Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

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
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#1 Post by labgnome » Thu Jul 25, 2019 4:33 pm

So it's been brought-up before but I wanted to formally suggest here that buildings normally consume infrastructure.

Obviously not all buildings should consume infrastructure as outposts do not have infrastructure, and some "buildings" are destroyed upon completion. However otherwise buildings should consume infrastructure. This will make building placement more strategic, and avoid the strategy of building everything at the capitol. It will also make infrastructure a more valuable resource.

In particular I am thinking players should be able to build all shipyards of a hull-line but infrastructure should limit to one hull line per planet. Similarly I am thinking the various "wonder" style buildings should take up enough infrastructure that you can't build more than one per planet.

I am thinking that maybe we could use more infrastructure boosts if we do this, maybe a couple more technologies, maybe even a building?

I want to open the discussion to specifics and concerns that people have.
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: 1454
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#2 Post by Oberlus » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:48 pm

Could you provide a list of all current buildings that does not selfdestroy after completion?
Then we could also list typical/expected combinations of buildings-on-same-planet and start figuring out reasonable infrastructure consumed by each building.

Some comments out of the box:
I don't know if it would be better to "consume" infrastructure or to require minimum infrastructure. In any case, infrastructure meter should not be reduced by building stuff because that disrupts how planetary defense works now (or planetary defence should be reworked too).

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#3 Post by labgnome » Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:58 am

Oberlus wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:48 pm
Could you provide a list of all current buildings that does not selfdestroy after completion?
Then we could also list typical/expected combinations of buildings-on-same-planet and start figuring out reasonable infrastructure consumed by each building.
Here are all the normal buildings that are not destroyed on completion and cannot be built at outposts and organized into categories.

*Shipyards
  • Advanced Engineering Bay - Flux Hulls
  • Basic Shipyard - Base
  • Cellular Growth Chamber - Organic Hulls
  • Energy Compressor - Energy Hulls
  • Geo-Integration Facility - Massive Hulls
  • Nanorobotic Processing Unit - Robotic Hulls
  • Orbital Drydock - Ship Repair
  • Orbital Incubator - Organic Hulls
  • Neutronium Forge - Neutronium Armor
  • Solar Containment Unit - Energy Hulls
  • Xenocoordination Facility** - Dead/Organic Hulls
These are the shipyard connected buildings and each hull line should be buildable together.

*Hull lines from my suggested re-work of hull lines.
**As per suggested re-work would be buildable at outposts with monster nests and thus not consume infrastructure.

Wonders
  • Collective Thought Network
  • Enclave of the Void
  • Hyperspacial Dam
  • Industrial Center
  • Imperial Entanglement Center
These structures should probably be one to a planet.

Transformer & Duplicated Buildings
  • Bioterror Projection Base*
  • Planetary Starlane Drive
  • Spacial Distortion Generator
  • Stargate
  • Transformer
These structures should also probably be one to a planet.

*Might be removed from this list if terror projection is made an influence project.

Other Buildings
  • Automated History Analyser
  • Concentration Camp
  • Genome Bank
  • Megalith
  • Planetary Cloaking Device
  • Space Elevator
  • Species InterDesign Academy
  • Xenoresurrection Lab
These are other buildings, they should consume less infrastructure than the wonders or transformer buildings.
Some comments out of the box:
I don't know if it would be better to "consume" infrastructure or to require minimum infrastructure. In any case, infrastructure meter should not be reduced by building stuff because that disrupts how planetary defense works now (or planetary defence should be reworked too).
If buildings do not consume infrastructure then infrastructure cannot be used to limit building placement. Perhaps required infrastructure and consumed infrastructure could be different values, so that there is always some minimum left-over infrastructure.
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: 1454
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#4 Post by Oberlus » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:32 am

labgnome wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:58 am
If buildings do not consume infrastructure then infrastructure cannot be used to limit building placement. Perhaps required infrastructure and consumed infrastructure could be different values, so that there is always some minimum left-over infrastructure.
The thing is infrastructure is not our friend here. Fro now on I discard this idea.


