AND2 and SVN Bug Reports - A New Dawn 2 ONLY
- Thread starter 45°38'N-13°47'E
- Start date
45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
Well, I never understood what was people complaining about. As I've said, I've never had a problem with it. Someone reported multiple resource depletion in the same turn, but it happened to me just a couple of times over hundreds of games. Also I think parameters for resource depletion and resource discovery are not balanced but I have to check. And anyway I was reporting about mine depletion when there are no resources in it, just a simple mine: I can't see a reason to remove this feature since it's not causing any trouble at all.
Edit: anyway it's just a BUG option, so I'd leave it.
Afforess
The White Wizard
45°38'N-13°47'E;13392147 said:
Well the reason *against* just leaving it is that it requires a new field on CvPlot to keep track of depleted mines, which uses memory regardless of whether the option is enabled. I think if it was clear that this option costs players an extra few megabytes of memory (and more for larger maps) regardless of whether they ever use it, it would be agreed upon to remove it.
I think in the civ-style gameplay it doesn't really make sense for resources to deplete. The timescales and sizes are just not comparable to the real world.
Edit: However if there is interest in the feature I think it could be re-written to be less wasteful in memory. I just didn't think anyone used it. Perhaps we should break this out into a separate thread?
nionios
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 466
I use resource depletion,because: (I repeat it for another time)
Why a X civ with just one iron resource can build as many pikemen for example as a Y civ with three iron resources?
The advantage, of having more strategic resources, should somehow have a real impact on the gameplay,IMHO.
Nevertheless, i think that resource depletion is not the most proper feature for that case.
Why a X civ with just one iron resource can build as many pikemen for example as a Y civ with three iron resources?
The advantage, of having more strategic resources, should somehow have a real impact on the gameplay,IMHO.
Nevertheless, i think that resource depletion is not the most proper feature for that case.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
I've used it once...I've never used it again.
JosEPh
JosEPh
Afforess
The White Wizard
Well it seems Civilization 5 came up with a better solution than resource depletion.
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Echo JosEPh with this one. Never again. Not unless it is seriously reworked.
45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
Then I'll ask it again: why? You both tried it once. I suppose you ended up without a needed resource and gave up, probably because it wasn't fun for you. But this isn't a flaw, it's just a matter of preference and since this is an option you just let it off as it is by default. I've played with it hundreds of games in the last years and never had any issue as I've said. Granted it happened to me a few times to deplete all my iron mines at the same time, but it doesn't always happen and I believe it can be balanced or fixed. So again, what's wrong with this option beside "I've tried it once and I didn't like it" (which is by the way perfectly fine, provided you don't imply that there's something wrong with it just because you don't like it)?
Afforess
The White Wizard
45°38'N-13°47'E;13393174 said:
I'm not speaking towards resource depletion specifically, but in general. Game mechanics that "remove" a feature that a player was expecting to have are disliked by nearly all players. This is doubly so in the case of resource depletion, as the player expected to have the resource indefinitely, but now no longer does.
The immediate reaction is to hate the feature rather than change the play-style.
As game "designers" (I use the term loosely, for us modders) we should avoid removing base features of the game.
How this applies to us: A feature-positive change to make resources have a supply/demand (like Civilization 5) instead of depleting would be significantly more popular and better received by players.
45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
I totally agree, but this also means new features to code. I'm not expert enough to judge how hard it's to code something like that or how many other problems it can cause but I 100% trust you on this one. I can't probably help you in coding something like that because it's beyond my ability, I suppose. My only fear is that we're keeping adding and changing a lot of things while we were thinking we were close to a "final" AND version so our goal looks a bit further to me now. The good news is that if we can add all the new things we're talking about and make them work, AND will be a lot better than I thought only some weeks ago.
IPEX-731BA5DD06
Deity
To add my comment, I've resource depeltion once as well. It didn't suit my version of 'reality', not the losing resources, but the ability to continue with a mine upon a depleted resource. *Very old SVN version, over 1 yr*
To be truthful, building a mine upon a hill, and magically having production from no resource is even more of a fantasy, but we accept it.
