Increasing the believability and satisfaction of mining

[puxapuak 232]

I think the tale end of this post might interest you more, but you ask a lot of things in there (some of it I suspect may have been rhetorical) and I wanted to respond to a lot of it because it might not be at all what you expect the answers to be.

How long did it take you to learn all the recipes for food?

In TFC? I don't think I know even a quarter of them. I really have no idea how many there are. But it doesn't honestly matter to me much. I throw whatever food I have available together in a bowl and eat it. Sometimes I get a small boost that usually decays before I can make use of it, and most of the time I don't. If I could reliably buy food of some type I find useful from a player by trading some currency or useful item, I would.

How long do you think it will take an individual, considering your implimentation of mining, to find his first metal vein?

Depends what you mean by 'find'. They would be stumbling over them all the time without realising it. They could easily be chipping rocks on their first vein within minutes of spawning. How long before they realised it was a true vein? First, remember that there would be a lot more veins, but they would be smaller. It would be very circumstantial though - more so than it is now (since you can usually find your first vein within a game day of spawning right now - I don't think I've ever spent longer than two game days before finding a vein, and normally I have the locations of a half dozen before I have my first house done).

I would rather say it this way. If I were designing it, I would bear in mind that Dunk and Bioxx are of the opinion that people should be spending a whole lot longer in the stone and pre-bronze ages. If a player was solely dedicated to getting to metal as fast as they could, then with no prior knowledge they should be able to solve their first ore puzzle and obtain a pick from shards within one to two game months or so of their spawn (based on a 96-day year, about 10-15 days). If on the other hand the player was more interested in varying their activities and building something more than a bare-bones hut with no farm, then perhaps it would take them a half a game year to a year.

So it's more about style of play than anything else.

What about the next one?

Well, in most cases you would have built up some measure of a library of information about your local geology. If you've found one mine, you've probably got all the information you already need to piece together the location of a few others. So it wouldn't really take much longer to find other surface mines. Maybe ten minutes of thinking it through and another ten minutes looking around. If you change geology though, you're going to have to learn the new conditions.

Once done with that, how long will it take to master agriculture and Animal husbandry when that is in full swing?

Probably a lot longer. Actually... almost definitely a lot longer considering birth rate. Learning to mine isn't time dependent like agriculture and husbandry. If dedicated to the task, you would be able to become a master miner a lot quicker than a master farmer.

Once tailoring, ... Is implemented, do you think that one person on his own will be able to accomplish all of this to the utmost, while still trying to build a civilization, fend off hostile mobs, and explore a world that is one big mystery?

Nope. But again, if that's what you're looking for, I don't think you're going to be happy with where TFC is headed.

over time, 80% of the server just MIGHT be able to do everything themselves regardless.

Yep. That's the problem with a lot of economic-based game systems. But the more complex (not complicated) then the more you can hold on to a functional economy that's based on it. Also the more complex the tasks become, the less interested people will be in becoming experts in everything. People play games for different reasons.

But whether or not this game is designed focusing on multiplayer, there will always be single players in their own world. (...) But the casual gamer like myself, wont be too happy.

I mostly agree, but Bioxx and Dunk have stated a number of times that this isn't the focus of TFC, so our opinions matter little on this one, I think.

Again. Cool idea.

Thanks. I think a lot of ideas like this need a secondary "softcore - hardcore" difficulty mode switch. With a system like I'm proposing, it would be very easy to make it simpler. I won't get into the math that drives the mechanic, but you only have to change a couple of parameters and it can easily scale the whole thing to be more or less easy to solve. I don't know to what degree Bioxx is interested in having a difficulty setting.

*edit*

I should add that those parameters can be set - using the same system - to almost identically mimic what we presently have. The puzzle would (just like it is now) simply be a matter of turning over the right rock. At the other end, they can produce such variance in the shards that it is very difficult indeed to solve the puzzles.

[Menoch 335]

complex[ kuh m-pleks, kom-pleks; kom-pleks ]

adjective

1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system.

2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.

3. so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with: a complex problem.

"But the more complex (not complicated) then the more you can hold onto a functional economy..."

