Katrar
Major
Reged: 09/15/02
Posts: 1314
Loc: Seattle, WA USA, Terra
|
Alternative to Building Degradation: A Proposal
#163729 - 02/05/12 02:14 PM (24.17.137.174)
|
|
|
There are apparently two objectives for building degradation:
1. Eliminate tent empires.
2. Make it time consuming to own and operate high level empires.
Generally the community doesn't mind the tent empire eliminating aspect. Eliminating tent empires, so long as it is part of a wider change to how war is fought, is something the community wants as well. However, busywork is NOT what anyone wants. Most of us have familes now, careers, etc. Obligations that make this (busywork) an imposition. Doesn't matter if its 1 hour a week. That's too much if its only purpose is intended to be busywork.
So, a solution to this problem... this is a unified solution involving several changes that could eliminate the need for building degredation as it currently exists, and make Neveron a bit more fun and healthier to boot.
1. War changes...
Wipe mech upgrades. Bring all towers down to 1x range. Eliminate IDF. Institute forced SOI. This gives some sense to eliminating tents.
2. TARGETED DEGRADATION
Focus building degradation on cities with no defenses, or defenses under X BV. This would target tents specifically, and avoid damaging active non-tented empires. There is no reason to degrade small to mid-size inactive empires because they will auto delete in 30 days anyway. So no normal non tented empire should have to deal with degradation at all.
3. MIMIC HIGH LEVEL EMPIRE FUNCTIONS AT MID-LEVELS.
Most high level empires exist for a specific purpose. Those purposes are...
1. Research empire
2. Factory empire
3. Funding empire
Beyond that, really there's no reason to be level 11, 12 or 13. So I propose that a few new building types be instituted, so that the functions of large empires could be maintained in smaller empires:
The Factory Complex - A "Factory TC", would be a totally automated (no pop required) robotic factory that would equal a large amount of factory workers. Perhaps 1 FC = 200,000 Factory Workers. These would be EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE, and there could be a maximum per empire. A level 8 that had a few FC's could be the production equivalent of a level 12 production empire, and still be able to defend them.
The Commercial Complex - A way for medium level empires to have above average, high level equivalent income. Perhaps 1 CC is the equivalent of a 1k pop and equivalent comms. Requires very low pop, or no pop. Could be thematically explained as a commercial spaceport or something along those lines. Could be a limited number per empire. Perhaps all empires can have X of these, but FL empires can have Y of these to encourage FL's funding their member empires.
Both of these types of buildings, mega factories and mega commercials, mimic clusters of 1ks that are the reasons empires get to high levels. If a level 8 empire could support the game (through the production of parts, vees and mechs) or their faction (same, and also through money), it may be more reasonable to hope empires may voluntarily reduce in size.
This could be met with an adjustment of administrative overhead/corruption, THE NATURAL BARRIER TO EXPONENTIAL GROWTH.
These are just some thoughts on how to avoid busywork of degradation which I for one am having a hard time thinking about dealing with for the next X years just to play casually. I think this could be a way to mid level empires that perform the functions of high level empires, making Neveron a level 6-8 game like it was for a couple months in 2001. lol
--------------------
HoC Gaming - Come war with us!
The HoC Archive - Neveron's definitive historical document
|
Katrar
Major
Reged: 09/15/02
Posts: 1314
Loc: Seattle, WA USA, Terra
|
Re: Alternative to Building Degradation: A Proposal
[Re: Katrar]
#163730 - 02/05/12 02:28 PM (24.17.137.174)
|
|
|
Also just a note, I know there are specific details that conflict, also lots of emps with many many dp mechs, those are good points. And the whole reason why discussion on major changes is important. =)
--------------------
HoC Gaming - Come war with us!
The HoC Archive - Neveron's definitive historical document
|
LTCM
Newbie
Reged: 02/06/12
Posts: 1
|
Re: Alternative to Building Degradation: A Proposal
[Re: Katrar]
#163738 - 02/06/12 06:11 AM (98.116.127.251)
|
|
|
I think "targeted" degradation is much more viable that the original function. It is of paramount importance, in my opinion, that excessive tenting is addressed. The original function was over-reaching just like the Dodd-Frank reforms....Deterring tenting can also be achieved by increasing administrative costs as well by adding in a factor that takes into account the total value of infrastructure divided by the zones that they span (in addition to factoring in total # of zones).
The incentives to consolidate infrastructure are already pretty strong, but there are some caveats that aren't being satisfied. One of the benefits to tenting is being able to shelter and secure primary offensive forces. Operators might be more willing to forgo that option if pre-placement options were more extensive. No one wants their mechs running around on AI when confronting the opposition. Allowing presets for mech AI behavior such as "stationary", "roam between (x,y) and (z,w)", and "take a daiquiri break" might help address some concerns to harboring important units in primary zones. More thoughts on that to come....
In regard to larger empires and containment, I can't really add much to the conversation because I only run a level 6, but....They do have their place in the game. The only way I might reconsider that is if research/manufacturing/costs are made more viable at lower levels. I subscribe to the idea that Neveron is best enjoyed at the lower levels, and with a strong drink, but it just isn't possible under the current conditions. Ideally, empires would max out at level 9 and still have the potential productivity as today's largest empires. Having a giant empire discourages war as it isn't easy to rebuild the Roman empire from ruins.
All that being said, imposing a unit cap is unnecessary from my point of view. I am on the outside looking in, but I find OMT to be a significant deterrent to overcrowding with units. If that is different at higher levels, dynamically scale the costs as size increases.
Just my early morning thoughts....not proof reading this either!
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
