Extractors

And what about the Context? You can't just quote one particular stat like that and ignore everything else, CONTEXT is everything! It also depends on how you define 'worth', you failed to mention that you were comparing a stock T1 extractor to a T2 Extractor surrounded with Mass Storages. So lets lay out some STATS for Extractors.

So looking at the above link, and using Mass Production as the Primary factor, because lets face it, that is the whole purpose to building extractors no?

T1: 2 Mass/Second
T2: 6 Mass/Second
T3: 18 Mass/Second

So there is a 3x improvement based on the prior tier, if you include the Bonus granted by surrounding an Extractor with Mass Storages(x1.5 if fully surrounded or x1.125 per storage I believe) we get this;

T1 w/ Storage: 3 Mass/Second
T2 w/ Storage: 9 Mass/Second
T3 w/ Storage: 27 Mass/Second

In which case there is still a 3x improvement, but because Mass Storage has a fixed cost(200 Mass X 4 to surround an Extractor) it's pretty much ever built around T1 Extractors because the cost of second T1 Extractor(36 Mass) is much cheaper than 4 Storages(200x4=800) and provides "double" the Mass Production for much cheaper.

So grabbing Extractors Early Game is important because its stupidly economic. here is the Ratio of COST(Mass) to Mass Produced;

T1: 18:1
T1 w/ Storage: 418:1
T2: 150:1
T2 w/ Storage: 144:1
T3: 255:1
T3 w/ Storage: 200:1

Neat Huh? But that's not even the whole story! Don't forget about unit costs! STATS for Unit Costs.

NOTE: the Exact ratios and costs can depend on what units you're specifically comparing, for example a Brick costs almost 3x as much as a Loyalist so just keep that in mind, for this Example I'm using the Mantis, Hoplite and Loyalist.

T1: 52 Mass
T2: 200 Mass
T3: 480 Mass

So there is a 4x jump in cost for T1 to T2 units, but extractors only have a 3x jump in Mass Production(until you add Storages, but any "competitive" player will tell you that you should be upgrading all/most of your T1 Extractors for T2 before you start adding on Storages) so even in T2, expanding your territory(or holding on to your existing territory) is still pretty important.

But you know what the funny part is? Even without all these numbers, all these calculations, it still comes down to a simple fact, the more Economy you have, the more stuff you can build, so it doesn't matter if "a T2 extractor is worth 4.5 times a T1 extractor like in SupCom map control gets less important as the game goes on" because if player A doesn't expand and Player B does, player B is still in a much better position to win simply because he has more Mass Points than Player A.

Exactly this.

Mike

The guys over at FAF had a 34 page long "discussion" about this. I think it was stated at some point that it is more efficient by a LONG shot to sit in your base and upgrade your starting mexes than to fight over map control, once the game is up to and past the T2 stage.

The way it should be is that map control is ALWAYS a battle you are fighting.

Isn't this also a map design issue?

If there's enough metal all over the map compared to how much is in your starting area, it automatically forces you to expand and fight over those.

But if you put too much metal spots in the starting area and not enough farther away, you'll of course get turtling.

It's also a game design issue. If adding the 100th bot to your army adds only 20% of a bot's firepower (ie. how much stronger do you get per extra metal), then expansion isn't worth so much as you can't use the extra metal spots as well as you could use the starting area spots.

It is both a map design AND game design issue. However, the game design determines which maps have issues; ideally, only the maps that are designed to be turtle-ey should have these issues. In SupCom, this isn't the truth. Some competitive players have actually found ways to turtle on 10x10 and even 5x5 kilometer maps. And they've won doing this.

Well duh, the smaller maps are ideal for that kind of thing because there are fewer resources out in 'no-mans land' so the difference in Eco is a lot smaller, you can't play a 20km map and hold only your starting mexes and expect to win, there are just too many Mexes on the map for them to be ignored.

Mike

Setons Clutch.

Yes, funny how a map that specifically separates the players in a 4v4 configuration with only one land path could possibly encourage turtling?

Got any others? Need more than one example to establish a trend.

Mike

Fields of Isis, Kazam, Wonder, Seraphim Glaciers, Scorpion Canyon, any map with a choke point (Rush me More, Thermo, etc.), Finns Revenge, Ian's Cross, Four Leaf Clover, Six Leaf Clover, both of the Strip Mine maps, Fields of Thunder, Eye of the Storm, and Canis River.

I can keep going. I've heard reports, watched replays, as well as had first-hand experiences of aneurysm-inducing turtling on all of these maps.

I hope the devs are aware that Seton's Clutch was actually a really, really bad map. Popular? Absolutely. But very one-dimensional. Unfortunately that is the reason it was so popular- player specialization into pigeonholed, well-mapped out roles creates an illusion of competence with little thought or effort. That, and that weak players prefer mixed-outcome team games so they always have someone to blame when their team loses.

Bloody trailer. #drunk

Are the devs even making any standard maps? I was under the impression they were making a robust map creation tool like the one we saw in livestream and the community will just save and share successful (aka fun as hell) maps with each other.

Pretty sure there will be at least some hand-crafted maps for competitive play.

Pretty sure there won't be any hand-crafted maps since the devs said in the livestream that they won't create an UI for making handcrafted maps.

Also, maps like Seton's Crutch won't be possible in PA by definition of it playing on a sphere.

Edit: As a matter of fact and to quell such ludicrous rumours: http://youtu.be/5Qyl7h7D1Q8?t=23m2s.

Though Mavor has no plans to put it in himself there is no technical limitation for the hand editing of planets. Jon fully expects hand-edited planets to be "A Thing".

Not only that but there are facilities to parse models. And you could model a whole planet if you wanted and import it in.

Yeah, I forgot to put in an important word, I wanted to say: "I'm pretty sure there won't be any hand-crafted maps made by the devs." Since shandler talked about the devs making those maps. Sorry 'bout the confusion. :cry:


Of course there will be handcrafted maps by the the community and I eagearly await the first earth map in 1:1000 scale. :mrgreen:

Oh gods...

I can see it now.

A gigantic planet

that is nothing but Seton's Clutch.

A 3D planet.

Honestly, unless there are flat worlds no maps will be exactly duplicate-able in Planetary Annihilation.

Incorrect exact parameters can be copied from one planet to another. Mavor said that custom maps could happen "by plugging, or getting a program to plug the data in"

A sphere can be unwrapped too, so really u lieeee