Do harvester upgrades now dominate econ command stations?

[Draco18s]

Don't forget to spend the extra 40 dollars on stuff at a 40% discount. I would assume that if you had a 40% decrease in spending, you would always spend there, given a choice. Also, you spend 60 dollars on something that cost 100, we don't care about the leftovers.
The correct equation to use is:
c = (1-d)*e
c = cash to spend
d = discount
e = effective cash spent

c = 100
d = 40% or .4

100 = (1-.4)*e
100 = .6*e
100/.6 = e
e ~= 167

efficiency = e/c
efficiency = 167/100
efficiency = 167% increase

Touche.

[chemical_art]

You can't nerf or buff econ stations easily. They already are pretty balanced with the other two types. Any buff or nerf will distrupt the balance of power.

The solution, it seems, is nerfing the harvestors or giving all the comm stations another bonus.

[Draco18s]

You can't nerf or buff econ stations easily. They already are pretty balanced with the other two types. Any buff or nerf will distrupt the balance of power.

The solution, it seems, is nerfing the harvestors or giving all the comm stations another bonus.

Even if you nerf the harvesters, a lot of people (myself included) are still going to go after the harvesters, as it's a 1-time investment that gives you a definite, immediate, boost, and which will pay off in the long run (even if there's a segment of the game where they're less efficient).

[Diazo]

You can't nerf or buff econ stations easily. They already are pretty balanced with the other two types. Any buff or nerf will distrupt the balance of power.

The solution, it seems, is nerfing the harvestors or giving all the comm stations another bonus.

Even if you nerf the harvesters, a lot of people (myself included) are still going to go after the harvesters, as it's a 1-time investment that gives you a definite, immediate, boost, and which will pay off in the long run (even if there's a segment of the game where they're less efficient).

That's what does it for me. I need resources bad at game start so it is harversters without thought. By the time I have 4 systems resources are not an issue so unlocking econ stations at that point is a waste of K.

The other thing is, balancing for 20 systems captured on an 80 planet map?

I realize I play on a high difficulty compared to most but I capture maybe 10 planets max in my games. (4 ARS, 4 for the CSG and maybe a staging planet or two.)

Can we get other people to check their saved games to see how many planets they are capturing? (Not counting fallen spire.)

In other words, for me to even consider Econ stations, unlocking them has to boost my resource production at the start of the game when I have not yet captured any systems.

D.

[keith.lamothe]

FWIW, nowadays 20 planets would be a high number to capture on an 80 planet map.  15 would be more normal for diff 7, 10 or less for higher difficulty.

[Minotaar]

My thoughts:

- definitely remove the option to upgrade resources on the homeworld
- if that's done, homeworld production needs to be improved, as it's pretty tough to get off the ground without upgrades as of now

The harvesters might also need a nerf at that point, but these two things seem like a given.

What would be great to have, but not sure how to accomplish yet:

- mk2 upgrades for both stations and harvesters being more viable
- not getting economic upgrades at all being viable (if that means only cheap fleetships and minimal starships, fine!)

One possible way would be to buff mk1 harvesters and make mk2 and mk3 smaller improvements for a smaller K cost. Economic station benefits could also probably be slightly evened out, from 40->80->160 to 40->100->160.

Number of planets captured tends to be about 10-15 for me.

[keith.lamothe]

FYI, what I'm leaning toward right now is making command station upgrades drop some kind of foldout-like structure on your home command station world(s) that gives some/all of the bonus.  Though some care is necessary as people might do some crazy things with both logistics and military effects on their HW... but generally I find HW-defense more entertaining to read about anyway

[sol_ilya]

I think there is need to remind situation that was several months ago. Patch 5.031 Harvest Of The Unloved (Released March 21st, 2012) made strong buff towards harvesters because many players "pointed out the fact that harvester upgrades were basically just universally inferior (with some small exception) to econ station upgrades".

I will quote patches notes about harversers changed

--------------

Harvester III:
Knowledge cost from 4000 => 2500 (so 4500 total).
Production from 36 => 73 (so +16 => +53).
Yes, that's a lot, but that's what parity with econ III looks like. And nerfing econ III would have been an outrage considering how much waiting-for-resources happens on challenging games _with_ econ IIIs.

In short, harvester upgrades should now be competitive with econ station upgrades. Getting mkIII in both harvesters also now costs the same amount of knowledge as getting mkIII econ stations, but has a somewhat lower "barrier to entry" in that the individual knowledge costs are smaller.

