Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Storage change

2013-04-14T17:47:27+02:00

Thanks for the replay. This desynch is weird, I don't know what caused it. It seems to be Cutter, so maybe it's linked to the Seraphim naval yard, when he upgraded 3 of them. I'll investigate (maybe a engy redesign bug).

Statistics: Posted by pip — 14 Apr 2013, 17:47

Re: Storage change

2013-04-14T15:43:06+02:00

We did some test game on Seton's the game de synced, thought (Cutter).

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 14 Apr 2013, 15:43

Re: Storage change

2013-04-13T08:42:27+02:00

In the current Test Mod, the bonus is reduced to + 1 for t2 mex and + 3 for t3 mexes. T3 mex is also a bit cheaper to make up for the difference. With the adjacency bonus to factories, it means you can save mass with your factories rather than produce it abundantly and magically out of mass storages. It would be good to have big games played, to check if the intended effect, i.e. lengthening t3 a bit and promoting map control after the 4 base t3 mexes are built.

If problems are spotted (income too low), it's then possible to adjust mass output of t3 mex a bit.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 13 Apr 2013, 08:42

Re: Storage change

2013-04-13T00:20:39+02:00

the adjacency could also get less efficient for higher level MEX. that is what the larger building faces of higher tech pgens accomplish and why you dont see estorage adjacency used the same way.

mstorage could also be volatile meaning storage rings would have a drawback like other adjacency - this would leave more developed ecos vulnerable to weaker harass

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 13 Apr 2013, 00:20

Storage change

2013-04-13T00:01:18+02:00

Wouldn't it already be enough to set the storage mex adjacency bonus to 10%? That way it would be worse than T3 mex and even worse than T2 mass fabs + t3 power. That should be enough to test the impact on gameplay...

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 13 Apr 2013, 00:01