Mass Fabricator + Factory

[IceDreamer]

So, as ZLO pointed out in the Q&A, Mass Fabricators still give their adjacency bonus to the Factory if they are paused. It also happens with Mass Extractors. It happens because the bonus is applied as a Buff on, in this case, the start of unit construction, and because Buff type changes are fire-and-forget rather than tracked, turning the units on and off changes nothing. The buff is applied to the Factory on project start.

Strangely, it does adjust when the Fabricator is reclaimed or dies... <-This is the clue: Why does this happen?

So far I am unable to fix this

[errorblankfield]

I'm pretty sure it's more of a 'we don't care enough to fix it' thing than more than anything else.

By no means is there a wide consensus that they shouldn't give a bonus on pause.


Oh and it likely updates on building death. I'm 70% sure it's removed with the building -someone would have said something and I'm thinking at some point I checked myself. Updating on build and death is two quick checks. Asking if you are on every second not so much. (Or telling the factory.)

[IceDreamer]

I know it's not intentional, it's a solid bug, but 3 hours of trying and I can't fix it. I can't quite narrow down where everything is happening, and I can't find where the death of the building removes the buff from the table.

And yes it's two quick checks, but so is telling the factory every time the building's state is toggled.

[Iszh]

Stop this, i tested the t3 mass fabs and they cost times more than t2 mass fabs they use times more energy than t2 mass fabs. The only way to make them useful is to connect them to at least 3 t3 land factories and let them be switched off by mass fab manager. They do 4mass+ each factory when switched off and cost 3k mass. You cannot connect them to energy when you try to use adjacency so to switch them on would be simply dumb. 3500 e for 12 mass WTF. if you spam t2 mass fabs which are far not so explosive then you pay half mass and use half energy and make more mass.

In my opinion
-the t3 mass fab explosion is ridiculous strong and makes them unusable because they always have chain reactions when using together with t3 pgens. Even shields are not able to stop this powerful chain reactions. I made several tests of this
-the t3 mass fab energy use is outof any realistic useful value. They are not even comparable to t2 mass fabs without adjacency (3500e - 12 mass - t3// 1800e - 12 mass - t2)

So overall with all those great bonuses of t3 mass fabs they are only useful for adjacency with t3 land factories and nothing else! If you fix the bug that they do not provide adjacency when switched off you have to decrease the e usage and the explosion damage to make it a reasonable option. Otherwise you can delete this unit from the game. Sacus are already times better for improving eco after t3 mexes with t2 mass fabs. I think normally there should come first t3 mass fab farms instead of sacu spam in the row of ecoing.

Eco tree (eco Map, does not work in 1v1 or small team games):
1. t1 mex
2. t2 mex
3. RAS
4. t2 mex + storage
5. t3 mex + storage
6. t2 mass fabs next to mex storages
7. (Should be t3 mass fab farms)
8. Sacu RAS spam

This is the realistic built order on seton for example. If you compare what is more worth thats a bit more difficult, because t2 mass fabs are times better than t3 mexes but need more built time. Basically they are needed after you got ras to use the wasted e from Ras which has to be done before the first mex goes t3. This "only on what is best mass + for mass cost" order cannot be realized in reality because of moving and building times. This in fact makes ras one of the most important upgrades in the game. And this is the reason why Sacus are way better than t3 mass fab farms. Even less efforts needed to get Sacus and they have better income for cost.

[IceDreamer]

I get the feeling you weren't around back when T3 Fabs were the default. It was a nasty, static, degenerate game. Even so, the correct way to do this is to fix the bug, THEN re-balance the unit. A unit can always be balanced, then rebalanced, then rebalanced again to hone it ever closer to the desires of this community. The other way around is not an option.

A mod which is considered cheating by a large number of people doesn't come even close to the realm of relevant. Leave that out of this. SCU spam should never have been made the default. It's a stupid option which disconnects the vulnerability of Economy from strategic exploitation, and it would be great were it replaced by T3 Fabricators for functionality.

[Iszh]

>I thought the mod the people complain about is the eco manager. But not the general use of it but the engi e throttle function is the thing people consider to be not fair and not the mass fab manager part?!?<

Despite this thing we really should not talk about in here i thought that there should be always a red line in following with eco and this should not be broken even in the late game. There is some kind of order what i wanted to show with my list and the t3 mass fabs havent found its place in there yet. Sacu spam is ok but it should be the last step or because of built power a mixed last step with t3 eco. I could imagine a list just mass+ for mass cost efficiency like this:

1. t1 mex
2. t2 mex
3. t2 mex & storage // RAS
4. t2 mass fabs next to t2 mex & storage
5. t3 mex & storage
6. t3 mass farms // Sacu RAS

T3 mass farms should be more efficient than Sacu ras since the built time and to walk to a place where you can built it and that it cannot be moved away has to be taken in consideration. Thats the red line in eco and it should not stop somewhere. At the moment it is ongoing the same way but without t3 mass fabs. I cannot imagine why it should be a problem if t3 mass fabs would be balanced that the people go on ecoing. Thats the normal way of fa, you fight and eco. Who is more effective player and stops eco to make an attack push and then stops units to push eco is the better one. The effectiveness of the attack phase strongly depends on the size of map.

Please describe a bit more the problem with the t3 mass fabs you mentioned i dont know about this. Atm i know mostly Seton the usual ongoing is people go to all t3 and storages, everybody has arround 300- 450 mass + and then people focus 100% on getting stuff. The better players manage to go on with Sacus and in the end add t2 ass fabs before or together with sacus. If there would be balanced t3 mass fabs the eco would go on until people do 600-1000 mass+ and i think meanwhile the game is over since from 300 mass income you already can get insane bit stuff like small game ender t3 arti and so on.

Thats btw surprising that even good players didnt know that a t3 arti with 4 t3 pgens reload time is reduced to 60%. A duke with 550 dps and 10s reload brings with this additional 12k mass arround 6s reload time and therefore has 166,67% dps --> 918,5 dps nad high fire rate. I just mentioned this to show that there are enough of mini game enders and the game will not reach the point when people have 1000 mass income. Also the engi mod supports this, it gives the chance to use the big eco. Before it was not possible to spam enough t3 units for huge eco. Meanwhile it is possible.

[IceDreamer]

This isn't about balance. This is about that fact that Fabs provide significant savings when turned off. This is a bug, and it's not even an iffy subjective bug like the whole hoverbombing thing, it's a plain and simple bug. If I can fix it, I will. Balance can be looked at later.

[Ithilis_Quo]

Im not sure if this is a bug, becase this is working same with mexes not only fabs. When would be posible energy plant turned on/of i think it would be same.

At first you would try fix this, give some solution what to do with fabs, because already are pretty ussles, and this adjustancy bonus is only reason why sometime build it.

And cant be posible that build T2 is more effective as build T3. It is like build T2 Pgens is better like build T3. T3 dont must exist. And moveble and strong sacus cant be more effective like heavy volantile building who dont had any defense...

first solustion the how to fix it, what maybe isnt a bug.

[IceDreamer]

Crotalus and I have spent the morning poring over this problem and concluded that it's engine-side and unfixable. At least, we can't figure out a way.

[Crotalus]

Yeah with the addition it could be solved by keeping track of the adjacent buildings a structure has and then inform those when you toggle something on / off.

There doesn't seem to be another way of getting a the adjacent buildings a structure have?