Economics needs more complexity

Very much so. Planetary Annihilation is playing it very "safe" when it comes to that particular aspect of gameplay.

What stumps me most is that many people (not all, but obviously not an insignificant number of people) have a problem with SupCom/FA's tiered advancement and the obsolescence of T1 and T2 in favour of T3 and Experimentals... and yet the same problem is presented in PA and hardly anyone bats an eyelid.

A lot of people have trouble objectively appraising a game(s). I struggle with Relic's games (particularly Dawn of War) because I absolutely love them, as an example. I moderated their official forums for a few years and got to know some of the devs pretty well.

So if you have someone who liked an aspect of TA, or SupCom, or whatever, and they see things reflected (or not reflected) in PA . . . you're not always going to get objective results. I mean, you've admitted your bias yourself (which is perfectly fair). As an exercise in people not admitting bias, there's the shield thread (again) to look at

The thing is, Nano, we don't know any differently. T2 and T1 resources in TA followed much the same structure. Fusion Power Plants and MoHo Mines were straight upgrades from their T1 counterparts.

Gorbles, I think I'm capable of being objective in an analytical sense, but completely fail at relating my analysis to others with the same objectivity.

I can see the same problem that many people have identified with SupCom's tiered power system. I was happy to hear that the Devs also identified this as a definite problem concerning strategic play that they themselves admit to.

Seeing it return in PA despite the Devs specifically stating that they will be working to combat it however, concerns me deeply. This concern is obviously colouring my views.

---

WrongCat, TA wasn't perfect in many ways, not least of which was the problem of exponential economic growth. While PA has tackled this dragon by removing Metal Makers I fear that the dragon is far from slain. Wounded yes, but it is my prediction that Multi-Planet play will have it rear its ugly head once more.

A Units cost is only a balancing factor in the early game. Past a certain economic threshold however... there is no economic constraint on the, objectively "better" T2 option.

By having Metal Deposits, as you have said, they have already departed from previous iterations of the system. You've admitted you're worried, which is fair enough! No-one can dissuade you of that. Only the gameplay can as it evolves (and hopefully improves).

Which is why I asked if your current concerns were founded around the issue that T2 generators are currently far too economically-efficiency (especially with regards to object placement on the planet) compared to T1 generators.

The T1 / T2 Economy is currently a mere divide in "Quantity". For T2 to be anything other than an upgrade there must be a difference in "Quality".

So in answer to your question, yes T2 generators are currently far too economically-efficient compared to T1 generators... but fixing them is not a problem that can ever be fixed by just reducing their output.

---

Example: I think something TA got horribly wrong was its "Solar" generators. Tidal and Wind power had a fluctuating "Quality" of output. Solars were just T1 Fusion Plants.

So long as raiding enemy planets can be done in a stealthy, subversive manner. As opposed to, "DROPSHIPS 1, 2, 3, 4, LIGHT A FIRE IN THEIR SKY AND DROP YOUR PAYLOAD UPON THEIR PLANET! THE HOME PLANET OF OUR ENEMIES SHALL BURN, WREATHED IN GOLDEN FLAMES!"

I hope the Unit Cannon is something like this. I mean a subversive option, not the whole glory and zeal thing.

The enemy cannot grow exponentially if you don't let them grow.

Isn't that like just ignoring the problem and hoping that it'll go away?

God, i hate to say this, but i really agree with Nanolathe. T2 econ being a sidegrade from T1 econ is much more interesting gameplay wise than T2 is always better than T1. there should be a time and a place, even late game where T1 is the right choice and T2 is the wrong choice (or at least optimal and sub-optimal).

And i also think that nano is right in that just tweaking the output/cost ratio will not solve the issue.


just a thought would be something like:
/**T2 plants explode with the force of half a commander... all of a sudden there is a risk/reward structure to building them, and a strategy to their placement(central to base to improve their defense vs. outlying to minimize collateral damage on loss)**/

Just a thought.

I'm interested to see the post you are working up Nano.

That's two people today. Doing something right.

That's already the case in FA.

T2 barely kill their cost in T1 (and so can't be used for map control alone).
Some T1 are the counter to some T3 (ie. percival).
T1 is always useful for drops or harass lategame. (because they are disposable).
T2 has necessary tools that T3 doesn't have.
XPs are less powerful than their mass in T3.

