So, this whole crystal thing

[chemical_art]

@Chemical_art: Lol. Don't over think it. Remember K.I.S.S.

KISS works for minor factions. They can always be disabled. But a mechanic that many minor factions are dependent on?

For game changing operations, it doesn't work quite so much. If this was a massive rework to enable greater strategic options I would be more game. Armor for example could do that. But this just seems to be at best shifting strategic options, if not constraining them a little.

To fundamentally overtime a core resource is no small matter, and I'm saying the benefits need to be worth the work.

[Cinth]

Well.. the best I could come up with so far was to have Golems fairly 50/50. On going maintenance costs should tax, not drain completely here.  Spirecraft can be like starships are planned albeit with higher crystal costs at the lowest tier. These guys are once and done (or the most part).  For FS, have the city hubs and structures be 50/50. Easier to keep them in similar balance to where they are now because of the spawns attached to them.  For the vessels themselves start at 50/50 (frigates) and amp up the crystal cost from there and use the habitation to balance it out.

Once we have a baseline, tweaking should be difficult.

[keith.lamothe]

Cinth, you may be content playing each game of AI War the exact same way, but my point is that I don't think that's the way it was intended to be played.

I respectfully submit that the game is intended to be fun

The aim of this change is not to improve the human race through making its strategy games harder.  If someone thinks they can pull that off, go ahead, but here I'm aiming at something I think I can hit, which is to make m+c more interesting and to make sense as two separate resources within the same mechanic.


@Toranth: so basically it looks like the early game would be metal-heavy and the later game would be crystal-heavy... maybe.  Kind of depends on what you build and what you lose.


@various-asking-about-minor-factions: if golems/spirecraft/FS/trader-toys/etc are an issue we can just make them 50/50.  I was hoping to stick with a very simple principle (the more powerful the individual unit, the higher the crystal-%) but I think since superweapons are (generally speaking) neatly separate from the base-game stuff it wouldn't be too confusing to just make them 50/50.


@chemical_art: I don't think it's going to be as hard as you think.  Either way, I think it's worth it.


@Kahuna:

Anyway.. why planets couldn't have both resources? Why only either Metal or Crystal?

They can if that's what makes sense, but I think that the current distribution heavily blurs the line between metal and crystal.  If we're going to blur the line that much (and with m<=>c conversion and with so many units having 50/50 costs or not far off from that) then we may as well just make them into a single resource.

I think the 0/4/8 distribution helps planets feel different from each other in terms of strategic value, which makes for more interesting decision making.

I can't simply capture any planet I want. It's not like if I need metal I would "simply capture a planet with 8 Metal Asteroids". If that planet is in a crappy position I'm not going to capture it.

Sure, and I'm anticipating that.  But of a given set of planets that you can pick from to capture, 1 out of 5 will have 8 metal spots.  If that 20% of the capturable planets are all in crappy positions... well, yea, that's going to be an issue.  Though even there there's another 20% that have 4 metal spots, which is nothing to sneeze at if you need metal.  If 40% of the capturable planets  are all in crappy positions... I don't think things are looking up under any model   And I don't see how the other resource would be completely useless to you; you could just grab it and build more of whatever primarily requires it.

If there's a planet in a good position but it only has the resource I don't need then it would be almost same as if that planet had 0 resource asteroids.

But why do you think you'll only need one of the resources?  I don't think even the extreme cases of fleet-only or starship-only would be ok with just 6 harvesters of the "off-type" by midgame, and iirc you don't play either of those extremes.

[chemical_art]

If there's a planet in a good position but it only has the resource I don't need then it would be almost same as if that planet had 0 resource asteroids.

But why do you think you'll only need one of the resources?  I don't think even the extreme cases of fleet-only or starship-only would be ok with just 6 harvesters of the "off-type" by midgame, and iirc you don't play either of those extremes.

Because with no M<--->C conversion, it is, in every sense of the word, all or nothing.

[chemical_art]

Keith, my underlying conern is this:

You say that this won't nerf the economy overall, but I ask, how. HOW!?!

No conversion? That, alone, is enough to be a nerf. If you did nothing else, that alone is a nerf of unprecedented proportions. Keep in mind conversions won a poll all on its own.

