[Discuss] fuel costs

[mist]

back in the dawn of time, we used to have to spend eonium to launch ships. this was removed because it didn't really work.

more recently, launching, recalling, launching, recalling etc etc has become a valid tactic within the game - due, imo, to a combination of lacking fuel costs and defence being for one hour only. i think this is a 'bad' tactic to allow, because it is based soley on activity. it requires no skill to carry out, simply that you spend more time online than your target. given that the game wants to attract players etc etc this seems like a bad way to be doing things. anecdotally, a few nights of sending and recalling incommings means that you simply can't play the game anymore. given competition that doesn't require you to be out of bed at 4am i don't think pa can afford this. also, this tactic seems to be a reason behind at least some of the calls for a return to multi tick combat - something which i think would be a mistake.

so, a solution to this would be to bring back fuel costs. however, charging eonium per ship blatantly didn't work last time it was tried and i see no reason for this to have changed.

an alternative would be to charge all of the resources in proportion to the fleet's buy cost, so for example a fleet might cost 1% of it's build cost to launch. however, this also has downsides - the launch cost counts against the potential profit, so as the round draws on it means that roiding becomes pointless significantly earlier, which would seem a bad thing. also, once you're at the 8000 roid limit the cost simply to launch a fleet would mean that the top planets spent a lot more time with their fleets at home, slowing gameplay.

so, the alternative seems to be a cost per fleet, rather than a cost per ship. in this way people may be detered, but under the normal course of things it won't cost enough to influnce gameplay. for example, requireing a cost of 1000 resources of each type (number plucked out of the air) would mean that it didn't affect considerations to launch an attack fleet. however, this wouldn't really affect a launch/recall tactic for a planet with a decent number of roids either. to give it more 'bite' the cost could increase per launch. ie, the first would cost 1000 of each, the second cost 2000 of each, the third 3000 etc. this would mean that the cost of all those reapid launches would add up and make the tactic must less common. i'm told that last round the top launcher had something like 400-500 launches. spread over the round this could give a total cost, at the high end, of 63M resources. perhaps that's a little too much. including a 'cooloff' would solve this though, whereby the launch cost falls by 1000 of each resource every so often (12 hours?) so that only those who're doing a helluv a lot of launching will be paying the full price.

thanks go to jester for most of the sensible stuff in this thread

[Tactitus]

Seems like a repeat of this thread.

Also, if the only objective is to prevent the relaunch tactic, then there are probably other--easier--ways that could be accomplished

[DukePaul]

This would also kill JGP scanners - combined with Jester's in-game war suggestion and jerome's new scan-ideas, I sense a strong anti-scanner movement ;-)

As such, I don't object to it, except that I like being a scanner, and the scanner community in VGN is lots of fun.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Seems like a repeat of this thread.

Oops.

Also, if the only objective is to prevent the relaunch tactic, then there are probably other--easier--ways that could be accomplished

It's to allow the relaunch tactic, but not mindlessly.

Originally Posted by DukePaul

This would also kill JGP scanners - combined with Jester's in-game war suggestion and jerome's new scan-ideas, I sense a strong anti-scanner movement ;-)

How would my ingame war ideas affect scanners? Honestly, I meant proper launches, not simple prelaunches.

As such, I don't object to it, except that I like being a scanner, and the scanner community in VGN is lots of fun.

I'm all for scanners. I don't think they should be outright encouraged (that is, I think one should avoid penalizing people for choosing scans so much that they're forced to rely on scanners in order to play competitively), but I definitely think their life should be made as easy as possible.

In my opinion the cost reduction should probably be constant, independant of launches. This way, it's easier to catch up later as opposed to the opposite.

Mind you these numbers aren't really balanced.

[DukePaul]

Originally Posted by Banned

How would my ingame war ideas affect scanners? Honestly, I meant proper launches, not simple prelaunches.

First, two alliances at war has no bash-limit, making the small scan-planets vulnerable to anyone from the hostile alliance. Then include that you suggested the structure destruction limit be raised, and you have a very nice opportunity to blew amplifiers like there's no tomorrow.

