DESIGN: Construction Category

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

Moderators: Oberlus, Committer, Oberlus, Committer

Message
Author
User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#31 Post by utilae » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:06 am

PowerCrazy wrote: Not really that important to make a distinction as the name is just fluff anyway. We could make them a branch in the construction tree though. You can research either Bio-adaptive structures or Organic Structures. But not both.
I'm talking about the meaning too, not just the name. They sound like the same thing, that's all.

Ace Nova
Space Krill
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:29 am

#32 Post by Ace Nova » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:06 am

AI Optimized Designs (Either Compactifies Design causing less material cost, or Allows for a slight increase of space, either way would result in a Delay in ship design) Optional In Design Process

Micro Scale Space Fabric Manipulation (Material manipulation below the subsubatomic level)

Large Scale Space Fabric Manipulation (Creation of large spatial structures via manipulation of space, Solar System Construction)

Very Large Scale Space Fabric Manipulation (Artificial Wormholes, Star Gates, etc.)

Nanomachine Organizaton I, II, III.... (Allows for nanomachines to cooperate on larger and larger projects)

Organic Nanomachine Organization I, II, III... (Same as nanomachines but for biological construction)

Improved Storage Facilities (Kinda like the honeycombed layout in one of the MOO3 Techs)

4-D Storage Facilities (Hypercube storage, multiple Facilities occupying single region of regular)

Just a few ideas I have, ill bring up anymore if i can think of any for construction.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#33 Post by Geoff the Medio » Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:14 am

utilae wrote:Good, though aren't Organic Structures and Bioadaptive Structures pretty much the same thing, unless you mean that Bioadaptive Structures evolve to fit into the natural ecosystem, eg becomes more like a forest, because its in a forest.
They're about as different as the space construction techs (Orbital Construction, Self-Gravitating Construction, Artficial Heavenly Bodies) or the various Infrastructure Techs (Ecological, Metroplex, Galactic). The idea is that Organic structures are basic living buildings... mostly grown like plants, but fairly static when fully grown, or continuously growing in the same shape for their whole "life". Bio-Adaptive Structures are much more versatile and "adapative" than simpler organic plant-like structures. They change shape upon request or need or automatically, regrow to repair damage, have active animal-like circulatory systems and possibly even limited intelligence, can much better fit into any space where you want them (whereas plants grow in a fixed shape or with limited accomodation of the environment) and may be able to move themselves around like an animal (whereas plants are rooted in place).

Ace Nova
Space Krill
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:29 am

#34 Post by Ace Nova » Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:18 am

I just thought that I'd create my idea for the framework of the theory. It contains ideas from posts by others and such.

Code: Select all

Construction Theoretical Framework

Planetary Infrastructure & Architecture
	Infrastructure Design
		City Planning
			Metropolis Infrastructure
		Regional Planning
			Megacity Infrastructure
		Planetary Infrastructure
			Metroplex Infrastructure
	Architectural Design
		Architecture Design Theory
			Architectural Psychology
Construction Capacity
	Planetary Construction
		Shipyard Capacity
		
	Orbital Construction
		
	Stellar Construction
		Artificial Heavenly Bodies
	Interstellar Construction
		Artifical Wormholes
		Stargates
Material Science
	Inorganic Materials
		Alloys
		Networked Metals
	Organic Materials
		Bioadaptive Structures
	Virtual Materials & Dimensional Structures
		Force-Energy Structures
		Structural-Integrity Fields 
Construction Tools
	Robotics
		Automation
		Robotic Controls
	Nanomachines
		Nanobots
	Organic Construction
		Organic Fabrication
I'm just thinking we need a large framework for the theory before we get into the nitty gritty of specific applications, just would help organize everything. This is by no means complete but merely an example framework.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#35 Post by Geoff the Medio » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:05 am

Ace Nova wrote:I just thought that I'd create my idea for the framework of the theory. It contains ideas from posts by others and such.

[...]

I'm just thinking we need a large framework for the theory before we get into the nitty gritty of specific applications, just would help organize everything. This is by no means complete but merely an example framework.
The idea to make a framework for the category is a good one, which drek suggested recently, and which I've been working on.

However, I don't really understand the logic behind your framework... What do the various levels of intendation represent? What is hte significance of the various sub-categories you've made? Does, and if so how, does this translate into in-game organization of techs?

Similar to my similar effort for Learning ( most recent here: viewtopic.php?p=17480#17480 ), I've made a Construction category trunk theories tree / graph for consideration:
Image
The boxes are techs and the lines indicate prerequisites, with advancement from left to right.

