Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Google+

Latest Posts

Topic: What about waste?

dreieck
Avatar
Joined: 2018-08-25, 11:48
Posts: 47
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2018-09-02, 14:21

"hessenfarmer" wrote:

dreieck wrote:

I think taking existing maps as an argument is not a so-valid argument.

Widelands has always tried to be backwards compatible. For build 20 we had to break this for some reason but this was a major pity for all.

(Maybe I am too much in the thought-mode of "Return to the Roots", where all changes are options which the player can select in the options menu, and as such even make old maps not unplayable since the option simple can be left un-selected.)

Making new building and features switchable is very difficult because the tribes need to be balanced in both modes then. And balancing them in the current mode is hard enough to do.

Well, that's a good point.

If one chooses to play one game with all players the same tribe this is not a problem, though. So, switchable options which impair balancing are still OK I think because it is the user's choice, and when he chooses he should know about the consequences and e.g. also choose to have all players playing the same tribe. (Or, intentionally, taking the side effect of making the balancing different, to add or remove challenge.) A note about this can be displayed in a small text beside those options.

What I can think of instead would be a tribe that has perhaps a more industrial economy and in return to having higher productivity will have to deal with a waste problem. For me that sounds much better cause a complete tribe around this theme would add a lot of new variety to the game.

Much better idea!

from a feature perspective there are much more important changes still to be implemented ( most important from my viewpoint is the possibility to attack an enemy port from sea).

Agree.

"kaputtnik" wrote:

For me there is a problem of defining waste. Examples for empire:

  1. Do Smelting works produce ashes as waste?
  2. Do Stonemasons produce stone pieces as waste?
  3. Do Woodcutters produce small pieces of wood (twigs) as waste?
  4. Do all Buildings which consume fish produce fish bones as waste?
  5. Do Donkey farms produce donkey shit as waste?

As it is a game and not a reality simulation: There is just one kind of waste. (If wanted, they could be named and drawn differently, but technically all the same.)

"Tinker" wrote:

I have a development branch that uses waste. [...]

Can you give a link to the dev branch?

-- Machen ist wie wollen, nur krasser.


Top Quote
dreieck
Avatar
Joined: 2018-08-25, 11:48
Posts: 47
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2018-09-02, 23:11

Just another question about "balancing tribes": Isn't it anyway that some tribes have advantages on some maps or for some game-goals, some on others? So there won't be a general balance for all cases anyway?


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 761
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Saxony, GER
Posted at: 2018-09-03, 00:07

king_of_nowhere wrote:

-1.

It just doesn't feel right with the setting; the technology level is akin to early rome, nobody was worrying about waste at the time except maybe to dump them into the closer stream.

Plus, every change requiring more buildings to be made complicates small maps that were made with limited space available

+1 for the "-1"

dreieck wrote:

king_of_nowhere wrote:

-1.

Plus, every change requiring more buildings to be made complicates small maps that were made with limited space available

I think taking existing maps as an argument is not a so-valid argument.

Why not? Should existing maps become useless?

(Maybe I am too much in the thought-mode of "Return to the Roots", where all changes are options which the player can select in the options menu, and as such even make old maps not unplayable since the option simple can be left un-selected.)

Which roots?

kaputtnik wrote: 5. Do Donkey farms produce donkey shit as waste?

"Donkey shit" face-grin.png

Tinker wrote:

Yes this makes life more complicated, that is interesting, and as my ultimate aim is to remove soldiers from the game it does give the player something to do.

You want to destroy Widelands?

Nordfriese wrote:

Apply more waste materials in Frisian tribe

-1 The frisians are already more complex than the other tribes. An additional difficulty for them only could be fatal for balancing.

True

Create brand new tribe, very industrial (but quite simple) economy.

+1 We have suggestions for Amazons, Egyptians, various other ideas… now for "Industrials"… This would make most sense, but I wouldn´t expect to see this concept in the game anytime soon then face-wink.png

A new tribe would be the best solution for waste ideas indeed.

dreieck wrote:

Just another question about "balancing tribes": Isn't it anyway that some tribes have advantages on some maps or for some game-goals, some on others? So there won't be a general balance for all cases anyway?

