Vertical Construction / Stacking Factories

This isn't really what I would call either "deep" or "fascinating". I think you misunderstand the concept of presenting an option to the player, as presenting a genuine choice.

Just like building adjacency bonuses was a "cool idea". And then it happened. And it turned out to be a horrible, min-max incentivising clusterf*ck.

no this idea is not comparable, it is perfectly worthy of being an interesting choice mechanic of the game. Uber solved the tech casm ever so simply and I don't know why you think it would manadatorily be implemented badly.

Solved the tech casm?

yes people complained about how in FA T1 was too inferior to T2 and T2 to T3 and once a new tech was unlocked the older tech was rendered obsolete. well Uber found a simple solution to that and it works out pretty good and is already pretty well balanced.

I'm still not seeing the 'strategic depth' you claim there is, so far from your scattered claims on how such a system would function there doesn't seem to be any advantage to not stacking factories.

Mike

How does that relate to stacking factories? As Knight has pointed out, there seems to be only the most miniscule downside to stacking them. The system as it stands is a purely binary calculation. if($factorysecurity==True){&Stack}else{&DoNotStack}. Wheres the depth?

"the system" see this is what drives me up the wall, you guys have this preconcieved idea that isn't even the same amongst you and definately not the same as my concept, as my concept is not fully fleshed out. There are upteen posibilities as to how this could be done. I sugested earlyer in the thread that there be a time limit to stacking that is one of the upteen posibilities and is only a detail of it, it could be replaced or added to other ideas as to how to implement it to still make it interesting. there could be plenty of different mechanics added to make the choice between using staking or no interesting. this is also something that has to do with the learning curve always present in a game. it is better to spam factories in PA. always. people comming from Starcraft and C&C and such build a single or two of each factory before seeing that they need to change their strategy, because their approach lacks pace and quantity.

You are not using your brain power to say how this concept could be correctly fleshed out like you did with the whole idea of space units. Instead you are tearing down a concept which is not my own, a flawed version that only lives in your head.

I'm calling you and those who read this thread to work constructively. to be balanced, a mechanic a deep interesting aspect of the strategy in pa, and not just a gimmik, this idea will need alot of brainpower. I cannot have all the answers.

Then please, by all means; expound upon the idea and tell us exactly why it's a good mechanic. Because "we" don't see anything new here. Just the old Adjacency bonuses (which were universally decried as a bad idea, even by the Devs themselves) repackaged and sold as snakeoil.

If you can say there are plenty of ways this could be implemented to make it interesting, please list one that isn't something we've already seen before.

That's because you haven't given us a fully fleshed out idea that adds interesting depth. You're the one who wants this thing. The onus is on you to provide the details. This is exactly what I did in the orbital combat thread, and why it took three lengthy posts to do in a manner I felt happy with. The only thing i left up to the readers' imaginations were the situations that could arise from it, not the mechanics themselves. And even then, I provided examples.

If you want this bird to fly, then you need to describe how it works, fully and completely. Then we can have a discussion on your vision. You can't just throw out half an idea, and then expect everyone to adore it and fill in the blanks for you. Thats not how it works.

Yes, one word: yes

~evolve

I don't see how you manage to associate the two.
I don't like your tone in that message it seems like it's more personal than debate.
I did I said above and a page before that there could be a time limit to stacking, this mechanic would bring value to a surviving factory just as veterancy did. a time limit is a weird but original approach. it would force to mix the two and would make not staking the default.

I can suggest that it's destruction would have a bigger explosion (after all it is much bigger and the biggest unit in the game) wich would damage or destroy very close structures
I can also suggest that it would cost more wich makes a world of sence, it is cheaper to build a small house than a building (I've stated before that the staked structures would be graphically different, have a thicker bottom to support the weight, ect...)
I really can't express how much you are wrong in thinking it brings only advantages as i can't see you loosing more to say, a nuke with a spread out base, compared to a stacked base.

What have I done wrong?

~evolve

tatsujb, Why would we want a substitute for veterancy? It was taken out for a reason.

Also, neither of your two points add increased strategic depth. They just ramp up the complexity of the equations you need to perform to tell if it's worth 'upgrading' or not.

And as has been stated before, this is an upgrade system. Why would we want a substitute for an upgrade system?
It was taken out for a reason.

time is of the essence and I consider collective thinking much more constructive, I shared my idea as soon as it showed the tip of it's nose and it has fortunately grown thanks to me posting it here. I'm sad that unfortunately I did not have the luxury of taking the time to brainstorm it all out untill I was satisfied with a fully fleshed out concept. Still though, I would have regretted being the sole creator of this idea. I don't beleive that's what forums are for. I'm sure Uber sees it the same way I do. They want to flesh out their game throught the forums make it grow with us and thanks to us.

So what you're saying is that you're lazy, didn't put any time or effort into your thought, nor set time aside to work on it and want us to do the work for you.
No dice.

Madsci is right, you need to present he idea as a whole instead of throwing out half an idea and coming up with things specifically to counter detractors.

If you want to work on ideas collaboratively, you can't try to shut people out because they have differing opinions, if you have a special 'Ideal' for something, put in the effort to full flesh out your ideal and present that. It's like being on a boat, if you have a specific destination you want to go to, but don't take the wheel, you can't throw other people overboard because they steer the boat somewhere else while you take a nap.

Except you can use fewer Anti-Nucks in a Stacked Base, or use the same amount and make it even harder to crack with Nucks.

Mike

Upgrade systems and stacking are not comparable, they're really apples and oranges.
as for your equation, I'm sorry but I think the game would have no interest if it's entire equation could be worked out "easily". Everyone would do (well try...) the same thing. The entire engaging feeling you can get from a multiplayer rests on there being different approches, all of them wrong in comparison to the absolute "best approach to winning" that only a perfect artificiall inteligence could attain. We depend on our adverserie's capability to make mistakes to make the game interesting.

So again, we ask you; what strategic depth does stacking factories provide?
Don't confuse this with complexity. Stacking factories definitely adds complexity to the game, but what depth does it bring with it?

Like Adjacency bonuses, the answer is "not much if any at all".

Unless you can enlighten us with some kind example, all stacking factories is; is an upgrade to a regular factory to make it work faster, and take up less space.

So, an upgrade and a turtle-enabling mechanic all rolled into one.
Like we haven't had enough of those suggested already.

This thread has gotten a little personal, so maybe we all need to step back a little and just look at the idea of stacking buildings more objectively.

I originally liked the idea, but now I'm not so sure, so I'm going to lay out some pros and cons for people to dissect. For this example I will say that if you build any regular factory, you have the option to build another (up to 4) on top of it. Each successive factory has the same health, but will be destroyed if any factory beneath it is destroyed.

Pros to stacking your factories:
They take up less space...

Cons to stacking factories:
They take up less space...

Hmm, now that I think about it, its really not that much of a question after all. The only time you would want to stack your factories is if you have limited space. Say an island, or a mountainous area, or a small moon. Remember that on multi-planet battles, you may have some areas that are suited to stacking, and others where it would be pointless. This allows you to turtle a LITTLE better, but it also makes your base more high value. One nuke gets through and thats a LOT more damage. Not to mention artillary fire.. KEWS.... hell even a t2 bomber run can slip through and blow up that bottom factory, dealing pretty decent damage if your energy is too well defended.

So players have a choice to turtle up and stack em high, but there is a large risk to doing this. A trade-off that I think would add depth to the game. That seems like added depth to me, for a pretty small amount of complexity.