Economics needs more complexity

/offtopic

http://www.iter.org/

a building in france that will just "make" energy. Not even a tiny bit lame.

Yeah I think you'd have to come up with something better than just a "T2 metal spot", but there needs to be the same sort of restriction for metal as I'm proposing for energy, otherwise you still end up with one resource becoming meaningless due to over-abundance. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything, but I'm sure we could come up with something plausible.

True dat, but tbh I think I'd prefer to just not have fusion. It rather detracts from the strategy, and encourages turtling. Make the player work for their resources says I.

Incorrect. Iter converts nuclear binding energy into electrical energy. The input is fusable material. The output is energy. The energy plants in PA have no input.

Incorrect, the input is

Hahaha that's awesome xD

If that was the case the potential would be enormous. Quick back-of-the-envelope calculation: an average human tear is about 6.2 uL in volume(1). Assuming that the tear is pure water (it isn't, but that's not important), that amounts to about 6.2 mg of matter. Using Einstein's theory of relativity, 6.2 mg of matter would provide us with 558GJ energy per tear (assuming the speed of light to be 3.0e8 m/s).

The energy consumption of human civilisation in 2012 was 8.658e21J (2). This amounts to 492 tears a second.

In conclusion I hypothesise that if we maintain a reasonable number of enemies and keep them suitably crushed, we can power the entire world on human misery.





(1)http://www.iovs.org/content/5/3/264.full.pdf
(2)http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=energy+consumed+by+the+world+in+2012

After reading thought this perhaps a better way of dealing with space benefits is to make the player chose the resource to save space in.
Have the magic power gens consume metal to run, with t2 producing x8 as much power in half the space at ( randomly picked) 3.5 the metal cost.
Having t2 metal taking more power to run ( or taking power to being with...)

That way the player has to keep expanding in order to run the t2 functions or take reduced gains ( 1 t2 metal produces 10 mass when powered by one t2 or 14 mass when powered by three t1's after economic costs)

Hope this makes sense... Typing out on a phone in the middle of a lecture so it's a bit rushed...

This post (with mushroomars' trailing closely behind) are two of the best posts I've seen today. Everything in this thread is great. Please keep the lulz and the discourse going.

How would you fix the problem then? I'm sorry if you've already detailed this elsewhere/already, but we're sufficiently down the rabbit hole now not to matter, I think

I mean, do your problems with T2 being a straight-up upgrade to T1 boil down to "you don't like it"? If so, that's fair enough, but it kinda nukes any potential conversation geared towards making that model work if that is the case.

Case in point, Dawn of War has Plasma Generators and Thermo-Plasma Generators. The former are T1, the latter are T2 but tied to a specific environmental protrusion. Thermo-Plasmas are a huge boon to Power income, but are limited by map design and are vulnerable to harass. To this end, they project a Control Area - whereby Plasma Generators require a Control Area - so you can place defensible fortifications around them.

There are ways to make any design spec workable. I'm just concerned you don't want the current model to be workable.

EDIT: sorry for making the thread boring again

Exactly. A few posts back I suggested exactly this idea. Make the T2 econ location-specific, where the locations are few and far between (no more than a handful per planet) and you have a strategic niche for T2 generators without it over-saturating your economy.

Sorry, but I've not played the version of Dawn of War that you seem to have Gorbles. Might be a Soulstorm addition?

In any case, what you propose is T2 "straight-up-betterer" Econ Structures that actually have a limitation; placement. In that proposed system you would be unable to spam such structures because you would have a HARD limit on how many can be in any given area of land at any given time.

That is fine, and it's actually how TA used its 1.5 tier structure, the Geothermal Plant, which could only be placed on Geothermal Vents.

---

By altering the maximum amount of the T2 structures themselves by their inability to be spammed in any place of your choosing and limiting them to pre-defined spots on the map, you can safely alter their energy efficiency to production cost.

Or, if you like; by altering the "Quality" of the resource that T2 straight-up-betterer Econ Structures have access to, namely forcing them to rely on Geothermal Power and not Solar or Wind or Fusion or whatever, you impose a limit on those structures and as such they can not replace T1 structures; they augment your diversity of units instead of rarefying it. You can then safely alter the "Quantity" of Energy Produced.

To achieve a state of balance between T1 and T2 you should (in my mind) not simply alter the various "Quantities" that make up those units; health, efficiency, DPS, production, etc. but make them of a different "Quality". Of a different Substance.

A T2 economy structure can absolutely have an increased output. You can alter the "Quantity" of energy it produces to be as high or as low as you like. However if you do not alter the "Quality" of that unit... if all you do is alter quantity... then it is very easy to see which one is objectively better.

As an example; it is completely possible to compare an Ant-Tank, and a Leveler. They are of the same substance, they are cut from the same cloth. Their attributes have been altered in quantity: Levelers cost more, have more health, have more damage per shot and retain roughly the same speed and movement behaviour and etc, etc, etc. What it boils down to is the Leveler is a more powerful version of the Ant-Tank, but costs more.

