search

CleverRaven / Cataclysm-DDA

Cataclysm - Dark Days Ahead. A turn-based survival game set in a post-apocalyptic world.
http://cataclysmdda.org
Other
10k stars 4.09k forks source link

Mod Inclusion Project: Folding Parts Pack #25068

Closed DracoGriffin closed 5 years ago

DracoGriffin commented 5 years ago

Use the following issue as a space to discuss the inclusion of:

Mod Ident: deoxymod Name: Folding Parts pack

Your comment should include:

Suggestions for induction

(what parts of the mod should be included, can be as simple as just an item, a location or the complete inclusion)

Incompatibilities

(what parts of the mod should not be included, either some objects / items or entire mod is conflicting with DDA theme [ for whatever reason ])

cake-pie commented 5 years ago

Relevant: #19991

We can review individual parts for inclusion based on some consensus volume/weight limits. (will mostly involve applying FOLDABLE to existing DDA parts, thus obsoleting the mod version)

I think it would be reasonable it to be possible in vanilla DDA to allow folding of: ( for some definition of folding -- see next two comments for details)

Making large items like quarterpanels and solar panels foldable is a probably stretch for vanilla DDA, so the mod should continue to exist for people who want such features.

Night-Pryanik commented 5 years ago

Maybe I don't fully understand the meaning of word folding, but how it would be possible to fold an engine? I mean, it's rigid!

cake-pie commented 5 years ago

Ah, right. This is a bit of a quirk/workaround as I understand it.

For a vehicle to be foldable, all of its vehicle parts must have FOLDABLE flag.

So, to make a part such that "this part is allowed on a folding vehicle, but isn't a part that actually folds", we give the part with FOLDABLE but set the folded volume to be identical to its original volume.

See https://github.com/CleverRaven/Cataclysm-DDA/pull/17183#issuecomment-228588237 and surrounding context.

kevingranade commented 5 years ago

I agree with @cake-pie, the very smallest parts could get "FOLDABLE" applied, IIRC that got derailed in the past because people interested in expanding what is FOLDABLE wanted everything to be FOLDABLE, so when told they can't mark a car seat as foldable they made a mod instead.

AbsalomAchitophel526 commented 5 years ago

I think the issue is not that people want foldable VW Beetles but rather that they want something like this: atvrack

And that currently, foldable simulates this by allowing you to stuff a much smaller vehicle into a larger one. A compromise could be reached by allowing Drive-By-Wire controls to be foldable, or some smaller drone variant, to allow for surveillance vehicles carry-able as cargo.

cake-pie commented 5 years ago

foldable simulates this by allowing

Sure, but that's a stopgap measure, a workaround to make up for the lack of features to support towing and/or transporting other vehicles (e.g flatbed).

Design decisions about whether a part should be FOLDABLE in mainline DDA should be made solely based on whether it can realistically be included on a vehicle that can be collapsed into compact dimensions and carried around. The need to support a workaround should not be a consideration here.

The workaround will still be possible by using the mod, which will still exist -- status quo preserved.

DracoGriffin commented 5 years ago

Just to check my understanding, @kevingranade, but merging would be a possibility if such changes are enacted:

A (acceptable): V8 diesel engine Volume: "volume": 32, Folded Volume: "folded_volume": 32,

B (unacceptable): V8 diesel engine Volume: "volume": 32, Folded Volume: "folded_volume": 16,

If A is correct, then setting up vehicle parts to all have folded volumes inherited from their volume flag, unless specified otherwise (so stuff that IS marked with foldable, will actually have a volume reduction, whereas anything not marked with a foldable flag will default to their volume [that is, V8 diesel engine folded volume unspecified will default to 32 -- it's normal volume value]); this could avoid the work of reviewing individual items and extrapolating some value to represent the folded volume.

Otherwise, it looks like this issue can stay open and follow the remarks outlined by @cake-pie for induction.

kevingranade commented 5 years ago

Only smaller parts should be foldable, regardless of folding ratio. It makes no sense to make a V8 (or V4, or I2) foldable, it's not a part you'd build into a folding vehicle.

