Author Topic: So, this whole crystal thing  (Read 35856 times)

Offline Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,753
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #75 on: April 01, 2013, 02:31:46 pm »
No I actually agree with Keith.  It just feels like this new resource mechanic could add something HUGE to the game.  Something that's been missing.  It seems so obvious but so elusive at the same time. 
"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline Diazo

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,717
  • I love/hate Diff 10
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #76 on: April 01, 2013, 02:36:51 pm »
edit: Bah, 8 posts while posting this? There's now some overlap with what has already been said.


Okay.

There are two discussions going on here.

The "let's change crystal" discussion and the "new mechanics discussion"

Ignoring the 'new mechanics discussion', how do we go about making crystal distinctly different from what we have? No consideration of what the crystal will be used for here, just how to make the resource distinct, as a resource.

Metal:
Infinite income limited only by the rate it can be gathered. No real penalty for losing metal harvesters.
Can be stockpiled to a reasonably high amount, no on-going costs once building a unit is finished.
Controls how fast you can build units.

Energy:
Infinite income resource limited by the number of systems controlled. Losing energy collectors can have immediate effects but no long term effects.
Can not be stockpiled and units have an on-going energy cost.
Controls the maximum size of the players fleet, if needed you can get more energy at the cost of metal, increasing your maximum fleet size at the expense of slower construction times for new units.

Asteroids (Spirecraft, if enabled)
Limited resource that allows the construction of new units, most that are not direct combat units and give you new options.
No on-going cost once built and no penalty to losing a system with unused asteroids in it.


So, how do we make Crystal distinct?
Well, both metal and energy already control the player's fleet size so crystal should probably not touch any of the current units.

However, I really like the fact that you can burn metal for more energy so there should be a conversion mechanic of some sort.

To prevent any units built from crystal from overshadowing your fleet,  they should not be direct combat units, we already have our fleet for that. Rather, make the crystal units have abilities that are sideways to our fleet so it is now an apples-to-oranges comparison and a player will determine for themselves how much crystal they need in the game.

Actually, the more I think on this, the more this sounds like a resource for a new Fallen Spire type minor faction with crystal rather then city hubs as the resource it uses.

Maybe a "high-intellegence" neinzul allies with the player to free it's brethren from the AI's hands? (AI-Neinzul hybrids).

Actually, now that I think of it I'd rather you left the current resource profile in place and anything new in this regard was added to a new minor faction somehow like the Fallen Spire or the Ancient Shadows stuff.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current model and the effort required to implement something new like this is going to be pretty major. Is the fact that metal and crystal are currently so similar that it is a weak mechanic? Yes. But the economy stuff is a side-show to the main game anyway and there is nothing actually wrong with it.

I think the fact that coming up with something to replace it is causing so much difficulty backs my case up here. I'd rather developer time was spend on new content or tweaking stuff that does have flaws as opposed to a weak mechanic that does not have flaws in it.

(I don't consider the fact that metal and crystal are basically the same except for the name a flaw, opinions may differ I suppose.)

D.

« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 02:39:29 pm by Diazo »

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #77 on: April 01, 2013, 02:40:08 pm »
I am all for improving the game. But why does an improvement have to be an improvement to crystal?
It doesn't have to be, but right now there's a slot on the resource bar (crystal) that's not pulling its weight as a mechanic.  I don't care if ideas x,y, or z don't fit there, we just won't do them, but I'm looking for one that will work.  In theory that could take years.  It doesn't have to be called crystal or share the same visuals, but it would be nice.

Mechanically speaking, there are two main distinctions between "what could fit here" and "what can be added as a faction/plot/whatever" :
1) It can be tracked numerically in a prominent fashion, whereas other stuff has to be coarser and not have a lot of "ongoing state" that the player needs to know about on a moment-by-moment basis.
2) It needs to make sense as something that's on in every game.


