Economics needs more complexity

Quoting because I'll be damned if my amazing and supercool post should be ignored.

If this contravenes forum policy, I hail the Gods of Moderational Deletion.

I'm not ignoring it at least, I just don't want to have the thread devolve into arguments over semantics again.

Give me a minute bro!

Nanolathe, you said unit cost eventually becomes unimportant and that eventually flow based economies boil down to time. At first it sounds like you don't think time is a cost.

I think there are too many discussions occurring in parallel. The most likely explanation for what I thought you said there is that I read something in the wrong context. You're talking to many people at once and everyone uses the same words to mean different things in different contexts. I think it would be best to split off the question I have (and godde seems to have as well) about your idea "As cost becomes less and less relevant, objective power becomes more and more relevant".

Feel free to bash out a new thread. I'll join you there.

---

Gorbles I need to address your points in reverse order since point two assumes one to be true. but first I'd like to take your closing statement and examine it;

Absolutely true that generators and extractors do not attack each other (unless I make mention of the forbidden game... where, for some races, they could). On a practical level I agree that we will always see T1 and T2 generators at most stages of play past the point where both become available. However I contend that this is because the player is choosing to. Mathematically it makes absolutely no sense to build T1 Generators if you have the capacity to build T2.

There are situations in which T1 generators are used, yes... but only as a matter of necessity, as a stepping stone towards T2. Given the choice, and given that the T2 reactor is fully capable of surviving a ComBomb by virtue of its outstanding HP, can survive more effectively against small raids, has full functionality until the moment of its death and, of course, condenses the space-to-power-generated ratio by over half, I struggle to find any redeeming feature of the T1 generator. The T2 Pgen, once available, is the first thing I build. Once I have built one, I have a positive feedback loop. One allows the second to be built faster. The second allows reactor three and four to commence. Four allows eight, eight becomes sixteen, and so on; all the while producing an excess of energy that is fed into my war machine. At no point in this exponential expansion am I tempted to build T1. It's too inefficient in both space and the time it takes me to place eight wireframes down, rather than just one.

T1 Generators are half as efficient for space. They are eight times as inefficient in terms of the time and player involvement it takes to place them. Though they may be balanced "for cost", they are not balanced against basic player-to-UI interaction. This is the same basic idea behind single powerful units - like experimentals from SupCom - are so overpowered. They provide you with a single unit to move and command. This takes up less time than moving the several hundred T1 tanks it would take to kill it, freeing up your time to command/build other things.

They are a direct upgrade without any drawback. As I said before, they are an increase in the "Quantities" department. They produce more, have more health before failure and cost less; less space, less time required to fiddle with the UI and ultimately, cost less to protect. A smaller target is much easier to defend than a large, spread out one.

You yourself claim (in point two) that you use T1 as a way to recover your Econ.
Once it has recovered do you continue actively placing T1... or do you go back to building T2, since that T2 fabber now does have the time to complete that T2 Generator?

I'm betting that is the case.

To me, that is unacceptable. T2 Pgens provide no "Qualitative" enrichment to gameplay... just hike up the numbers you're dealing with. That makes them dead weight in my book; a waste of development time and programmer/artistic resources

...So in answer of the question, no I don't agree that T1 Pgens see active use in all stages of play. They are a stopgap between not having the resources for T2 Pgens, and having the resources for T2 Pgens.

(Sorry about the rambling... I do that sometimes and I can't control it)
(I'm working on the next two points. Dinner time!)

I see these two situations as a balancing issue - eg., if you easily get +200 metal, then T1 metal extractors are producing too much. Only in very late game Sup Com did I ever get too much mass (not that it couldn't be used) but the issue there was a massive jump in mass output for T3 though, which (in my view) is a bad idea. If a metal surplus is harder to come by, the problems you state become less of an issue.

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.[/quote]
"Upwards expansion" refers to increasing economic output without increasing territory. Essentially, improving existing metal points (as opposed to taking more points, which is outward expansion).

That was more or less how I took their statement on obsolescence (that is, only mobile units do not become obsolete).

I guess we'll see soon enough what they go with

definitively wrong. given the following example from a game i played in alpha several patches ago :

me being the aggressive player, wiping out the enemies, 2 dead, working the last one, he was playing turtle style, but he didnt stand a chance, he had WAY less territory and therefore WAY less mass points/room for t1 energy plants. since the t2 eco needed more resources and you got less in this patch stage (at least metal) i didnt use it, and i didnt have to use it, cause i controlled ~half of the planet allrdy. but this player had t2 eco, so regardless of his small base he was able to defend somehow by supporting his lines with units and slowing my success in destroying his base, also he was able to build expansive t2 bombers, and then finaly comnuked me because i hadnt build 1 defence building nor a single fighter to prevent it (to be precise i saw it in the review what hit me^^).

so at least to make turtle somehow possible stronger t2 eco is neccesary and no waste of developement time. an secound scenario was allrdy told.....planet is divided, both sides have ~ 50%, but one side builds t2 a little faster -> win for techup. both strategies are only possible when having stronger eco buildings. else you can clearly say we dont need any t2, because all is t1 only different units.

