+- Hazeron Forums (https://hazeron.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Shores of Hazeron (https://hazeron.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Arena of Ideas (https://hazeron.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=15)
+--- Thread: Nerf Building Quality Progression (/showthread.php?tid=300)
RE: Nerf Building Quality Progression - Deantwo - 09-18-2018
(09-18-2018, 11:05 AM)Vectorus Wrote: The idea of refining resources for a reduced but higher quality output has been suggested before. It was usually rejected because it was too wide-ranging, turning infinitely abundant lead into gold; but a quality-averaging system is much more limited in scope. Since it is actually the current system and no one has strenuously objected to that aspect of it in the year we've lived with it, I think it needs more than a one-word dismissal. I'm sure you're able to provide one, but you haven't yet.
The reason for not having a magical "make my crap better so I don't have to do any work" / "quality improving" machine has never changed. It removes the whole reason for exploration and expansion.
The fact the it increased quality of production once buildingQL was high enough was just a convenient side-effect that didn't make sense to complain about alone without pointing out the whole system was flawed.
RE: Nerf Building Quality Progression - Vectorus - 09-18-2018
Deantwo Wrote:I do agree that increasing the quality of production slightly is a nice reward for being technologically advanced
Deantwo Wrote: It removes the whole reason for exploration and expansion.
?
Er, anyway: increasing the number of "best" resource qualities from 1 to 2 does not "remove the whole reason" for playing the game. That number used to be 8. Q248 stuff was highly devalued after the tech nerf, for no real reason. It wasn't even that more levels were added above, which is what games usually do when they increase the level cap: all the former TL32 values were transferred to Q255.
Surely most of us would be quite surprised if a mainstream MMO announced a new expansion by reducing everyone's current stats, then made the new max level equivalent to the old one?
Top quality stuff is just slightly too rare now, to expect any but the most dedicated players to get their hands on it. I thought it was better balanced before the nerf - though I concede that liberalizing warp patents and other things formerly behind a TL gate has mitigated the bad effects. I admit that's a matter of judgement, but that's all I'm really arguing for here - tools or a "quality machine" are a means to that end. Sorry if it sounded a bit disorganized in earlier posts; it's quite a sudden suggestion from Haxus. I would be happier achieving the same effect by just collapsing the number of resource quality levels. I've never quite understood why it wasn't just 32 in the first place.
Then you could scrap Mass Media altogether: information warfare is hardly a very useful or sensible purpose, though I suppose it's fun to have. We don't need more morale buildings; it's complex enough already.
Apart from that, I'm in favour of removing building Q.
RE: Nerf Building Quality Progression - Deantwo - 09-18-2018
(09-18-2018, 01:11 PM)Vectorus Wrote: Er, anyway
Guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say. But it is still a weird and confusing way to do it. Your explanation of your "Quality Control"-thingy just confused me more than anything else, and I doubt it would be better.
I will agree that a tool bonus to increase quality of production would do somewhat the same, but it is easier to understand and can me made to only affect specific manufacturing processes as desired by Haxus.
RE: Nerf Building Quality Progression - Haxus - 09-18-2018
What if the quality size progression was removed from spacecraft? What if somebody built a Q1 Death Star?
Then a new player is closer to starting on an even footing with existing empires. They would still have to discover and gather materials and develop patents.
Quality is not a limiting factor to building size.
RE: Nerf Building Quality Progression - Deantwo - 09-18-2018
(09-18-2018, 01:35 PM)Haxus Wrote: What if the quality size progression was removed from spacecraft? What if somebody built a Q1 Death Star?
Then a new player is closer to starting on an even footing with existing empires. They would still have to discover and gather materials and develop patents.
Quality is not a limiting factor to building size.
Some kind of limiting factor for spacecraft would be nice, but I definitely aren't a fan of "spacecraftQL", I have mentioned this a few times. I can dig them up after work here in a few.
