I think we sort of decided that resources would work in a similar manner to MC1. One thing I think needs to be finalized is resource pools. Should they be player based, or settlement based? I am of mixed opinions on this, so would like to hear feedback and pros/cons of each, since I need to start adding resources to the engine fairly soon before I can move on.
Some resources need to be like MC1, but they can not be both?
- -2 ore (like utility)
- +1 steel (like utility)
- 150 steel unit (like mc1, for building)
In mc1, you remember why you were forced to add a hardcap for the payroll assistance? Some player are born only for give chaos.
The only settlement based resources pool isn't a bad idea, can be a nice way to play with friend, slowly introducing them into the game. The experienced player could actually help those unfamiliar with the game, without destroying the gameplay (like gifting billions of resources to those just starting to play).
But.. the server owner need to have the possibility to create rule, like:
- Only player inside a list can play in settlement create by player A
- Other player can interact with a settlement only if the player is Online
- some blacklist
- maximum withdrawal based on the grade
For the player personal resources pool, how players could change resources? Resources Like MC1, or physically located in storage? (if i have steel in sector 0:0, i can't use in sector 9900000:65465465465465)
The more I think of it in my head though, I am starting to envision a new system that is possibly a bit more complicated at first, but I think is more realistic and would add a whole new element to the game - logistics.
If you wanna to keep the settlement little and realistic, is a good choice.
My proposal for MC2 is to have the resources literally be tied to no large single pool, but instead just sit there in the building/area they were produced until they are moved. If you build a mine somewhere, you also need a transportation system to bring the ore from the mine to the refinery, or to a warehouse, etc. Each player is responsible for this own supply lines. Suppose you build a department store in Settlement A that sells toys. You also have a factory in Settlement B that produces toys, but it is X miles away and there is a transport cost. Player2 also has a toy factory in Settlement A right across the street from your shop. You can either pay build up your own transportation infrastructure, or you can just source the toys from across the street, in which case money would change hands from Player 1 to 2.
Seems a nice bottleneck to me (a good one, not bad), able to give more realism.
There should be logistics related buildings such as trucking stations or perhaps rail lines. So there wasn't so much micromanaging, a Factory could know what resources it needs, and trucks in the area could automatically move the materials. If a truck is owned by Player 1 and the mine is owned by Player 1 and the factory is owned by Player 1, then it can be a "free shipping" scenario, otherwise you could make money by transporting resources for other players. A player could build his entire financial empire on being a "transport tycoon" and shipping resources for other players.
Seems a very nice idea. And again.. can be used from experienced players to help unfamiliar players.
Warehouses can be tweaked so that the player can decide what resources are stored there. You could say that Warehouse A on this part of town should only store Gold because there is a Mint nearby. And then trucks behind the scenes could figure out the logistics. The player could also manually set their trucking routes if they wanted more control.
So.. instead like mc1, where each warehouses have a infinite resources list, the building now is just a big place where players can put thing inside. Not bad
If each building had a "Needs" and "Provides" ledger, a lot of the logistics could happen behind the scenes automatically.
The whole transports system can easy be structured like a hydraulic system, you could copy some hydraulic formula for easy setup the system, like flow rate, speed, valves, tanks, main pipes, reducers, etc..
Another benefit of each building keeping it's own inventory would help facilitate transactions between players. Suppose Player 1 needs a new Rover, but does not have a vehicle factory, or the materials to build his own. But Player 2 has a Rover Dealership with 6 rovers in stock. You can just buy one of their rovers for Money without even needing the materials or your own factory, and Player 2 gets some nice funds added to their treasury. And perhaps the settlement gets a nice sales tax. Player 2 could tell the dealership building to always keep X numbers of Rovers in stock, and the shipping and logistics engine could take care of the rest. Or he could own the rover factory next door and set up the shipping himself. I don't know!!!
To me seems an other argument, not direct connected with the transports or warehouse. Another way to make it easier for players to interact, and again, to help other player.
At this point, why not allow the sale of buildings, or pay someone to build for us? With resources / money. And if the player B give enough resources, player A only need to move rovers, not personal resources.
In MC1, again like a dictatorship, the player controls everything related to the economy. You pay the workers, and you also tax them. I am thinking of separating this out. For MC2, I propose that the only resource an actual settlement as an entity can have is Money. Each settlement will have it's own public treasury, and the leader of that settlement decides what funds are used for the public, enacts tax policy, etc. Perhaps a settlement can be democratic where different players are able to run against each other, or perhaps a settlement is a dictatorship and leadership cannot be altered. The settlement will be able to tax both colonists, which are controlled by the engine, or businesses, which are controlled by the player. If there is a business tax in the settlement, it is taken out of profits produced by players. If the settlement wants to build a public structure like a Park, it can contract the work out to a player who has the logistics to build it. The settlement would pay a player to build the police station, but then you would use public settlement money to fund and operate it.
This system also would let a settlement leader implement zoning, as mentioned in this thread. The settlement leader could say "only houses in this area" or "only shops in this area" etc. Roads within a settlement could be the responsibility of the settlement owner, or he could just say "anybody can build necessary roads here."
If the leader can implement rules, why not.
Anyway, maybe this is all too micro-managy and I should just stick to MC1 mechanics, so I'd like to hear what others think about such a logistics system. I like it better because the game can have even more resources than MC1, but without having a huge resource bar at the top of the screen. And it's more realistic than just having storage buildings everywhere will millions of resources.
I don't thing is too much, but i love micro-management. And adding several layers of micro/macro-management, can easy become bottleneck, avoid insane stuff.
Little and nice settlement, instead to have a nearly infinite building like mc1.
One little question.. The ideas in this post are very very very nice, every one. But, they should have a maxim impact in planet with many many players. Not in a nearly infinite planet, with 2-3 players playing very far from each other.
So.. an other idea.. If Player A run Server A, and player B run Server B, they could cross playing without start again everything? In this scenario, many player server they could work together, allowing interactions of this type. But.. maybe this idea can be an other topic, not this one.