+- Hazeron Forums (https://hazeron.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Shores of Hazeron (https://hazeron.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Arena of Ideas (https://hazeron.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=15)
+--- Thread: Loosen Building Codes Slightly, or, A Transporter in Every Home (/showthread.php?tid=2308)
Loosen Building Codes Slightly, or, A Transporter in Every Home - voyager - 04-17-2020
While contemplating the design of an 'ecumenopolis construction kit', I realized it would be convenient if buildings included transporters. This is because the kit would intentionally makes cities very expansive and stylistically conflict with traditional road vehicles (unless there's some way to dynamically connect regular buildings like fences to support elevated roads). As a step towards that convenience, I realized more traditional cities could use 'transporter booths' and went to the design studio to implement one. Unfortunately, only airports and capitols permit transporters, which makes things very awkward.
Looking at everything else that was restricted, I could think of interesting RP reasons why an empire would permit them more expansively. Turrets and shields? Consider a more militaristic empire where the line between civilian and soldier is blurred, and buildings are expected to be able to hold their own - it would also make city shield coverage simpler. Surgery modules? Consider a cyberpunk setting where modification booths are as common as ATMs. Launch tubes? VTOL spacecraft were considered plain fantasy for the longest time and most hypothetical space launch systems from surface were variations on launch tubes.
This could be seen as a step towards a module system where buildings no longer have a singular 'type', allowing for multi-purposed mega-buildings or simply entirely new categories of building (similarly, I would like to make a 'parking space/lot' building whose most natural categories 'shed' and 'park' both ban ground vehicle parking spaces). Of course, this would necessarily erode the building code system, but IMO the building code system should be a list of 'must-do's and leave most everything else up for grabs (which is almost the case now, to be fair).
RE: Loosen Building Codes Slightly, or, A Transporter in Every Home - Deantwo - 04-17-2020
I am afraid that transporters require the building to monitor the communication channels. Right now only airports and brokers do this.
Also I am scared of the thought of what would happen if I am in orbit over a city with 250 buildings each with their own transporters and I request a beamup on the trade channel.
RE: Loosen Building Codes Slightly, or, A Transporter in Every Home - voyager - 04-17-2020
(04-17-2020, 10:21 AM)Deantwo Wrote: I am afraid that transporters require the building to monitor the communication channels. Right now only airports and brokers do this.
Also I am scared of the thought of what would happen if I am in orbit over a city with 250 buildings each with their own transporters and I request a beamup on the trade channel.
A valid concern, but consider that capitols can have transporters too - yet they don't seem to respond to hailing on trade. This implies regular buildings too could be so limited and airports/brokers (or something with an airport/broker aspect) would be the only ones to monitor. My idea was indeed in exclusion of beamup requests as airports already ignore those (over trade) when you're outside of a ship.
RE: Loosen Building Codes Slightly, or, A Transporter in Every Home - Deantwo - 04-17-2020
(04-17-2020, 11:29 AM)voyager Wrote:(04-17-2020, 10:21 AM)Deantwo Wrote: I am afraid that transporters require the building to monitor the communication channels. Right now only airports and brokers do this.
Also I am scared of the thought of what would happen if I am in orbit over a city with 250 buildings each with their own transporters and I request a beamup on the trade channel.
A valid concern, but consider that capitols can have transporters too
It can? I didn't know that.
Since it doesn't listen on communication channels, I am guessing you can't beamup to it. So I would almost think it is a bug if you can.
(04-17-2020, 11:29 AM)voyager Wrote: My idea was indeed in exclusion of beamup requests as airports already ignore those (over trade) when you're outside of a ship.
So you just want it so you can beam from any building in your city? Doesn't seem very useful to me, as that is the job of the airport.
I already think that building blueprints are too complicated. Allowing you to add transporters to any building, and only have some of them able to actually use them fully just seems like a confusing inconsistency that should be avoided.
See also: (Idea thread) Building Blueprint Simplification
If all you want is to have access to transporters from anywhere in your city. Then you simply request a beamup from the airport, and then beam to your desired location from there.
If the airport doesn't reply to beamup requests while on foot, then I would think it is a bug. I can see why it is such since the new-style buildings update changed how communication with cities/buildings work. You used to be able to request beamup from any airport while on foot before those changes.
I made a bug report: (Bug report) Airport Doesn't Listen for Beamup Requests from People on Foot
RE: Loosen Building Codes Slightly, or, A Transporter in Every Home - voyager - 04-30-2020
(04-17-2020, 11:45 AM)Deantwo Wrote: So you just want it so you can beam from any building in your city? Doesn't seem very useful to me, as that is the job of the airport.In fairness, for very large cities (say on a ringworld), the airport transporter range may be insufficient. AFAIK there's no real way to discern different airport terminals without using different cities or memorising their IDs.
(04-17-2020, 11:45 AM)Deantwo Wrote: I already think that building blueprints are too complicated. Allowing you to add transporters to any building, and only have some of them able to actually use them fully just seems like a confusing inconsistency that should be avoided.I am in complete disagreement with that thread, so maybe we're arguing from different foundations. The way I see it, buildings are just stationary spaceships that can manufacture things. Under that model, why shouldn't they be as complicated as desired? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by fully use? Just because it can't respond to beamup requests doesn't mean it can't serve as both a sending-off station and location marker for coming-to instead of just putting you somewhere random. For a building that's a kilometre squared, this would be very useful.
