Factory Complex

How is a structure which acts identically to a fabricator assisting a factory overly complicated?

I disagree with the idea of restrictions of units based on factories built and so on.

But there are several ways you could do this. You could make a structure which gives a bonus to speed for all units rolling off the factory. You could balance it by removing armor/firepower. And so on. You could make it strategically interesting without being boring if you sat down for a few hours with a pen and paper and really nutted out the ideas and limitations of the system.

It's "overly complicated" in the sense that very little gameplay is created for a large amount of added complication. Clearly some sort of complexity is required in this game but every bit which is added should be able to justify itself in gameplay. If the upgrade is actually identical to factory assist then the option is redundant. If it does something slightly different (for example reduced rolloff time) then you only need a simple calculation in order to determine when to make constructors and when to upgrade your rolloff time.

This is a completely different idea to the one we have been discussing so far. It would be hard to balance but that might be interesting.

I don't like this, Rolloff is a key factor in promoting play with more factories as opposed to simply assisting a small number of factories, the easiest way to offset the effects of Rolloff is.....to build more factories. I don't like the idea of adjusting a unit's abilities for something like this as it runs counter to the idea that a unit is a static entity that makes it easier to account for things mentally, this same reasoning is why there aren't attack/armor upgrades like in SC2, so that units are always a known quantity.

Mike

Thanks to GoogleFrog for the explanation on why SC2 and PA have such different metagames.

And KNight, an upgrade for factories that makes units get produced quicker would only decrease your desire to build more factories in the short-term. But not in the long-term, because 10 factories with upgrades will always be inferior to more than 10 factories with upgrades.

I think it would make smaller games more interesting. But I see your point, because PA isn't really about smaller games, unlike SC2 for example. But there will always be small skirmishes even in the really large games, which for example occur on moons or asteroids.

It might be basic calculation on when to build those upgrades. But it's getting increasingly difficult to do the more factories you have, considered that you also have to spend ressources and time (in which the factory doesn't produce) to do that upgrade.

The more factories you have, the more it becomes intuition instead of basic calculation imo.

I hated the adjacency bonuses, it was just pointless micro that every team had to follow. The downside is vulnerability to blast damage, however I think if you didn't use them you were handicapping yourself to the point that you couldn't compete with players who were doing it, so you'd end up taking more damage as a result anyway.

Err... Well the way I envisaged it working was that it turned an assisting fabber into part of the factory. And reduced energy cost proportionately, because now the fabber is being powered by the factories power supply, not by the portable one. Whatever the semantics, it isn't complicated, because it is already in the game, but it isn't exactly obvious to players new to the streaming economy type (where, you know, most RTS games have builders that build stuff, harvest resources, and that's it), it's basically identical to the starcraft barracks upgrade.

As it is, base building is kind of sparse. Upgrading your factory complex could be cool. It's up to the devs, so they could make it great, if they see fit.

I do agree about proximity. In the end it becomes about making your structures look awesome, and getting maximum efficiency for land usage.

Ironically, when I said roll off time, I actually meant fabrication time. I have no idea what I was thinking when I typed that, because that is what I meant.

Fair enough. Like I said, it's up to the devs, and the current system works pretty well already. Just wanted to emphasis the first point that turning a fabricator into a permanent feature of the factory isn't that far from what we have already. (Even if its redundant or overly economical)

I just like the idea of having modular factories, which you can fit with various upgrades, changing their efficiency and looks. So that a factory isn't just a factory. Only adding more and more is really simple, and is leaving somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth. This game obviously is about more = better. But it should also be about more than that.

This just adds tedium. Why would I want to build 10 factories, then go back and upgrade them after they are constructed, when I could just queue up 15 factories for the same production power and be done with it.

Because like I said, I find it a little bit too simple to just add more factories. It's not really a challenging system. Wouldn't you find it cool if factories were modular and you could add stuff like an extra energy generator to them to decrease their energy demand, or additional robotic arms that would increase production, or even something like an assembly line (just for the looks)?

I much prefer the system of having more factorys, as they are extremely space dependant.

And late game they add to the whole urbanisation of the planet, making destroyed bases very fun terrain to have been produced.

I don't argue against having to build more factories. But I find it a bit stale to only build more factories. You know what I mean?

Yea sure that would look cool, but what does it add to the gameplay? The devs can't spend all their time adding graphics for units/upgrades that only add visual things. Also, extra units/upgrades that don't really modify gameplay or behavior are really just fluff IMO.

Adding extra factories for extra production is simple, and it should be. I don't want to whip out the calculator every time I need more production to see if it's more efficient to build more factories or upgrade my existing ones. Player choices should easily translate into actionable moves that they can make.

I do know what you mean.....but I don't like the idea of upgrading them......What about T2 mega projects?

Stuff like unit cannons?

To prevent it from only being basic calculation, you could build in some draw-backs.
There are ofc multiple possibilities in doing that, in that for example you'd have to decide between multiple modules and "specialize" your factories.

But yeah.

I'll probably have to bring this idea to a halt, until we actually know how the full unit roster will be like.
And I think the devs read through this already, so they will have their own ideas on this. Or maybe they decided against it completely. We will have to see.

This just adds even more complexity to the decision. Somebody will just develop a UI add-on which does the complex calculation for you.

If I want more energy, I build p-gens, if I want more metal, I build mexes, if I want more production I build factories. Battles will be taking place on multiple planets and you can be attacked from all sides, base building should be simple so that we can focus on more strategic decisions. The decision should be "Do I need metal, energy, or production?" not "Do I need metal, energy, or production? Production. Okay now which is more efficient, upgrades or more factories? Okay which upgrade? Okay where is a factory that doesn't have that upgrade? Oh, they are all upgraded already..."

Sorry but I like games that are complex like that ^^
To me, there probably can't be enough complexity, until more complexity would make it boring instead of more fun. But getting stressed in a RTS game (where you have to make decisions that would usually take you some time rather quickly) is, for me at least, something that increases fun. It motivates me to become better.

I don't mind complexity, but it should add something to the game IMO.

No building upgrades, adjacency, growths or warts. Slap down the building and be done with. Thats Macro...having to click on the building again to upgrade, enhance, change the look of or generally make "more complex" is micro...go play another game for that...like Eve Online

http://www.giantbomb.com/macromanagement/3015-484

Anything to do with unit production is macro. Anything to do with actually managing your army in the field is micro. Correct terminology please.

Micro, macro, who cares, anything that adds tedium to the game should be avoided. Having to upgrade a factory before it is fully effective is tedious, because you have to return to it after construction has finished. Similarly, having to manually reclaim a wreckage and then give the build order afterwards is tedious, which is why it was removed.

Even if you give the ability to upgrade immediately after construction, all you are doing is prolonging the build time of the factory.

Micro is generally viewed as being bad because it is usually synonymous with tedium. Having to give 10 orders to move a unit through a mountain pass instead of one move, or individually selecting targets for units because they do not prioritize the units that they counter. I'm not saying all micro is bad, but I would argue that tedious micro can be.

Also, the article you linked says this at the top:

The terms macro and micro are vague, so arguing semantics is a waste of everyone's time.