I went again through your hull lines rework thread:
labgnome wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:09 pm
I am actually in favor of most buildings consuming infrastructure as a way to limit building spam. [...] This could at least partially address the spamming of drydocks.
Oberlus wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:44 am
That would work very similar to having increasing influence upkeep for shipyards the more you have, but using influence upkeep I think it would scale up better with the size of the empire, because how can you account for games with very different number of systems in the galaxy using the infrastructure techs? I mean, if you balance techs so that late game you can have N shipyards, how can you make it work nicely for 100 system galaxies as well as 1000 system galaxies? You get to cover very different extensions of space with the same N shipyards... Hmmm... You could make the techs decrease the infrastructure required by every new shipyard relative to the number of systems your empire has, so that you get something like N shipyards per M systemscolonies. But this system means you need to both expand and get the techs in order to build new shipyards... Nah, I still think using influence upkeep it would be easier to balance.
labgnome wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:04 pm
So unless I am misunderstanding you, I think that I would actually prefer not using influence upkeep as there is good reason to want to be able to build more shipyards in bigger galaxies. At the least you will want to be doing more exploring and colonizing, and as larger galaxies have room for more or larger empires, it seems only natural that you would want to build more shipyards. I don't think I'd want to be limited to the same number of shipyards in a 100 star galaxy as I would be in a 1000 star galaxy. I would want more shipyards for sure in the larger galaxy.
Oberlus wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:26 pm
If infrastructure has to be the limiting factor for buildings (actually I don't know if it could be better or not than influence upkeep), it is mandatory to sketch actual mechanics for infrastructure.
Currently there are a few techs that increase infrastructure of all your planets, and I think some buildings maybe do that too. All that must be reviewed.
If infrastructure grows the same in all planets, and the infrastructure required by a (say) orbital drydock is constant, then whenever you can build a drydock in a colony you can build it on all your colonies. So, or we make each extra orbital drydock cost extra infrastructure (and then we get that the infrastructure techs are actually orbital drydock unlockers and we could just set a number of maximum drydocks depending on tech level and forget about infrastructure) or we make colonies to have different amounts of infrastructure (few ideas here, maybe force a planetary focus, so each new orbital drydock means one less influence/research/production colony, which does not balance well with expansion).

On the other hand, with influence upkeep, as long at its growth with the empire size is more or less balanced (that is, you get diminishing returns from each extra colony), you will be able to build few drydocks but not care about the infrastructure (or whatever) of the colony you choose, just the strategic value of the location, and the influence upkeep effectively counts as losing planetary foci. I think that's the way to go.
I still think the same.


Repeating myself: making drydocks consume infrastructure does not solve drydock spamming: you either can build one drydock per each planet or you can't build it anywhere.
Also, setting minimum distances is not a nice solution, if yet a solution, to the building spamming problem (as pointed out by several people in the hull line rework thread).

Influence Upkeep is the way to go.


Infrastructure could use some love (see for example here and here), but not for OP's idea.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#5 Post by labgnome » Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:42 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:32 am
labgnome wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:58 am
If buildings do not consume infrastructure then infrastructure cannot be used to limit building placement. Perhaps required infrastructure and consumed infrastructure could be different values, so that there is always some minimum left-over infrastructure.
The thing is infrastructure is not our friend here. Fro now on I discard this idea.
I don't follow what you are trying to say here, can you clarify?

Oberlus wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:26 pm
If infrastructure has to be the limiting factor for buildings (actually I don't know if it could be better or not than influence upkeep), it is mandatory to sketch actual mechanics for infrastructure.
That is just what I am trying to do here.

Currently there are a few techs that increase infrastructure of all your planets, and I think some buildings maybe do that too.
It's just the N-Dimensional Structures technology that currently does and the Black Hole Power Generator building that used to but the effect is missing in current versions of the game. I am thinking that maybe we should have more infrastructure boosting technologies and maybe a local infrastructure boosting building.

