Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
If you want a lore explanation for it, keep in mind militaries also have huge supply, repair and administrative structures that get dramatically larger with size and would not go away simply because the ships were destroyed.
I imagine one reason might be, adding complexity while making the decisions players make less important (and so less interesting) is generally bad game design.
Sorry I also fail to see how the current system can be a letdown for anyone who strategically plans his/her moves, and not floating hundreds of fleet supply for the "just in case" scenario.
Thats why I"m saying it should shift around. Even at max fleet research if you have no ships you still should pay upkeep for having the research but it shouldn't be so penalizing. And by the logic of explaining it away as administration how come defenses don't consume supply then? There are plenty of lore explanations. I was just wondering from a design standpoint why there shouldn't be a range of values that each level of fleet suppply offers. At 250 max if you have 100 you should pay less upkeep. Even if it only bridged a small gap. At 0 supply you could pay like 5% upkeep and at 250 you can pay the 18% full upkeep with a linear increase up til that point. Would allow more dynamic rebuilding as well as a catchup mechanic to make battles less around singular fights that completely destroys not only a players fleet but has so much wasted fleet supply it destroys their ability to rebuild.
Defenses are manned by slaves - Or Aliens - ; Therefore, since every race is extremely xenophobic/racist; they therefore receive no wages. That is how defenses don't cost upkeep. Problem solved - It makes perfect sense.
The first guy answered you long after u kept asking. By late game it would be too easy to rebuild a fleet. So mr massive juggernaught rails you with a massive armada. You fight it off with meager defenses and a smaller fleet together with your ally. Surprise surprise while the fight rages and Mr juggernaught loses ships he gets more and more resources as his fleet supply dynamicaly adjusts his upkeep costs. No sooner do you defeat him that another brand new fleet jumps into another part of your system.
If the devs put something like what your suggesting into practice then its a game of he with the most planets wins. No strategy required just keep spamming ships. Games would never end.
Dynamic upkeep doesn't need to be excessive and can be limited. The last fleet upgrade could range from 50-70% upkeep based on the size of your fleet. It would also promote holding back resources for a big buildup and forcing you to actually use built units as well as give incentive to keep the pressure on as well as building new units as well. With as good as defenses are in this game in terms of cost efficiency turtling would still be good but losing a fleet to a wail wouldn't be so game endingly punishing. Warcraft managed to put a dynamic upkeep system in the game that discouraged turtling.
EDIT: This is why I was asking why a dynamic upkeep system wasn't put into play. I can understand that it would enhance fleet building but it promotes aggression and rewards building ships over defenses. Defenses make almost no sense to cost no upkeep with any of the lore explanations people provided. They are limited by supply but each tactical upgrade doesn't cut into the income of a planet. It is a mechanic used on only on mobile units which is the confusing part.
Its not that confusing, you cant conquer with base defesnes so they dont cost upkeep. To make them cost upkeep would only discourage defense building in favor of a larger fleet since they can both defend and attack. You dont need a lore excuse, this is a game and so lore or reasoning is tossed under a bus to keep a semblance of balance. Ask why ships dont require a fuel resource to function, ask why there is no power generator providing for the buildings in space and if there is what is the fuel for it, somethings are just best left up as "gamey" and should require no technical or lore excuse.
I dont know what to tell you though as far as upkeep. Its like you dont listen or something but your missing the point and its that this isn t a discussion. You ask a question, it was answered. You cant turn around and go "but but they could have done it this way". Its happened already thats it. May as well ask why sins decided not to include a first person jump to ship option. They just didnt. Cant go "but it would have worked like this.." You learned why the system was placed as it was. Sure they COULD have made it a bit more efficient and fleshed it out but they didnt.
Your question:"Why havent devs put in the system im suggesting is already working well in other games??"
Our answer: "Because late game economies are swelled and the cost of ships doesnt scale to fit our bloated late game economies. This makes for fleets that are rebuilt the moment they are destroyed. Prevents players from buying all upkeep upgrades and building large fleets overtime with no penalty which screws the little guy with no chance to fight back "oh crap he has 20planets and i have 10, well no matter how much i destory his navies he will just rebuild them in an instant....hmmm stay and fight for 3hrs and lose or just leave now?".
You can press yoru point and say "yeah but it doesnt have to be gamebreaking or you can do it this way...." but you got yoru answer already. The devs didnt go into detailing the perfect "pop cap" system and instead found a solution that works good enough. They just slapped an ok on the system we have today and moved on to other things. Mabey ull get what you want in the next game but not here. why not? well for the reasons we have all stated.
What we have today works. It could be more elegant yes but it works and serves its purpose thats why no one has complained yet. Or if they have they are the minority.