In contrast it is more difficult to compare an Ant-Tank and a Spinner-Tank. They are of a different substance... they do not fit the same role. They have a vast difference in "Quality". Similarly you can try to compare the T1 Ant, to the T2 Artillery Tank... and you will have great difficulty telling me which is objectively better. The T2 Artillery Tank (the Sheller), though in a higher tier, does not dwarf the T1 Ant in terms of direct power as the Leveler does. In fact the Sheller is actually rather terrible in terms of direct offensive potential. What it lacks in that direct potential however, it makes up for in indirect offensive potential; it can attack you from a distance and angle (by being further away or by hiding behind a mountain) that your Ant-Tank has no response to.

The Ant-Tank and the Sheller have different "Quantities", yes. However this is balanced by them being of a different "Quality".

Another term for this change in quality rather than just quantity, you may be aware of is "Incomparables".

A T1 Ant-Tank is incomparable to a T2 Sheller; they are apples and oranges. They do wildly different things and in a battle with a comparable number of Ant-Tanks on one side and a comparable number of T2 Shellers you will be unable to tell me which force is simply "better". The Sheller force costs more metal... by a long way but Metal Cost does not inform function. Metal Cost does not inform Power... and in the wrong circumstances that force of Shellers can be obliterated by the Ants with minimal losses. The Opposite is also true and in the wrong circumstances the Ants can be killed by the Shellers without the Ants ever firing a shot.

Shellers are not better than Ants. They are different.
Ants are not better than Shellers. They are different.

---

To bring this back to Econ Structures;
The T2 PGen alters quantities from the T1 PGen, but it does not alter its substance... it's function... its way of doing things. It is a direct upgrade to the T1 PGen because it provides the same functionality as several T1 PGens, but takes up half the space.
It is of a different "Quantity", lacking any change in "Quality".

The T2 Metal Extractor alters quantities from the T1 Metal Extractor, but it does not alter its substance... it's function... its way of doing things. It is a direct upgrade to the T1 Metal Extractor because it provides the same functionality as several T1 Metal Extractors, but takes up a quarter of the space as you can only have one Metal Extractor per Metal Point and it provides four times the extraction power.
It is of a different "Quantity", lacking any change in "Quality".

Both T2 Econ Structures are direct upgrades over their T1 counterparts. They produce more, in less space, without any restrictions that aren't already in place on T1 Econ Structures.

---

There are other ways to balance this other than just placement restriction, as you posit, beanspoon. I will get into them in a follow-up post when I grab another spare moment to write them. I'm kinda busy at the moment so forgive me leaving your question only half-answered Gorbles.

You are wrong in comparing the upgrade from solar panels and fusion reactors to metal extractors and moho metal extractors in TA.
Fusion reactors give you more energy production for the same metal cost. Fusion reactors is a more energy efficient source than t1 solar panels.
However Moho metal extractors are very expensive. So expensive that Fusion reactors and metal makers are more efficient for metal cost.
It was the same way in vanilla SupCom. There was no point in upgrading Mass Extractors because Mass Fabricators and power generators were simply more efficient.

You could make an argument that Mex upgrades in Forged Alliance are more territory efficient than just t1 mexes. But t2 and t3 mexes are still much less efficient for cost compared to t1 mexes.

Absolutely. I gave the restriction-by-location as one method of modifying the "quality" of the T2 econ, but by no means is this the only solution. I'm looking forward to hearing your ideas for alternative methods.

Thank you for the accolade. I'll get to it ASAP.

And here it comes again.

I don't got as much problem with the power between t1 and t2.
It is usually t3 that simply counters all lower tech.
Now this varies a lot between the 10 different faction match-ups in FA but PA will only have 1 faction so if you want to use FA and compare it to PA you can only pick a mirror match up.
If you want to use FA as an example you have to pick 1 match-up that you think have especially interesting inter-tier relationships.

I pick a Cybran mirror as the Loyalists simply outmatch all other lower tech land units.

It got the speed of a Hunter. Hunters can be used for ghetto gunships but Loyalists are an exceptionally bad target for them as Loyalists got higher HP/cost than other t1 and t2 units.
It can kite Mantis. Outranges and outspeeds them.
It can catch up to and dodge Medusa shots.
It beats Rhinos for cost.
It beats Wagners for cost.
It can catch Hoplites and Loyalist are an especially bad target for Hoplites as the Loaylist got very high HP/cost.
It can deflect Viper missiles meaning it can even act as defense in a standoff.

To use nanolathes words, the Loaylists simply got the quality to beat all lower tech in substance.

I'll have take your word for it, Godde, I haven't played TA properly in a number of years (and I wasn't playing for 'efficiency' at that age, either!)

They are an increase in both Quality... and Quantity.

They had all the numbers turned up to 11; Damage Per Second? Health? Speed?... It got an excess of relative Quantitative advantages
And then they added on a few extra features like Personal Shields and Amphibious increasing their relative Qualitative advantages.

