View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0005869 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Game Mechanics | Feb 13, 2012 11:33 am | Feb 13, 2012 3:22 pm | |
| Reporter | FunnyMan | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Severity | tweak | ||||
| Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix | ||
| Summary | 0005869: Multiply resource cap by homeworld count | ||||
| Description | Since 5.025 increased the energy supplies of a N-homeworld player to match those of N 1-homeworld players, it seems that there's only one major asymmetry remaining: resource cap. One player has a resource cap of 1 million metal and crystal, regardless of their homeworld count. The only disadvantage I can see is a fairly minor one: the UI would need a little tweaking to fit 1-2 extra digits on the metal and crystal counts. Beyond that, it seems like a natural extension of the general trend making N-homeworld players equivalent to N 1-homeworld players. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | New | ||||
|
|
The UI can't actually grow, because there's not enough room on the minimum size monitors that we support. But, beyond that, the ability to stockpile too many resources is disastrous for game balance regardless of how many homeworlds you have -- players need to have a fairly low cap of resources so that throughput remains an ongoing concern. I written about this in vastly greater length elsewhere in the past. |
|
|
On the first point, wouldn't dropping the font size a bit solve that problem? On the second point, I'd argue that this isn't allowing the player to stockpile "too many" resources, merely adjusting the amount he can stockpile to be proportional to what he can build. Having a second homeworld already doubles the amount of opposing forces (hence damage suffered) and the number of units and structures the player can build. Where a 1-homeworld player would need a single fortress (mkI) to defend a system, a 2-homeworld player now needs two, as the opposition has doubled. Further, he can actually place two, because his own unit cap has doubled as well. Thus, doubling the resource store doesn't mean that the player can afford to build more: the two fortresses he now requires are still about half his total resource cap. The same math applies to (re)building fleets. With the current resource caps, replacing your fleet with a second homeworld effectively takes twice the stored resources, because the fleet is twice as large with the same per-ship costs. And you're just as likely to lose the fleet, because the enemy has twice as many ships as well. |
|
|
Sure, we could drop the font size a bit, but then people complain they can't read it. And the way AIW's fonts currently work, I can't just dynamically scale font sizes -- I have to make a new font for each specific size, which is really annoying and wasteful of system resources. The new GUI system in AVWW is a lot better, and I hope to backport that to AIW during the next expansion work for AIW. In terms of the stockpiling of resources being equivalent between the multiple planets, the math doesn't work out how you think. On the surface it seems simple, but there are actually many invisible factors there. There's a coordination cost, for example, with multiple players vs one. And there's other factors also, which I delved into in great depth in the other post I referred to again. The math doesn't support increasing stockpiles, it just leads to broken balance. |
|
|
Fair enough. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2012 11:33 am | FunnyMan | New Issue | |
| Feb 13, 2012 12:13 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Internal Weight | => New |
| Feb 13, 2012 12:13 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0018996 | |
| Feb 13, 2012 12:13 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => closed |
| Feb 13, 2012 12:13 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Feb 13, 2012 12:13 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => won't fix |
| Feb 13, 2012 1:53 pm | FunnyMan | Note Added: 0019010 | |
| Feb 13, 2012 1:53 pm | FunnyMan | Status | closed => feedback |
| Feb 13, 2012 1:53 pm | FunnyMan | Resolution | won't fix => reopened |
| Feb 13, 2012 2:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0019021 | |
| Feb 13, 2012 2:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | feedback => closed |
| Feb 13, 2012 2:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | reopened => won't fix |
| Feb 13, 2012 3:22 pm | FunnyMan | Note Added: 0019023 |
