Forged Alliance Forever

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-05T16:17:46+02:00

Veta wrote:
I had a think about how MEX Adjacency could be normalized. Obviously you can add more MEX adjacency boni, thus diversifying the amount of attractive options as the OP suggests. ..

.. Without too much tweaking the PGen-MEX adjacency is now useful. Fabricators would be indirectly buffed as a result but would be adjusted as necessary.
..

That sounds very reasonable because then it is like it should be. T3mexes use way too less energy.
The option to build pgens around mexes is then more interesting.
And no one would build 4 mass storages. rather 3...
but then think further and there it gets even more complicated:
a T3 mex has the same size than a T1 mex. That also is true for the fabs and the radar..
But to the Teched Buildings it is not.
What i want to say is, that with increasing tech, the surrounding boxes are getting bigger.
and so you put one up to 4 T2 Gen(s) to a shield, and 1to4 T1PGens to lets say an arty or radar.
It should be the way that if you surround an object fully with PGens, you get the full adjacency bonus.
justs one side gives you 1/4th.
If you have a Tech2Pgen connected to a T3mex, even if you put them on each side (so you get the full advantage), you can use the remainig side to put other buildings to it that profit from it (arty or radar for instance).

But anyway, the increase in Energy consumption makes it then a lot more interesting to use PGens around the Mex to lower the Pconsumption.

I didnt go into detail how there could be done another solution:
In Size the T2 ist a 3x3 Mex, and a T3 is a 4x4 Mex or even a 5x5 field.
When you surrounded your T1 mex with buildings whatsoever, the mass is taken frokm the into accound when upgrading.
Therfore it is demolished and T2 is without a Storage or whatsoever.
Same goes for T3.
Reason to make it bigger is the adjacency bonus you only get in full, when you have totally surrounded mexes.

I'll repost this (kindof) in the other thread: http://www.faforever.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=37089#p37089

Statistics: Posted by rxnnxs — 05 Apr 2013, 16:17

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-05T15:59:03+02:00

Plasma_Wolf wrote:
The firing bar does go faster if you surround the artillery with Pgens. It does do it right.

No, it fires before the bar reaches max.

Statistics: Posted by rxnnxs — 05 Apr 2013, 15:59

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-05T20:55:20+02:00

I had a think about how MEX Adjacency could be normalized. Obviously you can add more MEX adjacency boni, thus diversifying the amount of attractive options as the OP suggests. The problem with adding more adjacency of course is that it will overcomplicate the game without adding any substance to gameplay.

MEX Adjacency could also be given a drawback such as much higher power consumption for MEX-MStorage or volatility on MEX/MStorage. Finally the power consumption on higher tier MEX could be much steeper than it currently is - as of right now it's rather insignificant:

http://supcom.wikia.com/wiki/Mass_extractor

T1 MEX requires 2 energy, T2 MEX requires 9 energy and T3 MEX requires 54 energy, all values being rather insignificant to an appropriately developed economy. A T3 MEX (without MStorage) consumes 20% more energy per mass produced despite gaining 300% mass production over T2. So I thought about how these values would change if this relationship was normalized.

This is a little crazy but bear with me, if you make energy consumption per mass increase at the same rate as mass production your values would look like this: T1: 2m, -2e; T2: 6m, -18e; T3: 18m, -162e. This is still pretty insignificant but it is more reasonable.

I also checked what would happen if I increased T1 energy consumption by 300%: T1: 2m, -6e; T2: 6m, -54e; T3: 18m, -486e. Wow, you need a whole T2 PGen to run a T3 MEX. Without too much tweaking the PGen-MEX adjacency is now useful. Fabricators would be indirectly buffed as a result but would be adjusted as necessary.

Any additional mass gained by mass storage should also have the additional energy consumption per tech level of MEX tacked on. Add some MEX or MStorage volatility and MStorage rings now have an actual opportunity cost.

What would the above accomplish? 1) map control would be more important in the late stage; 2) there will be more vulnerable targets, whether the additional pgens players may build or the now vulnerable volatile MEX/Mstorage; 3) MFabs get an indirect buff but could also be addressed to be more or less efficient 4) the game is more dynamic when you can set off a chain reaction on each mstorage ring your opponent leaves undefended. Now building storage around each MEX will have its own drawbacks as each adjacency bonus does.

