Prorating binary state structures (Radar/Stealth)

After reading Scathis' description of the economy model, I wondered how prorated energy might affect structures like radar which normally have a binary state, either on or off.

I posed the question and the reply was basically that they were considering two options:
(sorry the link will only work for backers, I'll cover the content below)
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=44096&start=50

The two options were basically to either have the structure charge up one seconds worth of operation, so spending the time alternating between off and on, or alternatively to apply a prorated mechanism such as a reduced range.

So, for the sake of hearing what my fellow forum users think on the matter, I have started this poll, which hopefully is self explanatory!

For the record, I like the idea of the reduced range, as it is a bit different and interesting. I'm sure play testing would still be required to determine it's playability.

This method could also work for other structures (generally intel types): stealth generators, sonar, but also shields if they ever make it into the game.

Charging up a second of use makes sense for radar, but it next to useless for a stealth generator.

I can see both options for radar, but for a stealth generator I'd be in favor of cutting down the range so it remains partially useful. Or just turning it off entirely.

Pretty much this. Let's say your energy demands are high enough to where everything is at 80% output. I'm OK with having my radar work for 4 seconds, then off for one second. But my stealth generator? Hmm, if it even pops off for one second, it's useless...

Something I've considered is having an optional "charge" function on things like stealth or radar, which would cost maybe an extra 50% energy, but would store up some free "seconds" so that if your energy does get cut, it can use its own backup reserves for a bit while you fix your energy problem. I'd say the maximum should be comparable to the size/cost of what you're using. So maybe 10-20 secs on smaller things and potentially up to a minute or two on huge devices.

Granted, the rate of charge should be slow and should cost EXTRA. Meaning if something costs 100 energy/sec, then charging up for 10 seconds of free time should cost an extra 50 energy/sec for 30 secs. Or something like that.

That way it's an expensive yet useful feature for binary devices.

To be honest the feature you are describing sounds almost the same as your global energy storage, except less clear and requiring more work from the player.

For a radar, being on 80% of the time is almost the same as being on 100% in terms of usefullness, however the opposite is true for stealth - anything less than 100% will allow the enemy to see under it.

The only option that works for both is therefore reducing the range of the radar/stealth.

When you reduce range you still run into similar issues. You'll never really want to utilize a stealth buildings full range... because if you stall energy, then the fringe stuff becomes visible. I admit that it's still more useful than just turning off now and then.

But with radar, reducing range is WORSE than going 80%, because I'd rather know what 1km radius looks like 4/5 seconds than knowing 800m radius all the time. So I think it might just make sense to have different effects when energy is stalled.

First of all, it's very different because you are focusing on one specific building. It's like in a different thread someone mentioned how it would be very useful to be able to set a builder to have "priority" and not get prorated. It's the same way with this. Storing up energy in these buildings would, in the END, be about the same as building energy storage, but it has the added benefit of MANAGING the energy for you. If you stall, it doesn't turn off, because it had its own storage. If you had built a regular energy storage, to utilize it that way would require you to turn off other things when you're about to run out to keep your stealth generator running. That obviously requires MORE work.

I'm not saying my idea is great or perfect or anything. But it is A) Different than global energy storage. B) Saves the player work, and does something which is otherwise impossible, but takes extra resources. C) Provides potential solution for stealth, radar, or any other on/off structures which you want some insurance for.

So it seems like the logical options are:

- proportional range - which is imho confusing
- on/off cycles based on energy available (basically use a capacitor model) - radar will flicker a lot - also confusing
- not enough energy this tick mean you consume but the machine doesn't work (this is how real machines tend to work) - means radar goes down unless it has full power
- auto off - when it doesn't get enough energy it auto turns off and stays off until turned on again - confusing and creates micro

Any others?

If radar pulsed (kinda like sonar) then it would work similar to defensives/artillery that used energy.

/random idea

I like the feeling to see all my radar and stuff flicker around when my energy is low. Gives a nice feeling to have a crysis at my hands.

My last idea, and this one is definitely more complicated, is have some sort of reduced effectiveness. Maybe for stealth, if it's under 100%, have it every so slightly visible to the players (not on radar). Or maybe for radar, make the blips for the enemies faded and harder to view, or staticky. So basically things work, but not as intended, but at least you're not losing 100% functionality.

i'm honestly in favor of neutrino's option #3 it makes the most sense for me as a player, and makes econ management easier because you know how much each structure of this type uses and you can turn off them to save that amount if you need to.

a slight alternative though is this

in operation consumes X power
power level below operation eg <X power
consumes 0 power and does not function
power returns for > Y ticks +- some random (3?) (spool up) (consumes 0)
device reactivates (consumes X power)
reduces flicker from being below power ideal consumption=production due to having a spool up time, removes confusion of range

what this will do is if you have multiple radars and lose power they all go down, but then you are power positive, and they would try and spool up but the first to spool up would cancel spool up on the rest (assuming you go back power negative) , this would then leave you power balanced but with 1, or 2 operational binary buildings EG radar ? if the radar makes the difference and there is only 1 it would flicker but it would be on/ off longer like on 4s off 4s which is less confusing i think because the flicker is more predictable

Why not give those things something like a charge rate that is energy dependent.

This could work for radar, stealth and shields. And since it would be the same for all these types of buildings i think it wouldn't add too much complexity. (Assuming there are shields in PA) Let me explain:

All of these Buildings would have a bar indicating either their shield-, stealth field-, or radar integrity. All of them have a recharge rate that is dependent on their energy input. Radar and stealth have a set consumption as well that is smaller than the recharge. Shields would just decrease by getting shot at.

