Infrastructure

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1879
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Infrastructure

#1 Post by wobbly »

Original conversation is on github.
Geoff the Medio wrote: The effect isn't well balanced, certainly. In general, infrastructure needs some attention to make more meaningful. It isn't meant to be just effectively a count of colony age, but rather of how developed a colony is and how much spare development is not consumed by supporting other activities on the planet. That can be partly about ways to increase infrastructure growth, but it would also be about ways to reduce or increase the infrastructure cap. One aspect of that is buildings consuming (and requiring) infrastructure, but it would also need some additional interactions to be more interesting... The infrastructure policies, for example, should be possible to make do something more interesting. And perhaps developing infrastructure instead of generating PP and RP could be a choice to some degree, perhaps on a per-planet basis, though that risks being to micromanagy...
I'll float an idea of moving IP/RP growth to infrastructure rather then stability. Currently it's 0.2x stability up to 1 for PP/RP growth. I'd rather 0.2x infrastructure maxing at 3 growth. A complimentary idea is for infrastructure to set the max. PP/RP output.

Regarding how infrastructure growth is handled I'd like to see it be policy based. Colonial bootstrapping increasing infrastructure growth on new colonies, metropoles favouring infrastructure on metrapoles etc.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#2 Post by Oberlus »

wobbly wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:11 am I'd rather 0.2x infrastructure maxing at 3 growth.
Considering that tech that increases max growth to 3?

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1879
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#3 Post by wobbly »

Oberlus wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:58 am
wobbly wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:11 am I'd rather 0.2x infrastructure maxing at 3 growth.
Considering that tech that increases max growth to 3?
N-dimensional something or rather? Yeah probably incorporated into that.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#4 Post by LienRag »

Force-energy structure.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1879
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#5 Post by wobbly »

Thanks.

So my proposal would be:
Infrastructure sets the growth rate of PP/RP (and pop?). Max. 1 (or 3 with force-energy structures)
Infrastructure sets the max. PP/RP for the colony.
Population > Infrastructure gives (Population - Infrastructure) penalty to stability
Policies set the infrastructure and infrastructure growth

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#6 Post by LienRag »

Infrastructure sets the growth rate of PP/RP (and pop?). Max. 1 (or 3 with force-energy structures) : yep, that's the core idea, go for it
Infrastructure sets the max. PP/RP for the colony. : isn't it a major change to what we have now ? And not a really good one, if I understand your proposal ?
Population > Infrastructure gives (Population - Infrastructure) penalty to stability : Why not, that's an interesting idea
Policies set the infrastructure and infrastructure growth : I'd say "affect" rather than "set"

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#7 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:23 pm isn't it a major change to what we have now ? And not a really good one, if I understand your proposal ?
Then be positive, my friend. Assume you didn't understand it.

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Infrastructure

#8 Post by BlueAward »

Oberlus wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:48 pm
LienRag wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:23 pm isn't it a major change to what we have now ? And not a really good one, if I understand your proposal ?
Then be positive, my friend. Assume you didn't understand it.
So what's the reading? I assume it means "you cannot have more industry or research than infrastructure" and by that reading, I agree with LR.

Seems like something designed to punish people for playing well, though... mostly in the end game. Initially seems like it's only gonna affect the capital, potentially hurting small empires not only large ones, depending on research pretty much. Entice people to demolish shipyard at their capital?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#9 Post by Oberlus »

No idea about what's the reading, I was just mocking LR because we love each other.
I'll let Wobbly explain about the suggestion.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1879
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#10 Post by wobbly »

BlueAward wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 6:28 pm So what's the reading? I assume it means "you cannot have more industry or research than infrastructure" and by that reading, I agree with LR.

Seems like something designed to punish people for playing well, though... mostly in the end game. Initially seems like it's only gonna affect the capital, potentially hurting small empires not only large ones, depending on research pretty much. Entice people to demolish shipyard at their capital?
Presumably a capital or a metropole would have large infrastructure if the idea was adopted. Not sure why it would be aimed at punishing people for playing well, its more aimed at having a ton of small infrastructure planets with large diversity bonuses and the like. Mostly I'm just floating ideas and the amount of infrastructure limiting output is logical from a fluff point. Personally, my own opinion on any of them isn't settled.

