Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)

[Revenantus]

Firstly, I agree with darke that it isn't especially difficult to determine resource usage under the current system. I'm fairly capable of obtaining a pretty good measure of my rate of resource consumption just by manually monitoring the rate of change for a few seconds.

The fact that your missiles and ships build without resources paid is an exploit which is only there to prevent stalling of its production because of lack of resources. So in a sense, fixing that would make the problem worse.

I disagree. I have paid the allocated time, I have paid the allocated resources, I have "exploited" nothing. I really don't think "playing the game exactly as it's designed" could possibly be "an exploit". I'm not even leaning on an obscure edge case here, this is core functionality!

I disagree with eRe4s3r's term exploit, but I agree with him that it's questionable not having to have paid anything up front. The fact that you can have a starship just sat waiting at 100% completion until you have the resources available to pay for it doesn't quite feel right, especially as if that starship constructor is destroyed before the ship is paid for, then the player loses nothing bar the time. Under the current system I'd prefer to have to pay construction costs up front before the ship even starts to be built.

I am going to assume that you have seen a IV factory stalled because your queued shipyards consume the required resources way faster. This new economic method is not there to complicate things but to finally fix the resource starving problem, which affects everything

Having not played anything other then AI10 for the last couple of months I haven't had an advanced factory under my command recently. Though as I recall the previous technique I used when I encountered this on a regular basis was I hit tab to go to the galaxy map, clicked on my front line base that was producing 90% of my ships, clicked on the space dock in the right hand side, then clicked pause. Suddenly I had more then enough resources to feed a Tech IV factory. The new resource management system has so far proven considerably more complex then the old one.

I wouldn't describe the new system as more complex, but it needs a number of resource interface tweaks to make it usable, for example my metal just says +12. This tells me nothing. What it should say is;

+12 (57-45)

I should then be able to hover over those numbers to display a box containing;

-15 Spacedock (Planet I)
-15 Spacedock (Planet I)
-15 Spacedock (Planet II) IDLE <- Shows it is not actually producing anything despite being active, e.g. ship cap reached.

I should then be able to click any item in this list to immediately have the camera focus on the item in question.

And again, experimental means that only the concept is there - the resource prices and flow output of shipyards needs to be changed so that build times are the same as before and ships can still be produced at the same rate as before. Once that is done shipyards will no longer starve constructions unless your economy is starved. Which is the POINT ;p

And "experimental" means I download, I test, and I whine in detail. Just like The Evil That X's wants us to. I mean really, it's not as if I responded "this change blows goats, turn it back to the old less-goat-blowing one".

I think that if properly tuned, with the appropriate additional interface tweaks, the new system could be far superior to what we have currently.

The major issue is that to actually tune the system will require a large amount of beta testing and analysis. I agree that the current system is more playable, but mostly because the current system has had a huge amount of time to be tweaked and balanced.

I am in favor of developing the new flow based system further.

[CautiousChaos]

I've been very supportive of the changes that have been made over the last several weeks, yet I am opposed to making a fairly fundamental change to the economic model.  The new model could be argued as more interesting or realistic, but so far it is not as transparent as the existing system.  For veteran players it might be an interesting avenue to explore, but for new players it may turn out to be a detraction to the game itself.  AI War should have an economic model certainly but it shouldn't get so complex as to serve as a distraction to the "war" aspect of the game. 

I for one would rather X divert the energies/resources from making a big tweak to the economic model to putting together an interesting and compelling expansion pack - one that really gets everyone's attention. 

-cc

[Admiral]

N.B.: I haven't played this release, mostly because I am fine with the old system (it has it's quirks but the "pause all" solution gets around almost every one of them) and I didn't like the concept of things that take only metal or only crystal. (That feels to me like a hydrocarbon made of only carbon and no hydrogen.)

I would suggest, though, that Darke (damn it all, I can't avoid capitalizing that) has a point: we need a screen to manage our manufacturing plants with this sort of a release. Maybe shift-TAB should bring up a screen with a tree view:

Planet -> Manufacture type -> Individual constuctors -> Queue (as much as fits)

You can then push space (or something) to swap the tree view to:

Manufacture type -> Planet -> Individual constructors -> Queue

This may have to scroll vertically, of course.

There would be pause buttons on the Individual constructors, Planet, and Manufacture types, so you could quickly pause or unpause each of those (propagated down the tree), as well as an omnibus "pause all" and "unpause all" at the bottom - which is different from the main screen "pause all" temporary override.

 You can also click items in the queue to increase the # or decrease the #.

Maybe there should also be a button to jump to the specified planet with the specified constructor (or group of constructors) selected, so you can add things to the queues. Alternatively, having one selected could display the buildable stuff at the bottom.

This would take a lot of the micromanagement out of construction because you would no longer have to select them one at a time and could manage your flows.

Each line could also display the current resource usage and building speeds (in red if paused so you know the cost if you turn it back on), as well as the # of engineers assigned to assist.

