Latest Posts

Topic: New resource indicators

Tibor

Joined: 2009-03-23, 23:24
Posts: 1377
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Slovakia
Posted at: 2016-01-15, 21:58

Hey, very interesting discussion.

Indeed splitting wells is not a must. I am not 100% sure it is good idea. But if we are going to do it, my idea is:

  1. Well - mines only actual water (as resource), once it is exhausted we can leave 5% probability - same as mines. But I would prefer 0% (no water mined anymore)
  2. Deep Well - mines actual water (as resource) and if this fails, based on humidity.

Question of atlanteans - they can be allowed to build directly deep wells (No need for them to be identified as 'deep')

Question: Should be a "Deep well" upgrade of "Well"? What about make Deep Well separate building of medium size?

Two deep wells in vicinity - this might be problem. Best approach would be create new value for field saying how many deep wells are in vicinity and how its yield (~humidity) should be divided... But this makes things complicated...

I found a term "dug well" - are you familiar with this term? Can it be used for small wells? Just an idea....


Top Quote
einstein13
Avatar
Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01
Posts: 1118
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Poland
Posted at: 2016-01-16, 02:45

Yes, two types of wells isn't necessary. But I think that it is a good idea. Some day we will have more possibilities (like trading) and the game will be more fun (complex :P)

Tibor wrote:

  1. Well - mines only actual water (as resource), once it is exhausted we can leave 5% probability - same as mines. But I would prefer 0% (no water mined anymore)

0% is not the best idea. On some maps (limited resources) it will cause the end of game for some players. We don't want to do that.

@king_of_nowhere: I was rather thinking about 5...50% than 0...50%, but as you said: there is lack of "difficult" terrain type and no real possibility to reach 0% face-smile.png So it is ok to me.

Question of atlanteans - they can be allowed to build directly deep wells (No need for them to be identified as 'deep')

Yes, but that idea had two sides:

  1. If we allow to build deep well with the same resources cost, it will be somehow big pro for Atlanteans
  2. If we allow to build deep well with high costs, it wil be huge against for Atlanteans
  3. We didn't found solution how to average the costs for them

So main solution that seems to be fine for me is to allow them build:

  1. Standard well with standard costs (and upgrade it at will)
  2. Deep well with high costs (no need to upgrade)

Question: Should be a "Deep well" upgrade of "Well"? What about make Deep Well separate building of medium size?

On big maps it is no difference how big the building is, but on some small maps it will destroy whole economy: how can we fill few more medium buildings on very limited space? I don't think that it is a good idea...

Two deep wells in vicinity - this might be problem. Best approach would be create new value for field saying how many deep wells are in vicinity and how its yield (~humidity) should be divided... But this makes things complicated...

Yes, that thing is complicated and the solution is not needed now face-smile.png For me the idea is not necessary, but if it will be approved, I will have more fun with that face-grin.png


einstein13
calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/
backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/

Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1668
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2016-01-16, 05:56

so, how do we decide whetherto do something that has been proposed or not? i'd suggest voting or something, but I am under the impression what happens in practice is that a programmer arrives and decides to actually do it.


Top Quote
kaputtnik
Avatar
Topic Opener
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 2433
OS: Archlinux
Version: current master
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2016-01-16, 10:00

king_of_nowhere wrote:

Real productivity will vary between 60% and 90% depending on humidity.

This applies only to deep wells then, is this correct?

If you can't see that by the equation, you have to take my word for it.

I trust you face-smile.png


Fight simulator for Widelands:
https://wide-fighter.netlify.app/

Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1668
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2016-01-16, 11:02

kaputtnik wrote:

king_of_nowhere wrote:

Real productivity will vary between 60% and 90% depending on humidity.

This applies only to deep wells then, is this correct?

yeah, that's the idea. deep wells would give similar productivity to current normal wells - with some moderate variation depending on humidity - so as to make old maps playable and to not screw up players without water. Normal wells would give productivity between 5 and 25% depending on humidity, so that players would be encouraged to make wells on water resources and upgrade them when the water runs out. new players would still be able to play fine without having to know which terrains are better for wells - deep wells would never produce less than 50%, on any land - but strong players would be able to squeeze some extra productivity through clever placement.


