Gathering limits - ProgD update

[Nick]

The game setting how many slots are in what town? This is completely against what Cantr stands for.

Now, the GAME decides what towns should be highly populated. They will never really change, because of GAME limitations.

Three thumbs down. Yeah, three.

[formerly known as hf]

That's kinda my argument about skills - about game mechanics restricting characters too much. Sure - there are real life mechanics that restrict what can be done - but these can be made to be somewhat flexible.

I really hope that the idea (I forget who's - sorry...) of a project to add an extra slot gets the go-ahead and is implemented. maybe, if it is implemented, the slots could be lowered again - which would force co-operation to increase the number of slots...

[Nick]

Each resource should have a set number of lots to be worked on for it.
If one area becomes overpopulated, it can expand to close towns.
The initial implementation was maybe a bit too simple, but a good change at heart.
This compensation change to appease all you whiners is certainly NOT a good change.

[Genevieve]

This is different from a fourth gatherer coming to town. Now there are 4 people gathering on 3 slots, so all get 3/4 or 75% or 600 potatoes each.

Oh and I like your idea about creating slots, Chris... should be a very hard project though...

Jur.

The only thing I don't like about this idea is that if implimented, will the characters KNOW they are going to get less? Or that they ARE getting less? If they don't know the number of "best" slots in their town, they may just think it is that random 20% range that is giving them less, but if they could SEE that someone pushed them over into a smaller "farming" or "gathering" area, that would make more sense. After all, wouldn't they notice someone pushing them out of an area they were in?

[formerly known as hf]

Each resource should have a set number of lots to be worked on for it.

Yes - or at least a 'field' system where what land is used for can be changed via a project or something

The initial implementation was maybe a bit too simple, but a good change at heart.

Certainly

This compensation change to appease all you whiners is certainly NOT a good change.

I disagree - whilst I'm not a 'whiner' about this change - I like it - I do think the recent change was needed - at least in the Polish area - but also to make sure when (if - I'd hate this change to go the same way as tiredness and be ignorable (and yes I know that's not a word)) the limits are made smaller, there has been time to IG bring in changes, and time to implement further additions to the gathering limit system

[Nick]

This will prevent any undiscovered towns from ever becoming large cities.

[Oasis]

Not if the ability to expand the land to add extra slots is added.

[Nick]

Yeah okay, so let's just count on the Programming Department to swiftly program something to fix something they haven't even done yet?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Why not just find a more viable solution to the problem, instead of pre planning ways to counter the screwups we know this implementation will cause?

[Oasis]

You confuse me, Nick. In one post, you sound in favour of the slots, in another, you sound against it. *shrugs*

I don't think it would be fixing something that the implementation has screwed up. This has nothing to do with what the levels are anywhere. It has to do with allowing towns to expand, especially those with low slots due to low population. As the population increases, they can improve the land, and increase the slots.

[Nick]

I don't agree with giving slots based on current population.

This will fix populated towns to be useful, while currently unpopulated towns will be crap.

You know, Rome may have been the biggest city in the world at one point (or not, I don't know...), but regardless, it certainly is not today. How many people were living in NYC 600 years ago?

[Schme]

Not a damn lick better.

I say, this won't work.

You've already killed Poland.

Screw the slots. It was fine before. Watch us get no new players.

[kinvoya]

I haven't complained about this much but in a town with 50 people we have nine slots. If you were going to base it on how many were outside you could have given a days warning or something. What if everyone just happened to be inside for a party or something? Is this fair? You can destroy a thriving town with such arbitrary decisions.

[Doodle_Jack]

I have already two characters who can't get or keep their business running, because of the few slots available. I doubt I'm the only one.

The expand-sloths-project sounds like a briljant idea to me! It's like in the pc-game Settlers IV where little guys with shovels keep moving the border posts. In cantr people would have to organize to expand their lands. Perhaps you want to put a limit on the expansion possibilities in due time because some towns are becoming unrealistic enormous, e.g towns can't grow bigger then 70 slots.

Right now I don't think that trade got a boost. Goods, ALL goods, just became more scarse.

[KVZ]

- We are looking into implementing KeVes' suggestion - but see some problems he didn't think of, like the solitary mountain dweller suddenly digging op 10K of hematite daily, and the way the enhancing tools work (he suggests counting them as an extra gatherer, but that would mean he'd actually be decreasing his fellow citizens proceeds, which we don't like). This will take some time.

Thanks for that you like my suggestion. I though that there could be problem, but I think it is easy to make limit that no one can dig more then he should, and this is logicaly. Tools should be counted as an extra gatherer when they double output, in other cases they should be counted proportionally to force of those tools/machines. I don't know why you don't like it would decrease proceeds of those without tools. It's logical and realistic, that if field can give 8000 grams of carrots per day, and when there is limit reached then those with tools will gather more at cost of those without tools, but those with tools will not gather extra amount from nowhere like it's in current implementation. But if limit is not reached it will not affect anyone. And limit should affect everyone proportionally based on their skills and tools.

