Building system: factory1, factory2 and so on.. bug or by design?

Hi Alphaprior,

to answer the two questions:

a) It's intentional. I'd be extremely surprised if they changed it at this point (and I like it this way).
b) Yes, it is possible:

The original buildings can be found in the ImprovementDefs.xml. You can leave those alone, but rather create clones of the buildings in a separate file.

Let's say there are 6 factory tiers. Then the current upgrade path is like this:

tier1 > tier2 > tier3 > tier4 > tier5 > tier6

So far, so obvious, now what you need to add are these paths:

tierA2 > tierA3 > tierA4 > tierA5 > tierA6
tierB3 > tierB4 > tierB5 > tierB6
tierC4 > tierC5 > tierC6
tierD5 > tierD6
tierE6

Each variant of the base buildings is named exactly the same, they are all copies of the base version, only that you remove the <UpgradesFrom> line from the first building of each variant. If you simply remove upgrading from the baseline, this will allow you to build the final version straight, but this will break upgrading buildings, which makes this effort necessary.

On the plus side, you'll be able to choose whichever version you want to start with.
On the minus side ... well, this will effectively multiply the items in the construction list (as the base version and all 5 variants will show). 

Cheers

Oh well.. as I thought saddly..

I have already thought about your suggestion but I suspected as you said that it will break the upgrade system and not only I will have all versions at once but I won't be able to upgrade the previously built factories.. so no I won't be doing this

I just hope when the game is out someone will make a mod that it will work better than above method

GC3 is so much better than GC2 but it has some very annoying things like this one, the ages in research, the way I have to click over and over to build improvements etc etc.

actually, my method supports upgrading.

If you just removed UpgradesTo, then you'd break upgrading.

By cloning the original upgrade path 5 times, each time removing one more element from the start you avoid breaking upgrade chains by introducing multiple upgradechains.

The problem will be much less noticeable when the "rollover" production is enabled.

Right now, you lose any excess production from the turn when a building completes. Shortly, this excess will be applied to the next building in the queue.

This will make upgrading faster.  Also, given that having incremental buildings supply some bonuses before the final "ultimate" version you can build is ready, it's actually preferable this way.  With rollover, you get the best of both worlds:  incremental bonuses while building, and a final cost which is no more than the actual final building.

Production rollover is working right now in 0.82.

An alternative and more realistic option would be better instead new.

Meaning for example instead factory1, factory2 and so on, have upgrades for improvements so a factory is equipped with androids and slight different icon but it's the same building only better.

So when you have Industrial Sectors you have to begin buliding them but one level at a time.. not replacing old with new.

Also, with the proposed mod does the AI also get to skip tier steps? If not, the player would be "cheating", so to speak?

One thing that a lot of people overlook is that the buildings being upgraded are still producing their item type.

Factory 1 is working while being upgraded to Factory 2 and Factory 2 is working to upgrade to Factory 3...

The costs are also applied against the end cost.  so if factory 1 costs 10 production and factory two costs 30 production and factory 3 costs 60 production... the actual math for building factory 2 is  30-10(factory1) = 20 new production needed.    so not only is factory 1 supplying production, it is reducing the cost of building factory 2 and so on...

The only change I would like to see is the ability to rush build and pay for a one turn build of the end product.   

Or if the system was intelligent to move you to the base design that could not be built in one turn.   If you have 55 production and you build a factory the system should just automatically start building factory 3 as it will build it in 2 turns rather than the 3 turns of Factory 1, Factory 2 and then Factory 3...

Just to point out to those of you who like this "Feature", it's incredibly unfriendly to new players who are left scratching their heads as to why the new improved factory type they just got through research doesn't show in the build-able list on their colonies.

Would not be surprised if more than a few support tickets where raised about the bug of new buildings not appearing on the build list before they realize that once built it upgrades.

It's also illogical, when building a modern factory it is not best and most efficient to build a 17th century steam powered one first, then rebuild it as a modern electrically powered one employing advanced automation.

I agree that game mechanically it gives a slight advantage in how quick you can  get production up and running on a new colony but that actually doesn't matter as long as the same rule applies to all players, and personally though I can live with it I think it's a poor design choice because new players will think they've found a bug until they realize the illogical design when they actually see it auto-upgrade once built.

Sorry went to edit and ended up quoting myself.

Actually,  econundrum1 makes a really good point.

Honestly Stardock could just do both systems without letting the gamer know what is going on.


Player has researched Factory 4   Factory four needs 100 production to build.    Player is on a new colony with 10 production.   

Player selects Factory 4

The game Builds factory 1 > 2> 3> 4 in one continuous queue with the added value of the previous build going to the next to speed things up.

Player selects Factory 4 on a different world that has 150 production
Game simply builds Factory 4.

This is how I think it should work once I think about it.

This part does not work for me and possibly others.

