Stysiaq wrote:

At the risk of sounding inexperienced (because I am)...

I played a couple of games (on normal speed, vs normal AI, just to get to know the factions) since I bought the game and I certainly do not appreciate how you need to rely on good Antimatter/Adamantium systems in order to get the mid-tier improvements. In my most recent game I rolled a really good start for Science, and started going for it, yet when the mid-game came I realized that the systems I occupy and the ones in my vicinity that I could colonize were completely out of Antimatter which was nowhere to be seen on the market. This is kind of frustrating to see, when the +40% science building costs 25 of this resource and there's no way to mitigate this shortage (maybe by being able to create it from lower-tier stuff?). And "mid-tier" resources are the ones that truly matter, really, because as it was stated numerous times in this thread, in the current state of the game the 3rd tier resources don't see much play (because once you have the techs for the 3rd tier upgrades and improvements the game is coming to it's conclusion). This, paired with common overabundance of Titanium/Hyperium and how Titanium/Hyperium is used only for a handful of system improvements means that you add to the game's randomness factor way too much for my liking. 

Scarcity of the resource is not bad in and of itself, because it may be an incentive for rapid scouting and aggressive expansion; but I feel that the game should present you with several options to achieve the goal, if this goal (for example) is to get your infrastructure up and not something that is entirely optional (for example, I don't feel I need strategics in my ships even if I can't afford it; but I feel I need the +40% science for my science victory, and I need it ASAP). Therefore I'd welcome some resolution to the problem; like an option to spend extra research for buildings that require less strategic resources; or an option to do a quest for a specific resource that would have consistent, predictable requirements. Or maybe some neutral forces on the outskirts of galaxy guarding chaches of X Y or Z. Possibilities are there, and I don't claim I came up with any fun or balanced ones. But from my limited experience with the game I feel like I am being pushed to a strategy of an aggresive search& settlement of mid-tier resources and then building Miner's Guild/the other mining improvement, and limited strategies are never good in a strategy game.

Hi Stysiaq

Although I don't agree with Valhalla on decreasing strategics costs, I do think that there is something to be said for map spawn balancing when it comes to strategic and luxury resource spawns. I've had games where there has been an abundance of mixed strategics and luxuries nearby, games where it's only been anti-matter nearby (which is the less valuable of the two imo), and games where neither have cropped up in my constellation. I don't think it's a game loser, but it is a little frustrating. You can change the game settings for more abundance, but I don't think this is a reason for the normal settings to having such a big variation.

I think the current balance settings are calibrated for how physically close the systems are on the UI, and by constellation, rather than distance by parsec, which can be a real pain for a variety of reasons. Having to grab warp just to get somewhere half decent can be a real pain. All the good starter systems can sit on the other side of a constellation, or sit 'close' to you, but a T2 tech, and considerablr warp travel time away. It would be nice if the devs could have another look at starting balance, and consider the appearance of the mid tier strategics. I think this would address a lot of the issues people are experiencing, without having to actually change the costs.

Valhalla, I'm going to try a slightly different tack as you want to get away from some of the claims in the original post. Can we consider instead what you would be nerfing if there was a decrease in strategics costs? At the moment I can think of the following:

All United Empire heroes - as they get a strategic production boost.
All Overseer heroes - as they get a general resource production boost.
All mining buildings - these are currently a must in systems with T2 and T3 strategics, but if you lower strategics cost, why bother?
Slag and sludge centres - not so bad as they increase luxury output as well, but still a nerf.
Mineral Misers law - The industry boost is mediocre, the real boon of the law is increased strategic mining.

So your suggestion would be a pretty big nerf to UE as one of their big advantages is piling out the strategics either for using or selling. It would be a hit to anyone playing industrialist style play, as it deincentivises getting their laws and producing half their buildings. It hits Riftborn, although not as badly, for the same reasons as UE, and it also hits Horatio as Farella is an overseer starting in the senate which allows them to produce alot of resources. It's not that you would be making these things weaker, it's that you would be making everything else stronger, so it's a nerf via power creep. I don't think any of these things are too strong at the moment, so I don't see why there is a good reason to nerf them.

