Knowledge Raiding defenses

[Wanderer]

Yea, 5 ships per second is a bit fierce   Particularly compared with 4 ships every 2 seconds on 9.8.

I suppose I could be persuaded to make it a little more linear.

Nope, it's 10/10.  Leave it, it's doable it just costs a ton.  Just fix my multi-homeworld power problems please? 

[keith.lamothe]

Nope, it's 10/10.  Leave it, it's doable it just costs a ton.

Heh

Just fix my multi-homeworld power problems please? 

You mean how, for example, 3xHWs increases the amount of energy you need to hit cap by 3x, but only increases the available energy by 2 planets worth (the 2 extra planets you start with at no AIP cost)?

I suppose I could make it so that for inefficiency calculations, it divides the number of reactors on the planet owned by that player by the number of homeworlds that player started the game with (or 1, if they jumped in without a homeworld).  But that would be trickier than it first sounds since it doesn't just count them all up, it processes them in series.  But should be doable, if that would fix the issue.

[chemical_art]

I want my multi homeworld needs satisfied please.

[Wanderer]

I double posted somehow.  Sorry.

[Wanderer]

Just fix my multi-homeworld power problems please? 

You mean how, for example, 3xHWs increases the amount of energy you need to hit cap by 3x, but only increases the available energy by 2 planets worth (the 2 extra planets you start with at no AIP cost)?

Yeah, that.   It might not cost me AIP but it's definately costing me in wave defenses and other multipliers.  Also, it's not a linear progression after two homeworlds.  At 3, bomber cap at 1 is 98, at 3 it's 240.  So, there's a definate decay.  Yes, I know, the extra special ships make up for it.  I'm quite aware, but it balances, even the resource boost.

I suppose I could make it so that for inefficiency calculations, it divides the number of reactors on the planet owned by that player by the number of homeworlds that player started the game with (or 1, if they jumped in without a homeworld).  But that would be trickier than it first sounds since it doesn't just count them all up, it processes them in series.  But should be doable, if that would fix the issue.

It would definately fix the issue and I certainly wouldn't mind building the extras instead of starting with them.

The problem comes down to this: Your defenses suck up the majority of your power needs unless you start glassing star-arms, because a single system will eat its own power gains with the defenses required with multi-waves.  Now, you've got your fleet, and god help you if you dare to bring everything up to Mk II, which I literally couldn't do at the moment without ignoring a fleet ship or two.  Just bring a stack or two of defensive starships online (Siege or bomber, pick your poison) to deal with starship incursions and you start to run tight.

It might be I'm overbuilding and if power concerns were meant to be an additional balancer against multi-homeworld I'll stop my whining.  As it stands right now I wouldn't take an ARS because I couldn't get the power to supply the ships without turning other things off.  It's ~150k in power/system with an Econ III.  Overbuild a I and II and you'll get about 175k-180k (I need to sit down and do the math).  That's roughly a fortresses, a turret bank, and a cap of mk1s, for reference.

[Wanderer]

Actually, I was thinking.  Instead of trying to fuss with the # of reactors before you get reduced efficiency, can you add a .25 multiplier to power output per extra homeworld?  That way your homeworlds can't provide everything you need but you can eventually balance out?

[keith.lamothe]

Actually, I was thinking.  Instead of trying to fuss with the # of reactors before you get reduced efficiency, can you add a .25 multiplier to power output per extra homeworld?  That way your homeworlds can't provide everything you need but you can eventually balance out?

In theory that would work but the resource costs wouldn't keep up.

The reason I opt for what I mentioned is that it would make it basically identical to the multiplayer model where everyone can have 1 set of reactors on each planet with no efficiency penalty.  3 players starting off can have a truckload of energy (at normal m+c cost) by all building on each other's HWs, so if we're going to change multi-HW it may as well be to effectively-the-same-as-MP.

[Orelius]

Sometimes I make the mistake of going after superterminals after I have had tons of AIP reduction through spire civilian posts and messing around for hours.

Me: Ooh, a superterminal, time to activate it.
Cultist AI: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh CORE SHIPS R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
Me: 

[Wanderer]

Actually, I was thinking.  Instead of trying to fuss with the # of reactors before you get reduced efficiency, can you add a .25 multiplier to power output per extra homeworld?  That way your homeworlds can't provide everything you need but you can eventually balance out?