One direction that may make more sense than anything we've talked about thus far is going the other way: rather than trying to find a "strong" replacement for the "weak" mechanic (metal and crystal as separate resources), we could try strengthening the existing mechanic.  One possibly for that is:
a) Remove resource conversion altogether.  Or make its exchange rate fairly high (like 3:1 or 5:1 or whatever).
b) Make non-homeworld planets always have either metal or crystal spots, not both.
c) Change costs so that more things favor either metal or crystal (while not making one more commonly needed than the other... maybe, depends on whether it makes sense to make one more important than the other)

Not that I'm rushing off to do that either, just throwing the idea out.
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 Diazo

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,717
  • I love/hate Diff 10
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #78 on: April 01, 2013, 02:45:42 pm »
Mechanically speaking, there are two main distinctions between "what could fit here" and "what can be added as a faction/plot/whatever" :
1) It can be tracked numerically in a prominent fashion, whereas other stuff has to be coarser and not have a lot of "ongoing state" that the player needs to know about on a moment-by-moment basis.
2) It needs to make sense as something that's on in every game.

Okay, on every game.

Metal: Controls how fast we can build units.
Energy: Controls how big our fleet can be.
Crystal: Ummm.... how fast our fleet moves? Other units already do that.

I'm not sure what else their is in terms of 'basic fleet functions' here that crystal could modify.

Which is the issue really, in any game there is a third 'resource' that I can think of it either does not apply (per unit experience levels) or is covered under knowledge already (gain access to new units/abilites).

D.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #79 on: April 01, 2013, 02:48:45 pm »


One direction that may make more sense than anything we've talked about thus far is going the other way: rather than trying to find a "strong" replacement for the "weak" mechanic (metal and crystal as separate resources), we could try strengthening the existing mechanic.  One possibly for that is:
a) Remove resource conversion altogether.  Or make its exchange rate fairly high (like 3:1 or 5:1 or whatever).
b) Make non-homeworld planets always have either metal or crystal spots, not both.
c) Change costs so that more things favor either metal or crystal (while not making one more commonly needed than the other... maybe, depends on whether it makes sense to make one more important than the other)


While I've been on the fence about needing to get harvestor upgrades, increasing the conversion costs would make it so that at least one would be almost necessary due to desparity, since the other econ upgrade, comm stations, boost both evenly.

Not sure if good or not.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #80 on: April 01, 2013, 02:50:22 pm »
Is the fact that metal and crystal are currently so similar that it is a weak mechanic? Yes. But the economy stuff is a side-show to the main game anyway and there is nothing actually wrong with it.

(...)

(I don't consider the fact that metal and crystal are basically the same except for the name a flaw, opinions may differ I suppose.)
No, I don't think it's a flaw in the sense that something's actively wrong with it.  I think of it more as an "opportunity".  The game could be stronger on this point, so I'm trying to find out if we can accomplish that. 

As you say, the experienced difficulty in doing so is itself a substantial piece of evidence :)

But it also took us a long time to find a good alternate to the way energy used to be, too.  There, it wasn't an awful system, it was just something where our response to "why are we having to micro this?" was effectively "historical reasons" (i.e. "that's the way it's been for a while because we can't come up with something better). 

Nowadays, if someone comes in and asks "why are metal and crystal different?" my strongest response is "historical reasons".


I tend to be a typologically-motivated person.
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 keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #81 on: April 01, 2013, 02:53:27 pm »
While I've been on the fence about needing to get harvestor upgrades, increasing the conversion costs would make it so that at least one would be almost necessary due to desparity, since the other econ upgrade, comm stations, boost both evenly.

Not sure if good or not.
I'm not sure we'd want to keep econ station upgrades the way they are now if we made metal and crystal more distinct (sharing the same basic function but with the player having way more reason to care about how much they have of each one).
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 Diazo

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,717
  • I love/hate Diff 10
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #82 on: April 01, 2013, 02:57:53 pm »
If we are talking about tweaking the resource conversion to make it more meaningful, the seeding for resource nodes needs to be looked at.

I've had games where my home system had 9 metal and 4 crystal nodes. I was on resource conversion for pretty much the entire early game due to that.

Keep in mind that the resource conversion is effectively reducing the number of resource nodes a player has. A while back we went through the economy system to get rid of the 'netflix' effect because rebuilding fleets took so long. I could see boosting the conversion cost taking us back towards the 'netflix' effect quite easily.

D.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #83 on: April 01, 2013, 03:02:56 pm »

Keep in mind that the resource conversion is effectively reducing the number of resource nodes a player has. A while back we went through the economy system to get rid of the 'netflix' effect because rebuilding fleets took so long. I could see boosting the conversion cost taking us back towards the 'netflix' effect quite easily.


