Warzone's power system

[R Hannay]

With direct debit, won't we see more quicker and more chunky deductions from power level and won't that be a bit more confusing? We may see drops in our power levels as 1000-> 900-> 800-> 700... (when two factory is producing a unit that costs 50 power in an infinite loop). But with power flow, you'll see a slow steady decrease in power 1000-> 994->...... something like that? So isn't power flow system more easier to understand as to how we are doing economically?

And I also feel that the debit system requires more micromanagement when we are really low on power, as we will have to make more rapid decisions on what to stop researching/producing/constructing so that we have more power to spend wisely. I say rapid decisions because debit of power will be instantaneous, and we'll need to be quicker on those cancellations.

It seems to me that you are presenting the ability to decide the distribution of power as a hefty obligation. Indeed, I imagine that some players would rather not think about distributing their power in times of scarcity. But the success of RTS games in the professional competitive world shows the benefits of a direct debit system. I've never heard of an RTS whch implements a so-called "power flow" system reaching professional competitive status to the point where celebrities are being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to appear on televised matches representing professional teams.

. . . I digress! In any case, a direct debit system does require rapid decision making at some times, but those decisions can be made clearly and relatively easily because the status of one's power reserves is expressly and concisely stated with one number. If that number is greater than or equal to the cost of an item you wish to produce, then you can produce that item. If that number is less than the cost of an item you wish to produce, you can't produce that item. Who could think of anything simpler? The only way I see power flow working in a way that is rational and expressly stated is if three numbers are presented-- power, rate of change of power, and power after all things presently in production are completed. This would mandate a GUI change. Implementing power flow would mandate a GUI change.

To illustrate my point visually, in case it was not made clear with words, here is an example.
You are producing two trucks from two factories (so one from each ($55), building a power generator with two trucks ($50), building a factory with three trucks ($100), and building a research lab with one truck ($100). Let's say for simplicity's sake you're not actually gaining power.

Trucks are produced in 33-34 seconds before manufacturing upgrades. A factory, power generator, or research lab is completed by 1 truck in 64 seconds before engineering upgrades. So let's see which system is actually simpler now that we have a working example.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparison of power methods

Power flow method

Calculations:
Rate of change of power = - [ 2 * ($55 / 34s) + ($50 / (64s / 2)) + ($100 / (64s / 3)) + ($100 / 64s) ] = -11.04779412 $/s

GUI - what you see ingame:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $900 (power at the moment)
■■ -11.05 $/s (dP/dt, rate of change of power)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $540 (power after finishing)

I can attempt to combine this GUI into something a little more compact, but just as confusing.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $900 => -11.05 $/s => $540

If you're operating with a power gain the diagram becomes even more confusing. Let's say you're gaining power at a rate of $10/s, or $640/64s when production will have finished. At the instant all of these things are being worked on, you will have a negative dP/dt but your result after 64 seconds will actually be a net gain in power, or a positive average dP/dt.

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $900 (power at the moment)
■■ -1.05 $/s (dP/dt, rate of change of power)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $1180 (power after finishing)

And if I attempt the same simplification as before, what happens?
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ?????????????????????????????

------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct debit method

GUI - what you see ingame:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $540

------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe we are all on the same page when I say that a gamer could manage his resources better (play the game better) if he knows how he is doing economically and it's just a matter of which system does this well, correct?

Now I ask you to tell me which one of these is better for the game.
- Richard

[infodragon]

I have to say R Hannay's explanation is very good. I've been thinking about this for some time. The direct debit simplifies things, at least in my mind, and is a more effective solution that what currently stands. I would prefer immediate/direct debit over any other solution I've seen.

-Infodragon

[Cyp]

...

GUI - what you see ingame:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $900 (power at the moment)
■■ -11.05 $/s (dP/dt, rate of change of power)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $540 (power after finishing)

I can attempt to combine this GUI into something a little more compact, but just as confusing.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $900 => -11.05 $/s => $540

If you're operating with a power gain the diagram becomes even more confusing. Let's say you're gaining power at a rate of $10/s, or $640/64s when production will have finished. At the instant all of these things are being worked on, you will have a negative dP/dt but your result after 64 seconds will actually be a net gain in power, or a positive average dP/dt.

