Abbey Games has a new community and forums! Come on over to https://community.abbeygames.com and don't forget to mention your old username! The old forums will remain available, but read-only.

Destroying the Mackerel

ollj
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 12:38 am

Re: Destroying the Mackerel

Post by ollj » Fri May 24, 2013 9:21 pm

The range boost triggered by the same item within range is the main issue. its a recursive boost.

lower the range boost criteria from "Mackerels in range" down to "nearby Mackerel". Because its too easy to get 2 in range of 2, and that range adds a 3rd one within range to get the max range of 5. but its not as simple/flexible to get 2 in range of 1.

This means a Mackerel has range 2 if no Mackerel is directly left or right of it wich is just sad for any Mackerel (and exactly how thsi is overpowered as it is now), a range of 3 if one Mackerel is next to it, and a range of 4 if theres one Mackerel left and one Mackerel right of it. No more range of 5 for Mackerel that is easily achieved with an alternating pattern ! This makes the food bonus of Mackerels more concentrated (like lemon trees) and also lowers its maximum width.

Because a lower maximum range (thats easily reached anyways with an alretnating pattern) means lower total food, we increase the the food value by the number of Mackerels next to it by adding another criteria:
if theres 1 Mackerel next to a Mackerel, +1 food on the Mackerel tile only. (and +1 range with (2/4/8)*2 food)
if theres 2 Mackerel next to a Mackerel, +3 food on the Mackerel tile only. (and +2 range with (2/4/8)*4 food)

this changes the Mackerel pattern from M-M-M-M (wich results in this insane recursive boost) to either -MM-MM-MM- or MM--MM--MM or MMM-MMM wich locally boots nicely (and even better) too but is still regionally limited in tighter fish scools.

ollj
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 12:38 am

Re: Destroying the Mackerel

Post by ollj » Fri May 24, 2013 9:58 pm

the ability to control a cities projects to only 2 possible ones that can be build on water is another simple and big issue.

Even if a city is surrounded by water tiles. that should not make harbors more likely to appear than other buildings!

This problem is not limited to oceans:
Some projects can not be build on mountain but on swamp,forest or desert only.
If i have a planet full of mountains these projects will not be build ever while the rest becomes more likely!
Likewise, Scools never appear in deserts or mountains.

---

A city can not just chose a place at random and place a random project there (random from a list of buildable buildings limited by ground type). this is NOT random and not usefull.

A city must have needs depending on a cities surroundings and try to build projects according to these needs.

A city surrounded by ocean still has a need for technology that can only be fullfilled by at least some plants and mines, and that makes the city urge to place a project that only benefits from plants and mines from time to time. And it if cant place a project that gains from mines or plants it it just wont place nothing, it also will wait extra long untill it tries to place the next project. And afte that time it may still have the same need for the same project that it still can nopt build, and it will skip it again.

The Same goes for cities surrounded by mountains. They do have a need for these upgrades that can not be placed on mountains, and if they try to place one and cant they will not place any other project for a short time as punishment/strike.
A city that only controls desert tiles may one day feel the urge to build a scool, wich cant be placed on deserts, and it wont be happy about it, but it certainly wont build a different project instead. it will just not build anything for a while.

CookieEater
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 7:28 pm

Re: Destroying the Mackerel

Post by CookieEater » Tue May 28, 2013 3:50 pm

puke wrote:I think fish range should not extend onto land, and land animal range should not extend onto sea.
I always worked that out to be that the fish swam up rivers. I know it's far fetched to have anglerfish in fresh water rivers or sharks and tuna in rivers. But that's how i made sense of it.

Vice versa is a little harder to explain

coanda
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:46 am

Re: Destroying the Mackerel

Post by coanda » Tue May 28, 2013 4:59 pm

CookieEater wrote:I always worked that out to be that the fish swam up rivers. I know it's far fetched to have anglerfish in fresh water rivers or sharks and tuna in rivers. But that's how i made sense of it.

Vice versa is a little harder to explain
Rafts man. Big rafts full of bears. Reus is a dangerous world!

Post Reply