I hate to say it but this building system seems... well... wasteful.


  • So while I enjoy the alpha quite a bit I can't say I'm any form of happy with the way buildings are handled in game. I mean at this point it's a case of spamming building after building, and for what purpose? Now certain types of buildings I can understand, but why exactly can't we just build the crafting tools needed for early development? If I want to build a home why is it restricted to a certain style building with a certain requirement of size with a limit on what etc etc.

    My idea is to kinda take a stab from the other games for the lesser side of buildings. Why can't I build a house, throw in a workshop, etc? Why can't my workshop building also have a sawmill inside it? Etc. Please allow us to build crafting furniture for the lesser side of things. Refineries make sense as sub buildings, as do mines, storehoueses, shops, etc.

    This post phases between suggestion and discussion. I'd love to hear some other opinions on the subject!


  • 19
    Posts
    6800
    Views
    Log in to reply


  • I'd probably suggest the idea that you can make mediocre quality things without needing a proper workshop, but only certain things can be built at a crafting table inside a building, and only certain quality can be achieved on a crafting table inside a building.

    This knocks on more traditional survivalism where you've got to do a lot of foundational stuff before you're even ready to build a house.

    I mean, you've watched "Survivor", how many of them decide "Oh, right, I'll just go punch a forest to death, and that will be a logging cabin where I can make my first axe". The comicality of such a thing overwhelms me.



  • Well it just kinda hit me as odd that we're playing a game where we're supposed to balance progression with nature and I have to build like 6 different buildings to do basic things. Why can I have one building and just fill it up with what I need for the lower tier stuff?

    Like I said, when it comes to things like mills, mining, smelting, forging, high tech, etc I'm not expecting that all to fit in one building and am totally supportive of separate buildings for that kinda stuff.



  • I do agree. Like maybe you should have "classes" of buildings which are required for different crafting tables.

    For instance, maybe smelting and forging can share a building as long as the building meets the requirements for those things.

    Then instead of having to create a building to create a crafting table, you can create any ol' building and then when you go to place a crafting table of some description, it just makes sure the building is suitable and that there's sufficient floor space for the table, and maybe specific blocks/holes adjacent to the table to satisfy its needs. ( EG: some tables may require that they don't share a building with another table )



  • @hexk

    Loving those ideas! Just hope the devs are willing to listen to us a bit.



  • ohh they listen ;) though i / we (maybe ? =P ) need to figure out out to gather and shorten all feedback .. its starting to be quite allot now .. and i think it might soon to get hard for them to see all the good ideas :/ mhhh



  • @NoBlackThunder said:

    ohh they listen ;) though i / we (maybe ? =P ) need to figure out out to gather and shorten all feedback .. its starting to be quite allot now .. and i think it might soon to get hard for them to see all the good ideas :/ mhhh

    The biggest problem is the type of forums that was used. This type is incredibly clunky as opposed to the myriad batch of forum styles that other indie games use but for some reason the recent trend seems to be this blotch of information style.

    Maybe a Trello would help, or a full Discord from the devs?



  • i was more thinking of a sort of github issue page .. where people can request stuff and give ideas .. this way you can easily assign labels to it



  • Then I dare say bring one up or pester the devs until they do it! :D



  • I seem to recall there already is such a place. I just think forums are a better medium for non-technical people and the technical people can discover the bug trackers if they're involved enough.



  • issue with the forum is its hard to keep for me track of everything =(



  • Good feedback, and keep in mind this is the first-pass on buildings. Our plans are to do like you say, have lots of things you can add to a building beyond a single crafting table, so you can have multiple purposes to a building. We'll be able to do this as we start to flesh out the content of the game.

    On the other hand, we want there to be a need to build, thus putting demand on resources and space and requiring transport and additional energy. By the end of the game, a huge chunk of the world will need to be covered in buildings for you to win the game. If you can cram all the stuff you need in a single building there's no need for most of the interesting systems of the game (and its also unrealistic, you have many different kinds of buildings in the real world). I think we're on the same page as far as that goes, and definitely agree buildings need to have more purpose. I'm going to be writing up a design for buildings 2.0 soon and will take this into account. Thanks all!



  • @JohnK said:

    Good feedback, and keep in mind this is the first-pass on buildings. Our plans are to do like you say, have lots of things you can add to a building beyond a single crafting table, so you can have multiple purposes to a building. We'll be able to do this as we start to flesh out the content of the game.

    On the other hand, we want there to be a need to build, thus putting demand on resources and space and requiring transport and additional energy. By the end of the game, a huge chunk of the world will need to be covered in buildings for you to win the game. If you can cram all the stuff you need in a single building there's no need for most of the interesting systems of the game (and its also unrealistic, you have many different kinds of buildings in the real world). I think we're on the same page as far as that goes, and definitely agree buildings need to have more purpose. I'm going to be writing up a design for buildings 2.0 soon and will take this into account. Thanks all!