Ace Nova
Space Krill
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:29 am

#36 Post by Ace Nova » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:49 am

Its more categorical sorting then a real framework, just trying to get some ideas down. I dont really have many of my programs currently, I'm home for winter vacation and I just whipped something up on notepad so formatting isnt the best.

I think your flow chart looks rather nice, only one thing I would definitely see being added and thats an earlier inorganic materials field, just because there will be certain materials that we can research before we get to Asymptotic Materials and the Unobtainiums.

It looks good, I think a few fields need to be added prior to the diagram namely robotics, just because the fields look shifted towards end game. Nanomachine construction could probably fit in somewhere between the first and second columns. Overall I like the tree, I just see some adding and combining certain fields here and there but the overall structure is nice and clear.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#37 Post by Geoff the Medio » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:00 am

Ace Nova wrote:...an earlier inorganic materials field
I do have the Monofilament Architecture tech on tier 2, though another tech which is more clearly about a new material itself, rather than new ways to use it, could be added at the same level. Can you think of a more descriptive name than "inorganic materials" though? It might be possible to separate the Asymptotic Materials into two techs as well, with one one tier 2 as the prerequisite for the other on tier 3. That would require having two good, and only two, broad groups of Aymptotic Materials that are actually useful for large-scale construction activities (eg. nothing about superconductors, and nothing too specific, like neutronium)...
...robotics [...] Nanomachine construction...
IMO these are more appropriate for the Production category. Though the line is somewhat blurry for nanotechnology, both are more about making more things faster, easier and cheaper than they are about making new and different things (esp. infrastructure and buildings), which is the (relevant part of) the Construction category.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#38 Post by utilae » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:13 am

Geoff the Medio wrote: Can you think of a more descriptive name than "inorganic materials" though?
Artificual?
Geoff the Medio wrote: Though the line is somewhat blurry for nanotechnology, both are more about making more things faster, easier and cheaper than they are about making new and different things (esp. infrastructure and buildings), which is the (relevant part of) the Construction category.
Nano tech is more about microscopic things, more often microscopic machines, either remote controlled or AI, microscopic machines (nanites) that act as cells individually, but also act as one. Also I guess there are nanites that once in a position stay permanent as what ever they have formed as a whole or nanites that can constantly reform the greater object they have been programmed to create.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#39 Post by Geoff the Medio » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:12 pm

I suppose nanotech could be more about making new type of very small structures that you couldn't make otherwise, than about producing lots of small structures you could have made using some other technique... That's still not obviously relevant to the Construction category though, which I think is about rather large scale architectural issues, infrastructure and construction materials.

To me, nanites seem more likely to produce intricate complicated nanostructures for computers and the like than they are to produce giant columns or strands of incredibly strong building materials... I can see why they might be argued to do the latter, but IMO they're still better for production...

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_nanotechnology

The first section would seem to support nanotech in production, rather than construction. We can already make them chemicals, but it's just very inefficient / slow to do so using random motion and chemical reactions due to unwanted side-reactions. With nanites, we could do just the reaction we want, eliminating waste.

Later sections do mention nanotech making new, otherwise unmakable smart materials, but those don't strike me as significant for large-scale Construction activities...

We can however, have a nanotech category in Growth, for Medical Nanotechnology, as is also mentioned in the article...

Edit again: Others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_assembler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanofactory

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#40 Post by utilae » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:37 pm

One thing I could imagine that nanites could do is to make a building of style A, then at the press of a button, they reconfugre into building of style B.

Or maybe they form a building, then at the press of a button they form a plane.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#41 Post by Geoff the Medio » Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:53 am

utilae wrote:One thing I could imagine that nanites could do is to make a building of style A, then at the press of a button, they reconfugre into building of style B.

Or maybe they form a building, then at the press of a button they form a plane.
That's sort of like Bio-Adaptive Structures, but with nanites...

We could make it just "Adaptive Structures" and then have some applications that require Nanotech Production for non-biological building reconfiguration...

Presumably Force-Energy Structures would be able to do this as well.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#42 Post by Geoff the Medio » Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:01 pm

New version...
Image

User avatar
PowerCrazy
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas

#43 Post by PowerCrazy » Tue May 10, 2005 8:16 am

As I read over the changes that have happened in my absence, I see buildings will be the new standard. I just hope that they aren't turned into a chore, more of a delay until a technology is implemented.
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

Post Reply