Design logic behind production wheel

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Mezmorki, Jul 24, 2017.

  1. Mezmorki

    Mezmorki Ensign

    Posts:
    124
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    This is a little bit of a conceptual question, but I want to ask it anyway...

    The production wheel lets you split production between infrastructure, construction (of buildings + ships), and eco engineering. Is there any reason (aside from minimizing micromanagement) to not to always be choosing one of the three options 100% of the time?

    Basically, say I split production between infrastructure and construction 50/50. If I'm building something that boosts my outputs (especially things that impact production like mines or morale boosting things), then I would always want to shift to 100% construction so that those boosts come online as soon as possible. Likewise, if I don't have anything to build - I probably want 100% infrastructure so that science outputs, building slots, cost reductions, etc. come online as soon as possible provide a benefit for when I do want to build something. If the planet habitability is low, you're probably looking to jam out some production boosts and then switch to eco engineering 100%

    Freely being able to readjust the wheel/sliders is an exercise in min-maxing. How do people feel about this? How are others using this wheel? Do you ever pick middle-points? Does the math ever create an incentive for splitting production? Could that be strengthened?

    Another thought is this: what would happen if you couldn't freely adjust the wheel. What if instead of a wheel, you had 10% chunks of production to allocate and you could only move 10% (or 20%) between tasks per turn. So if you retooled a planet 100% for infrastructure, it would take 10 turns (or 5 turns) to transition to 100% construction. This could maybe make the colony planning more important?
     
  2. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Ooh, cool topic.
    Playing the game a lot as I would for real, these are separate sessions from just testing, here is what I'm comfortable with.
    Highly productive worlds like my homeworld get an initial adjustment and are set to %, 35%, 30% and 35%. I let this ride until the population goes higher, at that point I reduce PE to 20% and eventually 10%. I let that ride too. Most worlds at the early stage I keep on default.
    Rarely do I micro-manage this and it is usually in a very as needed basis.
    It's one of the things I like in ISG, you can micro the wheel or adjust it long term, both have advantages and dis-advantages. It really gives a player a lot of freedom as both approaches work, and a player can even mix their style.
    Some players calculate to the exact number needed for quicker completion for an item, I'm the player you reference in your question, I set long approaches and let it ride for quite some time before adjusting again.
    Edit
    To clarify a bit. In most games I get to pick and choose where to create a colony and I go for the best worlds, the default settings on the wheel work nicely in the beginning to give all around growth to these colonies, especially if the starting population is two. In the rare cases where I have nothing good to colonize early on, I tend to micro the wheel (triangle) on my colonies to a greater extent
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
  3. Ashbery76

    Ashbery76 Ensign

    Posts:
    48
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    I dislike it personally.Adds lots of micro ala why GC3 took it out.Something better could be in place.Min maxing always going to be better so you are forced to use it.
     
  4. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    I agree on the first half Ashbery 76, min maxing will always yield better results but the pacing of ISG doesn't make it a must against the AI so I take it easy. If on the other hand I was playing a human I would treat it differently. (actually, I would do a lot of things differently, not just the wheel)
    As for the triangle itself, I switch to sliders, it's easier. The triangle though does let me "reset" quickly when needed
     
  5. MizzouRah

    MizzouRah Cadet

    Posts:
    28
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    I use the sliders as well.. I hated the wheel in GC3 but I don't mind the sliders here as of yet.
     
  6. aReclusiveMind

    aReclusiveMind Developer Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    3,040
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Hmm, guess I'm one of the few using the pyramid. When I first start playing I didn't know sliders even existed, so I got used to the pyramid. o_O

    Generally I have found as I've gotten more experience that pushing to extremes, 100% one way or the other, is often the way to go, but sometimes I center it or pin it between 2 of the 3 categories. It really depends on what I have going on at the time. There are occasions where I want to finish a ship this turn but want the excess to go towards infrastructure for instance. Those are the only occasions I find where it makes sense so I don't let excess production float off into the ether.

    The ultimate goal of the colony management "mini-game" right now is to increase pop and infrastructure as quickly and as often as you can because that grows your production engine. Your production engine feeds your ship construction, building construction, and research and space culture in a roundabout way (tax production to get money, then invest all the money in research and/or space culture). This generally leads to an optimal move of setting 100% allocation in one area or another as Mezmorki mentions.

    That's an interesting idea. It would definitely make colony planning more important. I could see additional techs or space cultures being added to allow you to adapt and change allocation at a faster rate as well. By its very nature, this type of system would change how colonies are run dramatically. I don't know if that extreme of a design change is the right fit for ISG at this point. It would require a ton of testing and rebalancing potentially.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  7. Mezmorki

    Mezmorki Ensign

    Posts:
    124
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    I had another thought on a different approach to the wheel. Take the triangle as it currently is. But instead of freely being able to pick any point, there is a series of fixed points laid across the triangle. E.g. in each of the three corners, and in the middle, maybe 2-3 stops along each edge, and a few fixed points in the middle.

