GG generators are no-brainers

Creation, discussion, and balancing of game content such as techs, buildings, ship parts.

Moderators: Oberlus, Committer

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#16 Post by Oberlus »

For both alternatives above, the fluff for the central building would be the same: a industrial facility to produce the specialized ships and machinery used in the empire to extract and refine the gas from the owned GG and funnel them to the in-system planets for its use in the fusion reactors of those (industry-focused) planets.

User avatar
swaq
Space Dragon
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#17 Post by swaq »

Is there a reason we can't have it work like asteroid belts? Just the presence of an owned gas giant outpost in the system gives the bonus?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#18 Post by Oberlus »

swaq wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 9:06 pm Is there a reason we can't have it work like asteroid belts? Just the presence of an owned gas giant outpost in the system gives the bonus?
That's the simplest form: you get the tech and you only need to outpost a GG on each system.
The previous suggestions are to make it different, for diversity and more interesting decision-making, less no-brainer:
- To have a central building that can be conquered (big blow to your economy, so you better defend it well).
- To make it variable in time so that it is not so relevant at start and gains relevance with tech progression, so it's not good only for wide-empire strategy.
- The twist with supply makes it better for good supply species.

I also considered not having to outpost the GGs, just an unowned GG in the system would give the boost, but that removes the outpost investment which is important for balance.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#19 Post by LienRag »

I don't understand your point, actually.
Except if you're Sly the GGG's cost is not the matter, the matter is the outpost's cost, and that is certainly NOT a no-brainer ?
I mean, if you outpost a Kraken Nest, or outpost gas giants so a Sly opponent won't do it, then yes the GGG becomes a no-brainer, but is that so big a problem ?

And if you really want it to be a yes-brainer, the answer is easy : create another gas giant building that is incompatible with the GGG and make it give a defense/troop/stockpile to all planets in the same system, so one will have to carefully choose which one wants on each system.

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

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#20 Post by labgnome »

LienRag wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 11:46 amAnd if you really want it to be a yes-brainer, the answer is easy : create another gas giant building that is incompatible with the GGG and make it give a defense/troop/stockpile to all planets in the same system, so one will have to carefully choose which one wants on each system.
What about a research bonus? There aren't many research boosting buildings, compared with production boosting buildings. Like a Gas Giant Observatory?
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: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#21 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 11:46 am I don't understand your point, actually.
Have you read the thread from the start? Please, do it.
the matter is the outpost's cost, and that is certainly NOT a no-brainer ?
The outpost cost is ~60*colony_upkeep_factor.
You then get +10 for each colony on that system. It is amortized after 6*colony_upkeep_factor/industry_colonies_in_system turns, and from there on it will grant you a new outpost somewhere else in the same time. With 2 colonies that is 3 turns.
That is CERTAINLY a no-brainer.

No-brainers are not welcome, because they take out fun. They are not strictly forbidden. Nobody said it is a big problem to have to outpost GG to get the boost. In fact, none of the suggestions in this thread are talking about removing that. So I don't understand your point, actually.

If you are talking about the general suggestion of removing the GGG spamalot building, agreed by all participants of this thread, I'd like to make you the same question:
Is it such a big problem to turn GGG into a central building so that you only need to build it once per game and forget about repetitive, no-brainer clicks?

Your suggestion on an alternative spamalot building mutually-exclusive to the GGG is interesting (at least for research, as per Ophiuchus suggestion), IFF you remove the spamalot part of it: so you either have one or the other central building (certainly not a no-brainer), without having to queue the same building over and over.

Avoiding repetitive, no-brainer actions is written in stone in FreeOrion design goals. It's not up to me (nor I want) to contest that decision. In fact, it is one of the things that make this game great.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#22 Post by LienRag »

Yes I did, of course.

The GGG means getting a small but not negligible boost at early middle-game (or late early game, depending at how you play), at the cost of an aggravated upkeep that you'll pay the whole game.
So building more than a few at first to help early expansion (in a sort of "rush" style of play) is certainly not a good strategy.

