Economics needs more complexity

carnilion, With good strategic placement and/or use of "Specialised" T2 structures?

Do you really not understand what I'm saying? Balancing T2 doesn't mean taking away it's power... it means making it balanced by significant drawbacks.

T2 Power Gens can have +5000 Energy if they want to. Hell, I fully expect Gas-Giant Gas Scoops to produce ten times that amount of energy. But THEY have limits. They must be placed around Gas-Giants.

Currently there is no balancing drawback to T2 other than cost which, if TA and SupCom are any indication, quickly becomes irrelevant. T2 is just a straight upgrade. I want it to have some drawbacks, that's all.

Sheesh. I really didn't think I was obfuscating my point that much... but apparently I was.
:|

This is a fantastic conversation -- a treat in internet discourse.

Thank you for keeping this civil and well thought.

Maybe this is sacrilegious for me to mention it in these forums -- I find it interesting that nobody's dropped the example of SC not having different explicit tiers in econ or units, but they (units and buildings) retain utility throughout the game. (Though this is done through adding "special abilities" i.e. additional micro-management... which I understand as being antithetical to the ethos of this game... just sayin' it's been done!)

Starcraft units remain viable because of armoury upgrades... and upgrades won't be part of Planetary annihilation; units need to be balanced from the start.

Whether that's a good or bad thing is entirely up to personal preference.

Though starcraft doesn't have explicit tiering, it does have a research tech-tree. Again something we can't use in PA.

Again, whether that's a good or bad thing is personal preference.

nanolathe>the limiting factor is mass, not energy. only in early game we have more problems geting the energy eco up, in lategame the resources are limitet by mass witch is limitet by mass points since we dont have any form of energy->mass converter. and getting more mass is only possible by controlling more territory.
since now it is like units dont have any energy costs (only the fabbers need energy to produce and the mass extractors need energy to produce mass) it makes sense that mass is the limiting resource.

also in late game if you have "too mutch" mass you have simply too less factories producing. i never get to a point where i have "unlimitet" mass since i build more factories all the time. then if we think that we also need resources to get to orbital tech (t3/4?) or building special units like experimentals, i dont see any point where we get eco broken, especially if the weaker units can be produced so fast that they can beat the higher units by pure numbers.

You do realise that there is, and will not be, a T3/T4, right?

basicaly yes i do, but i dont know how to name it....just orbital tech? ot?
but i expect that we will have buildings/units that will need way more mass than the t2 buildings we have now


edit: wait a secound? you mean we get orbital stuff like we do vehicle, air and naval now? buildable by t1 fabbers? where did uber mention this kind? i would want to read all about that then first

One of the drawbacks associated with T2 power should be that it is an awful lot more volatile than T1. SupCom did this scaled back (though if you saw a massfab/T3 power complex) go down, the entire thing would go boom. That's a potential draw back for this.

You can place them far apart to minimise explosion risk, but you have to spread your defences thin so they aren't that effective (same resources to cover more space).

OR you can place them togther so you can have your defences focused in that location (same resources to cover less space) but they are more at risk to ALL blow up if one is taken out.

Does that work?

Yes, I had a good long think about that. The problem I have with it is that the "cascade failure" isn't a very fun mechanic for the player that suffers it. It's very rewarding for the attacking player, and of course it's lovely to watch the explosions... but as the defending player it really sucks.

I'm not sure how I feel about that... a mechanic that exists purely to punish a player who's already down a high-cost, high-production asset...

The equivalent of putting salt in the wound.

Cascade failure is fine so long as it is predictable and can be prevented.

Heh, it might be a good way to prevent wall spam. Walls explode for 7500 damage when killed, instantly destroying all nearby walls. And everything else.

On a serious note, cascade failure wouldn't really work in PA. T2 Power Gens are already so vulnerable to literally anything with a weapon.

I have no problem in diversifying certain military units, this is simpler (and more complex) than affecting the economic balance which in turn decides how many units you can produce. Your economic strength dictates your potential military strength (what you do with that strength is your tactical and/or strategic prowess).

