(WIP) Hermitage

[JiCeyCraft]

*phkb is ruminating*

+golb!+
*slowly and silently goes to the exit*

[UK_Eliter]

This is just to say that, phkb, you might want to check my new HarderHermits OXP for any clash with yours. Let me reproduce some of the ReadMe from that OXP of mine here - in case it helps. I append a download link and a link to the thread discussing my OXP.

PURPOSE

This expansion packs toughens up some rock hermits - or, toughens them *further* if some other pack already makes them harder.

RECOMMENDED OTHER EXPANSION PACKS

• This expansion pack is compatible with, and is best used with, 'Spicy Hermits' by Spara.

• Also, to add more types of defence ships for the hermits, install, in addition to HarderHermits, these OXPs of mine:
- Super Sidewinder
- Fer-de-Lance 3G

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks to the following:

- spara (who wrote 'Spicy Hermits', which is much more ambitious than this my OXP);
- dybal (for encouragement and suggestions).


NOTE FOR EXPANSION PACK MAKERS

This expansion pack works mainly in the following way. It uses the this.shipExitedWitchspace handler. When Oolite sends my code a message that that handler has fired, my code seeks entities with rock-hermit roles and then (sometimes) does things to (some of) them.

Download link.

OXP thread.

[phkb]

The Rock Hermit we would want to be the owner would not be necessarily active.

I've been thinking long and hard about the possibility of having a full shutdown switch somewhere for a Hermitage. Here's where I'm up to.

The first part relates to how close to the current observable operation of a Rock Hermit I'm trying to make this, and the assumption I'm making is that Rock Hermits are always open. Any time you find one in the game, you can always dock there. They are never "shut down" or "closed for holidays" (or, using today's experience, "closed for deep cleaning"). So, having a shutdown option negates that assumption. (Although, to be fair, you could handwave an explanation that says Rock Hermits do shut down occasionally, but the player is just never around to see it. But we'll leave this explanation aside for the moment).

The second part relates to the gameplay loops I'm trying to establish. In thinking about the operation of a station (any station), I decided that there would be operational parts of the station that would consume resources, which creates a nice interplay with the standard gameplay loops already available - buying and selling goods. But now, rather than just selling them for profit, your using those goods to facilitate the operation of your station. Station operations depend on those goods, and therefore it's imperative the player find them somewhere to keep feeding the beast.

The whole push to "keep the station functioning" is the whole point of the exercise. Without the threat of things failing or running out of resources, a huge part of the experience is missing. If you can just shut things down quickly and easily, beetle around the galactic map and do your own thing, with no pressure, it kind of defeats the purpose of having the station.

Now, having said that, I'm not against the idea of including a shutdown option. It's just that right now, at this stage of development, the thing I need most is feedback about the gameplay that exists right now. Is the experience I'm creating here fun? And if the response is, "it would only be fun if I can turn it off", then there's a much deeper problem to rectify.

If the required resources for station operations are set too high, making the process of gathering them too difficult or frustrating, it's probably better to tweak those settings (either fewer resources required per day, or the resources last longer than a single day), or I could make sure other system stations have a continuous trickle of the required resources (which can easily be explained by traders unloading goods, or new planetary resources arriving). This would mean you don't necessaily have to leave the system to collect them.

These are the things I'd like to play with first, before going with the "shut down" option.

[Cody]

If you can just shut things down quickly and easily, beetle around the galactic map and do your own thing, with no pressure, it kind of defeats the purpose of having the station.

This!

