Quick Feature: Infrastructure

Past public reviews and discussions.
Message
Author
User avatar
PowerCrazy
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas

#16 Post by PowerCrazy » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:23 pm

The way I have seen infrastruture is simliar to Moo1. If anyone remebers (I barely do). You would have your population say 100. That is 100 base industry. At the beginning of the game each population unit could control 1 factory. Thus after you buil 100 factories your planet would have 200 indutrial capacity which could then be used for research, ships, missile and missile bases.

Since every unit of population is goign to produce every resource I see the most logical course of action to have a seperate infrastructure level per resoruce (a la moo1). However the only thing the player will see is % of total infra. But if he delved into it further he would see this:

Random Planet B
Primary Focus: Industrial
Secondary Focus: Industial
(arbitrary numbers)

Code: Select all

+1 Food         10% 
+1 Minerals    10% 
+7 Industry    70%
+1 Science     10%
We will assume 100% infrastructure for the planet. However infrastructure levels for each resource will be different as the percent on the right shows.

Thus if I decide to change my focus to double farming the new levels will be:

Code: Select all

+1 Food         10% 
+1 Minerals    10% 
+1 Industry    10%
+1 Science     10%
and overall infrastructure will be 40%. However the farming will start to go up via formula we haven't come up with yet.

Before changing the focus lets say I discover industrial tech #2 what this does is allow me to build twice the industry. So my planet look like this:

Code: Select all

+1 Food         10% 
+1 Minerals    10% 
+7 Industry    35%
+1 Science     10%
With overall infrastructure down to 65% and in X turns it will be back up to 100% and will look like this.

Code: Select all

+1 Food         10% 
+1 Minerals    10% 
+14 Industry    70%
+1 Science     10%
This is infrastructure in the raw as I see it. Some little refinements will need to be made, particularly if we link Defense into infra.

This concept is tied in with Dreks thread about my proposal on buildigns found here
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12290
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#17 Post by Geoff the Medio » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:25 pm

drek wrote:If infrastructure is something the player has to enter into a build queue or otherwise fret about excessively, then we are back into same territory as moo2/civ.
Hence the suggestion I linked to in which the goal levels for each kind of infrastructure is determined like so: (farms goal) = (population) * (focus %) and the rate at which farms are built to get towards this goal is (farms build rate) = (population) * (X%) where X depends on race or tech or somesuch, and is ~1%. There's no use of the build queue in this system.
drek wrote:Also don't like the idea of technology messing around with infrastructure scores.
drek wrote:Player sees the farming meter is 5. He rolls over it and sees on a tooltip:

+2 from Primary Farming Focus
-2 Crappy Infrastructure
+1 Good Enviroment
+2 Farming Wonder X on -Nearby System- (Only works on Farming worlds)
+1 Technology Y
+1 Technology Z (Only works on Farming worlds)
Don't these directly contradict eachother? What's the difference between a meter score and an infrastructure score?

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12290
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#18 Post by Geoff the Medio » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:31 pm

Aquitaine wrote:Specifically, what I'm looking for is how to address the arrival of new tech that requires infrastructure. For example, if I research Drektopian Cloning Machines, and they help pop growth, should you automatically get them everywhere? Should you only get it on places with a particular amount of infrastructure? Should this have any effect?
Is a cloning machine really something to do with infrastructure? It seems more like a wonder, which you would build just like any other wonder at some world(s).

Infrastructure, to me, is stuff that makes resources... ie. farms, mines, labs, factories.

My conception (based on Krikkitone's proposal) of the focus system is that it determines how much of each kind of resource your world produces. As such, I think it's important that techs that increase certain categories of infrastructure do not just add a bonus to the production (immediate, or max. capacity) of the corresponding resource to certain worlds. If we have bonuses to production or max # infrastructure ratings for a certain resource, then worlds start producing amounts of things in complicated ways... not consistent with the desired % as indicated with focus by the player. Ex: Set to 55% farms, 35% reserach, 5% mines and industry. Then you get a +30% bonus to farms... no you're at 85% farms... but your focus setting is for 55%... and you're at 130% total... so what's up? Saying focus determines how many people work to produce each resource would be somewhat confusing, as they'd all work different rates, and the production wouldn't be clearly coupled to the focus setting. Perhaps tech shouldn't increase production of resources under this system?

Though it's not yet clear to me what the meaning of "+5 food meter" is, maybe drek's system would work better for this...?

