 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Brad's Starbase Thread...
|
 |
|
 |
 |
#25
by Citizen waright - 4/18/2003 3:44:47 PM
Why not just allow 1 starbase per sector per race, code the world generator to not allow more than 1 special per sector, code the diplomatic screen not to allow you to trade for a starbase in a sector that you already have one. PROBLEM FIXED!
| |
|
I think a simple limit to the number of starbases each player owns in a sector would be sufficient. i.e. one maybe two starbases per player in a sector.
      
| |
|
|
|
#28
by Citizen Pyrkaige - 4/18/2003 4:28:50 PM
"You could have a civilization limit on starbases based on population or economics or technology."
This sounds like the best idea of those mentioned here so far. The amount of starbases allowed overall should be tied to variables that take time and effort to increase: population would work well. One simple way would be to limit the amount of starbases allowed to the population only on planets, encouraging players to keep their popluation happy and growing, as opposed to using the "shuffle the population to the transports" method. Having technologies (and events, trade goods, etc.) that increase these limits would also give a way for players to work on that from a different angle.
Some of the other ideas (charging after a certain number of starbases/modules, more expensive constructors for some modules, etc.) may be helpful, but as was mentioned the charges could put an onerous restriction on newer players who generally already have a hard time getting a handle on the economics side of the game. Putting in limits that would only be seen as players advanced further into the game would certainly be the best approach.
 
| |
|
I like the population idea. If you could place one SB for free in any given sector, but then had to have 10 billion, or maybe even 20 billion, pop *in* a sector for each additional SB that would do wonders for eliminating the spam while also keeping things mind numbingly simple.
    
| |
|
#30
by Citizen Jazzlvr - 4/18/2003 4:39:37 PM
I'm not sure the limitation of two resources per sector is needed, if the AI can be taught to covet those as much as we do. I've personaly never seen one of those yet, but I know it'd be the focal point of an eternal war if I found an AI sitting on one...
| |
|
|
|
#32
by Veteran thongor - 4/18/2003 4:52:20 PM
I think limiting the # of starbases is an unappealing solution. I'd rather devise an economic solution that allows a player to build excessive starbases IF he is willing to pay the price.
I would suggesting a sliding scale for starbases to make them affordable in the early game and less affordable later.
Why not have the first starbase in a sector cost 1 maintenance, the second base cost 2, the third one 3, etc?
By the time you get 5 or so bases in a sector, you are thinking long and hard about adding more.
I think that a maintenance cost on starbases PER CONSTRUCTOR might be more sensible (i.e big starbases have more maintenance), but there's really not a lot to build besides constructors in the late game.
| |
|
|
|
#34
by Citizen Horatio - 4/18/2003 4:58:34 PM
brad,
i REALLY like your "logistics" idea. treating starbases just like trade routes would be great. it would be a whole new strategic element.
cheers
h
| |
|
Brad,
Just thought I'd chime in and agree. This idea seems perfect.
 
| |
|
|
|
Humm... most of these options... well, suck. They just emphasis the 'Rich get richer, the poor get poorer' and cut down on the strategies that are workable/available. That takes away from fun.
I can see the logic of diminishing returns. Where the second type of a module (on a duplicate base) does not return a full 100% effect. As stated here:
(QUOTE ------------------------------------------)
#22 by Citizen agillious - 4/18/2003 3:19:52 PM
To this end, would it be difficult to impose a diminished return on certain modules (or starbases) that are duplicated in the sector? For example... the first waterpark module has an X bonus, the next waterpark module created in that system makes the total bonus X + (X/#) where # is the total number of modules in the system. Using this formula, the third module would make the sector bonus X+(X/2)+(X/3). Etc. Etc.
(END QUOTE ------------------------------------------)
However, I see that this would complicate Brad and his team's job. They'd have to recomputer the effectiveness of every module every turn. After all, if you lost a dupe (or it moved out of sector), there is now more for the remaining models to be able to do.
Perhaps this factor of reduced efficeny could be overcome with tech, so that in the beginning, you have 0 Efficency, so all dupes are WORTHLESS ( Value / 0 = Nothing ), but as you improve in Efficency, you can begin to utilize duplication. Efficency improves as we learn more, allowing us to overcome previous ineffiecency barriers with new techniques, understanding, practices, and technology.
It would be counter-logic that constructor costs should go up as you build more, Brad. In reality, the more you do something, the cheaper it is for you to make more of those. Your efficency and understanding of it improves. Costs of scale work for you, the more you have.
Adding a costs per starbase would change strategy choices. If each starbase costs X amount, players will simply choose to blackmail the AIs more to get funds to support their starbases. And the AI already has trouble with its economy, as well as starbase utilization. This will just make the AI dumber and easier pickings. Adding a cost per module on starbase will just further emphasis the 'attractiveness' to players to further blackmail the AI. I like the fact I don't need to blackmail them now. Should blackmailing the AI become a required part of playing this game?
