Progressive penalization for overbuilding defences

None. I have as little information as you do on that point. Unfortunately for me it's what my fellow Vanguards would classify as a 'personal issue', as my thoughts on the subject are very obvious and well known. I'd need the community to really kick up a fuss about it before I could present it to Jon... a fail safe against any one of us trying to steer the game in a particular direction, otherwise I'd be accused of furthering my own agenda.

I think the concept of upgrade T2 economic structures need to be thrown in a fire. I'm not allowed to suggest that to Uber officially unless I have community support.

So. Start kicking.

It pains me to say, but I absolutely agree with nanolathe on this matter.

Disagreed ....

Without any reasons to base a rational debate upon it would look to the casual observer that you are just being obstructive and disagreeable, essentially to be contrarian for the sake of it.

Might I ask exactly why you're disagreeing?

I agree with nanolathe that the basic idea of a more expensive mex with higher yield warrants serious reconsideration. The basic function of such a structure is to allow players to spend metal to get more metal, while expanding over less land and with less interaction with other players.

I am very confident that advanced economy can be made more interesting than a flat-rate moho mex.

Probably not the best argument ... but i kinda feel it's against the spirit of ta

A better argument .. building more resourceproductionheavy structures always bring a high risk with them when destroyed
also while this game heavily encourages to expand and take control on area i feel there should be something for more defensiv players (or who are on the defensive about to lose) to work torwards to aswell
if we have the option to rush to t2 weaponproduction we shall aswell have
The possibility to boost it with its own ecotier that has its own pros and cons .... i think taking those away forces players into one general direction of play and this would feel wrong to me ..
i'm for balancing t2 eco to a more risk rewardlike play than entirely removing it .... unfortunatlly i have no idea what could help that.... high energycost for t2 mexes?.... quickly build t1 energy farms then build t2 mexes to rush t1 numberspam or t2 powerspam with the limited metalspots you have depending were your enemy has driven you into ..
It is about having combackoptions that keep matches intresting and not just have them be always the more mexesplayer drives enemy into few mexes, few mexesplayer atempts commsnipeoptions which is 9 out of 10 bombersnipe because lasersats cost a fortune and a half ... i want players to have a armycomebackoption that might be riskier and difficult to pull of but non the less possible and something more rewarding then just a lastresortsnipeatempt ... aswell as a early t2 rush all in kind of play ... sure this game is bout scale
doesnt mean you cant play a early well timed powerpush aswell
...
tl:dr removing t2 ecostructures imo takes away options of how you can play this game aswell = not cool

My 2c: I don't feel a T2 that is just better adds anything to the game. It just makes the exponential curve more important and puts you even further behind if god forbid you fight in an FFA rather than econ-turtle.

There may be a place for highly inefficient T2 structures to keep turtles in the game, in part because build space is at such a premium if you are constricted. But T1 mex in particular should always be better.

PA only needs to follow TA's perfection. The devs know best, they made the best RTS in the world.

If you are playing FFA, that's because most people on public servers turtle indefinitely, never bother expanding and obligingly wait for you to steamroller them.

TA is far from perfect.

You realise that the only way you could possibly 'turtle' in TA was with Moho Metal Makers... right?

Double post. Apologies.

And since those wont be a thing in PA at least at first we need to work with the t2 mexes ... you seem to not like how they currently are so that means they need to be reworked on ... i also made a suggestion on the metalmakerthread before ...
T1 mexes in concept are no different then then t2 ones you pay metal to get metal
With t2 mexes just beeing straight out better metaloutput ... so why not turn them into seudo moho metalmakers as explained before requiering a energyfarm like just as example say 5 to 7 t1 energygens?


that said i wonder if we should wait for the next patch first before we talk about t2 mex balance with the devs as we dont have much of an inside of what else will be changed with it aside from orbital going basic and the adition of teleportals

Disagreed with everything you said. Metal Makers are bad from a design and gameplay perspective. They're not a 'turtle' option because everyone can use them to some extent and in fact it actually favours the expanding party more since you still need a Metal spot. All it means is the rich get richer. You're not helping turtles with a pseudo metal maker, you're killing them stone dead.

Also we're free to talk about Economy balance all day long since Uber has not shown their hand on this front whatsoever. We know new units are coming, we know Unit cannons, Teleporters and Gas Giants and Orbital overhauls and all that are coming.

We've heard nothing about their plans with Econ structures and every single game in this line has had objectively terrible Econ problems; be it TA and SupCom's Metal Makers or Zero-K's 51% of the map Econ advantage + overdrive (metal makers by another name). So there's no reason to stifle conversation here.

We know nothing about PA's Econ, other than it's completely broken right now.

Expanding vs Consolidation should be a choice.
T1 vs T2 is a mandate in unilateral favour of T2. There is no choice involved, merely a calculation as to when is the best time to tech-up.

Well, in the case of T2 mexes, I don't see a problem.
You can just spend the same amount of metal in T1 extractors, to get the same result.
The difference is that T2 might seem easier to some people, because they don't have to expand as much.
But expanding is a good thing in itself, because it doesn't only mean that you're acquiring more metal spots, it also means that you're taking away potential metal spots from your enemies. Also more metal spots means more potential T2 mexes, right?

I've played against lots of people who rushed to T2 because they thought it would give them some kind of advantage early on. Some of them had really nice builds, and did it in a nearly efficient manner. But never ever did they get a real advantage from that, because they had to spend so much on getting that T2 factory early on, while I patiently waited until I was able to afford it.

So I never, ever, lost a game against someone rushing T2. Never.
Because my answer to early T2 was always the same: attack them with units.
Just wanted to throw that out there, maybe there is a way to make T2 mexes more interesting, but I just wanted to say that there is no problem with how they are atm imo.

Greetings

Rushing T2 is not a sound calculation. You're winning against idiots if they're rushing T2.

So what would you suggest then ...

Depends on if Uber wants consolidation to be an equal and valid choice to expanding. If not, then do nothing. They're promoting expansion over consolidation by just over a factor of four right now, economically speaking. To me that seems rather extreme, but I don't know if Uber wants to change that.

Well we have a well ammount of static defenses, long rangesweapons and walls so to me that sounds like consolidation shall be an definit option
of course one can still expand and further consolidate or secure the added area .. in this game there are different ways to turtle though one can start to turtle on a starting planet area build the orbital launcher which would be even easier with the next patch then expand to, claim and turtle on one smaller planetoid in a multiplanetmatch

have you guys taken a look at another solution : prioritizing defenses onto something else.
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/the-teleporter.55519/