I think it would be worthwhile to be able to set a "build speed modifier" in this new "resource over time" mechanism. That could either be a slider (0.01 -> 1.00) or a few buttons (fifths, quarters, thirds, half?). In this manner you could have a constructor pump out Mk I stuff slowly in your back world defense, while leaving others running at full speed for the important (Mk III, IV) stuff.

But, let me reiterate, I really like the "resource usage over time" concept, but the micromanagement is sort of scary and the cost rebalancing is utterly terrifying.

Just some thoughts...

Cheers!

[eRe4s3r]

Actually thats a really good idea - can you post that separately in the suggestion forum?

Because you do have a really good point - if the economic model is changed this drastic we need better and more detailed economic statistics and overviews. Not too much of em, but enough to see when something stalls before it stalls

[x4000]

Okay, a few points for discussion before I run to lunch (this has been an interesting topic, and one I would like to see further opinions on):

1.  I agree that the metal-only / crystal-only costs are kind of lame, and I don't like some of the simplifications that made to the various parts of the economy.  But making resource outflows for queue-based ships be identical is the only way I could think of to make their costs predictable.

2.  I agree that some more interface is needed, Rev's suggestion is a good one for starters and darke's management screen is also a great idea.  Some of those are going to take some serious dev time, though, so we might be looking at a delayed official release for this stuff.  We shall see, it's not the end of the world if that happens.

3.  A couple of people were complaining that this makes the model more complex and more micro-heavy.  I'm really not sure in what way this makes it more complex, as it is more of a simplification in my mind, so could you please elaborate?  In situations like this, often I am missing something that the other person is thinking.  Regarding the micro-heavier claim, here again this is intended to minimize that issue (with missiles and starships, yes it becomes a tad more complex, but it's simpler for docks and especially advanced factories).

4.  I don't feel like the old system was broken, or massively inconvenient, but I feel like it could be better.  And, queuing up a missile/starship when you don't have the money, then getting it later, was definitely not an exploit although it was a tad odd.  That was a conscious design decision on my part, for a number of reasons.

My thoughts on what to do next (again, please discuss):

1.  I think I will keep the queues working the new way that they do, with costs-over-time, because it is, basically, expected from the genre.

2.  I think I will return all of the ship costs back to what they previously were, with mixed-costs per ship.  This will make the queues bounce around a lot more, and the overall inflow/outflow rates for ships will thus bounce up and down making the net amounts saved vary a lot, but still it won't be hugely problematic to manage.  Stuff with excess values being stored, etc, I think would be detrimental.

3.  I think a few simple interface extensions like what Rev was suggesting are in order, to help players more quickly reach ships that are costing them metal/crystal over time.


That's all for now -- please discuss.

[Admiral]

1.  I agree that the metal-only / crystal-only costs are kind of lame, and I don't like some of the simplifications that made to the various parts of the economy.  But making resource outflows for queue-based ships be identical is the only way I could think of to make their costs predictable.

You could make various levels of Space Dock (Mk I, II, III). Each will construct a ship at a given rate of usage (e.g., 1000 metal and crystal per minute, 2000, 4000, whatever). Then, resource outflow is always constant, until all the resources needed for that ship are used up and it pops out.

Engineers will increase the production rate by whatever multiple you deem fit.

1.  I think I will keep the queues working the new way that they do, with costs-over-time, because it is, basically, expected from the genre.

Okay by me!

2.  I think I will return all of the ship costs back to what they previously were, with mixed-costs per ship.  This will make the queues bounce around a lot more, and the overall inflow/outflow rates for ships will thus bounce up and down making the net amounts saved vary a lot, but still it won't be hugely problematic to manage.  Stuff with excess values being stored, etc, I think would be detrimental.

I liked the old costs. Thanks.

3.  I think a few simple interface extensions like what Rev was suggesting are in order, to help players more quickly reach ships that are costing them metal/crystal over time.

Since things are now heavily flow based, I still think we need a detailed flow management screen, not just (or in addition to) a quick fix.

Cheers!

[eRe4s3r]

Well.. I still think you are over thinking this x4000

2 Rates don't have to be a problem when you just drop the rate that is lower to match the higher rate (so that over time both costs are achieved, but there is always a "highest possible rate" cap on shipyards.

Not sure why you see this as worse? I can live with 1 rate not being fully used in a construction, as long as i can predict what rate is used at most at any time.

[Revenantus]

Well.. I still think you are over thinking this x4000

2 Rates don't have to be a problem when you just drop the rate that is lower to match the higher rate (so that over time both costs are achieved, but there is always a "highest possible rate" cap on shipyards.

Not sure why you see this as worse? I can live with 1 rate not being fully used in a construction, as long as i can predict what rate is used at most at any time.

The only issue with this is that it introduces some variability in the rate of resource consumption if the spacedock in question is producing multiple ship types.

Given that this can be mitigated by only constructing single ship types in a space dock, I'm actually not sure that it would be a major problem. Especially if all mark levels of each ship type had the same metal:crystal ratio.

It would certainly still, depending on the circumstances, be somewhat uncertain but still more accurate than the current system.

