Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

Communicate field diminishing returns to the player
ClosedPublic

Authored by happyconcepts on Mar 27 2019, 10:46 PM.

Details

Summary

See: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/4669

As of A23 the property DiminishingReturns exists for Field improvement structure yet the player is unaware.

Test Plan

Verify via play test that tooltip text shows clearly in-game with no mis-spellings.

Diff Detail

Repository
rP 0 A.D. Public Repository
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Unit Tests Skipped

Event Timeline

happyconcepts created this revision.Mar 27 2019, 10:46 PM

@Nescio would not be better to change vegetables to grain?

Yes, "vegetables" ought to be "grain". While at it, could you also remove the number of gatherers? Other resource templates (e.g. fish, tree) don't have this and the current and maximum number of workers are already displayed in game:


As for the diminishing returns part, I agree that information ought to be given, but I'm not convinced the current proposal is clear enough. How about "Harvest grain for food. Each subsequent worker is less efficient than the previous." or something similar?

Perhaps it would be a good idea to look critically at the tooltips of all resource supply templates and standardize them, e.g. [action] [subtype] for [resource]; could be done in a separate patch, though.

bb added a subscriber: bb.Apr 6 2019, 4:48 PM

changing vegetables to grain wouldn't work since f.e. the Chinese mod has rise fields instead. One could consider "crops" though.

The string but at reduced efficiency doesn't specify when the efficiency is reduced, so it doesn't help explaining what is going on. Maybe Harvest crops for food. Up to 5 units can gather, but each subsequent gatherer reduces the efficiency per worker.

Nescio added a comment.Apr 6 2019, 6:56 PM

changing vegetables to grain wouldn't work since f.e. the Chinese mod has rise fields instead.

Grain is not necessarily wheat; rice is also a grain, as is maize. And crops are not necessarily edible (e.g. hemp, flax, cotton).
Moreover, the resource type farm fields provide is food.grain.

bb added a comment.Apr 12 2019, 3:19 PM

I assume agricultural products would be the most general term? Do we want that in game?

I assume agricultural products would be the most general term? Do we want that in game?

No, we don't; agricultural products can also include cotton, fruits, cheese, eggs, meat, etc.
Let's keep it simple: all farms provide the food.grain resource, thus let's simply write "harvest grain"; using any different wording can only make things more confusing.

Thanks for the feedback guys, appreciated.

@Nescio :
I really would like to contribute more to 0AD. I would like to see us agree to wording rather quickly here, so that we can close this issue and then I can start on the two new patches that have surfaced, namely:

  1. verifiable implementation of diminishing returns; and
  2. review of resource supply templates for standardization.

For this patch though, since I fully agree on your last point about minimizing confusion, let's go with harvest "food" instead of harvest "grain" what say you? Thinking multi-lingually, it just ties in naturally to the "food" reference as a resource. And let me pull out the hard coded max number too.

Aloha

Just update the diff, taking into account the suggestions raised in this discussion, then people can request further changes, or accept and commit this patch. The idea is to do things properly rather than quickly.

Stan added a subscriber: Stan.
In D1803#74329, @bb wrote:

changing vegetables to grain wouldn't work since f.e. the Chinese mod has rise fields instead. One could consider "crops" though.
The string but at reduced efficiency doesn't specify when the efficiency is reduced, so it doesn't help explaining what is going on. Maybe Harvest crops for food. Up to 5 units can gather, but each subsequent gatherer reduces the efficiency per worker.

Actually, we use fields now, because rice fields confused people too much. Especially since on lower settings, you don't see the water in them.

In D1803#75032, @Nescio wrote:

Just update the diff, taking into account the suggestions raised in this discussion, then people can request further changes, or accept and commit this patch. The idea is to do things properly rather than quickly.

+1

Also, you can have multiple patches at the same time

happyconcepts edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)

as discussed on phab

bb accepted this revision.Apr 21 2019, 6:24 PM

when someone decides to have something other than a grain field, one can always change it in the parent.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Apr 21 2019, 6:24 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Owners added a subscriber: Restricted Owners Package.Apr 21 2019, 6:26 PM