To make something complex, is to make it complicated. A no frills lable is not complex. This mod has just enough complexity as to not send it into overkill.

I digress. I like your idea, but i think it adds more than is necessary for right now. That's my final answer for $300.00, Chuck. ;)/>

But this is my opinion, and my opinion doesnt amount to squat to most. But fortunately we get to talk about it here on these forums.

I definitely wouldnt give up refining it. Bioxx may wanna impliment it. You never know. ;)/>

[puxapuak 232]

1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system.

2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.

*snip*

To make something complex, is to make it complicated. A no frills lable is not complex. This mod has just enough complexity as to not send it into overkill.

See definitions 1 and 2. Complex != complicated. Things that are complex can be complicated, but they don't need to be. More often than not, we complicate them ourselves through our lack of understanding. It is only after we understand the complex that we realise that the complicatedness was an illusion, and at the heart is a very simple process iterated multiply. This is the entire motivation behind a lot of science of course too... 'the simplest solution is usually the correct one.'

It may be complex to try to understand all highways at once, but it is not that complicated to follow one from one location to another.

I definitely wouldnt give up refining it. Bioxx may wanna impliment it. You never know. ;)/>

I'm hoping so. And if not, well maybe I will use it in R-Evo.

(Total side note... am I the only one who finds the quote function in this forum software cumbersome and space-hungry? I find colours and italics so much cleaner...)

[Just_Another_Guy_:) 1,066]

(Total side note... am I the only one who finds the quote function in this forum software cumbersome and space-hungry? I find colours and italics so much cleaner...)

ECC does too, from what i know... :

[puxapuak 232]

Good to hear. I like the notification it provides, but that's it.

I realise I may have worded that poorly though. I suppose a more clear way to say that would have been "I hope I am not the only one..."

[LordOfWolves 514]

I realise I may have worded that poorly though. I suppose a more clear way to say that would have been "I hope I am not the only one..."

I too find them space-hungry, but I need to use them because it's more understandable. Sometimes I don't understand who ECC quoted because he doesn't put the name of the person. This is a problem and the only way to solve it is by using quotes.

[Just_Another_Guy_:) 1,066]

I too find them space-hungry, but I need to use them because it's more understandable. Sometimes I don't understand who ECC quoted because he doesn't put the name of the person. This is a problem and the only way to solve it is by using quotes.

... Or writing the name of the guy you are quoting before what he said? ._.

[LordOfWolves 514]

... Or writing the name of the guy you are quoting before what he said? ._.

No

[Guest Blue_Beluga]

To anyone saying this is 'overly complicated' I disagree. All puxapuak was trying to get along is that the way mining is done at the moment,

1) Would require some sort of prior knowledge (knowledge you are not supposed to have)

2) Is too quick in terms of prospecting

3) Should have something in the way of an 'identification' phase

These seem necessary to me, not an addition, more a completion.

Also, to throw another idea here, (I know this may be too much work coding) perhaps if you ARE new to the world, not knowing what materials are, perhaps the player should name them, I mean, where else do they get the name?

[Pakislav 120]

Well, I think it's just perfectly fine as it is.

Honestly if I would have to go through even more trouble to get ore, and for no good reason, I wouldn't like that at all.

[puxapuak 232]

Also, to throw another idea here, (I know this may be too much work coding) perhaps if you ARE new to the world, not knowing what materials are, perhaps the player should name them, I mean, where else do they get the name?

On your point 1, yeah, I think that kind of got lost in the thread somewhere. The whole thing is really just a response to the idea that we are supposed to be stone-age people instead of stranded space-age people. If the former is the intention, then yeah... this was just intended as a completion of the existing system of mining.

I totally agree with the naming. I decided to not mention it in the other posts for various reasons, but that has definitely been on my mind as well. By naming some type of shard, then that name would always show up when you find that shard.

I'm not sure how that would be programmed into it either, but I'm reasonably certain that it can be done. Multiplayer poses more of a problem there though.

