Idea: Advanced adjacency of six storages with one extractor. And extractor overload.

[Dim-A-miD]

Hello again, here's another idea.

Brief proposal:

1. Changes to the conditions for receiving the adjacency bonus for storages. In the new version, adjacency of half a storage side to an extractor or fabricator should be sufficient.

2. Additional mass from adjacency between a storage and an extractor requires additional energy. The increase in energy costs is not linear; the cost increases progressively for each unit of mass. This also affects the standard construction of an extractor with four storages.

3. Adding an adjacency effect between storages, increasing bonuses. The adjacency bonus multiplier between storage and extractor is increased. The additional bonus from storage-to-storage adjacency increases the maximum capacity of storages. This entails an increase in energy costs for extraction, as per point 2.

Explanation:

1. Modernization of the storage adjacency method. In the new version, a 0.5-side portion of a storage should be sufficient to obtain the extraction bonus.

2. Additional mass obtained from extractors/fabricators costs energy; each additional unit of mass requires more energy, with non-linear growth (for fabricators, the energy cost increase is less than for extractors).

3. Add interaction between storages; adjacency increases available capacity. It also significantly increases the adjacency bonus to an extractor or fabricator.
   For example: at T2, to obtain the same mass influx from an extractor, the old method required four storages and a small amount of energy. With the new method, three storages and slightly more energy are required. However, the capacity of three storages will be almost the same. This still leaves two free sides of the extractor, which can be used to add factories.

Why:
This modification will allow for a configuration of Extractor + 6 Storages, providing a significant resource boost at the cost of a moderate increase in energy consumption. This also reduces the time and space required to build up the base with Fabricators. This is especially important in the final stages of the game.

It will require the construction of Generators, which will correct the odd situation where a base has two T2 Generators, a scattering of T1 Generators, and all Extractors are already at T3 and fully equipped.

An additional improvement: this change will make building Storages for T3 Fabricators more profitable. This will add four Storages to the configuration and moderately increase the cost for a significant additional mass gain.

[Deribus]

@Dim-A-miD said:

Why:
This modification will allow for a configuration of Extractor + 6 Storages, providing a significant resource boost at the cost of a moderate increase in energy consumption. This also reduces the time and space required to build up the base with Fabricators. This is especially important in the final stages of the game.

It will require the construction of Generators, which will correct the odd situation where a base has two T2 Generators, a scattering of T1 Generators, and all Extractors are already at T3 and fully equipped.

An additional improvement: this change will make building Storages for T3 Fabricators more profitable. This will add four Storages to the configuration and moderately increase the cost for a significant additional mass gain.

None of this explains what problem you're actually trying to solve. This seems to greatly change the eco balance at T2 and especially T3 for no gain

[IndexLibrorum]

Also, changes such as these that significantly affect the core of the game aren't going to be added. You can make a mod that does it instead.

[Dim-A-miD]

@Deribus said:

None of this explains what problem you're actually trying to solve. This seems to greatly change the eco balance at T2 and especially T3 for no gain

Well... what other arguments are there...

The basic idea is to give more mass to T2 units to build more units. And to slow down the transition to T3.
The T2 unit phase is almost completely ignored, which isn't very good.

For role players, the "economy" during the transition to T3 will force them to build power generators between extractor upgrades.

Firstly, this will slightly slow down the transition to artillery/exp. strategic missile construction.
Secondly, air players will have the opportunity to counterattack by bombing several generators.

In most cases, the gap map looks like this, in a significant number of cases.

If the enetusiasts liked the proposal, we would like to see it as a separate modification, in case integration is deemed undesirable.

[Nuggets]

@Dim-A-miD said:

The basic idea is to give more mass to T2 units to build more units. And to slow down the transition to T3.
The T2 unit phase is almost completely ignored, which isn't very good.

For role players, the "economy" during the transition to T3 will force them to build power generators between extractor upgrades.

I'd say it could do the opposite. With this you can get more mass income without having to do a t3 mex, making a transition to t3 easier.

Also dual gap is such a bad example for this. Its a very static map, because most of your mex are in your base and not able to be raided. Not being able to raid economy means that defending and teching will always be more efficient, so i'd actually guess that for this scenario you make t2 even more irrelevant with the increased adjacency options.

[Dim-A-miD]

@Nuggets said:

I'd say it could do the opposite. With this you can get more mass income without having to do a t3 mex, making a transition to t3 easier.

Also dual gap is such a bad example for this. Its a very static map, because most of your mex are in your base and not able to be raided. Not being able to raid economy means that defending and teching will always be more efficient, so i'd actually guess that for this scenario you make t2 even more irrelevant with the increased adjacency options.

Okay, are there any good examples of maps (5/5 - 7/7) where T2 is used for relatively long periods?
If it's more beneficial to skip T2, then there's a flaw in the balance itself that the proposed modification will make more visible.

[FtXCommando]

Wonder open

It will always be easier to skip t2 when there’s 7 acus walking around because ACU counter units basically only exist at t3 stage. If you want t2 stage to exist for 8 minutes on a 7v7 it will be completely oppressive in a 2v2, game isn’t built for 7v7 lobbies.

[Dim-A-miD]

@FtXCommando said:

Wonder open

It will always be easier to skip t2 when there’s 7 acus walking around because ACU counter units basically only exist at t3 stage. If you want t2 stage to exist for 8 minutes on a 7v7 it will be completely oppressive in a 2v2, game isn’t built for 7v7 lobbies.

Well... 2v2 is a fast, small map where tactics decide everything, and a couple of three extractors are favored.
I'm saying everything can be effectively adjusted.

(Interesting... for example, it's possible to nerf the ACU - in the "new balance," where units became "slower," the changes barely affected the ACU.)

[cychwa_klaymberg]

As stated above, this will only speed up the transition to T3 because it is always more profitable to equip a mass extractor with storage facilities, even if, in your case, this will cost additional energy. This doesn't solve the problem of quickly transitioning to T3; in fact, it exacerbates it, because more mass means a faster transition to the really killer things and ignoring those units that quickly lose relevance.

If you want to make the transition longer and make T1-T2 units last longer, you can create a mod to increase the transition time to T2 and T3, respectively.

Besides, I play a modpack that implements this; it has a really long ramp-up to T3 and truly huge armies of T1 and T2 units. You can check out my thread.