How an Overhaul of Logistics Can Nerf Trade and Reinforce Diminishing Returns

from Sins Forums

The purpose of this thread is to get feedback on a mechanism I'm implementing for a balance mod...while the mod will include many changes, this thread is to focus on only one area of change, an area I'd really appreciate some feedback on...

There are two things currently I think are problematic:  

1) Trade is too powerful

2) Each additional planet does not fall victim to diminishing returns as much as it should

These are of course opinions, and not necessarily concerns shared by many...I think most players would agree that trade is a very powerful and important element of the game, one that dominates a lot of decision making...

I may be alone, however, with my 2nd opinion...I believe that in all games each additional planet/base/city/asset/whatever should reflect diminishing returns:  the 3rd planet should not be as useful as the 2nd, and the 4th should not be as useful as the 3rd...

To a point, Sins does reflect diminishing returns with the concept of allegiance...however, trade is not affected by allegiance, and therefore does not fall victim to diminishing returns...in fact, trade is the exact opposite of diminishing returns....

Independent of how many planets you have, you will probably want a capital ship factory, several frigate factories, and a certain number of labs...the number of labs and factories you have will be dependent on many variables, but in general, how many labs and factories you need is independent of how many planets you have...certainly the number of planets you possess may limit how many labs/factories you can have, but how many you can have and how many you need are two entirely different things...

These mandatory logistic structures are absolutely necessary and in general the number you need is not tied to how many planets you have....once you have all your mandatory logistic structures, you can fill the rest of your logistic slots with whatever you want, which (other than the occasional culture structure) is generally trade ports...

Since the number of mandatory structures is essentially fixed, after your first few planets, each additional planet becomes pure profit and is filled almost entirely with trade ports...furthermore, each additional trade node increase the output of all trade ports...because trade is the dominate source of income for large empires, the benefits of this trade bonus outpace the economic consequences of decreasing allegiance...

To counter this, I am working with the following set of changes:

1) Frigate factories and research labs cost ONE logistic slot....all other logistic structures cost TWO logistic slots...

2) Each planet starts with TWO logistic slots, and each logistic upgrade adds TWO logistic slots...

3) Below is the corresponding number of logistic UPGRADES and resulting TOTAL slots for each planet type:

  • Asteroid -- 1 upgrade, 4 total slots
  • Ice/Volcanic -- 2 upgrades, 6 total slots
  • Terran -- 3 upgrades, 8 total slots
  • Desert -- 4 upgrades, 10 total slots

4) Development mandate and planet bonuses affecting logistic structures now grant TWO additional logistic slots

What are the consequences of these changes?  Consider 2 empires, one with 5 planets and one with 8 planets...for simplicity, let us assume that all planets are ice/volcanic (not a bad average when you mix desert/terrans with asteroids)...

For the empire with 5 planets, we have either 25 logistic structures (under vanilla sins) or 30 logistic slots (under modded sins)....I think it is reasonable to say that at this stage, the mandatory structures would be a capital ship factory, 2 frigate factories, 2 culture stations, and 8 labs (the number of labs is debatable, but I'm think 3 civ/5 mil for TEC and advent, 3 mil/5 civ for Vasari)...that leaves room for 12 logistic structures (vanilla sins) or 14 logistic slots (modded sins)...

What does this mean?  This empire can build more trade ports under vanilla sins (12 vs. 7)...however, if this empire were to stagnant and go into the late game (where it conceivably may want 16 total labs), then actually both systems would allow about the same number of trade ports (4 vs. 3)...

For the empire with 8 planets, lets say the mandatory structures are one capital ship factory, 4 frigate factories, 3 culture stations, and 16 labs...that leaves room for 16 logistic structures (vanilla sins) or 20 logistic slots (modded sins)...for this empire, the number of trade ports it can build is 16 vs. 10...

As you can see, this system seriously limits how many trade ports (or refineries) you can have, but it does not limit your ability to field labs and frigate factories...

Obviously there are some consequences with these changes...it is hard to amass a lot of culture (I have considered reducing culture to one logistic slot) and early game logistics are really rough unless your HW starts with 2 upgrades (instead of the typical one upgrade IIRC under quickstart)...