It's also these things that make me question whether it's really so hard to get strategics in the first place. If you don't prioritise these things, then you're going to have a hard time with strategic resources (but make gains elsewhere). As I've said before, a single 1 deposit of adamantian can become 8 or more adamantian per turn with the right buildings and heroes assigned. Two deposits, and you're laughing your way to the bank. Any more than that, then expect fully decked out adamantian fleets to be on the doorstep. The point is, there are tools in the game to alleviate the problems mentioned, so the first port of call should be to question whether those tools are being used effectively, rather than calling out game balance.

IceGremlin wrote:

YertyL wrote:

FreedomFighterEx wrote:

Man, i though i was hallucinated since every match i played, Adamantium, and Antimatter is never enough to be use unless i oversaturate mining it.

OK, I have to ask again: Did you, or the other players experiencing strategic ressource shortages, actually use every option available to get them?

Yes, we all have. It's the standard response to this problem, because it's the only thing that can slightly alleviate it. That's rather the entire point; with every tool at our disposal, we have unending fountains of the first two Strategics we don't need more of, a healthy amount of Orichalcix and Quadrinix once we research it, but a constant dearth of Adamantian and Antimatter. The selling of hundreds of stocks is a problem specific to Titanium and Hyperium because as OP's charts showed, there are only a couple of buildings that use them and only demand a measly 5 stocks. Meanwhile Adamantian and Antimatter are more difficult to obtain, yet have 5x the demand for each building, and many more buildings which make that demand.

The whole problem isn't that there is resource scarcity, it's that the scarcity is way too high for what should be a resource of medium value, such that Adamantian and Antimatter exert more pressure on the empire than Orichalcix or Quadrinix.

+1  Very nicely put.

I completly agree with the OP's analysis regarding Antimatter and Admantain. Moving the techs to mine them up earlier was an excellent move, and it was designed to give players acess to these resources earlier so we could use them. However I'm finding that the increased cost sometimes causes these resources to be LESS useable than before. This isn't even taking into account the possible use of Strategic Weapons. A ship loaded with Strategics can easily cost 20-60 or more of strategics to produce. Given the relative advantage of a slightly stronger ship versus several improvments that will DIRSTICALLY boost FIDSI, I almost never make Orange/Red strategic weapons etc.

Talking about having to make sacrifices is well and good, but that's only relavent if you get to make a trade off in the first place. Keep in mind that compared with before the patch, the cost for Orange and Red improvments was multiplied by FIVE TIMES. I can see this possibly being ok for Wonders, but basic improvments? Hmm...

The other strategics seem to be reasonabley well balanced. As Rifts though I'm ALWAYS low on everything, especially Titanium, but I think that's more of a quirk of the race than an overall balance issue.

Of note is that I mostly play multiplayer. Often times MP is played on the fast setting, so the industry cost of everything is much lower, and every single turn is highly valuable. MP games are usually decided at the midgame and don't often reach too far into the late game, so the shortage of Admantine and Antimatter shows up even more starkly. 

Hm I'll actually have to look into that. To be honest I don't use the Fold Singularity often due to the nature of the games I play. With high enough FIDSI, the compression singularity often gives more value than the Fold, especially if you're building pops or wonders. I tend to go for the +25% empirewide science bonus singularity when I research Tachyon Physics in the midgame. The "return ships back to their destination" function of said singularity seems to work fine though.

XD as for Titanium, it's a bit straining because of the fast speed. Singularities only last 5 turns on fast, but cost the same 20 resources. It hasn't been totally unmanagable of course due to the relative abundance of Titantium, but I have noticed a strain. Especially when compared with other races. Maintaining 3 Compression Rifts for 5 turns requires 12+ Titanium per turn just for the Rifts. It's not a lot in the late game though. Well, it should be fine even in the mid game if you aren't building a ton of Hunters (Which is actually a thing often, but THAT's more like a trade off ilke some of the posters are talking about).

Very true.  I forgot about rifts only lasting 5 turns in fast games.  I mostly play games at normal speed.  But I can certainly understand the strain being more difficult to cope with in fast games since resource extraction doesn't scale with game speed, but everything else does.

So, I stand by my original arguments.  Adamantium/Antimatter structures need a serious reduction in mid-tier resource costs.  But I'm good with the idea that with the reduction in mid-tier costs, of adding a secondary low tier cost to them, maintaining their value, but spreading the load and extending the uses for lower tier resources further up the technological stack.  This makes sense to me and I fully support it.  Mid-tier resource costs should be about half what they are now, but no more than 15 at the absolute max.

