| 1 |
[quote]I don't like this plan very much, but i don't hate it as much as i would expect.
|
1 |
[quote]I don't like this plan very much, but i don't hate it as much as i would expect.
|
| 2 |
* Identically looking things are going to have different properties: a 800m factory is going to look exactly the same as the 200m factory
|
2 |
* Identically looking things are going to have different properties: a 800m factory is going to look exactly the same as the 200m factory
|
| 3 |
* These things will behave differently: full factory will leave a wreckage, while a discount factory will leave a partial wreckage (at least that one is going to have a reclaim healthbar)
|
3 |
* These things will behave differently: full factory will leave a wreckage, while a discount factory will leave a partial wreckage (at least that one is going to have a reclaim healthbar)
|
| 4 |
* The 200m factory is going to have full health of a 800m factory, which will make it repair four times faster/cheaper.
|
4 |
* The 200m factory is going to have full health of a 800m factory, which will make it repair four times faster/cheaper.
|
| 5 |
* The 200m factory is going to have the full health of a factory, as opposed to a Caretaker. This method of boosting production is going to be much less raidable.
|
5 |
* The 200m factory is going to have the full health of a factory, as opposed to a Caretaker. This method of boosting production is going to be much less raidable.
|
| 6 |
* Plopping a 800m factory, then building two 200m copies, then reclaiming the original for 400m will double your buildpower for no net metal cost.
|
6 |
* Plopping a 800m factory, then building two 200m copies, then reclaiming the original for 400m will double your buildpower for no net metal cost.
|
| 7 |
Adding some kind of an indicator that a factory is a discount will address the cluster of the first three "looks identical" issues, i guess.[/quote]I agree.
|
7 |
Adding some kind of an indicator that a factory is a discount will address the cluster of the first three "looks identical" issues, i guess.[/quote]I agree.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
[quote]I'll note, regarding your motivation, that even with this change new players making multiple factories is still a mistake because they typically vastly overbuild production capacity relative to their incomes. The fact that their overproduction takes the shape of factories rather than caretakers (as it "should") is almost incidental.
|
9 |
[quote]I'll note, regarding your motivation, that even with this change new players making multiple factories is still a mistake because they typically vastly overbuild production capacity relative to their incomes. The fact that their overproduction takes the shape of factories rather than caretakers (as it "should") is almost incidental.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
New players don't understand caretakers so they make multiple factories. New players ALSO don't understand the economy so they make multiple factories.[/quote]I disagree. I see new players notice that they could be producing more units and decide to increase their production capacity. The big mistake that they make is spending 620 more metal than they need to by making a factory. The cases where they overbuild BP are not even that bad as excessing BP is usually fine.
|
11 |
New players don't understand caretakers so they make multiple factories. New players ALSO don't understand the economy so they make multiple factories.[/quote]I disagree. I see new players notice that they could be producing more units and decide to increase their production capacity. The big mistake that they make is spending 620 more metal than they need to by making a factory. The cases where they overbuild BP are not even that bad as excessing BP is usually fine.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
[quote]I'll also note that while I like this system, and it makes sense given the goals we're trying to realize, it's lacking "justification".
|
13 |
[quote]I'll also note that while I like this system, and it makes sense given the goals we're trying to realize, it's lacking "justification".
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
The player can quickly learn that additional factories are cheaper than first factories, and that they're cheaper when they're closer to the existing factories. But then they might ask "Okay, but why?" The best answer we could provide is "... because it makes for better gameplay."
|
15 |
The player can quickly learn that additional factories are cheaper than first factories, and that they're cheaper when they're closer to the existing factories. But then they might ask "Okay, but why?" The best answer we could provide is "... because it makes for better gameplay."
|
| 16 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 17 |
Whereas the Master/Slave factory concept (which I don't particularly like) provides some kind of justification for the difference. Rather than factories mysteriously being cheaper when they're close to each other, instead there's expensive factories and cheap factories, but you have to have an expensive factory before you can make the cheaper factories, and the cheaper factories have to be close to the expensive factories. This makes a certain amount of sense. Players can easily reason about it.[/quote]I agree.
|
17 |
Whereas the Master/Slave factory concept (which I don't particularly like) provides some kind of justification for the difference. Rather than factories mysteriously being cheaper when they're close to each other, instead there's expensive factories and cheap factories, but you have to have an expensive factory before you can make the cheaper factories, and the cheaper factories have to be close to the expensive factories. This makes a certain amount of sense. Players can easily reason about it.[/quote]I agree.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
[quote]I like the simplicity of the proximity discount system, but I feel like it needs something more than tooltips to make it not just discoverable but also understandable.
|
19 |
[quote]I like the simplicity of the proximity discount system, but I feel like it needs something more than tooltips to make it not just discoverable but also understandable.
|
| 20 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 21 |
Perhaps when placing the nanoframe, if an allied identical factory already exists, not only do you get the tooltip displaying the discount, but the name of the building changes as well. "Master/Slave" probably isn't appropriate, since after being built the factory is no longer dependent on the previous factory. Maybe the second and subsequent factories could be labeled "Duplicate"? Or "Auxilliary"? Or "Supplemental"? Or "Remote"?[/quote]I disagree. The distance discount exists in part to make the discount discoverable. There is a very tight feedback loop between moving your mouse around, noticing a line change length, and noticing a big number go up and down. You haven't said how you are teaching your auxiliary factory. Changing a name in a tooltip is fairly invisible. I think you need to put a lot more work in to make this good.
