Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

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

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#31 Post by Oberlus »

I don't see any gameplay benefit from having a different resource (env. points) for terraforming, but I see issues: cluttered UI, replicated subsystems...

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

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#32 Post by LienRag »

Not to say that drkosy's proposal is worth the hassle you mention, but I really liked the feel of Alpha Centauri on that point : either you progressively learn to live with the planet, or you bend it to your will.
If we find good enough ideas to implement it in FreeOrion and simple enough mechanisms to boot, that would really improve the game.

User avatar
drkosy
Space Dragon
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:41 am

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#33 Post by drkosy »

If we find good enough ideas to implement it in FreeOrion and simple enough mechanisms to boot, that would really improve the game.
Thanks :) That's what I think as well.

For me there are two issues:
1.) At the moment terraforming isn't worth the effort
2.) Organic growth specials are behind the others because robotic and lithic growth specials at least brings production, but organics don't do anything and thus are useless if you already have one or if you don't have organic species in your empire.

The other one is to find an good balance for terraforming to not being a must have and to not being irrelevant.
Example: In original MOO there was this atmospheric terraforming but I just used it at endgame where there was nothing to do with production any more. That's how it is in FO today (v0.4.10 stable). In MOO2 they changed it completly to be a must have: It's the greatest chance to improve pop on planets and push farming-output on your colonies. So everyone will force to terraform.

I like to have something like: It's an option but not something you have to do. I don't think that could be done with a policy, because terraforming always affect single planets. You won't select a terraforming related policy only to save some time or PP to terraform one single planet. You will choose that policy if you plan to terraform a lot of planets at once. That means, terraforming will only take place at late game. On the other hand, if you improve the effect of terraforming it becomes a no brainer. You just terraform everything as fast as possible. A terraforming related policy would become a must have and not a strategic option.

To introduce a new resource is always a big deal, I know that. That's why I thought a lot about that. I don't think it should be something you can only produce by setting an focus, because that it's similar to production. On the other hand, right now the environment of a planet only affects max pop and stability at new colonies. Since you could raise the max pop by research for all planets of one type at once, in midgame there's not much difference between poor and good planets. That's why I think to have an environment-dependent resource would make good planets more desireable even it mid or end game.

Conclution: I do see a benefit out of that... (otherwise I did not post that)
Want some fresh experience? Try Kosymod

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

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#34 Post by Oberlus »

drkosy wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:14 am 1.) At the moment terraforming isn't worth the effort
I think the suggestion in the openning post addresses that issue better than having EPs intead of PPs to build terraforming.
I still can't see how changing the name of PPs to EPs solves that issue (explanations welcome).
2.) Organic growth specials are behind the others because robotic and lithic growth specials at least brings production, but organics don't do anything and thus are useless if you already have one or if you don't have organic species in your empire.
I like that different metabolisms get different bonuses. Helps increasing diverse gameplay.
However, the difference is so small (a tiny +0.1*pop in a single planet and only if not set to growth) that it is irrelevant. And also, and more important, the production bonus is triggered by setting the industry focus on the planet regardless of the metabolism of the species in the planet, so there is actually no tangible difference between metabolisms. If so, it is the organic metabolism species the ones that get the most: they can focus all non-organic growth specials to production to get those tiny +0.1*pop production boosts while the other metabolisms will use one for growth.

User avatar
drkosy
Space Dragon
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:41 am

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#35 Post by drkosy »