I for one, would welcome a supply/demand resource limitation. It seems to take away from the stratergy of having only 1 mine, produce, UNLIMITED amounts of ore, to smelt, for industry, war, and the economy. Where another civ, with 5+ has no advantage apart from redundancy.
I've also had Multiple pops of the same resource, one time the appeared next to each other, upon the discovery of the enabling tech, so one may have been the actual resource, and the other was a 'random discovery', both had mines enabled on the hills.
I think I'll give it another go, with random discoveries, resource depletion, sounds more strategic.
Thanks for letting me see another view.
To be truthful, building a mine upon a hill, and magically having production from no resource is even more of a fantasy, but we accept it.
I for one, would welcome a supply/demand resource limitation. It seems to take away from the stratergy of having only 1 mine, produce, UNLIMITED amounts of ore, to smelt, for industry, war, and the economy. Where another civ, with 5+ has no advantage apart from redundancy.
I've also had Multiple pops of the same resource, one time the appeared next to each other, upon the discovery of the enabling tech, so one may have been the actual resource, and the other was a 'random discovery', both had mines enabled on the hills.
I think I'll give it another go, with random discoveries, resource depletion, sounds more strategic.
Thanks for letting me see another view.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
45°38'N-13°47'E;13393174 said:
It's an Option that I decide I didn't want in my games. Just Like other Options I choose not to use. As long as it's an Option and is not causing the Mod serious gameplay/AI/coding harm I leave it alone and don't generally comment.
My comment was not to imply game mechanic corruption but personal choice, I just don't like how it disrupts the gameplay.
JosEPh
Afforess
The White Wizard
It's not a bug, it's intended.
Discussion here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13344044&postcount=37
Thanks for the link, I'll have to read through the thread. I swapped to republic and had a nasty shock when I couldn't pay any of my bills!!
IPEX-731BA5DD06
Deity
Bug, or request
Could you change the flag orintation so that when your in Satelite view (Cntl-f) the flag's of all nations are visable. As it stands now, you get a slight view of some nations, and not at all of others.
Also, could you move the Resources view, to the Right of the screen, as this is not used by anything, except possible 50 civ's view.
It would enable the full viewing of the stack's troops.
As well, with the viewing of the stacks troops, it will run off the screen at the top, could it be lowered down a couple of lines to stop this.
Could you change the flag orintation so that when your in Satelite view (Cntl-f) the flag's of all nations are visable. As it stands now, you get a slight view of some nations, and not at all of others.
Spoiler :
Also, could you move the Resources view, to the Right of the screen, as this is not used by anything, except possible 50 civ's view.
Spoiler :
It would enable the full viewing of the stack's troops.
As well, with the viewing of the stacks troops, it will run off the screen at the top, could it be lowered down a couple of lines to stop this.
Spoiler :
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
45°38'N-13°47'E;13393174 said:
Aside from it not something I particularly want in my games?
It wasn't a matter of a needed resource and giving up. It was a matter of my resource disappearing completely with no warning what so ever. Additionally, during the game, I noticed that I was penalized more with resource depletion effects as opposed to the AI.
I have no problem with the option in itself ( I realize that I can select it or not, depending on my preferences), my issue is that that I prefer a fairly even game, not giving the AI even more bonuses/advantages than it already has.
Hope that helps make my perspective a little clearer.
45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
So all in all people disliking resource depletion dislike it because of personal reasons, not because it's broken. And as far as I know, there's no difference between yours and AI resources, so you've probably had just bad luck in that only game you've tried that option.
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
45°38'N-13°47'E;13394012 said:
I guess it's the randomness of it that they don't like?
I haven't used it often myself, but didn't have any big issues with it personally during the few times I have used it. For the most part, it was easier to lose a resource than it was to gain a new one which made losing a resource because of a bad RNG roll a very painful experience if the only other source of that item was controlled by someone else - but I've never been 'royally screwed over' by the feature. Hurt by yes, but not majorly nor for long. It did serve as a good reminder how much it sucks to be going against a civ with shortswords when your best unit is an archer though because your only source of Iron wasn't as plentiful as you thought
Similar threads