[ECC 508]

the problem with naming(something i REALLY like) is the issue where there is no way to record data accurately. the wiki is there to help people play the game and learn it. by doing the naming convention thing, that is made impossible and ruins the knowledge NEEDED to start the game. even if you define the objects by the characteristics or sprites you still run into confusion we cant really afford in a community that has yet to openly support in game tutorials ~glares at the devs~

[Menoch 335]

the problem with naming(something i REALLY like) is the issue where there is no way to record data accurately. the wiki is there to help people play the game and learn it. by doing the naming convention thing, that is made impossible and ruins the knowledge NEEDED to start the game. even if you define the objects by the characteristics or sprites you still run into confusion we cant really afford in a community that has yet to openly support in game tutorials ~glares at the devs~

Ooooooooh! He glared! I think the idea of naming is a cool one, but unfortunately i dont think it is a good idea simply for what ECC just stated, and the fact that in a believable world where TFC is supposed to mirror earth in MANY aspects, Menochite, or BronzeMenoch alloy might not be something players on a server will wanna see. Lol.

while I like naming, as is suggested on the alcohol brewing thread started by Madflavius, in that instance, you are naming something you made and is central to your character. Whereas in this instance, naming something that is universal to the entire world should be left to the devs. Because then we can take it so far as to rename every tree, plant, animal, etc...

Again. I think it is a bitchin idea, but maybe not so much for this application.

My thoughts. No more no less.

[puxapuak 232]

the problem with naming(something i REALLY like) is the issue where there is no way to record data accurately. the wiki is there to help people play the game and learn it. by doing the naming convention thing, that is made impossible and ruins the knowledge NEEDED to start the game. even if you define the objects by the characteristics or sprites you still run into confusion we cant really afford in a community that has yet to openly support in game tutorials ~glares at the devs~

Well I was only talking about naming particular shards within a single person's game so that they can spot them in the future more easily. Because shards would be pretty small icons, there's not really a lot of room for subtle variance outside the description-name each has by default. In some sense this would just be mimicking what our brain/eyes do when we start to recognise a pattern.

With respect to the wiki, I would purposefully implement this such that it is obfuscated enough that the wiki could not help. They are not difficult puzzles. If the wiki had a detailed catalogue of all shards, where they came from, and which ones indicated what ore or mineral, then it would completely defeat the purpose of the addition. But at the design level the usefulness of a shard library is removed anyway because there's an aspect of it tied to the seed that I haven't told about. It is more like recipes.

[transcengopher 349]

Player-side names for items? Interesting.

Also, how do you stack those shards? Are their yield dependant on seed? (I probably missed this section somewhere.)

[puxapuak 232]

My thoughts. No more no less.

I agree when it comes to the actual ores themselves too. The only naming I would consider is for shards so a user can keep track of them in a way more sensible to them. The description (original 'name') would still be present though... so the user-given-name might just appear under that or something.

Or.... hmm... this makes me reconsider. Ok, like how current items have the size indicators, that's where the shard's descriptive words could go. The default name could be "unknown shard" - which you could rename for now. You try melting it down and it turns into some kind of metal. The name of that particular shard then changes to "unknown metal shard".

But it doesn't end there... instead, when you have gathered enough of your first shards of the substance to melt into an unshaped ingot, the true name of the metal is revealed "unshaped zinc ingot". In an achievement-like way, all of the "unknown metal shards" that are zinc will change to "Zinc ore shard".

What do you think? This might alleviate some of your earlier-noted concerns as well.

Player-side names for items? Interesting.

Also, how do you stack those shards? Are their yield dependant on seed? (I probably missed this section somewhere.)

This is in the thread, yes. But there is a LOT in this thread now... you're forgiven

Shards stack like anything else. There is no difference. They stack big though because they are very small. (64, 64 also being what's needed for an ingot, give or take - ore itself is unchanged unless we move to an all-nugget size). Yield is not dependent on seed, randomization of what appears on a given strike is.

[ECC 508]

'Ooooooooh! He glared!'

Damn skippy!