I don't like drek's suggestion to use a constant penalty (esp. if it's small) for X turns for switching focus though... Scaling this up with population or total infrastructure might help (more social intertia) but a slow transition between climaxed focus settings was more elegant, I thought.

I'll look up how meters determine the actual resource output for a given population, etc, but a quick summary here would be appreciated, drek.

User avatar
Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#19 Post by Aquitaine » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:52 pm

We have always intended for there to be a penalty of some kind for switching foci.

Also, the cloning machine was perhaps a bad example. I mean, there is a subset of technology that can feasibly benefit every panet. Super Farms, Cloning facility, whatever. The question is whether or not and how getting new techs should affect existing infrastructure.

Drek's solution seems good to me.
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12290
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#20 Post by Geoff the Medio » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:09 pm

PowerCrazy wrote:Before changing the focus lets say I discover industrial tech #2 what this does is allow me to build twice the industry. So my planet look like this:

Code: Select all

+1 Food         10% 
+1 Minerals    10% 
+7 Industry    35%
+1 Science     10%
With overall infrastructure down to 65% and in X turns it will be back up to 100% and will look like this.

Code: Select all

+1 Food         10% 
+1 Minerals    10% 
+14 Industry    70%
+1 Science     10%
This seems erally confusing to me... why bother with the %'s at all? Just have each of farms, mines, industry and labs rated as 10/10, 10/10, 70/70 and 10/10 before and 10/10, 10/10, 70/140, 10/10 after...

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12290
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#21 Post by Geoff the Medio » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:17 pm

Aquitaine wrote:We have always intended for there to be a penalty of some kind for switching foci.
I figured the slow transition (ie. time delay for your choice to take effect) would be enough of a penalty... If it has to be a time delay and constant% drop, I'd suggest that the % drop only affects the production of the resources that are affected by the focus change, and that the % drop is proportional to the size of the change in each category, somehow. (this would be a bit more complicated... but not much...)
The question is whether or not and how getting new techs should affect existing infrastructure.

Drek's solution seems good to me.
How about this: Focus gives drek style bonuses (and penalties perhaps?) to resource production meters. When changing focus, the bonuses don't instantly change, but rather transition between the before and after values. This would work even if the bonuses are only +1 to +5 or so... just take a few turns between +5 and +4, a few more from +4 to +3 and so on. There's no need to have infrastructure ratings for each type of resource, but the gradual transition period between focus states is retained. The "only at farm worlds" tech farming bonuses could change immediately, and any non-focus related bonuses would remain unchanged.

You could do the transition penalty in addition to this, if so inclined, those resources affected by the focus change get an extra penaltly, or all resources get a penalty for X turns after the focus change. (X could correspond to the time it takes to go from the old to new focus settings with +/- 1 bonus taking a few turns each)

drek
Designer Emeritus
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:07 am

#22 Post by drek » Thu Jul 01, 2004 12:57 am

Don't these directly contradict eachother? What's the difference between a meter score and an infrastructure score?
Under my current thinking, there's no such thing as an infrastructure score.

Only traits that get appended to planets....just like a city in Civ can be "Rioting", a planet in FO could be a "Nascent Colony" or have "Ruined Infrastructure". Just like a city in Civ can have a "We love the President Day" a planet in FO could be a "Core World".

Just like "Riots" and "Love Days" in Civ, the infrastructure traits would be based entirely on conditions. They'd be binary--either existing or not existing.

To be more precise, I don't like the way technology messes around with your infrastructure capacities. Adding potential to a planet that is slowly (and automatically) filled is just plain boring to me. Feels like a spreadsheet.

Esp. since it's a turn based game with dozens and dozens of worlds for the player to control we've got to paint in broad strokes. When you ask a player to care about more than seven objects, the details become much less important.

The more complicated infrastructure schemes are basically wasted work, from the perspective of the player. The end result is what's important: is infrastructure adequate or not? Having extra details that the player will never look at (esp. when there are dozens of worlds) just gets in the way of conveying the more vital information to the player.

For example, the planets of Moo3. Lots and lots of details....many of the details so entirely cumbersome that the AI automatically assumes control over the whole mess. Contrast with CK or EU provinces.

edit: just saying, let's think about the effects you are trying to model with a more complicated method, and instead of building cumbersome simulation, just declare by fait that the conditions exist.
Last edited by drek on Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12290
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#23 Post by Geoff the Medio » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:10 am

Does "Nascent Colony" or other such specials have a fixed lifetime before it disappears, or can / must the colony do something to make it go away / go away faster? (like finish a "develop colony" project?)

