Supply "Warp-in"

posted on April 4th, 2010, 4:21 am

Just throwing another idea out there:

The simple 'buy supplies' button is kinda "boring" (for lack of a better word), and I believe that's been stated by others.

So, instead of just buying supplies and having it instantaneously be applied, have the button do a warp-in call of one or more supply ships that arrive just outside of the base and then travel to the starbase for 5-10 seconds and then dock and deliver the supplies. The ships are not controlled by the player, but are targetable an therefore they are vulnerable for that window of time.

posted on April 4th, 2010, 4:48 am

I know they've got something planned to change supply, but they're being tight-lipped about it.

Another thing is with the old armada 2 trading stations was that npc races would head to your station and give you bonuses, like latinum.  Perhaps they could come from off screen, travel to your (insert station name here)__________, and give you supply once they've docked.  They could be hijackable/assimilatable, so that you could get the supplies by boarding the ships and sending them to your "trading station" or whatever.  The irony of course is that supply is supposed to be a soft limit, but we keep finding ways of getting bonuses to ease the limit.

Still an interesting idea.  I'd like to see some non-combat ships use a warp in similar to that.

posted on April 4th, 2010, 5:28 am

lol - as they should... as they should. (alas us poor bastards begging for scraps of information)

The idea wasn't to make supplies cheaper (it would still cost the same), rather just a) make then not instant supplies and b) make the supply chain somewhat vulnerable to attack.

Variation: Maybe have half payment up front, half payment on shipment.


Variation: Have a buildable structure (ala a "supply warp-in beacon") that must be built some distance from the starbase (perhaps supply ships need to decelerate after warp?*) that the warp-in supply ships warp into and then they travel to the nearest starbase. The supply warp-in beacon is super cheap (10d/10t 1sec build time) and it has the 'call in supply' button.

- This solves the "where do the supply warp-in ships come in at?" question of the first suggestion.


*yes - I can think of multiple movie/show instances that would contradict that.


I like the hijack/steal part of your idea. A problem with coming from off screen is that the player who's base is near the edge of the map has a distinct advantage over someone further away from the edge.

[Anonymous]

posted on April 4th, 2010, 5:43 am

Last edited by Anonymous on April 4th, 2010, 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

The coming of screen part was sort of separate idea, my bad.  The thought was that they wouldn't cost you anything, just npc ships would be here and there.  If you lost the random "free" npc ships it wouldn't hurt you any, but would be another aspect where you can protect or hijack them.  Think of them like the crates idea, or mobile free resources.

With your idea, it could warp them in at a preset location from the SFC, so that you wouldn't have to force where you built that station or do the beacon thing.  I'm pretty sure they can set up the location like that.

Edit:  I had some time and decided to do a search for supply

//www.fleetops.net/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,3/topic,6038.msg99755/#msg99755

//www.fleetops.net/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,3/topic,7227.msg120097/#msg120097

//www.fleetops.net/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,3/topic,6087.msg100454/#msg100454

//www.fleetops.net/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,3/topic,6227.msg102853/#msg102853

Here's a bunch of stuff Optec has said on it.  It's basically cryptic and super secretive.

posted on April 4th, 2010, 7:58 am

I can only quote myself we want to do something more interessting and more believable in the future, that includes less "damn i have to go back to my starbase again to click that button"

posted on April 4th, 2010, 7:16 pm

I have a question about the changes to supply, if I can wrestle an answer from you. :shuriken:

Let's say player A and player B have fleets and attack each other.  Player A loses all his fleet and player B is fine.  But both are now out of supply and need to purchase it.  This isn't so bad for player B because he still has his fleet and can build more ships just like Player A will have to do.  But it is doubly bad for player A, because he has to spend money rebuilding AND has to purchase supply, meaning his rebuilding efforts are hampered.  Player A will never be able to recover and Player B will win.

Now with a Warcraft III upkeep system, if the same situation occurs, it might not be the end of the game for Player A, because he doesn't have any upkeep to worry about as he rebuilds, and Player B can't continue to make tons and tons of units without great cost.

While I don't want hard caps and I'm definitely not suggesting the upkeep system, will the new supply system address this kind of issue where supply crunches hit both players equally, regardless of who has the advantage at the moment?

posted on April 4th, 2010, 8:16 pm

I once asked for an "upkeep" system, it was negated, but i personally think it's the only way around his issue. If anyone knows about a different sonft -cap-system i'd be very interested in it.

IMO supplies are not a hard cap, as it does not moderate (meaning making stronger players suffer more and weaker players gain advantage), but just delays the game unpredictably in in case of less exercised players. In case of a good player that doesn't suffer from too chaotic happenings, it's just another resource the player has to care for, nothing necessary. Thus the current supply system mostly strenghens the winning party but also difficults the game for unused players. A balancing (this time not between races but between players) suppy-system should do the opposite.

(Shall I await a great "oh no (why should we strenghen noobs, they shall learn FO) from some community members now? )

posted on April 4th, 2010, 8:41 pm

I'm curious why this is considered a problem? Wouldn't this be considered a natural consequence of losing the engagement and Player A should lose.

(Shall I await a great "oh no (why should we strenghen noobs, they shall learn FO) from some community members now? )

It's not a noob thing - it's a losing thing. Great players lose, too. Losing is also one of the best ways to learn. And great players can learn stuff, too.

posted on April 4th, 2010, 11:22 pm

It's not a noob thing - it's a losing thing.

