General Category > Stars Beyond Reach Beta Phase 1-2 Discussion

Cyborg's updated review

<< < (2/4) > >>

Zebeast46:
I actually just thought of an idea that MAY work, how about there is an option to turn on inflation, inflation would make each of your buildings that generate income produce less income and this effect would increase as the game goes on to convince players to expand (obviously it would max out at some point because of balance issues) I think this would also solve the problem of the player generally having too much money later on in the game. And like I mentioned this option would not be mandatory so that the players who want to take their time with the game can. The biggest disavantage I can think of is that I have not yet thought of a way to make it seem like it fits story wise.

tombik:

--- Quote from: Zebeast46 on July 01, 2015, 09:39:36 am ---I actually just thought of an idea that MAY work, how about there is an option to turn on inflation, inflation would make each of your buildings that generate income produce less income and this effect would increase as the game goes on to convince players to expand (obviously it would max out at some point because of balance issues) I think this would also solve the problem of the player generally having too much money later on in the game. And like I mentioned this option would not be mandatory so that the players who want to take their time with the game can. The biggest disavantage I can think of is that I have not yet thought of a way to make it seem like it fits story wise.

--- End quote ---

If there is a decrease in the revenue with each built income building, then there would be actually an optimal number of income generating buildings. The effect wont be incentivizing more building, it would incentivize no building at all once u reached that peak point.

So, with no fluff, and no supporting other mechanics, this would actually be the same with limiting maximum number of buildings for no reason. Since cost of each building is same, if profits are decreasing, this result is trivial.

If we are trying to incentivize more buildings, one can think of additional benefits for building more, like diplomacy power etc. Or changing the profits so that more buildings are actually producing MORE profit per building. But that would mess with early game balance, so maybe having some finite resource for starters will solve that.

So basically my counter offer would be:

-No economy can sustain itself in the short run.
-Starting crowns is defined as a lot of more than in current startup. So this bonus will be used instead of actual income from buildings for a while (until economy takes off). Considering there can't be any country in real world with only one factory for income (or bank) that has positive GDP growth, this actually makes sense.
-Objective is making economy sustainable. After a while, there would be again too much income, but that point would be hard to reach until end game.

- One more point. If there is still too much income, just balancing the latter buildings prices would do a good job. So there would be another layer of optimization between spending abundant of money versus efficiency.

Zebeast46:

--- Quote from: tombik on July 01, 2015, 07:07:24 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zebeast46 on July 01, 2015, 09:39:36 am ---I actually just thought of an idea that MAY work, how about there is an option to turn on inflation, inflation would make each of your buildings that generate income produce less income and this effect would increase as the game goes on to convince players to expand (obviously it would max out at some point because of balance issues) I think this would also solve the problem of the player generally having too much money later on in the game. And like I mentioned this option would not be mandatory so that the players who want to take their time with the game can. The biggest disavantage I can think of is that I have not yet thought of a way to make it seem like it fits story wise.

--- End quote ---

If there is a decrease in the revenue with each built income building, then there would be actually an optimal number of income generating buildings. The effect wont be incentivizing more building, it would incentivize no building at all once u reached that peak point.

So, with no fluff, and no supporting other mechanics, this would actually be the same with limiting maximum number of buildings for no reason. Since cost of each building is same, if profits are decreasing, this result is trivial.

If we are trying to incentivize more buildings, one can think of additional benefits for building more, like diplomacy power etc. Or changing the profits so that more buildings are actually producing MORE profit per building. But that would mess with early game balance, so maybe having some finite resource for starters will solve that.

So basically my counter offer would be:

-No economy can sustain itself in the short run.
-Starting crowns is defined as a lot of more than in current startup. So this bonus will be used instead of actual income from buildings for  while (until economy takes off). Considering about there can't be any country in real world with only one factory for income (or bank) that has positive GDP growth, this actually makes sense.
-Objective is making economy sustainable. After a while, there would be again too much income, but that point would be hard to reach until end game.

- One more point. If there is still too much income, just balancing the latter buildings prices would do a good job. So there would be another layer of optimization between spending abundant of money versus efficiency.

--- End quote ---

I think I mis wrote this but what I meant was that over time the inflation increases which will then require you to build more income buildings which require a higher population to sustain  :P. Sorry about that.
But yeah I get your points, there are probably better ways to do this.

tombik:

--- Quote from: Zebeast46 on July 01, 2015, 08:48:23 pm ---
I think I mis wrote this but what I meant was that over time the inflation increases which will then require you to build more income buildings which require a higher population to sustain  :P. Sorry about that.
But yeah I get your points, there are probably better ways to do this.

--- End quote ---

If you meant, inflation would effect older buildings harder, so it is basically not about quantity but about its age, I can see how this would help spreading out.

But it will also incentivize destroying your own buildings time to time to get maximum benefit.

If you mean same effect will apply to all buildings, there cant be a way to implement this. If more buildings will mean a decreasingly increasing profit, at the limit marginal profit will be zero, rendering additional buildings redundant, even harmful.

I cant see how you are thinking so please explain more, I am curious :)

Zebeast46:
Yeah, sorry abot this I am pretty terrible at explaining things  :). But yeah basically what I mean is that, for example at 75 turns or so all buildings that produce crowns now are only 0.90x times as effective as before, then another 75 turns in or so they then only have 0.80x times as much crowd production than originally up to probably a limit of around 0.50x times as many crowns.

Actually I think I may want to alter the idea slightly into an idea that might make the Acutians stand out a bit more. As in if the Acutians dont like you then the price of all your buildings go up by about ten percent and if you are friendly with them the price of your buildings drop by ten percent.

I guess either of these could work if they were refined enough, but I think that inflation is a huge misnomer for the first idea as inflation is things costing more put simply, while the first idea is more of a decrease in effectiveness among your income producing buildings.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page