Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
Moderator: Oberlus
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
I feel the need to chime in. First I want to say I'm glad you could defuse the tension that had been raised here. Labgnome, I hope you can accept Oberlus apologies.
Second, I think I need to point out that the idea presented in the OP isn't actually labgnome's idea, it has been around for quite a long time, labgnome only picked it up. The one who originally came up with it had been Geoff, he even implemented a simple, working framework. Two buildings (drydock and shipyrd IIRC) had been given infrastructure-reducing effects for testing purposes, and that has been it pretty much - nothing more had been done subsequently. As the mechanic was only annoying in this state, the infrastructure-reducing effects had been removed from the buildings which had them some time ago (again, IIRC).
Third, I myself have repeatedly suggested to further develop the idea, because I liked it. I was one of those who see/saw the fact that you can just pile buildings on a colony without restrictions as an issue that needs to be addressed. However, Oberlus has made some important points regarding the issues/problems of such a mechanic, and he is right, if all such a mechanic accomplishes is adding micromanagement because you now need to take infrastructure consumption of buildings into consideration when placing them, without really achieving the intended goal of making building placement more of a strategic choice, the mechanic is pointless.
That said, I would not rule out that the proposed mechanic can't be designed in a way that actually achieves the intended goal. Maybe it only needs more thought and a few good ideas to make it work. Then again, given the current game mechanics, that might turn out to be quite difficult to get right. Too many buildings where location isn't important (aside from having to be supply connected, which is negligible since you always strive to have your entire empire supply connected), too many buildings which are already tied to specific locations anyway, too less buildings which would actually have to compete for placement on the same colony.
I want to cautiously question the validity of the centralized vs. decentralized argument in this context though: While it is true that piling all important buildings in one place (your capital in most cases) has the disadvantage of loosing them all if you loose that location, the advantage of the easier defensibility far outweighs this drawback (especially in single player games), so this decision is a no-brainer. Which in turn makes if you see being able to pile buidings without restrictions as an issue a matter of personal preference, where one is as good as the other, and thus can't really be used pro or con the proposal.
Regarding influence costs vs infrastructure costs: These two actually have nothing to do with each other. Influence costs for buildings address a completely different issue (spamming of buildings) than infrastructure costs (strategic placement of buildings). So the influence cost thing can be completely left out of this discussion.
The real questions are whether strategic placement of buildings/the ability to pile buildings without restrictions on a colony actually is an issue at all that needs addressing, and whether the proposed mechanic actually addresses the issue satisfactorily, or how such a mechanic needs to work to achieve that. The first question is probably the one which needs to be answered first...
Second, I think I need to point out that the idea presented in the OP isn't actually labgnome's idea, it has been around for quite a long time, labgnome only picked it up. The one who originally came up with it had been Geoff, he even implemented a simple, working framework. Two buildings (drydock and shipyrd IIRC) had been given infrastructure-reducing effects for testing purposes, and that has been it pretty much - nothing more had been done subsequently. As the mechanic was only annoying in this state, the infrastructure-reducing effects had been removed from the buildings which had them some time ago (again, IIRC).
Third, I myself have repeatedly suggested to further develop the idea, because I liked it. I was one of those who see/saw the fact that you can just pile buildings on a colony without restrictions as an issue that needs to be addressed. However, Oberlus has made some important points regarding the issues/problems of such a mechanic, and he is right, if all such a mechanic accomplishes is adding micromanagement because you now need to take infrastructure consumption of buildings into consideration when placing them, without really achieving the intended goal of making building placement more of a strategic choice, the mechanic is pointless.
That said, I would not rule out that the proposed mechanic can't be designed in a way that actually achieves the intended goal. Maybe it only needs more thought and a few good ideas to make it work. Then again, given the current game mechanics, that might turn out to be quite difficult to get right. Too many buildings where location isn't important (aside from having to be supply connected, which is negligible since you always strive to have your entire empire supply connected), too many buildings which are already tied to specific locations anyway, too less buildings which would actually have to compete for placement on the same colony.
I want to cautiously question the validity of the centralized vs. decentralized argument in this context though: While it is true that piling all important buildings in one place (your capital in most cases) has the disadvantage of loosing them all if you loose that location, the advantage of the easier defensibility far outweighs this drawback (especially in single player games), so this decision is a no-brainer. Which in turn makes if you see being able to pile buidings without restrictions as an issue a matter of personal preference, where one is as good as the other, and thus can't really be used pro or con the proposal.
