[GCL] GCL - Circumventing the "cap" is ridiculously easy
-
What about this idea.
We introduce a new game mechanic - the Root Controller. It is exposed as the property
StructureController.rootand the methodStructureController.setRoot(). Only one single controller can be set as the root, and you can switch the root to another controller (probably with a cooldown). Only energy put into the root controller contributes to your GCL. All other controllers simply upgrade their levels without affecting GCL. There is no limit how much energy you can put in it.This will introduce a coding challenge to implement effective logistics connecting your empire “center”, which will be the more diffucult, the more rooms you have. There will be no hard cap of energy contributed to your GCL, but rather a soft cap depending on your implementation. There will also be a funny way to break someone’s global operations by interrupting this centralized supply scheme.
In order to keep the GCL growth balance, some parameters may be changed or introduced.
-
I like that idea, but how about instead, you make the root controller 2-4x more effective at building GCL, and adjust up the required GCL to level up?
Although, even just taking that at face value, depending on the cooldown (eg 20k ticks) you can still get 100% of your control points that you're getting today -- you just have to be smart about how you move and store energy.
I definitely like the idea of having a "central", "core" room that presents a strategic target -- maybe given power creeps have an infinite life span, you could only allow them to be spawned from a root room?
-
I love the idea behind the StructureController.root method. This means once you hit 8 you have a new game to play . Get energy to your new rooms, and to your "GCL" room, which will be important and hopefully well protected. I think three things need to happen though.
1. A slight re-balance of GCL needed to get to the next level. Specially the first fer levels where you won't have a lot of RCL 8 rooms.
2. Place a new cap on the process that is way to high to high to reach alone, effectively removing the cap but preventing dual boxing (or alliances boosting a single member). You don't want to end up with "You must belong in an alliance"
3. Add the cool down you spoke of, A long one. So maybe the move is only 200,000 ticks (once a week). The idea being you should be able to attack a players upgrade room. They shouldn't be able to just move it out of the way.
-
I dunno, we want to encourage things like diplomacy and alliances -- why shouldn't we allow it? Remember that if they're not close to you, they're still paying terminal fees that are quite high.
As for the cooldown, you'll always have to take the room out twice, as the cooldown won't be in effect until after you've beaten the first room.
-
Artem: which group of players is the cap supposed to limit growing? When it was first implemented, everyone was around 15 GCL ish, so it did make a huge difference in our ability to get new room. Now, the top group is at GCL 30+, and it takes 300+ million energy for a new room. With or without the cap, I think the difference is minimal.
I don't like the idea of having only one room being able to use energy for upgrading GCL. There are pretty much only two sources of meaningful energy dump in the game: controller upgrade and power mining. For certain rooms, power mining is not an option. What do we do with energy in those rooms?
-
Shouldn't be a surprise that I agree with Bonzai. The increase to the POW constant was what I was trying to suggest. Ultimately having a cap at all is very restrictive. Artem's idea for the root controller is interesting, but if you can change it I would just save up energy in one area until another area has put everything it has into the root and then move the root to another area. Then you want to limit how often you can move the root controller and really its just adding mechanics to be nerfed again.
This is intended to be a sandbox game and really it should do as much as possible to give players the freedom to choose how they upgrade rather than adding mechanics to force one way of doing things. The goal should be for the player to have options that are balanced rather than everyone doing the same thing. Lastly I don't think the point about having a reason to mine efficiently is being given the weight it should be. My remote mining operations could use a lot of tweaking and I really can't be arsed because there isn't any reason for me to bother right now. You should really be rewarded for how efficient you are by being able to make use of every extra bit you can preserve over your neighbor.
-
@deadlypineapple nothing wrong with alliances, however your shouldn't be required to join one. Join My alliance now and we will boost you to GCL 20 overnight. Quickly becomes you must join an alliance of have no hope at competition. That's why a cap that is unreachable solo but low enough that that another player can't divert 90% of their energy to your GCL gain is my recommendation (specially if you make that "other player" 10-20 other players.)
@Horus you would still have to use energy in each room to upgrade RCL, then use energy to transport that room's energy to your GCL room via terminals, creeps, or whatever. The energy sink would increase.
