T2 Resource Generation.

Where are you getting this from? I've not seen anything to this effect on the forums.

Mike

The issue with T2 pgens (not really mexes) is that it's always going to be a straight competition- T2 vs T1. There is no scenario in which one might be better than the other, but the other might be better in some other scenario. Right now, T2 gens are plain better because they produce more energy per metal expended. If you nerfed T2 pgens slightly to accompany that, then they would become useless.

I guess that if you, say, halved the output and cost of a T1 pgen (and then fixed it so you can't spam them all in one place), you could argue it would be unfeasible to simply mass T1 pgens to catch up with a T2 pgen.

:? the discussion is about resource production following the T1=General Purpose; T2=Specialization heuristic for PA. So T1 power would be general purpose, could probably be built anywhere and T2 would be Solar, Tidal, Wind, Orbital, which might be less regular and rely on storage. That also means trimming redundancy like T1 power being a less expensive/efficient analogue of T2 power. Why follow this heuristic for resource generators? For the same reason we have the dynamic in place for units - at a certain threshold the lower tech stuff becomes obsolete. I hope I don't have to get into why T2>T1 is bad.

That General-Purpose/Specialized heuristic is harder to achieve for MEX though and that is why special T2 MEX points were proposed. I too don't like that idea, it would be mechanically redundant. Here's my take on the subject: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=47744&start=13

Before we go making the same mistakes as SupCom or making resource generation unnecessarily complex (Spring Metal overlay) we should figure out exactly what we want and the simplest way to achieve that.

Alright, maybe I have a suggestion.

Tier one mass extractors have to be built on special spots - a gameplay mechanic I'd like to keep. But what if the tier two mass extractor needs to be built adjacent to the tier one mass extractor? Like adjacent mass storages increasing the mass generation, from Supreme Commander.

is that rly different from supcom style upgrades or reclaim-and-build?

You'd have to send fabricators to build stuff, for one. Mhm, what about, instead of limiting these tier two extractors to be built only adjacent to normal tier one extractors, you could also build them adjacent to other tier two extractors? That'd lead to gigantic mass extractor farms... Is that a good thing?

I think t2 energy gen should go big BUM and make small hole on place it were. So creating it is risky somehow, and you cant create another in the same place.

Oh, ops ... I thought this thread was also about the metal points ... ops

Getting closer to beta, I would like to add my 5 cents, not just bump this post.

It is really frustrating reclaiming old T1 metal extractors, it's taking too long. Especially if you are limited to small area or few metal spots. May be I don't know the proper shortcut to self destruct the building. But at least for mex, I hope it will be possible to replace old T1 extractor with T2 without the neverending reclaiming, just with one command into the build queue. If there is current way how to do it, make it more player-friendly.

Rather than have to claim /reclaim metal, it would be better if there were a list of tasks you can give engineers (and other units) Such as "Claim metal, upgrade T1 to T2) and so on. (possibly within a work area (round area chosen by the player)

There's no reason to have players have to micromanage the resource gather, it's not interesting, the area chosen is tactical, having to pick each metal spot just bogs you down.

so chose an engineer/group of engineers. press a key board button or a task list comes up, shoes that task, in areas you select an area (which is expandable/contractible).

This task list could be enlarged to things like "build protected artillery base (a base the player designs on a non competitive map" or build AAA base. etc. Sky's the limit really, micromanaging engineers is only fun for the first part of the game, it gets irritating later when you're actually fighting.

You are right. Later it's annoying.
If we are talking about macros - build AA base, build radar outpost... good idea, nice potential.

kinda like this but just the part about the t1 to t2, it really makes sence and I was going to suggest it anyways.

i like the eco exactly wheres its at.... although i must ay i think you should stall much harder when building beyond your eco

I think - and hear me out on this - Uber should try pushing an update with no T2 Extractors. I would also prefer they increase the T2 Power Generator's size by 4-8 times, but one step at a time.

My logic behind this is that currently, the +7 of T1 Metal Extractors is just over the necessary amount, so long as T2 Extractors aren't used at all. A good player will expand so that he never really has a significant metal deficit, and when I say good, I mean your average competitive Joe. I only use T2 Extractors in 10% of my games, and those 10% are always corner cases where we are playing on a size 5 planet or something stupid like that. +5 or +6 metal per second would also be good values to try out for T1.

But back to removing T2 Extractors, they aren't necessary. The only reason a player ever builds a T2 Extractor is so they never have to worry about Metal stalls ever in the game. 10 T2 Extractors is enough to fuel several hundred square meters worth of factories, if you have enough T2 Extractors, you can build 5 second nukes all easy like. A player should at least have to pay attention to their metal expansion, if they aren't, what's the point in the metal economy at all?

I personally liked how TA had it's energy setup with basic and advanced.

