Notes on rev 5670

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.

Moderator: Oberlus

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

Re: Notes on rev 5670

#16 Post by Dilvish »

Yes, I think you're right, that would work as well and be simpler.
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
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Notes on rev 5670

#17 Post by eleazar »

Dilvish wrote:The problem with the Trith script is not so much that population test, it's that the comment in it explaining itself is misleading and I think led to an incomplete script. The boost it gives claims that it

Code: Select all

// Gets double the base population
whereas in fact it gives an extra allotment of base Good Environment population. Doing it correctly will be a little tricky especially since (it's my understanding) we do NOT want them to get double the homeworld bonus. But, I think I know how to do it, I'm going to give it a spin now.
When in doubt, check the spreadsheet, if i've provided one (which i have recently in this case), i'm more likely to make an error in scripting.

I apologize for the confusing caused by my bad scripting.

You miss-understand what i meant by "base population". It does not include the homeworld bonus. Self sustaining is not supposed to exceed a bonus of 3 * planet size -- which not coincidentally is exactly the max bonus provided by phototrophic or growth resources. Cumulatively that's double the 3 * planet size that normal species get for good planets.

Granted i hadn't considered (or if i did i don't remember) what kind of bonus self-sustaining should get on non-good planets. Possibly it should be + 2 * planet size for adequate and + 1 * planet size for poor.

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

Re: Notes on rev 5670

#18 Post by Dilvish »

Ah, I knew that you didn't include the homeworld bonus, I was just saying it at first seemed tricky to me to do it right without also doubling the homeworld bonus (which wound up not being too tough to avoid).

I suppose my quick fix does wind up still being too favorable to the self sustaining species once more of the environment techs are earned, I'm realizing now it would eventually give up to +5 on Good worlds. Your proposal of a fixed +3/+2/+1 For Good/Adequate/Poor is fairly reasonable and simple; it leaves Self Sustaining with less of an overall bonus than an organic species could get but is far more easily accessible. I kind of feel though that perhaps it should also give a +1 for Hostile, or let Poor also get a +2 rather than +1. But I dunno, even as you proposed it, it is probably significantly more favorable than any phototropic species could really hope for.
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
Sloth
Content Scripter
Posts: 685
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:28 am

Re: Notes on rev 5670

#19 Post by Sloth »

eleazar wrote:Possibly it should be + 2 * planet size for adequate and + 1 * planet size for poor.
I think this is a good solution.
All released under the GNU GPL 2.0 and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licences.

Post Reply