I have always think giving the player more incentive to build a land factory as the second factory would add a lot more variety in gameplay. It's difficult to make a land factory synergy with another land factory as much as a air factory would, and changing the factory costs might cause the player start with a more expensive factory just for reclaiming it. But how about changing the resource generation? We could make land facs about as cost effective as caretaker in resource generation, like 0.8m and 0.8e/s, or nerf the resource generation of the air factories. Changes like these might be enough to give the player more reasons to build a second land fac.
+0 / -0
|
Yes please add more random minor income sources to certain units. it doesn't make hard to calculate the income in the player's head at all.
+2 / -0
|
Why should people build a second land fac?
+0 / -0
|
Air will always be the prime choice because it is the most mobile and demands specific hardcounters.
+0 / -0
|
Suggestion: Land facs generate no resources, air facs generate no resources, nothing except mex, energy buildings, and commander generates any resources.
+15 / -4
|
quote:
Suggestion: Land facs generate no resources, air facs generate no resources, nothing except mex, energy buildings, and commander generates any resources. |
This is ok i think, but then we need better overdrive.
+0 / -0
|
I see no problem with 1% better overdrive.
+1 / -0
|
Don't think about stealing the exponential eco! 😕
+1 / -0
|
quote:
Suggestion: Land facs generate no resources, air facs generate no resources, nothing except mex, energy buildings, and commander generates any resources.
|
And that is how you invalidate Skasi's caretaker/OD calculation thread.
+2 / -0
|
We don't need to introduce hidden assymetries between land and air fac. If anything fac costs could be reduced, but I don't think this would be good.. quote:
Suggestion: Land facs generate no resources, air facs generate no resources, nothing except mex, energy buildings, and commander generates any resources. |
Maybe every player should have an additional constant ressource rate of ~0.2M/s, 0.2E/s instead of cons/facs/caretakers' income. This would allow for FFA rebuilding but not for exponential eco growth and would make things easier. Maybe two coms players should get double "base income". Or even better only every team would get this rate equally distributed to the players, so its effect would be even smaller and better suited for rebuilding only. quote:
I see no problem with 1% better overdrive. |
Indeed we don't need compensation for that. Didn't the 15/16 change increase certain rates here anyway? (However my new OD formula allows for flexible changes of OD efficiency.)
+0 / -0
|
Passive income is bad. It does not interact with anything: it's not obvious it exists and the enemy cannot do anything about it. It would also introduce a new mechanic without solving anything. Commander income already takes care of the starter income and cons can still rebuild even with 0 income because reclaim exists. You can also set storage reserves if you are about to die but managed to hide a con to make sure you can rebuild.
+0 / -0
|
Earlier Caretakers and cons have also given income. Only then it was negligible, since the overdrive has worked well. Currently it is worth a maximum of 1 Singu to build and then Caretakerspamm. So it's not a problem that caretakers bring income, but there is the problem that the Overdrive has become bad.
+0 / -0
|
It's actually a pretty big problem as it's not intuitive and an obvious noob trap (ooh, it's exponential and doesn't require me to cap mexes!). Anything that makes games take the course of BA DSD where players in the back are "teching" or "ecoing" should be avoided. The fun in ZK is its combat gameplay, not the Sim City elements. I guess the only reason it was added was in order to avoid people being stuck with 0 income, but that could be solved by simply adding a global +X metal/energy that doesn't come from any units, but is instead given to each player/team/allyteam.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
Currently it is worth a maximum of 1 Singu to build and then Caretakerspamm. |
If you only capped one mex then yeah, that is the case. It takes 2 Singu per standard +2 mex for Caretaker to start being better. quote:
I guess the only reason it was added was in order to avoid people being stuck with 0 income, but that could be solved by simply adding a global +X metal/energy that doesn't come from any units, but is instead given to each player/team/allyteam. |
Being stuck with 0 income is fine. If you have no metal to build a mex then you can reclaim or set reserves before you die. On the other hand passive income sucks (see 3 posts up).
+0 / -0
|
I recall one game there parties collided in a way that only eco building left for side A was GS fac, for side B left with no eco buildings. Both sides didn't have any mobile units. Banshee, slowly built in several minutes, decided it. With zero ME/s fac income it would have ended up in stalemate.
+0 / -0
|
That is a pathological case. Income does not even fully solve it (imagine if it was an LLT instead of a fac). Some built-in stalemate detection to declare a draw would be nice for these cases instead.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
If you have no metal to build a mex then you can reclaim or set reserves before you die. On the other hand passive income sucks (see 3 posts up). |
But what about 0 energy because a cloaker used it up? Reclaim trees or what?
+0 / -0
|
Then you either: 1) learn the important lesson not to leave cloakers enabled when you want to rebuild, or 2) thank the Spider Deity for that tree, or 3) make a ticket to make cloakers/shields/whatnot respect reserves.
+0 / -0
|
4) spam solars all over the map and hope one survives
+0 / -0
|
5) Capture enemy solars and windgens with a dominatrix
+0 / -0
|