Now if for any of these buildings energy intake drops and consumption outweighs input the bar starts to drop. If it falls under a certain threshold the building seizes to function. (A threshold that is not at the zero value would be interesting because it would mean the building needs a small amount of time to "power up", even after energy has been restored)

I think that would be worth a try, but i can also see why people would be scared of by the added complexity...

Unless you remove the 'off' button, this one will also create micro because you'll want to start shutting them down so that at least some other systems remain functional.

Let's spew some ideas, since you're asking.

I guess the normal sequence of power failure in a real situation would be to start shutting down the least critical systems first, and keep shutting stuff down until you can give the functional buildings enough power to function again. But this might be confusing unless there's a very clear order in which buildings are shut down.

Perhaps give the player more controls? Divide up all buildings into a number of categories, with a global shutdown for a whole group? That should give pretty strong management and control with minimal micro. Something like an energy panel with options like "radar", "production", "metalmakers" (if implemented ofc), "defense", "artillery", "stealth", and a toggle to shut down or reactivate everything of that type.

With a management system like that, you could live with having buildings simply shut down while continuing to drain energy, since you're just a click away from shutting down a whole range of systems to get energy levels back in the green.

Alternatively there's a possibility to shut down on a location level, a sort of drag feature that shuts down all energy-consuming buildings you drag around. A way to basically shut down bases that don't need power right now so that the ones that do can keep working.

I guess you can throw the above under "give the player commands powerful enough to manage energy needs himself".

I've actually worked on a system like this before (although for a completely different kind of game) and it can really be a logistical nightmare. We ultimately went with the player controlled feature, where instead of automatically managing low resources, the player had to decide which buildings to operate and which to leave empty. But that was a browser game, and that kind of behaviour was acceptable. But it's the only thing I can come up with in addition to the solutions already listed, it'd just need far more powerful commands.

Energy storage gives some flexibility to shut down systems and keep things operational. But for most things it is difficult to determine what a player wants and what he doesn't. The only way to know their intent is to either ask beforehand or let them deal with the crisis as it emerges.

There are an enormous number of energy systems to contend with including radar, counter-intel, construction, and special abilities. Defining how each of them works will be quite a challenge, and will better help deterime how they function when energy runs out.

I like the idea of radar systems and AoE stealth losing range as they lose power. They're fairly straight forward penalties and obvious to understand. If you can't power the system, then you can't get the full benefit out of it. A range reduction accomplishes this in a way that flickering can not do. Such a penalty can be made visible by reducing the animation of the structures involved.

What about per-unit stealth? That's trickier. Revealing a structure could render it permanently spotted, even after the stealth goes back online. Revealing a unit is not as hazardous, since one can attempt to move aside and hide again after stealth goes back up. The hazards can be limited if radar stops playing a major role on the ground. If radar largely isn't used against ground, then unstealthing structures is mostly a moot point.

My favorite system by FAR is the flickering mechanic for the TA commander's cloak. When power fails it shuts down, offline, for about 5 seconds as the system begins to reset. In TA this would draw energy for no gain, but disabling the energy draw is not a problem for an offline system. When a system goes offline, it gives a respite for energy stores to recharge and try again.

Does that mean if you're on -1 energy with no storage that all your stealth/radar will be off? Or will it pick one at random to disable?
Difficult to get this one balanced, but the FA system was just annoying, and proportional would be a bit complicated

Another option, that I think gets the desired behaviors, but will be absurdly confusing.

depending on building, they behave different. May or may not be player controlled. Some will reduce effectiveness (stealth and construction) and some will use a cap model (radar and guns).

Let me be the first to say: ew

Items turning themselves on/off scares me because it will not be clear how bad your problem is, because some of your demand is now zero. You can also getting into fun a fun cycle of:

low power-> things turn off -> power ok -> things turn on -> low power

Honestly, as hard as it may seem to display to the user, a system to be able to prioritize things seems to be the best way to manage all these decisions.

Bobucles is right, a lot of this is stuff that the player should decide, and giving the player the tools to make those decisions before the crisis only makes sense. Allow players to designate resource-using units as 'high', 'standard' and 'low', and distribute resources accordingly. With the current economy system it makes a lot more sense to turn things off than to try run them with partial energy, and managing that with only manual on/off toggles is going to be a pain.


I was thinking that one way to quickly show the player where his resources are going would be a heat map overlay. Red for units without resources, green for units with, shades inbetween for units being prorated, and a toggle for energy or metal. Have an option where the heat map flicks on when you go into negative energy, so you can quickly triage your economy.

What if you modified the adjacency bonus system a little bit that was in supcom? In supcom when the power generator was next to the building that consumed energy, the power generator reduced the energy consumption of the building.

what if, instead of reducing the energy consumption, all the energy of the power generator would go to the building next to it and all the surplus energy would act normally?

Example: I have a radar that consumes 1000 energy/s. I build a power generator next to it that gives 2000 energy/s. Now the radar consumes 0 energy/s and the power generator gives 1000 energy/s.

Just some idea.

It happened in Total Annihilation, and it was pretty clear. TA also had an economy that updated every second, so your bouncing energy was an immediate warning sign of danger. When things are decent, the flickering happens very little. When things are bad, everything was turning on and off every second, and when things got REALLY bad the bar spent more time filling up than draining.

Unfortunately, the people who host TotalA videos are also good at managing their economy. I can't find any vids of it in action.

In Supcom, there was no visual difference between a slight stall or a catastrophe. When the bar was empty, the only visual indication between bad and worse were the tiny numbers next to the bar.

Power flickering is good. It is loud feedback that warns of an immediate problem.

My problem in SupCom was that I would have flickering numbers that I couldn't read easily. It is very noticeable, that was good, it'd be nice if there was something slightly more persistent also that you could look at, like a small rolling trend line for the last few seconds near the numbers.