Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-13T08:12:03+02:00

Mycen wrote:
Firewall wrote:
FunkOff wrote:For mass fabs, we should remove the death weapon, reduce e consumption to 20, and make them cost 300 mass.

Funkoff. Those are SupCom Vannila statistics!!!! You know where that is going... Fab Spam. Fabricators should be an expensive option. Period. They should never be compeditive with extractors, or extractor upgrades. To do so would take us back to the turtle fest that was Vanilla.

Erm... Is everyone on this forum incapable of detecting sarcasm? You are correct though, we don't want to return to ye olden days.

......

Yes, I did detect the sarcasm. However, I thought the point deserved emphasis for all those not familiar.

As for SCU RAS. You are also forgetting the extra utility of a durable construction unit, with more build power, and lower consumption of unit cap... To account for the true value of the SCU, you need to add the costs of SCU, RAS and Build Power upgrade. Then determine its equivalent in T2 fab + T3 pgen (equivalent + fab demand) + T1 engineer equivalent build power.

As you correctly deduced. An SCU = 1 T3 pgen + 12 T2 fab. But with build rate upgrades it is also worth 14 T1 engineers. So the net value of the SCU (with RAS and Rapid Fabricator) is:
= 14 engies*(52m + 260e) + 1 T3 Pgen*(3240m + 57600e) + 12 T2 Fab*(100m + 4000e)
= 5168m + 109240e [total unit cap = 27]

By comparison the cost of an SCU with RAS and Rapid Fabricator is:
= (1950m + 27100e) + (1000m + 50000e) + (4500m + 60000e)
= 7450m + 137100e [total unit cap = 1]

On this basis, the SCU is slightly less value for money than the pgen, fab and engy spam. However, most of the benefits are intangible. In that the SCU is not as vunerable, and does not consume unit cap. Which are very important considerations. When also equipped with a survivability upgrade, either regen or shield, the SCU is a very robust combat zone builder. An SCU will suceed, where others might fail.

If alternatively, we consider the stock SCU with RAS, and no engineering upgrade, it is only worth 8 T1 engineers. So it's value would be:
= 8 engies*(52m + 260e) + 1 T3 Pgen*(3240m + 57600e) + 12 T2 Fab*(100m + 4000e)
= 3756m + 107680e [total unit cap = 21]

By comparison the cost of an SCU with RAS alone would be:
= (1950m + 27100e) + (4500m + 60000e)
= 6450m + 871000e [total unit cap = 1]

Which indicates, that the stock build rate is even worse value. The moral of the story? If your getting SCU's for economic purposes, it is better to also get the Rapid Fabricator upgrade, and recoup some of that investment with the increased build power.

***
Another funky feature, which is unique to the SCU, and not many people know about - is that the unit has a "multi-assist" functionality. Which means it can assist 2 or more factories, and change between them as the units roll off. It will also AUTOMATICALLY REBUILD ANY BUILDING IT IS ASSISTING IF THAT BUILDING IS DESTROYED. Which is a bloody brilliant feature! Aka, you can tell an SCU to assist all the shields in your base, and it will automatically repair, and rebuild them if they are destroyed.

I used to game test this feature is SC Vanilla, and found that this assist que was unlimited. I could Ctrl+K an entire fire base, and then watch the SCU's rebuild it, just like before. It was awesome to watch . However, with SC FA, I found that que was generally limited to about 8 buildings. So I only tell them to assist shields, and key buildings.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 13 Jun 2013, 08:12

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-11T20:22:47+02:00

whitou that nerf it would be same like T3 mex = OP, and no one would go on map control

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 11 Jun 2013, 20:22

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-11T16:56:31+02:00

What I'm saying is you don't need to add a nerf so you can add a buff. A buff is needed to counter the existing UP-ness of the T3 Mass Fabs

Statistics: Posted by RoundTabler — 11 Jun 2013, 16:56

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-11T16:05:34+02:00

RoundTabler wrote:
I'm not sure T2 Mass Fabs need a buff (or that big of one). T3 Mass Fabs definitly don't need a death dmg increase. They just need a buff.

Thats death dmg increase is answer on +50% bonus mass increase on how make it useful but dont imba, with biggest dmg it would be big risk make it, and still you need map control, because cant turtle with this in middle of base but need place for building. T2 is in same way, imho it cant be dferent because it same unit only better tech, when you make it different then you image how can look different T2vs T3 mex it must be same, only better but with same key.

Only take better balance would make it OP because its little paragon, with death dmg its risky and would be easier counter it.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 11 Jun 2013, 16:05

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-11T16:02:01+02:00

Firewall wrote:
FunkOff wrote:For mass fabs, we should remove the death weapon, reduce e consumption to 20, and make them cost 300 mass.

