I prefer short runs anyway, myself... preferrably with a minor race inside my own territory, as they usually have big, juicy homeworlds and aren't likely to turn on me

~SDC~

Sliders for the governors is the best idea in this thread!

Hmm, after reading the comments on both the Support Network and the 1.7 plan, I can see that both methods have their problems depending on the style of game you want to play.

So I withdraw my support for both plans. I believe that massive resource waste is the driving factor behind the glut of constructors at the end-game, and thereby the glut of starbases. If the "Nothing" item could be selected and it actually did cost "Nothing", then that would clearly be the best solution to 'constructor-glut'.

I disagree that waste contributes to the constructor endgame "madness". I am one of those players who isn't bothered even a tiny bit by the current system of "waste" - I won't mind if they improve on it, but it doesn't detract from my game or affect my strategy at all.

Endgame constructor pumping for me is simply due to the fact that if I'm in a stable position (dominant or not) then building more military is not my main objective, enhancing my empire is. You enhance your empire with starbases, so you build starbases, at least that's what I do.

I build up massive bonuses to my trade routes, I pump up the defenses and attack in my home sectors.


Personally, I don't think what we need is a strategy to hose the human player so much as we need some emphasis on improving the AI so it actually knows how to do something with starbases beyond cluttering up my sectors.

As Code Monkey already mentioned, you need to enchance your empire. BUT... But really you don't have a good ways to enchance it *maybe* except for starbases. In any other game, you can build numerous buildings etc. Here, most efficient buildings are +PQ, +Morale, maybe +Econ not that bad too. Other buildings is just crap (+ship monuses don't give you economy bonuses). Say, +Production and +Research buildings just REDUCING your % of free production as long as you have good starbase bonuses to that (it's easy to calculate). That the hell, who needs high-cost high-upkeep buildings that making your economy even worse??? You can't get a good taxes because, again, you need +Econ resources for that, and not production might. But even if you have resources, you can't still get more than PQ*4 taxes. Pop growth is capped at 200, and it don't really affect something in any significant way in lategame (but player can't do anything about it, so really this isn't important too).

I understand why all this was made for - because overwise computer just can't get a good economy because it's just worse than a human player at min-maxing and proper resource management (resource in broad term, just almost anything in the game).

So, really, you just don't have any choices except building starbases, and this is IMHO a really bad flaw in economic part of the game. Strategy game must be based on choices. And game designers also making a big mistake - they are trying to close *cheese tactics* instead of giving players more choices. As long as you have no choices, you have only one choice, and this is called *cheese tactics*. As long as you have 2 or more choices, this is called a strategic choice between 2 or more tactics.

I see that Brad tried to give a choices to players (say, a good tech tree), but IMHO this is not enough. Also, military might, research and economy are affected too much by corresponding resources - so it's not really a player choice - to get resources or not to get.

My suggestion - make military part of the game more efficient, instead of making economy less efficient. Make AI better at military.

~SDC~

Brad is fixing the wrong problem. Star Hawk is completely right (I know others are saying the same, I just thought his post the most eloquent). "Wasted resources" is the root of SB problems (well, that and the fact that nothing in the Miltary build queue helps your econ at all - freighters excluded). I'm really quite amazed that wasted resources hasn't been addressed. It was one of the first really long posts in the forum (it was even a sticky). I think Brad removed it indicating that none of the proposed fixes were doable but without giving reasons(?). I realize that fixing wasted reasources might be a bit harder than adjusting the maint cost of SB's, but honestly, I would rather the effort be put into the real problem and not one of many symptoms.

I just want to comment on the suggestions in this thread that starbases on resources should have no maintenance cost. On what grounds? Because they are self supporting? They do add some kind of resource to your empire, true enough, but they still have operational costs. You can't have all the benefits of the the resource, and still maintain the starbase for free. To eliminate the maint costs implies that you are pumping the gains from the resource back into the starbase, rather than into your empire's treasury (or research, or whatever). If you get the maintenance for free, plus keep all benefits from the mined resource, then this means that the money from the resource is being spent twice. :notsure:

Instead of a planetary improvement have it be a mid- late-game maintenance module?

Resource starbases absolutely should be exempt from charge so that they become even more important to capture.

Still, if the idea is to stop starbase spamming, what we're talking about here are ways to make it easier to go right back to spamming.

