Economics needs more complexity

If your Economic Structures were not a part of the battle, I would agree. However with your resources being produce on the battlefield they enter a much muddier, greyer area.

Unlike Total War where your economy is separate from the battle at hand, TA-Like games (and a great many RTSs in general) have your Economy directly involved in battle. For me, that makes them "Combat Units". While they do not fight themselves, they are directly linked to your ability to fight.

Edit: If you don't like Jazz I can play something else. What would you prefer? As long as it's not Rap, we can probably find some common ground. If you want me to alter my posts to include "Rap" however, you're going to be waiting a long time.

Perhaps if there wasn't other people in the discussion... but since there are, I feel obliged to acknowledge their contributions. I'm sorry you don't like me "rewarding" someone who agrees with me, with some smooth jazz.

I have to disagree about your analysis of cost over time, Nanolathe.

Even though the cost of a single tank might be relatively low to the total production you have, the efficiency for cost is still very relevant throughout the game.
The production of a tank might take your whole income early in the game while you can serialise the production later in the game and produce many tanks at once.
You could say that a single tank is more expensive in time early in the game when your economy is small compared to later when your economy is bigger.
The efficiency for metal cost however remains the same throughout the game.

Cost is perfect drawback for Mex ugrades and heavier tanks as long as they they are less efficient for cost than their lower equivalents.
Those upgraded variants allows you to get more income out of a smaller territory or cram more firepower into a smaller space.
The cost efficient counter to this is simply to grab more territory for standard mexes and swarm the heavier tanks. However as territory become claimed and the battlefront hardens it becomes increasingly difficult to increase your territory and increasingly difficult to swarm the heavier tanks and destroy them cost-efficiently.

Now if you look at t3 in SupCom you might not think that those units would be big offenders to this rule as t1 spam can kill them for cost.
However if you look closer you will see that t3 units have longer range, are fast and are much more compact making it easy to cram alot of firepower into a small area.
It doesn't take many t3 units to achieve critical mass so that they can kill t1 spam for cost not to mention those t3 units that can just kite t1 spam.

An interesting unit to look at is the Can in TA. It is cost effective against lower tech units once it gets in range. However it is slow and can be outranged by some T1 units so alone it is pretty useless against T1 spam. Higher tiered units can have more power(HP*DPS) for cost than lowered tiered units if they like you say got enough drawbacks.

In regards to SupCom it was the teching/transition cost that prohibited players from using t2 or t3 right away. The price of a single Loyalist for example isn't that high.

I think that there could be powerful higher tanks which are less efficient for cost but useful in cramped situations although T1 tanks could very well, for cost, be the most efficient tank in the game. An alternative is that t1 tanks are the heaviest tanks in the game while t2 have more niched tank killers or whatnot. I wouldn't mind that either.
Having a t2 tank that is outright more efficient than t1 tanks with no drawbacks at all is an absolute no for me.

I'm divided about energy generators. The unlock/tech cost of reaching higher teched power plants and the pretty large initial cost before your first t2 Generator is online is pretty big so some efficiency gain could be needed if they are to be used. There are several drawbacks that can be added like it having low HP, being volatile or being visible from really far away.
On the other hand t2 generators could even be less efficient than t1 generators if they have dual purposes, more health, can be cloaked, etc, etc.

I agree with this sentiment perhaps with the exception of gameenders. Game enders, if they are supposed to be gameenders, should be efficient at ending game in an ever growing economy. Of course if the available metal patches shrink as planets gets destroyed we might not even need game enders.

Agreed.

Haha, see, we can find common ground! I am generally opposed to rap as well (there are a couple of exceptions, but they usually have to be mashed with an artist I greatly enjoy - for example Florence + The Machine).

I don't mind jazz at all, so keep playing it. It certainly beats me linking hard rock and softer varieties (from AC/DC to the Chili Peppers and everything inbetween).

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

I agree that it is "muddier", but with regards to strategic choice, you can balance larger resource structures against smaller resource structures. With combat units it does not work, as you've said, simply because all you need to indefinitely produce the upgraded combat unit is an economy strong enough to support them.

With a static structure, placement comes into effect (defensive structures have similar limitations - there are neat ways to limit defensive structures to prevent or mitigate absolute "turtling" strategies that don't necessarily impact the utility of those structures). Object footprint becomes far more of a useful variable. Object height becomes a similar deciding property (for example you could have a partially-submerged or even subterranean Metal Extractor that took reduced damage from Air attacks but increased damage from artillery shells and specific infantry weapons).

However, even disregarding all of this, even assuming the current economy you have in play (admittedly, perhaps without the excessive rewards the T2 resource structures grant us in comparison to T1) - T1 structures still have a place. Why? Well, hopefully I can elaborate.

1. T2 resource structures can only initially be placed by T2 fabbers (of whatever specification is required). T1 fabbers can then join in, but obviously the rate at which they build is kinda slow (even in groups, I've played with this kind of setup in the past). This means that harassing T2 fabbers to prevent T2 resource structure construction is a viable tactic.

