If its effectively going to be a bunch of regular IP payments every x turns it really belongs in influence projects instead of policies. Not sure if IP projects are still part of the master plan.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 9:06 amhow about: remove the prereq and double bureaucracy adoption cost in case centralization is not adopted (so centralization+bureaucracy costs the same as bureaucracy without centralization)? that would maintain a strong synergy between the two policies and remove the adopt/deadopt game.Oberlus wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 12:51 pmYes. It's counterintuitive to me too. I'd like to remove that prerreq for some other reasons.Daybreak wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 12:45 pm Now something I did not know, and the only thing that saved my influence from being negative, was I could now remove Centralization, which saved my influence. Not sure if that is supposed to happen, as Centralization is supposed to be a prerequisite of Bureaucracy. Is that correct?
And yes, Centralization is to be removed always after used for whatever policy you needed first. It cripples IP.
especially a centralized empire would get the cheaper cost every time bureaucracy gets readopted in order to reset the timer.
Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
Moderator: Oberlus
Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.
When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.
When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Re: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
Re: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
Yes. And in that case, that's the same as adding a constant IP cost per turn.wobbly wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 9:58 amIf its effectively going to be a bunch of regular IP payments every x turns it really belongs in influence projects instead of policies. Not sure if IP projects are still part of the master plan.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 9:06 amhow about: remove the prereq and double bureaucracy adoption cost in case centralization is not adopted (so centralization+bureaucracy costs the same as bureaucracy without centralization)? that would maintain a strong synergy between the two policies and remove the adopt/deadopt game.
especially a centralized empire would get the cheaper cost every time bureaucracy gets readopted in order to reset the timer.
I think I just don't like the way Bureacracy works currently. Having to reset the empire's bureaucracy periodically is boring (and nonsensical to me). I would prefer something about increasing or decreasing colony upkeep depending on the ratio colonies/IRAs.
Re: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
well said. +1 to changing Bureaucracy policy to a constant influence cost based on that ratio; having the cost as big lumps of prepaid IP at certain points in time does not add much i think (multi prepaid lump payments is notably different from the normal costs - but probably not better).Oberlus wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 10:15 amYes. And in that case, that's the same as adding a constant IP cost per turn.wobbly wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 9:58 amIf its effectively going to be a bunch of regular IP payments every x turns it really belongs in influence projects instead of policies. Not sure if IP projects are still part of the master plan.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 9:06 am how about: remove the prereq and double bureaucracy adoption cost in case centralization is not adopted (so centralization+bureaucracy costs the same as bureaucracy without centralization)? that would maintain a strong synergy between the two policies and remove the adopt/deadopt game.
especially a centralized empire would get the cheaper cost every time bureaucracy gets readopted in order to reset the timer.
I think I just don't like the way Bureacracy works currently. Having to reset the empire's bureaucracy periodically is boring (and nonsensical to me). I would prefer something about increasing or decreasing colony upkeep depending on the ratio colonies/IRAs.
deciding not to conquer is ok (actually adding species to empire only depending on situation is good). if you do not have access to a +1 pilot species (or your empire is small) you probably would still accept the troubles (at least for a while). i think we should have more of these situations and good options to make use of non-conquered planets. the main problem could be "unfairness" in multi-player games between natural fits of policies/species mix (which are too complex to balance).drkosy wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 3:29 pmActually they are so troublesome I just didn't conquer their worlds. The difference to +1 pilots (especially etty) are to low to cripple your whole empire by choosing some policies just to increase the happiness of 1 species.+1 pilots are worse than +2 pilots, and playable +2 pilots come with their own problems, so it's OK that the native +2 pilots are troublesome as well.
on the other hand maybe you can sell conquering the "unusable planet" to a different empire (or you need to eradicate it before it falls into enemy hand) - both are interesting options.
i think this is also ok. only dislike the "military" shipyards. dual-use shipyards which could be ok fluff-wise: shipyard (necessary for colonisation), orbital drydock (stealthy scouts and colonies, repair), orbital incubator (better scouts and colonies), asteroid processor (mass-produce-cheaper scouts and colonies), energy compressor (fast stealthy scouts). All the other shipyards clearly enable designs only which are not better at scouting/colonisation so the mu ursh will hate them.
Balance wise i would dislike asteroid processors (those are anyway on the asteroid belt, so for the mu ursh only in system and not on the planet), also you would rarely build those an asteroid processor only for scouts or colonizers (the cheapness does only matter if you produce a lot; camouflage asteroid hulls make sense though as scouts/colonizers).
Orbital drydock enables spatial flux composite hull, which is currently clearly military (unless we add research core part or similar), but the other two hulls in that line . Same goes for orbital incubator and static multicellular hull.
Energy compressor also enables the clearly military energy frigate (late mid game); so not disliking only if that hull is a bad deal currently.
Of course we could change shipyard hierarchy for clearer separation into non-military/military ones (e.g. static multicell hull/flux composite hull) needing an add-on building.
