Economy efficiency report: harvesters vs. command stations

[eRe4s3r]

it seems that Mk. II and Mk. III harvesters are a little too rewarding for their knowledge cost

You mean they are not (at all) rewarding for their knowledge cost.. since thats what you are saying

Also MK3 harvesters together cost 14500 research while eco 3 is 9000 and gets you eco 2 in the process (which after eco 3.. is still a viable choice for planets giving you further boost)

I always figured the harvester research should NOT be split into the 2 harvester types, rather just a general path to harvester MK2 and MK3 that unlocks both harvesters.

Then change cost to 9000 overall (3000 / 6000 ) and everyone is happy.. and maybe make the universe creator actually put some more mining points in the game to balance it overall. From a quick look, on 5 planets i have

2/1 | 0/1 | 1/2 | 4/4 | 3/2

Those worlds would never produce on a level that econ 3 does even with MK3 harvesters, unless i overlooked something

[Cyborg]

 64+(8x)y < 128y

I did the math for you in the 1st post. It's impossible for you to have the amount of harvesters necessary to be remotely equal to economic stations without having multiple home worlds and skipping capturing other worlds.

I think we can all agree that harvesters are something you should do later in the game for a significant boost and that it does not offer any kind of choice at the beginning of the game (unless you are rushing some military technology). The choice involved comes later and whether or not it's worth it versus some other technology.

[eRe4s3r]

Then maybe eco stations should apply their boost on harvesters (per harvester in system) so that both together Harvester 3 and eco 3 create a powerful boost in a system

Obviously we'd need some serious re-balance of mining points (currently theres way too few imo)

That would require that Harvesters 3 and Eco 3 are unlocked in the same research though, or with massive lower research costs.... no way am i going to spend 23500 research on economy that only pans out as a boost on 1 world of 10...

Or maybe.. we should just get rid of mining points entirely and have the harvester research increase the "harvest multiplier" in sectors. So eco stations harvest and harvester research just boosts it. That way, all planets would be equal in their resource worth. (Might not be something thats wanted..)

Just throwing it in NO idea should be taken like that in the game..

Speaking of harvesters

Why does AI War even have Harvesters? ^^ ( I mean, what was the original intention?) Because as harvesting goes, the resource gathering is pretty random, it seems like an odd system in AI War where everything else is mostly not luck dependent... excep the ARS of course, but there that is actually fun, while with harvesters.. it somehow isn't.

[keith.lamothe]

it seems like an odd system in AI War where everything else is mostly not luck dependent... excep the ARS of course, but there that is actually fun, while with harvesters.. it somehow isn't.

Actually, if we're talking about mapgen stuff, it's like at least 75% "luck", right?  How many of the worlds bordering your homeworld are mark IV, where the ARS and Advanced Factory and Fabricator and Golem and Asteroid and Resource Point and Raid Engine and Fortress and (etc) spawns are.  Some maps are definitely way harder than others, at least in the early (lots of neighbor mkIVs, low resource point count) and/or late-game (raid engines on a core AI world, or something similarly neighborly).  Midgame you usually have enough flexibility in where you go that it averages out.

And then there's the AI bonus types: ask anyone who's faced an AI that just happened to roll honeycombs and blade spawners and stealth battleships about luck.

Not actually disputing anything else you said, I just saw the point about randomness and it made me think about that stuff

[Cyborg]

I'm not sure that harvesters and economy stations need to be balanced as functions of each other. Maybe the whole mistake is viewing them as being related. How about viewing them as separate economic decisions? One is a decision (probably) for the beginning of the game directly related to military trade-off, and the other decision is a late game decision that is a trade off also for military. Rephrased, economy stations and harvesters are not trade-offs for each other.

I would be hesitant about rebalancing economy unless we're doing a new expansion. It's way too integral to the feeling of the game right now. I would like a fast-forward feature that was a little bit nicer, or maybe something to do while I'm waiting (like diplomacy, the ability to interact with structures((think being able to explore the insides of a building and tweak it))).


PS: How cool it be to fly in the cockpit of one of your fleet and do a trench run on the AI. Holy crap awesome fantasy.

[TechSY730]

I'm not sure that harvesters and economy stations need to be balanced as functions of each other. Maybe the whole mistake is viewing them as being related. How about viewing them as separate economic decisions? One is a decision (probably) for the beginning of the game directly related to military trade-off, and the other decision is a late game decision that is a trade off also for military. Rephrased, economy stations and harvesters are not trade-offs for each other.

