So, this whole crystal thing

[chemical_art]

@ 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. 

That in itself is a false comparison. Since there is NO M to C conversion, YOU CANNOT LUMP M AND C TOGETHER. You HAVE to compare them independently. New changes are EITHER M or C at 2.4, with NO "M + C" value.

Pardon the caps, but I simply cannot allow this line of thinking to continue. It is not. Period. Full stop. Absolutely. No discussion. That is why my tolerance to "things will work out" is so low.

[Wingflier]

ITT: Really good ideas that could improve the game dramatically, and people too afraid to change their play styles or try something new in A BETA to see how it works.

Keith thinks it's a good idea. In all the time that Keith has been working here, and throughout all the countless changes he's made, I cannot think of a SINGLE bad change. Not a single one that didn't improve the game in some way.

You still can't trust him.

If he thinks it's a good idea, and is willing to put the work in to make it happen, then why won't you let him do it? If it sucks, and I can't remember when it ever has before, then we can just revert it.

There are plenty of self-explanatory reasons why not allowing the player to convert one resource into another would improve the game. Fear is the main objection to this change.

[chemical_art]

There are plenty of self-explanatory reasons why not allowing the player to convert one resource into another would improve the game. Fear is the main objection to this change.

If hear reasons that aren't to the effect of "it limits strategic options" I'll be listening intently.

[Cinth]

But there is a M <-> C conversion that happens automatically now.  That happened in 6.013.  Flat out numbers-wise, the proposed system gives 4.8 nodes per planet.  As you pointed out, the current system gives 3.3. That IS more nodes per planet, period.  I didn't bend anything there.

If you remove the current auto-convert (6.013) then you on average see 1.65 M or C per planet.  The new would give 2.4.  I didn't bend anything there either.  I'm just pointing out that on a per planet basis, you would see more nodes. 

The part that really blurs any lines is the fact that (M+C) right now are practically interchangeable.  One of the goals was to remove that interchangeability. 

@Wing: FS final shard change   Joking of course, but it was one change that I really don't like.

[Diazo]

Okay.

I have 2 issues with the implementation as shown in Keith's post at the top of page 8.

1) At game start you are going to be resource starved. In current games, so with conversion, I spend usually the first hour floored on both resources and even after that I'm bouncing off the floor during big rebuilds for pretty much the rest of the game.

During the early game this change will reduce the total resources available as everything is going to be metal heavy and I can't convert my crystal over so I see my crystal maxing out while my metal stays floored probably until hour 3 or 4 if I actually keep up any sort of offensive tempo.


2) The RNG can lose you the game as soon as you hit game start. I don't know how resource node seeding currently works, but it's pretty random at the moment I believe. By making systems exclusive to one resource or the other, I can easily see no system within 3 hops of a homeworld having one type of resource. On a low connection map (snake/vine) I can see no planet within 5 hops of the human homeworlds having a specific resource.

And then add in the fact that higher mark AI systems are more likely to be on the high resource node count worlds. You need crystal to build advanced units, but the AI has the 'crystal' worlds with high count resource nodes camped with high mark defenders so taking the system is going to be a pain.

This may be me reading into things too much because I don't know the resource node seeding logic, but it is an issue I have with scheme as presented.


Then there's balance, but I'm not getting into that debate until my two issues above are resolved somehow.

D.

[chemical_art]

As Diazo says, the fact that RNG, for a basic resource, can determine your whole game from the very start, is worrying.

As Diazo also says, throughout your games, odds are at one point both M and C are going to be starved. So the result is that units take longer to build, which in my book is a nerf.

I STILL haven't heard how this is good. I hear hints, assumptions, etc, but I've yet to hear empirically how this will really make the game better, rather then just make things harder. Making more resources, but making them independent, for me isn't a buff, it just causes headaches, and make me want to get even more resource upgrades.

[Hearteater]

That's a whole bunch of complaining about something that doesn't matter.  Income is unlimited since we have unlimited time.  Unless you have 0 income, you can build anything in the game.  All we need to do is find income amounts that don't make it annoying to do so.  That's it.  Resource conversion is pointless because all it does is make metal and crystal into a single resource.  In effect, no plan to have metal and crystal be different can have resource conversion at any ratio.