@Skorp - Not having some limit isn't really any good. Then the game becomes, "why bother to play if I can never catch up no mater what I do". On the other side there has to be some plus sides to a well balanced, long term empire. I do agree with the cooldown on changing your GCL room around. It should not be something you can do often. You should instead be encouraged to move your energy to the GCL room, and not move your GCL room to the energy.
-
@coteyr if alliances want to do that, they can -- but they have to pay the transport costs. At a range of 16 rooms, for every 2 energy they send to you, only 1 arrives. There's no reason to try to limit that, if an alliance wants to waste that much energy then their enemies are going to have an easier time walking in.
-
@coteyr: you got your reasoning a bit backward: if there are too many limits and everyone is doing the samething, you will never catch up. Variety is how someone can gain some advantages and catch up.
-
Artem: which group of players is the cap supposed to limit growing?
It’s not like that. This limit is more about the fact that RCL8 room is considered “completed”, and you’re supposed to shift your focus to other rooms. It has very little to do with the overall GCL of the player.
What do we do with energy in those rooms?
Transfer it, obviously. Using the most effective scheme you can implement.
Artem’s idea for the root controller is interesting, but if you can change it I would just save up energy in one area until another area has put everything it has into the root and then move the root to another area. Then you want to limit how often you can move the root controller and really its just adding mechanics to be nerfed again.
A week-long cooldown is something that fits here well enough from the start.
You should really be rewarded for how efficient you are by being able to make use of every extra bit you can preserve over your neighbor.
You will be rewarded. Just come up with a way to transport all this energy to your root, and you’ll be fine. It’s a challenge which becomes more and more interesting while your empire grows.
-
So from now on, explicitly you are supposed to grow your empire together, and any lone room will just be a liability (broadly speaking) ?
-
Well, we can probably think of a concept of multiple root controllers. Say, one root for every 10 GCL.
-
Another thought - your lone room can sell its resources on its regional market, and you can use these credits to buy resources in your main region, since credits are shared resources. This way we present some more market activity motivation as well.
-
I like the idea about the "root" controller.
As I read it now:
- All rooms, except 1 room still have a hard 15 CP/tick limit, but upgrade can be above 15 RCL/tick
- The "root room" will have the unlimited energy per tick.
This solves the issue people dealing with the limit right now, and creates a nice incentive to haul energy to this room. It will automatically put an artificial limit to the amount of energy you can get to that room without a loss, the further away the more it will cost to get it there, balancing the old versus new players.
On a complete other note:
I think it might also be a good idea to get other things to dump large sums of energy in. Since I’ve switched to processing power my energy reserves have dwindled quite a bit. I think a building of some sorts which you could process energy in would be a fun way to spend energy to (upgrading walls/ramparts is just boring!). Something in the way of a super-weapon which you can charge infinitely with energy.
Even if the building is only for prestige purposes ( looks cool, customizable etc). It heightens the fun factor.
There are more than enough energy sinks in the game after you reach RCL 8, just not very "fun" ones.
-
Artem: thanks for the reply. I thought so about using the market too.
Realistically speaking, I can envision both case where the mechanic works out or fails. I don't think there is any way to know for sure except having it in place -- success or failure would depend on how the players adapt to it. The main risk is that being a big change affecting everyone, you really don't have much place to test it much (of course you already knew that).
-
All rooms, except 1 room still have a hard 15 CP/tick limit, but upgrade can be above 15 RCL/tick
No, non-root rooms simply don’t contribute to GCL at all, i.e. the limit is zero.
Something in the way of a super-weapon which you can charge infinitely with energy.
Power creeps are supposed to be such a weapon and en energy sink (with an exponential cost of course, with the same dynamic as GCL). Not just a simple and brutal weapon though, but a tool to implement some new interesting strategies.
Even if the building is only for prestige purposes ( looks cool, customizable etc). It heightens the fun factor.
Nobody will spend their energy just for fun when they can spend it for GCL and CPU.
-
> Nobody will spend their energy just for fun when they can spend it for GCL and CPU
I know I will
-
-
I mean, a lot of energy, the amounts that matter.
-
Depends on how cool it looks per tick of wasted energy, but yeah I wont undermine the power processing to keep things realisticly
