Ultimately a 20% nerf on assisting factories would knock T1 engies down from +5 build power to +4, and T2 from +10 to +8, T3 from +15 to +12. The goal here is to make T2/T3 factories the most efficient units to construct units per cost of build power, so if necessary then you would also buff Factory build power at T2/T3 until its in line/superior to engineers for cost. To curb lower tech spam further you could even nerf assisting for buildings/units that an engineer doesn't have tech for (like a T3 PGen being started by a T3 Engie and being finished by tons of T1 engies). Another possible route is only nerfing the assisting on a Tech-Wide level, so T1 would only be nerfed with respect to T2/T3 factories/buildings and T2 would only be nerfed with respect to T3 and above.
Again, GPG made a mistake by balancing the assist spam with slower movement off the factory - it doesn't really address engineer spam on T2/T3 factories or the fundamental issue - which is the cost for additional high tech factories/engies is not justified if you already have that selection available to you - especially when by comparison paying for T1 is paying for cheap build power directly.
Funk raises some notable points but again with the current game mechanics the only way to make multiple tech factories viable is by making them more efficient per cost of build power relative to engineers. Unless you simply disagree whether multiple tech factories or higher tech engineers should be viable then there's not other way to address these mechanics. But I'd like to think that eventually FAF will succeed where GPG failed and make all things viable. Also if Factories are equal to efficiency with regards to engie spam then I think that it wouldn't detract from the currently existing strategies (which call for not that much T3 anyway) but it would also allow players to not be punished for Teching multiple factories either. And if teched factories are equal or greater in build efficient of units as compared to engineers then multiple tech'd factories would also have the small (but silly) advantage GPG created by making units take a slightly longer amount of time on the construction pads.
Yes you can argue all day that the cost of tech Factories are supposed to represent a broader selection, but arguably the cost of T2/T3 engineers and SCUs is supposed to do the same thing and none of those units get anywhere near as much play as their T1 counterparts. The reason is that after you get 1 engineer with higher tech or after you get one factory with higher tech your selections are no longer precluded - as such the 'thing' you're paying for by teching a factory (according to Funk) no longer exists. T1 already has a VARIETY of advantages over T2/T3 aside from just being more efficient (it's spammable, it can cover more ground, it can reclaim more area, it's a harder target, etc). I think making all engineers more or less the same for assisting/build rate purposes (while T1 would still have its intrinsic advantages) would make for a much simpler to understand game (in that it's harder for a noob to make the mistake of not spamming T1 engineers) and allowing multiple high tech factories to be viable would also eliminate another common misconception by new players. It would also make the game more intuitive - which coming from someone who hadn't played SupCom in a while will tell you, you would think is already the case.
TBH Funk it's been a while but I was pretty good with the SC2 editor and I wouldn't mind learning how to draft up a test mod of the many suggestions from this and other balance threads. But specifically relating to the T1 Engineer spam and the viability of multiple factories. Not sure how I'd create the assist nerf - but I feel that more play from efficient high-tech engineers would offset the 'assist' nerf If you'd be interested in testing something like that out or even giving me advice on the numbers let me know
Edit: Also this would address naval engie spam/multiple high tech naval factories being viable. IMO there's too much of 'this is the ONLY way to do this' nonsense in supcom. All things being equal - I think you should have a variety of paths you can take, even when it comes to production capacity. Ya factories might be better for building units than Engineers, but they're also immobile. All aspects of a unit need to be taken into consideration when addressing and identifying quirky mechanics like this. For instance, the cost of additional high tech factories only makes sense when you don't have access to higher tier units/technology.
Statistics: Posted by Veta — 13 May 2012, 11:47
]]>
I think dont change the factori as they are now. Make it possibel to make a assist factoryes (the cost of eng t1 pr build rate fac buildrate 120 but it is opened) can only support adjacency to a another fac .can not build anything by it self .If the factory is assisting a another fac it can build what this fac can build.I hope you can use my ideas?
Yours sincerely gluck
i you like this i have more ideas about how select can be done better and also some thing about economi in the game .I think it can be a bit tricky for newcommers.
Statistics: Posted by gluck — 13 May 2012, 02:28
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
FunkOff wrote:
This is a poor solution. When you upgrade a factory, you are not paying for the build power, you are paying for the better selection of units that you can build. If upgraded factories had similar or better build power/cost ration than lower level factories, t1 would be underpowered.
