Foraging often returns no items

[danhendrix]

Foraging seems to return nothing quite often. The chances of finding items should be tweaked.

[dialectrical]

I'm interested in this! This would involve tweaking the rate property in the various mapTiles locations, correct? Do you have any notes on what the rates should be tweaked to specifically or would you just want me to bump them up a bit as a judgement call?

[dseandecker]

We should figure out at what rate does hunger go up per action and then make a judgement call on how often we want people to forage. The game is less about not starving and more about building the fire and base. So, perhaps foraging should always give food, but the amounts can still vary?

[danhendrix]

@dialectrical Each mapTile has a forageObj with a rate and amount for each item, so for instance in forest.js it has

const forageObj = {
    [ForageItems.berries]: {
        rate: .3,
        amount: [2, 3, 4, 5],
    },
    [ForageItems.mushrooms]: {
        rate: .2,
        amount: [2, 3],
    },
};

And so yeah if we want to change the rates, we would do it there. We do have a google doc with our initial thoughts on these rates but the app currently matches those, so I'd say just go with a judgement call! I think we should error on the side of finding too many things, personally.

@dseandecker Currently any action causes hunger to go up 1 even if you don't find anything, like foraging or gathering. Maybe we should discuss tweaking that?

[dialectrical]

Ok, cool! Is there a quick reference for what all of the items are used for? That might help give me a better idea of how rare a given thing ought to be.

[dseandecker]

Our thinking is a bit unorganized. But we'll be working on it this week. For a quick reference go here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aYKo7Uj-lBlHItVllglrVpBxEvkmLqb3I3Qlu8_g7F0/edit?usp=sharing

Feel free to join our discord server as well: https://discord.gg/wVEs8g

[dialectrical]

Ok, cool! I will try to piece together some distribution that seems reasonable based on those notes.

Reading through the document, I wonder if random resource gathering is even the way to go, though. Consider a game like Agricola vs. a game like Settlers of Catan. In Catan, resources are distributed along a bell curve and generated based on the result of 2d6 roll each round; strategies are determined by the placement of workers as the game progresses, but success still hinges on randomness. However, in Agricola, workers are assigned to a task each round and will complete the task generating the particular resource or outcome without fail. This allows players to optimize strategies across play throughs and think ahead with more confidence. The randomness in Agricola comes from other things, but, for the most part, if you understand your gameplan at the outset and know what variables to account for, you'll have a very successful game.

To translate this to BonfireBot: if every X rounds an attack can occur, can we not then think of the game as a worker placement game where players have X "workers" to place each round represented as actions taken? Instead of collecting a random assortment of things from the forest, then, it could be a targeted gathering--you go collect specifically wood or specifically food. Randomness could be introduced through events that occur while gathering or every round (e.g. weather events, different sorts of attackers, sickness), perhaps? There still needs to be a way for players to die, of course!

Of course, I'm describing two very different games and approaches to things, so consider this largely just thinking out loud!

[danhendrix]

This is really interesting. @dseandecker has handled most of the actual game mechanic decisions, so I'd be curious to hear his thoughts, but I see what you're saying and I like the idea of choosing what you're looking for and then handling the random events that might happen because of that, instead of just generally either foraging or gathering, which just on its face seems a little less fun.

[dseandecker]

This is super interesting. Worker placement would eliminate the hassle in the game play to collecting resources manually. And if the worker placement is limited or competed for in a server, it would create strategic choices like you say. Perhaps we frame it as time management. You are still one survivor on the island, but can a lot your time to percentages of tasks. This would create replayabilitiy, is that word?, and allow for different winning strategies to victory. Yes people must die. I like the randomness being associated with the events, not the actions. Nice add. Obviously, we'll have to figure out how it work,. But I like the idea a lot.

[danhendrix]

I still think you should choose something like "find food" as opposed to "find berries" or something like that..

[dseandecker]

Yeah. Like spending time foraging doesn't guarantee everything right away. This could create a more compelling reason for our tech tree and crafting.

[dialectrical]

Awesome! Yeah, framing it as time management would be a good idea--the replayability would come from trying to figure out how to optimize your time allotment and your ability to account for the various events. Especially with this being something people would play collaboratively in a Discord channel, being able to talk about optimization would probably be really fun for communities, too!

I think the specifics of whether it's something like "find food" / "find resource" etc. vs. "find berries" / "find rocks" might come down to some higher order things like what the different objects mean in the game, their strategic values compared to one another and so on. There are merits to both, of course. Being able to specify exactly what you want allows for more control over strategy but might lead to people "solving" the game more quickly, whereas the randomness involved in "find food" / "find resource" would encourage creative problem solving and make players to evaluate their stockpiles and needs each round. So, the first case is Solitaire-esque (devise a strategy, execute it) whereas the second is more akin to a game like Magic: the Gathering (devise a strategy, make tactical decisions based on predictable yet randomized outcomes, play to your outs, and so on). I personally like the second case, more, as it puts more weight on each round and each choice.

[dseandecker]

I like the second case as well. You still have to respond to what is going on regardless of the strategy. Each action should certainly carry weight, based on the events and the actions of other players.

[danhendrix]

Maybe we should set up a time to chat about this? It seems like potentially redoing the structure of how foraging/gathering works is something we might want to do, as opposed to just tweaking drop rates.

[dialectrical]

I'll be available on Discord just about any time except Thu/Sat/Sun--I can draw up a few notes of the various options as well.

[dseandecker]

I'd be down to chat on Friday later afternoon ET.

[danhendrix]

Works for me!

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 4:44 PM dseandecker notifications@github.com wrote:

I'd be down to chat on Friday later afternoon ET.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/danhendrix/BonfireBot/issues/4#issuecomment-713866786, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMKSH5A24E5D5BE4IH25OTSL5B37ANCNFSM4SWUEJ6A .

-- Danny Hendrix 509.899.3115

[dseandecker]

How does 4:oo pm ET sound in discord voice channel?

[danhendrix]

Yeah, that works.

[dialectrical]

Sure