Adjacency bonuses, Build templates

name an example in FA where there is multiple optimal adjacencies to deliberate.

This is EXACTLY it.
As much as I liked adjacency bonuses in SupCom, it didn't love them.

What I would love if it changed up your Strategy and Tactics.
Shields surrounded by 4 T2 power = amazing regen or such.

In SupCom, adjacency bonuses really only affected econ, it's didn't factor into a strategy.
Although putting 4 mass storage around a Mex created bonuses, because it is something everybody "just did", it didn't become a choice, it's just something that you needed to do to keep up the competitive advantage.


If adjacency bonuses helped to augment HOW your base was laid out with a corresponding risk, then that would be amazing, but it would also possibly cost Uber a HECK of a lot more balancing time.

Imagine if a T2 flak cannon can obtain a variety of bonuses based on adjacency.

• beside radar = more range

• beside Mex = more damage

• beside Power = more AoE radius

• beside factory = cheaper build cost

At that point, adjacency bonuses are not longer a "you do this because it's more econ efficient", but rather, it's a conscious strategical choice.
I keep going back to Diablo 3 as an example of a game gone wrong.
The Auction house fiasco isn't why D3 isn't well received within the community. Rather, it is so much more a narrow game, your build, your skills and especially your gear only focuses on raw DPS and boosting your primary stat. It doesn't create diversity and options. In an RTS, the more options you have on the table, the more unique play styles, builds and reactions that can happen.
The more variety that is possible, the less you will get a scripted boring game.
It makes every game that much more memorable.
Such as "remember that time Jason tried to take out my com with a crap load of strat bombers? Hah, little did he know I had flak cannons all over my base 3 layer deep".
Its creates more unique situations which make things that much more crazy.


So I am for adjacency bonuses, it would create so much more DEPTH to the game.
But if it's just econ bonuses, then I would rather Uber spend their time and energy towards polishing something else.

I don't like adjacency bonuses. I don't feel it is a deep or value added mechanic, but instead an artificial burden of knowledge imposed.

I wouldn't mind having power lines that were just textures (do not impede motion) from base structures that are close enough together. I really like how Zero K has done this with it's power grid.

Got Power?

I disagree, I am sad that they are taking it out, the issues with supcom and adjacency bonus were balance ones. I personally would like adjacency bonus but make them small, but meaningful. Basically everything most people said, but make them small enough that people who don't care, don't have to care, yaa they're missing out on 5% efficacy or something. But if their ability to ignore their base building means they can spend more time controlling the battlefield power to them.

Basically I think they should make them smaller then Supcom but more varied.

+1

I wouldn't mind them designing it into the game with null values.

That would make it easier to mod.

Even if they didn't, they should make sure it is easy enough to make adjacency bonuses, because for something people like, it would be a shame for it not to be doable.

I found agacency bonuses made the base building very boring.

I'd much rather be building my bases in the cover of mountains and ravines rather than next to mex's continually.

It will be nice to have my advanced power plants out of harms way too...

reading this thread reminds me of just how short sighted and depressing PA is as a follow-up to supcom and FA and how much I was ripped off $70 for investing early.

Adjacency was perhaps under-developed, but no less critical than say tuning your carburetor on a race car or adjusting your shocks on a race car. those things help win races. having inter-related building mechanics makes for more interesting outcomes than than rate-of-mex/rate-of-spam garbage applauding "no micro".

This thread and a big confirmed feature list were here before the price was $70. Maybe you should have done some research before investing and not after?

Are there racing games that actually let you do that?

Uh, yeah?

Although comparing it to something as non-interactive as adjacency is a little insulting.

Lovers of adjacency, read this.

If you can suggest a way to make AB a worthwhile time investment, be my guest. But complaining about how you 'wasted' your money when information on this was freely available will not make you any friends.

I agree about ideas of adjacency.

Take Anno 2070, perfect example.

