Neutronium Supply

Creation, discussion, and balancing of game content such as techs, buildings, ship parts.

Moderators: Oberlus, Committer

Message
Author
User avatar
Dilvish
AI Lead and Programmer Emeritus
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Neutronium Supply

#16 Post by Dilvish »

MatGB wrote:Dilvish, how much would it disrupt the AI if we just [moved Signularity Generation to later in the tech tree]?
It really depends on how big a move it was, but even for a big move it shouldn't be too hard to adjust it ok, it's not nearly so tricky an issue as dealing with the colony buildings, for example.
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Neutronium Supply

#17 Post by labgnome »

Vezzra wrote:As interesting as those discussions about how things in the real world might be are, these considerations you offer here are which really matter for the kind of game we're making.
I think the best case scenario if for the two to go hand-in hand. I like how the different metabolisms and planetary types allow you to have some really alien aliens in the game. A game, especially one trying to claim to be science fiction, that doesn't have any basis in reality is just silly and while possibly playable won't be engaging. I think this game has a good handle on playability for the most part, so I'm interested in seeing about receptivity to injecting more good science into the already good fiction and gaming.
Vezzra wrote:And these are ideas well worth considering IMO. Right now we have the problem that resource output growth increases too much and too quickly, so in addition to the advantage of getting to the cool stuff a bit sooner, getting to the especially powerful production boosting techs later might be a good idea in its own right.
I think that by giving some of the "cool" stuff sooner, as they tend to be more costly, should help offset that. Especially with some of those things being somewhat expensive, or in the case of neutronium armor require a bit of industry setup. I'd say re-order the tech tree first, and see how the expansive goodies offset the late-game production boost, then see about adjusting it.
Vezzra wrote:One thing though: Moving techs that grant major research boosts to far toward the end of the tech tree doesn't make any sense. What's the point of researching that super cool high end technology that allows me to build moon sized supercomputers which will increase my research output ten-fold if there isn't much left to reseach afterwards...?
MatGB wrote:I'm not sold on moving research boosting stuff further away, there aren't many anyway and one of the things I dislike in games of this nature is just what Vezzra describes, I've played a lot of C-Evo recently and I always find by the time I can build Research Labs I'm already in the end game strategically/weapon wise. I think, especially given we have no "end game" techs that just give boosts that you can repeat research ad infinitum, that moving either the collective thought network or enclave of the void any later would be a mistake.
While I think that the late game research boosters are in a poor spot in the tech tree, as prerequisites for the actual tech victory, I think having late game tech boosters, to be able to make a push for a tech victory is a good thing. You shouldn't just be "given" them before the tech victory, but you shouldn't really need them unless you want, or even need to rush your research. Basically there should be at least one last minuet tech that lets you "rush" your research in case you need to.

I'd say (maybe) move collective though network to earlier, but keep enclave of the void as the late game option, but make it non-required for singularity of transcendence. Alternately, you could make it, or something analogous, an early game tech, like industrial centers, that you research improvements on.
MatGB wrote:However, awhile ago Dilvish was playing around with the idea of making the research cost multiplier dependent on galaxy size in a similar way to the way he's more recently changed the experimentor start turn, that is almost certainly worth considering, for at least the mid to late game techs if not the very early ones.
As someone who like the tech victory, and the idea of being able to win by researching for research's sake, I'm not sure I like the idea of making it harder to do just because I have a larger galaxy. If the starting location is bad, that could be seriously crippling. Maybe something more like the number of star or planets or population you actually have in your empire would be better, a kind of diminishing returns.
MatGB wrote:I vote move neutronium extraction forward, give the armour a separate ship part tech dependent on extraction being researched (so we can make other parts as well), and move black hole generation later as soon as Dilvish gives the say so, but leave the research boosters where they are for now (but consider moving/changing the balance of these at some point)
While I like the idea of other potential neutronium based technologies, I'd rather not add an extra tech for neutronium armor right now, as that would just put neutronium armor back about where it was in the tech tree. The point is to get the "cooler" things like neutronium armor earlier, and have boosters for the late game push. I'd say we should keep other applications in our throughout, but hold off, especially if they never materialize. A late game available neutronium synthesizer might not be a bad idea though. I mean you can eventually build a "dragon's tooth" so why not?

FYI: I love researching and big tech trees, so honestly if it is going to be expanding the tech tree I'm all for it. Neutronium bombardments, neutronium power cores, neutronium engine lubricants.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Neutronium Supply

