Brad's Starbase Thread...

I think having a maintenance cost to the starbases, and having a max number of starbases in a sector (say 3) would be a big step in the right direction.

At first I would have jumped at 4 or 5, but from a purely mathematical perspective, (cost-benefit) the penalty of maint. for a starbase would only truly affect ones we set up to mine resources and as military benefactor bases. In other words, not the ones most players would set up in a redundant fashion, though I know sometimes having +10 attack or defense can begin to look like a cheap tactic when the AI can't figure out very well how to penetrate a sector with that sort of military in it. However, that can be overcome by smartening up the AI's attack methods (which sounds like you're doing nayway) and simply balancing the modules available.

The economic benefits to be garnered would still push the curves you're trying to build here in such a way that 4 starbases with two economic modules each at low tech levels still outbenefits one or two well-built up and higher tech SB's. It pushes for a rush ending to thegame, which I sem to naturally do once dreadnoughts are out- I've yet to really build anything more powerful or need to, my economic engine is already powerful enough to promote a galaxy-wide war in a large galaxy.

The math you're doing there seems to me more of a drag addition than a true changing of any curves enough to modify the game landscape or a player's behavior; they don't seem to support the idea of limiting SB's as much as just slowing down overall economic growth around the galaxy. Unless people are complaining about too many techs and ships floating around, then I'm not sure what the real-wrold results of these ideas would be.

I guess I find myself thinking more along the lines of just a straight limit of maybe 2 bases per sector and making sure that resources are randomized no more than 2 per sector. It kills all the birds at once, seems (to me) to keep it simple so that you won't fracture the AI's ability and in fact gives them a clear ideal goal that can be sought without obscuring (through a three-way balance of algabraic curves) where a true sweet spot may lie. I think something like this would also not slow down economic growth overall, unless someone neglects technology and the higher end modules available with technology- but that spells doom by other means at the mercy of certain AI's.

~SDC~

Hi Brad,

My problem with starbase is not that you can build a ton of them to obtain insane bonus on one planet. It is more that during peacefull endgames you end up producing tons of them.
Why? because it is the only usefull MAINTENANCE free military production.
It is funny to create a "ship catapult" or a string of Trade enhancers starbases and all those strategies are usefull but I often end up playing "Sim Starbase" about 66% of my time when all I want is to reach beyond human.

So I should choose 4) or 5)
with the following:
- make starbase maintenance at 5 (so we can still afford them in early game)
- make top modules VERY expensive so it is a strategic decision but give them greater bonuses (examples "Ship Catapult","Trade route enhancer with continuous bonus",...)
- create module for the missing planetary attributes (Resarch, morale)
- fix the "Starbase can move more than 1 per turn when stacked.." so we cannot abuse that anymore

I understand that all this changes even if probably easy to implement will seriously impact the game balance.
May be it is time for me (and plenty of others) to become beta-testers again.

Thanks again for being so dedicated to us.

Herve

~SDC~

I agree.

A maintenance cost along with some sort of limitation to the number of SBs by colony and/or sector would be more realistic. (If realism is what you're going for here:))

Maintenance cost for modules sounds like a good idea too. It could be explained that a SB starts with no modules so the SB has a base maintenance cost (5?), but as modules are added it uses previously unused space, increasing the overall maintenance cost of the SB by .5 per module. Or something like that.

I love 'Culture Bombing' but it is entirely too easy to do so, currently.

Teaching AI to use SBs effectively is probably non-trivial compared to small changes to hard-coded vlues that are needed to stop cheasy tactics and constructor rush. So really all of brads suggestions are pretty good. Actually right now I'd just remove the cumulative bonus from multiple starbases compltely.

Some more ideas to stop overproduction and SB abuse in Genral:
1. Morale penalty for production over 5x (aka polution in Civ)

2. Maybe a new unit called Advanced constructor that is more expensive need to build 2+ genration modules?

I vote for a maximum number of starbases per sector, probably three, and for "2) penalty affect BONUS production as well".