The reason the end game is a constructor rush, is the fact that there is nothing else useful to build from every minor planet. Simply having some form of capitalization/make consumer goods option will result in players choosing something OTHER then build Constructors. Combine that with some form of simple, diminishing returns on combined assist starbases, and you de-emphasis the cheese tactic of 8 production maxed starbases to let you crank our dreadnaughts every turn.
Now, if we could just terraform all those gas giants and other things, people would focus in on that as a late game strategy as well. Allow constructors to TERRAFORM (move an unsettled planet up in PQ, limited by some form of terraforming tech level from base).
Also, late game has a serious problem with population wildly out of control. The current answer is to just space them (build a colony, throw in all the waste pop, disband or sell). Terraforming worlds would give new space for those people.
Additionaly, if you can build such huge honking things as terror stars and what not, why cannot we just build residential (and living/support) modules? This would allow you to effectively create a floating world, again giving the player something else to focuse in on, and a possible new strategy path. If Culture bombing is determined TOO EASY, then set a limit to what Cultural models one can have WITHOUT having resident modules on the base? Again, players will then have something other then maxing out their catapult.
Add in being able to generate revenue from your residents on the star base (tax the population), and now you have a feasible means of players offsetting the costs of SB maintence. Which would make starbase maintanence cost something which becomes acceptable.
Speaking of which... if you are determined to have them cost, I'd suggest that starbases have a low base cost. Such as the base cost to maintain a *CONSTRUCTOR*. I'd suggest somewhere between 1 to 3 for each. You could shape players to not put starbases out and away from their settled worlds by having your Logistics rating determine how far away you can have your starbases (and ships) be for x1 maintenence cost. Then, every ring of distance out from that, it goes up. Logistics 1 means 1 sector out for normal cost of maintence. 2 sectors out? x2 costs. 4 sectors out? x4 costs. As your Logistics goes up, you can be further away from your. Logistics 2 means you are at x1 costs for being 2 sectors away. At 4 sectors, it would costs x2, etc.
Note... doing any form of Logistics will emphasis the War path. And bring down the Cultural path. Because worlds are the focus of the Logistics calcs.
If you add Logistics, some people are going to point out that it costs more to have your ships running around the farside of your opponents empire, doing whatever, then it is to have them doing so in your home sectors. At which point, you can repeat Logistics with ships, using settled worlds AND starbases as their Logistics nodes. This would mean economics dictate that you try and build a Logistics placement friendly starbase near where you plan to wage extended war to keep from going bankrupt when you send in the ships.
I don't think anyone can make a good case to limiting the SIZE of a starbase. You just weld on your new section, after all, and fit what you want inside. Now, you CAN make a case that they have to be able to provide power and life support needs to all the modules, and for every X amount of modules, you have to build a 'SUPPORT' module which will supply the power and life support. This would be your best 'realistic' limitor on starbase size, but all the effect it will have is to SLOW DOWN starbase build up. But add this together with a diminishing return factor, and you will effectively slow down the uber population of starbases in a single sector.
Personally, I don't understand why you are focused on this. The AI is cheesing it's production and effects. Not often, from what I've seen, but it is doing it. Is it you don't want the game so that players are building uber bases on every empty square in a sector? What is the 'problem' you are trying to address? I'm curious, as I find GalCiv to be fun as it is, warts and all. So I am wondering what 'Fun Ruiner' that is trying to be corrected here.
  
| |
|
#38
by Citizen Baerd - 4/18/2003 5:42:51 PM
The logistics tech sounds like the best method to me and I like the idea of tying it into N.
I also like the advanced module idea requiring something other than standard constructors.
| |
|
#39
by Veteran Tytan - 4/18/2003 5:46:51 PM
My suggestion is to go with a two tiered concept, since advanced constructors are going to be added to the game.
Regular constructors will do the basic upgrades: 3 to 5 per category, researched by tech.
The bonuses for constructors could decrease on a logarithmic scale per starbase, so that the overall boost you get for extra starbases becomes less and less toward the overall sector boost.
Either that or have a per starbase maintenance for any additional starbase built. If you own the sector everything that goes into the first starbase is free, but maintenance gets added to every starbase that is built after that. This can be boosted by the level of actual population on a star system. So if you reach (x) population, you can support 2+ starbases without penalty. However if you have 0 population even the first starbase requires maintenance.
Advanced constructors will do the upper level boosts(I recommend all the culture palace upgrades be advanced constructors). There are no maintenance fees or population limits on advanced constructors.
But there will be two limits, however:
(1)Location from your nearest stars, meaning that advanced constructors will lose considerable power if they are too far away from their own empire and sphere of influence.