Haha, the game's gotta end eventually.  If you want to keep playing, start another game!

As for the random resupply concept, I like it, along with a suggestion or two.  The starbase already has a dock in it, so along with the buy supplies button, maybe you can plunk down a couple subspace transponders (or not/whatever) to attract "trade ships."  These ships, when docked, will allow you to exchange one type of resource for another, with a variable exchange rate. 
    Of course the trade ships may spawn anywhere on the map, and it wouldn't be fun if you couldn't attack/capture them for a bonus, (maybe a high decommission gain?, and hint-hint-ahem-marauder) but naturally, some of them would have an ESCORT. 

This idea would double as a neat little way to add some minor races as NPC's with either a stock or race-specific trade ship, and one or two styles of escort.

posted on April 4th, 2010, 11:47 pm

Actually the fact that supply gets more and more expensive as you buy more is EXACTLY the kind of "soft-cap" that you say doesn't exist in FO.  If you burn recklessly through your supplies and have to keep buying more and more, it will get harder and harder to continue getting them.

  Even if you are winning, having to save up and buy supplies will temporarily slow or even HALT ship production and research.

  Don't believe me?  Ask a Klingon player .

posted on April 5th, 2010, 3:32 am

It doesnt bother me because i usally have 4 moon pairs or so before i need to buy supplies

posted on April 5th, 2010, 8:27 am

It doesnt bother me because i usally have 4 moon pairs or so before i need to buy supplies

  Well if you're playing a map that let's you have 4 moon pairs ... many things lose their purpose .

posted on April 5th, 2010, 6:18 pm

the supply redo will not introduce stuff like the upkeep system in warcraft. we never liked that either way. If you waste your fleet.. well.. don't expect your empire to lower the costs on stuff to compensate your incompetence.

The new system will funktion like a soft-cap, similar to the current supply. no fundamental change

posted on April 5th, 2010, 7:18 pm

Don't believe me?  Ask a Klingon player .

Hehe, ok in this case, you are truely limitied by the supply shortage.

Nevertheless supplies do not constitute a real soft cap, just a temporary obstacle to mass-building in some way. From the system-theorethical point of view a FO game is an instable state which is exponentially decaying into one of it's equilibrium states. It's growth-factor is increased by the offensive features (which means the average game beacomes shorter), decreased by defensive and balancing features. A balancing feature is one, that counters that growth by exponentially making it harder to further increase the strength of one side, thus prolonging the game and making a turn of the tide more likly. Caps and also soft caps are intended as balancing feature.

As Mal discribes, this is not the case for the supplies. Supplies appear not to be a real brake for outstanding growth, but just another resource. The difference to the other resources is that the interval, in which the shorage occurs is different. Dilithium shortage occurs every few moments, supply shortage every ten minutes. Even when the supply costs rise to the max of 1450 (?) units, its just a slowing measure to production. A difference in usual supply economy (I mean balancing through a soft-capping effect) only occurs, when one player produces enormous amounts of ships and the other does not. But in this case the mass-producing one will most likly win anyway, so the supply-brake will not affect gameplay.

I've watched many of yandomans youtube-game-reviews (really thanks again!) and feel that FO really could need a good balancer in it (this don't need to be the supplies). Mostly the game decides in the very first few minutes and tide only changes because of really big mistakes or misfortune. I often just watch the beginning and then fast forwart to see if anything interesting happens. It should not be, that the game of 40mins only contains 10 minutes of real interest. Huge games if intelligent players are at least a little different, as the use of combined defense (as mostly bases of the losing party are merged) and dagger-tactics help to keep the game interesting.

To make the supply break a balancing feature, it is an ooption to much more heavily increase the costs of supplies (like 750, 1245, 2066, 3430) and to let them decrease over time (e.g. minus 10% every 2 minutes). Then a mass-explosion is prohibited even if a player whish exploding resource stocks. hy should this be realistic? Basic economy. Price depends on demand. If more supply is needed than usually produced ths supplies are taken away from other consumers, but this is not for free. If you are not bying much supplies the stocks at your fraction's homelands rise, and they are shipping them for a cheaper price.

posted on April 5th, 2010, 8:17 pm

I've watched many of yandomans youtube-game-reviews (really thanks again!) and feel that FO really could need a good balancer in it (this don't need to be the supplies). Mostly the game decides in the very first few minutes and tide only changes because of really big mistakes or misfortune. I often just watch the beginning and then fast forwart to see if anything interesting happens. It should not be, that the game of 40mins only contains 10 minutes of real interest. Huge games if intelligent players are at least a little different, as the use of combined defense (as mostly bases of the losing party are merged) and dagger-tactics help to keep the game interesting.

No offense to some people, but this also has to deal with the skill level as well as the faction/unit match up (especially in the last few patches). I've played plenty of 1v1s with skilled folk where it looks like one person will lose in the first few minutes, only to recuperate and strike back. And vice versa of course . That's why team games are often more preferred, since things tend to widely fluctuate, while skill levels in a 1v1 are rarely evenly matched.

In relation to other things, the Klingon cap as you might now is quite a bit higher than 1450 dil/tri. Hell, it starts at 1500 dil/tri . Furthermore, the supply cap for all factions also requires you to balance dilithium and tritanium gathering. Even if you plan for a future dilithium heavy fleet, if you don't bulk up on tri, you're gonna starve due to the supply cost.