wraitii Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 This has been the case for a while, and I've internally already suggested changing it, but I'm making a formal complain here : 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). Edit: to clarify what I want: I'm asking for general input in view of actually making a patch on this. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niektb Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 Delenda Eat places trees in groups (called tree grove or something) that could help too 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcReaver Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 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 : 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 March 21, 2017 by DarcReaver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wraitii Posted March 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 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) Edited March 21, 2017 by Lion.Kanzen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcReaver Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 But... I'm not like 3 guys for a forest, that be nice for Sid Meier's Civilizations kind of games. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphyrth Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 Could "Almost everything has a Wood cost" be another factor? @wowgetoffyourcellphone said that it's one of the reasons he made DE (too lazy to find the source, it's in the "0 A.D. in Youtube Thread". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 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 March 22, 2017 by wowgetoffyourcellphone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphyrth Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 For the sake of argument, doesn't this make Raiding easier since you only have to take down a few gatherers to disrupt the enemy's economy? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcReaver Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, sphyrth said: For the sake of argument, doesn't this make Raiding easier since you only have to take down a few gatherers to disrupt the enemy's economy? If you keep raiding cavalry as starting units - of course. but that's the next thing that has to be removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wraitii Posted March 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphyrth Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 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 March 22, 2017 by sphyrth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunChleoc Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 Multiples of 5 also have the advantage that they are easy to calculate in players' heads. If you want to up the difficulty level, set it to multiples of 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wraitii Posted March 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 Me and other guy voted thiiS pool ideas. Basically the same thing. if is implemented there are many question. How and which map should be change? (1&3) related RSM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 Having some trouble figuring out the poll. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wraitii Posted March 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elexis Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elexis Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 (I think the number 8 might come from the fact that units that approach the tree also apply to that number, so probably must be kept greater than the intended number of lumberers.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wraitii Posted March 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordGood Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 I would personally set it to 1 per tree. Can you imagine two guys swinging axes that close together? Scary groves do add a lot of opportunity, I'll have to admit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, LordGood said: I would personally set it to 1 per tree. Can you imagine two guys swinging axes that close together? Scary groves do add a lot of opportunity, I'll have to admit this can be used by two guys and its not the only technique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av93 Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) Why don't add groves to the poll? Edited March 22, 2017 by av93 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.