Any thoughts on the transition between focus states idea? (as opposed to or in addition to a focus change penalty...)

drek
Designer Emeritus
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:07 am

#24 Post by drek » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:17 am

I don't see a gradual transistion as being important because:

a) of the number of objects involved
b) the turned based nature of the game

The player won't notice the gradual transistions happening. He won't be able to see the sliders slowly lock into place real time. It will only serve to muddy the water. "How long do I have to wait till planet X is at position Y"?

The number of turns that each infrastructure penalty lasts is based on the Construction meter, which in turn is based on technology, racial picks, and perhaps certain buildings. In the version of FO that exists in my head, if a player wants to quickly increase the construction meter, he'd position a Leader unit in the system.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12290
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#25 Post by Geoff the Medio » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:52 am

drek wrote:The player won't notice the gradual transistions happening. He won't be able to see the sliders slowly lock into place real time. It will only serve to muddy the water. "How long do I have to wait till planet X is at position Y"?
I think a player can understand a meter changing over several turns... I mean, all our building and research progress, if indicated with meters, doesn't change in real time... why are resource meters so much harder to understand?

The transition progress could be indicated with faded bars or an outline for "focus setting goal" meter levels, and solid bars (segmented for each +) with a number above for the current setting. A little note "in transition, 12 turns remaining" or somesuch below / beside would further indicate the status.
The number of turns that each infrastructure penalty lasts is based on the Construction meter, which in turn is based on technology, racial picks, and perhaps certain buildings.
How is the duration of a penalty any easier to understand than a transition? The transition seem even easier, actually, since you can see the meters slowly change from their old to new positions as the turns go by, if you're bothered to watch.
I don't see a gradual transistion as being important
My main concern is that it sounds like your system as it stands will make switching focus far too fast easy to do. This is especially true if the construction meter can be easily raised up... you'll end up with a few turns of penalty, then a wholly different focus. At the very least, the penalty duration should depend partly (strongly) on the severity of the focus change. (reduction by construction or leaders is fine)

A nice effect in my proposal is that transitions take longer for bigger changes in the focus... meaning it's not so bad to tweak a secondary focus form balanced to research, but swapping a primary from farms to mines would take a long time. The duration of focus changes also grows as you get more specialized techs that make the effects of focus stronger... +3/0 to 0/+3 is much faster than +9/+1 to +3/+7.

drek
Designer Emeritus
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:07 am

#26 Post by drek » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:06 am

Look at this way:

Transitions require an entirely new section for the UI, taking up screen real estate from other items. It will also impact other systems, forcing us to design bonuses to resources with a mind that they must be transitioned to and from gradually.

All this for a system that won't be used all that often.

A player would be stuipid to constantly switch focus. Most planets will have a grand total of one or two focus decisions over the course of the game.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12290
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#27 Post by Geoff the Medio » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:24 am

drek wrote:Look at this way:

Transitions require an entirely new section for the UI, taking up screen real estate from other items.
I made a little mockup:
Image

This doesn't require a whole new section... just some outlines and a bit of text. (I assume there was going to be some indication of the meters' values already... If it wasn't going to be graphical, then an extra column labelled "focus goal" next to "current" column in the meters box would be used)
It will also impact other systems, forcing us to design bonuses to resources with a mind that they must be transitioned to and from gradually.
I don't see how this would be a problem... if a system can handle any of +0 to +20 for various meters, changing when you get techs or build wonders or make focus changes, why couldn't it handle the changes being due to a transition? There would be no difference between this and the player manually changing the focus every few turns in your system...
All this for a system that won't be used all that often.

A player would be stuipid to constantly switch focus. Most planets will have a grand total of one or two focus decisions over the course of the game.
You claim it's stupid to change focus, but if you can do so with minimal penalty and no delay, then it's really very stupid to do so, if you'd get some benefit from doing so. Focus settings also have a pretty prominent place in the v.0.1 and v.0.2 UI, so it seems reasonable that they'd be used from time to time...

I don't see why changing a world from balance/balance to balanced/farming shouldn't be a bigger penalty / delay than mining/mining to reserach/research. Making small changes to focus shouldn't be that huge of a deal, and shouldn't be stupid to do occasionally, imho. Transitions that are bigger for big changes and shorter for short would deal with this.

guiguibaah
Creative Contributor
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:00 am

REALLY IMPORTANT THING I JUST THOUGH UP

#28 Post by guiguibaah » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:31 am

There needs to be a 5th Planetary focus

We have - Industry, Farming, Mining and Research, right?