Repeating myself: making drydocks consume infrastructure does not solve drydock spamming: you either can build one drydock per each planet or you can't build it anywhere.
I will concede that I haven't completely solved the problem of drydock spamming. I do still think that infrastructure consumption could serve to limit placement and make your decision where to place them more strategic. Maybe I will abandon my idea to divorce shipyards and drydocks. However, this also works against the strategy of building everything at your capitol.

Influence Upkeep is the way to go.
I don't think that infrastructure consumption precludes influence upkeep, as both have different goals. I also don't know that I'd want influence upkeep for all buildings. Furthermore, I don't want increasing influence costs as I've said before: I don't want to be limited to a set number of shipyards or drydocks, as I think it's a good idea to be able to build more in larger galaxies.
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: 1454
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#6 Post by Oberlus » Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:17 pm

labgnome wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:42 pm
I will concede that I haven't completely solved the problem of drydock spamming.
Forgive my rudeness, but IMO it's not solved at all, since imposing minimum distances hasn't been accepted (and is independent from infrastructure). Infrastructure alone does nothing. Reread my quotes. But influence upkeep for fleets has been accepted, also for planets, and it's reasonable to expect it to be accepted for buildings, which will solve the spamming issue.
I do still think that infrastructure consumption could serve to limit placement
How then?
As per my quotes above, the system you sketched does not work for what you want. It just doesn't. It's not about opinions. Repeating myself again: you get drydocks everywhere or nowhere. How is that a solution? It's not even a partial solution.
I don't think that infrastructure consumption precludes influence upkeep, as both have different goals.
Everything has the goal we want it to have, it's a game that works as intended by the developers, not subject to universal categorical imperatives.
Right now infrastructure goal is just for planetary defence, and influence upkeep is to control exponential expansion (and, why not, building spamming).

Edit:
labgnome wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:42 pm
I don't want to be limited to a set number of shipyards or drydocks, as I think it's a good idea to be able to build more in larger galaxies.
That's why Influence is the way to go.


I have nothing else to contribute to this discussion.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#7 Post by labgnome » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:52 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:17 pm
I do still think that infrastructure consumption could serve to limit placement
How then?
As per my quotes above, the system you sketched does not work for what you want. It just doesn't. It's not about opinions. Repeating myself again: you get drydocks everywhere or nowhere. How is that a solution? It's not even a partial solution.
While technically you would be able to say build a drydock anywhere you wanted, you might say have to choose between building a drydock and and say a geointigration facility, or a drydock and a transformer. It's not a complete solution, but it does make that a strategic decision. Like I said I admit I haven't completely solved it, but I still think it's an idea worth considering.

Even if not for drydocks, since you seem to be a bit hung-up on that, maybe think of it in terms of you wouldn't be able to say have an Industrial Center and an Enclave of the Void on the same planet and would have to choose where to place them. I think that could make the game more interesting. Also infrastructure being linked to shield regeneration means that those planets become somewhat vulnerable, something that might make the choice even more strategic.

Something going a step further I could see is a Shield Regenerator building, that you might be able to place on planets to re-enforce or take-over shield regeneration. Such a building shouldn't be worth it on colonies with high infrastructure, but should be worth it for colonies with low infrastructure.

I do think we could have both influence upkeep and infrastructure consumption, so I don't really see them as competing ideas. Maybe buildings in general could consume infrastructure but shipyard buildings or drydocks specifically could have influence upkeep in addition. Maybe only certain buildings should consume infrastructure, while others have influence upkeep, with certain buildings that have both. This really isn't an either-or kind of situation. I'm getting a confrontational vibe from you I don't think is necessary here.

