Attention FIRAXIS! A suggestion for SMAC ecology!

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Attention FIRAXIS! A suggestion for SMAC ecology!

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Attention FIRAXIS! A suggestion for SMAC ecology!

Afterburner posted 02-24-99 07:37 AM ET
In another thread elsewhere on this board is a great deal of discussion about what a pain in the ass Planet is, especially in late stages of the game. The thread seems split between those who feel that Planet is Just Fine(tm) as it is, and should be there in full force; and those who feel there should be no interference from Planet at all.
But this is an unsatisfying set of options. What *I'd* like to see (and what I scoured the alpha.txt file in vain to find) was a way to adjust the amount by which the various planet techs, planet facilities, and planet Secret Projects reduced the Eco-Damage.
It is clearly unbalancing to have no interference from Planet whatsoever. People could rape the terrain without regard to the consequences. But I'm also a firm believer that technology will, eventually, produce solutions to environmental problems. (Recycling is the first of many such improvements, IMHO.) And it's frustrating to me to have cities with *no* boreholes, *no* echelon mirrors, *no* condensors, and *no* orbital mines STILL producing Eco-Damage (and sometimes Lots(tm) of it) even *with* all the Planet improvenments and *with* at least 4 forest squares for each city.
What would be nice would be for FIRAXIS to assign the planet improvements a value that could be modified in alpha.txt. For example, maybe "Centauri Preserve" has a value of 30, meaning that Centauri Preserve eliminates 30 points of Eco-Damage. I could then go in and make it 40, which may be more in keeping with my notions of the universe. (Or I may set it at 20, which may also be more in keeping with my notions of the universe.) Giving the players this sort of control over the ecology seems to fit in with the philosophy of giving the players a great deal of control over all aspects of the game and would certainly make it more fun for me (and, perhaps, many others judging from some of the messages).
Yours,
Afterburner
P.S. As long as I'm wishing for stuff, here's how Eco-Damage would work in my ideal game of SMAC. This would be more difficult to reprogram for a patch than my suggestion above, but not altogether impossible. If FIRAXIS sees this and thinks "Holy Crap, that's a fooking GREAT idea!", then groovy. If not, well then I'm just noodling.
In my ideal game of SMAC, there would be three types of Eco-Damage:
1) Eco-Damage from basic terrain improvements (mines)
2) Eco-Damage from advanced terrain improvements (boreholes, echelon mirrors, and condensors)
3) Eco-Damage from orbital improvements
In my ideal game of SMAC, having all the Planet improvements *except for* the Temple of Planet in a given city (Centauri preserve, Pholus Mutagen, and so on) should completely eliminate all Eco-Damage generated by Type 1 Eco-Damage listed above (i.e. it would completely eliminate all Eco-Damage from basic terrain improvements).
Type 2 Eco-Damage (that from boreholes and what-not) should not be reduced at all by any planet improvement except for Temple of Planet, and even then it shouldn't be guaranteed to get rid of all of it. (If you've got 1, maybe 2 advanced terrain improvements around a given city, then maybe Temple of Planet eliminates the Eco-Damage from 'em. If you've got 3 or more, you're stuck with *some* Eco-Damage, even with Temple of Planet.)
Type 3 Eco-Damage (that from orbital improvements) should be reduced by the various planet improvements, but the player shouldn't be able completely rid himself/herself of Eco-Damage from these improvements. If the player *could* completely eliminate Eco-Damage from these improvements, there'd be nothing to stop a player from cranking out satellite after satellite and getting his production up to 400 per city, which would unbalance the game. So Type 3 Eco-Damage should be reducible, but only to a certain point.

kjchen posted 02-24-99 05:07 PM ET
All of that sounds pretty reasonable to me. I'd also like to suggest (and I believe other people have voiced this opinion as well) that fungus squares should contribute positively (that is, negate the deleterious effects) to eco-damage. I'd like to see a faction which completely embraced Planet's ecosystem (by utilizing only fungus squares) produce ever-so-slightly less than a massively-terraformed faction. That way, those who insist on squeezing every last resource of every square can do so, but at the risk of Planet's retribution, while those who choose not to disturb the native ecosystem can eke out a substantial, if less productive, resource pool somewhat worry-free.
The amount of resource that can be obtained from a fungus square should also be modified by the Planet rating of the faction. It only makes sense that Deidre should be able to exploit such a strategy to its fullest.