Regarding influence costs vs infrastructure costs: These two actually have nothing to do with each other. Influence costs for buildings address a completely different issue (spamming of buildings) than infrastructure costs (strategic placement of buildings). So the influence cost thing can be completely left out of this discussion.
The real questions are whether strategic placement of buildings/the ability to pile buildings without restrictions on a colony actually is an issue at all that needs addressing, and whether the proposed mechanic actually addresses the issue satisfactorily, or how such a mechanic needs to work to achieve that. The first question is probably the one which needs to be answered first...
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
Truth is I had forgotten the quality of no-brainer that building everything at capital is. It is a no-brainer, in fact, with current mechanics. So I say it is an issue worth addressing, as spotted by you and labgnome (and others, I guess). So I was wrong, indeed.Vezzra wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:30 pmI want to cautiously question the validity of the centralized vs. decentralized argument in this context though: While it is true that piling all important buildings in one place (your capital in most cases) has the disadvantage of loosing them all if you loose that location, the advantage of the easier defensibility far outweighs this drawback (especially in single player games), so this decision is a no-brainer. Which in turn makes if you see being able to pile buildings without restrictions as an issue a matter of personal preference, where one is as good as the other, and thus can't really be used pro or con the proposal.
Regarding influence costs vs infrastructure costs: These two actually have nothing to do with each other. Influence costs for buildings address a completely different issue (spamming of buildings) than infrastructure costs (strategic placement of buildings). So the influence cost thing can be completely left out of this discussion.
The real questions are whether strategic placement of buildings/the ability to pile buildings without restrictions on a colony actually is an issue at all that needs addressing, and whether the proposed mechanic actually addresses the issue satisfactorily, or how such a mechanic needs to work to achieve that. The first question is probably the one which needs to be answered first...
We could fuse both ideas: require influence upkeep for buildings, and increase such costs the more buildings are concentrated in the same planet, adjusted by infrastructure so that the more infrastructure you have the less influence upkeep. Thus, you get an advantage from not building everything on the same planet: less influence cost, removing the no-brainer issue if correctly balanced.
And thus, centralised strategies should aim for techs and policies that increase infrastructure in designated worlds (homeworlds?), including a unique building meant to increase infrastructure of the planet it is build on (we got one already: Megalith), which wouldn't be a micromanagement issue if it is a unique building.
Decentralised strategies could neglect those techs/policies and focus on something else (combat, population, expansion, etc.), which is an advantage over going centralised.
This could work even without the influence upkeep, as you two said: the advantage of going decentralised would come from the investment (RPs, PPs) you don't need to make on extra infrastructure in your central world.
However, it wouldn't be a real gamechanger, in the sense that we could be moving the no-brainer from one place to another: most people could just assume that going decentralised is the way to go (less influence, RPs and PPs required, or just RPs and PPs if we leave influence upkeep aside), building the extra buildings in the planet/s next to the capital, so that one fleet can protect all relevant planets as is the case when concentrating buildings in a single system (unless systems with planets are far away from each other).
Now, the stuff pointed out by labgnome: the shipyard buildings. If we make it to require more infrastructure than base one for specialised shipyards to be built in the same planet (say shipyard, drydock and geo. facility), we can resort to techs/policies/buildings that increase infrastructure on all planets IFF there is some other way to restrict building spam (that is, influence upkeep), otherwise we are allowing all buildings on all planets and that's not a solution for strategic placement and neither for building spam.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
Apology accepted. I think this was just a breakdown in communication. Now hopefully we can get back to collaboration.
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.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
As I said, I am open to s a system that does both. Perhaps building influence cost could be partially negated by infrastructure. This would mean that buildings built at outposts would cost more influence upkeep, as outposts have no infrastructure. If buildings also consume infrastructure this means that less of their upkeep will be negated the more buildings you build on a planet. The question I have is do we want buildings to be able to consume all of the infrastructure on a colony or do we want to ensure there is some left-over? Maybe have required infrastructure and consumed infrastructure be different values.Oberlus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:38 pmWe could fuse both ideas: require influence upkeep for buildings, and increase such costs the more buildings are concentrated in the same planet, adjusted by infrastructure so that the more infrastructure you have the less influence upkeep. Thus, you get an advantage from not building everything on the same planet: less influence cost, removing the no-brainer issue if correctly balanced.