Yes. But I think that there is something like a "normal map" where all resources are available for all players in a good amount - at least there the tribes should be balanced. So I think that this is no argument for not caring about balance at all.


“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: 1111
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2018-09-03, 00:31

dreieck wrote:

Just another question about "balancing tribes": Isn't it anyway that some tribes have advantages on some maps or for some game-goals, some on others? So there won't be a general balance for all cases anyway?

Yes, but the differences are manageable anyway. Atlanteans struggle on maps with little water. Empire has problems on maps with few large building spaces, unless it has an oversupply of fish. barbarians struggle on large maps, where their stronger start is irrelevant (and in fact, their start may not be as strong anymore, now that we know it's possible to make a soldier with full attack promotions with atlanteans after 35 minutes). But it only impact the game at the highest levels.


Top Quote
dreieck
Avatar
Joined: 2018-08-25, 11:48
Posts: 47
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2018-09-03, 16:20

WorldSavior wrote:

dreieck wrote:

(Maybe I am too much in the thought-mode of "Return to the Roots", where all changes are options which the player can select in the options menu, and as such even make old maps not unplayable since the option simple can be left un-selected.)

Which roots?

"Return to the Roots", an open-source-engine for Settlers II (with fixes and improvements; so mainly a dedicated game almost-copying Settlers II using the original game's data files).

Tinker wrote:

Yes this makes life more complicated, that is interesting, and as my ultimate aim is to remove soldiers from the game it does give the player something to do.

You want to destroy Widelands?

I understood that he has it's own branch. So it will be a different game.


Top Quote
kaputtnik
Avatar
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 1470
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2018-09-03, 19:09

dreieck wrote:

"kaputtnik" wrote:

For me there is a problem of defining waste. Examples for empire:

  1. Do Smelting works produce ashes as waste?
  2. Do Stonemasons produce stone pieces as waste?
  3. Do Woodcutters produce small pieces of wood (twigs) as waste?
  4. Do all Buildings which consume fish produce fish bones as waste?
  5. Do Donkey farms produce donkey shit as waste?

As it is a game and not a reality simulation: There is just one kind of waste. (If wanted, they could be named and drawn differently, but technically all the same.)

Sorry, mostly i can't really explain what i mean.... What i wanted to say: You have to define which building produces waste. And i fear an endless discussion about which building produces it.


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1111
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2018-09-03, 19:16

Now that I think about it, you could deal with waste simply by putting it into a warehouse. Unless you forbid waste from going to a warehouse, which then open up a whole can of worms code-wise and traffic-wise. I mean, suppose you don't have the waste-cleaning building, what happens? the wast just sits there? I can't imagine the kind of bugs and glitches this may cause.


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 761
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Saxony, GER
Posted at: 2018-09-07, 15:19

dreieck wrote:

WorldSavior wrote:

dreieck wrote:

(Maybe I am too much in the thought-mode of "Return to the Roots", where all changes are options which the player can select in the options menu, and as such even make old maps not unplayable since the option simple can be left un-selected.)

Which roots?

"Return to the Roots", an open-source-engine for Settlers II (with fixes and improvements; so mainly a dedicated game almost-copying Settlers II using the original game's data files).

Okay... I'm also a fan of having a big amount of options.


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

Top Quote
dreieck
Avatar
Joined: 2018-08-25, 11:48
Posts: 47
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2018-09-14, 11:18

king_of_nowhere wrote:

Now that I think about it, you could deal with waste simply by putting it into a warehouse.

Of course waste needs to be something that cannot be stored in a warehous.

Unless you forbid waste from going to a warehouse, which then open up a whole can of worms code-wise and traffic-wise. I mean, suppose you don't have the waste-cleaning building, what happens? the wast just sits there?

Something like that. With the improved ware-routing algorithm present in the bazaar repository it is be a bit better, though.

Btw., I made a few first ideas about a higher-technology tribe which as a drawback has to deal with waste.


Top Quote