Discussion: Player Economy

[KDR_11k]

BTW, does anyone ever take MkII of a command station type or the harvs? It seems almost every debate is about MkI vs MkIII.

[TechSY730]

BTW, does anyone ever take MkII of a command station type or the harvs? It seems almost every debate is about MkI vs MkIII.

I went to only Mk II harvesters in my last game. Worked pretty well for me.

However, there is a good point that if you are in the place where Mk. IIs are desirable and you can afford them, Mk. IIIs will be even more desirable and one might as well "finish up" and pay for those unlocks too, which makes Mk. IIs rarely worth stopping on. This is something else I would like to see addressed.

[Hearteater]

Mark II can be worthwhile early game, especially if your home system is light on either metal or crystal nodes, you can go Mark III + Mark II to save some K.

[chemical_art]

BTW, does anyone ever take MkII of a command station type or the harvs? It seems almost every debate is about MkI vs MkIII.

I went to only Mk II harvesters in my last game. Worked pretty well for me.

However, there is a good point that if you are in the place where Mk. IIs are desirable and you can afford them, Mk. IIIs will be even more desirable and one might as well "finish up" and pay for those unlocks too, which makes Mk. IIs rarely worth stopping on. This is something else I would like to see addressed.

That is because harvestors don't follow the usual stat increases of MK units.

Standard mk logic would be something like 20/40/60 (or modified to be 18/36/54) instead of the current 20/30/55 logic.

[keith.lamothe]

That is because harvestors don't follow the usual stat increases of MK units.

And that is because you don't get to keep the benefit of mkI or mkII harvesters when you upgrade to mkIIIs, which is unlike basically everything else in the game.

[chemical_art]

That is because harvestors don't follow the usual stat increases of MK units.

And that is because you don't get to keep the benefit of mkI or mkII harvesters when you upgrade to mkIIIs, which is unlike basically everything else in the game.

I didn't say it was wrong...but that cuts both ways. If the decision to make III's make II's completely irreverent, there is little to "hold back" the decision to go to III aside from K. In practice it may be the opposite, but my player psychology things "well, if I can have either II's or III's, and I have the K, go III." I don't know why I think that, aside from some implicitly thinking of mine that realizes the number of harvesters is very limited, so if I decide to upgrade I should go all the way.


In terms of cost per K, the III is about 81% as efficient in cost per K as the second. A boost of over 83% of econ compared to the II. Seeing that harvestors are not limited by cap, the greater the number of harvestors the greater the III shines compared to the II.

So while the III does have unique drawbacks, the apparent draw backs compared to other units going from II to III make it not the end of the world.

I can't remember the last time I stuck with II's. If I I going down that econ route it just seems like I might as well go "all in" precisely because, as you say Keith, I don't need II's for any reason if I want to get III aside from cost to K. Again, perhaps its pure player psychology.

[Wingflier]

What if we just started experimenting with the Economy?  It seems like a good time to do it, the game is in a relatively stable state.

We could start by buffing the level 1 Harvester income by 50% (to 30), then changing the upgrades to 40 and 50.

You could leave the Econ 1 Station at 32/32, but change the Logistical and Orbital to 16/16 for both.

Then you could change the Econ 2 and 3 Station to 64/64 and 96/96 respectively.  To make up for the huge income nerf on the Econ Stations, you could give them a significant storage increase to the player.

I like these changes because it makes the upgrades more linear and because it doesn't force the player to upgrade their resources in some way just to compete.

[Eternaly_Lost]

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.

I am not sure what game you have been playing but the design goal was Harvesters: Large Empire, Econ Stations Small Empire... I think the goal was at around 12 planets, you should be getting more from Harvesters then Econ stations, but I have to go back and see what was said back when the Harvesters were buffed to make it so.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Large empires have the benefit of stupidly high energy so... what if the higher mark harvesters actually cost far more energy?

[TechSY730]

Large empires have the benefit of stupidly high energy so... what if the higher mark harvesters actually cost far more energy?

Then we would need some way to suppress auto-upgrade of harvesters for emergency brownout cases.

