Ye Ol' Reactor debate

[keith.lamothe]

The difference with the micro is that it would happen less often (mainly when you suffer catastrophic energy loss, which is a time where there's usually going to be micro on something because you're probably under significant attack) and would no longer be costless, or rather purely-player-time-cost: you'd either be losing a unit (in scrapping) or m+c+time (in building more).

The part that's most bothersome to me about the current system is that the only difference between sloppy and optimal play is how much time you-the-player want to spend while paused figuring it out what to power up and power down.  The hamsters help a lot, but they were just a bandaid to begin with.

[chemical_art]

The difference with the micro is that it would happen less often (mainly when you suffer catastrophic energy loss, which is a time where there's usually going to be micro on something because you're probably under significant attack) and would no longer be costless, or rather purely-player-time-cost: you'd either be losing a unit (in scrapping) or m+c+time (in building more).

The part that's most bothersome to me about the current system is that the only difference between sloppy and optimal play is how much time you-the-player want to spend while paused figuring it out what to power up and power down.  The hamsters help a lot, but they were just a bandaid to begin with.

I can see a point to all of this except the highlighted above. There is no "catastrophic energy lost". There is either

1) Enough power
2) Not enough power

There is no "brownout" as opposed to "blackout" differentiation in energy. The only sliding scale is that with you can build some units but not others if you are near the limit.

This would increase micro in that you would have to manually set a "energy cushion" if you didn't want to scrap units. But looping build queues don't care if you want a 50k energy cushion. Forcing the player to have a energy cushion is an idea I would fully support as long as there is a game mechanic for building loops to allow it. Make it a setting in the same menu as number of reactors per planet and cutoff of resources per sec for automated, etc?

[keith.lamothe]

There is no "catastrophic energy lost"

I meant "AI attack destroys an energy producer and causes your forcefields to shut off".

This would increase micro in that you would have to manually set a "energy cushion" if you didn't want to scrap units. But looping build queues don't care if you want a 50k energy cushion. Forcing the player to have a energy cushion is an idea I would fully support as long as there is a game mechanic for building loops to allow it. Make it a setting in the same menu as number of reactors per planet and cutoff of resources per sec for automated, etc?

Sure, I'd be happy to add that, good suggestion

[chemical_art]

There is no "catastrophic energy lost"

I meant "AI attack destroys an energy producer and causes your forcefields to shut off".

This would increase micro in that you would have to manually set a "energy cushion" if you didn't want to scrap units. But looping build queues don't care if you want a 50k energy cushion. Forcing the player to have a energy cushion is an idea I would fully support as long as there is a game mechanic for building loops to allow it. Make it a setting in the same menu as number of reactors per planet and cutoff of resources per sec for automated, etc?

Sure, I'd be happy to add that, good suggestion

Sleeping it over, if such a mechanic existing when the new reactors came on line, I would fully support. It allows more risk vs reward, these new reactor. I like that concept. It actually all comes to together with that energy cushion.

Because with energy you now get the question:

"How much energy reserves should I have?"

The more reserves, the less stuff, the less likely you have to scrap. More stuff, more likely to lose it all. All good as long as builders and other automated buildings don't ruin it.

[Wingflier]

Sleeping it over, if such a mechanic existing when the new reactors came on line, I would fully support. It allows more risk vs reward, these new reactor. I like that concept. It actually all comes to together with that energy cushion.

Because with energy you now get the question:

"How much energy reserves should I have?"

The more reserves, the less stuff, the less likely you have to scrap. More stuff, more likely to lose it all. All good as long as builders and other automated buildings don't ruin it.

I don't know if it will be that simple until it becomes extremely fine-tuned.

I mean think about it:  In our current system, all energy production takes a significant amount of metal and crystal.  It takes 57 metal and crystal, per planet, just to have all 3 Marks up at a time.  That adds up to be a big tax when you own a lot of planets (more if you want to take the efficiency penalty).  Yet even with this giant resource drain, most players seem to have plenty of extra resources as soon as they hit the mid-game.

