Forged Alliance Forever

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-30T19:19:04+02:00

Those are valid points, yes.
However, if I'm going to build fabs, they are likely to be t2 at the start. I can turn them on and off to fine-tune mass/energy requirements, which is not possible with t3 fabs.

Statistics: Posted by Gowerly — 30 Jan 2012, 19:19

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-30T19:00:01+02:00

Gowerly wrote:
Armmagedon wrote:I remember the farms of mass fac in vanilla, it was funny when you sniped them and all explode lol.
about ppl that say that t2 mass fabs are better that t3 mass fabs thats wrong, its more fast build t3 mass fabs that t2 mass fabs only test it.
and i thinkg that a good change for balance mass fabs could be buff the adjacency bonus, then ppl will need do the farms really explode lol. then i think that if you per example put a mass fab rounded of E gens the adjacency bonus should do that the E cost of the mass fact was -50, and then ppl could use them at same time that build E and take some advantage for have a mega explode res. lol

could be a risky strategy.
some shot to your mass fab and bye all E.

You start your mass production earlier with t2 fabs than t3 (due to one f2 fab taking less time than 1 t3 fab). I believe you can build, with a T3 ACU, more than half the t2 fabs required by the time the t3 is built, meaning by the time you've finished all the t2 fabs you are ahead mass-wise.

t2 fabs die with one shot with the chain reaction you can lose many of them ,and the mass rate /cost is the same that t3 fabs, t3 fabs take really less space and are more easy to take adjacency bonus, the surface of base is really important for protection with shields, and t2 fabs take many population lol.

Statistics: Posted by Armmagedon — 30 Jan 2012, 19:00

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-30T17:59:54+02:00

Armmagedon wrote:
I remember the farms of mass fac in vanilla, it was funny when you sniped them and all explode lol.
about ppl that say that t2 mass fabs are better that t3 mass fabs thats wrong, its more fast build t3 mass fabs that t2 mass fabs only test it.
and i thinkg that a good change for balance mass fabs could be buff the adjacency bonus, then ppl will need do the farms really explode lol. then i think that if you per example put a mass fab rounded of E gens the adjacency bonus should do that the E cost of the mass fact was -50, and then ppl could use them at same time that build E and take some advantage for have a mega explode res. lol

could be a risky strategy.
some shot to your mass fab and bye all E.

You start your mass production earlier with t2 fabs than t3 (due to one f2 fab taking less time than 1 t3 fab). I believe you can build, with a T3 ACU, more than half the t2 fabs required by the time the t3 is built, meaning by the time you've finished all the t2 fabs you are ahead mass-wise.

Statistics: Posted by Gowerly — 30 Jan 2012, 17:59

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-29T02:45:02+02:00

I remember the farms of mass fac in vanilla, it was funny when you sniped them and all explode lol.
about ppl that say that t2 mass fabs are better that t3 mass fabs thats wrong, its more fast build t3 mass fabs that t2 mass fabs only test it.
and i thinkg that a good change for balance mass fabs could be buff the adjacency bonus, then ppl will need do the farms really explode lol. then i think that if you per example put a mass fab rounded of E gens the adjacency bonus should do that the E cost of the mass fact was -50, and then ppl could use them at same time that build E and take some advantage for have a mega explode res. lol

could be a risky strategy.
some shot to your mass fab and bye all E.

Statistics: Posted by Armmagedon — 29 Jan 2012, 02:45

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-23T16:26:19+02:00

Gowerly wrote:
I think they should be removed. They serve no purpose other than to make people argue about them.

The same has been suggested of mercies XD

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 23 Jan 2012, 16:26

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-23T16:23:16+02:00

Yeah, Gowerly is back!

Statistics: Posted by pip — 23 Jan 2012, 16:23

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-23T13:56:20+02:00

I think they should be removed. They serve no purpose other than to make people argue about them.

Statistics: Posted by Gowerly — 23 Jan 2012, 13:56

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-22T19:27:50+02:00

I don't think so. T3 are just too expensive and outclassed by T2 in every way unless you have massive farms with many adjacency bonuses. look at the numbers and you will agree with me. They are just so inefficient.