2. Assuming point 1 is valid, we are then in a situation whereby you are in T2, however you cannot build T2 structures (until you replace said fabbers, which also take correspondingly longer to build than their T1 counterparts). To this end, there will be situations whereby, even in lategame, it is easier to build T1 fabbers and T1 resource generation structure - to prevent a complete economical crash - than wait for that T2 fabber by which point your stalling economy could have caused the game to fall in the enemy's favour.

Do you agree? This is in line with all options being viable even in the endgame. Combat units are unfortunately a different kettle of fish by dint of being destroyed outright by their T2 brethren. Generators cannot attack each other, and as such still have a place at any stage in the game.

There's a limit to outwards expansion, and upwards expansion is the next step. I honestly don't mind higher tier economic structures being bigger and better, but costlier versions of tier 1. I'm not locked into that specific method of achieving the upward expansion of economy, but don't see the "Race to the top" as an issue - focusing on economy holds back from military and vice versa, if balanced right. Military strength is just as much a "Race to the top", and players need to be running multiple races for a game to be interesting. If there's no viable upward expansion, then the game becomes a race to see who gets 50.000001% of the metals spots, as the only way to increase economically is expansion (exaggeration for clarity). TA for example (with the exception of metal maps), did not end up at a point where moho mines were the only thing you built.

As a side note that's still relevant, I dislike the Starcraft/RTT mentality of having to make everything "special" in some way. Some things just are better.

Honestly, I never said I agreed with Nanolathe You are both making quite valid arguments and I wanted to clarify that was the sort of thing he was talking about

I'm not on either side of the fence here, but this thread has got me thinking about something which I hadn't even considered before, which is good!

It'd take more than a cookie and some smooth jazz to sway me

I agree with godde about absolute cost, it is never irrelevant. Yes, scaled up units (units which high "weight class") have many advantages as a game progresses. They deal damage at full capacity until they lose all their health, they lose the disadvantage of no gradual returns and they are less susceptible to AoE. I think these factors mean that they should be balanced to be worse than cheap units for cost such that a large unit at the start of the game is a very bad idea. By the end of the game large and small units will be able to be used together.

Could you please be more precise with your language.
When you say "bigger and better, but costlier..." and not even specifying cost effectiveness you could be talking about completely different things.

A more cost effective Metal EXtractor that produces more metal for the metal spent on the extractor will replace less efficient extractors.

If you have a T2 extractor that costs 1000 and gives you 50 metal you should replace all your T1 mexes that costs 300 metal and gives you 7 metal because it simply makes your economy grow faster no matter what.

On the other hand if it costs 1000 and only gives you 10 metal it is less efficient for cost but allows you to increase your economy when all territory has been claimed.

Now power generators of TA and SupCom has typically been of the earlier. They are simply more efficient for the metal spent. If other factors like space or ease of protection is more important even less efficient higher tech powerplants can be useful.

I love Uber's proposal of ensuring that T1 units remain viable late game, and much like nanolathe I was struggling to see how the current economy buildings followed that philosophy. Also like nanolathe, given the alpha state of the game I was waiting to see what changes for beta, as the current "T2>T1 in all ways economy" is actually more intuitive for new alpha players to get to grips with, as it is a familiar meme that has been around a while.

Actually now I think about it, I'd love to see a T2 energy "building" with tracks so you can trundle it away from confrontations (basically a mobile T1 energy). Not something you can do with extractors though, when the existing premise is already location limited placement.

Anyway, suggestions for changing the relative "quality" of T2 econ:
explosiveness (with great power comes great explodability)
defensibility (T2 get +HP / built-in turrets)
mobility (only viable for energy though)
build speed (cheaper, quicker, less hardy prefabs)
location specific (already done for metal)
reduced intel visibility (radar stealth or cloaking)
built-in storage
built-in area repair / reclaim

plus anything else people can come up with. Any or all of the above can be used alongside changes in quantity to "balance" T2 econ against T1, such that players can see advantages of still using T1 in a particular situation vs using T2 in others (regardless of relative production values). As it stands, once you can afford to build T2 econ without stalling, there's no real incentive to build a T1 ever again, at least not in my experience.

There is a phrase i have heard, known as a Truth Argument. It means the case where two (or more) individuals actually agree about a matter, but have become sufficiently invested in the process of spirited discourse that they do not recognise they are actually agreeing with each other.

There may be some mild elements of that here.

I think the definition that some people have of just plain better is actually remarkably close to other people's definitions of specialised and different. I can't see anyone making an argument here that T1 mex's should be obsoleted during the course of the game. Only that they disagree over what constitutes an effective method making this happen.

@cwarner7264: how about two cookies

@yourlocalmadsci: I had considered that, hence the formal and lawyer-esque pains I went to to try and get a definitive statement on either side.

Where possible, I always seek to state that I agree with a counterargument or statement proposed, simply to avoid confusion. Also, for politeness. It always gets me when I manage to logically make sense and the other guy just stops posting (not that that's happened here), so I always strive to acknowledge good arguments that have changed my vviewpoint (cuz hypocrisy sucks).

