Balance Killed because of direct built of T2 Factorys

[Little Miss Murder]

I see support factories not as a build power solution, but as a FOB/beachhead solution. I like the principle very much, but it could be better executed imo.

[ZeRen]

I build one, sometime two HQs never needed more, pointless change and waste of devs time...

[MrTBSC]

I build one, sometime two HQs never needed more, pointless change and waste of devs time...

yea that´s a VERY convincing arguement for a mod that didn´t make much sense in the first place ...

[FtXCommando]

I build one, sometime two HQs never needed more, pointless change and waste of devs time...

yea that´s a VERY convincing arguement for a mod that didn´t make much sense in the first place ...

Aren’t you the dude that said one of the biggest issues with FAF revolves around pathfinding? And now a major game change that removed the worst of engie pathfinding issues is considered “needless complexity?” (read: make expensive fac then make cheaper ones is apparently an extremely difficult concept for anyone but 146 IQ FAF players)

And yes, engiemod IS a buildpower solution. Literally look at the name of the mod.

[MrTBSC]

I build one, sometime two HQs never needed more, pointless change and waste of devs time...

yea that´s a VERY convincing arguement for a mod that didn´t make much sense in the first place ...

Aren’t you the dude that said one of the biggest issues with FAF revolves around pathfinding? And now a major game change that removed the worst of engie pathfinding issues is considered “needless complexity?” (read: make expensive fac then make cheaper ones is apparently an extremely difficult concept for anyone but 146 IQ FAF players)

And yes, engiemod IS a buildpower solution. Literally look at the name of the mod.

it´s A buildpowersolution in that all engineers have reasonble BP to their cost, doesn´t mean it´s a good or only solution ...
as mentioned BP spam with engineers is still a thing with high tier factories .. if you want to further decrease engineerspam cause of pathfindingissues you can add hives/kernels to the other 2 factions and/or make factories/supportfactories more efficient that engineerspam might be less neccesary or a mere bonus ..

this doesn´t answer though why it shouldn´t be possible to have t2/t3 factorys/HQs/supportfactories/whatever the ballancecommunity of this client wants to go with as a buildoption for engineers/commanders nor why it shouldn´t be possible to upgrade supfactories to HQs ...

[FtXCommando]

1) navy factories often go for engie spam because of the huge buildtime, you want a battleship out every 30 seconds not 5 out every 5 minutes because the latter will often not let you keep up unit quantities to win the reclaim in a major naval fight. You also don’t get adjacency for navy facs.

2) in air, major assistance on one factory tends to be read as either a super fast air win attempt that is banking on capitalizing that win before a build focused on efficiency can outclass it later on

3) in land, the same general logic applies. Sometimes people value units out quick to win a critical battle and snowball from that. Some people would rather snowball thru more efficient buildpower usage by making support facs adjacent to mexes. Granted land is less extreme than navy and air so people can get away with doing a fusion of the two methods or just 1 and still generally succeed.

The factories are already efficient enough and don’t need to be adjusted. ACUs and engies can build both hqs and support facs so I fail to see why that matters. Do you mean just randomly shitting out a t3 HQ when you havent built a single land factory or air factory the whole game? Lol, no. Shouldn’t even need to explain why that’s just bad.

I’m fine with an option to upgrade a support fac into an hq for the full upgrade cost of an hq.

[MrTBSC]

Do you mean just randomly shitting out a t3 HQ when you havent built a single land factory or air factory the whole game? Lol, no. Shouldn’t even need to explain why that’s just bad.

oh you so smart you surely thought about the situation of a HQsnipe .. ..

also what´s exactly wrong with rushing a t3 HQ? ..
standartplay is almost always ground .. why should the choice to go t3 air hq not be valid if you have the eco for it ? ..

[Little Miss Murder]

I’m fine with an option to upgrade a support fac into an hq for the full upgrade cost of an hq.

This, this, all sorts of this.

