As for now, the Banking favoured those without many Economy, however, if both - the oppressor and victim had the same Banking, the effect would be sort of negated.
Now if we remove the flat amount and move it to affect Economy, it will only deepen the gap between the “above” and “under” players. But then, that’s what the Manufacturing does too already anyways.
The Manufacturing always boosted those with more Industry, so I think we might actually want that to happen with Banking(ECON) and Experimentation(SCI) as well, as this game is about conquering others.
In games I am in now I have**
SCI EXP | real gain ; Exp yield (random field) |
178 12 | 178/h, 4272/day ; 864 Exp | Experimentation is not significant
12 3 | 12/h, 288/day ; 216 Exp | Exp. presents a significant yield
your suggestion given the real values
SCI EXP | your suggestion ; Exp yield (selected + random field) |
178 12 | 178/h, 4272/day ; 1068rp + 1068rp | not helpful, but doesn't hurt
12 3 | 12/h, 288/day ; 18rp + 18rp | not helpful* at all, does hurt
*I didn’t want to use the word useless, but it is.
**EXP levels are actually estimated from other tech levels as in fact I despise Experimentation in later game completely and somehow focus it exclusively in early game.
My actual REAL SCI to EXP values are 178 to 5 and 12 to 4, which makes it 2.8% in late game and 33% in early game.
This changed mechanics might in turn introduce new tactics, which will be very interesting.
Focus cash production? Focus ship production? Focus research? - cool
WRT Banking: I like that idea as it is pretty simple … and off the top of my head, I think Econ produces $10 PLUS $1 for every level of banking sounds reasonable … can always tweak if need be. Again, the whole idea is to keep that tech scalable/interesting.
WRT Experimentation: Ummmm … that’s pretty interesting and also a good simple to understand concept. Again off the top of my head (Qwerty, as typical, has some excellent analysis), I would say you need to boost the reward for the random tech - perhaps just leave it as-is - i.e. 1/2 your Exp points … since this auto-adjusts in case Exp is cheap/expensive/etc. But again, this sounds promising in terms of keeping the tech scalable/interesting.
WRT Manu: Seems fine as-is … you are just proposing a wording change.
WRT Terraforming: I REALLY like Qwerty’s suggestion in the other thread that keeps the “good” stars “good” and crappy stars not-so-good.
I agree with him that having decision choices is a good thing so it doesn’t turn into a Weapons-fest.
I agree with Hulk, seems simple enough, and the symmetry puts everything on a more even keel. It doesn’t introduce the balance between expanding and contracting empires, however, that Jay’s previous idea of capacity limits did. But that would have been a big change, and would have upset many apple carts.
Jay, is terraforming headed to the ash heap?
wrt inflation, I think the scanning limit on trading is having a huge impact on keeping individual players from running away with it. You can’t survive unless you are part of a well-functioning group, at least in the large games. And teammates have to share in carving up AFK or they won’t stay teammates for long. In the 64 I’m in 2 teams are running away to be sure, but both are roughly balanced and the end game will no doubt be fierce. Better balance among the techs will reinforce the need to keep the teams together longer.
I like the Banking proposal. Qwerty is right about Experimentation not being right just yet, but maybe it is simply needing a significant boost. I do like that you would get points in what you are researching, as often as not, your researchers would be experimenting in the field they are supposed to be studying.
Hi, I’m a Weapons Specialist, and I work all day on making better laser beams for our war effort. You’ll never guess what I discovered yesterday! I discovered Macroeconomics! It will dramatically improve our Banking tech! Don’t ask me how I discovered that by supercharging my laser capacitors before discharge though, it is a mystery!
I still think the way to limit Income inflation and the impact of Terraforming for the players that worry about it is to play smaller star count maps and make things expensive. As long as everyone has the potential to scale at the same rate, it isn’t a problem.
I looked at it when you first posted it, but didn’t quite wrap my head around it. I guess I would need to apply it to one of my calculation spreadsheets to get a better idea of it at work. While I generally don’t have an issue with inflation, I agree though that good stars should be fought over.
I go back to my previous assertion: Small games with expensive settings is the perfect counter to hyperinflation.
