some buildings and resources could use several meadows

[MatejGolian]

Hi, I have an idea for the game, I think implementing it would require a great deal of reauthoring, but it would make the game more realistic. I'll write down my suggestion in points because it's easier that way.

1. Make every square in a given map equally big:
2. Currently different squares can contain a different number of meadows. This is not too realistic. The game takes place on a grid and therefore I think that it's illogical that squares can differ in the number of meadows they contain. Let me give an extreme example. Let's say that I have 12 meadows on every square and that I decide to add 4 more squares to one of the squares, let's say A2. So A1 would have 12 meadows while A2 16. I know the advantages of this possibility, but since the map is a grid I think that it makes little sence.
3. Give buildings and resources a size: This is what would make the game much more realistic. Currently one meadow is enough for any kind of building or resource. In practice this means that a farm takes up the exact same space as a castle for example. In reality a castle requires more space than let's say a farm. I suggest two possible solutions: I. Solution 1: Get rid of meadows per square and give squares a size instead. Give buildings and resources a size too. Example: Let's say the size of my squares will be 100. Next let's say that a castle would require 60 free size and that a farm would only require 20 free size. This would mean that one could only build one castle and two farms on a square. Second example. Let's say that my square is 100 in size and that it contains only one wood of size 75. This would mean that untill the wood is extracted the player would only be able to build one farm on this square. Once the wood would be extracted the square would contain 80 free size. It would be ideal if the size of the resource somehow reflected the number of ore or wood it contains - a wood containing 50 wood should be larger than a wood containing only 25 wood, for instance. II. Solution 2: Keep the meadows but make different buildings take up a different number of them. For example, a farm could only take up one single meadow while a castle could take up 10 meadows or so.

That's basically it. Note that I don't mean to criticize the game. On the contrary, I absolutely love it. I just want to help to improve it, because it's the best game ever! If I haven't explained it understandably enough, I'll be more than happy to clarify exactly what I had in mind. Also, I saw that subsquares are currently being implemented. I'm not sure what exactly these are, but it's possible that incorporating my ideas would mean that they would become unneccesary. That's not for me to decide, however. I know that the maps would have to be rewritten, but maybe it would be worth it. Any feedback is welcome.

[soundmud]

I have been thinking about this improvement too. I'm not sure yet. Maybe the sub-squares (which will be probably 3 x 3 = 9 by square) will make a square contain a maximum of 9 meadows. This might be too little compared to the design of many maps, but it isn't an absolute obstacle. The game will need to know where the buildings are located exactly, since in both solutions the space might be represented by several meadows. Note that I have made a change in August 2014 to allow the player to just select a square as a building location (not a specific meadow). https://github.com/soundmud/soundrts/commit/46f4148ec6ae54fe1f3d7ae88764a99b2d58e4a4

[MatejGolian]

I've got an idea, but I can imagine that not everyone will like it. First I would remove the additional_meadows feature. Than I would make it so that resources would be placed on existing meadows. Now when a resource is exhausted it essentially creates a new meadow. If resources were to be placed on existing meadows instead, exhausting a resource would uncover an already existing meadow instead of creating an additional one. Think of it this way: If you'd have a square with 9 meadows and you'd place 4 resources on it, on initial load the square would have 4 resources and 5 meadows. So, after all the resources would be exhausted you'd get the meadows per square value. I imagine that somethings would have to be calculated differently. For instance the code responsible for the placing of the resources on the map would have to stop placing resources (defined in the map file) on a particular square, if all the meadows on that square would be taken up by buildings or other resources. Maybe this would make other map properties obsolete as well. I'm aware of the fact that this is quite controversial. The effect would be however, that maps would become true grids, because every square would have the same size. What do you think?

[sanslash332]

In my opinion, I think that the game, currently works fine.

Respecting the buildings with variable size, I think that the best solution, is that you can design builds that have to use more than one meadow for build it.

