Author Topic: Ye Ol' Reactor debate  (Read 16783 times)

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Ye Ol' Reactor debate
« Reply #105 on: July 10, 2012, 06:22:17 pm »
Ok, 5.040 is live :)
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 Mánagarmr

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,272
  • if (isInRange(target)) { kill(target); }
Re: Ye Ol' Reactor debate
« Reply #106 on: July 11, 2012, 06:54:28 am »
Wohoo!
Click here to get started with Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports.

Thank you for contributing to making the game better!

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Ye Ol' Reactor debate
« Reply #107 on: July 11, 2012, 08:54:33 am »
Initial feedback suggests that it's being a little too generous, but I'm inclined to wait a bit before changing anything to see if people run into more trouble from AI energy-ganks, etc due to not being able to wiggle around a sudden energy loss.
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 TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: Ye Ol' Reactor debate
« Reply #108 on: July 11, 2012, 09:14:54 am »
The current energy model is about right once you start throwing fortresses and trader toys into the mix, in addition to the rest of your fleet and a near cap full of turrets. As I mentioned, with a energy collector on each of my 6 planets, and a converter on 3 of them, I only have about 30k energy to spare (that superfortress is a energy hog, but considering how much power and durability it has, it should be, plus I have many other trader toys as well, including both black hole generators)

However, I would agree that some of the more powerful high mark stuff, like grav turrets, can be given their high energy consumption back. ;)

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Ye Ol' Reactor debate
« Reply #109 on: July 11, 2012, 09:24:49 am »
Yea, if you have 6/3 collectors/converters you're paying (600m+c)/sec, while in the old model with one of each reactor on each planet you would have been paying (624m+c)/sec, albeit only producing 725ke instead of the 900ke you're actually producing now (if I did the math right: 750ke from collectors, 150ke from converters).
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 PokerChen

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,088
Re: Ye Ol' Reactor debate
« Reply #110 on: July 12, 2012, 03:53:42 am »
Yea, if you have 6/3 collectors/converters you're paying (600m+c)/sec, while in the old model with one of each reactor on each planet you would have been paying (624m+c)/sec, albeit only producing 725ke instead of the 900ke you're actually producing now (if I did the math right: 750ke from collectors, 150ke from converters).

Alternatively... I think this game is all about planets and AIP. Let's base a calculation on that.

(1)
At six planets:
- (5K+40K+80K)*6=750K in the old system, for 342 m+c
- (150K)*6=900K in the new system, for free.

(2)
If we instead look at the price for taking another planet...

If the player is under the inefficiency threshold. Every planet in the new system scored you an additional 25K energy plus 57 m+c, or 17 m+c if you refuse to build mk-IIIs. Note than eco-II gives extra 48 m+c over eco-I.

If you were mildly over the inefficiency threshold, say ~150K energy over. The situation become more extreme.
- OLD: Let's say you've built 6 2nd mk-II reactors at 60% efficiency to fill up the quota.
- OLD: If you can afford 21 AIP, you can take another planet and gain ~40 m+c exchanging lower efficiency reactors...
- OLD: This improvement is better the more you exceed normal energy capabilities.

- NEW: You make three converters.
- NEW: If you can afford 21 AIP, you can take another planet and gain 300 m+c by destroying your coverters...
- NEW: This improvement is constant no matter how much you're over the line.

A rule of thumb: extra 300 m+c/s nets you a free cap of kamikaze Fighter-Is every 65 seconds. Keeping in mind that Eco-II research gives less than that.

(Observations)
- The energy of six planets in the old system can be provided by ~four planets in the new if we try to build converters to match the efficiency output.
- If we wanted the mega-econ boost by avoiding converters, it becomes ~5 planets.
- Similarly, the energy of 12 planets in the old system can be provided by ~10 planets with an econ boost that's a bit less than Eco-III research.
- So it does mean free fortresses for everybody!

(Balance notes)
- Questions to solve: the system is being a little generous, but by how much?

- The absolute minimum an energy collector could viably give is about 100K, assuming static 50K/100m+c converters. This brings it back near original levels at 125K per planet usage, but a severe curve for going over and under.

- 120K collectors may be a testable second iteration, if we're not going to adjust energy usage upwards.

- In addition, we can increase the net efficiency of the converter by a little

- Golems Medium may have something to say about all this. :P