Ye Ol' Reactor debate

[Wanderer]

1) Having energy both simulate and play itself; abstraction is preferable to automation there.
2) Adding a lot of extra complexity; going from a galaxy-wide resource to a per-planet resource is almost inevitably a pretty big increase in complexity.  A per-planet resource that partially transmits to neighboring planets is even moreso.
- More complexity isn't necessarily a no-go, but the "fun payoff" will have to be pretty high to justify it.
3) Lose the global-population-cap aspect of the mechanic.
4) Otherwise making things less fun.

Can you describe #1 there a bit more?  I'm not quite sure I understood what you were trying to get at.

For #2 I'm personally not looking to make it a planetary resource any more/less than it already is (need planets to have it). Global as a starting point makes plenty of sense.  What I'd like it more to do on that is use controlled vs. non-controlled planets as a limiter to depth-of-attack instead of the current deepstrike mechanic that's in place.

3) Ah, now, there's something I'd actually like to see modified.  For FLEET (anything that moves through a wormhole) caps I agree with you, there definately needs to be some kind of capping there.   I personally would love to pull Science vessels, command stations, turrets, and a host of other things out of the system entirely.  This way it's a concentrated component to the fleet's continued usage, instead of a global currency... and is no longer directly involved in defense cascades.  Though, with your fleet falling to pieces around you it's going to be hard to respond...

4) Agreed.  If that happens we burn that with fire.

On the scientific realism thing... yea, cross-galaxy power seems weird.  But so does cross-galaxy m+c. 

Well, it just bugs me, but that's besides the point, it's the mechanic itself I'd like to see rewired in general.  That it bugs me just got me off my duff to try to start a debate on it.  M+C I always saw as shuttle pilots running stuff back to the construction centers.  Heck, we have massive warpgates that transport huge starships around the galaxy.  "Hey, boss, dumping another ton in the matter gate for homeworld building." Doesn't seem that far of a stretch at that point.

And from the other side I think energy is a pretty good word for "what makes it go" for just about everything with an energy cost (and things without it can be thought of as having onboard reactors, etc).

I just can't see building anything WITHOUT that onboard reactor, personally, particularly fleet units.  Local units who aren't expected to 'cross swords' with AI units in non-friendly systems I could see using transmitted power.  Anything that's expected to run around a world, hide on the other side of forcefields, or anything else... 'eh, just bugs me internally.

Whereas "control" or whatever doesn't quite fit for all of them.  Ultimately, while I'm happy to move towards better immersion where it's an obvious benefit all around, it's heavily secondary to the gameplay itself.

Sold.  No issues here with that.

I like Hearteater's idea earlier in this thread; not sure about all of it but I think it's something that could work and be more interesting.  Out of curiosity, are there any strong objections to it?  I imagine the hard-cap on possible energy production would be a problem for some.

Only my objections above.  The difficulty of low planet (and thus low AIP games) should be nudged back towards normal anyway.  That's not a horrible way of doing it... and might actually make the Z-Gennie worth its price... cause right now it's a piece of ... errr, dammit, dead horse.

To completely side-step the idea and go at this from out of the box... what if 'high energy' ships that were taken out of the energy system needed to use a new element.  I dunno, for now I'll just steal from Mass Effect and call it Element Zero.  If you could only setup one collector for this element at each planet, it would force a different form of build cap, one that forced you to take more worlds to try to absorb enough of it to build your fleets back up faster.

I'm not entirely sure that wouldn't end up LESS fun though because of the already long hauls during refleeting.  There'd need to be some kind of balance point.  Well, throwing it out there, maybe it'll spark up someone else's ideas.

[keith.lamothe]

3) Ah, now, there's something I'd actually like to see modified.  For FLEET (anything that moves through a wormhole) caps I agree with you, there definately needs to be some kind of capping there.   I personally would love to pull Science vessels, command stations, turrets, and a host of other things out of the system entirely.  This way it's a concentrated component to the fleet's continued usage, instead of a global currency... and is no longer directly involved in defense cascades.  Though, with your fleet falling to pieces around you it's going to be hard to respond...

I don't mind pulling the extraneous stuff out, I'm mainly interested in limiters on golems and total forces and whatnot.  But, for instance, the energy cost on transports is an important part of their balance, I think.

On the scientific realism thing... yea, cross-galaxy power seems weird.  But so does cross-galaxy m+c. 

Well, it just bugs me, but that's besides the point, it's the mechanic itself I'd like to see rewired in general.  That it bugs me just got me off my duff to try to start a debate on it.  M+C I always saw as shuttle pilots running stuff back to the construction centers.  Heck, we have massive warpgates that transport huge starships around the galaxy.  "Hey, boss, dumping another ton in the matter gate for homeworld building." Doesn't seem that far of a stretch at that point.

