Is there too much money in this game?

[jpwrunyan]

Yes, the above would be one way of making corruption specifically more of a brake in mid-game.

But I also would suggest even simpler tweaks to increase challenge. Such as lower averages for resources on planets. This would require more mining stations as now suddenly two bases on 60+% iron planets wont sustain your build queue. Imagine instead that the average for iron on planets was 5% instead of 50%. I imagine that would make the economic strategy more interesting.

Also, raising the maint costs of certain components in ships/bases would easily sink money mid-game.

Finally, just making corruption increase more over a shorter distance would make expansion more interesting and regional capitol placement decisions more important.

These seem to me to be simple and potentially effective solutions that require no new mechanics. In fact, they should be moddable parameters already (dont know, just assuming). I am willing to try modding just to test if these changes would make the game better despite the fact that I still hold that modding the game should not be considered a final solution to the money issues in the game.

[Bebop Cola]

I tend to agree in regards to resource availability. A tweak there, perhaps with a slider at game creation, could significantly shift the balance in many other areas. Resource distribution doesn't even need to change, just the mining rate. I don't think that there's much point in having a 1-100 percentage scale if you never really see anything over 40%, so a reduction in the global yield rate for whatever standard percentage is available should be all it would take, I'd think.

I also like Kayoz's suggestion of a more detailed corruption system.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan
But I also would suggest even simpler tweaks to increase challenge. Such as lower averages for resources on planets. This would require more mining stations as now suddenly two bases on 60+% iron planets wont sustain your build queue. Imagine instead that the average for iron on planets was 5% instead of 50%. I imagine that would make the economic strategy more interesting.

I'm not sure about a global reduction in resources.

I'm concerned that it would have the unintended impact of disproportionately hampering smaller factions. Can a small faction really afford such an increase in the number of mining stations required? Also, I think it would require much testing to make sure that the cash-poor military-might-rich races (eg: Boskara) wouldn't be crippled as a result; nor cash-happy and fast-mining races (eg: Teekan) turned into juggernauts. And computer controlled factions would need to be checked that they adapt to scarcity, such that they don't bankrupt themselves trying to achieve output goals nor build so few that they can't produce ships to defend themselves.

That said, a resource scarcity slider in the game creation interface wouldn't do any harm. If the player doesn't like it, he can always move it to where he prefers.

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan
Finally, just making corruption increase more over a shorter distance would make expansion more interesting and regional capitol placement decisions more important.

A non-linear approach might work better. For example, a logarithmic scale could potentially see corruption rate accelerate over distance. So, one unit (arbitrary distance for the purpose of this argument) from your capital you get 10% corruption. Two units, you get 25%. Three, you're looking at 50%. Essentially, if you capture a planet from an opponent - and that planet is close to his capital but far from yours - the benefit to you is much less than the loss to him. As it stands now, it's closer to 1-1 (racial hatred, the rather minuscule corruption penalty and invasion losses aside) - what he loses, you gain - which I guess is partially responsible for the massive economic surplus most players seem to be experiencing.

As an aside - are strategic resources consumed by populations? Luxuries are - but are steel and gold?

[jpwrunyan]

Re global reduction of resources
Depending on difficulty it doesnt have to be uniformly low. The player could start with less and the ai with more. As it is the harsh/rich home system setting is not doing it. I start in a harsh system and my homeworld still has good resources, but my system has NONE. Then I go to the next nearest system and it's like oh hi here are all the resources I need nevermind! Which is not fun.

Re corruption curve
Yes I was think along the lines you were but wasnt willing to risk guessing whether the rate was currently linear or not.

[jpwrunyan]

One more thing. I am still a big proponent of seeing mining components costs and maint go up. The reason is because I can double or triple the extraxtors on a mining station at a rich world and have no need to build another station anywhere else. Nor any need to research fast mining for that matter. Saves lots of time and money!

[MartialDoctor]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I hadn't been following this thread but took a look today.

A few comments:

3. Too make it more challenging, I go in and tweak the races. Give them more income, or bigger/faster ship building capacity, or greatly reduced maintainence. It is not that hard, since all you are doing is modding a text file that can be opened with Notepad.