So in no way are they a no-brainer ! Depending on one's strategy and galaxy topology, yes building some is usually useful, but certainly not spamming them everywhere.
It's a bit like colonizing small planets : at first it helps and obviously if one has some good ones at very early game one does it, but it takes a toll later in the game, so a good player has to balance both.

I can understand how in small-galaxies, multiplayer games, "rush" strategies could get mandatory, making GGG a no-brainer in these conditions, but I think the problem is in this thinning of possible strategies (it's what took me out of Age of Empires multiplayer games and of tournament Magic The Gathering), not in the GGG itself¹.
I don't have a solution to that problem actually, but I don't think that making all the game design according to one subset of possible games is sound.

I understand the design principle of limiting spamalot, and approve of it. So yes the fact that GGG are NOT spamalot (because they involve the very difficult decision of outposting an otherwise useless planet, which has then consequences during the whole game) is not enough to keep them rather than making them a small wonder like other buildings.

So my rationale for keeping them as now (with the addition of one or two incompatible alternatives if you wish) is diversity.
They're the only production-boosting building that acts locally, and I think that having one of the buildings work that way enriches the game rather that making it tedious because one has to queue a few of them (and like Delvish, I rather like the small reward they provide, though obviously it would become tedious if it was the way most buildings work - à la Civilization - rather than a very small subset of them).

Gas Giant Generators come quite at the same time (a few turns earlier of course) than the Solar Orbital Generator, so the fact that they're cheaper and work differently is imho interesting and should be kept. Having another SOG with a different name² would not enrich the gameplay imho, especially since Black Hole Power Generator is already another SOG with a different name (which is not that big a problem since there are currently only two of them - three if one includes Industrial Centers, who also have enough differences to make them not redundant - but more importantly because BHPG have a very strategic and sometimes hard to fulfill requirement, namely being placed on a planet orbiting a Black Hole).
Note also that the other quite similar building, Collective Thought Networks, actually works very differently than SOG and SOG-like buildings (so do Honeycombs) and this diversity is one of the things that make the game interesting.

The way it works now, when I get Orbital Generation and if my galactic topology allows it I build a few GGG that help providing the extra production needed to build the SOG (and later the BHPG), and that seems to me an interesting way of doing things, especially since at this time Production Points are still quite sparse so having a cheap building with a quick Return on Investment is useful.
Obviously when playing Sly they're one of the first techs I research and I spam GGGs everywhere (which means that having them cheap is quite a boon) but that's a specific case.

You may find ways to improve it, but please note that the problem you are focused on fixing appears only on a very specific subset of games (even though this very specific subset is probably right now the one working the best, both in multiplayer due to real-life constraints and in solo games due to the ineptitude of current AI that makes large galaxies endgame boring).


I specifically did not propose a Science-bonus-generating building for the alternative Gas Giant building because I wanted to break the symmetry between Science and Production that is a bit too obvious, but if there is actually no symmetry as far as buildings are concerned (as labgnome pointed), maybe his Gas Giant Observatory is a good idea.

The idea behind a system-wide defense bonus is that it makes the choice more difficult and more strategic than "do I need better production more than better research?" as it needed to balance two very different things, production and vulnerability. But if it leads to building GGG without thinking much on the inner core of one's Empires and Gas Giant Defenses on its brim, then it's not any better than Gas Giant Observatories.


Side note : when I write that I don't understand your point, it's not an attack on you, it's that I don't understand your point. Now that you explained your reasoning and that I inferred that it came from a very different playstyle and Galaxy settings that I use³, the conversation seems to me more productive.


¹ Of course the fact that ALL strategies have to take into account that other players may try a "rush-like" strategy (sacrificing long-term planning for short-term gain that will bring them victory before the long-term penalties to that strategy takes effect) is a good thing in a strategy game; but that "taking into account" means "needing to counter-rush in a way or another" is a big problem.

² Maybe I don't understand your proposition but from what I've read I can't figure out how to make the "small wonder" building you propose anything else than "a Solar Orbital Generator with a different name".

