Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-22T21:16:09+02:00

Oh I see. You want to base your estimates on the kind of reductions you get from power.

Actually, running the numbers on his figures looks a little enticing. I might actually take that.
I'd even keep a factory at T3 next to a mex. Particularly for heavy assault bots. adj.png 4 T1 factories in a full land spam would get you a +1, so would a T2 next to a T2. These are better adjacency than the Mass storage assuming you keep full efficiency (good luck with that one!)

Statistics: Posted by Ghoti — 22 Aug 2012, 21:16

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-22T20:51:52+02:00

Ghoti wrote:
I kinda assumed pip knew that.

Nope, I went the other way to adjust my numbers : I looked at the bonus given by surrounded mex with storages and estimated what would be an equivalent, or almost equivalent bonus to factory production near a mex. I didn't take energy adjacency as a reference, even though it does work pretty well.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 22 Aug 2012, 20:51

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-22T20:12:37+02:00

I kinda assumed pip knew that.

Statistics: Posted by Ghoti — 22 Aug 2012, 20:12

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-22T20:10:35+02:00

I like this mathematical approach very much and these numbers are quite close to my "empirical" numbers, so they seem very legit to me (probably more legit than mine ^^). Mass storages would still be quite better with these numbers, but at least, it would not be a complete mistake to have one side of a mex linked to a factory and the other three used for storage adjacency. That's what is important.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 22 Aug 2012, 20:10

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-22T20:00:14+02:00

with energy, it works like this:

if you cover EVERY side with pgens, it'll give you 25% (t1), 50% (t2), 75% (t3)

a factory has 16 spots where you can build a t1 pgen, means if you build a single pgen it's like:
t1: (25% / 16) = 1.56%
t2: (50% * 3 / 16 ) = 9.38%
t3: (75% * 4 / 16 ) = 18.75%

and if it's the same with mexes, a single mex means 1.56% cost reduction (t1 mex)... that's like...nothing, compared to storage (12,5% each store)

that's why i suggest to increase it to 400%, like you cover one side of the factory with mexes

storage bonus at t3 mex: 2.25 each
storage bonus at t2 mex: 0.75 each

new mass adjancy from mexes:
t1: 6.25%
t2: 12.5%
t3: 18.75%
the actual cost reduction is dependant on the unit you build

Statistics: Posted by Myxir — 22 Aug 2012, 20:00

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-22T19:42:48+02:00

The idea is not to change mass storage mechanics at all, it's to offer another not completely useless kind of mass adjacency. Even if mass storage remains the most efficient option, it should not be a complete mistake to build a mex near a factory. It should give at least a meaningful bonus rather than forcing you to reclaim your fac once you upgrade to t2 mex so that you can have full adjacency.

In my everything worthy mod, I went down a notch, to 10% bonus at t1, 15% at t2 and "only" 20% at t3. With these numbers, adjacency is decent, but less interesting than surrounding with mass storages, except in cases where a factory can benefit from several mexes at the same time.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 22 Aug 2012, 19:42

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-22T19:06:38+02:00

I agree with Lu_Xun, please do not change the existing mass storage balance, it just works!

You can add more flexibility in other adjacency bonuses, there are some interesting ideas here, but these changes have the potential to radically change the game, please be conservative.

As you can see in this long thread, a lot of modelling is required even for a simple adjustment to factory-mex bonuses that at the end has arguable benefit to the end of making the game more enjoyable. Changing the remainder of the adjacency bonuses and contemplating their impact across all game scenarios is a huge task. The likelihood of unintended negative consequences is high.

Yes, balancing a game this complex is an endless task -- SC2 balance is still being tweaked after millions of games played. I'd much prefer to err on fine-tuning and testing over a large number of games before making additional changes. I shudder when I see significant changes in any unit or game stat, the potential for breaking something else is just too large to take these changes lightly.

All in all good conversation to have, though I'd much prefer to poll the top players before implementing. Not many of those players commented on this proposal. The hard-core competitive community is the halo and driving engine that will continue to pull-in new players and give them a level of play to aspire to more than any one game change. Let's not lose the confidence of that community in our ability to be good stewards, not re-architects, of this great game.