[mist]

tacticus, i'd have said it was subtley different given that the other thread wanted a fuel resource, whereas this is about using all the resources as fuel - while this seems teh same i'd have said that the effects would be quite different?

that said, point taken. had i noticed i'd probably have hijacked the other thread

-mist

[Kal]

i actually don;t see the need for a cooloff period - without a cooloff period people have to be much cleverer about what they do with their ships so it adds an element of skill into the game and also starts to make skill more important than activity in some small way

[Envious]

Originally Posted by Kal

i actually don;t see the need for a cooloff period

i do. else you will see fleets grounded at the end of round again due to the planet being roided and can't afford launch cost. it would also mean to punish overall activity (if you are very active over the entire round, you have higher costs at the end than some lazy player) which isn't the right thing to do imo.

edit: maybe we are talking different things. a "cooloff period" like you say in my understanding is something different from what mist suggested, he just wants the cost to drop again over time, not rise infinetely. that way the "normal" player won't be affected at all, while a lot of launches isn very short time get punished, but not forbidden.

[Kal]

could allways cap the maximum cost

[cypher]

old style fuel cost are good actually, but if you use 1% of the total cost of the fleet to launch it's kinda silly, as come on... if we're all realistic it's quite easy to defend against everyone these days, meaning you waste TONS of resources so early on that people will spend their entire rounds initiating only

about the anti scanner part duke said, tbh in real war you'd go after radar points and 'intel' points aswell, so why shouldn't we be able to do that in this wargame? it's a very good point that we can hit scanners aswell then

[Envious]

Originally Posted by cypher

if we're all realistic it's quite easy to defend against everyone these days, meaning you waste TONS of resources so early on that people will spend their entire rounds initiating only

i don't get the point.. you are saying attacks didn't get through last round? were did your roids come from?

[DukePaul]

How about: The fuelcost is per tick the fleet is out. So, if you launch defence, and can recall it after the tick, then it's two ticks of fuel used (out and back), while attacks (that goes through) uses more fuel. This will make it easier for scanners to JGP. On the other hand, it doesn't really affect the send-recall-resend problem, so just nevermind

[barney]

What about the bigger players who can only hit bigger targets, last round i found having to hit the big/medium players. often the only way to get thru on these players is to launch recall. i was launching 2 attack fleets per nite and landing once/twice a weak .

With these fuel idea's im fairly sure i would be more likely, to sit back and produce. the top say 1/2 of the universe get def too often to make attacking, and being penalised for it, worthwhile.

The only other option i would have in this situation, would be to go for the players at the bottom of my bash limit, who are less likely to get def, which i do not feal would be a good thing for the game, it is much more fun trying to hit players bigger than you. I think for me this fuel idea would sink that!

[mist]

the declining cost is so that people who defend don't get uberly screwed by it.

making it based on the amount of time the fleet's out would mean that the launch/recall tactic was largely unaffected by it, hence making the whole point pointless.

[Kal]

what about having a fixed cost for defence but a linearly increasing cost for attacks then?

[noah02]

I need some metal in the MoD fund wahoo someone wants to swap my useless fuel for handy metal that i need.
Ah bless the days when there wasnt just crystal in the fund. Bring back the fuel

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by mist

tacticus, i'd have said it was subtley different given that the other thread wanted a fuel resource, whereas this is about using all the resources as fuel - while this seems teh same i'd have said that the effects would be quite different?

So is it "subtley different" or "quite different"?

Since your stated purpose of adding fuel costs is to constrain launches (at least in some cases), then it necessarily follows that there must be insufficient resource(s) to launch in said cases. What difference if planets are ultimately constrained by a single resource vs. multiple resources?

Next, the launch-cost-as-a-percentage-of-build-cost idea is fundamentally no different from the old per-ship Eonium fuel cost. You can view the old launch cost as, essentially, a percentage-of-build-cost. The only difference is that the old mechanism used a variable (per ship type) percentage whereas you are using a single fixed percentage for all ship types. The problem with both mechanisms is (and will be) that fleet sizes grow faster than resource production. So no matter what percentage you use it will eventually become prohibitive to launch fleets, starting with the largest players first of course (unless you set the percentage so low that the round ends before that happens, in which case there's little constraint value at all). Note, however, that if the fuel resource is a separate resource you can find ways to make it more available than the general ship-building resource(s), so maybe this approach is salvageable--but only with a separate fuel resource.

Finally, the rising-cost-per-fleet-launch approach would seem to favor the larger players, since they're the only ones who will be able to afford it. The small player who launches frequently will soon be unable to do so, unless he partakes of a "cooling off." Why should a small player who launches fleets frequently (assuming he's not using the relaunch tactic) be priced out of the market?


