Big question: remove fuel parts?

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

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2937
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#16 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:52 pm
Oberlus wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 3:57 pm But coming back to my point: if we get this, no spamming buildings, then what do you think of requiring shipyards for refuelling?
I actually do not understand this. Do you mean having to go to shipyards to refuel at all? If we are not spamming shipyards that would mean that the base fuel levels need to be much higher. Base hull fuel should be at least two higher to compensate. And you would have to plan round-trips all the time, charting the way to pass over shipyard planets. Hop out and hop in movements would be much more "expensive" compared to the current state.
If that makes fuel more relevant in game...
But yes, having to pass through shipyards would make fleet movement require more player attention. If that requirement goes against playability, then I get back to "what's the point of having fuel apart from slowing down scouts?" Fuel is quite irrelevant in FreeOrion.
Or like in supply fuel does not drop, but if you want to increase your fuel level, you need to go to a refuelling place (i.e. shipyard)?
That would slow down hop out hop in movements (because for a second hop out you need to refuel).
That could work in a similar way (than above), without the problem of considering your shipyard placement within your empire, but feels more counter-intuitive.
But i like the challenge of finding a way to reach a juicy planet which is too far off at the moment
Currently, for me (unless Sly), that means outposts and supply techs.
[fuel boost] expands the strategic options in a huge way (or the other way round the strategic options of other species are much more restricted).
I don't have that perception. Supply and fuel kinda overlaps, but you can't get the benefits from deep expansion if you only have good fuel, because the new colony would be disconnected from your supply group. Good fuel, stealth and stockpile + bad supply makes sense for stealth distributed empires. But for non stealth, good fuel is less interesting than good supply even if they have good stockpile. So yes, fuel expands the strategic options but only in certain specific niches, wouldn't say "in a huge way".
So maybe we should make differences between hull types(?). Maybe we should consider some measurement of hull mass? Sizes like: small (0.5), medium (1.0), large (1.5), huge (2), gravitic (4)
So a gravitic ship would need four fuel for a single hop jump out of supply. A small ship could jump the double amount of hops a medium sized ship could jump.
Easier implementation (but not necessarily better) if we just take out fuel capacities from bigger hulls. But I like this. Currently we don't have a way to give value to small ships. This could do the trick (apart from the incoming new weapons).
Also we should consider if the first hop out of supply should already cost one fuel (please point me to the original discussion if there is some). So if e.g. your gravitic hull with no extra fuel gets cut off from supply it is basically stranded.
That's basically giving every ship -1 fuel. But I think it is more intuitive to spend that supply. When I met FO I was a bit amused that going out of supply did not spend any fuel, so I have to sum 1 to the distance reachable outside supply. I would do that (and either leave fuel values as they are or give them all or some a +1).

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1665
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#17 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 6:21 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:52 pmBut i like the challenge of finding a way to reach a juicy planet which is too far off at the moment
Currently, for me (unless Sly), that means outposts and supply techs.
Also ship stealth (avoiding monsters) and hull type techs.

Fuel parts dont matter with the current content because if you are do not have planetary stealth this only matters in the early game.
And in the early game you do not have access to a well-fuelled base hull with more than one internal slot. Think about Flux bubble with two internal slots - suddenly there is a use case for early fuel tech.
Oberlus wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 6:21 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:52 pm[fuel boost] expands the strategic options in a huge way (or the other way round the strategic options of other species are much more restricted).
I don't have that perception. ...yes, fuel expands the strategic options but only in certain specific niches, wouldn't say "in a huge way".
You still did not try early rush with Fulver I think.

Oberlus wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 6:21 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:52 pm...should consider some measurement of hull mass? Sizes like: small (0.5), medium (1.0), large (1.5), huge (2), gravitic (4)
So a gravitic ship would need four fuel for a single hop jump out of supply. A small ship could jump the double amount of hops a medium sized ship could jump.
Easier implementation (but not necessarily better) if we just take out fuel capacities from bigger hulls. But I like this. Currently we don't have a way to give value to small ships. This could do the trick (apart from the incoming new weapons).
I guess I will whip up a prototype.
Oberlus wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 6:21 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:52 pmAlso we should consider if the first hop out of supply should already cost one fuel (please point me to the original discussion if there is some). So if e.g. your gravitic hull with no extra fuel gets cut off from supply it is basically stranded.
That's basically giving every ship -1 fuel. But I think it is more intuitive to spend that supply. When I met FO I was a bit amused that going out of supply did not spend any fuel, so I have to sum 1 to the distance reachable outside supply. I would do that (and either leave fuel values as they are or give them all or some a +1).
If doing this in C++ i would decrease base fuel of (medium mass) hull by one to keep the current balance.
But I am not sure how fuel consumption is implemented in C++. I think a workaround in FOCS is the fastest way to implement this: giving -1 fuel after the hull mass fuel multiplier.

