Mass Fabricators

[Donimo]

To almost every player mass fabricators are totally useless. Why? Because they cost too much mass/energy to build, and then cost to much energy to operate.

To bring this (fairly major, but unused unit) mass fabricator to be useful again, I strongly suggest that the amount of energy they cost to operate is reduced by maybe 30%, or otherwise they should cost less mass to build.

I am a strong believer that mass fabricators really should be a major building in FA, but due to their really bad cost efficiency, they are never built.

What do you think?

[eXcalibur]

i played the single player of supcom 2. there you have mass converters (basically really efficient mass fabricators). once you have researched these units, you just build 5-10 of them and you never have to worry about building mass extractors again.

this discourages map control and turtling is the best way to play. i found that to make the game much easier and more boring.

in faf, you can build mass fabricators, which cost a lot of mass, use a lot of energy and can be destroyed easily, because there explosion damage is huge. if you are willing to risk this, you can do it, but it is much easier to build/upgrade mass extractors. i really like this!

from time to time, you see people building t1 mass fabricators, because they are more efficient than t3...this should be changed, though (by making the t1 more expensive and the t3 slightly less expensive). this way people will build t3 mass fabricators and they have to protect them (like other highly explosive, expensive buildings, e.g. paragon, t3 + t4 arty)

[FunkOff]

For mass fabs, we should remove the death weapon, reduce e consumption to 20, and make them cost 300 mass.

[RoundTabler]

I think the death weapon should stay (otherwise there is no downside to building these), but the cost should definitely be reduced. Here are some stats about the t3 mass fab (the only one with a problem imo):
T3 Mass Fab:
Costs:
30 times the mass of a t2 mass fab,
16.25 times the energy of the t2 mass fab,
7.5 times the build time,
23.33 times the energy cost per tick once built.
13.5 times the death weapon damage.

For this cost, you get 12 times the mass of the t2 mass fabs.

In other words:
you can get 12 mass per tick with t2 mass fabs for:
1200 mass, 48,000 energy, and 1800 maintenance,
OR
3000 mass, 65,000 energy, and 3500 maintenance with the T3 Mass Fab (2.5 times more mass, 1.3 times more energy, 1.9 times more maintenance, for the same amount of mass).

This seems wrong. The T3 Mass Fab should be more efficient than the t2 mass fabs (other than buildtime), but instead is several times less efficient.

EDIT: Funkoff -- My sarcasm filter missed this post for some reason.

[FireMessiah]

I wonder, if t3 massfabs are perhaps the least used building in game?
someone seriously got the math wrong when adjusting this one.

[rootbeer23]

not all units are meant to be useful.
if nobody builds massfabs its because they are superfluous.
if you make them viable you get turtlebreaker games morning to evening.

[Mycen]

Fabs are not particularly effcient, whether looking at it in terms of mass cost, time cost, space cost, or energy upkeep cost, this is true. But as has been pointed out, this is a good thing, because you don't want games where players can develop a powerful economy without expanding.

But I think that a big part of the reasons no one builds fabs now is not because they're inefficient.

The problem is that for twice as much mass players can simply build an SCU with ras instead. Although that option is twice as expensive, it is a far better choice because, among other things, it takes up much less space and is mobile. Why build a big, fat T3pgen surrounded by T2 fabs when you can just build an SCU and have it patrol in a lake? One can claim that people don't build ras because they're too expensive for how much mass you get, but it is common for me to see players making giant herds of ras SCUs that, 99% of the time, do nothing but sit and produce resources. Since these are obviously even less efficient than fabs for production, clearly mass generating units are not "superfluous" and cost efficiency is not the only thing preventing people from making mass fabricators.

Although this issue would likely be addressed by making fabs better, I think a better solution would be to simply make SCU ras worse. That way SCUs are pushed back toward the roles they should have, and fabs again become the more attractive option for late-game economy boosting.

In other words:
you can get 12 mass per tick with t2 mass fabs for:
1200 mass, 48,000 energy, and 1800 maintenance,
OR
3000 mass, 65,000 energy, and 3500 maintenance with the T3 Mass Fab (2.5 times more mass, 1.3 times more energy, 1.9 times more maintenance, for the same amount of mass).

This seems wrong. The T3 Mass Fab should be more efficient than the t2 mass fabs (other than buildtime), but instead is several times less efficient.

