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

Post edit history

Suggestion: Land facs generate more resource than air facs

To display differences between versions, select one or more edits in the list using checkboxes and click "diff selected"
Post edit history
Date Editor Before After
5/30/2015 4:32:59 PMDErankBrackman before revert after revert
Before After
1 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.. 1 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..
2 \n 2 \n
3 [quote]Suggestion: Land facs generate no resources, air facs generate no resources, nothing except mex, energy buildings, and commander generates any resources. [/quote] 3 [quote]Suggestion: Land facs generate no resources, air facs generate no resources, nothing except mex, energy buildings, and commander generates any resources. [/quote]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.
4 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.
5 \n 4 \n
6 [quote]I see no problem with 1% better overdrive.[/quote]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.) 5 [quote]I see no problem with 1% better overdrive.[/quote]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.)