Further balance feedback is, of course, welcome. This change will have a fairly dramatic impact in favor of harvesters on multi-HW games, for one, but it's primarily important that choices be interesting in single-HW games and adjustments can be made for the less common scenarios (as long as multi-HW doesn't become excruciating, of course). Of more concern is the impact on multiplayer games if all players gift all their harvesters to one player who upgrades to mkIII harvesters (and gives resources back) and other such tomfoolery, but that can also be adjusted for as the need arises.
----------------------------

I guess such feedback was given now. If after such buff harvesters outshine economic stations that means some changes to harvesters shall be reverted.

I still think my idea of allowing Economic Orbitals increase your resource cap makes them useful without any major changes.

If harvester buff resulted in Economic station become no more useful, let agree that harversters's buff was too strong and they are needed to be adjusted apropriate way.

[keith.lamothe]

I guess such feedback was given now. If after such buff harvesters outshine economic stations that means some changes to harvesters shall be reverted.

You missed a pretty critical additional piece of the history a bit further on in the release notes:

http://arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=AI_War_-_Current_Post-5.000_Beta#Prerelease_5.033_And_Other_Times_There_Are_A_Few_Too_Many_Ponies

* Metal/Crystal Harvester Upgrades:
** MkII production from 31 => 30.
** MkIII production from 73 => 55.
** Results/Rationale:
*** Assuming 12 resource spots on the homeworld and 4 resource spots per captured planet (the latter is a well-attested average, to the author's surprise).
*** MkII upgrades are better than EconII if you have 1, 2, 3, or greater than 12 planets, but are worse from 4 to 11.
*** MkIII upgrades are better than EconIII (plus EconII since it's unlocked on the way) if you have 1-4 or greater than 13 planets, but are worse from 5 to 12.
*** Harvesters still have the advantage of not occupying the command station "slot" but also still have the disadvantage of being at the mercy of mapgen: sometimes you don't have the luxury of picking a planet with 4+ resource spots instead of a planet with 1-2.
*** All in all, the question of "do I upgrade harvesters or econ stations?" should now be more situational and map-based.
** Thanks to many players for feedback on the recent harvester buffs, including strident efficiency graphs and amusing anecdotes of overrunning the galaxy with unending waves of constant production.

[TechSY730]

FYI, what I'm leaning toward right now is making command station upgrades drop some kind of foldout-like structure on your home command station world(s) that gives some/all of the bonus.  Though some care is necessary as people might do some crazy things with both logistics and military effects on their HW... but generally I find HW-defense more entertaining to read about anyway

I would give you all my yes, but there are other things (both here and in real life) that need my "yeses" as well. So rather, just take a bunch of my yes.

[sol_ilya]

You missed a pretty critical additional piece of the history a bit further on in the release notes:

http://arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=AI_War_-_Current_Post-5.000_Beta#Prerelease_5.033_And_Other_Times_There_Are_A_Few_Too_Many_Ponies

Yeas, that is right. But even with these changes people point that harvesters still outshine eco stations. After 5.033 nerf harvesters are stronger than before 5.031 buff. So instead of making race between what recieves more buffs harvesters or eco stations I suggest to look back and see what changes lead to this. Maybe reverting back profit of harvesters in patch you mentioned was not enough to balance harvesters and eco stations.

[relmz32]

FYI, what I'm leaning toward right now is making command station upgrades drop some kind of foldout-like structure on your home command station world(s) that gives some/all of the bonus.  Though some care is necessary as people might do some crazy things with both logistics and military effects on their HW... but generally I find HW-defense more entertaining to read about anyway

This sounds familiar! Awesome!

[Draco18s]

FYI, what I'm leaning toward right now is making command station upgrades drop some kind of foldout-like structure on your home command station world(s) that gives some/all of the bonus.  Though some care is necessary as people might do some crazy things with both logistics and military effects on their HW... but generally I find HW-defense more entertaining to read about anyway

This sounds familiar! Awesome!

Should be interesting none the less.

[KDR_11k]

How about making the HW harvesters "core" harvesters? You could even stick special rules on those things for more fun later on.

Other than that maybe harvester Mk3s need a major K cost increase so that there's some reason to stay at Mk2 for a while instead of always heading straight for Mk3. Maybe Mk2s need an increase too. Having a full set of harvester upgrades cost the same as the econ station III doesn't really make all that much sense since the econ station is something you'll want to unlock early if at all.

[Draco18s]

since the econ station is something you'll want to unlock early if at all.

No, you really don't.  The first three worlds you colonize you're going to want Logistics or Military stations there: they're your border worlds.

The next three you colonize are also going to be Log or Mil, but may provide enough buffer to convert one of the other worlds to econ.  At which point you're in the mid-game, not the early game.