While we're suggesting ecology refinements, how about the ability to customize native lifeform units at high levels of tech (genetic experimentation)? Not that I'm sure what sorts of improvements would be made, but it seems like a logical extension of the game framework.
Oh, and an increase in the overall power of a lifeform as it grows in maturity would be appropriate. Those demon boils don't seem very demonic when my Green Singularity Sentinels can defeat them merely on the basis of having more hit points.
Afterburner posted 02-25-99 11:07 AM ET
>All of that sounds pretty reasonable to me.
>I'd also like to suggest (and I believe >other people have voiced this opinion as
>well) that fungus squares should contribute
>positively (that is, negate the deleterious
>effects) to eco-damage. I'd like to see a
>faction which completely embraced Planet's
>ecosystem (by utilizing only fungus squares)
>produce ever-so-slightly less than a
>massively-terraformed faction. That way,
>those who insist on squeezing every last
>resource of every square can do so, but at
>the risk of Planet's retribution, while
>those who choose not to disturb the native
>ecosystem can eke out a substantial, if less
>productive, resource pool somewhat
>worry-free.
That's a great, great idea. It'd also be nice if forests really *did* help the ecology. Someone in another thread here said that he's got bases which have nothing *but* forest squares in the city radius, and he says he's cranking out hideous levels of eco-damage from that city.
Let's hope that Firaxis is reading this and will put some of these suggestions into the next patch.
AB
Ender4000 posted 02-25-99 11:45 AM ET
Ecological damage is determined by the following complex formula:
1. For each base, total the number of mines, solar collectors, farms, soil enrichers, roads, mag tubes, condensers, and boreholes. Items in squares that are actually being worked count double.
2. Add an extra +8 for each borehole and +4 for each condenser.
3. Subtract 1 for each forest.
4. Halve each base that has a tree farm, and eliminate it if it also has a
hybrid forest.
5. Divide this value by 8and reduce by up to 16 plus the number of previous damages.
6. Take the number of minerals produced this turn.
7. If result from step 5 was reduced by less than 16, reduce the result from step 6 by the remaining amount.
8. Divide minerals by 1 plus the number of Centauri preserve, Temple of Planet, and nanoreplicator.
9. Sum the values of steps 5 and 8 and add +5 for each major atrocity.
10. If Alpha Prime is at perihelion, double your value.

So you see if you have a tree farm and hybrid forest then only the minerals contribute. If you don't then forests will help offset damage of other types. Kind of odd that a forest helps with damage, unit its useful(tree farm+hybrid forest present), then it actually hurts. I'd like to of seen it help above and beyond this, like the minerals produced by forest don't count towards the formula, and those produced by fungus offset other kinds, or something like that.
Ender4000 posted 02-25-99 11:46 AM ET
oh that came from the gamespot gameguide.
TomN posted 02-25-99 09:12 PM ET
I've got a few questions on Ecology. Can anyone help?
1) Is the only way to find out how much Ecological damage a city is doing through the city screen i.e. you have to cycle through each city one by one to find out which one is the worst?
2) Also, is global warming down to using Thermal Boreholes or any terraforming?
3) You CAN place a 2 Thermal Boreholes in adjacent squares. But only if you built them at the same time.
4) If you place boreholes and condensors out side the city square and them use them with a 'supply' unit does that contribute to ecological damage?
5) If you want to get rid of ecological damage you can 'sort of do it' through the 'alpha.txt' file by editing the strengths of the life-forms. Just make the life-forms strengths 0 and movement 0. Best I can think of at the moment.
Thanks,
Pudz posted 02-26-99 12:27 AM ET
afterburner, why would forests help the centauri ecology?
forests would help earth, but since forests are intruding in on the fungus/planet, they are bad. In the game, i think that forests should have a stronger ecoligical impact.
Brother Greg posted 02-26-99 12:31 AM ET
I forget why forests are good, but I think it is in (the back of?) the manual somewhere, under the discussion of Chiron. Don't worry, it is a well thought out reason (from memory).
Afterburner posted 02-26-99 07:35 AM ET
Pudz sez:
>afterburner, why would forests help the
>centauri ecology?
Uh. 'Cause the manual sez they do.
AB
NotLikeTea posted 02-26-99 07:55 AM ET
It's kinda weird, though... why would planting earth plants, that wipe out fungus (vital for planet) be good?
My only explanation is that they would introduce carbon into the soil, and carbon encourages proliferation of Planet life...
