Ye Ol' Reactor debate

[Wingflier]

Matter Converters should probably be fairly expensive to make, otherwise you can just build them at a moment's notice, which makes the micro problem even worse than it is now.

[keith.lamothe]

I'll probably have the build cost/time of both collector and converter start at the sum of the construction costs of a current I + II + III, so 1000m+2600m+7800m + 1500c+7000c+21000c + 60s+240s +560s

or: 11,400m + 29,500c + 660s.

Speed-building via engies being entirely fair game.

[Minotaar]

Free 150k/planet seems like overkill. In a standard game (meaning no superweapons here) you wouldn't ever have to worry about energy (which might be for the best?!). It would also mean plenty of free money for the player compared to the previous system (not necessarily a bad thing either, considering economic upgrades of some kind are pretty mandatory right now). ZPGs would be totally irrelevant as well and would probably take on more of a Captive Human Settlement role 

Thinking the free reactors should not be able to completely cover your energy needs, as long as there is access to a hamster-powered auto-inflatable energy cushion, anyway 

[keith.lamothe]

Free 150k/planet seems like overkill. In a standard game (meaning no superweapons here) you wouldn't ever have to worry about energy

It depends on how hard you're playing and how many planets you can afford to take, and how many planets you can reliably hold, etc.  There's also the difference between "I have enough energy for this" and "I have enough energy for this even if an AI CPA sacks a few planets".

But yes, the number may be too high, we'll see.

(which might be for the best?!)

Yea, honestly, if moderate-challenge games don't see the player spending any mental cycles on the energy system unless their defense breaks and they start losing reactors... is that a bad thing? 

I think it's at least better than the current player-time-tax (albeit hamster-subsidized) system.  And probably a lot of those scenarios are already no-need-to-think-about-energy, but you're losing m+c by not optimizing.  Of course, a lot of those more moderate scenarios are probably seeing periods of capped resources too.  Players who are ok with that probably won't be impacted by this very much, though there will probably need to be adjustment to m+c incomes to account for how much will be free.

It would also mean plenty of free money for the player compared to the previous system (not necessarily a bad thing either, considering economic upgrades of some kind are pretty mandatory right now)

Yea, that's the other side of it: if people's research lists already include either harvester or econ station in the initial unlocks as a basically-mandatory-pick... yea.  Not so great.  Not that I'm trying to deal with the m+c thing here, but if a side effect is a little more breathing room there I don't think that's bad.

ZPGs would be totally irrelevant as well and would probably take on more of a Captive Human Settlement role 

That depends heavily on the kinds of games you play

Thinking the free reactors should not be able to completely cover your energy needs

If you've taken and can reliably hold 10 planets, I think you should be able to run your endgame non-superweapon fleet and major defenses off that; and anything past that is just redundancy protection against catastrophic shutdown.

I'm hoping people won't have to resort to the converters unless they're in a really tough situation where they can't take that many planets and survive, or can't hold their territory, or need a lot of energy for some superweapon, etc.

Anyway, we'll see how it turns out

[Wanderer]

I'm hoping people won't have to resort to the converters unless they're in a really tough situation where they can't take that many planets and survive, or can't hold their territory, or need a lot of energy for some superweapon, etc.

Anyway, we'll see how it turns out

This change, more than any other, will probably be the one that drives me out of 10/10 for a bit until I get used to the balance.  While I support the basic idea of the change, expect VERY loud bitching and moaning from me in AARs until the balance is found.

So, while I am upvoting the idea, I reserve the right to complain about my vote!

[keith.lamothe]

I'm hoping people won't have to resort to the converters unless they're in a really tough situation where they can't take that many planets and survive, or can't hold their territory, or need a lot of energy for some superweapon, etc.

Anyway, we'll see how it turns out

This change, more than any other, will probably be the one that drives me out of 10/10 for a bit until I get used to the balance.  While I support the basic idea of the change, expect VERY loud bitching and moaning from me in AARs until the balance is found.

So, while I am upvoting the idea, I reserve the right to complain about my vote!

