[Beta] Every instance of energy credits being used as "currency" has to be changed to "trade".

[Newbee53]

I think you could still have that, the production at the end would just be energy-based instead of having a trade-to-energy conversion. No reason not to enable traders to turn logistics into a neat amount of energy. You'd probably also gain more control over what exactly your traders produce vs. being limited by a fixed ratio from the current trade policies.

First, why on earth would I be turning trade to energy? I was talking about turning whatever market resource into whatever resource. I don't see a value for a trade-to-energy conversion at all. not in the beta.

Unless of course you need a lot of energy to terraform or any of the other thing's energy is used for.

I kind of want a trade policy that's just raw trade. I don't see the value--in the beta--of automatically converting it at all. And that's kind of what I'm pointing at. Having player for a while without any functioning trade policies I don't really want them back. And kind of forgot they were a thing that was going to get fixed. At least not at default.

I like trade how it fits right now, where I don't have to deal with unwanted energy automatically generated and I can spend that trade on whatever I want. Obviously, some of the policies make sense to keep around. Especially the worker cooperative one. But I'm going to be quite upset if I'm stuck selling energy just so I can buy the other resources I want because there is no pure trade option.

Having to swap out buildings, zones, branch offices or whatever just because I need alloys to build a new fleet right now--the main use of trade is emergency funds--would basically be utterly boring. I don't know how this would encourage me to play megacorps, as the best part of that empire type is throwing money at your problems. something you can't do if half--or more--of your money getting waisted as energy is kind of a problem.

 

[Ryika]

First, why on earth would I be turning trade to energy? I was talking about turning whatever market resource into whatever resource. I don't see a value for a trade-to-energy conversion at all. not in the beta.

Unless of course you need a lot of energy to terraform or any of the other thing's energy is used for.

Uh, Energy would be the market resource.

 

[Newbee53]

Uh, Energy would be the market resource.

WHY! this is just undoing the trade change and making it kind of terrible again. Energy is overbooked. Unless you are moving half its maintenance uses elsewhere, making it the market resource again would just rebreak the resource. seriously, it used to be used for literally everything!

Honestly, as it is energy is still slightly overused in the beta, but at least it's not also the market resource. Going back just seems like reversing course. so please no.

 

[Ryika]

WHY! this is just undoing the trade change and making it kind of terrible again. Energy is overbooked. Unless you are moving half its maintenance uses elsewhere, making it the market resource again would just rebreak the resource. seriously, it used to be used for literally everything!

Honestly, as it is energy is still slightly overused in the beta, but at least it's not also the market resource. Going back just seems like reversing course. so please no.

Jeez, don't be such a drama queen.

I don't really see how energy is "overused". It's literally just a maintenance resource that you also use as a currency.

 

[Newbee53]

Jeez, don't be such a drama queen.

I don't really see how energy is "overused". It's literally just a maintenance resource that you also use as a currency.

haha, yeah kind of dramatic.

But lets see about energy's uses. maintenance for buildings, districts, research/mining stations, outposts, starbases, buildings/modules in starbases, megastructures, mechanical fleets, robots, and edicts. Its also used to pay independent station things, manage most everything in the archives, terraform planets, and your wanting to put it back on the market as well.

minerals is used for alloys, cg, crystals, building mechanical fleets, lithoids, and stations.

Food is used for non-lithoid pops, fauna, and living ships. Occasionally alloys with one civic.

feels overbooked to me.

 

[Ryika]

haha, yeah kind of dramatic.

But lets see about energy's uses. maintenance for buildings, districts, research/mining stations, outposts, starbases, buildings/modules in starbases, megastructures, mechanical fleets, robots, and edicts. Its also used to pay independent station things, manage most everything in the archives, terraform planets, and your wanting to put it back on the market as well.

minerals is used for alloys, cg, crystals, building mechanical fleets, lithoids, and stations.

Food is used for non-lithoid pops, fauna, and living ships. Occasionally alloys with one civic.

feels overbooked to me.

The way you present this seems rather one-sided to me. Most of the list can just be summarized as "maintenance for stuff", I don't really see why splitting it up into the different uses is necessary, other than to make the list seem longer.

Minerals are also used to construct buildings, districts, to convert a planet into an Ecumenopolis.

Really, if I summarize the major tasks from my personal perspective, it's:

Energy:
- Maintenance Resource
- Terraforming Resource
- Currency
- Minor interactions with other systems

Minerals:
- Construction of Planet Infrastructure and Space Stations
- Converted into Alloys, Consumer Good, Strategic Resources
- Constructing Crisis Ships
- Minor interactions, such as Lithoid Upkeep and constructing an Ecumenopolis

The two don't seem that different to me. Energy does slightly more stuff, but Minerals and Food are notoriously boring and one-dimensional. And while it's certainly the case that a task like "Maintenance Resource" encompasses a larger number of things, but I think it's a very different scenario when a resource does the same thing in 10 different systems than having a resource that does 10 different things in 10 different systems.

