Consider making Banking payout progressive

Neptune's Pride
41

Moreover, Terraforming with a value 5 (not necessarily level 5) will allow you to buy 5 infrastructure TOTAL on a star. 2E + 2I + 1S or 1E + 4I, etc… In such case, infrastructure should be transformable for a % price.

/EDIT: I shouldn’t have answered without reading the rest, as Rubberband already suggested similar :).

In that case, Economy should be generating money through the whole day, but the cash generated would be collectable at full cycle only. This would encourage building economy ASAP, not waiting just for the tick before production. This would also introduce new kind of risk/reward.

Destroying or refactoring infrastructure would take 1 cycle (or more?). This would mean that if you don’t want enemy to get the infrastructure, you would have to cripple your star so much ahead. Also, I would not recommend adding the ability to destroy stuff, instead only to modify it into something else. That way the attacker always get’s the reward.

The hardcapped EIS (combined) does actually support this all-or-nothing approach.
As it is now, if someone with less stars have more econ than someone else with more stars, they always have less I or S. And this would remain the same with hardcapped infrastructure. A smaller player with more Terraforming can still outbuild a larger player. [quote=“bills6693, post:37, topic:3238”]
But I for one find great satisfaction in seeing my costs for new things go down, and its an important factor in my research choices. It is extremely satisfying to get terraforming one tick before production and suddenly all my Economy is a little cheaper. I find terraforming the most appealing tech and the best to research. I would personally consider the most ‘unsatisfying’ tech to be manufacturing (incramentally faster ship production, by decimal places/hour).
[/quote]

You may not be completely right actually. See compared diminishing yields of Terraforming and growing Manufacturing. [size=11](xNumber means price of xth infrastructure)[/size]


Notice the superhigh price reductions on early levels of Terraforming.
This says, that there is a huge difference between stars with 10 resources and 50 resources, but there is close to zero difference between stars with 110 and 150 resources - which also prevents the ‘hunt’ for plentiful stars.

Also, at a later stage, you end up buying less Econ and spending much more money into Science, to research new levels of Terraforming, than you would have bought if you put everything into Econ in the first place.

This is exactly the opposite of Manufacturing, where at a certain time, it becomes cheaper to get 1 additional level by bying more Science, than buying more Industry and Terraforming. In other words: spending money for Science to obtain more ships. (mind=blown).

It’s because Terraforming is function of 1/x, while Manufacturing is 1*x.

This is probably what Jay meant by saying this:

[size=25]Back to Banking:[/size]

Cash required to buy more Science → to research more Banking is much higher than just buying new Economy structures. This indeed needs to be rebuilt. (Compared to Industry and Manufacturing, as mentioned above.)

42

Woah, thanks for the great charts @Qwerty .

I would be worried that selling Infrastructure would allow players to dismantle it just before they lose a star.

Yeah I agree. I’m not sure I understand how this prevents you from specialising in Economy. If somebody is specialising in expansion they need Weapons. If somebody is specialising in economy they would need Industrialization.

There are two issues to discuss here.

A. The removal of Terraforming.
B. The addition of Industrialisation.

I think we can set aside B for now. Its not clear we even need 7 techs. 6 might just be enough.

Here are some arguments for and against Terra.

For Removing Terraforming

  • Less inflation in the game. The price of Economy remains constant. (As does S and I)
  • The difference in quality of star is not watered down, bad stars stay bad and good stars stay good.
  • The interface for stars can be simpler and this aspect of the game is easier to learn.

For Keeping Terraforming

  • It’s nice to see things that were once expensive get cheaper.
  • I don’t have to do any programming work.
1 Like
43

Of the two choices I’d say lose it. It makes quality stars worth fighting over.

44

On this point I meant that the feel in-game was satisfying, rather than the hard numbers. I just mean, I don’t ‘feel’ the increased manufacturing, its rewards are subtle, and I do not really find it an interesting technology. I don’t mean it should be removed - just refuting the point I thought Jay was making.

