#Make nukes a bit more expensive?

1 messages Ā· Page 3 of 1

spiral junco
#

He also scouted that screwish was open

#

Not to mention

#

None of the antinukes were actually up in time

#

despite the scouting

#

nuke is armed at 13:10, no anti is armed at 13:10, no antis are loaded at this time

next grove
#

i think the most noticable thing in this replay was that MBT's liche was build great, required a lot of micro to operate, and then died to just one flak and not even killed the silo

soft leaf
#

That is in fact a problem. Players actively discourage new people from going air, its been fully acknowledged that once a certain level of player skill is achieved this issue starts to be a non-issue, that does not mean that it should be left as is. Its very simple for a player to watch a video and duplicate a nuke rush that can effect the entire map. It is not simple for a single competent player in a newer lobby to provide relevant anti nuke for their team. As a player you can generally afford a single anti nuke if you rush for it, before a nuke lands, if built near your build power. Anti vehicles are far to slow and small range to provide meaningful coverage in a reasonable timeframe. For a nuke you are also investing in offense, that nuke can be used not only for an early base kill, but to remove a game ending push in the mid game near your own front where there is likely no nuke protection, whereas when investing in anti you are making a static building of limited scope that does nothing beyond protecting an area that is increasingly less effective as map size increase where the issue is it at its most extreme.

#

Really it seems like some reasonable solutions have been thought of in this thread. Reducing the HP of a nuke Silo, and slightly increasing the time between nuke charges allows for more counter play without effecting the overall power of an unanswered nuke, and late game mass nuke silos.

#

There is clearly a disproportionate cost between the area a nuke can effect vs the area an anti-nuke can protect. I would suggest that this disparity should be kept, but overall lessened to some degree. There is not enough time for most players to respond to a nuke between missiles, you will typically loose 2-3 bases before anti-nuke is in place for the opposing team. Even when scouted, the investment to take out a nuke silo is also dramatically high compared to the cost to defend it from said attack. None of these issues exist in a higher skill lobby, but in a more entry level situation the effect on the game is clearly unhealthy and can be adjusted some without effecting the overall gameplay of high tier lobbies.

#

All in all I feel like (halving?) the HP of a nuke silo, is probably fine, typically there will be build towers around a nuke to repair it making it very hard to kill as it currently is. If a player knows that 10+ T1 bombers are going to be able to kill their nuke, the increase in cost of the needed anti air will provide some minor slow downs to the upfront build path without adjusting the cost of a nuke, while also making an all in approach more risk/reward based. If a pattern of excessive anti-air to defend this structure becomes known it will be an additional clue as to what is likely occurring even if you did not get a scout through the AA and a more direct signal can be provided to players even if the nuke goes undetected. Offering a choice of, do I build some actual AA structures and delay my nuke or do I just fully neglect anti air to get my nuke up ASAP is a meaningful change. Increasing the time between nuke reloads by a few seconds (~25-30? or a scaling reload time where it is longer for the first 2-3 missiles to load vs the rest, or more ideally in my mind a bonus to missile build time for each stocked missile, would be functional in offsetting that upfront delay while not creating a scaling increase in the time it takes to charge up for big multi nuke launches in late game) thus creating a much more reasonable window to respond to being nuked early for newer players who were not building any. I don't see those changes really effecting high level play.

distant jolt
# soft leaf There is clearly a disproportionate cost between the area a nuke can effect vs t...

this whole thread was started because of a nuke rush in an 8v8 with high skill players where the air scout was done by the enemy but shut down by my team mates. this doesn't take away anything from the rest of the analysis but I highly disagree with spinning this as a low skill issue due to no air scouting. air scouting helps against solo nuke rush but does not address the issues of proper coordinated nuke rush.

soft leaf
#

Personally I agree with you, what brought me to the thread was a 9:11 nuke completion that led to half a team quitting even though they didn't even get nuked, and I found that rather alarming and generally concerning to the overall health of the game.

pure crypt
thin aspen
#

When a strategy has no counterplay, it is op?

distant jolt
pure crypt
#

Spybot exist

thin aspen
#

again, what does that have to do with nuke rush balance

distant jolt
#

you can't have enough spybots in enemy base by the time it would be useful on the maps where nuke rush is an actual issue, as was the case for the one that started the thread (it was Ice Scream)

#

now Ice Scream is crippled so no issue

#

but you can't honestly tell me you expect spybots to be scouting techers on supreme strait at 9-11m

pure crypt
#

Spybot 200m nuke 8k m

#

Idunno its kinda reasonable no?

distant jolt
#

and even if you do manage to get the spybots there, the issue still stands that you need to invest much more energy / build power / attention to micro the spybots, spot the nuke, and make antis in time, than the nuke rush team invests in the rush

pure crypt
#

You just scout the one that didn't show yet

#

8k metal + cucking your own buildpower == no investmentment?

distant jolt
#

we've had this conversation 100x times on the thread, the point is not to try to find how to counter, we know how, the point is the disbalance between investments

frank night
#

spybot? really?

distant jolt
#

the disbalance is the issue

pure crypt
#

We also ignore the fact that the other teams techer can do stuff as well? Or do we play 7v8?

