Poll: Worst Unit Of The (time interval) Award (IV)

[TechSY730]

At the time of this post, the results are:
Tied for 1st with 16 votes: Harvester Exo-Shields and Metal/Crystal Harvesters
Tied for 2nd with 12 votes: Mobile Repair Stations and Warp Jammer Command Stations
Tied for 3rd with 9 votes: Metal/Crystal Manufactories (converters) and Neinzul Enclave Starships

These relative placements have remained the same for the last 24 hours. Is it time to call the results of this poll?

[CodeMichael]

Should harvester exo-shield benefits be tied into the mk II and mk III upgrades?  or lesser benefits?  right now the specific purchase almost never seems more beneficial than more FP or defense.

[chemical_art]

Should harvester exo-shield benefits be tied into the mk II and mk III upgrades?  or lesser benefits?  right now the specific purchase almost never seems more beneficial than more FP or defense.

That actually could be interesting. The higher mk harvesters get exo shields built in? Could compensate for their still lackluster resources without breaking late game resources

[TechSY730]

Should harvester exo-shield benefits be tied into the mk II and mk III upgrades?  or lesser benefits?  right now the specific purchase almost never seems more beneficial than more FP or defense.

That actually could be interesting. The higher mk harvesters get exo shields built in? Could compensate for their still lackluster resources without breaking late game resources

Having exo-sheilds built in would basically be equivalent to buffing their HP, and possibly a different sprite to reflect this.

[orzelek]

There is one thing that will always work for econ command stations: they are not random. You can choose where to build which one. Resources you may be lucky and get nice backwater planet with 4/4 or have a few 1/1 and then nice one just after that large intersection with whipping boy... guess which one happens more often

[chemical_art]

Should harvester exo-shield benefits be tied into the mk II and mk III upgrades?  or lesser benefits?  right now the specific purchase almost never seems more beneficial than more FP or defense.

That actually could be interesting. The higher mk harvesters get exo shields built in? Could compensate for their still lackluster resources without breaking late game resources

Having exo-sheilds built in would basically be equivalent to buffing their HP, and possibly a different sprite to reflect this.

It would, yes. But it would also move the K costs from two lackluster or worst upgrades and combine them so they make a more attractive package, in essence lowering the K costs to provide increased durability and resources.

[TechSY730]

Should harvester exo-shield benefits be tied into the mk II and mk III upgrades?  or lesser benefits?  right now the specific purchase almost never seems more beneficial than more FP or defense.

That actually could be interesting. The higher mk harvesters get exo shields built in? Could compensate for their still lackluster resources without breaking late game resources

Having exo-sheilds built in would basically be equivalent to buffing their HP, and possibly a different sprite to reflect this.

It would, yes. But it would also move the K costs from two lackluster or worst upgrades and combine them so they make a more attractive package, in essence lowering the K costs to provide increased durability and resources.

So basically eliminate the exo-harvester shield type all-together, and roll together that extra durability into the higher mark harvesters?

Interesting idea, but what about those poor suckers (like me) who unlocked harvester exo-shields in their game?

[chemical_art]

Should harvester exo-shield benefits be tied into the mk II and mk III upgrades?  or lesser benefits?  right now the specific purchase almost never seems more beneficial than more FP or defense.

That actually could be interesting. The higher mk harvesters get exo shields built in? Could compensate for their still lackluster resources without breaking late game resources

Having exo-sheilds built in would basically be equivalent to buffing their HP, and possibly a different sprite to reflect this.

It would, yes. But it would also move the K costs from two lackluster or worst upgrades and combine them so they make a more attractive package, in essence lowering the K costs to provide increased durability and resources.

So basically eliminate the exo-harvester shield type all-together, and roll together that extra durability into the higher mark harvesters?

Interesting idea, but what about those poor suckers (like me) who unlocked harvester exo-shields in their game?

I don't know.

All I can say that if that logic was used, then one could make the argument the ars hacking should be not be used, because of those who could not take advantage of it if was implemented at the end of their game. Or to those who unlocked cloaker starships before they were free. Or nenzul starships before they were free. Many other arguments could be made of "I like it, but what about my game..."

I'm not trying to overly being a jerk, I'm just saying that line of logic seems unfortunate but alone seems not a reason to prevent change.

[TechSY730]

(Quoteception omitted for sanity)

I don't know.

All I can say that if that logic was used, then one could make the argument the ars hacking should be not be used, because of those who could not take advantage of it if was implemented at the end of their game. Or to those who unlocked cloaker starships before they were free. Or nenzul starships before they were free. Many other arguments could be made of "I like it, but what about my game..."

I'm not trying to overly being a jerk, I'm just saying that line of logic seems unfortunate but alone seems not a reason to prevent change.

I'm not saying that the change shouldn't be done, just that there is an upgrade consideration. Maybe if you had unlocked it, all exo-harvester forcefields will be destroyed, but you get your 750 or whatever knowledge it costs refunded to you.