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $900 (power at the moment)
■■ -1.05 $/s (dP/dt, rate of change of power)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $1180 (power after finishing)

And if I attempt the same simplification as before, what happens?
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ?????????????????????????????
...

I have read your post, and think that's some very interesting thoughts, R Hannay, and I hope this response is to your liking. I however would like to comment that I think it might possibly be a better simplification to combine the power at the moment and the power after finishing, but not the dP/dt.

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $900 => $540
■■ -11.05 $/s

This is because, D Hannay, I feel that it might not be appropriate to combine bars of inequivalent units into one, such as the above $ and $/s. Also, it is my opinion that it would be better to calculate the final power level without taking any income into account. I am afraid that it could be confusing, if the final power level takes income into account, since the construction time is variable and the amount of income in that time would depend on the length that time. After all, there is no guarantee of the power actually arriving, for example, it is conceivable that another player might do something that isn't good to the derricks, causing the power not to arrive. As long as the second $ amount is positive, there would be known to be enough power to finish all scheduled tasks. As I see it, it might solve the problem of what to draw if the expected future final power level was higher than the present power level, since the future power level seems unlikely to be higher than the present power level when the income from derricks is not taken into account.

R Hannay, I hope it would be in order to say that as I see it, if one prefers direct debit, then one might then look only at the low $ level and ignore the rest. I believe it to be an advantage if one can spend a bit more than one has if one almost has enough power, as opposed to having to wait until one has exactly enough to build.

[Per]

If I were to design an e-sports RTS game, I would definitely choose a direct debit power system. However, Warzone is not that, and I do not think it will ever be, since MP (let's face it), was mostly an add-on to the campaign part of the game, it was not designed from the ground up for MP. For casual play, I find power flow much more relaxed and convenient than direct debit. I do think that Cyp's proposal is an improvement, and hope that it can sooth some misgivings about the present system. I also hope that one that the core of Warzone can be used one day to construct a total conversion designed for competitive play / e-sports (it would require code changes, of course, such as replacing the power system).

[effigy]

I'm still developing an opinion on direct debit vs. power flow...but in either case it would nice if we could get item costs in [the existing?] tooltips to help manage things.

[R Hannay]

Per wrote:

If I were to design an e-sports RTS game, I would definitely choose a direct debit power system.

I would say I am glad we agree on this point, sir.

However, Warzone is not that [an e-sports RTS game], and I do not think it will ever be . . .

It appears then that this is your main source of apprehension with respect to direct debit. Allow me to make something clear to you which may not have been previously, if I may. I would predict that Warzone has the full potential of becoming a popular and successful multiplayer game provided the following exist:

• an active, competitive, and innovative multiplayer community (working on it)
• modern graphics (nearly there)
• deterministic netcode (in progress)
• hassle free power system (possible, but uncertain with the present debate)

Given that Warzone can indeed exist as a competitive strategy game, as it does currently and will continue to do so, how, sir, can you deny that the game does not have such potential when it already has begun to sprout buds? Look around you - there has been the creation of fansites, clans, leagues, and wikis, all on the part of users. How can one ignore the signs of growth and possibility, clear as day?

For casual play, I find power flow much more relaxed and convenient than direct debit.

For casual players perhaps it is better to distribute an inobtrusive mod enabling power flow with Warzone, similar to how DyDoAI and 1.10 are distributed. I will assert that the casual user - e.g. you - will invariably play less multiplayer than the fiercely competitive, active user. Thus the multiplayer environment can be optimized while providing for those who prefer a smoother, albeit less hands-on and dare I say dumbed-down, gaming experience.

I do think that Cyp's proposal is an improvement, and hope that it can sooth some misgivings about the present system.

Were I to come right out and state my opinion, I would say that Cyp's proposal is an improvement over the GUI trouble which I plainly stated, but it is still GUI trouble and it still requires a marginal knowledge of calculus on the part of the end-user. I might say that, while such proposal does partially ameliorate the user's confusion when using a power flow system, it is still obtuse and leaves much more up to guesswork provided time does not exist for intricate calculation. I would go as far to say that I do not think a game with such exact mechanics as Warzone has room for such feeling-out of mechanics on the part of the player; this is not a romance novel, it is a strategic war game, is it not?

