|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Aug 23, 2014 3:17:21 GMT
It's not an absolute no, they'll never revisit them, but George has made it sound doubtful that we'll see another revision of the settlements outside of balancing. See below. Well something to note there is, are they not going to alter ANYTHING about the settlements? Or are they likely to be keeping the current mechanic of merging houses together. I'd say the latter. Now with sight on future resource additions (there's a pretty high chance that we'll be seeing wildlife and livestock make an appearance, fishing has been talked about, woodcutting has been considered by some of the devs and Peter himself already stated that there will be forms of industry and crafting in later ages), having a seperate settlement type for each would be silly. It'd become convoluted and messy really fast. As such, it makes sense to me that they'll unify the mechanic under a single system rather than just adding on new duplicate settlements each time. I'd say that the resource alteration would not so much be an overhaul of the settlement mechanic (they'd still be formed the way they are now and function in much the same way), as much as it is tweaking/finetuning the surrounding balance and functionality. But yea, thats just how I see it and how I'd do it. Its very amusing to me that they have redone it 4 times and it still doesn't really work well though. Says a lot right there about planning and scope. You may be right about that (which still sucks to me because I dislike the new settlement aesthetic), I'm just not terribly optimistic given how clumsily it's been put together. First iteration: plop an idol down! What's it do? Uh...Makes some roads and changes the look of buildings and gathers belief, hurrah! Second iteration: okay same motion, but professions this time! Roads for later. There's a wall setting it apart. Third iteration: (uh...What the hell was the third iteration? Slight tweak to how resources were gathered?) Fourth iteration: fuck it guys let's slam the damn buildings together and call it a day. Forget profession assignment, have it generate on a timer. That's all these idiots can understand, and they'll pay for it too! |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 23, 2014 3:19:43 GMT
Oh incase some of you hadn't seen the particular effects of current settlement scaling yet? source |
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Aug 23, 2014 3:40:06 GMT
I love that image; It's a giant pink elephant.
Wouldn't be surprised if it gets passed around the internet a bit.
And I'm sorry, but doesn't saying they won't "Visit the settlements a fourth time" go against the iteration idea, or the suck-it-and-see?
|
|
|
|
Post by greay on Aug 23, 2014 3:45:46 GMT
is the current settlement mechanic. I would disagree in with a blanket statement and say that I cannot stand the timers on them. I don't like the limitations of them. I the DEVS need to hear what we specifically don't like about them if we want them to correct them. Agreed w/your disagreement  I love the new mechanics of how settlements are created and grown. And I'm relatively happy that the fidgety micromanagement is gone (even though it does make the homogeneous settlements more homogeneous). I also like how they look – each one now looks different.
Yes, the timers are still a problem. I don't like that settlements are all single-purpose – ideally we'd be able to have multiple job-types in a single settlement, but without the micromanagement of setting individual breeders, [job type for settlement] and buffers (which I never really got). It'd be cool to have that as a later power – squish together a farming and a building settlement (for example) into a metropolis. Or maybe a new mechanic involving trade. I'd like to see the reintroduction of walls and roads, but more organic – something that happens naturally, without our involvement.
They still feel like the start of something, rather than a full-fledged game mechanic in their own right. There needs to be more meat. |
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Aug 23, 2014 3:51:27 GMT
Having separation of jobs/professions in a settlement doesn't have to be completely handled by the settlement. That's what specialty buildings are for. But, again, we start going down that micromanagement road. They could just have it so certain jobs are not available until the resource or technology is discovered, and then use various plot sizes and layers to define the type of structure. I dunno, they need to get more creative, take bigger but intelligent risks. The squishing of multiple settlement types isn't a bad idea, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Aug 23, 2014 4:25:39 GMT
I would disagree in with a blanket statement and say that I cannot stand the timers on them. I don't like the limitations of them. I the DEVS need to hear what we specifically don't like about them if we want them to correct them. Agreed w/your disagreement I love the new mechanics of how settlements are created and grown. And I'm relatively happy that the fidgety micromanagement is gone (even though it does make the homogeneous settlements more homogeneous). I also like how they look – each one now looks different. Maybe it's because I refuse to bother with them with the current timers, but in all the screenshots I've seen they don't look all that much different to me. If anyone can pop up some screenshots to convey this differentiation, I'd very much appreciate it. As far as I've been able to tell they're the same thing, just compressed together more and resources outside themselves. That's pretty much how you configured them before, I'm guessing people like it because it's a little more automated? |
|
|
|
Post by greay on Aug 23, 2014 4:30:32 GMT
Having separation of jobs/professions in a settlement doesn't have to be completely handled by the settlement. That's what specialty buildings are for. But, again, we start going down that micromanagement road. They could just have it so certain jobs are not available until the resource or technology is discovered, and then use various plot sizes and layers to define the type of structure. I dunno, they need to get more creative, take bigger but intelligent risks. The squishing of multiple settlement types isn't a bad idea, either. Yeah, this'd be great. There's been a lot of talk in the past (in the stickers vs. resources debate) about having followers do different things based on the resources around them. I still like this idea. Plots near forests would be lumber mills. Plots near ore deposits or mountains would make miners. Near the water would be fishers. The more variety you managed to fit into a single settlement could boost the happiness, too. Honestly I'd be happy if they added stuff like this & made it purely cosmetic – I mean, naturally I'd like it if there were mechanics involved, but when I think of a god game I think part of the fun is just watching to see what your little people will do on their own. So even purely cosmetic stuff like that would scratch that itch to an extent. |
|
|
|
Post by greay on Aug 23, 2014 4:41:18 GMT
