[Discuss] Fuel resource

[Eol]

Taken from another thread (about defense recalling ability).

Originally Posted by Cochese

You aren't suggesting a counter to the 'infinte launching' problem, because the answer to that would be mindlessly simple: re-add a fuel resource into the game. I would actually support re-adding a fuel resouce (taking it out in the first place was silly).

Could we get a fuel resource, please, to counter the infinite launching problem?

[mist]

i agree

-mist

[Gerbie]

Activity should be rewarded and attacks should not be made more costly i.m.o.

[MAdnRisKy]

no removing fuel was a bad idea... bring it back

[Tactitus]

Like most everything, it needs to be balanced. If fuel is too expensive then big planets can't afford to launch their (full) fleets; if it's free or really cheap then you get spurious launches.

Properly balanced, fuel adds another dimension to the game's resource management. It can also be an important trade-off in ship stats.

[Troll]

I agree

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Like most everything, it needs to be balanced. If fuel is too expensive then big planets can't afford to launch their (full) fleets; if it's free or really cheap then you get spurious launches.

How about a set number of max launches per day? Off the top of my head this is linear (good) and thus equal for all planets, but punishes small (in number of members) alliances while rewarding big ones.

Properly balanced, fuel adds another dimension to the game's resource management.

Without a crystal ball it was impossible to balance Eonium fuel properly. It would be difficult at best to balance it any better now.

It can also be an important trade-off in ship stats.

Adding more complexity to the ship stats is, imo, very much needed, but fuel isn't the first thing that springs to mind.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Banned

How about a set number of max launches per day? Off the top of my head this is linear (good) and thus equal for all planets, but punishes small (in number of members) alliances while rewarding big ones.

That's one possibility. Another would be that you only get a small number (2-3) of launches per fleet slot per tick (non-accumulable, use 'em or lose 'em). You could also make fleet launches cost a small (fractional?) percentage of fleet value.

Without a crystal ball it was impossible to balance Eonium fuel properly. It would be difficult at best to balance it any better now.

In the past, there was no way to substantially increase Eonium production in the mid- and late-round--whether you had a crystal ball or not. Attacking only netted you roids of all types, usually in the same proportion to what you and everyone else had. You could initiate your own extra E roids (soon became prohibitive) or trade for it in the gal fund (soon depleted the whole galaxy), but those were just stopgaps.

If a fuel cost is going to be re-introduced (on a per-ship-launched basis, as it was in the past) then there also needs to be a way for large planets to ramp up fuel production (preferably expensive, but not prohibitively so).

Adding more complexity to the ship stats is, imo, very much needed, but fuel isn't the first thing that springs to mind.

No, but you get it for free if you add a per-ship-launch fuel cost anyway, so why not use it?

[mist]

i think a number of launches per day would be a little harsh.

although, a couple of launches per tick doesn't seem like it'd have much impact?

charging a small percentage of the fleet's build cost sounds interesting tho

-mist

[Tyroka]

This idea came based on preventing the tactic send+recall+resend+recall+resend etc

A much better way of doing this would imo be to make jgps unavailable until a fleet is ETA 5-6 from the planet. Yes, this would mean that the use of scanners (for jgp) would be decreased a lot but that's good if u ask me
It would (unfortunately) do distorters a lot more effective as well, but that effect could be worked around by changing the scanning-formula
either make it that u don't need more than (targetdistorters - x) amps where x be some number (lets say 3, or perhaps based on value-comparison) or
remake the scanning formula totally and add that there always is a litte random chance to get through (more like the old days), I personally like this one better.

[noah02]

i dont like the idea.

[Orion Treet]

If you do that you need to make shipcosts the way they were, some cost for example like 3 times as many c and m, or twice as many e as c etc.

[macros69]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Like most everything, it needs to be balanced. If fuel is too expensive then big planets can't afford to launch their (full) fleets; if it's free or really cheap then you get spurious launches.

Properly balanced, fuel adds another dimension to the game's resource management. It can also be an important trade-off in ship stats.

I agree but finding a balance is probably the hard part. I also think this would be great because it would add more to think about and as tactitus said "another dimension." I only say that this should be approved if at first we find the balance that everybody agreed with

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Tyroka

This idea came based on preventing the tactic send+recall+resend+recall+resend etc

A much better way of doing this would imo be to make jgps unavailable until a fleet is ETA 5-6 from the planet. Yes, this would mean that the use of scanners (for jgp) would be decreased a lot but that's good if u ask me
It would (unfortunately) do distorters a lot more effective as well, but that effect could be worked around by changing the scanning-formula
either make it that u don't need more than (targetdistorters - x) amps where x be some number (lets say 3, or perhaps based on value-comparison) or
remake the scanning formula totally and add that there always is a litte random chance to get through (more like the old days), I personally like this one better.