I hadn't said anything, but increasing conversation costs, without other changes, would be a nerf to econ, and any nerf to econ would certainly move back toward netflix.

@Keith
My comment was of just increasing conversion costs, I know econ upgrades in general would have to be changed if crystal is made distinct.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #84 on: April 01, 2013, 03:03:01 pm »
If we are talking about tweaking the resource conversion to make it more meaningful, the seeding for resource nodes needs to be looked at.

I've had games where my home system had 9 metal and 4 crystal nodes. I was on resource conversion for pretty much the entire early game due to that.

Keep in mind that the resource conversion is effectively reducing the number of resource nodes a player has. A while back we went through the economy system to get rid of the 'netflix' effect because rebuilding fleets took so long. I could see boosting the conversion cost taking us back towards the 'netflix' effect quite easily.
This is true.  In general I think the main effect of what I threw out a few posts ago would be to make you care more about whether a specific planet had metal or crystal, since it wouldn't have the other.

If we do go a route like that, we would need to be careful with the math to make sure it was not just a nerf to the player's "effective" income.  That's definitely not what I want to see.  But I'd like it if you cared about whether a given income or a given cost was m or c, rather than functionally being able to approach them as identical.
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 chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #85 on: April 01, 2013, 03:18:39 pm »
But I'd like it if you cared about whether a given income or a given cost was m or c, rather than functionally being able to approach them as identical.

Most of the very big ticket items already do this (they have even amounts of M and C), so making conversions harder will certainly make them in effect cost more.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 03:27:16 pm by chemical_art »
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Vyndicu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #86 on: April 01, 2013, 05:11:05 pm »
I am totally against any form of conversion ratio changes. Here an example yet another fallen spire city hub campaign: 7/7 Gravity Driller and Planetary cloaking with almost everything enabled minor faction-wise.

My first homeworld has decent resource nodes but heavily favor metal 7 to crystal 5 and I only have immediate access to 3 level 1 AI solar systems and they all each have 2-3 TOTAL of either crystal or metal but not both. Lucky although my bonus ship is equal in metal and crystal cost so it doesn't impact me too much.

If the ratio conversion were to changed to 5:1 then it would take forever to build anything that has more than double crystal over metal. Having a random pop up with gravity driller is not fun since I can't move my fleet around as quickly I would liked to. Not to mention I have a level 4 AI solar system next door to my HW. So loses are inevitable and I am already looking at "netflix" time crunching just a little bit. Thankfully I can use my champion to do guerilla warfare while building up to eliminate "netflix time" partly.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #87 on: April 01, 2013, 05:28:22 pm »
I am totally against any form of conversion ratio changes. Here an example yet another fallen spire city hub campaign: 7/7 Gravity Driller and Planetary cloaking with almost everything enabled minor faction-wise.

My first homeworld has decent resource nodes but heavily favor metal 7 to crystal 5 and I only have immediate access to 3 level 1 AI solar systems and they all each have 2-3 TOTAL of either crystal or metal but not both. Lucky although my bonus ship is equal in metal and crystal cost so it doesn't impact me too much.

If the ratio conversion were to changed to 5:1 then it would take forever to build anything that has more than double crystal over metal.
Assuming no other changes were made (to initial resource node seeding, mainly), you would be right.  But I don't think anyone's advocating that in this thread (recently, anyhow).
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 Dichotomy

  • Jr. Member Mark III
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Fan of Summer Glau
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #88 on: April 01, 2013, 05:53:06 pm »
I like the m/c system as it is. There are usually at least a few situations per game where which resource it is comes up, and I am quite used to it by now.
You are all insane. In. Sane. No argument.

Offline Vyndicu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
Re: So, this whole crystal thing
« Reply #89 on: April 01, 2013, 08:52:05 pm »
I was advocating against changing conversion, responding to your "a) Remove resource conversion altogether.  Or make its exchange rate fairly high (like 3:1 or 5:1 or whatever)." post keith by teh way, because I had some terrible RNG luck in the past.

Image having a heavy crystal bonus ship and having only two crystal mine at beginning plus 300 crystal income from homeworld. In that situation MK 3 crystal mine was just a tiny slight shy short of mandatory. Assuming conversion was removed and the resource ndoe still had a chance for a bad seeding; I don't think I would enjoy trying to "re-seed" the galaxy all over again and again to be fair. I don't think you would make a drastic change without considering the ramifications.