See also: (Idea thread) Building Blueprint Simplification
(04-17-2020, 11:45 AM)Deantwo Wrote: If all you want is to have access to transporters from anywhere in your city. Then you simply request a beamup from the airport, and then beam to your desired location from there.That's an extra step, has the aforementioned distance limitation and leads to congestion (even if it's RP). Thanks for posting the bug report though, since that does ameliorate the issue for my current cities.
If the airport doesn't reply to beamup requests while on foot, then I would think it is a bug. I can see why it is such since the new-style buildings update changed how communication with cities/buildings work. You used to be able to request beamup from any airport while on foot before those changes.
I made a bug report: (Bug report) Airport Doesn't Listen for Beamup Requests from People on Foot
RE: Loosen Building Codes Slightly, or, A Transporter in Every Home - Deantwo - 05-01-2020
We have been wanting train/subway stations for a while, and I think Haxus even said he wanted to do something like that some day. Simply a building that lets you teleport to other buildings of its type on the same world.
And it has also been suggested a few times that airports should have "World of Warcraft-style flight paths" with helicopters or space transports.
(04-30-2020, 06:02 AM)voyager Wrote:(04-17-2020, 11:45 AM)Deantwo Wrote: I already think that building blueprints are too complicated. ...I am in complete disagreement with that thread, so maybe we're arguing from different foundations.
See also: (Idea thread) Building Blueprint Simplification
Currently the blueprint volume allocation is weirdly complicated. What is the point of making a building with 50% arena volume and 50% workshop volume? It cannot be an arena to help morale and a factory that manufacture commodities at the same time. That means that such a building is always 50% useless. World volume limit is what matters now, so doing such is stupid. Any new player that doesn't know this will be unknowningly wasting world volume on buildings that are simply flawed by design. Why would you allow such flawed building designs to exist?
Yes it can be argued that the construction window should simply warn the player against using that building blueprint by showing all the necessary values. But that is a lot of information that needs to be displayed and taught to the new player somehow, adding to the already steep learning curve.
As mentioned in that thread, it is much simpler to just reasonable limit or simplify how building volume is allocated so players can't make building blueprints that are extremely wasteful and lead to confused players.
Sure adding transports to all buildings wouldn't hurt anyone right away. But it will add a bunch of new buildings to the public building blueprint exchange that new players can't use because they require transports. We need filters on the construction window to filter this a lot better, that is for sure.
See also: (Idea thread) Empire Building Blueprints List
RE: Loosen Building Codes Slightly, or, A Transporter in Every Home - voyager - 05-01-2020
(05-01-2020, 05:16 AM)Deantwo Wrote: We have been wanting train/subway stations for a while, and I think Haxus even said he wanted to do something like that some day. Simply a building that lets you teleport to other buildings of its type on the same world.While agreeable, this idea has the issue that it counts against the planet building limit. For someone who wants to make their cities look large, every building counts.
And it has also been suggested a few times that airports should have "World of Warcraft-style flight paths" with helicopters or space transports.
(05-01-2020, 05:16 AM)Deantwo Wrote:Ah, I should clarify that my point about buildings being just re-fluffed spaceships was a dogwhistle for my strong agreement with this thread. The game already seems to favour creative freedom, so why not go all-out? Maybe it makes sense to some culture for an arena and a workshop to be combined - say, that legendary dorf fort where everything was powered off of blood. Or perhaps just a civilisation that can't stand to be a city block away from an arena, the same way we like to integrate food halls and bars into our business buildings. Or, lastly, just the acknowledgement of the 'arcology' concept, whose ultimate thesis would be a singular building with the function of a whole city (something that would be doubly great for hive insect or plant-inspired species). It's only an issue right now because that volume isn't being used. If that were really that much of a problem, you could just as well advocate that 'useless' rooms should count towards useful ones (with a penalty for different size requirements ofc.).(04-30-2020, 06:02 AM)voyager Wrote:(04-17-2020, 11:45 AM)Deantwo Wrote: I already think that building blueprints are too complicated. ...I am in complete disagreement with that thread, so maybe we're arguing from different foundations.
See also: (Idea thread) Building Blueprint Simplification
Currently the blueprint volume allocation is weirdly complicated. What is the point of making a building with 50% arena volume and 50% workshop volume? It cannot be an arena to help morale and a factory that manufacture commodities at the same time. That means that such a building is always 50% useless. World volume limit is what matters now, so doing such is stupid. Any new player that doesn't know this will be unknowningly wasting world volume on buildings that are simply flawed by design. Why would you allow such flawed building designs to exist?
Yes it can be argued that the construction window should simply warn the player against using that building blueprint by showing all the necessary values. But that is a lot of information that needs to be displayed and taught to the new player somehow, adding to the already steep learning curve.
As mentioned in that thread, it is much simpler to just reasonable limit or simplify how building volume is allocated so players can't make building blueprints that are extremely wasteful and lead to confused players.
(05-01-2020, 05:16 AM)Deantwo Wrote: Sure adding transports to all buildings wouldn't hurt anyone right away. But it with add a bunch of new buildings to the public building blueprint exchange that new players can't use because they require transports. We need filters on the construction window to filter this a lot better, that is for sure.Total agreement there. I also think it should be easier to make trivial edits to a design, such as change which warp factor or FTL type without having to go into the designer or build and refit. Perhaps this deserves a thread? A number of players have expressed sentiment in this direction.