|
21 |
Perhaps when placing the nanoframe, if an allied identical factory already exists, not only do you get the tooltip displaying the discount, but the name of the building changes as well. "Master/Slave" probably isn't appropriate, since after being built the factory is no longer dependent on the previous factory. Maybe the second and subsequent factories could be labeled "Duplicate"? Or "Auxilliary"? Or "Supplemental"? Or "Remote"?[/quote]I disagree. The distance discount exists in part to make the discount discoverable. There is a very tight feedback loop between moving your mouse around, noticing a line change length, and noticing a big number go up and down. You haven't said how you are teaching your auxiliary factory. Changing a name in a tooltip is fairly invisible. I think you need to put a lot more work in to make this good.
|
| 22 |
\n
|
22 |
\n
|
| 23 |
[quote]Similarly, you'll always want to build a second factory for 200m ASAP as cheap insurance against losing your factory, since rebuilding your only factory from nothing costs 800m vs. rebuilding either one of your two factories costs only 200m.[/quote]I agree.
|
23 |
[quote]Similarly, you'll always want to build a second factory for 200m ASAP as cheap insurance against losing your factory, since rebuilding your only factory from nothing costs 800m vs. rebuilding either one of your two factories costs only 200m.[/quote]I agree.
|
| 24 |
\n
|
24 |
\n
|
| 25 |
[quote]My suggestion is this: the metal spent on unlocking tech (600m) or on building in a new location (up to 400m) is lost as soon as it's spent. So a completed factory, no matter how much was spent on it, is only worth 200m (the value of its buildpower) for things like reclaim and repair and so forth. That addresses concerns like "The 200m factory is going to have full health of a 800m factory, which will make it repair four times faster/cheaper" and "Plopping a 800m factory, then building two 200m copies, then reclaiming the original for 400m will double your buildpower for no net metal cost".[/quote]Essentially constructors spend 600 metal on the nanoframe researching the ability to build the factory, then build the factory. This adds a global tech system as I don't see it working with proximity. Also, metal spent in parallel on two factory nanoframes should go to a shared research progress pool. This is relatively simple to do (it is like the prebuild cost on terraform) but takes some work to display. A healthbars that says "researching" feels inadequate.
|
25 |
[quote]My suggestion is this: the metal spent on unlocking tech (600m) or on building in a new location (up to 400m) is lost as soon as it's spent. So a completed factory, no matter how much was spent on it, is only worth 200m (the value of its buildpower) for things like reclaim and repair and so forth. That addresses concerns like "The 200m factory is going to have full health of a 800m factory, which will make it repair four times faster/cheaper" and "Plopping a 800m factory, then building two 200m copies, then reclaiming the original for 400m will double your buildpower for no net metal cost".[/quote]Essentially constructors spend 600 metal on the nanoframe researching the ability to build the factory, then build the factory. This adds a global tech system as I don't see it working with proximity. Also, metal spent in parallel on two factory nanoframes should go to a shared research progress pool. This is relatively simple to do (it is like the prebuild cost on terraform) but takes some work to display. A healthbars that says "researching" feels inadequate.
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
[quote]Another suggestion: as players on an allyteam plop their initial factories, go ahead and apply the discounts for duplication and proximity, and any amount discounted from the nominal 800m factory cost is refunded and split across the players in the allyteam. This way, if two players plop the same fac next to each other they haven't wasted a potential 600m. Which means players won't feel pressured to choose a fac they don't want to play just to not waste the potential to unlock new tech for the team.[/quote]I disagree. Players already waste their tech unlock by duplicating plops in teamgames and the situation seems fine as is. There is currently very little drama around factory choice. With your refund system I guarantee that people would plop duplicate factories just to get the metal to rush a Strider. In general people would always feel pressured to shift towards plopping a monoculture of factories just for the extra metal. Your system basically makes "what is powerful" equate to "what is boring to play". Diversity is interesting, which is why it is currently encouraged.
|
27 |
[quote]Another suggestion: as players on an allyteam plop their initial factories, go ahead and apply the discounts for duplication and proximity, and any amount discounted from the nominal 800m factory cost is refunded and split across the players in the allyteam. This way, if two players plop the same fac next to each other they haven't wasted a potential 600m. Which means players won't feel pressured to choose a fac they don't want to play just to not waste the potential to unlock new tech for the team.[/quote]I disagree. Players already waste their tech unlock by duplicating plops in teamgames and the situation seems fine as is. There is currently very little drama around factory choice. With your refund system I guarantee that people would plop duplicate factories just to get the metal to rush a Strider. In general people would always feel pressured to shift towards plopping a monoculture of factories just for the extra metal. Your system basically makes "what is powerful" equate to "what is boring to play". Diversity is interesting, which is why it is currently encouraged.
|
| 28 |
\n
|
28 |
\n
|
| 29 |
[quote]I personally don't think the potential benefits of any change along these lines are worth the additional arbitrary complication/inconsistency. (As a corollary making the game more arbitrarily complex is likely to make the game harder to learn, thereby losing any benefits to the new player experience this offers.) [/quote]I have concerns along these lines, but I also believe that in a properly executed design it is possible for an increase in complexity to better guide players towards understanding the system and using it correctly.
|
29 |
[quote]I personally don't think the potential benefits of any change along these lines are worth the additional arbitrary complication/inconsistency. (As a corollary making the game more arbitrarily complex is likely to make the game harder to learn, thereby losing any benefits to the new player experience this offers.) [/quote]I have concerns along these lines, but I also believe that in a properly executed design it is possible for an increase in complexity to better guide players towards understanding the system and using it correctly.
|
|
|
30 |
\n
|
|
|
31 |
@SmokeDragon new thread.
|
I miss building multiple factories