    Well as I had said prior I would love to see the lesser buildings like mill, archery, and essentially the really early stage production buildings be merged into either attachments to the basic house or have their special furniture be buildable into a house. I can only imagine the occasional scratch to the head that a player might have over the fact that any decently populated server will probably have 50-100 buildings on it from every player wanting to have their own basic generation buildings on top of the normal industrial side of things.

    This being said, I'm still expecting all major industrial buildings to be their own separate building, I mean that or logically connect them. The Mine and the Refinery should be either buildings together or functioned in such a way that I can build my Mine and then connect to it a refinery, or maybe snap in the main refinery component and have it function properly. I'm just trying my best to give honest feedback that still holds true to how real world humanity would process an event like this. Why build 10 buildings when I can make like buildings function together in the same location? As you said I understand this is a first iteration so please don't take anything I've said as hostile or anything but passive, I'm just doing my best to help give some ideas to an already great dev-team :D



  • A couple ideas I've had regarding buildings:
    bonus for size. This way we might be able to see mega factory / mega power plants. I'm think size should increase production speed but maybe.

    Material requirement should be material or better. This way if I want to build a stone house I can.

    Allow for two doors/ double doors. over-sized doors, windows, etc. I think this is difficult right now because there is no minimum block count, there is only minimum block of a specific type. If the minimum block count was more in line with the minimum volume this would just mean that if you want to have a very "airy" building you would need to make it larger/taller.



  • Personally I like the one room per thing thing they got going.

    If we think about the actual space required to make an effective woodworking workshop for example, the walls are lined with tools and what not. And usually, a woodworking shed would be much bigger than the maybe nine foot wide room we actually need for a woodworking shop in game. I think the idea is that while we interact with the saw within the room, the entire room is being utilized. In this vein, I'd like to see bonuses being given to production when making rooms bigger than they have to be.

    One of the quickest thing lost in games is the realization of space and distance. Things like infinite inventories and automagically teleporting market boards push convenience in the face of the player. Convenient gameplay is a real quick way to strip what would have been a meaningful choice from the hands of the player, and from what I've experienced, Eco is all about choices. Limiting that inventory will make the player think twice about what they carry with them. Forcing players to walk will make them think twice about whether the trip will be worth it. And forcing them to need a building that is large will make them think twice about building in one spot or another.

    Convenient gameplay should never trump meaningful gameplay, in my opinion. One of the first things I learned about game design was to enjoy being sadistic.

    Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.



  • @Psycho-Romeo said:

    If we think about the actual space required to make an effective woodworking workshop for example, the walls are lined with tools and what not. And usually, a woodworking shed would be much bigger than the maybe nine foot wide room we actually need for a woodworking shop in game. I think the idea is that while we interact with the saw within the room, the entire room is being utilized. In this vein, I'd like to see bonuses being given to production when making rooms bigger than they have to be.

    Yes! We will be doing this.

    One of the quickest thing lost in games is the realization of space and distance. Things like infinite inventories and automagically teleporting market boards push convenience in the face of the player. Convenient gameplay is a real quick way to strip what would have been a meaningful choice from the hands of the player, and from what I've experienced, Eco is all about choices. Limiting that inventory will make the player think twice about what they carry with them. Forcing players to walk will make them think twice about whether the trip will be worth it. And forcing them to need a building that is large will make them think twice about building in one spot or another.

    Convenient gameplay should never trump meaningful gameplay, in my opinion. One of the first things I learned about game design was to enjoy being sadistic.

    Hear hear. There is definitely need for a balance though or you alienate players. A goal with Eco is to keep the grinding to a minimum and give meaningful choices. Limited inventory means you need to build transport networks, not make 50 trips (though people will do that just to brute force it, which we'll need to prevent somehow, calorie burn maybe).



  • I think the actual system is good. You need ressources to biud "factorys" just like in Warcraft. It makes developpement visible, citys grow.
    And now you can rebuild to make your shop pretty. Let consumers come to me :-)



  • Convenient gameplay should never trump meaningful gameplay, in my opinion.

    I appreciate "realism", however, one quickly discovers there's limitations on playability that scale with realism.

    For instance, having a server clock that tracks real world time seems like a good idea, until you realise a substantial proportion of your players already live in a real world with jobs and stuff, and thus their real-life-daylight-hours and in-game-daylight-hours compete, leaving you with only being able to participate in one reality during evening / darkness times.

    And obviously, the threat of human destruction to an asteroid is measured in like, thousands to millions of years, and it would be impractical to map to such a ridiculous time scale at 1:1

    So you very much need some super-normal game-play elements just to make the game viable as a game.

    If you accelerated the milllion-year timescale to a week, peoples movements being scaled in proportion would be such a blur the game would be unplayable.

    So you have to proxy the effect by generalising it, say, having an unrealistic carry capacity to approximate the effect of being able to communicate a weeks worth of effort in an hour without needing to be constantly sprinting between A and B.



  • For sure, theres no way to make all the timescales match, we will try to stick to consistent times where we can but the needs of the game have to take precedence, with some scales being representative.


19
Posts
6800
Views
Log in to reply

Internal error.

Oops! Looks like something went wrong!