Poll: Per-Planet Energy Reactor Efficiency, Yea or Nay?

[x4000]

I don't like the reactor per planet thingie.

Started a game, in the beginning it was slighty annoying, mid-game onwards it was meaningless. And I don't see the point of 'defending reactors'. I defend the wormholes && my command station, so my reactors are auto-defended.

For me it does nothing. It doesn't add interesting decisions cause the algorithm to select a planet for the next power plant isn't exactly quantum physics It's super simple. I guess even Sins AI could do it *grin*.

I don't get it but maybe that's just me. However by all means 40% efficiency loss is way to high. In the beginning (and it's only relevant in the beginning) it's not me who wants to turtle. It's the AI splattering the near vicinity with fortresses and Mk3 stuff. It might turn a difficult situation in a hopeless one.


my -.02 € cent...kind regards..Pia Kraft

Hi Pia, thanks for registering your thoughts with this.  There has been a lot of discussion about this, and this was what was decided on by a number of the players.  I'm definitely interested in hearing what everyone thinks now that they see it in practice.  If a lot of players hate it, then I'll change it.

Spreading your reactors across multiple planets is not meant to cause extra strategic decisions, but rather another defense point.  On the higher difficulties (or raider AI types), the AI is quite good at slipping wormhole defenses, and well-timed strikes against these energy reactors can bring down all your force fields, turrets, tractor beams, etc.

Basically, it was far too easy for the players to previously just build all of their reactors on one highly-defended planet before, which led to perfect protection unless the game was actively being lost.  This meant that the only way to really have the energy balance go negative was through the overuse of parasites or something similar.  This new method of handling it is not super different overall, I don't think, but it creates many more potential chinks in the players' armor, which can lead to some interesting gameplay situations.  That's the goal, anyway!

[Revenantus]

For me it does nothing. It doesn't add interesting decisions cause the algorithm to select a planet for the next power plant isn't exactly quantum physics It's super simple. I guess even Sins AI could do it *grin*.

The strategic decision that results is whether to spend more resources on developing dense, and hopefully easier to defend, but less efficient, generator farms, or whether to spread power production around the map for a better return on investment for the resources involved, but creating more issues with defense.

Previously, there was no decision to be made - the best choice was almost invariably to construct a single heavily defended generator farm. Obviously, Energy has by far the simplest resource model, but in my opinion the new system at least makes it slightly more interesting because there are now, even if they are only minor, choices to be made.

As you're probably aware we've been considering ways of tying the Energy resource model in with some sort of 'charge' system. So far we've had only limited success.

I don't get it but maybe that's just me. However by all means 40% efficiency loss is way to high. In the beginning (and it's only relevant in the beginning) it's not me who wants to turtle. It's the AI splattering the near vicinity with fortresses and Mk3 stuff. It might turn a difficult situation in a hopeless one.

The generator efficiency losses may need to be recalibrated - I'm not certain yet. I'm only halfway through my first game using the new system and thus far I wouldn't have said that the efficiency losses were too great.

[Admiral]

As with any multiple-choice poll, there are too few choices. I am on the "better than indifferent" but below the "categorically good" side of things.

[x4000]

As with any multiple-choice poll, there are too few choices. I am on the "better than indifferent" but below the "categorically good" side of things.

There you go.

EDIT:  As in, check the options again, if that wasn't clear before.

[x4000]

I don't get it but maybe that's just me. However by all means 40% efficiency loss is way to high. In the beginning (and it's only relevant in the beginning) it's not me who wants to turtle. It's the AI splattering the near vicinity with fortresses and Mk3 stuff. It might turn a difficult situation in a hopeless one.

The generator efficiency losses may need to be recalibrated - I'm not certain yet. I'm only halfway through my first game using the new system and thus far I wouldn't have said that the efficiency losses were too great.

I meant to respond to this aspect, but forgot.  With this sort of thing, the challenge is that the efficiency loss has to be great enough to actually warrant using multiple planets.  Previously, having just 7-8 Mark II energy reactors would generally completely handle my needs for 12-13 hours on an 80 planet map.  So with a smaller reduction in efficiency, you might only have reactors on a planet or two.  With the current, heavier, reduction, it encourages players to have reactors on maybe 5-6 planets overall (or, 7-8 if they want perfect efficiency).

I'm not certain that it is calibrated 100% correctly either, but I am wary of making it too much lower for fear of making it completely pointless.

[Revenantus]

As with any multiple-choice poll, there are too few choices. I am on the "better than indifferent" but below the "categorically good" side of things.

There you go.

We can request extra poll choices? In that case, I require, "It is the Divine's Will, Burn the Unbelievers!", to accurately reflect my bias in this situation.