Haha, if player complaints about AIW ever stop, I'll get worried

Some numbers that would be useful for balancing this:
- for your current scenario, and separately for the final game of your 9-through-10 run (when you won 10/10):
-- how much total energy (counting inefficiency) were you getting from EnergyI, EnergyII, and EnergyIII units?
-- how much was that costing you (i.e., how many of each reactor did you have total)?
-- how many distinct planets did you have reactors on?

My guess is that what I'm talking about would actually give you a higher overall e/(m+c) efficiency.

[Wanderer]

Haha, if player complaints about AIW ever stop, I'll get worried

Some numbers that would be useful for balancing this:
- for your current scenario, and separately for the final game of your 9-through-10 run (when you won 10/10):
-- how much total energy (counting inefficiency) were you getting from EnergyI, EnergyII, and EnergyIII units?
-- how much was that costing you (i.e., how many of each reactor did you have total)?
-- how many distinct planets did you have reactors on?

My guess is that what I'm talking about would actually give you a higher overall e/(m+c) efficiency.

10/10 win:
Total Energy: 1,480,000 with a buffer of 400,000.  So, total 1,840,000 available, 1,480,00 in use.
Total cost: 10 Is, 10 IIs, 5 IIIs without buffer.  7 IIIs with it.  + ZPG.  Those don't seem right for 400k in difference, I know.  I can only really go by what's in the Resource Flows screen.
Planets: 10 Planets.

Current 10/10:
2 Planets.
409,600 Energy.
5 Is, 5 IIs, 5 IIIs.  (combined) 570 m+c/sec cost.  Energy is wicked tight.

The EndGame rarely needs power balancing, it's mostly early/mid game that power is significant.

[keith.lamothe]

10/10 win:
Total Energy: 1,480,000 with a buffer of 400,000.  So, total 1,840,000 available, 1,480,00 in use.
Total cost: 10 Is, 10 IIs, 5 IIIs without buffer.  7 IIIs with it.  + ZPG.  Those don't seem right for 400k in difference, I know.  I can only really go by what's in the Resource Flows screen.
Planets: 10 Planets.

Thanks for the numbers.  Ok, so without the ZPG you were producing 1,440,000 for 900m+c, for an e/(m+c) of ~2044.

Assuming collectors producing 150k, 10 planets => 10 collectors => 1,500,000 energy for free.  Hmm, maybe being too generous

But if you wanted a buffer (and you would want one), adding 1 converter (assuming 150k e for 200m and 200c) takes it up to 1,650,000 e for 400m+c (200 of each), for an e/(m+c) of 4125.

2 converters, for 1,800,000 e for 800m+c, for an e/(m+c) of 2,250.

At 3 and higher converters you would actually be at lower efficiency than the current model, though that may be as it should be, dunno.

Anyway, as you said, endgame scenarios aren't really where energy is a big problem.

Current 10/10:
2 Planets.
409,600 Energy.
5 Is, 5 IIs, 5 IIIs.  (combined) 570 m+c/sec cost.  Energy is wicked tight.

409,600 e for 570 m+c is an e/(m+c) of ~718

Since 2 planets, 2 Collectors + 1 Converter => 450,000 for 400 m+c, emc of 1125

But if you go up to 2 converters it's gonna eat your already spiral-prone econ, and given the frequency of Blackstone getting taken down, counting on that 2nd collector may be dubious.  Which may also be as it should be, dunno.

[PokerChen]

Still the same cost for ZPG? (3,600,000)

To build it?  Probably.  You could also capture one, which is actually the main intended way of acquiring one, though I've come to realize it's not the common one

Since the player limit is 1, you can't buy one if you already captured one. It gets to the point where people like me would consider holding off on taking a ZPG planet until we snag that Trader in a not-too-dangerous spot. I actually started building one on an AI planet a couple of times, and then race the cloud of angry AI ships to protect it... mini-brinkmanship?

I understand it's intended for the players who can't get ready access to one in the galaxy - I'd suggest having Trader ZPG separate from the capturables, or take it off the buy list (major nerf!).

= = = =
About the collectors, on the initial pass I would've suggested to not stray too far between mk I+II+III and 1Col+1Conv so that player economy is less disturbed. The save game can then convert  1 mk-II -> 1 collector (discarding the rest) and all mk-III -> all converter  without unaware players getting bottomed out suddenly from -9999 m+c per second.

