No Nuke Server Options. And other Notes

I was wondering how soon we could get some simple game options like no nukes? I really do find racing to get the first nukes and anti nukes tedious and not really fun at all. I played a game recently where all people on the server who didn't know each other agreed to not use nukes and i twas the most fun ive ever had in PA or any RTS for that matter.
I cant wait for the game to be more balanced (As others have noted T2 bombers seem VERY OP) and i cant wait for the art and effects to be finished.

I'm not sure if the issue could be fixed through gameplay changes or if it is even an issue, i just dont find racing for nukes and anti nukes to be very fun. Maybe im just bad at the game? Could we have a discussion about this?

Oh and hi im Kyle, this might be my first post?

If a player rushes for a nuke, you could hit that nuke with your bombers if you don't mind sparing them. Unless their fighter defence is great, which it often is. In which case, you could not build fighters and just rush nuke faster. That in and of itself is a form of balance. It gets deeper than that, if one rushes nukes then they have to take resources from something to do it. This usually means that someone who gets nuke too early gets trampled by early land army, or artillery, or levelers, or those bombers. Orbital also ends games occasionally, it is basically nuke but snipes the commander from out of the blue.

As far as server options, I often don't play with superweapons on against the AI in Red Alert 2. It is a great option to have, orbital should even be a selective option. However, it just is a luxury in beta. Gentlemen's rules permits nukes while it limits walls (because they were once a black hole of imbalance, not so big a deal now I guess), but honestly any agreed upon rules between players in a game is a good way to do things. I would agree to no nuke games if offered. It is just one of those features that are a luxury now but will be one of the many luxuries granted down the line.

It might be that im just not scouting enough, but i generally prefer to focus on base building and attack/defence strategies rather than worrying about if im going to be one hit killed/all my buildings wiped out.

Yeah i look forward to more game options down the line, even things like land/naval/air only games.

Oh also, build spread out. Like, you should anyway because that's how you grab half a planet worth of metal spots as soon as possible. But, intentionally do it as well, as in besides capturing spread out metal spots also build factories and rally units no closer to each other than nuke AOE range. Like, get a few metal points, and build factories in an empty space between all those metal points, and build power both spread out and spaced out from the metal points.

The concept is that a nuke will only kill a factory and some metal and power, or a factory by itself, or some of your units, or some metal and energy clumped, but never ALL OF THAT at once.

Also, yes, even if you focus on chunks of defence, still produce 5 ants here or 8 dox there and prod enemy metal spots seeing if you can kill their outer mexes. Killing an enemy mex even for a moment still stifles their economic growth.

I had an FFA Where I literally got nuked about 10 times? The other player was on the moon and was nuking my base to try and hit my commander. I think by the time the nuke got there, the commander was long gone because he was doing a really random construction project.

But yeah. The nuke didn't do any damage to me because I was so spread out. The most major damage it did was removed my T2 power, and then removed my air factories.

The thing was my T2 power was 6 t2 power plants. Most of my power was coming from T1 power plants, because I hadn't realised my hotkey had broken, and had covered a huge amount of area in them.

That is what i mean about nukes not being very strong on large scale.

I mean if you get nuked five times a game, then it must be a Wednesday, because it isn't very special.

What the OP says:

However this is simply polite. A good dev should be reading:

Id rather you dont twist my words, i said nothing of the sort.

That's fine, you don't need to be that harsh. It's really the devs who should look at such a post and think:

Because it really is a terrible thing when the average person is trying to pull features out.

Sorry, You've clearly been reading a different post because i never once said i was trying to remove any feature from the game, Sup com had no nuke options, as well as land/air/naval only, this isn't removing features this is giving us options.

He probably just got nuke sniped recently and is in a pissy mood.

This is PA, successor to the greatest RTS series out there. It MUST have nukes. Their balancing just needs some real love.

I Never said I DIDNT want nukes in the game. Seriously is that so hard to understand?

Don't be so hostile to a new poster. What a poor attitude.

I completely understand OP, nukes are ok but no-nuke games are quite different and remove that annoying need to deal with nukes by constant scouting and sniping or the big investment of antinukes. Playing with no nukes is quite a different game and can be quite a bit more enjoyable to play. Makes me think I should play some games with no nukes because it makes for quite a different game.

OP, options like unit restrictions will be added in time but it may not be soon so I'm afraid you will have to wait.

Don't you typically play games without nukes (as your main focus anyway)? You just play compensating for the reality that you must pressure enemies to delay nukes and you must invade and kill him before nukes.

At least, that is what I see of your gameplay. I could be wrong or only watched a biased couple of games.

Anyway, if anything, that's proof that some things work in absence and presence of nukes, and nonetheless that nukes are something deserving of an option in pregame lobby, as it is fun to have land army games in this game, this game does that single aspect better than most finished games even as a beta.

Not going to lie, I play with artillery lol.

I'd just like to say that in Total Annihilation there was an option screen for multiplayer so you could specify exactly what could be built in a game and what couldn't be.

Exactly... like down to everything, so you could have a game where all Arm units are banned

This kind of customization is a given, I'd expect nothing less than a very similar screen showing you every unit in the game and allowing you to limit their use or even numbers...

This would be quite a welcome feature in my opinion

Kind of. Nukes still end up being used in a fair proportion of my games but if you're putting someone under pressure then they shouldn't be able to just spend 37k metal on a nuke. I would say that typically FFAs or low skill games are often 30 minutes of mostly turtling followed by nukes.

Sorry, I was referring to bobucles, not you, he's the one who has been aggressively reinterpreting your posts, hence my pissy mood comment

Lol. I am that jerk that actually stomps the fun out of one of the other players, then I and them end up dying to that endgame hellstorm. Which makes me a terrible person I know, but it is the most fun way I know how to approach it. It is also the reason why I try not to play 4+ sided games.

Zaphod! Im abit of a fan i must say i enjoy your videos (Im Kyle Hall on Youtube) , watched every single one Anyway, yeah that would be a great idea, id love to watch some no nuke games, as i said when i played my no nuke game i felt like i enjoyed playing more because i didn't have to worry about that threat and could focus on other things.

Yeah i do look forward to those restrictions, not that ill always play with restriction or no nukes but i did enjoy playing with different options in SupCom and could imagine it being great in PA.

Yeah that's exactly the kind of thing im talking about

Id just like to clarify to everyone that i did not at all mean to say that I dont want nukes in the game, i was just making an observation about the fact that i enjoyed playing without them in the game that i participated in.

What? No. When someone says "make an option for x", the appropriate way to interpret that statement is to read "I don't like X". That usually means it's screwed up, which for nuke play isn't a big stretch of the imagination.

Anyway I often make the mistake in assuming other people can make critical statements. For that I apologize.