This all seems a very complicated and roundabout way to address the relaunch tactic.

[DukePaul]

Originally Posted by Kal

what about having a fixed cost for defence but a linearly increasing cost for attacks then?

How about making the cost for defence fleets calculated from attack fleet cost? If the price of attacks are linear, you could make the price for defence half of the price for attack. Also, this price will only increase if you send attacks. If you never send attack, then you can send defence freely, if you attack once, then the cost of sending defence fleets will be half of the cost of sending that attack fleet and so on.

[Envious]

Originally Posted by DukePaul

How about making the cost for defence fleets calculated from attack fleet cost? If the price of attacks are linear, you could make the price for defence half of the price for attack. Also, this price will only increase if you send attacks. If you never send attack, then you can send defence freely, if you attack once, then the cost of sending defence fleets will be half of the cost of sending that attack fleet and so on.

Means you give defence whores a big bonus. No thanks.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Finally, the rising-cost-per-fleet-launch approach would seem to favor the larger players, since they're the only ones who will be able to afford it. The small player who launches frequently will soon be unable to do so, unless he partakes of a "cooling off." Why should a small player who launches fleets frequently (assuming he's not using the relaunch tactic) be priced out of the market?

That's probably right, except that most big planets got that way by launching more. Most of the top50 launchers this round were top100 planets etc.

This all seems a very complicated and roundabout way to address the relaunch tactic.

So, care to present your suggestion again?

[noah02]

1 launch every 12 hours hehe
or you pay for a launch which takes a few ticks to make then your fleets get launched by this mad crazy a forget it

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Banned

That's probably right, except that most big planets got that way by launching more. Most of the top50 launchers this round were top100 planets etc.

Is that top50 prelaunchers or top50 actual launchers?

So, care to present your suggestion again?

I've suggested giving each planet a small number of use-'em-or-lose-'em launches per tick.

More fundamentally, I don't think prelaunched fleets should show up in jumpgate scans. In fact, the whole prelaunch "feature" was implemented rather sloppily. This has resulted in a number of quirks/bugs/unintended side-effects (prelaunched fleets showing up in jumpgate scans, prelaunched fleets not participlating in combat, etc).

[Envious]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

This has resulted in a number of quirks/bugs/unintended side-effects (prelaunched fleets showing up in jumpgate scans, prelaunched fleets not participlating in combat, etc).

...pre-launched fleets being able to jgp. i still think this is not the way it was originally intended.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Envious

...pre-launched fleets being able to jgp. i still think this is not the way it was originally intended.

neither do i, and i'd like it as it was probably intended - but that would make me very unpopular

[mist]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Is that top50 prelaunchers or top50 actual launchers?
I've suggested giving each planet a small number of use-'em-or-lose-'em launches per tick.

would this not make the launch/recall tactic just as effective at draining defence, if not moreso?

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Is that top50 prelaunchers or top50 actual launchers?

Funny you should say that. The top launcher for the first 500 ticks or so was a pr0n scanner who didn't set his fleet to prelaunch when doing JGPs, and invariably forgot to recall them so they did launch. You see, your fleet has to leave the base to be registered as a launch. Setting it to launch isn't enough anymore.

I've suggested giving each planet a small number of use-'em-or-lose-'em launches per tick.

What's a small number? What are the details here? 3 launches per 12 hours? I think recall/resending is a valid tactic, I just think it's unbalanced at the moment; you can do it infinitely. Your suggestion doesn't make a launch a resource, it just places an arbitrary limit. I don't think the necessarily correct solution is to place a cost on launching, but I do think that people should be allowed to use recall/resends occasionally. Then make the difficult choosing who to do it on.

More fundamentally, I don't think prelaunched fleets should show up in jumpgate scans.

How is this a problem? What does it have to do with fuel costs?

In fact, the whole prelaunch "feature" was implemented rather sloppily. This has resulted in a number of quirks/bugs/unintended side-effects (prelaunched fleets showing up in jumpgate scans, prelaunched fleets not participlating in combat, etc).

None of these things are bad. I don't see the problem.

[Envious]

Originally Posted by Kal

neither do i, and i'd like it as it was probably intended - but that would make me very unpopular

not with me surely