What is wrong with the resend/recall tactic, it gets roids, and is a valid tactic in the game.

Limiting probes would simply remove scanners form the game, and scanners are a vital part of the game. Not only do they help alliances greatly, they are smaller planets that play the game, thus spreading the score out across the universe (keeping some planets small provides targets and stops game getting stagnated early on).
It would mean ppl would just build mass distorters, which removes a tactical choice, and makes it a forced issue (build amps/distorters only instead of other things).

[noah02]

I agree with forrest

[mist]

Originally Posted by Forest

What is wrong with the resend/recall tactic, it gets roids, and is a valid tactic in the game.

fair point, however i'm not convinced that it makes the game more fun on the whole. which would rather seem the point of a game

-mist

[Forest]

There seems to be a whole line of thought on these forums, that if something can roid u, its abroken/needs fixing.

This is a roiding game, we should be making it easier to roid, not harder. Thats the only way to help new players.

[Tyroka]

Originally Posted by Forest

What is wrong with the resend/recall tactic, it gets roids, and is a valid tactic in the game.

As it seems PA-team wants PA to be more attractive/easier to play for those that can't put as much time into it as "pros", the resend/recall -tactic counters this. To get defence the incoming must be reported/seen on a jgp and as such (saying there's noone online in galaxy) you either gotta check in every tick yourself to be sure the incoming is reported or u need to find someone that can jgp you every tick.

Originally Posted by Forest

Limiting probes would simply remove scanners form the game, and scanners are a vital part of the game. Not only do they help alliances greatly, they are smaller planets that play the game, thus spreading the score out across the universe (keeping some planets small provides targets and stops game getting stagnated early on).

Well, tbh scanners help the bigger alliances more than the small alliances in the way that a small alliance need every active player to play for "real" not going for scans/amps. Of course a bigger alliance rather sees that as well but it's not as vital for them.

Then u might say that it doesn't need to be active players as scanners. Well if you are to have inactive players as scanners then u need more scanners than if u use active players. All of a sudden u need quite a few players to play scanners if you are to get a decent cover which is also more costly for small alliances than for big alliances.
So in a whole removing scanners would even the playing-field a bit and that would certainly stop the game getting stagnated early on...

Originally Posted by Forest

It would mean ppl would just build mass distorters, which removes a tactical choice, and makes it a forced issue (build amps/distorters only instead of other things).

This is unfortunately true, but if u still make it possible to get through by changing the scanning-formula this could be countered or simply remove distorters from the game...

Originally Posted by Forest

There seems to be a whole line of thought on these forums, that if something can roid u, its abroken/needs fixing.

I think it's more that u should be able to play even if u don't put in a lot of hours and still not get bashed. To have a fun game.

It's not fun as player to see someone send hostiles at u, u fix defence, attacker recalls & resends, u fix defence, attacker recalls & resends, u fix defence and by here u are well-knowing that attacker will recall & resend again but you really need to go to work/school/sleep. U only "loose" because your attacker has less of a real life (that day).

[Appocomaster]

I think it'd be a great idea to bring fuel back, either as a fourth resource or as eonium and to have purely metal and crystal costs for ships. Just have fuel as 1/1000th of the cost of the ship, or something. Limiting the number of launches per day is silly.
I'd also like to see scan costs changed back to just crystal / enoium, and maybe something like all initation costs are eonium, so that eonium isn't just a "useless" resource for most people.

Originally Posted by Tyroka

As it seems PA-team wants PA to be more attractive/easier to play for those that can't put as much time into it as "pros", the resend/recall -tactic counters this. To get defence the incoming must be reported/seen on a jgp and as such (saying there's noone online in galaxy) you either gotta check in every tick yourself to be sure the incoming is reported or u need to find someone that can jgp you every tick.

I think it's more that u should be able to play even if u don't put in a lot of hours and still not get bashed. To have a fun game.

It's not fun as player to see someone send hostiles at u, u fix defence, attacker recalls & resends, u fix defence, attacker recalls & resends, u fix defence and by here u are well-knowing that attacker will recall & resend again but you really need to go to work/school/sleep. U only "loose" because your attacker has less of a real life (that day).

totally agree

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

That's one possibility. Another would be that you only get a small number (2-3) of launches per fleet slot per tick (non-accumulable, use 'em or lose 'em). You could also make fleet launches cost a small (fractional?) percentage of fleet value.

