Economics needs more complexity

Edited post to better reflect what it looks like in a game with a T2 Turtle vs. a T1 Expansionist.

That's not accurately representing the numbers from PA...
Currently T2 Metal Extraction is T1 x4. T2 Energy is T1 x8

A Turtler can have a base four times smaller than yours... and he'll be beating you on Energy.

And be super boring in the process.

No he won't, as there is nothing stopping me in using t2 stuff too (actually its easier for me as I have an economy advantage from more t1 mexes) thus they still have a smaller base with much much less economy...

Just because you ALL have access to a broken "T2 = T1, but better" mechanic, doesn't make the mechanic any less broken.

What's the discussion here? Are we discussing whether T2 economy buildings should be a part of the game?

...

not yet...

Because I'm intrigued by this, according to your arguments the only reason why you consider this "broken" is because the scale per ratio is "unfair" (with regards to T2 vs. T1 investment)?

For example, if T2 rates were halved across the board (to x2 and x4), would you have less of an issue?

Furthermore, why do you consider tiered upgrades being fundamentally better to be a bad thing? This is a staple of RTS gaming in general.

... *grits teeth* ...

Not.... yet...

Scathis will have a fit...

---

and you think that's... a good thing?

I will explain more... soon... Promise.

Yes its a good thing, as it allows further economic expansion once the map has been divided up and erstwhile expansion has been halted. (Its currently not very balanced as t2 mexes are way too cheap and fast to build.) Its a valid mechanic that ensures further economic growth without it going out of hand (as metal generators do).


Also I've to say its a bit annoying of you to always post your objections to this without ever posting any reason or arguments against it. Its no way to have a discussion to just shout Objection! (think Phoenix Wright here) whenever this topic or similar comes up.

Basically, if someone has a load of T1 production structures, and someone else has a load of T2 structures that are more efficient . . . of course he is going to be winning. He's in T2. He's ahead of the opponent.

This is how being outplayed works.

I am always looking at games that diverge from the traditional model - Dawn of War 2 and Company of Heroes 2 are good examples here (Dawn of War was stereotypically RTS, while CoH still held true to the tiering principles. The sequels, not so much).

However, I can't help but feel that this is something of a pet hate of yours. If your issue is that a small T2 base can outperform a large T1 base, and you feel that remaining T1 should still enable a player to compete . . . well, to compete you're going to have to sacrifice available landspace.

I could write an essay on this, I'm something of an aspiring (amateur) games designer, so feel free to hit me up via PM. To ease your frustration, if nothing else

It is not a good thing because the only thing an tiered upgrade system promotes "race to the top" gameplay and mentality.

Race to the top gameplay does not promote strategy; it promotes logistics management.

If T2 is to be a "specialised" tier then it must consist of marginal improvements and "side-grades". It must be a strategic choice, not a mandate.

If being outplayed is more important than being out-thought, then I don't feel you're playing a strategy game.
I suppose you could call that a pet-peeve of mine if you like gorbles.

Probably the main problem in any conflict.

I will not quote Sun Tzu because you will talk about chess and the debat will go nowhere, but it's not because you don't like something that it's a bad thing.

Or in this case : It's not because you think it's not a part of the strategy that it isn't strategy.

Going to T2, where, when and how is as important, and need as much strategy (if not more) than making tanks, planes or bots.

Also, if you want to say something, say it, don't say half of it.
If you feel the urge to write "But I will say more later because now it's useless", don't write it at all.

"Logistics - The Game" is not my idea of fun, thepilot.

It's funny you should bring up chess though. That's a very good example of a very deep, strategic game (for it's given level of complexity) and it totally lacks an emphasis on logistics.

Hopefully it's not all about you.

They are a lot of game with no logistic at all if you want.

And guess what, PA is so far away from chess that it's useless to compare. But I knew you will say that, while I still said that it was useless to talk about it

So this game should be all about you then?

The total War series has some kind of resource management in the map, but while in battle, you have none to worry about.

Ohh, I see where you're going with that, pilot. Don't even think about it. I'm not going anywhere.

Also, if you want more "chess", a lot of turn-based strategy game are not relying on ressources at all too.

* race to the top economic management does promote logistical managment, it is true.

However, that is only one aspect of the game. The strategic aspect is the placement of your structures in the space you have available (which is more important on smaller planet sizes).

The tactical aspect is how you manage the unit types and counters (eventually, once gameplay is more settled and multi-planet gameplay comes into its own).

Just because the economic layer of the game incentivises teching up, doesn't make the game entirely about logistics. That's a very naive viewpoint to take, in my opinion. It seems to me like you have your vision for what T2 should entail, and that doesn't mesh with what is currently happening.

I'm not saying that what you want for T2 is necessarily a bad thing, but it's not necessarily a good thing either. A game can be well-designed with either approach.