Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses problem.

[pip]

For the calculations of the total amount of mass invested in a t2 or t3 fac, the cost of the upgrade is reduced by the mex it is linked to: t3 fac near t3 mex = 240 (t1 fac doesn't get discount while being built) + 600 (t2 with 25% discount) + 2362.5 (t3 fac with 25%discount) = 3202.5 total (and not 4200). It makes upgrading factories cheaper, that is quite important (1000 mass is not meaningless).

I kept values relatively low so that it's not mandatory to do the factory near mex combination. Keep in mind that if a factory benefit from 2 t3 mexes, it gains 50% discount. That is fairly big. Along with a few t2/t3 mass fabs, it can even achieve to produce units "for free mass" (except it's not free since the initial cost of mass fabs and their energy upkeep is far from free). In some custom maps, a factory can benefit from 4 mexes, which mean that at t3, it will produce units for free. That's the reason why we should not go further than the 25% discount.

The values I suggested are simple:
t1 mex = 10% discount
t2 mex = 15% discount
t3 mex = 25% discount.
These values can be further adjusted, for instance 15% / 20% / 25% to give a slightly bigger discount to t1 and t2 mexes, but we need to keep the values reasonable. It should indeed not become the most efficient way to manage FA eco; it should be a decent alternative to storages. I ran some tests and I think 25% for t3 is the max value that can be chosen after that point, it becomes a bit too good.

Finally, it boosts t2 and t3 stages of the game more than t1 and t4, but I think it's not a bad thing.

[rootbeer23]

For the calculations of the total amount of mass invested in a t2 or t3 fac, the cost of the upgrade is reduced by the mex it is linked to: t3 fac near t3 mex = 240 (t1 fac doesn't get discount while being built) + 600 (t2 with 25% discount) + 2362.5 (t3 fac with 25%discount) = 3202.5 total (and not 4200). It makes upgrading factories cheaper, that is quite important (1000 mass is not meaningless).

so lets calculate the amortisation time:
first the mass storage case: 200 mass invested, mass rate increase 2.25 (+600 mass for the engis)
then the adjacent t3 factory: 3200 mass invested, mass rate saved:
10 * 25% == 2.5 (t3 ari)
14 * 25% == 3.5 (bots)
16 * 25% == 4 (brick)

the amortisation time is between 9600 seconds worst case and 1370 seconds best case.
With these values there is simply no incentive to make a t3 factory adjacent to a mex beyond the mandatory one and support it with engineers.
Or in other words, if i invest 3200 - 200 - 600 == 2400 mass into 1 t2 pgen and 3 t2 mass fabs i have 900 mass left over and i gain 1.25 more mass/second in the best case (the brick, which saves me 4-2.25 == 1.75 mass/sec)

A number which more closely resembles what i propose would be 50% mass consumption reduction for a t3 factory, which becomes cost efficient after 420 seconds (if building bricks) up to 870 seconds (if building ari) and then providing 8-2.25==5.75 down to 5-2.25==2.75 extra mass per second for the factory.
Keep in mind that t2 pgen + 3 massfabs has an amortisation time of 1500/3 == 500 seconds.

I kept values relatively low so that it's not mandatory to do the factory near mex combination. Keep in mind that if a factory benefit from 2 t3 mexes, it gains 50% discount. That is fairly big. Along with a few t2/t3 mass fabs, it can even achieve to produce units "for free mass" (except it's not free since the initial cost of mass fabs and their energy upkeep is far from free). In some custom maps, a factory can benefit from 4 mexes, which mean that at t3, it will produce units for free. That's the reason why we should not go further than the 25% discount.

With your numbers the adjacent factory would be mandatory for the factory which you plan to take to t3 anyway and would be a bad choice for any extra factory.
Please dont get confused: 7 mass storages adjacent to t3 mexes also allow you to produce bricks for free.

[Ghoti]

I don't think you can actually implement this though. What happens if you introduce mass fabs to this mix? Could you get a factory producing mass while it builds?

[pip]

The first values I tested were t1 mex =15%, t2 mex = 25% and t3 mex = 50% discount.

The problem with these values is that whenever you are able to link a factory to 2 or more mexes, this becomes extremely profitable, and the definite way to go. Example : the starting mexes on Open Palms can allow you to have 2 factories linked with 2 mexes. I think it would be much, much easier to fast tech to t2 and t3 factories with such a set up, because then, the mass cost of the factory required is 50% less as soon as you have 2 t2 mexes, and your t3 units are very cheap at that stage (half price). This would considerably change gameplay on such a map.

The other problem is that I tried to give mass fabs a reasonable discount too, and when you combine mass fabs with 50% discount t3 mexes, it's easy to have a t3 factory that consumes no mass at all, and since it can share several t2 mass fabs as well as a t3 mex, I fear it may become also the must do strategy (because t2 mass fabs at a t3 eco are not that expensive).

It's true that such values would definitely entice players to upgrade several factories to t2 and t3, but I don't think we want to change a "must do" behaviour into another. That's why we should be careful with the values and keep them reasonable for different gameplay situations and not just theorycraft. We don't want that fast teching becomes too good as a side effect of making mass adjacency bonus meaningful.



All in all, I recommend either 10% / 15% / 25 % as reasonable values and worthy alternative to mass storages, and advise not to go over 10% / 20% / 30%, if we want to promote even further several factories teching without making fast teching too cheap.