You had your solar collectors, which if we had in PA, would either have low / turn off when on the other side of the planet, but provide much cheaper and more efficient than reactors that should be volatile. This would give incentive for having them at multiple points on the map instead of just all only at one point in your base. To balance that, it would be the easiest energy to pull endgame with when you get to the orbital stage and have large satellites that can reflect the sun to your solar arrays close to each other. And I don't mean the little ones that TA had, I mean something that could power some serious ****. 1.21 jiggawatts much.
Large Plants :
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Gemasolar.jpg
http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/ivanpah-solar-project

Or Furnaces :
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Four-solaire-odeillo-02.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace

Wind Generators were a decent setup, some maps had heavy winds so you could get around 30 energy input instead of the 20 from the solar collectors. It was much cheaper than a collector and ran all the time. It doesn't seem fitting in a game like this that's weeded out unrefined technology though.

Where metal extractors are concerned.. if you have an advanced extractor that gives more metal, it will ALWAYS be superior to a basic extractor that gives less. Lower tier ones could possibly be balanced by making the basic extractors slowly grow their output up to 14 from 7, but only up to 14 since the advanced has two mining arms while the basic only has one. It wouldn't take away incentive for upgrading them and would make holding areas longer more important, but it would also make areas that you can't keep for more than a minute or two not worth putting an extractor on. It's definitely a conundrum that one answer can't please everyone.

Easiest kosher way to balance it, is to make the t2 mex initially cost a lot like it does now, and not produce more than 30% more, with its boosted health of course, maybe also make it cost noticeably more energy as it runs so it also technically cost a pgen by itself.

This already makes mexes especially worth building, since there are only so many metal points before you run out, and the t1 is so squishy, you will go out of pocket for them. Yet, the question would be when and which. Which are in most danger? When can you afford to trade unit production for a short time?

As far as upgrading them, im trying to support being able to build over certain things and it automatically adding the metal to the new build. This is most needed for salvages, especially mex wrecks blocking metal spots, but this could function for t2 mex salvaging a t1 mex when built over top.

I would nonetheless also see function in adding special t2 metal that only t2 can build on and t2 doesn't build on t1 metal... and adding these metal spots one to every 5-formation of the current metal as well as randomly speckled spaced far out from other metal or itself.

As well as the function for t2 pgens having special spots, for lols even sharing the t2 metal spot so you must choose one or the other. The diversity idea that you can do wind solar and stuff isn't bad either.

I don't think talking about "tiers" is a good idea at all, not without a proper analysis in the first place.

First of all, why?
Diversification is not only necessary with units, but also within the economy. There isn't just that one "fit them all" build queue for a balanced economy, but different requirements, depending on your desired playstyle / strategy / pace.

TA serves as a great example with solar panels, wind and tidal generators, geothermal and ultimately fusion reactors, each of them featuring unique mechanics.

But at the same time TA also failed in some way, since the pgens were strictly tiered in terms of build cost, and those which were not were highly depended on the map parameters, not the preferred play style. And ultimately every other generator was superseded by the fusion generator. So the "choice" was fake and there was a perfect build queue for each single map.

How can a pgen fit a certain strategy rather than the enviroment?
There are several factors which can be adjusted to fit a certain pace and play style:

• Planet coverage
  This is exceptionally important for solar generators are their energy output depends on the planets rotation, so it calls for wide spread or even redundant energy plants. But this also effects pgens with a bad build space efficiency, since this is also area which must be protected.
• Payoff time - how long will the generator stay efficient?
  This is something TA never featured, a generator just for the shortsighted ones. Cheap to build at first, but the operation is not free of charge. Burn metal for additional energy the good old 20th century style and hope that everything will be over before the charts turn red. 5, 10 or 20 minutes before it becomes inefficient, everything is possible.
• Technological barrier
  Hide the generator later in the techtree. While it is possible to do this, it is not recommended as the technology would need to make up with enhanced efficiency which invalidates earlier tech.
• Logistic barrier
  How much effort is required to build a working energy plant in the first place? Metal burning aggregates are surely the easiest one, and fusion plants in the orbit of gas giant the most difficult ones. But there is a huge span in between.
• Survivability
  Fusion technology is great. It's clean, it's effective - it's highly volatile. The SupCom Paragon resource generator is a great example (forget about the infinite mass production) of how an otherwise perfect resource generator can turn into a huge threat for your own base.
  But this also applies to other technologies, do you rather go for efficiency or durability?
• Efficiency
  Not every energy generator needs to have the same efficiency in terms of build cost to output, the higher the associated risk / challenge, the higher the rewards.

So what are possible techs?