AI needs to be teached this independently anyway, but that should be easy.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2937
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#18 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 9:59 amFuel parts dont matter with the current content because if you are do not have planetary stealth this only matters in the early game.
And in the early game you do not have access to a well-fuelled base hull with more than one internal slot. Think about Flux bubble with two internal slots - suddenly there is a use case for early fuel tech.
The use in early game, IMO, is only for scouts, and only if you need to pass through a defended system. The flux bubble is great in early game, but only then. Because when starlanes are too long and you'll be detected on arrival, by the time I can improve my stealth tech I already have better hulls for the hidden scout or coloniser roles.
For conquest, I have never used or required any fuel at all. If I'm with a bad supply species (not Sly), that -1 supply reach isn't that much of a problem. I can outpost planets in the way to my target and get more supply techs. If the enemy's colony is 3 hops away from my supply reach (which is already rather far, usually I conquer planets touching my supply), pretty much any available hull will reach there, and once the planet is conquered, I'll get enough supply there to connect to my main supply group. Otherwise, if I won't get reach from that target (e.g. because I'm playing fulver and can't get next supply tech yet), then I'll do something else instead of conquering that far away planet.
If doing this in C++ i would decrease base fuel of (medium mass) hull by one to keep the current balance.
But I am not sure how fuel consumption is implemented in C++. I think a workaround in FOCS is the fastest way to implement this: giving -1 fuel after the hull mass fuel multiplier.
I would not bother about the hull mass multiplier. Let it be recorded in the hull definition: Give base fuel 1 to gravitic hulls. That way you don't need any kind of implementation, just editing the base characteristics of the hulls. "Only" problem with this is the fuel upgrades that affect the base value (like energy metabolism, +2) would be much better than with the multiplier in place for the bigger hulls, but for starters could be enough.

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#19 Post by labgnome »

Oberlus wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 3:57 pmExactly. And since every colony of my empire is at some point in the front lines (and every one of the new colonies conquered), I do spam drydocks (at least one per system).
This is only true for certain galaxy setups, and will be even less true with the introduction of the influence mechanic and diplomatic victory. For instance playing in a ring galaxy, you should only ever have two fronts at once. Also playing with a larger galaxy with fewer empires means you can expand for a while before having a front-line to worry about. Honestly I'm not too worried about "spamming" a building if it's only in certain game setups, and/or for a specific playstyle. This isn't even getting into the self-repair feature of the robotic hull-line.
And removing the shipyard requirement does not change that, only makes it faster (you don't require the shipyard, so 4 less turns and 2 less clicks per drydock, but that's all).
We can always make the drydock take 4 more turns to build if that's a legitimate balance concern.
All this independently of what we do with the drydock being a requirement for robotic ships, and the fact that the shipyard is there also as a way to prevent players from getting drydocks too quickly on recently conquered systems, that's another issue.
True, and something I forgot to mention, but was ultimately part of my old proposal. Basically make the nano-robotic processor (possibly with a re-name) the requirement for the robotic hull as well. If not that, just the shipyard would be needed. Whichever we feel works best. But basically take the drydock out of the production chain and make a solely a repair facility.

Also, we can make a happiness/stability requirement for building the drydock, or even using it, if that's something we want to do. Personally I think more buildings should have a happiness/stability requirement to either build or get the effect from if not both. Alternately (or in conjunction) we could make it consume infrastructure, something I also think more buildings should be doing.
Also, who builds shipyard for building ships? In every game, I only build a handful (usually less than 5) of ships that only require the shipyard, before turn 20. Then I'll be pumping out robotic (or organic, or asteroid) hulls. If we do this for the drydock we should do it with all other shipyard upgrades, but they would still be spammable.
I am not proposing changing the rest of the production chain. So you would still need the shipyard for the various other hulls. Hence building shipyards where you want to build ships.
But coming back to my point: if we get this, no spamming buildings, then what do you think of requiring shipyards for refuelling?
As I tend to do a lot of scouting with scout ships (unless I find a snowflake nest early-on) so I would consider it a hassle, especially if I wasn't able to place them wherever I wanted to. Namely I wouldn't be able to re-supply my scouts with outposts anymore. As I like to explore the galaxy, I would find if very frustrating, and not a very enjoyable experience.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1665
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#20 Post by Ophiuchus »

labgnome wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 8:39 pm..
I would really love to comment on spamming buildings but probably not in this thread.