For example if there would be five gatherers, and 1st with tool and very high skill would gather normally 1160 (factor=2,9) grams of carrots per day, 2nd with tool but very low skill 360 (factor=0,9) grams of carrots, 3rd wihout tool and very high skill 580 (factor=1,45) grams of carrots, 4th without tool and very low skill 180 (factor=0,45) grams of carrots, 5th without tool and middle skill 750 (factor=1) grams of stone. Totaly they would gather normally 2280 (factor=5,7) grams of carrots and 750 (factor=1) grams of stone which gives total factor=6,7. But when in this location would be a limit based on factor=4 it would give them total 1361 (1600 carrots max with factor=4 x 85,07% of all factors) grams of carrots and 448 (3000 stone max with factor=4 x 14,93% of all factors) grams of stone. Resources should be divided proportionally on all workers based on factor percentage. So, with limit working 1st one would gather 692 (43,28% of max) grams of carrots, 2nd would get 215 (13,43% of max) grams of carrots, 3rd would get 346 (21,64% of max) grams of carrots, 4th would get 108 (6,72% of max) grams of carrots, 5th would get 448(14,93% of max) grams of stone. Total percentage = 100%. Simply, everyone will get about 59% of normal gathring amount, which is logicaly, because factor limit 4 is 59% of factors sum 6,7. Of course those percentage calculations should only work when factors of all workers will exceed factor limit in selected location to not allow someone gather more then he should.

It would be nice to know how much char can gather to chose if stay or move to other location. Or at least to know how big is factor limit in selected location, to calculate how much someone can gather.

- In conjunction with the RD, we are looking to decrease the nutrition of raw foods, alongside with implementing more cooking methods, for a net gain of nutrition value. This will promote cooperation between farmers and cooks, ideally... sure you can still eat your potatoes raw, but it will be much more efficient to give them to someone who cooks/bakes/whatevers them... for both of you. And before you start screaming that there's no wood to cook where you live, we're looking for alternatives for that too.

This is needed to make such alternatives with current or mine land scarcity.

You mentined KeVes' Suggestion? Where is that - not sure I remember it in full...

Slots are to be an overall max total on gatherers, like, if 10 people are digging on 8 slots everyone get 8/10 or 80% of production.

Well, there should not be any slots in my suggestion. I hope that everyone understands this well (I know that Jur get it right but others may not). Slots will be replaced by factors which will limit gathering amount, and factors could be based on current slots, but should be doubled or tripled because they should affect tools and gathering machines. I think that is more realistic because slots are very artificial limitation.

Done. 117 slots were added to 28 locations; 32 were in the Polish area (judging by the name...)

Maybe it is not big change, but I hope it will temporary balance and help the game a bit until my suggestion will be implemented. Thanks for that.

I like Keves idea, but is should be just one step ahead from current land scarcity system and the ideal one.
The second step should be implementing maximum amount of posibble gathered resources per location.

For exampe:

I location XXX we can gather:
max 5000g of stone per day
max 6000g carrots per day

You mean that all resources should have other random and fixed gathering limits. Maybe it is ideal from our point of view, but it will not give flexibility like in my idea. And that flexibility is something what Jos want to see in land scarcity. And I understand his point of view, that's why I proposed my suggestion which is something between current implementation and your idea.

That total amount would be divided to all gatherers working on current project for example carrots. If the limit is 6000g and 20 people are farming - everybody gains 300,
if one of them have a dung fork - he would gather 570, when others - 285, and so on... (dependingly of tools, skills, machinery) It's not to hard to discover right algorhitm

This part of your suggestion is the same as in mine suggestion.

What you suggest is (with your example):
20 people farming without tools - everybody gains 300,
20 people farming with dung forks - everybody gains 300 too,
20 people framing with harvesters - everybody gains 300 too.
Not good... If city has enough people - tools are useless.

But why? If city is smart, it will never make more tools and machines than needed. City should assign in this example 7 farmers with dung-forks (5600 carrots) and assign one without tool to gather all possible 6000 grams of carrots, and assign other people to different tasks. It is logical. And it is more realistic, than in current implementation from one field city can gather 6 kg of carrots, but with tools can gather 12 kg of carrots and can't archieve the same without tools by using more workers. And now using machines city can gather unlimited amount of resources, so where is land scarcity then? And think sometime about city as community of private companies and individuals but not always as community of communal workers, then those with tools and machines are just more effective than those without them, so company or individual will make tools/machines to be more competitive than others. Think about that if in location are at least two companies one of them can't always get all of the workers, but with tools and machines they can increase their production. Why some of you think that everywhere in the game should be comunnal cities without competitive companies or monopolistic companies? Even if there are such cities, then nothing should force them to make more tools/machines than they need.

