Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS (+discussion of continuous scanning)

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

Moderators: Oberlus, Committer

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

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#16 Post by Ophiuchus »

wobbly wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 3:26 pm This is not actually true. Symbiot carriers don't have much fuel. Symbiots themselves have 4 with a double fuel tank and 6 with deuterium fuel.
one more data point, symbiotic troopers with two fuel are slightly less efficient than medium hull troopers (but way better structure, speed and range).

symbiotic colony or outpost as range extender has 3 or 4 fuel.

research cost for the fuel upgrade is half the radar and can be delayed after building the ships.

i think symbiots could be hard main reason that they are not so dangerous is that you need the ~18 turns in order to do research and building the incubator, so an enemy could have symbiotics by turn 22.

the intel about going (maybe) for symbiotics is also early, although that empire might go for cheap ships and not stealthy ones.

i think we could delay the policy a bit, make a required building cost 50PP (?). a good-industry bad-research empire might find that quite acceptable early (like 3 turns of empire production) while it may be a bad deal for a bad-industry good-research empire for a while.
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
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#17 Post by LienRag »

Fluff-wise, I'd say build Scanning Thingies in five different systems, rather than another building that will be built in the Capital...

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1875
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#18 Post by wobbly »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 4:29 pm i think we could delay the policy a bit, make a required building cost 50PP (?). a good-industry bad-research empire might find that quite acceptable early (like 3 turns of empire production) while it may be a bad deal for a bad-industry good-research empire for a while.
Well technically it is currently not available at game start and technically you do need to build a building before adopting the policy. You need to build the military command before having a military policy slot. I'm not sure whether you've forgotten this or are proposing a 2nd building on top.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1875
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#19 Post by wobbly »

Ophiuchus wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:57 am my first idea was to make it more flufflike: switch it to decreasing stealth (-20) and only apply it inside own supply (so it works only as a defense).
I'd be happy with something like this. Fluff is patrol ships, bounties for civilian informants, security at space ports. Probably an improved name. Maybe drop the supply malus and keep the influence cost?

Then change continuous scanning so its less powerful against stealth: +10 detection strength and perhaps +10 detection range.

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

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#20 Post by Ophiuchus »

wobbly wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:53 am Well technically it is currently not available at game start and technically you do need to build a building before adopting the policy. You need to build the military command before having a military policy slot. I'm not sure whether you've forgotten this or are proposing a 2nd building on top.
:oops: Forgotten. Just thought, _if_ we delay it we should add PP cost, not RP cost or IP cost. We _could_ though add a second building because the military slot is flexible and not tied to the detection problem (could also make the military command a bit cheaper in that case if necessary).

i guess i like your other suggestion more than adding another building
wobbly wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 7:12 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:57 am my first idea was to make it more flufflike: switch it to decreasing stealth (-20) and only apply it inside own supply (so it works only as a defense).
I'd be happy with something like this. Fluff is patrol ships, bounties for civilian informants, security at space ports. Probably an improved name. Maybe drop the supply malus and keep the influence cost?
no supply malus and keeping influence cost sounds like a reasonable tradeoff. i would like to keep the supply malus because of the different tradeoffs of distributed vs supply-connected empires, but it is too brutal after restricting detection to own supply.

For UI there are two options:
either only directly in supply: simple to understand - if you move into enemy supply, maybe you will encounter their checkpoint control and in turn your stealth would decrease.
Or slightly outside of supply - that means (in many cases) a defending ship positioned on your supply border is probably able to blockade an incoming enemy.