'With respect to the wiki, I would purposefully implement this such that it is obfuscated enough that the wiki could not help. They are not difficult puzzles. If the wiki had a detailed catalogue of all shards, where they came from, and which ones indicated what ore or mineral, then it would completely defeat the purpose of the addition. But at the design level the usefulness of a shard library is removed anyway because there's an aspect of it tied to the seed that I haven't told about. It is more like recipes.'

with all due respect, irl data on a metal or minerals make up, composition and more are all hard values that can be recorded easily. making randomization within the game to keep recordinge from being able to exist just feels wrong.

[puxapuak 232]

with all due respect, irl data on a metal or minerals make up, composition and more are all hard values that can be recorded easily. making randomization within the game to keep recordinge from being able to exist just feels wrong.

That's not what would be randomized. In a given game world, writing things down to keep track of them might make sense, but it would not be guaranteed across worlds. The attributes are not randomized per se. I'm not going to say more on that though because if the idea is implemented, I do not want to ruin the underlying mechanic for people. Suffice it to say that the believability will not be impacted.

[transcengopher 349]

Shards stack like anything else. There is no difference. They stack big though because they are very small. (64, 64 also being what's needed for an ingot, give or take - ore itself is unchanged unless we move to an all-nugget size). Yield is not dependent on seed, randomization of what appears on a given strike is.

I mean, will text "blue brittle crystalline" mean different things depending on seeds? If will, how do you make it believable?

Are shards equal to ore nuggets or there are shards of non-metal ores (from the thread I've got impression that there are)? If latter, how do you deal with clutter of this size?

How do you melt metal ore shard? How much does it yield - more than nugget currently or not? If latter, how do you identify this drop of metal with retaining believability?

Edit:

Identification question answered in prevous post, found and read it.

Edit2:

But will name of the shard be on server side or on client side? If former, how do you explain that newcomer knows what kind of shard he got?

[puxapuak 232]

Are shards equal to ore nuggets or there are shards of non-metal ores (from the thread I've got impression that there are)? If latter, how do you deal with clutter of this size?

Shards are not equal to nuggets. Their equivalence is more with respect to the information content / their role in the process of mining. Please read through the thread if you want more of an explanation, because all of this has been covered.

If latter, how do you deal with clutter of this size?

There are lots of different kinds of shards. Tons, really. Most of them are not metal at all, just slivers of whatever rock zone you're in. But some will contain trace amounts of metals and minerals, which you can quickly learn to tease out of the descriptive elements displayed with each shard. The clutter thing... I have no idea why people are perceiving this. There is no clutter. If you want to throw something out, then throw it out.

How do you melt metal ore shard?

Heat works well. I don't really know how else to answer that.

How much does it yield - more than nugget currently or not? If latter, how do you identify this drop of metal with retaining believability?

Again, this has all been covered. Please read through the thread. One or two questions is fine, but I'm not going to repeat the whole thing just because you don't feel like reading the thread.

But will name of the shard be on server side or on client side? If former, how do you explain that newcomer knows what kind of shard he got?

I think it should only be the client side. People can come up with their own names for things, and if they want to talk to someone else about it then they're going to have to describe it to them just like anything else. This makes it a whole lot more believable and easier to code. It also makes it a fun puzzle for groups of miners to work together to find the more rare ores.

[transcengopher 349]

There are lots of different kinds of shards. Tons, really. Most of them are not metal at all, just slivers of whatever rock zone you're in. But some will contain trace amounts of metals and minerals, which you can quickly learn to tease out of the descriptive elements displayed with each shard. The clutter thing... I have no idea why people are perceiving this. There is no clutter. If you want to throw something out, then throw it out.

There's a difference between throwing out something known and unnecessary right now and something unknown that might be of highest importance. As from the start, all types of shards are considered to have high importance, which, in conjunction with shear amount of possible types of shards may and will create a clutter.

Edit:

I've yet to know: will shards' properties like "smooth blue crystalline" and "big dark red grains" have their meaning dependant on seed?

[puxapuak 232]

There's a difference between throwing out something known and unnecessary right now and something unknown that might be of highest importance. As from the start, all types of shards are considered to have high importance, which, in conjunction with shear amount of possible types of shards may and will create a clutter.