Kelenius commented 5 years ago

I think we should make a list of all items made foldable by this mod, so it's easier to discuss the specifics.

cake-pie commented 5 years ago

Exising parts altered by the mod

Obsolete

Definite yes

Make these foldable in vanilla; no volume reduction

For consideration

Lighting -- likely OK

Simple offensive capability

Probably not

Nope

Ruled out by https://github.com/CleverRaven/Cataclysm-DDA/pull/19991#issuecomment-271467357 :

Parts added by the mod

None of these should be foldable in vanilla

Human-Shield commented 5 years ago

I thought that swappable storage battery case was just an empty frame box with wiring to it. Seems like it could it folded down to flat pack it.

Kelenius commented 5 years ago

stereo system (3.5L)

It's not just a boombox, it's a stereo system that draws power from the vehicle. I think it's too clunky to be added to a foldable bike.

wheelbarrow wheel (2.25L)

It's just a wheel. I'd say yes, without volume reduction.

drive by wire controls (3.75L)

This is a pretty big thing. I don't know about this one. It would be really neat to have foldable devices that are remotely controllable.

atomic lamp (1L), atomic nightlight (0.25L)

These are just lights, they don't even need power connection. Yes.

Simple offensive capability

These all protrude from the vehicle, so I'd say yes.

water faucet (0.75L)

It's just a small faucet, shouldn't cause issues, I'd say yes.

water purifier (3L)

????? water purifier is foldable, really? I think it shouldn't be. I'd say no.

security system (0.25L), back-up beeper (0.25L), chimes (4L)

It might seem pointless to attach these, but that's not the point. What matters is if's theoretically possible to attach them, and I think that both security system and the beeper should be, but not the chimes. Aside from the volume, A stereo system with loudspeakers and a built-in set of simple melodies that it will play. doesn't seem like something that can be folded.

camera control system and security camera

Monitors on a foldable device don't make a lot of sense, and the camera is useless without them. So I'd say no.

aisle lights

It's an attached flashlight... I don't see why not.

swappable storage battery case

The frame itself is 2.25L, but the battery is whopping 10L, which implies that the frame has a lot of empty space in it... and it actually makes perfect sense to make it foldable - you'd just need to take out the battery itself before folding it, and inserting it back after unfolding.

solar panels

Solar panels, being flat, should be easily foldable, but it might be better to make a separate recipe for a foldable panel.

minireactor (1.5L)

I was initially in agreement, but it's surprisingly small, so I'd say it should be foldable (without volume reduction, of course).

small wheel (2.25L)

A pretty small wheel. Probably from one of those Segway things. It is not very menacing.

I think this is small enough to be attached to a foldable device, so I think this should be up for debate.

vehicle tank (10L), 1-cylinder engine, V-twin engine

I can definitely imagine the tank being attached to a side or the back of the vehicle without getting in the way of folding, but if it's made like that, you'd also be able to stick it in every tile.

As for the engine, here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG8pzzElF18, definitely possible.

folding extra light quarterpanel, foldable door

I'm having trouble imagining how this even works.

superalloy coating (0.5L)

As far as I can tell, it does absolutely nothing. Should be probably just removed.

cake-pie commented 5 years ago

water purifier (3L)

I was leaving it under consideration in case of some use case involving carrying it around, but come think of it you already get that by not installing it, in which case it is a battery-powered device. Moved to nope. .

water faucet (0.75L)

Pretty useless with limited capacity of tanks that can be installed on a foldable veh. .

aisle lights It's an attached flashlight... I don't see why not.

"name": "aisle lights", "location": "on_ceiling",

What aisle? What ceiling? .

solar panels Solar panels, being flat, should be easily foldable

These are large, flat, rigid, fragile panels, perhaps slightly under 1m x 1m dimensions. Doesn't seem like a good idea to incorporate them into a collapsible rig: expect them to be outside or protuding when vehicle is in folded form, hard to protect them when wrangling it around.

Hence my suggestion for smaller version of the basic solar panel, maybe a quarter of the size, which flavor-text-wise would be more practical to tuck away safely. .

swappable storage battery case The frame itself is 2.25L, but the battery is whopping 10L, which implies that the frame has a lot of empty space in it... and it actually makes perfect sense to make it foldable - you'd just need to take out the battery itself before folding it, and inserting it back after unfolding.

We should not approach this as "is there a way to engineer part X so that it is collapsible?", but rather "should part X be permitted on folding vehicles?" with the understanding that "folding vehicles" are intended to have pretty limited capability -- not much more than a bicycle or small gas/electric moped.

Having storage battery case as foldable is pretty much attempting to circumvent the limited capability, under the guise of being a tradeoff, requiring battery to be removed and transported separately. While that used to be practical with sufficient character strength, since #22980 you now need lifting tools to swap out the battery -- making it too far-fetched for use on a folding vehicle that's supposed to be conveniently portable.