Still, it's counterintuitive, unless you've read the manual. Maybe Planet is actually incorporating the trees into the neural net? That's a thought...
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Attention FIRAXIS! A suggestion for SMAC ecology!
Afterburner	posted 02-24-99 07:37 AM ET In another thread elsewhere on this board is a great deal of discussion about what a pain in the ass Planet is, especially in late stages of the game. The thread seems split between those who feel that Planet is Just Fine(tm) as it is, and should be there in full force; and those who feel there should be no interference from Planet at all. But this is an unsatisfying set of options. What I'd like to see (and what I scoured the alpha.txt file in vain to find) was a way to adjust the amount by which the various planet techs, planet facilities, and planet Secret Projects reduced the Eco-Damage. It is clearly unbalancing to have no interference from Planet whatsoever. People could rape the terrain without regard to the consequences. But I'm also a firm believer that technology will, eventually, produce solutions to environmental problems. (Recycling is the first of many such improvements, IMHO.) And it's frustrating to me to have cities with no boreholes, no echelon mirrors, no condensors, and no orbital mines STILL producing Eco-Damage (and sometimes Lots(tm) of it) even with all the Planet improvenments and with at least 4 forest squares for each city. What would be nice would be for FIRAXIS to assign the planet improvements a value that could be modified in alpha.txt. For example, maybe "Centauri Preserve" has a value of 30, meaning that Centauri Preserve eliminates 30 points of Eco-Damage. I could then go in and make it 40, which may be more in keeping with my notions of the universe. (Or I may set it at 20, which may also be more in keeping with my notions of the universe.) Giving the players this sort of control over the ecology seems to fit in with the philosophy of giving the players a great deal of control over all aspects of the game and would certainly make it more fun for me (and, perhaps, many others judging from some of the messages). Yours, Afterburner P.S. As long as I'm wishing for stuff, here's how Eco-Damage would work in my ideal game of SMAC. This would be more difficult to reprogram for a patch than my suggestion above, but not altogether impossible. If FIRAXIS sees this and thinks "Holy Crap, that's a fooking GREAT idea!", then groovy. If not, well then I'm just noodling. In my ideal game of SMAC, there would be three types of Eco-Damage: 1) Eco-Damage from basic terrain improvements (mines) 2) Eco-Damage from advanced terrain improvements (boreholes, echelon mirrors, and condensors) 3) Eco-Damage from orbital improvements In my ideal game of SMAC, having all the Planet improvements except for the Temple of Planet in a given city (Centauri preserve, Pholus Mutagen, and so on) should completely eliminate all Eco-Damage generated by Type 1 Eco-Damage listed above (i.e. it would completely eliminate all Eco-Damage from basic terrain improvements). Type 2 Eco-Damage (that from boreholes and what-not) should not be reduced at all by any planet improvement except for Temple of Planet, and even then it shouldn't be guaranteed to get rid of all of it. (If you've got 1, maybe 2 advanced terrain improvements around a given city, then maybe Temple of Planet eliminates the Eco-Damage from 'em. If you've got 3 or more, you're stuck with some Eco-Damage, even with Temple of Planet.) Type 3 Eco-Damage (that from orbital improvements) should be reduced by the various planet improvements, but the player shouldn't be able completely rid himself/herself of Eco-Damage from these improvements. If the player could completely eliminate Eco-Damage from these improvements, there'd be nothing to stop a player from cranking out satellite after satellite and getting his production up to 400 per city, which would unbalance the game. So Type 3 Eco-Damage should be reducible, but only to a certain point.
kjchen	posted 02-24-99 05:07 PM ET All of that sounds pretty reasonable to me. I'd also like to suggest (and I believe other people have voiced this opinion as well) that fungus squares should contribute positively (that is, negate the deleterious effects) to eco-damage. I'd like to see a faction which completely embraced Planet's ecosystem (by utilizing only fungus squares) produce ever-so-slightly less than a massively-terraformed faction. That way, those who insist on squeezing every last resource of every square can do so, but at the risk of Planet's retribution, while those who choose not to disturb the native ecosystem can eke out a substantial, if less productive, resource pool somewhat worry-free. The amount of resource that can be obtained from a fungus square should also be modified by the Planet rating of the faction. It only makes sense that Deidre should be able to exploit such a strategy to its fullest. While we're suggesting ecology refinements, how about the ability to customize native lifeform units at high levels of tech (genetic experimentation)? Not that I'm sure what sorts of improvements would be made, but it seems like a logical extension of the game framework. Oh, and an increase in the overall power of a lifeform as it grows in maturity would be appropriate. Those demon boils don't seem very demonic when my Green Singularity Sentinels can defeat them merely on the basis of having more hit points.
