T2 Energy: Specialisation Avenues

Since I am slowly turning into the Cato the Elder of T2 specialisation I thought it more constructive to start collecting ideas of how to differentiate T1 resource generators from T2 - starting with energy to keep it a bit more focused. I will provide a bunch of numbers for a quick orientation, cum grano salis and all that, with efficiency referring to energy output per mass point cost.

• Solar Array - provides energy only during daytime: at x3 efficiency of T1 (daytime being clear line-of-sight to the sun)
• Geothermal Plant - needs to be placed on metal spots: x5 efficiency of T1 (for when metal becomes the limiting factor again)
• Nuclear Plant - explodes like a small nuke on death: x5 efficiency of T1 (and/or radiation on death?)
• Incineration Plant - recycle your units to generate energy depending on their mass cost: 100 energy per mass (depends on builder energy costs, obviously)
• Pumped-storage Hydroelectric Plant - a hybrid generator/battery in water bodies: efficiency depending on planet size (toggle generation/storage)
• Tidal Power Plant - provides energy depending on the number of orbiting moons: x2 per moon (only buildable in shallow water)
• Wind Turbine - tall, fragile structure targettable by anti-air: x2 efficiency of T1

Those are just a few quick ideas on how to make T2 energy generation more interesting and avoid the T2-upgrades-pitfall.
What is your take on it? Do we even need T2 resource generators? Other suggestions and ideas?

edit: layout is hard...

I'm not sure about the specific implementation, but I think some more options on power generation would be nice. TA always had a nice mix of different P-gens which you had to choose to suit the environment you were in (some maps were windy, others had good tidal and so on). I guess the problem is the amount of time it would take UBER to implement all the variables. One thing I think they need to do if nothing else- T2 p-gen reactors should *explode* when they get taken out.

I generally think PA needs more volatile structures as it has a number of implications:
1: Players can't just stack buildings like they do- they need to consider carefully where to place dangerous structures

2: It gives attacking players some good bomber targets other than the com. As it stands there are only a handful of thing worth committing expensive t2 bombers to- personally I'd only bother to bomb t2 air labs, nukes, orbital launchers (if I've got mine up first) and the Com. Possibly big guns like the Holkins are also worth bombing but only if they are close enough to pose a threat. Making T2 pgens explode (and more importantly chain react if too close together) will make targeting eco a viable strategy.

3: It makes it harder to turtle in a tight little fortress surrounded with walls and turrets (I had a few games like this lately). I don't want to stop turtling however I think even turtle players should be expected to expand a bit- enough that you have a chance of maybe attacking them. Volatile reactors would help achieve this I think.

4: Watching a large base all chain react because the player essentially built a wall of bombs running through it is just epic!

Thank you for your thoughtful reply! You surely saw that I proposed something in the spirit your statement - Nuclear Plants. I want to stress that this is not a suggestions thread per se; I just want to raise awareness in terms of T1-vs-T2-design and the fact that T2 energy and metal in their current form have no place in the game if T2 really is to be a specialised tier. Since there seems to be a demand for more efficient resource generators I wanted to show some ways of achieving that while avoiding violating the T2-principle and trying to stay as intuitive, interesting and easy to implement as possible.
Bottom line: Strictly superior T2 resource generation has to go. If higher-yield economic buildings are necessary - and I think they aren't and shouldn't - here is a bunch of starting points.

Just to reassure you - if this sort of thing doesn't make it into the core game, we plan to release a mod to 'remedy' it.

Not a lot written to down yet, since we don't know whether it will even be necessary to make, but it's under "Economy Expansion" - http://www.the-realm-gaming.co.uk/topic/the-realm-mod-pack/

Also, on a side-note, you'll never be able to wrangle the title of "Cato the Elder of T2 specialisation" from @nanolathe. And if you do he'll probably try to gut you with a fish knife

As long as it doesn't make the other knives obsolete that is fine by me. Thanks for the heads-up!

edit: knifes, good lord...

Ooh, you (any anyone else contributing to this thread) might also be interested in some further background reading on the topic:

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/energy-generators.50329/
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/the-energy-thread.35822/
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/alternative-energy-sources.46649/

Oh god, I can already hear brian approaching with the search-cudgel. Thus I strongly emphasize the 'good riddance, t2 resources!'-theme of the thread, just in case.

He should be asleep at this hour - you're okay for now

I hope he takes it in good spirit, he is just trying to keep everything smooth and tidy I know. Has anyone tried and tested a T1-only game? If all is according to the Uber-plan that should must still allow for balanced and fun gameplay. My internet connection unfortunately just doesn't cut the mustard in terms of the Uber-engine's streaming architecture so I can't verify it myself for the time being.

I've always been a big proponent on this, so HELL YEA.

Implementation problems aside, i don't really see anything wrong with it either.

Well I think by your comments you mean "T1 resources only" game rather than "T1 only" in general? I'd say that T1 power and mex give enough to run a limited number of T2 plants (which is as it should be IMO). At the moment with T2 mex in particular you can build mass t2 factories, nukes and everything. It takes the strategy out of deciding what to put your resources into as the best answer is always 'everything'.