#

Like if they guy that is saving 8k metal can't counter a nuke for this team its kinda gg no?

distant jolt
#

I'm repeating myself everyday it's crazy... no I'm not ignoring it, the point is precisely that these techers need to invest MORE for countering

#

more in terms of energy/buildpower for the antis in time, and more in terms of attention / micro for the scouting

pure crypt
distant jolt
pure crypt
#

Op

#

Nukes saved. Close thread gg

distant jolt
#

nuke itself has other issues and we agree on them

#

because meme outside of rush

pure crypt
#

Or should I make a YouTube vid how to que a anti? šŸ„²

frank night
#

I'm generally against most game design that turns RTS into a coinflip/ literal rock-paper- scissors (that is to say, win is based on random strat choice with no game state information), and many of the counters to a nuke rush require precisely that. IF you can pull them off, it's because you pumped resources into them before you knew that was a good choice to make.

thin aspen
#

Well said. Nuke rushes being powerful enough that they require informationless bad decision making is imba

pure crypt
#

Isn't that with anything you do in the game tho?

thin aspen
#

No, because everything else has reasonable counterplay and interaction that is not simple tech and resource check

distant jolt
pure crypt
thin aspen
#

Static aa is a great example actually!

pure crypt
#

Or the fact that Thors have 2 ways to paralyze shit

thin aspen
#

Because air is inherently non interactive, so there are efficient tools to counter it, provided you prepare, at any time! If you don't need aa it's a waste, but if you do, it is always efficient and effective and accessible

frank night
#

like spybot, let's time it: get a t2 fac up, walk the spybot, sight the nuke, build and distribute the anti in response. Dont base it on being psychic, base it on actual responding to information. If t2 + spybot + walk + sight + anti-build + stock anti- missle > nuke build time, then it's not even a theoretical counter, and that's assuming a spybot doesn't run into some unit on the way or face any opposition and that you already know where the nuke is.

pure crypt
#

I'm also pretty sure if you stun the nuke while it's firing it needs to restart the launch thing

thin aspen
#

The downside to static aa is that it costs resources which may be, and usually are, wasted. Antinuke is theoretically the same. However antinuke is often inaccessible when it is needed

pure crypt
distant jolt
#

I don't even understand why we're having this conversation, you know precisely well how nuke rush is imba when teamwork protects it, because enemy team cannot scout it and thus their only option is to make a guess on should they rush anti or not. already there is an issue here imo, because I feel you should not be in this situation at all considering the impact a nuke can have. but let's assume it's OK => if you guessed correctly, you stop the nuke gg, but you had to invest a crazy amount of energy and buildpower into the antis to protect critical bases, and again since it's a proper coordinated nuke rush it means you needed to do at 9-11m, hence it was very costly. then the nuker can decide to either nuke front porc or just reclaim their nuke and transition to regular eco, whereas you can't reclaim your antis => again the investment lies on your end and nuke team is on the winning side of the gamble.

#

the issue is only that nuke team bears little risks for high rewards

#

whereas defending team bears high risk for little rewards

#

and imo this disbalance should not be possible for a nuke rush

#

and I also know we agree that nuke is a meme outside of rushes, it would probably be better to just rework nuke into proper game ending lolcannon grade stuff, but if we aren't doing that then nuke rush still needs addressing somehow imo

frank night
# pure crypt Isn't that with anything you do in the game tho?

no, scouting, radars, defense, time, cost, exist for a reason. true it is not a full information game like chess, but that's not the same as saying "here's one strat: if I choose it at game start i win, unless you choose the counter strat based on no information. If you choose the counter strat and I didn't choose the nuke, then you'll probably lose." rushing ticks is a rush strategy, but it's countered by commander in base or an llt, and both teams have choices that don't end the game, give them relative opportunity cost choices, and don't inherently individually end the game on success/failure. plus units have travel time and can only be in one place at a time. a nuke, from a defense/strategy point of view projects force everywhere on the map, does so without physical exposure of its body and its travel time approaches 0 and detection time is a small window and it sits in the deepest recesses of the enemy's base rather than exposure or movement into enemy terroritory.

distant jolt
#

it's quite telling that the only times I've seen a proper team coordinated nuke rush be fully countered (not delayed / mitigated) are:

  • when we know before the game starts that Crouxy / TArules / Black is on the other team and we need to bomb them at 8m, so we have 1 air dedicated player that focuses on doing that as soon as we confirm they are in a techer spot
  • when a mobile anti was blind rushed by a t2 techer and the nuker decided to blind nuke on that spot

outside of that there were situations where the nuke rush was spotted and antis started to be made in reaction, but they're too late or only protect the techers, and then again we end up in the situation where the nuker has agency to nuke elsewhere or reclaim nuke (or both), putting the advantage of the investment on their side again. basically as said above it should not be the case that to protect against proper nuke rushes the defending team basically needs to blind rush antis...

frank night
#

in truth, for the record, if you do successfully counter the nuke rush, it isn't "you win": it's more like, "well now we're back to playing the game, and we might be at a slight eco disadvantage"

elder copper
#

lol I think I stumbled upon sky's nuke replay on accident and it is such a meme replay. sky got fed throughout the entire thing and had op YEP taking 2 backline spots, all of this while the other team just played a normal game without coordination, and scouted sky only once, before he built nuke, and it wasnt impossible to scout again because the south had no fig screen. idk but using this as an example is not that great because most people never play like this, but teamwork should be rewarded anyway. usually if you are nuke rushing you might just get t2 from the other techer or some scouting later on and that's all the help you get. they would probably get the same effect if they fed YEP to get like 5 liches to manually nuke everyone, so nerf liche too? even bombers would have worked because monkey was still building up to fig screen

opal willow
#

On glitters you only need 2 antis. Itā€™s way cheaper to counter nukes than to go nukes

charred swift
#

Yes sabu and that's why nuke rush is less common there

#

It's when you need 4-6 that it becomes an issue

limber depot
#

Would it make sense to have the nuke cost depend on the number of opponents?
Typically at best an anti can cover 3 players. Typically the most easily accessible option is to build an anti that only give full cover to 1 player.
So in a 8v8 (or 16v16) the cost equation is different than in a 1v1 or 4v4.

opal willow
#

So is it actually a nuke problem or map and player dependent

elder copper
#

you can nuke rush on bismuth too, you just need someone that will 1v2 for you, they are going to do it with almost double resources because they are going to take your front mexes

gusty wasp
opal willow
#

Letā€™s see how big of a problem nuke rushing is in the tournament

#

It should be a good indicator

frank night
#

most of this discussion is presumably for 8 v 8s or increases likelihood as we approach such: nuke rushing (obviously) isn't an issue in 1 v 1 or 2 v 2

