+1 will put on my listLienRag wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:15 pmI believe it would require thinking more thoroughly about balancing stealth and detection and how to decouple them, but if you want to test this quite simple solution I'm fine with it.
Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
Moderators: Oberlus, Committer
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
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!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
- Geoff the Medio
- Programming, Design, Admin
- Posts: 13603
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
- Location: Munich
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
This would be problematic eg. if distant dependant or other scaling of values with position or time, so is not a good limitation to adopt.
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
Then I guess the more intuitive way is detection happens if it is equal or bigger than stealth. And make it clear in the Detection Pedia page.
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
Added discussion Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS
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!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
regarding PLC_CONTINUOUS_SCANNING
oberlus is right though that it is a bit inconsistent that the detection coming from planets and ships gets better (although detection range only increases for ships) while only ships are less stealthy.
if we could make the effect only based on ships that would solve both, E.g. decrease enemy stealth instead of increasing detection, like adding a target meter "unstealthy" to objects and that increases each turn by one when in scanning range. And decreases each turn by one when not in range. I think i would like that mechanism.
Could also add unstealthiness when participating in combat etc.
Note though that unstealthiness would be visible to the owner, so the use cases are restricted by that. For the given two it is fine. For combat there is no issue at all. For continuous scanning it reveals that there is somewhere an enemy active scanner, even if you do not see it. But that fits that policy well.
Not sure it is worth the cost though (two extra meters per object). Probably worth it.
ah, i somehow completely missed that the continuous scanning stealth malus only applies to ships. So hidden empires actually can use the policy currently.
oberlus is right though that it is a bit inconsistent that the detection coming from planets and ships gets better (although detection range only increases for ships) while only ships are less stealthy.
if we could make the effect only based on ships that would solve both, E.g. decrease enemy stealth instead of increasing detection, like adding a target meter "unstealthy" to objects and that increases each turn by one when in scanning range. And decreases each turn by one when not in range. I think i would like that mechanism.
Could also add unstealthiness when participating in combat etc.
Note though that unstealthiness would be visible to the owner, so the use cases are restricted by that. For the given two it is fine. For combat there is no issue at all. For continuous scanning it reveals that there is somewhere an enemy active scanner, even if you do not see it. But that fits that policy well.
Not sure it is worth the cost though (two extra meters per object). Probably worth it.
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!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
the unstealthiness meter(s) would be for adding some kind of state to stealth. currently stealth value gets regenerated every turn from the known game state. (see post above for the basic idea)
having some state is really handy for tracking temporary longer-than-one-turn effects.
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!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:26 am if we could make the effect only based on ships that would solve both, E.g. decrease enemy stealth instead of increasing detection, like adding a target meter "unstealthy" to objects and that increases each turn by one when in scanning range. And decreases each turn by one when not in range. I think i would like that mechanism.
Could also add unstealthiness when participating in combat etc.
Note though that unstealthiness would be visible to the owner, so the use cases are restricted by that. For the given two it is fine. For combat there is no issue at all. For continuous scanning it reveals that there is somewhere an enemy active scanner, even if you do not see it. But that fits that policy well.
I'm usually wary of your attempt at creating persistant unstealthiness (as the hide-and-seek game is imho the more interesting part of stealth) but this particular mechanism seems indeed quite interesting.
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
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!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
You could give outposts the stealth bonus of the capital species.
Also I had 2 random stealth ship ideas. Give Sly ships +20 on GGs (same as krakens), give a bonus for a dyson in system if combat doesn't occur.
Also I had 2 random stealth ship ideas. Give Sly ships +20 on GGs (same as krakens), give a bonus for a dyson in system if combat doesn't occur.
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
Sounds OK to me.
+1 to the stealth bonus to Sly-crewed ships on systems with GGs.
The second one, do you mean giving stealth bonuses to Dyson forests? Also sounds good.
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
Nice idea, as the player will know that there is a potential threat there, and can then plan accordingly.
Not sure about that.
The way it works now, where if you want stealth you use Colony ships (that are a bigger risk than Outposts one since they're so expensive) is quite fine imho.
I don't think that as a general idea, giving stealth bonus to ships of a species that has a stealth bonus on their planet is good.
As of now, following enemy ships is a good way to find where their planets are, which is tactically interesting.
Also, there's my Situational Stealth proposal of yore, which is ready and tested, and gives Stealth bonus on Gas Giants (while being designed to be on a research path not really useful for Sly).
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
Not really keep in mind we are actually trying to fix this issue:
Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 4:13 pm with hidden outposts I try to solve a problem: as a disconnected hidden empire i cant use outposts right from the start - but i should totally expand as fast as possible to find the right places to go - and outposts are the way to do that.
also hiding outposts helps beginners which think that outposting means marking territory (btw we totally should remove that passage from the pedia)
Re: Planetary Stealth and Detection (state of art)
What about:
Outpost: +10 stealth
Asteroid/Gas Giant outpost: +20 stealth
Resonant moon: adds bonus to outposts
Outpost: +10 stealth
Asteroid/Gas Giant outpost: +20 stealth
Resonant moon: adds bonus to outposts