Anyway, I know that is a lot to read but I'd appreciate any feedback on this suggestion....

 

52,585 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

So players can max out their military tech with just one planet, and if they have an asteroid can still have a capitalship factory? I don't buy it, I like the fact that the game makes you really have to expand to advance up the tech tree (not the least because most techs are worth it until later game).

If trade is really that big of a problem, either A. make it somewhat dependent on allegiance, or B. make disrupting trade a lot easier and more effective. IMO the ideal solution is B, but either way I don't see how it makes sense to completely overhaul an otherwise effective logistics system just to deal with trade.

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

This trade problem can't be tackled by singling out logistics. The work required to balance all the races is a nightmare by just changing one element of the game. The change has to be broad which includes military units as well. 

E.g advents weak economy is made up by having high dps units, shields and culture. Two things can happen:.

Advent become unable to deal with other races and require even more firepower, shields and hull or the other races fall victim to there units and can't counter that with a better economy.

 

 

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 1
So players can max out their military tech with just one planet, and if they have an asteroid can still have a capitalship factory?
End of GoaFan77's quote

I guess I am confused...a player could already do that now, so I don't really see what you are getting at...as you will note with my comparisons, for a small empire with all 16 labs, this proposed system would basically be equivalent to the current logistics system...it's only when you get to large empires or empires with few labs where there is even a real difference, and that difference basically only reduces the amount of "pure profit" you get from filling up those later planets with only trade ports...

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 1
I like the fact that the game makes you really have to expand to advance up the tech tree
End of GoaFan77's quote

You do have to expand under either system...later planets will still give you pure profit, and as I pointed out, this system doesn't make supporting labs any easier, it only makes supporting large amounts of refineries/trade ports more difficult...

Quoting RiddleKing, reply 2
The work required to balance all the races is a nightmare by just changing one element of the game. The change has to be broad which includes military units as well. 
End of RiddleKing's quote

I agree....however, this is not meant to be the only change ever to be made to sins...furthermore, the purpose of this change isn't even really to create balance between the races (though this change certainly would help out Advent more since they have awful trade/refineries)...the purpose is solely to deal with trade and enforce diminishing returns....

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 1
make it somewhat dependent on allegiance
End of GoaFan77's quote

That would be the ideal change in my opinion, but I have no idea how you could implement that change with just a mod...barring that, I don't think disrupting trade is particularly viable...

I have toyed around with the arcova's timed explosives and the seeker's martyrdom to make the abilities target and disable structures for short periods of time....however, the problem is that if a planet has multiple trade ports, disabling one isn't going to break the longest trade chain...to make these abilities effective at disrupting trade would invariably make them OP against factories...furthermore, the Vasari have no equivalent ability on their scout (and they already lack an anti-module ship)....

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 3
I guess I am confused...a player could already do that now, so I don't really see what you are getting at...as you will note with my comparisons, for a small empire with all 16 labs, this proposed system would basically be equivalent to the current logistics system...it's only when you get to large empires or empires with few labs where there is even a real difference, and that difference basically only reduces the amount of "pure profit" you get from filling up those later planets with only trade ports...
End of Seleuceia's quote

How many logistics slots can a terran planet have? 24? Thats six labs if you don't have anything else. You could have the full 8 labs under your system, so it does make building labs easier. And I do not think that is necessarily a good thing.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 3
You do have to expand under either system...later planets will still give you pure profit, and as I pointed out, this system doesn't make supporting labs any easier, it only makes supporting large amounts of refineries/trade ports more difficult...
End of Seleuceia's quote

Refineries also don't need to be harder to support, if anything they should be 1 logistics slot.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 4
That would be the ideal change in my opinion, but I have no idea how you could implement that change with just a mod...barring that, I don't think disrupting trade is particularly viable...
End of Seleuceia's quote

No you can't, but it would be very easy for the Devs to do. If all you meant was wanting to make a mod out of it then that's fine lol.

 

But anyways, my point still is, why go through all of this trouble if trade is all you're really upset about? You could even just reduce the base trade income per trade port with a mod quite easily.

