Author Topic: Modular Harvesters  (Read 3139 times)

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Modular Harvesters
« on: March 13, 2012, 06:22:00 pm »
Since the idea of modular harvesters seems pretty popular (credit goes to Physical Original for the idea), maybe we can talk about it some and get something reasonable to offer to the devs, though it probably will have to wait for the fourth expansion.

Here is my idea for a new harvester system.

New units:
Metal miner platform
Crystal miner platform

Both of these are invincible, perma-cloaked, cost no resources or energy. However, they also do not produce anything. Their lifetime is tied to the command stations, so if the command station dies, it dies. (Though this may be amended to a softer version, where only the harvester modules die. If this happens though, they should self-destruct on a change in planet ownership)
It has 3 module mount points (right now, all the same kind of mount point, but that is subject to revision). As such, it would be eligible for the ship designer options. (Though there would be 3 built-in defaults, see section on auto-building)

The modules would be
Metal/Crystal harvesters Mk. I, II, and III. Basically, these are the things that will actually give you resources, cost stuff, take energy, etc. They will be destructible (aka, an exception the standard non-ff module invincibility).
Mk. I would take 1 slot, Mk. II would take 2 slots, and Mk. III would take 3 slots. Only one harvester can be placed on any given platform, so no 3 Mk. I harvesters on a single platform. (For the time being, their stats will be the same as the existing harvesters, though they can be buffed if the existing harvesters get buffed)
If multiple slots taken up from a single module would take too much fiddling with the module logic, then maybe half the Mk. II and third the Mk. III stats, but let 2 or 3 (respectively) be built on a single platform. This time, no mixing of marks.

Alternatively, all the harvesters could be collapsed into one mark, with 1/3 or so the stats of the current Mk. II or Mk. III harvester, but allow the entire platform to have all modules be these. If this approach is taken, research unlocks could increase the number of usable slots on a platform, like starting at 3, but then going up to 5 when fully upgraded (or make multiple marks of the platforms)

Harvester forcefield module:
Has a traditional forcefield of a smallish radius, takes one slot. Higher marks can be unlocked with standard forcefield Mk. unlocks. Multiple on one platform is allowed. Coexisting with exo-harvester forcefield modules on he same platform is allowed

Exo-harvester forcefield module:
Has an exo-forcefield, only protecting those things attached to the platform, but can protect against FF immune stuff. Higher marks can be unlocked with hardened forcefield Mk. unlocks. Takes two slots, or alternatively, takes extra energy, or alternatively, Mk. I not unlocked at first but require hardened forcefield Mk. I to be unlocked first (giving it an effective knowledge cost). In any case, has less HP (though not that much less) than the regular harvester forcefield, to offset their "immunity to FF immunity".

Turret modules:
Various turret modules. Works similarly to the spire modules, though maybe not quite as strong.



Auto-build behaviour:
In the controls screen, you can select the default layout for platforms depending on whether Mk. I, Mk. II, and Mk. III harvesters are unlocked (or if the multiple mark levels of platforms approach is taken, the default layout for platforms depending on whether Mk. I, Mk. II, or Mk. III platforms are unlocked)
These will be used when you first take a planet, and the platforms are preplaced and their build queues are pre-populated.
There will also be default, undeletable, uneditable default configurations, one for each of the three harvester (or platform) marks. They would basically have just their respective Mk. harvester and nothing else as its configuration (or if the marked platform approach is taken, they would simply fill all their slots with harvesters). This way, even if the user never makes a "custom" loadout for harvester platforms, they still get sensible defaults.