As with the 190 death weapon damage I agree.

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 22 Jan 2012, 19:27

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-22T19:02:02+02:00

noobymcnoobcake wrote:
Massfabs cannot be an alternative to mex. That would mess up game greatly however what would not is some slight changes to them with cost and death weapon damage.

T2
upkeep from 150 to 130
build time from 500 to 350
death weapon damage from 370 to 350

T3
build costs -20%
upkeep from 3500 to 3000
death weapon AOE from 7 to 5

These changes will mean massfabs will rarely make an appearance in large team games instead of never.

I think, for T2, 140 upkeep and 190 death weapon damage is better. For T3, just reducing the death weapon damage amount should suffice.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 22 Jan 2012, 19:02

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-22T19:00:20+02:00

Massfabs cannot be an alternative to mex. That would mess up game greatly however what would not is some slight changes to them with cost and death weapon damage.

T2
upkeep from 150 to 130
build time from 500 to 350
death weapon damage from 370 to 350

T3
build costs -20%
upkeep from 3500 to 3000
death weapon AOE from 7 to 5

These changes will mean massfabs will rarely make an appearance in large team games instead of never.

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 22 Jan 2012, 19:00

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-22T04:19:46+02:00

Heh, from a "oh that would be cool" perspective, rather than a gameplay balance perspective, I would rather see something like:

Massfabs have variable output. They become more efficient when they are in larger matrixes with pgens.
At a certain matrix size, massfabs become more efficient than mexes.
When any part of the matrix is destroyed, every connected massfab/pgen also explodes.
Massfabs have no death explosion, but pgens in a matrix have enhanced explosions. (T1 pgen = current massfab explosion, T2 pgen = largish explosion, T3 pgen = nuke sized explosion). <- this is an iffy one, maybe not!

So yeah, big risk/reward sort of thing.

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 22 Jan 2012, 04:19

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-18T08:39:04+02:00

I agree with you guys.
Mass fabs were nerfed first in the "explosiveness" area = paper thin armor + dangerous structures. Then nerfed in the efficiency area (very deeply). But their explosiveness / frailness were never reconsidered, even though they were already way crappy economy wise.
Same as Funkoff: for me, the best way to bring them back in the game is to make them almost safe when they explode, and with same HP as mass extractors. Thus, it's easy to know that energy buildings are explosive, but mass ones are not. They are crappy enough to get eco, no need to make them dangerous even more.

As for the mod enabling their auto use with a mod, i have no idea if it would be for the best, or not necessary.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 18 Jan 2012, 08:39

Re: We need to talk about Fabs.

2012-01-18T02:00:27+02:00

Anaryl wrote:
Mass fabs should offset the need for map control in desperate situations, but obviously it should not be a substitute for it.

I believe they should still be expensive, but they should not be so utterly useless as they are now. So before you rant on about fabs, ask: why shouldn't they be balanced?

Thoughts, questions, queries?

Massfabs have been heavily disputed.

The fact of the matter is, you spend mass, time and energy making mex to produce mass and it is simply imperative for good balance that fabs are not better at making mass that mex are. Unfortunately, the principle that applies to evolutionary biology applies to Supcom too: If two creatures (units) perform the same role, one will invariably be better than the other. In the case of mex and fabs, their role in identical: To produce mass. Right now, mex are vastly superior, and general consensus is that this is favorable to balance versus supcom vanilla, where fabs are superior to mex and fab spam reigns supreme.

However, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to close the gap in effectiveness between the two such that mass fabs are viable if no more mex can be constructed, either due to enemy action or simple map limitations, and I have a few ideas to this.

Fundamentally, mass fabs ought not produce mass more effectively per energy or mass investment than mex, so I'm inclined to think buffs in the other areas are best. Specifically, reducing risk of building FABs by lowering their death weapon damage and increasing their health is one way to go. I also think that lowering their build time and including, by default, the mod that auto-manages them to never be one when you are losing power, would be a useful buff. These two buffs alone should be enough to see fabs used, not so much as a primary source of income, but as an auxiliary.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 18 Jan 2012, 02:00