Discussion: Paying upfront / monthly payment

[Zergor]

Something worth noting in Stellaris is that for any project (buildings, districts, ships, megastructures, terraformation, etc...) the payment is entirely done upfront.
This has the advantage of making ressourses management easier because you won't have huge fluctuations in your income (several months with negative income and now knowing exactly when enough things will finish so it's positive again for instance).
On the other hand it lead to strange things like not being able to start a gigantic megastructure project over 5 years because right now you lack 10 minerals for the total cost of the layer.
Realistically there is no reason you have to pay upfront too because for those you don't pay the service, you give directly the ressourses necessary for the execution. Services like what enclave propose make sense to be payed upfront.

So I wanted to know if some players think that having a monthly cost for projects (with a tooltip showing the total cost, the cost/month and the total time) instead of paying upfront better ?
Would being able to start things you can't pay right now but know you could in the long run be interesting in the game ?
Or on the other hand do you think it's useless complexity (with the risk that an inexperienced player starts too many projects and end having all of them locked because of a lack of ressourses) and the upfront payment model is good enough for Stellaris ?

 

[prismaticmarcus]

maybe a choice would be good, with the payment plan costing, say, 20% more

 

[Alspego]

On the other hand it lead to strange things like not being able to start a gigantic megastructure project over 5 years because right now you lack 10 minerals for the total cost of the layer.

For things like that, you have the galactic market.

So I wanted to know if some players think that having a monthly cost for projects (with a tooltip showing the total cost, the cost/month and the total time) instead of paying upfront better ?
Would being able to start things you can't pay right now but know you could in the long run be interesting in the game ?
Or on the other hand do you think it's useless complexity (with the risk that an inexperienced player starts too many projects and end having all of them locked because of a lack of ressourses) and the upfront payment model is good enough for Stellaris ?

Yes, you can replace total cost with monthly cost, but with this change alone, I do not see any real benefits. It would be different, but not much better. However, you could add some events which would make more sense with monthly payment: e.g. a "construction delay" event resulting in higher cost or longer building time.

 

[dezuman]

A relevant point is that upfront costs are *far* easier for the AI to handle. And who doesn't want a competent AI?

 

[Dorian Ertymexx]

A relevant point is that upfront costs are *far* easier for the AI to handle. And who doesn't want a competent AI?

John Connor? ;-)

 

[permeakra]

I miss monthly payments for edicts. They were so easier to handle. Dunno about construction, I'll have to try.

 

[Kami-sama]

I really like the idea of monthly payment for megastructures, the only upfront cost being the influence. You can already build only one Galactic Wonder at a time and the influence cost limits the number of habitats and gateways you can build simultaneously so it wouldn't add more complexity.

 

[Dorian Ertymexx]

I miss monthly payments for edicts. They were so easier to handle. Dunno about construction, I'll have to try.

I can understand that it is easier on the computer to have the present system, rather than a monthly payment, but it should at least be repeatable. As in "The X edict is now over - do you wish to renew it?" with an easy yes or no option. Not that it is a HUGE pain to go into the edict-bar and reclick, but still.

 

[Typee]

Something worth noting in Stellaris is that for any project (buildings, districts, ships, megastructures, terraformation, etc...) the payment is entirely done upfront.
This has the advantage of making ressourses management easier because you won't have huge fluctuations in your income (several months with negative income and now knowing exactly when enough things will finish so it's positive again for instance).
On the other hand it lead to strange things like not being able to start a gigantic megastructure project over 5 years because right now you lack 10 minerals for the total cost of the layer.
Realistically there is no reason you have to pay upfront too because for those you don't pay the service, you give directly the ressourses necessary for the execution. Services like what enclave propose make sense to be payed upfront.

So I wanted to know if some players think that having a monthly cost for projects (with a tooltip showing the total cost, the cost/month and the total time) instead of paying upfront better ?
Would being able to start things you can't pay right now but know you could in the long run be interesting in the game ?
Or on the other hand do you think it's useless complexity (with the risk that an inexperienced player starts too many projects and end having all of them locked because of a lack of ressourses) and the upfront payment model is good enough for Stellaris ?

I'm content with the current state for megastructures.
First off, it's not really a one-time payment, it's a 4-times payment for most megastructures since they are split in parts.
Second, I find it cool that it forces you to build material storage solutions in either starbases or on planets. An empire starting a megaproject should indeed prepare its logistics for that, and it makes the game feel more alive. It's a bit abstracted, but it's a replacement for all the goods-transport solutions you would have to build if the game had a more realistic resources system.

Ideally, all resources would have a physical location and have to be ferried to the project by transport ships (*koff koff* Distant Worlds *koff*) but it's not really the direction taken by Stellaris.

 

[permeakra]

I can understand that it is easier on the computer to have the present system, rather than a monthly payment,

Not really. From performance perspective it is equally negligible. From AI development perspective I think it's actually harmful, because payments are actually harder to balance.

 

[Zergor]

I'm content with the current state for megastructures.
First off, it's not really a one-time payment, it's a 4-times payment for most megastructures since they are split in parts.
Second, I find it cool that it forces you to build material storage solutions in either starbases or on planets. An empire starting a megaproject should indeed prepare its logistics for that, and it makes the game feel more alive. It's a bit abstracted, but it's a replacement for all the goods-transport solutions you would have to build if the game had a more realistic resources system.