Statistics: Posted by HEAVY — 22 Aug 2012, 19:06

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-05T15:25:16+02:00

pip wrote:
The first values I tested were t1 mex =15%, t2 mex = 25% and t3 mex = 50% discount.

The problem with these values is that whenever you are able to link a factory to 2 or more mexes, this becomes extremely profitable, and the definite way to go. Example : the starting mexes on Open Palms can allow you to have 2 factories linked with 2 mexes. I think it would be much, much easier to fast tech to t2 and t3 factories with such a set up, because then, the mass cost of the factory required is 50% less as soon as you have 2 t2 mexes, and your t3 units are very cheap at that stage (half price). This would considerably change gameplay on such a map.

i aggree, a bonus of 16 mass/s (t3 fac making bricks) is to extreme compared to a bonus of 4.5 from mass storage.
But i do not agree that a tech level can be reached "much easier". first you have to invest 2*4600 mass into the upgrade of the 2 mexes.

pip wrote:
The other problem is that I tried to give mass fabs a reasonable discount too, and when you combine mass fabs with 50% discount t3 mexes, it's easy to have a t3 factory that consumes no mass at all, and since it can share several t2 mass fabs as well as a t3 mex, I fear it may become also the must do strategy (because t2 mass fabs at a t3 eco are not that expensive).

sure it will be mandatory for at least one factory if you plan to go to tech 2 or tech 3. many things are mandatory in supcom.
engi assist, mass storage construction,...
the question will be how many factories one chooses to build adjacent to mexes and to what tech level they are developed.

pip wrote:
It's true that such values would definitely entice players to upgrade several factories to t2 and t3, but I don't think we want to change a "must do" behaviour into another. That's why we should be careful with the values and keep them reasonable for different gameplay situations and not just theorycraft. We don't want that fast teching becomes too good as a side effect of making mass adjacency bonus meaningful.

teching becomes too good compared to what? t1 land spam also profits if you make many t1 land factories near mexes.
but i agree that it is not an easy concept to introduce into the game.

pip wrote:
All in all, I recommend either 10% / 15% / 25 % as reasonable values and worthy alternative to mass storages, and advise not to go over 10% / 20% / 30%, if we want to promote even further several factories teching without making fast teching too cheap.

i agree making a brand new t3 factory next to a t3 mex is probably not a good metric to judge the balance. There are already other incentives to make a second t3 factory (location advantage on the map, less engi spam)
and the main driving force behind additional t3 factories is an abundance of resources anyway.
So lets stick to the slight advantage over mass storages. I can already imagine ppl reclaiming t1 factories around mexes after t1 forces lost their punch. could be interesting.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 05 Aug 2012, 15:25

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-05T10:34:18+02:00

The first values I tested were t1 mex =15%, t2 mex = 25% and t3 mex = 50% discount.

The problem with these values is that whenever you are able to link a factory to 2 or more mexes, this becomes extremely profitable, and the definite way to go. Example : the starting mexes on Open Palms can allow you to have 2 factories linked with 2 mexes. I think it would be much, much easier to fast tech to t2 and t3 factories with such a set up, because then, the mass cost of the factory required is 50% less as soon as you have 2 t2 mexes, and your t3 units are very cheap at that stage (half price). This would considerably change gameplay on such a map.

The other problem is that I tried to give mass fabs a reasonable discount too, and when you combine mass fabs with 50% discount t3 mexes, it's easy to have a t3 factory that consumes no mass at all, and since it can share several t2 mass fabs as well as a t3 mex, I fear it may become also the must do strategy (because t2 mass fabs at a t3 eco are not that expensive).

It's true that such values would definitely entice players to upgrade several factories to t2 and t3, but I don't think we want to change a "must do" behaviour into another. That's why we should be careful with the values and keep them reasonable for different gameplay situations and not just theorycraft. We don't want that fast teching becomes too good as a side effect of making mass adjacency bonus meaningful.

