[GCL] GCL - Circumventing the "cap" is ridiculously easy
It seems to me that the 15/tick limit serves three purposes.
- To make is that that RCL8 rooms can't snowball and totally boost GCL well beyond what a RCL 5 or RCL 6 room could.
- To encourage the use of XGH20
- To encourage established players to go get new rooms even though it means giving up a RCL 8 room.
So what ever solution,
#1 seems like it's broken. You can have an RCL 3 room "out produce" an RCL 8 room. I agree with the goal, but the limit doesn't seems to actually accomplish it. I think that is part of the problem. If the RCL 6 room was capped at 15/tick too then this would be a non-issue
#2 seems like it works. It's currently the only way to "legit" break the 15/tick cap.
#3 This may or may not be working I don't know.
I see two fixes.
Add the cap to all levels but make it sliding. cap = RCL * 10 or something. Boosts can still break the map as before. So a RCL 6 room is only going to get 60/tick. For people building the room, they have to decide if it's wort it to take the GCL loss, and really boost the room using tons of outside energy, or build at/near the cap. Because the cap is there, the incentive to use these "less reputable" methods fade. But using a dead storage to rebuild a room is still viable.
#1 Snow balling is kept in check, though the limit is raised a bit. I can argue that RCL 8 rooms should be more valuable then RCL 6 rooms.
#2 Boosts are still important.
#3 You probably won't want to move rooms and give up your RCL 8 room. I don't know if this is actually different from now or not.
Keep the RCL 8 limit but apply the increase to the GCL only when you go up in RCL and only the first time. When you git RCL 8 GCL progress applies normally.
For example RCL 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 would only increese GCL 3 times. This would have a lot of ripple effects though. Downgrades become horrid, as all that energy you poor into restoring a RCL is just lost. Loosing a room means loosing the RCL progress that would have gone into GCL. On the upside it makes holding on to a room more critical.
#1 Same effect as now.
#2 Same effect as now
#3 Still no real idea
Fix B is the larger game changer, but could introduce more fun.
I think this mechanic can stay to allow players going for leaderboard 1 the opportunity to pump as much energy as they can, but to prevent the gcl getting out of control, Change it that only RCL 8 rooms count towards GCL after GCL gets to 10 (all rooms still count towards leaderboard).
Finndibaen SUN last edited by
why not have all (your) buildings removed when you unclaim ?
this would fix this issue nicely , and prevent abuse
It's not just about unclaming, it's also about just downgrading.
@ChaosDMG That's awful, there would be no way to catch up. Or at the very least catching up would take decades.
Well if they do anything to prevent it now it will be hard to catch up for players that didnt use this opportunity.
It's not only the issue of GCL/tick It's also the issue of CPU per GCL
Currently, when you have a level 8 room you can do 15CP per 0.2 CPU while other rooms realistically can do 40CP per 0.2 CPU.
I personally have 30 rooms costing at least 6 CPU when all upgrading.
Yet I can achieve the same with dumping energy into another room and use 1 room to do all the upgrading.
This is why I think the current limits should be revised, or at least needs some balancing.
I agree some balancing need to happen. It should not be possible to earn more GCL in RCL levels 1-7 then you can in RCL 8.
That said, there is already a MASSIVE gap to cover if a new player is trying to get onto a top 10 list.
There needs to be someway that the game can "adjust" so it's not just who has been playing the longest, while at the same time, there should be a benefit to a carefully crafted long standing empire.
Have structures decay, and not be repairable when the room is below the RCL level for the structure.
If a terminal decayed at a rate so that by the time the controller decade to RCL 4 the terminal popped, the issue would largely go away.
It would also still allow for some recovery via terminal in a dead room.
Yeah, I think this is the best solution. Simply making structures decay when the room level can't support them would solve this issue. It still allows people to raid their neighbors to steal resources, since structures will need time to decay, but it prevents abusing those structures existence.
Finndibaen SUN last edited by
i'm not so sure decay is the solution. it takes only 1.5 M energy or so to get back to RCL 6 so it's quite fast if you're able to send it using terminal. less than 10K ticks or so , so less than a RL day.
I don't think the issue is the structures or terminals. You can easily get around this by just using a room next to a level 8 room. It is a bigger conception of limiting energy into controllers at level 8. As it stands there is two worldviews.