Maybe give an infrastructure boost tied to the Cultural Archives & Cultural Library. Say a tech: "Advanced Homeworld Infrastructure Programs" that gives an additional 5 infrastructure to planets with those buildings. Maybe another tech could give a boost to the capitol's infrastructure, say: "Central Ecumenopolis" this one boosting the capitol's Infrastructure by another 5.And thus, centralised strategies should aim for techs and policies that increase infrastructure in designated worlds (homeworlds?), including a unique building meant to increase infrastructure of the planet it is build on (we got one already: Megalith), which wouldn't be a micromanagement issue if it is a unique building.
I like this idea of combining infrastructure consumption and influence upkeep. I think it might be the best way to mutually accomplish our goals.Now, the stuff pointed out by labgnome: the shipyard buildings. If we make it to require more infrastructure than base one for specialised shipyards to be built in the same planet (say shipyard, drydock and geo. facility), we can resort to techs/policies/buildings that increase infrastructure on all planets IFF there is some other way to restrict building spam (that is, influence upkeep), otherwise we are allowing all buildings on all planets and that's not a solution for strategic placement and neither for building spam.
For general infrastructure boosting techs I am thinking: "Subterranean Infrastructure" that would increase infrastructure by 5 and "Orbital Infrastructure" that would increase infrastructure by another 5.
As far as policies go I am thinking that the Environmental Adaptation policies will add +10 infrastructure to planets of the appropriate metabolism type. Though that means it's not a completely universal boost. Civil Engineering policies would subtract -10 infrastructure for the appropriate metabolism type.
When combined with N-Dimensional Structures, the Abandoned Colony Special, and the Megalith, that gives a maximum possible infrastructure of 110 at your capitol and 40-60 for a "typical" colony.
I am currently working out ideas about infrastructure consumption for buildings.
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.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
So I have put some thought into the costs in infrastructure and influence for buildings.
As a general rule I am suggesting that buildings require 5 more infrastructure than they consume, that way there is always some left-over infrastructure for shield regeneration. Buildings buildable at outposts will not consume infrastructure, so will still be buildable anywhere. For most buildings I am suggesting that the free infrastructure will be subtracted from the influence cost. The exception being shipyards which will I am suggesting have a flat influence cost, independent of infrastructure.
All infrastructure costs are calculated to the cost of typical colonies, so they will max out at 35. Typical buildings will also have their influence costs calculated in proportion to this infrastructure value. Wonders influence cost will be set proportional to the capitol's maximum infrastructure. This way it should still be possible to centralize some building construction at your capitol to some degree while still enforcing some strategic placement of buildings. Given that the capitol will be able to have about twice as much infrastructure (give or take) as a typical colony, the minimum influence cost should have a floor of 0, so that we do not get negative influence "costs" for typical buildings built at the capitol.
None of these numbers are meant to be final and are just meant to be starting points.
Shipyards
For shipyards I am including the ideas from my shipyards and hull-lines rework topic. So the Advanced Engineering Bay, Geo-Integration Facility and (Nano)Robotic Processing Unit are separate hull-lines, and I am including the monster growth buildings, and the "zombie" hulls are semi-separated into a half-line. The idea is that each hull-line will cost the same in influence as the shipyard, thus doubling the cost to produce a full hull-line.
Wonders & Megastructures
Here I am including my own idea for an influence-producing wonder, the communications array. Just to round things out. I also have some further ideas about megastructures that might expand this list in the near future.
Specialty Buildings
The specialty buildings, are the ones that give special foci to planets. I have ideas about changing the bioterror projection base that would change this arrangement, but the values should still be good.
Other Buildings (coming soon...)
As a general rule I am suggesting that buildings require 5 more infrastructure than they consume, that way there is always some left-over infrastructure for shield regeneration. Buildings buildable at outposts will not consume infrastructure, so will still be buildable anywhere. For most buildings I am suggesting that the free infrastructure will be subtracted from the influence cost. The exception being shipyards which will I am suggesting have a flat influence cost, independent of infrastructure.