• Solar panels
  Thats an easy one. Very cost efficient while facing the sun, but requires either redundancy or massive energy storages. Best suited for players who aim for full control of a planets surface, but not very durable. Yet most efficient in terms of build cost.
• Orbital fusion plant (gas giants)
  Ultimate energy source, but locked away behind a huge logistic and technological barrier. Worth it if you plan for aggressive interplanetary expansion.
• "Magic" energy generators
  Just what we have right now. No requirements, but efficiency pretty much sucks. What else would you expect when you tried to generate energy from thin air? And do we really need them at all?
  
• Metal burning turbines
  For the aggressive, early rush play style. Cheap to build, easy to defend, but efficiency will be superseded by every other generator after a few minutes of operation. But also helpful for other play styles if energy is scarce and none of the requirements for other techs are met.
• Fusion plant
  Nope, not the "magic" version. Essentially more an upgraded turbine, with increased payoff time, but also increased build cost and volatile effect. Most effective type of generator short of the orbital version, but not the most efficient one. Nuclear power is expensive!
• Enviroment specific generators
  Wind, tidal or geothermic. Will only work on certain planets and can be used to bias the economy on certain planet types. Efficiency can vary, but is above average when placed in efficient spots and subpar otherwise. Either locked to fixed positions or with terrain bonus and adjacency malus.

Other implications
Many of these technologies are quite situational and there might be huge fluctuations in energy output. The current energy storages are nowhere big enough to cover this.

Energy tends to become abundant in late game, so additional sinks are required. But not only factories are a possible sink, units are also.
With sufficient energy production, it would only make sense to use energy as a generic form of "fuel" for the operation of units, mostly for paying for attacks of high DPS units. It's not only about creating an army, it's also about managing the supplies. This does not only apply to bombers, but also to mobile artillery, and even tanks & heavy assault bots. Encourage the use of efficient, not only effective units.
There is nothing wrong if you had to abort an assault half way through the enemy base because your army burnt the energy reserves too fast. Steamrolling suddenly become far less effective if your steamroller can run out of fuel.

Burning metal on the most effective pgens is essential for creating the diversification. Strategy is all about making coherent decisions, and taking a certain path in the economy is a significant decision. Trading short-run benefits for long-term savings is a meaningful decision and creates significant disadvantages if things don't got according to the plan, either way.

None of the technologies (except for the fusion stuff) is actually T2. Every single tech path is an equivalent choice with unique characteristics which will fit a certain strategy. Hybrid compositions allow for balanced strategies.

Metal extractors?
To be honest: I don't see a proper way to do T2 metal extractors in any way.

Some possible approaches though:

• Dedicated spots
  XXL sized spots which can only be used with T2 mexes - or possibly a group of 4 T1 mexes for the same output, but less durability.
• Overdrive mode
  Slightly increased metal output for a massive energy drain. If you have excess energy, burn it for a little more mass. Energy to mass ratio somwhere around the level of metal/mass generators from previous games.
• Do away with T2 mexes all together
  If there is no meaningful role for T2 mexes, forget about them until one is found. Better than going just the ordinary upgrade path.

You probably didn't read sirvladimirs opinion on current PA alpha state. You are right, currently good player take 1/2 of planet, spam ants and levelers and roll death blob of doom. This isn't the way uber want follow. Sirvladimir told there will be significant change in metal spots so you really care where are you expanding. And therefore I think upgrading T1 to T2 mex is good point to discuss. If you don't need it, don't use it.

The second thing, if you are right, wouldn't it be better to completely remove T2 mex? It is useless in your logic. What about size 1 planet with 5 players? The one more spam is about to win? I dont like size 5 planet now as per poor optimization but I don't think it is stupid to play later, even 1v1 also.

Ah the t2 mexes...

Imo they serve a very important function in escalating the game later while limiting metal income in early game.

Currently we have almost limitless metal, not because of the t2 mexes but because metal spots are so abundant. This makes energy the early game limit which imo isn't that fun.

Once we get the fixed version thats no longer the case. If we'd now remove the t2 mex our metal income would reach its peak after ~10 minutes given the current system (ignoring multi-planet as the basegame should work even on small maps). This is because t1 mexes have to be cheap to be buildable in early game which makes it possible to spam all avaible spots in very short order.

The advantage of the t2 mex is that it allows an additional increase in metal income when its needed, ie. late game while avoiding limitless metal in early game. This is an important function and one, perhaps the only one, exception where t2 is allowed to be strictly superiour as it directly ties in to the game flow/function. Additionaly, if the t2 mex is a bit balanced (higher cost with a bit of a lesser increase then now, thus lower ROI and longer to break even) it becomes an interesting choice when to start building them as too early can be a liability. (There is no point in complaining that you have to build them eventually, some stuff you have to build, like factories. )

There is a point in complaining if it is just the same as the basic mex and you actually have to replace the basic mex manually.