Author Topic: Economic Discussion  (Read 6110 times)

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Economic Discussion
« on: July 11, 2012, 05:53:47 PM »
This thread is based on economics.Ga crew has stated that they are working on economics for next release and would not mind some suggestions.

I for one think farming is none existent.Farming needs to play a much bigger role in eco.

Orbitals are not balanced imo.I can build a few and just spam research on all my worlds.

I find little use for freighters and just upgrade my spaceports.

Would like to be able to control the resources on my planets. For example my planets fuel supply.Unless I build a factory It sits at half stock no matter what.Most of the time I want them to fully stock fuel.

Fuel is in the same state as food.I can build a few orbitals or facilities and everything is good.

Would be nice for maintenance costs for fleets.

Not sure of what is possible with this game so maybe some of my suggestions are unrealistic.

PrawnWonton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2012, 11:52:38 PM »
Yeah, I have never found a use for haulers of any sort.  I've tried using them, but they are just underwhelming at best.  Space ports are just too good.

However, if space ports get nerfed enough to make haulers necessary, that would be a lot of extra tedious micromangement, which is why space ports exist in the first place.

Resources as a whole, I don't know what could change.  It seems that after a few systems are up and running, resources are pretty much a non-issue.  The ONLY time I ever run into resource problems is when I try to build an early ringworld for the lols.

Early game is fun because you actually have to make decisions about what to build and when to build it.  But after the first 15 minutes, you can just poo out as many ships as you can queue up without a second thought.

As for how to fix it, I'm not sure.  Increasing the resource cost of things would only delay the inevitable, so that won't work.

Some things that might work to some degree:
  • Introduce strategic resources.  Games like Civ, Warlock, Endless Space, etc., require rare resources to build advanced or powerful units.  Strategic resources are often a source of conflict, and valuable trading materials.  If higher tech/powerful/specialized/larger sized modules and hulls required X amount of some rare resources, that may be a nudge in the right direction.

  • Population overhaul.  If population actually mattered, it might be interesting.  Looking at something like Armada 2526, where building slots on planets required X amount of population, a lot of that game is spent ferrying your own race's population around to colonies.  Or Endless Space where population is also a pretty big deal. I don't think Star Ruler would need to go that far, but if population played a more important role, and grew at a much slower rate, that could serve to curb indiscriminate expansion, colony ship spam, orbital facility ridiculousness, etc. If population was used to crew ships, then computers (and their counters) would be attractive, and it could also serve to limit fleet sizes.  And there could be lots of racial trait modifiers and economic policies/mandates to population growth to fit many different playstyles.  Being unable to replace a suicide fleet in 10 seconds because you just lost half your race's population would make for some fun gameplay, and more interesting decisions.  Planetary bombs and weapons and whatnot could actually be pretty awesome.  This might also serve to make farms and goods more attractive, if they positively affected population growth.

  • Upkeep-wise, costing resources wouldn't really work, since resources are basically infinite.  So what is finite in this game?  Planet slots.  What if there actually was a "tech tree" of sorts with buildings?  What if to build hulls over size 100 you needed X amount of "military academy" buildings?  What if you had to have X amount of "fleet logistics" buildings to support Y amount of combat ships?  What if to build specialized hulls you needed a certain amount of "advanced engineering" buildings?  The idea being that planet slots could be used for something other than research facilities.  This could be tied together with population requirements, and strategic resources, too, depending how fancy you want to get.


However, I think one thing needs to be remembered at all times:  Star Ruler is supposed to be a game where you can have huge fleets and big ass ships, so too many restrictions would kill that.  But I think some restraint could spice it up and make things interesting.  I think it could be really fun to make choices about how much to expand and what buildings to go for.  Do I use lots of AI controlled ships and stations to take pressure off my population, running the risk of AI rebellion, or do I forgo research labs and build breeding worlds to sustain my expansion?  Do I build a few large ships with lots of crew, or do I mass produce little ships to zerg my enemy instead?  Do I stab my neighbor in the back because they have a strategic resource required to build superlasers?  Should I spam a bunch of suicide bombers to carpet bomb my enemy's planets so his economy goes down the toilet, and if so will I have enough crew left to field a combat fleet?  How many planets can I get away with dedicated to supporting larger fleet counts before my tech race suffers, or military might wavers?  If I can locate and do a surgical strike, eliminating my enemy's key military logistics world so his fleet count goes to shit, how much havoc can I wreck while he is freaking out?

These are the decisions that are fun to make, and are only possible when there are choices because of restrictions.

Azalrion

  • Moderator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Karma: +147/-1
  • Memory Murderer
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2012, 02:28:05 AM »
Some interesting points Prawn, some which mirror my suggestions on our dev forums quite closely.

All I'll say at this point folks, is well its not just an overhaul of the existing system but a rewrite so you can feel free to suggest things that are nothing like what is currently implemented.
GA - Mod Team
GA Forums

XTRMNTR2K

  • Modder Extraordinaire
  • Moderator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1564
  • Karma: +178/-2
  • I aim to misbehave.
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2012, 03:30:20 AM »
Definitely some great ideas here. Keep 'em coming!

crys

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2012, 08:01:03 AM »
i thought about fuel useage

i would like to suggest to increase the fuel useage and storrage by maybe a huge factor
maybe 10, 100 or even 1000?

this would make fuel production much more importand then it is now

dont know so much about the bussard ramscopes, how to change them then
and how the AI would be doing with the largerer need of fuel

XTRMNTR2K

  • Modder Extraordinaire
  • Moderator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1564
  • Karma: +178/-2
  • I aim to misbehave.
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2012, 09:15:31 AM »
i thought about fuel useage

i would like to suggest to increase the fuel useage and storrage by maybe a huge factor
maybe 10, 100 or even 1000?

A factor 100 or 100 increase is probably overkill.

Quote
dont know so much about the bussard ramscopes, how to change them then

The issue with those is that they actually produce fuel from nothing. Instead they should be a modifier type subsystem that simply reduces the fuel consumption of an engine (similar to how auxiliary power works).

crys

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2012, 09:36:30 AM »
i think i run with this the wrong way anyways

this way we would just play with larger numbers of fuel. ok the production would be lower in relation.

it propably would be better to just reduce the fuel production instead. it would be better for moding too, because there are fewer systems generating fuel then consumers.
in addition it would have less of an impact on trading, but the same effect on the value of fuel.

seronis

  • Distracted
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +25/-0
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile Link
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2012, 11:01:07 AM »
I disagree with the idea of making ramscoops a modifier subsystem. They are meant to be gathering interstellar dust to use as fuel not as a carburetor to make fuel use more efficient. Now if you decided to have them only work at half efficiency when a ship/station is not moving and to peak out when in motion I could support that idea.
Any code/mods I post on this site should be considered Public Domain. Borrow it, steal it, shred it into little pieces to your hearts content. I dont require credit but I appreciate bug fixes and suggestions.