All infrastructure costs are calculated to the cost of typical colonies, so they will max out at 35. Typical buildings will also have their influence costs calculated in proportion to this infrastructure value. Wonders influence cost will be set proportional to the capitol's maximum infrastructure. This way it should still be possible to centralize some building construction at your capitol to some degree while still enforcing some strategic placement of buildings. Given that the capitol will be able to have about twice as much infrastructure (give or take) as a typical colony, the minimum influence cost should have a floor of 0, so that we do not get negative influence "costs" for typical buildings built at the capitol.
None of these numbers are meant to be final and are just meant to be starting points.
Shipyards
For shipyards I am including the ideas from my shipyards and hull-lines rework topic. So the Advanced Engineering Bay, Geo-Integration Facility and (Nano)Robotic Processing Unit are separate hull-lines, and I am including the monster growth buildings, and the "zombie" hulls are semi-separated into a half-line. The idea is that each hull-line will cost the same in influence as the shipyard, thus doubling the cost to produce a full hull-line.
Building | Consumed Infrastructure | Required Infrastructure | Influence Upkeep |
Basic Shipyard | 5 | 10 | 10 |
Orbital Drydock | 15 | 20 | 20 |
Neutronium Forge | 5 | 10 | 5 |
Advanced Engineering Bay | 25 | 30 | 10 |
Asteroid Processor | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Asteroid Reformation Processor | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Energy Compressor | 10 | 15 | 5 |
Solar Containment Unit | 15 | 20 | 5 |
Geo-Integration Facility | 25 | 30 | 10 |
Orbital Incubator | 15 | 20 | 5 |
Cellular Growth Chamber | 10 | 15 | 5 |
Growth Pen | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Maturation Chamber | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Xenocoordination Facility | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Robotic Processing Unit | 20 | 25 | 10 |
Wonders & Megastructures
Here I am including my own idea for an influence-producing wonder, the communications array. Just to round things out. I also have some further ideas about megastructures that might expand this list in the near future.
Building | Consumed Infrastructure | Required Infrastructure | Influence Upkeep |
Industrial Center | 25 | 30 | 95 - infrastructure |
Enclave of the Void | 25 | 30 | 95 - infrastructure |
Communications Array | 25 | 30 | 95 - infrastructure |
Solar Orbital Generator | 0 | 0 | 120 - infrastructure |
Black Hole Power Generator | 0 | 0 | 120 - infrastructure |
Hyperspacial Dam | 35 | 40 | 85 - infrastructure |
Collective Thought Network | 35 | 40 | 85 - infrastructure |
Genome Bank | 25 | 30 | 95 - infrastructure |
Megalith | 0 | 0 | 120 - infrastructure |
Specialty Buildings
The specialty buildings, are the ones that give special foci to planets. I have ideas about changing the bioterror projection base that would change this arrangement, but the values should still be good.
Building | Consumed Infrastructure | Required Infrastructure | Influence Upkeep |
Bioterror Projection Base | 15 | 20 | 55 - infrastructure |
Planetary Starlane Drive | 15 | 20 | 55 - infrastructure |
Stargate | 15 | 20 | 55 - infrastructure |
Spacial Distortion Generator | 15 | 20 | 55 - infrastructure |
Transformer | 35 | 40 | 45 - infrastructure |
Other Buildings (coming soon...)
Building | Consumed Infrastructure | Required Infrastructure | Influence Upkeep |
Building | Consumed Infrastructure | Required Infrastructure | Influence Upkeep |
Last edited by labgnome on Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
Tying influence and infrastrcture costs for buildings is an interesting idea, influence costs increase exponentially instead of linearly the more buildings you put on the same planet, and the infrastructure of a colony would act as a influence cost reducing factor, so high infrastructure would counter that exponentially growing influence costs. There are probably several ways how to exactly implement this (see the suggestions by others above), my approach would be as follows:
The advantage of turning a colony's infrastructure into a soft cap instead of it being just a countering factor would be (IMO) that it's more intuitive and easier to understand for the player. (Stellaris fleet capacity works the same way). In my experience caps are easier to understand and track. As player you just need to pay attention if a certain value/stat goes over a certain cap. If not, everything is fine, no more thinking needs to be done if you can optimize things even more, and only if the cap is exceeded you need to invest brain power in determining if things can be optimized and how. Without cap, you most likely can always optimize a colony (or it's far more likely that with each turn and change of relevant stats optimizations become possible), and that can quickly become very micromanagy.