Going this road with current content i would make Mu Ursh not dislike basic shipyard, orbital incubator and drydock.
Another solution is distance-based cost for buildings (which I would prefer because you could set up clusters), but that has its own can of worms. Hard limits/cutoffs lead to ugly puzzle mini-games. Linear (or similar formula) cost decrease makes for non-integer and hard to predict numbers (we have that already now by using square root). Maybe premature concern: Cost of calculation is much higher.
Prediction is already now a UI problem - what will it look like if i colonise this planet with Mu Ursh? What will change if i add a <building> to this planet?
Distance based cost for buildings can be both better and worse in this regard. Worse because currently the change is everywhere the same. Better because currently it effects all planets and not just a local region.
Somebody can find/link the distance-based cost discussion for buildings please?
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: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
Either Orbital Incubator or Drydocks are my main military shipyards for early and mid game.
Re: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
Another possibility is to cap the penalty at the in-sytem penalty (modified by liberty/conformance). So building the shipyard on a mu ursh colony is -4 and building 20 shipyards on other planets is still -4.
Re: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
so getting Mu Ursh early would have big dividends without much downsides (i think it is usually practically only possible early mid game). If tech gets better, they get harder to use (and maybe you give them independence then). Sounds like a less steep learning curve. Would also be ok for me.
Also (part of) a solution would be to count all that drydocks,incubators,... before applying the square root.
It does seem weird that having 100 incubators costs the same as having 25 incubators and 25 shipyards.
But that would need some kind of grouping feature.
Or we could count up all disliked buildings and then apply the square root.
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: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
It only should be possible to see what building cause the malus on stability. I often miss to remove scanning facilities on captured AI planets lowering the stability for exobot. If there is only on "dislike 10 buildings" I can't guess where to look for them.Or we could count up all disliked buildings and then apply the square root.
Want some fresh experience? Try Kosymod
Re: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
Right.drkosy wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 5:00 pmIt only should be possible to see what building cause the malus on stability. I often miss to remove scanning facilities on captured AI planets lowering the stability for exobot. If there is only on "dislike 10 buildings" I can't guess where to look for them.Or we could count up all disliked buildings and then apply the square root.
I don't like this one because it doesn't make it easier for Mu Ursh (the problem comes mostly from the malus in the same planet), but makes it easier to spam certain buildings as long as it's not in the same system or planet than the species that dislike it.
Re: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
You would still get your "dislikes" effects for all building types (so it will show), but the numbers will be lower.drkosy wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 5:00 pmIt only should be possible to see what building cause the malus on stability. I often miss to remove scanning facilities on captured AI planets lowering the stability for exobot. If there is only on "dislike 10 buildings" I can't guess where to look for them.Or we could count up all disliked buildings and then apply the square root.
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: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
I think a good starting point is to give them good stability and remove the dislike of basic shipyard. See how they play with the latest changes to liberty.
Re: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
I'm seeing a potential issue with disliking the early shipyards. It's possibly optimal to pull down then rebuild the cheaper shipyards when not in use. I'll have more to say when I've tested it in practice.
Re: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
Well, that means you have to know 4 turns in advance that you want to build a ship. But yes, if the non-existing yard puts the stability over 10 on a big production planet, you may easily win more than you lose. And, oh, well you could immediately start rebuilding it and stop just one turn before its finished...
Of course fluff wise it does not make sense to allow it. The extend ship yards are all described is upgrades of the basic ship yard, so you should not be able to scrap the basic one without destroying the others. I guess we could put an effect on all upgrades, that destroys them when there is no basic ship yard on the same planet. But somehow I don't like the idea. Any better ideas?
Re: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
How hard would it be to change the dislike to an armed fleet count, instead of the actual shipyards?Grummel7 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:57 pmWell, that means you have to know 4 turns in advance that you want to build a ship. But yes, if the non-existing yard puts the stability over 10 on a big production planet, you may easily win more than you lose. And, oh, well you could immediately start rebuilding it and stop just one turn before its finished...
Of course fluff wise it does not make sense to allow it. The extend ship yards are all described is upgrades of the basic ship yard, so you should not be able to scrap the basic one without destroying the others. I guess we could put an effect on all upgrades, that destroys them when there is no basic ship yard on the same planet. But somehow I don't like the idea. Any better ideas?
Re: Mu Ursh - now too hard to play
Would that not in the end just make them as hard to use as they are now.
Why not -
Keep all current dislikes but only when they build on their planet, except basic shipyard, and then not dislike a certain path like Energy ships, which many do not use at first anyway.
So
dislike all organic ship buildings on their planet
dislike all robotic ship buildings on their planet - Robotic, Self Grav, Titans, etc
dislike all nano robotic ship buildings on their planet
This would allow Mu Ursh to be used for the energy ship buildings only, unless some makes major changes near the end of the game
would also give a boost to use of energy ships