| 1 |
i think you could get some value from dissecting the problem further. There are two facets to it:
|
1 |
i think you could get some value from dissecting the problem further. There are two facets to it:
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
1) Multiple factories pumping out units in parallel, as opposed to a single factory working overtime with a cluster of Caretakers, is *aesthetic*. It conveys *industry*.
|
3 |
1) Multiple factories pumping out units in parallel, as opposed to a single factory working overtime with a cluster of Caretakers, is *aesthetic*. It conveys *industry*.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
2) Cheaper front factories are interesting for being proxies.
|
5 |
2) Cheaper front factories are interesting for being proxies.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
These are different issues and they can be handed separately.
|
7 |
These are different issues and they can be handed separately.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
The industry aesthetic could be handled with modular factories. Have separate tech buildings with a limited radius, connecting by cables or adjacency to output printers. So where now you have a factory plus a bunch of caretakers, in that case you would have a tech core with a bunch of printer-portals. Or several tech-buildings sharing the same portals in the same cluster.
|
9 |
The industry aesthetic could be handled with modular factories. Have separate tech buildings with a limited radius, connecting by cables or adjacency to output printers. So where now you have a factory plus a bunch of caretakers, in that case you would have a tech core with a bunch of printer-portals. Or several tech-buildings sharing the same portals in the same cluster.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
This maintains everything about current ZK - concentration of buildpower, tech being local and locked to one factory - but allows parallel output. You could bring it into balance by giving the additional printer pads higher bp/cost than caretaker at cost of some flexibility. It will still be able to produce every unit from the local factory tech cluster similar to how caretaker can assist multiple factories; but no repair/assist.
|
11 |
This maintains everything about current ZK - concentration of buildpower, tech being local and locked to one factory - but allows parallel output. You could bring it into balance by giving the additional printer pads higher bp/cost than caretaker at cost of some flexibility. It will still be able to produce every unit from the local factory tech cluster similar to how caretaker can assist multiple factories; but no repair/assist.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
|
|
13 |
This is very similar to @AdmiralZeech's proposal above, but avoids doubling build options without inflicting OTA tech trees on ZK (because there's just one universal printer).
|
|
|
14 |
\n
|
| 13 |
Similar to caretakers, destroying the printers destroys buildpower, while destroying the factory destroys tech.
|
15 |
Similar to caretakers, destroying the printers destroys buildpower, while destroying the factory destroys tech.
|
| 14 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 15 |
The balance effects of this are twofold:
|
17 |
The balance effects of this are twofold:
|
| 16 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 17 |
- Cheaper units become cheaper because the buildpower for making them becomes cheaper. You'll still want Caretakers to accelerate expensive projects with long buildtime; but building fleas in batches becomes much more lucrative. This is inherent to having many producer-factories.
|
19 |
- Cheaper units become cheaper because the buildpower for making them becomes cheaper. You'll still want Caretakers to accelerate expensive projects with long buildtime; but building fleas in batches becomes much more lucrative. This is inherent to having many producer-factories.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 19 |
- If current factory is replaced by a tech building plus one printer, then switching tech becomes easier. A workaround could be forcing each factory to have one exclusive printer, kind of like they do now.
|
21 |
- If current factory is replaced by a tech building plus one printer, then switching tech becomes easier. A workaround could be forcing each factory to have one exclusive printer, kind of like they do now.
|
| 20 |
\n
|
22 |
\n
|
| 21 |
Factories should be the things that have the UI to start the production; this avoids having to exclusively brand each of the pads to just one factory, or having a gazillion build options for the pad.
|
23 |
Factories should be the things that have the UI to start the production; this avoids having to exclusively brand each of the pads to just one factory, or having a gazillion build options for the pad.
|
| 22 |
\n
|
24 |
\n
|
| 23 |
[img]https://i.imgur.com/oNi7sZF.png[/img]
|
25 |
[img]https://i.imgur.com/oNi7sZF.png[/img]
|
| 24 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 25 |
Artistically, current factories could be "tech buildings" with small modifications or even without. Standalone printers and connection indicators (cables) would be the only new models to make here.
|
27 |
Artistically, current factories could be "tech buildings" with small modifications or even without. Standalone printers and connection indicators (cables) would be the only new models to make here.
|
| 26 |
\n
|
28 |
\n
|
| 27 |
2) Could be handled with something like a Starcraft 2 Warp Gate: a specially upgraded printer from the above modular factories design, but capable of linking statically to a single remote tech building. Because it links to only one tech building, it gets to be the one with the buttons.
|
29 |
2) Could be handled with something like a Starcraft 2 Warp Gate: a specially upgraded printer from the above modular factories design, but capable of linking statically to a single remote tech building. Because it links to only one tech building, it gets to be the one with the buttons.
|
| 28 |
\n
|
30 |
\n
|
| 29 |
[img]https://i.imgur.com/5ZKoj0d.png[/img]
|
31 |
[img]https://i.imgur.com/5ZKoj0d.png[/img]
|
I miss building multiple factories