I...I can't even muster more energy then that. That, alone, is so much of a roadblock all my other concerns are not necessary. It is so much a nerf I don't even see why it is necessary to elaborate. You are making the division between M and C more extreme, then remove the conversion.

I simply do not understand how this is not a nerf to the player economy.

[keith.lamothe]

If there's a planet in a good position but it only has the resource I don't need then it would be almost same as if that planet had 0 resource asteroids.

But why do you think you'll only need one of the resources?  I don't think even the extreme cases of fleet-only or starship-only would be ok with just 6 harvesters of the "off-type" by midgame, and iirc you don't play either of those extremes.

Because with no M<--->C conversion, it is, in every sense of the word, all or nothing.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.  Under what midgame circumstance would you only need 120/s of either m or c from harvesters? 

I guess there's also the command station incomes, which overshadows that amount, but that also gives you another out: if you don't want to care about whether you're capturing metal spots or crystal spots, just use econ stations (preferably upgraded).

[chemical_art]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.  Under what midgame circumstance would you only need 120/s of either m or c from harvesters? 

I guess there's also the command station incomes, which overshadows that amount, but that also gives you another out: if you don't want to care about whether you're capturing metal spots or crystal spots, just use econ stations (preferably upgraded).

Because if one craft needs 80% or more one resource, and you cannot convert resources, you will ALWAYS need one resource or another.

In my experience, i have NEVER had a game where one resource, just from base amounts, was less then 10% of disparity from the other. So as my point above, simply removing conversions nerfs my economy by at least 10%. That is before changing resource costs.

[keith.lamothe]

No conversion? That, alone, is enough to be a nerf. If you did nothing else, that alone is a nerf of unprecedented proportions.

But I'm not talking about doing nothing else, I'm also talking about increasing the average resource-spots-per-planet by 20%.  And making it considerably easier to capture considerably more than 20% more than would be possible on-average before (40% of planets would have 8 spots, where currently you would be very hard pressed to focus on capturing 4/4 planets).  How much of an increase would be needed to counterbalance the loss of conversion?

Keep in mind conversions won a poll all on its on.

Manufactories won a nerf poll.  Because people wanted to stop having to deal with them.  I don't see that as a vote of confidence in the conversion mechanic, but rather in not having to worry about a distinction which currently has very little impact on the game.

[keith.lamothe]

Because if one craft needs 80% or more one resource, and you cannot convert resources, you will ALWAYS need one resource or another.

Ok, can you build something else that uses the other resource?  Also, if you're using matter converters you can make sure they're all the kind that burn the resource you need less.  If you're not using matter converters I'm guessing it's either early-game or you have enough planets that collectors are covering everything, in which case I think you've probably had a number of opportunities to primarily capture the type of resource spot you want more of.

In my experience, i have NEVER had a game where one resource, just from base amounts, was less then 10% of disparity from the other. So as my point above, simply removing conversions nerfs my economy by at least 10%. That is before changing resource costs.

Ok, 10%.  How is an average 20% increase in resource spots not going to at least partly counterbalance that?

[Cinth]

And I would assume (big risk here lol) that a full split like this would also bring revised ship costs. I also only recall MK Vs being the only ships listed with an 80% resource cost. Please point that telescope away from the ground, that ant hill must look like a mountain


... Thread moves to fast 

[chemical_art]

No conversion? That, alone, is enough to be a nerf. If you did nothing else, that alone is a nerf of unprecedented proportions.

But I'm not talking about doing nothing else, I'm also talking about increasing the average resource-spots-per-planet by 20%.  And making it considerably easier to capture considerably more than 20% more than would be possible on-average before (40% of planets would have 8 spots, where currently you would be very hard pressed to focus on capturing 4/4 planets).  How much of an increase would be needed to counterbalance the loss of conversion?

Have you not seen the previous posts about the confusion? There were plenty of posts that your initial idea was...confusing at best. Check those out. Right now, for those who dig into the math, you have made it seem like a nerf. Since M cannot convert to C, every resource is considered indepentent, so if on average you get 2.4 of a resource, you get 2.4 of a resource. You cannot lump the two together, but every unit needs a different amount and there is no "relief valve" if one resource is needed for 5 minutes. Making matter converters needed per resource is a step backwards, for it makes them micro heavy again.

