Emergency Build - Unfair
 

I have decided not use Emergency build when playing against the computer.
The computer doesn't use it,and it gives me a tremendous advantage.

I suggest everyone do the same until Aaron corrects this.

Doing this will make my games much more competitive and enjoyable!

[This message has been edited by Emperor Zodd (edited 24 January 2001).]

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

Actually he already changed it once and really toned it down. I know you still get a benifit from using it but there are also a few drawbacks. If you really need to build something quickly and your planet is in the slow mode you will be out of luck. I very rarely use it myself only if I have an emergency like an unexpected empire shows up at an undefended colony or I am building a ship that takes 3 or 4 years to build like the planet creator/destroyer types. I think if you limit yourself to use it in an emergency it isn't so bad, if you use it all the time though it would be too much.

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

I think it should be changed so that your slowdown period is twice as long as your emergency build period. For example, one fast year (200%) + two slow years (25%x2) is 250% total for 3 years, and will always cost you in total construction capacity in the long run.

Either that or your costs are doubled. Heck, perhaps both. After all, I don't think you should be using it unless it's an emergency! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

At the very least, I shouldn't be able to get 11 fast build years and then have only 10 slow ones, which is another oddity with emer. build as it stands.

I also think you shouldn't be able to swap out what you're currently constructing with anything else and have all your resources to date apply to the new project with no loss. I mean, here I am working on a computer complex, and BAM, I change my mind and out pops a new space yard that would've taken me 5 turns. While I know it's a game and you don't need to restrict yourself to the contraints of reality, it's nice to be close once in a while. Now if only the real world worked that efficiently. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

-Drake

[This message has been edited by Drake (edited 25 January 2001).]

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

If the AI cant do it, we shouldn't be able to either. It should only be used if all the players are human.

Another thing I am not doing anymore,is putting fighters in Groups of less than 5.
I use to put them in Groups of 2. This would overwhelm PD's,since PD's can only fire once per round.

And of course I let the computer control my tactical battles,and use my quadrants which have few or no blackholes.

These changes,take away unfair advantages we all use against the AI,and then complain the AI is no challenge.

Now if we can only get the AI to concentrate it's ships within formations,and turn on cloaking!

[This message has been edited by Emperor Zodd (edited 25 January 2001).]

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

Well if you really want to be fair don't build anything at 90% of your planets most turns, never use other races to colonize planets that have the right atmosphere for them, never conquer another race, and never invade planets or capture ships. There has to be some limits on what we don't do just to make it "fair". Every game you play is unfair because the AI is playing it just like they did the first time without learning, so everything you learn about the game by repeated playing is unfair. Everyone has to set their own limits here.

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

Adjust emergency production to 150% and the slow rate to 25%. As production is additive, you actually loose total output if you use EP in the long run (175% over two years = 87,5% of normal production)

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

I agree that the Emergency builds have improved, but I still use it all the time because 200% + 25% > 100% + 100%.

I'd like to see it be 150% + 25% < 100% + 100%.

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

What about 175% + 25% = 100% + 100%?

That way over the long haul it gives you no benefit or penalty. But as a short term assist, hence the name Emergency build, it is still available.

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

The reason it probably still has a net plus is you can lose some if you emergency build something that takes an odd number of turns. For instance take the good old space yard normal build time 5 turns emergency build time 3 turns you lose that half turn in there because build times don't carry over to the next item. I am not saying it is completely balanced but I don't think its a game killer if used in emergencies not just all the time. That is up to individuals though its an option. I don't use it much but I would hate to have to wait 3 to 4 game years to build those stellar manipulation devices without emergency build.

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

Let me repeat my idea from another thread:

Why doesn't emergency build affect HAPPINESS levels like cranking up production did in SE3? Wouldn't it provide a reasonable disincentive to use emergency build if it costs one or two percent happiness per turn? People do get cranky and difficult when you force them to work 80+ hours a week... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif I presume that even aliens like to have time to spend with the kids/hatchlings/sprouts and the spousal unit so they can get their nookie. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif If it cost 20 percent happiness to go into emergency build for a year, you'd also get DIMINISHING RETURNS as the happiness level affected production bonuses. Does this not seem reasonable and realistic?

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 25 January 2001).]

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

Baron, I like your idea a lot.

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

I'd rather not see emergency build negatively effect happiness levels.