In theory that would work but the resource costs wouldn't keep up.

The reason I opt for what I mentioned is that it would make it basically identical to the multiplayer model where everyone can have 1 set of reactors on each planet with no efficiency penalty.  3 players starting off can have a truckload of energy (at normal m+c cost) by all building on each other's HWs, so if we're going to change multi-HW it may as well be to effectively-the-same-as-MP.

Ah, true enough.  I just thought it might be easier to implement since that was a concern, and you could up the resource costs as well.  I've never really ran into power problems of this level on single homeworld games, and with multi-player homeworld/building I'd be through the roof.  Probably wouldn't even need IIIs.   But yeah, it can get kinda silly single player multi.

I'll see if I can come up with any other bright ideas.  Reducing general power costs based on # of homeworlds seems... bad.  Hrm.

[Eternaly_Lost]

Actually, I was thinking.  Instead of trying to fuss with the # of reactors before you get reduced efficiency, can you add a .25 multiplier to power output per extra homeworld?  That way your homeworlds can't provide everything you need but you can eventually balance out?

In theory that would work but the resource costs wouldn't keep up.

The reason I opt for what I mentioned is that it would make it basically identical to the multiplayer model where everyone can have 1 set of reactors on each planet with no efficiency penalty.  3 players starting off can have a truckload of energy (at normal m+c cost) by all building on each other's HWs, so if we're going to change multi-HW it may as well be to effectively-the-same-as-MP.

What about adding a Mk4 reactor that only unlocks on if you more then 1 homeworld. So if you have 2 homeworlds you have Mk1-4 to build, with a hard cap for Mk4 reactors set to (#Homeworlds - 1 ) per world. Each Mk4 would produce the same power as a Mk1, mk2 and mk3 together would, and would cost about the same upkeep or maybe slightly less.

[Shrugging Khan]

Isn't the obvious solution to lower the reactor inefficiency curve?

Anyways, for general power woes, I tend to just switch off absolutely everything I don't need. Docks, Turrets, Ships, everything. Of course, I then have to pause and reactivate whenever there's AI ships floating around.

[Eternaly_Lost]

Isn't the obvious solution to lower the reactor inefficiency curve?

Anyways, for general power woes, I tend to just switch off absolutely everything I don't need. Docks, Turrets, Ships, everything. Of course, I then have to pause and reactivate whenever there's AI ships floating around.

Part of the issue with that, would be that In an 8 homeworld game you could then build 8 of each reactor type per planet, that is a full 21 more reactors you have drop down and protect. Each of those takes up space and micro to place, Where my suggestion only added another reactor per additional homeworld, so in an 8 planet game you need to drop only 7 more per world, rather then 21, and they are all of the same type, so that you can do them quickly, as there is no manually way to automate the placement of more then just 1 reactor of each kind.

[Shrugging Khan]

There should be. We can have multiple engineers of different Mk levels auto-built globally or per planet. Why can't we have the same for Power Gens?

[keith.lamothe]

There should be. We can have multiple engineers of different Mk levels auto-built globally or per planet. Why can't we have the same for Power Gens?

In the past there wasn't sufficient reason because it would inevitably mean inefficient reactors.  And we got a fair number of bug reports about the auto-build-energy controls building an inefficient reactor because there were remains that a remains builder rebuilt; and that's with just 1 inefficient reactor!  It should be counting remains properly now, though.

But one of my notes on the multi-HW energy efficiency change is to change those toggles to sliders like the engie ones.  Because now it would be possible in multi-hw cases to have those set to more than 1 and not produce inefficient reactors.

[Wanderer]

There should be. We can have multiple engineers of different Mk levels auto-built globally or per planet. Why can't we have the same for Power Gens?

In the past there wasn't sufficient reason because it would inevitably mean inefficient reactors.  And we got a fair number of bug reports about the auto-build-energy controls building an inefficient reactor because there were remains that a remains builder rebuilt; and that's with just 1 inefficient reactor!  It should be counting remains properly now, though.

But one of my notes on the multi-HW energy efficiency change is to change those toggles to sliders like the engie ones.  Because now it would be possible in multi-hw cases to have those set to more than 1 and not produce inefficient reactors.

Woot woot!!!  Mr. Multi-Homeworld is a happy camper again!  Maybe I should change my screen name...