    So getting back to the math, what if different points, in addition to the production allocation, provided special secondary benefits. For example, maybe a point on the infrastructure-ecology continuum provides a 50/50 but also reflects a more sustainable infrastructure investment, so when infrastructure levels up you get a lasting happiness boost or building maintenance cost reduction. Basically, create a web of more nuanced and interesting choices so it is less of a clear-cut optimization.

    Finally, connect all these points to their nearest neighbors to form a lattice. Then, make it so you can only move one step through the lattice per turn, so you have to plan things out a bit more
    Carefully as well.
     
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  8. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Some exciting ideas being tossed about here. Right now what I love about the current system is that one can micro or not and still be effective. Any new concept or twist in this regard must retain that freedom. In other words I won't support any alteration that makes micro a must. That would just diminish a considerable advantage held by ISG in the production allocation model
     
  9. Adam Solo

    Adam Solo Developer Administrator Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    4,846
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Thanks for opening this point to debate as it is quite a central concept in the game, so if something needs to be improved or be made more clear then now is the time to still do something about it. Of course, making radical changes to the system at this point will be harder but a good discussion is always healthy nonetheless.

    Here's my take.

    Diversifying production allocation through the triangle or sliders will depend on what your priorities are and the current circunstances. Do you want to build that ship faster and you're willing to start using/paying for those SSPs immediately? Or, are you in no rush and prefer to divert some of that production onto infrastructure to get a new infra perk for a research boost and an additional production boost in the meantime? Or perhaps divert some production, even if residual, to habitat control for extra pop growth, which allied with a Cloning Facility may unlock you a new POP in a not too distant future for added production, money (from tax), space culture and research generation.

    Deciding on how much to allocate for each of the three categories also gives you fine control, if you want, or you can just not worry about it and set a certain % profile and let those colonies grow at those rates for a while.

    I think when we add the construction rush feature (accelerated construction with money) this allocation freedom may even be more interesting to exploit because you may decide to keep a ship construction going that you don't need right away but also keep investing in other areas. Then, if the need to have a ship arises you can rush it more cheaply had you not allocated construction to it and had to buy it fully now. In the meantime, by diversifying production you also saved the extra SSPs by not having to rush the ship out the door when you didn't need it.

    Another reason why you may want to spread production through different areas is to take advantage of the colony's infrastructure specialization bonuses. Imagine that you have a +100% infrastructure bonus to planetary engineering, +25% to buildings construction and +0% to ships construction. Let's say your available production in that colony is 100. If you allocate 100% production to ships construction you get a total production output of 100 (because you have no infra bonus). However, if you allocate 33% production to each of the three areas you get a total production per turn of (33 * 2) + (33 * 1.25) + (34 * 1) = 141.25. If you allocate 100% production to planetary engineering you effectively get 200 production out of that colony per turn (100 base production with a 100% infra production bonus). Allied with the fact that new infra levels unlock new possibilities, the different allocation paths you may choose may lead to different outcomes because the new production and research benefits of the new infra perks may alter the game's progression in other areas. So, it's a non-linear process from what I can tell because the sequence in how you do things may produce different outcomes, since important effects may be unlocked in the process depending on where you decide to invest your production on.

    It's true that many times you'll just want to focus at 100% in one area, when you're really keen in achieving a particular outcome immediately. That's fine. Other times, as I exemplified above, you may want not to put all your eggs in the same basket and may want to squeeze more production out of your colonies by diversifying production allocation among the different areas to take advantage of the infrastructure bonuses (more micro), or simply wish to have a more homogenized development on the three areas and simply not worry about it (for reduced micro).

    So, the way I see it, the triangle/sliders allocation between the three big production areas gives you flexibility and options, and it can also help alleviate a bit on the micromanagement side, if you choose not to micro your colonies much, that is, for which the model also allows for. So, you may use a different allocation method and % profiles as you're pleased. Some people seem to prefer using the triangle, others prefer to use the sliders. Some players seem to leave the % allocations fixed for a long time, like general production profiles, while others will probably want to tinker more with the numbers to get certain things at certain times and to squeeze the most out of each colony.

    It's true that by fiddling with the values often you will probably get better results, but due to the complexity of the system (with bonuses per area and buckets filling up at different times with important effects unlocked) it may not be too obvious what exactly should be done as it depends on what you want at a particular time. Personally, I tend to set the allocations to get the ETAs for infra and construction, for example, in a range I find to be what I want for that particular time. So, if the production I allocate gets me a ship in 10 turns and the new infra unlock in 8 and that fits with my current game state, than that's what I go with. If I need a ship fast now, because the situation calls for it, then I'll probably switch too 100% construction, because all I care at the moment is to get that ship.

    To mitigate the micromanagement issue a bit we plan to apply an overflow of production to the next construction/infrastructure/planetary engineering project, so you're not incentivized to tweak the numbers too much or every turn when a particular project is just finishing for example, to squeeze that extra 5 or 6 production that would get lost otherwise. That production will spill naturally to the next project of each category with this enhancement, so you shouldn't need to worry about that.