#

I don't know if it is an issue for 4 v 4, I'm leaning towards no, but I'm not ideological on it and am happy to be shown otherwise

#

presumably that's because reasonable players can (and will) contest a base in < 10 mins if you're not putting units on the field in those smaller game modes

limber depot
frank night
#

choke points, base access, travel distance between teams, and player density presumably also play into the desirability/strategy of nuke rushing, but anyway...

opal willow
#

So the issue is actually not with the nuke but the amount of players and the map

#

If one day we have 32v32 players should we balance nukes around that? I say this because you folks donā€™t even consider small games

#

Imagine having a t1 antinuke in a 1v1

#

Pointless to get a nuke

gusty wasp
#

if a 1v1 is decided by nuke, 99% of the time the nuked player will be t2

spiral junco
#

I dont think nuke rush happens that often in smaller games

gusty wasp
#

if nuke is changed a bit, it wont ruin any kind of small games

spiral junco
#

and for a reason

gusty wasp
#

if youd hypothetically see less nukes in small games, i dont see how thatd be a problem no matter what. if its an issue in larger games, there isnt that much talk needed abt small games

mighty jasper
#

Well I just got hit with a nuke at 13 minutes (thanks @spiral junco), I think that really cements the problem. I could have theoretically gotten anti in time, but it would have been impossible to cover the whole team. Being able to one-click delete a player from the other team at 13 minutes is pretty insane. In order to counter it the techers on the team that's being nuked need to know in advance, and they need to dedicated their entire tech eco into building anti

opal willow
#

No one would even build nukes in small games in the first place

opal willow
mighty jasper
#

the nuke player can simply reclaim afterwards and end up way ahead of the techers on the other team as a result

#

ATG

gusty wasp
mighty jasper
#

and actually due to the size of the map the nuke deleted 2 players at once

opal willow
#

Glitters only needs 2 antis to cover

mighty jasper
#

yeah read my post genius

gusty wasp
#

remember if nuke is rarer, ppl want to build anti less too

#

so nuke can become more appealing due to that

mighty jasper
#

i said its counterable but only if the techers dedicate all of their eco to antis

#

while the other team gets 9k metal to play with after the first nuke

opal willow
#

Rushing anti first after fusion is the meta so whatā€™s your point

#

Itā€™s so simple to counter

#

Just do one thing

#

Donā€™t do it gets nuked

opal willow
mighty jasper
#

it's only meta because nuke rushing forces it to be. And it extremely limits the options for playstyle

#

if as a techer I want to share cons, support front, do air, anything, i risk getting nuked

opal willow
#

Could also rush bombers to counter nuke but ok

#

Yes there is no risk free play without it becoming boring

#

There is no one build to end them all

gusty wasp
mighty jasper
#

not with a 13 minute nuke

gusty wasp
#

and if u do air, maybe kill the nuke or at least see it

mighty jasper
#

means i need to have anti up by around 11 min

opal willow
#

In 8v8 usually have 2 tech spots. One air one dedicated techer

#

Doing teamwork

#

Air player buys

#

Gets air to bomb or at least scout or to get an airscreen

frank night
#

let's just all move the meta to two team nuke race so we can move on from this šŸ˜œ

limber depot
#

In a 32v32 I argue nukes should be more expensive, so I think nuke cost should scale with the number of players.

gleaming holly
#

You could make anti nuke cheaper

#

Lets say 1k metal and 10k energy? Easy to build then. If you dont, your fault. Make weaker, more expensive version you can make in T1

#

10k would probably be way too cheap, but 20-25 would be much more palatable then 38k

elder copper
#

in 32vs32 you might as well just remove com wrecks. 31 coms can self d and rush a lolcannon

gleaming holly
#

I mean, just build power alone would be issue lol

gusty wasp
#

Lol cannon so good at stopping the t1 army killing all your bases since you skipped building units

distant jolt
# opal willow If one day we have 32v32 players should we balance nukes around that? I say this...

I discussed specifically this above with the suggestion of keeping balance for 1v1 as is and having additional cost scaling with the number of additional players, so that we can adjust balance for different team sizes with different ease of access to techers' com wrecks... and yes there is no problem with nuke itself, the problem is specifically and only nuke rush in big teams (because nukes on big teams outside of rush are a meme and on smaller teams are not easily rushable)

grave holly
# opal willow Possible t1 anti would make nuke obsolete

It could be similar to how counter projectile structures exist in SC: FaF where the nukes themselves have a health bar and the defense systems have to actively target and deplete through the health of the nuke before it hits the target

#

Then thereā€™s the ability to not only have it be less strong in terms of strength, but the range with low damage capacity could permit the T1 structure to be chipped away at more easily, since theyā€™d have to be spread out to cover more space and made close to the mid and front lines as well

wind plume
#

Prevaliers are even cheaper. I mean nukes are very easy to counter right now, in my games i rarely see one hitting the ground. They're nice to have as a deterrent, but as they are now its better to just build anything else

sturdy moat
#

/s FIND ME!

gleaming holly
#

One or two is always good

#

It can take a chunk out of a push

#

Or you can try to capitalise on some units leaking trough and destroying anti

tawdry sandal
#

Right now you have to build anti-nuke for each new outpost to counter a nuke, a must-have building to counter a global attack adds nothing to the game, games be like "Look like you miss an anti-nuke in this spot, now I make a hole in your defense and win"
you don't have to make an effort like maneuvering a strategic bomber squad into the enemy base, or like in Starcraft that you need ghosts to stealth to a position and point the location of the impact for a moment, it's just build the nuke and click in the map
for real, if nukes were removed from the game what impact would have on gameplay?