How about post in Make shipyards & drydock implicit (not a building) or open a new thread?
labgnome wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 8:39 pm
Oberlus wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 3:57 pm But coming back to my point: if we get this, no spamming buildings, then what do you think of requiring shipyards for refuelling?
As I tend to do a lot of scouting with scout ships (unless I find a snowflake nest early-on) so I would consider it a hassle, especially if I wasn't able to place them wherever I wanted to. Namely I wouldn't be able to re-supply my scouts with outposts anymore. As I like to explore the galaxy, I would find if very frustrating, and not a very enjoyable experience.
I also agree. Refuelling scouts should happening rather less than more often.

I was again thinking of my proposal to have hull-mass dependent fuel. If we ignore fuel parts for the moment with the current refuelling-in-supply I guess I propose something like 7 fuel for the small hulls, 3 fuel for the medium ones, 1 fuel for the large ones and more or less zero fuel for the gravitic hulls.

Basically it means you can scout much further than you can attack/colonize. What you guys think of the balance?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#21 Post by labgnome »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:08 pmI would really love to comment on spamming buildings but probably not in this thread.

How about post in Make shipyards & drydock implicit (not a building) or open a new thread?
Much of my thoughts would be dependent on what we do with the tech tree.
I was again thinking of my proposal to have hull-mass dependent fuel. If we ignore fuel parts for the moment with the current refuelling-in-supply I guess I propse something like 7 fuel for the small hulls, 3 fuel for the medium ones, 1 fuel for the large ones and more or less zero fuel for the gravitic hulls.
I would go for 0 fuel for the gravitic hull if we kept the fuel part, so it can be given some range.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2937
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#22 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:01 amMuch of my thoughts would be dependent on what we do with the tech tree.
I'd say it's the other way around: what we decide to do regarding every mechanics determines the making of the tech tree.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1665
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#23 Post by Ophiuchus »

I was checking the code how the AI handles fuel parts and probably this is currently broken (mea culpa).

As simplification the fuel techs now modify the capacity of fuel parts using an effect. That is not directly available for the AI; it would need some kind of effect simulation in the backend or one has to model the effect in python.

The AI per se can access the default fuel capacity of hulls and fuel ship parts.

Not sure what to do. Reintroduce different fuel parts and instead of upgrading capacity change the part type? (is that is even possible)

Adding the fuel tech effect knowledge in ShipDesignAI.py? (Duplication and only working for the current content. Possible, but sucks)

Adding simulation capability in the backend? (Too big a task)

Also if we want gravitic hulls to have zero fuel, the minimum fuel for military should also probably be set to zero.
Or AI needs to distinguish between out-of-supply and in-supply military ships.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1665
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#24 Post by Ophiuchus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:53 pm I was checking the code how the AI handles fuel parts and probably this is currently broken (mea culpa).
Ok, I fixed this and it is already merged; Morlic jump-started me by giving me the info how to structure the code. Thanks :)

Fuel tech effect knowledge went to AIDependencies.py and ShipDesignAI.py

For the hull size dependent prototype (branch HullSizeDependentFuel in agrrr3/freeorion, PR-2492) i rely on a mixture of tagging the hull type and inserting effects (similar to how it is done in species).

The prototype already works and can be tested.

State of the prototype:
  • DONE: all hulls are adapted. flux bubble probably should switch from small hull to medium hull size. only the basic and robotic hulls are adapted (everything else is considered medium hull size). TODO all non-medium hulls should get the appropiate effects
  • DONE: I want to move the fuel efficiency effects to not to apply to the base for UI reasons (So the base fuel is correctly reported in the overview report - ship design already has the right values)
  • DONE: It is not clear yet how the hull size fuel multiplier should interact with extra fuel effects (thats what the prototype is for finding out)[
  • DONE: AI ship design is not yet consistent with the effects
edit1: all basic and robotic hulls are adapted
edit2: all hulls are adapted, PR is linked
edit3: update
Last edited by Ophiuchus on Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:21 am, edited 4 times in total.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1665
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#25 Post by Ophiuchus »

So I looked at the balance and effects in the prototype and it does not look too bad for a first try.