I'd say, therefore, the number of free starbases should be resource and map-size dependent:

All resources = freebie.
Tiny map = additional 2 free, 5b.c. each after that.
...all the way to Gigantic, which should have something like an additional 8 free or something, etc.

That way you are keeping the intended goal with no workaround and with no map discrimination.

I'm inclined to agree that the main problem is wasted resources, not starbases. Towards the middle and end game, the only reason I keep cranking out constructors at the rate I do is because I have nothing better to spend the military resources of those planets on, while I still need to have a reasonably high military production set for the planets that are producing something I need. After a while, keeping track of all those constructors (and waiting for them to move) gets more irritating than anything else.

If we could divert unused military production on planets to something else, I think most of the starbase issue would go away.

If a maintainence system MUST be implemented, I would definitely NOT want the bases^1.7 method. It doesn't scale. At all.

Something that might work (though would be more difficult to implement) is based on the starbase support system and the per-module resource cost.

Here's the idea: Starbases start out free (no modules, no cost). If the starbase has modules and is in a sector with colonies, it eats some percentage (say, 0.5% per module, calculated AFTER production bonuses) of the production of those colonies. This is plausable, since starbases in heavily populated systems would suffer from more traffic and hence more wear and tear. It would also cut down on starbase spamming in inhabited sectors since there would definitely be a point of diminishing returns. (Note that no support system need be built on the planet; it's assumed to be included in the cost of building the colony.)

Starbases outside of an inhabited system would deduct a flat 1bc from the empire treasury per module installed.

While more trouble to implement, I think that would 1) scale, 2) reduce starbase spamming, 3) be reasonably realistic.

The idea of the 'super constructor' would help with the spam, being as it would cost a lot more than the current constructors. It would also reduce the horrible 'what module am I supposed to build next?' clicking whenever a constructor lands on a starbase.

What to do with overflow from both social and military build queues is non-trivial, because there is so much of it. For social you can have a version of Capitalism on that converts production to money, but more money means higher sliders which means more production which means more money which means higher sliders which means...you can see the problem. It would have to be a -very- small bonus or it would spin out of control. And if military production did the same? Wow.

And truthfully, at this stage money isn't really an issue anyway. So what could the overflow be used for? Not morale, if it did then your pop would grow so that you could never build anything again without a morale crash. Influence maybe? But giving civs an ability to alter influence on the fly would take a lot of AI programming to balance out.

Another problem lurking in the background is that if you balance the game based on fully upgraded starbase-enhanced planet production then you end up with a game where you -have- to have that, since anything less would then be grossly underpowered (e.g. if you greatly increased the costs of the mid-late game units/buildings).

The idea of individual planet sliders puts us right back into micromanagement hell, I hope this doesn't get put in. I do not want to click through 200 planets adjusting sliders because of a new building/ship build option showing up, I got enough of that in Moo2 and Civ to last me a lifetime.

So, here's where I stand personally:

1. Super Constructors, worth maybe 5 regular ones and costing 5 times as much, to reduce constructor spam by 80%.

2. Some starbase maintenance idea, I prefer mine obviously but whatever one ends up being considered appropriate. A good starbase maintenance plan would help the overflow problem inherently, because it would force you to lower your spending slider thus reducing your overall production.

3. No change on overflow at this time, either use it or let it fall into the bit bucket, turn down your sliders and accumulate money and buy what you need if you only need a few, or whatever. But definitely no micromanagement implementing. Unless someone can think of a balanced thing to do with overflow (and I haven't seen such a suggestion yet) and unless that idea can be handled by the AI, the cure will be worse than the disease.

An idea on overflow: If you set the build project to nothing (or Capitalism, or whatever), 1/2 of the production is lost, while the other half either gets put back into the system to be reallocated, or gets dropped directly into the empire treasury. Note that I said reallocated: No new money is being produced. In fact, money is being lost in the exchange. Some of it is just being redirected to a different location (the lost money is for paperwork, transportation of materials, bank fees, etc.).

There could even be technologies or abilities that reduce the amount lost. An Efficiency ability could increase the amount of money you get to keep. Efficiency +50% would let you keep 3/4ths of the money. +100% would let you keep all of it (and should be difficult to get).