I understand and feel convinced by your arguments. After few more games I see it better, and it is indeed pretty strange that I am far more concerned with mid-tier resources that with these ultimate ones. Reducing antimatter/adamantium costs paired with adding some titanium/hyperium requirements seems good path.

However, I am even more sure it is something about game pacing, as some games tend to actually end on this established mid-tier resource level, especially with this crazy fast economic victory enabled.

My own experience mirrors what WeLoveYou has been saying.

I would not say that any of the buildings mentioned at the start of the thread are critical. The more improvements you build, the longer it takes for your systems to come online and be useful. And if the improvements are stealing strategics from your fleets, it may be doing more harm than good to build them.

If you are overprioritizing improvements, your fleets come into play later (both building and technology). Your neighbours will grab the best systems (colonization and curiousities) and will force you to make awkward defenses (mercenaries, rushed ship builds etc). The aliens will be less responsive diplomatically. Your technology choices will also reflect an introverted playstyle. The cost of making improvements is surprisingly high if you meassure it in number of turns. If you add on top of that the missing weapon modules, the lower quality of potential expansion systems, are you really making the best choices?

The argument seems to be that with their current price they are never a choice, never useful. For some improvements, I am inclined to agree. Example: The Dark Matter institute. It gives you maybe 400 research per turn on a well developed system after bonuses. You can only build one of it in your empire. It costs 50 antimatter and takes about 3 turns for a system to build (equvalent to a carrier). It has a miniscule effect. Unless you are swimming in antimatter, it makes no sense to build it. Using the urgent AI Research (convert industry into 50% worth of research) gives you 3000 research in those 3 turns you were building the improvement. By that comparison the investment would slow you down 10 turns before it turned profitable. Now, lets also count those 35000 research points were sunk into the technology that unlocked the improvement. The Dark Matter institute has to work for 85+ turns to justify its existence. So for 85 turns, you are lagging behind on your research. To be fair, the technology gives you something else too, but you are still 50 antimatter down.

stenole wrote:

I would not say that any of the buildings mentioned at the start of the thread are critical. The more improvements you build, the longer it takes for your systems to come online and be useful. And if the improvements are stealing strategics from your fleets, it may be doing more harm than good to build them.

I honestly mean you no offense man, but I am no longer going to be resonding this argument.  I have already explained it far too many times throughout this thread.  I have already broken everything down and covered all of the points where this issue comes into play.  Even breaking it down other ways to put the "real" issue completely within frame.  If people are not going to read the full thread and are going to constantly throw this one statement rather than reading the full thread to get the whole picture, then I can't waste my time simply to explain it again for each individual person who doesn't take the time to read the thread.  I've already done this for several people and quite a few people now fully understand what I was actually trying to get across.  But responding to every person that has missed the point is taking way too much of my time that I simply don't have for one misunderstood statement that some people feel all to eager to get hung up on and give their 2 cents on without reading through the rest of the thread before they do.  I'm sorry, again, I mean absolutely no disrespect,  but if you read through the thread, you will understand why I am at my wits end contesting this one stupid point so many have tried to make not realizing that they are completely missing the point.

So, from this point on with this thread, anyone who tries to contest the "every building in every system" argument, or the "critical" statement in the graph, I will not respond to them.  I simply refer you to the thread.  If you want your answers to your points, you'll find them in the comments.  They've already been discussed to death.  Again, my apologies.

ValhallasAshes wrote:

stenole wrote:

I would not say that any of the buildings mentioned at the start of the thread are critical. The more improvements you build, the longer it takes for your systems to come online and be useful. And if the improvements are stealing strategics from your fleets, it may be doing more harm than good to build them.

So, from this point on with this thread, anyone who tries to contest the "every building in every system" argument, or the "critical" statement in the graph, I will not respond to them.  I simply refer you to the thread.  If you want your answers to your points, you'll find them in the comments.  They've already been discussed to death.  Again, my apologies.

Not every response requires a counter-response. My post does not invalidate anything that you have said.

I am just saying that strategics balancewise, the game offers enough tools to work around it. I am of the thought that we can change our playstyle to fit the game rather than changing the game to fit the playstyle. I do not feel that Antimatter/adamantium costs make the things in the game unusable. You clearly feel the opposite.