People who think T1<T2<T3<XP in FA probably didn't played the game that much and/or barely scratched the surface.
Each tier has his role either by usefulness or effectiveness, rarely both.

It can be more or less than that. Because it's more a question of taste than absolute truth.

You're not understanding the problem if you think that units are balanced, based solely against how they perform against each other "for cost".

Let me put it this way;

Due to the way the economy is currently structured (and has been in all previous versions of TA-Like games) your economy is able to constantly expand. Your economy is essentially derived from the amount of land you control.

Due to T2 being an direct upgrade to T1, T2 has a multiplicative effect on your economy. Your Economy is now the amount of land you control times the T2 Upgrade modifier.

As you increase your production value, the relative "cost" of a unit goes down. In TA, SupCom and even in this early stage of PA, it is quite within the realms of possibility that your Economy can become so massive as to render the "cost" of a single unit irrelevant.

When you stop needing to worry about the "cost" of a unit due to an ever expanding economy, "cost" is no longer a balancing mechanic.

Once "cost" is no longer a balancing mechanic you are going to build the most powerful unit, regardless of cost.

---

It doesn't matter that, "for cost" a T3 unit may or may not compare unfavourably to multiple T1 units. What matters is that it's more powerful single unit.

When cost is not a limiting factor then all that matters is power.

nano I'm glad your were able to find your own faults in the economy. Unfortunately your just talking about a balance tweak.

So did your OP... Except you want to further imbalance the Economy in favour of higher tier tech. My posts are in favour of the opposite.

i do see your point!

but one think i think you need to take into account is the building size, your can pretty much fit 4 tec 1 gens in the same space as a tec 2, tec 2 is still more efficient but not half as much when you think of it this way.

i know space isnt a problem at the moment but a bigger base means your more open to attack from multiple directions and it doesn't take much of a force to munch a good chunk threw a base if the products is super spread out!

don't get me wrong this is what i love about this game, theirs so much attacking from multiple directions and i love owning masses of land! but if your constantly being attacked and your are attacking them then your not going to be able to expand as much, meaning less room to fit factories in, the "cost" might become nothing but you still have to fight for the land to build the factories on.

so if you go to a new planet t2 might not "cost" anything but you still need to fight for the land in order to build that t2 on.

You realise that space concerns are the least of my issues with T1 - T2 power problem, right?

Even so, as far as space goes T2, even if they were exactly four times as large (which they're not), they are just over eight times as powerful. condense that fraction down and you have more than twice the power in the same amount of space.

You yourself say there isn't a "problem" with space at the moment; you're hardly limited when it comes to available land to expand to. So what's the point of the Upgraded Power Plant?

yes i know, but im just saying i think space is hopefully going to be a way more fought over resource then anything else! and stopping someone growing does massive limit everything!

If your goal is to make space something to fight over, and be at a premium... then why would you want a T2 Powergen structure that allows you to condense your space requirements by half?

I'm with nanolathe on this one, and I think I may be able to provide a solution too. As he says, once you hit T2 your economic potential basically just gets a multiplier from the T2, and all sense of scale and cost are basically lost. However I do not advocate the removal of T2 econ entirely.

Here is my solution: make the T2 econ location-specific. For energy the T2 plants can be geothermal. You have maybe a handful (maybe just one or two) of sites across the planet you can place them, they give your economy a boost but the number you can build is limited to the number of thermal vents you control. Similarly, T2 metal econ should not be placed on metal sites, because they are far too common. Have a separate, much rarer location upon which only T2 metal can be built. This has the added bonus of these becoming high-value sites, as they provide a boost for anyone who can secure them enough to construct the relevant T2 econ building on them.

This way T2 econ provides further levels of strategy to the game, without boosting your economy into the stratosphere and removing all sense of cost.


While we're on the subject, does anyone else think energy plants should actually be making the energy from something? Solar, wind, something like that? I find it a bit lame to just have a building that "makes" energy.

Beanspoon's thinking the right way, though I think an overwhelming majority of the community agrees that separate T1 and T2 metal spots are lame.

And I agree on separate power incomes, which is something I think Uber said they were going to do. Fusion power is just easiest to balance right now.