Prerelease 1.010B (More Minor UI Tweaks)

[Admiral]

If you wanted to make this really insidious on the power management front...

Have the ship's power requirements be variable. If they're in a system with a generator (or within N hops of a system with a generator, if you want to be lenient), they're using their declared power.

However, as they get farther from a generator (measured in wormhole hops), each ship's power draw increases by some factor. You could make this arithmetic (e.g., 10% more per hop) or geometric (e.g., (1.1 ^ hops) x base), or whatever X's heart desires.

This way you get the best of both worlds: An incentive to put power generators closer to the front, but also create the need to create more as your fleet wanders farther away, without overly penalizing someone falling back.

Cheers!

[x4000]

Moving away from the situation where we attempt to rationalize every gameplay mechanic for a moment;

Do you think that the ongoing cost of forcefields creates more or less interesting situations in gameplay terms?

This is also my primary critera for a feature like this.  That, and simplicity/understandability except where more complexity is needed.  I feel like the complexity this adds will lead to more micromanagement, which I'm not overly fond of.  I also think it will lead to some "advanced" techniques via that micromanagement, which will either give certain players a way to game the system to a degree (exploits like the space snake), or it will just cause a penalty for newer players.

Now, the part that I specifically object to is the enabling/disabling logic.  I think it's too complex and might lead to those exploits and will certainly lead to micromanagement hassles.  The ongoing cost in exchange for lower up-front cost actually doesn't bug me.

[x4000]

If you wanted to make this really insidious on the power management front...

Have the ship's power requirements be variable. If they're in a system with a generator (or within N hops of a system with a generator, if you want to be lenient), they're using their declared power.

However, as they get farther from a generator (measured in wormhole hops), each ship's power draw increases by some factor. You could make this arithmetic (e.g., 10% more per hop) or geometric (e.g., (1.1 ^ hops) x base), or whatever X's heart desires.

This way you get the best of both worlds: An incentive to put power generators closer to the front, but also create the need to create more as your fleet wanders farther away, without overly penalizing someone falling back.

Cheers!

Ooh.  This is pretty darn interesting.  Revenantus, what do you think?  I've already implemented the other logic, but I think I like this even better.  This is basically a "fuel" system that is really elegant and highly playable, I think.  This could be really, really, cool.

[Admiral]

Do you think that the ongoing cost of forcefields creates more or less interesting situations in gameplay terms?

I don't think so, no. The number of force fields you can have is so limited now that I have never once researched them (in about three games, mind you). I have never found them to be interesting to research; I prefer a more active defense and a better use of my knowledge. I put one or two (Mark I) on each Advanced Factory and maybe one on my home base, but aside from that, I don't waste my research (and consequent building resources) on them.

There is nothing so valuable as to permanently hamper my resources except those two things, and even the Advanced Factory is replaceable - within limits.

Cheers!

[Revenantus]

Well, I may be beaten with regards to forcefields, but I'll make my final argument;

If the forcefield has a single, high cost, then there is no incentive to consider it's operation once the system in question is no longer under threat. A forcefield could sit there quite happily for an entire game, being utterly redundant if the system is never attacked again. It could also potentially become useful should the system again come under threat.

My issue is that there is no decision to be made by the player. Regardless of what happens the best decision is always to leave the forcefield up.

The ongoing costs create a situation where the player has to seriously consider whether that forcefield is going to be useful at a later date, or whether scrapping it is the best decision - simply, it's just more interesting.

Now, I promise to never mention this again.

With regards to the power management system;

This sounds extremely interesting - it creates all the right strategic decisions, but is rather complex. The first issue that springs to mind is systems going offline should the player run out of power - there needs to be some method of knowing whether a jump will result in an energy crisis. I'll certainly be thinking about this...

[Admiral]

Ooh.  This is pretty darn interesting.  Revenantus, what do you think?  I've already implemented the other logic, but I think I like this even better.  This is basically a "fuel" system that is really elegant and highly playable, I think.  This could be really, really, cool.

