Building Augmentations

[Blitz]

I know this idea is not an quick one to implement, but I feel it would add some depth to the game's research and building process. My idea is that each building has augmentations that can be added to it to improve its functionality. Each building would have 2 slots to fill with the researched augmentations. Lets run through some examples I came up with:

Turret - increased range, increased hull strength, gunner seat, 5 shot burst (in game already), and fire shells.

Nutrient Dispensor - 10% less food used (already in game), 50% higher quality food(the need to eat is reduced), food counteracts sleep (at high food cost), pure sugar (faster movement)

Solar Panels - increased internal energy storage, higher energy output...

So now lets look at the turret, you get to choose 2 augments for that specific building. Your front line turrets may want to have hardened hull with fire shells to damage all of the raiders before they got to your second line of turrets. The second line would have gunner seats and increased range (gunner seats would allow you to control the turret and use the skill of the gunner). The back line would be able to take out the guys on fire. You could also mix in a line that had regular range, faster firing, and hardened hull. There would be lots of combinations.

This system would give so many different choices to the player on the way they wanted to control the colony. Let me know what you guys think.

[Spike]

It's an interesting idea, and would add a good reason to use research.

[British]

Sure, but instead of having slots, why not go by the tried and true method of researching tiers, and those tiers bring different structures/buildings/whatnot ?
That means that if you want to upgrade a structure, you either have the possibility to directly upgrade it to any tier you have researched, or you just have to build a new one at the same place.

[Blitz]

Sure, but instead of having slots, why not go by the tried and true method of researching tiers, and those tiers bring different structures/buildings/whatnot ?
That means that if you want to upgrade a structure, you either have the possibility to directly upgrade it to any tier you have researched, or you just have to build a new one at the same place.

I thought of this as well, but I think the augments would be cleaner on the menus. Having 10 different turrets would be confusing. An augmenting system would give you choices to make, and would allow you to upgrade the existing structures while you were still researching other tech. I am not so sure that a true tech tree fits into the game now with having to unlock one before you get to the next (civilization tech).

[British]

The turret is a bad example, as it has been discussed elsewhere that we probably won't end up with too many turret types
Now of course it depends on how many tiers we would end up having...
The problem with slots is that it tends to give too much micro-management.

[Gazz]

Would mean using fewer distinct buildings (which is good to keep menus clean) but would require some way to tell what kind of upgrade is installed where without clicking through 20 buildings.
At least if upgrades drastically change the role of an asset.

As for turrets, there could still be different basic turrets. Not all turret types would have to be compatible with all types of upgrades.

[Keystone]

If the augmentations are permanent, you only have to do it twice per turret and then you are done. That wouldn't be too much micromanagement in the long run. Unless you plan on selling/rebuilding them a lot. I'm guessing turrets are also going to be one of the most common buildings too. So as you said, maybe it's a bad example.

I do like the idea of being able to customise certain building to suit your environment/play style better. 

[SpaceEatingTrex]

The turret is a bad example, as it has been discussed elsewhere that we probably won't end up with too many turret types
Now of course it depends on how many tiers we would end up having...
The problem with slots is that it tends to give too much micro-management.

Thanks for the links British! When community-oriented projects use forums for communication it can be easy to miss out on good information, so I appreciate more experienced members like yourself linking to good posts for new members like me.

I agree that the building system would have more depth if structures could be upgraded or modified. The research system British recommended works well whenever the changes are a direct upgrade. I don't think players should be able to choose to build from every upgrade level though, since with a number of upgrades that could become over-complicated.

If there are going to be changes to a structure that modify its behavior rather than directly upgrading it (for instance, a hypothetical research lab specializing in a type of research or changing the color of lights) than it seems like those should be handled by slots or other optional settings.

[Tynan]

One of the basic design principles I follow is that one one mechanic for one purpose. There's a lot of reasons why this is usually a good idea. It reduces designer burden, it reduces player learning burden, it makes the game cleaner overall. And with the same number of mechanics, you can get more experience if each one does something totally different.

That's why I wouldn't put this particular system into the game. Whether the nutrient dispenser is a bit more efficient or makes people work somewhat faster isn't that big a deal - a big deal is the difference between a nutrient dispenser and a wall and a door. Or for turrets, if there was going to be a turret that shot fire, I'd just make it another kind of turret entirely.

Just think of it this way: Would you rather me add 10 various upgrades to existing buildings to make variations on their functions, or 5 entirely new buildings that do things that are entirely impossible in the game as it stands?

[Blitz]

I'd go for the 5 interesting buildings that each did something entirely different I suppose. It would be easier to understand and balance as well.

[SpaceEatingTrex]

One of the basic design principles I follow is that one one mechanic for one purpose. There's a lot of reasons why this is usually a good idea. It reduces designer burden, it reduces player learning burden, it makes the game cleaner overall. And with the same number of mechanics, you can get more experience if each one does something totally different.

Always great to hear more about your design philosophy Tynan! I do think one of the strong aspects of RimWorld is the intuitiveness of the interface and the friendlessness to new players, so I definitely think that should be continued. If you have the time, here's a situation to consider:

An equipment rack holds 2 weapons. Assume a player gathers ~30 weapons. Would it be better to make the player build ~15 equipment racks, have multiple equipment racks with different capacities (e.g. small, medium, large, etc.), or let the player upgrade the capacity of their equipment racks?

[Tynan]

The equipment racks stack next to each other visually. I'd just let people build more of them. It's just a few more clicks (no more than any other solution), and it adds zero interface or developer burden.

I also like the visual of having a large armory where you can see a long row of guns. It also means there is a cost to storing weapons, encouraging you to sell them.

[GC13]

The armory is currently one of my favorite buildings in the colony. It's hard for me to pin down exactly why it's so satisfying, but I believe it stems from making something to my own specifications to suit my needs.

If I were thinking of ways to augment my enjoyment of it, I'd do stuff like:

• Allow equipment racks to store many types of objects, so I could use a similar setup to, say, let my miners store gear.
• Make most colonists not run around with their weapons constantly, making the placement and securing of the armory important.
• Make there be another way to store weapons when not in use: say a footlocker in the colonist's room.
• Have weapons brought to the stockpile area by default, so the armory felt more optional.

In short: it feels so good to have options when building.

[Spike]

The equipment racks stack next to each other visually. I'd just let people build more of them. It's just a few more clicks (no more than any other solution), and it adds zero interface or developer burden.

I also like the visual of having a large armory where you can see a long row of guns. It also means there is a cost to storing weapons, encouraging you to sell them.

How do you feel about the Stockpile, as it is in the game now?  I know you had made a comment (somewhere) about possibly doing something along the lines Dwarf Fortress stockpiles.  I could see doing a similar type of structure for the armory, where it is a 3x3 (or whatever) fixed size structure that stores "infinite" weapons.

I'm curious about your design philosophy, as I could see it both ways.  Again, it's one of those things that could be made too complex, and calls up the entire balancing issue of how much management is micro-management?

[Tynan]

DF-style stockpiles are the next significant feature I'm doing. Hopefully before the pre-alpha.