But I agree your post as a whole shows well how it works under the hood.

Still could cause a problem IMHO. 5 hours before the enemy takes the star, you spend the time swapping your science for economy. Big cost, big rewards turning into much less useful $10 for the attacker. Even with the delay, meaning you have to destroy in advance and damage your longer term prospects, its not enough to discourage you from still sacking your own star. Not saying there’s no way it could be implemented well, but its got some fairly large problems that need to be ironed out at this point.

Ok on A, I can understand what you mean by making the difference in star quality more relevant. However it would also require a lot of balance work to make it actually work well, so probably a few test games to see how it goes. Reduced costs would be needed, although that would damage the early-game greatly. A new system for calculating price would be needed IMHO, if terraforming were removed.

On B I’d say yes, it is a separate point, but if it were wanted again test a lot first. Although consider with no terraforming and thus great star resource and cost disparity, the valuable stars will be hitting their limits far far sooner than the less valuable stars. Accounting for this would have to be a consideration I think.

45

Going to quote this proposal, since it had absolutely no discussion at all, not even a negative.

46

Keep in mind NP had been around 3 years before Terraforming came in.

Yeah, I think this is a really good point, We already have a mechanism for limiting the build on a star, and encouraging you to spread your build out, I don’t think we need another tech based limitation.

2 Likes
47

sorry, didnt mean to ignore you. I thinks it’s a good simplification actually. I really like that the bad stars stay bad and the good stars stay good.

The only reason I didn’t jump right on it was that its still making things cheaper which is ultimately what I what I would like to fix.

1 Like
48

Not selling - paying to have it dismantled. In my original suggestion, I had the cost be 20% of the construction cost, but perhaps it should be closer to 80% or even 100%. Make dismanting a valid but expensive option.

49

You’d still dismantle everything on every star which you lost to an enemy, given the choice. It’s better to pay a chunk of money to smash your infrastructure than have the enemy producing ships on your doorstep, after all! This, in turn, would lessen the incentive to attack and make people turtle up all game instead.

If you were going for this approach, you’d have to make the only option be building one piece of infrastructure over another- but even then, players would probably replace all their industry and science with economy when it looked like a star was about to fall.

50

To echo what I said above, I like the current functionality of Terra Forming (star resource additive) but am brainstorming for ways to fine tune … just like I think Banking needs a tune as suggested when I started this thread … but that one is “easy” with the progressive approach.

I agree there needs to be some way to keep plentiful stars “valuable” … since at high values of TF, there’s a lot of “sameness”

Nothing wrong with having seven techs (versus six) as this encourages different approaches to playing the game rather than one-size-fits-all.

Qwerty better summarizes what I was trying to say about “destroying” (one) infrastructure by using the word “modify” … which was exactly the intent. I.e. if you have a “TF cap”, you should have the ability to say “I want one less Econ and one more Science instead” … but yes, as Bill correctly points out, there could be unintended consequences.

51

I’d be open to more skills, not less.

52

“The only reason I didn’t jump right on it was that its still making things cheaper which is ultimately what I what I would like to fix.”

When considering design, what is the desired end goal?

For Techs, you want enough variety so that every tech has its purpose that these techs are generally “balanced.” However, you also want to maintain simplicity, especially for the effects of the individual techs.

For gameplay, you want to maintain differences between low and high resource stars. You also want to avoid Terraflation.

“Terra Plus Resources” reduces the relative differences between resources counts. 1 v 50 becomes 51 v 100 becomes 1001 v 1051. It’s simple, yes, but it has its own issues. The economically mindboggling “0 Credit Upgrades” and the late game “terraflation” are among them.

“Terra Cap” would create lots of complexity. Swapping, infrastructure destruction or conversion, managing caps… these are all complex topics and ideas. This complexity can add more decisions and strategies, but the concept itself removes decisions and strategies as well.