You can't just allow a sidegrade and say "hey, job done". You can with military units because it opens up other counters (via other sidegrades). Economic structures are not countered by anything different. You can't have a sidegrade, because there would be no reason to pick it over the original structure unless it offered a moderate advantage. Which nano is against, unless I'm (still) reading him wrong.

Given how you have a staple in a Metal Extractor and an Energy Plant (thing, build ain't on this laptop), they are the de facto primary choice. They exist in every RTS game, with a few exceptions. You can't have a sidegrade, because what would a sidegrade do? Produce less Metal to grant an aura-based combat benefit? Why would you want that, when Metal Deposits are so limited and tied to the terrain? Produce more Metal at the cost of X, Y and Z? No, we can't do that because nanolathe has decreed that That Is Bad.

However this is where I think we (I'm including nano here, despite quoting you) genuinely agree to disagree, and agree that there are merits in both approaches. A tiered approach both reflects the reality of war (including science-fiction styled war from any number of universes I've read. Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy is a good example here, and as far as video games go Mass Effect 3 portrays moderately realistic fleet engagements) as well as being a balanced way to reward people who control their economies well (especially in smaller games - getting to Tier 2 before the opponent is a skill that can be improved upon by optimising build orders and/or predicting your opponent's tactics - i.e. predicting a rush that would stall your optimised build order).

You are (still) reading me wrong.

So please explain, in clear words.

What is wrong with a direct upgrade to a structure that has drawbacks considering it's strength.

What is right about a sidegrade that offers benefits equivalent to a direct upgrade, with drawbacks.

Please bear in mind that at no point did I defend the current PA implementation, and I did mention that it could be subject to change. I also investigated various options around balancing said resource structures, but you claimed that the model was inherently broken.

So please, surprise me. How do we create a T2 Metal and/or Energy sidegrade that makes you happy. Give me a suggestion, because I am quite frankly tired of offering a lot of analysis and having it thrown in my face with statements like "you're reading me wrong" and "you don't understand". Evidently what you are proposing is so far above my feeble intellect that I need it spelling out

Now, now, ladies.

Hey, I'm polite to a fault, but I've written a comparable amount of essay work as nanolathe has and addressed every point, so I get a bit tired when he counters with a "you're not reading me properly so I'll ignore the entire post, not all of which was dependent on not reading things properly".

It a basic fundamental of debate. You don't dance around the point and deflect, you cut to the core of the issue and expose where the miscommunication is occurring.

I want to know what I am not reading correctly, so I am attempting to phrase he questions in a way that removes any room for doubt, misinterpretation, or error.

Apologies, I wasn't being critical! It was an attempt at humour to keep the discussion on the relatively civil path it's maintained so far

Haha, no, I understand completely, it's cool. I just didn't want to come across as the whiny kid, I guess

As I have already responded to you multiple times Gorbles, there is nothing wrong with more powerful version of an earlier structure that has significant drawbacks considering it's strength. However that drawback cannot be cost.

In the economy structure that is proposed cost is a limiting factor that diminishes over time. Despite what many people may perceive as a fixed integer, the "cost" of a unit is not an absolute number. As you economy strengthens the relative cost of a unit decreases. It therefore follows, that a unit that is "Balanced for Cost" becomes progressively less and less balanced as the game continues.

As cost becomes less and less relevant, objective power becomes more and more relevant. This restricts the number of viable choices the player has over time.

Because of the way the game is designed... from its very foundation, some units (and structures) have more objective power than others. They are an Upgrade; taking all of the "Qualities" and "Quantities" of the old unit and adding... or in some extreme cases, multiplying those values. Such units, be they tanks or powergens or defense towers or whatever, replace the previous tier of unit as the most effective use of your resources.

This flies-in-the-face of Uber's self-stated goal of making all Tiers of Technology have a place in late-game engagements.

