Topic: Idea: make barbarian gamekeepers *breeding* (sort of, at least)
|
QCS Topic Opener
Joined: 2009-12-29, 21:47
Posts: 256  Tribe Member |
Posted at: 2013-03-21, 16:38
This idea came to me while thinking about all the FreshMeat stuff (the blueprint, that is), and the problem with the unlimited resources which Atlanteans (and, in my eyes, also Imperials) don't really have... So let's get the gamekeeper a little more busy. Currently he just walks at an empty spot next to a tree and releases an animal, out of the blue. He could however, use same tracking mechanism as the hunter (in a similarly large area), but instead of throwing a spear, he closes up with the animal and uses a cast net or something else to catch the living animal, he then waits a few seconds, the animal is released, and the gamekeeper runs to an empty spot somewhere next to a tree and releases the same animal again. Most of this could already be done with the current game engine, but I guess, the "breeding the same animal as being caught" part can not be done right now. So, as alternative, we could also do some little "explanation" why the gamekeeper has lots of animals in stock: The gamekeeper uses same tracking mechanism as the hunter (in a similarly large area), but instead of throwing a spear, he closes up with the animal and uses a cast net or something else to catch the living animal, he then packs his net, returns to his hut, waits a while, and then starts heading for the forest where he releases three random animals at three different empty spots close by. CMake is evil. 
Top
Quote
|
chuckw
Joined: 2010-03-15, 15:23
Posts: 945  One Elder of Players Location: New York - USA |
Posted at: 2013-03-21, 19:42
I like it! It would be fun to animate. At the same time, we might update the animal-release animation. Though we don't support it yet, see bug report 566937, it would be nice to play separate walking animations for his return to his house with the animal (maybe show something squirming inside his net or whatever) and for his trips to release the animals. I believe these would require code changes to support additional kinds of "walking" (i.e. with or without a captive in this case) besides the standard walk sequence for traveling to/from a warehouse and the "walkload" trips to the house's flag and back that other workers use. I often temporarily forget the scale at which game board animations are presented, though, and like this instance, have to remind myself that not a lot of fine detail (like "squirming") is going to be visible at a size that allows us to use balls for people's hands. The gamekeeper's current walking animation shows him with an animal carrier now, so that at least is sufficient. Count me as a big +1 I see little people.
Top
Quote
|
|
ixprefect
Joined: 2009-02-27, 13:28
Posts: 367 Tribe Member |
Posted at: 2013-03-21, 20:24
What I don't like about this idea is that it allows barbarians to run out of food sources entirely, if the player fails to have a sufficient number of game keepers. So I am certainly in favour of having the gamekeeper create animals "out of thin air". If you think the meat production is too cheap, then we might talk about that (though the atlantean fish breeder should be considered equally). I don't think it is, though, if you keep in mind the fact that late-game barbarians have pretty steep food requirements with their deep and deeper mines.
Top
Quote
|
Kiscsirke
Joined: 2009-12-16, 12:40
Posts: 42  Pry about Widelands Location: Budapest, Hungary |
Posted at: 2013-03-21, 20:50
To be honest I don't really like it, I'd prefer instead to make the fishbreeder always work, as suggested at this bug, so all tribes have an inexhaustible food source. Right now empire and barbarians can't run out of food for mines completely on a map, while atlanteans can. This change allows barbarians to also run out, so I think it would only be fair if we also changed empire so that they have a separate "pig" resource that they can run out of, and either
Still, I'd prefer the case of making fishbreeder friendlier, so there's no "dead end" with any tribe.
Top
Quote
|
|
SirVer
Joined: 2009-02-19, 14:18
Posts: 1445 One Elder of Players Location: Germany - Munich |
Posted at: 2013-03-22, 06:42
I agree with ixprefect and Kiscsirke - I think it is not a good thing that atlanteans can run out of food either. For the same reason, I am not a fan of the proposal - I feel this is once again a point where realism and good game mechanics crash and I am always for the game mechanics then.
Top
Quote
|
|
QCS Topic Opener
Joined: 2009-12-29, 21:47
Posts: 256 Tribe Member |
Posted at: 2013-03-22, 07:43
Ok... the point is very valid (as I already told in IRC yesterday So let's make 2 changes to the second proposal: He can still track the animals and take them home, but there is no (economy) dependency between the catching of animals, and the breeding. Read: every now and then he needs to catch animals, and every now and then he sets other animals free. Maybe, setting animals free in dependency of if he caught something or not (like: stalking cycle - if not successful, set free 1 animal; if stalking cycle was successful, he removed 1 animal from the world, so he sets free 2 animals). That way the deadlock is prevented, and chuck can have fun animating :-D I suggest modifying the gamekeeper hut, then. It should have some places to keep animals in (maybe cages or light fences around the building). CMake is evil.
Top
Quote
|
|
chuckw
Joined: 2010-03-15, 15:23
Posts: 945 One Elder of Players Location: New York - USA |
Posted at: 2013-03-22, 14:39
@QCS - I like the way you think. Of course, my +1 should be understood to be related to the graphics and not necessarily the game logic. It will be a challenge to fit more elements into the gamekeeper's hut image, but I am revisiting a lot of the barbarian buildings anyway, so we'll just have to see what results. I see little people.
Top
Quote
|
|
Kiscsirke
Joined: 2009-12-16, 12:40
Posts: 42 Pry about Widelands Location: Budapest, Hungary |
Posted at: 2013-03-22, 20:32
If you're going that way, at least make it 3 if he managed to catch something so there's a reward for it. (Because the way you said it it's +1 animal total each way, and then it's not worth it for the player to make sure there's a living population of animals.)
Top
Quote
|
|
QCS Topic Opener
Joined: 2009-12-29, 21:47
Posts: 256 Tribe Member |
Posted at: 2013-03-23, 13:06
To show you what I am talking about, I made a branch: https://code.launchpad.net/~qcumber-some/widelands/gamekeeper_improvement For easier testing, you could simply copy over the following files from the branch to your widelands: - tribes/barbarians/gamekeeper/conf - tribes/barbarians/gamekeepers_hut/conf CMake is evil.
Top
Quote
|
|
SirVer
Joined: 2009-02-19, 14:18
Posts: 1445 One Elder of Players Location: Germany - Munich |
Posted at: 2013-03-24, 13:11
I like the proposal - though it is just eye candy at this point in time. But I agree with kiscsirke that the player has no advantage of keeping animals alive. But I also doubt that giving an advantage will make players play for it: you could just build more gamekeepers instead of balancing the number of animals. They are very cheap, small, require no tools. So I wouldn't worry to much and concentrate on the eye candy
Top
Quote
|