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2012, 05:29:49 PM »
I agree and think prawn has good ideas about population.Population definitely reproduces to fast.Using them on ships is a good way to make them interesting as well.The ability to load them into haulers would be cool.You could micro manage to get faster population rates by evening out your population.

As for haulers I have used them sort of mini banks before which can be helpful with metal in a pinch.I think one of their main problems is they are to slow.

I totally agree with seronis on the ram scoop issue.

I dont like the rare or strategic resources.It sounds like this will take the most important focus of the game.

I would like to see a soft upkeep as well.When upkeep is expensive it becomes more annoying then anything.

What about culture facilities that increase happiness(revenue) and also spreads to other systems to cause unhappiness to enemy planets?

Resources I think need a balance towards ship construction.I feel like bigger ships are to cheap to build.I think as ship sizes increase cost should increase more so then it does now.I can build ships that can basically 2 shot a planet with railguns way to cheaply.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 05:36:45 PM by MindsEye »

PrawnWonton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2012, 05:45:45 PM »
Back on the population horse:

Instead of drastically overhauling population, which may be a lot of work, couldn't it be used as a resource?  To crew ships, military training buildings would "consume" raw population, and turn them into "crew", just like ore -> metal.  Obviously, this rate would need to be a lot smaller than population growth.  Additionally, if there was a cap on the total % of your population that could be trained at any time, that could serve to somewhat limit fleets.  Racial traits and mandates could increase or decrease this cap.  E.g., a "conscription" mandate where 50% of your population could be trained.  Well, you just took an awful lot of manpower away from all your factories and mines, so your economy is probably going to tank, but damn if you wont be able to field a large fleet as soon as they are trained.

It would basically serve as another building to take up a planet slot, which is desperately needed.  Also, there currently is no drawback to just suiciding thousands of ships, since they can be replaced in seconds.  Trained crew could serve as a bottleneck, which would make repairing much more attractive, since it takes time to replace them if lost.  Additional types of military buildings could be required to train even more specialized crews for special hulls like ECM ships or large ship sizes.  Sort of the "advanced parts" version of people.

If farms and goods gave a +population growth modifier, you could make worlds dedicated to making babies, which would also take up planet slots, which is a good thing.

seronis

  • Distracted
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +25/-0
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile Link
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2012, 06:01:38 PM »
Population issues are interesting but what about people with my playstyle?  I _ALWAYS_ choose the computer dependant society trait. I dislike the idea of having to micromanage lifesupport so I just avoid the issue and dont let stupid meat bags run my precious ships.

Even people who dont choose that trait would still start to use more Computer controlled ships if it was significantly faster than training crew from the peasant masses.
Any code/mods I post on this site should be considered Public Domain. Borrow it, steal it, shred it into little pieces to your hearts content. I dont require credit but I appreciate bug fixes and suggestions.

PrawnWonton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2012, 06:16:02 PM »
Population issues are interesting but what about people with my playstyle?  I _ALWAYS_ choose the computer dependant society trait. I dislike the idea of having to micromanage lifesupport so I just avoid the issue and dont let stupid meat bags run my precious ships.

Even people who dont choose that trait would still start to use more Computer controlled ships if it was significantly faster than training crew from the peasant masses.

That is perfectly fine, and AI will be a very attractive option if an empire has population issues.

It is my understanding that computer controlled ships have weaknesses.  Like being extremely vulnerable to boarding parties.  And don't Mind Sappers do something nasty to ships without crew?

If you stack enough internal defenses to keep boarding parties at bay, that is space not being used for other things, like weapons.

And if AI controlled ship counts still required military logistics buildings taking up planet slots, that is is another form of upkeep to keep things in check.  But even without that, as long as everything has a weakness, I think it could balance out just fine.

edit: my bad, Mind Sappers don't do anything if there is no crew.

double edit:  And when I'm talking about population and military buildings used to bottleneck fleet limits, I should be more clear in saying that the limit should still be pretty big.  This is Star Ruler, massive fleets should be standard operating procedure.  Population and military buildings mostly serve to give players choices in using planet slots, which reduces the rate of research, which provides a mid-game and economic benefits as a whole.  In no way should the limit ever be like "oh shit, I can only field 20 battleships, and if they die I have to wait an hour to train more crew", that would not be Star Ruler.  However, it would be nice if suiciding 1000 battleships actually did cost something, or if to field a fleet of 10000 ships you needed some worlds dedicated to military logistics instead of just all research all the time.

TTTTRIPLE EDIT:  AI ships would probably stack a lot of shields (to prevent boarding parties) and a lot of internal defenses (to prevent boarding parties).  If they go shield heavy, there are lots of anti-shield weapons in the game, and it would be awesome to dust them off and put them to good use.
Computer cores also suck down a LOT of power, making them prime targets for reverse inducers as well.

Everything should have a weakness. As long as there are, it should be spiffy.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 06:46:46 PM by PrawnWonton »

XTRMNTR2K

  • Modder Extraordinaire
  • Moderator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1564
  • Karma: +178/-2
  • I aim to misbehave.
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2012, 04:13:07 AM »
I'm seeing some very good ideas here.

@PrawnWonton: I think you'll be pleased about how we're going to handle things if everything goes according to keikaku*.



*Keikaku means plan.

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2012, 05:37:51 AM »
If it were possible to tie frieghters to a building on the planet, it might make them more interesting and give the player a reason to build them. Maybe even tie them to tp. The number of freighters in the system gives a bonus tot the tp rates. Maybe even specific frighters(metal,adv parts,and electronic) could give their respective bonus.

PrawnWonton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2012, 03:22:33 PM »
I'm seeing some very good ideas here.

@PrawnWonton: I think you'll be pleased about how we're going to handle things if everything goes according to keikaku*.



*Keikaku means plan.