This still allows people to launch, recall, launch, recall, launch wait one tick, recall, launch recall etc etc - ie by making the fleet move towards the target for a tick every now and again you just add one hour of a breather inbetween the folly - granted i have to admit it would be better than the exisiting situation, but people do eventually have to sleep .

You could initiate your own extra E roids (soon became prohibitive) or trade for it in the gal fund (soon depleted the whole galaxy), but those were just stopgaps.

I thought that this was the whole point of making roids cost they type of resource to init - ie, it takes M to init M, E to init E - as there were fewer E roids, it was cheaper to init more. Though i suppose at the very top, where fuel is most crucial, it would still have been too expensive to init E roids :\.

If a fuel cost is going to be re-introduced (on a per-ship-launched basis, as it was in the past) then there also needs to be a way for large planets to ramp up fuel production (preferably expensive, but not prohibitively so).

As soon as you said that, i immediately thought of Engineering - the use of an engineering priority for fuel would help reduce the fuel pinch for the top players (but obviously not used for the smaller players without fuel problems), whilst introducing opportunity costs in doing so - ie by having Fuel Production as P1, your security is now P2 and thus needing more Security centres (or along those lines). In this regard, i think it is workable - but only if fuel was different to the other resources (or it would only effect the fuel resource) as otherwise Mining could be used instead.

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I think it'd be a great idea to bring fuel back, either as a fourth resource or as eonium and to have purely metal and crystal costs for ships.

tbh, i like having different resource weights for different races - with Terran's emphasis on metal, Cathaar/Crystal and Zikonian/Eonium and Xan/balance it adds a different level of play into the game - do i attack target x and get more overall roids, or target y because i'd cap more M roids as i am in serious need of M? Going back to M/C severely reduces this effect - though granted it would still exist. I remember C heavy targets in R3 (like me ) being favoured targets as it gave more C to build Spiders etc with.

and maybe something like all initation costs are eonium, so that eonium isn't just a "useless" resource for most people.

OMG!! think about what you are saying here - it is highly likely that the result of making E the init cost would result in a universal glut of E roids everywhere - the point of fuel is that it is a scarce resource as otherwise it is totally pointless.

What i would like to see is the current type of ship costs (ie, Terrans needing more M), tied into fuel needing E. But wait, you say, then wouldnt this put even more pressure on Zik's resource balance? To this, i just smile and mention that Zikonians are meant to be the hardest race to play for 'experienced players' .

Anyway, it adds a good option for shipstat building as well - if you think that zik stealers could be slightly too powerful, then make their fuel cost 10x conventional ships, so that ziks can only afford to wait for someone to land on them and donate ships, in exchange for E roids .

Yes, i am evil

[Makhil]

there are 2 things i miss from old rounds :
1. the fuel cost for launching ships. It would require major tweaks to make E the fuel, but does the fuel has to come from a new type of roid ? couldn't it be auto-produced every tick as a by-product of existing roids ?
2. nothing to do with the topic but i miss the warnings when intercepting scan attempts.

[aNgRyDuCk]

I think bringing fuel back is a great idea....what do the ships run on now by the way? solar energy? With a big planet/big fleet, there are costs involved. This is a logical assumption, the bigger your planet, the more your costs are to run that planet, and that should include fuel consumption. This would ALSO require possibly more cooperation within one's galaxy, balancing the fund , donating etc.

I believe if your going to do this, you ALSO need to make it vulnerable in some manner, through covert ops, or "fuel tankers" as part of your attack

[furball]

I'm almost totally opposed to bringing back a fuel resource, or indeed to most of the suggestions here.

Forest was completely right. There is no decent reason for restricting launching.

Originally Posted by Forest

What is wrong with the resend/recall tactic, it gets roids, and is a valid tactic in the game.

Limiting probes would simply remove scanners form the game, and scanners are a vital part of the game. Not only do they help alliances greatly, they are smaller planets that play the game, thus spreading the score out across the universe (keeping some planets small provides targets and stops game getting stagnated early on).
It would mean ppl would just build mass distorters, which removes a tactical choice, and makes it a forced issue (build amps/distorters only instead of other things).

It seems that every time someone gets offended (or roided) by a 'tactic', they immediatly rush to the Suggestions forum with some way to stop it happening again. It's getting ridiculous now, whether it's about not being able to scan, getting hit by covert-ops, building too many constructions or building the wrong fleet. Or, to take another example, accidentally cancelling an order on the Production screen.