“Terra Minus Levels” as I suggested would make it simpler, prevent the main issues of Terraflation with the implementation of Level Zero, while remaining relevant. I agree that progression could still be an issue, but it does maintain differentiation.

So here’s some more ideas for the pot.

  1. Star’s resource value creates the cap, Terraforming modifies this resource value.
    Say a star’s investment cap is resources divided by 5. The Capital’s cap would then be 10 infrastructure at the start, and all stars gain +1 to their cap with each level of Terraforming.

1b) Of course, this can be simplified with making Terraforming give +1 Cap, and stars given a 10 level rating for their starting caps. Differentiation still decreases.

1c) What if Terraforming MULTIPLIES the cap? Say a star’s investment cap is resources divided by 10. Terraforming+1 multiplies this subtotal. So the Capital still starts with 10 cap, but level 2 gives it 15 cap, level 3 gives it 20 cap. This also maintains differentiation.

ASIDE: Minus Levels would also work for Tech Transfer Bonus, with the minimum level being 1. Those with high experimentation/banking can afford to send alot of tech.

  1. Have a cap, but disallow infrastructure manipulation. You have to be careful how you use those slots! This directly punishes impulsive players.

  2. Perhaps have both Terraforming and Extracting. Terraforming is about making the world more habitable, i.e. increasing the cap. Extracting is about making the world’s resources more available for exploitation i.e. decreasing the price somehow.

  3. This is hard to balance, but what if you linked output directly to resource value? Science Facilities give Resource Value worth of tech a day? Manufacturing gives Resource Value*(Manufacturing+5) ships?

On Banking being underpowered: It is, and if you want it to be at all significant in the midgame (along with Experimentation) you have to buff the two of them somehow without overpowering them in the early game. Maybe you can give them additional abilities or progressiveness.

/END RAMBLE RARGH

53

/Start random game theory post

First: consider making Economy cost the same as Industry does now. Try to limit $10- credit upgrades and more $30+ ones. This makes economy more risky, as return on investment is not as guaranteed.

Right now there are 7 technologies.

SCANNING and HYPERSPACE are limited, early essential techs. They are needed most in the early part of the game to expand imperial capabilities and range. By the midgame, the only purpose for them are as tech sinks and for gimpy long range attacks. Their usefulness is limited absolutely by the size of the galaxy, and relatively by the speed of carriers and size of empires.

changes? Making Scanning more important in Dark Galaxies is a good idea, especially in those huge 64 player Dark Galaxies. If Terraforming is removed, I can see Hyperspace gaining importance in making Warp Gates cheaper.

BANKING and EXPERIMENTATION are unlimited, steady payout techs. Any player can gain as much of either as they want, and their payout is steady. They are very slightly unbalanced in the early game right after initial expansion, but then it is a long slow decline to uselessness due to scaling tech transfer costs while payout remains steady.

changes? Linking either or both to lowering tech payout costs is a good way to go.

WEAPONS is an unlimited, relative payout tech. It’s importance derives entirely on the importance placed upon it by other players. If no one researches it, there is no reason to research it other than to attack.

changes? Not really. See below.

MANUFACTURING is an unlimited, specific facility based payout tech. It’s importance, unlike literally every other tech, derives from the amount of industry the player owns. Manufacturing is clearly an oddball, compared to say, +Manufacturing ships on every star upon payday.

changes? For conciseness, changing it to the latter might be the way to go. That said, there’s no real reason to change this particular tech, as ship inflation is generally matched by ship inflation. Same with Weapons. Only tech transfer costs limit its unlimited potential.

TERRAFORMING is an unlimited, general facility development tech. It’s importance derives from building new facilities, not defending existing ones like Manufacturing. Also an oddball focusing on facilities instead of the big picture.

changes? This Thread.

So, what is the conclusion?

