Should resources be tracked per planet/moon

It was an example of my point, however it seems that I really can argue with "your comments throughout this forum shows you really sucked at supcom."

So there is little point in a debate with you.

Your point is pointless without using the correct numbers. The correct numbers show that putting a mex next to a factory is worthless, and saving a fraction of energy when you’re already at +100 energy is likewise worthless.

I don’t understand why you’re arguing against players that have played much more supcom than you and were far better at it.

Because saved resources are not worthless, worth little sure, but if you think that your 'experience' is worth more then mine then you are mistaken, because saved resources are still resources, no matter how little.

so I believe it was that a factory with a side covered by T1 power plants saved 8 power a second?

3600 seconds in an hour, so over an hour you generate 28800 power that would have been spent, how is that worthless?

I might not be a pro, that is true, but if your suggesting you waste as much or your resources as you say you do, you may not be as experienced as you say.

Resources shouldn't be wasted, they should be spent or stored for later consumption.

How this escalated was because of the idea that an extra 8 energy per second is worthless, but over time that energy could build you a T2 cruiser according to the sup com wiki.

You guys are getting waaaayyyy of topic, not that seeing you snipe at each other isn't fun but this is the wrong thread to do it in.

you're a very nice person but your information is incorrect

You gain more mass from using storage around mexes, than you save by putting mexes around factories.

One is simply better than the other.

Indeed, but that wasn't my point.

My point was that is by no means worthless not to put a factory next to a mex.

That was all.

If you insist on being incorrect then yes, it was possible, but worth less than putting a storage next to a mex.

This doesn't make me incorrect, just misguided. You are also correct in the end of your statement about the storage.

does it matter anymore?, you guys are arguing over the past,

debate the future: Should resources be tracked per planet or moon

We've all stated our opinion on this many, many times over by now. Rehashing it isn't going to get us anywhere.

Neither is you two idiots.

U MAD?

No, just annoyed you won't stop this incessant sniping.

I don't like what I see here. Respect each other and read the forum rules. Don't make me moderate this forum. You won't like me when I start moderating.

Uh. Wow. A 5 page flame war started over my use of "linking". I'm not quite sure what to say.

Uh, what I meant was that there is no need to have structures "link" resources between worlds. As a mechanic, it provides nothing unique. Why? The third "resource transfer" mechanic already exists. It's called "build power". More engineers and more factories == more money going to that world. Without adequate build power, a planet can't fully use your galactic economy. Nothing else is needed to get that point across.

Getting back on topic:
Galactic metal is perfectly cromulent for a RTS. Build power already limits how much money a planet can realistically use. What matters at that point is the strategic choice of where in the galaxy metal should be spent. Controlling this resource is important for how the game plays out overall.

Energy is a disaster prone resource. One blackout could destroy every battle, across every planet all at once. That's why it can't be global, one mistake would simply be too devastating. As a planet-bound resource, it gives useful feedback on a world and tactical targets to make war interesting. Destroying a planet's power might render it defenseless, shut down its siege, or stall production on a superweapon. All of those options are good for the game, and something that can't be realized without a local resource.

So, metal is "global" and teleported all over for free, but power is local and can't be transmitted over large distances?
While this may make sense for gameplay, it seems incongruous in that it runs counter to experience. Why can't there be a throttling transfer building for both? Perhaps a mass teleporter and an energy relay which links the individual stellar objects to the others at a limited rate.

This would deal with the global power outage problem (as the relays could only send a limited amount of power) and also allow for tactical strikes against relay prior to a ground assault, especially if a base is weak on local power generation.

Sorry, sorry. Just tired of them arguing over something that has nothing to do with this; it turned from a legitimate argument to a 'who can one up the other' contest. At least that's how I saw it.

I'm getting frustrated here. I think people are talking about problems that don't exist.

Why do we need to change anything from the old model? There is no need for throttling or transfer based losses as the way that the game works is all based around build power as much as it is resources.

The game will limit itself in just the same ways that TA and SupCom do. This is done mostly by build power and build area. I also feel that a lot of concerns against a global economy come from people who assume that players will be left to their own devices to build planets full of resource gens. This is just wrong on every level. To begin with there will be no time in the game where players are not under potential threat from the enemy. Not to mention if all they do is build resource structures then they will lose the game to someone who builds offensive units. That's obvious.

We also have to remember that all the players will have the same economic model and will therefore be equal. If everyone has the same opportunity then the only thing that can tip the balance is player skill. Admittedly, this is true for either side of the argument.

Throughout this topic there's a lot of noise coming from the "what if my enemy builds a planet full of resource structures" corner. Firstly, it's a valid strategy. Secondly, it's not a very good one as all your eggs are in one basket, as so to speak. I'd much rather have my resources spread over multiple worlds.

Too address other people's concerns about stalling your entire system-wide economy; I don't see how it's an issue. In fact, I think if you took it out of the equation then you would just be dumbing the game down by penalising players less for making stupid mistakes. And we all know how I feel about dumbing the game down to accommodate idiots. Someone who has done well enough to end up controlling multiple planets shouldn't be making that kind of mistake anyway.

If I say much more I will be repeating myself. I would really like to hear what the Dev team has to say on the matter. I am sure that a topic of this size hasn't gone under their radar.

Because it's redundant. Engineers ARE the resource throttle. Without Engineers, there is no local economy. Without an economy, no power gets built. Without power, there's no base. Without a base, nothing else happens. You don't need another mechanic to do the exact same thing.

The old model was made for warfare on a single planet. It's fair to say that it'll need to be reexamined, at least.

The ramifications of universal metal are easily understood and accepted. Planets add to the bank, and take from the bank. Spend too much, and construction stalls. Simple enough. There's no real need to change it.

With energy, things get a lot more complicated. If this game is anything like TA or Supcom(it is), then units will depend on energy. Spend too much, and things shut down. Radar stops, factories turn off, artillery goes silent, etc. Watching all of your planets flicker on and off like a bad Christmas decoration not only puts EVERY planet at risk, it should come with a seizure warning! It's also a potential coding problem as a power outage from ONE side of the galaxy is suddenly altering the behavior of everything else on a dozen other world-threads. Threads belong in the kitchen and should not be constantly mingling in each other's affairs.

It's not a bad idea to distinguish between how a single planet works, and how an entire empire works. Rather than having one messy resource try to control every limit in the game, it's probably better to use two simple resources; one for each arena.