As I see it: if you want to double production in real life, you'd add a second shift, not make everyone work 80 hrs/week. But even for overtime, that means extra $$$$ for the workers, and I know lots of people that just _LOVE_ working overtime, for the extra cash at a higher rate, so I don't see overtime as a negative happiness thing. Instead, I see a second shift or overtime as cost factors.

I'd like to see emergency build not turn limited at all, just cost-based. So it would cost, say, 50% extra per turn to run in emergency build mode - so you'd pay 3x the cost for 2x the production, but you could do so for as long as you wanted (and could afford). In other words, for a planet with 2000 production per resource, emergency build would produce 4000 per resource, but cost 6000 per resource (with the extra 2000 lost as overhead). In reality, 50% extra cost is way too high, but for game balance, it might be OK or even a bit low. (Maybe 100% overhead would be more balanced in the game?)

To reform the build process further, I wouldn't allow free swapping of in-construction items. Anything currently being built would have to be scrapped (returning a % of it's total paid cost) before a new item could be substituted in. Also, leftover production when an item was completed would be applied to the next item on the queue. Lastly, space yard facilities wouldn't effect the production rate for units or facilities - just ships. Perhaps a new facility could then be made that only effected facils and/or units.



[This message has been edited by LintMan (edited 25 January 2001).]

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

I like Lint's idea best. i dont see it happening though, so perhaps a setting for emergency build incurs x turns of slow build (could be set for 0) and em-build Lasts for x turns (could be set to infi)

a good add would be a setting for em-build costs x% above the regular resource cost for production, or slow build produces at x%.

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

Once I started a game with TWO alien race homeworlds in my home system. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I couldn't help myself -- I just used emergency build, and made 10 warships before the others had made 5. Of course my fleet always outnumbered their fleets, so they attacked each other, thus assuring their doom.

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

You could always try playing with your eyes shut. Just keep hitting F12 every so often and hope you don't get overrun.

Check out http://www.crisium.com/sn/cbg_intvw.htm for a humorous take on some of the problems of designing an AI that learns to play strategy games like a human does.

-Drake

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

Emergency Builds should give a short term benefit with a penalty that ends up costing more in the long term. It needs to have a trade off.

I myself tend to build Shipyards 1 turn at normal followed by two emergency turns if I need it fast. Then I use two slow turns to build cheap things such as units.

Production Queues ought to start the next item immediately instead of waiting for the next year.

I think there have been several good proposals for making Emegency Builds a true trade off. I use them almost constantly because I get a net game using them. Has anyone ever worked for a company that has people work 80 hours one week and 10 hours the next? I doubt that would increase productivity, but I'm open to hearing someone prove me wrong.

Possible Penalties for Em Builds:
1) Extra Resources consumed to reflect wasteful management.
2) Decrease happiness to reflect an overworked populace.
3) Decreased population growth to reflect hazardous working conditions. Or take the idea even further to decreasing population to reflect slave labor conditions. Wouldn't it be great to capture another player's homeworld and ruthlessly work them to death?
4) Increased maintenance on things build using Emergency builds to reflect shoddy construction.

Actually, I think the 'Slow' idea should be elminated. Have normal production always be the baseline and queues can be boosted varying degrees to get different penalty levels to the items mentioned above. Have a list of checkboxes of things you are willing to do to improve production. Perhaps even have racial traits that determine which you can employ? Vulcans would probably not allow slave labor, but Klingons would not hessitate. Emotionless races could work their people harder without incurring a happiness penalty.

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

This is my opinion of Emergency Build I copied from another thread i posted to previously....

Personally, I don't really care if emergency production is altered although being more realistic is always nice. What I care about is the AI knowing HOW TO USE Emergency Build. I agree (for playability - is that a word?) that these can be "arbitrary" values for production increases /penalties as long as the AI uses them also. As it stands now, the Emergency Build seems to be a "cheat" since the AI never uses it.

That IMO is the only problem with any of these "loopholes" that allow human players advantages over AIs. If the AI uses them also, they're no longer cheats....

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

I use emergency build for the Last 2 years of making sphereworld components, because Im not going to be using them again anytime soon anyhow. It really speeds things up.

Re: Emergency Build - Unfair
 

i agree emergency builds should be extreemly
negative..short term bonus but major loss
and not able to be used very long. its meant to be a short term help when absolutely necessary..not a way to circumvent (and get cheappy units during downtime).

probalby need to make it less useful for those who live on it. 0 percent work for like two turns and only allowed for one item
once it finishes many turns of downtime..basically kill it off for any who live on it to get arround waiting for regular builds

------------------
Waves his Red flag

Socialist