Hello, I would like to suggest to make changes in productions and consumption rates by factor of 10 or more. I see that most of base energy production and fabrication prices are very high numbers in comparison to metal and I did not see point why, they are existing any units or processes in game that consume values that are even 2 digit numbers ? I think that redenomination of this resource would be beneficial, making it more easy to read and track. I would be glad to hear what other members of this community think about this issue.
Yeah, I agree that a factor 10 or 100 would be a good value. Most fabricators spend 100 energy per 1 metal so you could normalize it around that. Most factories spend less than 100 energy per 1 metal and commanders spend 50 energy per 1 metal. I don't have any problems with decimal values as I am used to that from TA, SupCom and Zero-K. If energy values were reduced by a factor of 100, Bot fabbers would spend 1 energy per 1 metal, Vehicle Factories would spend 0.45 energy per 1 metal and Commanders would spend 0.5 energy per 1 metal. Maybe this could even be a UI mod. Just divide all the displayed energy values with 100.
It's not problem that someone is unable to read values, but that it's impractical to use, it's like measuring oil tanker with millimeters scale.
The numbers 2, 5 and 10, (and by extension 50 and 100, etc) are easiest for most people to work with. I'd suggest any/all of those numbers.
I don't think I've ever seen anything in PA use an energy value that couldn't be denominated by 10. All energy values could be divided by 10 and I don't think we'd see any decimals. EDIT: I guess factories use values like 2025 energy/s. But I don't think a 0.2% operation cost difference of rounding that down would affect balance all that much.
Except that Metal extraction is set to 7 and 28, energy at 600, etc. Those aren't as easily multipliable and the granularity gained from such odd numbers isn't even being used to any great effect. They're just there to make the mathematics harder in my opinion.
I always did fund odd the choice of 7 for the base metal extractor. Why not 1, 2 or even 5. Each would have been a far better choice. Dividing energy by 10 would not lead to number with decimal value.. execept perhaps for tiny negligibly values ... where decimal values make sense for tiny amounts.
Metal extraction is the 7 times table. And energy is approximately the 6 times table. Awkward tables to memorise, but when did you memorise them? Imperial units are based around 6, and the 7 times table is easy enough. Metal spending is approximately based on the 7 times table also. We also describe efficiencies as energy per metal. Currently all efficiencies are correct to 3sf, and have 1dp. Dividing all energy by 10 would make efficiencies correct to 3sf, and have 2dp. It shouldn't affect stuff, but well, it's a pain to start multiplying and dividing decimals. I know it shouldn't affect those calculations at all. I think where it is currently is good. Sure, numbers could be reduced by a factor of 10. But they could also be left alone, and nothing would change. So is it really significant? Have you noticed the rule of 27? Bots and Vehicles sum to 27. Naval and Air sums to 27. Leaving you the commander's metal income to run a single fabber, and 1 metal extra to fill your storage. I think metal is weird for a different reason. I think it is fundamentally stupid that the commander, who walks, flies and orbits around the map, has more metal extraction than the basic Mex. Have you noticed the rule of 27? Bots and Vehicles sum to 27. Naval and Air sums to 27. Leaving you the commander's metal income to run a single fabber, and 1 metal extra to fill your storage.
Because metric uses base 10 consistently, whereas imperial uses every base it can get its hands on, plus some. We see that with base 2 digital storage. Large scale mental arithmetic is easy so long as the base is consistent. Besides that, in the current system everything is a multiple of 2, 5 or 10. Except air factories, whose metal extraction is a multiple of 3. An issue with 2,5 and 10, as proposed (to make the system consistently 2, 5 and 10) is that now, air factories have to have 20% of a vehicle factory, 50%, or 100%, and not 60%, as they are currently. Bot factories, rather than having 80% the the economy of a vehicle factory, would have to have 20%, 50% or 100%. It's not really that good a system with relative values. What if you decide for balance that air fabbers should spend 90% of a vehicle fabber? You don't have the opportunity to make that so. And if the argument is that you can still make those relative values as they are now, well then, nothing changed, all values have just been arbitrarily inflated to make them appear nicer to deal with.