Removing Eonium as a fuel resource was a great leap forward for the game. Some of you just seem to forget the sheer amount of frustration that it caused when ships were needed but people were out of Eonium, so couldn't do anything. Who remembers new planets in a galaxy being forced into becoming Eonium farms? There's a thread on the forums if you want to search for it.

Right now I'm very happy with how resources work - with the biases in Metal, Crystal and Eonium for 3 of the races and a balanced make-up for Xan. Why change something that isn't broken??? People seem to have this urge right now to make wholescale changes to a game that for the first time in its history, is actually working,

We all like to reminisce about the old days, and how wonderful things were then. But we're seeing them through rose-tinted glasses. We forget what annoyed us so much, and just want to try out the old things again. Forgive Planetarion for that, but don't wreck it just because you want to go back in history to round 2/3/4 again.

[ANdrode]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

This still allows people to launch, recall, launch, recall, launch wait one tick, recall, launch recall etc etc - ie by making the fleet move towards the target for a tick every now and again you just add one hour of a breather inbetween the folly - granted i have to admit it would be better than the exisiting situation, but people do eventually have to sleep .

Or people just get their 'brother', 'close friend', or small gal mate to launch a jpg fleet 2 ticks in advance.

OK, you loose your surprise effect, but def will eventually run out anyway.

Making JPG harder to use would unbalance the game, and give people with more resources (aka active players) an unfair advantage.

[NitinA]

Originally Posted by mist

fair point, however i'm not convinced that it makes the game more fun on the whole. which would rather seem the point of a game

-mist

That's not the complete point of the game. The game's *goal* is for the players to have fun, but that's not the point of the game. For instance, I'd be against putting cool swirly trippy spacy flash animations into the game, even if it would make it more "fun." But I wouldn't be against adding elements which to some people would upset them (this is a combat based game after all) but would add elements of new strategy into the game.

The point is valid that the recall/relaunch strategy is a valid tactical move in the game, and good DCs know how to trap the attacker w/def on the tick. Using galaxy defence also screws up this tactic (more reason for you guys to defend in-gal, it'll come back to you). Removing certain elements of war from the game would make a lot more people happy--but it wouldn't be a combat-based space strategy game anymore--and more importantly, it wouldn't be Planetarion.

-NitinA

[ComradeRob]

I fail to see the "problem" that needs to be "fixed".

The reason why fuel is a bad idea (at least as a resource produced from roid mining) is that planets which have been heavily roided suddenly lose the ability to launch their fleets, a handicap which does not apply to those with high roid counts. In effect, it penalises the losing side in a war, hastening their defeat and thus hastening stagnation.

Further possible consequences:

Alliances switching to having a single launch at 03:55 (or thereabouts), instead of "rolling" launch/recall attacks spread over several ticks and throughout the day. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is open to interpretation; my personal opinion is that it is bad.

Farming of eonium roids should a shortage become particularly acute. The lack of a proper universal market in resources makes farming the only viable long-term method of increasing your supply of a particular resource. This has no real effect atm as the three resources are effectively interchangable, but if the uses and availability of resources became more varied, farming might become a lot more attractive.

Big advantage to Xan planets due to their unscannability. It would be incredibly easy for a Xan-heavy alliance to deplete an enemy's eonium supplies by launching an endless stream of cheap FI-faked-as-FR fleets, forcing the enemy to use up eonium defending with real fleets (this works best as Xan due to their immunity to Fleet Analysis). Two alliances using this against each other might end up simply depleting each other's fuel supplies to the extent that neither side can launch real attacks with any effectiveness. This hastens stagnation (no real fleets being sent = no large combats = ratio of fleet size to roid count getting worse).


EDIT: Many of these criticisms do not apply if the fuel supply is a fourth resource produced purely by planetary mining, not roids.

[Intruder]

Originally Posted by Tyroka

This idea came based on preventing the tactic send+recall+resend+recall+resend etc

A much better way of doing this would imo be to make jgps unavailable until a fleet is ETA 5-6 from the planet. Yes, this would mean that the use of scanners (for jgp) would be decreased a lot but that's good if u ask me
It would (unfortunately) do distorters a lot more effective as well, but that effect could be worked around by changing the scanning-formula
either make it that u don't need more than (targetdistorters - x) amps where x be some number (lets say 3, or perhaps based on value-comparison) or
remake the scanning formula totally and add that there always is a litte random chance to get through (more like the old days), I personally like this one better.

So we must be punished just because we wont go to bed after we launch and check if we can next tick try a better luck? While the tgt just ask for def and go to bed? sux. P.S.: there is already too much ramdom stuff for a strategy calc-based game