Well, I suggest a 5th one - Homeworld. Automatic when you start the game. Why? If you only have 1 planet, how are you going to fulfill the needs of all 4? If you set it at farm and research, you're not going to build anything since you don't have mining and industry.

Homeworld would be only for 1 planet. It works only for your homeworld, and could have something like 4 to all. Primary focus is Homeworld.. Then maybe you could play around with the secondary focus to specialize it.

= = = = = =

Sorry to interrupt. Oh, and I really like Powercrazy's idea (Drek also added to it) about unused industry of a planet going into building infrastructure. That way you don't have to make sure all your planets are building something.
There are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12290
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: REALLY IMPORTANT THING I JUST THOUGH UP

#29 Post by Geoff the Medio » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:37 am

guiguibaah: There is a focus called "balanced" that does all equally. There are also primary and secondary focuses, which can be different. Also, even a double focused mining world produces *some* food, research and industry. drek has suggested that homeworld and core worlds get bonuses as well, but not from a specialized focus setting.

drek: What meter bonuses would primary and secondary balanced give? Minimum specialized bonuses were +2 primary and +1 secondary... this doesn't leave room for balanced... (up them a bit and make balanced +1 for all?, or make specialized focuses also have a -ve effect on other meters?)

drek
Designer Emeritus
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:07 am

#30 Post by drek » Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:22 am

I don't see why changing a world from balance/balance to balanced/farming shouldn't be a bigger penalty / delay than mining/mining to reserach/research. Making small changes to focus shouldn't be that huge of a deal, and shouldn't be stupid to do occasionally, imho. Transitions that are bigger for big changes and shorter for short would deal with this.
There's a money cost associated with changing focus as well, or at least a money cost has been discussed before. The cost increases dependant upon delta between switch, population, and perhaps the construction meter.

So switching focus would cost money. Also, the number of turns Focus Transistion penalty is inflicted might be based on the type of transistion.

Anywho, it looks like a few people want this transistion stuff. *If* it gets into the design doc, I'd like to see it described something like this:
For each of the resource types, there is a Max Meter and Current Meter. Effects from technologies, buildings, racial picks, events, other meters etc. are applied to the Max Meter. The exception is destructive events: for example, earthquakes, riots, and enemy bombing act on the Current Meters.

After all Effects have been applied to the Max Resource Meters, they are normalized to the range of 0 to 10.

New colonies start with all Current Meters set to 0.

Each turn, if a Current Resource Meter is greater than it's associated Max Meter, the Current Meter is reduced to match the Max Meter.

Each turn, the value of the Construction meter is added to an accumlator. If this accumlator is greater or equal to 10, Current Meter with the greatest difference between it's associated Max Meter is incremented by 1. (If there is a tie, the meter with Primary Focus is chosen, otherwise the tie is resolved randomly.) The accumlator rolls over: the new value would be 10 less than the current value.

If a Build Project (including Terraforming) is currently in progress on a planet, the Construction meter is not applied to the accumlator. Build Projects halt all construction on infrastructure.

The Current Resource Meters are multiplied with population to determine the quanity of each resource produced by the planet. If there is a Build Project in process on a world, the number of resources produced is reduced by half.

On the Sidebar UI, each resource meter should be represented by:
a: Filled in boxes or icons for each point in the Current Meter
b: Greyed out boxes or icons for each point of the Max Meter above the Current Meter's value.
c: A numeric and/or iconic display of the total resources produced by the planet.
d: An indication of which resouce meter is enjoying the benefits of the Primary and Secondary Foci. (Player should be able to maniplute this indication to change the Focus of the world.)
Actually, spelled out like this, it doesn't sound so bad, so I'm changing my vote to: either this or my own planet special type labels.

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

drek: What meter bonuses would primary and secondary balanced give? Minimum specialized bonuses were +2 primary and +1 secondary... this doesn't leave room for balanced... (up them a bit and make balanced +1 for all?, or make specialized focuses also have a -ve effect on other meters?)
There is no secondary balanced focus.

Balanced primary would grant +1 to all resources. Probably the base specialized bonus should be bumped up to +3 to compensate. Obviously there should be some mid/high level techs that improve the balanced bonus so it keeps up with the tech improvements to specialized bonus.

A bit off-topic, but I think the player should be forced to choose a different focus for secondary. Otherwise, we'll just end up with a bunch of doubled focus planets....that would seem the optimal strat for an empire with more than a few worlds.
Last edited by drek on Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:15 am, edited 7 times in total.

Locked