I still can't see how changing the name of PPs to EPs solves that issue (explanations welcome).
Well I try gladly: At the moment terraforming competes with other building projects like warships, colonies etc. That is why I like to have an resource that is produced independent of focus. My suggestion is therefore that EP are produced only dependent on the environment of a planet. The homeworlld may produce 10EP a turn, if terraforming costs 800EP you could terraform one step each 80 turns. You don't have to set a focus neither have to spent PP. You don't loose RP, you don't loose PP you don't loose IP you just get them. That is actually what would make EP unique. For all the other things you have to set a focus (until you reached a certain tech lvl).
To force terraforming projects, I think it should be possible to turn a planet to EP focus, but that should be optional. It could be handy for tall empires, because they tend to terraform a lot.
This could make terraforming more interesting, because on some point you just have the EP to terraform, so you will do it. Especially with the IP costs of a colony, that could give good and adequate planets more relevance because colonies there would produce free EP.
To introduce a resource only for terraforming is a bit odd, that's why I thought other things (like housing projects) could be enabled by EP. That could provide some usage of EP until terraforming is reached. I'm sure there will be other useful things EP could be spent on.
If so, it is the organic metabolism species the ones that get the most: they can focus all non-organic growth specials to production to get those tiny +0.1*pop production boosts while the other metabolisms will use one for growth.
Well, you can see it from different perspectives. I just thought about another example: You play organics and already have all three growth specials. Your scouts spot a new tiny desert planet with KI-Spice. You will just ignore it, because it dosn't deliver anything important. On the other hand, if that special would give you a significant amount of EP each turn, it would be worth the effort. Of cause the other growth specials had to be balanced somehow.
I like that different metabolisms get different bonuses. Helps increasing diverse gameplay.
Maybe EP could help achieve that:
Bonus-Way: Each of the metabolims has a bonus on one meter: organics -> EP, lithic -> infrastructure, robots -> stability (you could solve rumors by an update), self sustaining -> pop growth, phototropic -> ?)
Malus-Way: Each of the metabolims has a specific malus, because the need that meter as "food": organics -> EP, lithic -> PP, robots -> infrastructure, self sustaining -> nothing, phototropic -> infrastructure (need sunlight that couldn't be converted to energy)
Maybe the growth specials could somehow connected to the Bonus or Malus of that specific metabolism, in addition to their pop increase if set to growth focus.
This is not more than brainstorming by me. That might be solved in many different ways...
Want some fresh experience? Try Kosymod

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

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#36 Post by Oberlus »

drkosy wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:23 pm Well I try gladly: At the moment terraforming competes with other building projects like warships, colonies etc. That is why I like to have an resource that is produced independent of focus.
If it is independent of focus, then it is a no-brainer. I don't like it.
I do like the competence between everything: you get better research OR more warships OR more colonies OR enlarge owned colonies.
That was true also for MOO2, which not only used same resource for terraforming and ship-building, but also the same facility (you can't do both at the same time, terraforming and building ships), and so you must choose between terraforming now for greater output later, or building more army now for sonner conquering, or build another colony ship.

Also, terraforming should be one of the ways to differentiate wide vs tall strategies. With your suggestion, wide empires would be terraforming all their planets, increasing the disadvantage that a bad-luck start implies.

For the MOO2 Housing project, we could use influence, or repurpose the growth focus.
drkosy wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:23 pm You play organics and already have all three growth specials. Your scouts spot a new tiny desert planet with KI-Spice. You will just ignore it, because it dosn't deliver anything important.
I would ignore it only if the Ki Spice I already had was also in a tiny planet. Otherwise, I would get that tiny planet to set it to growth focus and set the other, bigger Ki Spice planet (that will have much more population due to being older and bigger) to something better like research or production.

Also, specials are expected to be relatively rare. It should not be common for each empire in a game to have a full set of growth specials for its metabolism. There should be competence for them.


Maybe I would change my mind if I have a better feeling of this EP thingy (I got Sid Meirs's Alpha Centauri, yesterday, to see how it is, as per LienRag's comments), but removing competence between terraforming and other projects (buildings, colonies, warships, research...) sounds like a no-no for me.

User avatar
Grummel7
Space Dragon
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#37 Post by Grummel7 »

Hello,

To make tall vs. wide this a strategic decision, adapting the numbers alone won't do. The tech tree must be disentangled so that players can actually concentrate on one of these strategies for a while. Let me give just two examples where this is currently a problem:
  • To terraform a planet, you need to settle it first. But to settle a poor or hostile planet you almost have no other choice but to research the xeno-techs.
  • The policy Environmentalism is a great way to support the wide strategy, but to get it you have to reaserch terraforming. So you have to research something only to make your people happy by not using it.
Allowing a tall strategy that ignores the xeno techs, there could be a way to terraform a planet without a colony, let's call it Geoengineering. It is easier to research, requires and outpost (does not work on a colony) and an expensive to build ship. Fluff: it's much easier to change something that is not inhabited. Terraforming on an inhabited planet remains as it is. That give a PP-intensive and slow way to settle planets, but it allows ignoring the wide-type techs for a long time.