(2)Advanced constructors REQUIRE regular constructors be constructed First. Which means that the maintenance penalties of the regular constructors would apply(maintenance per starbase).
| |
|
#40
by Veteran Tytan - 4/18/2003 5:59:12 PM
Maintenance fees are accrued due to the organizing of the various resources in outlying stars. The first starbase would get its resources from the nearby stars, but the additional starbases would have to ship from other systems. The costs of paying the shippers, paying various local taxes, buying protection from pirates would force them to charge maintenance.
Advanced constructors are built for galactic corporations interested in building large scale operations that affect a larger region. They have a set up infrastructure to handle the maintenance and other costs, but only build on an existing infrastructure and do not desire to deal with building up an area from scratch.
Anyway that is the way I see it....
| |
|
|
|
#42
by Citizen Daetrinn - 4/18/2003 6:32:04 PM
First of all, here's a thread with several ideas i had explained in detail:  Link
I kind of like limiting the number of starbases, i think 1 free per sector + 1 per colonized planet in the sector would be interesting. Is it worth colonizing a class 12 planet so you can put another starbase in the sector? It also puts a premium on heavily populated sectors, which makes sense to me. Densly packed populations are usually capable of a much larger scale of production than more isolated communities.
One thing i worry about is the economics. I'm not an expert player, so in order to maintain a 30-40% spending rate, i need to keep taxes at about 60-70%, and build a _ton_ of starbases with trade enhancements along my trade routes. If this system was implemented, i would see a _huge_ decrease in income. This might be made up for if there was some kind of capitalization project in both the military and social projects category. If i could have my planets producing money instead of producing (now unneeded) constructors i wouldn't need so many starbases along traderoutes.
I think making the module production more tree-like (as described in the thread i linked to) would be good, although not as necessary if hard limits were put in place.
If you fix the "unlimited free production" as you say in point one of your second post, then putting hard limits on starbases wouldn't be as necessary, and would still allow for things liek multiple "trade" starbases along trade routes.
As cheesy as building seven or eight starbases all with the max +50% trade in a sector is, it's the procution and cultural bonuses that are the real game killers. Fix those two and everything else would probably be relatively okay.
I like the idea of Advanced Constructors. You mentioned them just as being needed to add higher level modules on, but if you havne't considered the idea already, i think they should also include multiple upgrades. Rather than 500 for one advanced upgrade like your example seemed to say, i would prefer 1000 for two upgrades, or 2000 for four. In the early game every constructor produced was in some way a fairly big achievement. It would be nice if that carried over into the endgame as well.
| |
|
I think logistics brings a totally new and very interesting concept to the game. If applied to all ships, it can be realized as attrition to ships that aren't in a sector with a home world (realized as either damage or money or both). Attrition would apply to both starbases and ships.
I think this would be very cool. There should also be an offset to this for the War Party (wouldn't want to totally kill the Dregnin AI). Combined with logrithmic diminishing returns (basically at some point adding new modules is only contributing .01% of their stated ability) based upon some factor (nearness to the closest planet?) to starbases.
This would nerf starbase bombing.. which is a good thing. And would add a new strategic element to the game.. which in my opinion is a great thing.
Oh and the advanced contructor idea is also great. IMHO, starbases should be a rare, but very powerful, item in the game. A fully upgraded starbase SHOULD instill fear in other civilizations. However, you shouldn't be able to have 90 of them.
| |
|
Limiting starbases based on economic and technological factors sounds like a fair way to bring some balance to the current starbase overload situation. As does a scaled maintenance fee based on how large the starbase becomes and what modules are installed.
An extra thought about limits: Perhaps a per sector limit that takes into account how many planets you control in a sector? If you have no planets or there are only enemy planets, you might have a limit of 1 starbase in that sector. For every planet you have in the sector, your limit might be increased by 1. Therefore, in rich sectors where you own many planets, you can build several starbases. This "makes sense" since you have the nearby resources to actually build multiple floating fortresses in sectors where you have one or more planets.
This also ties in to the "wasted resources" thread, where the only reason many people are building so many starbases is that constructors are 0 maintenance and they are trying to keep all their planets' production queues full all the time. If you come up with a simple and elegant solution to the wasted resources issue/thread (plenty have been provided), then the issue of unlimited starbase construction will help correct itself. From the content of this thread, it still seems the starbase problem will need some tweaking, but not quite as drastic as it might w/o solving the wasted resources issue.
Here's hoping for a simple elegant solution for starbase/constructor overload and the wasted resources issue. I'm really hoping for a wasted resources solution first -- it really *REALLY* bugs me that money just evaporates into nothingness when social and military queues are left empty.
As always, thanks for your proactive and positive support of GalCiv. Makes spending the hard-earned dinero to buy it worth every penny.
| |
|
I like the idea of using techs to limit the number of maintenance-free starbases or modules per sector, and every additional starbase or module above that tech limit costs more than the last, like a binary progression starting with 5 bc.
