Jump to content

Simplify PW to PO for new players


Recommended Posts

Are we really going to see an in game menu trying to explain how polluted water offgassing works? 4% of mass turns into polluted oxygen if the tile above has low enough pressure. Yikes!

I suggest it is changed to a constant rate of conversion - like polluted dirt or slime. Simply, effective and already well-tested. Or, if the bubble effect is fun or if the constant rate is CPU intensive, off-gas x grams once every y seconds and randomize a bit when the offgas occurs in (0, y). Eg. “Every 20 seconds 150g of polluted water converts to polluted oxygen”. This is also easy to explain to new players.

Balance:

It will cause pee spills to tidy up on their own. The rate will have to be small enough that this isn’t relevant. Even so, mopped polluted water bottles will disappear without much fuss. Minor negative.

Pools of PW will continue to off-gas instead of ending up with a thin layer of PW that slows converting to a crawl. This seems unintentional.

Tricks to get high volume bottles or high density tiles of polluted water will no longer be useful for speeding up the conversion rate. This seems unintentional.

Creating a thin layer of polluted water everywhere (and maybe mopping it up) allows for lots of polluted oxygen conversion. If this were unbalanced, then so are the existing tricks to create large bottle of PW. It’s likely safe from a balance perspective. Although, it might see the return of pee fueled bases :p, I don’t think the numbers work for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be a lot easier to manage if it's linear and constant, like two bottles with 10 kg will produce the same amount of gas as one bottle with 20 kg. This results in efficiency optimizations, which quickly becomes more annoying than fun because they are so hard to manage.

A nice bonus would be that if the produced amount of gas is mass of water * X (X being below 0. something), then it's more CPU friendly than the current code. I'm not sure the current code has a performance issue, but faster is always better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nightinggale said:

It will be a lot easier to manage if it's linear and constant, like two bottles with 10 kg will produce the same amount of gas as one bottle with 20 kg. This results in efficiency optimizations, which quickly becomes more annoying than fun because they are so hard to manage.

Different size bottles (or density of the top layer of your polluted water pool) causing different rates of conversion is half of what’s confusing about the current system for new players.

That is to say, you just said the opposite of my suggestion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Nickerooni said:

That is to say, you just said the opposite of my suggestion. 

Oh so you mean 1 kg and 1 ton should produce precisely the same amount of polluted oxygen every second? (or every 20 seconds or whatever). That makes no sense at all. Everything else in the game depends on the mass of the object in question meaning introducing one exception would be the confusing part to a player.

What I'm talking about is the issue where mass isn't used, but rather the square root of the mass. Linear is more predictable for the player. Also finding the square root is a slow task for a CPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Nightinggale said:

Oh so you mean 1 kg and 1 ton should produce precisely the same amount of polluted oxygen every second? (or every 20 seconds or whatever). That makes no sense at all.

A "drop" of pwater covers entire tile and so it has a surface area of a whole tile. It makes no sense to scale linearly with mass here.

Items exchange temperature at rate that is either constant or square root of mass, as you can clearly see when a 20t ball of ice refuses to melt for many cycles when dropped in magma.

Constant rate is fine, linear is worse than square root.

40 minutes ago, Nightinggale said:

Everything else in the game depends on the mass of the object in question

Name 3 examples. If "everything else" is linear with mass, this should be trivial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Coolthulhu said:

If "everything else" is linear with mass

I said " Everything else in the game depends on the mass". There is no linear in that sentence. It was a reply to making po production not depend on mass at all.

I'm not going to post anymore in this thread because all seriousness and productive conversation seems to have vanished. The proposal is very unlikely to be accepted by Klei anyway and now it has turned into "you are wrong if you don't agree" and the proof is provided by misquoting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nightinggale said:

I said " Everything else in the game depends on the mass". There is no linear in that sentence. It was a reply to making po production not depend on mass at all.

And then you argue against square root of mass, where you say it is something different from dependence on mass. Which is an implication that "dependence on mass" is the same as "linear dependence on mass". Don't get so defensive when your objective errors are pointed out, being angry about being wrong is how you stay wrong instead of learning.

Either way, square root is definitely more correct than linear here since it scales better at both high and low values. Linear mass relation would lead to small balls never disappearing and large ones radiating a strong "flow" of gas.

And constant would be better: more physical (a puddle has same surface area as pool), more predictable (perfectly so), more "tidy" (small amounts of stuff remove themselves without micromanagement).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
×
  • Create New...