|
|
Post by lowry on Apr 17, 2016 18:38:54 GMT
What's the current plan for resource acquiring? Will settlements slowly gain resources based on whats around them and how long they spend there? Or will it be more direct, having to purposefully invest money or people? Is there any set plan for this?
|
|
|
|
Post by NickTheNick on Apr 17, 2016 20:30:16 GMT
To be frank, any plans for that far into the future are pretty meaningless at the moment. It would really make no difference if I gave you the exact answer or completely make one up on the spot, because it's guaranteed to change once we start implementing.
However what we do have planned is the latter option, because minerals and food and wood don't just fly into your peoples' pockets, you need to send out miners and build farms and the likes.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowry on Apr 17, 2016 20:33:21 GMT
Cool, it's just I quite liked the idea of discussing it.. Sorry if you found it unnecessary
|
|
|
|
Post by StealthStyleL on Apr 17, 2016 20:47:51 GMT
You can discuss it that's fine. Nick's just saying that we can't give a concrete answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by NickTheNick on Apr 17, 2016 21:09:04 GMT
Yeah don't get the wrong idea, feel free and have fun discussing it, that's what first drew me to the project, just know that it's not going to really have any effect on the decision-making and implementation until way down the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by tjwhale on Apr 19, 2016 16:51:43 GMT
What do you think lowry ? How should resources work in the game? Have you played other games where you liked / disliked the systems? Have you played Age of Empires and Civilisation? If you have which of those systems did you prefer? The advantage to talking about it now is you can put a seed in people's minds which may well flourish as the stage is being built  |
|
|
|
Post by lowry on Apr 20, 2016 9:20:15 GMT
Well tjwhale, I actually quite like the endless legend method of doing things, it's similar to civ but doesn't require a utility unit like a worker. In endless legend you found a city per 'province' or area or whatever you want to call them. Then any materials in that area become workable by the city once a builder has been built ontop of it (like civ) but instead of using a worker to build it, you have to use some of the cities production resource instead (or buy it), this cuts out the need for having a worker unit. I'm in favour of this method as it's cleaner, it looks less cluttered and the area around you city keeps a decent amount of its beauty (until your city expands and begins to take up most of you land). In thrive I see a similar system unfolding, resources are tied to a particular region rather than a tile. This allows the possibility of roaming resources that move about your region. Take a herd of Megafauna for example, it's unlikely they'd stay within the same area of land throughout the entirety of your civilisations life. It'd move, travel to different areas and I think having a building like a hunting lodge in your city to then asign some of you population to for them to go out and harvest that mobile group of megafauna. Same with farms, farms should require investment of production or money or pop to the building of a new farm, you should be able to specify what's being grown, whether it's being given to the local city population or traded. Another thing I think should be in Thrive material wise is the idea that nothings infinite, resources aren't there forever. Coal veins should run out and megafauna are eventually hunted to extinction. |
|
|
|
Post by tjwhale on Apr 20, 2016 13:57:26 GMT
Those are cool ideas!
Yeah I personally like the idea that resources are finite. There could even be some luck involved. Like maybe your planet just doesn't have much uranium on it or something like that.
I think it will be easy to have population models for the fauna as we'll have been doing an incredible amount of population modelling up to that point we can just keep going with something simplified, if we want to do that. Like how Britain used to be covered in forest but it was basically all cut down to where now there's very little forest. Humans (or whatever your creature is like by that point) changing the climate can easily be a big part of it, it already is. If your microbe makes a lot of CO2, for example, that will change the climate of your planet.
|
|