I think up-to-1-hop-outside-supply is more sensible than only-in-supply. Being able to detect the enemy but them still being able to slip past your border force is underwhelming.
For short hops, a defending ship 1-hop outside the border can force the hidden fleet to stop and (possibly) unstealth, so in turn they cant slip by a force directly on the border system. (note i think the other option is way easier to script)
wobbly wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 7:12 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:57 am Then change continuous scanning so its less powerful against stealth: +10 detection strength and perhaps +10 detection range.
yeah, nerfing continuous scanning down to half a step maximum effect sounds very reasonable. At +5 it already works against plain symbiotics; and combined with active radar against flux ships with one ship stealth tech.

could be up to +15 so flux ships are detected as well. not sure that is necessary though, with flux decoherence and the brittleness of the spatial flux hull.

i'd say lets nerf it to +10 ? any objections?
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!

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#21 Post by Daybreak »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:46 am i'd say lets nerf it to +10 ? any objections?
Agree, the extra 10 is superfluous.

However I feel the policy IP cost should also reduce a little as well.

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

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#22 Post by Ophiuchus »

Daybreak wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 12:56 pm However I feel the policy IP cost should also reduce a little as well.
Hm. It is 5 + count-of-ships . The policy upgrades detection range of ships, so seems legit. I will buff the detection range upgrade to +10 instead of +5. Other suggestions?
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: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#23 Post by Oberlus »

I'd be happy with it only working within own supply and not doing the 1-hop away (even if that is to overcome the 1-turn-delay-on-map-effects; that should be "fixed" on its own).

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS (+discussion of continuous scanning)

#24 Post by LienRag »

Sounds nice.

One problem for me : what I liked about Continuous Scanning is how it grows Detection slowly, so you need to plan ahead. If it is nerfed at +10 then growth takes half the time it used to take, meaning one has less to plan ahead.

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS (+discussion of continuous scanning)

#25 Post by Daybreak »

LienRag wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:25 am Sounds nice.

One problem for me : what I liked about Continuous Scanning is how it grows Detection slowly, so you need to plan ahead. If it is nerfed at +10 then growth takes half the time it used to take, meaning one has less to plan ahead.
I don't understand - What do you mean by that Lienrag?

It still takes the same amount of time, +1 increase per turn but you get less of it. Now you have to plan to move on to a Neutron scanner if +10 is not enough.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS (+discussion of continuous scanning)

#26 Post by LienRag »

Well, I mean that the Policy loses its originality since it needed 20 turns to reach its full potential and now it would need only ten.
Considering that the way the game is, the player usually plans naturally 5 turns ahead, that makes a big difference.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1875
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#27 Post by wobbly »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:46 am For UI there are two options:
either only directly in supply: simple to understand - if you move into enemy supply, maybe you will encounter their checkpoint control and in turn your stealth would decrease.
Or slightly outside of supply - that means (in many cases) a defending ship positioned on your supply border is probably able to blockade an incoming enemy.

I think up-to-1-hop-outside-supply is more sensible than only-in-supply. Being able to detect the enemy but them still being able to slip past your border force is underwhelming.
For short hops, a defending ship 1-hop outside the border can force the hidden fleet to stop and (possibly) unstealth, so in turn they cant slip by a force directly on the border system. (note i think the other option is way easier to script)
I suspect Option 1 is both more intuitive and easier to script. Probably worst case scenario is your "hard border" is 1 hop inward from supply edge.

My experience in current MP is making me more in favour of suggested changes by the way. Its turn 66 and I've gone hard into stealth research early. If I try and hide a laenfa colony it'd be 65 stealth (laenfa + ash cloud). o01eg is at 67 detection (neutron scanner + border checkpoints). I could get to 80 with no-supply and he'd see it by adopting active scanning. I could get to 85 with planet stealth 3. He'd see it by adopting active scanning. I could get to 100 with no-supply + stealth 3 (expensive!!). I don't regret going stealth, I plan to back it up with military force, but a "pure stealth" peaceful empire would be doomed, with current balance.

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

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS (+discussion of continuous scanning)

#28 Post by Ophiuchus »

Note for 0.5: a PLC_CHECKPOINTS revamp 0.5 poll was used to flesh out the details.
the implementation for that is in PR-4230.

Kept it is simple as possible. Handling for starlanes in FOCS is currently sub-par.
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