Ok, charge up a battery, toss it through the logisto-gate

I'm wondering if "fuel" might be a better term: everything has onboard power generation, but it doesn't come from nothing (a few self-sustaining systems come to mind, but all have limitations).  It would have its own problems, of course, but might cause somewhat less cognitive dissonance.

[Cyborg]

Did somebody say reactor debate?

Oh good, my favorite topic. 

[keith.lamothe]

Did somebody say reactor debate?

Oh good, my favorite topic. 

Maybe this time we can actually find something that will work

Any critical (or less-critical) concerns about Hearteater's proposal?  Particularly from the "does this increase or decrease player choice" perspective.

[Wanderer]

Did somebody say reactor debate?

Oh good, my favorite topic. 

Maybe this time we can actually find something that will work

Any critical (or less-critical) concerns about Hearteater's proposal?  Particularly from the "does this increase or decrease player choice" perspective.

Concerns:
- Multi-homeworld and a fixed reactor cap = bad juju.  Please make sure it can expand with homeworld count.

- I personally rely heavily on being able to get 250k+ (up to 400k in emergencies with 5 banks of reactors with the energy hamster) in energy out of every planet.  This is particularly due to Fortresses and Science squads, and making sure I can survive a multiple-satellite planet failure without a cascade.  It costs me an arm and a leg to do this, but I'd hate to see that option completely removed. 

This will definately decrease player choice... and is probably a good thing.  I don't want to see the 'overcharged for energy/fuel/manpower' concept completely die away though.  There should be some 'Oh CRAP!' contingency you can put into play... at least at first.

- This is going to prompt a hard-core energy review of just about any ship fielded by a player.  Just sayin'.

- It's a start.  It's going to be painful, expensive, and a bit of a re-think for techniques... but anything to get this ball rolling.  Run with it! Just kill off the continuous M+C, please, if you go to this model. 

Also, any chance on my request for a clarification about your point #1 above? 

[Wanderer]

I don't mind pulling the extraneous stuff out, I'm mainly interested in limiters on golems and total forces and whatnot.  But, for instance, the energy cost on transports is an important part of their balance, I think.

Ya know, I was thinking about this again... and isn't there a reason caps are already in existance for ships?  I agree it's a secondary soft cap so you can't abandon everythin.... nevermind.

There's got to be a better way. C'mon brain, get with the program.  Think Pooh! Think!  I'm still wrapped around that command station relay theory.  I just need to find a way that everyone says "Hellz Yeah!"... which means it's simple enough to explain in the first place.

[Eternaly_Lost]

Did somebody say reactor debate?

Oh good, my favorite topic. 

Maybe this time we can actually find something that will work

Any critical (or less-critical) concerns about Hearteater's proposal?  Particularly from the "does this increase or decrease player choice" perspective.

Fallen Spire.

You burn though energy at a rate like there is no tomorrow to fuel all those wonderful ships. Unless the Spire Reactors pick up power production, I am afraid that Spire fleet ships might be missed as you don't get the energy needed to run them and everything else. You need the other ships to defend the boards from the Exo waves well the Spire Fleet ships is out attacking things, cities don't do a good enough job on that.

[keith.lamothe]

1) Having energy both simulate and play itself; abstraction is preferable to automation there

Can you describe #1 there a bit more?  I'm not quite sure I understood what you were trying to get at.

I'd been off to bed at the time so didn't catch all this:

The logical extension of the current energy model is to just automate it entirely.  As Cyborg has shown in the past, the current model can be solved basically optimally (there are a few edge cases where a simple algorithm would miss a little efficiency) for any given point in time without applying any more complexity than a kindergarten "make change for a dollar" problem.  Hence the requests for automated energy management.

But we don't want to automate energy management   I added the hamsters as an in-the-meantime compromise (and to poke fun at us and the whole energy debate at the same time) but the main thing is that if the game has some piece of the simulation that the player is supposed to interact with, but the optimal interaction is "push this toggle to make it manage itself" ... why is it in the game?  This isn't a citybuilder or whatever where the mostly-playing-itself simulation is the point.

So that's what I mean: it would be better to abstract the system (for instance, remove the ability to reduce power expenditure by low-powering something, or remove the cost of energy, or whatever) than to automate it.  Just give the same results to the player without the trouble of simulating it.

But even better than abstracting it is finding a way to make it more interesting.  As I mentioned, the energy system went through a lot of redos and overhauls early on in the game's history.  And since an earlier automated-energy-management debate I've put a lot of thought into how to "reform" the current system but every time I run into something that would hurt more than what's there now.  And every few months someone comes up with a new idea on how to make energy more interesting and we have one of these threads


My inclination is currently towards what Hearteater has suggested (3 reactors per planet, period, and different types of reactors you can build with different outputs and durability, etc), with one addition: another new reactor type that doesn't count against the 3-per-planet cap but does cost m+c (none of the others would).  Probably at the same efficiency as (say) the 3rd MkII on a planet does now; so kind of on the punitive side but just a flat rate and not caring about how many others are on the same planet.  The idea is that most situations wouldn't call for them, but they're still there if you need them.  The difference is that these (and all the other reactors) could never be low-powered; if you need that m+c income back, blow the reactor.  And they'd have suitably high construction cost/times to make it hard to just replace the current model's "pause/resume reactor" with "scrap/build reactor".

