Hello, I have this idea about how unit can be priced. What if unit's Metal & Energy cost is not same? What if Metal represent health while Energy represent the potential damage for the unit? For example: lets say we create a new unit called    ChanServThis unit is light but carry 10 Kiloton TNT worth of nuclear damage. This unit is anti heavy, but has low HP, but has high damage potential. How do Ultimatum_MarkII be priced? I suggest it is priced at 1.21 gigawatt of E and 100Metal. So it is light as a flea but deal a 10Kiloton TNT worth of nuclear damage. IMO, the benefit is that E can be used again! so E can have value. :)
+0 / -0
|
Go play BA. THIS was among the first things removed in CA. It made things complicated for no real gain.
+0 / -0
|
Actually, go play Aurora.
+0 / -0
|
|
|
The variable drain when you change units is awful. It can be OK if you do things like make air factory or static defenses cost different ratios of BP or E. But not varying between units in a factory.
+0 / -0
|
Aww... Can't buildpower simply be fixed to Metal? Such that: you can build as fast as xx-metal/sec but need different amount of E for different projects? What would be the downsize of a constructor using different amount of E for different projects?
+0 / -0
|
I suggest we remove metal & energy production entirely.
+0 / -0
|
|
|
Guys, what is your opinion. Would Ultimatum_MarkII be worth building if its only 100Metal but require 1.21 gigawatt of E to build? Ultimatum_MarkII wont fire Dgun but fire nuclear warhead every second.
+0 / -0
|
|
|
seriously, what is aurora
+0 / -0
|
Aurora is Dwarf Fortress in Space. You design size and range and resolution of your sensors, then put those sensors on missiles, which you also design engines and fuel compartments and warheads and warhead ammunition for. Then you put those missiles into missile racks and into missile ammunition bays so you can launch them. Then you paint targets with an active sensor for missiles to lock on to, and fire the missiles using your fire control (which, like the active sensor, you need to design first). And then you put all that into a ship and call it Ultimatum Mark II. Then the aliens come with their dragon ships and you become known as Planet Shipmurdered.
+0 / -0
|
Why not they add a widget that automate gun loading and targeting and call them fire control computer? Its like in those movie Battleship where a giant battleship need to reload manually while a tiny destroyer has cruise missile that auto loading and kill alien ship.
+0 / -0
|
  xponen kinda bad idea, why not just tweak buildings energy drain, since currently it's kinda strange to see that 2 fusions can power unlimited amount of annis and ddms.
+0 / -0
|
There's a point at which you have to sacrifice realism for simplicity and understandability. Already the overdrive system is pretty opaque to the user - figuring out the cost/benefit of each energy source is hopeless. At least the power-source system is clear, if unrealistic.
+0 / -0
|
Okay, maybe ZK system is better after all. For example you can choose to build wind or fusion because both has same cost/E. So there is no hard pressure to choose one from another. In BA for example is quite complicated since hi-tier E become more efficient and E value reach 6 digits(!). I guess ZK is already fun, no need this system.
+0 / -0
|
There is no problem necessarily with e structures scaling up, that means you -need- to make a bunch of windgens before your first fusion, and a few fusions before your first superfusion. That's not a huge problem if the ratios are known and consistent. That solars cost 0 E in BA is for example an important strategic point: If you're flush with m and stalling e, you make solars. Static structures cost 2x BP compared to mobile units, and factories cost 1/4th, say. This could in fact be a good way to constrain rushing super units or superfusions, if they cost more E. The problem is the random variations on every single unit. Not even really high level players know these numbers and they add nothing to the game.
+0 / -0
|
I remember that in BA they have a widget that predict your resource level when you building stuff (because its hard to make sense), and experienced player always queue the same stuff. I think in BA their resourcing scheme make the game linear. IMO ZK also seems to head toward that (not fun) direction... for example: in team game you always have to build Air or loose :(
+0 / -0
|
agree with @Sakoth except for quote:
The problem is the random variations on every single unit. Not even really high level players know these numbers and they add nothing to the game. |
Interesstingly it is not really nessecary to know the random e-cost variations. After few minutes the variable drain when changing units is not as problematic as expected because tons of others factors blend into your energy drain/usage: cons move from assisting factory to reclaiming, something dies, a new turret uses energy, a missile silo finishes charging, shield gets hit, shared energy from allies,.. In BA and zK you usually produce more energy than factory needs: for metalmakers / overdrive. So there is this reserve, the game is "flexible" enough that knowing excact energy costs is not needed.
+0 / -0
|
 [2up]knorke: If that's the case wouldn't that mean the strategic effects of having unique energy costs per unit, compared to an identical metal to energy cost, are irrelevant? That would seem to undermine the point of it being better for strategy, since it seems the only effective strategy is to mask the variations by overbuilding power plants.
+0 / -0
|
