Topic: Complexity vs. ??? - Is Widelands "complex enough"?

Is WideLands complex enough? User and Developer may argue from different Point of View and I would like to hear both. Me as User of the Game have a clear Position about this Point. For Introduction I quote a Post from fine Member Nasenbear: http://wl.widelands.org/forum/post/8503/

Nasenbaer wrote: <snip> In general my answer on your ideas are the "inofficial Widelands design guidelines" (guidelines, which most of the developers agreed on in the last year and which describe how Widelands should behave and look like):

Widelands is already complex. So keep new features simple! Widelands is a game placed somewhere between strategic board games and computer economy simulations. It is not meant to look or behave like the real world. (In case it was like the real world, it would definitely be unplayable ) The transportation of goods is decided by the game, players can only influence the calculation by the placement of streets and buildings and through the setting of priorities for ware demands (construction. and productionsites) or store (warehouses). Maps are static during a game. A player can harvest wood, build buildings, etc, but the height as well as the terrain has to stay the way it is. Keep military aspects as small as possible

Those guidelines are just that - "guidelines" - we already implemented some features, which were partly against one or more of those guidelines. However those features are the ones of the game that lead to the biggest discussions and some lead to new discussions on and on (e.g. the natural tree cycle). Keeping that in mind, I may not and do not want to decide about the features you suggest at the moment, but I doubt that most of them will ever be implemented, sorry. But well, let's see how seafaring evolves. With a bit of luck there will be some changes and improvements in the next time.

I think that Post builds a good Base to illustrate somewhat the BackGround of the Matter. I'm still I not Developer of the WideLands-Team, didn't agree with that GuideLands and all I ask for I don't intend to implement self but am dependent from that what the Developers do. Nevertheless I can express my personal Wishes for the Game. The are several different Points in that Quote I don't like resp disagree. First of all it's about the Complexity. WideLands is complex enough to get interesting to me but it's not complex enough to satisfy me.

I like totally that the military Dimension of WideLands got limited (resp. declared to have a minor Role). I can identify two Dimensions of the Game: Economy and Military. I agree that the military Dimension may play a minor Role (that a relative Limit not an absolut) but the Matter is that the whole Economy is like a Plant that grows to get Fruits and the Fruits on the Top of the Plant are "military Fruits" but sadly that Fruits are "crippled" (or let's say "limited"). I like the Idea that the Military Dimension shall have a minor Role but I miss "Options" for the Game. As Player I can't do anything else but build up the Economy and if got built up the only Way to utilize that Power or Options is to fight against other Players. I though a Lot about the Matter and found a Lot Ways to extend the Game by Depth of Dimension (eg. Trade concerns the economic Dimension) or even new Dimensions (eg RPG or Adventure,...) but for sure all would increase the Complexity of the Game -- or won't matter a Lot.

I don't know what was the Reason for that Limitation of Complexity but here I care mainly about the Question if Players think this Game is "complex" enough or not and second if Developers think the Game (its Code) is complex enough.

Here I start the Thread and will provide next Time some Arguments, Points and Ideas but now I ask for other Minds.

Ivan the Terrible is dead .. Genghis Khan is dead .. and I do not feel well, too.

Top

Quote

And another word concerning complexity: As I wrote, if there is a good reason for a new feature that increases complexity, but still is worth it and there is no simpler alternative, which is as good as the complex one, it can still be implemented. What I meant with "keep it simple" was the KISS principle

For example: Normally Widelands is not the type of game to directly control a unit, so my first plan was to keep this behaviour for sea expeditions as well. But the more I think about it, the more I believe, that there is no alternative to a direct control for the scouting ship. In the original Settlers 2, the expedition ships directly sailed to the next free harbour spaces in the selected direction therefore no direct control of the ship was needed. However such a type of "expedition" would make sea expeditions quite boring. So that's the reason I thought about a direct control. But if the sea expedition is implemented as a direct ship control, why should the ship be controlled via buttons in the ships window, that point in different directions? A simple mouse click on the map would suffice, wouldn't it?

So there is the base for discussion - If we just follow the KISS principle, it would suggest to indeed implement a "one click" control for the scouting ship, but the question is: is there any advantage in another implementation for the control? Even if that advantage is "to make it harder for the player to find a new harbour space in time"...

Alright I am already writing too much ... So what I wanted to say is: There is nothing wrong with features that increase the complexity of the game, as long as those features are a real improvement for the game and as long as there is no (as good as, but) simpler solution to implement those features.

