Planetarion Forums

mathematician · 31 Jul 2007, 19:16

currently, only 7 planets have between 3k and 4k roids, the rest is all below 3k.
there is no need for hct researches up to 10k roids.

aside from that, why not make storage facilities a construction? Let's say each one can mine from 100 roids, and store up to 1 mil resources. (e.g. with 10 of these facilities you are able to mine from 1000 roids and store up to 10 mil res). This leaves enough room for resource-whores as well as roid-fat planets, but these planets will have to sacrifice other constructions then.

ofc, constructions can be destroyed, so it is possible to cripple one's mining capabilities via sk.

Heartless · 31 Jul 2007, 20:04

From my point of view it would definitely make sense to have mining capacity as a construction rather than a research.

It forces players into choices: "Do I want to mine more asteroids or do I want more immunity from scans (wave distorter) or maybe even more security from covert operations?"

However, the covert ops might have to be redone a bit then.

Allfather · 31 Jul 2007, 20:38

Not really, terrorism is effective when its successful, just reduce chances of a successful covert and keep/raise the damage and cost.

I feel playing covert op is a valid game tactic along with being a scanner.

gzambo · 31 Jul 2007, 20:50

i agree it would be better as a construction instead of a research

NitinA · 31 Jul 2007, 21:18

what gzambo and heartless said ^^

Heartless · 31 Jul 2007, 21:21

Actually, I am a bit concerned about cathaar then, as their only advantage (research bonus => mine many roids rather early) gets heavily nerfed by this (=> less income, less fleet, better target).

Makhil · 2 Aug 2007, 02:09

just give them a construction bonus...

furball · 2 Aug 2007, 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhil

just give them a construction bonus...

But then that unbalances their racial stats since they already have good cov-op levels and a research bonus.

Personally I'd keep the HCT researches as they are - they act as a good limit on exponential growth - and instead look at the present game mechanics for why planets don't have more than 3k roids.

Jester · 2 Aug 2007, 11:33

The real question here is "why is this an issue?"

The original poster said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mathematician

currently, only 7 planets have between 3k and 4k roids, the rest is all below 3k.
there is no need for hct researches up to 10k roids.

I'm with you so far.

Quote:

aside from that, why not make storage facilities a construction? Let's say each one can mine from 100 roids, and store up to 1 mil resources. (e.g. with 10 of these facilities you are able to mine from 1000 roids and store up to 10 mil res). This leaves enough room for resource-whores as well as roid-fat planets, but these planets will have to sacrifice other constructions then.

ofc, constructions can be destroyed, so it is possible to cripple one's mining capabilities via sk.

But how did you jump from "we don't need 10k HCT" to "HCT shouldn't be research?"

furball is right, changing HCT to construction based would be ****ing around with fundamental game balance for no good reason.

Is there a real problem here? Why do people assume that all research branches should be finished? And why is 10k a bad maximum just because we're not reaching it this round?

PAteam* are notoriously bad at predicting stuff like max roid count in a round. Should we really have them adjusting it every round? Isn't it better that we have a general setup that doesn't break down?

* And I'm only singling PAteam out because their predictions are the only ones that matter. No one is good at this sort of thing.

furball · 2 Aug 2007, 13:21

It can't be predicted pre-round, and it shouldn't necessarily be changed even if it could be predicted.

This round all of the top 11 alliances have a roid total within a 20% margin of the alliance with the top roid count. You may extrapolate from this that no alliance is dominating and so none of the planets belonging to any particular alliance is able to hold onto roids with any particular ease.

You say that no planets outside the top 10 have more than 3k roids, and you're right - in fact, as of right now, no planets outside the top 5 have more than 3k roids. This is because alliances aren't able to guarantee protection to their top planets (through universal domination) as they might be able to in rounds where one alliance dominates (see 1up r12/14, eXil r15/18).