FulcrumA commented 5 years ago

water faucet (0.75L) Pretty useless with limited capacity of tanks that can be installed on a foldable veh.

Perhaps, with very small tanks it makes kinda less of a point but still, it hurts no one and if someone wants a faucet connected to their bike, why not?

What aisle? What ceiling?

Aisle lights are kinda a hacky job. Yeah, mounted on the ceiling etc but it's basically just regular lamp. In fact, no matter if this mod passes, I'd like the aisle light to be changed into simply a 'light/lamp' since it is a flashlight connected to controls and doesn't even require actual roof/ceiling. I'd agree that (after renaming and slightly changing it) it also should go on a folding vehicle. Hell, I already use those as lamps on my welding carts due to lack of a better alternative.

Having storage battery case as foldable is pretty much attempting to circumvent the limited capability, under the guise of being a tradeoff, requiring battery to be removed and transported separately.

I think that's a pretty good tradeoff - sure, it may circumvent one shortcoming of such vehicles but at a considerable price. I think it's only fair.

We should not approach this as "is there a way to engineer part X so that it is collapsible?", but rather "should part X be permitted on folding vehicles?" with the understanding that "folding vehicles" are intended to have pretty limited capability -- not much more than a bicycle or small gas/electric moped.

While it'd be very cumbersome, you can strap a pretty big battery to such. It will just work worse, the weight will impact its mobility and it will still be limited by how much the engine would be able to move - exactly as it'd be in game. I'd rather avoid forcing folding vehicles to be unable to use certain parts just to enforce their limitations. Even in this case, making the storage battery itself not foldable and given its weight, it'd be only applicable in limited circumstances so I'd be all for making the storage case foldable as well.

sfsworms commented 5 years ago

I have to agree with @FulcrumA's position here. The basic question is one of design: do we base the decision of whether to make a part foldable or not on what we thing is useful, or on the fact that it should be possible to have it being foldable?

I favor the second option. If a part is useless on folding vehicles, people simply won't use them. Or maybe the player base will invent some nice, emergent use, or they'll be useful for niche applications. (What if you want to carry along a cart-mounted laser gun for clearing cities? It might make sense to unfold them, and use a crane on your deathmobile to swap the batteries.)

With this in mind, I thing the general rules to determine whether a part should be foldable or note should be based on two things: size, and whether it's too fragile to stand the folding process. (So, basically, windshield and solar panels should be out, as well as anything over a certain size (3 L?) with the exception of purpose-made folding parts (folding frame, etc etc).

kevingranade commented 5 years ago

Re storage battery, theres another question of whether the folding frame can handle the weight of the battery.

cake-pie commented 5 years ago

should be based on two things: size, and whether it's too fragile to stand the folding process

The problem with blindly using "size" as a criteria: volume does not convey any information about dimensions nor the rigidity/construction of a part.

E.g.: The mod's folding extra light quarterpanel is 1L and ostensibly made out of pipe. It doesn't make sense, and doesn't belong in vanilla, but it sure passes your test!

Keep in mind that this mod exists because

people interested in expanding what is FOLDABLE wanted everything to be FOLDABLE, so when told they can't mark [certain parts] as foldable they made a mod instead.

So, there are things in the mod like folding extra light quarterpanel because people want to build things that are more like a car than a bike. You have solar panels and storage battery case because people want a fully-fledged electric vehicle, not merely a moped. Can't justify entire kitchen unit or FOODCO, but water purifier? Sure, rationalize it so we can strap the thing on. Betcha if hotplate was a vehicle part people would want to mark that foldable, to use as a substitute for kitchen unit.

Hence my belief that attempting to rationalize/justify the inclusion of certain parts by means of:

is basically pushing the envelope against the intended balance and gameplay role of foldable vehicles. If the result is significantly bulkier than a folded bike -- say, more than a large briefcase -- or involves further dis/assembly (e.g. storage battery) then I think it's against the spirit of being a conveniently portable thing.

In my view, foldable vehicles, e.g. folding bike, collapsible shopping trolley, are intended to fill the role of "last mile" in transport and loot hauling -- so you can drive your car into town, park it up, and explore and loot a range of several blocks, shuttling to and from the car using the foldable vehicle.