For example, in the 8 player small (16stars/player) dark game LDG created and several of us from the team game are in, after 23 days, Terra is only at level 10. Infrastructure has been expensive almost the whole game, and only the two lead players ever broke 100 for Econ.
I think the smaller games are just much more fun than larger games. I think people generally like the idea of very big games, but i think the smaller games just work better.
@Qwerty in the game where you have 178 sci, what is your weapons tech? Would the EXP bonus still be useless if those values were swapped around?
@wfmcgillicuddy At the moment, yes, I think Terra is on the chopping block. If we decide to keep it we will implement @Qwerty’s suggestion but I’m not convinced we need the tech at all.
I think a Terraforming that just pushes the price of everything down overlaps conceptually with banking which provides you more money.
I’ve also been enjoying the 64 player game I am in with trade limited to scanning. Its kind of interesting that you are doing ok in your little circle, but then a neighbour disappears and all of the sudden there is a new enemy with better tech.
I agree that chopping Terraforming is a good thing to do. Sadly, because @Qwerty’s suggestion is excellent. But my suggestion is: don’t remove it, just make non-Terraforming games the default, by making default the option to disallow it’s research.
I believe many players will be angry (at least for a while) without Terraforming. They love the game the way it is, so I don’t see why to take that away from them, when you can only make that an option.
I have some ideas to improve the other techs, but I think it is much easier if we focus on the real problem, and that is Weapons. This being a conquest game, of course the main military tech is always more important than any other. I can’t figure out a way to reduce Weapon’s power and keep the rules simple at the same time. So, what I think should be done is: “chop” Weapons, the same way Terra should be “chopped”. Manufacturing will become the most important tech, but Manufacturing is already a lower-power version of Weapons.
I think a big mistake to cut TF - Qwerty’s suggestion is great … consider implementing!
I’ve said for a while that all the mega-galaxy games turn into a Weapons-fest … but I think the addition of Expensive tech can help address that at game creation.
I.e. with the current parameters and using just the tools available, I’d try to balance by making Weapons Crazy Expensive, and Menu/TF expensive.
Ditto what Jay said that big games are kinda cool, but the small games (knife fights) are really a blast … plus they get done a lot quicker. Ironically, I haven’t played one for a while … so maybe after the Dark Spiral is done (and summer vacations are over), I’ll give one a shot.
Haha, you know I have never thought about it before, but this is not completely crazy you know. One of the most difficult concepts to teach, and one of the things I like least about the game is that you need a calculator to work out who will win a combat.
If we could simply say the player with the most forces wins I think it would be much clearer and more obvious.
We would then need some kind of defenses mechanic to prevent the tank rush, but you know what, we could have a static defense infrastructure that just adds to your forces when defending. A shield kind of thing. Or a minefield that destroys X incoming ships.
Make the minefield/shield a very cheap infrastructure.
Just thinking out loud… Level one is automatic, so you still get a defenders bonus, but each level increases it’s effectiveness. Maybe the Base level takes out 5-10% of the enemies. You can buy each additional percent up to 50% max. Maybe the price goes up each 10%. Per level cost- Upgrade to from level 5 to 10 at $1, 11-20 at $2, 21-30 at $3, 31-40 at $4 and 41-50 at $5. All prices could be tweaked. Defense infrastructure cut in half with each attack and must be rebuilt. Completely destroyed when star is lost, and new owner must start again with automatic base amount.
Yeah, I think thats kind of interesting… First level free, then more expensive as you build more…
But I think this is one area of the game where we do want them to be less effective as the game progresses so that they are quite good at the start of the game when folks are just building up and forming alliances and working things out, but are not nearly effective near the mid to late game where we want players who have played well and are in the lead to be able to take out the smaller players without the game dragging.
To do that I would make the defenses scale linearly, while ship production is scaling much faster.
So level 1 defenses could be 10 ships, level 2 defenses 20 ships, level 3 defenses 30 ships… that kind of thing.
I still pine for carrier experience. Perhaps it would be even more valuable in the context of no weps tech. It would reward both successful offense and successful defense, and be more dynamic than fixed defenses.
