Should resources be tracked per planet/moon

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by RealTimeShepherd, September 16, 2012.

?

Should resources be tracked per celestial body

  1. Yes

    162 vote(s)
    40.5%
  2. No

    238 vote(s)
    59.5%
  1. bh18

    bh18 Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    No linked buildings? Why not? That was a major boon in SupCom, linking T-1 Gens to buildings to boost production helped your economy a lot, on the flip-side they were also priority targets by raiders to stall production and force the defended to tie up engineers rebuilding them. There's hardly a reason to forgo that in favor of some cut-and-dry production, it made you think on what to build and where.
  2. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    It did however make many players think about never not linking their structures, besides its not like it is really an essential addition to the game.
  3. bh18

    bh18 Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Suppose not but why close the option?
  4. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
  5. vectorjohn

    vectorjohn Member

    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a point I didn't think of, against a pure global economy.

    It would make no sense and be bad for gameplay if destroying a power plant in one place takes the defenses on another planet offline.
  6. bh18

    bh18 Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's basically what everyone has been saying. This subject is hardly cut and dry.
  7. PKC

    PKC New Member

    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lol, no it didn’t. adjacency in supcom was practically worthless, with a few exceptions (the main one being mass storage on mexes).
  8. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    Well the adjacency net to factory's paned out, resulting in production being much cheaper as time goes on.
  9. zordon

    zordon Member

    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not really. As PKC said the only adjacency in FA worth a damn was storage next to a mex. In original supcom massfab adjacency was king.
  10. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    At first its not much but it does pan out, as was the point with adjacency bonuses.

    Mass is however very noticeable considering how much you get.
  11. zordon

    zordon Member

    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    2
    Stop being so wrong all the time.
  12. PKC

    PKC New Member

    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    0
    sorry, but both these comments are completely wrong.
  13. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    The thing is, I am not.

    Saving even a few resources here and there will inevitably allow you to spend more.

    so how am I wrong?
  14. elexis

    elexis Member

    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    1
    You are wrong because the resources and time you spend on making those bonuses would have been better spent on direct resource generation.
  15. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    Over the short term I agree but with games going on over and up to an hour your economy will inevitably benefit.

    T1 bonus aren't that great but by T2 and T3 you start to get bonus that are much more noticeable.
  16. zordon

    zordon Member

    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    2
    Maths says you are wrong. I trust maths more than your opinion.
  17. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    The same to you.
  18. elexis

    elexis Member

    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    1
    The bonuses are still roughly the same percentage relative to the amount of power/mass being generated in the first place.
  19. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
  20. elexis

    elexis Member

    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    1
    And moving over to this thread:

    You just said (paraphrase) that it is too hard to repair everything manually because of the sheer amount of management involved in fighting across multiple systems/battlefields, equivalent to 2, 3 or more supcom/fa sized maps. And yet here you are trying to promote multiple discrete economies and a convoluted set of buildings and game mechanics to share resources between them.

    Please settle on a fixed amount of desired micro and stick to it. There is no way that repairing your units/buildings is harder than managing multiple discrete economies.

Share This Page