Energy less

manored · Post by **manored** » 09 Dec 2006, 23:37

Just a suggestion, but I think versions of XTA and AA where you dont waste energy (or have to much of it). Would be interesting since it would make games faster but you would still need to expand to gather metal (metal generators would have pathetic efficiency).

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 10 Dec 2006, 00:25

Err, I'm sorry, but I can't tell what it is your actually suggesting here...

mehere101 · Post by **mehere101** » 10 Dec 2006, 00:30

I think he wants energy to be scarce...

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 10 Dec 2006, 01:24

No the other way around. Tuned down metal makers, i.e. decreased metal output or increased energy consumption. I think the latter makes more sense.

Strategia · Post by **Strategia** » 11 Dec 2006, 10:27

From what I could tell, you're all wrong. He means a mod in which energy isn't a factor entirely, only metal is; i.e., you have no energy production, but also no consumption.

Would be interesting IMO :)

Hoinkie · Post by **Hoinkie** » 12 Dec 2006, 11:49

make a mod where you cant build any metal makers but the comm automatically turns excess energy into metal.

ppl will be real carefull with their comm then

Strategia · Post by **Strategia** » 12 Dec 2006, 12:41

And you can't expand your metal economy, hence you will be hard pressed to field any decently-sized armies. And even if the comm produces a lot of metal, you should make him use a lot of power too; however, if you do that you won't have a game at all since your power is depleted faster than you can say "OMG" with ur keeb0rdz and you still won't be able to build anything. Even if the comm produces some energy, initial production will be horrendously slow, and especially on small maps a very significant portion of the available space will be devoted to energy production.

AFAIK, it isn't possible to have a "scaling" metal maker whose usage/output differs as your energy levels change.

DemO · Post by **DemO** » 12 Dec 2006, 13:45

Diminishing metal maker returns option when turned on will give less and less efficient metal output from metalmakers as you make more of them. Similar concept - higher energy needs to make less metal progressively.

manored · Post by **manored** » 12 Dec 2006, 21:51

Strategia wrote:From what I could tell, you're all wrong. He means a mod in which energy isn't a factor entirely, only metal is; i.e., you have no energy production, but also no consumption.

Would be interesting IMO :)

That what I meant

. Metal makers would make free metal but have their eficiency greatly reduced to give players a reason to fight for metal places...

bamb · Post by **bamb** » 12 Dec 2006, 22:03

I'd make an energyless mod but atm spring is broken with the energy/metal per turn use being borked (ie stuff goes on ~normally even if you have negative metal income)

BlackLiger · Post by **BlackLiger** » 12 Dec 2006, 23:52

Yeah, I hope they fix that soon. Either way, I was working on the design for a mod, myself, which uses energy to limit the players forces, rather like a continual use resource.

Each command centre (yes, command centres, as in bases) would produce X energy, while each unit would use its own amount of energy (bigger = more use) and so, when you have a certain number of units, you can't build any more (like the Orky resource in Dawn of War) without building an additional base (which would be big enough to only realisticly be placable in certain areas....)

PauloMorfeo · Post by **PauloMorfeo** » 13 Dec 2006, 14:45

bamb wrote:I'd make an energyless mod but atm spring is broken with the energy/metal per turn use being borked (ie stuff goes on ~normally even if you have negative metal income)

No it isn't. People are just misunderstanding the facts of how the econimics work in Spring.

bamb · Post by **bamb** » 13 Dec 2006, 23:25

PauloMorfeo wrote:
bamb wrote:I'd make an energyless mod but atm spring is broken with the energy/metal per turn use being borked (ie stuff goes on ~normally even if you have negative metal income)
No it isn't. People are just misunderstanding the facts of how the econimics work in Spring.

Hehe, then the economics work "borkedly" in spring. If you have negative metal income and zero metal, you can still build metally things, it's just somewhat slower. Same with energy. I'd call that borked.
Thus you can't build any such troop limiting mechanisms in spring.

The thing has been discussed before and probable solutions have been found.

Peet · Post by **Peet** » 13 Dec 2006, 23:29

It's "somewhat slower" because instead of the build speed being limited by the workers' buildtimes, it is limited to your metal income. It's not borked at all.

bamb · Post by **bamb** » 14 Dec 2006, 13:23

Huh? Negative metal or energy income because of having units that have fixed metal or energy use?

You're not supposed to be able to build AT ALL!

PauloMorfeo · Post by **PauloMorfeo** » 14 Dec 2006, 17:49

bamb wrote:...
Hehe, then the economics work "borkedly" in spring. If you have negative metal income and zero metal, you can still build metally things, it's just somewhat slower. Same with energy. I'd call that borked.
...

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The 2 problems with the economics system in Spring is that the priority by which resources are used do not fit some of the things people want and that units the suck up resources still operate when not beeing able to suck up resources. Nothing else.

Day · Post by **Day** » 14 Dec 2006, 18:10

if your not supposed to build anything with negative income.. you mean if you income is in minus or your expenses are bigger then income

either way if it was the last, where would the income go <_<

bamb · Post by **bamb** » 17 Dec 2006, 01:14

Ok, fine, call it a feature and pretend that it makes sense and don't expect any mods different from TA.

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 17 Dec 2006, 01:32

He's right, it's not borked. If you have 10 income, a con unit that needs 2 metal, and a SuperMegaMetalSucker that needs 1000 metal, the con unit is still going to get the 2 metal per turn. Because it is the cheapest thing to run, it gets priority.

Not saying this is the way it should work, just saying the way it works is self consistent.

BlackLiger · Post by **BlackLiger** » 17 Dec 2006, 14:23

Erom wrote:He's right, it's not borked. If you have 10 income, a con unit that needs 2 metal, and a SuperMegaMetalSucker that needs 1000 metal, the con unit is still going to get the 2 metal per turn. Because it is the cheapest thing to run, it gets priority.

Not saying this is the way it should work, just saying the way it works is self consistent.

Combat units should have higher priority on resource use than constructors. Otherwise, your shooting doesn't occur.

Weapons > Construction/Repair > Movement, though.

Spring RTS Engine

Energy less

Energy less