Page 1 of 1

Revisiting Upkeep

Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:43 pm
by ovarwa
Hi,

Specifically, I mean revisiting the idea that it is even a desirable mechanic.

FO inherits this from Moo, which inherits it from Civ.

But Civ is (in theory) supposed to be about building and maintaining a civilization rather than conquering everything. Cash is an important resource, necessary for research, for happiness, for other things. Moo is simply a 4x game, but it retained cash as a resource to be managed, used to maintain fleets and buildings and rush production. So if you want to have cash, you need to give it a purpose. Fine.

FO gets rid of cash. So why keep upkeep? The only thing it really does is make small ships relatively expensive compared to fewer, larger ships. Because you're going to build more ships, and you're going to build more colonies. The small, incremental cost increase is not going to change decisions. It only adds math to be maintained in code, and adds conversations about part vs hull upkeep.

Any argument about diminishing returns to scale can be countered by arguments of improved economies of scale: Both are situationally valid.

So I'm suggesting *no* upkeep.

Anyway,

Ken

Re: Revisiting Upkeep

Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:39 pm
by Oberlus
The argument "why upkeep if no cash?" is wrong. The fact that we humans use money to measure the costs of maintaining our stuff does not mean that eliminating money would eliminate maintenance costs. The upkeep is in PPs for now and in Influence Points in the future. The motivation is not "to give a purpose to money" (or to any other resource) but to slow down snowballing and give a better experience to all players.

The effect is much less onerous to small ships now since the upkeep formula counts mounted parts as well as number of ships (instead of only number of ships).

Economies of scale? Irrelevant. The point is getting a fun game.
It only adds math to be maintained in code, and adds conversations about part vs hull upkeep.
He.
Being condescending, sarcastic and wrong all at the same time does get some merit. I give you that.

Re: Revisiting Upkeep

Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:19 pm
by ovarwa
I am so sorry your dog died.

Re: Revisiting Upkeep

Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:24 pm
by Oberlus
I guess that last statement makes clear your point and closes the discussion.
And given that there are several older threads treating the upkeep issue with actual arguments, I'm closing this thread.

Re: Revisiting Upkeep

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:23 pm
by Geoff the Medio
Oberlus wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:39 pm
The motivation is ... to slow down snowballing and give a better experience to all players.
Increasing costs of ships as more are produced is also intended to discourage players from producing lots of ships. There are or were major problems with effects evaluation slowing down turn processing and making the interface sluggish whenever effects updates ran. Keeping ship numbers low helps with this. Having fewer shups in general also makes the ones that are present more important and notable for players.
It only adds math to be maintained in code, and adds conversations about part vs hull upkeep.
He.
Being condescending, sarcastic and wrong all at the same time does get some merit. I give you that.
As requested previously, please avoid assuming any unpleasant "tone" in a forum post. Instead, attempt to read / interpret someone else's posts as through written to be polite and helpful or interested. Or, at least reply as though that were the case.