A completely different approach could be to keep the infrastructure requirement and influence costs of buildings strictly separate/independent of each other, and instead try to achieve the centralized vs. decentralized dynamic differently, by introducing an infrastructure focus, and then have boni (provided as usual by techs, buildings, specials, policies, whatever) that, like many of the resource production boni, increase infrastructure only on infrastructure focused colonies. A centralized empire would then aim for those boni, and have only a few (infrastructure focused) colonies which would be the centers where most of the buildings are concentrated.
A decentralized empire would aim for flat boni that (also like many of the resource production boni) apply to all colonies (regardless of focus setting). These boni would be typically lower than those for focused worlds of course, and force spreading out your buildings across more colonies, but have the advantage of not having to dedicate colonies to infrastructure focus.
Infrastructure focused colonies would then represent worlds like Coruscant, Trantor, etc. We could also make it so that highly developed shipyard worlds (where you have maxed out shipyard extensions) would only be possible with infrastructure focus. Could counter the build shipyards everywhere very effectively, selecting colonies for your shipyards would become a very important strategic choice, etc.
- Each building has a basic infrastructure requirement and influence maintenance costs.
- As long as the sum of the infrastructure requirements of all the buildings on a colony is below the colony's infrastructure, the influence maintenance costs of the buildings are just the basic (or "normal") influence costs of those buildings.
- If the sum of the influence requirements of all the buildings is greater than the infrastructure of the colony, the influence costs for the buildings are increased exponentially.
The advantage of turning a colony's infrastructure into a soft cap instead of it being just a countering factor would be (IMO) that it's more intuitive and easier to understand for the player. (Stellaris fleet capacity works the same way). In my experience caps are easier to understand and track. As player you just need to pay attention if a certain value/stat goes over a certain cap. If not, everything is fine, no more thinking needs to be done if you can optimize things even more, and only if the cap is exceeded you need to invest brain power in determining if things can be optimized and how. Without cap, you most likely can always optimize a colony (or it's far more likely that with each turn and change of relevant stats optimizations become possible), and that can quickly become very micromanagy.
A completely different approach could be to keep the infrastructure requirement and influence costs of buildings strictly separate/independent of each other, and instead try to achieve the centralized vs. decentralized dynamic differently, by introducing an infrastructure focus, and then have boni (provided as usual by techs, buildings, specials, policies, whatever) that, like many of the resource production boni, increase infrastructure only on infrastructure focused colonies. A centralized empire would then aim for those boni, and have only a few (infrastructure focused) colonies which would be the centers where most of the buildings are concentrated.
A decentralized empire would aim for flat boni that (also like many of the resource production boni) apply to all colonies (regardless of focus setting). These boni would be typically lower than those for focused worlds of course, and force spreading out your buildings across more colonies, but have the advantage of not having to dedicate colonies to infrastructure focus.
Infrastructure focused colonies would then represent worlds like Coruscant, Trantor, etc. We could also make it so that highly developed shipyard worlds (where you have maxed out shipyard extensions) would only be possible with infrastructure focus. Could counter the build shipyards everywhere very effectively, selecting colonies for your shipyards would become a very important strategic choice, etc.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
I'm a bit wary of that particular idea. Sounds like it would make things unnecessarily complicated - you don't really need that to have infrastructure act as a influence costs reducer.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
Apologies about some more confused questions.
A while back i asked about what makes infrastructure grow, and the answer was "n-dimentional structures". I did some quick research on my local copy of FO and it looks like there is a base level assigned to each race (20), increased on the capital by Imperial Palace (+20), then decreased via a shipyard (-10) leaving 30. Presumably other buildings subtract their own costs?
If i understand this correctly a non-capital colony will have starting infrastructure of whatever the race gives (20 in my case). Without researching n-dimensional structures:
o One one not be able to build both a shipyard (-5) and an orbital incubator (-15) on the same planet if you're reserving 5 for shields?
o Does that mean orbital incubators no longer need shipyards before being built?
o Even so, incubators (-15) and cellular growth chambers (-10) can't be built on the planet?
o One could not build a geo-integration facility on any planet except the capital (-5 shipyard, -20 dry dock, -25 geo = -50) even with n-dim. struct.?
