Upgrades Scaling
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:45 pm
With the upcoming changes to upgrades, a lot of chatter has been going around about what could be improved about them. One of the larger drawbacks of upgrades originally was that a lot of time had to be set aside by the captain to actually research them -- however, with the upcoming change of 'unmanned upgrading,' this is going to be less of an issue, and the limitation will become more about particular resources.
Furthermore, the current metagame heavily promotes 'maximizing' a single field due to the effective return. While there's some point in getting 'one or two' of an upgrade, the 'optimal strategy' still is 'max one field out first' -- tiered upgrades was a way of addressing this, and has to an extent, but does little to dissuade from the idea still. There is little benefit in 'dipping' in multiple upgrade types.
So here's the question I'm putting forth;
Should upgrade costs scale based upon the level of the upgrade you are researching?
By example, currently Upgraded Mining Lasers will always cost 15y 20r at all levels. Instead, perhaps it should be something closer to...
Level 1: 15y 20r
Level 2: 20y 30r
Level 3: 30y 5b 50r
Level 4: 40y 15b 70r
Level 5: 55y 25b 90r 5g
Level 6: 75y 40b 120r 10g
... just as an example, for the sake of discussion.
The point of such a task would be to make 'min maxing' less prominent, and give a more 'equal opportunities' look at all of the upgrades. It's basically an easier way of addressing the 'balancing' of each upgrade by creating a situation where despite a certain upgrade being superior to another, the effective increase in cost might push you to look at something else first.
Moreover, this also puts a much heftier focus upon all of those accumulating resources during the late game. Achieving a 'maximum power' battlecruiser means a requirement for more resources -- and currently in the late game, resources come in abundance. This creates a sort of dump for them such that they become more useful.
Even more than that though, this creates a situation where proactive play is encouraged. Rather than sitting around, waiting for a max power battlecruiser, a team may reach a point where they truly say, "Okay. We can't get resources fast enough for upgrades -- if we delay any longer, they'll start catching up due to the relatively lower costs of their upgrades, so we should fight." What I mean by this is it creates a situation where it's a lot more plausible for a team to 'catch up' if given extra time, since the effective number of upgrades you can achieve over time given a static income becomes a lot smaller.
I think it's an idea worth discussing. I'm surprised we haven't really talked about it at some point earlier, really. So... what are all your thoughts?
EDIT: We're working on the concept on a google excel. If you're interested in helping to tweak the numbers, or just want to look, please ask around the skype chat.
Furthermore, the current metagame heavily promotes 'maximizing' a single field due to the effective return. While there's some point in getting 'one or two' of an upgrade, the 'optimal strategy' still is 'max one field out first' -- tiered upgrades was a way of addressing this, and has to an extent, but does little to dissuade from the idea still. There is little benefit in 'dipping' in multiple upgrade types.
So here's the question I'm putting forth;
Should upgrade costs scale based upon the level of the upgrade you are researching?
By example, currently Upgraded Mining Lasers will always cost 15y 20r at all levels. Instead, perhaps it should be something closer to...
Level 1: 15y 20r
Level 2: 20y 30r
Level 3: 30y 5b 50r
Level 4: 40y 15b 70r
Level 5: 55y 25b 90r 5g
Level 6: 75y 40b 120r 10g
... just as an example, for the sake of discussion.
The point of such a task would be to make 'min maxing' less prominent, and give a more 'equal opportunities' look at all of the upgrades. It's basically an easier way of addressing the 'balancing' of each upgrade by creating a situation where despite a certain upgrade being superior to another, the effective increase in cost might push you to look at something else first.
Moreover, this also puts a much heftier focus upon all of those accumulating resources during the late game. Achieving a 'maximum power' battlecruiser means a requirement for more resources -- and currently in the late game, resources come in abundance. This creates a sort of dump for them such that they become more useful.
Even more than that though, this creates a situation where proactive play is encouraged. Rather than sitting around, waiting for a max power battlecruiser, a team may reach a point where they truly say, "Okay. We can't get resources fast enough for upgrades -- if we delay any longer, they'll start catching up due to the relatively lower costs of their upgrades, so we should fight." What I mean by this is it creates a situation where it's a lot more plausible for a team to 'catch up' if given extra time, since the effective number of upgrades you can achieve over time given a static income becomes a lot smaller.
I think it's an idea worth discussing. I'm surprised we haven't really talked about it at some point earlier, really. So... what are all your thoughts?
EDIT: We're working on the concept on a google excel. If you're interested in helping to tweak the numbers, or just want to look, please ask around the skype chat.