Why?

[randall172]

because people are babies and don't want to adapt, they want adjacency bonus to just be free lunch instead of a potential risk in the late game.

[UnorthodoxBox]

because people are babies and don't want to adapt, they want adjacency bonus to just be free lunch instead of a potential risk in the late game.

I fail to see what you are saying, power generators already do damage when they explode.

[randall172]

because people are babies and don't want to adapt, they want adjacency bonus to just be free lunch instead of a potential risk in the late game.

I fail to see what you are saying, power generators already do damage when they explode.

From the post by Petricpwnz:
"So in short: think 7 times before cutting the gameplay depth no matter how rational your reasoning might seem."

the ACU tele explosion is a valid tactic, there are consequences for doing it, and ways of limiting the effects of it, namely spreading your base out so that you don't lose it all.

[---]

It's an old topic, but I'll put it here anyway:

Why is it ok to counter a costly TML missile with a started building with basically 0 HP (e.g. radar or shield)? You know it makes no sense, don't even try to argue!!!! xD
Didn't TML get more expensive with latest patch? Still a valid "countermeasure?

Why can a nuke be countered with air which results in the explosion having zero affect on anything below it ?__?

[BlackYps]

To counter TML with a building you need builpower in the area and the attention to react quickly. So it is not totally free. If you don't want to constantly watch out for missiles it is better to build some tmd.

[---]

That's a bad argument.
Would mean I also could get a t3 radar (kinda high building) with 0 HP to counter a nuke I happen to see flying towards my base.
Stupid! xD

[BlackYps]

But you can (sort of). The nuke just as so so huge aoe that it is somewhat pointless. And it is also coming in vertically.
I don't really understand what your problem or your suggestion is. This is simply the consequence of simulated projectiles.

[---]

You cannot block a nuke with a building (you could block Yolona Oss with a satellite but that has been removed iirc).
My problem is that:
Either you move towards "realistic projectile" logic - then have nuke destroy anything below explosion.
or you you make blocking TML with 0 HP building an exploit.

Attention is NOT meant to make up for LACK of attention (scouting). Insta blocking is a punishment for everyone who came up with scouting (saw lack of TMD - spent actual attention on it!) and invested in TML. Insta blocking with thin air is a cheap magic trick.
Why is terraforming an exploit (e.g. make mexes impossible to use) and this is not?

Why is starting a building at drop zone to prevent ACU from landing (= ACU explosion) an exploit and this is not? Is that not also "clever attention"?

[biass]

Why is terraforming an exploit (e.g. make mexes impossible to use) and this is not?
Why is starting a building at drop zone to prevent ACU from landing (= ACU explosion) an exploit and this is not?

I cannot fathom how we manage to have these conversations bimonthly, someone needs to start a FAQ.

Those exploits are exploits because they were not the intended outcomes of the mechanic's design,
example, being that destroying units landing in a building was supposed to clear out any clipping or physics issues, not to be used as a weapon.
and that terraforming was supposed to counter any building placement issues, not restrict unit/building access.

The missile is technically doing as intended, it's colliding with an enemy object and dealing its damage to that object. Despite that object only having 1hp to lose, or said object not being the targeted one, it's still the outcome as intended by the original developers.

Plenty of ways to go around it such as changing the flight model or introducing aoe, but they drain the depth out of the game - something we need to retain players.
If you have a better solution im sure the people responsible would love to hear it, because they don't know what to do either.

[---]

I cannot fathom how we manage to have these conversations bimonthly, someone needs to start a FAQ.

It's beyond me how you manage to sound like a d*** with every single response of yours. Lovely chap
Is it really too much for you to act in a civil manner? Like, just once?

Those exploits are exploits because they were not the intended outcomes of the mechanic's design [...]
The missile is technically doing as intended, it's colliding with an enemy object and dealing its damage to that object. Despite that object only having 1hp to lose, or said object not being the targeted one, it's still the outcome as intended by the original developers.

Same flawed, self-righteous argument I heard last time.
Unless you can provide an actual developer's words, or find some lines of comment in the game that it was intended to block a TML with a t1 1 HP radar I suggest you drop this shallow "argument". According to your logic most of the patches violate the intention of the developers.

There is a very easy fix to it: make it an exploit.