Economy Stations 3 vs Harvesters3 and singleplayer vs multiplayer.

[Irxallis]

Hello, long time no see, but I never "left" AI War. I just had a pause, then convinced some more people to play with me and, well, I play with them ;-).

This post is the offspring of "harvester and exoshield boosting discussion" in "Nominations for Worst Ship Ever (IV)".

ABSTRACT:

The efficiency of Harvesters and Economic Stations differ between Singleplayer and Multiplayer. In Singleplayer a single person holds 12-30 planets, in Multiplayer a single person holds between 4 and 8 planets.

The frontloaded Econ3 stations are the only sensible station unlock for multiplayer, as with the small number of planets Harvester-augmented economy cannot match the 6*Econ3 stations one could have. This makes Multiplayer games lose a lot of the possible varieties due to everybody needing to use Econ3 stations to keep afloat (for 3 players, we run out of Econ3 station caps after 21 planets: 6 planets and 1 homeworld).

This is why harvester balancing with econ stations is so difficult - buffing harvesters too much will make a runaway economy for 30-planet players and in the current shape harvesters are almost useless for less than 10 planets games. This is also why exoshields are never used - I don't care they destroyed that harvester of mine, I can't afford constant drain of resources anyway.

This post tries to analyse this problem and give a suggestion to at least partially solve it using Harvester caps and moving Harvester economy to late-game without greatly unbalancing AI War.


1) Unit Statistics: data on stations and harvesters
2) Global Statistics: data on caps and max / min potential.
3) Analysis: "and what the above means"
4) Singleplayer and Multiplayer: "and why does it differ so much in balancing economy"
5) Thesis: "why should Harvesters be boosted and why NOT by reducing knowledge cost"
6) Suggestion: "how would I balance it using Harv3 caps and increasing knowledge cost"


1) UNIT STATISTICS:

Econ1 = +32/32, +2k energy
Econ2 = +80/80, +4k energy, cost 4k knowledge, max cap 6
Econ3 = +160/+160, +6k energy, cost 5k knowledge, max cap 6

Econ3 - Econ1 = +128 (500% base efficiency), +4k energy, costs 9k knowledge

Harv1 = +20
Harv2 = +28, cost 3250(6500) knowledge (doubled to get up to par with econ stations), no cap
Harv3 = +36, cost 4000(8000) knowledge (doubled to get up to par with econ stations), no cap

Harv3 - Harv1 = +18 each (180% base efficiency), cost 14.5k knowledge

2) GLOBAL STATISTICS:

For 12 planets:

Unlocking Econ3 stations.

As station cap is 6, you have 6 Econ3 stations and 6 Econ2 stations (the full potential of the line due to caps, it won't ever get more):

12*Econ1 = +384/384, +24k energy for 0 knowledge
6*Econ3 + 6*Econ2 = +1440/+1440, +60k energy for 9k knowledge.

difference = 1056/1056, +36k energy for 9k knowledge.

Unlocking both harvesters 3.

Assuming an average planet is of 4/4 resources:

harv1: 12 * 20 * 4 = +960/960 for 0 knowledge
harv3: 12 * 36 * 4 = +1728/1728 for 14500 knowledge

difference = 768/768 for 14.5k knowledge.
.


For 30 planets:

Unlocking Econ3 stations and padding with Econ1 stations.

30 * Econ1 = +960/960, +60k energy
6*Econ3 + 6*Econ2 + 18*Econ1 = +2016/+2016, +96k energy for 9k knowledge.

difference = 1056/1056, +36k energy for 9k knowledge.

Unlocking both harvesters 3.

Assuming an average planet is of 4/4 resources:

harv1: 30 * 20 * 4 = +2400/2400 for 0 knowledge
harv3: 30 * 36 * 4 = +4320/4320 for 14500 knowledge

difference = 1920/1920 for 14.5k knowledge.
.


3) ANALYSIS:

Planet count:
- The less planets you have, the more efficient Econ3 unlock is.
- The less planets you have, the less efficient Harv3 unlock is.
- After you hold 13 planets you have fully used up Econ3 unlock potential.

