Latest Posts

Topic: questions about the economy

hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 613
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 17:57

Nordfriese wrote:

How about giving empire wells a higher chance when depleted (they look like they will retain rainwater face-wink.png )? About 10-20% for other tribes and 30-50% for empire…
Frisian wells could get a higher working radius, about 4-5 for other tribes and 2 higher for frisians.

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
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 386
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 18:21

with a default ressource of 4 (like currently) this means 364 buckets of water per well. default of 5 will be 455

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.

What is your reason for having bigger radius for frisians

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
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 613
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 19:06

Nordfriese wrote:

with a default ressource of 4 (like currently) this means 364 buckets of water per well. default of 5 will be 455

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.

What is your reason for having bigger radius for frisians

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.

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
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 386
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 19:25

You suggested to cure the 2 disadvantages differently

Variety between the tribes is always good face-smile.png

A bigger radius does not mean more water available it only means less wells needed to explore the ressource

Ok true… then how about reducing the working time for the frisian well instead?


Top Quote
hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 613
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 20:25

Nordfriese wrote:

You suggested to cure the 2 disadvantages differently

Variety between the tribes is always good face-smile.png

A bigger radius does not mean more water available it only means less wells needed to explore the ressource

Ok true… then how about reducing the working time for the frisian well instead?

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
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 386
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 20:59

How about needing an upgrade and an advanced worker to reach deeper levels of water while having double return for deeper water levels.

+1 face-smile.png

(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.

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.

  • Superficial Well: gets 20% and 1 ware per resource; Well Keeper (needs 70 XP to become a Chief Well Keeper); 5% production chance when depleted and 80% XP-on-fail-chance

  • Well: gets 60% and 2 wares per resource; Chief Well Keeper (needs another 150 XP to become a Master Well Keeper); 10% production chance when depleted and 80% XP-on-fail-chance

  • Deep Well: gets 100% and 3 wares per resource; 20% production chance when depleted


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1101
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 21:39

Nordfriese wrote:

What is the point of a building that produces infinitely without input wares and without any other requirements (not even spacial)?

That's not the question.

That depends on how you define "the question". I do ask this question, therefore this question exists, and unless you convince me otherwise, my answer to it is "the well is pointless in the current implementation of water".

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.

The question is:

This also is not "the question", only another question that is neither more nor less valid than mine.

Why would you say anything else?

Why is it a difference if the building requires space or not?

In my opinion, every building is pointless unless it has some kind of requirement. This can be input wares, nearby immovables, resources in the ground, free space, or whatever. The well has no such requirement as the only applicable one (water resource) is merely a small boost factor, and the well still works way too fine if it is missing.

  1. wells still require space

  2. That's just your opinion, you don't have to expect that other people share it.

It's stupid to have to replace wells then all the time

The same is true for mines.

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.

And you can keep depleted wells around, since they´ll still produce for free now and then. You only have to build new wells now and then.

... Which can be annoying, because one needs a lot of wells already. So I don't see how this could improve the game.

If you want that Widelands changes so radically

This is not more radical than your proposal: "It could be good to remove the resource water completely and let wells always run at 100%."

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.

You don't even play online matches.

Perhaps I should stop implementing new features because I´m not going to use them in multiplayer games as well?

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.

Please explain the relevance of the ability and habit of playing online matches for the permission to make suggestions.

People who play online matches need official builds for compability. People who not play online matches don't have exactly this requirement.

hessenfarmer wrote:

WorldSavior wrote:

What is the point of a building that produces infinitely without input wares and without any other requirements (not even spacial)?

That's not the question. The question is: Why is it a difference if the building requires space or not?

Because it matters where to place this building. In the current design and in the proposed design of 100% you could place wells everywhere, without giving a thought.

Well, one still has to pay attention to not waste big building spaces for wells.

In this case it is just about having enough build material available,

No, you also need building space etc.

which could be simply added to the water consuming buildings as I was trying to point out in a previous post.

No, it couldn't.

How about giving empire wells a higher chance when depleted (they look like they will retain rainwater face-wink.png )? About 10-20% for other tribes and 30-50% for empire… Frisian wells could get a higher working radius, about 4-5 for other tribes and 2 higher for frisians.

It's stupid to have to replace wells then all the time. If you want that Widelands changes so radically - why don't you just do your own mod? You don't even play online matches.

  1. Furthermore the current design is misleading as new players already assumed water to be finite. See start of this discussion.

That's why I suggested to remove water as a resource.

Expectation is further that other people and their opinions are not discredited by whatever personal fact (not playing online games isn't a good fact for this anyway).

It didn't discredit him, I just made a point.

GunChleoc wrote:

I very rarely play online matches, so I guess I better leave too?

No? Who talks about leaving?

Don't worry, just kidding, but please don't tell people they don't have a right to their opinion because their playing style differs from yours.

I'm not going to to that.

The goal is to see if we can find a solution that's better for everyone than the solution that we currently have.

Looks like it's not the case.

If we can't agree on something better, we can always keep it like it is now.

I hope we keep it like that then.

Nordfriese wrote:

with a default ressource of 4 (like currently) this means 364 buckets of water per well. default of 5 will be 455

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.

So you see, there are big differences between the terrains. Conclusion: Your proposed change would lead to further problems,

hessenfarmer wrote:

Nordfriese wrote:

You suggested to cure the 2 disadvantages differently

Variety between the tribes is always good face-smile.png

A bigger radius does not mean more water available it only means less wells needed to explore the ressource

Ok true… then how about reducing the working time for the frisian well instead?

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.

-1

Nordfriese wrote:

How about needing an upgrade and an advanced worker to reach deeper levels of water while having double return for deeper water levels.

+1 face-smile.png

(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.

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.

  • Superficial Well: gets 20% and 1 ware per resource; Well Keeper (needs 70 XP to become a Chief Well Keeper); 5% production chance when depleted and 80% XP-on-fail-chance

  • Well: gets 60% and 2 wares per resource; Chief Well Keeper (needs another 150 XP to become a Master Well Keeper); 10% production chance when depleted and 80% XP-on-fail-chance

  • Deep Well: gets 100% and 3 wares per resource; 20% production chance when depleted

-1


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

Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1264
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 21:42

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 humidity

would 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 resource

If 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, 21:42
Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1264
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 21:47

poll results

  • 1 2 3 4 5 6
    favorable contrary favorable contrary favorable contrary favorable contrary favorable contrary favorable contrary
    king of nowhere nordfriese king of nowhere worldsavior king of nowhere worldsavior king of nowhere worldsavior king of nowhere nordfriese king of nowhere
    gunchleoc gunchleoc nordfriese nordfriese fuchur nordfriese fuchur worldsavior hessenfarmer worldsavior
    worldsavior teppo teppo teppo gunchleoc fuchur
    teppo hessenfarmer hessenfarmer teppo boesekaiser
    fuchur hessenfarmer watchcat
    fuchur teppo
    watchcat
Edited: 2019-05-31, 20:05
Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1101
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2019-05-29, 22:04

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.


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

Top Quote