AdmiralZeech wrote:Let's say we want to increase factory buildpower so that they have improved efficiency at building units. (compared to T1 engies.)
This is a poor solution. When you upgrade a factory, you are not paying for the build power, you are paying for the better selection of units that you can build. If upgraded factories had similar or better build power/cost ration than lower level factories, t1 would be underpowered.
I was very carefully trying to avoid any connotations at "better". But english can be silly at times.
It's been mentioned time and again that factories in general have poor build power efficiency compared to T1 engies.
So let's improve factory build power efficiency! I don't mean "lets make them better than T1 engies", but "lets make them better than they are at the moment, in baby steps. Possibly combined with an assist nerf to compensate."
So yeah, better factory build power will increase the rate at which units get build and other effects. But it remains to be seen whether these are negative or gamebreaking (unless you guys have been doing secret internal testing?)
So presumably, as you gradually improve factory buildpower & nerf assist, there will be a moment where multiple factories become viable as an alternative to engy assist. And probably also a moment where the game breaks.
Hopefully, the former occurs before the latter, and you can stop buffing factory buildpower there and everyone is happy.
-----------------------
But yeah, your massfab idea sounds good from its multiple-factory-buffing properties. I support it.
Heh, I also support my engy docking idea though. Hah, if a factory has limited engy slots, but docking confers some sort of additional benefit (eg. some protection from damage), then that might be an incentive to build multiple factories too.
Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 26 Apr 2012, 22:15
]]>
noobymcnoobcake wrote:
T2 factories
mass cost from 800 to 1000(1.25x)
energy cost from 7200 to 9000(1.25x)
build power from 40 to 80 (2x)
T3 factories
mass cost from 3150 to 4725 (1.5x)
energy cost from 28530 to 35450(1.25x)
build power from 60 to 240 (4x)
T2 factories
mass cost from 800 to 1000(1.25x)
energy cost from 7200 to 9000(1.25x)
build power from 40 to 80 (2x)
T3 factories
mass cost from 3150 to 4725 (1.5x)
energy cost from 28530 to 35450(1.25x)
build power from 60 to 240 (4x)
You're going about this the wrong way.
Look at your numbers for T2 factories:
You want +200 mass cost and +40 build power. That's 5 mass per build power, so this would be an enormous buff to T2 factories against T1 engineers. (But this is essentially the same plan as adding build power adjacency to massfabs, 2 massfabs would cost 200 mass and gives +40 build power.)
Then look at the numbers for T3 factories: +1475 mass cost for +180 build power. That's 8.2 mass per build power, still a buff for factories vs engineers. (But this is essentially the same plan as adding build power adjacency to massfabs, 15 massfabs would cost 1500 mass and gives +300 build power.)
The big difference between your idea and massfabs, however, is that massfabs incentivizes MULTIPLE factories, whereas your idea still incentivizes only one. Look at your total mass cost/build rate ratio for your adjusted T2 and T3 factories: 15.5 for T2 factories and 24.9 for T3 factories. This means that, at 10.4, T1 engineers still yield more build power per mass, so it makes sense to build more of them RATHER THAN building additional teched factories.
But consider the idea of massfabs, you don't need new massfabs when you tech a new factory, because adjacency allows a line of 4 massfabs to simultaneously buff 2 factories. This means that if you tech a second factory, you get the additional build power without the additional cost your proposed.... so under your idea, 2 T2 factories would cost 2480 mass for 160 build power, or 15.5 mass per build power, whereas under my idea, 2 T2 factories + 4 T2 massfabs would be 2480 mass for 240 build power (40 from each of 2 factories, 20 from each fab for each fac), or 10.3 mass per build power, which is so close to T1 engineer efficiency that the benefits of adjacency actually make it more efficient.
Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 26 Apr 2012, 20:35
]]>
AdmiralZeech wrote:
Let's say we want to increase factory buildpower so that they have improved efficiency at building units. (compared to T1 engies.)
Let's say we want to increase factory buildpower so that they have improved efficiency at building units. (compared to T1 engies.)
This is a poor solution. When you upgrade a factory, you are not paying for the build power, you are paying for the better selection of units that you can build. If upgraded factories had similar or better build power/cost ration than lower level factories, t1 would be underpowered.
Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 26 Apr 2012, 20:19
]]>
But we are afraid of damaging the current balance of the game.
I'd say baby steps is the way to go for this. Buff factory build power by a little bit, see how the game plays. Then in the next version, do it a little more, and maybe nerf engy assist a bit. See how the game plays. Repeat etc.
If gameplay and balance ever become worse, then it's simple to rollback one step and figure out a solution. Or simply stop there.
Of course, experienced players might not be happy having to rethink efficiencies after each update. So maybe not, dunno.
Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 26 Apr 2012, 18:15
]]>
Engineering stations would not be useless as they would cost around the same as a t3 in build power yet take up less space. And anyway making them less effective is a buff to aeon and seraphim
Yes air balance could be a problem as you could reduce the power cost a lot. Dunno how to fix this but the power cost was already massivley buffed in 3603 and I think t3 air is not very useful on a few maps especially when flack and shields come Out because that kills all non experimental air threats. Still needed to protect some mex and stuff though. With non t3 air an E cost boost may be in order especially for T2 gunships who've I think could do with some rebalancing. With t1 air I don't think e cost reduction will do anything bad.
Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 22 Apr 2012, 02:24
]]>
noobymcnoobcake wrote:
can anyone argue against this?
can anyone argue against this?
if you buff the buildpower of factorys to a level where its on par or even half as bad as spamming engineers mutliple thing will happen:
-engineer stations are then completely useless.
-that will overthrow the fine balance we have now to go up from T1 to T2 and T3, increasing the time we have to spent in each phase.
-like already statet to the sacrificial idea: it will be a huge boost to the adjacency bonuses, creating most likely unforeseen balance issues to most Air units
like i said: the least problems would create buffing assist stations and giving them to aion and sera too. I can't think of any balancing other than changing the assist stations if you do that.
edit: maybe its possible to change the adjacency bonus for all factions not to decrease the mass and energy the factory has to use, but to directly decrease the units cost thats build in that factory? dont know if its possible, but it would boost the adjacency bonus to a level again, where you actually have to use it. and it wouldnt matter if the factory is assistet or has the buildrate itself. so the previous assist station and sacrifice ideas wouldnt create balance problems.
nicely build bases would emerge in gameplay again. its always funnier to destroy something that has a nice look, than something thats messy thrown all over the place
*dream*
Statistics: Posted by Jace — 21 Apr 2012, 13:04
]]>
see article I made on buildpower costs
http://supcom.wikia.com/wiki/Build_rate
T2 factories
mass cost from 800 to 1000(1.25x)
energy cost from 7200 to 9000(1.25x)
build power from 40 to 80 (2x)
This would then mean it cost 15.5 mass per build power, only slightly more than a T1 engineer and T2 fac spam would be seen yet so would mass fac assist, so it keeps the old options open. I had to increase the fac costs because otherwise teching up could become too cheap because you dont have the additional cost of the engineers. You could have a pillar every 11 seconds instead of 22.
T3 factories
mass cost from 3150 to 4725 (1.5x)
energy cost from 28530 to 35450(1.25x)
build power from 60 to 240 (4x)
Increase the original factory cost so you are kind of paying for the engineers build power in the factory instead of a percy in 1:20 you are getting one every 20 seconds. MUCH more like it. it is still more economical to spam engineers because it cost 25 mass per build rate.
The T3 factory cost increase is the same as 31.5 T1 engineers yet it provides the same amount of build power as 36 of them. the T2 factory cost an extra 200 mass and has an extra 40 build power. at the price of 2 t1 engineers at 20 build power it gives you 40.
These changes are not meant to stop engineer spam completely but just reduce it by including the cost of the original engineers that are always there in the factory. Spamming T2 factory is now an option and you now can either have engineers that cause path finding issues and can get bombed but are cheaper or more T2 factory that are more expensive (1.5x) yet have high health no path finding issues and take up more space yet the increased cost could be gained back by adjacency bonuses. it would add more options to the game and improve the almost useless adjacency system that is only used for mex. It would increase faction balance for those who don't have engineering stations and it would decrease game lag.
can anyone argue against this?
Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 21 Apr 2012, 11:29
]]>
maybe sera and aion stations still get limitet to factory assist, so you have still some faction diversity in that regard.
but would surely create the least problems.
Statistics: Posted by Jace — 21 Apr 2012, 01:41
]]>