Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses problem.

[pip]

I did some testing to make adjacency bonuses slightly better or at least as good as surrounding a t2 or t3 mex with storages. These values only concern factories (buildings with footprint 16):

T1 mex : Add = -0.1,#instead of -0.025
T2 mex : Add = -0.15,# instead of -0.0375
T3 mex : Add = -0.25,#instead of -0.04,
T2 mass fab : Add = -0.02,# -0.00625
T3 mass fab : Add = -0.125, #-0.075

These values mean that there's a real point to build factories near mexes, because when you will upgrade the mex, the bonus will be higher and meaningful.

For instance, a t2 mex surrounded by 4 mass storages provides +3 additional mass (9 instead of 6).
With the value above, a t2 mex near a t2 factory will allow the saving of around 1.5 mass per tick. But it's still possible to build 3 mass storages around the mex to get +8.25 mass instead of +6. So all in all, your mex would give you one less mass, but allow you to save 1.5 mass while the factory is building. The total mass produced would be 9.5, slightly less than the +9.75 of the fully surrounded mex. Thus, it would not be a complete mistake to build a factory near a mex.

You could even share the t2 mex with several factories, so that the discount benefits more factories. The discount would be slightly better than the additional mass you get from linking your mex to a mass storage (-1.5x4 tech2 linked factories = -6 discount).

And when the factory is upgraded to t3, the savings would scale a bit to a discount of around -2.5 (still with the t2 mex). When the mex is upgraded to t3, the factory will save even more : around -3.5.
A mass storage near a t3 mex gives an additional +2.25 mass income, so having a factory next to the mex for a -3.5 discount would be slightly better. Again, you could have 3 storages + 1 factory and it would not be a mistake anymore.
A t3 mexes surrounded by 4 t3 factories would give around - 14 discount, which is more than the +9 given by the 4 mass storages, but of course it costs a lot to have 4 t3 factories (however, the factories are cheaper to upgrade because they save 25% mass when linked to a t3 mex, so it's actually less expensive than expected, if the factory is not assisted: 2362.5 mass instead of 3150 mass).

As for the values i suggested for the mass fabs, they are meaningful too : you can really gain good discounts if you surround a factory with t2 or t3 mass fabs, but of course it's very expensive, cost tremendous amounts of energy and is highly dangerous.

[rootbeer23]

But it's still possible to build 3 mass storages around the mex to get +8 mass instead of +6.

8.25

So all in all, your mex would give you one less mass, but allow you to save 1.5 mass while the factory is building. The total mass produced would be 9.5, slightly better than the raw +9 of the fully surrounded mex. Thus, it would not be a mistake to build a factory near a mex.

9.75

A mass storage near a t3 mex gives an additional +2 mass income

2.25

[Softly]

really root? I'm not sure any of that detracts from the points pip was making.

[Ghoti]

actually... I now agree with pips figures. It doesn't factor in deployment time for the factories of course, but it still seems reasonable.

Though he's gotta start using decimals, even if in game the numbers are represented discretely.

[pip]

Thanks for the corrections Root. I updated my post for more precision in my numbers. I think these values work well to make mex/factory adjacency as good as mass storages, and better in some situations.

The other good side effect is that it encourages more factory upgrades because the discount is only on the factory, and not on the engineers assisting it. So theoretically, you save more mass if you don't assist factories but upgrade more than one to get the discounts. Of course, it's more expensive and less efficient immedaitely, but it would reward such attempts eventually. Engies would still be good for fast building something, and all the things they are good at now.

[rootbeer23]

Thanks for the corrections Root. I updated my post for more precision in my numbers. I think these values work well to make mex/factory adjacency as good as mass storages, and better in some situations.

The other good side effect is that it encourages more factory upgrades because the discount is only on the factory, and not on the engineers assisting it. So theoretically, you save more mass if you don't assist factories but upgrade more than one to get the discounts. Of course, it's more expensive and less efficient immedaitely, but it would reward such attempts eventually. Engies would still be good for fast building something, and all the things they are good at now.

would be nice to quantify that:
one t3 factory including its precursors is worth 4200 mass and provides the build power of 12 engis for 600 mass.
The adjacency bonus must be able to pay back 3600 mass in reasonable time. +- whatever cost one wants to attach to the fact that there is a new factory on the field able to place units and soak up some damage. I have no suggestion for that payback time at the moment, but it will either be a long time for the payback to happen, given the large cost of a t3 factory compared to engi build power, or the payback would have to be very large and thus factory adjacency would be highly favourable. Doesnt look like an easy tradeoff.

[pip]

Thanks for the corrections Root. I updated my post for more precision in my numbers. I think these values work well to make mex/factory adjacency as good as mass storages, and better in some situations.

The other good side effect is that it encourages more factory upgrades because the discount is only on the factory, and not on the engineers assisting it. So theoretically, you save more mass if you don't assist factories but upgrade more than one to get the discounts. Of course, it's more expensive and less efficient immedaitely, but it would reward such attempts eventually. Engies would still be good for fast building something, and all the things they are good at now.

would be nice to quantify that:
one t3 factory including its precursors is worth 4200 mass and provides the build power of 12 engis for 600 mass.
The adjacency bonus must be able to pay back 3600 mass in reasonable time. +- whatever cost one wants to attach to the fact that there is a new factory on the field able to place units and soak up some damage. I have no suggestion for that payback time at the moment, but it will either be a long time for the payback to happen, given the large cost of a t3 factory compared to engi build power, or the payback would have to be very large and thus factory adjacency would be highly favourable. Doesnt look like an easy tradeoff.

