cheaper orbital : good or bad???

so yay lets make groundbattle entirely redundand...why shall i build tanks if i can have an ion cannon for the same price ...
.... just nooo

Why do you think an ion cannon should be that cheap? What did I say that made you think that? How could an ion cannon even focus on a target when it's stuck orbiting the planet? You'd need a fancy T3 'floats wherever above the planet you tell it to go' ion cannon for that. I think they call that a laser though.

Not to mention that cost/power ratios should always be inline, it's not like we're talking about JUST lowering the cost of things like the advanced Radar or the Laser Satellite, thier power would come down as well.

Mike

Those are permanent fixtures over an area, cheap orbitals would be forced to, well, orbit, to stay in orbit. The cheap radar/vision sats would only cover a certain ever-changing area as they orbit the planet. A version of the Laser Sat might only be one time use - instead of a laser it uses itself as the weapon, but can only target something on its orbital path, and being a unit, as well as changing from orbital to air, means it can be shot down by anything that can target it.

so lets make the ioncannon as strong and expensive as the tank so not only we can ... but actualy have to spam it more ... ( i am playing the d ick and devils advocat here for a reason)
taking the black and white aproach
there are 2 thinks you can do
either you spam numbers
or you spam power
some want to do one
some want to do the other
but some want to do both and have a variety to them
honeslty reading the forums recently
i always see people asking for nerfing a reducing b making c cheaper ... making things weaker or cheaper always goes torwards numberspam
however if you make things strong but expensive then this goes towards powerspam ...
and i want strong and expensive units ... i want units that once i finaly build give me an advantage or give me the possibility to seriously hurt my opponent ... and being limited to just asteroids is not that entertaining
as i said earlier this game is about scale of units as it is scale of numbers ....
and honestly reading most balancethreads i notice that most do a proposal to go torwards numbers ..
i dont always want to have to build 8 or 11 of a specific special unit but maybe just 2 or 4 .. ok make it more expensive make it take longer to build but give it the feel that once its out it can hurt my enemy or help me significantly ...
yeah let me be able to build a thousand tanks but also let me be able to wreck them with five super expensive but powerfull and fastfiring longrange rotating howitzercannons
no i am not asking for experimentals but i am asking for single units that also have a nice punch to them but also not be THAT accessible so i dont say "hey i just needed to build this unit to steamroll my opponent" . but i also dont want to say " ufff i needed this many of that unit to finaly finish the match"

does that makesense?
for me unit variety is not only in types of units but in levels of power as well ... if you constantly ask to make stuff weaker and/or cheaper
what do you think you would accomplish? you would turn the game into a numbersspamfest entirely ... that cant be realy in your interest
not forgetting that the unitrooster is still to be done

I am getting a little sick of this attitude.

That you can just counter any argument with, unit list not done, stop everything! It so stupid when people want to discuss things on a more broad term.

And frankly, how do we know that the 'finished' unit list won't just include like a new torpedo bomber?

How will that effect most of what people discuss?

I am calling it right now, that people WILL be disappointed at launch for some convoluted reason of their own creation.

Your examples are far from realistic thought. It's not the same as just putting a tank in space and calling it an Orbital unit, you obviously need to design units for any layer accordingly. Just like how a bomber isn't just a flying tank a Satellite isn't just a tank in space.

One of my ideal Weaponized Satellite is a defensive satellite, it's extremely slow and armed with an AOE weapon, so you can use it defensively but it can't harass a moving army either. it's exact power would probably somewhat aligned with existing defenses but with a premium added on due to the mobile/flexible nature of it.

And there are more possibilities as well, it's about doing things differently from existing layers.

Mike

oh believe me its getting tiring for me aswell


as i see it some are already dissapointed and are trying their best to push the devs to routes that seem rather unreasonable
everyone seems to want his own game ... but none of this is helping not yourself, myself or the comunity

It was stated in the livestream that the goal is going to be 4-5 units per factory.