You are such a tease.  Any possible spoilers? :)

Azalrion

  • Moderator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Karma: +147/-1
  • Memory Murderer
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2012, 03:37:06 PM »
Not yet, we are still discussing it.
GA - Mod Team
GA Forums

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2012, 07:59:54 PM »
Not sure if this applies here but making pirates an actual faction would be cool.They could set up home on a random asteroid or moon instead of just some random attacks.If you kill them they could either be dead or randomly resurrect.Strength may be determined along the lines of resource economies of all players combined.All out raids on systems would be based on this number.Realistically pirates would be hijacking ships with hit and run tactics to supply their income.Then they would all out raid when strong enuf.The raid strengths could be based on the empires economies that they are praying on. 

Azalrion

  • Moderator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Karma: +147/-1
  • Memory Murderer
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2012, 08:06:28 PM »
No that does not apply here. Thats a new topic.
GA - Mod Team
GA Forums

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2012, 10:23:39 PM »
Lol well pirates can be somewhat of an economic road block and are there mainly to damage your economy so i wasnt sure.

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2012, 08:48:21 AM »
Can you guys tell me why you can only have as much import as you have export? I would like to understand import much better as I never found much on it. What I like to do is max my import out on my drydock but when I go to upgrade my dock even if I scuttle the old one my import points are lost and its like I have to start over.

seronis

  • Distracted
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +25/-0
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile Link
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2012, 09:17:34 AM »
Lore based answer:

Each star port you build gives you half as much 'galactic import' available to import docks as it gives the planet general trade capacity.  Building a star point assumes you are also building the civilian transport vessels that do all the transportation so it would be unreasonable to have the import docks on random stations and space craft to have no limts to their overall trade capacity.


Technical answer:

If there was no limit on your total galactic import rate it would make planets nearly obsolete after early game. Its a balancing and design decision. Also import points are not lost when scuttling.

Any code/mods I post on this site should be considered Public Domain. Borrow it, steal it, shred it into little pieces to your hearts content. I dont require credit but I appreciate bug fixes and suggestions.

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2012, 08:15:58 PM »
Where do the points go?

Panpiper

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: +12/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2012, 09:20:52 AM »
Whenever I play Star Ruler, I always end a game two ways. Either I just get bored with the situation, or I hit the metal wall, the point where my mining has gotten so effective that I mine out the majority of the metal available, and all of it gets rapidly transformed into electronics and then advanced parts. End of game. No more building possible.

Now yes, one can go in to micromanage each and every planet to deliberately destroy most or all of one's electronics and advanced parts facilities to prevent this and preserve at least a little bit of a building stockpile, but that is hardly a solution to what is frankly, an absolutely absurd situation.

From a pure game point of view, I do not see how the game is improved one iota by having a hard limit to how long one can play. You can extend it a little bit with asteroid mining, but that too will run out. One could point to some sort of trickle effect that once again, with MASSIVE quantities of micro-management, one might be able to eek out a tiny fraction of output, but that does not make for a good game, that just makes for massive tedium.

From a realism point of view, this sort of hard limit also makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Planets do not just run out of resources. Yes, they do run out of the easiest to get resources, requiring more expensive extraction methods to get at new sources, thereby increasing the resulting costs of those resources (and encouraging the use of alternatives), but they never actually run out.

What I would suggest for a game mechanic is to absolutely do away with metal the way it is currently implemented. Do not have X amount of metal on a planet that gets used up and then when it is gone, no more metal. Instead have metal richness multiplier that multiplies the metal extraction effect of any metal facilities on that planet. If you want to have some sort of diminishing returns due to long term us (simulating using up easier to access resources), have both a metal richness multiplier 'and' an X amount of metal. Whenever the X gets used up, the metal richness multiplier gets reduced by 1% of it's current total and X gets reset. Note that this does not mean that after 100 iterations the metal richness is down to zero. The metal richness would be down to ~37% of it's original. The idea would be to create a gradual diminution of the metal mining effect, allowing a player to slowly adapt rather than suddenly hit a wall.

crys

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2012, 10:10:49 AM »
idk what you mean.

with no ore left on the planet you produce just 20% metal instead of more

Panpiper

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: +12/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2012, 11:17:53 AM »
idk what you mean.

with no ore left on the planet you produce just 20% metal instead of more

Say I have a planet with 100 ore. I build on that planet 4 metal mines, 3 electronics and 2 advanced parts faculties. This will work out to a nice bit of surplus of all three of metal, electronics and advanced parts. This goes on for a while, and my tech advances. At some point, the efficiency of my tech will reach such a point that my mines will use up all the ore. At that point my mines produce 20% of what they did previously. That is not just insufficient to generate a surplus of metal, whatever tiny bit 'does' get produced will be 'instantly' consumed by the electronics facilities and that in turn by the advanced parts. There will be NO metal available for construction, none. The only way to avoid that it to manually go in to all your planets and delete 80% of all your electronics and advanced parts facilities and from then on make do with a snail's crawl.

Malebogia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2012, 12:01:45 PM »
Say I have a planet with 100 ore. I build on that planet 4 metal mines, 3 electronics and 2 advanced parts faculties. This will work out to a nice bit of surplus of all three of metal, electronics and advanced parts. This goes on for a while, and my tech advances. At some point, the efficiency of my tech will reach such a point that my mines will use up all the ore. At that point my mines produce 20% of what they did previously. That is not just insufficient to generate a surplus of metal, whatever tiny bit 'does' get produced will be 'instantly' consumed by the electronics facilities and that in turn by the advanced parts. There will be NO metal available for construction, none. The only way to avoid that it to manually go in to all your planets and delete 80% of all your electronics and advanced parts facilities and from then on make do with a snail's crawl.

This is correct, but it is not a economic problem. It makes perfect sense that at some point the easily accessible resources of an planet have run out. It is something that has already happened on our planet for coal and Oil in many countries.

The real problem is the mess that are the planet govenors, who blissly crash your empire into metal extinction without a care in the world.
http://forums.blind-mind.com/index.php?topic=5156.0
and
http://forums.blind-mind.com/index.php?topic=4982.0(for vanilla)

already try to address this with some success. Personally i would prefer intelligent govenors(as in actually doing what they are supposed to do) over almost any change on the economic side as such. If you have a couple 100 planets than the metal death panpiper describes really is game over for you(well it is for me). I would love to have a proper economic govenor that can keep M/EP/AP ratios in check while keeping an eye on trade capacity and worker population.

