Is this a bug (rockiness affecting cost of tidal harnesses)

[Yitzi]

As you may or may not know, solar collectors cost +50% time to build in rolling terrain and +100% in rocky.  This applies not only to solar collectors, but also to their sea equivalent, tidal harnesses.  This is the only way AFAIK in which the rockiness of a sea tile (which is not shown) has a practical effect unless the sea tile is raised to land.

So the question is: Is this a bug, and tidal harnesses should not be affected by rockiness, or should they behave the same as solar collectors in this manner?  Or is it not a bug, but still worth changing?

[gwillybj]

I'll go with the third choice. I feel the same about the elevation of a sea square affecting artillery. It's probably just an oversight.

[Yitzi]

I'll go with the third choice. I feel the same about the elevation of a sea square affecting artillery. It's probably just an oversight.

I'd consider an oversight on the part of the developers (i.e. they didn't mean this to happen) to be a bug.

[Nexii]

I'd lean to bug since there's no way to know sea rockiness until your sea former goes into the square.  There's no display or graphical difference.

I assume right now, it costs about 6 FT (or +50%) per tidal on an average map.  Reducing it to 4 FT (+0%) would be a fairly significant change.  I think some players might argue one way or another on what it should cost if rockiness effects are taken out.  One solution might be to put in a variable for a flat modifier, though I don't know how hard that would be.

[Geo]

I could reason it away to represent it the ease (or, in this case, the difficulty) to attach the device to the seafloor and how the rougher seafloor relief causes shifting currents to make it harder keeping the harness in place unti its safely moored.

[Lord Avalon]

I did not know solar collectors took longer depending on terrain. I voted "it's not a bug," but actually it's more like "it's not a bug per se, but should be affected by rockiness." I presume tidal harnesses have to be anchored in the sea bed, so the type would affect terraforming time. Though come to think of it, "flat" would take longer, because you'd have to drill down deeper to reach bedrock - i.e., something firm to anchor to. It could be the inverse of solar collectors, if rocky would be the easiest to anchor to.

Of course it does suck that you have no idea how long it's going to take - if that's something that matters to you. I never noticed, just issuing commands to formers and issuing the next command when they're active again. But I also try to build the Weather Paradigm and lots of formers - which then get upgraded to super formers, if I can afford it.

[TarMinyatur]

If the rockiness of an ocean tile were displayed, the player could decide where to build harnesses. As it is now, it's a gamble... but so is real life.

I agree with Avalon. Harness construction should not be penalized for rocky seafloors. Rocks would make good anchors, in contrast to muddy or sandy flats.

[Nexii]

Some good points.  So should rocky sea be faster than flat for tidal harnesses?  I don't think there's a way to show sea rockiness, so perhaps the cost should just be flat?

[Vidsek]

  Being a natural scientist (in both senses), (Botanist, specifically), I always prefer following the real world laws of nature if it doesn't change the gameplay in unwanted ways, and is feasible to code. 
  So for me, the anchoring difficulty argument sounds right: Flat (sand or mud) should be harder/longer, rolling and rocky the fastest (and the same).  And why wouldn't it affect how long it took to build a base, or mine?   Kelp also: they have to anchor to rocks as well or they just wash away with the currents.  After you have orbital spaceflight (and presumably something like our GPS system) physical anchoring might be no longer necessary and the seafloor irrelevant, except for the kelp.
  However....unless you're playing a mostly ocean map or heavy into seagoing factions, it all seems a lot of work for some excess complexity.  So at least for now, I would go with making ocean rockiness a non-factor in constructing anything.  And voted that way.

[Buster's Uncle]

That makes sense.

Is it DR. Fayfisten, then?  We have other PhDs in the community.

[Vidsek]

   Circumstances limited it to Master, that and trying to cover Ethnobotany mostly from the botany side.  So plant community ecology/ethnography/archaeology/landforms geography with some remote sensing and such thrown in.  Astronomy, woodworking, and gaming as hobbies, coding and comp graphics as wannabe hobbies.  Army/CIA brat with lots of travel growing up as background.
  It's a fascinating universe we live in, and I want to know all of it (and laugh at most of it).

[Buster's Uncle]

I think you and Uno would get along (he's heavily into etymology, among other things, and scientific backyard gardening).  Check Recreation Commons.  We love project threads there, BTW..