Nukes already do affect everyone the same. Option 2 would remove the ability to match the ETA of a nuke for both sides, right now both sides are already treated the same. Nukes are cheap to fire and spammed already, Option 2 would increase the spammability of nukes while decreasing the ways you can use them in actual fighting. This, of course, raises the annoying aspects of nukes while reducing their usefulness.


Every move having a counter is good game design. You want players to be forced to make choices, and it is usually best to have more than just two choices as well. You don’t want to overwhelm the player, but it’s best if he is given the chance to respond to a situation in several ways, especially for a strategy game. That’s why ions are here to counter nukes… so that a player can decide if he wants to dodge a nuke, let it hit, or ion it. Just letting it hit or dodging it makes a player feel helpless and annoyed at having to just dodge every time, which is not how you want to make your players feel in a strategy game, you want them to feel in control.


Why do I feel like you always simply post a disagreeing view to mine?

Well like I said, we gotta understand the two options and purely think of it as a situation happening to you, and see how you would have liked to counter the problem. Option 2 makes you helpless and makes it even more difficult to attack. Already defense is easier.

This thread is going exactly how I thought it would. Y'all need to stop creating arguments and read the ones already posted. There's plenty of good points to review and consider when you're casting your vote.

Actually Kevin that post was not meant to be submitted yet.
"Why do I feel like you always simply post a disagreeing view to mine?" Honestly, I do not agree with you on this issue. Would you rather me not voice my perspective and just go with yours? Wait, don't answer that

We have differences of opinion, neither right or wrong they just are. It is most beneficial for the community that we do have varying ideas on matters that affect the community has a whole.

I had to go back and re-read the options. Apparently the current system is not one of the options. Which I personally like. Out of the two, I still choose option two.

I do not like the idea of an alliance being able to use subs and meat shields to nuke their enemy why they just attack and receive the bounty unharmed. The nukes should not differentiate between friend or foe. This is collateral damage. I do however like the idea of landing same eta to avoid harm, even if the defending alliance leaves and turns around, I would say that is a good tactic. Obviously they could avoid the nuke. Instead they are countering it.

Back in the day when two player's attack one colony and eta same time, they did not hurt each other. Now, the colony is attacked first and then they fight each other. I am wondering why they stopped that and if that could be applied here.

Option 1 is closer to the current system than Option 2.

Option 2 keeps the bug where a nuke you can't ion can hurt you, along with taking out the ability to match ETA with a nuke to an outpost, you would have to be 1 tick behind.

Explain why there should be a nuke I can't ion that can hurt me, and how it is balanced that a single nuke from a sub could force 200 squads to turn around because I have no option to ion it?

Nukes already don't distinguish between friend or foe. If I'm in a colony or outpost 1 tick before a nuke gets there, I get hurt. But on a colony it should be different, since when capturing a colony (unlike an outpost) I don't get "control" of it to fire ions at nukes coming at what I just "captured". That's the problem here. By capturing it I didn't gain the ability to ion incoming nukes, and thus I am hit despite taking control of the colony.

I don't see you writing why you like that idea.

I like the idea better.....

I think nukes need to be respected by everyone the same. I should not be able to have my sub (say it so) nuke an alliance while, I am immune to damage. Why would you send in ground force to attack a target when it is being bombed. You would wait until the ability of the bomb to do damage is over before you would put yourself at risk. Or at little risk as possible.

It is supposed to be something to be feared and I must take this into account when planning an attack. If I am exempt from damage because I did not fire it, then power and awe of the nuke is diminished. If one of my own alliance members fires a nuke and I land at the wrong eta then I am hit by that nuke. The nuke has no favorites. Yes my alliance member has the ability to self destruct the nuke, if he is on. So does the person who fired the nuke. Maybe my player/sub should have coordinated better.

My main point is I don't like the ability of multiple alliances being able to attack one alliance and not be affected by the ultimate weapon. And if we concede to your point of view this is what happens.

I am assuming I can not just ion any nuke is because it will most defiantly be abused. The value of the target is greater in a colony than in an op so risk needs also be greater , though I do see what your saying here.

You still don't understand how 25e turning 200 squads is bad game design. Not to mention the fact that it can force someone to coordinate 8 people online twice and have nothing to show for it. That's not helping the little guy, that's bad design. Why not remove ions altogether?

Kane I liked your idea about the middle ground and how if we could Ion nukes heading to our conquers (like we can OP's). And I think it is the answer. everyone this isn't about 1 event that happened in the past. This is about an error in the system in which the game operates. the scenario were talking about here which in it's simplest for is....

My alliance sends 500 units at a colony. (He's got crystals, we want them) ETA : 8 ticks

3 ticks pass

Alliance NOOB sends it's one and only dragon at the colony we're attacking. Dragon ETA 6 ticks Units ETA 5 ticks

2 ticks pass

I'm unable to do anything about the nuke, because it's not heading towards my OP, or colony. Or one that belongs to an ally. But I don't care it's going to be late for the fight anyway. Dragon ETA 4 ticks Units ETA 3 ticks

1 tick passes

The NOOB alliance now Attack the place where our squads were launched from. These squads are will land the same tick my units will get back. Dragon ETA 3 ticks Units ETA 2 ticks Attackers ETA 10 ticks

Now, I'm faced with an impossible choice.
I either have to turn my guys around and let my allies get destroyed by the defending alliance.
OR
Conquer him and win the fight. Knowing 1 tick after the battle the nuke will go off. Putting all of our squads (which will be 1 tick returning) down to 1HP. And upon returning to the OP/Colony they were sent from they will be promptly destroyed.



With the adaptation of Kane's solution. We follow-through with the attack, and since the following tick the Colony is our conquer, we can Ion the nuke to protect our units. I think that my be the easiest and best solution. It doesn't weaken the nuke (since you can still do it), increases activity (since you'll have to be online to save your units with a 1 tick window for a nuke), and gives the ion another practical application.

HOWEVER!

IF they just time the nuke so that it arrives the same tick as your units... You're screwed. That can't change. Everyone goes down to 1hp and probably dies in the ensuing fight. Defence wins. 1 nuke will always be able to change the face of the battle.... If used creatively and properly.

Vote changed to Option 3 in support of Kane's Idea.

maybe just add so if a nuke is going to affect you in any way, you can ion it

Even with option 2 implemented, you can still get multiple alliances to attack, just that you need to be a tick or two behind the nuke.

But that said, in a 1 on 1 fight, the defending alliance can get many more to launch nukes and defend for them, so to speak. How is that fair then?

Lastly, you could have a 100 nukes 1 tick behind each other, in which case you cant attack till all the nukes are done, which could take forever. I mean not a very practical scenario to nuke a colony that many times just to keep the attackers off, but just saying. But then again if alliances are coordinated then the nukes could get self destructed one by one, but not let the attackers follow through with an attack, making gameplay ridiculous. It would also mean you would have to take out nukes or outposts within atleast a 12 tick radius (am talking about every single nuke outpost), and along going half way across the world to conquer, that is just very biased in favor of the defending team.