Of course, with that, is necessary think how many meadows are correct for the map designs, if for example, a big castle, uses 4 meadows.

But, considering the new way how works the paths, if you want to build a big building on a1, and the building requires 4 meadows, but you only have two in a1, but two more in a2, you can build the big building using meadows of both cells, and ofcourse, blocking the path between these cells, unless the building can work as a gate, but… Hmmm, the majority of buildings, specially big buildings, cand works as a gates :du… A castle can have more than one exit xd.

With that, we only use the meadows as size unit for buildings :P

But… respecting the “build_anywhere” buildings ¿how to fix that?

Currently you can build a unpenetrable cell building on that cell more than 100 towers and this is ridiculous.

Currently exist a max_buildings_per_square parameter for maps? Or a single size changer, for special cells with more space.

Same for a maximum number of units per square… And with that, you can use the food that uses each unit for calculate how many units can stay on the ssquare. For example, a knight that consumes two food, use the double space that a footman :3

Buff… that is all ˆˆ

The idea isn’t complicate the game with micro things like numbers, or specific numerical sizes that make you slow your game. The idea is, that soundrts, is fast, like starcraft or Warcraft :3

That is all ¡thanks for all!

From: MatejGolian [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: miércoles, 25 de mayo de 2016 16:31 To: soundmud/soundrts soundrts@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [soundmud/soundrts] Give Everithing a Size to Make the Game More Realistic (#53)

I've got an idea, but I can imagine that not everyone will like it. First I would remove the additional_meadows feature. Than I would make it so that resources would be placed on existing meadows. Now when a resource is exhausted it essentially creates a new meadow. If resources were to be placed on existing meadows instead, exhausting a resource would uncover an already existing meadow instead of creating an additional one. Think of it this way: If you'd have a square with 9 meadows and you'd place 4 resources on it, on initial load the square would have 4 resources and 5 meadows. So, after all the resources would be exhausted you'd get the meadows per square value. I imagine that somethings would have to be calculated differently. For instance the code responsible for the placing of the resources on the map would have to stop placing resources (defined in the map file) on a particular square, if all the meadows on that square would be taken up by buildings or other resources. Maybe this would make other map properties obsolete as well. I'm aware of the fact that this is quite controversial. The effect would be however, that maps would become true grids, because every square would have the same size. What do you think?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/soundmud/soundrts/issues/53#issuecomment-221681482

[MatejGolian]

Thanks for commenting.

[ParadoxiKat]

I think making buildings have a size value or take up multiple meadows makes sense -- a farm and a castle obviously have significantly differing space requirements. With that said though, meadows aren't always side by side, even in the same square. Often if there's only two meadows, they will appear in diagonal corners from each other. This would make for a very strangely designed castle, if it occupies both, and only, the northeast and southwest corners of a given square! I would also argue that, while there maybe should be an upper limit to the number of meadows per square, saying they should all have *the same number of meadows, based on the fact that it's a grid, makes less sense. If I were to walk outside and begin drawing squares all over the ground, I would find that some of these squares are better equipped to have multiple buildings in them... perhaps they are flat and open. While other squares may contain hills or water or other land features that would only leave space for a single building to be built, (or none!) despite the overall square being the same dimensions as all the other squares I've drawn.

But some sort of size feature of buildings does make sense... as pointed out above, building 100 guard towers on a single meadow is possible, even if it makes zero sense.

[MatejGolian]

Good points, Kat.

[soundmud]

To summarize:

• squares contain different number of meadows, and it's OK
• maybe some buildings should use more meadows, eventually taking into account the shape of the buildings (this issue)
• a limit should definitely be put to guard towers (build_anywhere limit parameter?); this is issue #31

Another issue is that the starting squares tend to be huge in multiplayer games, because in multiplayer games the map language doesn't allow a player to start with buildings and units in several squares. This might be the main cause of "big" squares in many maps. (issue #96)