 

[Newbee53]

Strategic Resources

side note. I'm pretty sure that in the beta gas comes from food and motes from energy. and if not this would be a really cool way to make them more interesting.

The two don't seem that different to me. Energy does slightly more stuff, but Minerals and Food are notoriously boring and one-dimensional. And while it's certainly the case that a task like "Maintenance Resource" encompasses a larger number of things, but I think it's a very different scenario when a resource does the same thing in 10 different systems than having a resource that does 10 different things in 10 different systems.

I don't really remember saying energy shouldn't be used for those different types of maintenance. Only that the demands on it are significantly greater and adding the market resource onto it is excessive.

The costs of energy maintenance is extreme. just to be clear, my monthly energy cost on my brand-new game--in the beta--at the year 2208 is 56 per month. On minerals its 24 per month, I'm spending more on energy than I'm going to be spending on minerals even including other costs because this is every month no matter what. Because in my experience this discrepancy is only going to grow.

There are more demands on energy than minerals. which is why I'm saying adding market resource to energy is excessive.d

 

[mathuser]

For consistency's sake, trade should be the new general currency. Trade credits are used to buy and sell things, ie trade. Planetary deficits and ship logistics have trade costs, the currency and material costs of shipping goods. Trade can be stockpiled and spent on the market, like currency. I can sorta get blockers still using energy to clear, as clearing a planet sized blocker would literally use a lot of energy. But if trade is to have a significant use, and to make sense thematically, the game should go full on in making it the general currency.

Trade Credits sounds like a good renaming of trade.

Trade -> Trade Credits
Energy Credits -> Energy

Trade credit is an actual financial term that is relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_credit

Market prices have been changed from "energy" to "trade". But if the intention is for trade to be the new currency, then it must take over all the other cases of energy being used as currecy:

• Caravansary Caravan Coalition
• Branch office income
• Mercenary costs
• Countless events and anomalies involving finding "treasure" or "wealth".
• And many more!

I would not say this is necessarily the highest priority. But if the devs are dedicated to this change, all those cases will have to be changed eventually.

That is not the intention.

Energy Credits are still used as general currency. Stockpiled trade is used on the galactic market when trading, or when providing supplies for logistics.

Mercenaries and Caravaneers would be in need of logistics, so requiring trade in exchange for their services makes sense. The Custodian team will be likely working on balancing the updated trade system, so experimenting with currency could be part of it.

Energy being a semi-currency makes some sense, but a futuristic galaxy where energy itself functions as an independent currency is a bit dubious.

Ah, so it's like dollar and dogecoin?

A nice server building to make trade currency from energy sounds like a great addition to the game.

 

[HighPriest]

Now that energy and money aren't the same thing, it's kinda depressingly funny to think that the most logical rationale for Megacorps is that they have their employees run in giant hamster wheels to recharge literal batteries to generate nebulous 'energy'.

 

[Soranya]

That is not the intention.

Energy Credits are still used as general currency. Stockpiled trade is used on the galactic market when trading, or when providing supplies for logistics.

This sound like you did not really commit fully to what the currency in game should be.

And we end up with two half currency/half generic ressource things.

Which I think is not a good solution.

The idea of "stockpiling" trade in the first place is somewhat absurd to me as well as having to kinds of money that seemingly are used at random.
Maybe make distinction between "one time payments" which could be any resource with the default beeing energy.
And continious costs that can be covered by trade - like logistics. - and remove the trade stockpile all together (or limit it to something like 1 year of income max or so to give some flexibility)

 

[AllYourPopsAreBelongToUs]

IRL (electric) energy can't be stockpiled at all unless inefficiently converted to kinetic or chemical energy first, while trade can be stockpiled by writing "i owe you" on a piece of paper.
Anyways having energy remain as an external trade ressource, but just in some cases, feels odd :/

 

[Soranya]

IRL (electric) energy can't be stockpiled at all unless inefficiently converted to kinetic or chemical energy first, while trade can be stockpiled by writing "i owe you" on a piece of paper.
Anyways having energy remain as an external trade ressource, but just in some cases, feels odd :/

You are correct - but the use of trade as base for logistic support indicates some sort of trade navy/capacity not monetary value.

 

[HighPriest]

You are correct - but the use of trade as base for logistic support indicates some sort of trade navy/capacity not monetary value.

If only there was already some sort of "navy capacity" value to represent those things, then we wouldn't need this new value.

That's the whole runaround on this. "We need it to represent trade!" "Oh, like credits?" "No no no, we need it to represent logistics!" "You mean like naval capacity?" What's this new thing supposed to be measuring, if "energy credits" are still going to be the resource for literally every exchange other than the market and naval capacity is still a soft cap on fleet sizes? Is it supposed to represent internal empire logistics issues arising from size and inefficiencies? Oh, right, we have an "empire size" modifier.