Advantages:
Leverages an existing mechanic (modules) to provide flexibility and tradeoffs
Having "default defaults" for which platform to auto-build allows for those who don't mess with all this to still get reasonable loadouts automatically.
Having the platforms (but not the modules) be invincible solves the "what version do I auto-build" problem. If everything on the platform is destroyed, the standard module logic would just have it try to rebuild whatever configuration it had.
Having the platforms be modular allows it to leverage the existing ship-builder interface
Having user settable defaults will allow for players who don't want straight up maxed economy on all of their harvesters.
Having multiple defaults allows for new platforms to take advantage of unlocked functionality without too much extra work
Having "platform loadouts" saved will allow for easy placements of harvesters in "dicey" places where more defense or offense is needed.
Gives an option for more durability or firepower for harvesters, but cleanly allows for the tradeoff of less economic gain from that particular platform.

Disadvantages/To be resolved questions:
More complex
Balance may be tricky
If a higher harvester mark or higher platform mark is unlocked, what to do with existing platforms?
Exisiting games. How do we handle existing harvesters and existing exo-shield from previous versions?
Will take quite some time to implement, so probably will have to wait for next expansion.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Criticisms?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 07:15:39 pm by techsy730 »

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: Modular Harvesters
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2012, 06:24:02 pm »
As an afterthought, the upgradeable platforms, single mark of harvester variant seems like it would make more sense, and be easier to balance and implement, so amend my suggestion above to have the upgradeable platforms be the primary variant.

How many slots for each mark is TBD, but Mk. I having 3 and Mk. III having 5 seems reasonable if a sensible amount of resources gained from each individual harvester module can be found.

Offline Ranakastrasz

  • Full Member Mark III
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: Modular Harvesters
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2012, 06:35:11 pm »
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=3477

"We've already talked about having a separate line of modular command stations, actually, it's planned for some point. Balance is a bit tricky, naturally. It can't ever be a case of "obviously go with the modular line, it's just better". Also, the normal lines can't be made modular since one of the basic design goals is that a player playing the normal game should never _have_ to interact with modular stuff, and having the normal command stations have module slots would basically do that due to negative consequences of ignoring them. "

This probably applies to harvesters as well, sadly.

On the other hand, Modular units, If we, 1, fix the modular rebuild system to avoid bugginess(and let modules be killed again) and two, make it a ship-type toggle, then modular command stations, harvesters, and possibly even normal starships as well might be reasonable.

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: Modular Harvesters
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2012, 06:47:08 pm »
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=3477

"Also, the normal lines can't be made modular since one of the basic design goals is that a player playing the normal game should never _have_ to interact with modular stuff

That's where the "default defaults" for auto harvester building come into play. If a player never even touches any of the module stuff involving harvesters, they will still get a sensible loadout. In this case, these load-outs would be ones that basically behave exactly like the existing harvesters (though possibly with a better economic output than the current stats for the harvesters)
If they never look at their harvesters after they take the planet, they probably wouldn't even notice

On the other hand, Modular units, If we, 1, fix the modular rebuild system to avoid bugginess(and let modules be killed again)

In the current version of my proposal, there is only one mount point type (or more weakly, no overlap between the mount points and what can be built on them). The bug is FAR less likely to trigger in this case, and in fact might not trigger at all.

make it a ship-type toggle

Beautiful! And that solves the "previous saves" problem elegantly.
Make it a new toggle for ship types, and have it off by default for games from previous versions (though it would be set to on by default if the "last game settings cache" does not give a state for it, so brand new games would get them, unless the last game generated explicitly turned them off)

EDIT: Everything else you said are good points about why this type of idea should be considered carefully

Offline Ranakastrasz

  • Full Member Mark III
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: Modular Harvesters
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2012, 07:04:19 pm »
That's where the "default defaults" for auto harvester building come into play. If a player never even touches any of the module stuff involving harvesters, they will still get a sensible loadout. In this case, these load-outs would be ones that basically behave exactly like the existing harvesters (though possibly with a better economic output than the current stats for the harvesters)
If they never look at their harvesters after they take the planet, they probably wouldn't even notice

Well, I am pretty sure I suggested that part, and apperently that isnt enough, any more than riot starship defaults are enough.
Quote

In the current version of my proposal, there is only one mount point type (or more weakly, no overlap between the mount points and what can be built on them). The bug is FAR less likely to trigger in this case, and in fact might not trigger at all.

