Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Expensive E buildings less efficient than cheaper ones?

16 posts, 924 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
14 years ago
A fusion is a good target for tacnukes - why should you deny to build wind instead?

wind: 35 / avg 1.2 = 30 metal / 1 energy
solar: 70 / 2 = 35 metal / 1 energy
geo: 500 / 25 = 20 metal / 1 energy ( but you need to link the mexes extra )
fusion: 1000 / 35 = 30 metal / 1 energy
moho geo: 1500 / 100 = 15 metal / 1 energy ( moho cost is the cost of moho and basic geo together )
Singularity: 4000 / 225 = 18 metal / 1 energy

Should it be like that?
* why is the moho cheaper than the biggest unit per energy - ok I understand if you argue with "geo" structure
* why is the fusion equal with wind?
* * should it only be a place advantage?
* * exchange vulnerability from napalms and tacnukes...

I think the fusions should be like 25 metal / 1 energy
And if you take the average, then wind is much better only on hills.
+0 / -0
14 years ago
Have to agree with this. Only situation where you make fusions is when you dont have much space which pretty much never happens. I think its good if its slightly cheaper than windgen due to the vulnerability to for instance bombers.

Geo's should be the cheapest way to get energy so those spots stay high value targets to fight over.
+0 / -0


14 years ago
There isn't suppose to be a tech progression of energy structures that make the earlier ones obsolete, you can build them all from the start so they have their advantages and disadvantages. They do have a bit of a progression because the expensive ones have the disadvantage of not giving any return until they are completed while a 1k cost windfarm will start paying as soon as you complete the first generator. This disadvantage is reduced when you have higher income as you can produce them faster.

A lot of the energy balance is map dependant.

Geos are the best because they can be built on usually limited locations and such locations are usually in danger. As Rick says, because you have to contest geos.

Average of wind = fusion because wind has a few disadvantages:
  • It takes up far more space.
  • It is harder to defend.
  • It fluctuates, depending heavily on wind can give you an energy stall.

Wind is also softly like a geo because it is far better on hills.
+0 / -0

14 years ago
The fluctuation is critical, because overdrive becomes less efficient as overdrive increases, so your actual overdrive metal income is less than you would get when considering just the average.

It is true that fusions are best for their space efficiency, which means they can be nano'd quickly. I usually make a fusion when I get a burst of large income from reclaim. Fusions being a great source of energy however seems to be a widely held misconception.
+0 / -0
14 years ago
if you build like 4 winds or 2 to 3 solars on each mex, you get the best overdrive without need to connect them.

But if you make a fusion, you can only connect 3 together.

If you need to spend additional 200 or 2x200 metal to connect your grids they should be more efficient.

In Tech Annihilation you can grow nearly proportional with makers, but we need a much higher efficiency of such buildings to grow proportional - and up to Tech level 100 or 1000 ( anything what you shouldn't be able to reach ).

It would be good if fusions are more expensive that you can't rush it ( 2k? ) and provide you about more overdrive on 5 or 10 mexes.

Or let it cost 800 but with a very small radius - so that you need the pylons to connect a equal amount of mexes ( or use fusions and wind-chains both ).
+0 / -0
14 years ago
I have a new idea how to solve this for more efficient fusions :)



--- Changes to avoid wind/solar chains and let wind take more space / more chain explode ---

If any wind generator has others next to it, it should get a disadvantage - I think about 5%
=> 4 wind next to it means: -20% output

The solar should be 50% more expensive ( 100 metal ) and change the output to 125% ( 2.5 ) + faster closing.

A advanced solar should cost 300 metal and makes 8 energy and a visible small wall around it.
* Area damage should be calculated as to be a bit more far from it
* Damage from ground units should be nerfed by it's additional ground armor around itself.
* I think we can safely reduce the damage by 10%

Wind and solar chains are less efficient now - exspecially if we give them a lower radius to connect the grids less efficient.



--- Changes to let ppls use pylons more than now ---

Energy pylons should be connected to the "global grid".