Environmentalism on the other hand should rather come with Xeno Hybrids.

This is of course not a complete list, just a starting point for the discussion.

I think that in addition to tall and wide, the game could even allow a third way: concentrate on settling a lot of planets with Exobots and use research and policies to improve their output. There could e.g. a tech or policy that reduces the Influence cost of Exobot colonies.

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

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#38 Post by Oberlus »

Anvil wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:46 am To make tall vs. wide this a strategic decision, adapting the numbers alone won't do. The tech tree must be disentangled so that players can actually concentrate on one of these strategies for a while. Let me give just two examples where this is currently a problem:
  • To terraform a planet, you need to settle it first. But to settle a poor or hostile planet you almost have no other choice but to research the xeno-techs.
  • The policy Environmentalism is a great way to support the wide strategy, but to get it you have to reaserch terraforming. So you have to research something only to make your people happy by not using it.
Allowing a tall strategy that ignores the xeno techs, there could be a way to terraform a planet without a colony, let's call it Geoengineering. It is easier to research, requires and outpost (does not work on a colony) and an expensive to build ship. Fluff: it's much easier to change something that is not inhabited. Terraforming on an inhabited planet remains as it is. That give a PP-intensive and slow way to settle planets, but it allows ignoring the wide-type techs for a long time.

Environmentalism on the other hand should rather come with Xeno Hybrids.

This is of course not a complete list, just a starting point for the discussion.

I think that in addition to tall and wide, the game could even allow a third way: concentrate on settling a lot of planets with Exobots and use research and policies to improve their output. There could e.g. a tech or policy that reduces the Influence cost of Exobot colonies.
Hi, Alvin. I agree with almost all your points. The techs and policies that enable many planets (poor/hostile) should not be required to enlarge few planets (good/adeq.), and vice versa.


To terraform a poor/hostile planet would be somewhat in between of both strategies, because that would be enlarging many planets, a mid-to-late-game strategy. So I, a priori, don't like the idea of letting all planets to be terraformed (via remte terraforming, before colonization) to good environment as a "tall" strategy, because that would be rather wide.

There is need for other ways to increase pop. size in good planets appart from some techs, something that requires PP to enlarge your good/adeq. planets, as an alternative to acquiring new planet with those PP). Things like Arcologies and Ecumenopolis, but I struggle to make that viable without turning it into a spamalot building good for all strategies instead of particularly good for tall strategies.

User avatar
Grummel7
Space Dragon
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#39 Post by Grummel7 »

Hi Oberlus,

I guess you are right, allowing terraforming without the need to settle does not blend well into your idea to provide different growth paths. Maybe it could be added as a late extension to the tall path. Sooner or later players will go for tall and wide anyway.

Population extensions that need PP? Well Terraforming and Gaiaforming do that later in the game. Before you think too much about a name and other fluff, you should first consider what it should do. Should it give additional opportunities to increase habitation or additionally require PP to slow down growth for research centered races? Should it work on all planets, or be a part of the tall path?

Regarding additional opportunities there could a building that can be built multiple times, but requires an upkeep that grows quickly, the more you build. When you build one, the additional population should easily produce more then the upkeep (with production focus), with high bonuses that may still be true with two or three. More may only be worth it on special planets.

Orbital habitation could easily require some additional PP. When you think about it, it sound a bit odd that you only have to finish a research and all of a sudden millions start living in orbiting cities without anybody actually building these cities.

