Economics needs more complexity

Oh not this again...

They say history repeats itself, but time always moves forward, twisting events into a spiral. The people are different every time, but the story is the same.

-Taken from a very, very Russian game.

Stop playing on size 4+ planets, also you need to play against better people then. I always play on size 2 planets (as the current gameplay and ui is broken on anything larger) and I can always use more metal and end up replacing all t1 with t2 eventually.

If they increase the ROI of t2 (they currently are too cheap and produce comperatively too much) then a rush to t2 will be economic suicide as my t1 economy will allow me to kill you before. The fact that "bad" players ignore thise things doesn't matter as those players ignore a lot of stuff. They are bad for a reason and will get better when they learn about the effectiveness of units.

Also I'd like to repeat that the function of t2 mexes is to allow vertical expansion. Stating a goal of t2 being not strictly better then t1 doesn't necessarly apply to the t2 economy as it has a different goal which can conflict with the !t2>t1 idea. People need to argue that vertical expansion isn't necessary or less important then !t2>t1 and I personally haven't seen anything conclusive in that regard.

T2 allowing vertical expansion and not being a direct power upgrade are not mutually exclusive goals... at all.

I play against very good people, clopse, neptunio, Zaphod, etc. etc. I only occasionally get the chance to play against Cola and Gunshin, and I'll play them more once performance issues get resolved. Until then I'm handicapped due to my incredible impatience when it comes to lag. And I can say that even on scale 2 and scale 3 planets, I have way too much metal, which is always exacerbated by T2. I simply do not need that much metal.

Anyways, gameplay is going to be balanced towards multiple celestial bodies, which will give us even MORE excess metal, even if a planet is relatively small.

last game i played versus u mushroomars (it was a teamarmy game^^) you couldnt have had that mutch metal, since when your base was destroyed and we took over the metal points we still had -500 or -700 metal and to deal with the other team witch turtled some kind effectively. and even after changing to t2 we were still -100....i dont get that argument that you rly can have to mutch metal o.o

Then please give me a specific example. Talking about general principles is nice and all but eventually you have to show how you want to apply it.

I assume you missed WrongCat's example he gave a few pages ago?

Having double the income the T2 is an example of the "vertical" expansion you so crave, yet with only 33% health and double the build time of a T1, this T2 mex has actual drawbacks. That makes this T2 Mex on the level so to speak with a T1... or at least closer to it.

Seriously? Thats what you're happy with? I kinda feel now that the whole thread was an object lesson in missunderstanding. :mrgreen:

Because I don't see those drawbacks as very much, I'd still replace all t1 with t2 as soon as my economy is up to its cost. I don't expect economy to survive under enemy fire for very long anyway. (One or two bomber/leveler hits, whats the difference.)

I'm totally fine with that. Its a similar balance tweak as an increase in its ROI time. Its still strictly superiour when you can keep it alive. But keeping stuff not destroyed was always a good advantage. :mrgreen:

What on earth did you think I meant?.. sheesh.

And if you think having an economy that has the collective Hitpoints of a wet paper bag isn't that big a deal, I'd hate to see what the Unit Cannon and its payload are going to do to your base.

Dunno, something outlandish I guess?

Thats why I asked for a specific example as I couldn't make heads or tails of what exactly you wanted.

What would you class as "outlandish"?

We pretty much only have Cost, Output, Potential Death Explosion and Health to alter here you know?

What exactly did you think I had in mind? I could go off into multiple reworks of the system in general, but why bother. I can work with what I have already. No need to make it more complex than it needs to be. We're still in Alpha and we haven't even got to the actual selling point of Planetary Annihilation yet; Multi-planet play.

When we hit Beta and all the key systems are in play, I'll start telling you if it needs an overhaul.

For the near future, I'd settle for something a little more interesting than "not at all".

smallcpu>i share your sight completely....less hp issnt some kind of disadvantage for me, if output is higher i allways build it, especially now in the alpha where everything is mostly made of paper


so basically if is a misunderstanding all^^

I could say something pithy and cute about your twos' blasé attitude, but really, what's the point?

