Free Allegiance Forums

pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Aug 25 2009, 09:06 AM) Miners will bring in less moneyEconomies will be much slower:Miners will take twice as much time on mining money of rock (1 he3/sec)Miners need to offload two times to get the same money in like beforeLoosing a miner will be more fatal than before

IMO it's a bad idea...

QFT

In addition - slower econ = longer lasting games as you're doubling the time it will take to get advanced tech. This is also a problem if you halve the capacity of the miner.

Longer lasting games = bad IMHO.

Giga Miner Capacity is an offset to their performance on small maps. Its "Fairly Useless" under most circumstances other than those that need it most.

Giga is not underpowered in any way. They do not need another boost.

I actually think it is a good idea. That's why I went for increasing the EXP prices in GoDII instead of lowering them in sup like DN. It makes the enh stage so much more important, because adv is really expensive. I still believe that change was a good decision. Sadly most people obviously disagree.

I agree with Grimm, although I think that Spunky#s idea is probably not the way to go about achieving it.

And expensive adv tech does not mean longer games if enh tech is capable of beating other enh tech like Adv tech is now.

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Aug 25 2009, 03:05 PM) I agree with Grimm, although I think that Spunky#s idea is probably not the way to go about achieving it.

And expensive adv tech does not mean longer games if enh tech is capable of beating other enh tech like Adv tech is now.

Thats a fair point - although current tactics for many PU games involve keeping your econ alive until Adv. Tech is up, and only then attempting to finish the game.

If Adv. tech takes substantial time and or money, maybe people will buy bombers and bomb earlier to keep enemy busy etc.

Perhaps we could perk things that could end the game earlier (I don't know, make Bombers hulls a bit stronger so people can bomb to win versus enh tech? or Make lt. Stealth bomber/Figbee/htt?) so people can try a variety of tactics to end the games.

Could be interesting. Would need a bit of a step change in commander's tactics to get to the game end as early/earlier though.

Back to topic. this is about giga miner peak, not about costs of each tech tree...

pkk,

pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Aug 25 2009, 03:06 AM)

• Miners will bring in less money
  ....
• Miners need to offload two times to get the same money in like before

That won't happen - why do you think so? We are still talking the same amount of He3 and same total value for each rock or miner load.
I don't recall if miner capacity was based on value or He3 amount, but it doesn't matter since it can be adjusted either way

QUOTE [*]Economies will be much slower:

• Miners will take twice as much time on mining money of rock (1 he3/sec)
• Loosing a miner will be more fatal than before[/quote]
  These are pointing to the same issue and that's the main problem I think, thank you.
  
  But it can be resolved simply by doubling the mining speed. Now is that a global constant or a code change? I think it's the latter... if it's a code change it makes testing more difficult.
  
  Double mining speed, double the amount of He3 on each rock and half He3 value should not change anything about the economy/gameplay - just make miner capacities relevant without resorting to Scarce or Scarce+.

Spunkmeyer wrote:QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Aug 25 2009, 11:45 PM) just make miner capacities relevant without resorting to Scarce or Scarce+.

I guess the question is then - why even have different resource settings?

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Aug 25 2009, 10:47 PM) I guess the question is then - why even have different resource settings?

Well, different number of tech rocks for one, and different number of He3 still affects gameplay, because you can mine a sector with four miners at once vs two miners - or to put it another way, you can mine two sectors at a time with four miners vs one. That changes how you approach econ and sector occupation.

But "Normal" has always been broken, as it (mostly) invalidates all miner capacity perks. Giga is hurt most, but everybody except IC suffers to a degree. Many games already begin lopsided enough because of random tech rock spawning, and the default resource setting borks it even more.

Given that, I would always prefer to play on Scarce+ (except when I was commanding IC ) but I'm sure to this day very few people understand that the default resource setting will ALWAYS slow down the econ of the faction with the larger miner capacity, and the bigger the discrepancy, bigger the shaft.

Of course, another way out... you can remove all miner capacity perks, replace them with yield.. that'd be the simplest way out but it'd alter the balance a bit. My solution would be transparent (again if I'm not missing anything) if the He3 mining speed issue can be resolved.

Spunkmeyer wrote:QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Aug 26 2009, 01:45 PM) Double mining speed, double the amount of He3 on each rock and half He3 value

TurkeyXIII wrote:QUOTE (TurkeyXIII @ Aug 25 2009, 01:33 PM) Just as easy to half miner capacities across the board. Same result

Another relevant link: He3 rock capacities and miners

It's true that normal settings invalidate most miner capacity differences. The issue is that the factions are currently fairly balanced, and to validate those differences would upset this balance. I'd like to see this change made anyway and for things to be rebalanced, even if it means more work for the CC team
If game length is an issue, mining speed can be tweaked globally.