Seems Very Restrictive.
Probably i'm missing something here.
A while back i asked about what makes infrastructure grow, and the answer was "n-dimentional structures". I did some quick research on my local copy of FO and it looks like there is a base level assigned to each race (20), increased on the capital by Imperial Palace (+20), then decreased via a shipyard (-10) leaving 30. Presumably other buildings subtract their own costs?
If i understand this correctly a non-capital colony will have starting infrastructure of whatever the race gives (20 in my case). Without researching n-dimensional structures:
o One one not be able to build both a shipyard (-5) and an orbital incubator (-15) on the same planet if you're reserving 5 for shields?
o Does that mean orbital incubators no longer need shipyards before being built?
o Even so, incubators (-15) and cellular growth chambers (-10) can't be built on the planet?
o One could not build a geo-integration facility on any planet except the capital (-5 shipyard, -20 dry dock, -25 geo = -50) even with n-dim. struct.?
Seems Very Restrictive.
Probably i'm missing something here.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
Firstly, I apparently miscalculated, to some degree. I will have to go back and re-asses my numbers. Thanks for spotting that. I was assuming all colonies start with 30, not 20. I will re-adjust my numbers.JonCST wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 4:44 pm Apologies about some more confused questions.
A while back i asked about what makes infrastructure grow, and the answer was "n-dimentional structures". I did some quick research on my local copy of FO and it looks like there is a base level assigned to each race (20), increased on the capital by Imperial Palace (+20), then decreased via a shipyard (-10) leaving 30. Presumably other buildings subtract their own costs?
If i understand this correctly a non-capital colony will have starting infrastructure of whatever the race gives (20 in my case). Without researching n-dimensional structures:
o One one not be able to build both a shipyard (-5) and an orbital incubator (-15) on the same planet if you're reserving 5 for shields?
o Does that mean orbital incubators no longer need shipyards before being built?
o Even so, incubators (-15) and cellular growth chambers (-10) can't be built on the planet?
o One could not build a geo-integration facility on any planet except the capital (-5 shipyard, -20 dry dock, -25 geo = -50) even with n-dim. struct.?
Seems Very Restrictive.
Probably i'm missing something here.
You are also missing that I proposed that there would be further infrastructure boosting techs. With the idea that by the late game the typical colony would have around 50 infrastructure give-or-take, and the capitol around 100 infrastructure (with megalith). I'd still like to keep those target numbers. But the rest might need some re-adjusting. So you might need to research some infrastructure boosting techs to be able to support your next-level shipyard upgrade. Geo-Integration is intended to have at least one infrastructure boosting tech researched, before you can build it, you are basically constructing moon-sized ships there.
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.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
I can see two problems with a soft, rather than a hard cap. The first problem I can see with a soft cap is that new players are likely to shoot themselves in the foot with it. The second problem I can see is that a soft cap might not be able to be made into an effective cap, especially later in the game. Basically that it could cripple some players out of the gate, wile being completely ineffective in its design goals with other players.
A completely different approach could be to keep the infrastructure requirement and influence costs of buildings strictly separate/independent of each other, and instead try to achieve the centralized vs. decentralized dynamic differently, by introducing an infrastructure focus, and then have boni (provided as usual by techs, buildings, specials, policies, whatever) that, like many of the resource production boni, increase infrastructure only on infrastructure focused colonies.
So the idea intrigues me, but I do have a concern: what happens to the buildings when say an infrastructure focused planet, that has a lot of buildings, chances its infrastructure focus to a different focus?
I could see this working along with the existing centralization policies I have already suggested. As they give focus-independent boosts to the main resources.A centralized empire would then aim for those boni, and have only a few (infrastructure focused) colonies which would be the centers where most of the buildings are concentrated.
So I am thinking that the focus-dependent tech and building bonuses could be in the range of 10-20, maxing out at 100, with the initial focus boost being by 10 infrastructure. While the focus-independent tech and building bonuses could be in the range of 5 to 10 maxing out at 50.A decentralized empire would aim for flat boni that (also like many of the resource production boni) apply to all colonies (regardless of focus setting). These boni would be typically lower than those for focused worlds of course, and force spreading out your buildings across more colonies, but have the advantage of not having to dedicate colonies to infrastructure focus.
