Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[C4:AC] Ecodamage.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [C4:AC] Ecodamage.

    I was thinking about ED and how to do it better than SMAC and how to fit it into SMACX. I'm actually going to use the term pollution for the general nasty stuff which heavy industry spews out, and ecodamage for when it actually bothers planet, although the terms are rather interchangeable...

    A major change:
    Pollution/Ecodamage is per-tile rather than per city.


    Pollution Sources:

    Every improvement generates some pollution, both on the tile and on adjacent tiles (these being separate in the XML).

    Bases generate pollution according to their production and population, this pollution spews out into the neighboring land.


    Pollution Sinks:

    Features like forest and fungus absorb pollution.

    Bare land also absorbs a small amount of pollution.

    Water absorbs pollution.


    Pollution Spread:

    Pollution would spread out, for example a borehole or large base would generate immense amounts of pollution which would spread over a large area, it would take many turns for the pollution to go away even if the source is destroyed. Basically it spreads out and is absorbed into the sinks, or it builds up and slowly rots the land.


    Ecodamage:

    As a minor event, when pollution flows into fungus, especially beyond the fungus's ability to absorb it, planet gets VERY mad. The fungus will start generating very hostile mindworms. The pollution would eventually kill the fungus if it becomes intense enough.

    As a major event, every player would have a "Ecodamage bar", it fills up as pollution is generated, once it is nearly full there is a chance each turn that a major "pop" event will happen, this pop would happen in a very polluted area (or even multiple areas, with later pops). Each successive major pop would require more ecodamage than the last, but it would be bigger. The interface would give some indication of when and where the pop would happen, although it wouldn't be completely predictable. A major pop would blanket multiple tiles with fungus and spawn a bunch of worms, with the polluted fungus generating yet more worms each turn, until the mess is cleaned up or dies back off. The idea of making it a major event, is to reduce the "whack a mole" factor, while increasing the threat presented by Planet.


    Two Approaches to Combat ED:

    Scourge the land (you know you want to). Eliminating all fungus would prevent minor pops, but would also pretty much inevitably lead to major pops and the climate change would be generally undesirable. Eliminating the fungus would ramp up pollution since it removes a pollution sink. Of course as a bonus you get the Planet Pearls from killing off the angry worms, but it wouldn't quite be a reliable, unlimited income, since a major pop might well require the mobilization of most of your army.
    Likely killing off more fungus would weaken planet (it would take longer to prepare a major pop), as in if everyone on planet makes a concerted effort to eliminate the fungus, Planet would eventually die (you know you want to), of course a cult-style rogue faction could preserve heaps of fungus .
    The major downside of completely killing planet with massive pollution is that the terrain would rot

    Walk with Planet: Planting forests would cause more pollution to be sucked up, old forests would absorb a lot more pollution, making it very much an investment thing.
    Tree Farms would increase the pollution sucked up by forests. C.Preserves would increase the pollution sucked up by fungus (they could be a terrain improvement maybe which also prevents fungus from dying).
    Increasing the Planet Rating would generally reduce pollution generation across the board, I would go with Planet Rating decreasing pollution by an absolute amount - ie each level of planet might reduce improvement ED by 4. A farm, with 10 ED, is neutralized at Planet 3. A borehole, with 125 ED, barely cares about even maximum planet. In other words, green doesn't make heavy industry clean. However a stand of 8 mature forests would handle the pollution from a single borehole, so a green player could sustain a low density of heavy industry.


    What do you think?

  • #2
    Re: [C4:AC] Ecodamage.

    Very interesting!

    I like the "per-tile" change, the sources, sinks and spread.

    I don't quite understand what you are referring to here:

    Originally posted by Blake
    The major downside of completely killing planet with massive pollution is that the terrain would rot
    I'd probably need to test how it actually works in the game to fully understand this system. Especially regarding the consequences of ecodamage and how to deal with it. Generally, the balancing looks promising, though.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think he is refering to if pollution if it is to high then negative affects to each tile.
      You have two choices in life; Explore and learn or Vegetate.
      There is a reason for everything.

      Comment


      • #4
        The whole eco concept you describe sounds interesting to say the least, Blake. I hope you manage to pull it off.
        He who knows others is wise.
        He who knows himself is enlightened.
        -- Lao Tsu

        SMAC(X) Marsscenario

        Comment


        • #5
          I still fail to understand the pollution aspect. Wouldn't it be better to simply refer to ecodamage?

          Ecodamage spreads and accumulates, but will never completely "kill the planet". It makes sense to have ecodamage sinks as well.

          Comment


          • #6
            When I think of Ecodamage I think of damage to the environment where polution affect the environment and the human psychee.

            If you want to use Ecodamage then expand its definition.
            You have two choices in life; Explore and learn or Vegetate.
            There is a reason for everything.

            Comment


            • #7
              Well I'm using a pollution model as the framework for ecodamage. Pollution in this case is the alien products of humanity being released into the Chiron environment. These aren't always harmful and planet can even enjoy it.

              Ecodamage is different... ecodamage is when pollution crosses a threshold and becomes harmful to planet. Ecodamage is also things which cause pain to planetmind, for example dropping a Planet Buster would cause both a tonne of pollution but also extra, immediate ecodamage, such that a massive fungal bloom may immediately occur.

