Asteroid update Game breakingly bugs! units cannot go to a moving planet!

Discussion in 'Balance Discussions' started by stylisticsagittarius, August 2, 2015.

  1. Quitch

    Quitch Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes Received:
    5,892
    My recollection is that this is intended behaviour due to reasons... I don't recall the reasons. I think it was an engine thing.
  2. mkrater

    mkrater Uber Alumni

    Messages:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Yeah, I just checked with the team. It's "working as intended" though not by design, but more because of an engine restriction.
  3. crizmess

    crizmess Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    319
    How long would it take to fix it? Personally I think that it is a bit annoying from a game play perspective.
    sgrock likes this.
  4. mkrater

    mkrater Uber Alumni

    Messages:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    It's not an easy change to make and it's not currently on our to do list, but I'll let the team know about the suggestion.
    sgrock likes this.
  5. huangth

    huangth Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    209
    I am curious about this restriction.
    I guess the problem is caused by the difficulty to compute a reasonable trajectory to an asteroid which is modifying its orbit.
    Base on this, I believe it is far more difficult to design a weapon which can counter incoming asteroid.
    Perhapes the units on targeted planet can move along the trajectory of the asteroid (the red curve) and back to the incoming asteroid.
    But I don't know how to deal with the unit which is not on the targeted planet.

    I also think the required Halleys for pushing an asteroid should be adjustable.
    Firing one nuke requires its base and a nuke itselt, this takes 14400 + 50000 metal.
    Other other hand, a single Halley only takes 40000 metal.
    The players will only use the Halley rather than the nuke, not to mention the dead star laser.

    Thus, I think the required Halley for an asteroid should be at least 2.
    3 may be even more better because the Halley requires at least 2 nukes to destory it.
    But lunching two nukes is more expensive than 2 Halleys.

    The balance between nuke, Halley, and dead star should be taken into account carefully.
    Best idea is to make them all useful but different.
    Currently, the fast solution is to increase the required Halley for an asteroid.
    Or simply increase the price of Halley.
    Last edited: August 5, 2015
  6. stylisticsagittarius

    stylisticsagittarius Active Member

    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    56
    I could not have said it better huangth
  7. stylisticsagittarius

    stylisticsagittarius Active Member

    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    56
    And did they tell something about the ability to determin how many halley's each asteroid require and if it will be adjustable in the future? i think default 3 would be the best and huangth said some good reasons why.
  8. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,820
    Likes Received:
    1,842
    this was merely to show that launching nukes on an about to impacting asteroid was useless ... you have to take out the halleays way before impact ...
    stuart98 likes this.
  9. huangth

    huangth Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    209
    Besides nerf Halley, there are other methods to balance.
    How about reducing the price of nuke, anti nuke, and catalytic?

    I always think the price of the nuke is too high.
    Since the nuke base requires 14400, how about reduce the price of nuke from 50000 to 35000?
    Of course, the price of anti nuke should also be reduced.
  10. yobob591

    yobob591 New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    3
    I agree, asteroids absolutely need a rebalance. Now that all impacts destroy planets the only reason to use the catalyst is the fact that it reloads fast, and there is NO reason to planet smash anything larger than 1 halley unless its your only choice. All of the methods of planetary annihilation should have their own benefits and downfalls. I think asteroids should be able to be countered entirely with an anti-nuke style system where larger asteroids or moons can only be made into small peices that rain down and act like nukes instead of destroying the planet. The catalyst would have no counter besides its insane price. But thats just my opinion.
    ace63 and huangth like this.
  11. huangth

    huangth Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    209
    Currently, the balance issue of asteroids is very frustrating.
    I have played several custom maps which contain asteroids.
    And it turns out that players must rush to the asteroid.

    Once a player connects the teleporters to asteroid, he can swam the units into it.
    It is extremely difficult to invade the asteroid due to is small size.
    Unit cannon can only provide limited force which can be destroyed easily.
    And the orbital units can be defended by few umbrella.
    It is too hard for other player to take back the asteroid.

    Once Halley is completed, the game is over.
    Even the asteroid does not kill the commander,
    losing entire planet is still an unacceptable economy punishment.
    ace63 likes this.
  12. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,820
    Likes Received:
    1,842

    disagreed ... uber has stated long before that battlefield removal is a thing of this game
    and completely denying recources is a valid strategy ...
    is it at the moment imballanced? yes and as such players need more invading options .. primarily quick and maybe cheap to build orbital multiunittransports .. maybe even make unitcannons cheaper
    buiding orbital teleporters to have the orbital layer be controlled quicker ..
    increase built time and/or cost of halleays or increace the number of halleays needed to 2 at minimum ...

    but you losing an entire planet worth of resources and buildground IS a thing you have to accept .. as you yourself are able to do it too ..

    ultimatly the same rule applies .. if you let it happen then you deserve it ..
  13. klavohunter

    klavohunter Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    21
    If the trailer had asteroids being shattered by nukes, would it be possible to just nuke asteroids to destroy them? I know it won't do anything to help once the halley is on its way, but if your response to an asteroid showing up is to nuke it before the enemy even gets on it... You could be safe.
  14. optimi

    optimi Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    670
    That's...actually a great idea. Makes asteroids kinda different to small planets and adds an element of risk/reward to using them as weapons.
    klavohunter likes this.
  15. stylisticsagittarius

    stylisticsagittarius Active Member

    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    56
    I actually with the titans expansions no longer feel this is a problem.

    There are now so many over powered ways to attack an enemy that even this has come to good balance...

    I still think it is silly that you cannot go to a planet that is activated with a halley, but then think again...

    For those that played other big strategy games (like supreme commander). this game can give a 2 hour supcom game in just 30 minutes! The game simple need to end at a point so you are eager to start a revenge match. Planets die very very fast, titans are also not al that expensive and this is simply not (and with titans certainly not) a turtling game!

    I now like it the way it is and i get why they changed the asteroid function. it was already a balance issue for titans and the new units + the engine's problem with leaving a giant crater was to complex.
  16. huangth

    huangth Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    209
    There are some balance adjustments in Titan.
    I think this problem is solved.

    First, the nuke only requires 30000 rather than 50000 metal.
    Second, the halley only gets 20000HP now, while the damage of nuke is 33000.
    So you can use only 1 nuke to trade with the enemy's halley.

    The only problem is Catalyst still too expensive to be used in late game.

    I don't know whether the nuke can be shot to the planet pushed by halley.
    If it can't, then I think this is still a problem.
  17. Quitch

    Quitch Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes Received:
    5,892
    Catalysts are really intended as the "this game should already be over, let's end it" weapon. Which is why they're that expensive.
    stuart98 likes this.
  18. stylisticsagittarius

    stylisticsagittarius Active Member

    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    56
    Catalysts now cost the same as a halley, but off course you need five of them. knowing this i don't think it is to expensive. Depends on every map, if there are lot of halley oppurtonities (asteroid belt) it is to expensive, if the catalyst the only thing that is capable to destroy another planet you will built it...

    Nukes are in cost also balanced BUT the nuke has to be fired before the halley's engines are activated. everything that is going to a planet with an active halley will still get there but any new orders givving to go to that planet (be it nukes or units) will no longer be able to go there...
    huangth likes this.

Share This Page