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 05 Apr 2013, 12:23

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-05T07:56:16+02:00

ZaphodX wrote:
pip wrote:The higher the pgen, the higher the bonus to rate of fire. It works for t3 arties and t4 ones, and better surround them with t3 pgen for maximazing the bonus.

What are the bonuses?

10% faster firing rate for each t3 pgen near a t3 or t4 artillery.
For instance, Mavor rate of fire is one shot every 8 seconds by default. If you surround it with 4 t3 pgen, it will fire once every 4.8 seconds instead of 8. A t3 arty whose default rate of fire is 10 will shoot every 6 seconds. It's a very good bonus, it's much better to make 4 t3 pgen rather than a second t3 arty.
With the recent cut in price of the t3 and t4 arties and, this may even be a tad too much. It's hard to say with only 0.5% of games using these structures though.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 05 Apr 2013, 07:56

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-05T01:53:22+02:00

Both speed and MAX power off since I belive t3 pgen takes more energy costs out then t1s' do by themselves. So the cost to fire the arty would be less by surrounding it by t3 pgens instead of t1 I belive. Just a theory.

Statistics: Posted by Supreme321 — 05 Apr 2013, 01:53

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-05T01:43:43+02:00

pip wrote:
The higher the pgen, the higher the bonus to rate of fire. It works for t3 arties and t4 ones, and better surround them with t3 pgen for maximazing the bonus.

What are the bonuses?

Statistics: Posted by ZaphodX — 05 Apr 2013, 01:43

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-04T19:50:11+02:00

The higher the pgen, the higher the bonus to rate of fire. It works for t3 arties and t4 ones, and better surround them with t3 pgen for maximazing the bonus.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 04 Apr 2013, 19:50

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-04T19:07:05+02:00

The firing bar does go faster if you surround the artillery with Pgens. It does do it right.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 04 Apr 2013, 19:07

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-04T19:02:03+02:00

ZaphodX wrote:
Pretty sure pg don't affect t3 or t4 arty any more.

But T2 Arti is doing it for sure. What I do not understand is, why the "fire bar" is proceeding as slow as a normal arti (without pgens surrounded) but is still shooting faster.
Why was it nerfed for T3 Arti btw?

Statistics: Posted by rxnnxs — 04 Apr 2013, 19:02

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-04T16:43:51+02:00

I might just be a dummy but was the first post in this thread sarcastic or not? Because I thought he just made this thread as a joke haha.

Statistics: Posted by CocoaMoko — 04 Apr 2013, 16:43

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-04T11:38:09+02:00

Pretty sure pg don't affect t3 or t4 arty any more.

Statistics: Posted by ZaphodX — 04 Apr 2013, 11:38

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-04T16:13:06+02:00

Mycen wrote:
You are not correct that having pgens around artillery will not change their strategy in any way. Instead of attacking the high HP artillery they will attack the relatively low HP pgen to take advantage of the splash damage, then attack the artillery. It isn't a drastic change, but it is a change.

You understand that there is no intrinsic strategy to attacking the more vulnerable target in an adjacency right? There's a difference between the dynamic attacking with air or land or a concerted forces provide and the dynamic that attacking one adjacency building over another provides. I'm not sure you understand what strategic depth is. Things like static defense do affect strategy because your opponent can effectively respond in fewer ways.

The T3 Arty-PGen adjacency is a situational adjacency, it is should be used when you have an appropriately defensible firebase. This would be in contrast to the strategic choice that follows from you knowing your opponent is vulnerable to T3 Arty, T3 Air or Nukes. The latter decision will affect what your opponent does next and even creative adjacency bonuses like the T3 Arty-PGen will at best affect the urgency of your opponents' decision.

Because adjacency should, and does, have drawbacks. The benefits should be appropriately balanced.

Do you want MEX/MStorage to have volatility then? I have no qualms with that opinion, it's not a terrible idea. MEX Adjacency is more tricky than PGen adjacency because there is no drawback to MEX adjacency.

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 04 Apr 2013, 09:32

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-03T23:14:51+02:00

I like roots idea. Sounds awesome.

Statistics: Posted by laPPen — 03 Apr 2013, 23:14

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-03T21:01:24+02:00

Valki wrote:
That is a very good analysis Veta,

No, it is not.