And while this isn't exactly a economic thing(its a govenor thing though), i would love to have an civil act like "War preparation/Diggin in/No Quarter" that makes all my govenors install shields, bunker and planetary weapons on my planets(Obviously at the expense of their respectitive primary buildings). Would be kinda nice to have civil acts for increased fuel/ammo production etc aswell.

And it would be absolutely fantastic if civil acts wouldn't just magic resources and labor around, but actually affect the building queues of the govenors. I.e. if you activate metal mandate they would remove some metal mines and AP fabs on each planet in favor of EP fabs. That would also put a small dampener on the orbital production, making it a tradeoff between flexibility and efficency.

Edit: I really think there should be racial traits that affect what and when planet governors build. I.e. a militaristic empire should have govenors that like to build planetary weapons, and a paranoid defensive monarchy could have a faible for building bunkers and planetary shields here and there. Though i have no idea at all if its actually possible to have the govenors check for civil acts or traits in their respectitive built queues.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 12:09:51 PM by Malebogia »

crys

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2012, 12:56:12 PM »
youre edit idear would make the governors even worse then they are now. most players wouldnt use thouse governors then. the result propably would be, that the AI is the only one using thouse and doing worse because of it.
i actualy dont realy like to use the governors now, because they would scrap the shipyards, i like to have on each planet.
maybe we could hope for an ingame editable governor editor in SR2.


about the metal problem.
i run into this problem too, but i never had it in SR 1.2.0.0 or in GA 1.8.2.

so i guess that something was changed for the production values of m/e/p, in favor for e and p or the trade capacity of starports has growen.

either way we just have to adjust our way todo things - using different production queues or go the best way to mine only metal and use orbitals for e and p.

another solution might be to use a metal mandate, this could work with deminishing returns for youre industry.


you said with this problem, you cant build anything anymore - this is not true
on all worlds which produce their own metal, it will be used for construction, before going into e or p production.

Panpiper

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: +12/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2012, 01:02:37 PM »
This is correct, but it is not a economic problem. It makes perfect sense that at some point the easily accessible resources of an planet have run out. It is something that has already happened on our planet for coal and Oil in many countries.

It does not seem to me like you read my post above the one you quoted. It does not make sense at all to me, nor is it in the slightest bit similar to what has happened on earth in reality, for resource refinement to suddenly go from 100% to 20% in a single instant. And it certainly is an economic problem. I think the change I suggested is VASTLY preferable over the existing system.

Quote
The real problem is the mess that are the planet governors, who blissfully crash your empire into metal extinction without a care in the world. ... Personally i would prefer intelligent governors(as in actually doing what they are supposed to do) over almost any change on the economic side as such.

Well, I micromanage everything myself. I NEVER use governors because they are completely inept. Even the attempts at rewriting them and making them more appropriate fail. The only way for them to be able to work would be for us to be able to check (when re-writing them) substantially more game conditions and change decisions appropriately. I would want to be able to check planet size, ore content, planetary conditions like geothermal, rich, etc.. I would want to be able to include If-Then-Else statements, check if a technology is available... A planet governor aught to know to replace planet cannons with missile silos and later with planetary particle guns. It aught to be able to check even things like the rate of resource accumulation in the galactic bank.

And despite micromanaging everything myself, I still hit that metal depletion wall at a certain point. Having intelligent governors could indeed help, if we could program them as I outlined. I dare say even that such an intelligent governor system might make AIs a heck of a lot tougher, without having to cheat.

youre edit idear would make the governors even worse then they are now. most players wouldnt use thouse governors then.

Sorry Crys, but I have absolutely no idea why you would think that and I absolutely disagree. Having more intelligent governors could not possibly harm the game or make using governors 'less' useful or attractive.

Azalrion

  • Moderator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Karma: +147/-1
  • Memory Murderer
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2012, 01:06:14 PM »
It does not seem to me like you read my post above the one you quoted. It does not make sense at all to me, nor is it in the slightest bit similar to what has happened on earth in reality, for resource refinement to suddenly go from 100% to 20% in a single instant. And it certainly is an economic problem. I think the change I suggested is VASTLY preferable over the existing system.

It doesnt go from 100% directly to 20%, read the thread about metal production in the GA: Help & Support sub forums.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 01:08:59 PM by Azalrion »
GA - Mod Team
GA Forums

crys

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2012, 01:09:15 PM »
with edit idear i ment the part Malebogia stated in his/her edit, about traits triggering the governors to build more planetary weapons or bunkers.
i think thouse would be used only from the AI, because im happy to play without thouse buildings=)
maybe i would like them against human players idk

Panpiper

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: +12/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2012, 01:26:29 PM »
It doesnt go from 100% directly to 20%, read the thread about metal production in the GA: Help & Support sub forums.

Well, whether it changes over instantly or goes through a process is almost immaterial to my primary beef. I can be playing the game, enjoying myself nicely with a healthy ratio of resource production and then in a virtual flash that can happen so suddenly I don't even notice till it's done, I have no metal at all. However that formula is constructed, it needs work.

Azalrion

  • Moderator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Karma: +147/-1
  • Memory Murderer
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2012, 01:30:17 PM »
Well, whether it changes over instantly or goes through a process is almost immaterial to my primary beef. I can be playing the game, enjoying myself nicely with a healthy ratio of resource production and then in a virtual flash that can happen so suddenly I don't even notice till it's done, I have no metal at all. However that formula is constructed, it needs work.

Well that's different from your previous statement to be frank. The formula doesn't need work, you're just arguing for unlimited resources working at the same rate through the entire game instead of a form of semi realism and the wish to keep up constructions on planets supplied from local resources instead of having to create import capability to fuel construction, not having to consider orbital ore farming or aggressive expansion to take planets with high levels of ore remaining.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 01:33:00 PM by Azalrion »
GA - Mod Team
GA Forums

seronis

  • Distracted
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +25/-0
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile Link
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2012, 01:52:37 PM »
Just FYI scripted governors like mine or Jyins are able to access every bit of game state that exists as long as time is spent writing the code to do it. They can make as complex of decisions as a player could. Azalrion pointed out to me this week that I had been misunderstanding the ore extraction rate so I am gonna be rewriting my governors again to make them a little smarter. While I am at it I might try to incorporate some of those governor mandates ideas. I havent done much work with the gui yet so I gotta see how hard it is to set up an in-game options page to adjust the mandates but if you have any suggestions feel free to post them in my thread. ( LINK )

Also to help with your metal problem, once ore is gone from a planet you need a ratio of about 10-12 mines, 2 electronics facts and 1 advp factory in order to have a healthy production ratio without depleting yourself of all your metals.
Any code/mods I post on this site should be considered Public Domain. Borrow it, steal it, shred it into little pieces to your hearts content. I dont require credit but I appreciate bug fixes and suggestions.

