Topic: Geologist search behavior
kaputtnik
Topic Opener
Joined: 2013-02-18, 19:48
Posts: 2440 OS: Archlinux Version: current master  One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2017-12-17, 20:01
I want to read some opinions about the geologists search behavior. The current behavior is:
This can be very annoying if the flag is on the node where adjacent terrain of different type is used, so it is unclear which resource the geologist searches for. Or if one uses walkable terrain as snow on top of a mountain and send the geologist to a flag on that snowy terrain. My suggestion is that a geologist should not have such restrictions: If he is send to a flag he should examine each reachable node, regardless if it is mountainious or not. So he will find water as well as ore. Sending him to a flag near the mountains he walks also into the mountains. One doesn't have to reveal mountainious area with a military building to set a flag to send a geologist. What do you think about this? Fight simulator for Widelands: 
Top
Quote
|
WorldSavior
Joined: 2016-10-15, 03:10
Posts: 2094 OS: Linux Version: Recent tournament version One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2017-12-17, 20:19
I like the idea that he can go into the mountains even if the flag is not there, like you suggest it. But I think that it makes sense that the geologist "stays" in the mountain if the flag is there. Reason: I usually don't let them search for water. If a well doesn't find water, it will still have 65% efficiency. Maybe one could think about abolishing the resource "water" and let wells work always at 100%? The resource is a little bit pointless... Edited: 2017-12-17, 20:19
Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked
Top
Quote
|
GunChleoc
Joined: 2013-10-07, 14:56
Posts: 3324 One Elder of Players Location: RenderedRect |
Posted at: 2017-12-18, 09:26
That's definitely worth thinking about - either reduce the default efficiency for wells, or abolish the resource. I never search for water. Busy indexing nil values
Top
Quote
|
|
Tibor
Joined: 2009-03-23, 22:24
Posts: 1377 One Elder of Players Location: Slovakia |
Posted at: 2017-12-18, 10:53
I would vote for reducing the default probability to 5-10 %
Top
Quote
|
|
kaputtnik
Topic Opener
Joined: 2013-02-18, 19:48
Posts: 2440 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2017-12-18, 11:11
I think abolishing resource water is not good. It may get some importance in future versions? Better give the map editor a way to remove default resources in the editor.. Or/and make efficiency of wells dependent of terrain For the geologist we may could have two buttons:
I have to admit the second is currently some sort of useless... Fight simulator for Widelands:
Top
Quote
|
No0815
Joined: 2016-05-01, 13:52
Posts: 49  Pry about Widelands |
Posted at: 2017-12-18, 14:59
I never understood the reasoning behind the way water is handled as a resource. But I also never got around to address this point either. Actually it would be interesting to know why water is handled the way it is @SirVer. For now, this is what I would suggest: Don't abolish water as a resource but completely change the way it is handled. Water can't be placed in the editor anymore, instead it is completely handled by the game. Think of it like trees or crops that can be harvested if present. Each node can hold one unit of water that can be "harvested" and is then slowly replenished over time. How long it takes depends on the terrain type. Seven nodes of meadow (since a well has a range of 1) should be able to comfortably support a well, even if two are close together (at least that sounds reasonable to me). On dryer soils, the efficiency would drop since water wouldn't be replenished quickly enough. I'm not sure if terrain like mountain and dessert should regenerate water very slowly or not at all and therefor hold no water to begin with. What do you think?
Top
Quote
|
Ex-Member
Joined: 2014-09-12, 09:53
Posts: 184  Widelands-Forum-Junkie |
Posted at: 2017-12-18, 15:41
I agree with keeping water as a resource, there are some maps that already 'ration' water as a feature. I like the idea of water having a terrain affinity, wet desserts seem so odd. It should be possible for a designer to tweak the levels in the editor but the standard setting should be set by the terrain, anything that forces players to find water is better than what we have now. Builing a well somewhere that there is no water indicated should give a low chance, similar to finding ore in a worked out mine.
Top
Quote
|
|
teppo
Joined: 2012-01-30, 08:42
Posts: 423  Tribe Member |
Posted at: 2017-12-18, 17:59
60->5% is a radical change. There are probably many maps with far too little water. What about doing it in steps: first 60>30, then 30>15, then 15->?, if this still feels like a good idea. Should the default probablity depend on terrain type?
Top
Quote
|
|
hessenfarmer
Joined: 2014-12-11, 22:16
Posts: 2651 One Elder of Players Location: Bavaria |
Posted at: 2017-12-18, 21:35
If we change the default probability we should change the working radius as well. In a way that it doesn't make sense to place the wells to adjacent to another. At least a rasius of probably ten would deliver sufficient water.
Top
Quote
|
|
Tibor
Joined: 2009-03-23, 22:24
Posts: 1377 One Elder of Players Location: Slovakia |
Posted at: 2017-12-18, 21:45
As I understand the probability thing - density of wells does not make any impact here....
Top
Quote
|