Author Topic: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)  (Read 8456 times)

Offline Kalzarius

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2009, 05:56:55 pm »
It just recently occurred to me that taking two variables (build time and cost) and trying to balance them through a combined variable (making build time based simply on the resources necessary for construction) is going to be very difficult.  Sometimes, they may even be at odds with each other, which cannot be expressed through this new model.  Given all the time that is going to have to into perfecting this, would it be possible to get a pre-release that includes only the performance enhancements and bug fixes as outlined below?

-The default Auto AI Progress increase is now 1 per 5 minutes of gameplay, rather than 1 per 30 minutes.

-A whole bunch of more performance improvements have been made to the simulation logic, once again relating to how range checks are performed (this time it's regarding relative range checks), so the simulation performs ever-better with vast numbers of ships in combat on a single planet.

-Missiles no longer detonate until they are right on top of their target, rather than as soon as they are withing minimum striking range.  This makes lightning turrets way more effective against groups of starships or other ships.

-When players get too short on energy to finish building items in their queue, and then pause all constructors, the "short on energy" message now goes away.

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2009, 10:03:38 pm »
It just recently occurred to me that taking two variables (build time and cost) and trying to balance them through a combined variable (making build time based simply on the resources necessary for construction) is going to be very difficult.  Sometimes, they may even be at odds with each other, which cannot be expressed through this new model.  Given all the time that is going to have to into perfecting this, would it be possible to get a pre-release that includes only the performance enhancements and bug fixes as outlined below?

Actually, fortunately when a few other bugs were fixed, it looks like the time/cost ratios were fine with the old-style blended metal/crystal costs (which have now returned).  At this stage I want to specifically avoid a wholesale revamp of all the costs of everything, so the new version (http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,670.0.html) just focuses on making things flow-based under otherwise the old system.  It's a fairly minor change compared to the experimental post-release, so hopefully that will spark less controversy (it's still a big shift).

As for doing a prerelease that just has some features and not others, that's all but impossible especially with this feature set.  The performance improvements themselves take several hundred lines of code changes, and the economic ones have several thousand lines of code changes in various files, and stripping out one but leaving the other would take me hours.  My hope is that this next 1.014A version is entirely playable and reasonable; if there are any bugs in there, I'll be around now so people can tell me and hopefully I can get everything that is serious resolved within a day at most.  That's the goal!
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2009, 10:11:05 pm »
2) Engineers cannot be assigned to a constructor that isn't building anything, and the engineers leave that constructor when there is nothing left in the queue.

Yeah, this was introduced in 1.013 as related to the further automation of engineers, but it was a bad thing.  I've added this to my list to be fixed:  http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php/board,11.0.html

3) While I think the cruisers and bombers could both benefit from being built faster, it's the missiles I'm truly worried about.  Lightning missiles, for example take over twice as long to build as they have previously (8:40, I believe, compared to the previous 3:30 or so, with 3 engineers).  While I can appreciate balance, this is extreme for the multiplayer game I have going, where we are lucky to have an in-game second every 3 real-time seconds.  Every second counts at least 3 times for us.  :D

All of the new times should be a lot better in the 1.014A version.  Lightning missiles now take 4:10 with three engineers, for example.  The times don't exactly add up, and cruisers do take a whole lot longer than many other ships still (37 seconds unaided for Mark I, 1:14 for II, and 2:00 for III), but I think that is appropriate for them and will be a desirable balancing factor.  They are arguably the most valuable ship in the game, and this prevents them from being spammed quite as much -- and by the same token makes fighters and other cheap ships that much more valuable, since you can churn out hundreds of them in just a couple of minutes even unaided.  I'll probably make some changes to emphasize this effect even more with the smaller ships.

Otherwise, all seems OK.  I didn't catch any other bugs, but I think the numbers need more thorough testing and consensus from the community.

That's great, I'm glad you didn't find anything else!
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2009, 10:14:56 pm »
The Cutlass ship has been virtually crippled.  They Aren't attacking enemies anymore.  They still seem to do damage if you slam them into ships But they lost their ability to actually chase down ships and attack.  Also, when chasing down AI Cutlasses, simply being near any ships causes them to pause.  Almost like they are trying to turn around and hit the nearest guy, but just get stumped.

They seem like timid little mice rather than the voracious Tasmanian devils that they should be.

