Forged Alliance Forever

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-14T11:58:02+02:00

lol gz on adding some ultra lategame options i haven't mentioned. think about it a little longer and you will find one or two more. still doesnt make your point better if you think of it as a whole.

Your safe and adjacency locations arent worth much either because on most things, its a location that will earn you almost nothing while putting your at extreme risk. So no one does it. And if noone does it its same as not existing ==> More dumb base building.
At least making adjacency useable with lesser risk would make a base looking like a base.

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 14 May 2012, 11:58

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-14T11:42:33+02:00

No, it is more of an arbitrary location than now. Now you will get to place it at a safe location whereas you can otherwise choose to put it either at a safe location or at an adjecient location (something you clearly stated would be useless but that's beside the point). More options without death damage than with ==> More dumb base building.

Additionally, though you are correct that adjeciency is not very effective you forget a the most important one. Radar. You can figure out by yourself what I mean.

Also: Strategic Missile launchers.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 14 May 2012, 11:42

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-14T10:58:48+02:00

@FunkOff
At the time you go for a upgrade you will have the storage for oc anyway. But having more energy is also a bargain as you can use reclaimed mass more effective. Your argument is by no means the best way to go for quite a few maps with much to reclaim.
And if it wasn't meant to use its adjacency, the adajcency wouldn't exist in the first place.

@Plasma_Wolf
How is a place that gives you adjacency while not making it too vulnerable to AoE attacks from bombers and arty worth to be called *anywhere*. Its for sure less *anywhere* than now. Now what is more dumb?
LoL people mostly don't even use T1Pgens on factorys anymore . Right now its mostly just drawing lines of pgens,factorys and so on onto the map. How u call that smart? Tell me what adjacency you use beside the ones for Mex, a few T1Pgens to your first few starting facs, then maybe a few for Shields. And then the MassStuff for ultra lategame.
And then think about how many adjacency are possibly there but aren't used because of danger while not paying off anyway.

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 14 May 2012, 10:58

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-14T09:30:32+02:00

Jace wrote:
I tell you: the base planning right now is dump! you dont have any need for adjacency beside on mex. so just throw your stuff anywhere you like as long as its not in deathnuke range.

And removing the death damage allows you to just dump it *anywhere*. Now what is more dumb?

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 14 May 2012, 09:30

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-14T01:34:13+02:00

Jace wrote:
A) Even if you halve its cost its still not worth the investment! as you can read out of my calculation

Then you clearly do not know the value of energy storage. You seem to be considering them ONLY as a means of producing energy through adjacency. This is not their primary purpose, so they will never be more efficient at this than pgens. Their primary purpose is storage.

Further, storage can replace production capability for limited periods. Take the example of getting ACU tech 2 engie suite upgrade. Assume with your pre-existing economy, you have +100 net energy production. With 1 E storage, your E storage total is 9000. With -200 use for 90 seconds (the time it takes for the upgrade), you're net becomes -100 for 90 seconds, during which your storage acts as an energy source.

250 mass for +100 effective production? That's cheaper than 5 T1 pgens (375 mass) AND allows your to use overcharge (which 5 T1 pgens won't). How is that not a bargain?

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 14 May 2012, 01:34

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-14T00:50:16+02:00

what will reducing damage from 2000 to 1000 do?
I tell you: nothing....

A) Even if you halve its cost its still not worth the investment! as you can read out of my calculation
B) It will still chain react, so putting many of them around a Egen will still not pay off, but is actually a thread
C) You will still only need 1 or 2 of them. So whats the point of having them high death damage?

And to plasma_wolf:
Why is using adjacency dump base planning? I see it exactly the other way. Adjacency right now is utterly useless on 90% of its possibilitys. So people can be stupid all they want. Drawing a line of T1Egens here, a few T1facs there, who cares, the adjacency for it wont change the game anyway. So we end up with extremely chaotic gameplay and not using even half of the games possibilities.
I tell you: the base planning right now is dump! you dont have any need for adjacency beside on mex. so just throw your stuff anywhere you like as long as its not in deathnuke range.

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 14 May 2012, 00:50

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-13T19:00:12+02:00

What if they just restored the 3599 e-storage value of different units (like the factories and engineers) and halved the current estorage mass cost to 125M (from 250M), reduced explosion damage (from 2000) to 1000 and changed the storage from 5000 to 4000. That way storage would actually be useful during the T1 Phase and it would still be competitive with the storage you get from engineer spamming.

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 13 May 2012, 19:00

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-12T17:08:33+02:00

I doubt that the FAFDevs will actually ever increase adjacency to valuable levels. A EStorage would have to double or triple a T1Egens Output to be worth its mass.
But then you have the problem with T2,3Pgens. Adjacency doesn't work like that.

Having his buildings chain-react may be funny, but is a stupid concept that destroys the intended gameplay of using adjacency.
Its already danger enough to build his stuff so close together, making it vulnerable to area-damage from artys and bombers.

