AI War Beta 5.040-5.041 Reenergized

[PokerChen]

(1) This could severely decrease the challenge of diff 7 play.

To some extent, yes, but to to what degree was energy a limiting factor on that difficulty before?  Or m+c, for that matter?  Simply taking another planet if you needed more energy/econ isn't really a nail-biting decision there.

energy has never been a limiting factor, it's always in the net m+c income. Decoupling base energy from resources gives you extra boost per planet regardless of how many deposits there are on it - and having an extra +200 per second in the early game is pretty good for rebuilding forces and keeping your flow up. So, every game is easier. In the sense of keeping the player moving rather than waiting, it's a keeper. In the sense of not worrying about energy at all in difficulty <8, it's not so hot.

The game I was referring to -> it went to extremes simply because I wanted to see at what stage the mark-III and mark-IV drones will tend to come into play, rather than attacking both HWs ASAP.
I ended up with 1.9e+6 required Energy, which is easily satisfied by 15 planets. Yet, to get to that amount of energy req, I'm using up the knowledge of ~35 planets. I had no golems/spirecraft to artificially pad my energy usage, nor was I useing Space-Time manipulators.

This is because, forts aside (it's ALWAYS forts ), most unlocked assets will use up <<1 planet's energy provision, but 1~2 planets worth of knowledge. Perhaps, if you raised the energy requirements of some things dramatically, such as laser technologies, it becomes much more interesting.  Restoring the previous steep energy usage of grav turrets II and III, etc. will also help.

Just depends on which direction ppl want to go.

[Mánagarmr]

So the collectors produce 150k energy, right? Didn't we get close to that with a full set of reactors anyway, so overall energy hasn't changed diddly squat?

[doctorfrog]

Neat, you took my name suggestion (which I stole from Startopia) for the Energy Collectors! 

These constant AI War updates are starting to spoil me again, Arcen!

[Mánagarmr]

Neat, you took my name suggestion (which I stole from Startopia) for the Energy Collectors! 

These constant AI War updates are starting to spoil me again, Arcen!

Arcen is åsm.

[keith.lamothe]

Neat, you took my name suggestion (which I stole from Startopia) for the Energy Collectors! 

Oh, that's what they called them?  I remember your post about Startopia but didn't remember the "Energy Collector" name from it

I was just looking for something that explained why it didn't cost anything to run; it was just picking up what was already there.  And the converter doesn't care what's outside, it just eats m+c like the cookie monster.

[_K_]

Okay, so there was some sort of energy management problem, fine. Why did the changes had to also affect the game difficulty by introducing changes that are completely and thoroughly superior to the old system?

I dont think there was much demand for making the game easier.

[Mánagarmr]

Okay, so there was some sort of energy management problem, fine. Why did the changes had to also affect the game difficulty by introducing changes that are completely and thoroughly superior to the old system?

I dont think there was much demand for making the game easier.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite get what you are getting at. Are you complaining about that the new changes are dumbing down the game? Are you grateful because the changes are awesome? Or are you just being sarcastic? *confused*

[Wanderer]

Okay, so there was some sort of energy management problem, fine. Why did the changes had to also affect the game difficulty by introducing changes that are completely and thoroughly superior to the old system?

I dont think there was much demand for making the game easier.

Because if you balance from a little easier down on massive system changes you won't make existing games unplayable to their respective players.  This one had the possibility of being incredibly intrusive if the balance marker was aimed at too tightly.  Better to allow a bit of 'give' and then lower it fractionally.

Besides, Energy basically felt more treadmill then 'fun'.  I'm not against removing some of the impact of the energy system if the true purpose of it is still kept in effect, that of causing a cascading failure of defenses on planet loss if you don't have a buffer.

[keith.lamothe]

Okay, so there was some sort of energy management problem, fine. Why did the changes had to also affect the game difficulty by introducing changes that are completely and thoroughly superior to the old system?

I dont think there was much demand for making the game easier.

The point wasn't to make it easier, just pare down on some micro that wasn't really a challenge.  Any change like this obviously has to be followed up with further rebalancing.  I err'd on the side of giving more energy rather than less because there's not much of a way to hit it exactly on the first try and if everyone was suddenly not able to make energy ends meet it would be difficult to get useful feedback in the midst of all the moaning

[Wanderer]

Okay, so there was some sort of energy management problem, fine. Why did the changes had to also affect the game difficulty by introducing changes that are completely and thoroughly superior to the old system?

I dont think there was much demand for making the game easier.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite get what you are getting at. Are you complaining about that the new changes are dumbing down the game? Are you grateful because the changes are awesome? Or are you just being sarcastic? *confused*

Nah, I think it was a serious question, Moonshine, just stated oddly. 

You know, there ARE demands to make the game easier.  Please note, when I mention easier, though, I don't mean removing difficult strategic choices or things like that.  Streamlining the game so each independent component doesn't require treadmill levels of micro though is definately a bonus, and that also makes things 'easier', as you don't get caught up in the minutia constantly... and I'm all for that.

[keith.lamothe]

Yea, I definitely don't want to make the econ-game easy, but on the other hand I do think it's a lot more fun if it's not getting in the way of getting squashed by challenges that are more fun.

One potential consequence of the energy changes is that going harvester-III or econ-station-III in the early game may not need to be so common a choice.  The fact that they have been has been a point of concern.

[Mánagarmr]

I blame my non-native english speakingness then, because I really couldn't make out what the point was there. It seemed a little split.

[Wanderer]

Yea, I definitely don't want to make the econ-game easy, but on the other hand I do think it's a lot more fun if it's not getting in the way of getting squashed by challenges that are more fun.

One potential consequence of the energy changes is that going harvester-III or econ-station-III in the early game may not need to be so common a choice.  The fact that they have been has been a point of concern.

I was starting to debate on doing both...   

[Eternaly_Lost]

One potential consequence of the energy changes is that going harvester-III or econ-station-III in the early game may not need to be so common a choice.  The fact that they have been has been a point of concern.

I don't ever think you are going to get around to that. There is too much usefulness into having more resources as that leads to more ships faster, and when you need every ship you can at the high level play, you need the resources. You need to stick some sort of downside on the Econ-Station III and the Harvester-III, like double all waves that attack that system to get people to want to hold off on them at high level play.

[Wanderer]

One potential consequence of the energy changes is that going harvester-III or econ-station-III in the early game may not need to be so common a choice.  The fact that they have been has been a point of concern.

I don't ever think you are going to get around to that. There is too much usefulness into having more resources as that leads to more ships faster, and when you need every ship you can at the high level play, you need the resources. You need to stick some sort of downside on the Econ-Station III and the Harvester-III, like double all waves that attack that system to get people to want to hold off on them at high level play.

  Extreme much?  Not that I disagree with your evaluation of why it's basically an immediate goto, but research should not come with downsides, imho... and holy mother of gods, not that one.

The economic differences need to be in balance with other equivalent values.  Keep in mind that going to Harvester or Econ III costs 3 planets worth of research.  This is the equivalent of going to Fortress II, opening up MK II/III/IV of a fleet ship, or other equivalent volumes of K cost.  It doesn't need a nerf.  The reason it IS so powerful though is because it affects everything else you can do.  Without strong econ the MK boosts are useless, you can't build them fast enough.  Without strong econ the Fortresses are useless, you can't power them up.  Without strong econ...

You get the drift.

So, if a balance on harvesters and econ stations to bring them in line with other 9000 K investments for player equivalency was felt to be needed, I'll happily involve myself in that discussion... but no, they don't need a massive 'downside', any more than a flock of Fortress IIs do.