[Revenantus]

I don't get it but maybe that's just me. However by all means 40% efficiency loss is way to high. In the beginning (and it's only relevant in the beginning) it's not me who wants to turtle. It's the AI splattering the near vicinity with fortresses and Mk3 stuff. It might turn a difficult situation in a hopeless one.

The generator efficiency losses may need to be recalibrated - I'm not certain yet. I'm only halfway through my first game using the new system and thus far I wouldn't have said that the efficiency losses were too great.

I meant to respond to this aspect, but forgot.  With this sort of thing, the challenge is that the efficiency loss has to be great enough to actually warrant using multiple planets.  Previously, having just 7-8 Mark II energy reactors would generally completely handle my needs for 12-13 hours on an 80 planet map.  So with a smaller reduction in efficiency, you might only have reactors on a planet or two.  With the current, heavier, reduction, it encourages players to have reactors on maybe 5-6 planets overall (or, 7-8 if they want perfect efficiency).

I'm not certain that it is calibrated 100% correctly either, but I am wary of making it too much lower for fear of making it completely pointless.

I actually think you may have gotten the efficiency reductions just about right - As you say it needs to be a serious penalty. I was just being cautious as I hadn't played for very long under the new system.

How high on the AI's priority list are Reactors? If they're relatively undefended they should probably be more appealing than Harvesters.

[x4000]

We can request extra poll choices? In that case, I require, "It is the Divine's Will, Burn the Unbelievers!", to accurately reflect my bias in this situation.

There's a limit to how many of these I can add (I think), but you've been so pivotal in this discussion I can't resist this one.

[x4000]

I actually think you may have gotten the efficiency reductions just about right - As you say it needs to be a serious penalty. I was just being cautious as I hadn't played for very long under the new system.

Good to know.  I, too, think it looks about right at this stage, but I'm also being cautious about that.  The last thing I need to do is enrage the general playerbase or something.  Usually my changes are about adding options, or making things easier, etc.  This one is about making things mildly harder, and people can get a bit testy about that (making the AI smarter they have no problem with, but that's a different sort of thing).

How high on the AI's priority list are Reactors? If they're relatively undefended they should probably be more appealing than Harvesters.

Good point.  Previously they were exactly the same on the priority levels, but now the Mark II reactors are ever so slightly higher in priority.

[PhilRoi]

yeah spreading the reactors isn't all bad.   Personally I think the total energy system overhaul/charge system sounds like something for an expansion pack.

[x4000]

Personally I think the total energy system overhaul/charge system sounds like something for an expansion pack.

Could be -- it is certainly game-changing.  At the rate we're going with the design, it's likely to take that long just to figure it out, anyway.

[Admiral]

There you go.

EDIT:  As in, check the options again, if that wasn't clear before.

You're insane!

[x4000]

 

[darke]

Didn't really notice any problems myself. The only times I got close to the limit of energy put out by one generator was on the home planet as I was trying to take out my first planet, and the limit of two generators (one on each planet) as I was in the middle of taking out the second.

Basicly I just include building a generator or two with my standard stock of things when I take over a planet (usually includes a couple of turrets to stop random stragglers from hitting my command center, random defense around important objects, and whatever static wormhole defense I toss up).

On the plus side it does give you a bit more reason to try and save the random small generators and stuff you see scattered around some of the worlds.

Also it appears that the Tech I and Tech II generators are counted seperately so one of each doesn't give a pentalty, but two of a Tech II does. (At work during lunch, so I can't check ). If this is the case then it gives a reason to actually use Tech I's, since I don't recall actually using them.

[x4000]

Didn't really notice any problems myself. The only times I got close to the limit of energy put out by one generator was on the home planet as I was trying to take out my first planet, and the limit of two generators (one on each planet) as I was in the middle of taking out the second.

Basicly I just include building a generator or two with my standard stock of things when I take over a planet (usually includes a couple of turrets to stop random stragglers from hitting my command center, random defense around important objects, and whatever static wormhole defense I toss up).

Awesome.

On the plus side it does give you a bit more reason to try and save the random small generators and stuff you see scattered around some of the worlds.

Yep.

Also it appears that the Tech I and Tech II generators are counted seperately so one of each doesn't give a pentalty, but two of a Tech II does. (At work during lunch, so I can't check ). If this is the case then it gives a reason to actually use Tech I's, since I don't recall actually using them.

Yep, they are indeed counted separately.  And the tech 1s only have a 20% penalty.  So if you are really cramped for space on a few planets, building a few of these might be able to let you eke out a little bit more energy from that one planet without going majorly into crystal debt.