Ideally, all resources would have a physical location and have to be ferried to the project by transport ships (*koff koff* Distant Worlds *koff*) but it's not really the direction taken by Stellaris.

Interesting post. I like that explanation that the payment is upfront because ressourses have to be moved from all around your empire and thus must be shiped as fast as possible to reach the project in time.
Having ressourses really existing as entities inside transports/on planets may be a pain in the butt though (and I imagine that the AI charged to chose from which planet the shipment come would be horrible).
In a sense your idea is close to how the galactic civilization serie works. All space project have to recieve ressourses from a number of planets (often just one) and the distance has an impact (reduced efficiency). But in their case the abstraction is different because planets don't have a "stock" of ressourses but a weekly production that is immediately used each week.

Having an empire where the ressourses have to be shipped between planets and space projects to allow them all to work properly would probably be "too much micro" even if I would find it cool to see that things happen (and it would probably make more sense if a planet cut from the others because of a blocus, bombardment or just hyperlane closed starts to lack ressourses and don't have them magically appear if an other planet produce them.)

 

[Vielmann]

In Spellforce 3 the resources are local and have to be shipped between the outposts, so as far as my experiences with that go, I can tell it wouldn't really be too much micro. But a problem with Stellaris would be the scale of such transports, as even with only ten outposts in Spellforce there is a ton of shipping going on. I guess in Stellaris with a lot more planets/systems it would be even more, so it would probably be quite the drain on performance, though traderoutes an such would be much more immersive.

But if it's possible without too much of a hit on performance I'd really love to see this in Stellaris. Also plundering the enemys storage systems/caravans would be sooo nice. Also privateers.

To return to the main topic: In Spellforce you can start a building, even if you don't have the necessary resources and as soon as resources are available they are being shipped there. On arrival the construction starts and continues until there are no more resources. Then construction stops until the next shipment arrives.

 

[Arutar]

The problem is: what happens if you at some point can't afford the monthly cost anymore (e.g. because of a destructive war). Does the project then fail, even though it is almost completed?

I think in general, paying upfront is much "cleaner", though I would prefer monthly payments for edicts.

 

[Dorian Ertymexx]

Not really. From performance perspective it is equally negligible. From AI development perspective I think it's actually harmful, because payments are actually harder to balance.

Good point, didn't think about the AI.

 

[BigPoppa1111]

Yes, that is the issue for me. They would have to code quite a bit around which projects get stalled if you run out of the required resource. How do you do prioritization. How would you even keep track of all of your construction projects to manually set priority? How would you streamline it to say that I want to prioritize project on random plant A over one on random planet B without going down the rabbit hole of the old HOI production screens.

How would you balance it with the AI so they don't have a queue of 90% completed projects because they keep getting distracted by the next shiny bauble that they research?

 

[dezuman]

Not really. From performance perspective it is equally negligible. From AI development perspective I think it's actually harmful, because payments are actually harder to balance.

How are one-off payments hard to balance? It's super straight forward. If you can afford it and consider it a better investment option than the other things you can invest in, go for it. Simple.
Once there is over-time investment involved there are two approaches:
1. Pretend that it's a one time cost and just earmark enough resources for the entire procedure. This is what the Stellaris AI did before when colonization, terraforming etc was a running cost. This gives a player an advantage because it can start before it has the resources, while the AI waits. Player buffs are bad.
2. Do calculations on predicted future income, and weights it against other future investments. Obviously far more complex and error-prone than the previous approach, I wouldn't want to do this if I were a dev.

So yeah, I stand by my initial opinion.

 

[permeakra]

How are one-off payments hard to balance?

With old system you could turn edict on or off as you see fit when you need it. So you could turn on capacity overload if you hit critical low and turn it off the moment you solved the problem. In new system you need to think if one-time investment of 200 odd influence (do I remember the value right? probably not) is worth it or it is better to do something else and save this chunk for claiming a few more systems.

The first system is A LOT friendlier for AI. Also it is friendlier for me, because I don't have to look at timers for edicts and hoard influence stockpile in anticipation of their expiration date.

Do calculations on predicted future income, and weights it against other future investments. Obviously

absolutely straightforward, because your income is unlikely to change significantly over 1-2 game years, so the projected income can be reasonably assumed to be equal to the current one.

 

[PK_AZ]

This has the advantage of making ressourses management easier because you won't have huge fluctuations in your income (several months with negative income and now knowing exactly when enough things will finish so it's positive again for instance).

What you suggest is very similar to production-based economies (Civilization V, Hearts of Iron IV). In that type of games, every city give you some amount of Production Points per turn. You can start any investment, and then Production Points will slowly fill required amount of resources. In my opinion, it is not only intuitive, but also less micro-heavy.

 

[Acheron]

The problem is: what happens if you at some point can't afford the monthly cost anymore (e.g. because of a destructive war). Does the project then fail, even though it is almost completed?

Why not simply have it stop and resume once you can afford again?

 

[BigPoppa1111]

You can make the system work for the player. The problem is the AI. It has been an issue in every Pdox game that uses this approach. People always complain the AI builds too much of the wrong stuff, filling its queue with useless things that it won't prioritize better stuff over. Using discrete payments gives the AI the chance to correct from bad decision making regarding large investments, as it has the time that it takes to reach the next savings threshold to reevaluate it's priorities.