High energy weapons like DoomsdayMachine, Annihilator and Bemoth should additionally need
* 10% of it's build costs at grid capacity
* Storage in range of a pylon ( to add 500 capacity each )
* one Pylon connected
* Substract capacity from grid ( you will need a part of the second storage for Bertha or 2 bemoths )

Add units witch need energy to fire:
* BigBertha

* fire faster if they have more power connected ( overdrive like mexes - up to 200% )
* Annihilators should get a laser pulse like Starlight after half the time it attacks.#
* * summary of damage to a single target should remain the same.
+0 / -0

14 years ago
There is a very low chance of economy getting any changes, unless a very serious need is found.

The energy-grid-connection-to-fire is pretty half-assed atm, in terms of how it affects gameplay. That might go through some changes if well-supported suggestions are given. I'm not too fond of the idea of overdrive decreasing fire rate though (increasing dps). Already more overdrive is more economy; making it more defense also feels like energy will be doing too much multi-tasking.
+0 / -0
14 years ago
Im sorry Ion...but no. Winds are already disadvantaged enough, and such a change to solars would only hamper starts, and wouldn't change chaining behavior since the big advantage over wind is OD radius and durability(least in my opinion).

As for the advance solar, to me it would reduce the usefulness of Fusions, since you could probably get as much energy in not to much larger for a footprint(not to mention possible better durability from what you said).

As for the super weapon preqreqs, while I agree that the Bertha should require some sort of grid E to fire in line with the others, the other items just seem like unnessary complications.

In the end, I have to agree with Google, there isn't supposed to be a tech progression, each structure should have their own advantages and disadvantages. A fusions biggest advantage is size efficency with a good OD range that can easily be connected to the greater grid, and in the end, it does that very well.
+0 / -0
14 years ago
What's about my pylon idea:
=> connect to a global grid?

ppls would build more pylons and fusions don't replace them as it is now.

---

But then I would reduce the OD radius of pylons and increase the radius around fusions / solars.

---

Additionally armour only against ground would also be nice for the solars.
I suggest a self repair rate if idle, higher default HP but lower armor and open ( = e income ) only if not damaged.

---

Storages should get a OD range and store more energy than metal.
+0 / -0

14 years ago
Dude, fusions come with a big pylon. Gridding your base with windgens may be efficient, but it also means you're made of paper.
+0 / -0
14 years ago
You didn't answer my original question Ion...what do you mean as "Connect to a global grid"?

Also, reducing Pylon OD radius is completely counter intuitive. I mean, the big reason you build them is to connect energies lines at a cheaper rate than building e structures, and doing that would just further increase chaining.

Giving storage OD is also dumb, as it would make Pylons preety much useless(ie. why build a pylon when you could just build a storage and get extra space for resource too)

+0 / -0
14 years ago
Because the "global grid" is worldwide.

If you have one "Energy Pylon" at one side of the map and another one on the other side they are connected !

To share with your allies you need a pylon next to them.

A pylon costs about 200 metal - that's too much for the early game, and too much if you can build a fusion instead too.

Also they have only low HP and are explosive.

That's too much disadvantage in my point of view.

( Build 3 solars instead and you have done a better job )
+0 / -0
14 years ago
Yea, but build 3 solars and you still have 2 non-ODed mexes most likely. Pylons aren't for the early game in the end, more for later on when there is energy scattered everywhere and you want a quick connection. Its also useful for dealing with elevation issues(ie. connecting the mexes and energy on top of the side cliff in DeltaSeige to the ones on the bottom.)
+0 / -0
14 years ago
if you want a building only for elevation issues than make more maps with difficult elevation.

But thx for pathing issues :P

Maybe you have also to terraform for even this small building ...

---

I suggest a pylon to pylon connection with a much larger radius ( like shields ) with a smaller radius for direct connection and only 100 costs.

Fusions should also serve only this kind of connection.

---

Or give it at least as much HPs / Armour as Razor's kiss :D
+0 / -0

14 years ago
No, this stuff is fine.
+0 / -0
14 years ago
You are happy to build bombs in your base?

Or do you hope that more than 3 Glaives die through it every time?

The Energy Pylon is a good defense structure if you can't damage the terrain ;)
+0 / -0