³ Please correct me if I'm wrong.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#23 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 5:41 pm So in no way are they a no-brainer ! Depending on one's strategy and galaxy topology, yes building some is usually useful, but certainly not spamming them everywhere.
The upkeep increase (that is payed only once) is negligible compared to the extra PPs you get over time. And you get those PP flowing into your empire for the rest of the game, fuelling your growth, it is not at just at early-mid game. If you don't build a GGG on every system with planets and a GG you are doing it wrong.
I already give you the equations and you just dismissed it with an "in no way are they a no-brainer !" argument that has no support for it at all.
Do the math and correct yourself, or correct me, with the results.
It is true that colonizing small planets when you have bigger planets available and do not need the extra supply is suboptimal, but not colonizing them when there is no better planet is much worse.

Obviously for me, I'm not talking about the disjunctive of outposting a GG or building an army ship I need to keep up with my enemies. That is out of question. But it is always better to get a GGG in a system where you have colonies than to get a new colony in that system or elsewhere, because the +10 PP kick in from start, while new colonies with only pop-based boosts take eons in comparison to get profitable. A good player has to balance this.

I guess you consider me and all the players and devs in this thread that agree with the general suggestion of "GGG are no-brainers" bad players. I have the impression it is quite the opposite.
They're the only production-boosting building that acts locally
Wrong, there is also the +5 PP from the asteroid belts.
Are you sure you read the thread? Because that is mentioned.
It could seem like you don't know FO tech tree.
Also, there are specials that give locally boosts.
the fact that (GGG) are cheaper and work differently (than SOG) is imho interesting and should be kept
Agree. This suggestion doesn't change that.
I can't figure out how to make the "small wonder" building you propose anything else than "a Solar Orbital Generator with a different name".
SOG gives pop-based boost to all supply-connected planets.
GGGs give flat bonus for planets in same system of and owned GG with the building on it.
This suggestion makes the GGG a single building but doesn't remove anything else: the need to outpost a GG, the in-system restriction, the flat bonus.
So I don't understand how you cannot see the many differences.
The only thing that this suggestion changes is the need to build the GGG after outposting the GG. The outpost ship/base is still the biggest expenditure in both cases (with and w/o the central GGG).
when I write that I don't understand your point, it's not an attack on you, it's that I don't understand your point.
That works both ways. I mean, I wasn't attacking you, I just didn't understand your point. Now I understand it better and I respectfully disagree.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#24 Post by LienRag »

I certainly am a very much less experienced players that most of you are¹, but when I began to reach Outpost costs upwards of the thousands I seriously regretted having outposted tiny and small planets and even more asteroid belts and gas giants...

I didn't actually make the calculations, maybe I'm wrong then.
But one large planet brings more than a hundred PP late game, for the same upkeep cost than a GG, so instinctively it's difficult for me to not balance towards the former and be wary of the later², especially when Influence will be there to limit spamming outposts and colonies.

I really don't understand your point about "upkeep increase paid only once"; isn't upkeep by definition something one keeps paying turn after turn ? Yes I get that one outpost only raise the cost of upkeep once, but then one has to pay that raised upkeep each time one builds another Outpost or Colony ship...

The importance of having PP immediately rather than more long-term is paramount in "rush-like" strategies, less so in long-term strategies (though never null since early PPs produce not only themselves but also help produce other PP-producing things).

Thanks for your last clarification by the way, I'll keep that in mind when you'll put my arguments to shreds later... :wink:


¹ We'll see how that translates to better or worse player when I'll be organized enough to commit to a multiplayer game... I look forward to laser-kicking your a** though I guess it'll more probably go the other way for a few games at first !

² I mean in systems with less than 4 or 5 colonisable (medium or bigger) planets, which is now my subjective threshold for outposting Asteroid Belts and Gas Giants where not needed for other reasons.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#25 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 6:40 pm when I began to reach Outpost costs upwards of the thousands
Well, in that case you are right: when you have some 500 ships and 300 inhabited colonies in play (an example of the numbers you need to make an outpost ship cost more than 1000 PP), outposting a GG just to get the +10PP per planet in that system seems of little use.
But in that case you are playing a huge galaxy indeed, and also getting, what? 10K PP per turn? 20K?
I do not play such huge galaxies, not in SP and certainly not in MP.

