Energy III and enhanced resources are making life too easy

[Fiskbit]

Chris: I do think that limited resources would make a cool modifier for a future version of the game. As the default, I  have mixed feelings, but it'd certainly be interesting as an alternate play style and I would definitely at least experiment with it if it were available.

[Admiral]

I don't think the majority of the arguments were "stay with the current model," Commander X.

I think they were mostly "don't go finite." I think you saw a fair bit of support (several of us) suggesting various "reductions in resource collection efficiency" models that still left them infinite, just less productive over time.

I think the general feeling is that having resource challenges make for interesting strategic decisions. After all, if you can't buy everything you want, you have to make choices that are strategic in nature.

The idea is to make it sort of that way for building things. If you can easily cap build everything and constantly replenish losses, that's not strategic anymore.

Cheers!

[liq3]

Okay okay, so this is not a hit.  I think there are enough arguments to just stay with the current model.  I'm going to have to think of this some more and come up with another reason to expand, but it also seems clear that the economy needs to just be nerfed a bit in general, then.

I don't like the idea of nerfing the economy myself, since it'll just make my games longer. I never move out unless I have a nearly capped fleet, so I'll just end up sitting around waiting for units to build. :/

It might even make me secure more planets, but in that event I'll just go "screw it" and push the AI progress up to Mark II (but not 3, currently I keep it on Mark I) but have enough planets I have just as much economy as I do now, or even more, but still with only one wormhole they send waves through.

If you halved the current economy I'd need 16 planets to do that, which is 320 progress, + another 50-100 for gate raids. Add in datacenters, I'll easily be able to stay below the Mark III point.

Personally I'm against nerfing the economy since I don't think it'll improve anything, just make my games slower.

[liq3]

I don't think the majority of the arguments were "stay with the current model," Commander X.

I think they were mostly "don't go finite." I think you saw a fair bit of support (several of us) suggesting various "reductions in resource collection efficiency" models that still left them infinite, just less productive over time.

I think the general feeling is that having resource challenges make for interesting strategic decisions. After all, if you can't buy everything you want, you have to make choices that are strategic in nature.

The idea is to make it sort of that way for building things. If you can easily cap build everything and constantly replenish losses, that's not strategic anymore.

Cheers!

Yeh, rereading the thread 3 people were for it, 2 against it and 1 for a "dimishing returns".

[x4000]

I don't think the majority of the arguments were "stay with the current model," Commander X.

I think they were mostly "don't go finite." I think you saw a fair bit of support (several of us) suggesting various "reductions in resource collection efficiency" models that still left them infinite, just less productive over time.

I think the general feeling is that having resource challenges make for interesting strategic decisions. After all, if you can't buy everything you want, you have to make choices that are strategic in nature.

The idea is to make it sort of that way for building things. If you can easily cap build everything and constantly replenish losses, that's not strategic anymore.

Cheers!

Yes, I hear that -- but I also have to balance complexity for new players, too.  If the efficiency of harvesters is going down over time, players may not notice this and may be quite confused over it.  Perhaps I am being overly sensitive to that, but my thought was that there must be a simpler way to affect basically the same result.

There are two issues in play here: balancing the economy, and making it so that players must expand.  The two are related issues in many respects, but they are not the same issue.  I tried to solve them as one and the same issue, people cried foul (with some good points) and suggested even more complex solutions.  TA was known for having a very challenging economic model, and that's not something I necessarily want to be known for.

My feeling after reading all of this was that I would be better off just getting the balance of the current economy better, and then figuring out some other gameplay mechanic that would let help to encourage expansion.  Something that is simpler and easier to understand, basically.  What specifically that is I have not discovered just yet, but that's the direction in which I am currently directing my brainpower, anyway.

And I'm very much opposed to implementing any system for the economy that is going to require tweaks and settings that will divide the playerbase, which from what I had read above the efficiency reductions over time would require.  Something as fundamental as the economy should be comfortable for everyone -- a major advantage of the current economy, aside from the fact that it is currently a bit unbalanced.  

So that's what sent me back to the drawing board for another approach to the planet limiting.  I didn't explain my thinking before, which I should have, but man you should have seen my inbox this evening.  It's getting so that I have to be briefer on some topics just so that I can get to everything, but in retrospect this was one of the ones I should have elaborated on more.

[x4000]

I don't like the idea of nerfing the economy myself, since it'll just make my games longer. I never move out unless I have a nearly capped fleet, so I'll just end up sitting around waiting for units to build. :/

I'm basically just talking about a middle ground between the old (too slow) and the new (too fast).  I agree the old was too slow, but clearly the new is also too fast in some ways.  Or a different solution needs to be looked at.

