Allow mass storages buildable underwater?

[pip]

I love some maps with mexes buildable in the sea, like Voi Vittu and many maps inspired by classic TA maps (thanks TAG_Rock!).

But something bothers me : it's unfair because if you control the seas, you can never get t3 mexes giving +27 because you'll never be able to surround them with mexes. So, is it possible to make mass storages buildable underwater?

I don't think there would be any drawback.

[FunkOff]

This should be very possible.

However, as with all structures, it should be considered carefully whether it should be buildable on/under water or not. Underwater is, after all, the safest place to be because there are few high-damage torpedo weapons, and we wouldn't want to make it OP.

[pip]

Mass storages underwater OP? How so? You never build any before t2 and at t2, there are plenty of units that deals 60-120 DPS with torpedoes = very easy to deal with a defneseless 1600 HP structure.
It's not possible to protect them with shields, and they would be only useful on maps with underwater mexes, meaning you know where to find them.

For energy storages, yes, that would be a concern, but for mass storages? OP? Seriously?

Or maybe you mean that the ability to surround t3 mexes with mass storages underwater would unbalance some maps. But if the map is well done, it shouldn't be an issue.

[Plasma_Wolf]

The health of the T3 underwater mex would be the biggest challenge for a naval group, but if it is surrounded by storage, you'd just kill that first to cause the fastest drop in income. After that, just take your time to destroy the mex itself.

Regardless of the health of storage, the time it takes to destroy the mass extractor is no different now from what it will be when it is surrounded.

[noobymcnoobcake]

yep, wont be op why not implement it.

[Crayfish]

This is part of a much larger conversation I think about having a Sea based economy in Supcom (something that was one of the most glaring ommisions from T.A)

This should be very possible.

However, as with all structures, it should be considered carefully whether it should be buildable on/under water or not. Underwater is, after all, the safest place to be because there are few high-damage torpedo weapons, and we wouldn't want to make it OP.

Yes, this does need to be considered before just chucking the ground mass storage underwater.
Killing an underwater unit / structure requires a specialised and exspensive weapon type. One that often (like torp bombers) requires mastery of the sea and air to (cost effectively) use . Having 'control' of an area of sea is different to having to hold a section of land with all its associated risks.
Having said that, it would be nice to see Supcom flesh out a proper sea based economy in the way that T.A did. In T.A if you lost control of land, you could build a sea based economy with aquatic versions of thier land counterparts, but they were balanced (made more expensive and less efficient) to take into account the added protection and stealth that being underwater gave them (in the same way that a Fab based economy is less efficient than a Mex based one). The underwater Nuke reactors (T3 Pow Gens) were less efficient and required more resources to build, while the tidal generators (T1 pow gens) floated on the surface like torpedo launchers.
Furthermore, only certain structures should be buildable on water to keep the tactical variation between the land and sea realms. So some (re-balanced) economy could work, but not things like point defense.

[Veta]

it'd be less OP than MStorage on land, where it actually absorbs fire for your MEXs.

Edit: I just saw Cray's post, I'd love to see more economy buildable under water, I don't think additional 'variations' of existing units would necessarily be viable or are something FAF is interested in doing - but simply allowing some things to be buildable under water after considering/testing the implications would be okay I think. Obviously you can theorycraft justifications for anything but if PGens, Mfabs and Storage were buildable underwater and shields/pd weren't (and thus vulnerable to torpedo and only viable with an expensive navy standing guard) how game breaking would that really be? I'd imagine since you couldn't stealth the base or shield it in any way it'd basically be a really easy target once scouted?

You could still build in some secluded ponds like say what's on either side of seton's but even then I don't think it'd be all that significant - and it'd still be really vulnerable to torpedo bombing. Again, you could logic your way onto either side of this - yah electricity is really easily displaced in water - but then why would ACUs with the RAS+ upgrade be able to walk underwater and still be the best resource generators?

Anyhow I think it's a great idea and probably among the features GPG had to cut to get the game out (water based amphibious transports were also an interesting mechanic they had to cut).

[microwavelazer]

Although I don’t think It would be too op. I do like the idea of certain mass points being worth more. At the moment land based mexes are more vulnerable and are easier to detect then submerged ones. On the other hand, land based mexes can return greater mass with storages. So in this way, submerged mexes may be safer. But vulnerable land based mexes can be more profitable.

I’m not saying the submerged storages would be OP. I just like the idea of a tradeoff between basing an economy off of land or sea mexes

[Veta]

Although I don’t think It would be too op. I do like the idea of certain mass points being worth more. At the moment land based mexes are more vulnerable and are easier to detect then submerged ones. On the other hand, land based mexes can return greater mass with storages. So in this way, submerged mexes may be safer. But vulnerable land based mexes can be more profitable.

I’m not saying the submerged storages would be OP. I just like the idea of a tradeoff between basing an economy off of land or sea mexes

but you agree it does not seem intuitive no?

[microwavelazer]

Although I don’t think It would be too op. I do like the idea of certain mass points being worth more. At the moment land based mexes are more vulnerable and are easier to detect then submerged ones. On the other hand, land based mexes can return greater mass with storages. So in this way, submerged mexes may be safer. But vulnerable land based mexes can be more profitable.

I’m not saying the submerged storages would be OP. I just like the idea of a tradeoff between basing an economy off of land or sea mexes

but you agree it does not seem intuitive no?

It depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, you have you could expect that mass storages to be buildable underwater because mass extractors are buildable underwater(especially since you only build storages next to extractors). On the other hand, every other recourse producing structure(but hydrocarbons) and resource storage structure is only buildable on land. I think it is unusual that mass extractors and hydrocarbons are buildable underwater. and that it is expected that storages are only buildable on land.

personally though I don't think this is overly relevant though. This is because I think interesting gameplay is a greater priority. And I think that storages only buildable on land is more interesting then making them buildable anywhere. Again this is just my opinion however this matter could be cleared up if the hydrocarbons and mass extractors showed the land/water background like other amphibious units so it was clearer what could be built where.