[x4000]

Added notes:

1.  In this game, some ships cost 0 of one resource and a lot of the second, and others cost tens of thousand of one resource and only a few hundred of the second.  Trying to amortize the cost of the lower resource over the life of the longer one seems a bit futile to me, I don't know.

2.  The time-to-build being related to the outflows is really problematic, because then you either have things taking a super-long time to build, or not getting built at all.  I'll have to look at this more.

3.  Yes, I agree that some flow-management screens would be really nice, but those feel like a more middle-term thing to me.

[eRe4s3r]

Actually the thing is, you make it sound complicated while it is very simple to balance stuff like this

- Resource Rate = 6 res per mine per second for resources

Starting world has at least 5 of each, so rate is 30 per second at least - usually more than that

Since all MK1 ships take 10 seconds to build - you now can do simple math to calculate what they should cost (because MK1 is baseline stuff cost should be about the same) while using a shipyard rate of at most 20 per second per construction per resource.

So basically 10x20 is 200 and thats the upper limit anything can cost which is MK1 - this is the starting balance point

MK2 could take 3 times as long (its 3 times as effective ,p) and can cost 3 times as much - so now 1800 is the upper limit

Mk3 same, 1 minute build time = 72 000 - this is now your upper limit for MK3
MK4 same, 2 minute build time 3 times the cost = 288 000 is your upper limit for MK4

Notice how resource cost now realisticly scales? - Not all things take the same time and thats how you balance out units that should cost less - so.. ehm its very simple to do, and at all times you maintain 20 resource per second per shipyard - so usually a player can support 2 shipyards with the start resources. Meaning the current resource rates need to be twice the current rate, if you want twice the costs or if you want the player to build twice as many ships at the same time from the get-go.

If the data was read from a txt file i could change it myself in a mod ;p

Its also worth mentioning that atm resource rates and unit costs are not balanced at all, at least the above system is very easy to adapt, twice resource rate = twice the amount of shipyards you can support.

Because most planets have only 2 or 3 resources rates need to be twice the current rates for actual game balance with a flow system - that way a new planet can support at least 2 new shipyard doing continuous constructions (and with baseline income from the command post)

Engineers of course change the picture they may just raise rates - or they may be allowed to boost construction times without increasing rates  (so basically each constructor doesn't speed up construction but lowers the COST AND thus speeds up production Depends on what moon phase it is which concept sounds better - both are equally good. Both put heavy importance on engineers forcing players to not just build them for repair work.

Alternatively, the above concept could be adapted for Shipyards MK2 and MK3 (making them more efficient and thus lowering the cost)

[Admiral]

You could always have three sets of numbers:

1) Current actual net flow
2) Maximum current net flow
3) Worst case net flow

So, things are always built at their rated speeds (subject to modifiers such as by engineers or slowdown options).

Example for #1: So if a constructor builds 20 whatever per second, and is building something that takes 100 metal and 40 crystal, then for the first 2 seconds it will be -20 to the net flow on both, and the last 3 seconds -20 to metal and 0 to crystal net flow.  A second constructor is paused (or has an empty queue).

Example for #2: Like example for #1, but since that constructor could at some point be having -20 on crystal, then it would show -20 on crystal all the time. If there are no items queued that use crystal, then it would show 0.

Example for #3: Since the second constructor could if unpaused and building also have -20 to each, this third number would be like example #2 but -40 on each.

This way you get a 3 number glance of what your situation is.

Granted, case #3 is probably not a big deal, but #1 and #2 would be useful information.

A few issues come up:

a) What happens when you cancel production of something? Do you get the resources back? A portion back?

b) What happens when your net is negative and your balance zero, and a "tick" happens which gives you more materials. Which constructors get what, or is the balance allocated to all constructors in some manner so that none are starved? Prioritization?

etc.

Cheers!

[eRe4s3r]

When you cancel you would get nothing back - or only partial worth at most.. - Otherwise there is no incentive for the player to think what to build ;p

When your economy starves rates are auto lowered to accommodate a 0 balance - Otherwise there is no incentive for the player to think when to stop building

(This is how i would do it)  

- by the way , this is where "resource sliders" come into play - usually the player should be able to limit resource rates globally or per ship construction type ie. for MK4 or starships only

[Admiral]

When you cancel you would get nothing back - or only partial worth at most.. - Otherwise there is no incentive for the player to think what to build ;p

That's a major, major change in mechanics. I can cancel anything in the queue and it will cost me nothing (but time/opportunity cost) as it works now. It's not really one I support, either. If the item is incomplete, it should not cost anything and any used resources should be returned to the pool.

Cheers!

[x4000]

When you cancel you would get nothing back - or only partial worth at most.. - Otherwise there is no incentive for the player to think what to build ;p

That's a major, major change in mechanics. I can cancel anything in the queue and it will cost me nothing (but time/opportunity cost) as it works now. It's not really one I support, either. If the item is incomplete, it should not cost anything and any used resources should be returned to the pool.

Cheers!

I agree.

[eRe4s3r]

I have not a problem with either concept.. As long as the balance rate vs used resources is well tuned... canceling is not something you do often