Author Topic: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.  (Read 12406 times)

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #60 on: March 20, 2013, 09:58:06 am »
Just to clarify, I'm acting so resistant to the thought of crystal because.it.is.so fundamental to the economy. Its not like minor factions in that you can disable them or modify them. With tjat in mind is why i pike keiths newest.idea. I dont mind temporary costs that can accelerate defeat if the ai.gets an advantage
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #61 on: March 20, 2013, 10:04:17 am »
I will also disclose making crystal  limittedwould hinder my zerg tactics. even if my units costed, sinceod one crystal i still lost one hundred thousand units on ultra low caps.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Diazo

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,717
  • I love/hate Diff 10
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #62 on: March 20, 2013, 10:13:18 am »
Okay.

Ignoring the reasons for doing this to change crystal and metal to something distinctive for a second. (There are good reasons in that as crystal and metal are essentially the same resource, especially with the new conversion method.)

This originally spawned out of trying to find a reason to force the player to poke his head out from behind his chokepoints. Now, forget about the resources thing for a second, what is going to be worth a player's while to usually break his chokepoint to take? A game changing structure of some sort.

Note I said game-changing, not game-winning, although we could certainly talk about alternate win conditions here, there is a lot of overlap.

But what about a "Leftover Black-Ops Project" from human military research before the AI rebelled? This could be a class of structures that when captured had unique effects that were not directly militarily applicable so the AI's left them alone.

Such as the 'Decoy Home Command Station' that when captured granted the Warp Jammer effect to all systems with a human home command station in them. That would make me sit up and take notice but it is not a structure required to win by any means. (I can also see it being irrelevant on maps with limited warp point connections.)

Or the 'Chaff Generator' that when captured fuzzes the AI's sensors. This would cause all waves to spawn at a warp gate as threat (in a random system?) instead of out of a worm hole. How desirable this is would be highly dependent on what ship types the AI has unlocked.

Or a "1 Hop Warp Jammer" that when captured gave the warp jammer effect to its system and all adjacent systems.

Really, this would be a class of capturables that change the game somehow without just reducing the number of ships the AI gets. They would also have to be powerful enough to make it worth the players while to come out from behind his chokepoint.

Which is why the distinction between game-changing and game-winning needs to be drawn. These structures have to be desirable without being required to win.

Well, not much to do with resources here. That is what I see the original intent of the non-rebuildable crystal mines though, I just ran a lot farther with it.

D.

Offline Hearteater

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,334
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #63 on: March 20, 2013, 10:17:51 am »
Maybe the AI shouldn't get the boost until the Human builds the crystal mine.  So just killing the AI CS doesn't start the problem, it is losing my CS there that leaves an occupied mine for the AI to plunder.  Hmm, a job for AI Engineers maybe?  Would be kind of cool to see them swarming around abandoned mines.  Maybe instead of "building" the crystal mine we are "opening it" which would imply something that can't be undone.

I'm okay with this solution.  Make sure that Force Fields cost a bunch of crystal, and for simplicity how about just having the AI mine +1 AIP/10 minutes from the crystal mine.


Offline Cyborg

  • Master Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,957
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #64 on: March 20, 2013, 10:25:01 am »
Maybe the AI shouldn't get the boost until the Human builds the crystal mine.  So just killing the AI CS doesn't start the problem, it is losing my CS there that leaves an occupied mine for the AI to plunder.  Hmm, a job for AI Engineers maybe?  Would be kind of cool to see them swarming around abandoned mines.  Maybe instead of "building" the crystal mine we are "opening it" which would imply something that can't be undone.

I'm okay with this solution.  Make sure that Force Fields cost a bunch of crystal, and for simplicity how about just having the AI mine +1 AIP/10 minutes from the crystal mine.

CS..you mean CSG? There is so much irony to adding the crystal mine idea to the CSG metagame.  ;D

Whatever solution should account for the folks who turn off forced planets.
Kahuna strategy guide:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,13369.0.html

Suggestions, bugs? Don't be lazy, give back:
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/

Planetcracker. Believe it.

