Proportional weapons production

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

@Tom: When we add an option we say that we don't know and pass on the decision on the player. Does the player needs extra decisions that we could not make? Language, Autosave, Graphics - these are usual items because assume player knows better than us. Player needs these items. But we don't want to add options like "max laborers per house" or "warriors health regeneration pace" or "autosave name format" because they require special knowledge and/or are superfluous. So let's try to pick a good solution to the weapons production and implement it in a way that is meaningful and useful.

You're making an assumption. If you add an option, it doesn't mean that you don't know. It means you let the player choose what he thinks is best for his gameplay. Kind of a weird assumption you're making imo..

[Krom]

@Tom: I was referring to that kind of options that are meaningless or require special knowledge from player. E.g. should serfs carry goods in left or right hand? Do we need to let player choose that - I don't think so, because it does not makes any difference to gameplay and basically player does not care (and double drawing work) because the game is not about left vs right kingdoms fight, where that would obviously make sense to separate allies from foes. Serfs just do their job best they can and player should be fine with that.

I could name hundreds more such options, that could be requested by somebody or even disputed about (should serfs pickup ware in destination house?

The point is - many options is as bad as too few. Gamedesigners job is to keep all important ones and hide all unimportant.

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

@Tom: I was referring to that kind of options that are meaningless or require special knowledge from player. E.g. should serfs carry goods in left or right hand? Do we need to let player choose that - I don't think so, because it does not makes any difference to gameplay and basically player does not care (and double drawing work) because the game is not about left vs right kingdoms fight, where that would obviously make sense to separate allies from foes. Serfs just do their job best they can and player should be fine with that.

I could name hundreds more such options, that could be requested by somebody or even disputed about (should serfs pickup ware in destination house?

The point is - many options is as bad as too few. Gamedesigners job is to keep all important ones and hide all unimportant.

I don't think those situations can be compared. Serfs carrying goods in their left or right hand is completely different from deciding which system is being used to create your weapons. Your example does not affect gameplay, the option to decide which weapon making system to use does.

No disrespect by any means, but I think you're mistaking your own opinion with the opinions of others. I'm not saying more people agree with me, but you often sound like you just don't want to add an option. It's like you said: too many options is as bad as too few. KaM Remake r4179 has 6 main options, 13 if you count every single one of them (except for languages). I don't know the general average of other games, but I'm guessing it's at least triple the value. Besides, I don't think 'I could name hundreds more options' is a valid argument. It comes across to me as 'I don't feel like it'.

The thing is, I just haven't seen a single real argument that really explains why this shouldn't be an option decided by a player. But then again, I'm not a KaM Remake developer and it's all up to you and Lewin. It's just my two cents.

And one last thing I almost forgot - "Gamedesigners job is to keep all important ones and hide all unimportant."
I don't think you're the only one who can decide what's important and what's not. I think TDL's argument is a very valid one: KaM has always used the current system (15 years?), so suddenly changing it will cause massive confusion.

[Krom]

@Tom: Thanks for the hint. I have checked in KaM and you are perfectly right - all the time KaM used sequential order picking! This is a very good argument and thanks to TDL and you I start to think we should revert the proportional order picking back to sequential.

Now to the fightback:

I made these two examples to demonstrate that choices can be brought to a player about tiniest and meaningless things. Weapon making strategy should not be that important either. Player orders 100 axes and he gets them after some time. There's no need to go micromanaging about that either

I'm sorry, how is having my own opinion and not wanting to add extra micromanagement means that I'm mistaking opinion with others?? )

How many gameplay options (lets leave graphics setup aside) average RTS gives you? I haven't noticed that many in C&C or SC .. excuse my poor example once again, but thats very similar to adding a switch to archers, shoot weak or strong units. Many would argue they need it Yet none game has it.

Do you think we make that just for lulz? "Hey, look, we added nuclear device to KaM, now shut up and play it!". NO. We do need community opinion and that's why we post about almost everything here and trying to have a constructive discussions, making our points and listening to others. Looking for best compromises and sometimes making hard decisions that do not make some happy.

[Lewin]

Krom has a point that this option is quite a minor detail when you look at the big picture of KaM (weapons production is just one small part of the economy). If we start adding options every time we can't reach an agreement about a minor micromanagement feature we'll end up with a lot of them. I'm strongly against adding a global switch to change between sequential and proportional. We don't have any other gameplay options in the options menu and I'd rather not start adding them. I'd much rather have a button in each weapons producing house that toggles between percentages and exact numbers (it only needs to be a smallish square button if we get the right icon and tooltip).

Personally I would be happy to ONLY use proportional given my current play style works around an army based on ratios of different troops. I currently struggle to make the right number of shields and other weapons and sometimes find myself with wasted weapons because of that. But I appreciate that the current system works well for some people, and changing it could cause some confusion.