I doubt it would be efficient to upgrade several factories around a t3 mex all at once, it would never be as efficient as assiting a single T3 factory with engineers. But gradually, it would be a possible to do something like this :
- surround a mex with t1 factories in early game to get a small discount, and then a good discount when the mex is upgraded to t2 and one of the factory upgraded to t2.
- upgrade your t2 factory to t3 and the mex to t3. You then have a good discount for the most advanced fac, and a small one for t1 factories.
- then you can upgrade another fac to t2, for a cheaper price (600 instead of 800) and produce t2 units with a 25% discount, then another of your t1 to t2, etc.

All in all, you would produce t2 units with 3 factories with a global discount for them equal to -7.5, plus the -3.5 discount of your t3 factory = -11 mass saved per tick. I'm pretty confident this would pay off in a decent amount of time, and you would churn out t2 units at a pretty good rate without the need of engies, and for a reasonably good price.
And once you can afford, you can upgrade one of your t2 factories to t3 at a 25% discounted price : this would be more interesting if you don't intend to assist it. You then save the price of engies, and through the 25% mass discount, once every 4 units produced, you get a free unit. If you have 2t3 factories, half your t3 units are free, and if you have 4 t3 factories like that, it's very expensive, but it's like having a factory giving free units. That's pretty good in long games, but not in normal length games.

When Ze_Pilot opened this thread, he titled it "making the game more fluid". It think this would add a lot of fluidity, because many combinations would actually be interesting. The basic combination of t2 and t3 mexes surrounded by mass storages would still be a very interesting option, but not the only valuable one, not to mention all kinds of other discounts you can get with mass fabs.

[rootbeer23]

All in all, you would produce t2 units with 3 factories with a global discount for them equal to -7.5, plus the -3.5 discount of your t3 factory = -11 mass saved per tick. I'm pretty confident this would pay off in a decent amount of time, and you would churn out t2 units at a pretty good rate without the need of engies, and for a reasonably good price.

3 tech 2 factories: 3 * 1000 mass invested
1 tech 3 factory: 4200 mass invested
mass saved: 11 mass per second
build power gained: 3 * 40 + 60

4 tech 2 mass storages: 800 mass invested
mass saved: 9 mass per second
build 36 t1 engis: 1600 mass invested
build power gained: 180


at an extra 2 mass/sec, you finally have more efficiency at (7200 - 800 - 1600) / 2 = 2400 seconds.
good luck with that.

When Ze_Pilot opened this thread, he titled it "making the game more fluid". It think this would add a lot of fluidity, because many combinations would actually be interesting. The basic combination of t2 and t3 mexes surrounded by mass storages would still be a very interesting option, but not the only valuable one, not to mention all kinds of other discounts you can get with mass fabs.

lets hope we find a workable solution.

[Softly]

Don't forget that while adjacency bonuses don't extend to assisting engies, over the same period of time an assisted fac and an unassisted fac will make the same saving relative to one that is not adjacent to a mex.

Also the adjacency bonus should be kept relatively slim, otherwise we go to the other extreme of having to place your facs by mexes to get the most of your eco, rather than it being a choice.

[rootbeer23]

Also the adjacency bonus should be kept relatively slim, otherwise we go to the other extreme of having to place your facs by mexes to get the most of your eco, rather than it being a choice.

maybe we can make it work for t1 factories, the investment is very much comparable to a mass storage and so the advantage can be kept slim (no worry about long amortisation time), and make it workable for the 1 or 2 t3 factories you would be building anyway in a game, because then the investment is mandatory and made solely for the purpose of access to the tech level.
i see a clear tradeoff then, which leaves room for strategic choice and personal preference.
The more t1 factories you put next to mexes, the more efficient it becomes to stick to t1 units.
Also leaves the option of reclaiming t1 factories with 10% mass loss. Whoever goes through the hassle would have some advantage.

EDIT: and maybe it would be wokable for higher tech factories: the mass gain needs to be more substantial, to not get behind for a long time for a slim payoff. but then again at the tech 3 stage the economy is pretty well developed anyway. So a t3 factory adjacency could be designed to mean a little longer waiting for it to pay off (compared to 200 - 300 seconds for the current mass upgrade mechanism), and together with the fact that the mass gain is limited to that particular factory and that maybe 5 mass/s extra only pays for a new t3 bot after so many seconds at a stage where the eco is already so much developed that 5 mass/s could mean 2% more or less...
My point is that with a good advantage, it will still be a bad idea to only make t3 factories around mexes (because there is a larger time for it to pay off, so it is not an automatic decision).
EDIT2: ... meaning the high cost of a tech 3 factory versus a t1 mass storage gives us the opportunity to design a tradeoff that differs from the t1 mass storage tradeoff, because it forces us to use a different tradeoff. as stated above, it would probably mean: still longer time for it to pay off, but then a larger gain, commitment of resources to a single consumer.