I want it to build a level 1 factory, and then go to the next item in the queue, which might not even be a factory.  I want it to build level 1 versions of the buildings in my queues, then move on to level 2, etc.  I might not want to pay the higher maintenance yet.  I might want to get on with that Research Lab.  There could any number of things that need the present approach.

I have done similar to your approach with the present system.  I put one basic factory in the queue and let it build up to current tech.  When the planet finishes with that, it gets back to me.  That is a bunch of micro though.  I am presently putting in a bank of factories, a hospital and a farm as a starter kit for brand new planets.  When that planet gets back to me, I can fill in all the other economy needs as I please, even more factories if that is this planet's specialization.  I find challenges doing that in late game, so any tools and improvements these discussions lead to will be appreciated.

I like the idea that it takes a minimum time to build a level 4 building and it can't be done in just one turn.  Some projects have to happen in their own schedule, no matter how much money or upper management pressure you throw at them.  Either that, or each turn you want to save should cost you 2X, 3X, 4X more as a cash rush-buy.   Or more!  You should pay for that instant gratification!   Things like this make it a good thing that I am not the lead designer.  Paul is much too nice. 

The solution to that would be to Then Shut off the auto upgrade toggle and go to the all improvement tabs and select Factory 1 rather than factory 4.

why don't you think about my solution I suggested before?

Building upgrades instead new factories every time.

Build just 1 factory and then add upgrades/additions to it better machines, androids etc. Instead replacing the old factories with new ones.

 This way you get a realistic way that works with Stardock's system

alphaprior, you are arguing semantics    when we say Factory 1, Factory two,  and you say Factory,  Android Factory, etc  functionally there is no difference between them in the game.

For each "factory" you get a base cost and a base production that increases with each version or addition you build on to.  

Now given we have the adjacency bonuses in GCIII if Stardock had chosen to have "base factory" in one hex and then Add on modules in adjacent hexes to boost the factories with "androids" or "solar panels" or such and that was the ONLY way to increase production, then your line of thought would be more important.

But as it is there is in the end no real game mechanic difference between  xeno Factory upgrading to Mega Factory and then to Industrial Sector    Vrs  Factory >android Factory> NanobotFactory      vrs  Factory 1 > Factory 2 > Factory 3  etc

I don't see anything that can't be fixed with a clear tooltip or two in the right places.  "Basic Factory (upgrades to Xeno Factory)" and similar notations would help things.  If that was done, would that be new user friendly enough?  It sounds like you don't really mind the mechanism, you are just worried it will be misunderstood.  If that is the case, re-doing the documentation seems a better approach than redesigning the product.

Better than half my gamesis optimising for production. WhIch consists of deleting upgrades to upgrade to the next building as close to one turn as possible. Sometimes it was one or two buildings down the path. It was rarely the last building to take only one turn to upgrade everytime I upgraded new techs I had to udually eliminate upgrades on many planets. Either financially I couldn't afford it or because it was more efficient to go with the next building instead. I would like to have a global governor options. In three there will be less micromanagement except in the very late game. I don't want to spend two years upgrading my factory to advanced factory.

Unfortunately most people don't expect to have to read all the documentation before playing a game for the first time and I'm also not sure tooltips are going to be noted by everyone.

the mechanism they have works, but is not logical or intuitive and however well the document because of that they are going to have a fair amount of support tickets from people who have not read it. Those people may feel foolish later but then it will be too late.

Another example of these sorts of issues in the game is the "you can't declare war on" issue. This is not actually a bug but the result of an ideology perk. The issue is the game gives you no clue at the moment as to why you can't declare war on the race in question or when you will be able to, so again an example of something that will lead to unnecessary support tickets.

I don't think that is particularly true in the audience for 4X games.  It's not that we are an elite group or anything, but it is a demographic.  Granted there are always those who plunge into things willfully ignorant, but I can't agree that GalCiv is a typical title to attract that personality.  I think you might be underestimating the audience.  I am completely convinced it is not "most people" in this audience.  I think people in general are smarter than that, despite their behavior on Internet and Steam forums. Generalizing from that vocal and visible population is doing everyone else an injustice of sorts.

Also, again I am glad Stardock makes these decisions and not I.  I wouldn't give a darn about people who refuse to read documentation.  It's their decision and their consequences.  If a reasonable and interested person can conveniently find the information needed, I don't think they have any excuse.  Attitudes like these have kept me out of many a sales engineer position. 

i wish i had your optimisim

at work i constantly say 'a zombie would starve in this place'

we'll see if it's something that comes up in reviews and on the support forums if your faith in people is well placed. .

As I say admiralWillyWilber, we will see.

Maybe I'm old and cynical, but generally when I design a system I try and make it as intuitively logical and as obvious as possible. Maybe your right and no reviewer will complain about it, but I really doubt it. Time will tell us who was right anyway, assuming they don't change it before launch.