Economics needs more complexity

What does any of that have to do with the economy that a player uses?

You can't have a discussion if someone is using a different definition than you're using. Otherwise you only argue semantics, rather than the merit of an idea.

As for the topic at hand; *shrug* What did you want to discuss?

T2 economy being a direct upgrade to T1 economy buildings doesn't increase strategic depth, merely makes the game about racing (without crippling yourself) for T2 Econ... A race for the Maxim Gun.

I argue that such a race is not strategically engaging to participate in. I would prefer that T2 offer different options without becoming a direct "upgrade" over T1.

T2 should offer strategic choice, rather than just logistic power without any drawbacks.

Sorry no i'm not obliged to do that.

timevans999, If you're not willing to take the conversation seriously enough to provide some further explanation of your position, then why would you think others are willing to take your position seriously?

In this case (and a few others) I happen to agree with you nano.

But inevitability the lure of a T2 economy will draw people to building them and trying to use them entirely.

That's what I believe, and so it should be our duty to form the T1/T2 relationship where going to T2 should only be done in a safer circumstance where the game isn't currently on the line of ending, such as a conflict between players on different planets.

Where units won't suddenly appear and snipe your fabbers.

So I feel like that's the kind of circumstance we are dealing with, a interplanetary geared economy. But not necessary the best choice for a intercontinental conflict, and certainly not necessary better overall.

Tools like stealth, camo, simply having more armour plating could be good choices for at least fortifying ones economy, and what of solidifying ones economy giving value to not only owning land but holding it? (And without making holding ground as valuable as taking it from an opponent) So how is that done.....I don't know....could such extractors gear up to full capacity? Should they only be as worth while as 1.5 T1 extractors? Possibly while taking four times as long to build?

I dunno, most of this has already been suggested, and frankly most of my experience comes from a game most people despise.....so who knows...

I still like my aeon power-plants with activatable (Is activatable even a word? I am not sure) lasers on top, and my UEF ones with repair guns.....but they might not be the best option.

nanolathe>ok, the wiki article pointet it out a bit squishy then. and you are right, acording to that hiding in the woods may count as the strategie, but nonetheless tactics is basically the micromanagement, so if you want different units with more different styles...this definitely IS a tactical demand, since the actual encouter, the decicion shooting at unit a or b first, or placing you long range arty in 4rth row in your platoon is a tactical decicion not a strategical.

the economics of the game are definitly on the strategic layer, as is the calculation about cost/firepower*time or so for your deathballs is too.
also making a unit more expensive is a way to balance it since cost and time are strongly correlatet. that was all the point with the strategic discussion.

i have absolutely no problem with that. the can take longer to build, they can be more expansive, but they have to get some advantage in the thing they are doing (generating resources) if they dont do that, it will NEVER pay of changing to them regardless of stealth or something else. since when the enemy is here, it doesnt matter if he needs 3 secounds or 9 secounds to destroy your eco building, he will destroy it. it only makes it theoretical harder to sneaky destroy it, but thats only a question about the numbers of units u send there, and you allways will send enough to destroy it, else you send more next time to achive the goal.

You're still arguing semantics..? And you're in gibbering some nonsense about "calculations about cost/firepower*time or so for your deathballs..." as though being able to deathball at all is a good thing or something that should be strived to achieve?

I've had enough. You clearly don't want comparable power levels between T1 and T2. You want sticks and stones against the Machine Gun.

No thank you. You will never convince me that that is a good idea within the context of this game. (Nor that it promotes strategic depth)

"2 > 1" is not strategically deep and doesn't promote strategic thought or meaningful choice, no matter how much more 2 costs than 1.

Nanolathe half of your argument sounds like gibberish because half of it is from our conversation on TS.

Tell me what you'd want clarification on, and I'll give it.

I don't think "2 > 1" is that hard to figure out though.

I don't want to take everything really seriously its not fun. secondly you are having your own conversations that don't relate to the thread, and i'm not taking them seriously.

So, let me get this straight. You say "This game needs more economic structures," and then fail to give a single example of what kind of economic structure this game needs.

Okay.

your right nanolathe, i wont convince you, and you wont convince me in any case since you think i'm wrong by wanting a higher tech level be more powerfull and i think you are wrong because you completly deny some basic functions like balance through cost and the above mentioned vice versa. so lets stop this at this point and watch what we get from uber.

I think, from what I've seen, he wants T2 not so much to be equally powerful while you want it more powerful... but simply different. Like the difference between building a pulse gun in a game like Stardrive over a continuous laser. Sure, it might be more powerful on the basic parts but it's also a totally different approach of functionality.

(To give an example: Continuous lasers, as the name says, continuously spend energy and keep a damaging beam going.

Pulse guns, on the other hand, in later game are less powerful in the ordinary sense due to being rate-of-fire but penetrate shields for a different kind of way to deal with enemies

So one is more powerful because of what it , yes, but that doesn't discredit the other as an alternative or a combination)

Correct me if I'm wrong.

So he wants another tier 1 and no tier 2.

To be fair, higher tier doesn't necessarily mean linearly increased power. That's like saying technology advances linearly. For me, personally, it's more like not making it a directly harder hitting version of the old stuff. For example, C&C Generals and the supersonic jet as compared to the other bomber who's name I forgot and who's bunker busters I loved.

They're different, they're both pretty powerful and they both have unique advantages and disadvantages.

thats the unit thingy, there were examplex for that given, but basically its about the economic strutures meaning t2 eco stronger than t1.

i say it has to produce more with disadvantage of cost/lower hp/whatever, nanolathe say it should have other advantages than more produce like more hp/stealth whatever but produce the same or even less if other bonus is too high - thats the difference.

And what's wrong with that?

(fuzionreaktor you're correct. thepilot, you are not entirely correct, but your hitting closer than carnilion is.)

I think the economy is too complex and mysterious.

Why can't Uber just remove metal and make quantum facilities?

[PS:] </Poe's Law>

well its nothing "wrong" in particularly, its 2 completely different viewpoints of the game eco. at this point they have implementet my viewpoint even if it is not perfect balanced i'm fine with that, so lets see what the future gets us

by the way...we have the files...are unit values serversided or clientsided? we just could "mod" the things in by reducing output from t2 to like t1 and for example increasing hp instead...if this works nanolathe i'd say lets try this and play against each other...i think we see very fast what version is more fun

I'm pretty 50/50 on the issue myself. I definitely agree we need variety on strategies and at the same time, I'm not gonna lie and say I'm pro-reducing quantities produced by resource extractors in high tiers for example. So the question is, what's the happy medium? Rather than discuss the pros and cons of each system, it'd be better to analyze how to integrate both and push for that.

I mean, that's what Alpha's for isn't it? They wanna know what works and what doesn't.

With all that said, I admit I got tired of just farming some T2 and steamrolling resources with a good amount of nuke farming and ants, so what needs to be done? Another issue I'm concerned with is the end-game tech that one day we'll see rolled in. We know about asteroids and now we've got nukes, but will there be other end-game tech? I'd be pretty disappointed to only have the uni-dimensional approach of dropping asteroids which can get shot down in the process over and over again, I'd rather have options on how I wanna blow up a planet and the cost and viability of such options as far as counter vs. price-and-build-time seems like a definite strategic factor.