There really is only one ideal way to manage your production. There is a set template for doing so. The only reason you have to deviate from the template is because you can't quite fit the relevant buildings in the right places.


Once you've solved that problem, there is no depth to the system, unless you want to design an island to be Aesthetically pleasing.

I am in favour of making deeper features, not in favour of adjacency bonuses because it isn't a strategic choice in execution.

I hate shooting down ideas completely, especially ones I support the principles behind. But that is the sad truth of the matter

Not true. It being missing is 1 of the big reasons 1 of my IRL friends i bought this game for won't play with me. SO, speak for yourself lol. I liked them too, because it made bases a little neater and nicer looking. Like little cities for my colo to stomp through >

Neurtino said this week that they are not on the short list, or really any list yet. So don't hold your breath for that 1 either.

Cool! What, for instance, are you planning to include in PA to add dept the the decisions of where I place my structures then? Because currently in PA there is less, not more, depth of strategy in building placement than FA and I have not heard of any plans from you guys to increase that yet.

That's reason #245 to have energy restrained to gravity wells. Every other reason for placing structures is implicit. You don't want vulnerable structures on the front line, you don't want to cluster, you want defenses to work, you want extractors protected.

I dislike the idea of adjacent bonuses because it unnecessarily adds micro to the game; this could be resolved with build templates, but I still don't see a compelling reason as to why it should be included. I could feasibly see something like the closer your fabbers are to resource buildings, the more quickly you could build because "travel time" of resources would be shorter (so a construction adjacency bonus), but since the fabbers can construct anywhere without needing to bring in resources, it doesn't really matter.
Build templates would be useful for late game on multiple planets though, because you'll already be established so you could think a little less about exactly where to place what. It could also be useful for after a planet is cracked so you can have fast, predetermined defensive structure layouts (assuming the templates are customizable).

wrong, wrong, and wrong. considering you got x1.3 mass for every mass storage adjacency with mass pumps it was a world apart when you had 14 t3 mass points or 14 t3 capped mass points. at the competitive level, refusing to profit from adjacency bonuses of any type signed your death warrant.
the problem is that in PA it'd be hard to get a viable grid in the first place.

All you people talking up how adjacency bonuses would greatly benefit strategic depth are, for lack of a better term, masturbating. Honestly, all it does is ramp up the learning curve, if you want all these complex interactions between defenses and eco structures and what not, go play FAF. There is already so much on the PA players plate that it just doesn't make sense. I understand yall are fired up because you're pros at it or whatever, but seriously I'd rather worry about scouting and raiding over deciding if I want my AA to have larger aoe or higher rate of fire. Why not just build something that just ******* works.

Do you understand how much more balancing this would require? Like Neutrino said earlier, these are hyper advanced robots: No upgrades (they're already the best). AB just doesn't fit in to the overall feel this game is going for. I like to describe PA as the TF2 of the RTS genre. AWESOME

Not some simcity or civ (although these are good games). What you see is what you get.

This is different from having a superior extractor to begin with in WHAT way, exactly?

The problem with adjacency isn't whether it can or can't be figured out in players. The problem is that it's a big learning curve which pays off with little fun. Adjacency only gave a few tricks to the game, and they weren't even tricks so much as blatant oversights in the adjacency formula.

For example a T1 generator reduces the energy use of a T3 radar by 125, even though the generator only produces 20 energy. Mass fabs were ruined and needed a quadruple nerf because it turns out that reducing their energy cost by 75% leads to an explosion of income. The Aeon quantum optics facility could turn its 5K energy cost into NOTHING because it was given the wrong size type. Basically the only useful things that adjacency gave didn't make sense, are trivial to substitute, or were clearly bad.

Also, it was 1.125x per storage. +50% income with full storage.

An idea for "build template light":

At the moment, you can keep left mouse button depressed while drawing in one direction to build multiple buildings.
How about, in the depressed state, you could at the same time click the right mouse button to toggle between "draw 3 in a row", "draw 5 in a row", and back to "draw 1 in a row"?