1. Don't limit controller upgrade in any way.
2. Limit level 8 rooms to 15 energy/tick. Don't limit lower level rooms.
I would argue both of these are the same. Either you have a world where people upgrade controllers how they feel they want. Or you have a world where if you want to be successful you force the player to funnel energy to lower level rooms. If the goal is to limit upgrade for larger players, a larger player will eventually implement #2 anyway. Give it six months and everyone in the top 20 will be using this method or they won't remain in the top 20. New players will observe and emulate top players and you have the same problem that was intended to be solved with limiting level 8 rooms. I strongly feel the limit needs to be removed and higher and higher GCL should require a greater jump in control points. This allows newer players to get a foothold, removes the arbitrary limit on level 8 rooms, and slows bigger players down.
Another solution could be introducing a long cooldown period after unclaiming the controller for the same player to claim it again. What do you think about it?
I don't think a cooldown period will solve it, just change the dynamics. For instance, if someone was cycling the rooms over a 50k period and you added a 200k cooldown they would be able to achieve the same effects using four rooms instead of the original one.
a cooldown period might be a good idea even if it doesnt solve this problem. The reason you would unclaim a room and claim it again shortly would most likely be to abuse some sort of game mechanic.
>>> "Another solution could be introducing a long cooldown period after unclaiming the controller for the same player to claim it again. What do you think about it?"
If you wish to maintain the 15 energy/tick limit another idea might be that if you unclaim a room and then reclaim it that the limit of 15 energy/tick starts from GCL 3 or so. This would mean that if you want to pump up rooms you would be forced to continually seek out new rooms as the ones you've used become consumed. It also provides a consequence of sorts to unclaiming a room. To bonzai's point, gaining levels will very much be a waiting game again as it is now.
What I like about this approach is that the most successful player who chooses not to be in the waiting game becomes one who is nomadic and is always seeking out new territory. I could see this also increase the need for player vs player interaction since you need to take new territory after you've used up old ones. It also gives a more poignant reason to improve new room build up code. Personally I'd be too lazy to go that direction but I'd be happy to see people get the rewards of putting in that effort.
I think getting rid of the cap for rcl8 controllers is the best way to solve this inconsistency, not adding more rules. When you cap the rate of player growth at such a low level, it removes all incentive to make energy harvesting efficient. At some point, all players make progress at the same rate. You end up with progress graphs that look like this:
The ability to spend all the energy that you are able to make shouldn't be restricted to people who cycle through rooms, it should be easier than that. There are other limits that would keep players from growing at an exponential rate, like CPU. That is a much more interesting limit to work with, because you can find creative ways to push it as far as it will go. A 15-energy per room cap does not inspire creativity. It is very easy to reach and have tons of energy left over.
It sends a really poor message that whenever players find an unexpected way to make progress, you take away that ability. There's no point in looking for things that nobody else has tried. If you become too successful with it, the competition will complain and it will get taken away. Everyone should just stick to the conventional methods.
SteeleR last edited by
Seems like an interesting discussion and i'm afraid that the devs could do something to remove that cap limit which will allow the high GCL players to expand even faster and leave all new players in a pointless state where they can't reach anybody that has been playing the game from before them..
So, here's my suggestion - adjust that cap dynamically - for instance - if the highest GCL of a player is 36 - make the cap half of that - e.g. 18 and adjust backwards for the lower level players - so, for a GCL 9 player the cap would be (36/9) * 18 = 72 energy/tick per RCL8 controller.
The applications - you may say that this would hold the progress of the top players and boost all others - that's the point, because this is not an economy game, but a war game - if the top players want to stay at the top they shouldn't be able to do that just by being good in economy and the fact that they are playing for an year longer
If the important thing is to make sure higher level players do not grow to fast, you should just change the GCL_POW constant so that each additional level requires more GCL. Lower GCLl players would get new rooms sooner relative to higher GCL players. I'm not arguing against making it difficult to gain GCL at higher levels, i'm arguing against making it so that everyone does it at the same rate.
The ability to spend excess energy does not only benefit higher GCL players. I started having excess energy as soon as I became efficient with SK mining, at GCL6. I didn't just shoot up the charts after becoming high GCL, I've made steady progress beginning at a lower GCL.
I don't think the answer is to make complex rules about the cap. There just shouldn't be a cap.
Once power mining is released, it might become moot because there might be better ways to spend energy. Then again, it could just as easily be a problem then. If you are already making progress at the cap, what is the point of the benefits gained from power creeps?