gusty wasp
#

just because you can nuke a location with something, doesnt mean you win

#

but definitely the negative impact of nuke being too strong in some games, is much bigger than the impact on nukes being borderline too weak to build in another situation

shadow wigeon
#

In the other hand i would really like some re work of the anti nuke as the ones being suggested here where multiple anti ICBM instances are require to stop multiple nuclear missiles.

quartz basin
#

yes if someone launches multiple nukes you should need to think about that possibility and defend accordingly; not just build an anti and forget about it

#

lower ROF and cheaper antinuke for example would be easier to get just one but a concerted nuke attack would need more than just one

gleaming holly
#

If you are getting attacked wit nukes to the point of anti nukes failing, you should probably try to respond in some way

#

Ppl get mad when you hit them with 13 as those almost always find their target in regular games, but someone on enemy team just poured 2 lol cannons worth of resources to kill you and you didn't notice.

#

So, yeah

#

2 lolcannons suddenly turning on is usually game ender too

limber depot
ruby turret
#

I just want to add on to this, it's a very boring situation.

Backline just builds eco for 15 minutes and then nukes.

There's no real gameplay there, it's boring for the person doing it and boring for the person being nuked. But it's immensely effective so a huge number of people are doing it right now.

#

Every game now is either some poor noob getting nuked, or everyone rushing anti-nuke, which involves staring at constructors sending particles into a building instead of fighting

willow kelp
#

Increase the nuke build time in the silo by 1 minute.

dapper bramble
#

It isn't in case of nuke because it can't be assisted

#

But a minute more wont save bad team coordination and anti

spiral junco
#

Misread

molten coyote
#

So what did we come up with?

#

Anything actionable?

distant jolt
#

because in any case from the above not everybody agrees that nuke rushes are an issue, already, so... I think better to wait out for now

subtle ingot
#

Isn't the solution to stop making excuses for you to scout more? Don't tunnel vision strategic options

molten coyote
distant jolt
elder copper
#

scouting too op

#

add satellite scout unit that you can only kill with the antinuke, then rename antinuke to missile defense

#

op

solemn kestrel
#

Hot air balloon scout. Very slow and drifts with the wind.

elder copper
#

based, then the more windmills your team has the faster it moves

frank night
rose nimbus
pseudo cliff
#

I love how this thread has become "everything about nukes" thread instead of just a support/feedback thread..

grave holly
#

I think thatā€™s how nearly all the suggestions turn into emothinxD

spice pendant
#

lol threadjackers

quartz basin
tawdry sandal
#

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqW-GdtT7L4
11:30 nuke ready to hit, 1 player eco with geothermal and 4x mexs
and the commander wreckage was set to 1250 metal in the options
I have seen people do even early with some tweaks on the build or with 2 players eco togheter
at this point, the 8x8 games are like, "everybody must have t2 builder on 10 min mark stop whatever is doing and build an antinuke"
poorly compared with an (almost) global range weapon in the game, Ragnarok to build costs 63k metal and 10k energy per shot

YouTube
Drongo
Nuke Rushes Are About To Get STUPID - Beyond All Reason (BAR)

Beyond All Reason (BAR) is a free to play Real Time Strategy Game. You'll find plenty of gameplay, guides, commentary and tier lists coming up for BAR on this channel.

Check out BAR for FREE here āž¤ https://www.beyondallreason.info/
Main Channel āž¤ @AussieDrongo

ā–¶ Play video
gleaming holly
#

Seems ok to me?

#

He was completely defenseless for 12 min

#

No scout or attack from enemy

#

shrugs

#

My normal opening on this map would have him dead 6 min in

woven musk
#

Nukes are problematic because it's very binary

#

There's no middle ground, there's no push and pull, there's no strategy (beyond scouting maybe). It's just "did I get you before you got anti up or not"

#

In general that's very hard to make a good balance in a game because of that binary nature. Make nukes too slow, and no one ever uses them because anti nukes are so easy now. Vice versa, and everyone is nuking everyone

#

Call me crazy but I actually think they're not a good mechanic for this type of game and the game wouldn't suffer if they were completely removed. But on the topic of the thread, I do think nukes are a bit too easy. Some higher metal cost and some more BP to build the silo could be good.

#

I also don't hate the idea of the computer announcing that the enemy has finished building a nuke silo (though you don't know where probably) so you get a minute to scout it and try to find it before its missile is done and maybe bomb it. That at least adds some strategy

distant jolt
#

and you can even do it faster than showcased on video btw

faint tiger
# woven musk In general that's very hard to make a good balance in a game because of that bin...

yeah, but it's a phase, it's still viable to get to certain ts for nuking and it's a valid path. i mean, nukes should be somewhat op to reward going that boring passive path, and I think nukes hitting adds to the game, even if they are op like that.

but same binary dimension usually keeps players away from nuking overtime, since people usually nuke for some time, then just move on to something else.

it's actually nice discovering nukes are strong & can't be stopped, but over the time there hasn't been a player that's just doing literally nothing else than nuking say in a months worth of games, and there's still plenty of min/max discovery with nukes.

after you can optimize the shit out of everything, the nuke rush becomes somewhat boring, and it being a binary thing, if it goes bad, team blames you, it's just not what players stick with it longterm

gusty wasp
#

To make it less binary, could make anti cheaper/faster to load but with less range

#

So you're less likely to hit the best targets but more likely to find some decent target to strike if you scout

woven musk
wintry jay
#

Nuke rushing pisses everyone off and it does not seem as common as it was maybe make the mobile nukes a little cheaper to build that would punish the chads.

