[Poll] Balancing Assisting

Edit, sorry wrong quote.

Every unit has a minimum refire rate. This includes pelters. It does not matter how fast you can charge your next shot, at one point it doesn't matter that the charge time beats the refire rate of the gun.

I think that is a nicer solution to the suggested problem, to treat nukes as a turret with buildable ammunition and a set refire rate.



Edit: I have no idea what I am thinking. If a pelter is building ammo at 100%, you increased the max rate to 200%, 200% becomes the new 100%.

technically everything in the game is a unit ...
the nuke itself however acts as ammunition ...
but just because it does doesn't mean it generaly can't be assisted ... or do you guys want a strickt rprulebook for such things now and remove pd's entirely because they are "boring" ... hey aa turrets are boring lets remove them hey aa planes do nothing gainst ground how boring lets remove them aswell ... beamturrets dont do anything gainst air out with those!!!!
why is it bad to have specific purpose units but not
units that are multipurpose ... i thought we want more unittypes and more variety? were to draw the line?

@igncom1
the nukelauncher is defined a facilty ... it is not like a aaturret but
similar to how the orbital launcher is ...

Haven't read the entire thread, just the OP with complicated rules.

The only proper way for assisting to have diminishing returns, is to make the factory so much more efficient than those assisting. Then each additional fabber reduces the average efficiency. I wouldn't mind if the least efficient factory was more efficient than the most efficient fabber.

Some specific, poorly thought out numbers just so people have something to pick at:

• T1 fabbers 100 energy per metal (maybe slightly worse for air fabbers)
• Commander 50 energy per metal
• T2 fabbers 33.3 energy per metal (maybe slightly worse for air fabbers)
• T1 factory 25 energy per metal
• T2 factory 20 energy per metal
• Nuke and anti-nuke 16.6 energy per metal

Making every bullet point use significantly more metal per second than the previous would make the diminishing returns more prominent. For example t1 fabbers drain 10, commander 30, t2 fabber 90, t1 factory 64, t2 factory 128, nuke 256.

So what if the Commander would have an Anti-Nuke built in? Would that solve something?

To explain better, I like Nukes, but like every powerful weapons, it is a detrimental to the game-play if a player can use just one single tool for destroying a Commander.

A Vanguard drop, for example, requires much more work and planning.

a vanguard drop may requiere an additional t2 airfac but imo that is done quicker than building the nukelauncher+missile
also a nuke has a bigger risk in failing than a vanguard drop
because after its launch there is no control over it anymore ... so whatever happens just happens .... you have far better control over a vanguaard drop either minimising loses or do even far more damage then originaly planed ... this means with a nuke you have to be 100% sure were to launch it ...

To address the ease of assisting factories, simply increase the roll off time and decrease the cost of the factories. Make the time significant and noticeable (say 3 to 5 seconds) and perhaps decrease the cost by the same multiple that was used to increase the roll off time. Now if you want to spam out your army you will need multiple factories.

As for nukes, it is very difficult to equal its destructive power and speed that it delivers it as compared with other combination of units in the current game. On the other hand it is simply negated by an anti-nuke. What I feel needs to happen is there needs to be more and equal amounts of targets to use a nuke on. It seems currently the best way to use a nuke is strike at an enemy's production.

As an example what I mean, in SupCom we had the Galactic Colossus (GC), a high hp juggernaut. If you had a nuke you had a choice of where to use it, do you strike the enemy's base or do you use it on the GC that is coming to your base. Striking at the enemy base may benefit you in the long run, but the GC is a very near term threat that can end the game very soon and the nuke alone will not stop it.

Players needs to be able to force these types of strategic choices onto the enemy. This is not an easy thing to do because you need to balance the ability to build and bring a force to an enemy that is equal to the production and defense of a nuke, and have that equal to the benefit of a nuclear strike on a main base.

So 'Ability to Build Threat' = 'Immediate or Near Threat' = 'Nuke'

The anti-nuke helps with balancing this out but it can easily just make the equation favor nuking all immediate or near threats. Now all you will be building is nukes and anti-nuke creep. Hard thing to balance and have not played a game that did it well.

I think the Roll-Off Time is certainly a tool to use in balancing how quickly an army can be built.
However the largest Time here is the overall build time - and it's that which becomes meaning less when you have 200 Fabbers running around Assisting things.

Also as we don't have Megabots, it's even more important the Nuke be properly balanced. I feel my OP does that, as it guarantees a fixed build time; you cannot build this instantly just because you have 500 Fabbers and a huge economy.