It might even make me secure more planets, but in that event I'll just go "screw it" and push the AI progress up to Mark II (but not 3, currently I keep it on Mark I) but have enough planets I have just as much economy as I do now, or even more, but still with only one wormhole they send waves through.

See, the AI Progress should be at Mark II in most games.  It's cool if you try to play more conservatively, but that should not be so easy as it is now.  Otherwise the AI is all unbalanced and unable to really hurt you, which was Haag's original point.  It's supposed to be limited (for purposes of decision making) but not slow, challenging but not impossible or frustrating, and with a preference for a certain amount of expansion without outright requiring it.

If you halved the current economy I'd need 16 planets to do that, which is 320 progress, + another 50-100 for gate raids. Add in datacenters, I'll easily be able to stay below the Mark III point.

Personally I'm against nerfing the economy since I don't think it'll improve anything, just make my games slower.

The intent is not to make games slower -- quite the opposite.  But in an 80 planet game I expect players to take around 30 planets.  The new economy is designed to give them the tools to do that more quickly.  However, it also gives them the tools to just avoid taking more planets at all beyond a small degree, which is a huge problem.  That's the main problem I am trying to solve, I am otherwise happy with the speed of the new economy.

[liq3]

If you halved the current economy I'd need 16 planets to do that, which is 320 progress, + another 50-100 for gate raids. Add in datacenters, I'll easily be able to stay below the Mark III point.

Personally I'm against nerfing the economy since I don't think it'll improve anything, just make my games slower.

The intent is not to make games slower -- quite the opposite.  But in an 80 planet game I expect players to take around 30 planets.  The new economy is designed to give them the tools to do that more quickly.  However, it also gives them the tools to just avoid taking more planets at all beyond a small degree, which is a huge problem.  That's the main problem I am trying to solve, I am otherwise happy with the speed of the new economy.

Ok, if this is the case I think the main problem isn't the economy, but that we aren't losing ships. I said it before in another thread I think, in the suggestion forums.

Basically, I can assault a Mark I planet, take everything out, and lose maybe 100-200 ships, which is about 10,000 resources (both metal and crystal). Later on I can do the same to even Mark III or IV planets, once again losing very few ships. I think this is the real problem. Also, when the AI sends waves, I rarely lose any significant amount of ships, only about 50-100 which again are extremely cheap.

Now, considering that with 7 planets I have +500 of both metal crystal, I get back that 10,000 in less time then it takes me to actually move around the planet and kill everything.

I think the core problem is that players aren't losing enough ships, so there's no real drain on the economy.

In a pvp focused RTS, that's where the economy drain always comes from, both players suiciding massive armies into each other, and just generally massive fights, that result in large casualties on both sides. These kinds of fights almost never happen in AI War. I think I played an 18 hour game, and it happened maybe once.

[x4000]

Ok, if this is the case I think the main problem isn't the economy, but that we aren't losing ships. I said it before in another thread I think, in the suggestion forums.

Yeah, this was my original thought as well, but people basically shot me down on that.  I think that the waves just need to be made more vicious against the players, so that more ships are lost and/or so that more ships are needed on the defense.  Maybe that means I need to double the ship cap (so players can have an offensive and a defensive fleet), and then once again double the size of the incoming enemy waves.

That might solve most of this right here.  Thoughts, anyone?  I'm basically trying to rebalance the economy so that the players are able to do more, like they currently are able to, while also having more TO do based on the AI and the losses they sustain, etc.

Basically, I can assault a Mark I planet, take everything out, and lose maybe 100-200 ships, which is about 10,000 resources (both metal and crystal).

Mark I are completely pushover, so that's no surprise.  On Mark II or up you should lose a lot more, though.

Later on I can do the same to even Mark III or IV planets, once again losing very few ships. I think this is the real problem. Also, when the AI sends waves, I rarely lose any significant amount of ships, only about 50-100 which again are extremely cheap.

Yeah, I think the waves are the main problem.  If you have to devote more ships to the waves in order to stay alive, not only does that provide more interest (and more opportunities for emergence), it will drain your coffers really quickly.

In a pvp focused RTS, that's where the economy drain always comes from, both players suiciding massive armies into each other, and just generally massive fights, that result in large casualties on both sides. These kinds of fights almost never happen in AI War. I think I played an 18 hour game, and it happened maybe once.