This all sounds good on paper, but have you ever actually tried to build a T3 fab versus twelve T2 fabs? Even with templates (I have my handy T3pgen+T2fabs template) it is much more difficult to get the T2 fabs up and running. You have to start twelve different constructions, and assisting engineers constantly get in the way of the next fabs you're trying to put up. Also, it is much harder to fit them under shields, and unless you space them out, it takes much less initial damage to lose all twelve mass/tick. The T2 fabs are clearly more efficient in terms of raw production for cost, but they are less efficient in other more subtle ways that are not insignificant.

In any case, I think that it is wrong to assume that T3 fabs should be more efficient simply because they are T3. With a great many units, lower tech is more efficient overall, but higher tech fits more capability into a smaller package. (Consider frigates vs. battleships, T2 vs. T3 gunships, etc.) I think it is appropriate to continue this paradigm for fabricators. Unlike power generators, which are built at every stage of the game, you will never be in a position where you build T2 fabs because you don't have access to T3 fabs yet. So if T3 fabs are better overall then no one will ever build T2 fabs. (Fabricators should stay priced so that they're built primarily in the late game, because if they are worthwhile to build before all available mexes have been upgraded to T3 then there is no reason to expand.)

If we make T3 fabs a better choice for reasons other than their overall efficiency, what fab to build becomes a tradeoff decision for the player, which is a good thing. T3 fabs are already a better choice in terms of space and build time efficiency, so what if we also increased their adjacency bonus relative to T2 fabs? That way players could, for example, build mass farms out of T2 fabs if they wanted to spread out and maximize availabe free mass, or use T3 fabs to build a more concentrated base that focuses on efficiency of production.


I think that boosting the T3fab adjacency bonus, combined with making SCUras worse, would be a good start toward making fabs a popular and useful choice again without making the game into turtle paradise.

[RoundTabler]

Mycen, you make some really good points (this is one of the reasons unit balance is not simple, and about more than stats, and one must consider unit-unit interactions). I still think T3 Mass Fabs need buff along with SCU RAS nerf, perhaps by lowering the maintenance, so you don't need to build two T3 Pgens to support it, or in something more subtle. I can't think of any buffs other than stats, but maybe you can? SCU RAS is actually very prevalent in games today. I saw a guy on setons the other day, by minute 45, he had given ALL of his mexes (T3) to the other players, and just continued on with 20-30 SCUs with RAS. That seems OP on the face of it, so that sounds like a good place to start.

[RoundTabler]

Another idea might be to just buff the amount of mass they generate. Rather than nerfing the cost, we could buff the mass produced per tick. Any takers?

[Ithilis_Quo]

Here was my suggestion about mass fabricators, 4 point. viewtopic.php?f=42&t=3780
That how i believe would make then useful again and dont break role about map control.

Mass fabricator T2/T3: mass fabricators are present in almost unused and set to its high price, explosiveness and extremely energy intensity almost unusable. And that makes this building unique building unusable and it is wrong. FA is thus unlike the original supcom preparing for a building that would also be able faf in place. The main change that occurred between the FA and supreme commander not add seraphim, but the change in mass distribution, which has doubled increase Mass extractors, extractors doubled energy consumption and production rate dropped to half what mean that their effectiveness is 8 times lower than previously. The purpose of this change was to make the game more fluent, was crucial to filling maps, movement and action. That is correct. However, in the original supcome was perhaps strategy which today is no longer possible and that is defense. On defense, it is necessary to get as well as other revenue of wrecks that sends enemy and are adopted by enough mass fabricators. Mass fabricators would also change the very expensive and inefficient, they would be very susceptible to destruction whereas one blast do more damage than his hp, but gave the opportunity that now exists (although this option would still be ineffective, but it would be) and the game by offering more strategies and become more complex, more beautiful. This is probably the biggest change that would most potentially changed the game.
My suggestion: change the mass intake of T2 extractor from 1 -> 2, change the energy intensity of the 150 -> 100; raise the price from 100 -> 200, increase the blast damage from 370 to 500; mass reception at T3: 12 -> 18, Energy intensity from 3500 -> 2310, price from 3000 -> 4500 dmg for destruction 5000 -> 7000 dmg radius 14 -> 15
Reason: Should be strengthened fabricator it would be possible to win even when active defense when your opponent controls a majority of maps. Fabricators would be more expensive but at the entrance, causing greater damage to the destruction of which would have made the primary object of the attack. Since it would be larger and would damage was to their status outside the main base for prevention iterative effect and therefore would born eco bases somewhere on the outskirts of the protected areas, which would add another element to the game, which is absent today.
Programing difficulty: that would throw variables in the code of building, the minimum difficulty.