The stigma of hunger. http://wayw.re/Vi12BK

Offline Hearteater

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,334
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #65 on: March 20, 2013, 10:49:17 am »
CS=Command Station.

Offline Cyborg

  • Master Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,957
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #66 on: March 20, 2013, 10:51:15 am »
Kahuna strategy guide:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,13369.0.html

Suggestions, bugs? Don't be lazy, give back:
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/

Planetcracker. Believe it.

The stigma of hunger. http://wayw.re/Vi12BK

Offline LordSloth

  • Sr. Member Mark III
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #67 on: March 20, 2013, 11:13:26 am »

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).

Considering this is a long-term plan, I think we're focusing for the moment a bit too much on the overlap with the chokepoint discussion. What does adding a new crystal bring to the table? Fact is, the human command station generates crystal under some of the proposed circumstances. Have too many things cost too much crystal is a recipe for boredom, as to the average player, one who doesn't hit the forum or wiki- it appears to have no cost but time, which is a boring tradeoff. The AIP floor of CPAs is an entirely hidden cost.

If the crystal cost is fairly trivial for fleet ships (keeping in mind the typical build time) than that is entirely fine. If Mk3 and Mk4 more or less keep up with natural income, than I have no complaints with that. Starships costing crystal is a bit more iffy, but all in all positive. Right now, starships are limited by having an extreme disparity of crystal and metal. Spending just metal would make them easier to afford with an entirely automated production queue. Replacing the awkwardness of the heavy bomber/plasma siege inverse m/c costs with a rarer crystal cost would serve a good purpose in my opinion: Making a few choice starships at the beginning of the game is viable without tanking your economy or just hovering at base AIP until you've built everything.

If the crystal cost brought many of the Zenith Trader toys into the realm of plausibility that would be fantastic. Bring down the metal to stress your regular economy but not break it, while using crystal as the reason limit. Your Zenith Trader superchokepoint would be more viable if you were willing to take the external sources long enough to support their creation, rather than having a co-op partner be bankrupt - or unable to repair things - for four out of twelve hours.

On the other hand, I can see leaving crystal entirely out of the spirecraft equation, excepting possibly repair costs. The asteroids themselves are a limiting enough resource.

Forgetting entirely about the mechanics of crystal generation, I've finally grown pretty enthusiastic about this proposal. I'm pretty sure this is worth discussing and coming to some sort of actual implementation.

EDIT: PS: Having crystal be spent on mk3/4 ships and starships both would be acceptable, in hindsight, at the right balance point. At least before the recent starship rebalance, there was a definite intended tradeoff between the starships and fleetships. I'm not sure or not if that's currently true, need to find the time to play a good few sessions.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 11:19:02 am by LordSloth »

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #68 on: March 20, 2013, 12:14:02 pm »
But what about a "Leftover Black-Ops Project" from human military research before the AI rebelled?
How about: take and hold this structure, and every 2 hours it generates an AIP-Free Nuclear Warhead ;)

I'm mostly kidding about that.  2 hours is a long wait, and the game doesn't need more waiting.  And giving them much earlier would be kinda OP.  Though perhaps AIP-Free lightning warheads every 10 minutes would be worthwhile, or something like that.  But someone would feel like it was pushing them to wait 10 hours to build them up or whatever.


Quote from: Cyborg
CS..you mean CSG? There is so much irony to adding the crystal mine idea to the CSG metagame.  ;D
Oh goodness no.  No relation whatsoever to the shield-generators-that-shall-not-be-named ;)

Actually I guess one amendment to the above is to have it generate CSG-busting (i.e. kills a CSG without taking the planet) warheads every X minutes if CSGs are on ;)  Though I'd want to pair it with the blood-in-the-water plot idea I mentioned earlier so it'd need to be optional.  And having an optional faction that only works if CSGs are on doesn't seem like a great idea.