I also hope that one that the core of Warzone can be used one day to construct a total conversion designed for competitive play / e-sports (it would require code changes, of course, such as replacing the power system).

This is entirely possible in the immediate future, not one day. I suppose that, as I have stated before, some of these changes are underway, and others are being blocked by certain users. I persist in choosing to say that I do hope that you will come to your senses, sir, to see the possibilities which do not exist in the distant future, but here and now.

effigy wrote:

I'm still developing an opinion on direct debit vs. power flow...but in either case it would nice if we could get item costs in [the existing?] tooltips to help manage things.

I would be delighted to hear your opinion, sir, and I also would say I agree that tooltips which reveal item costs explicitly would be of great utility, should these costs not be on the clickable buttons themselves.

[Nick Morro]

Anyhow, in your opinion, which of the two systems would appear to work out best for wz2100? Or maybe there is another system altogether that works very well to inform the gamer of how well he is doing on his resources? And I believe we are all on the same page when I say that a gamer could manage his resources better (play the game better) if he knows how he is doing economically and it's just a matter of which system does this well, correct?

.
You are correct in your assumption.
.
With regards to your other question, I am a dispenser of facts, and I urge you to form your own opinions.
.

GUI - what you see ingame:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $900 (power at the moment)
■■ -11.05 $/s (dP/dt, rate of change of power)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ $540 (power after finishing)

.
I don't believe this is a perfectly accurate representation of the state of the economy. For one thing, dP/dt isn't constant over the entire 64 seconds of your example, so one would need a graph of dP/dt in order to find its integral in order to determine how much power one has at any given time. I believe this may be what Zarel was talking about when he said that the power flow system was so complicated as to require calculus to fully understand.
.
For another, "power after finishing" is unclear. Power after finishing what? It appears you are talking about the power after finishing everything.
.

R Hannay, I hope it would be in order to say that as I see it, if one prefers direct debit, then one might then look only at the low $ level and ignore the rest. I believe it to be an advantage if one can spend a bit more than one has if one almost has enough power, as opposed to having to wait until one has exactly enough to build.

.
I find this reasoning to be fallacious.
.
To give an analogy, consider if the "Design" button always looked like it were disabled. It would not be an advantage, because "sometimes you can click on the Design button even though it is disabled". It would be a disadvantage, because you would not know whether or not the Design button were truly disabled.
.
To call the button 'disabled' makes it seem like it is an advantage. But it isn't. Why? Because it is a lie: the button is not disabled, it simply looks disabled, which is even worse, since skill in the game is no longer determined wholly by strategy, but also by whether or not someone can correctly guess whether or not the button is actually disabled.
.
Analogously, it is (tautologically) a lie to say "one can spend more than one has". The only truthful statement is that "the amount of money one can actually spend is not disclosed in a power flow system". In the same way, skill additionally determined by whether or not someone can correctly guess whether or not he/she has enough power.
.
The only difference between "enough power" and "almost enough power" is that if one has enough power, one can manufacture a truck in 33 seconds. If one has almost enough power, the truck takes a little more time.
.
In this interpretation, in a direct debit system, if one has $55 and a truck costs $55, one has enough power. If one has $54, one does not have enough power. The relationship between pricing and power is direct and clear.
.
In contrast, in a power flow system, if one has $30 and a truck costs $55, it is not directly obvious whether or not one has enough power. This problem is compounded by the fact that "enough power" varies depending on whether you expect to gain or lose oil derricks over the next 33 seconds.
.

If I were to design an e-sports RTS game, I would definitely choose a direct debit power system. However, Warzone is not that, and I do not think it will ever be, since MP (let's face it), was mostly an add-on to the campaign part of the game, it was not designed from the ground up for MP. For casual play, I find power flow much more relaxed and convenient than direct debit. I do think that Cyp's proposal is an improvement, and hope that it can sooth some misgivings about the present system. I also hope that one that the core of Warzone can be used one day to construct a total conversion designed for competitive play / e-sports (it would require code changes, of course, such as replacing the power system).

