I just love how uber interacts with the community Every decent recommendation is taken into account and all great ideas are already on the way to being implemented. From this i can sense that in the beta all those little improvements that will make the game just run smoother will be addressed and the final product will be awesome. Thanks for everything uber
Obviously I agree as well! xD But that brings up all kinds of neat specifics that could pop-up, Guess we'll have to wait and see a bit unless Neutrino wishes to indulge us more? :3 Mike
Ummm... I really hope you've got something up your sleeve to make T2 Metal Extractors "specialised" then, rather than the current implementation of just being "T1 Plus". If you don't... this is a sad day for me.
Totaly agreed , how uber interacts with the community its indeed something! Maybe because that, game its getting great day after day!
I don't see the problem with them just having more health and producing more metal to help fund a larger army. Adding too many unique mechanics for resource collection would easily make you have to micro your economy unnecessarily. There should be a macro vs micro balance where both are still used, but I don't see making the economy part of the micro category as a good decision gameplay wise. The macro part is one of the reasons your eco is aggregated into just two numbers that represent everything.
Honestly, as long as t1 stuff doesn't get totally overshadowed (ie. still gets used) I'm fine with it. Pgens for example. The t1 stuff is still needed to run stuff. Just cus you can build bigger ones, doesn't mean the regular ones don't add to your econ. In fact, even if the equivalent in t1 gens cost the same metal/time as a single t2, spreading out your energy would be a better strategic choice, especially when taking out 1 ts gen could affect a lot more than a few t1s in a pocket somewhere. After thinking about this a fair amount, the majority of specialization should be left to combat units, where a t1 army will still kick general butt, and the t2 stuff is more situational. As for mexes, why not have the t2 ones REQUIRE a t1 to build over? That way if you want/need to expand you still need to build t1 extractors. Also, to get 4 times the metal, you need to spend 5 times the resources, and 5 times the time, so building 4 t1 mexes would still be cheaper, if not faster. Renovating your mexes would be best done when you can either afford to lose a metal spot till the new ones finished, or when you've run out of metal spots to access. Sortof making t2s specialized.... This could definitely make small planet battles interesting! Thoughts? Bashings? :mrgreen:
If it made t1 competitive with t2 (assuming that t1 can be overcharged, t2 cannot), this would be a great incentive to not energy stall. Ever.
I like the idea of requiring a T1 extractor to build over. Though that should not be the case for pgens of course. I am against the idea of overcharging specific mex because then you get bogged down in micro'ing your eco which IMO is not where the micro should take place.
I personally don't see the need for T2 Mexes to be 'specialized'. Metal itself as a resource is pretty straight forward, to build more you need more but you only ever have so many Metal points to make use of. The flexibility isn't there to properly support specialization. You always want the most Metal output. Mike
It means that PA is breaking its own internal "rules" is all. Once you start breaking the internal logic of a system then it starts to fall apart. T1 General Use, T2 Specialised* *Except for Eco... and base structures in general... and this unit... and that unit too... --- As I've said before I'm not letting this lie. I will be pushing for specialisation for all units that are branded T2 regardless of what their function is. Requiring a T1 Extractor is a step along the right path but all it really does is change the timing on when you "upgrade" to T2. Eventually T1 Extractors are made obsolete by T2 as their only real limitation at this point is time...
I've never heard that stated by the devs as a hard and fast "rule". It's more of a guideline, and even then, only really applied to units. There's nothing wrong with some units/structures being less relevant to the later game as to the early game. It creates a sense of escalation, progression and board development. The key is that they are not used significantly, and in places where the choices removed by obsolescence are outweighed by the additional choices generated in when to make the upgrade. As the player doesn't interact directly with economy structures much, they seem like a good target for obsolescence as the game progresses.
Another way of saying there's no pattern at all and can be broken at any time, for any reason; hence breaking not only the internal logic of the "guideline" so it might as well not be there and also breaking the expectation of the player. It's sounding more and more like this "guideline" of T2 being specialised is actually going to be an exception to the rule... and it's worrying to me that people are ok with this.
Never had a problem with Moho mines in TA, and the quick buildtime and cheap cost of T1 metal extractors meant it wasn't always a case of T2 > T1. T2 doesn't need to be more specialised, it simply shouldn't be strictly better than T1 once it becomes available. Specialisation is one way to achieve this, but not the only way.
That's a remarkably un-nuanced or black and white way of putting it. It isn't "broken" at any time without thought. It is "broken" when keeping to it would result in inferior game-play, or an unreasonably small pay-off for a large amount of effort. Furthermore, if you are stating that a T2 metal extractor being circumstantially "better" that it's T1 counterpart is the very height of inconsistency with regards to the established mechanics (which, need i remind you, have been "established" in theory only by forum chin-wagging, which is a world away from implementation and testing), then I would have to disagree. Tell me what you want from a T2 metal extractor, and what meaningful player choices you expect to arise from such an implementation.
I'm working on collecting my thoughts so I'm not quite ready to post everything in my head just yet. Keep your eyes on the horizon though, I'm feeling confident that I'm close to a cohesive mega-post. I will give you suggestions when I feel ready for them to be shared. But I can give you criticism of the system as it stands. Is that ok for now? As for how Moho's worked (and how the current T2 Metal Extractors work); they are a choice on timing alone. With the streaming Economy anything that is limited by being expensive but objectively better in terms of performance, that being Metal production in this example, is purely an issue of getting to the tech level required and starting construction. A T2 Metal Extractor (we need a snappier name) that is objectively better becomes an upgrade to T1 and it is merely a factor of time before they are more or less mandatory to build to support the front line. There is no functional difference between the proposed "Build T2 on top of T1" and the basic system seen in SupCom... except now you need to waste T2 builders' time while you upgrade. As a matter of fact SupCom players had it better since they had a one click upgrade vs a proposed multi-click process of finding a T2 builder, clicking on the T2 Metal Extractor on the construction panel and then hovering over the T1 Extractor. It's better than TA's way which included the need to reclaim the T1 Metal Extractor before building... but this proposal is leagues behind SupCom's implementation in terms of user friendliness and several factors more complex in terms of micro management.
It has several advantages over supcoms implementation that you're ignoring. First, it doesn't break the "fabbers build buildings" guideline. And you're pretty insistent on not breaking rules. Secondly, it allows you to queue up the building of t2 which supcoms doesn't. Thirdly it keeps t2 builders important for economy expansions, with upgrades it diminishes t2 builders role. I especially consider the last point to be very important. If you don't have the buildpower (in form of t2 fabbers/builders) you shouldn't be able to upgrade your economy. Also if you don't have them in the right place you can't upgrade which makes buildpower localisation important.
Mex? I actually feel it's important you need a t2 fabber to build t2 mex. You should have to invest your t2 build power to build t2 eco. I still think a simpler veterancy system where mex output increases over time is the best and simplest option. It promotes sniping, raiding and defending mex and generally promotes good map control.
This feels like a very "gamey" solution though. I believe mexes and energy plants should be fairly fragile, to encourage raiding. This also ties into the DPS vs HP discussion, as low DPS to HP ratios allow raiding parties to get some units through defences, and if mexes are fragile, they can still cause some damage. I guess the key is attrition has to be possible.
