Re: Harvesters should cost to rebuild period

---

@xMaksuss wrote:

In my opinion the perfect solution would be to make the second harvester cost 30 (or maybe even 40-60) for rebuilding it (rebuild=build it once it has been destroyed). What this means is that as long as you have no harvesters on the field, rebuilding one is still free. However, when you already have a harvester out and you want to rebuild the second, then it costs 30.

Idea behind this is to punish double harvester players if they keep loosing their harvesters, while leaving single harvester players unpunished. When the first harvester stays free you will also not instantly loose if your harvester dies to a rush.

This change will make tech decks viable ONLY if they can defend their harvesters. Right now even destroying about 4 isn't enough, so by adding a cost for rebuilding, players should be encouraged to build cheap units to defend the harvesters instead of ignoring attackers and saving up for tech units.

---

THIS!

---

@xMaksuss wrote:

In my opinion the perfect solution would be to make the second harvester cost 30 (or maybe even 40-60) for rebuilding it (rebuild=build it once it has been destroyed). What this means is that as long as you have no harvesters on the field, rebuilding one is still free. However, when you already have a harvester out and you want to rebuild the second, then it costs 30.

Idea behind this is to punish double harvester players if they keep loosing their harvesters, while leaving single harvester players unpunished. When the first harvester stays free you will also not instantly loose if your harvester dies to a rush.

This change will make tech decks viable ONLY if they can defend their harvesters. Right now even destroying about 4 isn't enough, so by adding a cost for rebuilding, players should be encouraged to build cheap units to defend the harvesters instead of ignoring attackers and saving up for tech units.

---

This should definitely be the solution.

Also to add insult to injury, the 2nd harvester's reload time should be twice as long compared to other units. If one wants more insult to this, it should be as long as a commander's ability!

Harvester rebuild cost is definitely needed, but it is also ridiculous, that everyone starting with double harvester can easily defend the harvester with a single unit. So rushes (jump jet/laser drone) can be easily stopped, not to mention, that if you rush a non-tech deck, you are already spent too much for nothing. Double harvester players can easily spam cheap units to stall the missile. So when you get the first blood, tech units are already ready. You cannot deal with a zone trooper standing next to a wolverine so easily. At that point, you have no chance to reach the harvesters, which are harvesting faster over time. Yes, you can say that bomber, stealth tank is a good counter or bring your own tech units, but this is not the answer if you want to play another style.

Some kind of restricted card list would also give a nice strategic change. E.g. you cannot have zone trooper and wolverine in the same deck, which would force you to strategically defend tech units with non-tech units.

EDIT: Double harvester decks do not even have to stall the first missile. Of course it is risky agains tech/tech splash decks, but aggro will be devastated anyhow.

They won’t fix the rebuild harvesters problem because that favors free to play players who are actually skilled 

---

@governer7778 wrote:

They won’t fix the rebuild harvesters problem because that favors free to play players who are actually skilled 

---

What's with your negativity? The developers won't fix it cause there's few of them to work with. Right now the problem is not the tech but the way tech players abuse the system. You could spam as many harvesters as you want to push your way with powerful tech against players who don't even know how to properly handle tech. The harvester rebuild cost is a great idea to discourage tech and only use them as a last resort. Another way is that you when you choose one tech unit, other tech units will be disabled. Like lets say there should be no disruptor combo with zone trooper or sandstorm but can be paired with titan.

Allowing a Disruptor to stand next to a Sandstorm is pathetic and not so hard to pull off if you can send endless waves of 10 - 20 cost units to defend the double harvester and delay the missiles a little bit. You have to achieve 10-20 seconds only and a techless deck can surrender.

---

@TegliG wrote:

Allowing a Disruptor to stand next to a Sandstorm is pathetic and not so hard to pull off if you can send endless waves of 10 - 20 cost units to defend the double harvester and delay the missiles a little bit. You have to achieve 10-20 seconds only and a techless deck can surrender.

---

This is why you need to control the pads and harass the harvesters so you can beat a tech deck easily. You have to force a tech user to spend and defend his harvester.

Suggestion for nerfing tech users is to provide a separate recharge timer for the harvester that's long as a commander's ability. The first harvester costs 40 instead of 60, and the 2nd one costs 80. Once you order the 1st harvester, the 2nd harvester's recharge timer starts. If you lose the 1st harvester, you can order it for free immediately. If you have 2 harvesters and you lost 1, you need to wait just like waiting to use Solomon's Ion cannon, then there's a revive price of 20 tiberium.

Pretty hard to reach the harvester if the enemy is sending an endless wave of shock troops and jump jet troopers. So despite spending an incredible amount of Tiberium to defend, he is still able to pull off a Disruptor/Sandstorm combo before the second missile goes off.

---

@TegliG wrote:

Pretty hard to reach the harvester if the enemy is sending an endless wave of shock troops and jump jet troopers. So despite spending an incredible amount of Tiberium to defend, he is still able to pull off a Disruptor/Sandstorm combo before the second missile goes off.

---

You'd have to destroy his units first. Make it apparent that you want to destroy his harvesters when in reality is that you want your enemy to waste tiberium in defending his harvesters. That's how I'd usually do it, I'd ensure that he has no units available to defend his harvester and when I'm attacking harvesters, I always bring an escort to any counter he tries to throw out.

Harassing harvesters doesn’t always work. Some players are clever. They will just stall the missiles with cheap units like rifleman or talons and let you destroy their harvesters over and over without defending them until the tech lab is out. 

