Power -- Too sensitive?

I've played quite some ladder games now and have a basic idea of the 1vs1 gameplay. I feel like power is WAY too sensitive. Map control isn't even important in the 1vs1 ladder, why? Because you either overflow the extra metal income you got, or you will stall power.

Open for discussion

I am sure everyone in this forum knows my stance on it. I agree.

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/of-investments-energy-metal-and-reclaiming.65512/


I agree SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much. Like I am sure you can find posts of myself stating the t1 energy economy is broken that date back more than a year. xD

You faf players and your energy problems. Learn to play noobs. Especially you cola.

Well it should have great priority if it's alrady

It's not a matter* of managing power, it makes map control absolutely USELESS. And it slows down the general progress of the game such as getting T2 on the field

*corrected spelling mistake

I agree, T1 is way too energy limited.

Hmm, yeah , in 1v1 games map control is everything. And its pretty easy to expand if you risk the 45 seconds to do so. Players now dont let you make mistkaes like they used to so 45 seconds is a lot to risk. Delaying t2 has nothing to do with energy.

Map control is everything? Is that why I see fields of empty metal points in 1vs1 UBER replays? The hard transition to T2 has actually a lot to do with map control and power causing it to be useless.

Please show me one good example of a replay where good players win by expansion. I am sure you know how the games looked like back when I considered it good. Where is that now?
I've only seen a lot of replays of good players winning but barely taking the mex in their own base. Maybe they go and take a few mex outside their base, but calling that expansion is heresy to me.
Expansion starts when you have multiple bases. When was the last time you saw anyone having multiple bases? When was the last time you saw main bases being lost but the game continued? When was the last time you build a real proxy?

In first 3-5 mins players have enough metal at their start spots and energy economy care them much more. At "middle stage" of game, map control is really important,cuz energy plant's spam is not a problem with 3-4 fabricators.So you must get much more metal on map then(and not allow enemy to do same). You can't get nice economy(and defend) with 12+ factories without map control.

But i'm agree, that we could change "economic system" a little.Increase energy produce for t1 energy plant(from 600 to 800) and for t2 (from 5000 to 6000) for example.

show me one good 1vs1 where good players spammed energy with 3-4 fabbers. Most players don't even build that many fabbers.

That's the wrong change to do, the reason why t1 has issues with power is not only "not enough power" but also a missbalance between what you have to spent on building stuff with fabbers or building units with factories.
Fabbers cost so much more energy that making structures isn't a wise idea compared to spamming more units.

in what situation? After some minutes? How many they have metal at the time of spam energy? What map?

You talking about replays , i am talking about behavior players in game.Sometimes i don't send fabber far away for expand, cuz i know that this enemy have a good map control. Do you understand difference?

Typical 1vs1 play on typical 1vs1 maps.
A replay is a proof of past player behavior.

Nice...As i said:

1 metal extractor's cost like 150 metal. It mean that to pay off, metal extractor should work like 21.4 seconds before it died(i mean only metal spending)
So let's watch on typically 1 vs 1 maps. Its small. Normal player build radar at start and see like 1/3 part of map.
No sence trying expand on "visible part".With good map control he can look on the rest part of map(2/3) without problems. Just use patrol and fingers with dox and air sometimes.Also fabbers with 200 metal cost too expensive for fast lost.I am talking about "early stage" of the game.

On "late stage" of game players have 3-4 or more fabbers very often.

Well yeah ranked maps sure are tiny on top of the other issues, that I certainly agree on.

I think power has been discussed to death, but as you stated, power is a great hindrance to expansion (in t1)

come t2, power is vastly easier to expand upon

And when exactly does this "middle stage" of the game begin? The game progresses too slow and this makes it very boring. And what exactly do you mean with map control is really important? My definition of map control is controlling as much of the map as possible. You guys however seem to think map control means protecting your mexes? While there are a bunch of unclaimed ones? Because you can't get power fast enough? Do explain your point of view.

And please do not say radar coverage = map control. Then you might aswell make the game so that you don't have to leave your base at all and just wait till you can overrun the opponent

If energy was such a big problem people could invest time in protecting Mexes, but they don't. They need the metal, and need to expand as quick as possible. Main reason is because raiding forces usually consist of too many units, so to invest in the amount of defenses it takes to defend said mex costs way much for time invested.

If you watch the top players you will see that they build as efficient as possible. Spend as much as possible on expansions without losing out to units.

Energy is not the problem. As cola_colin said it was possible to do before and the way the economy works hasn't changed.

There are so many things that have changed since the glory days cola yearns for:

T1 units were made a lot cheaper (veh and bots almost halved)
T2 became much more expensive (factory and units twice as expensive )
T2 units nerfed hard( double cost and damage decreased on spam killers like shellers)
Turrets were nerfed hard even with t1 unit cost decrease.
Air is much better all around. Used to be only good at killing fabbers.
Mex hp dropped. Used to take 10 bombers, now 3.
Preferred map size for 1v1 reduced.
Players have gotten better and timings and efficiency majorly improved.

So yeah other than all that I suppose energy could have a small part to play.

Watch some of my replays... I tend to expand and I'm #19 in Uber. The main issue with expansion is *fabbers have 0 health*. Structures are sturdy so you can defend them (in fact as units tend to *keep attacking* what they first shoot at, letting your opponent start firing at a building is a superb way of winning a fight with lower numbers as they ignore your units ).

The problem though is fabbers have no chance to survive or even retreat. Imo fabbers should take a few hits (inferno level hp) to give you time to retreat / bring in support. It would spice up expansion play no end.

I suppose I might be trying to compare this game to Supreme Commander too much

Should I however feel the same after a week or two after I played some more ladder I'll definitely bring this discussion up again hehe

I'm not saying you are wrong, but there are other things to consider too. i have watched a few faf games but it seems in pa you have 3 fabbers and 15 factories and faf has 3 factories assisted by 15 engies. Maybe It is just a different type of game. But still, on a standard 1v1 map how many expanding engines do you start with? Before you risk losing out to raiding?