Forged Alliance Forever

Re: On mex adjacency

2016-03-13T19:42:35+02:00

Saxxon wrote:
IMO the adjacency for a Mex by factories is not quite enough. The reason isn't the raw number, its that its limited to those factories and only if they are used constantly (which often would not be the case) and if so, becomes a hobble because having Mex surrounded by mass storage can be used for anything. The only times I've ever found it to be advantageous was on a small map where the same factory was in use all game. Most games on larger maps forward factories get built to lessen travel time.

Reclaim the factory and build a storage there once the factory is not in use?

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 13 Mar 2016, 19:42

Re: On mex adjacency

2016-02-28T09:51:14+02:00

IMO the adjacency for a Mex by factories is not quite enough. The reason isn't the raw number, its that its limited to those factories and only if they are used constantly (which often would not be the case) and if so, becomes a hobble because having Mex surrounded by mass storage can be used for anything. The only times I've ever found it to be advantageous was on a small map where the same factory was in use all game. Most games on larger maps forward factories get built to lessen travel time. Ferrying by xport can keep the factory relevant, but that presumes that the enemy doesn't see that and attack the transports.

Also, on most maps the Mex sites are not close enough to get more than 1-2 Mex adjacent, and if its two, same limitations apply.

The efficiency loss across the game isn't worth the price savings vs limitations on use currently. The mass savings is much better with a T3 Mass fab by the factory, and its fairly rare you bother with mass storage by a T3 Mex so there isn't really any sacrifice in doing so; far more often you would put next to power to reduce the energy cost of producing the mass.

---------------------------

Also somewhat related, but was going to put on different thread, is having upgradeable storage. Several mods provide this either by upgrading the T1 storage buildings with corresponding higher storage values and bonus, or larger T2/T3 versions that do the same, and fit to the sides of the T3 Mass Fab/T3 PGen more effeiciently (very useful in large, long AI games where unit cap gets hit).

If there is upgradeable storage, the adjacency bonus for Mex has to be higher, or there is certainly no point. If the bonus is 100% for T2 storage, and 150% for T3 storage (there are at least 2 mods that use those values of 5 or so I have played with), that means the Mex with 4 storage is 27 with T1, 36 with T2 and 45 with T3 storage around it. If the best value for adjacency with 4 factories is @30 mass - in no case is that then worth it if upgradeable storage is in the game. And frankly, I'd like to see that as a change as for instance in energy storage you have lead acid batteries, lithium ion batteries and grapheme batteries (using today's techs as T1, T2 and T3 examples) each with higher energy density. Upgradeable storage makes sense logically in that fashion. Having another option as well aside from RAS SACU and Mass Fabs would be a good addition.

Statistics: Posted by Saxxon — 28 Feb 2016, 09:51

Re: On mex adjacency

2016-01-09T18:52:19+02:00

Oh no Exotic, it was never about the answer etc. (but thank you for the breakdown and analysis)

it was about whether t1 mexes should provide such a disproportionate bonus for adjacency as compared to higher tier mexes.

Statistics: Posted by Sovietpride — 09 Jan 2016, 18:52

Re: On mex adjacency

2016-01-09T01:10:09+02:00

the eco overlay gives decimal places only when the value is less than 10. then it rounds to the nearest value.

from wiki adjacency page:
discount for 1 adjacent mex: t1:7.5% - t2:10% - t3:12.5%

so for rhinos:
t1- 9 * 92.5% = 8.325 mass/s
t2- 9*90% = 8.1
t3- 9*87.5% = 7.875

for bricks:
19.2 is base drain so:
t1 - 19.2*92.5% = 17.76mass/s
t2- 19.2*90% = 17.28 for some reason in your post you put 18 for mex drain but in the pic its 17?
t3- 19.2*87.5% = 16.8 - for some reason you put 17 in your post but its 16 in that pic?

so by those rules we see that ... something is a bit fucked up xD
we know its not he wiki giving wrong info because it gives the correct adjacency for rhinos

so the answer is to do with rounding retardness:
this is my suspicion but it explains it... i think:
1.the mass drain gets rounded to the nearest 0.1
2. if the mass drain is > 10, then it gets rounded down to the nearest integer
this means that there are 2 roundings going on in different ways and that would explain your.. ui issue

if you want more data then you need to see the actual mass costs - delete acu, turn off mexes and get a bunch of storages, then look at the actual mass cost of the bricks (compare storage before+after). that should answer your question if you dont accept this answer.

Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 09 Jan 2016, 01:10

Re: On mex adjacency

2016-01-09T01:02:13+02:00

Perhaps we should simply standardize this and look at all the numbers again. It's the trade-off with the fact that mass gained from adjacency can only be used for land production, only when the factory is active, and doesn't apply to Engineers assisting.

So perhaps, given that lack of flexibility, it should be a flat, say, 25% - 50% better than capping mex across the board. Start with a T1 mex and T1 factory. Storage on a T1 mex makes 0.25 mass per tick. So we have a t1 factory producing tanks count for 0.375. T2, storage makes 0.75, so the factory making T2 should make 1.125, and so forth, with different units making different amounts, but always better than capping would be. The difference, of course, is that the mass is immobile. So yes, you might have an effective eco of 500 mass per second of land spam overwhelming the enemy, but come wanting to switch to Navy you might find yourself with far less.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 09 Jan 2016, 01:02

Re: On mex adjacency

2016-01-09T00:51:20+02:00

Zock wrote:
t3 should give more than t2. Maybe it's an oversight, not sure how it was before we changed adjancency values for engymod to prevent the cheap support factories becoming too efficient with it. (They are still more efficient than mass storage, but you are limited to using the mass into land units)

I did some testing with this actually.

Single t3 mex is 18 mass per tick, capped is 27.

4 T3 factories around a T3 mex making harbingers or T3 siege tanks gives you an effective income of 30 mass per tick.
However, 4 T3 factories around a T3 mex making percies or bricks only give 27.5.

Imo we should maybe nerf t1 mex adjacency a little but buff t2 mex a tad, but only a little on both sides, since you also get additional mass income from upgrading mex.

Statistics: Posted by TheKoopa — 09 Jan 2016, 00:51

Re: On mex adjacency

2016-01-08T23:50:41+02:00

t3 should give more than t2. Maybe it's an oversight, not sure how it was before we changed adjancency values for engymod to prevent the cheap support factories becoming too efficient with it. (They are still more efficient than mass storage, but you are limited to using the mass into land units)

Statistics: Posted by Zock — 08 Jan 2016, 23:50

On mex adjacency

2016-01-08T23:01:06+02:00

I did some testing with regards to mex adjacency and factories.
I'm wondering what peoples thoughts are with regards to the mass discount given to factories if adjacent, and the tech level of the factory/mex.

As it stands, the greatest benefit is simply putting it around a t1 mex - hear me out here.

Using rhinos (-9) as an example, and adjacency
T0 (no adjacency) = (-9)
T1 = -8.3
t2 = -8.1
t3= -7.9

Using bricks as an example:

T0 = - 19
T1 = -18
T2 = -18 (?!?)
T3 = -17

Values were obtained using the eco overlay (hence the decimal points)

My question, is simple: Should this be the case?
So, people will be upgrading mexes regardless, and people tend to upgrade mexes which are already surrounded by factories. One could therefore argue the adjacency benefit shouldnt be that big.

I don't claim this is a game-breaking balance issue, but i am nonetheless curious if there is a reason for the set up being as it is- especially the T2mex with T3 adjacency

Statistics: Posted by Sovietpride — 08 Jan 2016, 23:01