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

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#40 Post by Oberlus »

Anvil wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:41 pmSooner or later players will go for tall and wide anyway.
Yes. Lets make it later :)


Terraforming and Gaiaforming should come sooner in the tech tree, I think, to help early tall path. Currently Gaia is quite late game, and Terraforming is mid-late, more late than mid because the renevue you get doesn't make it worth it to get it soon, unless you are rushing some other late tech like Energy Metabolism that is (inexplicably) dependent on Terraforming, but even then it is normal that you won't do any terraforming until your empire is huge.
Current mechanic for Terraforming, that makes it more expensive the farther you are from original environment, makes it better for tall strategies: terraforming an adeq. to good gives more pop. boost than poor to adeq., etc. That is broken thanks to the possibility of enqueueing several terraforming projects simultaneously (the cost doesn't get updated until the terraformings are effective). That should be fixed without removing the possibility of enqueueing (or automating) several projects (the point of allowing more than one was to reduce micromanagement, having to revisit several times each planet).

Before you think too much about a name and other fluff, you should first consider what it should do. Should it give additional opportunities to increase habitation or additionally require PP to slow down growth for research centered races? Should it work on all planets, or be a part of the tall path?
I think of Arcologies as a kind of terraforming that works on habitable planets, i.e. boosting population after finishing a building. These could have some sort of penalization like the ones you comment, costing influence, or maybe requiring a minimum infrastructure, or planetary size, or whatnot. Need to think more about this.
Ecumenopolis would be a rather powerful boost only applicable to central planets (capital, regional center) that also has some drawback to be weighted in, something to slow down growth or pop. size of the rest of colonies, so that wide strategies don't like it too soon.
Orbital habitation could easily require some additional PP. When you think about it, it sound a bit odd that you only have to finish a research and all of a sudden millions start living in orbiting cities without anybody actually building these cities.
I would turn Orb. Hab. into a policy, so that you don't need to queue lots of buildings everywhere but it has a cost (bigger the more planets you have).

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

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#41 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:34 am There is need for other ways to increase pop. size in good planets appart from some techs, something that requires PP to enlarge your good/adeq. planets, as an alternative to acquiring new planet with those PP). Things like Arcologies and Ecumenopolis, but I struggle to make that viable without turning it into a spamalot building good for all strategies instead of particularly good for tall strategies.
It was suggested to have these buildings cost Influence, and with the main design choices made for FreeOrion (things like "one production queue only") I guess it's the only way to have your "Tall" strategy.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#42 Post by Krikkitone »

Arcologies/etc. requiring maintenance does seem like the ideal situation. While Influence works as maintenance, PP could also be a source by going through the stockpile mechanism.

User avatar
Grummel7
Space Dragon
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#43 Post by Grummel7 »

Oberlus wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:10 pmThat is broken thanks to the possibility of enqueueing several terraforming projects simultaneously (the cost doesn't get updated until the terraformings are effective). That should be fixed without removing the possibility of enqueueing (or automating) several projects (the point of allowing more than one was to reduce micromanagement, having to revisit several times each planet).
Fixing it shouldn't be so hard. At the moment we can schedule a ship yard and a dry dock, but the dry dock is automatically paused until the ship yard is finished. The same should be done with multiple terraformings.
Oberlus wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:10 pmI would turn Orb. Hab. into a policy, so that you don't need to queue lots of buildings everywhere but it has a cost (bigger the more planets you have).
Does that mean you get the additional population while the policy is active and lose it when the policy is replaced?

Regarding tedious clicking: The game does a good job in reducing it in general. The only building I sometimes start building on a lot of planets at once it the light house. But then an interface extension could make that a lot less tedious and allow more of that kind of buildings: There should be a way to select some / all planets and then give an order to add a building to the build queue on all those planets.

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

Re: Rework pop. bonuses for Tall vs Wide and Terraforming

#44 Post by Oberlus »

Anvil wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:18 pm Does that mean you get the additional population while the policy is active and lose it when the policy is replaced?

Regarding tedious clicking: The game does a good job in reducing it in general. The only building I sometimes start building on a lot of planets at once it the light house. But then an interface extension could make that a lot less tedious and allow more of that kind of buildings: There should be a way to select some / all planets and then give an order to add a building to the build queue on all those planets.
Yes, bonus would be lost if policy is de-adopted.

And there is a way to queue a building in many planets at once: open the Objects window (3 green bubbles icon), select the desired planets, right-click...
But that doesn't save you from having to do it again when new planets are available. If you know you want the building everywhere, then it should be a policy, or the building cost is not balanced, or it should have some restrictions.

Post Reply