That's what made them so overpowered... They were designed, purposefully to outclass, outgun and outmatch anything that crossed them on Land, both in relative Qualities and relative Quantities.

---

They were balanced (poorly) "For Cost".
In SupCom the manner of escalating Economies rendered "cost" largely irrelevant.
Since "cost" became irrelevant they became balanced against NOTHING.

All iterations of Dawn of War have used that model, nanolathe, for all of the races. They are often named different things, but basically you have:

T1 structure, generates Power (secondary resource, used mainly for researches and vehicles). Only built within a Control Area, explodes on death with damage and a chance of knockback.

T2 structure, requires a "Slag Deposit", generates substantial Power. Generates its own limited Control Area, explodes on death with damage and a chance of knockback.

However, the placing of such structures on points is not the only restriction. The cost is. Even without the overly-restrictive nature of Thermo-Plasma Generators in Dawn of War, this is a balancing factor in Planetary Annihilation (arguably the sheer wealth of drawbacks in DoW is due to the fact that the maps are closed, meaning it is pretty easy to defend a lot of the positions involved. It was one of the positive factors of Dawn of War 2 for me - it did away with the standard resource model of generator "farms").

For the record, PA doesn't have closed maps either. This means T2 resource structures are exposed to a variety of attacks, from missiles to ranged aircraft. Nevermind planet-to-planet combat. It's a completely different ball game (and why I am against conventional shields and excessively-defensive options).

You have to define the strengths of the object that you think is imbalanced. So far these seem to be both the quantity of resource produced by T2 structures combined with the land footprint (/3D space) required to build the structures. You have neglected to mention the cost involved in constructing these structures as well.

If T2 structure X generates 4 times the Metal of T1 structure Y, but takes up twice the overall footprint (across 2 dimensions, which multiplies the base area by 4 times in terms of abstract numbers) - is this not balanced? If you can fit 4 T1 structures within a single T2 structure's footprint, does this not render the structures equivalent?

Which leaves only construction time and cost (vs. output) as balancing factors to make the T2 structures a more viable choice (depending on your fabber bots available).

tl;dr: I take issue with the notion that a flat-out upgrade cannot be balanced.

EDIT: didn't quote your post for space reasons, nothing else

Quite simply, no.

Your proposed example is not an upgrade, nor is it equivalent; it's a downgrade. I can build T1 Extractors one at a time. The first finished aids in the construction of the second, the second, the third and the third, the fourth. If all other things are equal there is never... NEVER any compelling reason to construct your T2 structure except if... and only if:

1, You don't have the T1 Engineers to build four T1 Extractors at a time. And if you want to build four T1 extractors at a time then you're losing out on the advantage of building one at a time to complete it faster, and thus lend its production to the construction of all subsequent buildings.

2, You are willing to waste said time and resources that you would have gained above, for the convenience of a single unit with a single health bar. Even then it's still an "All-or-Nothing" approach for defensive purposes and (I think) doesn't gain any significant advantage unless a raid would be unable to take out your T2 structure, but was able to take out more than one T1 structure. That is such a fine line that I consider it largely irrelevant.

---

Edit, I remember DoW now. It took me a while since that game was made a long time ago and didn't hold nearly the quantity, nor quality of my attention as much as TA did.

TA never had my interest in the first place (or rather, I was too young to play multiple games on a limited schedule), but I didn't think this was the place for inferred subtext like that.

And yes, what I was proposing could end up as a downgrade. I'm well aware of that. It's why I crafted the example to create parity between T1 and T2, which is of course absurd. T2 is superior. T2 is meant to be superior.

If T2 was not superior there would not be an advantage in going to T2. The reason why such tiers developed with regards to RTS games were to mirror the chain of command in Real Life and the length of time taken to approve the deployment of advanced weaponry and equipment. You gain elevated privileges, you deploy more advanced units (which are also more expensive and take longer to make). This mirrors reality.

If you don't want T2 to be an upgrade, then you don't want tiers. You want a neverending spread of sidegrades that make the game incredibly more confusing for players.

T2 being above T1 rewards people who play a superior game in terms of economic management and build strategy (/optimisation). The ability to beat T2 units with a larger amount of T1 units (i.e. not placing T2 so far above T1 that it is by default a win) rewards people with superior strategic and tactical play. This is how RTS gaming works.

There is always a place for sidegrades. There is always a place for alternate options.

However, there is always a place for direct upgrades that elevate the field of play.

I'm afraid then we must agree to disagree. I do not hold with the idea that direct upgrades elevate the field of play strategically.

They do not change the Qualities of play; Merely the Quantities.
By neglecting Qualitative change in favour of Quantitative increases, all you do is increase logistic complexity.

If to you, Quantities are all that matter... if solving Logistic problems is all you desire, I can see why you would disagree with my position.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, then.

I hope the game you envision gets made one day, simply because it seems you'd enjoy it a lot more than anything that attempts to go halfway, or utilises different base mechanics.