I don't disagree with you, but to be fair isn't this exactly the kind of place he should be talking about a system he thinks is better. He said he understands why it is the way it is so his original question is answered.
That said Seal of Fates, defenses really aren't THAT important in this game. Against the AI sure, but that is just their incompetence. None of that works particularly well on human players. Sometimes building a starbase or repair bay at the right chokepoint can make a lot of difference, but far far more often it comes down to how well people use their fleets and develop their economies.
Sorta? Its true that the forum is exactly the place to have a talk about systems that improve the game. However this isnt a "i have an idea" or "lets talk upkeep" thread. Its a "why havent they done this yet?" thread. And that thread topic was answered.
In his latest post he goes on
Were this a discussion this would be in another thread but he insists on asking why. "Why is it not this way?" "Why is this not a thing?" "Why isnt this idea here?" Its answered already topic closed.
Sure discuss away, topics change hands and become other discussions but if you must have a discussion stop asking why it isnt the way your describing. It just is the way it is. If you keep asking why it isnt like you would have liked we will all keep telling you the same answer no matter how much you press your point and its just a neverending circle. We cant have a discussion if the OP continually makes it a one sided argument.
OP-"they should have done it like this, why didnt they and why isnt anyone complaining"
Everyone-"no that wont work becuase X reason"
OP-"no no but its like this too, so why isnt it here?"
Everyone-"Becuase for the reason everyone else stated"
OP-"but i understand that, what i want to know is why isnt it like im saying since its better"
Im all for discussion but there isnt much of a chance for anyone to contribute to it since he's asking the same question. Again this doesnt seem to be a discussion thread in title or in every one of his posts so this isnt the place.
I understand that defenses aren't important and that lore really doesn't matter. The thing that bothered me that I don't feel like the explanation offered in the first post really covered all scenarios. This game is a complex game and has complex mechanics but people are viewing a dynamic upkeep system in a very narrowminded way. Several responses answered on the assumption that a dynamic upkeep would have to be 0% at 0 supply and max% at whatever your max supply is. There are hybrid systems.
As you said earlier the devs designed the system to reward good decision making but in multiplayer games this goes out the window. The game design behind the meaningful decisions don't matter. Because in an agro position your economy doesn't matter if you have someone feeding you. Economic positions completely negate this choice and basically promote only building an economy that is dependent entirely on someone else. Your income is supplementary to being fed in some situations. While this builds teamwork, with the balance of the races it also favors certain races for certain positions. Those who have bad econ upgrades to make up for their better fleet (advent) are stupidly good at agro positions and TEC is the opposite way. It makes games based not onlly on the human interactions and economic development but also strongly on spawn positions. If your Vasari is in a suicide position then you are in good shape but if it is your TEC player all the sudden the game becomes a 3v4.
A dynamic upkeep system doesn't necessarily reward good decision making either though. It is a safety net in the game rewarding aggressive play with fleets and leading to economic snowball effects when attacking smaller players even if hybridized. This game is already ruthlessly aggressive due to the relative uselessness of most defensive buildlings (mainly revolving around range limits versus gravity well size) and the strength of light frigates in rushes.
I was wondering though as the game evolved and became more about fleet killing from vanilla to entrenchment to now where there are abilities known to wipe entire fleets once punishing good play with tech advantages. Wail and certain titan's snowballing come to mind in particular.
I will say that the change I was contemplating is minor with the view of the game you have. In true MP games fleet supplies rarely get to a large level without some large advantage already given to one player so fleet supply mainly exists as a method to prevent silly comebacks based on zerg tactics. It also does reward good usage of wail and makes some more creative play with mines more meaningful. I think the game could be improved with a hybridized system but things are more than okay as is. Thanks!
Despite your incredibly condescending replies I feel the need to respond. A forum is exactly the place to discuss these kinds of alternatives. If you want me to create a topic to discuss the various sytems in place that could use improvement or suggestions to improve existing mechanics I can do that but why not put it in a relevant thread based around an original question that sparked initial ideas. I was questioning game design you are right. I ask why for good reason. If you don't ask why you will never understand the reasoning behind the mechanics. LoL was built around the developers asking the questions of WHY and WHAT on all their mechanics. WHY is jungling used in its current form? WHAT does jungling do for a team game? WHY is this champion popular? Is it a problem?
In a changing game these questions can be asked without a problem. If people are willing to respond and discuss it who are you to call me out on getting slightly off topic and discussing deeper game mechanics? There is a reason the thread was titled dynamic upkeep instead of a simple mechanics question. Besides your accussations brought this thread more off topic than anything else.