True
Quote

Beautiful! And that solves the "previous saves" problem elegantly.
Make it a new toggle for ship types, and have it off by default for games from previous versions (though it would be set to on by default if the "last game settings cache" does not give a state for it, so brand new games would get them, unless the last game generated explicitly turned them off)

Yep, and it would also solve the *player playing the normal game * problem.
Quote

EDIT: Everything else you said are good points about why this type of idea should be considered carefully
Not exactly. Aside from fixing the multi-build bug, the enable-tab would make this totally viable, as it would for my command stations.

Offline Kittens

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Modular Harvesters
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2012, 05:10:55 am »
I don't really want to spend time dealing with harvesters... so as long as the modular nature has no impact on income, fine I guess. I don't see much of a point though, to me, harvesters are just things that 'happen'. Even if they get killed, they cost me some resources to rebuild but I don't have to do anything about them and I like it that way.

I especially like that I can upgrade all harvesters in one go through research.

Exoshields work fine as they are. They're absolutely terrible and need a serious buff, but the concept works fine.

Putting turrets on them may sound neat, but you can't control the location of the resource nodes anyway... so how useful will those turrets be? And if you want turrets there... why not just build turrets there?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 05:16:28 am by Kittens »

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: Modular Harvesters
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2012, 10:13:16 am »
I don't really want to spend time dealing with harvesters... so as long as the modular nature has no impact on income, fine I guess. I don't see much of a point though, to me, harvesters are just things that 'happen'. Even if they get killed, they cost me some resources to rebuild but I don't have to do anything about them and I like it that way.

Well, the default configuration would be nothing but harvester modules, which would basically mean that it would act just like a regular harvester. Only if you want to mess around with modules would you have to deal with tradeoffs.

Also, thanks to Ranakastrasz, there would be an option to turn this off and just stick with "classic" harvesters.

I especially like that I can upgrade all harvesters in one go through research.

That is a concern I have not quite figured out how to deal with yet. We want to upgrade harvester platforms, but not lose whatever configuration was there before. Not sure how to handle that yet.

Exoshields work fine as they are. They're absolutely terrible and need a serious buff, but the concept works fine.

I'm inclined to agree. The penalty to resource gathering is too high at the moment, but they can do their jobs just fine.

Putting turrets on them may sound neat, but you can't control the location of the resource nodes anyway... so how useful will those turrets be? And if you want turrets there... why not just build turrets there?

Rather frequently you may find resource nodes near wormholes. That is a time you may want some extra turrets there, especially on a chokepoint world.
Or possibly "offload" some of the defenses from you relatively limited cap of turrets to the platform.
Also, if you build your command station next to a harvester, you can get a similar boost in defenses.

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: Modular Harvesters
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2012, 10:14:32 am »
Yep, and it would also solve the *player playing the normal game * problem.

I see that you have caught on to my "abuses too frequently the 'quoted string of words to force it to act as an adjective or adverb phrase' construct of English" problem.

Offline Ranakastrasz

  • Full Member Mark III
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: Modular Harvesters
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2012, 04:06:23 pm »
Yep, and it would also solve the *player playing the normal game * problem.

I see that you have caught on to my "abuses too frequently the 'quoted string of words to force it to act as an adjective or adverb phrase' construct of English" problem.

Oh, sorry, I thought I made that up.

Trololol.

Offline CodeMichael

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: Modular Harvesters
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2012, 01:40:18 pm »
In general I like where you're at here, but let me give you my point of view a bit.

I think that the design should be a little more in-line with the existing harvesters and the modular aspects should be closer in design to existing modular units.  Some current givens on harvesters that I don't think will change:
 
* They auto build (and rebuild) 
* They don't cost energy (important) 
* They auto upgrade when you buy a new mark

I think that in a modular design you will have to maintain those rules for the modules in addition to the base harvester.  I don't know if the base invisible, untargetable, harvester is the right way to go, perhaps upgrading the base is the way to get access to more slots and different upgrade options (ala riots).  For the purposes of this exercise I'm going to assume that the current harvesters have the ideal income targets (they may not, that's a different discussion). 