BTW - Shouldn't option 3) above read "_increase_ the penalty" ?

brad,

i'm not sure what the best approach would be, but i believe the end result should be that the player should gain little benefit from having more than 2 or 3 production enhancing SBs in a sector.

on a related note, i think that military SBs should be limited in the kind of bonus they give to speed or attack. perhaps a +100% or +200% limit.

or perhaps a hard limit to the # of SBs in a sector would be the best approach. probably the easiest to implement as well.

your dedication to improving the game continues to impress.

cheers

h

I second FDHjr's comments in that realism trumps:
(1) maintenance costs a must (for base and per module)
(2) limit resources and bases to 1-2 and 2-3 per sector, respectively

I feel that the problem lay in the desire of players to continually do the same end-game tactic (constructors everywhere) so the fixes that would most help:

->Maintenance cost (per starbase NOT modules).
->Limit to SBs per sector.

M

Starbases:

There should probably be some maintenance fee, although certain modules may be self-supporting (ie. no maintenance) and others could even return an amount to offset the maintenance.

I don't like artificial limits, but natural limits would arise as long as stacking is limited to things that provide diminishing returns (see below).


Production:

How about this. Separate capacity and efficiency. Capacity would be in units, with a maintenance cost. Efficiency would be in a percentage reduction in the number of units needed to produce goods.

For example, 100 units to produce a item X. A 5% efficiency bonus reduces that to 95 units. Here's the rub - efficiency suffers from diminishing returns. So two 5% bonuses don't equal a 10% efficiency gain.

Think of cars for a moment. Reduce the weight of a car 10% and you may receive a 10% reduction in fuel usage. Improve the engine efficienty 10% and you receive a 10% reduction. Do both and you'll get less than a 20% reduction, because if you reduce the weight first and then improve the engine the new engine's benefits only apply to moving 90% of the original weight.

OK, so eventually you'll be spending quite a bit for a small improvement in efficiency with every new starbase module. Retain the planetary caps on production units (see below). Production improvements (starbase and social projects) may add both units and efficiency benefits.

Production Caps:

I prefer a curve to 0 rather than a sudden change. Say a 20 class planet should have a 200 cap. Well, at 175 start taking 10 to produce 9, then 10 for 8, 7 and so on until 0. So:

In Out
175 175
185 184
195 192
205 199
215 205
225 210
235 214
245 217
255 219
265 220

And that's it, a hard cap of 220 production units (separate from efficiency).

Greg.

What about something along the lines of this:

First 2 starbases have no maintenance cost.
Third has a cost of 2 bc per turn.
Fourth has a cost of 4 bc per turn.
Fifth has a cost of 8 bc per turn.
Sixth has a cost of 16 bc per turn.

Of course these numbers would have to be tweaked but after a certain point it wouldn't be economically feasible to build more SB's. However the player would still have the option of overloading a particularly important sector if he was willing to pay the price.

I guess I would like to see maintenance costs for Starbases and modules.

I don't care about the mass building of Starbases in a sector. I would like to see a limit of 1 module addition per Starbase per turn to slow down the rush building of Terror stars and Party stars. It's a strategy game. You should have to defend your constuctors while they are building. It will also give the A.I. more time to react to what you are doing.

My 2 cents.

DblDamage

What is the justification for limiting the # of starbases?

I hate unit limits. It can't be aribrary.

For instance, I could support a system in which you could only support X starbaes per Y population.

But some hard coded limit of "sorry, only 3 starbses in a sector" would be really problematic I feel.

I'd rather have a way where If you're going to limit it, it is based on something that makes sense or could at least be justified.

The real problem with the starbaess currently really boils down to 3 issues:

#1 The "free" production wasn't penalized at all so you could just keep pumping them up forever. This will be changed.

#2 Cultural domination was too easy by simply building a starbase (at all) in those distant sectors. This is going to be changed too so that your influence does take into account how far away your closest star is (and to couple that with having a life support payment on low quality planets to keep people from just colonizing crappy planets all over).

#3 late game constructors can be cranked out like nothing and it can get pretty tedious.