All in all, I recommend either 10% / 15% / 25 % as reasonable values and worthy alternative to mass storages, and advise not to go over 10% / 20% / 30%, if we want to promote even further several factories teching without making fast teching too cheap.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 05 Aug 2012, 10:34

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-05T04:01:58+02:00

I don't think you can actually implement this though. What happens if you introduce mass fabs to this mix? Could you get a factory producing mass while it builds?

Statistics: Posted by Ghoti — 05 Aug 2012, 04:01

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-05T01:25:22+02:00

pip wrote:
For the calculations of the total amount of mass invested in a t2 or t3 fac, the cost of the upgrade is reduced by the mex it is linked to: t3 fac near t3 mex = 240 (t1 fac doesn't get discount while being built) + 600 (t2 with 25% discount) + 2362.5 (t3 fac with 25%discount) = 3202.5 total (and not 4200). It makes upgrading factories cheaper, that is quite important (1000 mass is not meaningless).

so lets calculate the amortisation time:
first the mass storage case: 200 mass invested, mass rate increase 2.25 (+600 mass for the engis)
then the adjacent t3 factory: 3200 mass invested, mass rate saved:
10 * 25% == 2.5 (t3 ari)
14 * 25% == 3.5 (bots)
16 * 25% == 4 (brick)

the amortisation time is between 9600 seconds worst case and 1370 seconds best case.
With these values there is simply no incentive to make a t3 factory adjacent to a mex beyond the mandatory one and support it with engineers.
Or in other words, if i invest 3200 - 200 - 600 == 2400 mass into 1 t2 pgen and 3 t2 mass fabs i have 900 mass left over and i gain 1.25 more mass/second in the best case (the brick, which saves me 4-2.25 == 1.75 mass/sec)

A number which more closely resembles what i propose would be 50% mass consumption reduction for a t3 factory, which becomes cost efficient after 420 seconds (if building bricks) up to 870 seconds (if building ari) and then providing 8-2.25==5.75 down to 5-2.25==2.75 extra mass per second for the factory.
Keep in mind that t2 pgen + 3 massfabs has an amortisation time of 1500/3 == 500 seconds.

pip wrote:
I kept values relatively low so that it's not mandatory to do the factory near mex combination. Keep in mind that if a factory benefit from 2 t3 mexes, it gains 50% discount. That is fairly big. Along with a few t2/t3 mass fabs, it can even achieve to produce units "for free mass" (except it's not free since the initial cost of mass fabs and their energy upkeep is far from free). In some custom maps, a factory can benefit from 4 mexes, which mean that at t3, it will produce units for free. That's the reason why we should not go further than the 25% discount.

With your numbers the adjacent factory would be mandatory for the factory which you plan to take to t3 anyway and would be a bad choice for any extra factory.
Please dont get confused: 7 mass storages adjacent to t3 mexes also allow you to produce bricks for free.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 05 Aug 2012, 01:25

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-05T00:06:41+02:00

For the calculations of the total amount of mass invested in a t2 or t3 fac, the cost of the upgrade is reduced by the mex it is linked to: t3 fac near t3 mex = 240 (t1 fac doesn't get discount while being built) + 600 (t2 with 25% discount) + 2362.5 (t3 fac with 25%discount) = 3202.5 total (and not 4200). It makes upgrading factories cheaper, that is quite important (1000 mass is not meaningless).

I kept values relatively low so that it's not mandatory to do the factory near mex combination. Keep in mind that if a factory benefit from 2 t3 mexes, it gains 50% discount. That is fairly big. Along with a few t2/t3 mass fabs, it can even achieve to produce units "for free mass" (except it's not free since the initial cost of mass fabs and their energy upkeep is far from free). In some custom maps, a factory can benefit from 4 mexes, which mean that at t3, it will produce units for free. That's the reason why we should not go further than the 25% discount.

