Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.

[keith.lamothe]

Ok, so "Manufactory (make conversion automatic)" just won the player-side nerf poll.  Clever, sneaking that in to a "nerf" poll   But it does seem to highlight a wide desire to do something different with these.  Specifically, to murder them and substitute automation.


The solution I think would be good for the short term, and the one that I think people were basically asking for, is:

1) Automate m<->c conversion. Specifically:
a) Remove all metal manufactories and crystal manufactories from the game (from the buy menu, from old saves, no longer generating them in new games, etc).
b) When you try to spend metal or crystal, and don't have enough, have instead deduct 1.5*(the amount you lack) from the other resource.  If there's not enough of that, it just stalls like it normally has in the past.
c) Add a galaxy-wide control toggle for "disable automatic resource conversion", defaulting to off, which if on suppresses rule b)

Note: the current manufactory "multiplier" is 200/140 or about 1.43.  I could have the conversion above be 1.4x instead of 1.5x, but I figured that the _slight_ nerf would be compensated by not having to bother about building or operating or whatever the actual physical devices, and 1.5 is just a simpler number to understand.


But I don't think this is going to be a stable solution in the long run because it just emphasizes something KDR_11k (and possibly others) brought up a while ago: metal and crystal are very close to conceptually interchangeable.  To the point that I consider them the same thing when balancing (except when I'm making sure there aren't too many units that require way more m than c or vice versa).

Basically, why still have them as separate resources?  The main reason for me right now is historical: that's the way it's been, and it'd be a pain to change.  And that's true and valid: I simply don't have time to make all the changes that make sense, and I have to prioritize.  But that's not a long-term-stable reason.

Simply combining them and calling it a day wouldn't be good, though, because that path of just removing/condensing everything in the game that is conceptually similar to something else would ultimately diminish the game into something a lot less complex and more abstract.  So I try to avoid "condensation" like that unless the current state is being an active major annoyance or whatever.  M+C doesn't really bother people, so it has stayed.

But I think we can do better.

Here's what I'm thinking would be the better long-term solution:

2) Combine metal and crystal into just metal, and reinvent crystal as something more distinct. Specifically:
a) For _anything_ that costs or produces metal or crystal, set the metal cost/production to (metal+crystal)/2 and then set the crystal cost/production to zero.
b) In old saves, convert all crystal spots and crystal harvesters to metal spots and metal harvesters.  Also set stored-metal to (metal+crystal)/2.
c) In mapgen, seed metal spots wherever it would previously have seeded crystal spots.
d) Remove crystal harvesters from the build and tech menus.
e) Remove metal and crystal manufactories from the game
f) Now, to begin the reinvention of crystal: add a small amount of crystal production to the human home command station
g) Add capturable "crystal mines" (or whatever to call them) to maybe 1 out of 4 planets.  These produce crystal over time once captured but can be destroyed and cannot be rebuilt.
h) Add "crystal caches", to maybe 1 out of 3 planets.  These are basically distribution nodes that give only crystal (the normal distribution nodes would only give metal at this point).
i) Add crystal costs to units in accordance with their individual-unit strength.  So mkI fighters and other mkI 196-cap stuff could cost 0 crystal, but starships could cost a chunk and even triangle ships could start costing a small amount of crystal at mkIII+ or something like that.  The costs would be on a much lower scale than currently, say 1/100th or 1/1000th the normal scale.  Production amounts on the home station, mines, and caches would be on this same scale.
j) Add a small ongoing crystal cost to matter converters (the pay-for-more-energy unit; collectors would still have no ongoing cost).

Note: the divide-by-2 part of (m+c)/2 is so the 999,999 storage cap can stay without affecting balance.  I'd probably keep that storage cap the same for crystal though it may need to be reduced to the same 1/100th or 1/1000th scale as the costs... I think keeping the storage high is appropriate given that it's possible you could find yourself permanently low on crystal production (down to just the home station rate) if you pop all reachable caches and the AI destroys all the mines you were able to capture.

Anyway, this would change crystal from "like metal, but a different color" to a longer-term-planning resource that also serves as an extra way we can balance individually-more-powerful units (due to Lancaster's laws, etc).


Thoughts?


FWIW, I think I'll just stick with solution 1 for this next release (which I'd like to get out tomorrow if possible, we'll see) but solution 2 is something I'd like to pursue sooner rather than later unless it just totally goes over like a ton of bricks with y'all.  Chronologically and in terms of "how off the current mechanic feels" the armor-rework takes precedence over this, but this solution would be a lot simpler than any of the workable armor-rework plans I've come up with

[Hearteater]

I like this.  How are you handling tech costs for improved Harvesters when Crystal Becomes metal?  Will they work on the Crystal Mines we capture instead?  That would be interesting.  Note that my Raid SS game I've only unlocked Crystal Harvesters.

