Topic: Resource discovery and mine place-holders

1 — 10 of 29 Posts 1 2 3 next ››

simplypeachy Topic Opener Joined: 2009-04-23, 11:42 Posts: 153 At home in WL-forums Location: Hampshire, UK	Posted at: 2012-03-25, 18:39 I think that the resource discovery and mine placement logic needs discussion as it affects and frustrates players. Widelands should not play itself but the players shouldn't find themselves doing things that they feel are not fun. The problems are: 1: Players must send out many geologists as they're slow or, as SirVir said, "lazy" I always use multiple geologists. I would estimate that 10% of exploration is only done with a single geologist - when there's only a small area - and the only reason I send one is that I do not want to waste time with more clicks. A small improvement would be if geologists revealed resources in a larger area. Instead of revealing a single point they should reveal a circle with a one-point radius with each operation. The question remains: why should you have to wait for a geologist to walk around and reveal random areas? I think the best way to implement the resources discovery mechanic would be if the geologist worked from a small "exploration" hut. This would be allowed on "mountain" points and once constructed the geologist would walk outwards in a spiral (similar to the scout?), eventually discovering all resources as he works. The geologist would work until he reaches his maximum range then return to the hut. Ideally all of his resource marks would stay while the hut is still present. Once the hut is removed the marks are all subject to decay. While working he could require rations - but maybe only one or two for an entire session? Maybe he does not need rations, but if the hut is used to help solve problem four, he should. 2: Players have to use un-built mines as place-holders Mines are not designed to provide a permanent record of where resources are. They are designed to mine these resources. Once I have discovered a mountain has coal, gold and ore, it is not optimal to have five un-built mines. I have to turn on "Building names" to see what types the mines are because there they are just a construction spot. Buildings have beautiful and distinctive artwork so that the player can see them easily. Construction spots do not fulfil this! 3: Place-holder mines interfering with roads Astuur has said several times that he is frustrated by place-holder mines interfering with his roads. I also put roads through mountains - often enough that I also find this behaviour annoying. Place-holder mines do not perform any function; they serve as informational. Something that is informational should never interfere. If I want to build a road through a mountain with place-holder mines I am subject to two or three problems: Roads are impossible to build if the place-holder mines obstruct the road completely, or; Roads are placed in inefficient routes if the place-holder mines obstruct the ideal route I have to destroy the place-holder mine(s) to build the road efficiently. This means I have to stop the road, open the mine window, click destroy, click "accept" then build the road. I no longer have my place-holder mine! I have forgotten what type of mine it was! I have to send out more of our lazy geologists and then put another place-holder mine somewhere else :-( This is so much work and frustration to build one road! 4: Inefficient placement of mines: they can be too tightly packed, or do not cover all resource points in an area I think this may be a contentious part of the discussion. Widelands tries not to force the player to micro-manage but does make us use our brains and creativity to solve a problem. I build a lumberjack hut to cut down trees. I provide the materials to build this, the tool and the worker to cut down the trees. I don't have to tell him where the trees are - he can see them! The way lumberjacks work does not mean Widelands plays for me - it means I don't have to play the boring game "Cut Down Trees". Once I have found a large coal resource I have to use my own judgement on where to place my coal mines, how many I build, and the best way to distribute them in order to cover all of the coal with the fewest amount of mines. I don't want to play the boring game "Mine Coal". I want to provide my miner with what he needs to play this boring game for me Our geologist, living in his hut on the mountain, knows where all of the coal is. He's not a geologist though - he is a "prospector". His job is to find the resources and decide how best to mine them. He knows the range of a coal mine and decides that we need four mines to get all of the coal in his work area and places special marks on these spots. An outline around the mark could distinguish these marks. I then see that he has chosen the best places for the coal mines. I build a single coal mine on the first mark. I leave the hut on the mountain side, continuing to provide rations, so that when I need to build additional coal mines I see the special black-outlined mark and build there. Maybe he needs rations, at a very slow rate, maybe he doesn't. He is not "idle" when not finding resources: he's working to make sure the marks are accurate (in location and how much resource there is), so needs some food. He's not down the mine digging so is not as hungry as a miner. WARNING: New-style view packet not found. There may be strange effects regarding unseen areas. _aD on IRC Top Quote