I'm just glad you're not actually opposed to the whole concept of balanced units across tiers. Guess I should count my lucky stars for that.

I'll be glad to show you the error of your ways with tiny bombing runs that take out three times what they should have if you'd just stayed T1, later.

Actually, I think that FA had it close to quite right. The T1 mexes had a role as being cheap and spammable, and had a massive reward per cost. The T3 mex was big and bad (coulda used being slightly bigger and badder), but VERY expensive. Since you only had limited mass spots, it was always wisest to claim fresh territory with the T1 and then move to T3. T2 could have used being a more attractive middle-spot.

The only real advice I'd make changing from that system is that T1 mex should not draw energy, and honestly, the scale should really have been reduced to make the T1 unit's costs less laughable.

For PA, it'd be easy to follow this system. T1 mex- +1m, cost 10m. T2 mex- +4m, cost 240m. Honestly, only having two tiers of mex here is kinda limiting, it would be better with more for some finer graduations and honestly, changing it to an upgrade system so you don't have to send an engineer would be great.

For energy, the core issue is that unlike mexes, they don't have a limiting factor like mass spots. There are really two solutions I'm considering.

The first is that T2 pgens are more efficient, let's say 2x as efficient, but they pack a whopping deathnuke. The T3 pgen deathnuke for SupCom is good, because it really packs a punch, but the range is too short. Something like, half or a quarter that much damage (relatively) but a much bigger range. It would still be enough to kill all your engineers, say, and if you killed several, you could chain them if they weren't separated out. I like this idea because if you rush a T2 pgen, you're taking a risk in return for economy- if your enemy sent in some artillery and blew it up, you would be seriously screwed,

The second is that T2 pgens are more efficient, but T1 pgens serve some other function. For example, let's suggest that T1 pgens are some kind of grid connector where buildings have to be within a medium radius of a pgen to function, kinda like Pylons from Starcraft , or perhaps only the tougher buildings.

there was never any opposition against balanced tiers from my side. if you got that oppinion im sorry i communicatet it the wrong way.

also...try your bombing runs against low hp eco...if you succed i earn the loss, if not i will crush you with my superior production resulting from t2 eco.....thats what different strategies are for in such a game

I am in favor of death nukes for T2 Pgens so long as it means they cascade and T1 has no death explosion. It forces the player to either heavily defend a large farm of T2 power, or spread them out, thereby spreading their defenses, both of which are things that discourage hard turtling.

As for mexes, I would much rather T2 Metal was made to have the same output as T1, but with some different advantage and increased cost. There shouldn't be a need for T2 Metal raw upgrade as it discourages expansion, and considering that you're playing a game where the metal is spread across an entire star system, you *have* to expand. The game should be designed so that T1 Mexes produce enough metal that you aren't really choking, but you aren't exactly swimming in metal either. That's the way the game currently works (okay, there needs to be about 10% less metal points and a better distribution, but aside from that). T2 Mex literally does nothing but remove the looming giant that is metal stalling. Which is a bad thing, if you didn't figure that out.

I liked the Twilights from BA Spring, more expensive, but coming with a cloak. I also wouldn't mind the Overdrive feature from Zero-K so long as there was only 1 tier of extractor.

Agreed.

Having no choice but to expand is boring, and also means if you suffer any set backs early to mid-game, or are ever on the defensive, you are at a massive disadvantage and will ultimately get steamrolled. It also means a decrease in production growth as the game goes on, as you get more expensive units and a slower rate of growth of metal income. However else it's balanced (cost, hp, efficiency, death weapons, variable output, different value metal spots etc.), T2 output should be greater than T1.

If T2 units were balanced to be specialised, rather than just expensive upgrades, then you could tech and regain the advantage by producing a unit to counter what you've seen of your opponent so far.

Even in a losing, defensive position, T2 units should be an option. The right T2 units, (costing little more than a T1) in the right place should decimate an opposing mono-unit force, well beyond its "cost".