But I do think that the game needs more ways to work around strategics shortages. Maybe the marketplace could better respond to shortages by increasing prices more drastically. This would give people a reason to put strategics up for sale. But as the game is now, dust doesn't have enough utility, so I doubt that would fix any problems.

At the risk of sounding inexperienced (because I am)...

I played a couple of games (on normal speed, vs normal AI, just to get to know the factions) since I bought the game and I certainly do not appreciate how you need to rely on good Antimatter/Adamantium systems in order to get the mid-tier improvements. In my most recent game I rolled a really good start for Science, and started going for it, yet when the mid-game came I realized that the systems I occupy and the ones in my vicinity that I could colonize were completely out of Antimatter which was nowhere to be seen on the market. This is kind of frustrating to see, when the +40% science building costs 25 of this resource and there's no way to mitigate this shortage (maybe by being able to create it from lower-tier stuff?). And "mid-tier" resources are the ones that truly matter, really, because as it was stated numerous times in this thread, in the current state of the game the 3rd tier resources don't see much play (because once you have the techs for the 3rd tier upgrades and improvements the game is coming to it's conclusion). This, paired with common overabundance of Titanium/Hyperium and how Titanium/Hyperium is used only for a handful of system improvements means that you add to the game's randomness factor way too much for my liking. 

Scarcity of the resource is not bad in and of itself, because it may be an incentive for rapid scouting and aggressive expansion; but I feel that the game should present you with several options to achieve the goal, if this goal (for example) is to get your infrastructure up and not something that is entirely optional (for example, I don't feel I need strategics in my ships even if I can't afford it; but I feel I need the +40% science for my science victory, and I need it ASAP). Therefore I'd welcome some resolution to the problem; like an option to spend extra research for buildings that require less strategic resources; or an option to do a quest for a specific resource that would have consistent, predictable requirements. Or maybe some neutral forces on the outskirts of galaxy guarding chaches of X Y or Z. Possibilities are there, and I don't claim I came up with any fun or balanced ones. But from my limited experience with the game I feel like I am being pushed to a strategy of an aggresive search& settlement of mid-tier resources and then building Miner's Guild/the other mining improvement, and limited strategies are never good in a strategy game.

YertyL wrote:

FreedomFighterEx wrote:

Man, i though i was hallucinated since every match i played, Adamantium, and Antimatter is never enough to be use unless i oversaturate mining it.

OK, I have to ask again: Did you, or the other players experiencing strategic ressource shortages, actually use every option available to get them?

Yes, we all have. It's the standard response to this problem, because it's the only thing that can slightly alleviate it. That's rather the entire point; with every tool at our disposal, we have unending fountains of the first two Strategics we don't need more of, a healthy amount of Orichalcix and Quadrinix once we research it, but a constant dearth of Adamantian and Antimatter. The selling of hundreds of stocks is a problem specific to Titanium and Hyperium because as OP's charts showed, there are only a couple of buildings that use them and only demand a measly 5 stocks. Meanwhile Adamantian and Antimatter are more difficult to obtain, yet have 5x the demand for each building, and many more buildings which make that demand.

The whole problem isn't that there is resource scarcity, it's that the scarcity is way too high for what should be a resource of medium value, such that Adamantian and Antimatter exert more pressure on the empire than Orichalcix or Quadrinix.

Hi Stysiaq

Although I don't agree with Valhalla on decreasing strategics costs, I do think that there is something to be said for map spawn balancing when it comes to strategic and luxury resource spawns. I've had games where there has been an abundance of mixed strategics and luxuries nearby, games where it's only been anti-matter nearby (which is the less valuable of the two imo), and games where neither have cropped up in my constellation. I don't think it's a game loser, but it is a little frustrating. You can change the game settings for more abundance, but I don't think this is a reason for the normal settings to having such a big variation.

I think the current balance settings are calibrated for how physically close the systems are on the UI, and by constellation, rather than distance by parsec, which can be a real pain for a variety of reasons. Having to grab warp just to get somewhere half decent can be a real pain. All the good starter systems can sit on the other side of a constellation, or sit 'close' to you, but a T2 tech, and considerablr warp travel time away. It would be nice if the devs could have another look at starting balance, and consider the appearance of the mid tier strategics. I think this would address a lot of the issues people are experiencing, without having to actually change the costs.