Edit.  Does not seem to be specific to the post release.  Am seeing this in the regular release as well.
Another Edit.  Once you get out of your home planet and branch out.  The cutlasses seem to start gaining some backbone.  At times they will be timid.  others they will charge right in.  Its hard to find some consistancy.  starting off with Cutlasses right away though seems to provide some imediate disapointments.

Thanks very much for pointing this out.  It's probably related to some of the ranging logic updates from 1.013... I should have thought to test those with cutlasses/vampires, but sadly I did not.  I've added this to my list:  http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php/board,11.0.html
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2009, 10:18:00 pm »
Haven't had a chance to play a 013 game yet due to busyness but I figured I'd take a shot at this. So far:

I think all of that is addressed with 1.014A, but let me know if not.  Except...

Scout ships (and starships?) losing cloaking when you run out of power is a little... immersion breaking. Given said ships are by definition are ones that should be working on their own away from your supply lines. :)

This is something that has been a feature since always, basically.  Your energy is a global thing, and Bad Things (tm) happen when it goes negative.  I suppose I could make scouts work more independently, but I'm not real excited about that just because it adds a point of complexity (another minor rule for players to remember) for not much payoff in my opinion.  Yes, scouts are supposed to be quasi-independent out there, but by the same token they are in constant contact giving you data back.  So I don't think it's too unreasonable for them to have an energy tether like everyone else.  But I'm curious what others think, if this is a big issue.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Revenantus

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,063
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2009, 10:26:25 pm »
Scout ships (and starships?) losing cloaking when you run out of power is a little... immersion breaking. Given said ships are by definition are ones that should be working on their own away from your supply lines. :)

This is something that has been a feature since always, basically.  Your energy is a global thing, and Bad Things (tm) happen when it goes negative.  I suppose I could make scouts work more independently, but I'm not real excited about that just because it adds a point of complexity (another minor rule for players to remember) for not much payoff in my opinion.  Yes, scouts are supposed to be quasi-independent out there, but by the same token they are in constant contact giving you data back.  So I don't think it's too unreasonable for them to have an energy tether like everyone else.  But I'm curious what others think, if this is a big issue.

Personally I don't think this is an issue. As you say energy is a global thing, and going negative results in all turrets and forcefields going offline, among other things. Excluding starships from this rule doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Perhaps if the energy model was to at some point evolve into a sort of powerline system in which energy requirements had to be considered on a per system basis this would be worth looking at again.

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2009, 10:36:36 pm »
At the moment it's turned the game from being pretty micromangement free in terms of economics (Note: I hate micromanaging economics), into a nightmare of screwing around with finding where I've got buildings turned on on planets, and generally pain-in-the-ass fiddling around with production queues. Take for example the following very, very, VERY common task in my current (sometime around the 9th or 10th try) at an AI10 game: I need lightning missiles.

I think that, in the 1.014A release, hopefully economy micromanagement will be at an all-time low.  That's the goal, anyway.

Here's the scenario I see:

1.  Under normal operation, you have some number of docks (with some number of engineers) churning out ships at a fairly predictable rate.  This all now works just like 1.013 and before, except that you are billed in little chunks over time instead of a huge bump right at the end.  This lets you see outflows over time, which will bounce around with ships that cost varying degrees of metal/crystal in the same queue, but which overall will prevent your economy from mysteriously and suddenly tanking like it could before.

2.  You will probably also leave some sort of excess positive income level, so that you have some spare metal/crystal built up for turrets and other defenses, and other fixed ships.  If you do not, then you can crank out more military ships, but you won't have disposable savings if you suddenly find you need them.

3.  Now you fight, and largely forget about all of the above unless you need to adjust your queues, and you don't need to much worry about this (or the Mark IV ships being built less than lower-level ships), since everything is so predictable and flow-based.  Nice and simple to understand what is happening with your economy pretty much at a glance.

4.  If you need a lightning missile and you have been doing the above, you probably have the buffer you need in order to build one.  Just add it to the queue of the missile silo, and you won't be getting any more excess income for a while (and you might even draw it down some depending on your levels), but otherwise it just builds and that's that.  Also nice and simple, and no more micromanagement required unless you want to turn off one dock in favor of your silo if you are running right at capacity and don't have a savings buffer, for instance.