The values I suggested are simple:
t1 mex = 10% discount
t2 mex = 15% discount
t3 mex = 25% discount.
These values can be further adjusted, for instance 15% / 20% / 25% to give a slightly bigger discount to t1 and t2 mexes, but we need to keep the values reasonable. It should indeed not become the most efficient way to manage FA eco; it should be a decent alternative to storages. I ran some tests and I think 25% for t3 is the max value that can be chosen after that point, it becomes a bit too good.

Finally, it boosts t2 and t3 stages of the game more than t1 and t4, but I think it's not a bad thing.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 05 Aug 2012, 00:06

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-04T21:52:27+02:00

DilliDalli wrote:
Also the adjacency bonus should be kept relatively slim, otherwise we go to the other extreme of having to place your facs by mexes to get the most of your eco, rather than it being a choice.

maybe we can make it work for t1 factories, the investment is very much comparable to a mass storage and so the advantage can be kept slim (no worry about long amortisation time), and make it workable for the 1 or 2 t3 factories you would be building anyway in a game, because then the investment is mandatory and made solely for the purpose of access to the tech level.
i see a clear tradeoff then, which leaves room for strategic choice and personal preference.
The more t1 factories you put next to mexes, the more efficient it becomes to stick to t1 units.
Also leaves the option of reclaiming t1 factories with 10% mass loss. Whoever goes through the hassle would have some advantage.

EDIT: and maybe it would be wokable for higher tech factories: the mass gain needs to be more substantial, to not get behind for a long time for a slim payoff. but then again at the tech 3 stage the economy is pretty well developed anyway. So a t3 factory adjacency could be designed to mean a little longer waiting for it to pay off (compared to 200 - 300 seconds for the current mass upgrade mechanism), and together with the fact that the mass gain is limited to that particular factory and that maybe 5 mass/s extra only pays for a new t3 bot after so many seconds at a stage where the eco is already so much developed that 5 mass/s could mean 2% more or less...
My point is that with a good advantage, it will still be a bad idea to only make t3 factories around mexes (because there is a larger time for it to pay off, so it is not an automatic decision).
EDIT2: ... meaning the high cost of a tech 3 factory versus a t1 mass storage gives us the opportunity to design a tradeoff that differs from the t1 mass storage tradeoff, because it forces us to use a different tradeoff. as stated above, it would probably mean: still longer time for it to pay off, but then a larger gain, commitment of resources to a single consumer.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 04 Aug 2012, 21:52

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-04T21:37:16+02:00

Don't forget that while adjacency bonuses don't extend to assisting engies, over the same period of time an assisted fac and an unassisted fac will make the same saving relative to one that is not adjacent to a mex.

Also the adjacency bonus should be kept relatively slim, otherwise we go to the other extreme of having to place your facs by mexes to get the most of your eco, rather than it being a choice.

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 04 Aug 2012, 21:37

Re: Making the game more fluid - The adjacency bonuses probl

2012-08-04T21:36:00+02:00

pip wrote:
All in all, you would produce t2 units with 3 factories with a global discount for them equal to -7.5, plus the -3.5 discount of your t3 factory = -11 mass saved per tick. I'm pretty confident this would pay off in a decent amount of time, and you would churn out t2 units at a pretty good rate without the need of engies, and for a reasonably good price.

3 tech 2 factories: 3 * 1000 mass invested
1 tech 3 factory: 4200 mass invested
mass saved: 11 mass per second
build power gained: 3 * 40 + 60

4 tech 2 mass storages: 800 mass invested
mass saved: 9 mass per second
build 36 t1 engis: 1600 mass invested
build power gained: 180

at an extra 2 mass/sec, you finally have more efficiency at (7200 - 800 - 1600) / 2 = 2400 seconds.
good luck with that.

pip wrote:
When Ze_Pilot opened this thread, he titled it "making the game more fluid". It think this would add a lot of fluidity, because many combinations would actually be interesting. The basic combination of t2 and t3 mexes surrounded by mass storages would still be a very interesting option, but not the only valuable one, not to mention all kinds of other discounts you can get with mass fabs.

lets hope we find a workable solution.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 04 Aug 2012, 21:36