All factories already have 3-4 units. Well, besides the orbital launcher, which is a bit overloaded. Throw in transports and T2 AA and, well... There's not a lot of room.

its not a matter of how many units are to come but what type of units and what difference they may make ...
uber stated they want to put in a orbital fabber this means there could be more structures and that could make a significant change to overal gameplay

That is if you also make the assumption that all existing units will be staying as they are.

Mike

Considering the commanders with the same arms and stuff.

What make you assume they will change?

What makes you assume the two have any relation? you're talking about raw cosmetics that have little to no impact on game play where as I'm talking about Raw unit design that have a HUGE impact on the game. I'm not talking about the Leveler having a different model, I'm talking about having a drastically different Role and stats that make it very different from the Ant.

Mike

Going from the sliding change of unit roles from alpha to beta.

They are very unlikely to deviate much from here to launch.

I can hope for a change, but hope is not worth much when compared to what has happened.

I don't want to come off as someone who is going to fearmonger, but I don't hold out that much of expectation. I can only be impressed at this point.

The only game I want is a fun game.

Currently there is a lot of room for improvement. And there is some things that are just a little bland. This whole talk about lowering power level means you have to spam more is just one way to balance a unit. It can have a lower power level but expensive. The defense satellite that Knight mentioned would be a good test unit to try in beta first.


Honestly this discussion is food for thought for the Dev's.

I'm still sore about the orbital fighter. Once burned, twice shy.
Twice burned, actually, but who's counting?

Why is everyone on the train of this supposed t3?? Not like any units currently buildable by orbital over power hundreds of units and there's nothing you can do to stop them...... just because t3' was a game ender in other games doesn't mean that has to be the case.....

@KNight while your new T1 laser sounds cool . To me it seems more devastating...... since now it has aoe instead of single target capability that can't hit moving targets. Granted you said your model can't either but let's just look at this example.

Unit guy goes mostly ground units all the time. Now tower turtle is pretty obvious. So tower turtle turtles up and spams Mike's laser unit guy moves his blob towards TT. Now the lasers can't attack moving targets but what stops TT from moving all his T1 lasers to outside the range of his God artillery and force fires at the ground now with aoe TT effectively has a t3 artillery at the T1 level..... no Bueno....

What? Who is saying T3 is a game ender in SupCom? I mean sure, T3 was present at the end of a great number of games, but they were never designed as Game Enders in the same way that Nucks, The Mavor or Monkeylord were. There are some parallels that can be drawn because currently the orbital layer functions in a very similar manner to T3 Air in SupCom due to the Orbital Fighters and the person with the most of those(and/or it seems whoever can control them the best) will win orbital superiority and it will be difficult if not impossible to take it back. But that's not quite what we're talking baout here, just wanted to clear up some misconceptions.

Wow what are you using as the basis for these assumptions your making? I never said it couldn't hit a moving target(Which is kinda silly for a defensive emplacement, we all know how silly it would be if Laser Turrets couldn't hit moving ground units) what I said is that they couldn't move fast enough to keep up with an army which forces it into a defensive role because out in the open units can just run around it and make it accomplish nothing. Obviously when dealing with AOE there are considerations dealing with stacking, particularly with Orbital units as currently they function very similarly to Air units and it could cause some weird balance hiccups in certain circomstances but I don't imagine the AOE would be huge by any means, maybe hitting 2-3 units, more if they bumper to bumper maybe.

Also I don't see why you're calling my satellite the equivalent of "now with aoe TT effectively has a t3 artillery at the T1 level" because I specifically stated that it would be similar in power/cost as regular defensive turrets with a premium tacked on due to the increased flexibility of the orbital nature of the unit, note that this is already on top of the extra costs needed to get the Orbital launcher and such as well.

Please read what I write and don't make assumptions, ask questions if you don't understand something.

Mike

The point is that it is possible to create T1 units that are cheap and balanced for their cost without them being useless or overpowered. There are plenty of balance levers to make it possible. You're also assuming that cheap T1 ground anti orbital won't be added.

Ok forum king..... read what you originally wrote then re read what I wrote..... yes it's beyond t2 artillery since it can be placed anywhere.