QCS Joined: 2009-12-29, 21:47 Posts: 256 Tribe Member	Posted at: 2012-03-25, 20:14 I thought about the whole Geologist system lots and lots of times... and the only solution I see (which is game changing...): In analogy to the scouts, we build geologist huts, and the geologist surveys the area constantly. The working area should be quite big (say, like the working area of a lumberjack). The geologist should not resources to work, and the sleep cycle should be quite small. Alternatively we could have a larger sleep cycle, and the geologist runs to a spot within working area, and then 5 very near places, and then returns home. CMake is evil. Top Quote

simplypeachy Topic Opener Joined: 2009-04-23, 11:42 Posts: 153 At home in WL-forums Location: Hampshire, UK	Posted at: 2012-03-25, 20:26 The fact that you have thought about it so much proves that it is a game mechanic that definitely needs improvement. It's interesting that we had the same idea about a scout-style geologist! Do you think that the hut should consume rations if it did the extra work of choosing mine locations and "maintaining" the resource marks? WARNING: New-style view packet not found. There may be strange effects regarding unseen areas. _aD on IRC Top Quote

QCS Joined: 2009-12-29, 21:47 Posts: 256 Tribe Member	Posted at: 2012-03-25, 21:32 simplypeachy wrote: Do you think that the hut should consume rations if it did the extra work of choosing mine locations and "maintaining" the resource marks? Well, about that I'm not sure. Since there are different mines to be enhanced, it would not be easy to spot the 'perfect' mine place; the geologist can't decide if you even plan enhancing the mines or want to win by sheer mass and speed. That would mean three working modes and probably three buttons? Not a good idea. Another part of that is: If it needs resources, it is hard to use the geologists in early game, which makes playing much harder (and map knowledge a much greater advantage than it is now). So it would be good to have two possible modes: No resources, just finding resources; with resources, marking spots. But well, I don't like it somehow... just a feeling. It would destroy the feeling that I have in my hands where to place it. So my suggestion would simply be: have the geologist in a house and don't have him run from the HQ on request. CMake is evil. Top Quote

simplypeachy Topic Opener Joined: 2009-04-23, 11:42 Posts: 153 At home in WL-forums Location: Hampshire, UK	Posted at: 2012-03-25, 21:41 There is where different play styles affect a solution. I always try to minimize my mine overlaps but I suppose others might pack them in to get the maximum output. I've always found that behaviour requires an enormous food economy. The geologist could work by occasionally discovering like he does now, but the marks are not retained, if he has no food. The player could then use the ware store feature to ensure he has no rations, and will then just act as geologists do now. If the player wants to have a mountain fully discovered and for the geologist to suggest the most efficient mine locations, the player can pay for this extra work by supplying rations. When implementing such features it's a good idea to add them slowly to get an idea of balance and how it affects gameplay, so just the basic hut idea would be a great start. WARNING: New-style view packet not found. There may be strange effects regarding unseen areas. _aD on IRC Top Quote

QCS Joined: 2009-12-29, 21:47 Posts: 256 Tribe Member	Posted at: 2012-03-25, 21:57 I don't like retaining the resource locations as long as the geologist has supplies. It is simply not true in all cases. Imagine a geologist finds two spots of coal near by each other. Player builds a mine at one place which is deep enough to mine the other spot as well. If you now retain the information of the found coal at the second spot, you are telling false information. In that case you would have to update the resource indicators often enough, making the retaining totally useless. But what I can imagine is: A geologist has a 'normal' working cycle and an additional, resource-fuelled working cycle which he skips if he doesn't have the resource handy. This means basically he works slower without resources, but at least he works. Your retaining effect, with updating the information when resources are mined by near mines, would then be reached by the quicker working cycle only (because the "normal" working cycle is not fast enough). On the other hand, nobody can't keep you from building two geologists houses near each other... so the effect would be cancelled. So, maybe the geologist must be made more valuable/expensive in creating, or the houses must be expensive or large; both not things which sound reasonable. All those things only explain why I didn't yet come up with a good solution although I'm thinking about it quite often. CMake is evil. Top Quote