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 5
How many logistics slots can a terran planet have? 24? Thats six labs if you don't have anything else. You could have the full 8 labs under your system, so it does make building labs easier. And I do not think that is necessarily a good thing.
End of GoaFan77's quote

I don't think filling a planet completely with research structures is a realistic situation...for one, you will almost always want at least one trade port to develop your trade chain...that alone means you'd be looking at 5 vs. 6 labs...add one more structure (such as a capital ship factory, or a culture center, or another trade port/refinery), and now you are looking at 4 vs 4 labs...

For asteroids, desert, and ice/volcanic, you wouldn't need anything beyond one trade port to make both systems comparable in the number of labs you can support...

Yes, in theory it can be easier to get labs but only if you don't make trade chains (something I find highly unlikely)...for all practical purposes, fielding labs is more or less the same...

I do agree that fielding labs should not be easier, especially when (if anything) many technologies need to be buffed (mainly the civ trees)...in practice though, I don't see this new system allowing that to happen...

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 5
Refineries also don't need to be harder to support, if anything they should be 1 logistics slot.
End of GoaFan77's quote

I'm working on the assumption that refineries are modded to equal trade ports (more or less)...how exactly that will occur is irrelevant, but on the basis that they are equal in economic power, I don't see any reason why they should differ in the number of slots they use...

As far as I'm concerned, if refineries were buffed to the level of trade ports, there still would be a problem of diminishing returns...

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 5
But anyways, my point still is, why go through all of this trouble if trade is all you're really upset about? You could even just reduce the base trade income per trade port with a mod quite easily.
End of GoaFan77's quote

I could...but my primary concern is diminishing returns...clearly more planets should equal more economic power, but how much more?  What I have a problem with is that one planet can make the difference between a near broke economy and a booming economy due to a fixed number of mandatory structures...if I have six planets vs. your five, and my sixth planet is a desert, that is 9 extra trade ports I could build (vs. 5 under the proposed system)...it is my feeling that starting positions and randomized planets are already enough of a crap shoot, and I feel this is one way to mitigate that...

I am considering changing the slots needed for capital ship factories and culture centers to one each (equivalently, culture centers could be made more powerful so I'm not concerned with that yet)...however, the core change is the difference in logistic slots between factories/labs and trade ports/refineries...

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 6
I could...but my primary concern is diminishing returns...clearly more planets should equal more economic power, but how much more? What I have a problem with is that one planet can make the difference between a near broke economy and a booming economy due to a fixed number of mandatory structures...if I have six planets vs. your five, and my sixth planet is a desert, that is 9 extra trade ports I could build (vs. 5 under the proposed system)...it is my feeling that starting positions and randomized planets are already enough of a crap shoot, and I feel this is one way to mitigate that...
End of Seleuceia's quote

Ah, okay now I see where you're coming from. Really trade should not having diminishing returns on an empire wide basis, that would make no since as that implies you make relatively less profit on having more types of goods avaliable for trade. What you want is diminishing returns on a planet scale, to prevent entire worlds from being dedicated to just trade ports without a loss of efficiency. After all, the amount of goods a planet produces is finite regardless of how many trade goods you have.

To this end I think there is a way you could do this, make trade ports have an ability that actually reduces trade income by a small percent at the planet they are at, which can stack infinitely. It would have to be carefully balanced to ensure each trade port still increase the overall trade income, but you can definitely make each further trade port less useful in this way.

Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top

Why should trade be nerfed?  It's a long-term investment that comes at the short-term cost of having fewer ships and combat upgrades.  A better subject would be to discuss whether or not a specific race's trade ability needs to be nerfed or buffed.

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

We really need help from the developers understanding the refinery problem. Sins is so complicated and the reason why sins has a smaller fan base is because its meant to be played by rocket scientists.

 

The easiest way to approach the problem is the advent refinery system:

 

 

Advent Rules

Affected by allegiance : [ tier 2] Culture, [tier 4] Induced reverence %? , [Tier 8] allure of the unity 5-10%?