Funkoff. Those are SupCom Vannila statistics!!!! You know where that is going... Fab Spam. Fabricators should be an expensive option. Period. They should never be compeditive with extractors, or extractor upgrades. To do so would take us back to the turtle fest that was Vanilla.

Erm... Is everyone on this forum incapable of detecting sarcasm? You are correct though, we don't want to return to ye olden days.

I think a good place to start would be to make the cost of SCUras reflect what you are actually getting.

Let's assume that the additional benefits of mobility, durability, etc. that ras provides over fabs are rolled into the cost of the SCU itself. Let's also assume that the higher peak energy production of pgens+fabricators (you can switch the fabs off) is balanced out by the more reliable nature of ras. (Energy stall won't affect ras mass production.) So just looking at production versus twelve T2 fabs surrounding a T3 pgen, we see this:

SCU ras
Mass: 4500
Energy: 60000
Build Time: 6000
+11/12M
+1020E

T2fab*12+T3pgen
Mass: 4440
Energy: 105600
Build Time: 11400
+12M
+1037E (2500-121*12)

SCUras, for the same output as our most efficient fabricator option, costs the same mass, but almost half the energy and build time! And as far as build time, it's really less than half, because SCUras is one construction on one small, mobile unit, whereas trying to put up all of those fabs around the pgen (unless you're using one T3 engy and a bunch of kennel drones) is a very tedious undertaking. It doesn't even bear comparing to our less efficient fab options. (T3 fabs, T2 fabs not surrounding a T3pgen, etc.) That also does not take into account how fabs+pgen uses thirteen unit count, whereas SCUras uses only one - we'll be building fabs in the late game, remember, so this is not a trivial concern. As it stands now, unless you have a large supply of kennel drones that are not otherwise occupied and a vast area of easily defensible flat land, it is almost always better to build ras than fabs.

With that in mind, I think there are two changes that we should certainly consider seriously:

1) Increase the cost of SCUras to, at the very least, match that of fabricators. Keep the mass cost as is, but increase the energy cost to, say, 120k and build time to 12k?
2) Reduce the energy consumption of T3 fabs from 3.5k to 3k. This would allow a single T3pgen to support a single adjacent T3 fab.

There are also two changes that I personally think might be good ones:

3) Increase the T3 fab adjacency bonus by ten to twenty percent. This would make it a more attractive option for adjacency, as you wouldn't need to build several of them to get an appreciable reduction in consumption. This would synergize well with engymod's focus on reducing assisting engineers. (Four factories around a T3fab, for example.)
4) In light of the above suggestion, we could also consider increasing the death weapon damage of T3 fabs to 6010. That way T3 fabs will blow each other up in the same way that T2 fabs do. This will encourage players to build farms out of T2 fabs and use T3 fabs in small numbers for adjacency. T3 adjacency farms would be highly volatile. (If you're getting half price nukes, units, etc. there should be some serious risk involved.)

Regardless of whether you guys think my suggestions in particular are good or not, I believe we should stay focused on not reducing the cost of late game mass generation. Right now it is balanced rather well against the rest of the game (a more expensive proposition than simply fighting for map control) so we should only be looking at rebalancing the various mass generation options against each other. We should only consider increasing their costs and buffing their indirect benefits, let's shy away from cost reductions. (Increasing output is the same as a cost reduction, by the way.)

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 11 Jun 2013, 16:02

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-11T08:47:40+02:00

FunkOff wrote:
For mass fabs, we should remove the death weapon, reduce e consumption to 20, and make them cost 300 mass.

Funkoff. Those are SupCom Vannila statistics!!!! You know where that is going... Fab Spam. Fabricators should be an expensive option. Period. They should never be compeditive with extractors, or extractor upgrades. To do so would take us back to the turtle fest that was Vanilla.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 11 Jun 2013, 08:47