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Infrastructure

#11 Post by BlueAward »

wobbly wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 7:23 pm
BlueAward wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 6:28 pm So what's the reading? I assume it means "you cannot have more industry or research than infrastructure" and by that reading, I agree with LR.

Seems like something designed to punish people for playing well, though... mostly in the end game. Initially seems like it's only gonna affect the capital, potentially hurting small empires not only large ones, depending on research pretty much. Entice people to demolish shipyard at their capital?
Presumably a capital or a metropole would have large infrastructure if the idea was adopted. Not sure why it would be aimed at punishing people for playing well, its more aimed at having a ton of small infrastructure planets with large diversity bonuses and the like. Mostly I'm just floating ideas and the amount of infrastructure limiting output is logical from a fluff point. Personally, my own opinion on any of them isn't settled.
Allright, it wasn't clear that particular bit was a generic idea that would need more fleshing out, not just put in current context. I imagine indeed some "special" planets should get some infrastructure bonus in such scenario. But I mean, it's not that weird to have over 50 production or research on your capital, and end game-ish you can hit a hundred on single planet here and there. Imagine huge barren planet with kobuntura and bunch of growth techs, and some stuff like adapative and sentient automation, industrial center etc... why such planet should be punished? Well, maybe it should but it sounds meh to me

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1879
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#12 Post by wobbly »

There's also the idea of growth rate based on a difference or ratio between infrastructure and current PP. That'd be more of a soft gap where you can go above but growth slows down.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1879
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#13 Post by wobbly »

BlueAward wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:52 pm Allright, it wasn't clear that particular bit was a generic idea that would need more fleshing out, not just put in current context.
Current situation is the player has very little control on how much infrastructure they have. I suspect any change to make infrastructure more interesting would require some way for the player to get more or less infrastructure based on their choices.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#14 Post by LienRag »

wobbly wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:36 am Current situation is the player has very little control on how much infrastructure they have. I suspect any change to make infrastructure more interesting would require some way for the player to get more or less infrastructure based on their choices.
This.


wobbly wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 4:55 am There's also the idea of growth rate based on a difference or ratio between infrastructure and current PP. That'd be more of a soft gap where you can go above but growth slows down.

And that.



Hard cap is imho out of the equation, at least without a complete rework of the game mechanisms.
I mean, it's not only a question of agency (even if I agree that agency is important here).
If a player do need to work both his Infrastructure and Industry to get Production, it's redundant and a chore that should be avoided.


(so, Oberlus, apparently I understood it right)

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Infrastructure

#15 Post by Oberlus »

wobbly wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:36 am I suspect any change to make infrastructure more interesting would require some way for the player to get more or less infrastructure based on their choices.
Indeed!
Add some conditional boosts. Current ones are all flat-value always-on. We need at least one depending on planet size (huge planet more infrastructure than tiny one), and another depending on number of in-system or nearby owned (or allied, with the right policy) colonies or planets.
Maybe some "natural infrastructure" bonus (tailoring fauna and flora to be more productive and work as actual infrastructure) for environmentalists from some late game tech, if it fits balance.
Centralization increases Capital and Regional Administration Center infrastructure based on supply-connected owned planets, and reduce infrastructure of colonies not supply-connected to Capital/RACs.
Metropoles increase metropoles infrastructure and reduce the other ones.
...
wobbly wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 4:55 am There's also the idea of growth rate based on a difference or ratio between infrastructure and current PP. That'd be more of a soft gap where you can go above but growth slows down.
I think that would introduce less balance disruption and require less re-balancing.
So maximum/target PP/RP output is determined by techs, focus, etc. like currently, but a planet with X infrastructure needs twice the time to reach that maximum than another with 2X infrastructure.
And stability no longer determines meter growth rate, except that revolts cause a max/target meter zeroing.
Correct?

----

(I wouldn't be so sure :twisted:)

Post Reply