Shark, if you decrease the maintenance costs for the other races, will they build more ships or save the money up? Have you noticed?

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan
I can double or triple the extraxtors on a mining station at a rich world and have no need to build another station anywhere else.

I was under the impression that you get no benefit from having more than 4 extractors, even with 100% resource richness. Is this incorrect?

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: MartialDoctor

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I hadn't been following this thread but took a look today.

A few comments:

3. Too make it more challenging, I go in and tweak the races. Give them more income, or bigger/faster ship building capacity, or greatly reduced maintainence. It is not that hard, since all you are doing is modding a text file that can be opened with Notepad.

Shark, if you decrease the maintenance costs for the other races, will they build more ships or save the money up? Have you noticed?

If they are highly agressive or cautious, they will build more ships. While this does give them more of a Zerg standing, they can at least compete. Now the less agressive ones will also have more 'gift' money and try to find diplomatic ways to avoid conflict...I've actually had other empires try to improve relations this way when they have money on hand.

All I can tell you is make some adjustments and try it out for yourself and see if it makes the game more to your liking.

Also, species can now be allowed to build ships bigger than current construction levels, and I *think* they might use that size potential.

Anyway, worth a shot. [:)]

[Beag]

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan

Re global reduction of resources
Depending on difficulty it doesnt have to be uniformly low. The player could start with less and the ai with more. As it is the harsh/rich home system setting is not doing it. I start in a harsh system and my homeworld still has good resources, but my system has NONE. Then I go to the next nearest system and it's like oh hi here are all the resources I need nevermind! Which is not fun.

But that is essentially cheating (that is, you´re giving more resources to the AI than the player). Also if you raise maintenance costs for the player but not the AI, it´s essentially allowing the AI to cheat as well.

If mainenance costs are raised symetrically, it will hurt the AI more than the player because as you said, all that you have to do is to focus on fewer very productive stations in planets with higher resource output (unless the AI is told to be smarter and do the same). It would be good to make AI be more opportunistic and agressivelly attack empires for resources they covet if they have the advantage. Sure, for higher difficulties your aproach of assymetrical resources is an option, but I´d rather see better AI.

As for limiting expansion I´d rather see a "balance of power" approach with empires uniting to isolate the larger power, which is usually the player. And conquered populations should be much less passive, so that either you are benevolent and risk revolts, or exterminate to get an homogeneous population and isolate yourself even more. Maybe making intelligence operations in planets full of hostile races easier as well, and corruption larger. Nowadays there is too few motivation not to use Assimilate always, because extra population outweights all maluses. Make forced migrations and extermination more viable policies.

[jpwrunyan]

Re mining bases:
Yes 3 comps max gas and 4 comps max others. Frankly I think its a weak mechanic but whatever. Percentage is just how much one comp will take from a planet. So you see that two mining comps on one base is vastly superior to having one comp on two different bases. I think it needs to be nerfed.

Re "cheating":
What you call "cheating" I call a handicap. Its a common element in sports and games to increase challenge and enjoyment. Many games contain such features including a game called distant worlds which seems to be a popular subject of discussion on this forum. Distant worlds has various handicap settings (aka difficulty settings) for players to use such as: starting system conditions (varying from harsh to rich), AI economic wealth, empire starting expansion and tech level, and even pirates and space monsters. If you consider these elements to be "cheating" then distant worlds may not be the right game for you. Ask your doctor, I am not a lawyer, etc.

[Beag]

English is not my primary language for starters. Understood?

Make that part of the difficulty setting then. For normal setting, giving an advantage for the AI that the player doesn´t have is in my definition, a cheat. For harder difficulties I totally agree with other possibilities, including scarcer resources near the player´s planet.

As for needing a doctor or no, anyone who has seen all the posts in this thread so far can see clearly who needs and who doesn´t. Language can be learned. Education and social skills, a bit harder. As a matter of fact this thread is already so filled with insults since page 1 (including from you, althrough the greatest mental breakdown so far came from kayoz) that nothing good can come of it anymore, a pity there doesn´t seem to be a single moderator around here.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Beag
English is not my primary language for starters. Understood?

