Intrusion Countermeasure System & Targeting Facility

[Broker]

Hello everyone.
What is it? how its works?

[PicassoCT]

There are flares.. deflecting rockets

There are jKs Lasors defending everything that has the option.

There are anti-nuke systems.

[FireStorm_]

Targeting Facility

Targeting facility (enhanced radar targeting): This is not a very expensive building and will increase the accuracy of your units then shooting guided by radar. Its especially useful then you got Long range artillery units like the BB (Big Bertha). Building more of them will increase accuracy, although there is probably a point where it will stop making effect due to perfect accuracy.

I'm not sure about this but I believe it increases more if you build more. About 3 of them and your units can hit moving targets spot on.

Intrusion countermeasure

Tracer (intrusion countermeasure system): This device detects moving ground enemy units inside its detection range, even if they are stealthy or cloaked, but it can only keep track of then while they are moving, won't show them on radar, and your units wont react automatically. Not very expensive (or useful :) ).

Hope that helps

[Beherith]

Both are obscenely useful and incredibly cheap.
Targeting facilities are essential for artillery and other long range units. Also, they provide enhanced targeting for your entire team :)
Tracers are great against spies, snipers, and cloakable tanks.

[jamerlan]

This is interesting question: how much targeting facilities is enough for example for snipers. If I build only 1 targeting, how much it increases accuracy.

[klapmongool]

This is interesting question: how much targeting facilities is enough for example for snipers. If I build only 1 targeting, how much it increases accuracy.

Hmm interesting question. I never considered it a possibility that snipers would hit radar dots with targetting facilities.. But I guess that would work. In the past people reported that 4 targetting facilities would reduce the radar wobble enough to get near 100% hits with morties. Can't test myself atm, can you?

[jamerlan]

Can't test myself atm, can you?

I think that better to find how it works in code

[Jools]

Can't test myself atm, can you?

I think that better to find how it works in code

That statement is so Cartesian. But it is equally valid to gather evidence from empiric experiments.

[SinbadEV]

Can't test myself atm, can you?

I think that better to find how it works in code

That statement is so Cartesian. But it is equally valid to gather evidence from empiric experiments.

Code = Learn to read code, find the parts of the code that work together to bring about this behaviour, do lot's of math to work out how it all comes together, assess the various units that could interact in this way and determine how many would be required to get the desired result.

Test = Load spring, build some units, see if it works.

[PicassoCT]

get hit over the head by abma and kloot for comiting atrocities into repositys..

[Kapytii]

Why does the targeting fac benefit the whole team? Those who dont care to figure out what it does/remember to build/care to build should not benefit from them. One more tactical thing to remember to build, too bad for the absent minded who forget because the benefit is quite large. Or does this shared benefit have some meaning my brain cant figure out? Easier to kill scout spam(thats not done via radar dots much)?

[Johannes]

Why does the targeting fac benefit the whole team? Those who dont care to figure out what it does/remember to build/care to build should not benefit from them. One more tactical thing to remember to build, too bad for the absent minded who forget because the benefit is quite large. Or does this shared benefit have some meaning my brain cant figure out? Easier to kill scout spam(thats not done via radar dots much)?

Because not benefitting the whole team would be an anomaly. Everything else you do benefits the whole team - you are free to share resources, assist ally labs, share units too, you see allied LOS/radar and so on... The only difference is who is in control of this or that, only exception that I can think of is how each player has his own storage that's not bound into any unit. Other than that little thing everything's interchangeable between teams. If targetfacility was an individual player thing, it'd introduce some weird scenarios - possible need to trade the facility ownership at times, giving away units so they can aim better... Why not keep it simple when there's no counter anyway about whose m, e, or nanopower the facility was made with anyway.


This is of course different compared to many RTS's where each player must unlock researches individually, cannot trade or only do it at a cost, or where they must unlock tech before they share LOS and so on. But BA is not like that.

[very_bad_soldier]

Because not benefitting the whole team would be an anomaly. Everything else you do benefits the whole team - you are free to share resources, assist ally labs, share units too, you see allied LOS/radar and so on... The only difference is who is in control of this or that, only exception that I can think of is how each player has his own storage that's not bound into any unit. Other than that little thing everything's interchangeable between teams.

Correct me when I am wrong but actually nothing else in BA enhances the whole team globally like targeting facs do. Stuff is usually restricted by range or something. Neither radar nor antinukes affect globablly EVERYTHING.
The concept of the global targeting facilities is quite a unique mechanism you dont find again in BA. I also feel it is a bit odd.
You really cant compare that mechanism to being able to share units/resources to allies or assisting other allies labs.

