Topic: questions about the economy
hessenfarmer |
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 16:57
ok radius of 5 would mean 91 nodes if I calculated correctly. with a default ressource of 4 (like currently) this means 364 buckets of water per well. default of 5 will be 455. So if properly placed the supply of water would be ok. As an exhausted well does not consume anything you can keep him going. so we could just give it a try with current default or a slightly increased default. What is your reason for having bigger radius for frisians? Top Quote |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nordfriese |
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 17:21
Actually, only terrains like steppe have a default of 4, most blacklands have 5 and certain humid terrains like summer meadows have 10, swamps even 20, so this is even better. A radius of 4 might suffice in good terrains.
It was mentioned earlier that empire and frisians (unlike bar and atl) need water for their infinite fish/meat supply, so making wells less efficient will hit them harder than others. My suggestions for emp and fri are for the case that the change would disadvantage them; if we find this is not true, then all tribes´ wells should be equal. Top Quote |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hessenfarmer |
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 18:06
ok now I get it. Yo suggested to cure the 2 disadvantages differently. Hmm. need to think about it. A bigger radius does not mean more water available it only means less wells needed to explore the ressource. Top Quote |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nordfriese |
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 18:25
Variety between the tribes is always good
Ok true… then how about reducing the working time for the frisian well instead? Top Quote |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hessenfarmer |
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 19:25
I believe that is still the same effect. How about needing an upgrade and an advanced worker to reach deeper levels of water while having double return for deeper water levels. (e.g. first level mining 50 % return 1 water per 1 ressource, second level mining another 30% at 2 water per ressorce and level 3 getting the rest at 3 per ressource. We just need to prevent an early upgrade of the building then. Top Quote |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nordfriese |
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 19:59
+1
That could be achieved by making the experience levels really high. According to your calculations above, a level 1 well would get 182 water before being empty, so between up to 120 experience points are not unreasonable. (depleted wells would need a high chance of experience-on-fail though). But I´d make the difference between the levels higher so upgrades pay out, e.g.
Top Quote |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WorldSavior |
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 20:39
It's not. It's analogue to a farm: You have to find space for it, you need to pay the build costs, and the water has to be transported etc.
Why would you say anything else?
Question is, if the game should be changed or not. It is like it is and most of it is good. One can see: The principle "building has to be rebuild because resources are out" is already covered by mines. And by other buildings too. That's enough. If also wells would be like that, it would be too much.
... Which can be annoying, because one needs a lot of wells already. So I don't see how this could improve the game.
Yes, it is. My suggestion wouldn't let deplete wells, so the wouldn't drop to 66% productivity, which is not a big difference. But in case the change goes into the other direction, one has to build new wells all the time, which is obviously the bigger change.
If the features are a huge change (like wells with 10% productivity), why not. But I see that you also implement good features (for example seeing which wares are on their way), which are closer to be obviously improvements.
People who play online matches need official builds for compability. People who not play online matches don't have exactly this requirement.
Well, one still has to pay attention to not waste big building spaces for wells.
No, you also need building space etc.
No, it couldn't.
That's why I suggested to remove water as a resource.
It didn't discredit him, I just made a point.
No? Who talks about leaving?
I'm not going to to that.
Looks like it's not the case.
I hope we keep it like that then.
So you see, there are big differences between the terrains. Conclusion: Your proposed change would lead to further problems,
-1
-1 Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked Top Quote |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
king_of_nowhere |
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 20:42
I don't see adding the need to remake wells as improving the game in any way. it's just a needless nuisance. I can get behind having to remake mines, adding wells in it, not so much. it further feels ridiculous. running out of minerals, that's normal. but running out of water? i can see it happening in modern times in desertic regions, but when taking water by bucketfuls? not really. I do agree that the water resource, as it is right now, is basically useless. when planning your economy, you still have to take into account to make enough wells for when they are depleted. may as well not bother with it. wells, on the other hand, have their place in the economy; you have to build enough of them, they take some space. If we accept nordfriese's definition of the building being "meaningless", then equally meaningless is a barbarian hunter-gamekeeper pairing. even a forester-woodcutter pairing is little better, you just need a little space for the trees. Now, if you want to changee wells, I can see several different ways to do it 1) remove water resource. wells are 100%, period.the simplest solution. most players already play as if that was the case. 2) remove water resource amount, make it just a yes/no. if the well has water, it will produce forever. otherwise, it will never produce.the most realistic; your well does need to tap into some groundwater reservoir, and those are endless for most practical purposes, especially preindustrially. Would actuallly encourage players to call a geologist before making wells. would require rework of many old maps, though. 3) wells can be enhanced to deep wells. once a well runs out of water, you have to enhance it to a deep well to keep producing. A deep well produces without the need for water.I actually pushed forward this idea in the past, but nothing was done about it. main criticism was because atlanteans are not supposed to need to enhance buildings. Anyway, now that I thought realism I like it less than I do 1) or 2) 4) wells produce according to soil humiditywould be a nice way to tie into an already existing feature, would make well placement meaningful, would not be too much hassle. Blackland would be screwed, because it has low humidity, but then it has low humidity for everyone; all tribes are equally dependent on water (maybe atlanteans a bit less and frisians a bit more?) so it would screw up everyone equally. Main problem, the player woould need to have a way of knowing terrain humidity. I know the values, we can't expect everyone else to do so. 5) we keep wells as they are.we recognize that ultimately it's not a big enough problem to get worked on :P, or either we don't find a consensus, or nobody is willing to put the work on it. Actuallly the most likely. 6) water becomes a finite resourceIf this becomes some kind of vote, I have to add nordfriese proposal, as much as I don't like it. It would also require a lot of work on old maps, and a lot of rebalancing. My vote goes on 4, 2, 1, 5, 3 in order of preference. All those I would like, or at least find acceptable. I am strongly against 6. Cast your votes, or add different proposals. Edited: 2019-05-29, 20:42
Top Quote |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
king_of_nowhere |
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 20:47
poll results
Edited: 2019-05-31, 19:05
Top Quote |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WorldSavior |
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 21:04
Well, I'm for option 5, but for option 1 as well. It's my well-made decision to be against 2, 3, 4 and 6. Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked Top Quote |