And that's ignoring the argument that we already have 16 tracked resources. Do we need a 17th? Does that actually improve game design?

 

[NorseGod]

You are correct - but the use of trade as base for logistic support indicates some sort of trade navy/capacity not monetary value.

But Trade is now used as the base currency in the Market, indicating it does have monetary value.

 

[Beauty Nova]

I've been warming to the idea of turning energy into a capacity resource like naval capacity, having planet deficits chunk said naval capacity, and making trade purely an abstraction for market resource exchanges.

 

[WoodenP]

If only there was already some sort of "navy capacity" value to represent those things, then we wouldn't need this new value.

That's the whole runaround on this. "We need it to represent trade!" "Oh, like credits?" "No no no, we need it to represent logistics!" "You mean like naval capacity?" What's this new thing supposed to be measuring, if "energy credits" are still going to be the resource for literally every exchange other than the market and naval capacity is still a soft cap on fleet sizes? Is it supposed to represent internal empire logistics issues arising from size and inefficiencies? Oh, right, we have an "empire size" modifier.

And that's ignoring the argument that we already have 16 tracked resources. Do we need a 17th? Does that actually improve game design?

You've explained this whole silliness very very well!

 

[Red Earth]

I think we're getting hung up on the idea of trade being a literal currency, like you toss your Witcher a coin that says "trade" on it.
It's a gameplay currency like Unity. When you pay for a leader in unity it's representing your civilization's ability to produce capable leaders and bring them into the government. You're not putting out an job posting saying "starting salary 4 Unity".
Trade value represents the resource economy that is below your government's notice until they have need to tap into it. When caravaneers etc. ask for energy it's because it's a real trade currency with a recognised value to everyone..

 

[HighPriest]

I think we're getting hung up on the idea of trade being a literal currency, like you toss your Witcher a coin that says "trade" on it.
It's a gameplay currency like Unity. When you pay for a leader in unity it's representing your civilization's ability to produce capable leaders and bring them into the government. You're not putting out an job posting saying "starting salary 4 Unity".
Trade value represents the resource economy that is below your government's notice until they have need to tap into it. When caravaneers etc. ask for energy it's because it's a real trade currency with a recognised value to everyone..

That's because the game is treating it as a literal currency. The only active use I could find for it is to go into the market and say "one bag of minerals, please", tossing the market guy a coin that says 'trade' on it.

Admittedly, I only played a few games of a few versions of the beta, and haven't touched it since. Am I missing some other big mechanic it actually gets spent on, besides some small upkeeps related to shipping costs, a very currency-appropriate use case?

 

[WoodenP]

I think we're getting hung up on the idea of trade being a literal currency, like you toss your Witcher a coin that says "trade" on it.
It's a gameplay currency like Unity. When you pay for a leader in unity it's representing your civilization's ability to produce capable leaders and bring them into the government. You're not putting out an job posting saying "starting salary 4 Unity".
Trade value represents the resource economy that is below your government's notice until they have need to tap into it. When caravaneers etc. ask for energy it's because it's a real trade currency with a recognised value to everyone..

This Leader example is hideous because no, sorry, (despite your admirable [yet strained] justification there!) paying "Unity" for Leaders makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Unity for Leaders is a brilliant example of another half baked custodian implementation from a recent update that only works for mechanics and not storytelling. Storytelling cohesiveness just isn't that important to them.

You know what did make sense? Paying leaders e-credits.

I suspect this "trade" change will be pushed through anyway. Though... unlike the "unity for leaders" idea, which provided a new sink for a resource that clearly needed it, I can't see how the "trade" part of 4.0 particularly helps anyone. Especially if it's only a half measure and energy "credits" will exist, too.

 

[HighPriest]

This Leader example is hideous because no, sorry, (despite your admirable [yet strained] justification there!) paying "Unity" for Leaders makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Unity for Leaders is a brilliant example of another half baked custodian implementation from a recent update that only works for mechanics and not storytelling. Storytelling cohesiveness just isn't that important to them.

You know what did make sense? Paying leaders e-credits.

I suspect this "trade" change will be pushed through anyway. Though... unlike the "unity for leaders" idea, which provided a new sink for a resource that clearly needed it, I can't see how the "trade" part of 4.0 particularly helps anyone. Especially if it's only a half measure and energy "credits" will exist, too.

I don't think that the intent with the Unity upkeep on leaders is 'pay'. Personally, I've thought of it as the work and effort required to keep an organization going in the same direction as more and more individuals are added to the central decision making circle, while increasing costs as leaders become higher levels represents their growing egos becoming an issue in the decision making process. But it's up to interpretation, and as stated, works alright mechanically.

And yeah, "Trade" is a happening now, no matter what we think about it or whether it serves a justifiable purpose. For this to end in any other way, someone would need to admit that they made a mistake, and it's really hard for humans to do that.