Implementation caveat: You will probably need to address the issue of a ship's jumping causing your net energy to go negative. Either prevent the ship from jumping, or give a warning (if the ship is scheduled to jump somewhere that would make the net go negative), and figure out a clever way to handle negative net energies (which can happen now but are very rare). Maybe something like the farthest ships' energy requirements can be reduced up to 40% (in 10% increments) to bring the net energy positive again, at up to a 80% reduction in movement speed, attack damage, or whatever.

Given that energy requirements will be much more variable, I would also suggest allowing energy storage (e.g., by allotting a certain amount per energy reactor, or having a new energy storage device) which will allow your energy to go net negative for a limited amount of time before bad effects happen. Modern examples: superconducting rings, flywheels, and potential storage in the form of pumping water uphill.

Cheers!

[Admiral]

The first issue that springs to mind is systems going offline should the player run out of power - there needs to be some method of knowing whether a jump will result in an energy crisis. I'll certainly be thinking about this...

LOL. I am beginning to think Rev is my long lost twin brother.

[x4000]

With regard to the force fields -- last argument from my side, too -- I would argue that the extremely low ship cap for force fields will basically ensure that in large games force fields don't just get left in nonideal locations.  That's really the point of the super-low cap.  It just carries a more severe "change your mind" cost than in your scenario.  Okay, that is all.

For the power management system, I agree that this could be overly complex if not managed carefully.  I think that, rather than having this affect the overall global economy, this should instead start affecting ship operations.  So, in other words, maybe this would work better if ships had some sort of "charge level" that stays high when power systems are near, and which goes lower when they are not.  That might create the same sort of strategic options, without the risk of accidentally tanking your whole economy -- it keeps the effects more localized, and thus easier to understand.

I've already implemented the reduction-per-planet, which tentatively I really like.  I think that these two things could actually work really well together in concert.  Right now I feel like Energy is a bit useless overall, it is the simplest resource here by far, and just doesn't have the depth of the others.  So I think that both of these things could actually bring some needed decision points / strategic relevance to this resource.

[Revenantus]

The first issue that springs to mind is systems going offline should the player run out of power - there needs to be some method of knowing whether a jump will result in an energy crisis. I'll certainly be thinking about this...

LOL. I am beginning to think Rev is my long lost twin brother.

Indeed, that was a bit scary .

This may well call for an overhaul of the energy system as it stands. Making the energy system function more like Metal and Crystal could make sense.

As Admiral says, this allows for energy to be stored, so ships can operate outside of a sustainable area for a brief amount of time - this is interesting in terms of deep raiding.

If sufficient energy is unavailable, the ships furthest from supplies of power could operate in a reduced strength mode, in which they move at half speed and take twice as long to reload.

EDIT: This is all in tandem with the fact that energy requirements scale with distance from power sources.

[x4000]

I'm not super keen on making energy stored like metal or crystal are -- that's very much like SupCom, but I'm just not interested in duplicating their model for this.  I think it's interesting if we basically keep the overall energy system fairly consistent, but have the useful "charge" on indivdual ships start reducing the further away from friendly energy sources they are (and they longer away they are).  This is more similar to a fuel metaphor, but it doesn't have nearly the same complex connotations of refueling that many other games have.

Basically, I think I'm more looking to add a system within the existing system, rather than swapping out the existing system wholesale.

[Admiral]

How would you make the ship charge system work?

Clearly, this would be a property (or set of properties) on each ship. Let's say the property is "Charge" and there's only one for now.

1) It's born with a maximum charge level and a certain amount.

2) Every "tick" the amount goes up by a certain amount (maybe another per-ship-fixed property?), dependent on the number and proximity of energy stations.

3) Any time the ship does something (shoots? moves? repairs? etc.), charge is reduced. This needs to be balanced against how often it does that so each ship will have a "practical unlimited range" - an area where if there is an energy source within N hops, it is basically operating at peak performance and will never run out of "charge."