I don't disagree that this might take some initial adjustment for the most experienced players in particular, but honestly I feel like this brings the economy of the game more inline with the better entries in the genre.  Yes, the experimental prerelease had a lot of Bad Things about it, but I'm pretty confident I've removed all of the most egregious of those and what we now have I think is just the good advances forward.  There might be more room for even more advances forward, but I don't think we've taken any steps back at this stage.

Previously: I have lightning missiles in a queue. At some point it finishes, but I don't need one yet, and I'm running under the 15k a piece, so nothing happens. All is good since there's a 100% completed missile just waiting for me to need it. I decide I need it, I hit the "pause all" button, it stops all production of my ships all around the galaxy. (Yes, I do actually have ships being produced on planets other then the one or two main ones to pump out offensive ships.) At some point in time soon (a minute or so usually, it's pretty easy to estimate since I've got a little number underneath that says +X/second resources), I have greater then the 15k I need, so I hit "pause all" again to un-pause, and out pops my nicely completed Lightning Missile (or it could be a scout cruiser or whatever, I tend to produce all big ticket items like this).

This is something that is shifting, though.  You can't just queue up your item for free and leave it anymore, then have it pop out.  I'm not particularly sad about this, it was always a bit hokey although it was the intended prior behavior.  However, now you have a nice tradeoff of a "cheap over time" way to get missiles.  It requires a bit more advance planning on average, but it also lets you amortize their costs over time which means you don't have to stop everything else to get the fast cash you need for one of those big investments (that's still the case with force fields, though).

Currently: I have lightning missiles in a queue. Except they may or may not be producing at any point in time, since I may or may not have positive resource balance, so I have to hunt down as to what's chewing up my resource.

Now there's one little button hover that lets you see this easily.  But if you have an overflow of income like you probably would want to in most cases, that shouldn't be too much of an issue in the first place now.

This is only going to get worse if it gets changed back from the current rather, well, boring method of having ships only cost one resource or another, since suddenly you'll have to micromanage every one of your docks, etc.

I think it's gotten a lot better actually, but I'll be curious as to what you think.  I really can't see how this is going to do anything but reduce micromangement, but we'll see.  It may be that some of your previous unintended-interface-shortcuts will no longer work, in which case we simply need to put in new interface shortcuts that are designed for the same purpose in the new system.  I think everyone's goal here is the same:  have the economy be as simple and as understandable as possible, with a fine level of control but no need for continuous micromanagement.  With 1.014A, I think I'm pretty sold on the underlying mechanics on offer there, but I'll be curious what everyone else thinks.  Beyond that, it sounds like you may have some specific interface requests, but we really need to separate the discussion of that from the discussion of the underlying model -- even though both updates really need to be happening in tandem, and even though interface enhancements of that sort are something I am going to take very seriously and will try to implement rapidly if at all possible.

Also I never had a problem previously with estimating how much resources I was using.

That makes one of us.  :)  With Mark III cruisers and Mark I fighters in the same queue, for instance, the resource usage jumps all over the fricking place, so that no meaningful estimation is possible.  Maybe you were more organized than that, but I tend to have space docks all over the place and don't care to build more than 2-5 per planet, which makes micromanaging the ships in each queue so that they have similar costs way too much of a chore.  Other people also seem to have been having a problem with this -- while I don't think it's been a huge hassle for most people, I think we can make this work better for everyone, you included. :)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2009, 10:38:22 pm »
Perhaps if the energy model was to at some point evolve into a sort of powerline system in which energy requirements had to be considered on a per system basis this would be worth looking at again.

Yeah, there's been some serious discussion of this, but for various reasons it has seemed overcomplicated for a core model (instead, a bonus-type model being the end thing that was really focused on).  We'll see how this looks later, of course, but I agree with you that this is something that could probably wait until that stage.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline darke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2009, 12:14:43 am »
Scout ships (and starships?) losing cloaking when you run out of power is a little... immersion breaking. Given said ships are by definition are ones that should be working on their own away from your supply lines. :)

This is something that has been a feature since always, basically.  Your energy is a global thing, and Bad Things (tm) happen when it goes negative.  I suppose I could make scouts work more independently, but I'm not real excited about that just because it adds a point of complexity (another minor rule for players to remember) for not much payoff in my opinion.  Yes, scouts are supposed to be quasi-independent out there, but by the same token they are in constant contact giving you data back.  So I don't think it's too unreasonable for them to have an energy tether like everyone else.  But I'm curious what others think, if this is a big issue.