Sorry, but you're misunderstanding me. I'm not in favour of nerfing T2 Generation rates. I'm in favour of T2 having some kind of drawback, instead of only advantages over T1.

If you read my posts more closely you'll find it in there.

why drawbacks? i rly dont understand. if it is NOT more powerfull we dont need somehting like t2.

we have then the somewhere early mentioned t1 generator giving 7 mass with 100% hp, some (also t1) generator giving 5 mass with 300% hp, and one giving 14 mass with 25% hp. this all would be for different playstyles, but all are somewhere t1.

but if we have one with more than 100% of the t1 gen hp and giving more than 7 mass we have a clearly t2 building.

Isn't that technically reinforcing the contra T2 argument? He was able to deflect your obviously superior force and stall long enough to ultimately win?

The issue here isn't unfair games, which your example clearly was, it is fair games. Let's say you have two players of exactly equal skill level - it is impossible to accurately gauge skill, but what I'm saying is that if the two players carried out exactly the same strategy it would result in either a stalemate or mutual annihilation.

Player A builds 8 Tier 1 Tank Factories, Player B builds 8 Tier 1 Bot Factories
Player B uses his bot's superior speed to go on the offensive, slightly stunting Player A's logistics by destroying his fabbers, though all his bots are destroyed while about half of Player B's tanks survive
Player A attacks Player B with tanks, dealing similar damage, however, Player B already has a T2 factory up
Player A rebuilds his eco with T1
Player B rebuilds his eco with T2
Player B comes back in force with both superior T2 units and superior numbers due to his T2 eco, while Player A is still rebuilding his factories and trying to produce an army
Player A is crushed.

This is the kind of thing that shouldn't happen. "T2 or DIE" isn't a choice, it's a necessity, and necessities produce patterned and repetitive play as opposed to diverse, colorful gameplay. I expect every game I play to be thoroughly different in some way, as opposed to the current "GO BOTS, KILL THEM TO DEATH AND EET THEIR FACEZ!"

no, turtling is a valid strategie. so bunker yourself in, and use the only weakness the enemy has (in this case absolutely no air defence) to win issnt unfair in any case. even his t2 ground units could only set the unchangeable death of him a little bit in the future, but using the air strategie got him the win.

if players are equal then he couldnt do that in your example, except player A waitet with his attack too long (to get the deathball of tanks) so player B had the time. then t2 issnt the must, its the stupidness of player A letting payer B do things.

but its a realistic example as the most games i played the players dont do anything but creathe the massiv tank-ball and then attack. if you attack them continously with rather small tanknumbers you allways fight in front of their base and mostly destroy them slowly. waisting resources to get to t2 is the most stupid thing you can do then since you get overrun.

I think you've missed the point of why making previous tiers obsolete is a bad thing and why Uber doesn't want T2 to be straight-up better than T1. There are multiple reasons; balance for one, not wasting art and programing time on assets that you stop seeing after 15mins is another, fixing the problems of the past (SupCom) is yet another good reason.

And nostalgia of the relativity fair tiering system of TA.

And yet the current implementation of T2 IS just straight-up better than T1.

Bigger, better, slightly slower, but thats it. Apart from the movement speed (which only really matters for early rush or if the enemy failed at scouting), going T2 is the only viable choice as soon as you can afford the switch. And even if it is just to quadruple the output of your T1 factories for a cheap bomber rush.

But we're not letting it lie exterminans. We know it exists and we're talking about it, discussing it, suggesting fixes and alternatives.

If Uber isn't reading what we're discussing, and paying close attention... I'd be surprised.

@nanolathe:

Well, you see, this is why I proposed the notion of nerfing T2 resource structures way back when this shindig kicked off. Your arguments revolve around how T2 resource structures have too much health and thus survive weaponry that could perhaps raze them effectively, or about how much more effective than the T1 resource structures the T2 versions are.

With regards to using T1 as a stopgap, of course you would return to T2 once you are capable.

But this still means that T1 generators have a use. Which fulfills Uber's design statement that you are critical of. Just because the use is limited and in theory you can decry it, it seems that in practical application that limited use is useful, ergo, it has a place.

