View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001803 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Interface Ideas - Resource Management and Construction | Dec 4, 2010 1:30 pm | Jan 3, 2011 11:45 am | |
| Reporter | Suzera | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix | ||
| Product Version | 4.045 | ||||
| Summary | 0001803: Add control to automatically manage powerplants | ||||
| Description | Ideally it would be default on like the manufacturies. Micromanaging power is kind of tedious at the start where the small bits of resources make a pretty large difference and you're still building up your main fleet. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
| duplicate of | 0001154 | closed | Chris_McElligottPark | Auto Energy Reactor management |
|
|
On both of your issues (http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=1801), Chris has been against having too much automation with regards to this matter. Here's his take on it (from http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,2165.0.html): "I do attempt at managing my economy frequently, where I always try to have no power generators running except for tier 2, and when I have excess power I will normally turn off what I don't need (down to 40K or less) and toggle as needed. It is fairly inconvenient having to use even the buttons on the bottom toolbar to switch to every planet that has a power generator, disable it, zoom back out into where I was previously." (This was back when harvesters didn't auto-replace, and before I knew you could shift-click the power plants to quickly disable/enable them.) Chris "It's not meant for you to have to micromanage it to that degree. If you want do do so, then fine, but generally keeping a buffer of 80,000 or more energy can be a good idea, anyway (more if you are actively replenishing a fleet). In general, throughout AI War there are some "inconvenient" ways that you can micromanage things if you are OCD about a particular aspect of the game (as we all tend to be at times, with various games -- myself included). But the whole "almost no micromanagement" aspect of the game is that you never have to do that sort of thing. The game interface isn't designed around hardcore micro of the economy, basically, and if you choose to do so you're going to run up against that. At some point I'll probably make some screens to make that sort of thing easier, but that's honestly a double-edged sword. As soon as an economy/tactcs/whatever-efficiency-enhancing feature is easier to use, then players feel like the have to. And then the difficulty otherwise needs to be adjusted to compensate. And then you arrive at a state where everyone has to micro in order to play at the best possible level, and what was once a small option thing that some people could use (at a minor annoyance cost) to gain an advantage, to a central feature that all the expert players are forced to use through a less-annoying interface, but adding one more thing to the list of things to do. Then what happens is I start getting requests for auto-reactor management, so that reactors turn on and off as needed, because that micromanagement is annoying to people. So, looking at this cycle, my two most valid options are: 1) do nothing and leave it as it is, where micromanagement is not required or encouraged by the interface, 2) skip to the end and implement automated reactor management options. Right now, since this is a pretty side issue, I'm inclined to go with 0000001, but I'm sure that 0000002 will surface at some point down the road..." |
|
|
Hope that provides some insight (he'll probably come in here to offer his feedback too)! |
|
|
It just means I have to hit pause every time a cutlass blows up a powerplant. It would be fine if randomly some games I didn't have to pause every 5 minutes during a wave to turn on power plants because cutlasses start spreading to my interior planets and blowing up powerplants before moving on. It's just really annoying and is a trivial processual thing. If it affords a significant advantage, you are at a disadvantage if you don't do it as per game rules, regardless of what Chris says. If decisionless micromanagement wins the game, it wins the game, and anything less is purposefully and with intent handicapping yourself. I already do it with fleet tactics on planets. Ideally, you move cruisers in front to screen out fighters, then move bombers into cruisers while retreating your cruisers from bombers, then throw in fighters to mop up bombers. It's just a huge pain to do, but at least that is at a place I am always looking at and devoting attention to, not at 12 different planets behind the front lines. |
|
|
see 1154 -- you probably need to change the title to "close me" |
|
|
Oh well. Random annoying pausing to toggle various mk 3 power plants due to cutlasses games it is... Unless... 40m and 40c a second is a pretty large chunk and is certainly worth microing. The lower reactors not so much, but those always need to be on anyway. |
|
|
By the way, you can toggle them on/off from the quick-buttons at the bottom of the screen as much as you want. And there's a buffer on brownouts before they actually take down your forcefields -- you have to go negative more than one mark III reactor. There's a lot of safeguards in there. |
|
|
Aha! I have to hold shift to toggle them. Didn't know that. That'll make things a lot easier. |
|
|
I didn't know that either...this is a huge time saver. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2010 1:30 pm | Suzera | New Issue | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:16 pm | Spikey00 | Note Added: 0005224 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:19 pm | Spikey00 | Note Added: 0005225 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:23 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005226 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:23 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005226 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:24 pm | Winter Born | Relationship added | duplicate of 0001154 |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:25 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005226 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:25 pm | Winter Born | Note Added: 0005228 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:25 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005226 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:27 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005229 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:28 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005229 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:29 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005226 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:33 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005229 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:43 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005226 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:43 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005226 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 2:45 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005229 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 10:33 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Dec 4, 2010 10:33 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => won't fix |
| Dec 4, 2010 10:33 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Dec 4, 2010 10:34 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005292 | |
| Dec 5, 2010 4:06 am | Suzera | Note Added: 0005313 | |
| Dec 5, 2010 3:17 pm | Fleet | Note Added: 0005330 | |
| Jan 3, 2011 11:45 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | resolved => closed |