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-11T00:17:05+02:00

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Here was my suggestion about mass fabricators, 4 point. viewtopic.php?f=42&t=3780
That how i believe would make then useful again and dont break role about map control.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Mass fabricator T2/T3: mass fabricators are present in almost unused and set to its high price, explosiveness and extremely energy intensity almost unusable. And that makes this building unique building unusable and it is wrong. FA is thus unlike the original supcom preparing for a building that would also be able faf in place. The main change that occurred between the FA and supreme commander not add seraphim, but the change in mass distribution, which has doubled increase Mass extractors, extractors doubled energy consumption and production rate dropped to half what mean that their effectiveness is 8 times lower than previously. The purpose of this change was to make the game more fluent, was crucial to filling maps, movement and action. That is correct. However, in the original supcome was perhaps strategy which today is no longer possible and that is defense. On defense, it is necessary to get as well as other revenue of wrecks that sends enemy and are adopted by enough mass fabricators. Mass fabricators would also change the very expensive and inefficient, they would be very susceptible to destruction whereas one blast do more damage than his hp, but gave the opportunity that now exists (although this option would still be ineffective, but it would be) and the game by offering more strategies and become more complex, more beautiful. This is probably the biggest change that would most potentially changed the game.
My suggestion: change the mass intake of T2 extractor from 1 -> 2, change the energy intensity of the 150 -> 100; raise the price from 100 -> 200, increase the blast damage from 370 to 500; mass reception at T3: 12 -> 18, Energy intensity from 3500 -> 2310, price from 3000 -> 4500 dmg for destruction 5000 -> 7000 dmg radius 14 -> 15
Reason: Should be strengthened fabricator it would be possible to win even when active defense when your opponent controls a majority of maps. Fabricators would be more expensive but at the entrance, causing greater damage to the destruction of which would have made the primary object of the attack. Since it would be larger and would damage was to their status outside the main base for prevention iterative effect and therefore would born eco bases somewhere on the outskirts of the protected areas, which would add another element to the game, which is absent today.
Programing difficulty: that would throw variables in the code of building, the minimum difficulty.

I'm not sure T2 Mass Fabs need a buff (or that big of one). T3 Mass Fabs definitly don't need a death dmg increase. They just need a buff.

Statistics: Posted by RoundTabler — 11 Jun 2013, 00:17

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-10T23:21:32+02:00

Here was my suggestion about mass fabricators, 4 point. viewtopic.php?f=42&t=3780
That how i believe would make then useful again and dont break role about map control.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Mass fabricator T2/T3: mass fabricators are present in almost unused and set to its high price, explosiveness and extremely energy intensity almost unusable. And that makes this building unique building unusable and it is wrong. FA is thus unlike the original supcom preparing for a building that would also be able faf in place. The main change that occurred between the FA and supreme commander not add seraphim, but the change in mass distribution, which has doubled increase Mass extractors, extractors doubled energy consumption and production rate dropped to half what mean that their effectiveness is 8 times lower than previously. The purpose of this change was to make the game more fluent, was crucial to filling maps, movement and action. That is correct. However, in the original supcome was perhaps strategy which today is no longer possible and that is defense. On defense, it is necessary to get as well as other revenue of wrecks that sends enemy and are adopted by enough mass fabricators. Mass fabricators would also change the very expensive and inefficient, they would be very susceptible to destruction whereas one blast do more damage than his hp, but gave the opportunity that now exists (although this option would still be ineffective, but it would be) and the game by offering more strategies and become more complex, more beautiful. This is probably the biggest change that would most potentially changed the game.
My suggestion: change the mass intake of T2 extractor from 1 -> 2, change the energy intensity of the 150 -> 100; raise the price from 100 -> 200, increase the blast damage from 370 to 500; mass reception at T3: 12 -> 18, Energy intensity from 3500 -> 2310, price from 3000 -> 4500 dmg for destruction 5000 -> 7000 dmg radius 14 -> 15
Reason: Should be strengthened fabricator it would be possible to win even when active defense when your opponent controls a majority of maps. Fabricators would be more expensive but at the entrance, causing greater damage to the destruction of which would have made the primary object of the attack. Since it would be larger and would damage was to their status outside the main base for prevention iterative effect and therefore would born eco bases somewhere on the outskirts of the protected areas, which would add another element to the game, which is absent today.
Programing difficulty: that would throw variables in the code of building, the minimum difficulty.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 10 Jun 2013, 23:21

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-08T15:15:26+02:00

Another idea might be to just buff the amount of mass they generate. Rather than nerfing the cost, we could buff the mass produced per tick. Any takers?

Statistics: Posted by RoundTabler — 08 Jun 2013, 15:15

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-06T04:06:30+02:00

Mycen, you make some really good points (this is one of the reasons unit balance is not simple, and about more than stats, and one must consider unit-unit interactions). I still think T3 Mass Fabs need buff along with SCU RAS nerf, perhaps by lowering the maintenance, so you don't need to build two T3 Pgens to support it, or in something more subtle. I can't think of any buffs other than stats, but maybe you can? SCU RAS is actually very prevalent in games today. I saw a guy on setons the other day, by minute 45, he had given ALL of his mexes (T3) to the other players, and just continued on with 20-30 SCUs with RAS. That seems OP on the face of it, so that sounds like a good place to start.

Statistics: Posted by RoundTabler — 06 Jun 2013, 04:06

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-05T20:49:36+02:00

Fabs are not particularly effcient, whether looking at it in terms of mass cost, time cost, space cost, or energy upkeep cost, this is true. But as has been pointed out, this is a good thing, because you don't want games where players can develop a powerful economy without expanding.

But I think that a big part of the reasons no one builds fabs now is not because they're inefficient.