You complained earlier in this thread that I was insulting your intelligence by posting a definition of a word - and now you're using your lack of comprehension as an excuse?

ORIGINAL: Beag
Make that part of the difficulty setting then. For normal setting, giving an advantage for the AI that the player doesn´t have is in my definition, a cheat.

For most people - well, for me anyhow - a "difficulty setting" is relative. How much the computer "cheats" is irrelevant. Lack of cheating is not implicit at any difficulty setting.

All that is implied is that "difficulty will change" - with no promises as to how such is achieved.

ORIGINAL: Beag
... so filled with insults since page 1 (including from you...

You see insults where there are none. You weren't being insulted. I can't guess at your linguistic heritage, but the reference to lawyers v. doctors applies to each and every country I've been in. Doctors give facts, lawyers give opinions.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Beag

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan

Re global reduction of resources
Depending on difficulty it doesnt have to be uniformly low. The player could start with less and the ai with more. As it is the harsh/rich home system setting is not doing it. I start in a harsh system and my homeworld still has good resources, but my system has NONE. Then I go to the next nearest system and it's like oh hi here are all the resources I need nevermind! Which is not fun.

But that is essentially cheating (that is, you´re giving more resources to the AI than the player). Also if you raise maintenance costs for the player but not the AI, it´s essentially allowing the AI to cheat as well.

If mainenance costs are raised symetrically, it will hurt the AI more than the player because as you said, all that you have to do is to focus on fewer very productive stations in planets with higher resource output (unless the AI is told to be smarter and do the same). It would be good to make AI be more opportunistic and agressivelly attack empires for resources they covet if they have the advantage. Sure, for higher difficulties your aproach of assymetrical resources is an option, but I´d rather see better AI.

As for limiting expansion I´d rather see a "balance of power" approach with empires uniting to isolate the larger power, which is usually the player. And conquered populations should be much less passive, so that either you are benevolent and risk revolts, or exterminate to get an homogeneous population and isolate yourself even more. Maybe making intelligence operations in planets full of hostile races easier as well, and corruption larger. Nowadays there is too few motivation not to use Assimilate always, because extra population outweights all maluses. Make forced migrations and extermination more viable policies.

Beag, I think you will find that most game AIs do have 'cheats' to make them competitive. It is the nature of the beast, since no AI can think on its feet like a live player. AIs usually tend to have either a speed or cost cheat imbedded in them, and all because no programmed AI has a human grasp on tactics. That is, other than basic if/then switches telling the AI when a good time to attack is etc (IE me the dumb AI needs at least a 3 to 1 firepower advantage before I go to war), then the AI will do some pretty stupid things, or not take advantage of an opening when it is available.

I wouldn't mind giving the AI a boost this way in DW. Perhaps a hardcoded thing like:

If empire is player = false,
then maintainence costs = -50%;

etc.

[Registered55]

One more thing. I am still a big proponent of seeing mining components costs and maint go up. The reason is because I can double or triple the extraxtors on a mining station at a rich world and have no need to build another station anywhere else. Nor any need to research fast mining for that matter. Saves lots of time and money!

i actually commented this a the forum quite some time ago, before the expansions i believe, that the constructors on auto build mining stations for the sake of it, the economy stats clearly show that no more of a certain kind of resource is needed AT ALL for a long time because we already have 5 stations built for that resource, yet the AI still keeps building more and more.... and on it goes, which creates this ripple effect throughout the private economy.

i think the AI just utilizes the economy in a poorly inefficient way, but i believe that without that constant building (for the sake of it) expansion would stop, there would no longer be the need to expand ones territory, or at the very least expansion would be far slower than it is now, because the way the AI functions at the moment is like it's one big race of plotting down and securing as many mining stations as one can in the shortest available time......

to explain more so there's no confusion..... once an economy (AI or player) reaches a plateau (peak) of abundance in resources (input FAR exceeding output) of most if not all resources, at which point an empires growth becomes.... stagnant meaning there really is no need to expand any further regarding resources yet the AI if allowed still does vigorously even though the more stations you have the more you have to defend (ripple effect)

the game seems designed (has rules in place) to push expansion for no reason but to expand..... this creates an artificial element that can be seen in this game..... the economy is expanding when it doesn't need too, AI is pushing outwards when it doesn't need to...... DW is setup for WAR, it pushes AI and player for WAR(s), and we are all starting to see that it's based on fake, unrealistic elements....... and this does seem to be worse the bigger the universe is..... because expansion becomes a low priority once the economy has reached a plateau.

