Jump to content

Lots of Roads


Recommended Posts

I think we should have a world gen option to enable lots of roads instead of default or none

We have no one paying the taxes in the constant, but I think we can get away with having a lots of roads setting

of course this would mean having the world gen option for roads be like:

none less default more lots tons insane

Link to comment
https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/138708-lots-of-roads/
Share on other sites

I expect they won't implement "lots of roads" because there's probably one algorithm to generate them and that's it. There is one path that leads through middle of biomes so you can use it to traverse main branches of map faster. Besides, where those additional ones should go? Around contour of map? In random pattern?

And then the Deerclops shows up with a hardhat on and a clipboard, saying that she's here to demolish your base because it's in the way of where they need to build a highway...

Why didn't we warn you ahead of time? We did!  The plans were perfectly on display, where anyone could see them!--in the middle of a reed trap.  In the swamp.  Underground.  In the ruins.

(...I think this reference/joke got away from me, but I hope it still kinda worked.  : P)

...Notorious

On 3/29/2022 at 2:35 AM, Nettalie said:

Not sure how well road amounts would work, but I could see road thickness working

 

1 hour ago, goatt said:

How about not “more” roads but thicker roads. That way, no new algorithm will be needed.

The thing is that it doesn't really make anyone happy/solve any problems. People who want more roads to travel to deeper parts of land (where roads don't usually go) would need them longer, not wider.

Another thing is that no one seem to complain about inability to keep their character on pathway (or at least I never heard any) so it's just fixing something that isn't broken.

1 hour ago, Losparkeros said:

Another thing is that no one seem to complain about inability to keep their character on pathway (or at least I never heard any) so it's just fixing something that isn't broken.

It's a bit annoying during winter tho, but I would rather fix it by removing the snow on the ground via settings, since it would also give people a better idea how their building will/would look during other seasons. 

1 hour ago, Losparkeros said:

The thing is that it doesn't really make anyone happy/solve any problems.

True. But I think some improvements do not need to be particularly useful or solving any problems. It's just something some people want, especially when it's just an additional option which does not force everyone to adopt it. 

1 minute ago, goatt said:

True. But I think some improvements do not need to be particularly useful or solving any problems. It's just something some people want, especially when it's just an additional option which does not force everyone to adopt it. 

I don't think the devs should focus on this kind of thing. Like, I'd rather the team spend time on something that will be an improvement for a sizeble chunk of players. 

1 hour ago, jan Mele said:

I don't think the devs should focus on this kind of thing.

I don't think devs should focus on this kind of thing either. Sometimes people just like to be spoiled in ideas and you don't have to shoot them down with serious reasons like "it's not that important".

3 hours ago, goatt said:

I don't think devs should focus on this kind of thing either. Sometimes people just like to be spoiled in ideas and you don't have to shoot them down with serious reasons like "it's not that important".

That's why I didn't use that argument. But in the end we were discussing logic of the idea itself, and developer focus was response for "but it could be implemented anyway" rather than point itself.

I don't have anything against crazy ideas, even if they have little sense in the end :) (they're called "ideas" for a reason after all) but in the end it's impossible to implement every single one of them just for the option to "be there in case you want it". It just adds unnecessary intricacy that is going to be confusing for players.

On the other hand it's much better idea to implement it as a mod - it adds possibility for people who want such thing. So if you know how to make it or you know someone who knows how to make it then with all might, go for it!

 

A neat idea I had for an item was a freezing lamp that could be attached to your walking cane, and would generate temporary ice roads in front of the player, giving them road+cane movement speed.

The icy roads would not stack on top of existing roads and how long they last varies depending on ambient temperature/season, ideally lasting forever in winter where using the lamp would freeze the player's temperature and nearly instantly melting behind the player in summer - but players would be able to forge and use roads to places for themselves and other players quickly this way.

2 hours ago, Losparkeros said:

But in the end we were discussing logic of the idea itself

Um. I wasn’t discussing the logic or the validity of certain ideas. It was simple for me: I saw an idea, and I liked it. It was rather my crude desire and demand.

Whatever established logic (in consumer community i think), no matter how well thought it is, will fall apart if demands or desires of certain function is high enough. That’s why I think logic should come below demands. If logic is so crucial, devs can just use logic to make game without asking the community what they want.

You are shooting down ideas because they are unlikely to happen. And I agree they won’t happen. Some of them are good for mods. But if they are valid ideas for mods, why can’t they be discussed and be enjoyed just as crazy ideas?

At the end of the day, I’m just expressing my crude imagination and desire. Any logic talk won’t make sense because what I want is just what I want. It’s about human experience, not really about game design logics. I think in a way, logic is just a summary of what people want, so people should always feel free to express their needs. I personally don’t really care whether this will actually happen. It would be fun if it does. But most likely I’d only play with default settings anyways.

 

About technical details, I don’t think it’s hard to change road thickness. I’d imagine it’s just change of several numbers regarding thickness since the road path generation algorithm doesn’t need modification. So implementation should require little effort, I imagine. 

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...