I did actually mean T1-only as in no T2 units or structures of any kind. If T2 really is only a specialist tier then in theory the game should be functional and fun without it. T2 being an enriching addition notwithstanding of course.
But it might be interesting in the context of this thread to see how a T1-economy-only game would pan out. Since T2 doesn't bring anything new to the gameplay-table it shouldn't be missed in theory if not even in practice. Would make balancing easier, too.

Would solar panels really work? Aren't there spots on some planets that get more or less light on average? It might really favor some spawn positions.

Now we're getting into questions like axial tilt and seasons Obviously the equator would probably be the ideal place to build solar all 'year' round, but the poles would be particularly good or particularly useless depending on the season.

yea, then you're continuously migrating your flock or solar panels, can anyone here mimic their call by the way, I forget.

anyways I like the idea.

That is why proposed a simplification of issue at hand by simple checking if any celestial bodies block line-of-sight to the sun. It is a broad generalisation for sure but I think it is well worth it for ease of access and use. In any case I tried to keep the examples simple but there is always a means of expanding an idea.

Thanks for the feedback, guys!

And that's good.
You don't want a totally homogeneous map where all is equally equal everywhere; where there's no point in capturing and defending a valuable territory that provide some advantage?

What about reducing the cost of launching rockets from the equator?
Using the terrain for building a strategy provide interesting gameplay, especially for a strategy game.

Also there could be planets with a face always on the sun, making players fight to control the sunny side for example.
Or moving a moon into our planet's orbit using halleys to provide increased tidal energy source, making the halleys more than only a game ender weapon.
Installing a moon on the orbit of some enemy planet to use it as a "ghettospacebattleship/carrier" to bomb the planet and launch units using the unitcannon, like showed on the KS trailer.

Well, sure, but don't you think that expecting players to have deep knowledge of planet axis and seasons is a bit much to ask? Especially in randomly generated systems.

I know your intent is just to get the conversation going and you're not as hung up about the concrete examples you posted. But since you did, I figured I could respond to those anyway, before adding some ideas of my own.

• Solar: I liked how that worked in TA. With PA so far, the day/night cycles might be too long. Ie. I would have to be able to predict my power demands several minutes into the future, to make really good use of it. I consider "space" that buildings take a premium, so just adding a ton of storage along with it would most likely put me off of every building them.
• Geothermal: Yes, but only if there are dedicated locations, which are not metal spots. Otherwhise, especially when metal spots are scarce, this is a rediculously expensive way to generate power. Not only do you need to spend x metal to build it. But every y seconds you have lost enough metal (because you placed one extractor less) that you could have build another power plant
• Nuclear: A no-brainer for me. Very high risk reward. Takes little space for the power it produces, but boy if it blows.
• Pumped-storage: That's... too complex for me to even comprehend what it means without further explanation. I think keeping storage and production separate from each other makes the game more accessible.
• Tidal: This is very intriguing. Moving a moon into your orbit adds power. Someone sends it off for a smash and your energy plummets. This might be a case of "sounds cool, but turns out no fun" though. I don't think this can ultimately be decided talking about it but would have to be tried out
• Wind: Targetable by anti-air? Uh. So basically it can be attacked by everything in the game that gets into range? Not sure about that. Also like this in TA as having a fluctuating outcome.

There.
As for my own ideas about how T2 power should differ from T1 is rather simple. For me power plants have basically 5 important characteristics:

1. Metal Cost
2. Space requirement
3. Durability
4. Energy production
5. Danger

And while T1 is sort of a "meh" in all points, a T2 plant would have advantages in one of those, and disadvantages in others to balance it out. Examples:

• The current T2 power plant: Costs more (but less per energy, I think? not sure in the exact numbers), needs more space (but a lot less per energy), but more durable and produces more. But mostly just saves space and the hassle to build hundreds of buildings. If they are changed to cause damage upon destruction, it should not be enough to blow up another T2.
• Nuclear: A classic. Produces a lot of energy and is very efficient in terms of space, but costly to build and poses a significant risk for everything around it, for the bang when it is destroyed.
• Submerged tidal generators: I would see these as very durable (maybe not in direct hitpoints, but because you need rather specific units to deal damage. submarines or torpedo bombers) but otherwise maybe not very good power plants. It's a fairly safe investment, because of the difficulty to attack them, but therefore they don't generate too impressive energy numbers.
• Geothermal: If having dedicated geothermal spots is not an option, here's another idea. You can build these anywhere you want, but the temperature potential of the area you build them in influences their yield and maintenance requirements. Ie build it on a moon, and it will pretty much last forever, but produce next to no energy, because, well, a moon is just a rock. There's no hot core on the inside to keep it going at all. The only reason that it produces energy at all is to avoid frustrated players, who just invested metal into a power plant that does not produce power. The other extreme on the scale is the lava planet, building it right next to (or even on?) lava. It'll produce energy like a mad man, but you better have a fabber assisting the area to repair the damage it constantly takes. Although then the same argument I used for your "place on metal spot" idea applies, of being really expensive long term. Maybe allowing for a much higher energy factor would make it lucrative at least short term or when space is rare.

Or... something like that.

Nuclear power plants don't explode, plutonium is not like oil. You will get radiation though.