Though this brings me back to why I unlocked them in the first place, because I had a multiple of 250 but not 500 knowledge available, but no other multiple of 250 but not 500 unlockables left (aside from the harvesters, which I would unlock in pairs, thus negating the whole point of it)

[Hearteater]

I almost wish Harvester II and Harvester III were more special purpose so you'd actually keep build lower Marks just like with ships.  Something like:

Harvester I: 24 resources/sec, 2,000 resources, 40k health, 2:00 build
Harvester II: 24 resources/sec, 5,000 resources, 60k health, 4:00 build, Armor: 500, Radar Dampening 2000, Immunity: Sniper, Knowledge: 1,250 (each)
Harvester III: 48 resources/sec, 10,000 resources, 40k health, 8:00 build, Knowledge: 2,750 (each)

This would make Mark II's better for combat systems were their radar dampening/sniper immunity can keep them alive.  Mark I's would be slightly better for trash systems or places you expect even the Mark II's defenses won't keep them alive.  Basically any place you'll be rebuilding them a lot.  And Mark III's are great economically, but you don't want them dying so you'd save those for non-combat systems.  Ideally if we build specific Marks of Harvesters on each node in a system it would remember and rebuild them if they died.  So on a whipping boy I could build Mark II's mostly, but on that one node right next to the incoming wormhole I can just put a Mark I since I know I'm going to lose it every wave anyway.

[Nodor]

Should harvester exo-shield benefits be tied into the mk II and mk III upgrades?  or lesser benefits?  right now the specific purchase almost never seems more beneficial than more FP or defense.

That actually could be interesting. The higher mk harvesters get exo shields built in? Could compensate for their still lackluster resources without breaking late game resources

Having exo-sheilds built in would basically be equivalent to buffing their HP, and possibly a different sprite to reflect this.

It would, yes. But it would also move the K costs from two lackluster or worst upgrades and combine them so they make a more attractive package, in essence lowering the K costs to provide increased durability and resources.

So basically eliminate the exo-harvester shield type all-together, and roll together that extra durability into the higher mark harvesters?

Interesting idea, but what about those poor suckers (like me) who unlocked harvester exo-shields in their game?

You always have the option to not update to the latest Beta patch.  And believe me, that option gets a significant amount of use. 

[keith.lamothe]

I almost wish Harvester II and Harvester III were more special purpose so you'd actually keep build lower Marks just like with ships.

On the one hand, it would add decisions, on the other hand I remember what it was like in the between 1.0 and 2.0 days to have build harvesters manually (even via ctrl-click or whatever it was to build all metal or all crystal at once) and I think it would just slow things down to make it no longer "the game can take care of it for you because it's so simple" (bait set).

[Hearteater]

Very true, although additional complication would only be required if you actually bought the Harvesters so that limits the hassle to mid/late game mostly.  It also keeps it from messing with new players mostly.  Also, as long as the game remember which Mark you built on each node you'd only need to "manually" specify once per system.  The design of the Mark I is cheap enough that allowing that to auto-build by default would probably be ideal since most newly captured systems are too poorly defended to want to start building Mark II+.  A CTRLs option could set the galaxy-wide default for players who feel otherwise.  If Harvesters under construction could "upgrade" for free then default building Mark Is is perfect as I could just control-click Mark II or Mark III and have it switch to those with no resources or time lost (aka, "upgrading" them).  Once complete upgrading shouldn't be an possible.

So I think it would be doable with minimal hassle to the player while giving some interesting choices.  Probably not minimum hassle to you guys since I'm guessing remembering Harvester Marks on a per-node basis isn't part of the game at the moment, and neither is upgrading a structure in progress.  Anyways, just a thought.

[zoutzakje]

I voted for the harvester exo shield. Building them will actually cost me more resource income than if my harvesters get destroyed. I have used them once when I first started playing this game. Never again after that.

[CodeMichael]

Just throwing some crazy thoughts out there, how about modular harvesters (this game needs more modulare units)?  Instead of flat bonuses or penalties you could add refineries (more resources) or defenses.

Keep the base harvesters where they are.  MkII would have 2 modules, Mk II would have 4.  Max refinery modules would put resource extraction where it is for mkII and mkIII today.  A shield module would give the harvester a force field and radar dampening.  A cannon module would be able to attack with a range slightly greater than the radar dampening range (not very large to prevent them from becoming full turrets).  I would lock cannons to a max of 2 and effectively require radar dampening from shields to be useful.  The cannons really should only be powerful enough to take out a mkI or mkII ship before the health of the shield fails.  The nominal build would be 2 refineries, a shield and a cannon, but you could mix and match for greater or lesser effect.

The hard part would be wanting to micromanage that.  A galaxy default with a per-planet config could work, but I'm not sure the design is set up for that.