Compared to now, small hulls can cover huge distances, shifting the stranded scout problem to much later. This speeds up early exploration especially for bad supply and bad industry species.

Self-Grav hull only has 0.75 fuel, so it can jump out-of-supply, but cannot return. Adding a basic fuel tank gives 1 fuel, so it can return. Adding two fuel tanks and researching anti-matter fuel gives 3.25 fuel, so you can do jump two hops out and return.

This means for huge hulls you basically have to enforce a supply line connection for advancing (or spend resources for fuel tanks/the core slot for fuel generator), giving fuel related parts and supply lines more meaning.

Fulver GREAT_FUEL is also multiplied, so the small hulls get +4 jumps and for the huge hull it means +0.5 fuel, so for most huge hulls means they can return from a single out-of-supply hop without fuel tanks.

As I guess most early organic hulls should be medium, it will shift the usefulness a bit in the direction of the organic line.

I did not check asteroid and energy hull lines, but until now I think the effects improve the strategic game.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#26 Post by JonCST »

I'm wondering how this will affect the itty-bitty high-stealth carriers (symbiotic hull, only fighters, ED or AF stealth part). Currently AIs are pretty much helpless if you send one of these to park on each of their planets. If these go further because they're small, that kind of makes the issue of blockading more urgent?

Just a thought.

Jon

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2937
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#27 Post by Oberlus »

JonCST wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:06 amthe itty-bitty high-stealth carriers
Those are currently considered as a bug (or close to) and that behaviour is intended to be removed, probably after next release.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2937
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#28 Post by Oberlus »

After having followed the development of the hull fuel efficiency, I see the problems the subtract approach is causing and I regret having said this:
Oberlus wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 6:21 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:52 pmSo maybe we should make differences between hull types(?). Maybe we should consider some measurement of hull mass? Sizes like: small (0.5), medium (1.0), large (1.5), huge (2), gravitic (4)
So a gravitic ship would need four fuel for a single hop jump out of supply. A small ship could jump the double amount of hops a medium sized ship could jump.
Easier implementation (but not necessarily better) if we just take out fuel capacities from bigger hulls.
Just for the record, in case the subject is revisited in the future:

In this line of code we get the decrease of fuel from fleet movement:
https://github.com/freeorion/freeorion/ ... t.cpp#L391

How bad would be to change hull efficiency factor to affect the fuel subtracted from each starlane hop instead of changing maximum fuel? -2 (huge hull bad efficiency), -1.5 (big hull average), -1 (medium hull good), -0.5 (small hull great)
The pros would be easier UI, and maybe easier to understand the system at ship design. And, if the hull fuel efficiency is clearly stated in the pedia for hulls and ship designs, it should not be a problem for the player to track that the big hulls will take 3 fuel for 2 starlanes, etc.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1665
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#29 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:00 pm How bad would be to change hull efficiency factor to affect the fuel subtracted from each starlane hop instead of changing maximum fuel? ...
The pros would be easier UI, and maybe easier to understand the system at ship design. And, if the hull fuel efficiency is clearly stated in the pedia for hulls and ship designs, it should not be a problem for the player to track that the big hulls will take 3 fuel for 2 starlanes, etc.
I do not see the pros actually. If I understand your proposal correctly,one would still need to understand how hopping along starlanes works to interpret the shown values. Currently you see exactly how many hops you get out of your design (or later how many hops your ships still has left) - the only thing you can not see is how some fuel tech changes will influence it and especially future fuel tech upgrades.

Maybe "fuel" and "maximum fuel" are not so good terms anymore. Maybe it should be something like "starlane jump capacity", "system hops", or similar. So you could have extra fuel tanks (and fuel effects), fuel efficiency and resulting starlane travel capacity.

What exactly are you trying to fix?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2937
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#30 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:22 pmWhat exactly are you trying to fix?
Actively trying to fix, nothing.

But I was referring to things like the following:
[19 nov 23:24:55] L29Ah: what the fuck
[19 nov 23:24:59] L29Ah: the small hull has 8 fuel
[19 nov 23:25:43] L29Ah: while its description mentions it must be +1 to the rest of the basic hulls, which are 3 for the medium and 1.5(!?) for the large
https://github.com/freeorion/freeorion/ ... -549086886
https://github.com/freeorion/freeorion/pull/2632

Somehow, the thing is confusing.

Post Reply