I would also be a little wary of incentivizing a defensive/turtling strategy. That might slow gameplay a bit.
Ditto the battle calc comment. Damned thing seems not to work as well after cocktail hour!
I agree with that. The defense bonus is a very important thing to keep. It could be 25% bonus. It’s a very easy number to do the math in your head. So, the strength of the defense is the number of ships plus 1/4 of itself and the strength of the attack is just the number of ships. Whichever is greater wins the battle. To know how many ships are left, just subtract the loser strength from the winner strength, and multiply for 4/5 in the case the defense wins.
I think it will be also interesting that the bonus stay fixed throughout tha game. Now, in the late-game, with super-high Weapons, the bonus of defense is too big for single-ship stars but is insignificant for well-defended stars.
It would be very close to games with fixed level 4 Weapons, so pleople who played those games can say what they felt.
Hey also, I also thought I should pop in and say that I enjoy talking crazy ideas, but I don’t want you all to freak out too much that I am planning huge changes to the game.
I like to explore crazy ideas because one day we might stumble across something that is really cool.
I normally don’t discuss the most crazy ideas in public because it can stress folks out a little who like the game the way it is, but I’ve really been appreciating peoples thoughts, ideas and feedback.
If you are experiencing a high level of anxiety while reading the various threads about big changes, please rest assured that anything substantial will be tested in its own branch and will only go live once we are sure its fun.
They sound good. I still like the idea of having two techs for Economy and Science. One which modifies the facilities, and one which gives direct money or science boosts.
Banking-Gives X*Banking Level credits per turn
Economics-At Payment, you gain 10+Economics Level credits per Economy Facility Other names: Development, Management, Entrepernuership
Experimentation-Gives X*Experimentation Level science points per turn
Innovation-At Payment, you gain X+Science Level credits per Scientific Facility Other names: Integration, Iteration, Research
For Weapons, I have several ideas.
Standard Start Base Weapons isn’t 1. In my paper and pencil game (I keep referencing that!) I started all techs at 5. This makes new techs less uberawesomeamazing because it increases capabilities by 20% instead of 100%. Simplest solution which works mostly in the early game.
Lowest of X: There are several weapons techs, and your active weapons tech is the lowest tech level among them. You can name them things like Blasters, Missles, etc. Doesn’t make much sense but will slow overall weapons growth, emphasize teamwork, and make betrayals more strategic and interesting.
Experience: Winning battles and conserving veteran carriers mean more now, when each XP level gives you localized Weapons advantage! Pretty complicated to implement. Easiest way to handle multicarrier battles is to just have ships in each carrier fight at their carrier’s XP level, and when all those ships die go to the next carrier.
Nothing: Weapons IS the most important tech. Players should work together to fight weapons tech kingpins, with betrayals in support of said kingpins for valuable weapons a constant threat. Close alliances should be easily deduced. Balance of power should be allowed to flourish. With scan-trade, one is hard-pressed to support long distance alliances and sneaky weapons trades, and everyone you can trade weapons to is generally a neighbor… and an immediate potential threat.
EDITEDIT 5 NEW IDEA FROM ANOTHER THREAD.
Combat is based on comparing ship sizes. Weapons will determine casualties taken by the winner. This makes Industry and Manufacturing more important than just Weapons, which in turn makes Economy more important than Science.
On Defense Bonuses: You can do it like that Zombie game. Each level gives you a base +X to defense, with X being phantom ships that take initial casualties. It should cost a whole lot, and I think it can safely grow 2x geometrically. Like 10->20->40->60->120 etc.
The idea in your post, Jay, would favor expanding empires even more than the game does already. While I understand the game is fundamentally about conquering the most stars, I really wish there was a way to utilize a turtle tactic - i.e., a way to grow in power without growing in size.
How Exp & Banking (& Terra) work now hints at the possibility of that tactic - but as discussed, the very quickly diminishing returns of B & E don’t actually allow it.
In my ideal game, B & E would not be tied to infastructure as Manu & Terra are, but rather would be a independently scaling income/science bonus. Even just a vastly stronger Banking would be enough, really.
PS: Yes, it is possible to win by turtling as the game exist. However, it requires weak or stupid neighbors.