I would be hesitant about rebalancing economy unless we're doing a new expansion. It's way too integral to the feeling of the game right now. I would like a fast-forward feature that was a little bit nicer, or maybe something to do while I'm waiting (like diplomacy, the ability to interact with structures((think being able to explore the insides of a building and tweak it))).


PS: How cool it be to fly in the cockpit of one of your fleet and do a trench run on the AI. Holy crap awesome fantasy.

Good point. It's probably a bad idea to really mess around with the economic balance at the moment.
How about we make a relatively minor balance change now (like a reduction to the knowledge cost of higher mark harvesters or merging the unlock paths of the harvesters), and save more serious changes (like resource deposit spawn rates) for later?

[Burnstreet]

And then there's the AI bonus types: ask anyone who's faced an AI that just happened to roll honeycombs and blade spawners and stealth battleships about luck.

What about:
- Tractor Platforms, the even more evil etherjets, carrying half of your fleet into neighboring systems
- Nanoswarms, so your carried-away ships come back to you
- Shildbearers, giving exo waves so much more life and making it near impossible to kill an AI Eye while it is spewing units even with 150 spire ships and 7 golems shooting it
- teleporting raiders and Raptors to kill anything thats not protected
- Impulse Reaction emitters to kill the big stuff

On the Topic:
I'd like a T4 harvester upgrade, for an even bigger eco boost, 5k/s income feels not enough for a spire game.
I think a Bank building that allows you to increase the resource cap by 100k with a cap of 5, costing quite some res and knowledge wouldn't be game-breaking. It could also be a capturable / trader-item like the Z-Reactor.

[zoutzakje]

giving the harvesters a boost would probably be too rewarding for people who don't or barely use econ stations. Not that I'd mind though

[keith.lamothe]

As has been suggested, harvester upgrades aren't really intended to be balanced against command station upgrades.  At least, not very closely balanced.  Harvesters allow you to upgrade your econ without tying up the command station "slot" on those worlds.  Early-game that can make the difference between being able to use a logistics station on a strategic planet or not.  Therefore, econ 2 being somewhat better than harvester 2 is desirable, and the same with econ 3 vs harvester 3.  Of course, I may be over-valuing the "command station slot" distinction, because past a certain number of planets you can eat your cake and have it too.

Some adjustments might be fine, though.

[Kittens]

I think it's currently fine, and the command station slot is important like Keith says, so the Econs should be better than the Harvesters. I use Logistics stations mostly. Vastly increased wave response time, reduced travel time and teleport interdiction are just too important for me.

The big Econs only come in during the mid game on large maps when I'm running out of Logistics stations to place and I need resources more than I need knowledge (read: building tons of spire fleet craft). Then they go in the lazy safe zone. Frontier systems get Mk3 Logistics, 'highway systems' get Mk2 Logistics. Econs usually come in before the harvesters do, though.

[NickAragua]

Yeah, I very rarely use high mark Econ stations early on. I much prefer logistics to help deal with AI attacks, so for me, Harvester upgrades make the most sense... although I never use them. When the AI comes knocking, I'd rather have two extra ship-cap-fulls of MKIII ships.

Then again, I've never actually won a game.

[keith.lamothe]

Then again, I've never actually won a game.

It's good that the AI has something to balance against the folks beating it on 10/10, or it might have a mid-life crisis.

[Cyborg]

Then again, I've never actually won a game.

If you need any help, feel free to ask or do a progressive action report. There are plenty of AI war fans that will help you through any rough patches.

[chemical_art]

[/quote]It's good that the AI has something to balance against the folks beating it on 10/10, or it might have a mid-life crisis.
[/quote]

hehe

one day, you'll see!

[Wanderer]

Then again, I've never actually won a game.

It's good that the AI has something to balance against the folks beating it on 10/10, or it might have a mid-life crisis.

*whistles innocently* 

I see your point on the reason Econ is more powerful than the harvesters, but bringing dual harvesters up to III is definately far too expensive for the resource seeding that currently occurs.  It's highly unbalanced.  I'd personally like to see these as 1500/3000, and perhaps brought up to 10 ea, or even 12 ea, to make them more viable without multi-homeworld.