How t1 armies are still useful currently even in light of turrets.

Yeah, it isn't far off but turret production still requires less infrastructure than Doxes(95.0 vs 112.2 with basic energy plants).
You need your factories to make a lot of fabbers anyway so you can make energy plants, mexes and advanced mexes so you can just take some fabbers off from construction to make defenses when you spot incoming units.

So, as always, stacking 100 engineers on building 100 turrets one at a time, is quicker and better then having each engineer build each turret at the same time.

I have never really liked engineer assisting past a few.

Heh... If you are referring to my table it isn't always entirely accurate for all ingame situations. Like it doesn't take movement and distance into consideration so it isn't effective to have 100 units building towers one by one as most units will spend all their time driving to the next project instead of building.

True, but I do feel like the ability to stack assisting engineers does make the problem a whole bunch worse.

For instance, if you could only have, like 5 engineers building turrets at a time, you would effectively have a hard cap on the time it takes to fortify a position, making reactionary defensive strategy's extremely poor when compared to raiding attacks and other mobile forces.

But as it stands, even with cost as low as it is, you can instantly build most turrets and whole wall sections for any kind of enemy attack, even whilst under fire.

A defensive reaction role, that is probably bes suited to mines from combat fabbers.


So while I overall kinda agree with trophy, I will fully acknowledge the arguments as put forward by your vocal competitive minority, I do feel like its down to a large number of factors that is very hard to just ignore for a quick and easy nerf to turrets and walls.

It is actually more efficient to spread out your fabbers to build defenses if you can just finish the defenses before the enemy comes in range. 5 fabbers make a Laser Tower in 6 seconds. If you use 10 fabbers I don't think that all of them will even in come in range of the turret before it is finished.

Precisely, the time to set up defences massively outsets their own strength.

Not that Id like a 5 minute timer to build a little single barrel gun, but the speed of construction, to me, seems to make people a little quick to jump the gun and reduce the strength of defences.

And I would feel like that would be a shame, as turrets would become throwaway poor excuses for temporary mobile units.

I love defences, I love building huge sprawling fortresses with lines of defensive guns, and battery of artillery.

But I also love to siege, love to send in my imperial dox to storm a breach for the glory of the emperor.

But the time to build walls and towers makes a kind of turret pushing strategy, far, FAR more effective then basic units, who still lack a basic form of ranged siege unit, and must rely on the inferno tank, who when compared to the quickly built double laser tower, are poor excuses for meat shields in a attempt to navigate around their own corpses, only to also be quickly killed.

:\ I love having strong defences, with the need for actually properly placed artillery (Non of the map crossing stuff), and I love the challenge of tackling them, when I have the right tools for the job.

For their current speed of construction, it's no wonder people are crying for them to be nerfed, because as it stands, the engineer is the single strongest mobile unit in the game.

And not even directly.

Orbital nukes confirmed.

GL HF everyone.

If turrets were balanced to begin with, that wouldn't be a problem anyway.

Besides, if t2 metal and energy were balanced, you wouldn't be able to fund 100 engineers to build a tower all at once without it costing the whole of your economy.

But would it?

If a unit doesn't have appropriate counters, and is supported by badly balanced economy's and engineer units.

If the unit it's self unbalanced as a result?

Possibly, but I do not like the idea that because some game mechanics are unfinished and broken, that simple short sighted changes will do anything but make us chase our tales.

Or worse, make static defences pointless to ever build, just because people can't see beyond a single skirmish as to why they were inherently unfair to play against.

I think that defenses were pretty well balanced when Single Laser Defense Towers costed 300 and Laser Defense Towers costed 600 although I think that were before the introduction of the Vanguard and the Inferno.

I'm guessing they dropped tower costs to compensate for unit cost drops, but it just makes them so much more effective because the fabbers dropping them in seconds are also providing the economic base needed to rocket into T2 and then exponentially out eco your opponent and pump out vastly superior T2 forces.

Simply returning towers to their original cost would almost single-handedly bring T1 back into the game. T2 will still crush it, but it should become practical to stop someone just powering straight to T2.

And to the left, we see one of the many, many symptoms of having unit obsolescence!

turrets are to strong. t1 units are to weak. they just need to weaken the turrets a little bit

Im just saying. You don't like t2 metal where it is right? So, if turrets were nerfed, you would definitely be in favor of keeping current t2 economy?

No?

Then why change 5 things against t2 economy at once? Are you sure you aren't overacting? Because something that can be fixed in 1-3 nerfs tends to be re-broken in 5. I don't want to have to adjust the balance meter back and forth constantly because we apply 6 nerfs at once without considering them individually.

Generally, I dislike t2 camping. I also think that turrets are legitimately broken because of walls and cost, not power or t2. Generally, you should make sure not to overnerf when you attempt to adjust things, seriously, that happens way too much.

I'm kind of torn on this issue. On the one hand, I love that turrets are cheap. Maps are vast and attacks could come from any angle, so being able to cover a few different avenues with turrets is handy, and even still, its usually possible to find a way around them.

On the other hand, being able to toss up defenses in front of advancing armies is a bit comical. An attentive player doesn't have to premeditate their defenses in advance, which means there is no advantage gained when a player exploits his enemies weak spots.

I think the problem here lies with the fabbers, not the turrets themselves. IMO, fabbers should be made larger so that they can't be packed in so tightly (less concentrated build power), and they should have some kind of charge up period for their nanolathes so that they don't instantly start a construction. This would essentially add a minimum build time so that regardless of how much build power you have, it will always take at least the warmup time to build.

minimum build time. I don't think that works with a lot of other no turret structures in this game with how long games would take, but I like the idea.

a turret being built amidst an army isn't bad strategy, and is effective yet beatable. As long as walls couldn't be built. Its still the both in my opinion, and still think for what people build 6 walls they should get 2 walls, so I think the cost of walls still is the issue.

if walls were removed, I bet t1 armies would start beating turret fields and people would change back how they play.

How much you wanna bet?

Btw way I rarely make walls.

I still feel like people are oversimplifying the solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

I'm sure you already know these so please don't get offended, I just like linking them...