the game five minutes in. No fun for either player.

Reductio ad absurdum.

That's not what I'm saying. The exact scenario was that I had a small army, about half the size of his plus a laser tower. He wiped out my army, forced my com to retreat all whilst under the fire of my tower which did almost nothing. Then he rolled into my base and entirely ignored the tower because it was quite simply not a threat at all.

If you can afford to ignore a tower, it's not powerful enough.

No, I didn't. Tanks are throw away objects, you can use them in many ways. Turrets are put down to defend an area, to lock it down (to an extent). If they die you're going to lose the area and have to divert tanks to defend... this turret getting destroyed basically lost me the entire game. And again I'll repeat... the enemy didn't give a crap it was there. He completely ignored it until the AI targeted it on its own after everything else was dead.

Then we fundamentally disagree. Absolutely fundamentally disagree.

The point of the game is this; "expand or die". And you don't die because there is no defensive options worth building... you die because you're at a huge economic disadvantage. At the moment you die because of both, mostly the former.

Edit: Proof reading this I can tell this is going to be misinterperated... obviously I don't think it should be able to stop ALL armies... but it should at least give them a bloody nose and not be able to be ignored without overwhelming force.

In case of the latter, they've failed completely. Again I'll repeat... I had mine at the entrance to my base. He just marched up to it, around it and passed it. He didn't even care it was there.

My point is this; I understand turtling is an issue... but I think it is a relatively minor one. If somebody wants to turtle, why prevent them? That's an awesome thing. It allows you to take over the rest of the map, build more production, build more tanks and advance to tech 2. With terrible defence towers the game just devolved to "who has the most takes wins in 10 minutes".

The opening fighting should be over untaken territory, not fighting in each others bases the moment the game starts almost.

Secondly, and I think thisi s being hugely underestimated... but Chris Taylor himself pointed it out when this game was announced... thinking time is incredibly important. When you've got 360 degrees to defend, and an attack can come from anywhere - you're MASSIVELY taxing the mental state of the player. Now throw in TWO or THREE planets to fight on. It's impossible without turrets.

Turrets allow you to have confidence that an area is 'locked down' to an extent. Not untouchable, never untouchable... but at least 'secure'.

At the moment that is not the case... which means in the back of your mind you know your entire base is under threat from 360 degrees at all times. It's just too much to mentally handle.

Can't the current towers kill most units in a single shot?

And with walls.....yeah I feel like they are more then balanced.

In the previous builds, they were way OP. Now they're underpowered. Just one step closer to finding the middle ground.

Try building walls around them. They seem to be fairly balanced with walls. Can't make them too strong without walls, because then they're OP with walls, and walls are pretty cheap.