[Draco18s]

I am not sure what game you have been playing but the design goal was Harvesters: Large Empire, Econ Stations Small Empire... I think the goal was at around 12 planets, you should be getting more from Harvesters then Econ stations, but I have to go back and see what was said back when the Harvesters were buffed to make it so.

Except that by the inherint mechanisms of the game, econ stations are an extremely poor choice for a small empire.  Small empires mean lots of borders, and lots of borders means that every one of those planets is getting waves, probably.

And if you've got an econ on the front lines, you're doing it wrong.  It's a recipe for losing the system.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Large empires have the benefit of stupidly high energy so... what if the higher mark harvesters actually cost far more energy?

Then we would need some way to suppress auto-upgrade of harvesters for emergency brownout cases.

Could possibly have 'auto-upgrade' as a checkbox in ctrls in that case, disabled by default. If you have energy problems, it adds another decision to consider. Do you reduce your income? Do you actually spend money for temporary power stations? Scrap some stuff? Could be a bit interesting to consider.

[contingencyplan]

What if we just started experimenting with the Economy?  It seems like a good time to do it, the game is in a relatively stable state.

What sorts of experiments do you have in mind? I've been mulling over writing a small econ simulator (time permitting, so don't hold me to it yet) just for the helluvit, so what questions would be useful to answer with such a system?

[Fluffiest]

If you want to make harvesters the small-empire option and econ commands the large-empire option, how about this:

Remove caps on Mk II and Mk III economic command stations. Add caps to Mk II and Mk III harvesters. Tweak numbers so they hit parity at about 10 systems.

Note: Since the economic command station upgrade cannot be applied to the homeworld, harvesters will be more advantageous in multi-HW games.

[Wingflier]

What if we just started experimenting with the Economy?  It seems like a good time to do it, the game is in a relatively stable state.

What sorts of experiments do you have in mind? I've been mulling over writing a small econ simulator (time permitting, so don't hold me to it yet) just for the helluvit, so what questions would be useful to answer with such a system?

I listed my proposed changes right underneath the sentence you quoted:

1. Default Harvesters from 20->30.
-Basically, the player starts the game with the current MKII Harvesters, which gives him a significant resource bonus over what we have now with no upgrades.

2. MKII/MKIII Harvesters from 30/55 to 40/50, respectively.
-This makes the Harvester upgrades more linear and intuitive, and most importantly, easy to balance.

3. Change Military/Logistical Orbital MKI Income from 24/24 to 16/16 for both.
-It's ridiculous that at level 1, the Economic Orbital only makes SIX more resources per second than the much more powerful other two.  We're going to make it double the efficiency.

4. Change Economic Orbital Stations from 32/32->80/80->160/160 to 32/32->64/64->96/96.  Add new mechanic, +max resource cap, scaling by Mark.
-The new increased resource cap of Economic Command Stations gives them a unique benefit over the other two.  With the new number changes, the Economic Station is also more intuitive and easier to balance.

so what questions would be useful to answer with such a system?

I'm not really trying to answer questions.

I think this whole debate over large empires vs. small empires is a little silly.  I don't think the balance should be centered around that, it should be centered around personal preference and playstyle.

The new paradigm of the system I proposed is this:

Upgraded Harvesters advantages:
-Kicks in as soon as the game starts, before you even leave your Homeworld, giving players who like to hang out on their first planet(s) awhile a useful option.
-Is compatible with the other three (non-Economic) Orbital Stations, making it the safer, more defensible choice.

Upgraded Econ Station advantages:
-Gives significantly more resources than the Harvesters.  On a 6 node planet (3 Metal and 3 Crystal), the new MKIII Econ Station would be giving around ~50 more Metal and Crystal per second than the MKIII Harvesters would.
-Increases the total resource cap for people who like to save their money for big projects (also good because the player will have more money with Econ Stations than with Harvesters, on average).

The player also has the option of going halfway down both paths:

Unlocking MKII Harvesters and MKII Econ Station advantages:
-Cheaper knowledge-wise than going fully one way or another.
-Gives some of the major benefits of both.