I am not advocating for any changes to the cost; I didn't spend enough time with the game yet. I like the idea of having your game plan in mind when you choose which systems to settle... but it doesn't help the case where you are relying on the RNG to be in your favor and spawn pivotal t2 strategics and (to a lesser extent) luxes near your homeworld. Ideally I would like to have a guaranteed system with all the resources - titanium and hyperium guaranteed to be really close (if not inside the home system), adamantium/antimatter somewhat close, maybe even contended for with your neighbor and the tier 3's can be "wherever", but more-or-less uniformly spread across the galaxy.

But the recent game hit me hard with the RNG, and it was past turn 120 (I think?) when I connected Antimatter to my network... and finished on turn 182 just because I wanted to win with science (being able to just buy my Conquest victory with Influence way earlier).

I don't want to "cheat" by increasing resource abundance in the map setting. I want regular settings to be fair.

Stysiaq wrote:

Hi Stysiaq

Although I don't agree with Valhalla on decreasing strategics costs, I do think that there is something to be said for map spawn balancing when it comes to strategic and luxury resource spawns. I've had games where there has been an abundance of mixed strategics and luxuries nearby, games where it's only been anti-matter nearby (which is the less valuable of the two imo), and games where neither have cropped up in my constellation. I don't think it's a game loser, but it is a little frustrating. You can change the game settings for more abundance, but I don't think this is a reason for the normal settings to having such a big variation.

I think the current balance settings are calibrated for how physically close the systems are on the UI, and by constellation, rather than distance by parsec, which can be a real pain for a variety of reasons. Having to grab warp just to get somewhere half decent can be a real pain. All the good starter systems can sit on the other side of a constellation, or sit 'close' to you, but a T2 tech, and considerablr warp travel time away. It would be nice if the devs could have another look at starting balance, and consider the appearance of the mid tier strategics. I think this would address a lot of the issues people are experiencing, without having to actually change the costs.

I am not advocating for any changes to the cost; I didn't spend enough time with the game yet. I like the idea of having your game plan in mind when you choose which systems to settle... but it doesn't help the case where you are relying on the RNG to be in your favor and spawn pivotal t2 strategics and (to a lesser extent) luxes near your homeworld. Ideally I would like to have a guaranteed system with all the resources - titanium and hyperium guaranteed to be really close (if not inside the home system), adamantium/antimatter somewhat close, maybe even contended for with your neighbor and the tier 3's can be "wherever", but more-or-less uniformly spread across the galaxy.

But the recent game hit me hard with the RNG, and it was past turn 120 (I think?) when I connected Antimatter to my network... and finished on turn 182 just because I wanted to win with science (being able to just buy my Conquest victory with Influence way earlier).

I don't want to "cheat" by increasing resource abundance in the map setting. I want regular settings to be fair.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, the second part of that post was for ValhallaAshes, not aimed at you.

Yeh I kind of agree about the strategic resource distribution being guaranteed in the vicinity (by travel time, not distance). Or at least, one deposit which should be enough to tick you over, but not enough to sustain fleets and fleets worth (you should have to fight/trade over getting those extras). Alternatively, it could be such that rarer strategics and luxuries, as well as being on harder to colonise planets, could also have a tendency to be located towards the galactic centre. This would prevent players from just turtling, but also give an idea about where you can find those resources. Not sure about that, but something that makes it a little less random where the T2's (and even T1's) are located would be helpful in having a game plan. Again, I think looking at the T2 strategic spawn rates is a much better way to solve some of the frustrations voiced here, rather than changing the costs (just to be clear - not saying you said this, but this was the line of OP). After all, it doesn't matter if the costs are lowered if you can't get access at all. If people still want to play with the more random distribution, there is currently an option for it, but given that the 'normal' settings is set to balanced - well sometimes it feels far from it.

I don't think it's cheating to have resource abundance high though - after all it's high for everyone. I don't know how much it affects the game as I haven't played with it on, but it's worthwhile enabling if it's something you find frustrating. Everyone, even the multiplayers, play with their own specific preferred presets which affect the overall game balance, but that's the beauty of having these options.