Economics needs more complexity

Are we assuming T=Tech or T=Tier? Because that can make a huge different in people's minds.

I don't think that Nanolathe is disputing the fact that T2 should have advantages over T1. The main problem with it the way it is at present is as follows:

For energy, you have no restriction on where and how many you can build. Due to the energy density you can achieve by building T2 energy generators, you very quickly reach a scenario where supply so far outstrips demand that the relative costs of other units and buildings is no longer of any importance, as it won't even put a dent in your economy.

As for metal, the outcome is the same, but happens by slightly different means. If T2 mex are simply bigger T1s, you go through (what I always found in TA to be) a boring period of removing the T1 structures and replacing them with T2. Once I'd done a few, my supply of metal once again skyrocketed, and from then on the economy was broken.

What we need is something that is a suitable economic reward, while having its own set of rules to make sure that you do not simply remove any sort of economic challenge in the process. Merely changing the quantities (health etc) is not enough, this merely delays the inevitable.

Mushroomars, honestly if a persons perception of increasing in "T" is an increase in power irrespective of being relatively balanced compared to lower values of "T" then nothing I can say in my posts will convince them.

"Tier" or "Tech"; it doesn't matter. All that matters to me is increasing your Tech Level (or Tier if you prefer) gives you an indirect strategic advantage by increasing you options, rather than a direct strategic advantage because it gives you more power.

If a unit that provides twice the benefits, but has twice the amount of drawbacks, is introduced as an upgraded unit, would you still complain?

I do dislike your attitude of painting people who disagree as somewhat inferior or incapable of appreciating the "good things in life", where the "good things in life" are "what nanolathe agrees with".

Agreeing to disagree means you respect the other's point of view. Not that you casually dismiss it when referring to them in the third person.

No.

...

that's exactly my point.

I'm also not causally dismissing your viewpoint, merely stating a fact. If your perception is that Increasing "T" must increase objective power then I find it very hard to imagine any way I could convince you otherwise.

I find the hardest thing to do in the world is change the way someone else views it... and the internet is the worst medium in my opinion, to try to use to that end.
I don't want to be rude about this, so if you're reading "casual disregard" into my posts I apologise. That is not their intent.

...and here was I, thinking that we were getting on rather well.


---

Beanspoon, yes you have caught the ball I am pitching.

It's hard because it infers that you are correct. What if I told you I was attempting to explain my viewpoint to you, to change your mind? I don't say this, because that is quite plainly the intended outcome of debate.

If you say that, it becomes an inference of unwillingness to concede ground, or to accept a point that must be blindingly obvious "if they could just see it".

That's my experience, coming from someone who's made that kind of mistake (in his written tone) many a time before

With regards to options vs. a direct increase in power, if I am understanding you right, your ideal game no unit should ever have a distinct power advantage over any other unit. Ever. Which is quite a limited scope to take. Yes, a designer should value utility (effective utility, with no redundancy in unit or structural role) over forcing a technological upgrade "race", however in order to simulate realistic battle logistics does come into the picture.

Logistics has to come into the picture. The picture you are painting has disdain for anything that refers to logistics, with people defending the traditional model deemed as "wholly in favour of completely logistical engagements" (paraphrasing your words, sorry ). Logistics are not inherently evil. They have application in a strategic game, especially as a game's scope increases (massively). If you can't understand that, then nothing in my posts will convince you.

Of course I understand that logistics is important. I just don't care for games that revolve around it as the be-all-end-all goal of the game.

... and when you have a broken logistics model with infinite resources like TA, SupCom and PA then I really don't see the point in devoting your focus to that style of game.

If you're going to have infinite resources, don't bog me down in logistics. Let me have some cool tanks which all do cool individual things, a granulation in "quality" across the board, and let me play with strategies... not logistics.

Do you mean stuff like reinforcements, metal, energy, factories and fabbers?

Anything which is involved in the logistics of war. The cost, expenditure and time involved in transporting assets to and from the field of war - I think that's a decent, albeit brief, summary.

@nano: I wouldn't think that it is the be all and end all in Planetary Annihilation (or indeed the predecessors though). Naturally, it is a bottleneck (in that you can't build more than you can produce/support), but it's not like it matters more than the units at your control.

And if you say that it does, well, obviously, this is why you said you didn't like the "this is alpha" argument. We've only just got metal deposits. It's not out of the realms of possibility to presume enhancements to the system later down the line.

If you don't like that, I'm sure there will be plenty of mods that cater to your tastes

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's assume that we're trying to make a system that will work out of PA's current system. Let's try and not completely rework it from the ground up. Here's the spec:

"Create an evolution of the current system that is both realistically implementable and appealing to a wide portion of gamers interested in the game as it currently stands/was advertised"

You must bear in mind that your viewpoint for an economic model both transcends the traditional RTS model, as well as attempts to solve the age-old problem of infinite resources. Dawn of War is a good case study here, funnily enough (resource points degrade in output over time and the generation points for the primary resource can trade hands, resetting the degeneration rate on a successful capture).

