New Beta Version - August 16th (8/16)

[Txurce]

No, it isn't.

Sorry, I'm going to die on this hill, the name of the mod is "Voice of the People", if they want to change resource clustering, they can propose it in the forum and generate discussion. Introducing the change is the minimum they should do.

Do people even know what got changed? So far the explanations I see all have errors.

This isn't inaccurate. I downloaded an old version to check. Stone is not listed as appearing in hills in the civilopedia. Horses are not listed as appearing on tundra or desert. There were well established rules for these on the regular map scripts.

Even if this was accurate information, it's not a mandate to change anything. The better move would be to ask the forum, or just change the civilopedia entry.

I realize as modders you put a lot of work into this project, and I appreciate that, but don't act like I'm in the wrong for just asking about a change. We've got three pieces of inaccurate clarification on this in a row. Changes that are dramatically smaller than this often require consensus. How about explaining why things were changed at all? This is like the only aspect of the game without a bunch of complaints.

I don't think you understand how difficult it would be to create a changelog for the changes you object to. It would be much too complicated to spell out exactly in our standard list.

Objecting to changes which were obviously unintentional (and Gazebo confirmed, for the paranoid) is a different issue altogether.

 

[InkAxis]

The only change I have a problem with is the clustering of strategics, which is probably unintentional. Can @tu_79 or @azum4roll look into that?

 

[CrazyG]

Objecting to changes which were obviously unintentional (and Gazebo confirmed, for the paranoid) is a different issue altogether.

Well they weren't obviously unintentional when I wrote that post. Stones on hills was brought up more than a week ago and no one pointed out it was unintentional until just now.

 

[tu_79]

Here's the thing:
This part is what places horses. On grass and plains minimum distance goes from 1 to 2. On desert and tundra it goes from 0 (adjacent) to 2. The number that goes along resMultiplier is the frequency at which it spawns, so higher numbers means fewer resources.

    resources_to_place = {
        {self.horse_ID, horse_amt, 100, 1, 2}
    };
    self:ProcessResourceList(24 * resMultiplier, 1, self.grass_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);
    self:ProcessResourceList(34 * resMultiplier, 1, self.plains_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);
    
    resources_to_place = {
        {self.horse_ID, horse_amt, 100, 0, 2}
    };
    self:ProcessResourceList(20 * resMultiplier, 1, self.desert_wheat_list, resources_to_place);
    self:ProcessResourceList(70 * resMultiplier, 1, self.tundra_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);

Ant then, while the strategics are not enough for all players, it keeps placing more horses. Here:

    while self.amounts_of_resources_placed[self.horse_ID + 1] < 4 * self.iNumCivs do
        print("Map has very low horse, adding another.");
        local resources_to_place = { {self.horse_ID, horse_amt, 25, 1, 2} };
        self:ProcessResourceList(99999, 1, self.grass_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);
        self:ProcessResourceList(99999, 1, self.plains_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);
        self:ProcessResourceList(99999, 1, self.desert_wheat_list, resources_to_place);
        self:ProcessResourceList(99999, 1, self.tundra_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);
    end

Meaning it keeps placing horses until the value is met.

Now, how would you like it more?

 

[tu_79]

Stones on hills was brought up more than a week ago and no one pointed out it was unintentional until just now

It follows civilopedia description. That's a bug fix. You might prefer to fix Civilopedia instead, we can do that too.

 

[JamesNinelives]

On grass and plains minimum distance goes from 1 to 2. On desert and tundra it goes from 0 (adjacent) to 2

Sorry, what does this mean? Distance between what?

Now, how would you like it more?

I'm not sure I really understand, but I think horses should be less common in the desert and the total number of horses should also be fewer. I guess something like 35 for the desert multiplier. I would also say the multiplier for tundra should be even lower. I don't know of any examples of horses naturally evolving in that environment.