Its also stupid that if someone takes the loss of investing in expensive massfabs, which pay off after several minutes, the enemy can just drop a rather cheap artytransport and blow up the whole eco with hitting a single building.

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 12 May 2012, 17:08

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-12T14:16:08+02:00

Veta wrote:
But yah a bit of a theorycraft/ramble -- TL;DR: EStorage volatility only makes sense if its many adjacencies are worth it (which until you see them being used in the tournaments they probably aren't).

Agree.

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 12 May 2012, 14:16

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-12T11:37:24+02:00

I think I read a thread by ubergeek a long time ago when FA came out on this very subject. I was still debating getting FA at the time (ultimately I took a break from SupCom all together) but IIRC the main issues brought up (and that still haven't been addressed) were the fact that most of the volatility only makes sense when combined with the viability of T1/T3 MFabs -- which as we all know are no longer viable or don't exist (T1 Fabs were moved to T2 for whatever reason... I guess they really wanted the only strategy in the game to be to RUSH/take map control). Making the action more fast paced, or rather a lack of action less effective, was a welcomed change but I think it sacrificed a major facet of the game and left another (the volatility of EStorage and other farm/adjacency buildings) relatively broken. This departure from any viability to early farming or teching in favor of map control was among a variety of qualms the original community had with FA (ASFs countering ASFs was another and still is an issue). Unfortunately the entire volatility/adjacency mechanic (which were supposed to offset each other like many aspects of SupCom) were completely imbalanced in favor of avoiding volatility. MStorage became the only significant adjacency (I know there's other power adjacencies at T3 that are somewhat viable).

Admittedly FA improved a lot of aspects of the gameplay, the fact that rushing on 20x20 maps was now viable was a huge shift in game dynamics but it also resulted in a lot of T1 spam and really marginalized T2 (unfortunately T2 still feels a little marginalized but the current dynamic between T1-T2-T3 in my opinion is still superior to the original game). I'm not sure if anyone agrees with this observation but it seems like GPG tends to overcompensate for issues in their games (e.g. stagnation/farming in Vanilla -> Only Rushing/Extremely Important Map Control in FA -> No Tiers, Oversimplification SupCom 2), I feel as though a medium ground between map control and turtling/farming could've been met (and still can be in FAF) that would still emphasize early map control but allow for farming in the mid/late game. Chain reactions would then actually make sense with regards to eco-farming like it did in Vanilla. Bringing back viable T1/T3 MFabs would definitely help too. The other issue that I recall being brought up, aside from Rushing, ASFs being a broken balance loop, and Mass Fabrication was T1 Engie Spam. And that can still easily be addressed by giving all engineers (except Field Engineers and Stations) equivalent build rate per cost/mass with T1 Engineers. Essentially you wouldn't have to change anything except the costs of T2/T3 to be multiples of T1 and of course drop the HP (maybe keep a slight HP buff since your production will be more concentrated in higher tech engies). The engie stations, SCUs and Field Engies would still be issues to address but probably a lot easier once T1 Engie spam is addressed.

Wouldn't mind seeing the Hydro get some love either (seeing as how it's literally the biggest icon in your strategic view but also the least significant after the first few minutes).'

But yah a bit of a theorycraft/ramble -- TL;DR: EStorage volatility only makes sense if its many adjacencies are worth it (which until you see them being used in the tournaments they probably aren't).

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 12 May 2012, 11:37

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-12T10:59:08+02:00

The removal of a chain reaction will allow dumb base planning. 1000 damage is by far not too much. With it, you'll have no chain reaction in anything besides T1 stuff and buildings like shield generators. Suits an E storage building very well.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 12 May 2012, 10:59

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-12T01:09:20+02:00

1000 is still too much. In fact, everything that starts a chain reaction is too much in this game. and chainreacting on Estorage is even easier because of the stupid range.
if you would want to stop bases looking like a base you should rather put that damage on every storage and eGen.
Will look funny when all buildings stand alone like in all other games too

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 12 May 2012, 01:09

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-12T00:30:05+02:00

On big maps when I start to use ASF spam or have stealth then they can be useful as a kind of buffer to stop you wasting so much energy or to stop you breaking the stealth even for 1 sec as when shields start going down you can take damage fast. it just gives you a bit more time to react sometimes. But yes death damage needs reducing to 1000.

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 12 May 2012, 00:30

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-12T00:15:10+02:00

people, you have a huge wall before your head? I just showed you that even IF you use the adjacency, its not worth the risk, not even the benefit.

You just need 1 or 2 for overcharge and Arty, thats it. Building them to connect them to anything is just a waste of mass, as for fact you get just more power if you just build more PGens.

So having them a death nuke of 2000 is just a concept fail. 200 or even zero would be okay, as for building more than 2 you just waste your mass anyway.

if go like that you could add this ridiculous damage on every building in the game.

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 12 May 2012, 00:15

Re: T1 Energy Storage

2012-05-11T22:53:25+02:00

Well, the adjeciency has to be taken care of anyway, so adjusting this thing would fit right in.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 11 May 2012, 22:53