They are not meant for overmap-scale transport, e.g. between base/deathmobile and town or other looting site. Hence I think it is fair to restrict the allowed parts, and place a limit their capabilities. In particular, should not be able to support extended duration operations at significant distance away from an actual vehicle or base.

This also brings us to the case where players that are using the mod as

workaround to make up for the lack of features to support towing / transporting other vehicles (flatbed)

In that case, the "conveniently portable" criteria is waived to enable "roleplay towing", but that use case should stay in the mod, it does not warrant inclusion in vanilla.

FWIW when I picture a "draggable turret on wheels" it falls more into this category than that of a true folding vehicle in the vein of folding bike or collapsible shopping trolley.

Kelenius commented 5 years ago

In my view, foldable vehicles, e.g. folding bike, collapsible shopping trolley, are intended to fill the role of "last mile" in transport and loot hauling

I agree with this; the biggest reason to fold a vehicle is (probably) to put it on your deathmobile, and we'll hopefully soon have #25191 to do that with vehicles too big to be considered "foldable".

cake-pie commented 5 years ago

the biggest reason to fold a vehicle is (probably) to put it on your deathmobile, and we'll hopefully soon have #25191 to do that with vehicles too big to be considered "foldable".

Not exactly; #25191 is still limited to bike-scale: 1-tile wide and no longer than the width of the carrier vehicle. It will not support use cases that are more akin to towing, trailer, or flatbed.

Kelenius commented 5 years ago

Not exactly; #25191 is still limited to bike-scale: 1-tile wide and no longer than the width of the carrier vehicle. It will not support use cases that are more akin to towing, trailer, or flatbed.

And these devices are obviously too big to be foldable.

cake-pie commented 5 years ago

Yup! I was just clarifying, since your comment could be interpreted to mean that ATV-on-truck use cases ( like picture earlier in this thread ) or larger would be supported. quad_bike is 3x3, so transporting something like it is still going to require the "fold-in-lieu-of-flatbed" workaround provided by this mod.

FulcrumA commented 5 years ago

So, there are things in the mod like folding extra light quarterpanel because people want to build things that are more like a car than a bike.

Without any ill will toward the difference of opinion between us, I have to question this statement on the basis of principle. It's not because people want to make a car more than a bike, but because they believe that certain parts should be possible for a portable, folded vehicle. Please do not attribute reasoning for why when it's merely your guess. Moreover, you base your argument on this statement as if somehow we shouldn't allow certain parts because it will bring it closer to what they want, as if it would be a bad thing inherently, which is not a good attitude.

There were good grounds set up earlier for what parts should be foldable - ones which are compact enough and not heavy enough to threaten the structure of the vehicle. Your example of quarterpanels I'd agree wouldn't fit to be foldable, but not because it's made out of pipes, but because it's still a rigid, even if light, half-height wall.

I'd strongly suggest, again, to not limit parts arbitrarily because they don't fit someone's idea what should be in a foldable vehicle. Base it on whether they could be folded or are small enough to be fit within folded frames and let actual objective calculations of parameters to the in-game mechanics. Technically, a some sort of car-like vehicle could be foldable, IRL. It'd be bad, and even silly idea as even when folded it's likely it'd be a chore to move anywhere defeating the purpose - but we should leave it to players and their decisions, including the bad decisions - just making sure the realistic consequences apply, rather than enforce 'common sense'. If we'd go by "only practical, utilitarian decisions are allowed", we'd need to overhaul the game itself.

In my view, foldable vehicles, e.g. folding bike, collapsible shopping trolley, are intended to fill the role of "last mile" in transport and loot hauling

They are expected to be so by default, but that should be natural role they fit in as due to limitations of weight/size and realistically foldable parts they may have, not something mandated. The feature is meant to limit what parts go into foldable vehicles, not how we should limit players to force them to use those vehicles in boundaries of the role we ordain for them. The most logical roles for certain foldable vehicles should stem from realistic limitations and if someone finds an inventive use of such a vehicle for another purpose, the ingenuity - as long as it's not simply an exploit - should be allowed.

We're not appointed arbiters of people's decisions, the folding is merely to provide possibility for parts realistically possible to make transportable/installable in a folded vehicle while still preserving their qualities - how those parts will be combined and which of them someone will want to use should be no one but players' business.