Afterwards the zone trooper/ cyborg spam comes out and then you get the real heavies later parked next to them. 

The harvester harassment strategy only works on inexperienced players in leagues below Masters. The experienced ones know that just spamming harvesters that are killed over and over will still get them Tiberium. 

Try it one day. Don’t defend your harvesters. Just keep sending them out over and over again while sending sacrificial lambs to the pads to turn them yellow. You’ll see what I’m talking about. 

Good point, its just that a 2nd harvester is free to rebuild. One needs to nerf it's free cost and apply a long recharge period. Tech is quite boring, majority of tech is vehciles, if you had something like grenadiers and shockwave troopers, you'd counter majority of tech.

I love Grenadiers. Actually love when the other side is using them.  It’s a guaranteed win most of the time for me since my talons or venoms dispatch them easily. They are too expensive anyway. 

Well, they're quite good against tech, sandstorms are one of the tech units grenadiers can easily knock over. How do you beat a tech user who spams sandstorms into your army? Your missile/laser squads are toast, but grenadiers are quite durable. If you get one of those units next to the enemy harvester and boost them, your enemy may as well kiss his harvester bye-bye. They're so fast at taking down vehicles!

Lasers and an occasional tank or banshee to finish it off.  It’s pretty easy. Sandstorms can’t do anything to lasers. 

---

@Marine_CorporaI wrote:

Lasers and an occasional tank or banshee to finish it off.  It’s pretty easy. Sandstorms can’t do anything to lasers. 

---

If there's 2 sandstorms, they can easily overpower 1 laser squad. Its quite ridiculous, it better to use 2 laser squads against sandstorms or one mutant marauder.

Remember that I PMed you back regarding my mysterious looking replays, well here's the excel file of the replays, can't seem to PM the file as well.

The excel is incomplete, as the GDI air units are still being compiled.

Sandstorm mg combo is pretty unstoppable so is disrupter sandstorm with cheap tech lab you can pump out two pretty quick with dual Harv...seems if balance was the issue leaving it to skill the devs would have caught on to making tech so cheap it’s really ruined the game for a lot of people 

---

@governer7778 wrote:

Sandstorm mg combo is pretty unstoppable so is disrupter sandstorm with cheap tech lab you can pump out two pretty quick with dual Harv...seems if balance was the issue leaving it to skill the devs would have caught on to making tech so cheap it’s really ruined the game for a lot of people 

---

Maybe the sandstorm needs a nerf that relates to it attacking more than 1 enemy at once. Either of these two would work, friendly fire to any adjacent units or the sandstorm overheats and attacks itself alongside two or more enemies. The more enemies there are next to the sandstorm, the more it will take damage, sort of like how Yuri's mastermind takes damage if it controls one too many units.

Whenever I encounter a sandstorm, I always try to flank it if I don't have the best counters to them. A tick tank sits on one side attacking the sandstorm while 120 degrees from where the tick tank is relative to the sandstorm, a banshee flanks it. So long as there's no unit between both Nod anti-vehicle units, the sandstorm has to choose between the two.

My last match: I scout with war dogs. I see, that the first harvester comes out late followed by a second, so I block the Tiberium patch. I send a pitbull to block the second harvester, with success. No unit from the enemy, I keep charging with a second war dog. Takes ages for the pitbull, but the second harvester is down (ridiculously hard to kill a harvester with basic units). Still no unit from the enemy, but tech lab is built. Sandstorm is out. 1st missile is fired. He counters my missile troops with shock troops. Stole 2nd missile and sends 3 sandstorms to my base...WTF.

---

@TegliG wrote:

tech lab is built. Sandstorm is out. 1st missile is fired. He counters my missile troops with shock troops. Stole 2nd missile and sends 3 sandstorms to my base...WTF.

---

I think the current consensus is that charging the pads flawlessly is way more important than destroying harvesters. I know, it's easier said than done.

---

@Mister_Crac wrote:

---

@TegliG wrote:

tech lab is built. Sandstorm is out. 1st missile is fired. He counters my missile troops with shock troops. Stole 2nd missile and sends 3 sandstorms to my base...WTF.

---

I think the current consensus is that charging the pads flawlessly is way more important than destroying harvesters. I know, it's easier said than done.

---

I recently changed my gameplay and it has been working. I get the first missile and then instead of going after their harvesters, I go after their base. This causes them to have to defend it with their cheap units and it stalls their tech much more than going after their harvesters. 

Strategy in action ignoring harvesters. I won but surrendered after the 2nd missile. 

https://youtu.be/WQlQW38zSAI

---

@Marine_CorporaI wrote:

I recently changed my gameplay and it has been working. I get the first missile and then instead of going after their harvesters, I go after their base. This causes them to have to defend it with their cheap units and it stalls their tech much more than going after their harvesters. 

---

Well, then why not pressure them at all ends... I bet you'd get a lot more early surrenders. Attack their base with a unit that's not anti-structure, attack their harvesters with anti-vehicle and charge the pads. Bonus plus if your account name sounds terrifying or aggressive.

LOL. Scary Name. You really believe that?

Who knows, it's only an intimidating factor. Its more on the fact that a name that sounds scary might demoralize the opponent especially if the player is skilled. I mean you wouldn't want to play chess with a bear do you? Even if the bear knows how to play chess or would just smack the board and straight up chase you.