Spring RTS Engine

Why do the moho metal maker and nuclear generator have to be separate buildings? I would like fusion reactor that costs itself plus the moho metal makers needed to use it and just produces the equivalent metal. This used to exist in a number of mods(possibly aa). I really think the inconvenience to the player is far greater than any game play change. The current build options would still exist.

This will break game balance!

(polls are broken)

Whats a pool?

Wouldnt break game balance (just minor change, it wouldnt be that different from building the 2 buildings) but would be utterly useless change, it wouldnt add anything worthwhile

Just build them separately

dimm wrote:Whats a pool?

I believe I wrote poll.

*jediwave*

dimm wrote:Why do the moho metal maker and nuclear generator have to be separate buildings? I would like fusion reactor that costs itself plus the moho metal makers needed to use it and just produces the equivalent metal. This used to exist in a number of mods(possibly aa). I really think the inconvenience to the player is far greater than any game play change. The current build options would still exist.

Nobody ever used the Metal Generator, for good reason - an MM can turn off and free up the energy so you can energy-intensive operations. A metal generator is always on, and can only produce metal.

Johannes: I will have to click less often!
Pixtl well have both types or have the "off" state produce energy without converting to metal.
Obey: how to fix polls?

I think we should start a poll to see if people would like to have the polls fixed. On a more thread relevant statement, I feel this would dumb the game down just a tiny bit.

BA could use more than a little dumbing down.

But this wouldn't dumb the game down, it would add one more decision - combined makers vs. separate makers.

Either way, the point is moot - BA's major gameplay is finished. They're not going to add new units. Bug the SA or ABA or NOTA guys if you've got new units.

This isn't a game play change its just convenience. All it will mean is that i click less. And it really doesn't require any work. just copy paste a the fusions and edit like 4 stats.
Btw nota doesn't have this problem at all and whats aba?

ABA is Advanced BA, it's a BA mutator with a bunch of, what i would call silly and over the top, units.

Pxtl wrote:BA could use more than a little dumbing down.

There's enough other dumbed down TA mods here, play them...

I think, bigger fusions and bigger MMs are needed, because in later gameplay 10 fusions and 50 MMs are built (i think that's ugly), but the combined is also an idea, though there is the issue pxtl said.

Pxtl wrote: Either way, the point is moot - BA's major gameplay is finished. They're not going to add new units. Bug the SA or ABA or NOTA guys if you've got new units.

This.

dimm wrote:This isn't a game play change its just convenience. All it will mean is that i click less. And it really doesn't require any work. just copy paste a the fusions and edit like 4 stats.
Btw nota doesn't have this problem at all and whats aba?

This is gameplay change, more or less. Making them one structure will change the gameplay. Some people build their base considering the strategy and placement how to separate mm fields from fusion fields (Not to cause chain explosion etc.) It's also gameplay change considering what people choose to raid.

You are thinking too shallow here. You are seeing this as a problem, an aspect that distorts and complicates the gameplay while most of players sees this as a part of gameplay and strategy. You want to simplify the economy, why not ignoring the whole metalmaking process and going someway similiar way like CA?

Perhaps too much DSD porc and greenfields? MM's are not used that much in smaller games since energy is more important resource beside the regular metal extractors.

MSSSSM wrote:I think, bigger fusions and bigger MMs are needed,

M
I agree.

"BA's major gameplay is finished." (Pxtl)
This isn't major game play.

Pxtl wrote: But this wouldn't dumb the game down, it would add one more decision - combined makers vs. separate makers.

SirArtturi wrote: You are thinking too shallow here. You are seeing this as a problem, an aspect that distorts and complicates the gameplay while most of players sees this as a part of gameplay and strategy.

What is this "part of gameplay"? Then let the combined option be obviously less cost effective. Those who see separation as strategy can waste their time with it. I just want the option!!

And why should this strategy even be kept if it, unlike the rest, in MOST instances it causes unnecessary boredom and pointless repetition? But not 'distortion' or 'complication', idk these words in this context.

SirArtturi wrote:Some people build their base considering the strategy and placement how to separate mm fields from fusion fields (Not to cause chain explosion etc.) It's also gameplay change considering what people choose to raid.

This is the only attempted example as to how gameplay would change. So if it can be shown insignificant there must be no gameplay change!:
Well arturi ur wrong. Some people may care but the vast majority build in nice squares where if anything goes everything goes. Ie the majority don't care how this might change gameplay.

And the raiders would still go at the building that would cause this major explosion so no change again.

ohhh... so you want another fusion to be added in with attached metalmakers?

im not sure about this

although i'd be saving on clicks to lay out metal makers (saving maybe like 2 seconds) i'd be losing out in terms of the "layout safety" mentioned earlier in the thread...

also, i rarely build metal makers unless i'm excessing energy like a champ, and even then, i like to look at how my allies power requirements are doing... no reason to cheat a teammate of energy, especially if you yourself had enough resources to construct a fusion in the first place (so i would be against adding this to existing structures)

i would also argue that if you're at the point of the game where you're building economy buildings like this, you're probably playing a big team game (or about to lose a small game) and likely have no micro requirements... your army is probably sitting in a defensive position to cover you before you're ready to produce units again... so all you are working on is your economy

but yes, BA is complicated, and people like it that way... by combining mms and fusions, you are reducing the number of tactical options a player can choose, and i don't think people would react well to this... its more about total control than ease of play

plus, we already have umpteen playable versions of CA with mex overdrive, as well as a ton of mods and games with more simplified economy

my suggestion, if you're really stuck on this idea, is to create a BA mutator using your plan, get people to play it, and then get feedback afterwards... if people like it, then why not?

BA has been reasonably stable for a long time now, the last time i remember anything to do with the unit roster changing it was when commandos were removed, and that must have been about two years ago... its a very stable system, that although containing some flaws, has become overall a quite balanced and fun system of play

make your own mod/mutator! nothing wrong with your idea, its an interesting one, but to some people here it would be like "lets add another queen to the chessboard and see what happens"

(sorry for the epic wall of text. i didnt want you to think i was attacking you or your idea, i wanted to be clear on what i was saying)

dimm wrote: And the raiders would still go at the building that would cause this major explosion so no change again.

I'd rather attack my couple raiders to MM farm that most likely would cause chainexplosion and destroy the whole base than to lonely high hitpoint fusion.

Plus the things KaiserJ mentioned.

Well, your idea is good. Im not attacking against it. Id see this somehow implemented but not for BA. BA is done - complete...

What is this "part of gameplay"? Then let the combined option be obviously less cost effective. Those who see separation as strategy can waste their time with it. I just want the option!!

huh? cannot produce e, AND is less effective? i dont think introducing a building that is strictly worse will do anything for the game. if at all, make them at least as cost effective, if not better

In ffa, i build minimal 10 fusion and not a single MM (ok maybe 1 or 2 when i metal stall with is not so often) so i really dont want to pay an extra cost for an included MM.
Main purpose of fusion is to make energy to rez, produce unit to fight and reclaim, not to play simcity.
If you want to make eco, you can go play simcity or a mod where t1 is weak as shit.

I don't really see this unit filling a role, nor this change being made to Balance Annihilation even if it would.