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.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1287
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Big question: remove fuel parts?

#1 Post by Oberlus » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:58 am

Multi-players, I summon you. Single-players too, but since I am one of you, I need you less.

Do you ever use fuel parts for a reason different than "I have this spare internal slot and nothing useful to put on it appart from this tank"?
Is there any reason to mount a fuel part appart from enlarging range of colonisers early game in some annoying starting positions?

If nobody answers "yes" to any of these two questions, nor has any objection, I suggest the following:
- Remove fuel parts from game except the collector part (the only external-slot fuel part).
- Keep the fuel techs effects of increasing base range of hulls.
- Add +1 fuel to certain hulls (some with stealth capabilities, some without) that will be the best choice for long range colonisation.

Keep or not the zero-point fuel part? I never use it, never need it. And I think that even if I could need it, it is a bit OP (regarding fuel), because it completely overrides the need of resupply (virtually removes the fuel-restricted range). So I think we can remove it.

If we keep any or all the fuel parts (and maybe that's for the best), I would make standard fuel tank "Basic"; Ramscoop... Cybertec and an organic version for Biotec, one better than the other; Zero-point: Energy; and a pair of techs for +1 fuel per hull for Mech.

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#2 Post by o01eg » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:22 am

It could be used for stealth scouts in the enemy rear.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-8.3, boost-1.65.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io. Version 2019-07-14.0ab06aa.
Donates are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#3 Post by Ophiuchus » Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:40 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:58 am
.... Single-players too, but since I am one of you, I need you less.

Do you ever use fuel parts for a reason different than "I have this spare internal slot and nothing useful to put on it appart from this tank"?
Is there any reason to mount a fuel part appart from enlarging range of colonisers early game in some annoying starting positions?
If you doubt the usefulness of a good amount of fuel play a game of aggressive Fulver :)

The main problem is for me that hull/fuel tech is never advanced enough when i need it.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1287
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#4 Post by Oberlus » Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:44 pm

Then that's it. It all will stay.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#5 Post by Ophiuchus » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:59 am

Some thoughts, fuel boost is great, having fuel parts means that certain hulls cant benefit (because you need a slot), fuel part upgrades could be refinements of a basic fuel tech (so you save some tech slots in the UI).

I also never used zero point fuel part. For deep space scouts and colonization you probably need stealth as well. So besides the high RP cost the most reachable hull for it would be Self-Grav. So very rarely i research anti grav fuel (clocks in at ~650RP); zero point fuel needs some extra 3300RP to reach after that.

How about a Flux Core hull with a core slot only?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4928
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#6 Post by Vezzra » Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:30 pm

o01eg wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:22 am
It could be used for stealth scouts in the enemy rear.
This.

That said, I think the actual problem here is the current supply ranges. It's too easy to get large supply ranges soon enough so the fuel techs can't keep up. Once you get to the more advanced fuel parts, your supply range usually is already at a level where you won't need large amounts of extra fuel.

I think one approach to make both the fuel and the supply range mechanics/techs more interesting would be to depart from the discrete number of jumps stats. Instead of measuring fuel and supply range in number of jumps, measure it in actual distance. Allows for much more nuanced improvement, and length of starlanes would become more important. Starlane speed of ships works the same way, so it would also be more consistent with that.

LienRag
Space Squid
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#7 Post by LienRag » Wed May 29, 2019 11:09 pm

Vezzra wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:30 pm

I think one approach to make both the fuel and the supply range mechanics/techs more interesting would be to depart from the discrete number of jumps stats. Instead of measuring fuel and supply range in number of jumps, measure it in actual distance. Allows for much more nuanced improvement, and length of starlanes would become more important. Starlane speed of ships works the same way, so it would also be more consistent with that.
For information, when I first started to play FreeOrion I found that measuring fuel and supply range by number of jumps was a very clever design, making understanding and utilisation of these concepts entirely intuitive for the player (especially the new one). Using actual length as you states is another option, but it would lose this very nice KISS touch and would probably be a brainache for new players.
Vezzra wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:30 pm

That said, I think the actual problem here is the current supply ranges. It's too easy to get large supply ranges soon enough so the fuel techs can't keep up. Once you get to the more advanced fuel parts, your supply range usually is already at a level where you won't need large amounts of extra fuel.
I would state this differently: there is no real incentive now to send armies much beyond the supply range. Scouts indeed as o01eg stated, but that's basically all - and if they're not stealthy enough, they're toast anyway.
With different invasion mechanics (so you can't just get new supply by invading planets along the way) and maybe other manoeuvring possibilities, ability to go far into enemy territory could be of enough strategic importance to justify building specialized ships with long range.
Note that having happiness determine supply could too change many things as being able to move fleets even when your empire is unhappy would be an asset.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1287
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#8 Post by Oberlus » Thu May 30, 2019 10:55 am