Panpiper

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: +12/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2012, 01:57:40 PM »
...you're just arguing for unlimited resources working at the same rate through the entire game...

Did anybody actually read my original post? I am most emphatically NOT arguing for unlimited resources working at the same rate. I am asking for a very gradual and steady change, not something that happens so suddenly I can't respond without opening each individual of my 200 planets, and reconfiguring every last one of them. And even then, it is often too late, as the change is so sudden and drastic I go from surplus to no metal before I even notice it shrinking.

Azalrion

  • Moderator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Karma: +147/-1
  • Memory Murderer
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2012, 02:05:54 PM »
Did anybody actually read my original post? I am most emphatically NOT arguing for unlimited resources working at the same rate. I am asking for a very gradual and steady change, not something that happens so suddenly I can't respond without opening each individual of my 200 planets, and reconfiguring every last one of them. And even then, it is often too late, as the change is so sudden and drastic I go from surplus to no metal before I even notice it shrinking.

That's what my response was though, saying that the change is gradual. For example the modifier at 50% ore remaining is 0.6, yet at 70% its 0.76. Over 20% reduction of ore you only see a reduction of 16% efficiency. That's why with your response to my post I thought you were arguing for something else.

Early to Mid game that is a very very gradual process, what the real issue is the exponential nature of technology increase which will ramp up metal production so much ore can be used up in seconds. With default settings that should take well over an hour of game time at 1x speed to reach that point.

So the issue isn't not with reading your post, which I did before responding, but not considering the ways in which technology ramps up production in an exponential way and how quickly at high tech levels ore is consumed because of this nature making the change seem instance if you don't spend time micromanaging your planet while watching the production rates and ore levels.
GA - Mod Team
GA Forums

Panpiper

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: +12/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2012, 02:26:27 PM »
Well, as an easy way to fix the problem, perhaps have a technology that unlocks around tech 12 (which is usually before I hit that singularity) called 'Deep Core Drilling'. It is a super high tech device made 100% with advanced parts (so if you've screwed up and already effectively had all your metal converted to advanced parts, you can still build the things). It produces just as much metal as a regular metal mine would except that it is utterly oblivious to the remaining ore on the surface of the planet. It is getting it's ore from the planet's core.

Make it expensive if you want. Make it slightly less effective perhaps (though I would not) than regular metal mines even, but give us something we can use proactively to get ourselves ready, short of tearing down virtually every facility on every one of hundreds of worlds and rebuilding from scratch.

Azalrion

  • Moderator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Karma: +147/-1
  • Memory Murderer
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #36 on: July 16, 2012, 02:34:13 PM »
Well, as an easy way to fix the problem, perhaps have a technology that unlocks around tech 12 (which is usually before I hit that singularity) called 'Deep Core Drilling'. It is a super high tech device made 100% with advanced parts (so if you've screwed up and already effectively had all your metal converted to advanced parts, you can still build the things). It produces just as much metal as a regular metal mine would except that it is utterly oblivious to the remaining ore on the surface of the planet. It is getting it's ore from the planet's core.

Make it expensive if you want. Make it slightly less effective perhaps (though I would not) than regular metal mines even, but give us something we can use proactively to get ourselves ready, short of tearing down virtually every facility on every one of hundreds of worlds and rebuilding from scratch.

The problem with that is that it is effectively unlimited resources at 100% efficiency which means that there is no need to consider the need for orbital mining or expansion / retasking planets which have not used all their ore up for metal production.

As I said earlier there are ways around running out of metal on a planet, you just can't consider them as isolated units but as part of empire production as a whole, consider a fair few wars on our planet its been about expansion to hold resources because you've mined all your local ones. We want to keep that need for territorial disputes in SR. What you may to discuss in the research thread though is whether exponential increase should be kept or if we should change to a flat rate so that this does not happen so quickly at high tech levels.
GA - Mod Team
GA Forums

Malebogia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #37 on: July 16, 2012, 02:59:15 PM »
with edit idear i ment the part Malebogia stated in his/her edit, about traits triggering the governors to build more planetary weapons or bunkers.
i think thouse would be used only from the AI, because im happy to play without thouse buildings=)
maybe i would like them against human players idk

Doh. You don't have to take traits you don't like you know? Who says every trait has to be an improvement, i didn't even state wether they would cost or give points. Obviously taking such a trait would not exactly be beneficial, its about adding flavour to the game.

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2012, 05:41:29 PM »
Lore based answer:

Each star port you build gives you half as much 'galactic import' available to import docks as it gives the planet general trade capacity.  Building a star point assumes you are also building the civilian transport vessels that do all the transportation so it would be unreasonable to have the import docks on random stations and space craft to have no limts to their overall trade capacity.


Technical answer:

If there was no limit on your total galactic import rate it would make planets nearly obsolete after early game. Its a balancing and design decision. Also import points are not lost when scuttling.

Why cant you build a star point for a station or a ship?I think what your talking about is balance which I agree it needs balance. My solution is to make import and export docks much more expensive,much larger size ,and crew dependent. It makes No sense I can spam export docks everywhere but not import. Planets are already obsolete mid game anyway.Only used for research pretty much.Import and export docks should be a rather large operation for a ship or station.Maybe should be a minimum size they can be used on as well.If I build a dock on a station then the same rules apply for a trade port on the planet(civilian ships being built,ect).

seronis

  • Distracted
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +25/-0
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile Link
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #39 on: July 16, 2012, 06:14:33 PM »
The reason its unbalanced is because of the population requirements. I think if we could decide what scale of a subsystem would need to be dedicated to 'civilian population' to be the equivalent of one planetary city it would help. Add food storage to ships after that (and probably farming) and the rest would be able to be figured out.
Any code/mods I post on this site should be considered Public Domain. Borrow it, steal it, shred it into little pieces to your hearts content. I dont require credit but I appreciate bug fixes and suggestions.

crys

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2012, 06:23:27 PM »
hey if we add some enhanced matter generator, which can produce metal we could play nearly without planets.
uh why not some ship research then? =)

think its going to far - its more importand to enhance/fix old things then to make so much new

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2012, 07:01:47 PM »
Food storage would be cool but the more things the computer has to keep track of the worse performance will be.Also ships will be more complicated to design.