  1. Should Techs be General, Facility Specific, or Both? If Both, should there be both General and Facility Specific techs for all aspects? What if there’s both Banking (General) and Trading (Increases Economy per facility)? What if there’s both Experimentation (General) and Innovation (Increases Science per facility)? What if there’s both Drafting (General) and Manufacturing (Increases ships per facility)?

  2. Should Techs have Unlimited significance? (i.e. maintaining importance in the mid game and late game.) If so, techs like Scanning and Hyperspace need slowly ramping importance. Giving Hyperspace terraforming’s job of decreasing prices (at least for warp gates) is a stealth buff which pay off long after Hyperspace range itself is insignificant. Giving Scanning a 10% sized “Super Radar” which detects stealth means that the Scanning soft Limit could be 10 times larger as late game empires use more and more stealth carriers or infrastructure.

  3. Should there be special techs or perks? Should they be purchased with money or research (or both?) This creates LOTS of complexity. However, say you need to reach 1440 research points for a Novabomb, which costs another 1000 credits to deploy the physical bomb. To get a second Novabomb, you need 2880 resarch points and 2000 credits. The first hit is free, but the cost ramps up like tech.

  4. How to deal with inflation? Money supply goes up, cost goes down. Each individual item is them relatively less significant. Well, money supply will inevitably go up, but removing terraforming definitely prevents costs going down. Terraforming cap would slow down the increase of money supply. Adding perks and deployment fees would increases costs unable to be modified by terraforming.

P.S. In my paper and pencil conversion for a medieval strategy board game, I made all starting tech at 5 (sorta like Manufacturing being 5+Manu instead of Manu).

54

Just had a quick thought…
[size=30]What if the resources on a star were a ratio instead of a flat amount?[/size]

Terraforming’s yield would start at 50 and each level would add 5 as it does now. Price of economy with Terraforming 4 and 20.

These show how much econ would be on your stars if the cheapest upgrade was $x. Terraforming 4 and 20.

55

Took me a bit of thinking to figure out how you were doing it, but I LIKE the idea!!!

Not only because it can help with the Hyper-Inflation problem … but especially because it addresses the issue that (currently) at high TF, there’s a lot of “sameness” associated with “good” versus “bad” stars … as your charts clearly show.

I.e. a “good” star should stay more valuable than a “bad” star … and be worth fighting over!

56

You lost me here. Can you walk me through it a bit slower. How would you explain it to a new player who has never played NP before?

@lichuckles Thanks for your two long posts!

If I were to add this feature, this is how I would do it. I agree that the ability to dismantle some things and rebuild others is kind of an advanced feature. I think it could be really interesting to know that I currently only have x slots throughout my entire galaxy, do I want to use them on Economy, Science or Industry. (Or Gates!)

Yeah, When I first designed the game the minimum Economy buy was 10 so that it needed to last at least a day, but on most stars 2-3 days before you would see a return on your investment. I would like to see a return to these kinds of numbers.

I actually really liked the game when there was just three techs. Range, Scanning and Weapons. The other techs were added to provide some more opportunities for social interaction. I think there is plenty of that at the moment which is why I’m not freaking out about losing a tech.

Social interaction is the primary reason for techs to exit in the game.

I do like what you are suggesting, standardise on General or Facility based. I think there is a nice symmetry or elegance of having all the techs more aligned. If I was going to take the step of bringing them all into line I would make them all gates or limit based.

Sor for example, Scanning and Range limit how far you can see and how far you can jump, I would make Banking, Experimentation and Manufacturing limit how much Economy, Science and Industry you could build throughout your empire. (Say 10 x Level max Economy for Banking, 5 x Level Max Industry for Mau, and 2 x Level Science for Experimentation)

I think unlocking the potential to grow is not as exciting as actually getting more cash each day, and it would be a hard sell for existing players, but I think new players would find this system quite simple and rewarding.