Top Quote
SirVer

Joined: 2009-02-19, 15:18
Posts: 1445
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany - Munich
Posted at: 2016-01-16, 12:32

Just 2c here: Humidity is probably not useful as a true model for 'wetness' of the terrain. We sorta arbitrarily adjusted the values till tree growth was feeling okaish. Tieing that to wells will probably not feel great in the game without adjustments - and those will in turn affect tree growth again.


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1668
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2016-01-16, 16:13

SirVer wrote:

Just 2c here: Humidity is probably not useful as a true model for 'wetness' of the terrain. We sorta arbitrarily adjusted the values till tree growth was feeling okaish. Tieing that to wells will probably not feel great in the game without adjustments - and those will in turn affect tree growth again.

that was true when a computer fit the values. now those values are given to be realistic, according to principles that were mostly agreed among players. Summer meadows have high fertility and humidity, because they are the most fecund terrains; those values decrease in going to steppe and barren steppe, while mountain meadow is wet (on the mountains it generally rains a lot) but less fertile (mountains generally have poor soils). Desert terrains are rather dry and sterile, except for steppe and meadow who are average. wasteland terrains are dry but very fertile, because the closer equivalent to them would be volcanic ashes, which have those traits. And winter terrains are wet (with little evapration, most cold ecosystems are bogs) but relatively sterile (bog ecosystems have low nutrients in the soil).

I've been reading a lot of wikipedia articles about climate and ecosystems in the last few years, and I've tried to give the terrains values that made sense. it was the trees that were adapted for the different terrains. I believe those terrain values are as realistic as they can be in a videogame.


Top Quote
SirVer

Joined: 2009-02-19, 15:18
Posts: 1445
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany - Munich
Posted at: 2016-01-16, 16:25

I stand corrected - I was obviously not paying close attention to the lua files lately


Top Quote
GunChleoc
Avatar
Joined: 2013-10-07, 15:56
Posts: 3324
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: RenderedRect
Posted at: 2016-01-16, 16:47

Starting to catch up, so some of my posts might be a bit outdated re. the conversation.

wl-zocker wrote:

I like the idea that the productivity of wells depends on the terrain next to it. But we have to be careful not to break old maps (e.g. wasteland maps, where wells will produce little water). And this requires some coding, and I am unsure whether this task is worth the time.

Is someone noting topics "to do" for build 20? Can we do that on Launchpad?

I guess the easiest way to to target a bug report to a milestone "build20-rc1", which has yet to be created.

We should open a bug report once we have some consensus of what we want. Then link this discussion to the bug. Target can be left open - we will create a new target once we have a separate branch for Build 19. Once we have a branch, we will reassess the bugs that are currently targeted for build19 to see which ones are must-have, e.g. critical bugs.

Edited: 2016-01-16, 16:51

Busy indexing nil values

Top Quote
GunChleoc
Avatar
Joined: 2013-10-07, 15:56
Posts: 3324
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: RenderedRect
Posted at: 2016-01-16, 16:54

Tibor wrote:

Just to avoid misunderstanding - an map creator will still be allowed to manually add fish and water. I am considering removal of default resources that are kind out of sight and out of control for map creator... Or made them more "official"/visible..... When you create a water - default fish will appear there immediately, but you will be allowed to modify the amount. Now also the game can query default resources and it is bad design. Default resources should be used only in editor and since then there would be only resource + amount stored in map.

Currently when you set amount 0 - resource is set to kNoResource. But that default resource is still lingering under the hood...

I like this idea.

I also like the idea of deep wells. Atlanteans could have a choice of building deep wells directly or upgrading them from normal wells - like the Empire has with the sentry/outpost.

Edited: 2016-01-16, 16:56

Busy indexing nil values

Top Quote