    What do you think?
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Adam Solo

    Adam Solo Developer Administrator Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    4,846
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    It's an interesting idea, and like @aReclusiveMind has said it has the potential to lead to more interesting decisions, but I also expect it to have a considerable impact on how the colonies are run at the moment. Also, by not letting the player shift production allocation freely, but only chunk by chunk, it may (inadvertently) introduce a new micro task to have to check in your colonies from time to time to check if you can already move or not one more chuck of production allocation from a place you don't need it anymore to another place where you badly need it (and possibly needed it many turns before).

    I'm not saying it couldn't work, as it seems it would create tougher decisions, but it could also create unwanted frustrations along the way. Basically, I'd need to think about it very carefully, evaluate where it may clash with every other system currently in place (how the infrastructure levels up, what happens when it's not possible to level up infra anymore or there are no planetary engineering projects left to done). I suspect it would take a considerable amount of design work, testing and playtesting to see if this would work with the current systems, and if it would even work better at the end, or not, from a fun point of view.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Adam Solo

    Adam Solo Developer Administrator Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    4,846
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    So, like synergies between the different areas. More infra and planetary engineering allocation could sprout some other side effect besides finishing things in those areas faster, likewise for construction and infrastructure, or construction and planetary engineering. It does sound intriguing, and as long as it wouldn't lead to excessive micro it could create some additional choices. However, it's not coming naturally to me what those side-effects of those synergies could be, or at least not immediately. But, it's certainly an interesting idea.

    \Edit: One potential pitfall I see is that time is a factor, so when you allocate production to one of those special middle points, let's say you'd get a synergistic bonus when the infrastructure finishes. The question is, how much time would that middle point need to be picked for the infra level up to get you that bonus? I believe the answer would need to be: all the time from the previous level till the next? This could introduce more complexity and doubts to the player which could require more feedback to be given to the player.

    One other idea for those side effects that just came to mind was to give research points the more you spread your allocations. So, if you decide to focus to 100% on one area you wouldn't get any research bonus (no synergies). But, as soon as you started shifting your production allocation more towards other areas, you could get synergetic RPs from all areas in a direct proportion to the amount you spread. This would reward the player for spreading her/his production allocations more. But, it could also add another layer of micromanagement and conflict/frustration, since it may feel like a penalty when you want to build stuff at 100% and it may lead to players favoring a more balanced production allocation most of the times. Basically, this would need to be thinked and tested very carefully.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
  12. MizzouRah

    MizzouRah Cadet

    Posts:
    28
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Looks like we will also be able to have the AI automate your planets as well, so those who do not want to micro can just set it and forget it.
     
  13. Adam Solo

    Adam Solo Developer Administrator Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    4,846
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Yes, this is correct, you'll be able to automate your planets, and the AI will take care of things for you in those planets, according to your specified focus.
     
  14. Mezmorki

    Mezmorki Ensign

    Posts:
    124
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    A lot of games shoot themselves in the foot, under-cutting a lot of their depth, by including production rush features. Endless Space 2 is an egregious offender here, where your economy snowballs to huge levels and you can rush build entire colonies to high levels of development in a single turn. I really think rush building is something that should be a "use sparingly and not without consequence" type of feature.

    For example, if you rush build on a planet, rush-building could go on a cooldown timer coupled with morale penalty for X-turns (10?) to prevent players from spamming fleets out of the ether to make-up for poor planning and not adequately defending yourself. It should be a fallback strategy that has some steep costs to it.

    Ahhh, this is it. I was looking for a mathematical inventive for doing something other than 100% in a any given category at a time. The bonuses may make it worth diversifying as a means of getting a higher total output over the same period of time.

    This is good, but the UI need so provide better feedback and clarity about this. Maybe some icons or pop-ups that show up when you are or aren't taking advantage of a specialization bonuses in some way?


    YES! More games need to have used production overflow. This works well with the suggestion from the other thread for being able to assign a default background action (e.g. Trade) to put any left over production to good use.

    A practical aspect of this comes down to fleet composition. In a number of games (especially those with no overflow production), building smaller ships results in a huge loss of production, and so fleet compositions skew heavily in favor of bigger ships all the time. This undercuts the ability to have more interesting fleet compositions or counter strategies that rely on hordes/numbers of smaller ships to overwhelming larger ships. Kind of getting onto a different topic for another day, but glad to see this is the direction you go.
     
    • Helpful Helpful x 3
  15. aReclusiveMind

    aReclusiveMind Developer Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    3,040
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Good points and words of caution regarding rushing production, Mezmorki. Currently it isn't that hard to accumulate a lot of money and there's not all that much to spend it on.

    It caused me to consider a different approach. I propose it here in this thread.

    It could be made clearer or be added to the tooltip (it isn't currently), but it does make the designated production number bright green when you are taking advantage of an infrastructure bonus. See my images below to see the numbers when my ship construction bonus is applied (on the right).

    isg_production_bonus.jpg
     
    • Helpful Helpful x 2

Share This Page