Afterburner	posted 02-25-99 11:07 AM ET >All of that sounds pretty reasonable to me. >I'd also like to suggest (and I believe >other people have voiced this opinion as >well) that fungus squares should contribute >positively (that is, negate the deleterious >effects) to eco-damage. I'd like to see a >faction which completely embraced Planet's >ecosystem (by utilizing only fungus squares) >produce ever-so-slightly less than a >massively-terraformed faction. That way, >those who insist on squeezing every last >resource of every square can do so, but at >the risk of Planet's retribution, while >those who choose not to disturb the native >ecosystem can eke out a substantial, if less >productive, resource pool somewhat >worry-free. That's a great, great idea. It'd also be nice if forests really did help the ecology. Someone in another thread here said that he's got bases which have nothing but forest squares in the city radius, and he says he's cranking out hideous levels of eco-damage from that city. Let's hope that Firaxis is reading this and will put some of these suggestions into the next patch. AB
Ender4000	posted 02-25-99 11:45 AM ET Ecological damage is determined by the following complex formula: 1. For each base, total the number of mines, solar collectors, farms, soil enrichers, roads, mag tubes, condensers, and boreholes. Items in squares that are actually being worked count double. 2. Add an extra +8 for each borehole and +4 for each condenser. 3. Subtract 1 for each forest. 4. Halve each base that has a tree farm, and eliminate it if it also has a hybrid forest. 5. Divide this value by 8and reduce by up to 16 plus the number of previous damages. 6. Take the number of minerals produced this turn. 7. If result from step 5 was reduced by less than 16, reduce the result from step 6 by the remaining amount. 8. Divide minerals by 1 plus the number of Centauri preserve, Temple of Planet, and nanoreplicator. 9. Sum the values of steps 5 and 8 and add +5 for each major atrocity. 10. If Alpha Prime is at perihelion, double your value. So you see if you have a tree farm and hybrid forest then only the minerals contribute. If you don't then forests will help offset damage of other types. Kind of odd that a forest helps with damage, unit its useful(tree farm+hybrid forest present), then it actually hurts. I'd like to of seen it help above and beyond this, like the minerals produced by forest don't count towards the formula, and those produced by fungus offset other kinds, or something like that.
Ender4000	posted 02-25-99 11:46 AM ET oh that came from the gamespot gameguide.
TomN	posted 02-25-99 09:12 PM ET I've got a few questions on Ecology. Can anyone help? 1) Is the only way to find out how much Ecological damage a city is doing through the city screen i.e. you have to cycle through each city one by one to find out which one is the worst? 2) Also, is global warming down to using Thermal Boreholes or any terraforming? 3) You CAN place a 2 Thermal Boreholes in adjacent squares. But only if you built them at the same time. 4) If you place boreholes and condensors out side the city square and them use them with a 'supply' unit does that contribute to ecological damage? 5) If you want to get rid of ecological damage you can 'sort of do it' through the 'alpha.txt' file by editing the strengths of the life-forms. Just make the life-forms strengths 0 and movement 0. Best I can think of at the moment. Thanks,
Pudz	posted 02-26-99 12:27 AM ET afterburner, why would forests help the centauri ecology? forests would help earth, but since forests are intruding in on the fungus/planet, they are bad. In the game, i think that forests should have a stronger ecoligical impact.
Brother Greg	posted 02-26-99 12:31 AM ET I forget why forests are good, but I think it is in (the back of?) the manual somewhere, under the discussion of Chiron. Don't worry, it is a well thought out reason (from memory).
Afterburner	posted 02-26-99 07:35 AM ET Pudz sez: >afterburner, why would forests help the >centauri ecology? Uh. 'Cause the manual sez they do. AB
NotLikeTea	posted 02-26-99 07:55 AM ET It's kinda weird, though... why would planting earth plants, that wipe out fungus (vital for planet) be good? My only explanation is that they would introduce carbon into the soil, and carbon encourages proliferation of Planet life... Still, it's counterintuitive, unless you've read the manual. Maybe Planet is actually incorporating the trees into the neural net? That's a thought...