Top

Quote

Idea if RPG means to me that Units get a Name abd two Units of same Type can have different Properties like "some Points more" on Strength and some Points lesser on Health. Eg. when Workers like Miner and MasterMiner return to HQ they get an anonym Number. Let's say I've two Miners and need a MasterMiner. One Miner have few XP (for Mining) while the other need few Xp to get MasterMiner. My Idea: send the Almost-MasterMiner into a small Mine to get the missing XP to get a MasterMiner and that one get send to DeepMine. For that Matter may be useful or necessary different Function and Buttons but in first Order I can't distinguish two Miners by their XP as long as they are not working inside a Mine where I can see that Property. Let's assume I want to send a XP=19-Miner-Unit inside a Mine and later I find again a XP=19-Miner-Unit and wonder if I didn't send it successfully into the Mine. No Way to identify (safely) after that if I sent the right Miner or did not. With a UnitName I COULD memorize and remind its Name and thus find that It's another Almost-MasterMiner I want to get quickly MasterMine. Brief Fazit: the Unit-Names helps a Lot to figure out what really happens.

Another Point that perhaps concerns RPG is that the HQ transforms a Hammer into a Builder. I see on the Screen a Builder walking with a Hammer but in Fact it's an Animation for a Builder (always with a Hammer) and that Unit don't have any Equipment even the Hammer. When that Unit gets "destructed" the Code does remove the Builder and create a Hammer instead.

What does it matter? Let's assume any GameSystem with any Features/Qualities given. Normally we prefer that the Game gets closer to Reality. We don't prefer if something is less realistic in the Game like Ships can now walk over the Country. We have a System as given and can utilize its Features to archive a Result we consider (or intend to be) as best as can. We can exhaust that System to archive better (more realistc) Resultats. Example: (This Way is as I think to find out. May be the Matter is different (correct solved)). I figure out that there are three Tribes with different "Mining-Technology". Atlantean can just build simple Mines, Emperials already DeepMines and Barbarians even DeeperMines. First Idea is that the Barbarians are in Advantage due to their better Mining-Technology. As I read Configurations for Mines I found that the seeming Advantage is an Disadvantage as if Atlanteans did exploit a small Mine also Barabarians won't mine anymore with deep or deeper Mines. The Point here is that WideLands represent a given System and that System get exhausted as good as can to archive reasonable Results/Behavior. Due to Insufficiencies (which always exist) of that Game that Problem can't get solved easily at Config-Level. Rewriting the Source means changing the System and not its Utilization as operating System.

The brief Fazit is: (we may understand here irrealistic/bogus Behavior/Implementation as Error or Insufficiency) You can archive "advanced Features" with Tricks and maximized Utilization of a given "bogus" System but that Approach is very limited I advise to invest better Work into implementing the System more realistic instead fixing the broken System at Config-Level. For the Hammer-Example above: better take more Gens from RPG and give Units an Inventory that they can have Equipments instead fixing that at Config-Level. I thought eg. about WearOut of Tools requiring a LifeTime/WorkTime for Tools but that would behave rather strange if the Code can't identify how old/aged a Tool is. The RPG-Matter of Equipment means here the half Way to have wear Tools. Would that Matter already got solved WearOut of Tools would be lesser "distant" from Implementation as it is right now. Crutches may be useful to get on the Feet and learn walking but Crutches are Crutches and better is to get rid of them as in long Term they transform into DeadFreight and Barriers.

Fazit for the Matter of RPG: I don't know what you understand about RPG but here I mean with RPG more technical Aspects. Nevertheless I am a Freind of RPG-Games and therefore that Term causes lesser allergic Behavior from me.

There is the first "Campaign" (Tutorial) I played just for the Barbarians. That Story concerns any Barbarian-Woman which was tough, nice, rich, etc. and got all fixed to master the Situtation (blabla -> StoryLine). In the Game that Woman was invisible due to Units have no Gender and no Names. Without that it's much harder to render a Story in the Game. With UnitNames it's possible to write a Campaign (Objectives) like "build three Ships and sail with Hero Lumbum to the Shores of the big Land in the West and build there any nice Building and whoops you got the Campaign solved." To hit the Nail: Stories without Names are hard to tell.

Ivan the Terrible is dead .. Genghis Khan is dead .. and I do not feel well, too.

Top

Quote

3rd Post:

quote: Felix_Atagong For a newbie Widelands is already pretty complex, everybody who has been blocked because he forgot to put a forester, will remember that! But the learning curve is not too difficult and experienced players could use some extra difficulties like maneating dinosaurs or attacking UFOs (just kidding).