Knowledge:
- Econ3 costs 9k knowledge
- Econ2 will be used after getting 7th planet
- Harv3 costs 14.5k knowledge
- Harv2 will never be used, as there are no caps for Harv3

Economy influence:
- Econ3 allows to create a strong, basic economy in the beginning
- Harv3 are useless in the beginnning
- Econ3 are very frontloaded - the first six planets you take are the best for your economy
- Harv3 are linear - every planet you get boosts you a bit

Strategy influence:
- Econ3 promote 'take the minimum planet count required and raid' strategy (no more than X planets)
- Harv3 promote 'seal off a part of the galaxy' strategy (no less than X planets)
- Harv3 do not have opportunity costs - you can unlock, say, Mil3 or Logistic3 stations where needed
- Econ3 are 'seed-independent'. Every planet in the galaxy gives you the same resource boost.
- Harv3 are 'seed-vulnerable'. The gain from a 1/1 planet will be miniscule.

4) SINGLEPLAYER AND MULTIPLAYER:

- In Singleplayer all the planets belong to one player
- In Multiplayer the players split the planets
- In Singleplayer one person holds between 12-30 planets
- In 3-way Multiplayer (what I do now) one person holds between 6-8 planets
- In Singleplayer the bottleneck is the knowledge and energy, not resources.
- In Multiplayer the bottleneck are the resources.

In Singleplayer, when ~20 planets are already taken, one is at the cap with Econ stations and probably unlocked the Logistics or Military ones. In Multiplayer, however, those 20 planets are ~6~8 planets per player - and if you did not unlock Econ3 stations your economy horribly lags behind. You will never be able to keep up using Harvesters.

In Singleplayer I was able to make a 'highway' using Logi3 stations, bottlenecks with Mil3 station and everything else was Econ2-3 stations. In Multiplayer I was assigned defensive duty and I unlocked Mil3 stations. Even with Harvesters3 I barely match other players' economy having simple Harvesters1.

5) THESIS:

Harvesters of higher marks need a definite boost - especially for multiplayer, unless the only station unlock ever to be used in 3 or 4 player games should be Economy station. Economy stations are very frontloaded - the first six planets you take are the best for your economy. Harvesters, on the other hand, have a linear boost and become powerful only after a lot of planets are taken.

I personally see Econ3 stations as the powerful beginning economy to be overtaken by harvester economy if necessary. That is why in my opinion a steep knowledge cost for harvesters is a good thing - you take Econ3 stations, forcing some of your planets not to gain from those 'other' nice bonuses, but afterwards you can get even stronger, harvester-based economy if you need it - for an enormous cost in knowledge (about Neinzul 4 Factory if I recall properly).

There is a problem with Harvester boost: there are no caps for Harvesters. Increasing them from 20/28/36 to, say, 20/40/60 might make player economy too strong, especially if a player takes a lot of planets.

Another issue - If you unlock Fighter T3, you still use Fighter T2. If you unlock Econ3, you still use Econ2. If you unlock Harv3, you never use Harv2. This knowledge has been 'lost', in contrary to AI War principles.


6) SUGGESTION:

Maybe something like this:

Harv1: 20 resource.
Harv2: 35 resource. Cost: 7k knowledge. Cap = none.
Harv3: 60 resource. Cost: 4k knowledge. Cap = 24.

In the scenario above:

- In singleplayer I will unlock Harvester2 if I need more resources and I have more than 15 planets. The knowledge cost is about current Harv2 + Harv3 and the efficiency is also about the same. This will not help the multiplayer at all.

- However, if we - as a team - have 24 planets and 4 players, each of us has about 6 planets. That way I can pay an enormous cost of 11*2 = 22k knowledge (7 planets' worth of knowledge) and unlock a boost:

Harv3: +1440/1440, 22k knowledge cost
difference: +960/960, 22k knowledge cost

This allows me to "play with more toys", as my game is again limited by knowledge and strategy and not by me having to rebuild all the turrets before next wave comes my way. Right now, if I decide to unlock Military3 station, I am doomed. I won't have enough of economy to actually do stuff. If I could somehow match their economy I could unlock something else than Econ3 station as the 'main' station - and having 6-8 planets means I probably won't unlock more than one station - ever.

Ah, and notice - such harvesters will really WANT exoshields. Losing one is a great resource cost. Yet another unlock to think about. One more decision to make.

The numbers above are of course subject to change. What I want to create is a framework for discussion, a 'high level suggestion' - I am far too inexperienced of a player to 'hit' the right mathematical values.