One comment on crystal costs for units, I'm torn on whether it should appear on higher mark units when it doesn't on lower mark.  I'm thinking if Mark I doesn't cost crystal, Mark V shouldn't.

This change could also help some of the swarmer-type bonus ships if they cost vastly less, or no, crystal.

[keith.lamothe]

I like this.  How are you handling tech costs for improved Harvesters when Crystal Becomes metal?  Will they work on the Crystal Mines we capture instead?

I'm not thinking it would be good to offer a pay-K-for-better-crystal-income option, though maybe I'm wrong about that.

More generally, harvester upgrades are kind of hovering on the edge of oblivion right now, from what I can tell from player opinion.  I'm thinking they're better relegated to a lower-K-cost, proportionately-lower-benefit position, with a small buff to mkI harvesters.  Then add the "super harvesters" I mentioned during the poll that seemed well received.

But harvester upgrades didn't beat "none of the above" in the poll so I didn't want to act too quickly on that.

Note that my Raid SS game I've only unlocked Crystal Harvesters.

Yes, I did notice that.  It's not that "metal is different than crystal" is an irrelevant mechanic, it sometimes is actually quite relevant.  But those relatively-few and/or relatively-minor cases add up to "metal is different than crystal" being a weak mechanic.  One I think we can replace with something stronger.

One comment on crystal costs for units, I'm torn on whether it should appear on higher mark units when it doesn't on lower mark.  I'm thinking if Mark I doesn't cost crystal, Mark V shouldn't.

I'm a bit torn on that too, the main motive for me is making sure you don't have a situation where none of the stuff you actually use costs crystal.  I can see a game where you don't use (or at least don't have to commonly rebuild) starships, and I can see a game where you don't use mkIII+ fleet ships, but I don't see it likely that you'd don't use either of those (except for FS games, where those units would have their own crystal costs).

The thematic idea being that "your advanced stuff costs crystal".  Your mkIII stuff is advanced, compared to your base stuff.  Your mkI starships are advanced, individually (following the square-cube-law idea), compared to your base fleet ships.

This change could also help some of the swarmer-type bonus ships if they cost vastly less, or no, crystal.

Right, stuff like laser gatlings and younglings and such would be crystal-free.

[Hearteater]

For units that don't cost Crystal at Mark I, I could see only Mark V stuff costing crystal.  You can win most games without Mark V stuff.  Heck, without Mark IV stuff.  But since Mark IV requires an Advanced Factory already, I think it would be best if they didn't add a crystal cost.  That way Mark IV adds a factory you need to capture to produce, and Mark V requires both a Fab and Crystal.

[Diazo]

I like the idea of the Crystal/Metal overhaul in the long term sense.

I have some concerns about balancing the non-rebuildable crystal harvesters, mostly from the fact that I play lattice maps and that often means defense in depth so I think I lose systems a lot more often then other people do. That's balancing though, I do like the concept.


However, in a more short-term sense, I'd like to see some sort of normalization of harvesters. A Mk I harvester produces 20 of either crystal or metal per second. A Mk III produces 55 of either resource.

After allowing for the command station production, that still roughly doubles the amount of resources you generate over the course of the game and that basically translates into doubling  the ships in player hands, spaced out over the course of the game.

It does cost 9K knowledge to unlock them, but that is only 3 planets worth of knowledge. In anything except a low-AIP game, 3 planets is not a big deal. A chunk of knowledge but not a big chunk of knowledge.

Having said that, I'm not sure what would work here. Reducing the Mk III harvester production? Increasing Mk III knowledge costs?

Regardless, the amount of ships you go through in a game make Mk III harvesters a very important unlock.

D.

[TechSY730]

If you do make it automated, it would be nice to have some sort of optional cap on conversion rate. Right now, this is expressed by how many manufactories I want.

Some people may not want 20,000 /s taken from one resource, and then only getting ~13333.33 /s to another resource, thus losing ~6666.67 /s. Maybe they are only comfortable with losing up to 3000 /s, and are willing to eat some building stall to assure that.
(Though an exception should be made for conversion due to one resource being maxxed out, as you would lose anything put into the maxed out resource anyways, unless you are on co-op)


For the M and C split, eh, I don't see a problem with it. Take Starcraft II for example, with the crystal and gas. Sure, how you harvest them is somewhat different, but one you got them, they act more or less the same, not just in how they are used, but relative scale. It's just that the average unit costs compared to average collection costs is not only closer to 1:1, but is also far more consistent to the average. Compare that to the "I hit cap all the time, but when I do spend, I get down to 0 quickly) that many, many mid to late games suffer from. In AI War, not only doesn't have an average spending rate to average collection rate close to 1:1, but the consistency of the ratio is extremely low.