Bearing in mind of course that "massive fights" in other RTS games generally have 100-200 units, which you lose and hardly notice here.   What difficulty are you playing on, by the way?  I get into bigger fights much more frequently than that.  But it still needs to be more, I have no disagreement there.

[liq3]

Yeah, this was my original thought as well, but people basically shot me down on that.  I think that the waves just need to be made more vicious against the players, so that more ships are lost and/or so that more ships are needed on the defense.  Maybe that means I need to double the ship cap (so players can have an offensive and a defensive fleet), and then once again double the size of the incoming enemy waves.

That might solve most of this right here.  Thoughts, anyone?  I'm basically trying to rebalance the economy so that the players are able to do more, like they currently are able to, while also having more TO do based on the AI and the losses they sustain, etc.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I was sad to see the 8x waves be halved anyway. :]

Yeah, I think the waves are the main problem.  If you have to devote more ships to the waves in order to stay alive, not only does that provide more interest (and more opportunities for emergence), it will drain your coffers really quickly.

Well, atm once I reach the point where I have Spires and Mark III cruisers, bombers and fighters, I just leave all my Mark I ships on defense, and send all my Mark II and III ships on offense (along with most of my starships). Even with just II and III, I still have a 1000+ ships on offense, so it works perfectly.

Bearing in mind of course that "massive fights" in other RTS games generally have 100-200 units, which you lose and hardly notice here.   What difficulty are you playing on, by the way?  I get into bigger fights much more frequently than that.  But it still needs to be more, I have no disagreement there.

Haha, yeh. I'm played my 18 hour game on Moderate Diff 7. Atm I've been trying a few different ones (Hard Diff 7, Hard Diff 8, Moderate Diff 8 ), but haven't really gotten past the 2 hour mark with any of those games yet.

[Revenantus]

Firstly, the MkIII generators are greatly exacerbating this issue. I think they should be removed until as such a time that they can be reintroduced in tandem with whatever feature you had designed them to complement. Meeting energy demands is one incentive for expansion.

Second, a fairly radical suggestion, not really intended as an idea for direct implementation but more of an experiment;

What if every single ship you produced had an ongoing resource cost? That way the player the size of the fleet the player could deploy without crippling their economic output would be proportional to the area of space they control. Currently the player can just sit around and store up enough resources to fill out their ship caps.

[x4000]

Firstly, the MkIII generators are greatly exacerbating this issue. I think they should be removed until as such a time that they can be reintroduced in tandem with whatever feature you had designed them to complement. Meeting energy demands is one incentive for expansion.

Hmm, maybe.  But the other problem is then the crippling of players in smaller-planet situations, which I don't like at all.

Second, a fairly radical suggestion, not really intended as an idea for direct implementation but more of an experiment;

What if every single ship you produced had an ongoing resource cost? That way the player the size of the fleet the player could deploy without crippling their economic output would be proportional to the area of space they control. Currently the player can just sit around and store up enough resources to fill out their ship caps.

That's actually a really cool idea.  Although... actually, that's sort of redundant with energy.  What if the energy reactors gained a metal/crystal ongoing cost?

[Revenantus]

What if the energy reactors gained a metal/crystal ongoing cost?

Very interesting, reactors could be made relatively cheap to build to compensate.

The MkIII reactor could then have poorer energy production:resource usage ratio, which solves my issue of them not having an ongoing penalty quite nicely.

[x4000]

What if the energy reactors gained a metal/crystal ongoing cost?

Very interesting, reactors could be made relatively cheap to build to compensate.

The MkIII reactor could then have poorer energy production:resource usage ratio, which solves my issue of them not having an ongoing penalty quite nicely.

Yeah, I think that could really work.  Interesting!

[x4000]

Okay, let's see how these changes do:  http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,919.msg5631.html#msg5631  I'll be curious how this impacts the balance overall, because I know it will effect the balance, I just can't yet predict precisely how much.

[sox3502us]

what about a mechanic that pressures the player into quickly capturing a planet.  For example, "AI 1 is building a SUPERMEGASHIP ON PLANET XXX, CAPTURE IT WITHIN XXX TIME TO STOP CONSTRUCTION"

basically, this forces the player to expand.  IT doesnt need to be done with a supermega ship, you could also do something like" AI 1 is readying a massive raid on planet XXX, destroy the orbital command station to stop the raid".

Basically something that forces a player to attack a specific target.  Main concern is ensurnig the logic is such that it will never cause a player to have to go more than 1-2 jumps away from a planet they currently control.


This also has a side benefit of forcing a player to use the majority of his fleet on the attack, which could help reduce some of the resources you have siting around.