[FtXCommando]

The resources in this game are not just mass and energy. Buildpower is a resource you need to consciously account for. If you can just make a t3 hq without having to deal with the downtime that comes from having to upgrade a factory, it rewards shitty play and makes it significantly harder to take advantage of enemy inability or something like destroying the HQ of the enemy via air or tmls. All this change would do is reinforce the “boring” game that you seem to always argue against as a vast amount of niche strategies will be made irrelevant.

You can argue that you could make the immediate HQ more expensive than upgrading a factory over a period of time but then you enter the realm of unintuitive design which we definitely do not need.

Of course land is the main path; navy requires water which already means it tends to be used in a minority of maps. The point of air is to be able to deal a uniform amount of damage over a vast area while being relatively simple to protect against. If you only have a few things to protect, air can’t do anything because it has already been efficiently countered. I also think you don’t really watch a lot of 20x20 games because land HQ upgrades are definitely the minority in those. Air HQs are cheaper in mass and in turn are able to quickly pay off their investment in comparison to land HQs simply because the size of the map means you have a harder time protecting all key areas.

[MrTBSC]

The resources in this game are not just mass and energy. Buildpower is a resource you need to consciously account for. If you can just make a t3 hq without having to deal with the downtime that comes from having to upgrade a factory, it rewards shitty play and makes it significantly harder to take advantage of enemy inability or something like destroying the HQ of the enemy via air or tmls. All this change would do is reinforce the “boring” game that you seem to always argue against as a vast amount of niche strategies will be made irrelevant.

You can argue that you could make the immediate HQ more expensive than upgrading a factory over a period of time but then you enter the realm of unintuitive design which we definitely do not need.

Of course land is the main path; navy requires water which already means it tends to be used in a minority of maps. The point of air is to be able to deal a uniform amount of damage over a vast area while being relatively simple to protect against. If you only have a few things to protect, air can’t do anything because it has already been efficiently countered. I also think you don’t really watch a lot of 20x20 games because land HQ upgrades are definitely the minority in those. Air HQs are cheaper in mass and in turn are able to quickly pay off their investment in comparison to land HQs simply because the size of the map means you have a harder time protecting all key areas.

there is always a downtime of weither you upgrade a structure or build it from scratch .. i did mention mexxes before .. they can be sniped by anything, yet you still have the option to fully rebuild them with a t3 constructer ... of course buildpower is a resource, meaning you can throw that buildpower on any structure be it a upgrade or a from scratchbuild to alleviate that downtime ..
it´s all a matter of your entire eco .. if you merely destroy a factory without realy doing anything to the opponents metal- or powergeneration when he has a advantage on that it shouldn´t be suprising when he is able to quickly build it back up ..
you merely given yourself a window were he may have not been able to produce a couple units for a bit of time .. but again weither he rebuilds a HQ from scratch or builds a t1 to t2 to t3 factory were exactly should be the difference there?

also how the heck does the loss of a HQ reward the player who lost it? he still has to rebuild it .. reinvesting the ammount of metal he had to before for a factory ... and again if he spend a fair ammount of metal in support factories that means for that duration he was unable to produce units on them (unless he had a second HQ somewhere) .. which is usaly the goal behind such a snipe ..

i have watched like 300 to 400 videos of FAF matches over the years, be that 1v1 or teamgames and those 20x20 matches there mosty is at least one t2 or t3 ground HQ depending on how long the game lasts .. and unless a HQ snipe ends the match people will go and try to rebuild it .. ... so what exactly does it matter if it´s a minority? it still happens, does it not?

i consider the need to split factoryproduction between HQ´s and supportfactories already as unintuitive ..
and i mentioned aswell of how you could assist factories with kernel/hive drones potentionaly decreasing the issue with pathfinding .. give aeon and phim their variant and allow it to be build on sea as well ..

the primary reason i consider this game boring is its lack on intresting groundoptions besides the bog standart between tiers of each faction, but that´s a different topic ...