.
I encourage you to consider others: There are many who would not find it relaxing, and instead find it quite stressful, to play a game in which they can never know whether or not they have enough power, as I have described above.
.
Do you believe that you are equivalently stressed by playing with a direct debit system? Is your gain worth their loss?
.

[Buginator]

I believe this may be what Zarel was talking about when he said that the power flow system was so complicated as to require calculus to fully understand.

Um, yeah.



...
At any rate, recruiting for this is and yet more ban evading. Not surprised.

[Per]

Do you believe that [proponents of power flow] are equivalently stressed by playing with a direct debit system? Is [their] gain worth [others] loss?

That is the big question, isn't it? We just have to get out master builds that work a little better, so that more people can do more play-testing with the new one-stage power flow system, and we will see. Since this is about playstyle preferences, arguing the same points over and over by the same people will not make much difference. I think we have all understood the issues now.

I would like re-iterate that power flow is not something new in Warzone. Every release since the beginning had a two-stage power flow, and the issues mentioned by proponents of direct debit just had less impact due to a shorter accrue period.

[Edited "Nick Morro"'s obvious and insulting innuendo to something more constructive.]

[roguk]

how abuot a poll at som point? make sure 2 ask if ppl paly mutiplayer

[Rman Virgil]

If I were to design an e-sports RTS game, I would definitely choose a direct debit power system. However, Warzone is not that, and I do not think it will ever be, since MP (let's face it), was mostly an add-on to the campaign part of the game, it was not designed from the ground up for MP. For casual play, I find power flow much more relaxed and convenient than direct debit. I do think that Cyp's proposal is an improvement, and hope that it can sooth some misgivings about the present system. I also hope that one that the core of Warzone can be used one day to construct a total conversion designed for competitive play / e-sports (it would require code changes, of course, such as replacing the power system).

Yup. To the very heart of the matter IMHO.

Do you believe that [proponents of power flow] are equivalently stressed by playing with a direct debit system? Is [their] gain worth [others] loss?

That is the big question, isn't it? We just have to get out master builds that work a little better, so that more people can do more play-testing with the new one-stage power flow system, and we will see. Since this is about playstyle preferences, arguing the same points over and over by the same people will not make much difference. I think we have all understood the issues now.

I would like re-iterate that power flow is not something new in Warzone. Every release since the beginning had a two-stage power flow, and the issues mentioned by proponents of direct debit just had less impact due to a shorter accrue period.

[Edited "Nick Morro"'s obvious and insulting innuendo to something more constructive.]

Yup.

how abuot a poll at som point? make sure 2 ask if ppl paly mutiplayer

Perhaps.... though I still think there will be "tension" stemming from those who fancy themselves "pro" players (a very vocal minority who advocate these same styles of Net MP as evolved the first 6 months after WZ's release in April 1999 on MPlayer) and want WZ to play as a competitive E-sport RTS right now no matter the truth of Per's first quoted insight and that to me is best expressed by the adage -

"Trying to make a silk purse out of sows ear."

A side-bar trivia note: I created the handle Moro Nick back in 2004 (in the RTS .Net BBs & I registered it here too) as an inside joke with member Chojun when we were discussing some pieces of deliberately obfuscated C code and have used it here from time to time as well. It was my word-play on the word "moronic", btw. Just wanna make it clear I am not "Nick Morro" who I guess fancied my "Moro Nick" and made a variation for their use. I have a vague idea who it might be, though I am not certain - but that is all of no consequence really.

- Regards, Rman/
.

[JDW]

With regards to your other question, I am a dispenser of facts, and I urge you to form your own opinions.

Alrighty, I'll take a shot at this. I'm beginning to feel that the direct-debit system actually needs less of micro-management skills than that required in the power-flow system when power level is at near zero.

IMO there are possibly two advantages of direct-debit system at near zero power levels.

Firstly, power is not accrued by any power action, which means that we don't need to cancel any power actions that have already accrued power so as to transfer all of that power to power actions that we would actually like to see completed before the rest. A simple pause of the nonessential power actions will suffice until we are back on better power levels (which means much fewer clicks than having to actually cancel the actions as in the current power flow system).

Secondly, since time is saved on unnecessary micro-management, it will give the player more time to make correct decisions to decide on the priority of power actions in the queue.

Does anyone else agree with me?