I just dislike the way import works.Plus I dont know where my points go.It just doesnt make sense to me to have a limit on import and not export.It just needs some balancing.This is also where freighters could really shine.Carrying freight to and from station hubs around asteroids.Even from ships and back to planets.Docks should be a supplement to freighters in space. I think what needs to happen is storage needs to be drastically increased maybe 3-5x.We need a station hull that is for freight as well.Freighter hulls and station freighter hulls need to be cheap and easy to build.I mean they are basically empty shells after all.Maybe we up the space for cargo on both hulls for lots of storage.I think part of the trick for freighters is for them to be more efficient then they are now.My ships go from planet to planet only trading a fraction they can carry it seems.When they deliver a load they need a way to unload it all reliably.Next we need a building on planets(shipping center) which only deals with freight. The building would have a massive amount of storage for metal and ore(storage could be explained as empty underground mines).It would act as an extension of the galactic bank.It will have an export rate so it cannot dump all at once into the planets cargo.Either have it export directly to the bank or to unused trade port points.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 07:04:52 PM by MindsEye »

seronis

  • Distracted
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +25/-0
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile Link
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2012, 07:52:05 PM »
Think of it this way, the galactic bank is effectively the entire fleet of civilian traders, freighters, and military supply craft that visit the space ports. At any given time the sum total of your galactic bank should be somewhat evenly distributed across your empire, and not necessarily be available to any single "space port" at a time (whether that is a planetary or ship based port).

The total number of slots on planets in a star system places a hard limit on the total amount of space traffic that should be in a single system at a time. You cant build more than this amount of space ports after all. Since ships are not limited in scale letting them have unrestricted port capacity breaks any sense of balance in moving goods around your empire. It would let m/e/a produced 1000au away be instantly used somewhere else without having to wait for a real transport ship to move it there.
Any code/mods I post on this site should be considered Public Domain. Borrow it, steal it, shred it into little pieces to your hearts content. I dont require credit but I appreciate bug fixes and suggestions.

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2012, 08:33:55 PM »
Yes but what your saying would apply to both import and export in space would it not?Right now you can do that with miners in different systems with no planets.They can mine asteroids from anywhere at an incredible rate directly into the bank.

My balancing suggestion would nerf space docks to where its not an issue.They would still be useful but there would also be a need for freighters.You could still solely rely on pure docks at the cost of most of your ship space(cost and space simulating the necessary infrastructure needed to operate the dock).So trade from ships and stations would be limited.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 08:38:46 PM by MindsEye »

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2012, 09:49:31 PM »
The way I see it the player should be rewarded for effort and setting up an intricate economic empire. Remote building station hubs for miners to dump resources in and freighters to haul it to planets. Geting the ratios right. This should result in more profit then putting everything on bone ship then spam till your happy. Altho the alternative is still there if you dont wanna bother.

Azalrion

  • Moderator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Karma: +147/-1
  • Memory Murderer
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #45 on: July 17, 2012, 01:55:28 AM »
Why cant you build a star point for a station or a ship?I think what your talking about is balance which I agree it needs balance. My solution is to make import and export docks much more expensive,much larger size ,and crew dependent. It makes No sense I can spam export docks everywhere but not import. Planets are already obsolete mid game anyway.Only used for research pretty much.Import and export docks should be a rather large operation for a ship or station.Maybe should be a minimum size they can be used on as well.If I build a dock on a station then the same rules apply for a trade port on the planet(civilian ships being built,ect).

That's not enough balance. See the thing you are missing here is that planet slots are a limiter, they can only achieve a certain import rate (note import only, i'll discuss why in a second) and so that sets the overall cap for the economy. Now we are only worried about import rate because no matter how fast you can export, export does not allow you ship building capability, import on planets dedicated as ship factories is what limits the game. For this reason both BMS and ourselves have decided unlimited export via ship systems is acceptable but unlimited import is not because it makes the economics of the game completely obsolete.

Now how to introduce a ship system that will not completely replace planets? It has to be tied to something that can be limited, this either needs to be based on some intangible effect of some random aspect of your empire or we decided to base it upon planets and more specifically the mainstay of the economy the space port. The lore reason I gave for this on the dev forums (as we tend to do for realism sakes) was that a spaceport can only land and maintain so many trader vessels, most of these are dedicated to the overall economy but some have no trade runs, now when you build an import station these traders with no jobs now have the task of running too and from that import dock wherever it may be, and so those spare pilots are now no longer available to service any other import station so you can only build so many.

Now limiting by cost and crew requirements is no limitation because those things are effectively unlimited, its a self propagating system which will grow exponentially and have no limit apart from the one we don't control of your pc's memory amount.

The reason its unbalanced is because of the population requirements. I think if we could decide what scale of a subsystem would need to be dedicated to 'civilian population' to be the equivalent of one planetary city it would help. Add food storage to ships after that (and probably farming) and the rest would be able to be figured out.

Again refer to the above, that still has no limitations (unless I'm on the wrong track from this for which I apologise.)

Yes but what your saying would apply to both import and export in space would it not?Right now you can do that with miners in different systems with no planets.They can mine asteroids from anywhere at an incredible rate directly into the bank.

Not from our point of view, in our point of view export docks use the local craft of the vessel to dump it at the local branch Space Vendor's R Us which then holds it till the traders come around ready to move it to where it needs to go. Import is waiting for a specific vessel to go to the nearest resource location, get the resources which are specifically needed and offload them.

Quote
My balancing suggestion would nerf space docks to where its not an issue.They would still be useful but there would also be a need for freighters.You could still solely rely on pure docks at the cost of most of your ship space(cost and space simulating the necessary infrastructure needed to operate the dock).So trade from ships and stations would be limited.

No it really wouldn't because player built freighters are flawed, they cannot cross gravity wells. There is no way we can improve upon them without well... doing something I'm not keen on doing and not even sure if its possible as it might clash with the AI scripts for AI based empires.

Also automation orders on freighters, that's not a problem our end that's a problem with how you are setting them up if they only unload a certain amount.


