Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses problem.

[rootbeer23]

The real adjacency problem is with mass. It doesn't scale at all. If you have a t1 mex near a t1 factory, the factory will consume -1 mass (3 instead of 4)

its nowhere near 3. its somewhere around 3.9.

[pip]

The real adjacency problem is with mass. It doesn't scale at all. If you have a t1 mex near a t1 factory, the factory will consume -1 mass (3 instead of 4)

its nowhere near 3. its somewhere around 3.9.

Thanks for making my post even more valid then ^^.

[rootbeer23]

The real adjacency problem is with mass. It doesn't scale at all. If you have a t1 mex near a t1 factory, the factory will consume -1 mass (3 instead of 4)

its nowhere near 3. its somewhere around 3.9.

Thanks for making my post even more valid then ^^.

this way you are right about something at least once a week

[Ghoti]

Thanks for making my post even more valid then ^^.

Well you're wrong though, because the adjacency bonus is floating point, the transition is smooth. The problem is only that T1 engi spam negates the bonus.

I kind of wish T2 and T3 factories were cost effective at building, but as it stands, implementing that would be a serious change to the game.

[pip]

Thanks for making my post even more valid then ^^.

Well you're wrong though, because the adjacency bonus is floating point, the transition is smooth. The problem is only that T1 engi spam negates the bonus.

I kind of wish T2 and T3 factories were cost effective at building, but as it stands, implementing that would be a serious change to the game.

I stated that the current discount bonus for mexes near factories are meaningless. If it's actually even less than what I wrote, it's even more meaningless. If it's "smoothly" meaningless, as you so intelligently correct me, it's still meaningless.

My suggestion is to make the discount bonus meaningful, so that it's not -0.1 bonus but t1 mex = around -1 / t2 mex = around -2 / t3 mex = around -4, or even more : -1 / -3 / -6. If the numbers are not exactly correct, it doesn't matter, the idea is that the bonus shall scale up during the game as you upgrade the mexes, so that it's actually a good idea to put a factory near a mass extractor at all stages of the game. This way, players would have the choice to lessen the units built by a given factory (or several factories), or surround their mexes with mass storage.

Engineers assisting such a factory don't benefit from the discount, that's true, but the factory does, so the mass is saved nonetheless, same as when you assist a surrounded t3 airfact with tons of engies when it is surrounded by 4 t3 power gens : you still save a lot of power thanks to adjacency bonus.
And several factories can benefit from a mex, so it can mean a truly good discount (it would also be easier to upgrade a factory near a t2 or t3 mex, because the mass cost would be reduced as well). It would promote more factories upgrades than engineers spam, though the later would still be interesting for sheer buildpower, of course.

[Kekouse]

For myself:

-remove entirely the mex-bonus advantage. It shouldn't give any adjacency bonus. Mexes are here to give mass, that's all. Giving another role (mex + factory) will be a too tough to balance.

-Rebalance the massfabs. Many have wrote entire walls of text about it. So let's pick the best idea and buff those massfabs.

-For me pgens adjacency is ok. Not very very useful but still ok.

-Mass storage adjacency is sadly mandatory. We could tweak it (nerf the bonus?) or automatize the Storage production like the T1 to T2 upgrade button. Hey it's already mandatory...why not push the idea to the end?

-Add adjacency bonus to Energy Storage. An "efficiency" bonus.
EStorage + Radar = +X% radar coverage
EStorage + PD = +X% RoF
EStorage + Arty = +X% reach
EStorage + Factory = each Row gives a veterancy star.
Estorage cost a lot, are nasty little bombs but we should give then a role (other than the "I WANT TO OC MY ENNEMY" purpose).

-And we should really nerf the power of engies. It's retarded to have +100 engies everywhere in big game. it slow down the game, narrow the possibilities of those adjacency bonuses .
Engies should repair, reclaim, construct but they should not be the only Buildforce of your army.

[pip]

@Kekouse: I don't agree. Sure the mass fabs need some buff, but you can't just remove the adjacency for mexes to factories that easily. Adjacency works for pgens, there is a distinctive "network" of power lines linking buildings and pgens but also mexes. It would be counterintuitive to remove the bonus without removing these lines. That alone is a lot of work I'm not sure it's worth doing. It modifies heavily the general principles of the game, that were advertised ages ago. There should not be only adjacency for energy and factories and no adjacency for mexes linked to factories.

I don't see why it's so "hard to balance" the mex adjacency in order to make it worthwhile. All faction would have the same bonuses. There is a limited number of mexes to which a factory can be linked.
It certainly was difficult before, when t2 and t3 mass fabs gave a lot of mass, and were the way to go to boost your eco. Now that mass fabs are near useless, if they actually gave decent adjacency bonuses, this would make help making them also worthwhile to build, despite the high risk they represent.

I'll try to do some testing.

[yoroshiku]

i dont know why you guys dislike mass storage, i love building economy buildings. i can feel the mass rolling in

[rootbeer23]

mass extractor adjacency is simply a design flaw. For adjacency, once takes the factory and counts the number of resource providers around it to calculate cost reduction. Works for power generators, but is close to meaningless for mass extractors. A proper design should end up like this:
A factory next to a mass extractor building a unit must provide for better cost saving than a mass storage in the same place. This i 1) the incentive to build a factory in the first place 2) Justified by the fact that the mass bonus is not general purpose income which can be spent anywhere on the map and thus less valuable.
The mass adjacency would be a bigger choice than power adjacency, because mass is generally more valuable and scarce.
While a pgen next to a factory comes with a penalty of a possible explosion, the mex adjacency comes with the penalty of committing mass to a specific kind of factory at a specific location on the map, This reasoning assumes that there are generally enough power generators present to build estorage next to, so that a factory next to a pgen does not use up a valuable adjacency position. Likewise an upgraded factory should receive an increase in bonus as an upgrade diminishes the possibility to reclaim the factory with little mass loss and thus increases commitment to the factory.

[rootbeer23]

For myself:

-remove entirely the mex-bonus advantage. It shouldn't give any adjacency bonus. Mexes are here to give mass, that's all. Giving another role (mex + factory) will be a too tough to balance.

its pretty easy to balance. the bonus must be a bit better than the mass storage bonus. mass storage gives general purpose income that can be spent anywhere for anything.

-Mass storage adjacency is sadly mandatory. We could tweak it (nerf the bonus?) or automatize the Storage production like the T1 to T2 upgrade button. Hey it's already mandatory...why not push the idea to the end?

its a design flaw. lets be at least consistently flawed