You lost me at "Appeals to a wide portion of gamers". Sorry.

I don't feel like I'm trying to change the economic model however. I just don't want teching-up to equal direct power.

* wide portion of gamers interested in this game as it stands/as it was advertised

We're not looking at those who have no interest in this game to begin with. The reason why you have to appeal to the gamers currently interested in this game is because you have to keep it the same game.

Otherwise it's more evident that you just want a completely different game and nothing that can be theorycrafted will satisfy you.

I'm trying to create a situation here where we can positively brainstorm, and hopefully get away from "why nanolathe thinks it all sucks and everyone should agree". I have no issue with you, and indeed I took no offense earlier, but your tone is getting snappy and somewhat (overly) elitist.

EDIT: ah, you edited your post. You are changing the economic model. You do not desire something that is currently implemented - something which currently affects how T2 works in it's entirety.

I think we're using different definitions again. "Economic model" to me = Flow based, 2 Resources.

Nothing more.

As far as theorycrafting goes, the Economy must satisfy one condition; The higher your Tech-Level, the greater the number of options you have at your disposal to confront a strategic problem. The Tech-Level does not indicate relative strength, merely the number of different units you can potentially call upon to solve a strategic problem.

If my opponent advances to T2 while I remain in T1, that does not give him more power. It gives him more options. Said options come in the form of more "specialised" units. A single T2 specialised unit is not inherently more powerful than a T1 unit, unless is is performing in its area of specialisation.

If an opponent is able to leverage a positional, timing or other strategic advantage then the correct T2 unit that is designed to excel in that strategically advantageous position has a dramatically increased level of power because of that specialisation.

T2 units that are outside their area of expertise however are considerably weaker than their "cost" would indicate.

Units have in TA and SupCom been self-sufficient. They don't need food or ammo. A few have needed energy but that is streamed through the air much like the metal of the wrecks on the front is transported back with quantum-tunneling technology or I don't know how.
This seems more fitted for discussion about logistics which there are several threads about.

If I understand it correctly Nanolathe is only arguing for diverse units rather than having units being replaced by superior ones.
It would be quite simple to rework PA into that.
Remove or respecify Advanced Power Plants for example so that it doesn't just act as a replacement for standard Power Plants.
Change the stats of the Leveler so that it isn't just a heavier Ant tank with slightly longer range.
Such "simple" things.

Correct, Godde. You're a ninja

Your posts just agree with the developers and stop putting words in my mouth chap.

Actually resources are transfered through either pipes, or subterranean robots. All resource buildings have pipes going into the ground.

My current theory is that all resources are provided by robotic centipedes that eat dirt.

Edit: OP, people disagree with you almost unanimously because your idea directly promotes stagnant gameplay, which people hate either subconsciously or consciously.

hmm..i dont get the point, if we have the nuke as t2 wmd, and then we get the asteroid as wmd in t3/4/whatever.....its basicaly the same thing but asteroids dwarf nukes in any aspect. so this wouldnt be good then either?

if t2 eco units are not better in any way than t2 noone will build them.
if they are different we need more resources whitch makes the game unneccesary complicatet (for example you need 100 mass, 2000 energy, 10 diamonds, 10 steel ingots, 2 aztec wodden gods for building your leveler).
if they are restrictet in area and are not WAY better than t1 (something like factor 50 or 100) noone will build them. i never build geothermal energy plants in ta, cause it was way more easy to get the energy by any form of t1 plants, also we have the area restrictet mass-points.

same goes for units. levelers are better than ants, but even in late game with "unlimitet" resources you can build way more ants than you can build levelers for the given resources:
ant cost : 100 metal for construction : energy 675, 15 metal/tick
leveler cost : 1575 metal for construction : energy 2025, 45 metal/tick

for same energy and metal you can run 1 t2 or 3 t1 factories, and you get the ant way faster than the leveler. that way it seems somewhat balanced. also if you never got your levelers overrun by someone who only build ants, but way more than you - go play the alpha against no-turtelers

I did not say that T2 wouldn't be better in some way. I said it shouldn't be an upgrade. There's a difference.

Also, Nukes and Asteroids are completely different things. You don't "build" asteroids in a Silo. You can't mine resources from a nuke.

While they serve a similar purpose the way in which each operates and functions within the context of the game, is completely different.

well both are wmd, asteroids are WAY more powerfull, but i think they will be somehow limitet (if all are used up for planetary bombardement the are gone). and it will require WAY more resources to fire an asteroid...so where to get these resources?

You got the reason