So, this whole crystal thing

[chemical_art]

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.

See my post above. If that is TRULY the goal desired, my proposal, through tweaking, would accomplish the goal with a lot less effort. It takes a mole hill of effort for the mole hole of benefit.

[Cinth]

Good stuff

Thanks.  I do think the guard posts is going to be just the +floor (don't quote me though).  So looks like 7-8 posts + 20 .. about +80 floor and 20 AIP.  If you ride the floor that's going to be the same +100 it was (think that was the goal). So you still either hit both together or you find a way to take a few more planets (there's mah tie in)?  You just might need that extra planet or two to help finish off that second homeworld. So somewhere in the neighborhood or 10 planets controlled.

@ Chem.. I belive the goal was to make M and C differ because they were basically functioning as (M+C). We don't need more income   Now you can't tell me that with 10 planets you can't find the resources you need.  And if a friendly ribbing is going to ruffle your feathers, I'll stop

[Diazo]

My initial concern with what I understand the current proposal to be is that the RNG can make you lose on game start.

By this I mean that the seeding of resources would have to be made non-random.

If we are going to need both M + C  then the seeding rules for resource nodes will have to be tightened so we have reasonable access to both resources in every map seed.

The catch is planets with higher count resource nodes are generally higher Mark also. I can see this pushing higher mark planets closer to the players homeworlds in response.


Hmmm. What about turning this sideways. Keep the change that low-mark uses metal and high-mark uses crystal. However, make all resource nodes in the game become metal and all command stations produce only crystal. You want more metal? Upgrade harvesters. More Crystal? Upgrade command stations or capture more planets. This would also help with balancing AIP vs. Player's empire size. The more systems the player captures, the more AIP but the more crystal they have also.

Players home command would have to produce both M+C still though probably. (Unless all Mk I units were 100% metal.)

As this would involve changing the M+C costs of every unit in the game though a lot of theorycraft will have to go into it once Keith finalizes what the change is going to be. (Regardless of what Keith actually decides upon.)

D.

[Cinth]

Well... 40% of planets will have 8 nodes, 40% will have 4 nodes and 20% will be low end of the spectrum. Of those you have a 50/50 shot at getting a resource you need (or want). 

[chemical_art]

Well... 40% of planets will have 8 nodes, 40% will have 4 nodes and 20% will be low end of the spectrum. Of those you have a 50/50 shot at getting a resource you need (or want).

I haven't heard a clear answer of this:

So it'll be, on average:

out of 10 worlds

4 will have 8 resource nodes

4 will have 4 resource nodes

2 will have 2/2 resource nodes

So, there will be an average of 16 resource nodes per 10 planets. Or, 1.6 nodes per planet. Not 1.6 M  and C per planet, but 1.6 M + C?


EDIT: Just for comparision, in my current snake map, where I don't care about resource nodes, I got 3.3 nodes per planet.

[chemical_art]

@ Chem.. I belive the goal was to make M and C differ because they were basically functioning as (M+C). We don't need more income   Now you can't tell me that with 10 planets you can't find the resources you need.  And if a friendly ribbing is going to ruffle your feathers, I'll stop

Well, at the very least, if everything goes PERFECTLY, at best, you in effect remove resource conversion.

Do you dispute that this a nerf?

[chemical_art]

I know I'm being standoffish, but I'm just trying to narrow down the GOALS of this.

Nerfs, in of themselves, I don't mind. My view of strategic reserves in the lens of low AIP games reflect this.

What I won't stand for is "non nerfs" that to me feels like nerfs.

[Cinth]

Going back to the five catagories:

1) Nothing
2)4 M
3)4 C
4)8 M
5)8 C

That is:
2/5ths with 8 or 4/10ths.
2/5ths with 4 or 4/10ths.
1/5ths or 2/10ths with nothing (or whatever the bottom ends up being).
((4*8 )+(4*4))/10 = 4.8 nodes total across 10 planets (average)     
4.8/2 = 2.4 nodes specifically either M or C per 10 planets (average)
It's still 2.4 average M OR C per 10 planets with the above layout.  2.6 if the bottom is 2/2. That's with no converters.  With converters it is higher.  CSG aside though, the player can pretty much pick and choose what planets to take (not every planet will be a gem but the choice is there either way).

You can't label something a buff, nerf or a wash without numbers.  The potential is there to go either way and Keith has said the he didn't want to nerf player econ.  So with that in mind, I think it will end up being a buff, pending numbers of course .

[RCIX]

Just to sum things up and point out the problem, the distinction between metal and crystal is more-or-less pointless right now because a decent fraction of ships are near-equal in cost and the ones that aren't, you basically don't care because of the auto conversion. Seems like chemical_art has sort of missed the point in saying

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!

