I’m opening this thread because the other one on adjacency is basically poop.
As discussed before I see the following problem with storages:
- they are so incredibly efficient that a stand-alone t3 mex isn’t worth it
- they are so incredibly efficient that most of the time you want to reclaim any t1 or t2 fac adjacent to a t3 mex in favor of a storage and rebuild the fac without adjacency
- they bloat mex mass production to levels unhealthy to t2 and early t3 balance, t3 mex payback times are almost as high as t2 mex because of the rediculous benefit they receive from storages (see t3 mex thread that was closed because I didn’t provide a replay of a mex producing too much mass)
- eco progression in faf is something that is not intuitive, noobs frequently ring t1 MeX with storages or forget to ring t3 mex because it’s not clear that this is unholy inefficient
The percentage based adjacency bonus of a storage for a fixed price makes it so that storages are worth almost as much in terms of mass efficiency as a standalone t3. They essentially give mass as efficiently as mex points on the map, without the need for additional map control, power need or volatility (see problem with ras acu) and therefore don’t fit into the regular strategic framework of mass production in faf.
I want to make a case that storages are, in a way - OP.
Now I just want to open a discussion about that situation without having a clear solution ready. A quick brainstorming yielded something like a fixed bonus without diminishing returns, like +0.5 mass extra per storage on all levels. I think the diminishing return on adjacency is not very intuitive and makes the whole topic needlessly complex for new players.
Another more radical approach could be to cut it with storage adjacency all together, because I believe that mass production should be tied more closely to securing map control, and that adjacency should be a production efficiency improvement on the spending level, but maybe that’s for sup com 3.