To sum it all up docks are the main stay of the economy, we introduced import docks as a way of allowing players to build remote construction ships and stations and to supplement orbital economy since freighters are not cross system. Whether export docks should have the same kind of limitation as import docks is something we might look at, but as it stands this is the best balance method we have found out of two or three we have tried under previous releases.
GA - Mod Team
GA Forums

seronis

  • Distracted
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +25/-0
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile Link
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #46 on: July 17, 2012, 08:15:13 AM »
As most of the points seem to have been made I'll share one thing that is on my current 'TODO' list as i get time.

There is an unused "no_bank" tag that im sure you are aware of. Ever since i started using GA with its specialized hulls i've wanted to make a "no free bank" tag and enforce it with one new station hull and one new ship hull, both related to the bank. Both hulls when built would be instantly deleted the same way the ringworld hull deletes itself and these hulls would be unlocked at Economics 4 same as the import/export docks.

The purpose of the station hull would be to add stats to that particular star system to manage a local bank. Building a station builds storage capacity. The hull will look at the stations total cargo space and add that much cargo space to the local bank limits.

When building the special ship hull it would increase a given systems maximum trade per second that could occur within the system. The ship would examine 3 main factors to compute how much it increases the trade rate. It would look at its own cargo capacity. It would look at its acceleration value. And it would look at the average distance from star to planet.

It would be assumed that building a star port on a planet also builds enough mini transportation ships to handle 10-25% of a starports total trade capacity. Capital buildings and star ports would also add a small amount to the local bank. Galactic cap 5000 , planet cap 1000 , and space ports 500 to each resource type.

At Economics 6 another hull could be unlocked to manage raising the storage limits of the galactic bank. Any transportation capacity within a system that wasnt being used would automatically be used to move resources between the local and galactic bank as needed. The bank panel at the top of the screen would show the local bank when a star/system/planet was selected or the galactic bank at any other time.

Using these limits means that we dont need separate restrictions on import/export docks on a ship. A ship, just like a planet, will be limited to the Star Systems current trade rate. A ship not within the gravity well of a star would only have access to galactic bank resources and be limited to 10-25% of its trade capacity. A ships import/export docks WOULD NOT contribute to the transportation rates of a system it was in. It would just be limited to the systems infrastructure (and maybe still have access to 10% of its total rate from galactic bank resources).




Any code/mods I post on this site should be considered Public Domain. Borrow it, steal it, shred it into little pieces to your hearts content. I dont require credit but I appreciate bug fixes and suggestions.

Malebogia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #47 on: July 17, 2012, 04:26:55 PM »
That sounds very interesting.

Speaking of new hulls, im an avid sci-fi reader and there is a notion that comes up again and again.

The space borne farms.

Conceptually the idea is as simple as it is logical and brilliant. Farms in space have several advantages like 100% uptime of sun, no energy waste trying to get products away from a planets gravity well and atmosphere aswell as a 100% controlled enviroment of probably genetically engineered plants. Truly for an technologically advanced spacefaring species there is hardly a reason to use actual planets for farming(or even mining or fuel for that matter, aside from maybe for local production/consumption, especially if you have to first terraform a barren piece of rock). Once your at the point where you have your production in orbit, you really don't want to haul raw materials(especially basic stuff like iron or silizium) to that orbital production plants, where would be the point in that if you could just mine asteroids for a fraction of the cost?

I think late game the economic side should move away from the planets since it just makes no sense to built spaceships and stations bigger than planets with the resources you mine from said planets. Personally i would feel good with something like this:


Early game: Planets are everything, ore and available planet slots limit your expansion.

Middle game: Production and economic side move to space, planets are for population(personally i think population should affect import and export rates, think independend traders and such that smuggle and/or supply your populations needs, if those trade shuttles are manned you need a lot of population for that alone) and probably mostly strip mined by now. Primary ore resource and limitation at this point are asteroids and planets unsuited for live by means of orbital mining(preferably via weak mining hull station).

Late game: Who needs planets or population? Everything is run from space by advanced AIs and stuff anyway. Ore comes from huge(vulnurable) hulls, that can compress the H3 found in stars through controlled fusion(like the one happening in stars) into any element higher in the period table(the create ore from H3). Obviously stars age as you mine them and go nova once you deplete them of their ligther elements.

Very late End of game: Matter generators are no longer in huge immobile hulls but simply part of even small spaceships, H3 is no longer needed as a source for fusion since your race possesses means to directly convert energy to matter now. To recap, this is very very late techlevel wise(30+?) and at this point we probably have scale 10k ships flying around that obliterate planets as soon as they enter systems ... with their point defenses. Not that there are any more planets around, or stars for that matter... at this point the offensive techs should probably start to rapidly outpace the defense based techs to bring the game to an end.


No idea how ringworlds fit into this, they are a bit of a sidestep and mostly a means to use the entire energy emitted by a solar systems primary sun. By the point you have zero point and matter generators you don't really have a use for ringworlds, realistically speaking i mean. I mean most of the space a ringworlds encloses is just empty space, 99.8% of the mass of a solar system is in our sun anyway, and most of the rest is in jupiter. Just to put mining on planets into perspective.

P.S.: Is it possible to have asteroids respawn? Or maybe not depsawn in the first place, and instead regenerate ore at some rate? Just to simulate the massive amount of asteroids that should be present in a solar system. Not that farfetched that the combined mass of them can dwarf the mass of even a bigger planet easily.

Also anyone liking the idea of a nomad species completely living in space? I seem to remember a theme like that from a couple sci fi settings ... Probably would require an entirely new tech and fitting modules, maybe only accessible via a special trait that at the same time makes planets useless to you ... hmm i might look into that one myself.

crys

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #48 on: July 17, 2012, 04:53:52 PM »
about asteroids, maybe it should be considered to increase there ore alot. to explain why - all the heavyer accessable elements on our planet earth, are from impact events.
most of the heavyer elements of our planet went into the planets core when it was still molten. i think most planets were molten at some stage and collected all their metals in there cores.
if the ore mining inclueds mining the planets core, then please ignore this =)


bit offtopic but malebogia spoke about sizes
hmm
you mentioned the size of ships/stations, in relation to planets.

im not sure, we should be so certain about the things we see in this game.

the suns look relativly small in this game, but the equatorial radius of the sun is 109 times bigger then the one of the earth. so suns look very small here, but are much larger - it might be the same with ships and planets.
idk if our sun is big or small in relation to other suns.

so maybe ship size is more for comparison between ships, not planets, asteroids, moons or suns =)

it would be difficult to play with proper sized ships, they would be so small, or the ships in this game are much larger then i thought.

