Pre-Fab Planet Landing Fortress??

Nah, Knight has been pretty much the same this whole time. It only feels more harsh because he has the blue text on his name. PR, kid gloves, and all that.

I mean, just imagine how bad things would get around here if my name popped up in red. The whole forums would be aflame!

I have listened to Knight's little vision for how things could/should work in PA in Teamspeak on occasion, when we have those sort of in depth discussions.

And I agree with him on most if not all of it. It's fair and balanced, and I for one am quite willing to trust his judgement and experience on the matter of balance and new ideas.

If he says it isn't needed, there is an underlying reason for that which will be difficult to understand until the full unit roster is out, and the devs start balance tweaks.

There is a reason his name is colored blue

He can be as experienced as he wants to, that still doesn't negate the opinions of other people. Everyone knows that two heads are better than one when it's about game development.

I just can't get my head around his statement that asteroids and unit cannons are sufficient in the matter of planetary invasions. It's just not thought through.

What if there are no asteroids to use? What if there are only two big unmoveable planets in the entire system?

I hear you say: "well that's what gates are for".
What if the planet you want to invade is heavily fortified, and you're unable to set up a gate? What prevents it from turning into a big stalemate?

We need some kind of spearhead unit to level the field for an upcoming invasion. If you don't see the need for that, then you obviously didn't account for a situation like that.

The only other solution to that problem is to make us able to build our own artificial asteroids. But we didn't hear a word on that from the devs, so i suppose that it isn't a planned feature, yet. And even if it were, having multiple ways to do something is a very important aspect in every rts. Otherwise every game eould look the same, which would be very boring.

To say that something isn't needed suggests that the person saying it knows more about uber's future plans than the rest of us do. And i don't think that that's the case.

And the fact that people trust knight's judgement is exactly the reason why he should be more careful before neglecting a topic, imo.

arachnis, you're right, Asteroids and Unit Cannons aren't the ONLY answer, but they are the CENTRAL answer. Neutrino has said before that Asteroids, both for Smashing and Mobile Bases, are really central to the game. Just look at the Pre-Visualization, in the 'game' they portrayed, there is only a single planet it seems but it also has a moon an an entire Asteroid Belt even for that small single planet game.

We might not be quite at that stage yet, but it's seems quite obvious to me what Uber's intent is to me.

Mike

I thing that big things are very cool and i want a way to take over a planet just the way a fortress would make possible. From my point of view Pa without big late game (exprimentals) and large planetary invasion weapons pa would become boring pretty fast. This comes from someone who love rts and this concept very much.!

Uber have a great idea but think if they are not careful this will turn out with a game with not enough options and become boring to fast.

KNight was harsh before he got the blue name and it hasn't changed.

About the first post KNight made, he clearly typed "I don't" that is an personal opinion. That is KNights opinion, it has nothing to do with negating the opinions of others.

EDIT:
I should add something to the discussion.

I want to see more of the game, more development, more units, more.... just more PA! I'm pretty sure Uber will make it so that games can't turn into a eternal war between 2 planets.

I don't know how the release game will be like, but I'm patient. Still the landing fortress seems like a fun idea, but I think it will be more like a fun experimental then an essential unit.

What if the enemy planet is heavily fortified ? ....
i must seriously ask how much time can one need until he starts to invade a planet ... we can get orbital and to another planet in like 15 Minutes? How much can a player cover a class 3 planet in defences by that amount of time?

Then begin your attack on the unfortified part of the world? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but turtling up an entire planet takes a LONG time.

Forward base asteroids can be excellent invasion tools when they're outfitted with teles and cannons. However there is still a game play stall condition if there are no asteroids to work with. Currently nukes and orbital snipes can continue the game, however that is merely a bandaid which avoids the base problem. Without asteroids a multi planet invasion just kind of breaks. That's no good.

You guys didn't take into account that good players see your units incoming if you want to invade a planet, which means that they're able to make an appropriate reaction in time. When i say heavily fortified i dont mean having laser towers every 5 meters, but just being able to send your units to the landing spot to prevent an invasion. Not everybody is a noob, you know?

