Interstellar Lighthouse

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.
Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
EricF
Space Dragon
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:12 am

Interstellar Lighthouse

#1 Post by EricF » Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:12 am

I would like to suggest one small change to the game.
Instead of having two separate buildings would it be possible to build
a Scanning Facility first and then make the Interstellar Lighthouse
be an upgrade that replaces it? Maybe reduce the time to build an
Interstellar Lighthouse as well since you have to build a Scanning
Facility first.
Of course the new Interstellar Lighthouse would act like a Scanning
Facility as well as its original abilities.
Not sure if buildings can be 'upgraded' like this in the game.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4652
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Interstellar Lighthouse

#2 Post by Vezzra » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:58 am

EricF wrote:Not sure if buildings can be 'upgraded' like this in the game.
There is no "upgrade" functionality in the backend code, if that is what you're asking. However, you can sort of simulate a "building upgrade" like this. You need to make building A a requirement for building B, and provide an effectsgroup in building Bs script that removes building A.

However, in practice this means that on the turn building B gets produced, you have both buildings present on the planet, because execution of the remove-building-A-effectsgroup in building Bs script will only happen on the next turn. Which doesn't convey the idea of an upgrade taking place very well...

Another of those things which makes me think we really should consider several "phases" for effect execution. It just doesn't make sense to execute all effects at the same point during turn execution, when clearly some effects would make more sense only being executed at other points.

o01eg
Space Kraken
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Interstellar Lighthouse

#3 Post by o01eg » Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:08 am

Sometimes Interstellar Lighthouse should be destroyed to hide own "invisible" fleet while Scanning Facility should remain.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-7.3, boost-1.65.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.3, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to multiplayer server at freeorion-test.dedyn.io.Version 0.4.8
Donates are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

Morlic
AI Contributor
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:54 am

Re: Interstellar Lighthouse

#4 Post by Morlic » Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:19 am

EricF wrote: would it be possible to build
a Scanning Facility first and then make the Interstellar Lighthouse
be an upgrade that replaces it? Maybe reduce the time to build an
Interstellar Lighthouse as well since you have to build a Scanning
Facility first.
Of course the new Interstellar Lighthouse would act like a Scanning
Facility as well as its original abilities.
Wouldn't it be much simpler to just have the Scanning Facility be a prerequisite to the Interstellar Lighthouse (similar to how advanced shipyards are scripted)?
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
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12268
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Interstellar Lighthouse

#5 Post by Geoff the Medio » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:26 am

Vezzra wrote:[There is no "upgrade" functionality in the backend code, if that is what you're asking. However, you can sort of simulate a "building upgrade" like this. You need to make building A a requirement for building B, and provide an effectsgroup in building Bs script that removes building A.
Buildings can be upgraded in the same way that weapons are... Give them an effect that only functions if a tech has been researched.

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

Re: Interstellar Lighthouse

#6 Post by MatGB » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:29 am

We've discussed the Lighthouse and the Scanning Facility before, both as currently scripted go against the no-micromanagement goals of the game and are, at some point, due a revamp, but the details haven't really been discussed.

Given the lightouse has two distinct roles and explicitly different uses it might be worth splitting them up anyway and putting the anti-stealth effect into a tech upgrade for the scanning facility.
Mat Bowles

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

User avatar
EricF
Space Dragon
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:12 am

Re: Interstellar Lighthouse

#7 Post by EricF » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:26 am

o01eg wrote:Sometimes Interstellar Lighthouse should be destroyed to hide own "invisible" fleet while Scanning Facility should remain.
I know that if you mouse over the stealth value when a ship is near a friendly
Interstellar Lighthouse it will show the stealth value being lowered, but friendly
IL's don't actually lower the stealth of friendly ships do they?
That would be weird.

User avatar
EricF
Space Dragon
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:12 am

Re: Interstellar Lighthouse

#8 Post by EricF » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:47 am

Since nobody answered my last question, I guess it must have
been a dumb one and IL's do lower the stealth value of all ships.
Since it has a fairly short range I suppose it's not really that big
of an issue even for friendly ships.

I tend to build IL's all over the place for the speed boost it gives.
Never really considered the lower stealth issue.

Also, I agree that giving the stealth lowering ability to the Scanning
Facility, with a tech upgrade, does make more sense.

I was just thinking of making the IL an upgrade to the SF just
to remove some clutter, but it's not that big an issue.
I take back my suggestion. Given their separate functions
making them separate buildings does make sense.

Post Reply