Its also a balance problem cause it has a bigger impact on bigger games. Imagine a 12v12 game where ONE player builds 3 targeting facilities.

If targetfacility was an individual player thing, it'd introduce some weird scenarios - possible need to trade the facility ownership at times, giving away units so they can aim better....

How is that weird? You would not expect a fusion reactor to produce +1000e for every player in your team either, would you? You also need to trade it. I admit its not exactly the same tho but for me it feels similar.

[Johannes]

Correct me when I am wrong but actually nothing else in BA enhances the whole team globally like targeting facs do. Stuff is usually restricted by range or something. Neither radar nor antinukes affect globablly EVERYTHING.
The concept of the global targeting facilities is quite a unique mechanism you dont find again in BA. I also feel it is a bit odd.
You really cant compare that mechanism to being able to share units/resources to allies or assisting other allies labs.

Yes, it is an anomaly, there's nothing in the game that enhances all units globally like that. But the global effect is the anomaly, not that that it's team agnostic - antis don't care who's the player targeted, and radars share their info to all of the team. Being team agnostic is the norm.

Let's put it this way, no unit in the game changes its abilities depending on who in your team owns it. If you want to tone down the effect, a way more in line with the rest of the game game would be to give targeting facility a radius where it affects, for example.

Its also a balance problem cause it has a bigger impact on bigger games. Imagine a 12v12 game where ONE player builds 3 targeting facilities.

It's not about the amount of teams but about the amount of units it affects.
If a 1v1 on DSD gets into super late game, single facilities will matter much more than in a 12v12 duck game. Team size ofc correlates with length - but that should be inconsequential.

If targetfacility was an individual player thing, it'd introduce some weird scenarios - possible need to trade the facility ownership at times, giving away units so they can aim better....

How is that weird? You would not expect a fusion reactor to produce +1000e for every player in your team either, would you? You also need to trade it. I admit its not exactly the same tho but for me it feels similar.

A fusion produces 1000e for the whole team, to be distributed by the person controlling it. Its output doesn't depend on the number of players in a team, likewise a targeting facility should not change its behavior whether its affecting just me with 500 units, or a team of five with 100 units each. Otherwise things get balanced in a pretty weird way when looking at different teamsizes.

[very_bad_soldier]

Let's put it this way, no unit in the game changes its abilities depending on who in your team owns it. If you want to tone down the effect, a way more in line with the rest of the game game would be to give targeting facility a radius where it affects, for example.

Better put it this way: No other unit in the game has an output which is potentially infinite and unrestricted. It is always restricted by constant boundaries. For example range (i.e. radars/antinukes) or resource output (solar=20e).
I totally agree with you that giving the target fac a range restriction would bring it totally in line with all other game mechanics.

A fusion produces 1000e for the whole team, to be distributed by the person controlling it. Its output doesn't depend on the number of players in a team, likewise a targeting facility should not change its behavior whether its affecting just me with 500 units, or a team of five with 100 units each. Otherwise things get balanced in a pretty weird way when looking at different teamsizes.

Thats pretty much the point: The targeting fac actually DOES alter its "output" depending on the units on the map. All other units have a clearly defined and constant "output". Its the same as if the fusion would output +10e for every unit on the map or something which would be awkward also, right?

[klapmongool]

The logic behind the effect of targeting facilities doesn't really matter imho. It is one of the most useful units that is hardly ever built. Either keep it this way or make it worse.. I don't think there will be a serious effect on balance.

[NeonStorm]

Why not just remove targeting facilities and improve accuracy with more radars watching a unit?

e.g: radar-wobble: X / (1+X*#radars)
Adv. radars could count twice or 1.5 times, ...

Or targeting facilities could double the anti-wobble effect for radars, limited to X radars - or X/2 adv.radars, prefering close/adv. radars, etc.

[Johannes]

Why not just remove targeting facilities and improve accuracy with more radars watching a unit?

e.g: radar-wobble: X / (1+X*#radars)
Adv. radars could count twice or 1.5 times, ...

Potential issue with that is that you can build radars much earlier than targ facilities.

So it gets to affect the t1 battles with rockos, janus etc. where having spotters for LOS is currently a critical thing.

[NeonStorm]

you can also build jammers.

or could make only adv. radars working together.

[Neddie]

Of course, then you might want to reprice the Juno and the Jammers, which is not necessarily a bad thing, you're just shaking up a segment of play.