Topic: New resource indicators
einstein13 |
Posted at: 2016-01-11, 22:23
Wells are running out. When there is no water resource, they just have ~50% of getting water. The percentage can be different (I can't remember for sure that info). Edited: 2016-01-11, 22:24
einstein13 |
GunChleoc |
Posted at: 2016-01-11, 22:27
Yes, SirVer posted that water depletes, but the chance of still getting some is a lot higher than with mines.
Chance is 65% Edited: 2016-01-11, 22:30
Busy indexing nil values Top Quote |
kaputtnik Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2016-01-11, 23:01
The maximum amount of resource water is also higher than for ore/fish:
At least some terrains have a default value for resource water, which may not deplete. This default amount isn't shown in the editor infotool either. Top Quote |
DragonAtma |
Posted at: 2016-01-12, 12:47
Okay, I have been corrected. I guess that would explain why wells often seemed to hover around 65% (which is much higher than an empty mine's 5-10%!). And in that case I recommend using blue balls (multiple pics) for water.
Top Quote |
king_of_nowhere |
Posted at: 2016-01-12, 18:11
The penalty could be increased, but ultimately water should remain a limitless resource. I can't imagine this game if an economy could run out of water.
this seems a good idea. Top Quote |
EgyLynx |
Posted at: 2016-01-12, 18:49
Oh, i not know THAT. Of course "kaivo"- wells my L... at use at long. But... i liked old indicator of water... or should there at editor are land based water level? ( otherwords, water was tilepased, it dry level, how wet it, and how close that is ocean/sea... but now it was easier coding...) Top Quote |
kaputtnik Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2016-01-12, 19:15
Different types of terrains have different default amount of water. F.e. Top Quote |
Tibor |
Posted at: 2016-01-12, 20:58
This is simply too high. Why would we care about sending geologists when no matter where you build a well, you will get roughly the same yield? I would lower it to 10 or so - just to prevent complete run out of water. Also in nature I believe wells have some natural inflow of water from rain or so... Top Quote |
king_of_nowhere |
Posted at: 2016-01-13, 03:46
10% would be way too low. unlike mines, it is not reasonable to dismantle wells and rebuild them elsewhere, because you want to fill all your land with productive buildings and dismantling a farm to make a well in its place is not convenient. so in a normal game you will run out of water. then if well productivity when empty is 10% you would need 6 time more wells than you need right now, which would strongly affet the game balance. On a normal map, this would actually favor the empire, for the empire has no long-term use for small buildings except wells (quarries, fisheries and hunters run out, and it doesn't need more lumberjacks and foresters to expand its economy), so it would be able to make all those extra wells on land that it could not use anyway. It would disadvantage the barbarians from mid-game onwards, because barbarian bread and beer cost a lot of water, so barbarians would need hundreds of wells. Now, having a well produce nothing in desert, and only 10% in dry land, seem perfectly reasonable - I can already see myself making a "no water challenge" map - but on meadow I wouldn't go below 50%. Top Quote |
einstein13 |
Posted at: 2016-01-13, 08:35
Empire has huge disadvantage about the wells: they need marble to be built. Marble can be very valuable on some maps. To build powerful empire you need lots of them. 50% seems to me to be ok. Wells isn't a very big problem to me then. But I think that there should be a bunch of terrain types where wells can have less than 25% efficiency. like some kind of deserts and dry soils. einstein13 |