Right but this is what I'm confused about, actually. All types of shards do not have high importance, all types of shards have low importance. If it takes 64 shards of something to make an ingot, then the value of one shard is extremely low. If you've melted a few down and discovered that they are metallic, then the value of those particular shards has increased, but it is still no different of a situation than now, as one stack of ore nuggets currently also corresponds (roughly) to one unshaped ingot. One stack of a specific ore shard would also (roughly) correspond to one unshaped ingot. So again, I am really not clear why some people think there is clutter. There is no more clutter than there is now. In terms of inventory space, it is absolutely identical.

I've yet to know: will shards' properties like "smooth blue crystalline" and "big dark red grains" have their meaning dependant on seed?

Sorry, I thought you meant earlier that you had found this answer. No, this aspect would not be tied to seed. It would be something else.

[transcengopher 349]

I found answer to "how one will understand that this metal is iron", not to "is big dark red grains always copper ore".

In regards to clutter I shall say that from the start all those shards will have illusion that they are important, so player will keep them. Later on, once player understand which ones are useless, he will drop those out of inventory. But useless shards won't stop to drop, and minecraft drop handling system won't stop to suck them up in player's inventory, forcing player to drop them over and over again. Not knowing how many will be dropped out of the block won't help either.

[puxapuak 232]

I found answer to "how one will understand that this metal is iron", not to "is big dark red grains always copper ore".

It's in there, but you might be looking for an explicit statement. It's more implied; there are a lot of things that might have reddish grains. Some might be minerals, some might indicate ores. This aspect would not be seed dependent, but it is environmentally/geologically dependant. One piece of information isn't the arrow, it's a part of the arrow. When a person gets the hang of prospecting, they'd be able to see a pattern of shard attributes and know there's a particular ore in the area - even if they found no shards of that ore.

So just like actual prospecting, you split off a chunk of rock, determine what it says, and toss it over your shoulder to move on to the next one. Do that a few times and if you've got the hang of things you've got a good idea what's going on in the rocks beneath your feet pretty rapidly.

shards will have illusion that they are important

Well nobody can ultimately control what people will perceive, but there is certainly no reason to think that they're continued existence is important, even from the very start. Usefulness depends on one's objectives. They have the choice to find out what a shard is (whether it contains trace metals or minerals of some kind), and determine whether it is potentially useful for their objective. And even if its useful, it doesn't mean the item is useful, only that it was found. So why would someone keep it anyway? You might keep track of it, that is - record it's properties and where you found it, but that's very different from hording things.

Later on, once player understand which ones are useless, he will drop those out of inventory.

Again, just to hit the point home... a player should be starting out with the assumption that shards are information, not a useful product itself.

But useless shards won't stop to drop

Truly useless shards will never drop at all. They are all information.

forcing player to drop them over and over again. Not knowing how many will be dropped out of the block won't help either.

I think you're vastly overcomplicating this. Yes, people have to drop things that got auto-picked-up. Everyone who plays minecraft gets used to dealing with this and occasionally has to chuck a bunch of garbage in a hole somewhere. There's easy ways around it (garbage icon in inventory screens where items dragged there disappear for good), but Mojang has no interest in such things.

But the important part is again.. shards are information. If you're checking out the geology of an area because you have no experience mining in it yet, you'll probably be smashing several rocks in rapid succession. This will yield an array of shards... maybe 3-8 varieties. Because it's just dots of information, you have to find out the 'picture' it's painting. So you look at the shards in your inventory once every little bit, take note of it, dump what you don't want, and move on.

This is in no way different than at present. If you're prospecting an area, you're getting a bunch of bits of things you probably don't want and are going to be junking every once in a while.

[Guest Blue_Beluga]

This idea is incredibly simple, can't see how people don't get it. Find some shards, get a basic overview of the geology in the area. Melt some shards, get an idea of whether it's worth prospecting there.

Simple, eh?

Also, another idea, what if you could bang the lump of metal got by melting the shards against a material. One click would represent a mined/dug/chopped block. The 'durability' of the metal lump would decrease appropriately. This would give you an indicator of how durable the tools of that metal would be if you bothered to smith them. The uses of this would be limited however as you can not find 'alloy shards' thus the durability of alloy tools cannot be judged without prior knowledge.