I remind the Games Black&White and Populus were "Catrastrophes caused from higher Powers" caused additional Trouble to the Players. For sure such "Events" could cause some dynamic/surprising/global Changes for the Game.

quote: Felix_Atagong This is where OpenTTD went astray, IMO, from a simple XP patch for Transport Tycoon it evolved into a game with hundreds of settings and downloadable GRF (graphics, settings, scenarios and AI) that will enhance the game for the experienced player but that will scare away the newbie who opens the game for the very first time.

I agree that "nice complex Games" require a good Introduction/Tutorial. I remind also there exist Games with moderate Complexity bur need a good/big Tutorial and complexer Games with lesser large Tutorial. Intuitivity of Interface is the Term which perhaps is needed. Especially strange Things like strange_property1 cause strange_effect2 etc. We don't have to learn resp teach in a Tutorial that the Lumberer can anytime clean the whole Forest and with no Forest no Wood get produced. For sure anytime a Player will encounter that Situation and decide to care more about that Aspect.

I don't know how to hit the Nail but I think I know what you mean. Perhaps can "Option-Forest" hit it?

quote: Felix_Atagong A possibility would be to have a beginner and a pro setting, perhaps with downloadable add-ons that would alter the behaviour of certain buildings or mines etc... or even add new buildings (a market) and persons (a trader)...

This aims into the Direction I think: if the Game provide a "realistic" GameWorld you can consider to start a Business as SalesMan or DragonFighter or whatever possible in the World (sadly all Dragons are already gone..)

quote: Felix_Atagong A thought about trading: I never liked the way trading worked in Age of Empires, where you could still trade with an enemy, using his resources to destroy him quicker. I would like it that only allies would trade with you and not enemies (implying that an ally would automatically turn into an enemy if you attack one of his military sites, but not if you 'accidentally' destroy a building by enlarging your territory...)

That "Trading" is not Trading in the real Sense. It shall represent Trading but it is not. In WideLands doesn't exist Money. (Excellent!) Money shall represent a Worth but it self is not worthy by its material Nature. A BankNote is a just a Piece of Paper People remind when the Inflation runs high. Trading means for me that I have as Trader an Inventory of Goods (traded Good are Wares) and I move there where I get high Returns for my Goods and there where I get Goods for a low Price and this works as long as I can cover my Costs but aims to archive at least a small Gain. Without Money the Gain can't be Money but can be the Amount of Resources. Eg. I offer 20 Lores of Ore and reverse get 20 Lores of Coal. Here is the Gain that if I have just Ore and trhus get Coal than I can produce Iron and thus Tools then this Advantage is the Gain. As Calculation: 40 Lores IronOre are_lesser_worth_than 20 Lores Ore + 20 Lores Coal => 20t Iron.

As Trader I don't produce or consume Materials aside of that I need for living and for Operation of my Ships or WareHouses and live from the Worth/Price-Gradient of Goods.

In MiddleAge the plain Idea of Trading was that if there are two Traders dealing about any Goods thent there is just a Gain for one Trader if there is a Loss for the other Trader. As Gain is the Propulsion for Business and Trading as well with this Theory a Deal with Gain can just happen if both Traders think to make a Gain and just is right. This is pure Nonesense.

With same Idea I would go shopping in a SuperMarket only if I think that the SuperMarket makes a Loss from. The much more realistic Approach is about Advantage. If there are two Players with one having 40t Ore and the other 40t Coal than both have a greater Advantage if they exchange 20t with the other to be able to produce Iron. Trading means here that one Plyer tries to get 21t fot 19t and thus Way archive a greater Advantage what doesn't mean that the other Player thus make a Loss but for sure have a lesser large Advantage from that Deal. Eg. Water. In the Mountains where the MeltWater flows down you can get a really Lot fresh clean Water for free but if you walk into the Desert you can get a high Price for the same Good. You can't sell Water in the Mountains for Desert-Prices. You could take Water from the Mountain and store it anyway and wander into the Desert and sell it there for Desert-Prices. If you can this Way archive a Gain (the Journey costs you normal anything as you have to eat and drink ..) you can make a Business from.

The Kind of Trading pointed from you doesn't mean anything to me in Matter of Trading. In other Words: I agree that this Implementation of Trading is lesser than Crap.

Ivan the Terrible is dead .. Genghis Khan is dead .. and I do not feel well, too.

Top

Quote

I agree with SirVer concerning everything in the two first text blocks.

@SirVer, concerning the third text block: I basically agree with you and no fear I won't start a new type of implementation without a prior discussion :). I already began to write a mail about the implementation, but well ... I stuck at some point. Hope to get the mail out of the doors in near future.

Top

Quote