Agreed w/your disagreement I love the new mechanics of how settlements are created and grown. And I'm relatively happy that the fidgety micromanagement is gone (even though it does make the homogeneous settlements more homogeneous). I also like how they look – each one now looks different. Maybe it's because I refuse to bother with them with the current timers, but in all the screenshots I've seen they don't look all that much different to me. If anyone can pop up some screenshots to convey this differentiation, I'd very much appreciate it. As far as I've been able to tell they're the same thing, just compressed together more and resources outside themselves. That's pretty much how you configured them before, I'm guessing people like it because it's a little more automated? The squishing is (dare I say it) delicious. Also, old settlements wouldn't grow – these ones, since they take up less space than the buildings you use to create them, you can keep adding on to (I'm sure you've seen the crazy ziggurat structures people have made). Anyways, here's a few screenshots of mine: |
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Aug 23, 2014 4:59:49 GMT
Oh incase some of you hadn't seen the particular effects of current settlement scaling yet? source-snip- So for kicks I tweeted this towards 22cans (though any of them browsing here may see it regardless). Doubt there'll be any response, but hey, they can't say it wasn't brought to their attention. >_> Maybe it's because I refuse to bother with them with the current timers, but in all the screenshots I've seen they don't look all that much different to me. If anyone can pop up some screenshots to convey this differentiation, I'd very much appreciate it. As far as I've been able to tell they're the same thing, just compressed together more and resources outside themselves. That's pretty much how you configured them before, I'm guessing people like it because it's a little more automated? The squishing is (dare I say it) delicious. Also, old settlements wouldn't grow – these ones, since they take up less space than the buildings you use to create them, you can keep adding on to (I'm sure you've seen the crazy ziggurat structures people have made). Aah, I see, and yeah I've seen the ziggurat style structures. They all just kind of blend together to me with their looks though. Like I can see how they are distinct in shape and stuff, but it's still a cluster of buildings...Not to mention I can't help noticing they don't resolve the multilevel problem of previous settlements. Drawing together the abodes from another layer to open up space where they used to be != multilevel settlements in my mind. Sorry if that seems negative, I'm glad you like it and appreciate you providing some example shots. Just can't get my head out of what I thought the revamp would hold. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2014 7:09:49 GMT
Oh incase some of you hadn't seen the particular effects of current settlement scaling yet? source-snip- So for kicks I tweeted this towards 22cans (though any of them browsing here may see it regardless). Doubt there'll be any response, but hey, they can't say it wasn't brought to their attention. >_> The squishing is (dare I say it) delicious. Also, old settlements wouldn't grow – these ones, since they take up less space than the buildings you use to create them, you can keep adding on to (I'm sure you've seen the crazy ziggurat structures people have made). Aah, I see, and yeah I've seen the ziggurat style structures. They all just kind of blend together to me with their looks though. Like I can see how they are distinct in shape and stuff, but it's still a cluster of buildings...Not to mention I can't help noticing they don't resolve the multilevel problem of previous settlements. Drawing together the abodes from another layer to open up space where they used to be != multilevel settlements in my mind. Sorry if that seems negative, I'm glad you like it and appreciate you providing some example shots. Just can't get my head out of what I thought the revamp would hold. I have to agree with Gmr... I like the squishing animation... but when we were told that an answer to Bulldozer Simulator 2015 was coming down the pipe, I was imagining some sort of "build on terraced land" solution, not high-rise slums. Like I said. I think the animations are neat and it's better than what we had, it just kinda fell flat for me considering what I was expecting from 22cans. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 23, 2014 13:32:27 GMT
Having separation of jobs/professions in a settlement doesn't have to be completely handled by the settlement. That's what specialty buildings are for. But, again, we start going down that micromanagement road. They could just have it so certain jobs are not available until the resource or technology is discovered, and then use various plot sizes and layers to define the type of structure. I dunno, they need to get more creative, take bigger but intelligent risks. The squishing of multiple settlement types isn't a bad idea, either. I would like to point out that Godus already HEAVILY relies on leashing and sculpting for most of its tasks. Even the godpowers function in that way. All of which are micro-management. Anyone saying that Godus isn't already very deep in micro-management is lying to themselves. Sure, you can leave the plot forming as it does automatically (which is very inefficient and leaves a ton of empty space) - but that just means you'll have to cover much more ground in the long run to collect your resources, which hilariously means more micro-management in collection rather than doing it a single time in preperation. Like I mentioned in my suggestion, it'd be quite easy to have the game automatically weigh for hubs. If/when a certain density of a specific 'job' forms, the specialty building could automatically form for that location. Be it a seperate building outside of the settlement or a little tick-box within the settlement overview. From there its a matter of follower distribution (which could be done automatically or manually). The big downside with doing it automatically is that we have to rely on the balancing capabilities of 22cans - something I still heavily take into question given the current status of the game. IF 22cans could provide a proper and intelligent AI to handle this for us, I would be all in favor. Since they are not, I'd much rather have the ability to manually control it at the cost of a bit of micromanagement. Also, bonus points to 22cans if they can provide us with a little more control over the squishing. They did say in the first place that you'd select an area and then could control how tightly it'd pull the buildings in. I'd love to see a more "city-esque" effect. Staying flat first and only having the center go up in later ages for example. Something thats not possible in the current version. Also, have the buildings that go up into the air change style rather than having it a single blob of color with black squares as windows. |
|
|
|
Post by banned on Aug 24, 2014 13:11:38 GMT
Its very amusing to me that they have redone it 4 times and it still doesn't really work well though. Says a lot right there about planning and scope. Design documents are for losers! |
|
