Bigjoe5 wrote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
There are advantages to having the resource meter directly determine planet resource output. To players, it makes the meaning much clearer.
That's a bit of a stretch... I would expect the meaning to become quite clear after the first short period of time spent playing the game, after which point, either method would be just as clear.
I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that a displayed bar indicating the actual output of a planet is clearer and easier to understand than the bar indicating a scaling factor related to output by the population in a non-trivial way. Being able to tell which planet produces a lot of resources and which doesn't at a glance is useful, as opposed to needing to mentally multiply by a population number, or look at the resource output number. Seeing the actual change in target resource output is also useful, and not currently indicated in the non-tooltip displayed numbers.
Quote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
For content creators, it makes things much more flexible, to allow things like a building that gives a fixed boost to resource output - independent of population - while still allowing the output to depend on population if that is desired.
SetOwnerFood/Mineral/TradeStockpile can accomplish that just as easily...
Setting stockpile values directly means that any resources would be available at the homeworld, not on the planet where the resources are generated. It also breaks the accounting that shows how much of a resource a planet generates, and makes it a lot harder to reliably predict the changes in resource stockpiles from turn to turn.
Quote:
and it probably wouldn't be too difficult to add similar effects for increasing an empire's research or industry production by a fixed amount per turn. Such effects will most likely need to be added later on anyway.
We could add such effects, but they have the issues above. I think of these effects as being more useful for one time changes in stockpiles, such as an event that suddenly destroys an empire's stockpile.
Quote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
We could also do more complicated things, like having a bonus that depends on population up to a certain ceiling at which the bonus is capped.
I'm not really sure what you mean here - couldn't we have done that before?
Kind of, but somewhat awkwardly. What we can do now is have a condition that gives a population-dependent bonus if the population is below some threshold, and give a fixed bonus above that. Before, we could accomplish almost the same thing by giving a fixed bonus (to the meter that's multiplied by population to determine output) unless the population was above some level, and then give a bonus that is a fixed amount divided by the population, so that when it's later multiplied by the population, the two population factors cancel out. It's a lot clearer / intuitive with the current system.
Quote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Is there a fundamental reason things need to work that way for most bonuses to resource output?
Yes. The population is what actually produces resources. Otherwise, racial bonuses for resource production - and arguably, population itself - cease to be meaningful.
Quote:
Resource production should be based on population - that's what population is for.
That's a circular argument.
There's no reason we can't have some bits of content generate resources independent of population, and other generate dependent on population. The availability of the two varieties might vary depending on which resource you want to make a lot of... Maybe industry and trade are population dependent, but research and minerals don't have many population-dependent ways to boost their output. This could make small-population empires a more viable strategy, etc.
There are or can also be other things besides producing more resources that make having large population useful. Ground troops are a likely candidate for this.
That all said, we can still have everything be population dependent if we decide that's best. The new system is more flexible.
Quote:
There should be ways to add directly to the empire's resource production, certainly, but there's no need to place such a restrictive limit on resource production in order to do so.
My point is to NOT place restrictive limits on how resource production is determined. With the current system, we can easily and clearly do population-dependent or population-independent resource output changes.
Quote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
There can be various other benefits (or detriments?) to having large populations on planets.
Since the game has basically been designed from the ground up under the assumption that the primary purpose of population is the production of resources, I can't see how departing from that premise could possibly go well.
I don't see why resource generation being proportional to population should be considered a fundamental principle of the game. Some games use it, and others don't. Both can work. We don't have anything balanced yet, so it's like it throws off the whole accumulated set of carefully designed content.
Quote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Also, why is it necessarily bad to make maintaining a high-population difficult in the later stages of the game?
It's not. But we should make that decision on its own terms, not because the meters only go up to 100.
That's fine; I wasn't suggesting that high-population be made difficult to maintain due to an arbitrary resource output limit.
Quote:
Capping resource production per planet just leads to a balancing nightmare, where all the numbers become really tiny, and a population difference of 0.5 is huge and game-altering.
Hence my comment:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
If this means we don't limit planets to 100 of a particular resource each turn, then that's how it will need to be. We'll perhaps need to adjust the UI to accomodate this...