Catalysts should burn up after one use

No.



http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Yavin_4

Oh ok Cheers.
I was probably thinking of something out of Star Wars: Battlefront II then ^^

The only asteroid base I can think of is Polis Massa, which was indeed in Battlefront II.

Bingo

None of these are bad ideas at all, my man. And I've got nothing to complain about -- I was just stating the design direction and how the metal planet works. Appreciate the feedback. I know the team has seen it.

For me, a reasonable cooldown before shooting first time give a time to intercept the threat. The cooldown after shot could give a chance to recover (if possible). Nothing beyond this. Moreover, it's fine at it is.

Making the Annihilaser not a TOO OP game ender:

1) A target must be in range to be annihilated.

2) You would have to repair (seal) the damaged (metal) spots to be able to activate the engines/weapon system(s)!

So no Haleys on metal planets, but 60% sealed metal spots for movement capability and 95% for the big gun. Numbers of course to tweak accordingly.

-> Without other Eco you would be extremely vulnerable...

see: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...-buildable-anywhere.52158/page-10#post-850320

Asteroid belts. They can be used to break stalemates and aren't an insta win.

Like I said earlier- how would asteroid belts work?
Are there an infinite amount of them, which would be terrible for computer stress and actually finding the one which your opponent is building on?
How many halleys do they require? because if it's only one, you're going to make annhilaser look weak.
How does targeting work with a large amount of asteroids? Taking and holding doesn't seem like that big an issue when if one asteroid doesn't pan out, there are literally dozens more you could choose from.
You seem to think that asteroid belts are an instafix.

I disagree. Actually, I've never seen you advocate WHY they would fix anything.

And not an instawin? What about smaller systems? Where throwing a planet is out of the question?

The thing is that we definitely need more options to crack a well defended planet. Asteroids and the Unit cannon seem to be the first solutions that spring to mind.

This one would probably take a lot of coding, but...

Annihilaser requires a variable amount of time to destroy target planet, depending upon the planet's mass. Maybe 20 seconds for the smallest planet, 2 minutes for the largest.

When hit, destruction on the target planet is an expanding circle centered on Annihilaser impact point, with radius increasing over time. Potentially, enough time for a commander to rush into orbit. Once some percentage of the planet is destroyed, the remainder explodes.

Power shortage causes the Annihilaser to stop firing. It could then start a recharge cycle, or pulse as power is restored.

The thing is- they have to defend ONE PLANET. I've played DoW. Take and hold and/or Victory points (DoW2) were often the way to go.

Ere's WHY those were better than the annhilaser.

Take and Hold required you to control 2/3rd of the map, give or take depending which map you're playing on.
Victory points in Dow2 flat out required a good amount of your forces to defend them, in a game with a brutal cap- even on defensive structures.

How is this different? Depending on the arrangement, a metal planet can be 1/10th of the map, and tanking completely up is still way too easy in this game, with no caps whatsoever. Now I'm not suggesting we implement a cap. I'm just saying that it's not the same as a strategic dominance victory, given how ******* HARD IT IS TO INVADE A PLANET. Oddly enough the thing that's supposed to counter tanking up on one planet requires tanking up on one planet.

It seems to me the Annihilazer is the perfect answer to the problem of 'impossible planetary invasions'.

I also don't understand wanting a cooldown BEFORE you fire the lazer... Isn't the whole Catalyst build process the cool-down? Why not just ask for higher cost Catalysts??

In a Metal planet system it is completely obvious when the Catalyst construction starts. That's when the real strategy starts to determine whether anyone can dislodge the Metal Planet owners in time. If you let a team/player completely lock down the Metal planet then something has gone horribly wrong for your strategy.

Something tells me the 'meta' still hasn't stabilized with a lot of these 'balance issues'. People need to respond quicker to Jigs on Gas Giants and Catalysts on Metal Planets. Like if it's not at the top of your priorities you might want to reevaluate...

EDIT: To the poster above me: I would think that as soon as there's a Metal planet in the system it becomes the one and only control point, ie. King of the Hill. If you can't get units sustainably fighting on the Metal Planet before lock down then you've lost (unless of course you can break the 'impenetrable' lock down which also can happen in epic moments, usually when defenders get lazy or make mistakes).

There are lots of details on how they would work and there is lots of discussion on how it would work both for balance and mechanics.

The idea I lean towards is that they're infinite, but not all actually loaded into the game. They are just a graphical representation until someone goes there and then they're loaded into the game.

How many halleys? Well, how big is the asteroid?

How does targeting work? Well, we have two options. You can only smash one at a time, or we could use the already existing area commands (try giving an area command to nukes) and use that for asteroid belts.

Yes, there are more asteroid I can choose from, but that requires an investment to do. I could be invaded or smashed in the meantime.

I do believe properly balanced asteroid belts are an instafix. I have advocated for why they would fix anything time and time again. You're a fairly new member, so you haven't seen some of those threads that have happened months ago.

Asteroid belts provide more strategy and variety than Annihilasers and they remove the orbital stalemate issues.

What about smaller systems? Why is throwing an asteroid out of the question?

I think the deathstar is fine. The only Problem is, that there are not enough viable options to invade planets.

I don't really see much of a functional difference between what you described and a nuke

I don't think that the lack strategic depth... but a Cooldown would be good... If you look for the Mavor from SupCom, you need to have a lot of eco to build it... and to fire you need to scout and a lot of power... also is very "easy" to counter w/ a lot of T-3 bombers

in the case of the "Death Laser Beam of Doom" AKA Metal Planets... we need to make it a Super Energy hungry weapon w/ at least 30s cooldown

The mavor doesn't delete part of the map, at least not permanently. Its effects are also not instantaneous because supcom has shields. So I don't really think this is a fair comparison

As far as cooldown... might as well just regurgitate what I said in a different thread.

There's some decent differences.

Asteroids can't be countered by anti-nukes
Asteroids can be invaded a lot easier than you can invade an entire base to destroy a nuke
Asteroids are a lot bigger than nukes
Asteroids are a lot more expensive than nukes
Asteroids are a lot more awesome than nukes

No but you can nuke the haley thats on the asteroid
alright
true, but the nuke radius is already huge enough to cover a large portion of most worlds
alright
very true
So they're somewhere between a haleyable planet and a nuke? we already have both ends of that spectrum and it hasn't fixed the problem of planet turtling. Not that I'm opposed to having multiple units have the same identity