Keith's method means that we are getting all of our base energy free, so our resource profit will therefore spike.  Unless Energy Collectors give a small amount of energy and Energy Converters are extremely inefficient, there's really very little risk at all.

[Hearteater]

I believe Keith's proposed numbers work out to:
125k energy from the Energy Collector
125k energy from the Matter Converter at 468.75 metal and 468.75 crystal per second

[keith.lamothe]

I believe Keith's proposed numbers work out to:
125k energy from the Energy Collector
125k energy from the Matter Converter at 468.75 metal and 468.75 crystal per second

Yes, that's what it comes out to, I think.  I'll probably round the converter's cost down to 400m+400c, or perhaps rethink the math there entirely, it just seemed like a good starting point for the "infinite energy" option.  Or make it much more granular than 125k, etc.

Anyway, basically per-planet you'd be getting 125k energy for 0 m+c where it used to cost 57m+57c.  But if you needed more than that, you'd be losing 8-9 times that for a single converter.  Which sounds a bit brutal

[Wingflier]

We'll see how it goes.  In theory it seems solid.

[keith.lamothe]

Hmm, so maybe basing the converter's cost on the average efficiency of a stack of IIs:
40k for 15+15
24k for 15+15
14.4k for 15+15
8640 for 15+15
5184 for 15+15
(and then the 4000 floor)

Looking at the top 5, that's 92224 for 75+75, or 0.0008m+0.0008c per e, which would mean 101.65m+101.65c for 125k e.

So thinking of splitting the difference at somewhere around 200m+200c per converter.  Might be too generous, it's just a matter of playtesting to figure it out.

I could also consider keeping the stacking-efficiency mechanic for converters, but I'd like to at least try it without that.

[Wingflier]

I think the biggest thing you DON'T want to do is punish players for using a lot of energy.

Personally I can think of a lot of strategies that would stay within the confines of just the Energy Collectors (with that many extra resources a ZPG would be easy to pay for), but I don't think someone should be punished just because they like Golems or Fortresses.

[Hearteater]

Punishing someone for high energy with very few planets is okay, since that is kind of the point.  I think the Energy Collector might need a higher energy output though.  I'd say 150k (equivilant to two sets of Reactor I-III) might be a better value there.

[keith.lamothe]

Ok, what I'm thinking numerically is:

Energy Collector: 150k for no per-second cost
Matter Converter: 150k for 200m+200c per-second
ZPG: change to 600k for no per-second cost (i.e. 4 planets worth of bonus energy)

[Wingflier]

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

[keith.lamothe]

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

[topper]

What would the construction cost of the Energy Collector be? If it was cheap enough, it would be an automatic build on all new planets. A settings option to "Automatically build Energy Collector near Command Station" would be really nice. (unless this seems too much like modules). Alternatively, the Energy Collector might not need to exist, a larger base energy could be provided by the command stations themselves instead of having a separate building and that makes updating old saves a lot easier.

An idea for Matter Converters:
The micro gets worse if instead of just powering on/off reactors you have to manually build Converters. What if Converters were allowed to power down, and would do so automatically if the power requirement dropped below the power provided? (maybe also a setting to control a maximum cushion and/or the minimum power provided so that a fleet wipe or loss of a Golem does not cause an unintended drop).

Here are a few ideas to make this balanced without a lot of switching on/off or required micro:
-Make Converters take some amount of time to power back on (roughly equal to the time it would take to build them, but it saves you the micro).
-Or make it so that when a planet has a Converter switch power modes, it does not allow an additional switch for some amount of time, so they could only turn on/off one at a time on a particular planet. This would also promote spreading out your power base since it could respond automatically more quickly.
-Or make the converters have a large up front construction cost so that a tough decision has to be made to add more of them, but once you have them you can take advantage the automatic switching.