Now it gets interesting:

4A) If the charge runs out, the ship can't do things, or does them at a reduced efficiency.

4B) At various charge levels, ship efficiency is reduced. Slower movement, faster reload, slower repair, whatever.

Possibilities:

5) Allow overcharge. Ships in a system with an energy reactor (and maybe close to it) can go above the max, but any time a tick occurs above max outside this area, it will be reduced. This means you could bring a fleet to an energy station for a temporary efficiency boost. When charge is above max, the ship could move faster, reload more quickly, or whatever.

6) Charge draining offensive ships.

7) Charge transfer ships - or charge focusing ships. Like cloaking boosters but when within range, ships get X% boost to their recharge.

Cheers!

[Revenantus]

I'm not super keen on making energy stored like metal or crystal are -- that's very much like SupCom, but I'm just not interested in duplicating their model for this.  I think it's interesting if we basically keep the overall energy system fairly consistent, but have the useful "charge" on indivdual ships start reducing the further away from friendly energy sources they are (and they longer away they are).  This is more similar to a fuel metaphor, but it doesn't have nearly the same complex connotations of refueling that many other games have.

Basically, I think I'm more looking to add a system within the existing system, rather than swapping out the existing system wholesale.

Okay;

1. We have reduced generator efficiency if multiple reactors are constructed in the same system. This encourages decentralized power production.

2. Each ship has a 'Charge Level'. Upon reaching 0 charge a ship operates in a reduced strength mode. Charge is restored by proximity to energy sources, and is reduced if a ship is outside of/too far away from a system with a friendly generator. This also encourages decentralized power production so 1 and 2 compliment each other.

This is more interesting than a central amount of power as each ship increases the total amount of charge the player can store/utilize.

A question is, are all ship's charge levels restored at the same rate if they are near a generator, or is there a limit to the number of ships a generator can charge simultaneously? The rate of discharge in hostile systems that are adjacent to player systems is especially important as it will influence the possible duration of attack.

As another positive, this creates more possible ship classes. Energy Vampires that do significant damage to ship charge levels. Battery starships that have huge amounts of charge and can replenish nearby friendly ships, making deep raiding still somewhat possible. It also creates the potential for an Energy Vampire AI type that deploys system wide ship charge drainers. Energy transmitters that can reduce the rate of discharge of ships in adjacent systems, assisting in prolonged attacks on AI worlds.

[Admiral]

Okay;

Like I was saying... Long lost twin...

[x4000]

Wow, you guys are thinking along the same lines as each other -- and me, for the most part.

1. I agree that there are some cool possibilities for new ship classes, like energy vampires and so forth.  That would be for an expansion, though, as I'm not introducing wholesale new ship classes as DLC.  But I really do like the possibilities that adds.

2. Some sort of "mobile charge batteries" or whatever like that, would definitely be needed.  These are kind of like the supply carts from Rise of Legends, which prevent attrition damage.

3. I'd see ships as having a certain max charge, and when they are on a planet with a reactor (or near a "mobile charge battery," they will tend to hover around the max charge.

4. I would suggest that simply time, versus any other activity, would be the determinant of charge being reduced on systems where there is no reactor.  Further systems would reduce this charge more quickly.

5. Whether all ships would recharge simultaneously or not...  that is an interesting question.  I may need to reduce the costs -- and the benefits -- of the reactors if the answer to this is no, because then players will really be building way more reactors all over the place, compared to the few they now need to build.  I think that's probably a good thing.

6. I'll think on this some more tomorrow, and possibly do some experimentation.  For now, I've got another prerelease imminent to come out in just a few minutes, and then I'm off for some sleep.  This is a very interesting turn of events, though.  I think these changes, once a few of the specifics are nailed down, add a very interesting new subsystem -- one that adds another dimension to planning, but not much more to micromanagement if designed carefully, which is good.

[Admiral]

I'm off for some sleep.

I knew I was forgetting to do something.

Good night!!!