For all tiers of technology to remain relevant in late-game scenarios they must be balanced against each other, not simply "for cost"; that is the mistake SupCom made.
Cost is important only as a tool to restrict the use of certain units at various stages of play.

---

There are no clearer words I can use Gorbles. Teching-up should not increase your direct and objective power because if it does, the game you have created is a race to the top. I hold that as fact.

It is my opinion that race to the top style gameplay stifles creative experimentation in the [Low] and [Medium] skill brackets in favour of using build-orders. I find race to the top style gameplay an exercise in logistic management rather than strategic thought; the optimisation and memorisation of distinct and increasingly restricted unit compositions as you progress towards late game.

For myself, I find games that restrict my list of viable choices cease being fun.
If memorisation, logistics and an ever-shrinking list of viable unit choices sounds fun to you then we share no common ground.

Just a quick proposal here, Nano, to see if I'm on the same wavelength as you on this:

T1 mex = 7 income, 1000hp, 10sec to build with vehiclefab

T2 mex = 14 income, 300hp, 20sec to build with adv vehiclefab

I.e. T2 mex gives greater income, but is unsuitable to be build in more heavily contested areas. But you would usually then build these in areas well under your control when given the opportunity.

That changes their purpose and viability significantly in contested areas. It also makes them very susceptible to being sniped even in uncontested areas.

You have changed the "Quality" between the two units. One is hardy and does its job well no matter where it's placed, frontline or home turf; it does not excel, but functions admirably in most any situation. The other is frail and while it excels at its function, it has a significant enough drawback for a player to actually consider its use (even in your main base if the enemy has shown he's heavily invested in bombers), rather than using it as a de-facto upgrade.

Yes WrongCat, you're on Nanolathe FM. Here's some smooth jazz; one of my favourites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXmLUmJ20Dw

I would potentially go one step further and add;

Code:

T2 mex (model B) = 5 income, 3000hp, 15sec to build with adv vehiclefab

This model, despite being less powerful at extracting Metal, has front-line potential. Being even more resistant to raiding than the standard T1 Extractor it has the disadvantage of never being as quite efficient. Could still see some situational use in your main base against people raiding bases with the express intent of crippling your Metal Income.

I could see bot players loving this setup due to bots having less Metal demand than tanks and allowing a bot player, with his mobile army, to lose fewer important buildings in his main base while his bots respond to attacks.

(Numbers are just there as an example. Can't say if they're balanced or not. Needs testing)

I don't think we'd need any more variety than that. You've got every base covered with that setup I feel.

@nanolathe:

See and this is where miscommunication raises its ugly head. I agreed with you on unit divergence, with units being applicable throughout the game.

However, we were initially discussing the resource model (if you prefer that to the overarching economic model as a phrase), not the balance and utility of combat units throughout the game. To make this clear - I already agreed with you with regards to combat units.

We were originally NOT talking about combat units.

I agree with cost not having a fixed value and being relative to the strength of your economy (indeed, I said as much when noting that economic strength dictated possible military strength as a variable value).

What I wanted to investigate is why a direct economic upgrade would not work - let's assume all military units have use throughout the game at this theoretical point in time. By your own logic, the arguments applied to why military units need diversity do not apply to resource structures. I've already explained why in an earlier post, though I can quote again for coherence

You can have a model whereby you replace earlier resource structures with advanced resource structures, as it simply allows a larger field of combat units (which are diverse and variable to your liking).

You can even introduce drawbacks with the advanced resource structures that make them less of a no-brainer choice until you are at the end game and optimising your base structure for maximu efficiency is a requirement.

And yes, I know you were referring to resource structures and military units at the same time. You should not. They are inherently different structures as they can be countered in different ways.

EDIT: and once again, your language rewards those who agree with you and patronises those who do not. It really makes objective debate quite worthless. Should I go around offering cookies when people agree with me (positive feedback being a psychological tool to incentive further such behaviour that induced the feedback in the first place)?