[effigy]

Honestly, the only problem I have with the power system in <2.3.5 is actually related to the netcode basing accrue/production/research time off of frames-per-second (or so I've come to understand). This is an issue for games with lag, or players with ~4+ year old computers.

I'm having trouble deciding if I prefer "power flow" vs. "direct debit" for 4 main reasons:

1. 1) The lack of online players willing to test the master builds that the devs have graciously awarded to us.

• 2) The AI in the master build seem a bit (for lack of a better word) retarded (I'm not threatened by repair turrets, though 20 repair units protecting 1 mini-pod tank is quite effective in early game).

• 3) The master builds have extreme performance issues in games with more than 2 people.

• 4) The current power system isn't broken. Why fix it?

Rman, I read a post of yours sometime ago that spoke of a "silent majority." You're again giving this invisible force mention in this thread. I can't debate their existence, but I have to say if the "silent majority" cared about the quality of Warzone as much as those of us who also enjoy competitive multiplayer they would be a vocal majority. Aside from that, I fail to see how this power system debate comes down to multiplayer oil resource gluttony vs. I'm gonna relive my first experience with the game forever. There may be some grey area with that statement, so let me clarify, I comparing the play of NTW style multiplayer to the original campaign, not anyone's attempt at a sequel or scenario. FYI, there is a large variety of oil content in multiplayer.

Personally, I think advancement in multiplayer is the future of any game, and that by nature multiplayer is competitive even when played co-operatively. Also, I simply don't have the urge make a hobby of repeating the same campaign infinitely. I assume some of the devs here must agree after considering the great lengths they have gone to balance and stabilize that aspect of the game.

I have to agree that this game is not ready for esports, and it would be a long time coming. However, I don't see how that makes Warzone less of a competitive game, or how that justifies a change in the power system. So far, the only tangible reason for switching to "power flow" that I've been able to discern from this discussion is that it is Per's will.

[Per]

Seriously, effigy? I thought you could do better than that. First, power flow is what you have in < 2.3.5. You just have it in two stages. We reduced it to one stage in trunk/master. Second, with ordinary direct debit (note that this is the name for the power system in games like Starcraft), you cannot queue up build orders. This is a big advantage of power flow systems over direct debit. Zarel proposed a way to get build queues with direct debit; it was innovative, but I do not think it worked very well. Third, reducing the old two stage power flow to a one stage system was not my idea, and I opposed it at first, since I did not see the point of making such a big change. However, after testing it, I found it better than the old system, because a two stage system just made less sense. When Zarel proposed changing over to direct debit, I also opposed this; again, because I do not see such a huge change as being necessarily one for the better.

Maybe the original power flow system was somehow better than the new one, but I have been unable to see anyone explain why that is so. If you feel that somehow the new system is worse than what we had, then a careful analysis of the differences in production outcomes between the old and new systems is the way to move the discussion forward.

[Black Project]

If i was supposed to choose between the Direct Debit & Power Flow Systems, i will choose the Direct Debit Power System by the following reasons:

1) On direct debit, you MUST have power to build such stuff, otherwise, no way. Learn to manage your power!

2) With the power flow system, you can even begin production of heavy units like a HC Mantis Tracks when you're low on power (lets say $200), but don't come crying later at me that your factories are taking forever to build them because of delayed production when you're hitting the 0 power.

3) The power flow system in later game will turn power management into a hell, because you have to stop multiple things like res/fact/building when you hit the 0 power to avoid delay but at the same it gets you distracted on important things like managing your combat units in the heat of the battle & another aspects of the game.

4) With the Direct Debit System, you can have a idea on how much you're going to spend on such things (res/units/building) and requires you to make important & quick decisions on what you gonna do (get more units? res more stuff? build more defs?) in determined situantion, unlike in the power flow system, when you have no idea how much you're expending.

I have a bad feeling that this power flow system will benefit nobody else than unskilled players, like those noobs that play only NTW & don't know how to play real strategy-oriented maps.

And, to answer this question:

Now I ask you to tell me which one of these is better for the game.

Direct Debit System makes power management more simple when the Power Flow System screws everything up in terms of it

Direct Debit Rules! Power Flow Sucks!

Regards BP