#18 Post by MatGB »

labgnome wrote: While I like the idea of other potential neutronium based technologies, I'd rather not add an extra tech for neutronium armor right now, as that would just put neutronium armor back about where it was in the tech tree.
Not really. You research Extraction and have the time for the next research point be either 3 (to take into account the Forge build time) or 10 (for Extractor build time) and makes the part available when you'd be able to use it anyway, costs and similar for them could then be tweaked, but making it a separate tech immediately frees up space for more parts, hulls, etc as it's a simple extra addition to the tree.
The point is to get the "cooler" things like neutronium armor earlier, and have boosters for the late game push. I'd say we should keep other applications in our throughout, but hold off, especially if they never materialize. A late game available neutronium synthesizer might not be a bad idea though. I mean you can eventually build a "dragon's tooth" so why not?
I'd rather tweak the galaxy generation scripts to ensure neutron stars always get at least an asteroid belt so you can effectively build an extractor if we were to open up building a synthesiser it'd need to be expensive (and persuading the rest of the dev team that having the Dragon Tooth actually be researchable took a bit of effort ;-) ). Then, I'd like to do the same for Black Holes and similar.
FYI: I love researching and big tech trees, so honestly if it is going to be expanding the tech tree I'm all for it. Neutronium bombardments, neutronium power cores, neutronium engine lubricants.
Exactly, I think where we differ is on the tech win, I loath it and would remove it entirely for my personal preference, try to avoid it whenever possible, I love military strategy games not sneak-a-win-without-fighting games ;-)

Balancing the tech tree, expanding Good Stuff while removing redundant prerequisites, is definitely on The List, but it's something that requires a bit more effort as it can, seriously, break the AI if done badly (I did that once, that was enough ;-) )
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

AndrewW
Juggernaut
Posts: 791
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Neutronium Supply

#19 Post by AndrewW »

MatGB wrote:Exactly, I think where we differ is on the tech win, I loath it and would remove it entirely for my personal preference, try to avoid it whenever possible, I love military strategy games not sneak-a-win-without-fighting games ;-)
If player=MatGB then tech requires 1,000,000,000,000 research.

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Neutronium Supply

#20 Post by labgnome »

MatGB wrote:Not really. You research Extraction and have the time for the next research point be either 3 (to take into account the Forge build time) or 10 (for Extractor build time) and makes the part available when you'd be able to use it anyway, costs and similar for them could then be tweaked, but making it a separate tech immediately frees up space for more parts, hulls, etc as it's a simple extra addition to the tree.
I'm not completely opposed to the idea, and I can see how it could be effectively implemented. I suppose I'm speaking from a place of skepticism and cynicism from other projects I've gotten involved in. I very much want that to be the case, however I also don't want to just needlessly throw in an extra part or complication, that will never go toward anything else. If there aren't plans to implement these changes in the immediate to near-term future I'd rather not throw in an extra part for a grand idea that ultimately never materializes.
MatGB wrote:I'd rather tweak the galaxy generation scripts to ensure neutron stars always get at least an asteroid belt so you can effectively build an extractor if we were to open up building a synthesiser it'd need to be expensive (and persuading the rest of the dev team that having the Dragon Tooth actually be researchable took a bit of effort ;-) ). Then, I'd like to do the same for Black Holes and similar.
That's certainly an alternative. If so: you should probably also ensure that there are always at least as many neutron stars as players, if they are generated, otherwise only one player having "ultimate armor" strikes me as too much of an unfair advantage. This would be especially relevant in galaxies that are both small and young.

I was just thinking that in late-game if someone hasn't found a neutronium synthesizer or neuron star (in the small young galaxy case), or gotten theirs captured by an enemy (or cut off with this adjustment), in late game it would allow you to maintain or create a neutronium supply. It just struck me as a very simple solution to the problem. Also it makes it so that late-game you basically are at least nearly as advanced as any ancient "precursors", making them merely advanced aliens and not magic space gods. To quote Sam Vimes from discworld "I don't like magic, it doesn't explain anything".
MatGB wrote:Exactly, I think where we differ is on the tech win, I loath it and would remove it entirely for my personal preference, try to avoid it whenever possible, I love military strategy games not sneak-a-win-without-fighting games ;-)
That's one thing I'm enjoying about the game is it seems a good setup for lots of options, and making them worth while. One of my beefs with 4x games is that either their tech tree is so limited that getting the tech victory does feel like cheating, the actual victory is something that does nothing or it's really an "engineering victory" where after all that research you then have to spend ages actually building the stupid thing and you have nothing left to research. I'd love to see singularity of transcendence do something.

I dislike games where fighting to win is the only option. I like exploration, building and research, and honestly if I could just do that I'd probably be completely happy. I currently spend a lot of time conquering planets because I like lots of different aliens in my civilization. I'd love to see a more peaceful integration option at some point. However I really like that the game offers different options. There is a robotic hull design line, an organic hull design line, an asteroid hull design line and an energy hull design line. You can keep to yourself or build an great alliance of many alien species. I think it's good the game gives you the option to be a space conquer and me the option to be a researcher.

BTW: I'd also love to see some kind of "engineering victory" option, maybe a Dyson sphere or something like that, then you basically become a "retired" civilization a-la David Brinn's Uplift universe.
MatGB wrote:Balancing the tech tree, expanding Good Stuff while removing redundant prerequisites, is definitely on The List, but it's something that requires a bit more effort as it can, seriously, break the AI if done badly (I did that once, that was enough ;-) )
I think prerequisites, even prerequisites that don't necessarily "do" anything else isn't necessarily bad. If used properly they can be a way to have something "cost" more, while not making it a needless time or resource sink itself, especially if can also potentially give you some other technology later. I like how a lot of the knowledge branch technologies are requirements for a whole host of other technologies.

