What's the point of energy?

What if buildings didn't require energy to be built, but the engineers require a flat rate of energy to build? This way the energy requirements are based off the number and tier of engineers building and not on what is being built.

I think you've missed my point. Metal already restricts fabricators build speed/number so why should energy also do this as well?

umm if you build more builders to make more energy while you are stalling you would just stall harder on both metal and on energy... also if i remember correctly back in TA and in supcom metal extractors needed energy to function.. if you really want energy to have a more important role as a resource then i'm sure that could be done.

also for the players that want to have energy converted into metal then they need energy in the game to add in the mod to allow such a thing... also radar and defenses will/do need power to run currently and energy is always a nice compliment in lore to metal for resources... and the eco in this game is quite simple i'd hate to see it get even simpler by only having one resource...

Yeah, I didn't realise you were talking about while the player is in a stall.... I'm not sure how being in a stall is relevant to the discussion.

It was like this in Alpha I believe, they just changed it to not be like this, presumably to make stalls easier to recover from.

I'm not advocating the removal of energy, I'm saying that energy is currently dominated by construction so things like powering radar etc are not really relevant. Removing energy from fabricator construction would mean energy no longer requires huge energy generator spam to keep up with ever increasing construction demands and no longer requires huge amounts of metal investment into energy to get more metal, which is the bottle neck anyway. All that metal could be spent on Units for killing things which is the fun part of the game anyway!

Removing energy from constructing things will simplify the game, making the game easier to learn, easier to understand and hopefully make battles more about battles and not about eco spamming energy and god forbid, metal converters....

sooo what does that leave energy to be spent on at all...

I see your point. The problem with removing the energy requirement for build buildings is that you take away the main use for energy or at least one of it's larger uses.
My suggestion was to minimize the energy needed for building by putting the cost on engineers. The building doesn't cost energy, but using your engineers does. This use for energy replaces the one lost by removing it from the building cost. It also simplifies the resources, defining energy as the resource needed to run things and metal as the resource needed to build things, without simplifying game play.

It would be used for powering buildings as said in an earlier post. Radar, Factories, Defenses, Artillery etc...

Power goes down, everything doesn't work until a fabricator/commander builds another power generator. I like this because your energy consumption is not going to go up and down from +10000 to -4000 from second to second, it'll be far easier to manage and understand.

I'd go further and make most, if not all mobile units (especially those with laser-type weaponry) require energy to fire their weapons. That change would make the steamroller army require steam to actually operate as a steamroller and creates a target for the defender to focus on; your opponents steam generation.

Good ideas in this thread. I'll be watching closely.

At first I thought this was a silly question, and expected this to be a simple "why do we do anything anyway?" kind of thinking... But you make a really great point that currently its not really any different from metal in terms of its purpose as it is now. Although they do function slightly differently, Energy costs can be influenced by the player.

I think SXX is right though, it's probably just in place now as it is until they add its full function later. I expect it to take up a larger function then it is now.


But then lets make that the discussion!
Once most, if not all things, require energy to function. Would we also want it to be a part of construction in the same way that it is now? Or do we want only metal to be involved in construction, while energy is used purely for operating existing unit/structure upkeep?

Oooorrrr...Is it even a bad thing to have two resources that essentially do the same thing?
Does decreasing the requirements streamline the process making it more enjoyable?
Does having numerous similar construction requirements actually change how the game is played?

You could ask then, why does Starcraft use two resources (mineral and gas) in producing units? It can be simplified down in almost the same way.
PA's resource gathering and usage is clearly different from Starcraft's, but how is this change affecting the purpose of having more then one resource...

I think that might just be how energy functions now.

"A factory or engineer will drain energy while active at a set amount of energy per second depending on the factory or engineer."
Here is a link:
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/planetary-annihilations-economy-system.44173/

So then...how is this different from having only metal as the resource needing to be watched and balanced among builders?

As it is now, if you want it something done faster, you essentially increase the cost of the structure in terms of energy. Basically trading resource for time. Without energy as a secondary resource, would we want to sacrifice metal for faster construction? If not, then there is no downside at all to adding more builders.

Starcraft uses two resources because there is a functional difference between them. Minerals are mined fast and can be boosted in the case of Terran at the cost of energy from the Orbital CC (which then can't be used to scan), while Gas is mined slowly and cannot be enhanced.

To increase your Mineral income, put more workers in the mineral line. The point where it saturates is well above your functional ability to spend it nine times out of ten. To get more Gas you need to expand since your income is effectively capped to a slow trickle that can only be increased by getting more bases.