wooden charm
#

enemy spend 10k metal

#

to get iiit

#

took 14 mins for it

#

so where diid ur teams 10 k m go

#

is really the question

gleaming holly
#

Into an afus ofc

gusty wasp
#

Double nuke cost, remove antinuke

gleaming holly
#

You could rush it in like 15 min still

gusty wasp
#

You could, but everyone would know it's coming

#

So you'd limit the amount of stuff you have at a single location

#

Would be... Interesting

valid gulch
#

add an intel building that detects radiation and can spot fusions/afus/nuke silos on the map (and possibly distiguqsh between them or only detect nuke silos)

rose nimbus
#

Gameplay concerns aside, I'll just say that'd be a pretty crappy fusion reactor

valid gulch
#

according to youtube videos about Fusion, most of energy is being irradiated as neutrones, so basicly gamma radiation that is best for penetrating stuff

rose nimbus
#

Neutrons are beta radiation, and (removed brain fart) along with helium ions are what you use to capture the energy from fusion reactions, you make them lose energy by heating up water in a "blanket" around the plasma chamber. If we're leaking neutrons in sufficient levels to detect them remotely then that means our future robot technologists are just as bad at efficiency as our current start-ups

#

This may or may not be a dig at a current startup which only recently had the idea to actually run monte carlo neutronics simulations only to realize their blanket is thin af

#

Sorry for the offtopic, just trying to care for realistic representation of fusion science in gaming

valid gulch
rose nimbus
#

Oh yeah, you're right, my bad lol. Too much multitasking today and I get a basic fact like this wrong.

valid gulch
#

okay i just wanted to say that for me scouting is pretty big concern regarding nuke rush... if you just make a thin line of 80 metal aas they will stop scouts....
maybe i am just greedy supcom player that got used to aa always missing fast planes and aa having no splash and scouts still giving vision as their dead model flyes towards ground...

#

maybe can inscrease scout speed or something (or leave it as it is if it is already good)
but limit cheapest aa projectile speed and projectile lifetime so basicly their effective range vs fast things will become much smaller

dapper bramble
#

that map has been nuke rushed so many times I don't know why people don't make antis after all this time

grave holly
#

Honestly people should speed rush anti nuke out first now, but Iā€™m not seeing that become a change in the meta anytime soon

#

If people actually cared and complain so much about nuke rushes, Iā€™m more concerned about their inability to adapt

dapper bramble
#

It's simpler to change the unit than to change your gameplay šŸ¤£

#

or change the map

#

Map doesn't even need to be changed, it's the only map with this feature and everyone should know it by now considering it's the most popular 8v8 map right now

grave holly
faint tiger
#

if nukes are too good, then counter is a nuke too. šŸ™‚ i wonder have there been a double knockout yet with nukes on strait?

grave holly
#

Havenā€™t seen one but it was one after the other even with anti nukes built

pure crypt
valid gulch
#

next step is to ask someone for a transport to move nanos away from base so you can build nuke away from base so when you get nuked you will still have the nuke

warm dagger
#

Strait has 15 energy wind average (stronger than fusions). 10 metal per spot (among the strongest on popular maps), and essentially unlimited E reclaim through trees (reliable to compliment wind).
And middle is very easy to porc. This leads to a looooot of viable build options, of course including nuke.

It's very normal to have timings in RTS' that are known and have to be matched, then there's a meta of, how much can I sacrifice to beat the premptive timing? This is standard build order stuff.
The build order posted above? Honestly is a terrible nuke rush, for any goal other than beating a backline anti timing that's known.
At 11:30 into the game, this person who's done nothing other than launch 1 nuke, has the lowest effective eco in the game of all 16 players. Delaying your nuke 30 seconds in this case could nearly double his effective economy. Doing something as fast as possible is only smart to beat known timings. Watch 20 strait replays, find the timing distribution of anti nukes, % of games bombed, % of games scouted, % of games where you just lose middle (and that build has middle 3vs4). % of games where you're hit with hovers, amphib, or seaplanes by 12 minutes also.

Honestly, the wind is strong enough using the geo spot to nuke rush is just risking your front line. You'll only be 30s behind nuke rushing from back line, while having your top eco front player able to actually help.

Also, we should see 2x player 2x nuke rushes honestly. You would be able to break the first antinuke and auto win the game after. šŸ˜Ž

pure crypt
#

Then you play 6v8 lol

proud goblet
#

Front players can't build anti in time on certain maps, you have 0 chance of stopping nukes, how is this good gameplay? Nuke player then has very strong eco and can go into t3 even.

rose nimbus
proud goblet
#

Surely indeed yes

grave holly
#

Yeah nukes are nerfed, nukes need a bigger damage radius to compensate for expense

gleaming holly
#

Double the price, double the radius

#

For proper nuke experience

#

T3 nuke. 30k metal buying price. Flies in, your anti nuke gets 1 chance on shooting it down as a missile (needs 3 hits) before it splits into 7 warheads, which each needs to be targeted by anti nuke. Those scatter and pepper the area in nuclear inferno

#

As for Armada variant, same price, same 3 hits needed to take down, EMPs everything in massive area for 40s

grave holly
#

Now Iā€™m just thinking Armada is more the evil faction because the nasty levels of destruction that you can give out with EMP, Thors, Sharpshooters and Marauders

#

The emp silos alone make for incredible destructive potential once that anti nuke silo gets shut down

grave holly
warm dagger
balmy brook
#

@distant jolt

distant jolt
#

@balmy brook ?

limber depot
#

I think a large majority of players would enjoy the game more if early (<20 min) nukes in 8v8 were nerfed. I think we can leave it to the devs on exactly how to do that since there are endless possibilities to improve it. Doesn't have to be a huge change. Judging from the number of comments, other than the com update, this is what players most seem to care about.
Would be nice to get a comment from @quasi escarp or some other dev what their thoughts on nukes are.

quartz basin
#

simply slowing it down because it is un-dynamic is not the right approach- how about make it more dynamic instead

gleaming holly
#

Nor really.
It punishes lazy play.
Scout more.
No afus rushes.

woven musk
#

Again I come back with the important point: nukes are too binary. Yes, you can scout them, but no matter what you do or don't do, it either hits to massive effect, or it doesn't. You get the anti up, or you don't. It's too swingy. And that intrinsically tends to be unfun in games (see mass land destruction in magic the gathering)

#

Once you get antis, usually the nuke war is over and it's pointless from there.