[Hearteater]

I semi-disagree.  Special operations units (Mob of Science IIs, Transport Herd, Cloak brigades, Fortresses) all outweigh their energy concerns compared to the affect they have.  Fortresses are a good example.  At 90k in Energy, and 3000k in research, for your one planet worth of gain (125k in energy, 225k at double reactor and 20% loss of conversion) you're using up 2-2.5 planets at double reactor worth of power.  Throw in a stack of transports simply so you can get your scouts out that much further and you're looking at a massive energy spike with no compensation.  Investing a K worth of knowledge into a few turret upgrades can have a similar effect.

Yeah, but once you get a Z.Gen you are basically covered for most special needs.  You can still hit an energy ceiling if you try, but I think it should be easier to hit, so long as players still have the ability to solve all the challenges they encounter.  Also granted the Z.Gen is an expansion unit, but the base game is a bit easier (fewer AI toys to overcome).

I personally like options A and D as a starting point.  I'm not particularly fond of C simply because of golems and their need to repair.  It's nice when you can 'swap them out' while one repairs and another heads back out with a rebuilt fleet.

I could see things like Golems have their power requirements dropped when "powered down" because you never have that many.  Of course it would be nice if they had a "power up" time so they didn't instantly go from mothballed to guns blazing in the blink of an eye.

The problem with [reactor placement resitrctions] that is because of the spacial concerns, nothing else would fit under the FF.  You'd basically just always end up with a multi-FF system on any planet that had to defend its reactors.

Ah, the intention is ONLY reactors care about those restrictions.  You could place anything else right next to a reactor without a problem.  But you can't put two reactors too close.

On "power decay", one simple way to handle this would be to double* all mobile ship energy costs (maybe not golems and other super weapons) and make all Command Stations halve energy costs of those ships (so no net change).  But once you leave a system you control, your fleet ships cost a lot more energy.  Enter the Power Relay Ship, which is mobile and has the Command Station's energy reduction, but has the Transport's un-repairable and lose-of-health when entering enemy systems disadvantages.

* Could be any percent increase, just using 100% as an example.

[keith.lamothe]

In general I don't think it would be good for energy expenditure to change significantly due to moving ships to a different planet; that could lead to a lot of "what just happened?" questions/bug-reports, or just "no idea what this game's doing, on to a different game" situations.

Mainly thinking of situations in the early game where someone's built fleet and turrets to cap, and then they try to attack and the lights go out.

[Cyborg]

Did somebody say reactor debate?

Oh good, my favorite topic. 

Any critical (or less-critical) concerns about Hearteater's proposal?  Particularly from the "does this increase or decrease player choice" perspective.

Yes, I have some comments. Highly sensitive to player choice. After all, that's what makes it a game.

To improve the energy system, I would consider the following:

a) Remove the m+c cost of reactors completely and cap the number of reactors in a system.

 

b) Re-design Reactors to work like Command Stations.  There are multiple types of Reactors, each with pros and cons.

 

I can easily tell which reactor is the most optimal from your post. This doesn't really affect the game.

c) Powering down ships no longer reduces energy consumption.  It still has all the other effects (such as dropping shields and holding fire).

 

d) Re-balance energy costs, in particular for turrets.  It may be ideal to pull energy costs from turrets entirely, or maybe to just 10% of their current values.  Push the offensive unit energy costs up to compensate, making low energy ship types an interesting strategic choice.

 

The idea of energy was that losing a planet would affect your infrastructure and military investment in real time. I do believe that the resource cost part of it is probably outdated. Removing the energy requirements for your defensive structures is contrary to the original idea of energy. You can do this, but you haven't provided any justification of what you think energy is supposed to be doing. Maybe you need to expand on this idea.

To expand on a Reactor re-design:

Their m+c cost to build would be high as would their construction time, making losing a reactor very noticeable.  Something around 50-75% of a Mark I Starship in terms of both resources and time.  They are limited to 3 per system. 

 

I really don't want to see reactors tied to resource costs that strongly. During a big fight, or complicated scenario, money is always tight, and I don't want to see reactors getting in the way of basic functions like rebuilding in the middle of a war. You have to understand, you have started to place more constraints on the reactor than we ever had to begin with. How many we can have, how much they are going to cost (a lot), and even where you can place them. This doesn't make the game more fun, it just makes reactors feel like more of a pain in the ass. Please revise this part. Any revision to reactors, in my mind, needs to have some kind of fun mechanic or something entertaining about it. What you have come up with is just a revision on the punishment with a little bit more complicated optimization process (but not so complicated that I haven't figured it out just by reading your post).