 

[InkAxis]

Here's the thing:
This part is what places horses. On grass and plains minimum distance goes from 1 to 2. On desert and tundra it goes from 0 (adjacent) to 2. The number that goes along resMultiplier is the frequency at which it spawns, so higher numbers means fewer resources.

    resources_to_place = {
        {self.horse_ID, horse_amt, 100, 1, 2}
    };
    self:ProcessResourceList(24 * resMultiplier, 1, self.grass_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);
    self:ProcessResourceList(34 * resMultiplier, 1, self.plains_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);
   
    resources_to_place = {
        {self.horse_ID, horse_amt, 100, 0, 2}
    };
    self:ProcessResourceList(20 * resMultiplier, 1, self.desert_wheat_list, resources_to_place);
    self:ProcessResourceList(70 * resMultiplier, 1, self.tundra_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);

Ant then, while the strategics are not enough for all players, it keeps placing more horses. Here:

    while self.amounts_of_resources_placed[self.horse_ID + 1] < 4 * self.iNumCivs do
        print("Map has very low horse, adding another.");
        local resources_to_place = { {self.horse_ID, horse_amt, 25, 1, 2} };
        self:ProcessResourceList(99999, 1, self.grass_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);
        self:ProcessResourceList(99999, 1, self.plains_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);
        self:ProcessResourceList(99999, 1, self.desert_wheat_list, resources_to_place);
        self:ProcessResourceList(99999, 1, self.tundra_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);
    end

Meaning it keeps placing horses until the value is met.

Now, how would you like it more?

And this is no different from how strategic resources were spawned before? Because people are reporting some pretty crazy numbers of them.

 

[CrazyG]

Well, Civilopedia says stones can appear over hills. If you don't want that, we can revert it, but Civilopedia must be changed accordingly.

Different scripts have different rules, including non-modded ones. For example, some maps given with the game have desert forests (VP or vanilla). Oval, continents, pangea etc. will never have that. Mediteranean or middle east will put resources on desert that don't normally appear there too.

There might be some scripts where stone does appear in hills, which could be why the entry is that way within civilopedia. I don't know. I do know the rule for the common map scripts has been that stone appears on grassland, desert, and tundra but not plains or hills. It's been that way for a long time. I've always thought that was intentional, to help give more production to the lands without it.

I don't think a single civilopedia can describe resources this way without errors on some map scripts. Either way, I don't think it's fair to call no stone in hills a bug.

Here's the thing:
This part is what places horses. On grass and plains minimum distance goes from 1 to 2. On desert and tundra it goes from 0 (adjacent) to 2. The number that goes along resMultiplier is the frequency at which it spawns, so higher numbers means fewer resources

Should horses appear in desert or tundra at all? My personal answer is no. Others might disagree but I'd like to see at least a few 'yes' before this change is applied as a standard part of VP.

The frequency on plains/grassland was fine as whatever it was last patch (which I think was the same for many patches before it).

 

[tu_79]

Sorry, what does this mean? Distance between what?

Distance to the closest resource of the same kind. If it says 0,2 it chooses a number between 0 and 2, then checks that there is no other resource of the same kind at this distance before placing a new one.

I'm not sure I really understand, but I think horses should be less common in the desert and the total number of horses should also be fewer. I guess something like 35 for the desert multiplier. I would also say the multiplier for tundra should be even lower. I don't know of any examples of horses naturally evolving in that environment.

70 is half the chance of 35. This means that tundra has half the chance to produce horses than plains or grass. Meanwhile deserts has 20, which means 50% more chances to produce horses in deserts (but remember that they can only be spawn in flooding plains, and those are rare).

And this is no different from how strategic resources were spawned before?

Yes, they are. This is what wasn't intended to be changed for all maps.

 

[tu_79]

Should horses appear in desert or tundra at all? My personal answer is no

Again, it's a fix from Civilopedia:

Spoiler :

Horses on flooding plains were intended only for our map, but the script was added in a rush and we weren't able to double check things.

 

[Deljade]

Maybe we should have a seperate thread to discuss resource distribution. A lot of people that did not play with the communitu mod never took part in those discussions so if those changes are going to be part of VP they should be discussed. Personally I've reduced Bison spawn rate for my games and removed bananas from Marshes as they could spawn next to Tundra. So mostly concerned about thematic issues personally. I am sure the way resources spawn is different as well, though I can maybe give that a try.

 

[Recursive]

@Recursive Do you know if it is possible to create a new vassal estate from your puppet cities peacefully? Or turn them into allied city states?

I'm not certain what you mean by this exactly. There is no such function in the current game. Adding new players to the game is unfortunately somewhat buggy, according to Gazebo.

 

[Zanteogo]

I'm not certain what you mean by this exactly. There is no such function in the current game. Adding new players to the game is unfortunately somewhat buggy, according to Gazebo.