For me this is the most intuitive way to use infrastructure, as something that limits building placement. It is just the idea that makes the most sense to me. Maybe it's not the way we want to go, but I don't really get the hostility you seem to have to the idea.
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: 1454
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#8 Post by Oberlus » Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:27 pm

have to choose between building a drydock and and say a geointigration facility
I usually build 1 geo facility per each say 20 or so systems.
And only one of the singleton buildings (industry centre, black whole generator, etc.). So when I control 50 systems, 150 planets, I can build with no trouble 50 drydocks (just not in the same planet than the geo facility). Which is in practice "drydocks everywhere". Again, this proposal does not work, at all.
Intuitive
New argument. For me, building stuff gives you more infrastructure, not less, so I say it is counter-intuitive. But that's not a concern in my end, the concern is from it not being useful.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#9 Post by labgnome » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:32 am

Oberlus wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:27 pm
have to choose between building a drydock and and say a geointigration facility
I usually build 1 geo facility per each say 20 or so systems.
And only one of the singleton buildings (industry centre, black whole generator, etc.). So when I control 50 systems, 150 planets, I can build with no trouble 50 drydocks (just not in the same planet than the geo facility). Which is in practice "drydocks everywhere". Again, this proposal does not work, at all.
So firstly I fully admitted it was not a complete solution. I never claimed that. Solving the drydock spamming has never been the crux of this proposal. Merely that it makes the placement of your buildings a more strategic decision. Which IMO makes the game more interesting.

Secondly, we could give drydocks influence upkeep in-addition to consuming infrastructure. Thus limiting both the number and strategic placement of drydocks. Personally I think it would be nice to see both conditions. As I said these are not competing ideas.
Intuitive
New argument. For me, building stuff gives you more infrastructure, not less, so I say it is counter-intuitive. But that's not a concern in my end, the concern is from it not being useful.
So my thoughts are that buildings need infrastructure to be built, roads, sewers, electricity, parking spaces ect... Thus the amount of infrastructure you have gives you how much "room" you have for buildings. Thus the more buildings you have, the more they use-up infrastructure, thus the less "free" or "excess" infrastructure you have for more buildings or whatever else you need infrastructure you have. But those are just my thoughts on the subject.

Mind you this doesn't exclude construction projects that work the other way around, basically infrastructure growing buildings, which if infrastructure is made more interesting I think is something we could use. Maybe also bring back the subsurface tunnels special as an infrastructure and population boosting special.

You seem very hung-up on solving the drydock spamming issue, which I'm not claiming it solves. I personally think that making the placement of your buildings more strategic is what this idea has to offer the most. You wouldn't be able to build everything at your capitol. You would have to choose which planets got which hull-lines. Which while itself not solving the spamming issue makes any solution to it more interesting.
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: 1454
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#10 Post by Oberlus » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:14 am

labgnome wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:32 am
So firstly I fully admitted it was not a complete solution. I never claimed that.
Ok, so when you said "I haven't completely solved the problem of drydock spamming" you meant "I haven't solved the problem of drydock spamming at all". Sorry for my confusion.

Solving the drydock spamming has never been the crux of this proposal. Merely that it makes the placement of your buildings a more strategic decision. Which IMO makes the game more interesting.
I agree that making placement of your buildings a more strategic solution makes the game more interesting.
The problem is this proposal does not force me to change any of my current strategies, does not affect my gameplay at all. So, if we are implying that currently there is little to no strategic decision to where you place buildings, with your proposal, that barely forces any change on strategic placement from current system, there is little to no strategic decision to where you place buildings.

For example, I will place my industry centre on any planet that does not require a shipyard, the solar generator on a planet of a blue/white star that does not require a shipyard, the black whole generator on a planet of a black whole system that does not require a shipyard, etc. Only the black whole generator could require me doing some fancy stuff if there is very few black wholes: that is, creating an extra one if the one I already had was intended for shipyards that won't let the generator be built in them.
Secondly, we could give drydocks influence upkeep in-addition to consuming infrastructure. Thus limiting both the number and strategic placement of drydocks. Personally I think it would be nice to see both conditions. As I said these are not competing ideas.
Or we could just give all buildings influence upkeep, get the same result, and forget about infrastructure limitation.
Also, we don't want to forbid centralised empires that put most of their stuff on the homeworld (that is a legit strategy). Building a lot of stuff on the same planet has never been a problem. The only problem is the building spamming because it goes against the FreeOrion goal of no micromanagement/no repetitive, boring actions.

