[Poll] Balancing Assisting

No, we do not. We want the use of nukes to create engaging gameplay. De facto removing them from the game does not achieve that in any way whatsoever.
We require nothing short of a redesign or expansion of the nuke system as a whole due to it being the single most binary part of the game while also being the most impactful as well, even more so than Halleys.

I think halleys are certainly more impactful.

But nukes do need a redesign. I hope that Uber had one planned, or will consider one. They are boring and could be expanded upon, but I think it will be hard because I don't know of any games that have effectively expanded upon them.

I think nukes are just downright boring, and would happily see them removed entirely. If you have them in the game, there really isn't anything you can do BUT play Missile Command.

people speaking of redesign but never explaining what redesign they are imagining ... very helpful
absolute no to removing nukes entirely ... a game of this scale requeirs a bigger weapon that also enforces your enemy to come to you ..... otherwise turtling would become even worse ...
and i don't want to always play rockball
the reason you play missile command right now is simply because other options are either missing or not propperly worked out so that any unit does matter

Others willingly abstain from correct punctuation and formatting thus making their posts nigh ineligible yet never are they being called out.
You do not have to lay out everything in detail if you just want to direct a discussion in a certain direction. There is little use in bringing a two-page design document to a thread not created to go through said document. If there is merit to an idea it can be subsequently expanded upon.
And by the way, nukes are not required for a game of PA's scale. If anything they serve to reduce it they way they currently work.

edit: Why does the forum's ignore function hide not only the contents but also the presence of someone's posts? Reduces its usefulness by quite the margin.

Except all the ways to counter nukes just give the game of missile command more depth. They don't fix the fundamental problem, that you are playing missile command.

I'm not suggesting that Nukes not be Assistable. I'm suggesting that all Factories/Buildings only be Assistable up to a point, and that after the fifth engineer or so, you get diminishing returns on assisting. That way people can't have two hundred Fabricators spamming out Nukes/T2 mid game.
I'm suggesting that in the long run, two Factories always be more productive than one Assisted Factory.
That way, you get dozens of Factories and hundreds of units going at it, not just a rush to bang out a dozen Sniperbots.

I think Anti Nukes need to be cheaper and quicker to build, but not so cheap they invalidate Nuke play altogether. At the moment Nukes take too large a role because an Army takes longer, costs the same or more and can be destroyed by a Nuke.

The more I think about it. If nukes were taken out entirely, I wouldn't miss them. I guess that is why I am advocating for them to be hit with the nerf bat.

They're here to stay. I'd rather they be properly balanced by changing assisting than us having to need to "Disable Game-Enders" to have fun Ground warfare like in SupCom.

I thought about an extreme suggestion.
Making very expensive and non-assistable nukes AND remove the AntiNuke.

It wouldn't neccecarily invalidate nukes, It would simply force you to either:

1. Launch the nuke at something else
2. make an attack on the anti-nuke and kill it before launching your nuke

Anti-nukes shouldn't be a huge amount cheaper than nukes, but they should be easier to acquire IMO, because then they would move the strategy away from "overwhelm his anti-nuke" and towards "strategic strike against his anti-nuke". The best balance for the anti-nuke atm, would be to make the missile cheaper, but nerf the HP of the launcher a bit.

That still leaves us with a unit whose sole purpose is the invalidation of another. There needs to be a role to the nuke defense building other than being an incredibly expensive annoyance.

Why not just a general "Missile Defence" Silo?

Still only a binary defensive tool. And an expensive one at that. With no value whatsoever if there are no nukes and mandatory if there any at all.
Why not add the nuke defense role to the Catapult for example with missiles being manually built? Would make nuke defense far more interesting if you could choose to use your anti-nukes offensively instead.

I am currently working on a thread meant to sketch out a possibility of coupling nuke and orbital play in such a way that both are less binary and more interestingly integrated into the rest of the roster.

so it is ok to just stay totaly vague about something that is an issue to you? sry but you help absolutly no one with that ...
just sayin "i don't like x " or " x is bad" doesn't explain why
sayin "x needs a change" doesn't explain what you imagine or expect
if you can't, fine .. not everyone is able to explain everything and no one expects you to write 100 pages of "why" and "how"...
but don't expect the devs to experiment to the end of time with your limited feedback until they eventualy hit your liking ... or run out of resources ...
i agree that nukes aren't and shouldn't be neccesarily needed to finish a game no matter the scale ... but i disagree to remove them for that reason ... if a player wants to use missiles he should be able to with the right ammount of risk for reward ... also not everyone realy wants to play a game of 50 minutes lenghs ... shall those players be not allowed to have potentionaly quick option or not play the game entirely? it is all a matter of balance ... and i say that they shall be only removed if they can't be ballanced ... and i doubt that they can't ... yes this game is about scale but it is also about having options with some being simply dificult to properly include ...

I do not post here to tell Uber what and how to do but to discuss perceived issues with other forum members. As such I lay down my ideas in as much detail as I deem appropriate for everyone else's limited time here. If anyone wishes me to expand upon them I may very well do so. If there is no demand for me going to such lengths there is little value in me doing so.
Nonetheless I stand by my opinion of the nuke defense being the single most boring unit in the game. It is as engaging as the wall with the added benefit of being both mandatory and perversely expensive. See my previous post for one way to remedy this.

uberdevs are forummembers ,too ... so you might want to have them included to your discussion aswell if possible ...

changing the catapult so it engages nukes aswell imo
could turn the game into a slugfest but i don't object to the idea .. it could work

@StormingKiwi
if you dont want to play missile command then dont build and don't allow your opponent to finish building a missileplatform ... the options are partly there ...

In an FFA, going for them hard isn't always feasible.

As long as they can't go between planets.

Id much rather go for that the the current nuke/anti-nuke mechanic.

as i said in another thread...nukes are such a weird thing...

sometimes they are needed, to defeat the defense of a turtle for example.
but then again its stupid if you can use them as an allround-tool.
Artillery could be another solution to overcome a turtle-defense...if you can land on the planet (i think its not possible with the big T2 artillery to shoot a planet from the moon, isnt it? that would be interesting)

Anti-Nukes are too expansive, there i agree, but then again, if they were too cheap, wouldnt a turtle have a huge advantage? he could just sit behind his defense and spam nukes at you instead.

I agree that a base should be safe, but not too safe.
I really want to have even bigger nukes who can travel between planetary orbits, maybe even as a defense mechanism against incoming moons, so that you need to be carefull with how you use them.
Nuke someone or defend against an Asteroid Bomb?