Situations like that will definitely occur, games will tend to get longer and longer the more players there are in a game. Crazy stuff might happen. And if you are developing a game you have to account for EVERY possible outcome or you run the risk of producing a flawed metagame.

I mean we are talking about PA, not some standard fcking rts. This game is going to allow more than 40 players in one game. Seriously guys... don't be surprised if you're getting into the situation i'm talking about, having used up every single asteroid already and wishing for some unit that would end that stalemate you're finding yourself in. I'll be there to say: i told you so

So drop a nuke to spearhead the invasion, like a Kroooooogoth. Much more fun than plain vanilla nukes.

Yes. And it is amazing how many times I solve these problems before they come up yet again. Oh well.

Thats why we propose orbital transports arent we?
having the tools to bring good ammount of units from a to b no matter the counters is what speeds up the game.... currently late game takes way to much time with traveltime of units between planets
Orbital ground and air transports should solve that without making any other units redundant say naval carriers

And instead of krogoth if it realy should be a suicide unit... lets make propper ticks/firebeetles ... banelings with good aoe ...kaPOW!!!

Aside from that @arachnis if its not asteroids it will be nukes if it aint nukes it is orbital lasers if it aint orbital lasers it will be a transported in unit the core damageunits are already in imo... we just need stuff for propper transit and i think we can propper roll then ... the rest would be to make long range play a bit more intresting ....
i might be a bit too confident but i feel the game is on a good way even though it takes time

But you can't nuke something that is not in your orbit, you cant shoot something with an orbital laser platform if it gets shot down by fighters/umbrellas. And don't you think that orbitaltransports can be shot down too? You're probably always getting outnumbered if you're trying to invde a planet controlled by a good player. So where's your point?

Man, I didn't know that the argument against something awesome could be "i don't see a need for it".

Do you want icecream, with chocolate crisps and three different amazing flavors that will blow your mind?

"I don't see a need for it"

Right... that's your own fault then.

An orbital transport goes directly from home orbit, to enemy orbit, to land. There simply isn't a lot of time to shoot it down.

But you know, they can always be implemented in a bad way.

What's the problem that isn't needed again? Because if it's a landed fortress, the problem isn't about it being needed. The problem is that it's simply a bad idea. A stationary invasion tool is an oxymoron. It does not even approach anything that is remotely useful.

How do you know that? Even if that were the case, your enemy still could do appropriate reactions. Just because you managed to drop off some units does'nt mean that you accomplished anything. You need to be able to set up a permanent secure landing spot, which might be impossible in many situations.

Because I practice occult magic. Observe the following two scenarios:
- The transport lingers around in enemy orbit, and dies pointlessly.
- The transport rushes through enemy orbit, and deploys its units.

Behold the amazing and totally unexpected difference between the two. It seems that sitting around is a poor use of transports, while using them turns out to be more effective. Where do I come across these dark, ancient and arcane truths? I'm not telling!

Then send a bigger invasion force? You are under no obligation to win. You only need to deal more damage than the enemy.

This is pointless. It seems like you won't understand until i show you what an impenetrable defense looks like. Your arguments suggest that your enemy is either not knowing what he's doing, or just sitting by idle while you invade him. Also travelling between planets takes a lomg time, giving your enemy more than enough room to prepare for your units and easily rebuild what has been destroyed.
This will result in a game that is being dragged on endlessly, which doesn't sound like fun to me.

I just hope that the devs are smart enough to see this. I have the feeling of shouting against a wall that has no sense of perception. I'm done here.

No. I get it. I've known about defender's advantage for a LONG time. You haven't lurked around long enough to know that I've already posted about a billion times on the subject, and brought up a huge list of ways to address the problem.

Yes, the defender will have an initial infrastructure to work with. Yes, the attacker needs some kind of advantage to make their attack worthwhile. No, it doesn't have to be ALL centered around planet cracking or Commander sniping weapons. No I won't bring them up again, because that'd make me a fool that keeps ignoring Ron White's advice. The solutions are out there, and if they're going to happen they're going to happen regardless.