Personally I don't think this is an issue. As you say energy is a global thing, and going negative results in all turrets and forcefields going offline, among other things. Excluding starships from this rule doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Perhaps if the energy model was to at some point evolve into a sort of powerline system in which energy requirements had to be considered on a per system basis this would be worth looking at again.

The problem is that turrets and friends are usually on your worlds, and as a result there's no real negative effects if the power drops out (because a generator was taken out for instance) since they have a healthy chunk of health the only problem is that they're not attacking. Whereas the scouts are almost always on a hostile world, and are insta-killed due to their low health.

Granted I'm playing a two AI10 game, but it basically turns an "average" ship (the scout starship) into an expensive liability when you're running close to the line on energy (as you do most of the time in an AI10 game :) ). I normally use them all the time since they're pretty convenient, but I gave up in this game since I couldn't keep them alive at all. :(


Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2009, 12:21:46 am »
Sounds like another situation where the Mark III energy reactor might be helpful.  But going negative in energy is meant to be a Very Bad Thing, so it's inline with what I'd expect.  With force fields going down when you go negative on energy, that's actually the biggest risk -- your home planet command station might be exceedingly exposed all of a sudden, and weak to a rapid attack that ends the game before you know it.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Revenantus

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,063
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2009, 12:23:05 am »
Hmm, what if there were to be a 15-20 second delay between going into negative energy and the negative effects emerging? This could create an opportunity to get the starship somewhere safe.

This would also give players that accidentally went slightly negative a chance to avoid nasty penalties by quickly scrapping a few ships. I suspect this would be popular with players that favour parasites especially.

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2009, 12:26:35 am »
Hmm, what if there were to be a 15-20 second delay between going into negative energy and the negative effects emerging? This could create an opportunity to get the starship somewhere safe.

This would also give players that accidentally went slightly negative a chance to avoid nasty penalties by quickly scrapping a few ships. I suspect this would be popular with players that favour parasites especially.

Yeah, that could work.  Would you mind terribly adding that to my short-term list?
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline darke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2009, 10:17:44 am »
Strange, I seem to have missed replying to this, oh well. :)

Also I never had a problem previously with estimating how much resources I was using.

That makes one of us.  :)  With Mark III cruisers and Mark I fighters in the same queue, for instance, the resource usage jumps all over the fricking place, so that no meaningful estimation is possible.  Maybe you were more organized than that, but I tend to have space docks all over the place and don't care to build more than 2-5 per planet, which makes micromanaging the ships in each queue so that they have similar costs way too much of a chore.  Other people also seem to have been having a problem with this -- while I don't think it's been a huge hassle for most people, I think we can make this work better for everyone, you included. :)

Ah, you see the difference is that I wouldn't even notice if I had it that way. :) I think this is something to do with the different play styles especially when it intersects with my "I hate economics" reflex. :)

As far as I can see, there are two broad playstyles. To abuse a currently relevant analogy, one plays like the stock market broker on the floor of the stock exchange continually reacting to changing stimulus and microing furiously to get the best benefit. The other is the is the stock market advisor/analyst who only cares about long term trends so he can advise his clients of what appear to be good investments.

I seem to play with the long term view. I only really notice if my resources are trending up, or down, and then just react. For example if I notice that over the last 10 minutes or so I've gained a lot more metal and crystal is sitting low, I might toss more parasites/bombers into my space dock queues so that they can chew up the excess, or I might just wait it out and make a mental note to build a science lab or two later with the excess. Or if the reverse is the case I'll build a few more cruisers, or find a planet that's missing an energy generator and toss one on it, and so on.

This is why the original "this is the maximum of how much stuff you're getting a second" value was actually useful to me at times (when I hit pause all, I knew kinda how long I'd have to wait to get the cash I needed), whereas I find the current value of "this is the current net balance *right* *at* *this* *moment*" is totally worthless. :) Especially since it's current random fluctuation is more distracting then anything else.

On 014 news, it seems to be quite a bit more playable then the previous patch was. :) Things feel like they build a little bit too slowly though, and I'm really starting to struggle with the energy limitations when playing AI10s. I wasn't all that impressed when I put my 4th Tech II generator down on my home world because I was struggling to get off (Tech IV and Tech III worlds adjacent) and it only gave me 4k energy. :( Especially since now with the greater starting cash I'm almost always at the "low energy warning" as soon as I start just due to defenses and such.