I would make the Megalith a focus-dependent building and reduce it's boost to 20. I would bring back the Black Hole Power Generator's infrastructure boost, at a value of 10.
I like this idea, of having to specially select worlds for your advanced shipyards.Infrastructure focused colonies would then represent worlds like Coruscant, Trantor, etc. We could also make it so that highly developed shipyard worlds (where you have maxed out shipyard extensions) would only be possible with infrastructure focus. Could counter the build shipyards everywhere very effectively, selecting colonies for your shipyards would become a very important strategic choice, etc.
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.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
I'm much in favor of Vezzra's proposal. Good job.
I think the opposite. It will be able to be an effective cap late game and that's because it will not cripple anyone. That's true for the whole influence upkeep idea.
You can dismiss that fear. With influence upkeep for ships and planets, that "shot in the foot" will be a possibility everywhere in the game. It's what comes along with the control of the exponential growth. Anyway, problem with a building consuming too much influence? Don't panic, scrap it. No empires falling down.
Strong wordsa soft cap might not be able to be made into an effective cap, especially later in the game. Basically that it could cripple some players out of the gate, wile being completely ineffective in its design goals with other players.
I think the opposite. It will be able to be an effective cap late game and that's because it will not cripple anyone. That's true for the whole influence upkeep idea.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
I suppose you mean their first proposal, or do you mean either one?
I suppose to clarify my concern is our ability to communicate this to players. We will have to change the UI for infrastructure to show both the value and the "used infrastructure", and I'm not sure that it will be easy to keep track of for players. Just having buildings consume infrastructure requires no changes to the UI and is more strait-forward in my opinion.You can dismiss that fear. With influence upkeep for ships and planets, that "shot in the foot" will be a possibility everywhere in the game. It's what comes along with the control of the exponential growth. Anyway, problem with a building consuming too much influence? Don't panic, scrap it. No empires falling down.
Perhaps we could have buildings consume infrastructure, but still be buildable without it. I think that shield regeneration already has a minimum recharge rate, so it should actually be functional. We could then have influence costs rise exponentially on planets without infrastructure.
I will say that I am more in favor of the infrastructure-focus idea, especially as a requirement for the placement of the shipyard upgrades. I'd be interested in your thoughts on 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.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
Ah, I see your point now.
I guess we could use the influence meter icons for that, both the one in the upper part of the screen (for the whole empire) and the one on each planet. Make it reddish or something and show a tooltip with incomes and expenses of influence, with the propper labels, to inform the player of what is consuming his influence.
Also, or instead, the infrastructure meter on each planet could be shown red when buildings are consuming more infrastructure than available, and the icon will show a tooltip with the infrastructure consumption of each building, for the player to scrap or now what he wants. The galaxy map could show a warning sign on systems with this situation. This last one is the way I like more.
That's and option. And show a negative, red number for infrastructure, and the player knows that the lower that number the extra influence expenses in that planet. But I still think leaving alone the infrastructure meter is better.
Regarding the infrastructure planetary focus, I think it can go well with any method. But I don't know if it would help much to balance the centralised strategies. It's just one planet you need to comit to that. Build all your stuff in non-homeworld planet and you are sacrificing nothing in terms of game efficiency. So I think the method would be better working out without the infrastructure focus, we got enough foci already.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
I think that this system is workable without touching the infrastructure meter as it could just go to zero. As we could just have the exponential influence increase kick in at zero infrastructure. Maybe something like this:
If Infrastructure > 0, InfluenceUpkeep = constant
If Infrastructure = 0, InfluenceUpkeep = (constant)^(2N buildings)
Although a red negative number could also work. Maybe with a function something like this:
InfluenceUpkeep = (constant)^(-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.
Re: Make Buildings Consume Infrastructure
I meant consuming infrastructure (modifying its value by decreasing it). I like more they proposal that does not modify the infrastructure meter, so that a world with high infrastructure and many buildings is shown as a world with high infrastructure and extra expenses on influence.
Should we choose your proposal, I prefer much more if meter can become negative, otherwise I don't see the point on the whole "consume infrastructure (as in decreasing the meter" idea.