#

So nukes are really a mini game, played within the main game, and are a race.

#

I don't think that style of gameplay meshes well with armies and traditional defenses vs assaults and such

#

I don't even really know which side of the argument I stand on because it's more like. "nukes need a big rework, not a simple nerf (or buff)"

thin aspen
#

I really don't think people are thinking about how much of a pain it would be if you had to actually interact with nukes defensively

grave holly
#

I like nukes as they are but I mean, well Iā€™ve already said everything from my personal view. Got nothing else.

pine current
#

Still think we need a nuclear submarine pepeyep

quartz basin
#

a strategic range missile submarine is actually a really good idea, maybe using a tac nuke type weapon rather than a full-on nuke that can be blocked by anti- as a T2 shore bombardment weapon it would have a lot more presence despite doing less actual damage than a flagship

coarse tree
#

we've already got the missile ship? no?

grave holly
pine current
#

yeah the missile ship outranges pulsars and is good to spam bases. Nuclear subs should be entirely stealthy/cloakable unless from, say, sub killers like Barracudas, and with a huge range.

#

but it will only be interesting on maps made for it imo

eternal stream
#

Nukes would be less binary if people wernt so obsessed with building hyper dense bases less than 15-20 minutes into the game

I blame nanos actually

coarse tree
#

well, arm nuke yes

#

Arm nuke often fails to kill an entire base

#

Core nuke is double the radius of arm nuke

#

with minimal damage fall off in the entire radius

toxic relic
#

core nuke is already more expensive

coarse tree
#

arm nuke is 8100m 90,000e
core nuke is 7700m 82,000e

#

the actual cost of making the nuke that the launcher fires might be a bit more but the actual launcher is somewhat cheaper

rose nimbus
coarse tree
#

I mean, core nuke is cheaper

#

xd

gleaming holly
#

It is cheaper building, but much more op

#

We need to buff arm nuke

toxic relic
#

šŸ¤¦šŸ»ā€ā™‚ļø

charred swift
#

Lel

#

Arm nuke loads far faster which is why it's the nuke of choice for nuke rushes

coarse tree
#

yeah arm nuke is significantly faster at loading

#

if your just going for quickest nuke launch arm nuke is bestr

gleaming holly
#

Pretty sure cor will have nuke ready first in a rush

#

Only subsequent nukes will load faster then if you made cor one

coarse tree
#

I dont nuke rush often, however almost everyone who does uses exclusively arm nuke

toxic relic
#

because wind turbine ecomonic bad

#

unless its a soalar only map

#

that initial 400m difference in building is only gonna cost arm like 12s

distant jolt
#

this is correct, in a nuke rush duel the arm one will always be able to shoot first. However the duel scenario is rare, so in case of a regular rush there is an argument to be made in using core when you expect to be able to hit something, especially when multiple bases are close

#

it also depends on who you want to shoot, if you are against 1 op players and many lobsters, and you expect the op player to be in eco position, then rushing with arm may be better so you can try to rush before the anti is done

#

whereas core the window is smaller

toxic relic
#

i mean... his arguement is core nuke is op because faster and cheaper >_>?

#

which is both wrong in facts...

gleaming holly
toxic relic
#

the actual number is a bit off but its around there

thin aspen
#

i think antis are 90 each

onyx thicket
#

the thing about arm nuke rush is getting the first nuke loaded followed by getting nuke 2 50% done

solemn kestrel
#

Being able to launch that second nuke as the enemy is panic building anti-nukes (and before they are loaded) is very useful

coarse tree
#

advantage of core nuke is it able to kill 2 bases at once depending on map

#

also far better against units on the frontline due to increased radius

#

In my opinion the nukes are balanced out

#

core and arm nukes are about equal

pure crypt
#

If the map is small core nuke is better (glitters) if map is big arm is best (DSDR)

#

If you know how to hunt down anti core is superior in any way

coarse tree
#

I also agree with you, I prefer core nuke personally and I do believe it to be slightly better for how I tend to play

#

Instead of rushing to nuke the best player on the enemy team I might nuke somewhat later, either disabling anti or hitting 2 of the lesser players at the same time

#

On a map like DSDR that is so small and has such low economy, arm nuke is probably best

#

1-2 anti cover the entire side on DSDR so your racing the anti

#

*if placed in between the bases

toxic relic
#

Arm nuke silo (stock pile timing 120.5s) limited by metal 8.3m/s drain
Core nuke silo (stock pile timing 180.8s) limited by metal 8.3m/s drain

anti nuke loads in 90s.. (i haven't reverify the land mobile anti nuke of each faction will update)

pseudo cliff
#

so 2/3 nukes:1 anti nuke.. that a good reference.. thanks.

warm shard
#

In a perfect world you'd scout the nuke silo and plan accordingly

#

But yeah imo they do seem a little quick/cheap

#

But my frame of reference is SupCom, where they are more like a t4 building

#

Late game win condition

#

atm they seem more like a mid game win condition

#

And if 1 person builds a nuke silo, that forces the other team to make 3-4+ anti-nuke in response