The issue is that due to the haphazard assignment of metal+crystal costs right now, if you did this you could easily (pardon the language) be screwed out of accessing a significant portion of your fleet, and what is often necessary/required components. In particular, if you roll a bad set of candidate takeover worlds you could easily be looking at having serious trouble producing bomber-likes, if my understanding is correct. Or low crystal locks you out of frigates, a bunch of useful bonus ship types, and most starships (as a lot of them lean crystal and they cost so much).

What we're looking for is A: a core mechanic we can add to make crystal a bonus toy that you want to use in every game it's accessible but can get by without it, or B: a resource that manipulates the style of play you'll be going for and what you'll be building without randomly torpedoing your access to vital ship types.

[chemical_art]

Going back to the five catagories:

1) Nothing
2)4 M
3)4 C
4)8 M
5)8 C

That is:
2/5ths with 8 or 4/10ths.
2/5ths with 4 or 4/10ths.
1/5ths or 2/10ths with nothing (or whatever the bottom ends up being).
((4*8 )+(4*4))/10 = 4.8 nodes total across 10 planets (average)     
4.8/2 = 2.4 nodes specifically either M or C per 10 planets (average)
It's still 2.4 average M OR C per 10 planets with the above layout.  2.6 if the bottom is 2/2. That's with no converters.  With converters it is higher.  CSG aside though, the player can pretty much pick and choose what planets to take (not every planet will be a gem but the choice is there either way).

You can't label something a buff, nerf or a wash without numbers.  The potential is there to go either way and Keith has said the he didn't want to nerf player econ.  So with that in mind, I think it will end up being a buff, pending numbers of course .

See above. In my snake game, where I paid NO regard for harvestors, I STILL got 3.3 nodes per planet. So hearing 2.4, without regard for anything else, is a nerf. The other factors, such as units focusing on one resource, and no converters, make a mild nerf into a severe nerf.

[chemical_art]

The issue is that due to the haphazard assignment of metal+crystal costs right now, if you did this you could easily (pardon the language) be screwed out of accessing a significant portion of your fleet, and what is often necessary/required components. In particular, if you roll a bad set of candidate takeover worlds you could easily be looking at having serious trouble producing bomber-likes, if my understanding is correct. Or low crystal locks you out of frigates, a bunch of useful bonus ship types, and most starships (as a lot of them lean crystal and they cost so much).

These new changes do NOTHING to address this any better. if anything, they do it worst, since resources are all or nothing.

What we're looking for is A: a core mechanic we can add to make crystal a bonus toy that you want to use in every game it's accessible but can get by without it, or B: a resource that manipulates the style of play you'll be going for and what you'll be building without randomly torpedoing your access to vital ship types.

This is what I want. It is ok to because "flip the table" and completely redo the economy...if it expands options. Simply complicating it, without providing new options, will result in constraining options and to me seem to be nothing more then complicating things for little benefit.

[RCIX]

What's wrong with making metal he only construction resource and crystal being used for something else again? Or just forgetting about crystal as a concept?

[chemical_art]

What's wrong with making metal he only construction resource and crystal being used for something else again? Or just forgetting about crystal as a concept?

The devil is always in the details.

[Cinth]

@ RCIX: Keith changed proposals on us, it's the top post on page 8 of this thread (assuming you haven't).


@ Chem: Snake map where you have literally no options and can basically jump choke points?  All kidding aside there, if you take away the conversions you get 1.65 M or C from a 3.3 combined.  With the proposed seeding change it's 2.4 M or C, 4.8 combined.  On average you will see more nodes overall. 

Excerpt from the new proposal.

@Cinth: The main problem with my original idea in this thread is that it's too complex to replace a core resource (I don't think it's too complex as a mechanic in general, just too complex for a core resource).  The other big problem is that you'd not necessarily even want to use crystal in every game, or not use it very much.  Ultimately it's something that might be good to do (I'm thinking as a minor faction of sorts that lets you get those per-planet-cap defenses) but it wouldn't work in this particular "slot".

@Everyone:

But (everyone run and hide now) I have an idea!

It does not try to add more take-and-hold irreplaceables.
It does not try to address the chokepoint vs distributed defense issue.
It does not try to let you build turrets outside supply.
It does not try to make crystal radically different from metal.
It barely digs holes! (sorry, had to)

So, what does it do? I'm glad you a-(used-starship salesman is shot). 

Anyway, the idea is to:
- Leave the fundamental role of m and c the same.
- But make the distinction between m and c far clearer.
- While NOT nerfing the overall econ strength of the player.

[Cinth]

What's wrong with making metal he only construction resource and crystal being used for something else again? Or just forgetting about crystal as a concept?

The devil is always in the details.

I'm working with a busted keyboard here, so cut me a break