Keep in mind conversions won a poll all on its on.

Manufactories won a nerf poll.  Because people wanted to stop having to deal with them.  I don't see that as a vote of confidence in the conversion mechanic, but rather in not having to worry about a distinction which currently has very little impact on the game.

Manufactures is a symptom. If matter conversion wasn't needed so much, manufactures wouldn't have won at all! This is a fact.

[Kahuna]

Kahuna, care to theorycraft a minute? With the soon to be added AI Homeworld changes (Operation Lazy Eye), do you see your AIP target changing? Do you see maybe 210 or 220 being possible (within the bounds of your game style).

So the cost of popping an AI Home Station will be reduced from 100 to 20 = 80 reduction.
At the moment destroying an AI Core Guard Post costs only 2 AIP. After the patch each will cost 2 AIP + 10 AIP Floor so basically 12.

I just created a couple of games with complete visibility to see how many Guard Posts each AI home planet has.
Game 1:
AI 1: 7=84 AIP
AI 2: 8=96 AIP

Game 2:
AI 1: 7=84 AIP
AI 2: 7=84 AIP

Game 3:
AI 1: 7=84 AIP
AI 2: 7=84 AIP

Game 4:
AI 1: 7=84 AIP
AI 2: 8=96 AIP

The total cost for completely destroying an AI home planet will be increased by 4 if there's 7 core guard posts and by 16 if there's 8. That doesn't sound like a lot but before the big AIP increase happened when the player destroyed the Command Station. The problems caused by the +100 AIP increase could be solved by first neutering both AI home planets and then destroying both Command Stations at the same time. Now this big AIP jump can't be avoided because it happens gradually as you destroy the Core Guard Posts.

This will make destroying both AI home command stations at the same time a less attractive option. Now there's no point in leaving the home station alive since it will only cost 20 while the guard posts cost 84 - 96. Leaving the home station alive would also allow the AI would refill it's reserves. And because of that this will also kind of buff Avengers. Before people had a bad habit of enabling them but never fighting them.. because people always destroyed both Home Stations at the same time. I think that's a less attractive option now. Though if you do have Avengers enabled you might still wanna do that.. Avengers are quite nasty. I guess you could just fly by the reserves and snipe the home station with Raid and Bomber Starships to avoid fighting the Avengers.

Anyway.. this change will make destroying AI home planets much harder on all difficulties. +84 AIP is a lot. Since I play high difficulty and low AIP games this would almost double my AIP after destroying the FIRST AI home planet. Thus destroying the second home planet might be impossible.

[chemical_art]

And I would assume (big risk here lol) that a full split like this would also bring revised ship costs. I also only recall MK Vs being the only ships listed with an 80% resource cost. Please point that telescope away from the ground, that ant hill must look like a mountain

Well, since MK I's needed almost 100% of one resource, and super weapons needed over 75% of another resource in the millions, it isn't just limitted.

You can say "this needs tweaking" but it all reinforces a point. It is going to take a mountain of effort for a mole hill of benefit. I have yet to hear how this benefits the game aside from making the composition of harvestors more important...because the economy is getting nerfed. If the economy wasn't being nerfed, the composition wouldn't matter.

[chemical_art]

Just to offer a counter point for all my complaining, I propose a much simplier solution:

Remove M to C conversion

Increase all harvestor income by 33%.

To plagerize another: BOOM! PROBLEM SOLVED!

[Cinth]

And I would assume (big risk here lol) that a full split like this would also bring revised ship costs. I also only recall MK Vs being the only ships listed with an 80% resource cost. Please point that telescope away from the ground, that ant hill must look like a mountain

Well, since MK I's needed almost 100% of one resource, and super weapons needed over 75% of another resource in the millions, it isn't just limitted.

You can say "this needs tweaking" but it all reinforces a point. It is going to take a mountain of effort for a mole hill of benefit. I have yet to hear how this benefits the game aside from making the composition of harvestors more important...because the economy is getting nerfed. If the economy wasn't being nerfed, the composition wouldn't matter.

All I'm saying is let it develop some more.  It's a fairly sweeping change so it will need time to get it looking right.  If it's done right there wouldn't be any real change other than you need to be a little more choosy about what planet you took.