Topic: Limited storage space in warehouses.

ypopezios wrote:

WorldSavior wrote:

Changes can damage Widelands and this should be avoided.

The fact that any change can potentially damage Widelands, cannot justify a default negative stance to changes in general. After all, how many times in the past Widelands got damaged by a change?

Often. For example:

• map panning without the possibility to turn it off
• Increasing working times of smithies for no real reason
• loosing the possibility to show names of replay files
• AI unable to use second carriers

and so on

How big a damage was that?

Not that small, if you sum it up

And how hard was it to repair it?

Sometimes hard ( for example implementing a new option for turning the map panning of - by the way , thanks a lot for doing that @ the person who did that )

And instead of focusing on what's wrong with Widelands that makes it theoretically so fragile to changes,

Could you tell what's wrong?

king_of_nowhere wrote:

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.

Exactly

hessenfarmer wrote:

king_of_nowhere wrote:

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.

I fully agree to this. Balancing is always a main concern, cause it is really hard task to achieve.

+1

GunChleoc wrote:

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

I think that trading could be a good change

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

Small warehouses could speed up and improve expansion, so I could imagine to use them. So the change would not be marginal.

einstein13 wrote:

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

I don't think so.

Nordfriese wrote:

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. I can imagine better ways to spend programming time…

+1

“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top

Quote

dreieck wrote:

I find it much more important to solve the issue that sometimes places wait very long for a ware despite nearby a ware is available, jus tbecause a far away ware was selected to go to the needy place and this won't be reverted if a local ware gets available.

This is discussed from time to time. Tibor said that this would increase the CPU capacity utilization too much, but ypopezios said that he would be interested in finding a solution.

“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top

Quote

Which also benefits Widelands, because these discussions take up our time

Busy indexing nil values

Top

Quote

I have just had another idea for this: How about making warehouse capacity a game setup option, with infinity as the default? That would become feasible once we have finished refactoring the game setup UI.

Busy indexing nil values

Top

Quote