Lastly, while out-of-control production is an issue if an Efficiency ability is introduced (Eff. +110% would let you make money), there are a couple mitigating factors: First, there is a maximum that planets are capable of producing (I'm not sure if Brad's limitations on starbase production boosting will actually create a point at which you're losing out by building more starbases). Second, if someone gets too used to the Efficiency/surplus boost and then loses it (has to start doing real production, for instance), it's going to hurt. If they're dependent on it to support their economy, it could cost them the game. Of course, the AI would have to realize that...

LifeWish:

Resource starbases were one of the primary original uses for starbases, the maintenance is designed to decrease starbase spamming in your home sectors. If the maintenance discourages the starbases primary purpose, i wouldn't consider it a success.

Vorlin Varelse:

I have yet to see an explanation of how making it so that "Nothing" doesn't actually cost anything is unbalancing. It shouldn't affect things with the computer at all since they would get the same benefit. If you want to argue that it reduces the need to balance the sliders, i think that's a stupid argument, but fine, make it so that you only get 0.75 of it back or something.

If you want to limit the number of starbases, put a required 'seed' resource so starbases can't be built anywhere, and maybe another seed and one or two techs to allow farming of these empty resources so you can actually create more starbases. Each seed would in itself cost something. Worst-case is the 'empty space' seed, which would cost f.e. 20bc per turn to upkeep, whereas an econ or military resource would have 0 upkeep cost.
Thus building starbases in the void would cost a lot, whereas building them on existing resources would cost nothing, but you could also have 'free spots', for example one per sector (tunable?) so you can effectively limit the number of free starbases per sector and add a strategic dimension to starbase placement, as well as help the ai know where to build its bases, rather than build them in clusters in easily defendable zones.

Now if you really want diminishing returns, I'd suggest returns per ,number of starbase in sector, f.e. 1 starbase in sector costs 1 to upkeep, 2 cost 1 + 4 = 5, 3 cost 5 + 9 = 14, etc. That way the 5th starbase in sector costs 25 to upkeep. Should prevent spamming and is not dependant of map size.

To Vorlin Varelse

Super constructor that can build 5 modules instead of one is worse (less efficient) than 5 standart constructors.

--------------------

Wasted resources issue

IMHO there is a simple solution - there are 4 classes of planets - (1) building military and social projects and researching,(2) building military projects and researching, (3) building social projects and researching, and (4) researching.

So we need just 7 Income Distribution sliders instead of 4, and no per-governor/per-planet micromanagement.

Redirecting money between projects is also relatively simple, i have some ideas. I'm just interested - are developers trying to avoid calculaions with real numbers?

~SDC~

Redirecting money between projects - i mean excess money.

~SDC~

How about having "mini-resources"? A starbase built on a mini-resource is free. Starbases not built on mini-resources are expensive. There would be 0-3 mini-resources per sector, tending to be more in sectors with good planets.

This would lead to more conflict - fighting over good starbase locations.

It would also prevent abuse, while preserving the original intention of starbases.

I'd like to echo Star Pilot - would Brad (or someone from the development team) please explain what you are trying to fix with this 5 bc per starbase or 1.7 thing? We're just guessing which problem you are tyring to address.

I am against any idea which would increase the number of sliders currently in the game. There are enough sliders as it is.

Ellestar, how can building 1 unit instead of 5, moving one unit instead of 5, and adding to the starbase in one lump sum instead of 5 seperate times be less efficient? The only inefficiency comes from the last superconstructor you add when you don't need 5 modules, and I'll take that piddling little bit of inefficiency any day for an 80% reduction in constructor micromanagement. But if someone didn't like it, they could always build and assign and upgrade with 5 times more constructors then I'd be using...

Daetrinn, the only way that 'Nothing' can't cost you is if you get it back in some way, and the amount of production involved is so staggering by late-mid to late game that it's very difficult to find a way to give it back that isn't grossly unbalancing (and if you only give a small X% of it back, then you are still wasting (100% - X%) which puts us pretty much back to where we are now but with a lot of trouble first.

And I didn't argue that it reduces the need to balance sliders (which doesn't even make any sense), I mentioned that having a Capitalism feature like in Civ would be a problem because your spending slider is directly related to your income, and is also directly related to your production, so having a production item that increases income would be a positive feedback situation. The only way to avoid that would be if it increased income insignificantly, and if it does that why bother to implement it in the first place?

