Mexes & Mass storages

[rockoe10]

I'm not a fan of removing adjacency from units. If anything we need more. I love that about this game and have never heard of a game doing this before SupCom.

[Blodir]

I completely agree with rockoe. I think adjacency is one of those mechanics that make this game so complex and deep, and I actually wish adjacency was much stronger on many units.

[Wakke]

Adjacency is a good concept, but it should never be so high that it becomes the sole/main reason for building something, like it's the case with mass storages+mex, imo.

[IceDreamer]

More correctly, it should never become so important that you HAVE to do it, that there's no downside. All other adjacency has downsides because of the involvement of volatile PGens. IMO we should experiment with making Mass Storage volatile so that there's a risk-reward. If a T3 Mex surrounded by Storage died to one Strategic Bomb that would make one HELL of a difference. It would also slow down the advance from T2 to T3 indirectly nerfing T3, something many people see as something which may be a good thing.

[Aurion]

More correctly, it should never become so important that you HAVE to do it, that there's no downside. All other adjacency has downsides because of the involvement of volatile PGens. IMO we should experiment with making Mass Storage volatile so that there's a risk-reward. If a T3 Mex surrounded by Storage died to one Strategic Bomb that would make one HELL of a difference. It would also slow down the advance from T2 to T3 indirectly nerfing T3, something many people see as something which may be a good thing.

There is already a downside to putting storage next to a mex: you can't choose an optimal location. Usually most mexes on the map aren't easy to defend so putting storage around it is just an additional investment that can go to waste. I think Strategic Bombs are already quite potent, so no need to buff them further.

[Mycen]

More correctly, it should never become so important that you HAVE to do it, that there's no downside. All other adjacency has downsides because of the involvement of volatile PGens. IMO we should experiment with making Mass Storage volatile so that there's a risk-reward. If a T3 Mex surrounded by Storage died to one Strategic Bomb that would make one HELL of a difference. It would also slow down the advance from T2 to T3 indirectly nerfing T3, something many people see as something which may be a good thing.

I don't think making storages volatile is a useful solution.

People aren't going to stop building them just as they do now, they just are going to be more likely to put shields up over them. The extra mass is far more valuable than a little bit of extra risk is detrimental. Look at your example. If my opponent is sending single strats to attack my mexes (unlikely to begin with) he isn't going to be able to break through the shield I am already putting next to it anyway . If he's sending more (three or four) he's going to destroy it whether the storages are volatile or not. What's the real downside there?

Of the solutions I've seen proposed, I think the best ones (and they would work well in combination with each other) are to increase the adjacency bonus of mexes (set the T3 mex bonus to 100%, for example) so people are encouraged to put factories, missile silos, etc. next to them, and decrease the bonus from adjacency to a T3 mex. Set it up so that it is roughly the same proportion as a T3 pgen with only four estorages, for example. Another interesting idea was to have the energy consumption scale with mass production. That wouldn't change the players' decisions about whether they would do it or not, but it might change when they decide to do it.

I'm still thinking it's fine the way it is though. I do find this mod... I don't know. It certainly makes things easier, but as has been pointed out, you really are supposed to be using engineers to make structures. Having buildings build other buildings... That doesn't happen anywhere else in the game, you know?

[Ithilis_Quo]

i like ideas what make something what i must micro automathic. Then we had more time for strategic decision, instead of spending time for enginer working.

And about storage.

Imho that adjustancy is nice how its now, at least at mex, problem i see on energy storage adjustency.
On T3 mex is needet to had 4storage to +50% income, that is 800mass for +9mass. = 17,5% of mass for +50% bonus income
for T3 energy we need 16storage for +50% income so its 4000 mass for +1250 energy. = 120% of mass for +50% bonus income

land/naval units cost cca 4x more energy like mass. Thats a reason why energy storage got 4000 instead of 500 on mass storage. But still building energy storage about pgens is at 1. risky at 2. useless at 3. stupid.

what we need is increas adjustancy bonus on energy storage at same leves as is on mass storage. = 4x bigger as is on mass storage and for similar price for build around Pgens. When someone invest 4000mass = 120% of cost T3 Pgen, would be fair when he got back at least +200% bonus of energy (less like when he build second T3pgne). So for one side with storages +50% bonus. = 30% of mass for +50% bonus income.

[rockoe10]

It's off topic of the original post, but just to note a critical point about the previous post. Note that energy storage does not hold the role of producing energy. That it's why it provides little extra energy with adjacency when compared to the mass to energy production of a power generator. There shouldn't be any expectation that because energy storage costs so much more than a generator, that it should produce exceedingly more power (at least compared to what it yields now). We don't want to place storage into a role it was never meant to be in. The only changes I would be fine with are balance tweaks.