Internal Playtest – Balance Build, Social Features Reveal, and More! – 4/4

Compare countering mines to countering bombers.

How many ways can you counter bombers? Like fighter, advanced fighter, AA, advanced AA, bot AA, tank AA, navy AA, nuke/asteroid/commanderdeath.

So like 7 AA units that can counter bombers, some more effectively more then others.

Give me 7 mine counters in the different unit types, or more, and I'll like detectors.

Do you want counters, or detectors? Make your mind up.

As AA can be killed by bombers of sufficient saturation..

We therefore have 6 factories whose entire roster is a counter.

Or as I prefer to think of it, sacrificial detection.

Just leaving air. And well
If mines were visible and counterable from the air, I think you would have an issue with that.

Besides, we are talking about stealth. Stealth without prior detection is rather OP.

Detection counters stealth.

There should be no distinction in that, as most if not all units equipped with stealth or cloaking devices are built around it's use, and so the counters to such units should not simply reveal them, but also be proficient at killing them too, while they are exposed.

Steal units can absolutely kill their hunters, otherwise there isn't much of a point in stealth units that don't do anything.

Killing your own units serves only as a scouting measure against mines, as they already completed their job if they killed your units.

I care little if aircraft too have a counter to stealth units, as you should not expect to be using mines solely to defend yourself. Just as air can deal with artillery and laser defences....your argument that air should be able to counter something due to airs current unbalance falls flat.

And stealth without a way to counter it without a detector should never be un-counterable, as it should never be designed in a way that allow it to make it's users to be immune because of it. (SupCom).

CNC even did this by having stealth units revel themselves when they attempted to attack, mines could and should have a similar function, as to allow fast reaction units like bots and gunships a way of potentially countering a attack before it occurs, whilst leaving tanks totally susceptible to assault.

It's about creating fun gameplay from all angles, lest you would like to recreate The bad stealth mechanics of SupCom where it's all on, or all off.

My argument was actually that air should not counter mines, which you agree with. Sweet, done.

Correct, sacrificial detection is a scouting method.

On the other hand, if mines have AOE, thats several units you just saved from damage at the cost of one.

Mines reveal themselves by explosion. The counter is to scout thoroughly. Having mines do a jig before explosion looks ridiculous.

Errr.....I didn't agree that air units shouldn't have a counter to mines, as air units are supposed to be supporting units, so a counter for aircraft would actually be better, as they can't be affected.

So no, not done, I don't agree at all, air should have a unit for it as should naval, bot, tank and possibly even orbital.

Just because they fly right over and ignore something doesn't not mean a entire class of units doesn't need to be designed to, you know, interact with the rest of the game.

We are playing on one battlefield, with a army that works together, not 2 or even 3 battlefields that are mutually exclusive.

The purpose of a mine is to kill, and considering their cost, it would only take one out of a few to pay for the whole deployment, and while usually you have enough forces that only a significant minefield should slow you down, having a single unit be a detector for them, in one unit tree, considering that there are also naval mines, is a boring a badly designed mechanic.

And while it might look ridiculous to have mines have a activation time before detonation, its balance that decides things, not asphetic.

I never made the argument that air should be able to counter something, and your post said you cared little either way whether there was an air counter, so.


I'd like to point out that you're the one making all these calls on whether there should be one detection unit or not. If everything is able to detect them, what would the point be?

I resurrect this thread again.
After watching the video Carlorizzante posted in the Does fewer units mean less fun? thread, it made me wonder if the economy and balance changes are made after the way we play or if they are from scratch.
Scathis, would the economy and balance experiments be the same if, at this moment, we played similarly to this video?

anti-nuke much, anti TML much? flack much? you guys didn't want shields, your bad ^^ whoo boy! brace for thunder : D

Im not the most subtle in the world.

But Im not a fan of any of that stuff, especially by themselves.

well when you guys want multiple solutions to things, you know where to find this guy :

Adding HP to stuff doesn't stop a unit from shooting at you.

You need to kill the shooter.

Shields are even worse than just a straight HP buff in the way they affect the game. They really are fundamentally broken in the form they were in in Supreme Commander.

not in FaF's form.

I would much rather have a game that is built around factory spam, than rushing to Advanced.

That way the game is back to it was in early beta rather than what it is today. The game was all about tons of units and massive armies rather than tech.

I miss the days of early beta.