[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#10858) Oracle doesn't work on Temples

["(Eddie Anderson)" <saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=10858 >

"Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>The way you have it written makes it insanely powerful.  It is rather 
>powerful as it is.

    I agree that, as written, Copernicus' Observatory (CO) would
almost certainly be too powerful.  I disagree about its power as it
is.  I feel that, as it is, CO has been surpassed by ordinary
buildings - all of the science buildings are cheaper to build and
provide equal or greater science bonuses.  That doesn't seem right
to me considering CO is supposed to be a WoW.

    For comparison consider this:  If CO is scaled back to 50% (and
otherwise kept the way I defined it), it has the same overall effect
with a library (i.e. 3X base science output) as it does now (in the
default ruleset).  CO (at 50%) only provides greater benefit once a
university is built in that city.  Even then CO would only provide
.75X base science output more (until Computers are discovered).

    Speaking of Computers, perhaps CO's duration should be curtailed
as well.  For a permanent WoW, CO is available very early in the
game (only Pyramids is available sooner, IIRC).  Perhaps CO should
expire when Computers or Electronics or Machine Tools are
discovered.  That would prevent CO's effects from compounding with a
Research Lab.

>Also "Boosts science by 100%" does not mean doubles science.  It is 
>understood that percentage increases are additive not multiplicative. 
>You're talking about "doubles all science".

    I understand.  I was just disappointed with the benefit provided
by CO after I'd built it.  Instead of a WoW, it was sort of a WWiBi
(wonder why I built it).  :-)  Maybe if it was a empire-wide wonder
(like Newton and SETI), its cost would seem more justifiable.

    Another option is to leave CO the way it is and knock its cost
down to 100.  That makes it more comparable to a library in both
cost and benefit.

>Finally you don't handle Newton or SETI.  I think it's impossible to 
>handle them because that would require two reqs.  Interestingly this 
>shows a situation where the reqs would have different ranges.  E.g.
>
>   "name", "range", "value", "req1_type", "req1_range", "req1" \
>                             "req2_type", "req2_range", "req2"
>   "Science_Bonus", "Player", 100, "Building", "City", "University" \
>                                   "Building", "Player", "Newton"
>
>eventually the above should become our effects format and multiple reqs 
>should be allowed.  Until then doing this is impossible.

    Based on the earlier emails here, that's what I suspected.  The
future format looks promising though.

    Thanks for the feedback.  I intend to experiment some more with
the buildings.ruleset definitions in my games to see what I think
works well.

Eddie