Most issues with the opening game starvation can be addressed with initial resources.  Most other RNG issues could be dealt with by making at least two planets connecting to the player have 4 or 8 nodes (each with a different resource).  That means you always have a reasonable starting base whatever you want to do.

[chemical_art]

Resource conversion is pointless because all it does is make metal and crystal into a single resource.

If this was true, we could remove resource conversions right now with no repercussions. But isn't pointless, because it is used to address a variety of concerns.

[chemical_art]

Most issues with the opening game starvation can be addressed with initial resources.  Most other RNG issues could be dealt with by making at least two planets connecting to the player have 4 or 8 nodes (each with a different resource).  That means you always have a reasonable starting base whatever you want to do.

This is a bandaid for underlying problems that conversions address.

[Wingflier]

There are plenty of self-explanatory reasons why not allowing the player to convert one resource into another would improve the game. Fear is the main objection to this change.

If hear reasons that aren't to the effect of "it limits strategic options" I'll be listening intently.

1. On the contrary, it increases strategic options. It makes your choices more difficult and meaningful.

Right now, here is how I play:
1. Take all the planets adjacent to my Homeworld. 
2. Take the best planets with a CSG on them.
3. Win the game.

That's it!  And I can when the game every time like that.  Where's the strategy in that?

Adding two different resources would either make me
A) Choose some planets based what resource I wanted.
B) Make me tailor my army based on what resources I had.
or
C) In some games I could probably do my same 'ol strategy and still build whatever I wanted cuz I get lucky.

What is so BAD about that?

2. It makes you build ships you probably wouldn't have built before.
You guys already know my strategy in the game's current state. Low cap ships with high health and firepower (including Starships).

There is nothing in the game right now preventing me from doing this. Therefore, there's no reason to ever have to change the way I play.

However, Keith makes it sound like the heavier, lower cap stuff like I like to build, will have a significant Crystal cost. So now I need to switch my playstyle up, or find an abundant Crystal source, to keep playing this way.

I might start having to use high-cap swarmers, even though I *NEVER* use those, because they have no Crystal cost, and I need to balance out my checkbook somehow. 

The game is forcing me to adapt and be a better player. What is bad about this?

3. It makes holding on to certain key positions on the map more important:
Right now, there are only 2 areas of the map that are absolutely essential I don't lose:
1. My Homeworld and the planets adjacent to that.
2. The planet I take with an ADV. Factory.

With the amount of turrets and defenses the game gives you, this is not difficult to do. Adding new planets of strategic importance in the way of resources would force the player to have to defend more than 2 places at once, which in my opinion, is the way AI War was meant to be played to begin with.

4. This new resource mechanic could make Economic Stations useful again.
Self explanatory, but an Econ Station which gives you a resource which you didn't have to go find before, and which you can't convert, is a pretty huge deal. I think Econ Stations need to be brought back into the fold, and this is a good way to do it.

I could keep giving you reasons why it's a good idea, but why should I?

You haven't given us any good reasons we shouldn't other than, *I don't want to have to change how I play*.

So lower the difficulty enough until you don't have to. Why call it a Strategy Game if you can just do the same thing every time? Might as well call it an Algorithm Game.

[chemical_art]

There are plenty of self-explanatory reasons why not allowing the player to convert one resource into another would improve the game. Fear is the main objection to this change.

If hear reasons that aren't to the effect of "it limits strategic options" I'll be listening intently.

1. On the contrary, it increases strategic options. It makes your choices more difficult and meaningful.

But, that is not.

Expanding strategic options mean that, given a set amount of resources, you have more options with them.

If you cull the number of strategies possible, you are reducing strategic options. Just because YOUR strategy isn't nerfed by the changes, doesn't mean others are not changed.

[Diazo]

Okay. To clarify why I see removing conversion as an issue, especially at game start.

1) Current game M+C costs are all over the place, but can be treated as (roughly) equal as the spread is based on unit type, not unit mark.
2) Changing unit costs to being based on unit mark (or power or whatever) as described will make metal the only thing that matters early game.
3) Removing conversion will result in an effective resource decrease as crystal will be pretty worthless for that first 60-90 minutes.

Math time

Current game, best case scenario:
6 metal, 6 crystal, + home command = 420 income of each resource. That is 840 resources per second with no conversion, 630 resources a second if conversion is happening.