The problem is that for twice as much mass players can simply build an SCU with ras instead. Although that option is twice as expensive, it is a far better choice because, among other things, it takes up much less space and is mobile. Why build a big, fat T3pgen surrounded by T2 fabs when you can just build an SCU and have it patrol in a lake? One can claim that people don't build ras because they're too expensive for how much mass you get, but it is common for me to see players making giant herds of ras SCUs that, 99% of the time, do nothing but sit and produce resources. Since these are obviously even less efficient than fabs for production, clearly mass generating units are not "superfluous" and cost efficiency is not the only thing preventing people from making mass fabricators.

Although this issue would likely be addressed by making fabs better, I think a better solution would be to simply make SCU ras worse. That way SCUs are pushed back toward the roles they should have, and fabs again become the more attractive option for late-game economy boosting.

RoundTabler wrote:
In other words:
you can get 12 mass per tick with t2 mass fabs for:
1200 mass, 48,000 energy, and 1800 maintenance,
OR
3000 mass, 65,000 energy, and 3500 maintenance with the T3 Mass Fab (2.5 times more mass, 1.3 times more energy, 1.9 times more maintenance, for the same amount of mass).

This seems wrong. The T3 Mass Fab should be more efficient than the t2 mass fabs (other than buildtime), but instead is several times less efficient.

This all sounds good on paper, but have you ever actually tried to build a T3 fab versus twelve T2 fabs? Even with templates (I have my handy T3pgen+T2fabs template) it is much more difficult to get the T2 fabs up and running. You have to start twelve different constructions, and assisting engineers constantly get in the way of the next fabs you're trying to put up. Also, it is much harder to fit them under shields, and unless you space them out, it takes much less initial damage to lose all twelve mass/tick. The T2 fabs are clearly more efficient in terms of raw production for cost, but they are less efficient in other more subtle ways that are not insignificant.

In any case, I think that it is wrong to assume that T3 fabs should be more efficient simply because they are T3. With a great many units, lower tech is more efficient overall, but higher tech fits more capability into a smaller package. (Consider frigates vs. battleships, T2 vs. T3 gunships, etc.) I think it is appropriate to continue this paradigm for fabricators. Unlike power generators, which are built at every stage of the game, you will never be in a position where you build T2 fabs because you don't have access to T3 fabs yet. So if T3 fabs are better overall then no one will ever build T2 fabs. (Fabricators should stay priced so that they're built primarily in the late game, because if they are worthwhile to build before all available mexes have been upgraded to T3 then there is no reason to expand.)

If we make T3 fabs a better choice for reasons other than their overall efficiency, what fab to build becomes a tradeoff decision for the player, which is a good thing. T3 fabs are already a better choice in terms of space and build time efficiency, so what if we also increased their adjacency bonus relative to T2 fabs? That way players could, for example, build mass farms out of T2 fabs if they wanted to spread out and maximize availabe free mass, or use T3 fabs to build a more concentrated base that focuses on efficiency of production.

I think that boosting the T3fab adjacency bonus, combined with making SCUras worse, would be a good start toward making fabs a popular and useful choice again without making the game into turtle paradise.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 05 Jun 2013, 20:49

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-05T18:51:07+02:00

not all units are meant to be useful.
if nobody builds massfabs its because they are superfluous.
if you make them viable you get turtlebreaker games morning to evening.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 05 Jun 2013, 18:51

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-05T18:28:55+02:00

I wonder, if t3 massfabs are perhaps the least used building in game?
someone seriously got the math wrong when adjusting this one.

Statistics: Posted by FireMessiah — 05 Jun 2013, 18:28

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-05T18:21:38+02:00

I think the death weapon should stay (otherwise there is no downside to building these), but the cost should definitely be reduced. Here are some stats about the t3 mass fab (the only one with a problem imo):
T3 Mass Fab:
Costs:
30 times the mass of a t2 mass fab,
16.25 times the energy of the t2 mass fab,
7.5 times the build time,
23.33 times the energy cost per tick once built.
13.5 times the death weapon damage.

For this cost, you get 12 times the mass of the t2 mass fabs.

In other words:
you can get 12 mass per tick with t2 mass fabs for:
1200 mass, 48,000 energy, and 1800 maintenance,
OR
3000 mass, 65,000 energy, and 3500 maintenance with the T3 Mass Fab (2.5 times more mass, 1.3 times more energy, 1.9 times more maintenance, for the same amount of mass).

This seems wrong. The T3 Mass Fab should be more efficient than the t2 mass fabs (other than buildtime), but instead is several times less efficient.

EDIT: Funkoff -- My sarcasm filter missed this post for some reason.

Statistics: Posted by RoundTabler — 05 Jun 2013, 18:21

Re: Mass Fabricators

2013-06-05T17:04:06+02:00

For mass fabs, we should remove the death weapon, reduce e consumption to 20, and make them cost 300 mass.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 05 Jun 2013, 17:04