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 TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #69 on: March 20, 2013, 12:20:40 pm »
I know a crystal "redesign" is long ways off, if ever, but I would to bring this up.

If when we get closer to making a decision and the change becomes more imminent, I would like to hear Chris' thoughts on the matter.
No disrespect to Keith, but this is so central to the economy, and thus the game, that it only seems fair that the original designer, still lead designer, and the guy who came up with the core goals of this game design, almost all of which still hold, would get a say in this.
This would be no small change, but a huge, complete game altering one due to how central the mechanic in question is. It seems like it should be treated as such.

(Also, I am not implying that Keith hasn't thought of this too)

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #70 on: March 20, 2013, 12:35:10 pm »
Honestly, changing m+c into a single resource would be substantially less of an impact than several other things I've done over the past year and a half ;)  Adding another crystal mechanic... hmm, I guess it could be up there, but I don't think it'd be the top.
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 Cyborg

  • Master Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,957
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #71 on: March 20, 2013, 01:58:40 pm »
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Quote from: Cyborg
CS..you mean CSG? There is so much irony to adding the crystal mine idea to the CSG metagame.  ;D
Oh goodness no.  No relation whatsoever to the shield-generators-that-shall-not-be-named ;)

Actually I guess one amendment to the above is to have it generate CSG-busting (i.e. kills a CSG without taking the planet) warheads every X minutes if CSGs are on ;)  Though I'd want to pair it with the blood-in-the-water plot idea I mentioned earlier so it'd need to be optional.  And having an optional faction that only works if CSGs are on doesn't seem like a great idea.

The blood in the water idea is pretty good. The only thing that could make it better is a taunt.
Kahuna strategy guide:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,13369.0.html

Suggestions, bugs? Don't be lazy, give back:
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/

Planetcracker. Believe it.

The stigma of hunger. http://wayw.re/Vi12BK

Offline Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,753
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #72 on: March 20, 2013, 02:36:32 pm »
Honestly, changing m+c into a single resource would be substantially less of an impact than several other things I've done over the past year and a half ;)  Adding another crystal mechanic... hmm, I guess it could be up there, but I don't think it'd be the top.
Yeah, sorry Techsy, but I think you missed the bus on that request. Keith has already made some huge changes that, from what I can tell, were not part of Chris' original design philosophy.

Besides, it's a beta update. Chris has to approve major official updates before they go live, so he'll have plenty of time to 86 anything that seems out of place; not that I've ever seen that happen.

In fact the most controversial change that ever happened was the addition of the CSGs, which caused a massive forum shi-storm and even caused some members to leave. Chris was here for that.

Hell I wish Chris would come back just as much as anybody. It's just not the same without him.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 02:51:02 pm by Wingflier »
"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline Hearteater

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,334
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #73 on: March 20, 2013, 02:41:31 pm »
Chris is diversifying Arcen's portfolio so they can continue AI Wars updates forever.  I'm okay with that, until the military asks to borrow the AI routines to command their drone fleets.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Poll follow-up: the future of manufactories. And M+C.
« Reply #74 on: March 20, 2013, 02:59:11 pm »
Quote
Chris was here for that.
Yes, he actually added the CSGs himself.  He ran it by me and I figured it sounded ok at the time, though I'd had some other stuff planned that I'd discussed in IRC where a few players and I were trying to figure out a good solution to "players are beating the game with super-low AIP before the AI ever really tries to kill them" and didn't realize there was going to be a conflict between the two.  In other words, the forecast was a high of 72 with significant chance of aerial manure ;)

Chris is still around, and still very fond of AIW, but he just doesn't have time to put significant attention in this direction.  He did that during Tidalis's development (while I was also doing a fair bit, in fact I was brought on board originally to do AIW updates while he focused on Tidalis) because he really liked working on AIW, but it actually ate significantly into the timeframe of that project.  Nowadays he's a lot busier than that ;)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!