Now on #3 I have a different idea:

A new unit called Advanced Constructors. These woudl cost MUCH more but you would need them to build more than X modules with a standard constructor. Where X would be like 5 modules.

To go beyond 5, you would need an advanced constructor which woudl come with large scale building.

We had somewhat planned for this already:
http://www.galciv.com/examples/5/new-70.jpg

See the little field on that screen on the right side? That was going to be a bar graph to show you how close you were to filling up the starbase's "free slots".

But there wasn't time to playtest this concept nor write the corresponding AI for it.

So advanced constructors would cost 500 instead of 150 and they come with special extensions to build out the star base.

Some other things we would like to do:

a) Have the player declare what kind of starbase they want it to be when they first build it. Their choice will allow them to get a "free" slot in the area they choose (Military, Production, Trade, Culture, Mining).

Then there'd be corresponding graphics on that. So the starbases would visually look different depending on your choice.

c) We could handle star bases in much the same way we did Sales executives in The Corporate Machine. That star bases are such immense efforts that logistically you can only handle X amount based on your economy. And this would be updated each year. So when you reached a certain point, it would bring up a dialog saying "Your economy has reached the point where you can now support 3 star bases" and there'd be a visual indicator of each step on the way.

My take is that we need something along the scaling maintenance suggested by others, although I would have only the first SB free, and all subsequent ones acruing fees.

An alternative would be to make it so that some modules simply don't stack (i.e. limit 1 per sector). Maybe you can build all the low level mining bonus modules you want, but you only get one party palace and MSD no matter what.

I said in another thread what I don't want to see is the introduction of an AI just as ruthless as the humans - that would really turn this game into sim-starbase.

These are my thoughts. Why would a race strategically build a starbase in a certain sector location?

1. Harvest A Resource
2. Improve Defensive and/or Offensive Presence
3. Assist Local Planet Development

Item 1. You should be able to build starbases wherever resources are. Item 2. I think it should be limited to 1 assuming you don't already control a planet/system in that sector. After that, it starts become more a cheese factor in my opinion. 3. I suggest one starbase per colonized system in a sector. In effect, each system provides logistical support to the single starbase.

Cut to the chase realizing I like to keep things simple... If there is a resource, then that's your one starbase for the sector. If two resources, then you can build two though and so on. Otherwise, limit it to 1 starbase per sector assuming no resources/colonized systems. Maybe two if you have two systems and so on.

A related thought is allow players to set a starbase limit, but that can really throw Metaverse for a loop.

I'd like to see a maint cost x (5-10) for each starbase, but NO maint per module.

I'm also in favor of limiting the number of starbases per sector - ( not just limiting the # of starbases / sector / race ). I think this number should be fairly high however (somewhere between 4-8). The limit per sector (as opposed to sector/race) makes starbases a much higher target - more akin to resource starbases.

I'd even like consideration on the idea that to build a starbase you have to have a minimum (sector) culture of at least (say) 15%. Think of it as a supply chain (using culture as the Starbase Depot). This would add strategy to building cultural starbases in "empty" sectors that are adjacent to "good" sectors. It would also prevent resource grabbing clear across the map. I think more of starbases as "stepping stones" to sectors - not simply be able to build them at the far corners of the universe.

Thanks.

~SDC~

Brad, you guys amaze me....always looking at what is on players minds. I was just thinking about this on my way to work because of some of the other threads, and had some ideas similar to a combination of your first and second post.

Here's my thoughts:

- I like the idea of a starbase maintenance fee. These things can't just float around space without an associated cost, can they?

- Please no fee by module, and no limit to the number of bases per sector. We should be able to focus more on certain sectors than others.

- I love the idea of an advanced constructor with large scale building. I like making culture palace terror stars, but don't like managing the 20+ constructors flying around that it takes to make one with some defense.

- My implementation of advanced constructors would be slightly different. Instead of requiring them after a specific number of modules are built, I would tie them to specific module types. Allow small improvements (+10% here, +15% there) with normal constructors, but require advanced constructors for the big items like terror stars, culture palaces, etc. This would also allow you to add advanced trade modules, etc.