If your proposal does not solve any real problem, and also creates a new problem (restricting centralised empires), it is a bad idea.

But I agree the two ideas are not competing: one solves real problems and the other does nothing good.
Intuitive
...
As I said, the intuitiveness or lack of it of your proposal is irrelevant.
Mind you this doesn't exclude construction projects that work the other way around, basically infrastructure growing buildings, which if infrastructure is made more interesting I think is something we could use.
That would make the whole idea even worse: so I can't build two buildings in a planet unless I build first another one, so instead of solving building spamming or increasing strategic placement I make it worse, being able spam buildings if I first spam infrastructure-boosting buildings.
You seem very hung-up on solving the drydock spamming issue, which I'm not claiming it solves.
You seem quite hung-up on convincing me this proposal does something good, while the more I think of it the more I despise it as useless, unnecessarily complex and against FreeOrion goals.
I personally think that making the placement of your buildings more strategic is what this idea has to offer the most.
Too bad that's not true. At least not with your current proposal. Try again? And I mean try changing the proposal, not repeating your thoughts.
You wouldn't be able to build everything at your capitol.
And how is that good? That does not bring in extra strategy, it limits it in a boring way. Building all your stuff in a single planet has pros and cons, easier to defend but more risky to lose to an enemy. But what if I do want to do that.
Also, don't you like yourself centralised strategies? If you don't and want to forbid it, why you talk about it in the suggested policies?
You would have to choose which planets got which hull-lines.
I only do one single hull line. Always.

I'm afraid we live in different gaming realities. I'm tired of this discussion, and I don't think this will end, ever. So maybe we could do this: you go implement (or simulate in paper) your proposal, test it, find out if I was wrong, and come back to report.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#11 Post by labgnome » Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:50 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:14 am
Also, we don't want to forbid centralised empires that put most of their stuff on the homeworld (that is a legit strategy). Building a lot of stuff on the same planet has never been a problem. The only problem is the building spamming because it goes against the FreeOrion goal of no micromanagement/no repetitive, boring actions.
I was under the impression that comments about everything being built at the capitol were meant as complaints and was trying to address them. I admit it is possible I misinterpreted those statements.
But I agree the two ideas are not competing: one solves real problems and the other does nothing good.
That is a completely rude and unnecessary jab.
You seem quite hung-up on convincing me this proposal does something good, while the more I think of it the more I despise it as useless, unnecessarily complex and against FreeOrion goals.
Wow. I really don't think that is necessary. Of course I am going to defend me own idea. I wouldn't have proposed it if i didn't like it and think it was a good idea. We don't have to agree, but I think you are taking this too far.
Too bad that's not true. At least not with your current proposal. Try again? And I mean try changing the proposal, not repeating your thoughts.
This is unnecessarily rude. I did suggest changes, and you just shot them down. I am trying to come to a compromise with you, but you just seem determined to completely reject any of my ideas. I realize we are not in agreement here but you seem determined to not even try to cooperate or compromise. I do not find your criticisms to be constructive.
I'm afraid we live in different gaming realities. I'm tired of this discussion, and I don't think this will end, ever. So maybe we could do this: you go implement (or simulate in paper) your proposal, test it, find out if I was wrong, and come back to report.
These make no sense together. If we really do have different gaming realities, I don't see how any play-through or number-crunching I do will do anything to sway you.

I am currently at a loss as to what has triggered this reaction from you from this proposal. I am sorry for upsetting you, but I think you need to take a step back and think about how you are reacting to this. This isn't any fun for me anymore and I don't think this is fun for you either. I value your input, but you are making me seriously uncomfortable with your choice of words here.
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
JonCST
Space Squid
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#12 Post by JonCST » Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:08 pm

labgnome wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:32 am
So my thoughts are that buildings need infrastructure to be built, roads, sewers, electricity, parking spaces ect... Thus the amount of infrastructure you have gives you how much "room" you have for buildings. Thus the more buildings you have, the more they use-up infrastructure, thus the less "free" or "excess" infrastructure you have for more buildings or whatever else you need infrastructure you have.
Hmm. I'm a bit confused about the "infrastructure" meter: what it represents, and how it's added to/deleted from. It sounds like others may have similar confusion.