Though it sounds like mod mod territory, the idea of puppets becoming allied city states is a interesting idea.

Seen other mods create new city states on the fly, so it's definitely "possible". Though probably super difficult.

 

[CrazyG]

Again, it's a fix from Civilopedia:

I don't think the civilopedia entries prove what the game is intended to do.

Let's look at last patch. Horses can appear in desert if you enable strategic balance, for example. But the normal distribution of horses doesn't put them there.

So should civilopedia list desert or not? Well, if I play with normal resources and it lists desert, its a bug by your logic.

So we remove desert from civilopedia. But if I play with strategic balance, suddenly a desert horse could appear, so if desert isn't listed, would it also be a bug?

You really can't make a singe civilopedia error-free (I'm saying error, not bug, because I don't think these are bugs). You would need conditional logic to change civilopedia.

Where horses or other resources appear should be based on what is best for gameplay, not an in-game document that is historically not kept up to date.

 

[tu_79]

I don't think the civilopedia entries prove what the game is intended to do.

Let's look at last patch. Horses can appear in desert if you enable strategic balance, for example. But the normal distribution of horses doesn't put them there.

So should civilopedia list desert or not? Well, if I play with normal resources and it lists desert, its a bug by your logic.

So we remove desert from civilopedia. But if I play with strategic balance, suddenly a desert horse could appear, so if desert isn't listed, would it also be a bug?

You really can't make a singe civilopedia error-free (I'm saying error, not bug, because I don't think these are bugs). You would need conditional logic to change civilopedia.

Where horses or other resources appear should be based on what is best for gameplay, not an in-game document that is historically not kept up to date.

Good thing is that now we know how to modify all that, and azum4roll made it easier to tweak, so I'd gladly discuss how resources should spawn in all maps with vp, and leave the other changes just for communitu. Do we open a new thread?

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think you understand how difficult it would be to create a changelog for the changes you object to. It would be much too complicated to spell out exactly in our standard list.

Beyond the notion of "Voice of the People", at minimum we are beta testers. And if we don't know when certain things are intentional....they all look like bugs.

Making things by a community review is hard, it always has been. I certainly don't envy the position of having to code the changes or the changelog necessary to impart certain changes, but it is a necessary part of the process.

 

[Txurce]

Beyond the notion of "Voice of the People", at minimum we are beta testers. And if we don't know when certain things are intentional....they all look like bugs.

Making things by a community review is hard, it always has been. I certainly don't envy the position of having to code the changes or the changelog necessary to impart certain changes, but it is a necessary part of the process.

I don't think an exact changelog of all the resource changes that is both clear and readable is possible. Spelling out every change caused by the merge is going to be really, really hard. That's different from mentioning in a more general way that changes had been made.

 

[tu_79]

I don't think an exact changelog of all the resource changes that is both clear and readable is possible. Spelling out every change caused by the merge is going to be really, really hard. That's different from mentioning in a more general way that changes had been made.

Besides, I don't even remember all the changes we've done, we've been modifying it for months. Originally they were done just for our map, so there was no point in documenting everything.

Let's bury the axes and find a distribution we all like more, now that you know it is not written in stone.

 

[DeAnno]

Some of these changes were not supposed to happen for all maps. You are right, we did not want to impose design changes that way.

To be clear, are you going to revert the changes to other maps? I don't have any issue with the changes to Communitas, but it's a shame if there's no way to contain it from affecting the others. Best would be if there was a toggle we could use in a non-Communitas mapscript to turn on or off Communitas elements with VP (for example maybe having two different named versions of Assignplots, instead of completely overriding the pseudo-vanilla one VP used to use), but I'd settle for it just doing its own thing again and not touching the other scripts.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think an exact changelog of all the resource changes that is both clear and readable is possible. Spelling out every change caused by the merge is going to be really, really hard. That's different from mentioning in a more general way that changes had been made.

So to be clear, I am not looking for an encyclopedia of exact changes, just something more than:

"Added improved AssignStartingPlots.lua to 6a/6b"

It could be some generics like:

1) Horses are more frequent
2) Stone is now available on hills on all maps
3) Bonus resources are clustered together more frequently than before.

Things like that. I don't need the full math report that Recursive likes to do (though I do actually read those and I like to see the math, I don't always expect it).