- Make advanced constructors very expensive, and eliminate the current tier'd construction model. Let us send one advanced constructor to build a terror star or culture palace instead of the extra micromanagement required to send five normal constructors.

- I also read the economics changes in the encyclopedia. Is there some way to show the cost associated with bonus production on the planet screens? I can see new players not understanding why their costs go up when they increase production. I also don't think you will get the desired effects of less colonizing of lower class planets unless it is obvious. People will still do it and then not understand why their economy is tanking.

- Will the new economic limits make the PQ+15% starting condition even more powerful?

Thanks!

Frogboy,

The problem with not putting a hard limit on starbases and instead using some kind of economic limiter is that good players will still be able to exploit it too much. With your idea of limiting it based on your economy you are in essence additionally penalizing players who don't know how to maximize their economy already (a double penalty). I'd much prefer a hard limit based upon the number of owned systems + 1 or something like that. This way there is an even playing field. Just don't penalize players who already are having a hard time playing. I know that using the cheese tactics I could get enough economy going to overcome many economic type limiters.

Another solution that I believe would work is to simply hard cap SB bonuses per sector. This is very easy to justify as you simply can't squeeze any more culture, military, or production out of a given amount of space. Something like zxtt's suggestion would work well. I just don't think the limiter should be the economy.

Other than that, I like all of your ideas and look forward to them in the game.

FrogBoy,

In response to your comment:
>> We could handle star bases in much the same way we did Sales executives in The Corporate Machine. That star bases are such immense efforts that logistically you can only handle X amount based on your economy. And this would be updated each year. So when you reached a certain point, it would bring up a dialog saying "Your economy has reached the point where you can now support 3 star bases" and there'd be a visual indicator of each step on the way.

I think this is a wonderful idea, but i dont think you should hard limit it. how about a scaling maintenance fee for starbases? the first X is free, but each one after that costs Y more than the previous one. As your empire grows, the free X is larger (or even base it on technology like trade routes). This will help early civilizations to get that one or two that really boosts them, but limits growth on the starbase farmers (like me ).

friendjosh



~SDC~

All right, my turn to chime in on this. After reading the suggestions, and understanding (as much as anyone can) the situation of star base overload I'd like to propose the following adjustments to Starbases:

1) Star base cap of max 3 per system, based on star quality. Here's the justification... Perhaps in sectors with multiple stars (or with different types of stars even...), gravitational forces make the prospect of building a stationary Star Base physically impossible, or at least so difficult that there are only a few spaces in a sector where locating a Star Base would be feasible. I guess the principle I'm suggesting is kind of like a Sector version of a LaGrange point. This would force players to be more strategic where they locate their starbases.

2) Star Base maintenence. There should be a maintenence factor at an intermediary level of development; imposed after say 3 or so modules. This gives basic Star Bases a little autonomy when they're first created. And after a few modules, they require some outside assitance until the Star Base 'gets its legs' and then creates a sustainable economy; at which point the maintenence penalty goes away.

3) Module Maint. This isn't needed for the basic modules, I think. But it should be imposed on the modules that offer significant bonuses... representing the enormous infrastructure required to Maintain those massive Distribution centers or orbital factories or Cultural Palaces.

4) Also, I love Frogboy's note about advanced constructors later on in the game, but I propose taking that a step further. My idea involves adding a classification to modules, changing the current constructor's name, and adding two more constructor types. There could be basic modules that could be constructed with one 'Fabricator', medium sized modules that require multiple Fabricator or one Constructor to complete. And finally, we have the collosal modules that require large numbers of Fabricators, a few Constructors, or one huge 'Architect' class builder vessel to complete. And of course, the larger vessels could be used to produce a few smaller modules, but in the interest of game balance, they should be inefficient at creating multiple smaller modules. Kind of like:

3 Fabricator = 1 Constructor but
1 Constructor = 2 Fabricators for small modules

Anyways... that's my take on it. Love the game... I've been waiting for a great Space Civilisation game for a while with a strong strategy base and a decent story... and its good to have finally found it. Thanks Guys! I love the commitment you've made to the game, and the response to your fans (and detractors)!