Sorry if it sounds a bit rantish. The reason for it is that it seems there are several different initial attitudes regarding the very idea of foldable things and this should be resolved before we even can consider particular parts.

cake-pie commented 5 years ago

My argument isn't that

we shouldn't allow certain parts because it will bring it closer to what [some people] want, [and that] would be a bad thing inherently

What I'm trying to express (possibly quite poorly) is, from a game design standpoint, there ought to be different roles for mobile bases vs "normal" vehicles vs foldable vehicles, each with differing capbilities, and clear advantages and disadvantages when choosing between them.

My chief concern is: if we're not careful, foldable vehicles can become almost as capable as regular ones. If it gets to the point where foldable vehicles can supplant regular ones for many purposes, you have a dominant strategy, gameplay suffers.

So I'm particularly wary of parts that would extend range and endurance -- that being a key differentiator in the vehicles' roles. Storage battery case is the obvious example. Water purifier is another -- increasing duration out in the field without having to return to base or stopping to build a fire.

Keep in mind that this mod was made, and parts added to it, because those parts were rejected as foldable in vanilla in the first place. By definition, many (most?) things in this mod exist to circumvent intentional limits imposed in vanilla DDA. Therefore, with the exception of a handful of uncontroversial parts, it's worth thinking twice about inclusion of most of them.

we should leave it to players and their decisions, including the bad decisions - just making sure the realistic consequences apply, rather than enforce 'common sense'.

I'm not completely convinced that it's adequate to let in-game mechanics govern the practicality of a folding vehicle design. No one is going to lug a large, heavy folded vehicle around, they'll just unpack it immediately after unloading from their deathmobile. The unpack action requires adequate inventory space to hold the folded vehicle, and sufficient strength to handle its weight. Volume can be easily gamed by wearing a lot of storage, which leaves weight as the only meaningful limitation.

Also worth noting, there's no currently no protection against a player folding a vehicle that they will not be able to unfold, which is punishing/unfair: https://github.com/CleverRaven/Cataclysm-DDA/issues/22771#issuecomment-359950862

Re: silly/uselesss parts, I was just pointing them out, and don't feel strongly about letting players use them on folding vehicles.

FulcrumA commented 5 years ago

What I'm trying to express (possibly quite poorly) is, from a game design standpoint, there ought to be different roles for mobile bases vs "normal" vehicles vs foldable vehicles, each with differing capbilities, and clear advantages and disadvantages when choosing between them.

Here I mostly can agree with you - yes, foldable vehicles should primarily serve different roles than other types of them, I just have to underline that those different roles should come as a natural limitation of the vehicle, rather than arbitrary decision and ti shouldn't be rigid - just a tool of certain boundaries and limits, with players operating within them as they see fit. The advantages/disadvantages doesn't need to be something specifically enforced, just stemming from the nature of foldable vehicle.

No one is going to lug a large, heavy folded vehicle around, they'll just unpack it immediately after unloading from their deathmobile.

Which I'd say is fine. If someone wants to devoid themselves of primary benefit of a foldable vehicle, paying the price of it being hardly well-transportable and requiring packing oneself with bags or rolling it down the road with advanced inventory before unpacking, it seems fair. Even relatively heavy and sizeable foldable vehicle will have to be pretty light and thus limited in various roles - because the weight and volume of those increases pretty easily and it won't take long before it will be hard to carry it in another vehicle's cargo storage yet alone in inventory, thus making it completely useless as an actual foldable.

The issue you mention is indeed an issue and probably should be solved with a warning and inability to fold things above certain size/mass (probably the one of aforementioned cargo storage should be the max possible).

cake-pie commented 5 years ago

First, quick note:

it won't take long before it will be hard to carry it in another vehicle's cargo storage yet alone in inventory

Cargo space accepts 250L, trunk 162.5L; character's str-based weight limit for carrying is the more likely limiting factor most of the time.

Okay, here's (hopefully) better organized reasoning and elaboration on why I don't think it is sufficient to rely on volume/weight of the folding vehicle as the only limitations.

The foldable vehicle mechanic, like any other game mechanic, should offer a meaningful gameplay choice. The player must make a tradeoff: to gain some advantages, you have to pay a cost in some other way.

The status quo in vanilla, without this mod, is as follows:

Advantages: A vehicle spanning multiple tiles can be reduced to a 1-tile item

Disadvantages: .

.

.

.

It's super obvious what your tradeoffs are if you're evaluating a folding vehicle vs a 12-, 16- or 20-tile sized car. In such a comparison, the size factor dominates.