Gas is a very useful limiting factor for measuring the speed at which you can produce the units that require it on a specific number of bases. It rarifies units that require it. It causes conflict because units that require Gas are generally more efficient than units that don't require it.

---

Planetary Annihilation emulates this mechanic with Metal spots that 'require' you to expand and create points of conflict. It is therefore astounding that they'd think that T2 resource generation for BOTH resources is a good idea; it goes against the very reason for Metal spots' existence.

Yes! But I could still compare them to Planetary Annihilation's resources. Energy is akin to Minerals, can be gathered really quickly and is used for nearly everything. While Metal is akin to Vespene Gas, where gathering ability is greatly reduced only being gathered by expansion to more metal spots(not too different from building more bases to gather from more Vespene locations in Starcraft) .
As well, you can also gather resources in PA far faster than you can spend them if you judge your output just as poorly. Granted, it's not as big a deal in PA as it is is SC, but can be a big waste just the same.

However on the second part of your post, all units in PA use both for construction, so I can see how that is where the comparison ends and Metal isn't used as an exclusive means to reach the next tier of units.

Once Energy is used for upkeep of radar and units and such, you could also say it serves as both cost and population cap. Kind of like if you combed minerals and pop-cap in Starcraft.

There still is a functional difference between Energy and Metal as it is now, but as your well explained layout of Starcraft's resource system suggests. The difference is too a lesser degree in PA.

How do you think it could be diversified then?

Darac, BulletMagnet and Bobucles have you covered there.

Does the OP mean that there's Zero Point Energy?

dun-dun-tss

(walks away quickly)

Energy output is mostly about simultaneous construction at the moment and while I'll be fine with the implementation of energy affecting your intel/weaponry I hope it stays that way.

This is already how.. it works? Energy is NOT used to build things but to RUN things.
Some of you should really find the thread that describes how PA's economy works.
When you produce less metal than you need and your storage is empty, then the metal is evenly split between your engineers. But your factories, builders and weapons still use the SAME amount of energy to RUN, not to build. The action takes energy, not what they are creating.
When you produce less energy than you need and your storage is empty, then everything that runs on energy works slower, which ALSO reduces the amount of metal your fabbers push into their creations. So they build slower because they can't put all the metal out that they could if you would have enough energy. So they technically use LESS metal when you are stalling on energy, but thus build slower.

EDIT: AND NOTHING depends on WHAT you build but what kind of factory or bot you use to build it. A basic land fabber ALWAYS puts out 10 metal and uses 1000 energry, no matter what it builds.

Ok, I'm gonna have a go at explaining why energy is needed in this game. Wish me luck.

The reason you need both is way more fundamental than anything to do with running vs building. It's a game design thing, and it comes down to the fact that metal and energy are produced differently, and at different rates.

Energy is a 'fast' resource, where going dry on energy means you stall your economy very soon. On the other hand, it's also not linked to map control: you can build energy production anywhere. By contrast, metal is a 'slow' resource; it's linked to map control (more control, more metal spots you can use) but you don't always need to be producing a surplus. Basically, metal sets the base power of your economy, whilst energy is what determines its efficiency.

This affects how the game plays in lots of important ways. It mean that the 'long' game is always going to be about metal: if you can control enough of the map to draw more metal than your opponent, you have a stronger long-term economy and you have a long-term advantage as a result. However, if you want to deal a knockout blow to an opponent, you target their power because that will crash their economy faster and force them to waste their metal.

This means that if all things are equal, the player with the most map control will tend to win. BUT if you can break through their lines with a cunning set of manoeuvres and hit their power, you can make their map control irrelevant and take a win. The difference between energy and metal is what controls the pace of the game, the rewards and risks of expansion vs turtling.

TLDR: you need both, because the differences in their production determines the strategic flow of the game.

On paper, yes. In practice, not so much. The current system is plagued by a paradox:
- On the one hand, you want base construction to be fast and simple. It keeps the game fast.
- On the other hand, you want worker units to not be as effective as factories. I'm not exactly sure why, but just follow along for a minute. The only way to do that is by increasing cost and increasing energy demand of the worker unit, so that it is less effective than the factory.
- The end result: pound for pound, structure production takes the MOST energy in the game.

You can not change this, without changing how constructor units work.

I thought about this, but I think it's almost to extreme. The energy cost in creating the unit (running a factory) may be enough. On the other hand it may not. Both are worth a try I think.

I would think this as a good way to diversify units as well. Make two versions of units, laser and projectile variants. Projectile variants take little energy and little metal, while laser takes a triple dose of energy. Energy being so easy to build makes lasers preferred, but heavily relying on energy also leaves vunerability and requires lots of energy farming while a normal economy could spend some metal on combat since it would be very little metal tanks would take.