/tangent

Sold.

I deliberately left the implementation vague, as I don't believe I'm qualified (especially at this stage) to give a specific solution. My point is just that T2 resource structures that have a higher production rate than T1 should exist to allow upward expansion, and I have no intrinsic issue with the only difference between the T1 and T2 variants being price. The cost efficiency you reference is of course an important factor in determining what that price difference should be. I would also err on the side of outwards expansion not being strictly better than upwards expansion in all situations, otherwise the 50.000001% example becomes more prevalent.

Godde, in the end with a flow based economy, does not everything simply boil down to time?


I guess I did leave that part out of my argument. When you get down to brass tacks the whole system is, unless you somehow have 0 income at all (which should be impossible because of the Commander), a function of time; of efficient use of resources to reduce the time taken for any particular outcome (and not get blown up while you're getting there).
No?

With PA as it is I can start teching towards T2 units in less than a minute if I wanted to. However that is not an efficient use of my resources, and hence, my time... and it's certainly not conducive to staying alive for more than 5 minutes.
:lol:

I haven't really understood what you mean with upward expansion. Do you mean spatially upwards meaning growing on height, to other planets or just cramming more economy into a small area?
The "50.000001%" is pretty irrelevant for me as I have never experienced a game that escalated to a point where I felt I couldn't expand or contest more territory.

In the current runaway economy I don't even use t2 economy even though Advanced Power Plants are a bit more effective than Power Plants and Advanced Metal Extractors are as cost efficient as Metal Extractors because I just don't have the time and attention to set it up. I just try to keep ahead in the slippery slope curve so that my opponent doesn't get ahead.
Space hasn't exactly been an issue.

Imagine how much space you'll have when there are more planets too... You could have a whole planet devoted to Adv. PowerGens, Adv. Extractors and T2 Turrets.

Think of the warmachine you could fund with such a bank...

I'm moist just thinking about it.

Hmmm... I would consider the current T2 mex to be "better" in pretty much all situations over a T1; it has more production, more health, the same footprint. The only differentiation is cost, which is more of a factor initially than as games tend toward solution.

If for instance I reached a dominating position where I had production of +200 metal and one freshly liberated metal spot to build on, what would make me choose a T1 over a T2 for that spot? I am struggling to come up with one; the T2 is more survivable (more HP for the contested position) and also better production to feed my existing war machine. The T1 would only be considered if my economy was on the bleeding edge, and building a T2 might cause a stall. That's not so much a tactical decision, as a forced one; I would prefer the T2 but conditions are preventing me from using my preferred solution.

I agree that cost efficiency is a factor throughout the game for good players, however as a mediocre player I have often hit situations in this type of game where I have an excess of production, and cost efficiencies or individual cost become irrelevant to me, I simply pick the units with the most impressive stats for the intended purpose. I don't think I am alone in this behaviour either.

Hmmm... from the sound of it upwards expansion seems synonymous with an economic race to the top type situation, where the optimal goal is to have only top tier economic buildings across all controlled territory. As you mention, I don't see anything intrinsically bad about it (I'm fine with that in TA and SupCom for instance), as long as it is understood that this mechanic will effectively obsolete the lower tiers/techs over time. Since one of the stated goals was for higher tiers/techs to not obsolete the lower ones, it does seem a little counter-intuitive for it to get implemented in PA though.

I suspect we may end up in a situation where it is only economy that suffers from a built-in obsolescence, and that T1 combat units remain viable. It wouldn't be my preferred solution, however I'm equally as sure that my preferred solution* would not be the preferred solution of others, or even the best solution for PA

*In case you are interested, I'd be perfectly happy with all econ buildings having the same output regardless of tier, and the differences being in the cost / HP / extra functions. This would include having more than one T1 option to build (e.g. normal T1 mex, plus a cheap and fragile T1 mex for rapid expansion at high risk) to facilitate choice from the match start.

I don't see how a flow based economy is different from one with incremental costs in this case. The economy grows exponentially in Starcraft as well. It grows exponentially until you have expanded to all mineral patches and the economy lasts until all resources are harvested.
Currently in PA it grows until all metal patches are occupied by Advanced Metal Extractors.

"efficient use of resources" is the key. If you are spending resources on inefficient heavy tanks and I can swarm them with more efficient tanks and kill them for cost which puts me ahead of you. If the battlefield is so crammed that I can't swarm them then the heavy tanks are a more efficient use of resources.
Or maybe I can still flank the heavy tanks and be cost effective with smaller tanks but not engage them head-on and so on...

Are you saying time is not a cost? It is easy to treat buildpower as a resource which is locally generated and impossible to store.

But you don't even have to look at buildpower in particular. Each of your resource incomes is finite and it is possible to not excess. A large economy is no reason not to spend resources efficiently. Doing this involves constructing efficient units.

Honestly I think I must speak a different language or something... how on earth did you infer from my post that I think time is not a cost?

To clarify: I'm perfectly aware that time is as important a resource (and perhaps more important) as either Metal or Energy.