What is more subtle, and you're perhaps forgetting to consider, is the choice between a folding vehicle vs a non-folding one in roughly the same size/weight class.

Why should I build a 4- or 5-tile bike/buggy/sidecar that isn't foldable? Right now, if you choose to go with foldable, you make clear sacrifices in terms of electrical and propulsion options. The cost you pay in limited power, range, utility is evident.

Consider the change that allows storage battery case. That's a massive boost in battery capacity from 7000 (medium storage battery) to 40000. You also gain the ability to hot-swap batteries rather than having to hook up a cable. The only cost incurred is a little inconvenience of having to remove the battery for transport and reinstall it before use -- and that itself aids in circumventing the weight/volume limits of folding vehicle mechanics.

As for allowing internal combustion engines: it's fine if we stick to the tiniest fuel tanks and engines, maintaining proportionality with the other propulsion methods currently allowed. Going from 2L fuel tank to 10L is a fivefold range increase, which I am wary about. Engines: should be more like "put-put" than "vroom".

What I do not wish to see is a situation where there is little meaningful choice. If it becomes a trivial decision -- "if I'm going to make a vehicle that size, I might as well make it foldable", that's a loss in richness of gameplay.

So:

No one is going to lug a large, heavy folded vehicle around, they'll just unpack it immediately after unloading from their deathmobile.

Which I'd say is fine. If someone wants to devoid themselves of primary benefit of a foldable vehicle, paying the price of it being hardly well-transportable and requiring [troublesome] before unpacking, it seems fair.

What about someone who has (or is considering) a vehicle of volume/weight that is at around the practical threshold for foldability? They may not really care about being able to carry it around at all. But if they can gain the ability to pack and load it onto another vehicle, for little or no cost or disadvantage, does that not become the dominant strategy?

Kelenius commented 5 years ago

What is more subtle, and you're perhaps forgetting to consider, is the choice between a folding vehicle vs a non-folding one in roughly the same size/weight class.

Why should I build a 4- or 5-tile bike/buggy/sidecar that isn't foldable? Right now, if you choose to go with foldable, you make clear sacrifices in terms of electrical and propulsion options. The cost you pay in limited power, range, utility is evident.

Even with this mod, if you make it foldable, you are still making sacrifices. If you're making a non-foldable buggy, you can easily fit a cargo space or three on it, each giving 250L of volume, then add liquid tanks in every tile for 60L each. There is no way a folding vehicle of any size is going to be even remotely close to that.

Furthermore, you are expending more resources to make a folding vehicle. For example, regular frames are common, but you need to specifically make folding frames. They're also more flimsy IIRC.

The parts should be foldable if they can be feasibly folded, not because you decided that the game should be played your way.

DracoGriffin commented 5 years ago

Looks like this has been decent debate so I'll leave this issue open for further discussion and for anyone interested in tackling the induction.

FulcrumA commented 5 years ago

@cake-pie

What is more subtle, and you're perhaps forgetting to consider, is the choice between a folding vehicle vs a non-folding one in roughly the same size/weight class.

Not at all. I simply think that's a non-issue.

If a player wants to create a tiny vehicle that would work as well as foldable, using weaker frames etc to mimic the qualities of a foldable analog, then sure - I'll let them make such unfoldable foldable-like vehicle. I don't see why foldables should be arbitrarily made worse just because you can make non-foldable vehicles which would serve similar function or that only foldables should serve certain purpose not directly relatd to them being foldable. They still will lack the actual foldability which is the point of making foldable vehicles in the first place while being able to handle customization with parts foldable vehicles won't have - all seems fine to me.

Anything other than a small vehicle will not be workable as a foldable without other downsides we discussed earlier, either.

Why should I build a 4- or 5-tile bike/buggy/sidecar that isn't foldable? Right now, if you choose to go with foldable, you make clear sacrifices in terms of electrical and propulsion options. The cost you pay in limited power, range, utility is evident.

Which is fine, but it doesn't and even shouldn't stem from arbitrary decisions of enforcing certain roles on vehicles or players, but from limitations of parts that are compact enough to befit a foldable vehicle. If you can make a vehicle that isn't exploity but it works for whatever purpose you have for it, you should be able to do it no matter if it's foldable/unfoldable or if such analog can be made.

Consider the change that allows storage battery case. That's a massive boost in battery capacity from 7000 (medium storage battery) to 40000. You also gain the ability to hot-swap batteries rather than having to hook up a cable. The only cost incurred is a little inconvenience of having to remove the battery for transport and reinstall it before use -- and that itself aids in circumventing the weight/volume limits of folding vehicle mechanics.

