If there is no more space then upgrades become a necessity. Is the base lacking a resource? I think that building another source to make or mine that resource would be better than upgrades that could cut that resource off for a time. Disconnecting drone pads from the grid would also be useful since once they are built the pads don’t need the power anymore. If you are working on defenses then building turrets that don’t require power to function would be more useful to the base. Is the base suffering a lack of power? Then it is likely you should stop building things that use power unless you are making something that will be used toward power production like generators that require a specific fuel. What I have to say about better is that you must look at the context around the situation and see how you can help the base become better.Įverything has to come back to the situation at the moment. What I have to say here is something less of a guide and more my thoughts and feelings on the subject. Better in itself is a purely situational term. Here is where I come back to the term better and where I jump into the deepend of pure conjecture. In thorium’s case it can further be used for phase fabric or as ammo. Glass and thorium hold a strange place as both are needed for further development but its easy to make alot and max out quickly. Second after power is silicon as nearly every late game tech uses silicon as well as drone production. In the next tier of resources is power-silicon-glass-thorium, and I placed power first in this rank because none of the others can be made without it and from here to the mission end power must be developed further and further to account for more production.
Mindustry custom build upgrade#
Once a steady flow of these materials has been achieved then we can upgrade them or proceed to more complex productions. Now I know titanium and graphite are not rock bottom resources but these 4 resources are the basic resources for many of the higher tech structures and they do not require power to produce. What I believe is that we as players should set the priority of basic resources first, copper-lead-titanium-graphite. As a player you should be watching the core to see what resources are needed, how well resources are flowing to the core, the overall power available, how well the defenses are holding, not necessarily in that order. This is a sticky topic and one that should be in every players mind but it boils down to what is the base’s current needs. Here I am slipping into something of a subjective topic, and that is what should take priority when you go to build something. Too often have I seen players kicked or banned for inexperience of ignorance instead of actual griefing or willfully harming a base. It might not be useful, you might know a better way, but you need to try and communicate this. If you question something about someones build ask them, let them explain what they are trying to do. And designs can always be upgraded later to use higher tech, with the ability to process more material.
Something poorly designed by one player will always be better than something 3-5 players tried to cobble together.
No, one of the most basic things in multiplayer is to respect other players ability to build. That is because for everything new that we see comes new ways of thinking, new experimentations, again striving for something better, which I will talk more on later.īut first we must cover basics, and I’m not talking about basic gameplay mechanics, if you are playing multiplayer I hope that you have already played part of the campaign and tried experimenting on your own to see what works. This chaos is derived from the fact that we as players very rarely ever agree on anything, and this is ok too. And this mess goes up by several factors into utter chaos as soon as more than a few people are playing in a multiplayer match. For all of us who have played for any time in Mindustry we know that it is a wonderful mess of spaghetti conveyors and haphazard production facilities always striving to be more efficient.
0 kommentar(er)