Refineries only affect extractors within its gravity well.

Refinery bonuses Stack.

 

Research Bonuses

Metal: 20.1%

Crystal 20.1%

 

Research Bonus for Resource Focus

 Up to 25% for each refinery [tier 7]

 

So the benefit of 3 refineries should equal 75% boost at 100% allegiance. 

 

The tactic is to build refineries on worlds that have three or more extractors because the benefits are hindered by allegiances which is always less then 100% except on your home world. 

 

 

How can we buff this system first?

There so many variables as you can see. A real nightmare and thats without the diplomacy pact boosts  8C  

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 7
Really trade should not having diminishing returns on an empire wide basis, that would make no since as that implies you make relatively less profit on having more types of goods avaliable for trade.
End of GoaFan77's quote

I agree with this...which is why I still think there should be a trade length bonus (though I'd advocate a slightly smaller bonus)...

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 7
What you want is diminishing returns on a planet scale, to prevent entire worlds from being dedicated to just trade ports without a loss of efficiency. After all, the amount of goods a planet produces is finite regardless of how many trade goods you have.
End of GoaFan77's quote

I think this is what I'm trying to say, and I apologize for being unclear earlier...I'd say you've provided a more eloquent description of my problem...

I still do want to have diminishing returns on an empire wide basis...right now though, I think the trade length bonus outpaces the decreasing allegiance such that additional worlds actually increase economic efficiency...this is a trend I'd like to reverse...one clear way to do this is to reduce the trade length bonus...reducing the max number of trade ports per planet also accomplishes this because trade becomes less important relative to extractors and tax income (two things affected by allegiance)...

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 7
To this end I think there is a way you could do this, make trade ports have an ability that actually reduces trade income by a small percent at the planet they are at, which can stack infinitely. It would have to be carefully balanced to ensure each trade port still increase the overall trade income, but you can definitely make each further trade port less useful in this way.
End of GoaFan77's quote

Hmm....that is an excellent idea, and certainly would give the desired effect...I'm not sure how I feel about it yet though, as it still doesn't account for mandatory structures...thanks for the idea GoaFan, that is good....

Quoting DirtySanchezz, reply 8
A better subject would be to discuss whether or not a specific race's trade ability needs to be nerfed or buffed.
End of DirtySanchezz's quote

If a faction inherently has bad trade (AKA Advent), and the importance of trade is reduced, then that faction relative to the others would be more economically competitive...not a direct approach, but on the premise that trade is too powerful, one mechanism can be used to solve (at least partially) two problems...

Of course, if you don't think trade needs to be changed universally in any way then these propositions are moot....

Personally, I don't think Advent need a trade buff, especially if trade/refineries as a whole lose some of their importance relative to other forms of income...what does need to occur is a buff to resource focus...however, that is entirely independent of how TEC/Vasari refineries work (which I think need to be more competitive with trade ports)...

Quoting RiddleKing, reply 9
he easiest way to approach the problem is the advent refinery system:
End of RiddleKing's quote

Advent "refineries" work a lot differently than other refineries...for one, Advent do not have two different structures that have different costs (one variable that is very relevant in an economic analysis)...additionally, you have different probability distributions to work with....you know for certain that any given planet will have 2-4 extractors, making it easy to calculate a good value for resource focus...however, refineries pull from all nearby extractors (a number that is a lot more unpredictable and has a high variability)...

They really are two separate issues...the real issue is that we are in an area that is highly controversial...some people think trade spamming needs to be nerfed, some think refineries need to be buffed, and some think there's no need for any change (if refineries aren't as good, then you simply don't build them)...

So, in effect we have a philosophical difference that makes any sort of consensus or agreement impossible...personally, I'd think it'd be great if equal numbers of refineries and trade ports was a viable strategy...

I've given up on ever trying to get consensus for anything, and simply try to get constructive feedback on things I'm implementing for my own personal use...

 

Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top

What about adjusting the numbers for logistics slots so they are all divisible by four, since all logistics structures use four slots? The amount of logistics structures each upgrade supports doesn't need to change, just the numbers for logistics slots.

Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top

Under the proposed system, structures would only need 1 or 2 slots, which is why upgrades only add 2 slots...

Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top

While I totally agree with your position on logistics, Seleuceia, I believe your proposed changes would trivialize logistics planning with regards to labs and factories.  With that said, I believe this is a discussion that needs to be happening and I certainly hope the devs are paying attention.  Trade ports have gotten out of control with faster game speed, but they've always been a problem.

Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top

If culture centers and capital ship factories were also only 1 slot, would that help?

Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top

That actually only makes things worse as far as my complaint goes: that it trivializes logistics planning for these structures.

Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Darvin3, reply 15
That actually only makes things worse as far as my complaint goes: that it trivializes logistics planning for these structures.
End of Darvin3's quote

What about what I said, quoted below?

Quoting Zeta1127, reply 11
What about adjusting the numbers for logistics slots so they are all divisible by four, since all logistics structures use four slots? The amount of logistics structures each upgrade supports doesn't need to change, just the numbers for logistics slots.
End of Zeta1127's quote

Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Zeta1127, reply 16
What about what I said, quoted below?
End of Zeta1127's quote

Maxed out all logistics slots are already divisible by 4. Since several logistics upgrades give +6 logistics its basically the same as +1.5 structures, but when you get all the upgrades it will be divisible by 4.

Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Darvin3, reply 15
That actually only makes things worse as far as my complaint goes: that it trivializes logistics planning for these structures.
End of Darvin3's quote

I think I may be confused then on what you mean...what exactly do you mean when you say it "trivializes logistics planning"?

Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 17
Maxed out all logistics slots are already divisible by 4.
End of GoaFan77's quote

Not what I was trying to say, and I already know that, so never mind.

Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top

Actually Zeta, I'm also curious as to what you are trying to say as well...I thought I understood and then you posted again and now I'm not so sure...

It seemed like you were saying have all structures use x number of slots, with x being divisible by 4....I'm guessing that's not what you meant though, because that's how the game already is....

Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top

I was trying to say, that each slot upgrade isn't always divisible by four, as GoaFan77 said, many of the slot upgrades give something like plus six, or 1.5 structures, something I found a little annoying, so I think it would be a good idea to standardize them to numbers divisible by four, but still support the same number of structures.

Reply #22 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Zeta1127, reply 21
I was trying to say, that each slot upgrade isn't always divisible by four, as GoaFan77 said, many of the slot upgrades give something like plus six, or 1.5 structures, something I found a little annoying, so I think it would be a good idea to standardize them to numbers divisible by four, but still support the same number of structures.
End of Zeta1127's quote

Agreed.

Reply #23 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Zeta1127, reply 21
I was trying to say, that each slot upgrade isn't always divisible by four, as GoaFan77 said, many of the slot upgrades give something like plus six, or 1.5 structures, something I found a little annoying, so I think it would be a good idea to standardize them to numbers divisible by four, but still support the same number of structures.
End of Zeta1127's quote

That would require either creating another logistics upgrade, getting rid of a logistics upgrade, changing the default number of logistics slots, or more like several of those, just to get some more or less what we have no. I don't really see what the problem is, they merely wanted logistics upgrades to give more than just one structure while thinking 2 might be too much, so they used 1.5.

Reply #24 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Zeta1127, reply 21
I was trying to say, that each slot upgrade isn't always divisible by four, as GoaFan77 said, many of the slot upgrades give something like plus six, or 1.5 structures, something I found a little annoying, so I think it would be a good idea to standardize them to numbers divisible by four, but still support the same number of structures.
End of Zeta1127's quote

I understand what you are saying now, and I do agree it is a little odd...it may be a convention that was used in a beta or very early version of original sins when (perhaps) not all logistics structures used 4 slots...

Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top

I was always under (apparently the mistaken) asumption that having more than 1 trade port in a gravity well (not counting Starbases) did not help.  I honestly did not know that putting 9 trade ports in a desert planet would produce so much income.  Is it possible to resrict the number of trade ports in a gravity well to 1?  With the Starbases with the trade facilities being a optional second the max you get is 2 trade ports wich just about everybody can get.