1. AI constructors building for no economic reason is hard to get my head around, stations need defending, stations them selves need to be maintained, having a station built for a resource that my empire already has in huge abundance is just economically stupid, and militarily unwise.

2. like mentioned above, advance technology (especially the larger vessels) should have huge cost associated with them somewhere (where and how to make that beliable and without causing issues with AI i suppose is for the developers to solve)

3. colonies grow way to fast, and right from word go newly colonised planets should cost an empire money for the privileged as colonizing no matter how advance you are is costly in resources (this would be variable based on tech level/species type) but most of the cost would be in TIME, setting up a new colony in this game is far too easy and happens to quickly..... point click, colonise..... colonization onto a new planet should be a MASSIVE undertaking for MOST (all) species.... yet in this game it seems so easy, and the planets themselves becomes profitable so quickly in doing so..... the entire system in my opinion needs to be looked at. (infrastructure is one idea, costs huge amounts of resources (money) setting up even basic infrastructure on a planet that has none, also wages/salary/ ..... the planet needs to be readied by staff who won't go there without a very LARGE incentive..... it should take an awful long time before planets become so profitable (this would slowdown the expansion race somewhat)

4. costs, this is a hard one...... one idea that comes to mind, the game has population in it...... but it doesn't have staff in it, administration if you will (admin for humans, totally different terms needed of course for alien races) but it would be the behind the scenes people that maintain logistics that makes the military run (ancillary staff) the private economy side should also have the same kind of thing after all organising military and economy can't happen on it's own, an empire would have to setup up a sector devoted specifically for handling the military, and likewise for the private economy

to breakdown number 4, as number 4 is a big one, an empire can only handle so much, even advance races would have limitations on what (how much) they can handle in regards to there projection in the universe, technology would obviously influence this capability, also the type of species would also come into play when factoring in variables on logistic capabilities, but the large the fleets the more burden on admin

fleet sizes should have limits, and if those limits are breached, than there should be penalties to pay

have buildings that are built for the sole purpose of handling admin overheads
more ships an empire has to keep track of, then the more ancillary staff needed to accomplish this task (all races need some kind of admin in one form or another)
if an empire breaches the maximum number of ships an empire can effective maintain than again.... there should be penalties in one form or another

private sector is out of control, they seem to have no rules associated to them, an empire does and will always have influence over them because it's the empire that grants them there trading licenses, an empire should be able to curb there numbers, set down some basic rules that the private sector must adhere too.... just like here on earth..... even in free trade markets there still needs to be guidelines, rules, policies that need to keep it structured.... to avoid CHAOS.... which is what DW has, the private sector in DW is a complete shambles.... it's a mess, which makes sense really when you consider that they can do what they want without any consequence aswell.

5. passenger ships..... when a new world is created within minutes everyone wants to goto the new world..... something just don't feel quite right with the current system, a new world should only be able to expand slowly, there should be limits (tech modifer again) how fast the infrastructure on a planet can grow to accommodate the increase in population numbers..... what i mean is it takes time (and MONEY) to expand the necessary infrastructure to accommodate more people that are arriving to the planet by passenger ships...... millions of people arriving at a planet yearly is absurd.... impossible.... creating a new colony WILL ALWAYS TAKE TIME NO MATTER WHAT SPECIES YOU ARE (there is an exception to every rule, but in context for game balance this rule should not be broken in this game) colonies in DW grow to quickly and without any penalty to an empire...... the conlony system moves far to quickly.........

