more options to mex adjacency

[rootbeer23]

how about we buff mex adjacency further so that shields have more HP if they are next to a mex,
point defenses shoot faster, pgens produce more energy, hives have more buildrate, radars have more range.
then you can use whatever bonus you need at some point in time and it opens up new ways of eco development.
mass points being the cornerstone of the economy and also always limited i think that makes them ideal candidates
to offer up various strong adjacency options.
think of mass point adjacency spots as yet another resource to manage. thats what we love to do right? manage resources.

[ICKEN]

its a nice idea. i will apreciate everything that makes the game more complex. since the the most patches want to make the game easier for beginners.

[Ze_PilOt]

Ok. First and last warning. I won't accept any whining post.

You either have something constructive to say, or you just say nothing.

[Wakke]

I think the idea is a good one, but I think only mexes at the front will have something else than mass storage around it. When those mexes are later no longer at the front, mass storages will be built for them.
If we ever explore this option, I still feel a nerf to mass storage adjacency bonus is needed.

[rootbeer23]

I think the idea is a good one, but I think only mexes at the front will have something else than mass storage around it.

you can build power generators, shields, TML, SAMs, nukes for a bonus. main base structures. but as you said: map position makes a difference.

[Ionic]

How about engineers assisting a mex to make it produce even more mass! I think this game would be even better with more mass not less.

I also love the idea of every structure getting a bonus from a adj to a mex.

MORE MASS NOT LESS PLEASE.

[MushrooMars]

I dislike the grid system in general, and adjacency in general... It makes me feel limited. It doesn't limit a whole ton (aside from with mass storages), you can stick Energy Storage anywhere you want, the +3% bonus to PGen isn't a whole ton, except with T3, and even then it isn't a whole ton.

Yes it's a operational/strategic choice, and I do believe it is nice to have in-game, but I am more of a tactics guy than a strategy guy. The more I can get my Tanks flanking, my Artillery on vantage points, my LABs sneaking, and my Aircraft taking out enemy Eco, the more fun I have playing a game. I like FA, I like the aesthetics, most of the gameplay, the 'big fucking battle' feel to it, and most importantly the grand scale. However, economy is not, and should not be a complicated thing.

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.

[Eukanuba]

[-_V_-]

I dislike the grid system in general, and adjacency in general... It makes me feel limited. It doesn't limit a whole ton (aside from with mass storages), you can stick Energy Storage anywhere you want, the +3% bonus to PGen isn't a whole ton, except with T3, and even then it isn't a whole ton.

Yes it's a operational/strategic choice, and I do believe it is nice to have in-game, but I am more of a tactics guy than a strategy guy. The more I can get my Tanks flanking, my Artillery on vantage points, my LABs sneaking, and my Aircraft taking out enemy Eco, the more fun I have playing a game. I like FA, I like the aesthetics, most of the gameplay, the 'big fucking battle' feel to it, and most importantly the grand scale. However, economy is not, and should not be a complicated thing.

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.

Are you trolling each single topic regarding the adjacency bonuses or what ?

Let's take an example on how strategic those agency bonuses can be. Simple one.

Apparently you played setons already, so you should know, the back position is 99.999% of the time epic t3 air spam, right? And I guess you know that it requires HUGE amount of energy to do so.

That's why you need extra t3 pgens quite rapidly. I guess you also know that the E storages (even though they're aren't cost efficient for one t3 pgen) are built next to the t3 pgens to increase the income. Let's not go into why one would build E storage if it's not cost efficient yet.

Here are your options around 14 min :

- Build t3 pgen without E storages around it -> worst cost efficiency but safe
- Build t3 pgen with E storage stick to it -> still not cost efficient but at least you benefit from the income bonus …. BUT (here's the tricky part) you're VERY vulnerable to a bomber. Why ? Because usually this first pgen is built quite close to your air factory, with tons engies. Blowing up the E storages next to the pgens results in a big slow down for the victim.

So that's a simple example of the type of choices you have to do regarding on how you build your eco (and base). You may say, go build your t3 pgen further. Well in real game, it take more time, time good players don't wanna waste !

Battle and aggressive units are a great part of the game, but you seem to not care enough for the eco part. Any strategy should be backed up by your eco! Period! If you can't make them fit, you should lose badly. If you don't think so, you may be playing the wrong game!


=====

Regarding the OP. More bonuses! All the way! It will be complicated and will give maybe too many options but it will be even more interesting! Let's do that

[Veta]

This isn't a bad idea but I think it's misguided. The identified problem with mstorage adjacency is a lack of depth and a lack of choice for the increased complexity. Adding choice is a matter of increasing the parity between adjacency options and in the case of MEXs there may be a need for creative new adjacency bonuses as what the OP described. Adding depth is a little more tricky, I feel it's difficult to identify what depth has been added from the adjacency bonuses that do exist. Increasing the viable adjacency options in a given situation would making MEXs and PGens more attractive to build near but 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. Imperative bonuses like the mstorage rings increase the knowledge burden and execution burden on a player and are equally binary, you either follow the imperative or you do not at your own peril. Both types of adjacency add complexity to the game but neither really add any depth. That is in contrast to the complexity added by dynamics like factory upgrades or Land vs Air units. In almost every FA game you grapple with whether to make more land, upgrade tech or switch to air or sea. That isn't to say the aforementioned can't also be situational imperatives but what makes upgrading tech or making more tanks interesting is that they can also be strategic options to which your opponent must respond and react. 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.

More on point, I would love to see more creative adjacency, MEX/PGens giving PD and sAA bonuses would be really neat if balanced competitively versus walls but I'd still have the same concerns I illustrated above. And I definitely understand the concern UberEnt has that adjacency forces you to build a certain way.