Petition to revert mex cost to 50

[1v0ry_k1ng]

did I mention that the twilight is grossly op?
yeah, it is

[pintle]

CA opening eco is a brutal, unforgiving, and imo, not very fun affair.

After that the eco is rather simplistic and not very engaging at all.

The expensive/tough mex imo detract from the fluidity of the game. This and the turret spam Dave referenced are pretty much why I'm not playing CA atm.

That, and I long ago grew very bored of crowded comet games.

[DavetheBrave]

YEAH, lets just increase the starting boost. to what do you think? 1200, 1500? ZOMG HEY THAT WOULD BE GREAT! then you could build fac, boost a can! No need to even do eco. that would certainly solve the economy problem..

I mean really people....increasing boost isn't gonna do shit. just decrease mex cost and hp! why not! this is CA, you can put it in a test version, see how it goes. It's obvious there is a problem here, so stop being so arrogant! decreasing it to 50 would be optimum imo, but why not try 70, 75?. and then you could decrease mex HP to around 150-200.

This would increase the fluidity of the game, without BREAKING it (like increasing boost would).

This and the turret spam Dave referenced are pretty much why I'm not playing CA atm.

I love how google never answered that point ^_^.

[Otherside]

ITT : google throwing around bad idea's and being overly defensive of some flaws in CA

and i used to think google always came up with great ideas but increasing boost is a roflcopter

[Pxtl]

I dont' get why people bitch about turret spam in CA. CA turrets are short-ranged. Just build artillery and pwn them from a safe distance.

[Otherside]

turret spam isnt OP

Its just a popular tactic popularised by people playing comet and other small team maps with huge teams and making tower lines because theres little/no room to raid

[1v0ry_k1ng]

tower lines are effective vs t1 spammers
most the community are BA conditioned only to build t1
??????
failure

[Google_Frog]

Right now, the best start seems to be to put up 3 mexes (or 4 if you can manage it), llt or two, bunch of winds, and a nano. Start your factory and let the nano finish the factory while you walk your com up and take a couple more mexes along the way. Doing any start that isn't an eco start will kill you because you won't be able to put more mexes up.

Mabye there's something wrong with your BO to stall that hard at the start of the game.

ITT : google throwing around bad idea's and being overly defensive of some flaws in CA

It would only increase 100 or so. Enough to cover extra mex costs. Basically I think decreasing mex cost is a bad idea.

With expensive mexes raiding is more important as it takes more time and resources to replace dead expansion. With cheap mexes quickly bringing out a few cons and rebuilding the mexes costs so little that there's less reason to defend them. This is especially noticable with aircon swarms.

As said this makes people defend mexes more which is good. How much you defend mexes is a strategic choice. It also escalates the game to a stage where raider spam is not the only option. They might have to build assaults or arty to kill the mex defence. In the raid and rebuild scenario people just keep spamming more raider swarms.

Basically yes, it is easier to expand with cheap mexes but it's not how easy an action is. It's about how it compares with what the enemy is doing.

Also I still haven't heard enough on how these team games are being ruined.

[luckywaldo7]

The difference is that the enemy has to spend an extra 50 to rebuild them. Actually it's just an extra 20 because they leave 60% M wrecks.

Through years of 1v1s it was decided that cheap mexes make raiding worthless as it costs barely anything to rebuild the mexes and cost is usually made many times over reclaiming the few dead raiders. There was no point defending expansion as it could be quickly and cheaply rebuilt once the raiders have left.

I would attribute that problem to wrecks leaving too much metal. Despite this long discussion on mexes I think in an actual game mexes become almost irrelevant after 10 minutes or so and the game becomes mostly about getting the reclaim.

[Neddie]

While I sympathize with some of your points, I think wrecks are fine, people merely fail to contest them as originally planned. Making the wreckage less viable makes failure in assault more acceptable and severely limits the potential for a turn around.

[luckywaldo7]

You misunderstand the problem entirely. Good players know how good the reclaim is. They always contest the reclaim, which involves tanks and stuff shooting each other, which results in more dead units and more wreckage to reclaim. The little wreckage pile turns into a huge one. I've seen it happen many games where a fight over a bit of reclaim leads into a game that is centered entirely around the wreckage.