simplypeachy Topic Opener Joined: 2009-04-23, 11:42 Posts: 153 At home in WL-forums Location: Hampshire, UK	Posted at: 2012-03-25, 22:17 The hut would have two modes of operation: Unfed: Geologist marks resources with marks that decay, as they do now. Fed: Geologist marks resources which do not decay, and he will update the marks to show the depth/quantity of resource. The geologist could then also mark the best places for mines and update them as resources are exhausted, making him more useful if you can afford to feed him. You are then paying to keep the marks, and update them, with food economy. This way the player can choose to have an "occasional" geologist for free, or pay him to work harder. The fed geologist's marks being retained would address the fact that many players dislike the marks disappearing - a feature which I do not think they should get for free. Edited: 2012-03-25, 22:25 WARNING: New-style view packet not found. There may be strange effects regarding unseen areas. _aD on IRC Top Quote

Nasenbaer Joined: 2009-02-21, 17:17 Posts: 828 One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2012-03-26, 06:32 Hi :), The problems are: 1: Players must send out many geologists as they're slow or, as SirVir said, "lazy" I don't - of course that way I might have to wait 1 more minute until I found, what I was searching for, but that's no problem for me, as I normally first begin to build up the other economy stuff like farms, smelting works, etc. while the geologist gets time for searching. Further I do not care whether one coal field is sourrounded by more coal fields or not - in most cases it is and if not (e.g. random generated map) it will be hard to find a more suitable place anyway. 2: Players have to use un-built mines as place-holders Mines are not designed to provide a permanent record of where resources are. Seriously, it's a game ... Widelands is not the only game where you can use constructionsites or similiar as placeholder to mark something. 3: Place-holder mines interfering with roads I face that problem only once every two or three games ... that does not invalidate the problems of other players, however it proofs, that there are road placement strategies, that can live without that problem. 4: Inefficient placement of mines: they can be too tightly packed, or do not cover all resource points in an area See point 1. As always that's a personal view, but I don't see a reason to change the current behaviour. Further the "hut change" you suggest makes it more complicated from my point of view and is even making things worse, as you will have to wait even longer for resources to be found (build up a hut, wait for the worker to arrive, maybe even for food, than it begins to work slowly....) Top Quote

fuchur Joined: 2009-10-07, 13:01 Posts: 186 Widelands-Forum-Junkie Location: Germany	Posted at: 2012-03-26, 11:22 As I am not a frequent player I can't tell a lot to the topic. But I'm not sure about the idea of the geologist hut. In most games I normally send two or three geologists to quickly get a overview of the area. I think the process with the hut would be too slow. Then I build the mines, partially only as placeholders. For me these normally don't interfere with roads. An automated suggestion of the best place for mines is not necessary in my opinion. Also I think it would be difficult to invent an algorithm that works good for all scenarios as mentioned above (a lot of mines vs. a few but enhaced mines). This decission should be a part of the know how a player needys. Sometimes I also wished the ressource marks would not vanish after a certain time, but I can live with that behaviour. Because of the variable height profile in the mountains for me it's often difficult to tell the working area of a placeholder mine. So at least for me it would be helpful if one could show the working area of the final building in a construction site. This could also be helpful for farms. Top Quote

Astuur Joined: 2009-02-28, 09:08 Posts: 733 One Elder of Players Location: Frankfurt / Germany	Posted at: 2012-03-26, 11:57 Yes, I agree with simplypeachy's analysis, but I am unsure about the propose solution. I have also put some thought into the matter, and it's not easy to come up with something nice. My suggestions so far have mostly been disapproved. So, the first thing I'd like to stress is that I am happy I'm not the only one who thinks that the geologist's performance is suboptimal. In fact it's even a bit annoying to use and given the high frequency you must use it, I'd prefer to see it changed. That doesn't help to find acceptable alternatives, though. The geologist's hut might be an alternative, but I am not sure. It would be a nice addition (1st non-mine house buildable on mountains but also on fertile land for water exploration) and may be a highlight to watch (apart from the advantages for the gameplay), but I also see some complicating factors and disadvantages. All in all it seems quite a big change to solve this with a good bit of work involved. I'd gladly contribute to its evolution if it is agreed to try this course. Personally I'd be content if we could have a permanent display, switchable like the buildhelp that would show the results of the last geological survey like shown here It is not so nice to watch, but would already make the whole exploration business more bearable. OTOH, this may also be a challenge to program, but I can't tell. Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino). Top Quote