As suggested on page 8:
6 metal, 6 crystal, + home command = 420 income of each resource. However, there is no conversion any more. Let's assume that an 'average' Mk I unit costs 20% crystal. (That's high based on what keith is talking about, he's talking about all Mk I & II fleet ships being 100% metal.)

If 20% of our costs are coming out of crystal, and resources come in at the same rate, crystal income will never bottom out, rather if effectively reduces our metal costs.

So, 420 income of metal, minus the 20% crystal costs is 525 'resources' a second.

525 resources a second after the changes vs. 840 (no conversion) currently is 63% resources, vs. 630 (with conversion) is 83%.

I see this change as reducing my effective economy by at least 17%, going up to a 37% reduction depending on how you value conversion in the current game.

Now, unless ship costs in total resources are coming down by something like 20%, this is a non-starter to me.

D.

edit: Used the wrong factor for conversion in the current game, math fixed.

[Wingflier]

There are plenty of self-explanatory reasons why not allowing the player to convert one resource into another would improve the game. Fear is the main objection to this change.

If hear reasons that aren't to the effect of "it limits strategic options" I'll be listening intently.

1. On the contrary, it increases strategic options. It makes your choices more difficult and meaningful.

But, that is not.

Expanding strategic options mean that, given a set amount of resources, you have more options with them.

If you cull the number of strategies possible, you are reducing strategic options. Just because YOUR strategy isn't nerfed by the changes, doesn't mean others are not changed.

It's just the opposite of what you're suggesting.

As long as the player has an infinite number of both resources (i.e., the current state), there is nothing preventing him from building whatever he wants.

SCARCITY drives Strategy. SCARCITY is what forces the player to make tough decisions on what planets he wants to take, and what units he can build.

You look at Strategy as: "Doing the same thing I want to do every single game".

That isn't Strategy. Strategy is adapting to your situation. It's no longer Strategy when you just do the same thing over and over again, that is a completely different kind of game, and it shouldn't be what we're shooting for.

[chemical_art]

It's just the opposite of what you're suggesting.

As long as the player has an infinite number of both resources (i.e., the current state), there is nothing preventing him from building whatever he wants.

SCARCITY drives Strategy. SCARCITY is what forces the player to make tough decisions on what planets he wants to take, and what units he can build.

You look at Strategy as: "Doing the same thing I want to do every single game".

That isn't Strategy. Strategy is adapting to your situation. It's no longer Strategy when you just do the same thing over and over again, that is a completely different kind of game, and it shouldn't be what we're shooting for.

Except...if you play at the right difficulty, you don't have enough resources? Which is why you don't see high ARR's with smashing the AI to submission?

Going to have to agree to disagree, since your play style always has enough resources, so any nerfs to economy don't effect you as much as others. So it goes to the core that your strategy isn't effected like others are.

[Wingflier]

It's just the opposite of what you're suggesting.

As long as the player has an infinite number of both resources (i.e., the current state), there is nothing preventing him from building whatever he wants.

SCARCITY drives Strategy. SCARCITY is what forces the player to make tough decisions on what planets he wants to take, and what units he can build.

You look at Strategy as: "Doing the same thing I want to do every single game".

That isn't Strategy. Strategy is adapting to your situation. It's no longer Strategy when you just do the same thing over and over again, that is a completely different kind of game, and it shouldn't be what we're shooting for.

Except...if you play at the right difficulty, you don't have enough resources? Which is why you don't see high ARR's with smashing the AI to submission?

Going to have to agree to disagree, since your play style always has enough resources, so any nerfs to economy don't effect you as much as others. So it goes to the core that your strategy isn't effected like others are.

How does having less resources change what you're doing Chemical_Art? 

If you have less resources, does it change what you build? Does it change what you unlock? Does it change anything about your strategy except the time it takes to employ it?

Because for me, it doesn't. I play games sometimes (like my current game) where I'm low on resources because I rushed a Golem after 2 planets. It hasn't changed my overall strategy at all, it's just made me unlock MK3 Harvesters to compensate. To me, the best units are still the best units. I've seen no reason to, for example, unlock high-cap swarmers in an ARS unlock...because even though they're cheaper, they make the style that I use less efficient.

You haven't properly explained to me how having less resources, which are completely interchangeable, changes your strategy.