Topic: Limited storage space in warehouses.

But I find it increasingly unworthy to reason against mindsets. It is an irony that Wide-lands is suffering from narrow-ness.

Widelands is not suffering from this mindset in the opinion of the people who don´t want this change…

If I understand the proposal correctly, I would be forced to choose between forever micromanaging all my woodcutters, wells, fisher etc, which I find very boring, or building new warehouses all the time, which I also dislike. That is why I vote -1.

Additionally adding a small storage building with limited capacity, as was also suggested, but not touching the normal warehouses, is an interesting idea; I don´t see any reason against it (though I personally can´t see any situation when it would be useful).

Top

Quote

It's not strange that most proposed changes are quickly rejected. In fact, there is a new thread with a new proposal about every week, it would be really crazy if the majority of those were implemented. especially the revolutionary ones, that would require a large change in playing mechanics. And this game already has the right kind of micromanagement for my tastes (you have something to do most times, but you don't need to get crazy chasing every single occurrence), greatly increasing it with warehouses filling is not my fondest dream. So you'd have to stop all the woodcutters to avoid them cluttering the warehouses and stop the mines. Or most likely a target would be set for logs, so that woodcutters would stop by themselves. Now I want to chop down a forest to build stuff over it, but i can't because the woodcutter won't work. And if I manually tell them to chop regardless, then my weappon smith will stop working because it has no storage space.

No, thanks.

moreover, the vast majority of arguments against specific changes have been about their side-effects, not about the changes themselves. And instead of focusing on what's wrong with Widelands that makes it theoretically so fragile to changes

every complex system is affected by change in complex ways. And if such a system is to be kept carefully balanced, then of course any change is going to impact balance in a meaningful way that must be assessed. And most of the times it clashes with something else.

Top

Quote

einstein13 wrote:

But going back to the topic: what about introducing small building which would work as a limited warehouse? Then standard warehouse can be a bit more expensive and Widelands as a whole will work as before, plus some features .

I just had the same idea - that should work without breaking any maps. It's then up to the players which type of warehouses they want to build.

ypopezios wrote:

Especially when it is about software, the easiest thing is to revert a change.

Any software change can be reverted, but the developer time spent on it will be lost forever. The more complicated the feature, the more complicated and non-trivial it is to revert it, because other developers will have merged other, unrelated changes in the meantime... So, we do need to think carefully before we start implementing complicated features. Thinking carefully does not imply instant rejection.

I am not against this feature if it's an additional small building, but I'd rather see trading implemented first.

Busy indexing nil values

Top

Quote

As far as I can see, having a tradehouse storage limit only adds the necessity to plan and micromanage production more. And while I understand, that some players would welcome this additional challenge, I personally would never turn this feature on. For me the point of the game is that I don't have to micromanage so much. I don't want to have to keep building warehouses or temporarily turn off buildings, just because my production is (maybe even temporarily) somewhat unbalanced and builds up some wares.

king_of_nowhere wrote:

GunChleoc wrote:

einstein13 wrote:

But going back to the topic: what about introducing small building which would work as a limited warehouse? Then standard warehouse can be a bit more expensive and Widelands as a whole will work as before, plus some features .

I just had the same idea - that should work without breaking any maps. It's then up to the players which type of warehouses they want to build.

but why woould anyone make a limited warehouse instead of a full one? even with lower cost (by the time you need warehouses, building material is cheap) and greater space requirements (again, if you need a warehouse your land is large) i can't imagine anyone wanting to make the lesser warehouses

In most situations players would likely just build a regular unlimited warehouse for the reasons you stated. Sometimes it might be convenient though when you want a warehouse as buffer to support a local production cycle and you only have small building places nearby. But I agree that the usefulness of limited small warehouses (in addition to regular ones) seems extremely limited.

Also, for just smoother local production cycles I'd rather have an option to tell a building to only request wares from producers/warehouses within a certain road distance (which I can also set for the building). That would mostly even elimiate the need for small local warehouses. I'll probably make a proper, more detailed proposal about this later, but first I want to check out all the code more to better assess how difficult such a feauture would be to implement.

Top

Quote

So probably this feature would be useless, unless your real warehouse would be very expensive (some extra tribe-specific building products? 50% more standard ones?). Then the balance would be a bit changed and probably from 3% usefulness of small warehouses we would reach 10-15% of usefulness?

Please keep the normal warehouses as they are! I wouldn´t object to the limited storage buildings, but only if gameplay without them is not penalized.

By the way, the capacity of warehouses is already limited – by your computer´s RAM

The only question is: is it worth to create such a feature?

This is only a toy for players who want to make the gameplay harder for themselves. I don´t believe anyone will ever use them in a tournament or multiplayer game.
I don´t see a reason against implementing this, but I can imagine better ways to spend programming time…

Top

Quote