5a. it should be noted that if the colonising system is dramatically slowed down, then the player would need to be advised that the size of the universe makes a huge dereference in how long it can be before meeting another species

6. communication doesn't seem to be a factor.... ships don't have communication systems in place, the further a ship is away form there nearest communication station/sat relay then the more disruption there should be with ship to empire, that's not the CASE in DW, only fuel is the deciding factor how far away a ship can travel..... i think communication should also be a factor, or at the very least again there should be penalties in place if a ship moves out of range (exceeds current level of technology) or overburdens there communications (again because of large numbers of vessels, ships need to be in constant contact with members within there own empire) also communications would also play an important factor when ships are in fleets.....

been on the above for an hour now..... i have more but damn getting tire of all this thinking...

i just wanted to finish up by saying there needs to be more rules for empires, dynamic rules that have penalties that need to be endured if certain rules are being broken/breached, DW doesn't have that many..... one example, resources/fuel/money should not be be a deciding factor on how many ships one can have because an empire has a hole universe to tap into resources/fuel/money become moot in mid-game because an empire has all three of them when it reaches a certain size..... but there are other rules an empire in real life would have to obey to when it comes to there fleet sizes/or total number of ships they can effectively maintain....

logistics/ancillary staff/communication limits.... and many more i'm quite sure forum members here can come up with that would influence the upper limit range that an empire can support regarding there military force SHIP/ECONOMY SHIP/TROOPS at any given time....... or suffer the huge PENALTIES that the empire would have to endure if they exceed those limitations (and the penalties should increase the more those limitations are breached)

i just wished there were more systems in place that would help the mid-late stages of the game, because things are to messy with this game at those stages of gameplay, to many missing factors that would exist in real-life that this game doesn't simulate.

[collegeprof]

Hi. for my 2 cents worth, I question the need for money in the 1st place... To assume that other species in the galaxy use money is, well, not based on anything but our own point of view.. in fact, we here on earth are one of the only species to use money to exchange goods for services. insects like bees and ants simply do their job, and as long as they do, they get shelter, and food, and a job... so to make other species be reliant and encumberd by potential lack of money, seems ridiculous to me... we may find out humanity is the lone species that limits what it can research and build by how much money they have... other species may not even understand the concept, and instead simply do what they have to... to me, there should be a way to build a race/species that either has no concept of money, or it is given an unlimited amount to simulate a species whom does not use money... thanks... oh, by the way, love the game... would like to see more techs on lifestyle/improving the environment... not all about war ya know!

[Bebop Cola]

While I get your point, I think it might be useful to avoid thinking of the money in the game as dollars and cents, so to speak. Whereas for some empires that may be the literal implementation of the economic credits, I think it would be more accurate to see them as something as some manner of assessing productive effort over a period of time or "economic units."

In other words, an empire can "pay" a workforce to achieve some objective, or a given workforce can just work towards that objective at the expense of another. Some sort of economic value is always in play when a group works to achieve an objective, because a given group is unable to produce everything possible simultaneously at optimal production levels. A system of money/credits is just a simplified way to represent the productive tradeoff of pursuing one objective over another.

[lancer]

G'day,

I think that money in the game represents choices.

If you have bundles of the stuff then you have unlimited choices of action. Decisions over what to spend it on become fairly meaningless.

On the other hand if money is less than abundant any decisions you make become very meaningful. Which is what keeps you interested in playing.

Same with the resources. DW has a fantastic living, breathing private sector but if the end result is an over abundance of resources then all you've got is a fancy backdrop. If you're swimming in the stuff it becomes irrelevant.

As everybody has different versions of what constitutes the ideal levels of money and resources it would be nice to have an adjustable setting for the player rather than the current, give-everyone-the-kitchen-sink approach.

No need to bother the AI over this. Leave it to wallow in a deep pool of both.

Cheers,
Lancer

[ehsumrell1]

Well said Lancer!

[Data]

Freeeeeeeeeeeed [:)]

[Velihopea]

Is there any reason given why this was changed? I was first playing DW without expansions and money seemed to be a problem, I was too often on the red. Now with legends I'm having more cash than I need..