#

To get full team coverage

#

Greatly increase the cost of both nuke/anti-nuke and give anti-nuke anti-tac to compensate? Idk shrug

warm shard
#

I just know it feels bad man when you're frontlining and get nuked 10-15 minutes into the game. :x

grave holly
#

Thatā€™s actually not a bad thought, I never thought that nuking a front liner would prove an effective strategy but that could be useful for making sides flip quickly

red berry
gusty wasp
#

Too strong or not, nukes just aren't that interesting,

warm shard
gleaming holly
#

You can use nukes surgically to kill armies

#

1 nuke is a good tool to have

valid gulch
#

jags often need support so nuking all the antiair and antiswarm and rezbots might be worth it

gleaming holly
#

You nuke spam so comm can dgun it

quartz anchor
#

Usually there are also gaps in the antinuke coverage, sometimes antis get killed in raids, nukes are imo pretty undervalued by most players

pure crypt
#

Buff nukes, nerf anti. It's unplayable right now pepeFeelsBadMan

limber depot
red berry
#

nothing relating to nukes afaict. 1v1 antinukes are fine, 8v8 they favour nukes, massively. even the possibility of nukes forces a huge tax from players who often can't afford to, if they're even t2 yet, let alone with t2 econ

pure crypt
rich ibex
#

Nukes are quite one-dimensional in their current form, and I think that's my big problem with them. You put an explosion anywhere on the map unless somebody has the can't-explode-here building. I'm not sure how but I'd love to see some more nuance with strategic missiles.

Nukes are already so braindead-easy to defend against that they're basically micro-intensive point defense towers after 20 minutes. I really don't know how to fix it in a satisfying way but I'll keep thinking about it.

pure crypt
#

Remove anti, make nuke silo 30k metal and the silo explodes with no wreck when you fire gg... and make it so when you fuel the nuke it needs the same amount of e when you fire a lol can or some shit

gleaming holly
#

Base delete option with no counterplay

#

What could go wrong

#

Also, in higher lvl play its used mainly against armies

#

So you would really make it one dimensional thing

#

Rush nuke, kill enemy eco player, make t3 yourself, gg

quartz anchor
#

I think the problem with nuke lies in being a strong blind strategy with a huge payoff, but that problem also applies to ultra quick marauder rushes(I know I know itā€™s a strait tactic) and basically it stems from scouting issues. If we had a nice cheap way to scout (think observer or scan from StarCraft) we could encourage a more reactive play in such environment we could even further buff the antinuke range ( so the eco player could reactively defend his team) while at the same time increasing its cost to discourage building it in the blind.

warm shard
#

Been nuked on Strait before 11 minutes. Feels bad man. Still t1 on the front lines and nukes flying.

red berry
#

11 is extreme and needs 2 eco players cooperating, more usual rush is 14 or so, which is still far too soon for most players to be realistically defended

gleaming holly
#

12 min you should have anti up on front and back on strait

#

Or at least start and be done within minute if you wanna be risky

gusty wasp
#

air raid is somewhere in between, gives you a little time to react still when you see it coming but way less than the marauder

quartz anchor
sage harness
#

i feel like a source of scouting reliable enough and cheap enough to know when you can skip out on antinuke would massively change the game on a fundamental level

warm shard
#

So: nukes can come out too early for team games because anti-nuke is expensive to access, but they are useless in long games because its too hard to overwhelm anti-nuke ?

#

Could just be an issue with anti-nuke.

#

And/Or an issue with accessing T2.

#

put mobile anti-nuke in Hover? xD

#

Make anti-nuke not as rapid-fire ?

#

increase price on nuke + antinuke facilities. Increase nuke damage at epicenter. introduce Supersonic Spyplane, more expensive, fast enough to evade aa and get into backline, but slow turning/acceleration so likely dies when it has to turn around at edge of map.

just throwing speghetti at the wall to see what sticks

sage harness
#

if you know the enemy is nuking, anti-nuke extremely easily pays for itself. if you're frontlining, don't know if the enemy is nuking, and need to do a coin-toss on whether you're going to be nuked, it's expensive enough to feel really bad if you rush it and a nuke doesn't come, and obviously even worse if you don't make it and a nuke does come. Unless someone else already got nuked, or you know an enemy really likes nuking it's generally a complete toss-up on any map with an eco player

gleaming holly
#

You can just build up your base in a way that wont die to a single nuke

#

Unless its cor nuke

#

Then RIP you

warm shard
#

nuke silo is like x5 the metal cost of anti-nuk, but only x2 the energy cost (~40k vs 80k ; 40k e is over 500m converted cost)

#

Could make nuke silo e cost a similar x5 ratio

#

would be like a 1500+m converted cost tax

sage harness
#

"only" half your base dead to an arm nuke still feels not far from being completely dead, particularly if things are even remotely close economically in your lane before that

gleaming holly
#

If things are close after a nuke rush...

#

Yee, I feel for your team

warm shard
#

iirc, in Supreme Commander, nukes/anti-nukes were a lot more expensive in general, and had to go up a whole 'nother tech level first before t3 engi could build them. took hella long to get one. Also, anti-nuke could only shoot one countermeasure in a time period; two nukes launching simultaniously would defeat a single anti-nuke.

sage harness
#

i just meant close between you and your lane opponent. sure, a nuke rush only killing half of a frontliner's base is basically the nuker throwing the game, but being the one that got hit still feels terrible as your lane crumbles until the team starts providing aid

#

i'm not making an argument about game balance. numerically, antinukes are super op, and nukes are pretty much meme tier in most situations. that doesn't make the interaction fun

shadow wigeon
#

for me particularly i would like to have at least 3 nuke options size from silo

first option is the default (replace the current one) and uses the same resources but the warhead explosion is like lich (aircraft t2 armada) with 1/3 the range today we have

2nd option 2x aoe size, 2x more resources (2x more than the default today), 1/2 the current range

3rd 3x explosion aoe size, 3x more resources, with the range we have today

that would be a nerf but at the same time give more options šŸ˜„

sage harness
#

Wouldn't 1/3 current range be "still the entirety of most maps"?