Of course, I am not against nerfing the T2 structures in whatever way we can introduce to make them more "balanced". But if your concern is that the time taken to build multiple strutures compared to one (T2) variant, compounded by the efficiency of the T2 structure, compounded by the relative size of the structures (in that T1 takes up similar footprints to T2 resource structures - certainly for Energy at least) . . . these are not design flaws. These are simply attributes that can be balanced. Reduce the health. Increase the model size and physics footprint. Reduce the Metal or Energy output. Any combination of these, with buffs to other areas if necessary (build time/cost, for example).

Finally, there is a difference between Uber's quoted design statement, and having a "useful" T1 structure at all stages of play. From an earlier post of yours (page 12, for reference):

"For all tiers of technology to remain relevant in late-game scenarios they must be balanced against each other"

By my logic, T1 resource structures still have a place in late-game scenarios. They are not applicable throughout the entire game, but they still have a place during the late-game (especially if you get to the point where T2 resource farms can be razed effectively).

But that's not a choice. You use them because they are the solution... THE solution. There are no choices.

T2 is more powerful, no ifs, ands or buts. You strive towards T2 as a matter of course. Not because you choose to, but because you must.

That is why I called them a stopgap; a necessary evil, on the path to T2. Any time you use T1 Econ structures the only reason you wouldn't use a T2 in its place, is because you can't afford to... yet.
If you have the Economy to support it, you use T2. If you don't, you use T1.

This is not a meaningful dichotomy between T1 and T2. It's a challenge of calculation, not of choice.

---

Before you point it out; yes, T1 has a potential "use" at all stages of gameplay. I do not hold that this is because of meaningful player choice however, but as the rather simplistic answer to a challenge of calculation.

I will fight tooth and nail for T1 and T2 to be meaningful challenges of choice, over calculation because I find "choice" to be many times more engaging than "calculation".

to sway me, you must try to convince me that Calculations are more engaging than relatively balanced Choices.

I'm not saying that calculations are bad. They just have one answer.
For a strategy game, that is unacceptable.

but we need any reason to upgrade from t1 to t2. and it must be a good reason to cover the cost for upgrading. if the advantage from t1 -> t2 is too small noone will use t2 and we therefore dont need it.

for example if we have the same output but only more hp for t2 resource buildings it never will repay the costs of upgrade and so noone will use it except maybe for very special situations that dont ocure in the normal game very often.

if we get more output then they ALLWAYS will replace t1 eco at some point in the game. regardless of their hp and cost. may it be when you conquered the whole planet so it doesnt matter their made of paper, but it will increase your eco and therefore you power ingame.

Can't we just have t1 be more efficient but t2 giving certain advantages e.g. smaller footprint, more hp.

carnilion, I did not say that T2 would be advantage-less! T2 should have MASSIVE advantages over T1... in the units area of specialisation and ONLY the units area of specialisation. In all other ways they should be weaker, sometimes significantly so, than the equivalent number of T1.

Not cost... Number.

to say it again because it's important; T2 should have significant advantages over T1 in, and exclusively in, the specific T2 unit's area of specialisation. In other areas they should be at a disadvantage to T1. Not MASSIVELY disadvantaged... just disadvantaged enough to discourage their use outside their area of specialisation.

You will be at a disadvantage against any army that chooses to invade. Your low HP, high cost and High output economy will crash a LOT faster if all your T2 Economy structures are destroyed three times faster than T1 Economy structures.

So, although you were unable to see it, there would have been a reasoned choice between staying at T1, or advancing to T2; Security of Economy in a crisis.

---

Zaphod, T1 should definitely not be more "efficient" than T2, unless your definition is that T1 is able to do a little bit of everything.

If that is your definition of "efficient", then hell yes they should be efficient.

Aaand here your example gets seriously flawed. Due to the increased cost of t2 player B wouldn't be able to rebuild as fast as player A and easily gets overrun by them.

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

Nanolathe... I still don't know whats exactly your point is. You really should give some concrete examples on how you envision a t2 metal extractor.


Note: I basically agree with the need for vertical expansion. As with only t1 mexes you'd get all metal spots covered in the first 10 minutes of a game (at least that's what I do) and no further economic expansion of the game is possible. [Also, the current amount of metal spots shouldn't be taken as final as there are obviously way too many of them and Uber has allready confirmed they'll finetune the distribution model.]
So I'd have some fundamental issue with any design where t2 mexes aren't better at what they do; that is producing metal.

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

In general I don't really see the big bugbear about economic buildings having a straight upgrade path as it keeps the economy somewhat simple and allows to concentrate on the fun that is blowing stuff up.

That the current t2 in units is just better versions of t1... that's something I'd complain about (if we weren't in alpha still).