              To make it very clear:
              • Pollution is stuff generated by cities and improvements, it's on tiles, in mild quantities it might enhance growth, in large quantities it can kill features or even degrade terrain.
              • Ecodamage is how pissed Planet is at you. Pollution can cause ecodamage but it's not the only thing. High ecodamage invokes an autoimmune response in planet, an attempt to remove the offending organisms via fungal blooms and such.


              It may be that Pollution ends up a stealth variable and you only see the resultant ecodamage...

              Comment


              • #8
                You mentioned each player having an ecodamage bar, but what about a city level ecodamage bar instead?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Or an ecodamage layer on the globe map?
                  Indifference is Bliss

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Also will planet be smart enough to figure out the source when people fire Planet Busters? IMO there should really be an ecodamage penalty for using them, not just for being hit by them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by N35t0r
                      Or an ecodamage layer on the globe map?
                      A very good idea! I don't know if it is possible, but if we can do this I think the layer should be available when zoomed in too.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I rather like this idea.

                        I also fancy the idea that there might be buildings, units, and SEs that benefit from making lots of pollution. These would have to represent a committed strategy with high (but fixed) costs, mind, rather than something just anybody can do late-game to mitigate the effects of pollution. Something conceptually along the lines of taking all of Planet's bad psychic juju it's throwing at you and embracing it so you can throw psychic nerve gas at your enemies or something.

                        Originally posted by Kable
                        Also will planet be smart enough to figure out the source when people fire Planet Busters? IMO there should really be an ecodamage penalty for using them, not just for being hit by them.
                        Once humans develop psions, it should be able to know.

                        Hmm. Psychics as Planet's unwitting probe teams?
                        Last edited by murielwasser; December 12, 2006, 22:59.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I also fancy the idea that there might be buildings, units, and SEs that benefit from making lots of pollution. These would have to represent a committed strategy with high (but fixed) costs, mind, rather than something just anybody can do late-game to mitigate the effects of pollution. Something conceptually along the lines of taking all of Planet's bad psychic juju it's throwing at you and embracing it so you can throw psychic nerve gas at your enemies or something.
                          An excellent idea!
                          I don't want for a "Pollution bad" mentality, for example I favor having pollution increase plant growth (in low concentrations).
                          Another idea could be to have a "Toxic Converter" which sucks up pollution and generates energy (or other stuff) based on the amount of pollution, that could help the severely pollution lands stay at least competitive.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Blake

                            An excellent idea!
                            I don't want for a "Pollution bad" mentality, for example I favor having pollution increase plant growth (in low concentrations).
                            Another idea could be to have a "Toxic Converter" which sucks up pollution and generates energy (or other stuff) based on the amount of pollution, that could help the severely pollution lands stay at least competitive.
                            To clarify, I misspoke on my earlier post - what I meant was not merely that there should be units, facilities, &c. that benefit from pollution, but that there's a confluence of them that represents a strategic archetype organized around maximizing ecodamage (as you've distinguished the terms.)

                            The way I see it, there should be three approaches to dealing with ecodamage: mitigation, elimination, and maximization.

                            Mitigation is the default. You want to have industry, for the obvious reasons, but you don't want to have ecodamage, because of mind worms and health and stuff. So you industrialize, and plant forests and build toxic converters like you mentioned, and having hospitals to deal with the health effects and some defense forces to guard against mindworms. You don't get rid of your industry, but you take measures to insure it doesn't kill you. There's obviously a broad spectrum within this.

                            Elimination is the Planet-friendly strategy. Having a zero rate of ecodamage (and perhaps even pollution) should carry a very high opportunity cost in terms of industry, but it should enable you to do certain tricks with psi and mindworms and stuff that you couldn't do otherwise. It represents a strategic archetype, more narrow than mitigation but with more versatility than maximization. This strategic archetype already existed in AC to an extent.

                            Trying to maximize ecodamage constitutes a toxic strategy. This entails a definite level of commitment. It entails very high costs but gives enough benefits from ecodamage that the marginal effect of producing more ecodamage is positive. These are benefits in excess of the costs rather than a reduction in the costs, so part of the price is that your cities have horrible health and suffer from constant mindworm attacks. Like its opposite, the benefits take the form of neat tricks with psi and stuff. The image I have in mind is that a society starts dumping chemicals in its streams and pumping pollution into the air for the sole purpose of arousing Planet's ire, then internalizes all the bad juju to gain horrible powers - throngs of people forced to meditate on their hatred so everyone in an enemy city can suffer from a stroke, horrible medical experiments, that sort of thing. It should be basically impossible to back out of, as without the benefits the costs of having such high ecodamage would pretty quickly kill you. This should be a fairly inflexible strategy that's taken less often than the mitigation or green approaches, but still definitely possible.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Toxic strategy. Excellent.

                              It could also fit with the idea of the ability to kill Planetmind. It would be interesting to have a victory whch could be achieved from two polar approaches - the "Genesis" approach of remaking earth and the "Apocalypse" approach of (basically) destroying everything.

                              The toxic strategy could involve maybe "corrupted mindworms", planets creatures twisted and mutated to thrive in the toxic environment. It'd need to be fleshed out more but the concept is definitely most fascinating.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X