sage harness
#

Some change which makes nukes more interesting to interact with from both sides would be far more desirable than just a straight buff or nerf to either nuke or antinuke imo, but i don't have any of my own ideas on how to approach that

red berry
pure crypt
#

buff nuke nerf anti, its unplayable atm

red berry
pure crypt
#

you can also scout if they make a nuke or not

red berry
#

and if there is a nukerush, first thing you know is your eco or geo are gone

#

sometimes yes

pure crypt
#

or attack the one building the nuke

red berry
#

scouts not that easy to get in always

pure crypt
#

or win the 8v7

red berry
#

in theory yes

sage harness
#

Row, nuke is unplayable atm because people know vs you they need to rush anti

pure crypt
#

its funny how the newer players (noobs) complain about nuke when if you play with semi decent players its impossible to get a nuke in

pure crypt
sage harness
#

Because if a known nuke-rusher isn't in the game, people try to skimp out on anti more/for longer, so an unknown player nuke rushes, it's more likely to work

pure crypt
#

its like forgetting making half your mexes and then complain your opponent has more metal lol

sage harness
#

I'm not arguing for a nuke nerf

#

I just think the interaction of nukes and antis, aside from things like emp'ing antis to allow a nuke through, aren't fun to interact with

#

#1091846974828974210 message

pure crypt
#

It is fun. its a minigame in itself. Do they have anti yes/no? how can i kill it? Empbot? Lprc? Bombers? Maybe a emplauncer? Can i get the Emplauncer in range? Maybe 100ticks that runaround the porc and only focus the anti because killing a fusion takes to much time...

#

Its the exact same with a lol can. do you attack the lolcan when you scout it or do you build 1000 shields, maybe emp spam it

sage harness
#

honestly, if i knew there was going to be a nuke rush every game, or there was a consistent way of scouting/knowing a nuke was coming at some point, i'd be fine with anti being nerfed substantially. it just feels really bad to need to rush it out as a precaution when oftentimes there's no nuke made, and if neither team nukes, the team that made antis will be noticeably behind

red berry
#

the team that makes antis IS behind. even threat of a nuke is a huge tax

#

to the point an optimal play is nuke rush until it's scouted, then eat the fecker and go afus instead

sage harness
#

the team that makes antis is way ahead if they actually catch a nuke with one

red berry
#

total cost to all players I don't think they are, financially. they're just not dead.

#

one player on opp team is relatively behind their opposite number though, yes

sage harness
#

if by "relatively behind" you mean "their eco player has a small fraction of the income of their counterpart on the opposing team" then yes

red berry
#

but all other players are eco behind their counterparts, seas especially suffer having to rush antis, they rarely have good land econ then

#

given on strait it's usually the geo player, if the opposite geo player then capitalises, intheory yes that's a huge lopside that should win

sage harness
#

an anti+1 1 stockpile is <1/5 the price of even an arm nuke silo + 1 nuke. unless your team needs >5 antis rushed before a nuke comes, that's a huge advantage. whatever investment your opponent made in a nuke, a backliner who made like 2 antis for the team will be able to do a ton with the remaining resources saved

red berry
#

yes, if it's made by someone who can afford to. but if you have to rush anti before even getting t2 mexes up, let alone fusion, that cripples you

#

again speaking from sea player perspective, t2 cons are not always prompt, or extant at all

sage harness
#

again, unless your eco player is incompetent, they will only need to dedicate a small portion of their savings on not making anti to compensate for the frontliner's setback. it just feels bad as the frontliner, even though your team just gained an advantage

red berry
#

this is also assuming a nuke existed at all. you can't always scout them so have to assume

sage harness
#

as previously stated, that's the problematic part of the situation

red berry
#

I see your point though, just wish that eco/geo players treated seas as a front too

sage harness
#

anti-nuke is very op if a nuke is coming, and a significant waste of resources if a nuke isn't coming

sage harness
red berry
#

if you're lucky you have t2 con given on land so you can upgrade econ, but not always, and rolling your own t2 is a huge metalsink you can rarely afford

#

again, strait bad map example, but geo sea with a carrier cannot cover their land too

#

the carrier also needs to travel with the fleet, as that is a prime nuke target also

#

carrier antis are actually pretty affordable though, assuming t2 navy extant at all

sage harness
#

carriers are cost-effective sources of energy production even if you don't use them for anything else

red berry
#

generally if I don't have t2 navy and hear a nuke launching, I pull my boats back

#

and that has saved their collective metal arses many a time

red berry
sage harness
#

only moderately worse than naval fusions, and a good stepping stone toward having the e production to afford naval fusions

#

and again, if it's a nuke rush in particular, and navy gets nuked, the land players on the nuked team are pretty much guaranteed a win if they all start pushing unless the game was already basically over

red berry
#

naval fusions are sub par themselves vs land equivalent iirc, certainly much worse than afus

#

can't see them on the efficiency spreadsheet though

#

so I may be mistaken on that. I know naval t2 econs are a tiny bit better than land t2 econs

#

sea power gen usually worse than land in all cases though

sage harness
#

sea eco sucks compared to land eco, but that doesn't change the fact that you're sacrificing almost nothing by building 2-3 aircraft carriers, because they provide relevant value beyond their anti-nuke function

red berry
#

true, yes. I do question why sea eco is so bad as it's so bloody fragile

#

can't shield it, and raidable by boats, planes, and hovers, really easily

#

it's also almost always away from the figwall

#

plus you'd think watercooling an efficiency advantage

sage harness
red berry
#

ah yes sorry. sea eco is a thorn in my side also, easy to ramble about

shadow wigeon
# sage harness Wouldn't 1/3 current range be "still the entirety of most maps"?

yes u are right, 72k range is too much i think
i would make it 4k first option, 8k and 12k range the biggest one (what i mention to require 3x more resources to be built)

and if the game engine was flexible enough i would make it require an additional new sparse radioactive resource from the map (and highly disputed places)

pure crypt