[Cyborg]

I already did this analysis some time back.

Economy efficiency report: harvesters vs. command stations
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,9692.0.html

It basically ended up being folks agreeing that it was a late game choice for economy if you go harvesters. Not that they don't need some adjustment, they do.

[Minotaar]

Actually, harvesters do not get worse in multiplayer. Everyone simply gifts all their harvesters to the player who unlocks them. This way they are even more effective than in SP because you tend to take more planets.
In a couple of 3-person games I was a part of we had a player go for Harv3 and take everyone's harvesters for himself, another player go for Econ3 and take all the planets for himself to use the caps ASAP, and the third would basically live on donations  And still the income from harvesters is hardly worth all that trouble.

[orzelek]

we may need to do additional analysis:

How viable is playing without econ stations?

Because currently playing without them seems non-viable. I was mostly playing without them at all and had quite often very long times to wait for resources. Last game I used Econ 2's and I had plenty of resources for most of the time.

In general if econ 2/3's are required to not get to bored waiting... something maybe wrong with economy.

And I never seen the use for higher level harvesters. Assuming that planet has average of 4/4 resources is kind of optimistic. Planets with that much resources are not so common - average would be around 2.5/2.5 (looking at my current game and counting H/W which is much better in terms of extractors).

[keith.lamothe]

Yes, the need for adjustment to harvester upgrades has been established in the past, the dev effort's just been elsewhere.

One note on the OP's proposal: a cap on the highest mark upgrade, while sensible, would not work with the current approach where all your harvesters automatically upgrade immediately, and all new harvester construction defaults to the highest available.  That's just a courtesy to the player, and one I don't want to take away.  If the harvester upgrades became something else entirely then maybe a cap would work, but I don't think that's necessary either (I think changing numbers on the existing stuff will suffice).

[PokerChen]

The knowledge balance hasn't changed in multiplayer has it? Each player can gather their own 3000 knowledge, so planets essentially yield 3K*num_players worth?
In any case, a simplistic rebalance is to have the harvester unlock apply across all players simultaneously (which significantly lowers the K-cost with increasing players). As only one person has to take a hit to knowledge cost per upgrade, the 4 players can contribute one unlock each. However, this doesn't fix the underlying balance between eco IIIs and har-IIIs.

In my last analysis I calculated the total outcome from harvestors rather than per-planet, with the breakeven point at about 70 rocks each of metals and crystals (1400, +1120 bonus from harvestor research). That equates to about 25 planets under the assumption that players will still avoid taking over planets with 0/0s and 0/1s, etc.

[TechSY730]

Nerfing econ stations (a little bit, to keep people from making death threats , and they could get a little buff elsewhere to compensate) and a buff to harvesters seems to be in order.

Also, I am a huge proponent of merging the two unlock lines. (Mk. II metal harvester and Mk. II crystal harvester get unlocked at the same time, effectively halving knowledge costs)

[Cyborg]

Nerfing econ stations (a little bit, to keep people from making death threats , and they could get a little buff elsewhere to compensate) and a buff to harvesters seems to be in order.

No. Absolutely not. I already play the game poor for most of it, don't need any help with that thanks. The game should not be slowed down.

Buffing harvesters, I'm all for that. There's so many things you can do; merge in the shields, raise the benefits, decrease the knowledge, anything… but let's not mess with the core fabric of the economy (economy command stations) lightly. I do not want to be watching Netflix waiting for my resources to build back up all the time.

[keith.lamothe]

Yea, if anything at all is clear in this, it's that m+c doesn't need to get any more scarce. 

[TechSY730]

Nerfing econ stations (a little bit, to keep people from making death threats , and they could get a little buff elsewhere to compensate) and a buff to harvesters seems to be in order.

No. Absolutely not. I already play the game poor for most of it, don't need any help with that thanks. The game should not be slowed down.

Buffing harvesters, I'm all for that. There's so many things you can do; merge in the shields, raise the benefits, decrease the knowledge, anything… but let's not mess with the core fabric of the economy (economy command stations) lightly. I do not want to be watching Netflix waiting for my resources to build back up all the time.

OK, the point is to make harvesters and econ stations similar in rewards for most of the game stages. I guess that can be accomplished by not touching econ stations and boosting harvesters that much more.