I’m not sure how it would feel to be hitting your Economy and Science limit all the time, but it might feel good to complete a research and have 10 new slots open up! It might be kind of nice to have money piling up and then all of the sudden spend it again because you achieved a new tech level. There could be some interesting decisions to make if you can buy more economy, but you would rather have industry, do you spend now or hold your cash until you can trade or research a new level of Manu?

Keep in mind that these changes would be played in games with the new scanning limited trade, so you might only have 2 or 3 trading partners. I would like it to be quite a hard decision whether to unlock more economy, science, industry, range, scanning or stick with good old weapons. The game is grow or die, but grow on what axis and when?

If we wanted more of these techs it could be easy to expand into other areas of the game. We could have a tech that limits the number of carriers you have. You can only operate 5 carriers for every level of Carrier Command tech for example. I like this because you’ll have to think more carefully about Carrier management.

Gate limits would be cool because we could have the additive speed gates (2x, 3x, 4x) but these cost more than just the cash. You have a total gate cap to think about.

I think these limit based techs will scale ok. You might find that you have heaps of cash but nothing to spend it on, but I think that just means you didn’t buy the correct ratio of economy to science. Of if your limits are no where near blocking you, that you should have spent more research time on weapons rather than unlocking economy and industry.

I think I would like to playtest this at some stage, I’ll have to have a think about how important these things are compared to other features folks are waiting for.

Please let me know what you think and if you would be willing to help me platest.

1 Like
57

The thing with ratio is quite simple. To even more simplify it, let’s say that there are 6 Classes of Stars.

Class 1 = 10 NR - a shitty star
...
Class 5 = 50 NR - home star
Class 6 = 60 NR - I've heard legends about those..

Now the [size=19]main difference[/size] between old Terraforming and new Terraforming is,
that the old eventually levels all stars to a same quality,
whereas the new keeps the Class 5 star [size=19]FIVE TIMES BETTER[/size] than Class 1 as it was when the game started.

This is a simplified version. I will get back to it when I get home.
…it may not be actually 5 times. It was just a quick draft.

##the pictures
As for the pictures, they show the following stats for old terraforming and my suggestion. They show the values for Terraforming 4 and 20.

The first two show how much would the upgrade cost for first and tenth economy on a star with resources from 1 to 50.

The other two show how much economy would have been built on your stars if your cheapest upgrade was priced at $20 and $60.

1 Like
58

Like it, Querty.

59

This is an intriguing concept. Before I respond, a question: If you conquer built-up stars, and as a result your empire’s econ/ind/sci exceeds your limits, what happens? Conversely, if you lose built-up stars I imagine you keep the freed-up slots?

60

On Gates:
Pros:
Makes Economy/Commerce (Cash) and Science/Experimentaton (Gates) necessary for growth, while Industry/Manufacturing (Ships) and Weapons necessary for war.
Small Empires not necessarily that limited, as Caps are Galactic, not Planetary.
Cons:
Hyperspace immediately becomes the worst tech after the first week or so. Excuses to research it are few.
Rebalance of the economic model necessary so that a “Standard” growth curve with “Standard” trading is blocked and unblocked at a reasonable speed, but also so that abnormal strategies are possible.
Redesign of the HUD to more prominently feature these caps.
Remember, Caps introduces more decisions and strategies, but also removes others as well.
What to do about conquest?
Suggestions:
I still suggest connecting Hyperspace and Warpgates if you prefer simplification.
Maybe you should consider having start Level for the new tech system be something like 3 or 5?
Have each Gate upgrade cost an additional Cap.
So Level 1 Gate with X2 takes 1 Gate Cap. Level 2 takes 2 Gate Caps. Level 5 takes 5 gate caps, and boosts speed by X6.

On Ratios
Understood what you went for, but not the specific math itself. Slower is the way to go!
Pros
Terraforming maintained.
Strong stars maintain significance.
Help prevent inflation.
Cons
Hard to understand! At least as presented. (Then again, no explanation for normal terraforming)
May change the balance of the economic model.