Ideally they should have a restriction on being placed too close to each other, with the goal being 3 could just barely fit in a triangle under a Mark I Force Field, but that really just makes defending them more interesting.

 

Really don't like. Don't tell me where to place my reactors, how far apart, or make it silly in creating my own defensive set up.

Reactor types (for starters) with a target energy production values of 180k/system:

Basic Reactor - Reasonable health, no armor.  Generates 60k energy.  This is the balanced middle-ground reactor.
Armored Reactor - High health and armor to survive repeated attacks.  Generates 48k energy.
High Energy Reactor - Very low health, no armor.  Generates 72k energy.
Stealth Reactor - Low health and cloaking.  Generates 40k energy.
Home Reactor - High health, no armor.  Generates 72k energy.  Cannot be built, player starts with three in their home system.

High energy reactor all day long, all the time.

[keith.lamothe]

Yea, there are some things that are more invasive than they need to be.  The placement-restrictions, particularly, are likely more annoyance than they're worth.

Taking it from another perspective, perhaps something simpler can be an overall improvement on the situation.  How about only :

1)

a) Remove the m+c cost of reactors completely and cap the number of reactors in a system.

2)

c) Powering down ships no longer reduces energy consumption.  It still has all the other effects (such as dropping shields and holding fire).

3) Add a "Matter Converter" that's basically a manufactory that converts m+c to e (or one that's m=>e and one that's c=>e.  The idea is that you wouldn't normally need these, but they're there for the same reason people can stack a bunch of reactors now.  No low-powering these, though.

And potentially just change all the energy reactors into a single mark and maybe have the per-planet cap be 1 but put out the appropriate amount of energy.  But that additional simplification wouldn't really impact the overall effect either way.

Reactor types (for starters) with a target energy production values of 180k/system:

Basic Reactor - Reasonable health, no armor.  Generates 60k energy.  This is the balanced middle-ground reactor.
Armored Reactor - High health and armor to survive repeated attacks.  Generates 48k energy.
High Energy Reactor - Very low health, no armor.  Generates 72k energy.
Stealth Reactor - Low health and cloaking.  Generates 40k energy.
Home Reactor - High health, no armor.  Generates 72k energy.  Cannot be built, player starts with three in their home system.

High energy reactor all day long, all the time.

If I did something like that, I might make the high energy reactor even higher output, but make it nuke the planet (or EMP, if I'm feeling a little less cruel) if destroyed

But I'm thinking the different types of reactor, while potentially cool, may not be necessary to improve the situation.

[Hearteater]

Yeah, I think multi-homeworld and multi-player pretty much kills Reactor placement restrictions.  As for the cap, multi-homeworld caps would scale, so on a 4 Homeworld game you could have 12 reactors per system which I believe mimics the system that went in for patch 5.025.

High energy reactor all day long, all the time.

Then the balance is incorrect.  If one reactor type is optimal, obviously that would need to be fixed.  I just threw together some choices as examples and I deliberately avoided anything but the most basic designs.  But the highest energy output reactor would probably need some serious downsides, making it safe to use only in systems you have very well secured.  I like Keith's EMP idea.  Another option would be making it produce no energy under a Force Field.  One example of more unique Reactor option I considered, that would compete with the High Energy Recator, would be:

Network Reactor: Reasonable health, no armor.  Generates 50k energy, +1.5k per other Network Reactor you control (divide this bonus energy by the number of HW the player has to avoid multi-HW abuse).  Destruction of a Network Reactor damages all other Network Reactors you control for 30% of their maximum health.

If you get 15 down, they all out-power the High Energy Reactor.  Of course if you lose 4 from an attack, they all explode, which is pretty much game over.

[keith.lamothe]

I think if we did multiple reactors then 2 would suffice to start with:
- Normal: normal output, flimsy like the current ones
- Cloaked: below-normal output, still flimsy, but cloaked

The idea would be to use the normal ones whenever you could, but the cloaked one would be there as a fallback where a planet is just too hard to defend but you want some power out of it.

[chemical_art]

I think if we did multiple reactors then 2 would suffice to start with:
- Normal: normal output, flimsy like the current ones
- Cloaked: below-normal output, still flimsy, but cloaked

The idea would be to use the normal ones whenever you could, but the cloaked one would be there as a fallback where a planet is just too hard to defend but you want some power out of it.

This.

If my humongous layers of defenses cannot stop the enemy, having extra or less health on my reactors will not matter. So that should not be a trade-off (health, I mean). The only defensive value that will matter will be stealth.