Discussion: Player Economy

[Wingflier]

My friend made an interesting suggestion:  What if the Econ Command Station/Harvester Upgrades were unlocked together.

As in, unlocking one unlocked the other.  We could increase the knowledge cost of the entire package, but it would be like an economy suite for players who wanted to go into that.  Maybe we would have to nerf the overall gain of both.  Maybe you could only have upgraded Harvesters on planets with Econ Stations (and your Homeworld).

It seems like a great idea which would require a significant Knowledge investment from the player - say 9,000/17,000 per tier.

[TechSY730]

My friend made an interesting suggestion:  What if the Econ Command Station/Harvester Upgrades were unlocked together.

As in, unlocking one unlocked the other.  We could increase the knowledge cost of the entire package, but it would be like an economy suite for players who wanted to go into that.  Maybe we would have to nerf the overall gain of both.  Maybe you could only have upgraded Harvesters on planets with Econ Stations (and your Homeworld).

It seems like a great idea which would require a significant Knowledge investment from the player - say 9,000/17,000 per tier.

I don't know about this.

I like the symmetry of the three command station unlocks.
I'd rather have the harvester upgrades be removed (and the econ stations buffed as needed, if it is needed, in return) than this idea, as it would preserve the symmetry.
EDIT: Though I would like it if they could be balanced relative to each other (whatever that means), assuming such a point exists.

[Draco18s]

My friend made an interesting suggestion:  What if the Econ Command Station/Harvester Upgrades were unlocked together.

Yeah, no.  I agree with TechSY.  I never ever use Econ II/III because I have "more valuable" things to place there.  I rarely even use Econ I for that matter, so being forced to unlock them along with my harvesters would just make me angry.  Especially if the KP cost goes up.

[Wingflier]

Heh well that's the issue - Econ Stations are so weak compared to the other two, that Harvester Upgrades are the obvious choice.  How do you balance those two out?

[TechSY730]

Heh well that's the issue - Econ Stations are so weak compared to the other two, that Harvester Upgrades are the obvious choice.  How do you balance those two out?

It used to be econ stations dominated the harvester upgrades in average effectiveness and efficiency. Now it is the other way around.
TBH, I'm not sure if they can be balanced with respect to each other. It may be that no matter the balance, one will dominate the other to the point of making the other one rarely worth getting.

If that is the case (and that is an if I am not sure about yet), then they are redundant, and one of them must go (or at least as a separate unlock).

[Wingflier]

That's why I liked my friend's idea of putting them both together.  You have to unlock one to get another, at a steep cost.

I mean think about it, we're talking about one of the most important aspects of the game here:  Economics.  It doesn't matter how much Knowledge you have if you can't build your army, your defenses, and your base.

Why should it be cheap?  Why should its price be comparable to anything else?

The game either needs to be changed in a way that you don't need upgraded economics to win (whether in the form of Harvesters or Econ Stations), or that upgrading your economics requires a huge sacrifice.  Otherwise you've eliminated a lot of the strategy from the game by forcing a decision on the player that they can't avoid, unless they want to spend 50% of the game watching Netflix.

I've personally imposed my own rule that I can't build upgraded Harvesters, and it makes the game a lot more exciting.  Still, I find myself just as reliant on Econ Stations as I was on the Harvesters, which is just another form of (more dangerous) economic dependency.

[TechSY730]

It may just be my "obsession" with "elegance through symmetry", but I think that the downsides of breaking the similarities of the "triangle" of command station unlocks (three tiers, same caps, same build costs, and important for this case, same unlock costs) outweigh the benefits of grouping harvester and econ station unlocks. That is why I said I would rather see one of those go (preferably higher Mk. harvesters), and the other be buffed if needed to compensate.

[Wingflier]

Okay but if we remove Upgraded Harvesters (and I'm all for that), the game's average resource gain needs to go up, so that the player isn't dependent on upgraded Econ Stations as a result.

That way he doesn't feel forced to go Econ Stations just so he doesn't have to twiddle his thumbs, but it's still a nice bonus for players that want it.

[TechSY730]

Okay but if we remove Upgraded Harvesters (and I'm all for that), the game's average resource gain needs to go up, so that the player isn't dependent on upgraded Econ Stations as a result.

That way he doesn't feel forced to go Econ Stations just so he doesn't have to twiddle his thumbs, but it's still a nice bonus for players that want it.

Yea, Mk. I harvesters (the only one left) would certainly need some sort of a buff if higher marks are removed.

Again, I would rather find such a balance point between econ stations and harvesters, but I am not yet convinced such a point exists. If someone can find such a point, I am all for it. (Gentlemen, start your spreadsheets )

[Wingflier]

Okay but if we remove Upgraded Harvesters (and I'm all for that), the game's average resource gain needs to go up, so that the player isn't dependent on upgraded Econ Stations as a result.

That way he doesn't feel forced to go Econ Stations just so he doesn't have to twiddle his thumbs, but it's still a nice bonus for players that want it.

Yea, Mk. I harvesters (the only one left) would certainly need some sort of a buff if higher marks are removed.

Again, I would rather find such a balance point between econ stations and harvesters, but I am not yet convinced such a point exists. If someone can find such a point, I am all for it. (Gentlemen, start your spreadsheets )

If we were to try and do that, I think we could start by removing all the resource nodes on the Player Homeworld.  That would be an automatic step in the right direction.

Harvesters would still be good because A) You get the massive benefit of a defensive command station and B) Many planets are rich in resource spots.

However, it would actually be a much tougher decision than it is now.

Either way, I agree that they player shouldn't feel FORCED to upgrade either one.

[Draco18s]

If we were to try and do that, I think we could start by removing all the resource nodes on the Player Homeworld.  That would be an automatic step in the right direction.

Harvesters would still be good because A) You get the massive benefit of a defensive command station and B) Many planets are rich in resource spots.

You've just hit the key issue: Harvesters are good because harvester spots are many, even if we remove the home system resource nodes, therefore there is only one possible solution:

Remove all harvester nodes from non-home systems (increasing command station output to compensate) such that harvester upgrades apply only to the home system (or otherwise only allow upgraded harvesters on the home system).  Harvesters: tiny empire.  Econ stations: large empire.

Any other scenario will be weighted towards "Harvesters: large empire, Econ stations: large empire" leaving harvesters as THE logical choice.

[Wingflier]

@Draco, you make some good points.

Personally I think giving Econ Stations the passive ability to upgrade your resource cap is a huge step in the right direction.  This will give them a unique advantage over the Harvesters, which already have a unique advantage over the Econ Stations (the ability to be placed around more powerful Orbitals).

That way, it would benefit two different kinds of players:  People who constantly want to spend their resources, and people who like to save up their resources for something BIG.

Either way, I'll mention again that I don't think the player should be dependent on either upgrade to win the game, which seems to be the case now.  Maybe if we upped the default resource income, then nerfed the Harvester/Econ income to compensate, it would make it attractive but not mandatory.

[Draco18s]

Either way, I'll mention again that I don't think the player should be dependent on either upgrade to win the game, which seems to be the case now.

Agreed.

[TechSY730]

Either way, I'll mention again that I don't think the player should be dependent on either upgrade to win the game, which seems to be the case now.

Agreed.

I don't think they are truly required to win the game. But I agree that the difference in difficulty between a no econ or harvester upgrade game to a game where you do unlock one or both is a whole lot higher than it should be, compares to other central aspects you can upgrade.

[Wingflier]

I guess you could technically win without them, you'd just be watching a whole lot of Netflix and you'd have to play really carefully (to the point of tedium).

Starting the game with some resources in the bank would be a step in the right direction imo.