Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Post edit history

Extreme fix for the OD sharing problem: Remove energy.

To display differences between versions, select one or more edits in the list using checkboxes and click "diff selected"
Post edit history
Date Editor Before After
7/20/2012 2:52:26 PMCArankPxtl before revert after revert
7/20/2012 2:51:22 PMCArankPxtl before revert after revert
7/20/2012 2:50:53 PMCArankPxtl before revert after revert
7/20/2012 2:49:25 PMCArankPxtl before revert after revert
Before After
1 Seriously, metal is what's important. The energy bar is, at best, a distraction. 1 Seriously, metal is what's important. The energy bar is, at best, a distraction.
2 \n 2 \n
3 Now, this doesn't mean remove OD, or using energy-structures to support heavy defenses. 3 Now, this doesn't mean remove OD, or using energy-structures to support heavy defenses.
4 \n 4 \n
5 Just remove the energy bar, and the web. Every energy building supplies its *full* energy output to every nearby energy consumer. A solar adjascent to 2 mexes? Puts 2 OD into each mex. No web, no "only your excess energy", the OD isn't even evenly divided between the mexes. Just "yay, 2 in each". 5 Just remove the energy resource ( income/expenditure) , and the web. Every energy building supplies its *full* energy output to every nearby energy consumer. A solar adjascent to 2 mexes? Puts 2 OD into each mex. No web, no "only your excess energy", the OD isn't even evenly divided between the mexes. Just "yay, 2 in each".
6 \n 6 \n
7 Boom. We lose the ambiguity of "which energy structure is providing which overdrive". We lose the ambiguity of sharing E vs. putting it into the OD economy. We lose the inconsistency between OD and web-requirements. 7 Boom. We lose the ambiguity of "which energy structure is providing which overdrive". We lose the ambiguity of sharing E vs. putting it into the OD economy. We lose the inconsistency between OD and web-requirements.
8 \n 8 \n
9 And you get people building E at the front, because if you want to get that DDM up and running, you need a goddamned fusion up there (drop the grid requirement to 20 so we can put DDMs on our Geos). 9 And you get people building E at the front, because if you want to get that DDM up and running, you need a goddamned fusion up there (drop the grid requirement to 20 so we can put DDMs on our Geos).
10 \n 10 \n
11 Cloak? Free. Shield charge? Free. Rez? Free. Adjust unit-costs and charge/rez rates accordingly. 11 Cloak? Free. Shield charge? Free. Rez? Free. Adjust unit-costs and charge/rez rates accordingly.
12 \n 12 \n
13 There are probably glaring flaws in this plan, not the least of which is that placement of energy-buildnigs would have to be obsessively perfect to make sure it perfectly touches the nearby mexes (this was the problem with the 500M OD pylon), and that a lot of Geos would be worthlessly located. 13 There are probably glaring flaws in this plan, not the least of which is that placement of energy-buildnigs would have to be obsessively perfect to make sure it perfectly touches the nearby mexes (this was the problem with the 500M OD pylon), and that a lot of Geos would be worthlessly located.
14 \n 14 \n
15 But it would fix a lot too, and simplify away something the game doesn't really need. The implicit would become explicit - a user could see *exactly* how much metal his fusion is generating. 15 But it would fix a lot too, and simplify away something the game doesn't really need. The implicit would become explicit - a user could see *exactly* how much metal his fusion is generating.
16 \n 16 \n
17 You could apply the mex payback logic to E buildings and have it behave coherently. 17 You could apply the mex payback logic to E buildings and have it behave coherently.
18 \n 18 \n
19 No, I don't expect anybody to *like* this idea, I'm just throwing it out there as a drastic solution to the problem that popped into my head. 19 No, I don't expect anybody to *like* this idea, I'm just throwing it out there as a drastic solution to the problem that popped into my head.