[cag]

... before going with the "shut down" option.

compromise by outsourcing the maintenance to allow player to depart system for extended but not indefinite periods, for trade, contracts or missions

• purchase time-limited contracts, renewable in system or via email (latter more expensive) or auto-renew using local broker (for a fee)
• become an absentee landlord, leasing the Rock Hermit to local gang as hideaway or cache for stolen goods/smuggling or GalCop for staging of weapons, fuel or as early warning/listening post
  - basic upkeep is a condition of lease, with player funding any resources needed, reducing lease payment for labor
  (that way tenants can 'fix' things that 'malfunction')
• take on a rescued slave as apprentice/adoption or a rescued pilot as a partner, whose reliability is a function of species, training, government of home system (ie. mores) and random weighting of personality traits
  - required to report regularly, with hints that things may not be totally above board
  - conditions vary w/ time, depending on player's interactions (scolding vs bonuses)

so that

• reliability of subcontractors, brokers & tenants is a function of government, tech. level, player's rating (ie. threat level of retaliation) and time player has been absent, and it degrades over time
• random events (resource shortage, worker's strike, corporate takeover, plague, alien incursion, holiday, etc.) that require intervention in person/remotely (latter more expensive)
  - events allow mini-quests
  • eg. acquire scare resource & rush home or ship it (ala Hyperspace Hangar?)
  • eg. trade favor w/ local crime boss to 'resolve' strike, perform corporate sabotage/assassination
    (ala Alfred Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train")
  - reduce/make expensive/remove the options to handle event remotely after each event

Design all of the above so that conditions worsen over the time the player is absent to encourage a return or risk the loss of the Rock Hermit.

[JiCeyCraft]

Hermitage uninstalled... Sorry :/

[phkb]

Hermitage uninstalled... Sorry :/

No worries. Possibly evidence that it's not fun in its current form, which is always a risk with the fundamental gameplay shift this OXP is attempting to implement.

[JiCeyCraft]

We DO NOT disembark our Ship when we are working on the Rock Hermit facilities.
We STAY INSIDE our Ship. We USE our Ship's Life Support. NOT the Rock Hermit's Life Support.
So, how come the Rock Hermit CAN kick you out, when NOBODY is INSIDE it?
THIS is where your current version of Hermitage is FLAWED.
WHEN the RH's Life Support is not USED, it should NOT kick you out.
You get that, now?

[maik]

We DO NOT disembark our Ship when we are working on the Rock Hermit facilities.
We STAY INSIDE our Ship. We USE our Ship's Life Support. NOT the Rock Hermit's Life Support.
So, how come the Rock Hermit CAN kick you out, when NOBODY is INSIDE it?
THIS is where your current version of Hermitage is FLAWED.
WHEN the RH's Life Support is not USED, it should NOT kick you out.
You get that, now?

The first few lines I thought “this is the persona of an engineer in Oolite who is unhappy about processes and organizations and such. But then it started sounding more like a personal attack. In good faith, careful with words!

[Cody]

We DO NOT disembark our Ship when we are working on the Rock Hermit facilities.

I tend to conduct my business with rock hermits in their inner sanctum, usually in a comfy chair with a glass of whichever liquor I happen to be selling. Aside from being an interstellar courier, my mission in life is to keep rock hermits supplied with booze!

[phkb]

We DO NOT disembark our Ship when we are working on the Rock Hermit facilities.

I always envisaged the opposite. Oolite doesn't explicitly tell us one way or the other, so this is quite subjective. Both views are perfectly valid.

WHEN the RH's Life Support is not USED, it should NOT kick you out.

This mechanic was always a bit of a "let's try it and see". I wanted there to be some serious repercussions for allowing the life support to fail, but it might be a bit too severe.

You get that, now?

Quite.

[JiCeyCraft]

O.o
No more news...
Oh well.

[phkb]

Sorry, no more news at the moment. I'm in a coding hiatus right now, but I'm still working through the options on how I can make this work better.

[JiCeyCraft]

Sorry, no more news at the moment. I'm in a coding hiatus right now, but I'm still working through the options on how I can make this work better.

Okay
But don't forget RH Owners will need to find resources nonetheless.
I have read your volumental "Guide" about building/upgrading systems/facilities/... and, just for example, upgrading to RH LVL3 is asking lot of resources we don't have in the beginning.

[JiCeyCraft]

"""""
"???"
"""""