His observation that certain adjacency bonuses are almost imperative is not inaccurate, but his conclusion that no type of adjacency bonus changes the way people play is not at all accurate.

Veta wrote:
... would that constrict or free gameplay? By how much would it increase the already high knowledge burden on players? How much actual depth would be gained from such new adjacency options?

The problem with adjacency is that it is either situational, such as the T3 Arty-PGen Fire Rate bonus, or it is imperative, such as the MEX-Storage bonus. Situational bonuses increase the knowledge burden on the player without adding to depth, you either use the adjacency in the right situation or you don't and lose an opportunity. ... If your opponent catches you building a PGen next to your T3 Arty or building mstorage around your MEX it isn't going to change their strategy in any way.

You are not correct that having pgens around artillery will not change their strategy in any way. Instead of attacking the high HP artillery they will attack the relatively low HP pgen to take advantage of the splash damage, then attack the artillery. It isn't a drastic change, but it is a change. More to the point though, it doesn't change your opponent's strategy, it gives you choices for your strategy. "you either use the adjacency in the right situation or you don't"? What a joke. When you are deciding whether to take advantage of adjacency or not you have real decisions to make. Why do you think that every resource generating structure whose position you choose has a death-explosion? Because adjacency should, and does, have drawbacks. The benefits should be appropriately balanced.

Remember what Chris Taylor talked about when he was first designing SupCom. He wanted players to have a choice between clustering all of their buildings together to improve efficiency, thereby making them more vulnerable to attack, or spreading them around for reduced efficiency, but decreased vulnerability.

Having adjacency for tactical structures downplays from the strategic element of the game. What differentiates SupCom from other RTS titles is how your focus in on getting a force of units together and then on how you use those units. We should not be trying to put the focus entirely on how you use those units. -V- has entirely the right perspective.

Also, I find the idea about walls giving resiliency bonuses rather laughable. How would that not end up as an 'imperative' arrangement in exactly the same way as mex+storage?

MushrooMars wrote:
IRL, the only resource you use is money. It isn't whether or not you have enough raw resources and engineering power to build something, it's whether or not you have enough money to build something and enough time to field it.

You do realize that saying stupid things makes you look stupid, right?

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 03 Apr 2013, 21:01

Re: more options to mex adjacency

2013-04-03T16:34:27+02:00

ColonelSheppard wrote:
i'm not opposed to more adjanacy but i think walls are already pretty effective in low terrain, if you give it a buff you could maybe just make PD imune against t1 direct fire

you are totally right when it comes to T1 units fighting T1PDs. they are almost immune if you use no arty.
but even shooting from a hill, or lets say a high mounted T1 weapon would shoot over the small walls.
->I have to correct this.
it is not the way that the walls are really blocking the shots. shots that go through are already, even if they hit, not that effective!
for instance is even the ACU able to hit a T1PD from a position where the shot goes through. the wall is not blocking the shot. but the damage is reduced.
of course, when adjancency would come in effect, the normal wall bonus has to be levelled out .

now with an adjacency buff for walls, it also protects those installations from damage from above (air, T2/T3, Arti).
Building massively walls is not possible through the increasing distance.
but imagine walls would provide some shelter for buildings. it would look nicely and people would use it.
right now nobody uses them in the base! and after the short T1 phase, they are ridiculous. if you start making them in a big map, ppl will laugh at the one, and they are of course right =
but patrolling units behind walls would be buffed this way. and because patrolling units have the tendency to stand still when they shoot (well thats why i try to mico them and always keep them MOVING not PATROLLING), its a good tradeoff
---

when thinking about this adjacency bonus for MEXes, it could also effect everything else!
powergens also as massgens and even units!
the logic would be simple to memorize and also can differ through factions.. faster shooting or more damage would be affected by mass and for factories less mass usage.
faster regeneration when adjacent to energy and less usage when building (could also effect engies).

and as an explanation why this is also logic in a realistic interpretation: transport costs.
for energy lets say, whatever is used to transport the energy, the resistance increases with distance also.

and maybe there should also be a minus if a engi is farther away. when you then have 100 engies, the more outer engies build less good..
more of a way to say, hell, i'll take some 30T2 engies instead of 100 T1engies.

Statistics: Posted by rxnnxs — 03 Apr 2013, 16:34