I kind of liked what Arcanum said about having a small percentage of the excess 'Nothing' go into ongoing projects (the roleplay explanation being that these inactive planets are shipping materials to the ones that need it). Military to military and social to social. This is a case where a small X% would actually be valuable because it's being applied in an area that doesn't require that much (relatively speaking) in the first place. But even this would still change the mechanics of the game in a significant way. For instance, you could rush build by setting all your empire to 'Nothing' for social except for the one planet that you wanted to rush a wonder for. Possibly have this ability kick in after a late-game tech discovery? Since late in the game building wonders is usually trivial anyway (2-5 turns for a super production planet) the 'rush factor' for this change wouldn't be nearly as signficant, but would still be useful for those handful of planets that lag behind. This also might not require much AI coding either, because it's pretty automatic from what I can see so far. Best idea I've seen yet unless there is some hole I can't spot while half-asleep at 3:12 a.m.

To Vorlin Varelse

With super constructors 5xEff, 5xCost you are gaining advantages slower on average, so they are automatically less efficient in economy terms. Say, imagine building of that super constructor at the start of the game instead of standart one.

Micromanagement is another matter of course. But it's a bad habit to add too much elements to the game that are more efficient economically, but requie a lot of micromanagement. Everyone can see that with current situation with constructors.

----------------------------------------------

To Interstellar

If excess resources will be redirected between projects within one planet, you really need to change these 7 sliders once in the game.

~SDC~

SuperConstructors.
Edit: now they may be more efficient than standart constructors because we are losing on average 1/2 planetary production for each project.

~SDC~

hola?

~SDC~

The support network sounds good. But I agree with Vorlin that there should be a difference in cost between very small and very large starbases.

Another idea I'd like to throw in involves trade. Just as a trade module on a SB can increase income from a trade route you could also have the trade route decrease the maintenance of the SB (ie the trade modules have a 2 way effect). This would also have the effect of having sectors with heavy trade also being very prosperous as an indirect result of that trade (since your more likely to build large starbases there)

So my vote would go to either the support network, or Vorlins idea with the addition of a trade option.

Superconstructors are a tech-given ship like most other ships, and aren't there for the early game, they are a late-game item specifically for when too-fast production of regular constructors becomes a major problem. Anyone who's ever played a gigantic galaxy where you had 15-20 constructors popping out every single turn can appreciate the concept.

The biggest issues I have with starbases are in order:

1. Multiple starbases in a sector with the same modules. It just seems cheesy and unrealistic for someone to build 3 bases each with fully functional pleasure palaces for example. At bare minimum, there should be diminishing returns for this. IE first fully functional, second 1/2, third 1/4 fourth zero. Something like that.

I don't like the reduced maintence Idea via planetary improvements or otherwise. It runs counter to the stated purpose of reducing the # of starbases at the endgame.

I like the idea of increased maintenence the further away from the nearest planet. (Part of starbase maintence, and a big part, would be shuttling in supplies) This might hamper the Ai players though.


2. We need to help encourage starbases in the beginning yet discourage them at the end.

What about increased maintenence as your government changes. (As governments become more toward Demo and Federation) people will expect more costly amenities at starbases too, not just planets)

This would also introduce a higher cost for the more democratic forms of govt (also a change I'd like to see) Right now the game seems a progression. Start with the dictatorship and merely progress through the types. Especially with the new morale settings. I think introducing more costs to these forms of govt would make the type of govt more of a real choice.

3. Most of the big "Cultural improvements" Come with one tech. Space em out a bit more. Perhaps move the Palace modules to a different tech than the maximization center. And put them on a dead end thread of research. That way, you have to make a conscious decision to go after them to the delay of other techs.


The 1.7 power severely handicaps Gigantic Galaxies vs small ones. As stated before 1.5 or 1.3 would probably be better IMO. That way, Starbases are not too expensive early but become so late. This coupled with perhaps a (convert production to "trade goods" at half rate) would go far, I think to solve the ridiculous endgame of "lets build more constructors"

Another Idea I had. Instead of intruducing "Superconstructors" toward the end, why not introduce them midway through and make some starbase modules require them? Or require a super constructor which makes a starbase upgrade to accept more than lets say 10 modules for example) Putting these on the starbase would of course, increase their cost. The player would really have to do a benefits vs cost analysis there. That would be cool as well.