So, this means that
a) We can acknowledge that the relative spending and collection rate dynamics are vastly different than most games with "two resources, once collected, act pretty much the same" and thus that system doesn't seem natural here, thus we should change the economic system
b) Adjust unit costs such that average expenditure is much closer to average income AND it is far more consistent/smooth. (This would drastically alter the pacing of the game BTW)
c) Just accept that there will be quirks of the current economic system when used with the current cost and collection rate structures, and just tweak values a bit to make the "worst" cases more rare.

TBH, I'm not sure which one I like. C certainly would be the easiest (and seems to be the short term goal), but I'm not sure about the long term.

[Toranth]

1) Automate m<->c conversion. Specifically:
a) Remove all metal manufactories and crystal manufactories from the game (from the buy menu, from old saves, no longer generating them in new games, etc).
b) When you try to spend metal or crystal, and don't have enough, have instead deduct 1.5*(the amount you lack) from the other resource.  If there's not enough of that, it just stalls like it normally has in the past.
c) Add a galaxy-wide control toggle for "disable automatic resource conversion", defaulting to off, which if on suppresses rule b)

Please add a
"b) Part 2 - When one resource is full and has a positive flow, then convert to the other resource at the (2/3) rate."
as well, for those really unbalanced games (2 HWs, each 8/4).

In addition, if you could put some visual indicator in the bar at the top indicating that the conversion is going on and which direction it is going.  A little flashing red arrow between the two resource totals, for example.

[keith.lamothe]

Please add a
"b) Part 2 - When one resource is full and has a positive flow, then convert to the other resource at the (2/3) rate."
as well, for those really unbalanced games (2 HWs, each 8/4).

Oh, right.  In my case I'd put it as "When something tries to add to metal or crystal, and there's not enough room under the cap, instead add 0.66*(the amount that wouldn't fit) to the other resource.  If that wouldn't fit either, just leave them both capped out".

[Wingflier]

I like the second option a lot.

Then again, I'm always open to change and radical new ideas so, bring it on!

[Aeson]

I'm opposed to capturable crystal mines which once destroyed are lost forever, because in any game with an exo-wave source active you can almost guarantee that any given world will be (nearly) overrun at least once in each game, whether through bad timing when relocating defenses or simply by being overwhelmed, unless that world happens to be behind a major fortress world that you aren't going to move, or only move when another major fortress goes up between the AI and that world. Exo-waves already kill the use of fabricators and advanced factories; let's please not have them also kill the usage of anything that costs anything remotely resembling a significant amount of crystal.

I'm not opposed to having crystal become a more rare resource used only on high-end units, but I am opposed to making it so that if you have an exo-wave source you tend to lose access to units that require crystal just because you can't defend everything. This would also significantly boost the value of having only one world which has access to AI space (or at least which is exposed to regular waves) regardless of the presence of exo-waves, and the relative strength of that strategy has been a complaint in the past.

Also, how would this affect Fallen Spire, Golems, and Spirecraft? FS capital ships, Golems, and Spirecraft seem like advanced units to me, so I'd expect them to cost crystal (probably a lot of crystal), but all of them can also expose the player to significant exo-wave attacks, which are likely to wipe out your primary crystal supply. Fallen Spire provides enough of a benefit that I could justify losing my normal advanced units for it (unless cities don't provide enough crystal to make the construction of a Spire fleet anything other than a slog), but if I can only really afford to reactivate a couple golems before losing my crystal supply, or build a handful of Spirecraft? Even a couple of golems are no replacement for the high-end fleet units (well, they might be, but they aren't remotely as expendable), and losing the main crystal supply would also make it that much harder to keep these things running.


I also don't really understand what the problem with the current manufactories is. As far as I can see, they already perform the automated conversion you propose, but in a manner which the player can limit based on how many are built, and additionally provide some small distraction in case a large AI force manages to get onto the homeworld. Could someone explain what the problem with these is?

[Wingflier]

I'm opposed to capturable crystal mines which once destroyed are lost forever, because in any game with an exo-wave source active you can almost guarantee that any given world will be (nearly) overrun at least once in each game, whether through bad timing when relocating defenses or simply by being overwhelmed, unless that world happens to be behind a major fortress world that you aren't going to move, or only move when another major fortress goes up between the AI and that world. Exo-waves already kill the use of fabricators and advanced factories; let's please not have them also kill the usage of anything that costs anything remotely resembling a significant amount of crystal.