Rebalancing definitely needs to be done. The early weapons are completely pointless. I think added prerequisites might be a good way to balance them out, as currently none of them have any besides the previous weapon technology. You can just go through them way too fast. At the very least getting to a new type of weapon should have an additional requirement. It also make logical sense. There's no reason knowing how to make good rail guns should make it easier for you to know how to make good lasers.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Dilvish
AI Lead and Programmer Emeritus
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Neutronium Supply

#21 Post by Dilvish »

labgnome wrote:Rebalancing definitely needs to be done. The early weapons are completely pointless.
Eh? Your starting MD 1 warship plus an MD3 robocruiser (robotic hull with 2 MD3 and 2 standard armor) can take out a lone Sentry in a single turn guaranteed with the robocruiser guaranteed to survive; or the robocruiser could do it by itself over multiple turns with repair in between. Laser 1 would give you the same damage but at 3 times the RP cost plus PP cost as well, which all means delay. You might generally prefer to skip up to Lasers, but I don't think that is always the best decision.
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Neutronium Supply

#22 Post by labgnome »

Dilvish wrote:Eh? Your starting MD 1 warship plus an MD3 robocruiser (robotic hull with 2 MD3 and 2 standard armor) can take out a lone Sentry in a single turn guaranteed with the robocruiser guaranteed to survive; or the robocruiser could do it by itself over multiple turns with repair in between. Laser 1 would give you the same damage but at 3 times the RP cost plus PP cost as well, which all means delay. You might generally prefer to skip up to Lasers, but I don't think that is always the best decision.
Well firstly, I suppose they aren't completely useless, just kind of pointless to have. Especially since with decent research speeds you can always afford to skip at least one tech generation. If you've invested enough in research you can go through them fast enough it's almost worth just going straight for death rays. It's usually worth it going straight for laser 4. One thing I did was start off my game with designs with each of the different stages of weapons technology and found that with a sufficient research queue I went through the techs so fast that most of them were obsolete by the time they were produced, and there certainly wasn't any point to putting them into a production queue of any length or in a fleet or any size.

Secondly I tend to prefer larger galaxies, so while starting weapon tech is usually good enough if I need to invade any moderately advanced (and more poorly defended but high tech) planets, and deal with any young space monsters if they're an issue. By the time I run into another empire, or have mature space monsters, I might as well at the least, have plasma cannons. Even the Acrimea, with their guard ships, can largely be ignored until I research really good weapons since I don't think they really move.

Thirdly, none of my games in version 0.4.4 in Windows have spawned a sentry yet (they did when I had 0.4.3 in Ubuntu).
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Dilvish
AI Lead and Programmer Emeritus
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Neutronium Supply

#23 Post by Dilvish »

labgnome wrote:Thirdly, none of my games in version 0.4.4 in Windows have spawned a sentry yet (they did when I had 0.4.3 in Ubuntu).
Are you playing with Specials set to None or Monsters set to None? Even in 0.4.3 having Specials at None would mean no Sentries, but also now in 0.4.4 having Monsters set to None will mean no Sentries. If that's what you've been doing, you might want to try Monsters at Low, which is noticeably fewer monsters than Low in 0.4.3 but which will still allow Sentries and Sentinels.
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Neutronium Supply

#24 Post by labgnome »

Dilvish wrote:Are you playing with Specials set to None or Monsters set to None? Even in 0.4.3 having Specials at None would mean no Sentries, but also now in 0.4.4 having Monsters set to None will mean no Sentries. If that's what you've been doing, you might want to try Monsters at Low, which is noticeably fewer monsters than Low in 0.4.3 but which will still allow Sentries and Sentinels.
Specials are set to high, and monsters are set to low. Mind you in one game, the only monsters that spawned were drones, so it might just be that I haven't gotten to a game where the system spawned them yet. There were no Kraken nests, no dyson trees, just a drone factory: and it was indestructible.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 6095
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Neutronium Supply

#25 Post by Vezzra »

Bluehand wrote:I played a really long game the other day where I actually researched all the techs and it bugged me that I could build neutronium parts with an extractor halfway across the galaxy, surrounded by enemy fleets.
To join the original discussion this topic is about, I want to say that I share this sentiment and like to apply the patch. If your source of neutronium is at a such exposed location that it's in danger of being blockaded, then that's exactly the thing that makes strategy games like this interesting. You'll have to ensure to secure the supply lines to your shipyards, and if someone manages to block these supply lines, you won't be able to resume construction on things requiring the blocked resource.

If an important strategic resource is at an endangered location, you'll have to decide if you risk to produce important things (like warships) that depend on that resource, or play safe and don't use the resource. Having production on that desperately needed warship suspended because the enemy managed to block the system with the neutronium supply might be annoying to no end, but that's no reason to make that scenario impossible. For you it might be frustrating, for your enemy it might be great fun. :twisted:

Post Reply