Distribution wise,
collectors = 100,000 energy (limit 1)
converters = 50,000 for 60 m+c (multiples of 20 so asteroids-I and eco stations will round out more nicely).

I have a feeling that making converters at more than 200 m+c per second will be too granular, as players begin at 400~700 m+c won't break net 1000 m+c until a few planets in.

[Eternaly_Lost]

Still the same cost for ZPG? (3,600,000)

To build it?  Probably.  You could also capture one, which is actually the main intended way of acquiring one, though I've come to realize it's not the common one

Since the player limit is 1, you can't buy one if you already captured one. It gets to the point where people like me would consider holding off on taking a ZPG planet until we snag that Trader in a not-too-dangerous spot. I actually started building one on an AI planet a couple of times, and then race the cloud of angry AI ships to protect it... mini-brinkmanship?

I understand it's intended for the players who can't get ready access to one in the galaxy - I'd suggest having Trader ZPG separate from the capturables, or take it off the buy list (major nerf!).

= = = =
About the collectors, on the initial pass I would've suggested to not stray too far between mk I+II+III and 1Col+1Conv so that player economy is less disturbed. The save game can then convert  1 mk-II -> 1 collector (discarding the rest) and all mk-III -> all converter  without unaware players getting bottomed out suddenly from -9999 m+c per second.

Distribution wise,
collectors = 100,000 energy (limit 1)
converters = 50,000 for 60 m+c (multiples of 20 so asteroids-I and eco stations will round out more nicely).

I have a feeling that making converters at more than 200 m+c per second will be too granular, as players begin at 400~700 m+c won't break net 1000 m+c until a few planets in.

Player limit for ZPG is Homeworld count, not 1. And I suggest that collectors also have a limit of homeworld count to just make thing easy when it comes to multi homeworld.

I do however wonder if there is going to be enough energy for Fallen spire Ships, but I never really sat down and ran the numbers outside of you need a lot of energy so when the first city goes up I have to put up another mk2 reactor on every planet to feed the ships.

[keith.lamothe]

I do however wonder if there is going to be enough energy for Fallen spire Ships

That shouldn't work out fundamentally different from before: if you need more energy and can't build more collectors, build converters.  Converters are less efficient than the "early" stacking of additional reactors is now, but are more efficient than that stacking gets once you've got like 5+ of each on each planet.


FYI for the thread in general: I've just finished the implementation and am testing the conversion of some saves and such-like to make sure it's not obviously breaking stuff.  You'll still presumably want to adjust your energy situation after loading, but it shouldn't be too bad.  I don't want to release this tonight in case it breaks something as I won't be on much longer tonight, but I hope to get it out tomorrow (Tuesday).

Then, the complaining can really begin

[PokerChen]

Then, the complaining can really begin

I'll be the first to complain about having to update the wiki again. ;P

[Mánagarmr]

So when can we expect to see these puppies in game?

[Diazo]

Wow, you move fast on this.

Catching up on the thread I like the idea overall.

As setup, it allows to add more reactor types in the future, just give them the appropriate m+c cost for whatever makes them different then the Converter.

However, the way I'm reading it is the Converter does not suffer the production penalty for more then one at a planet. If this is true, you would never build one anywhere but your HW. I'm not sure I agree as this gives you no reason to spread your reactors out and so there is no decision to be made.

I'd like to see either the reduced efficiency come back in a lesser form (maybe drop by 25% per reactor, capping at 50% minimum), or give us two Converters, one as described with a system limit of 1 and another with no system limit but much more expensive in terms of m+c. That way you can still build all your converters in you HW system but you now want to spread your reactors out so your energy generation is more efficient. This makes it a choice based on your playstyle rather then no choice because you will always build them in your HW system.

My worry is this is making it too simple. We are starting to get to the point of "why not just increase command station energy production?"

D.

[Wingflier]

Personally I think it should be 1 energy collector + 1 energy converter per planet. As has been pointed out in this thread, a player can easily sustain a proper offense and defense with JUST collectors and ~10 planets. To double that and still not have enough seems like a personal problem, but I would rather have knowledge-based reactor upgrades than an endless supply of energy all centered on one planet.