While at the same time defeating a lot of the purpose of the foldable vehicle in the first place as to conveniently travel with a set of such batteries to swap, you likely will need another vehicle, thus making storage batteries still an option a player may pursue, even if it's an option that's not the most reasonable as it defeats the points of a foldable vehicle when it requires another vehicle to be able to set it up to be mobile. It self-balances right there without stifling player's options.

What I do not wish to see is a situation where there is little meaningful choice. If it becomes a trivial decision -- "if I'm going to make a vehicle that size, I might as well make it foldable", that's a loss in richness of gameplay.

As long as it's merely an opinion based on player's preferences, not ouright lack of balance, I am very well fine with people saying so. And given the things we mentioned, tradeoffs between those two types of vehicles, it will be exactly merely a preference - some players will be know and decide to build the vehicles as foldables if they'll be of particular size but well-knowing that the same vehicles won't be able to accept many parts and thus their utility will be limited to some particular roles and some will create non-foldable versions which may serve exactly the same purpose but, well, lose the whole foldability. To force all of the potential vehicles to some nice based on foldability is unfair.

Ability to create analogues between foldables and non-foldables isn't loss of richness of gameplay. As long as it's fair, I'd argue it adds to the richness, allowing alternative ways of knocking same issues/creating vehicles for particular purposes. It's arbitrary gating of "your foldable vehicles have to serve in this capacity by being made in this particular way and your non-foldables in that capacity" that's a loss of such richness in my opinion.

Again, the idea behind the ticket is to make certain vanilla things foldable to allow option for that, it's not to decree what those vehicles are allowed to do- a thing which you base your whole argument on - merely what parts believably fit either type of design. The mod is a mod because people wanted parts to fold that shouldn't be realistically foldable without losing the qualities that gave them their current form in the first place. I believe that adjusting that purely on the basis of realism and believability will be much more fair and balanced than trying to arbitrarily enforce certain roles and expectations on players regarding what they'll have to use, how and why.

Otherwise, at best, it will lead to pretty fair but avoidable "this thing should be foldable and it makes sense, I'm including it/please include it" tickets/pull requests, at worst treated as a giant, insulting "play this particular aspect of otherwise sandbox game how I want you to on no other grounds than that I want you to do it this way" change that will be inferior to the mod and thus disregarded/pointless to implement in the first place.

cake-pie commented 5 years ago

not because you decided that the game should be played your way.

This isn't about how the game "should be played". Neither you nor I nor anyone can dictate that to anyone, and this mod's existence is proof enough. If this discussion results in absolutely no changes to the game, folks who don't like the existing limitations can still use this mod and play the game however they like and enjoy. OTOH if parts are made foldable that I don't find realistic, I'll just play without using them on folding vehicles, or mod my own copy if it comes to that. But that's beside the point.

What this discussion is about, is what the "default" vanilla game balance should be for foldable vehicles. That is why we are having this debate.

This mod is definitely not suitable for wholesale merged into vanilla, so we are posed with the question of what items in the mod can be included, i.e. do not conflict with preexisting DDA theme and game balance.

I choose to approach this by giving heavy consideration to the status quo: What are currently allowed folding parts in vanilla, and what is the present state of gameplay balance as a result of those limitations. I'm not saying that the balance is immutable, it can certainly be tweaked; however, I don't think we should be making changes here that lead to a large swing in game balance, e.g. 5- to 6-fold increase in foldable vehicle operating range.

So when Kevin indicated that we could allow internal combustion for foldable vehicles, I also took heed that he has already ruled out parts like I2 engine (above, https://github.com/CleverRaven/Cataclysm-DDA/issues/25068#issuecomment-416454542) and others https://github.com/CleverRaven/Cataclysm-DDA/pull/19991#issuecomment-271467357 . Perhaps he can be persuaded to change his mind about some of them, but I take that as a good starting point for determining where the line should be drawn, for game design and balance purposes.

I may not have conveyed my thoughts clearly enough in the earlier part of this thread, but thanks to a robust debate I've been pushed to articulate better; I have arrived at two key criteria that I believe are reasonable based on the present state and balance of the folding vehicle mechanic -- to restate in brief:

1.

If the result is significantly bulkier than a folded bike -- say, more than a large briefcase -- or involves further dis/assembly (e.g. storage battery) then [it is] against the spirit of being a conveniently portable thing.