* mkI metal harvester: as it is today, no changes necessary (there has been some econ discussion but that's not what I'm addressing here). n health. 
* mkI crystal harvester: as it is today, no changes necessary (there has been some econ discussion but that's not what I'm addressing here). n health. 
* mkII metal harvester: 3500K. n * 2 health.  3 modules slots: M1 (x2), and M2   
* mkII crystal harvester: 3500K.  n * 2 health. 3 modules slots: C1 (x2), and C2.
* mkIII metal harvester: 4500K. n * 3 health. radar dampening (small, say 500?). 6 module slots: M1 (x2), M2 (x2), and Z (x2). 
* mkIII crystal harvester: 4500K. n*3 health. radar dampening (small, say 500?). 6 module slots: C1 (x2), C2 (x2), and Z (x2).

Modules: 

* metal extractor: low build cost/time. 4 metal/s. low health. Available slots: M1, M2 
* crystal extractor: low build cost/time. 4 crystal/s. low health. Available slots: C1, C2 
* metal manufactory: low build cost/time. 3 metal/s. low health. Available slots: C1, C2
* crystal manufactory: low build cost/time. 3 crystal/s. low health. Available slots: M1, M2
* force field generator: high build cost/time. provides high health forcefield that protects the harvester and all modules (very small area). Available slots: M2, C2, Z 
* force field generator (hardened): high build cost/time. provides a low health forcefield with high armor that protects the harvester and all modules (very small area).  Available slots: M2, C2, Z 
* basic turret: moderate build cost/time. shell ammo. bonus hull types: (?). range: 600. low damage.  moderate health. Available slots: Z 
* missile turret: moderate build cost/time. missile ammo. bonus hull types: (?).  range: 600. low damage.  moderate health. Available slots: Z 
* laser turret: moderate build cost/time. laser ammo. bonus hull types: (?).  range: 600. low damage.  moderate health. Available slots: Z 
* static generator: moderate build cost/time. produces a small amount of energy (250?).  low health. Available slots: Z
 
The general guidelines for this set up would be that C and M modules default to extractor modules and Z modules default to static generators, unless you make changes (either galaxy wide or planet specific).  The total build time/cost for the all extractor build should not be significantly changed from what a mkII or mkIII currently takes.  For for the player who doesn't mess with the default build the game should play mostly unchanged.

If you upgrade the harvester, the base unit is upgraded the same way that happens today. 

If you upgrade the planet design, the existing harvester modules would be scrapped and the new modules initialized and needed to be fully built.  I think it would be desirable for individual harvesters to not be able to be micromanged, changes can only be made through the template, and a minimum of planet wide.

I've been sitting on this post for a few days, revising here and there, just putting it out there and people can point out all the terrible things I did.

Offline Martyn van Buren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
Re: Modular Harvesters
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2012, 05:57:03 pm »
I have to say I'm really against this idea; it adds a lot of complexity for what seems like a pretty small payoff and would interfere with a lot of the good design decisions the game has made so far.  I remember Chris writing a while ago about not wanting to have a "research new weapons, +10% to attack" system (that is a real adjective, if you're wondering) because it would make it hard to understand the relationship of your decisions to outcomes.  I think this threatens to do the same thing.  I also don't see any way the game can be balanced at the same time for players who are willing to micro optimally-placed resource-point turret balls while leaving the rest on optimal income and for players who are going to leave it on the default mix.

So I'm not sure if I understand the goal here correctly --- is it about having a strategic choice between resource gathering and defensive emplacements?  Would it accomplish the same thing if there was a line of super-turrets that you could only place on top of resource points, replacing harvesters?  That would create the same choice much more simply. 

That said, I think if you think about it that way I think most people are pretty much always going to want to go with harvesters --- there are a lot of ways to defend but really only two ways to increase income.