Commander storage upgrade

Why not just build ? Storage modules would be a waste of upgrade slots.

NeonShadownstorm is real.

In team games it's up to your teammates to help you rebuild, while in FFA I suggest using underwater storages or just put a storage next to the power plant that allows your com to be cloaked.

quote: lets say you have a base with 7 storage buildings holding a total of 4000 metal and energy when your base gets blown up then you lose 3500 metal and energy

Here are some suggestions what wampons to buy with 3500 coins http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/22330 so they do not get lost.

Commanders are already one-unit-armies. Well, at least sometimes players try to use them like that.
Buildpower-commanders quickly raising terraformhills with DDM on top is imo also quite ugly sight, such activities should require constructor-swarms. With storage-in-commander Coms could operate even more indepedent from base, I think not good. It is also another 'invisible' upgrade, unless commander gets a big as backpack...

FAQ:

Q: I want to have more storage space.
A: You don't need storage space. Spend metal immediately. Stored metal sacrifices tempo for versatility. You need to know the intricacies of most unit interactions to use that versatility and even then you still need specific situation to use that. As a rule of thumb, don't store metal.

Q: I understand but still want storage (because I'm a pro or don't care about optimal play).
A: Make the storage building.

Q: But I want to have storage on Commander.
A: Use your Commander to build the storage building.

Q: But what if my base dies?
A: Protect your base better.

Q: I couldn't, I got 2v1 and couldn't get help!
A: Hide your storage.

Q: I tried the above and still lost my storage.
A: Make a new one.

Q: But that way I still lose my stored metal!
A: Not if you make the new one before the old one dies.

Q: I can't always predict my old storage dying.
A: Only in extreme cases. For the extreme cases the enemy has to be super sneaky and for that he deserves to remove your stored metal.

Q: I still think it's good to have an insurance against losing my stored metal.
A: It is extremely suboptimal. If you accept that, make redundant storages.

Q: But good player XYZ makes tons of storages!
A: Yes, but they actually do have that much metal, it is not stored metal loss insurance.

Also I was talking about the ENGINEER commander not the others, and integrated storage for the engineer would fit with the style of play that it has

I hate to be callous, but having your metal go when your storages die is kinda the point. Your opponent was able to get in to destroy them, so they earned that. If you destroyed your opponent(s)' storages, wouldn't you want that to be worth your effort?

As Sprung mentioned, storages are a tradeoff, though another part of that tradeoff is that you risk that versatility getting targeted.

As a rule, Zero-K is designed such that as much of it as possible is interactive and carries some risk of destruction, since basically everything is on the map, rather than having upgrades or off-map abilities that your opponent can't touch. The flip side is that you can use that against your opponent, to deny their economy/stored resources/production capacity as well.

glhf and let every unit has a storage upgrade

Also: morphing = storage, if you cancel :)

Storages are only usab;e in two ways. You have heavy buildpower to build quickly some unit/weapon to surprise enemy (i have seen this rarely) or you just need store metal after large reclaiming very fast. Storage cost 100 and can take 500. So it means 20% pay from stored resources for each storage. Of course you can reclaim storege after its use. This mean thay you will get more metal back.

Maybe a 25-50 pt. increase in storage per morph would be in order. I'm also on the side of - don't store it - spend it. If you've got enough E/M to need storage, get crankin' :-)