Malebogia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #49 on: July 18, 2012, 10:59:43 AM »
about asteroids, maybe it should be considered to increase there ore alot. to explain why - all the heavyer accessable elements on our planet earth, are from impact events.
most of the heavyer elements of our planet went into the planets core when it was still molten. i think most planets were molten at some stage and collected all their metals in there cores.
if the ore mining inclueds mining the planets core, then please ignore this =)


bit offtopic but malebogia spoke about sizes
hmm
you mentioned the size of ships/stations, in relation to planets.

im not sure, we should be so certain about the things we see in this game.

the suns look relativly small in this game, but the equatorial radius of the sun is 109 times bigger then the one of the earth. so suns look very small here, but are much larger - it might be the same with ships and planets.
idk if our sun is big or small in relation to other suns.

so maybe ship size is more for comparison between ships, not planets, asteroids, moons or suns =)

it would be difficult to play with proper sized ships, they would be so small, or the ships in this game are much larger then i thought.

Hmm true, but then again, look at the production or storage of a planet slot compared to a scale 1 module of similar kind on a ship. The visual size might not be perfectly in scale with planets(and your right in terms of size for our sun, its a rather small star btw), but those things are still freaking huge. Even with deep core extraction you can't just magic in matter. If you suck enough liquid metals out of our planets core the crust would shrivel up which probably would not be deemed 'good going' for people living on said crust.

... so how about a deep core mining building that does that? Can be built once a planets ore reaches zero, extracts at full mine capacity or even above but instead damages a planets HP. If you forget to destroy it ... well you wanted more asteroids didn't you :P.

seronis

  • Distracted
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +25/-0
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile Link
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #50 on: July 18, 2012, 12:28:18 PM »
... well you wanted more asteroids didn't you :P.
THIS automatically wins my approval. I love consequences =-)
Any code/mods I post on this site should be considered Public Domain. Borrow it, steal it, shred it into little pieces to your hearts content. I dont require credit but I appreciate bug fixes and suggestions.

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #51 on: July 24, 2012, 10:44:19 AM »
I am thinking planet ore could be drastically increased. Ore runs out to fast imo. Then you rely heavily upon asteroids and mining ships. I think an increase by a factor of 2 is needed badly. Maybe even an increase by 5-10 would be nice.

crys

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2012, 10:55:06 AM »
i think there is enough ore on planets, its not like you dont get anymore metal when the ore runs out.
if the planets have more ore, there is little reason to use ore on non production planets, and asteroids.

ok i agree for planets with low ore, like below 100m

i would suggest to increase the ore on asteroids alot - when you start mining them you propably get millions of metal/sec then thouse asteroids go away very quickly.

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2012, 01:31:26 PM »
Thats my problem tho. Once you get miners with export docks planets become nearly useless. Mining ship production snowballs very easily to whatever you want. Meanwhile its easy to mine out planets and phase them out completely. While I disagree with hard limits to import and export they are in need of heavy balancing. Maybe even restrict them to planets and stations only.

MindsEye

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2012, 01:34:59 PM »
Maybe introduce a system to ships similarity to the ramscoop only for collecting ore or metal. Like recycling space debris from destroyed ships.(sorry for double pozt on my phone).

Panpiper

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: +12/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2012, 01:52:23 PM »
i would suggest to increase the ore on asteroids alot - when you start mining them you propably get millions of metal/sec then thouse asteroids go away very quickly.

That certainly would make a lot of sense. If we absolutely have to keep the utter nonsense of the way whole planets can for all intents 'suddenly' run out of ore (I know, that's not technically what happens, but that IS the way it seems given the way tech increases mining speed so much that the decrease in mine output is 'rapidly' hastened), then when we finally shift our whole bleeding economy to asteroids, it would be nice to know we won't have to do that yet again.

Another thing to consider would be if we are going to play a game in which there are at some point, 'no' resources to be had anywhere in the galaxy, I would think that there would be an awesome push for improved recycling technology that would result in 'zero' wastage. That's right, 100% materials recycling from scrapping old ships. Make it in the range of tech 15, which would fit in nicely with around the point where the game becomes unplayable.

(I actually stop developing my metallurgy technology at around tech 8-10, just to avoid having to deal with this insanity. That is not the way reality works and for a game to work this way does not in my opinion a good game make.)

Malebogia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2012, 02:20:27 PM »
I think making ships above a certain scale create "asteroids"(aka wreckage) would be nice too. I means thats a helluva lot of metal to just completely vaporize.

buttz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #57 on: July 30, 2012, 01:35:50 AM »
RE the metal -> electronics -> advanced parts problem, would it be possible to make E/AP manufacturing plants work like shipbuilding does?  Instead of converting metal all the time, they do "potential conversion" at the rate that they produce.  Metal is removed from the bank (to avoid confusion) but it isn't actually converted until there's demand for E/AP, at which point it's converted instantly, or if there's demand for metal and none for E/AP, it gets regurgitated as metal again.

This would probably require the creation of a fourth material type, "basic polymers" or something, so I don't know if it's feasible.

e: Or for a simpler hack, it seems to me that above a certain skill in metallurgy/shipbuilding, things like "electronics" and "raw metal" would stop being discrete concepts.  Imagine entire ships being stamped like integrated circuits, hull/life support/engines/guns all done in one go by one process.  So maybe at like metallurgy 15 or something, any resource could be used in place of any other resource for shipbuilding because there isn't a difference between them anymore.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 01:53:08 AM by buttz »

SpeedyGonzales

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Economic Discussion
« Reply #58 on: September 05, 2013, 11:56:44 AM »
I have one idea. Planet has X amount of ore. Player build mining facilities. Mines extract Y amount of ore, but colonists discover more ore deposits (+Z to planetary ore, can be increased by some technologies and increasing population). IMPORTANT: colonists can discover unlimited amount of ore. If Y(mined ore)>Z(discovered ore), then amount of planetary ore X start to decrease. If player extract all ore (X=0), then ore extraction will be decreased to Z. But player can return former quantity of planetary ore, if he disable some mining facilities (Z>Y). This system will alow player change his planetary resources policy without any consequences.