This ignores the fact that machines & tools speed up the process, the 20 with dungforks will collect those 300g of carrots twice as fast as the 20 without. The Harvesters working at 4 times the speed .

OK right, but please don't ignore fact, than if from one field you can gather only 400 grams per day even if you have dung-fork you can't gather more from this field per day. I have solution how this, but it would be hard to implement. How it should to work? Well, if all gatherers can archieve gathering limit in less than day, then all their gathring projects should stop and there should be unable to work on them until next day but they can use free time on other task then. It would be best if gathering projects would resume automatically next day, so no one can miss his gathering time which would be unfair. Or even better if there would be project queue list to allow everyone automatically start doing other things when they will use their gathering time.

Or to look at it another way you only need 10 people with dung forks or 5 with harvesters to do the work of 20 - Thats where technological developments are applied - they free labour - If you still want a peasant economy then use 20 untooled people or free 10 of them to get on with other things

That is exactly what I call flexibility.

What I'd propose is a new type of project , similar to the road improvement project , - A Land Improvement or Clearence project . The output of this project would be an additional resource collection slot

Very good idea. But it would work not only with slots, but with my idea it could be possible too to increase factor for each location doing project like that.

Note the "per day" in the original post, Chris... but yes, there will be adjustments to the limit for tool because we don't want to "steal" other chars proceeds by using tools...

Well, whats wrong with that, than chars will get more resources proportionally to their tools and skills? That was beffore the limits, and this should be with limits too. Well, maybe you want to balance tools making them less profitable or...?

So instead, the total output will be increased in this case. Three gatherers on three slots still get 100% of proceeds... but now, one of those gets double... so its 800-800-1600 now

...Or you want to that one with tool gets extra output from nowhere like now? This is unrealistic in my opinion.

The game setting how many slots are in what town? This is completely against what Cantr stands for.

Now, the GAME decides what towns should be highly populated. They will never really change, because of GAME limitations.

Three thumbs down. Yeah, three.

That's why I propose suggestion where are no fixed number of slots but limits on resource collection.

The only thing I don't like about this idea is that if implimented, will the characters KNOW they are going to get less? Or that they ARE getting less? If they don't know the number of "best" slots in their town, they may just think it is that random 20% range that is giving them less, but if they could SEE that someone pushed them over into a smaller "farming" or "gathering" area, that would make more sense. After all, wouldn't they notice someone pushing them out of an area they were in?

Well, I want it should be visible in any way like I have mentioned above in this post (which is bolded).

ps. sorry for very long post.

[PRUT]

You forgot that in real world maximum amount depends on technological advance. OK, more people means lesser gathering, but at global (city) point of view - to develop more complicated tool or harvesters gives nothing with your proposal.

What you suggest is (with your example):
20 people farming without tools - everybody gains 300,
20 people farming with dung forks - everybody gains 300 too,
20 people framing with harvesters - everybody gains 300 too.
Not good... If city has enough people - tools are useless.

this is the point Marol. The field or a mine wouldn't be bigger when You are using machines. Imagine stock of sand...

How much of the sand can you gather? No more than it is the stock, no matter if You are using shovels, digging machine or just hands.

The only advance of using machines is speed! One who have a tool, when others have not, has an advance and gather more
If everybody using the same tool - there is no difference, isn' it?
So if 20 people want to farm using harvesters - they can, but they gather at the same speed as others and as much as others and they can't force with those harvesters to rise more carrots

Lets take this small town where three people are digging potatoes on three slots, each yielding 800g daily - no problem at all. Now, one of them builds a dung-fork. The orther two now get 600 where he gets 1200. They're bound to be annoyed because their proceeds diminish... and he might actually be a "good" citizen, not wanting to do that, so he puts away the dung-fork... not what we want...

One who do such a thing must a communist I know many characters, who will use their advantages being "not good" citizens.
But no matter what we want or don't want, this is sociological matter which must be solved in game


edit:
Keves, Your idea of factors is really smart and simple. I like it, but for me has one weak point, which You call "flexibility". In this system also gathering of one resource has an effect of gathering the others. That means that about specialisation of each city decides POEPLE, not LAND'S WEALTH. Imagine this: In real, Poland has some gas resources. But even if most of Polish people work on gas plants - the total amount of our gathered gas wouldn't be much bigger. The same is with oil. We will never be Saudi Arabia, even if we all work hard on our oil platform.
That's why I preffer land's scarcity based on land's wealth.