2.

The foldable vehicle mechanic [...] should offer a meaningful gameplay choice. [...] If it becomes a trivial decision -- "if I'm going to make a vehicle that size, I might as well make it foldable", [...] does that not become the dominant strategy?

This may seem excessively complex when there is the option of taking a simpler approach and just go with "is it small enough? is it foldable? Y/N".

But, that approach leaves us open to changes that will significantly shift the game balance from where it is currently at. It is a flawed criteria because our volume stat is an abstraction that doesn't properly capture the dimensions and structure of a part. It is not a reliable gatekeeper vs items that may have wonky stats.

I believe it is this lack of clarity that led to discussions that were

derailed in the past because people interested in expanding what is FOLDABLE wanted everything to be FOLDABLE

Because when FOLDABLE is taken at face value, it is easy to come up with various lines of reasoning to justify making myfavepart foldable, by devising a certain structure or construction for the part or the way it is mounted on the vehicle. So, is the swappable battery case collapsible because it is hollow? Or is that not feasible because you need it to be rigid and robust to support the weight of an installed battery? etc ... We'd face having to go through such minutiae just to consider the foldability of every individual borderline or controversial part.

On the other extreme, we could allow almost anything and everything, as long as someone is able to contrive some means of "here's how I can make this work as part of a foldable vehicle" -- but once that kind of precedent has been set, it becomes difficult to rein things in if and when the need arises.

All this is why I don't consider the simple size criteria as being sufficient.

I realize I may be arguing for an unpopular position, but so be it -- it's not a popularity contest.

If you're making a non-foldable buggy, you can easily fit a cargo space or three on it, each giving 250L of volume, then add liquid tanks in every tile for 60L each. There is no way a folding vehicle of any size [can do that]

The disadvantage of a foldable vehicle vs a non-foldable one of the same size/weight is that the non-foldable one can have many parts -- including large parts -- put on it, thus no longer being in that size/weight range... :confused: That's just sidestepping the parameters of the question, isn't it?

it will lead to pretty fair but avoidable [...] tickets/pull requests, at worst treated as a giant, insulting [...]

It's only game, why heff to be mad? Use the mod, free yourself from the restrictions you don't agree with, play the game, be happy.

It doesn't even have to be a binary choice between vanilla vs the utterly unrealistic foldable parts -- if there is demand for a middle ground between the two, we can have a mod that caters to that, too. I don't see a problem with that -- this isn't a content mod, it's more like "Simplified Nutrition" or "Perfect Reliability" mods -- giving players more options if they don't want to deal with certain mechanics or limitations in the base game.

Re: needing foldable frames as opposed to easily obtained non-foldable frames: You don't need that many, so it's a pretty small one-time upfront cost at build time when amortized vs the benefits you reap from the folding vehicle over its entire lifetime.

Re: foldable frames have less durability than regular ones: This is a better type of tradeoff -- it involves an ongoing cost in return for the benefits of foldability. But in this case it just means you have to be more careful not to get into a fender bender. It is generally desirable behavior to avoid getting into accidents anyway, so that's not actually a significant inconvenience.

Side note: because robot controls is already foldable, I think that is sufficient precedent for drive-by-wire to be made foldable as well.

At this juncture, I've given my 2¢ and laid out my full reasoning. No offense meant, but I don't feel I have much left to add if this continues with the same few people talking. I'm moving on to other PR/issues, feel free to @ summon me if the need arises.

Kelenius commented 5 years ago

...let's just go through the list of the parts and see where we disagree specifically. This thread has spiralled waaaaaaaaaay out of control.

meladath commented 5 years ago

Just piping in here, a v-twin/I2 should totally be foldable imho... as its potentially a motorbike engine, anything larger than that though, absolutely not. Should be based on displacement rather than cylinders, up to 1L seems reasonable. I know of motorcycles that have 4 cylinder 1L engines for example.

As a mechanic hobbyist, the vehicles in this game are lacking, I want to stick a turbo on my 3l inline-6 petrol (supra anyone?) and gain speed, not just sticking a bigger engine in (also the power that engines give out seems very unrealistic in my opinion, esp petrol vs diesel). Would be nice to have a wider range of engines too. I wonder if there are any mods...

After looking at the code, the entire vehicle system looks like it needs a refactor. Sadly it looks like a bit too much work for a simple commit.