Is it a resource, to be used to create things?

Is it a limit, to restrict happenings?

Is it a leftover, struggling for relevance?

J.
It's only a game, it's only a game, like dying is only death. -- Tom Paxton

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#13 Post by labgnome » Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:19 pm

JonCST wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:08 pm
Hmm. I'm a bit confused about the "infrastructure" meter: what it represents, and how it's added to/deleted from. It sounds like others may have similar confusion.

Is it a resource, to be used to create things?

Is it a limit, to restrict happenings?

Is it a leftover, struggling for relevance?
It's mostly a leftover. Right now the only thing infrastructure effects is shield regeneration, and the only thing that grows infrastructure is N-Dimensional Structures. Honestly given the direction of this topic, I am wondering if infrastructure should be removed. If people don't see building everything at the capitol as a problem, then there really isn't a reason to try to limit building placement.
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
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#14 Post by The Silent One » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:19 pm

labgnome wrote:I am currently at a loss as to what has triggered this reaction from you from this proposal.
As I perceive it, you are currently offering many ideas, several of which do not seem thought-through in sufficient depth to me. It also appears to me that you are not aware how much impact even one of these ideas may have on the game, or what an incredible amount of development work is required to put it into the game.
I'd advise that you focus on one aspect you intend to develop about the game (policies?) and work that out in detail. Rather than putting out more and more ideas, try to pick up scripting and create some actual policies. This will also give you an idea how much effort is involved. (I still get the chills when I see my graphical assets or some element I coded in the game. Feels good, I encourage you to try. :) )
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1454
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure

#15 Post by Oberlus » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:35 pm

labgnome wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:50 pm
I was under the impression that comments about everything being built at the capitol were meant as complaints and was trying to address them.
I'm unaware of those comments. Who made them or where can I find them?


About my unjustified and unpleasant words, I heartily apologise. You are right, I took it too far, and I'm ashamed. Not the first time neither. What triggered this response from me is my frustration in face of the inability to get to an understanding, and my lack of emotional skills to deal with that frustration. That's always been my problem (and no one else's).
I did suggest changes, and you just shot them down. I am trying to come to a compromise with you, but you just seem determined to completely reject any of my ideas.
At start, before thinking in depth the idea, I liked it. That's why I encouraged you to develop it more. When you linked that older discussion and I found and remembered the drawbacks and issues with it, I quoted here what seemed relevant and I thought that was enough to enlist you in my view that the idea is not as good as it seemed at start. The fact that you kept repeating that you think it is a good idea, without exemplifying why you think that way, and in face of the examples that (IMO) show without any doubt that the idea does not work as intended, frustrated me, out of my confusion. I felt like I was talking to a wall. But maybe I am that wall.
Repeating myself: I apologise, sincerely.
I realize we are not in agreement here but you seem determined to not even try to cooperate or compromise. I do not find your criticisms to be constructive.
I've been rude and unpleasant, but I must disagree with this last quote. I was trying to be helpful and constructive. But looking for a compromise somewhere in between a good idea and a bad idea is not my idea of helping. That's why I was trying to tell you the idea does not work, quoting older discussions, presenting examples, repeating myself trying to explain it better, and taking the time for all that despite it being unpleasant to me. I thought that was more constructive that just leaving you alone waiting for some feedback.
However, if by trying to help I become toxic, because I lack the skills to endure the annoyance of not being understood, leaving you alone is exactly what I should have done from the start, and at least I'm doing it now. Good luck with your proposal, I hope you can develop it to a state where you can test it and find out you were right and I was wrong. Because that would be great (quoting myself, I do think infrastructure needs some love, and this could be it).

Post Reply