RE: Nerf Building Quality Progression - Haxus - 09-18-2018
Aren’t the limiting factors already there? A new player must locate materials and exploit them in sufficient quantities to build their Death Star. They have to develop the patents and manufacture the parts. They would have to be ready to invest the time needed to build the thing.
It would make more sense to develop a fleet of exploration and colonizing vessels at the start, ships that can be built quickly, with an economy of materials.
RE: Nerf Building Quality Progression - Deantwo - 09-18-2018
(09-18-2018, 02:16 PM)Haxus Wrote: Aren’t the limiting factors already there? A new player must locate materials and exploit them in sufficient quantities to build their Death Star. They have to develop the patents and manufacture the parts. They would have to be ready to invest the time needed to build the thing.
It would make more sense to develop a fleet of exploration and colonizing vessels at the start, ships that can be built quickly, with an economy of materials.
Very true. I don't see a big issue with someone using months to make a death star with nothing but rocket-drives.
My biggest complaint about the "spacecraftQL" is still that it is confusing. The QL slider feels weird to work and it is hard to understand how increasing it allow for higher stats.
I would love to see QL scaling gone from spacecraft and instead more advanced versions of modules were added. For example like the hull modules, you can upgrade from metal hull to Magmium hull. Same can be done for other spacecraft subsystems, for example an upgraded sensor module that requires advanced materials could give more sensor range per m³ of volume.
Upgraded and advanced modules are easy to understand, it makes more advanced spacecraft cost more advanced materials, and gives a better sense of upgrading when you upgrade your spacecraft's subsystems.
Only issue I see is that you won't be able to indicate how advanded a spacecraft is in sensor reports. But I guess just mentioning the total volume would work.
RE: Nerf Building Quality Progression - Vectorus - 09-18-2018
I think decoupling the quality from the size limit is a good idea.
I was complaining in an old thread that bigger was always better. A Q1 rustbucket Death Star meeting a Q255 hyperadvanced frigate would be an interesting and uncertain encounter. And it's always seemed sensible to me that if you have lots of scrapheap materials, you can make lots of scrapheap stuff. Q limit was a little artificial. We clearly have some inertial dampening tech, so the only real spaceborne size limit, structural stress when turning, is probably irrelevant.
Spending a long time building a Q1 resource network big enough to build a Death Star will be its own deterrent, anyway. You'd just have to do it again later for higher Qs. It would be self-defeating to abuse the system too much - you'd be better of building scouts, as Haxus points out. The added, hard-coded deterrent is not needed.
The principle of limiting new players only by their own dedication and ingenuity is a good one, and vital to a pay-to-play game without story and character progression. I would support this move.
RE: Nerf Building Quality Progression - Haxus - 09-18-2018
These manufacturing processes, all patents, do not consume anything that determines the final Q of the patent. The resulting patent Q is determined by the Q of the university.
"Adamantite, Method for Mining"
"Bolite, Method for Mining"
"Eludium, Method for Mining"
"Lumenite, Method for Mining"
"Phlogiston, Method for Drilling"
"Polytaride, Method for Drilling"
"Radioactives, Method for Mining"
"Viathol, Method for Drilling"
"Vulcanite, Method for Mining"
The solution would be to make a requirement of their natural resource material. e.g. The Adamantite patent would have to consume a chunk of adamantite. That is not impractical, as each of the materials can be gathered by hand. The quality of the patent would then be equal to the quality of the material, since building Q is not a factor.
At present, each of these patent processes benefits from the presence of their natural resource, only to reduce time. Time reducing components do not affect the Q of the output.
RE: Nerf Building Quality Progression - Vectorus - 09-18-2018
Gas giant resources might be too hard to gather by hand. The gravity is typically too great for you to move on foot. You'd need to be a pretty good submarine driver.
I suppose you could use a prospector bay, since a Q255 prospector bay can be built without any of those resources, I think.
In principle, though, that sounds fair.