Also wasn't impressed when I got swarmed at about an hour and a half in by 250+ Tech II micro-fighter things and got my home command center taken out by them because I couldn't kill them quick enough. :( But they're unrelated to people messing around with the economy, just be careful not to accidentally instigate a Galactic Financial Collapse or Iceland won't be pleased. :)

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2009, 10:39:46 am »
I seem to play with the long term view. I only really notice if my resources are trending up, or down, and then just react. For example if I notice that over the last 10 minutes or so I've gained a lot more metal and crystal is sitting low, I might toss more parasites/bombers into my space dock queues so that they can chew up the excess, or I might just wait it out and make a mental note to build a science lab or two later with the excess. Or if the reverse is the case I'll build a few more cruisers, or find a planet that's missing an energy generator and toss one on it, and so on.

I'm the same way as you, I try very much not to micro my economy and everything that you said there could also apply to me.  However, I keep getting hit with my economy suddenly tanking every so often, because I try to run at near a zero balance, and then when cruisers or something else expensive comes up, it drops me to nothing and everything starts building really slowly.  I like to take the long-term view, but I like to have some idea of what that long-term view actually is, is the thing!

This is why the original "this is the maximum of how much stuff you're getting a second" value was actually useful to me at times (when I hit pause all, I knew kinda how long I'd have to wait to get the cash I needed), whereas I find the current value of "this is the current net balance *right* *at* *this* *moment*" is totally worthless. :) Especially since it's current random fluctuation is more distracting then anything else.

I think that I will make it so that it keeps these more consistent -- even if the space dock is not currently taking up crystal, for instance, make it act like it is on the net calculation since it potentially could be taking crystal.  I think I might also make all ships take at least a smidge of both crystal and metal, to keep that from getting too super off with things like bombers -- that won't be a huge change, just like 10%-20% at most probably, but it should also help with the build times in some of those cases since its the higher resource that affects the build time.

On 014 news, it seems to be quite a bit more playable then the previous patch was. :) Things feel like they build a little bit too slowly though, and I'm really starting to struggle with the energy limitations when playing AI10s. I wasn't all that impressed when I put my 4th Tech II generator down on my home world because I was struggling to get off (Tech IV and Tech III worlds adjacent) and it only gave me 4k energy. :( Especially since now with the greater starting cash I'm almost always at the "low energy warning" as soon as I start just due to defenses and such.

To be perfectly frank, I just can't imagine that playing all AI10s would be that much fun.  It's always going to be a long hard slog, and you're always going to be outmanned and outgunned, and something is always going to be going wrong.  Maybe that is the fun of it, but things like being out of energy because you don't have room to expand, etc, and having to come up with creative solutions to that problem, are just part of the game there IMO.  I'd really suggest playing more in the 8-9 range, where things are less insane, with a handicap to the AI and less of one to yourself -- you could probably get the same sort of difficulty without some of the headaches of just playing AI10s.

Of course AI10s are there for a reason, so if it floats your boat then go for it, but it's not meant to be an overly-friendly level of difficulty.  I'm glad that the new release is playing so much better for you, anyway!

Also wasn't impressed when I got swarmed at about an hour and a half in by 250+ Tech II micro-fighter things and got my home command center taken out by them because I couldn't kill them quick enough. :( But they're unrelated to people messing around with the economy, just be careful not to accidentally instigate a Galactic Financial Collapse or Iceland won't be pleased. :)

I will definitely try not to facilitate a financial crash. :)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Revenantus

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,063
Re: Experimental Postrelease 1: 1.013 (Efficiency up, new economic model)
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2009, 10:41:57 am »
This is why the original "this is the maximum of how much stuff you're getting a second" value was actually useful to me at times (when I hit pause all, I knew kinda how long I'd have to wait to get the cash I needed), whereas I find the current value of "this is the current net balance *right* *at* *this* *moment*" is totally worthless. :) Especially since it's current random fluctuation is more distracting then anything else.

You still have access to the overall resource revenue figure so you are still able to hit pause and wait for resources to accumulate at a known rate.

However, under the new system you no longer need to hit pause to accumulate resources to build expensive units such as missiles, because you can use the net flow figure to determine whether or not you can sustain the production over time. I feel that this is better as it allows the player to gradually amortize the cost.