Now I see your point, but I also see it becomes true in galaxy setting way out of the standard: really huge galaxies with very few empires (maybe 200 systems per player), so that even late game you can find systems that are not colonized by the other empires. By the time you can start thinking of not building outposts on GG you have already build more than 50 of them. Until that point, they were no-brainers.
one large planet brings more than a hundred PP late game, for the same upkeep cost than a GG
Only colonies increase colony upkeep factor. So it doesn't matter if you have 1 or 100 outposted GG as long as you don't settle Sly on them.
So I guess you were talking about the disjunctive between colonizing or not tiny planets. I would appreciate if you quote whatever you are answering to, when the posts (mine and yours) are this long.
Influence will be there to limit spamming outposts and colonies
Even then, I still see no pleasure in building 50 times the same building. The upkeep of the outposts will be enough.

I think this discussion is a bit sterile: you have a preference, I have a different one. No one is really wrong, but the game can be only one way or the other.
I have nothing else to add to this part about many GGGs or a unique central GGG.
I really don't understand your point about "upkeep increase paid only once"; isn't upkeep by definition something one keeps paying turn after turn?
Check out the upkeep formulas again, and how they are applied to outpost pods, ship hulls and parts.
I agree with you, they are not actual upkeeps, because upkeeps are fees you pay on a regular basis. These are in fact factors that increase the cost of the next one you build depending on the number of them already in game. So yes, they are one-time payments. And, as you say, you don't have to pay them again unless you build more colonies/ships. The effect is that it slows growth, as you already understood, and at some point one will prefer to focus on conquest or colonizing only the most juicy planets, I agree.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#26 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 10:49 pm Well, in that case you are right: when you have some 500 ships and 300 inhabited colonies in play (an example of the numbers you need to make an outpost ship cost more than 1000 PP), outposting a GG just to get the +10PP per planet in that system seems of little use.
But in that case you are playing a huge galaxy indeed, and also getting, what? 10K PP per turn? 20K?
I do not play such huge galaxies, not in SP and certainly not in MP.
10 to 30 K depending on how well I played and the Galaxy topology.
But these 10 to 20 K are actually needed to further expansion and military production so wasting them on upkeep is painful.
Oberlus wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 10:49 pm By the time you can start thinking of not building outposts on GG you have already build more than 50 of them. Until that point, they were no-brainers.
Well, no, and that's the point. Strategic planification means one builds as little upkeep-raising things as one can without hindering one's strategic needs, and this since the beginning of the game.
Oberlus wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 10:49 pm Only colonies increase colony upkeep factor. So it doesn't matter if you have 1 or 100 outposted GG as long as you don't settle Sly on them.
Really ? I never understood that. Guess I'll play differently from now on !
If so, then you are right, GGG are not that expensive and spamming them is a good strategy so yes they might be spamalot.
So I begrudgingly admit that you may be right about getting rid of them, though I like the way they worked differently than other production-enhancing buildings (and making different versions of GG buildings would be much more interesting if they were local - so each Empire could have a different patchwork of them - than Empire-wide).

One way to save them would be to make Outposts with GGG raise upkeep costs maybe ? Then they would stop being a no-brainer...

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#27 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 11:12 pm So [...] GGG are not that expensive and spamming them is a good strategy so yes they might be spamalot.
So I begrudgingly admit that you may be right about getting rid of them, though I like the way they worked differently than other production-enhancing buildings (and making different versions of GG buildings would be much more interesting if they were local - so each Empire could have a different patchwork of them - than Empire-wide).

One way to save them would be to make Outposts with GGG raise upkeep costs maybe ? Then they would stop being a no-brainer...
Even if we make outposts to increse upkeep, so that they require some decision-making (namely: until I have X colonies I can build them on systems with 1 planet, then until Y colonies I can build them in systems with 2 planet, etc.), I don't like the repetitive actions they require: build outpost, queue GGG on it. At least I want to get rid of the GGG queueing. If I build the outpost is because I already did any relevant decision-making, so the extra step of queueing the GGG is just an annoyance. And here I am just repeating what is explained in the very first posts of this thread.
Even if they require some interesting decision-making from the start (and not the IMO relatively boring one I commented above after "namely"), I don't like that I should be having to build them again and again during a single game.