Of course though, you are absolutely right that wrecks should make for a potential turn-around for someone who is being pounded upon by an over-aggressive opponent. But you don't want to discourage aggression too much.

Or maybe you do. The longer this discussion goes on the more I feel that I'm playing a different game then you guys.

Anyway I wasn't really making any suggestions on the reclaim just throwing out the idea and pointing out the possible but of humor in that we were making a big deal out of mexes when they seem to be not really that important in the long run of most games.

[Pxtl]

I think the problem most people are facing is that they build a nanotower as one of their first structures. That nanotower pointed at the lab causes serious stalling.

[Google_Frog]

I would attribute that problem to wrecks leaving too much metal.

Maybe. I wouldn't mind trying out 50% metal wrecks just to see how it turns out.

You misunderstand the problem entirely. Good players know how good the reclaim is. They always contest the reclaim, which involves tanks and stuff shooting each other, which results in more dead units and more wreckage to reclaim. The little wreckage pile turns into a huge one. I've seen it happen many games where a fight over a bit of reclaim leads into a game that is centered entirely around the wreckage.

The really good players realize when they can't win a battle over the reclaim and retreat so they don't make the pile larger.

I think the problem most people are facing is that they build a nanotower as one of their first structures. That nanotower pointed at the lab causes serious stalling.

That and the nano tower costs 220.

[Yogzototh]

After playing a few games and adjusting my start build slightly, i have stopped feeling much difference between 50 and 100 cost. Havent played any 1v1's with the 100-cost mexes yet though.
As for raiding, its nt like you are robbing your enemy of just 100m when u destroy a mex. It takes some time for your opponent to send a con and rebuild it, and all that time he is losing m which he could have had. If the enemy uses swarm of aircons to rebuild, its always a good idea to send a few fighters to dispatch em. The aircons have almost no hp and even a large swarm dies in a matter of 2-3 seconds.

I've seen it happen many games where a fight over a bit of reclaim leads into a game that is centered entirely around the wreckage.

Wait wait wait, why do you say it like its something bad? Ive always loved these moments of endless combat in the middle of a pile of wrecks. Intense, with all kinds of units being thrown there, isnt it the best part of any CA batle?

[Otherside]

wreck wars is one of the best parts of CA.

how can you not love thuds/storms running through wrecks :] using them as a defensive shield and pwning veh's :p

[Neddie]

I don't "misunderstand" anything, and lumping me in with your detractors is not going to help you. If I agreed with them in general I would still actively contribute to CA on a regular basis.

I have more than enough experience with you in game to know that we're playing the same one.

[DavetheBrave]

Maybe. I wouldn't mind trying out 50% metal wrecks just to see how it turns out.

yeah lets nerf another interesting gameplay/micro element!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean seriously, are we trying to turn CA into a board game? is that what you want google? because from this thread it sure seems that way...

[Google_Frog]

Maybe. I wouldn't mind trying out 50% metal wrecks just to see how it turns out.

yeah lets nerf another interesting gameplay/micro element!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean seriously, are we trying to turn CA into a board game? is that what you want google? because from this thread it sure seems that way...

I still think wrecks should be important and fought over but maybe it's too much compared to mex income.

[luckywaldo7]

Maybe. I wouldn't mind trying out 50% metal wrecks just to see how it turns out.

yeah lets nerf another interesting gameplay/micro element!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean seriously, are we trying to turn CA into a board game? is that what you want google? because from this thread it sure seems that way...

That was my suggestion.

I dunno, I just don't like the feel of the economy and gameplay together and I'm trying to sniff out why. I would like to try 50% (maybe 25% for self-d then?) and see how it plays just a bit.

As far as mexes go maybe I could make it a temporary modoption? Just to see how it plays some more?

[DavetheBrave]

well you aren't the one who wants to keep the expensive mexes at the same time..

and seriously think about it, expensive mexes+ 1/2 reclaim = even more slower and stally games.