Mod Option: Progressive Mining dicussion

[Tribulex]

Moho metal makers makes for boring games where noobs sit in their bases fapping to advanced fusions.

I really want to try hosting dsd with disabled mms. i think it would be a realy fun experiment.

[JohannesH]

Im 12 y old but what is this? Pls tell me why your suggestion would make any sense wombat

[Saktoth]

Jesus play CA if you dont want MM for crying out loud.

BA isnt going to change if you just say it louder.

[Tribulex]

ca has mms built into the mexes. you cant fool us you troll.

[Licho]

Prove it, i blown multiple apart and haven't seen anything special inside them!

[1v0ry_k1ng]

ur existence seems to be pointless

maybe tell why u find this idea bad >,>

'pointless' suggests I find this idea to have no purpose. that is my argument. if you can explain how MM taking a minute to charge up will improve or even change the way people play then go for it.

how will this affect gameplay? if you were going to make a mex before, you'd still make it with it running slow for 60 secs. nobody makes mex that are going to be killed within a minute anyway, because it wont pay for itself. way I see it, this is a gimmick

[Mav]

you'd still make it with it running slow for 60 secs. nobody makes mex that are going to be killed within a minute anyway, because it wont pay for itself.

If you take the metal cost of a mex (50) and an convert the energy cost to metal (521/60=9) a mex costs about 59 metal.

On maps with 2.4 metal/sec extractors, a mex pays for itself in about 25 seconds. On a 1.8 metal/sec map, it pays for itself in 32 seconds.

/just sayin'

[SeanHeron]

Man, how do people manage to degenerate discussions into empty "I'm right - you're wrong"'s so fast around here... .

Edit: To actually talk to some issues: first, the setting TFC set up are 4 or 5 minutes (from memory) till full charge. The disinsentive is perhaps less aimed at whether or not to build mexes, but to increase the "pain" if they're destoyed in a raid (even if you're well set up with builders and have them up again in no time).
And no, increasing metal cost of extractors would lead to different results, for pretty obvious reasons.

@ Wombat - on having a similiar mechanism for Metal makers - since they are built in a very different manner (ie somewhere safe, not necessarily spread out), the above reasoning is not really valid - since mm will not be taken out much in classical raids (or not more or less than eg wind/solars, etc.) so it would really only make sense if you were to introduce a lagg effect on these buildings functionality as well. And I think most players would find that somewhat strange .

[Mav]

Man, how do people manage to degenerate discussions into empty "I'm right - you're wrong"'s so fast around here... .

I take it you're new to internet forums.

This should bring you up to speed.

[JohannesH]

It takes about 8 minutes for a mex with prog mining to catch up to the same metal produced as it wouldve been with a normal mex. From then on it ofc produces at the 1,25x pace to normal.

Killing mexes is naturally more advantageous than normal, especially if its a mex your opponent can rebuild very soon (which would otherwise be quite small loss). But I feel, purely theoretic so far ofc, that bigger difference to how you should play is that you dont reap the benefits of expansion as soon as normal, so when you invest in expansion youre behind in army size for a longer time than youre used to. Which is not bad, just different.

[Argh]

Why not go the other way with this, and have mines that eventually are tapped out? Not that "diminishing returns" thing, which blows, but actual, per-spot strength. So early game, you have plenty of metal... late game, if you haven't gone MM econ, you lose. Should be a fairly simple Gadget.

Much less of a gimmick that way, imo. The way it's being proposed, it looks like "greenfields on every map" to me, and it makes little sense. BA starts are already really slow.

[SeanHeron]

@Argh - Maybe playing it rather than theorycrafting would help? And though exhaustable resources is also an interesting (if not exactly novel) model, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Excuse my being blunt.

@JohannesH - thanks for the description - I'd not so much thought about expansion paying off more slowly. I wonder how a reduced metal extractor cost would play into that (though of course you'd still be investing and risking the builder).

[triton]

Progressive mex or metal makers is not bad or good, it's interesting, maybe it wont suit to ba gameplay but most people here dont really know what gameplay change they are talking about.

About progressive metal makers, to be really interesting, metal makers would reach their best efficiency after some time ON. When you would set them off, you would lose the bonus you had. So putting metal makers on and off all the time would be less good, i dont say it's a good idea, but i think we can think about.

Manual metal makers!