[rootbeer23]

The first values I tested were t1 mex =15%, t2 mex = 25% and t3 mex = 50% discount.

The problem with these values is that whenever you are able to link a factory to 2 or more mexes, this becomes extremely profitable, and the definite way to go. Example : the starting mexes on Open Palms can allow you to have 2 factories linked with 2 mexes. I think it would be much, much easier to fast tech to t2 and t3 factories with such a set up, because then, the mass cost of the factory required is 50% less as soon as you have 2 t2 mexes, and your t3 units are very cheap at that stage (half price). This would considerably change gameplay on such a map.

i aggree, a bonus of 16 mass/s (t3 fac making bricks) is to extreme compared to a bonus of 4.5 from mass storage.
But i do not agree that a tech level can be reached "much easier". first you have to invest 2*4600 mass into the upgrade of the 2 mexes.

The other problem is that I tried to give mass fabs a reasonable discount too, and when you combine mass fabs with 50% discount t3 mexes, it's easy to have a t3 factory that consumes no mass at all, and since it can share several t2 mass fabs as well as a t3 mex, I fear it may become also the must do strategy (because t2 mass fabs at a t3 eco are not that expensive).

sure it will be mandatory for at least one factory if you plan to go to tech 2 or tech 3. many things are mandatory in supcom.
engi assist, mass storage construction,...
the question will be how many factories one chooses to build adjacent to mexes and to what tech level they are developed.

It's true that such values would definitely entice players to upgrade several factories to t2 and t3, but I don't think we want to change a "must do" behaviour into another. That's why we should be careful with the values and keep them reasonable for different gameplay situations and not just theorycraft. We don't want that fast teching becomes too good as a side effect of making mass adjacency bonus meaningful.

teching becomes too good compared to what? t1 land spam also profits if you make many t1 land factories near mexes.
but i agree that it is not an easy concept to introduce into the game.

All in all, I recommend either 10% / 15% / 25 % as reasonable values and worthy alternative to mass storages, and advise not to go over 10% / 20% / 30%, if we want to promote even further several factories teching without making fast teching too cheap.

i agree making a brand new t3 factory next to a t3 mex is probably not a good metric to judge the balance. There are already other incentives to make a second t3 factory (location advantage on the map, less engi spam)
and the main driving force behind additional t3 factories is an abundance of resources anyway.
So lets stick to the slight advantage over mass storages. I can already imagine ppl reclaiming t1 factories around mexes after t1 forces lost their punch. could be interesting.

[HEAVY]

I agree with Lu_Xun, please do not change the existing mass storage balance, it just works!

You can add more flexibility in other adjacency bonuses, there are some interesting ideas here, but these changes have the potential to radically change the game, please be conservative.

As you can see in this long thread, a lot of modelling is required even for a simple adjustment to factory-mex bonuses that at the end has arguable benefit to the end of making the game more enjoyable. Changing the remainder of the adjacency bonuses and contemplating their impact across all game scenarios is a huge task. The likelihood of unintended negative consequences is high.

Yes, balancing a game this complex is an endless task -- SC2 balance is still being tweaked after millions of games played. I'd much prefer to err on fine-tuning and testing over a large number of games before making additional changes. I shudder when I see significant changes in any unit or game stat, the potential for breaking something else is just too large to take these changes lightly.

All in all good conversation to have, though I'd much prefer to poll the top players before implementing. Not many of those players commented on this proposal. The hard-core competitive community is the halo and driving engine that will continue to pull-in new players and give them a level of play to aspire to more than any one game change. Let's not lose the confidence of that community in our ability to be good stewards, not re-architects, of this great game.

[pip]

The idea is not to change mass storage mechanics at all, it's to offer another not completely useless kind of mass adjacency. Even if mass storage remains the most efficient option, it should not be a complete mistake to build a mex near a factory. It should give at least a meaningful bonus rather than forcing you to reclaim your fac once you upgrade to t2 mex so that you can have full adjacency.

In my everything worthy mod, I went down a notch, to 10% bonus at t1, 15% at t2 and "only" 20% at t3. With these numbers, adjacency is decent, but less interesting than surrounding with mass storages, except in cases where a factory can benefit from several mexes at the same time.

[Myxir]

with energy, it works like this:

if you cover EVERY side with pgens, it'll give you 25% (t1), 50% (t2), 75% (t3)

a factory has 16 spots where you can build a t1 pgen, means if you build a single pgen it's like:
t1: (25% / 16) = 1.56%
t2: (50% * 3 / 16 ) = 9.38%
t3: (75% * 4 / 16 ) = 18.75%

and if it's the same with mexes, a single mex means 1.56% cost reduction (t1 mex)... that's like...nothing, compared to storage (12,5% each store)

that's why i suggest to increase it to 400%, like you cover one side of the factory with mexes

storage bonus at t3 mex: 2.25 each
storage bonus at t2 mex: 0.75 each

new mass adjancy from mexes:
t1: 6.25%
t2: 12.5%
t3: 18.75%
the actual cost reduction is dependant on the unit you build

[pip]

I like this mathematical approach very much and these numbers are quite close to my "empirical" numbers, so they seem very legit to me (probably more legit than mine ^^). Mass storages would still be quite better with these numbers, but at least, it would not be a complete mistake to have one side of a mex linked to a factory and the other three used for storage adjacency. That's what is important.

[Ghoti]

I kinda assumed pip knew that.