I'm not opposed to having crystal become a more rare resource used only on high-end units, but I am opposed to making it so that if you have an exo-wave source you tend to lose access to units that require crystal just because you can't defend everything. This would also significantly boost the value of having only one world which has access to AI space (or at least which is exposed to regular waves) regardless of the presence of exo-waves, and the relative strength of that strategy has been a complaint in the past.

Also, how would this affect Fallen Spire, Golems, and Spirecraft? FS capital ships, Golems, and Spirecraft seem like advanced units to me, so I'd expect them to cost crystal (probably a lot of crystal), but all of them can also expose the player to significant exo-wave attacks, which are likely to wipe out your primary crystal supply.


I also don't really understand what the problem with the current manufactories is. As far as I can see, they already perform the automated conversion you propose, but in a manner which the player can limit based on how many are built, and additionally provide some small distraction in case a large AI force manages to get onto the homeworld. Could someone explain what the problem with these is?

You could just make it to where the new Crystal Extractors aren't primary targets of Exo-Waves, so they won't go out of the way to kill them like Fabs, Command Stations, Golems, etc.

Problem solved.

Btw, I also play Gridlock Maps on high difficulties with Champions and Advanced Hybrids and Raider AI Types, and I still want to see something like this.

edit:  What if instead of the new resource being some kind of stationary metal, we made the new resource some kind of capturable AI technology?  That way we could make them movable (kind of like ARS Ships), so you could put them all under a shield.  They still serve the same purpose, but it's cooler; and they're easier to defend so it makes more sense.  The only caveat is that they can't travel through wormholes.  That way, even on Gridlock maps they're realistically defendable.

[keith.lamothe]

I'm opposed to capturable crystal mines which once destroyed are lost forever, because in any game with an exo-wave source active you can almost guarantee that any given world will be (nearly) overrun at least once in each game

I agree that adding something crucial that's take-and-hold would not work with the way defenses currently work in any scenario with exo or exo-like mechanics.  At least on anything like high difficulty.

But I don't think following a "don't add any more important take-and-hold stuff" rule forever would really be good for the game.  That's really cutting off an important part of the design space: giving the player a reason to defend more than just their vital core (generally a HW behind 1 or 2 chokepoint worlds).

So I think it's important we find some balance where the player's ability to defend those kinds of capturables is appropriate to the player's need to do so.  That doesn't mean you won't be in more danger of losing a high-difficulty game because you lost some critical capturable: I think that losing too many really important capturables should put you in a position of needing to secure others, or if you cannot do that due to strategic positioning or because you've been through so many cycles of this that the galaxy is totally devoid of said capturables... well, then I think that's a valid win condition for the AI, if you aren't able to survive and kill it via other means.


That said, the Crystal Mines don't have to be a totally do-or-die thing, we could have a mechanism where you could spend K to get more crystal income up to a point, and that's presenting you with a tradeoff of either holding X planets with mines or spending Y planets' worth of K to compensate for failing to do so.  With Y being substantially higher than X.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Throwing my name into the 'support' hat. I actually have been likening this to Vespene Gas in my head. I tried to think of the current M/C as Minerals/Gas or Gold/Wood in Starcraft or Warcraft and it just doesn't really work. They're both easy to get and essentially unlimited, like minerals and wood. The big deal about resources in Starcraft and Warcraft is the fact that they are what really push you to expand. You'll never be short on trees, but once a geyser or gold mine are depleted, you're finished*. You get no more gold or gas until you expand. Obviously, concessions have to be made in a game like this which isn't PvP in any respect... but crystal being rare, more limited, seems like something more to really go for.

I imagine this has already been addressed, but one of the common things I've seen in games by you guys is that there's never only one way to get a resource you need. Valley has the shards for items you can't farm, in AI War enclaves can replace Fact IVs, and so on. So, I do support more options than just the one-shot crystal mines and nodes. Spend lots of K for more crystals could be good. Maybe you can steal some from the AI, somehow, to offer a bit of support to those who go for very few planets.

*I know that in Starcraft 1, a geyser being depleted doesn't mean that you get no gas, but you still get 1 each time you return instead of like 8... so it may as well mean you get no gas.

[chemical_art]

Not a fan. I don't want yet another reason to make the almighty single chokepoint more necessary in high difficulty games. Whether desired or not, adding a critical structure reinforces this, period. 

[LaughingThesaurus]

But if there is an alternative way to secure more crystal income that traded off something else that you have (energy? knowledge?) would it be okay?