It'll fit into the whole idea of 'logistics', in that an Empire's logistical capacity begins to become taxed once the number of starbases/modules in a sector exceeds a technological ability level to keep track of it all.
The simpler way would be hard per-sector or per-empire limits (I like the latter least since it doesn't make a lot of sense... the legalistic reasoning for trade route restrictions is a bit of a stretch already).
Or more complexity can be added, some people seem to like making things more complex.
| |
|
I like the idea of a maximum number of starbases per sector, and a penalty on bonus production.
As far as solving the "culture bomb" cheese, the AI has to learn to recognize and deal with this threat a little better. The 3 starbase limit will help, but 3 Party Palaces in one sector is enough to flip most planets in my experience.
| |
|
"I tend to view that limiting starbases on a per sector basis penalizes the cultural domination path. I think players should get to build as many as they can in a sector but have a global limit based on *something*.
I can say at this pint there is no way we'd arbitrarily limit the # of starbases in a given sector. It has to be a global limit or people lose out on too many different strategic paths."
Fair enough. I favor limiting SB on a global scale and cast my vote in that direction, BUT a couple of points to ponder:
1) Starbases shouldn't be able to built on top of other Starbases. Right now you can and it's a little silly (and useless)
2) One early game strategy / fun thing to do involves trying to pump out constructors fast to grab as many resources as you can. I can foresee stupid and cheesy tricks like surrounding resources with scouts, defenders, colony ships, what-have-you (not that people couldn't do that now... but they don't have any incentive to right now either  )
3) If players aren't building swarms of Constructors late game then they WILL building something... so keep that in mind. Limiting Starbases may shift the game to a more combat starship (even though military Starships do have maintenance and constructors don't).
Taking ques from Starpilot and LDiCesare what if late game allowed Terraformers. Constructor like ships that could be produced from mid-sized worlds. No maintenance, very slow speed (surely boosted though by late game), no weapons, little defense, but good range. A terraformer improves any planet under PQ15 by +1 PQ. They can only improve inhospitable environments and cannot further improve PQ15+ planets. This gives "constructor jockeys" something to do late game 
Also as LDiCesare pointed out a great way to make use of those extra ColonyShips might be to ship them to starbases...
4) Related, but indirectly - Starbase and ship stacks are ugly. Please consider giving Starbases and orbit like planets and in that vein maybe add a tiny ship icon to both stars and starbases to show that there are ships in orbit there. Would make it easier to tell on the main screen which stars have ships in orbit rather than clicking on every star to find out... 
...at least that's my story and I'm stickin' to it 
| |
|
There's a lot of talk in this thread making me nervous. I find the fun balance of the game pretty nice. There's a few tactics I've found to be too 'cheesy', so I just don't do them anymore. Like going to war early on a race (shooting them up with my Survey), and when they come begging for peace, demanding they pay me all their tech, influence, and money (for 10,000 turns).
Just because you might not like being able to do something, doesn't mean we should decided everyone else shouldn't be allowed to do it. As it's Single Player, I don't see why the fact that you *can* build 8 uber Star Bases in one sector to be a big deal. Unless you *have* to to remain competitive against the AI, as it is doing it? So far, I've only seen it triple up on production cheese, and double up on culture attack.
If this is an issue to help *improve* the AI's use of star bases, then I'm all for it. It does currently like to build multiple 'empty' bases.
I like the idea of the Logistics stuff, and can understand the diminishing return factor. But the result of this would be to make *all* players not be able to do these things. Is this what Brad and team is after? And why? Are they wanting to play balance and tune the game for Multiplayer?
Remember, we are not playing each other. So what you do in your own game, is your own business. You aren't competing for Metaverse ranking and score, or you'd be cheesing your game to emphasis your game score rather then just enjoying your games and none of the changes here would matter in the slightest to you. And indeed, the direction of limiting starbases is just liable to encourage more players to migrate to cheesing their metaverse scores, as they will want to have more worlds to support more economy and more starbases.
For those that want to hard code the limit... if the limit is 3, and you have 3 already, then you are not going to be able to move your terror stars through that sector. Would be a pain. And why? How logical is that? Space is huge, and empty. But you cannot enter that block because you have your 2 bases in it already. That's going to *CHEESE* you some players off, at a minimal...
| |
|
#49
by Veteran Tytan - 4/18/2003 7:24:15 PM
We don't want to give the AI a mental breakdown, that's true, but I would like to see diminishing returns on some level. Either you penalize the player for building starbases, esp. in foreign sectors, have the AI become aggressive against destroying starbases(esp. in their own 'controlled' sectors), or have it become aggressive in building counter-weight starbases.
Oddly enough, in my current game, we voted to increase the constructors speed to 7 parsecs/sector and that has made the constructor rush very, very hard. I found that the enemy gets to most of the resources much faster.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2026 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
