Jump to content

Gathering wood is very micro-heavy


wraitii
 Share

Yes or No  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Proposal 1 below

    • Yes
      8
    • No
      6
  2. 2. Proposal 2 below

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      3
  3. 3. Proposal 3 below

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      5
  4. 4. Proposal 4 below

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      5
  5. 5. Proposal 5 below

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      10


Recommended Posts

This has been the case for a while, and I've internally already suggested changing it, but I'm making a formal complain here :P : the way we gather wood from trees is really annoying.

This is a collusion of various factors, so I'm just going to lay them all down:

  • Trees tend to be all over the place and forests not large enough, which is annoying to place good dropsites.
  • Trees can be worked on by up to 8 workers, which is imo far too much (should be like 3).
  • Forests are either too sparse (units get inside and start bumping into each other) or not enough.
  • Trees imo don't have enough wood individually.
  • Returning with 10 wood is annoying because of all the above factors, this would be better if wood was gathered in batches of 20/30 by default. But iirc we don't have different carrying capacity for different resources.

So we should:

  1. change our RMs to generate better forests and fewer stragglers across the board
  2. reduce the max number of workers per tree from 8 to 3/4
  3. make sure Rms place wood in sane way (hard to do though)
  4. bump wood on all trees a little bit, even if that means having fewer per forests (not incompatible with the above)
  5. if possible, increase carrying capacity for wood only (might not be necessary if all of the above implemented).

Edit: to clarify what I want: I'm asking for general input in view of actually making a patch on this.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wraitii said:

This has been the case for a while, and I've internally already suggested changing it, but I'm making a formal complain here :P : the way we gather wood from trees is really annoying.

This is a collusion of various factors, so I'm just going to lay them all down:

  • Trees tend to be all over the place and forests not large enough, which is annoying to place good dropsites.
  • Trees can be worked on by up to 8 workers, which is imo far too much (should be like 3).
  • Forests are either too sparse (units get inside and start bumping into each other) or not enough.
  • Trees imo don't have enough wood individually.
  • Returning with 10 wood is annoying because of all the above factors, this would be better if wood was gathered in batches of 20/30 by default. But iirc we don't have different carrying capacity for different resources.

So we should:

  • change our RMs to generate better forests and fewer stragglers across the board
  • reduce the max number of workers per tree from 8 to 3/4
  • make sure Rms place wood in sane way (hard to do though)
  • bump wood on all trees a little bit, even if that means having fewer per forests (not incompatible with the above)
  • if possible, increase carrying capacity for wood only (might not be necessary if all of the above implemented).

The green aspects should have the highest priority. There are too many gatherers in 0AD anyways.Better to make them fewer and instead make them more efficient.

Actually this isn't only exclusive to lumbering, but also mining and farming is affected. There should be thoughts about a general system to make less gatherers more efficient and hardcap them at some point. The capacity change might be welcome aswell (all across the board. 20 or 30 resources per trip instead of 10). 

Edit: thread regarding resource system:

 

Edited by DarcReaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wraitii said:

I hid a few posts that were starting to drift off-topic.

@Imarok @DarcReaver Let's keep this on feedback towards the OP, feel free to open another thread.

 

A thread is already there:

3 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Creating more trees in group, I suggested this but the answer was: " isn't realistic" 

large box of forest. Like other RTS.this way can be solved many things even performance by pathfinding( for a while)

Would be one of the better ideas for sure. realism .. lolz.

Anyways, better focus on less gatherers in total with more spreading to avoid unit clumping. Should help quite a bit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I suggest that every "max gatherer" stat you implement be in a multiple of 5. Reason being, batch training defaults to multiples of 5 and it just makes things neater, tidy, for gameplay to coordinate. It's a minor detail, but something to keep in mind.

 

So, 1 tree can reduce down to 5 gatherers. I made "groves" of trees as 1 large object. Can have "max gatherer" of 20 or something. But point is, multiple of 5 to coincide with the batch training works really well.

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again: this is not about reducing the number of workers necessary for an eco. The OP would induce almost no changes to the number of gatherers required. If you want to discuss reducing the number of gatherers for an economy, please find another thread and if there are none feel free to start one.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone: mh. I see your point, but I also don't like that batch size is 5 (I've personally reduced it to 3 which I find far more manageable). Then again 4 or 5 isn't a huge difference.

The grove of trees idea is interesting, but I don't think we necessarily need to go there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, even if you remove those Rush Cavs. Since we're still decreasing the number of potential gatherers, doesn't that mean raiding is still easier?

Edit: Question nullified by Thread Starter. No problem with that.

Edited by sphyrth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, wraitii said:

@wowgetoffyourcellphone: mh. I see your point, but I also don't like that batch size is 5 (I've personally reduced it to 3 which I find far more manageable). Then again 4 or 5 isn't a huge difference.

 

I don't understand why 5 gatherers per tree is "less manageable" than 3. Certainly it is "more manageable" than the current 8 in that case. I can already see a big difference in the way the units spread out, while maintaining the benefit of the 5 batch. I think the benefits to sticking with multiples of 5 outweigh the benefit of going with some other number that'll seem random to the player. Just my opinion. :) 

 

21 minutes ago, wraitii said:

The grove of trees idea is interesting, but I don't think we necessarily need to go there.

I added groves for a few reason. You can give them various auras, which are nice because you don't have to give a bunch of little auras to a bunch of single trees. I also made trees and groves passable by units, so that the groves can give a bonus in trees to guerilla units and it may or may not give a noticeable pathfinding benefit. Also, it's just nice in atlas to place a single grove than to have to click and place 30 trees. Other benefits too I'm too tired to detail. lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this should be tied to batch sizes, tbh, because units automatically go to the nearest resources anyway.

I would actually rather set batch size to 3, because it's easier to batch by 3 than 5, since that takes less resources, and you can always double-batch to get a batch of 6, which is close enough to 5 (or 7) imo. But that's another discussion.

I've added a poll.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. change our RMs to generate better forests and fewer stragglers across the board
  2. reduce the max number of workers per tree from 8 to 3/4
  3. make sure Rms place wood in sane way (hard to do though)
  4. bump wood on all trees a little bit, even if that means having fewer per forests (not incompatible with the above)
  5. if possible, increase carrying capacity for wood only (might not be necessary if all of the above implemented).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Let the player adapt to the map and have variation in the maps. Should be discussed on a map to map basis.

2. Eight seems a bit much indeed, but wouldn't go to three, better five IMO

3. Not very descriptive what should be changed

4. Careful. The purpose of forests is not solely to gather resources but also to make the map visually appealing. Should be discussed on a map to map basis since some maps have endless wood and others (african ones) very few.

5. doesn't seem necessary to me

Agree that the poll is undescriptive

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I added the gatherer count limit back then, and I'm fairly sure I picked 8 at the time because about 8 units fit around a tree.

Re your concerns: yes, I don't want to necessarily change the overall amount of wood, but on the "natural aesthetic" <---> "gameplay" slider, I think most of our maps are too far on the left. In general, even on sparse maps, I would suggest grouping trees more.

Re 3 I meant "not too randomly", basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...