With a central building, the decision-making with or without outpost upkeep is still necessary, and (as I explained before) they still work differently than SOG. So, IMO, a central building achieves all you want without the click click click I want to get rid of.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#28 Post by LienRag »

I guess you're right.

Still, you're aware that you're murdering the Sly, right ?

Most of their planets are not supply-connected to the Industrial Center, Solar Orbital Generator, Black Hole Power Generator, Collective Thought Network, to the extent that they not always build those.

So having something like a "portable SOG/IC" in the form of cheap GGGs was what allowed their distributed empire model.
They'll never be able to afford building your new small wonder everywhere, and depriving them of the main advantage of living on gas giants will be difficult to compensate.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#29 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 1:48 am you're aware that you're murdering the Sly, right ?

Most of their planets are not supply-connected to the Industrial Center, Solar Orbital Generator, Black Hole Power Generator, Collective Thought Network, to the extent that they not always build those.

So having something like a "portable SOG/IC" in the form of cheap GGGs was what allowed their distributed empire model.
They'll never be able to afford building your new small wonder everywhere, and depriving them of the main advantage of living on gas giants will be difficult to compensate.
I didn't thought of that: GGG are the only buildings for industry boosts that are not supply-bound. That's important.
However, there are 2 flat bonus techs, GGG and AA, and AA is not supply-bound.
There are also several early-game, pop-based industry boosts that are also not supply-bound: Rob. Prod., Fusion and Energy Metabolism.
Also, industry-focused empires are expected to have stronger military than research-focused ones, and so be in better position of enforcing/defending their supply.

For the Sly part, I don't agree with the "murdering" part. It would be a drawback, yes, but only for industry-focused strategies. Which are suboptimal for Sly, in my opinion.
When I play Sly, against AI, I set every stranded new GG colony to research, and I rush AA from start. Growth techs, QC, planetary stealth and some hull with stealth capabilities are the other priorities for early-mid game. Even with just AA, I'm forced to build shipyards everywhere (for further silent expansion) to cope with the unused PP, because I can't funnel it all through Imperial Stockpile and it keeps piling up. So I'm not sure I should care about the GGG until mid game, since I don't use them while research-focuses. At some point I begin connecting GGs to my HW thanks to space elevator, even overcoming supply from enemy planets in my systems. Then I build GGG, and get the SOB boost too, in those systems, and switch them to industry for military.
I shall try playing Sly industry-focused to get a real feeling of how important would be this change, but my first tries (long ago) with that strategy seemed clotted to me.

Finally, Sly probably need a boost already, without changing GGG, in MP they seem UP (not enough evidence). I would give them better population and maybe better research (since that would be what would best fit into the strategy I like and find better for them, not a surprise).

Edit: infrastructure consumption from buildings would cripple my Sly preferred strategy if it came accompanied with some form of output malus.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: GG generators are no-brainers

#30 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:03 am When I play Sly, against AI, I set every stranded new GG colony to research, and I rush AA from start.
GGG give the same bonus to Sly but have less research cost, so rushing GGG might make more sense currently.
Oberlus wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:03 am Finally, Sly probably need a boost already, without changing GGG, in MP they seem UP (not enough evidence). I would give them better population and maybe better research (since that would be what would best fit into the strategy I like and find better for them, not a surprise).
I think better research could make them OP.
If the GGG is gone, getting better industry would be more appropriate (although being dependent on population. The industry is important for establishing new colonies as well. Maybe also policies can do something.

Hidden distributed neutral expansion is broken for Sly in MP because stealth is too easy to counter.
So this is part of the stealth story in 0.5 hopefully. If that works we could also do something about gas giant refueling - maybe refill up to half of the tanks on gas giants, so one does not need to establish a presence there.
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!

Post Reply