Looking forward to more on the horizon!

I tend to view that limiting strbaes 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 mnay different strategic paths.

A good strategy game should allow players to make choices. Anything that takes away choices is a bad thing IMO.

You could have a civilization limit on starbases based on population or economics or technology.

So you could have a whole starbase path in the tech tree that has to do with logistics. It could take into account the # of sectorss across.

Where Sectors across would be N (a 4x4 galaxy would be 4).

Then you would have technologies that would increase the number of starbases. You would have, in effect, a logistics ability.

So you start out with N and then this ability would be increase through new technologies, evetns, trade goods.

THAT could actually be done relatively easily too. So that would solve having a gazillion star bases.

Now, there are other potential paths with regards to constructors. Each constructor could become increasingly expensive to build. So every constructor coudl be 5% more expensive to build. Just have to come up with a justification. But that way, you could get a faster start with constructors but they would become increasingly expensive. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not.

Similarly, you could have the cost be based on the # of total modules you are supporting. So instead of there being a maint. cost for modules, you simply have new constructors cost more based on the # of modules you have.

Remember, any idea has to be able to be visually intuitive. You have to have a way to display information easily on the screen.

~SDC~

Heh, something I forgot...

The idea of building as many starbases in a sector a possible, with each Star Base module stacking seems counter-intuitive to me, based on modern economics.

There is a reason why McDonalds won't license a franchise within a certain geographical limit (usually its within a mile of each other in urban settings, but I've seen exceptions). Car dealerships are the same... you can't have two dealerships of the same make of car in the same general area, otherwise they take away from each other's sales.

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.

Just something else to think on

Brad,

I like the ideas you express here on SB's. I appreciate very much the thought and effort you are putting into improving the game.

Re #13, limits can indeed be arbitrary. However, per Occam's Razor, I too am in favor of a hard limit per sector.

A rationale can be the same as that of Doom Stars in the SW universe. Authors such as Michael Stackpole have posited the following logic:

"Can the Empire build a Doom Star anywhere (i.e., in any given, secure sector under its control)? Yes."
"Can the Empire build a Doom Star everywhere (i.e., in every sector it needs, or wants, one)? No. Doom Stars are massive undertakings requiring total committments of entire sectors to produce. The Empire can't take multiple sectors 'off-line' just to produce Doom Stars; civilian goods and normal business activity must proceed for the Empire to function and continue to exist."

A combination of Super-Constructors, higher-cost modules requiring them as prerequisites, maintenance and limitations to the stackability of bonuses, I am sure will yield improvement in this area. However, if you could obtain the same effect by simply limiting the number of SB's per sector, the game (strictly from the standpoint of playability) would benefit, imho.

One of the greatest strengths of your design is its accessability. GalCiv is quite beautiful in its simplicity (i.e., use of basic game design conventions). I feel this is where MOO3 can offer a wise caution - its design is brilliant in many respects, but a great many of its innovations are undocumented and inscrutable (in its manual's & strat guide's present forms).

I have great confidence you will come up with an elegant solution, given what you have already created.



~SDC~

I agree, you shouldn't hardlimit the number of bases you can have, or even the number per sector. It should be limited by the economy, I like friendjosh's idea better. At least then if you needed to you could build another starbase, as you might need it (for example increased ship range), but it should come at a cost.

Some of the trade modules could be used to offset the costs. Something else that occurs to me is it's almost silly to have the starbases provide 200+ percent bonus to every planet in a sector. Just seems a little hard to believe that one starbase is providing lots of extra production to a sector with loads of colonised planets with no penalty or capacity reached, while another identical SB which is only servicing one planet only provides the same bonus to that one planet. Couldn't it be divided between the planets? Or perhaps you could choose where it goes? That way you could still have planets with huge production, but not all of them.

~SDC~

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!