LienRag wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 11:09 pm
measuring fuel and supply range by number of jumps was a very clever design, making understanding and utilisation of these concepts entirely intuitive for the player
Also easy and fast to "calculate" at a glance. With actual distances that would be lost. So I'd stick to number of jumps.
LienRag wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 11:09 pm
With different invasion mechanics (so you can't just get new supply by invading planets along the way) and maybe other manoeuvring possibilities, ability to go far into enemy territory could be of enough strategic importance to justify building specialized ships with long range.
Note that having happiness determine supply could too change many things as being able to move fleets even when your empire is unhappy would be an asset.
Interesting.
Currently, IIRC, when you conquer a colony its supply starts at zero and grows up to target value at one per turn. Also, IIRC, any supply (even negative, as long as it is different from no supply at all) is enough for a ship to refuel, even in a system with enemy colonies with more supply, if the ships are armed and have no opposition (they blockade the system).
We could make refuelling only possible when supply is greater than zero (even when you control that system) and make it require a few turns to get there on just conquered worlds OR the ship has more stealth than any armed enemy in the system (this last part important to allow Sly to refuel in their hidden distributed empires).
About happiness... That could be the way to make supply require more than one turn to get to supply 1 or greater.

Also, we could make refuelling only possible on planets with a shipyard, if we find a way to avoid shipyard spamming. That would give more importance to fuel even late game (because you need the fuel even within your supply reach), and also more strategic importance for shipyard placement.

User avatar
labgnome
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#9 Post by labgnome » Thu May 30, 2019 1:32 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 10:55 am
Also, we could make refuelling only possible on planets with a shipyard, if we find a way to avoid shipyard spamming. That would give more importance to fuel even late game (because you need the fuel even within your supply reach), and also more strategic importance for shipyard placement.
Making refueling require shipyards would only encourage spamming of them.

IMO: I've stated this before, but I'll say it again. I think two things need to happen to stop the spamming of shipyards. Firstly I think we should de-couple the drydock or its repair ability from shipyards, as that's my main motivation for spamming. Secondly, I think we should have a distance requirement for shipyards, either a jump-range or one per sector (if we do get sectors).
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: 1287
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#10 Post by Oberlus » Thu May 30, 2019 2:13 pm

labgnome wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 1:32 pm
Making refueling require shipyards would only encourage spamming of them.
Obviously. That's why I said in the same line "if we find a way to avoid spamming shipyards".
Firstly I think we should de-couple the drydock or its repair ability from shipyards, as that's my main motivation for spamming.
That does not solve at all the problem of spamming drydocks (that's the top building in the list of spammable ones, people only spams shipyards because they want the repair from drydocks).
Secondly, I think we should have a distance requirement for shipyards, either a jump-range or one per sector (if we do get sectors).
That's one of the way to limit building spamming, which would allow us to use my suggestion of allowing refuelling only on shipyards.

User avatar
labgnome
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#11 Post by labgnome » Thu May 30, 2019 3:42 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 2:13 pm
Firstly I think we should de-couple the drydock or its repair ability from shipyards, as that's my main motivation for spamming.
That does not solve at all the problem of spamming drydocks (that's the top building in the list of spammable ones, people only spams shipyards because they want the repair from drydocks).
I think this would reduce spamming of both. Especially if we remove the drydock from the ship production chain. People would build shipyards where they want them for building ships and put drydocks where they want them for repairs, like say near monster nests and your front lines.
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: 1287
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#12 Post by Oberlus » Thu May 30, 2019 3:57 pm

labgnome wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 3:42 pm
I think this would reduce spamming of both. Especially if we remove the drydock from the ship production chain. People would build shipyards where they want them for building ships and put drydocks where they want them for repairs, like say near monster nests and your front lines.
Exactly. 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). 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). 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.

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.

Once you implement a measure to disable building spamming (no more than one of the same type within certain distance, or its cost growing exponentially with its number, or only one per sector, etc.) then we can do whatever we want with all these ship-building buildings.

But coming back to my point: if we get this, no spamming buildings, then what do you think of requiring shipyards for refuelling?

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1488
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#13 Post by Krikkitone » Thu May 30, 2019 4:43 pm

In terms of spamming drydocks, perhaps allow repair at any colony with X characteristics. (maybe repair depends on supply connection to a shipyard able to build the ship...and enough happiness on the repairing colony to build ships there)

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#14 Post by Ophiuchus » Thu May 30, 2019 8:07 pm

I would really love to comment on spamming buildings but probably not in this thread.

How about Make shipyards & drydock implicit (not a building) or open a new one?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Big question: remove fuel parts?

#15 Post by Ophiuchus » 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.

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).

Playing stellaris i found that i do not miss the fuel restriction much. Especially for exploration. But i like the challenge of finding a way to reach a juicy planet which is too far off at the moment (of course only if it is not susceptible to being conquered). And as I said before the fuel boost for the e.g. the Fulver expands the strategic options in a huge way (or the other way round the strategic options of other species are much more restricted).

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.
For easier implementation we would do it the other way round probably (i.e. a very late game effect dividing the fuel by the hull mass modifier) so a huge hull ship with 6 fuel would have a -3 fuel (huge hull) effect.

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

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

Post Reply