The example of adding an option to set whether archers target strong or weak units first is a good one. That's also quite a minor detail of the game, but I imagine some players like to have such a feature, or changing it depending on who they are playing with (e.g. players who rush militia). But we are not going to add an option like that.

[Siegfried]

I don't think you're the only one who can decide what's important and what's not. I think TDL's argument is a very valid one: KaM has always used the current system (15 years?), so suddenly changing it will cause massive confusion.

The fighting system has been like this for like 15 years - and suddently you want to change the unit statistics?

I think you now see the problem with this point.

If we start adding options every time we can't reach an agreement about a minor micromanagement feature we'll end up with a lot of them.

This!

I cannot agree more with Krom and Lewin to not add a button for such a minor and unimportant feature like that. But that's maybe because I've seen how this can end. Take the settlers2-remake. They let you choose many of those minor options. For example, you have 6 steps how long the water-roads can be. That's just so stupid. Why? Because every player maybe tests it one time, and then he takes his favorit and never changes it again. So this option is just something that you change at the beginning, it's just additional work that adds absolutely no difference to the gameplay.

And that's exactly the point where it is different from the checkbox in the woodcutters hut. This is something that you change more frequently. But you don't change the weapons make. You set it to your habit and then let it go. So why not have it set initially, so you spare the work.

The thing is, I just haven't seen a single real argument that really explains why this shouldn't be an option decided by a player.

The whole thread is full of points. Ignoring them is not fair.
So, basically, what's the point for the change? That some player want to keep the original one because it fits their gameplay?
Well, then let's make a poll and see what the majority wants. And then implement this mechanics and that's it.

[Ben]

Well, then let's make a poll and see what the majority wants. And then implement this mechanics and that's it.

If it's been said once, it's been said a thousand times: Polls are invalid forms of research because most Remake players aren't members of this forum, or aren't members at all. Now who's not paying attention?

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

The fighting system has been like this for like 15 years - and suddently you want to change the unit statistics?

You do know the fighting system was changed because of multiplayer purposes..? And what was a KaM feature that didn't work (very well) 15 years ago? Right, multiplayer!

The whole thread is full of points. Ignoring them is not fair.
So, basically, what's the point for the change? That some player want to keep the original one because it fits their gameplay?
Well, then let's make a poll and see what the majority wants. And then implement this mechanics and that's it.

As said many times, a poll is not an option. Not all KaM Remake players visit this forum, even though it's the official KaM Remake support forum. A poll would therefore give a very colored image.
(Ben was a bit faster, I see)

[Ben]

I agree with Tom's insight on this topic. His arguments and defenses are very sound in my opinion.
If this is implemented, I really think that there should be an option (eve if it is a tiny button like Lewin said) to toggle it on/ off. Honestly; though, I don't want this feature in the game in the first place. Perhaps it would be best to avoid some of these complicated additions to the game that don't really help a lot yet but still cause a lot of arguing, and just get the important stuff down (Multiplayer balance, AI, scripting, etc).

[Lewin]

I still feel that proportional/percentage based weapons production is important because I personally find it hard to produce the right number of each weapon and I think some other people must too. I usually end up with more shields than I need or not enough shields because I forget to micromanage them enough. Also I don't usually have the right number of swords to match my shields... Maybe I'm just inexperienced, but I think a lot of people are also inexperienced.

[Siegfried]

most Remake players aren't members of this forum, or aren't members at all

Not all KaM Remake players visit this forum, even though it's the official KaM Remake support forum. A poll would therefore give a very colored image.

This gives me pleasure. You finally agree that the stuff posted here is basically irrelevant because only some people join the discussions here. So it's just left to realize, that this affects all discussions here. It affects the weapons topic here the same way it affects the unit balance. What we say is of no use unless Krom and Lewin like it. @Ben: if you also paid attention some month ago, that were my exact words then.

But seriously, I like that you agree with me on that fundamental idea.

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

Isn't it kinda obvious that things posted here are irrelevant unless Krom and Lewin like it..?

[sado1]

This gives me pleasure. You finally agree that the stuff posted here is basically irrelevant because only some people join the discussions here. So it's just left to realize, that this affects all discussions here. It affects the weapons topic here the same way it affects the unit balance. What we say is of no use unless Krom and Lewin like it. @Ben: if you also paid attention some month ago, that were my exact words then.

But seriously, I like that you agree with me on that fundamental idea.

[Lewin]

You finally agree that the stuff posted here is basically irrelevant because only some people join the discussions here. So it's just left to realize, that this affects all discussions here. It affects the weapons topic here the same way it affects the unit balance. What we say is of no use unless Krom and Lewin like it.

I completely disagree with you. The forum is certainly NOT useful for judging what the majority of the playerbase thinks, but it's great for finding suggestions, seeing what people like/dislike about our ideas, changing our opinions with logical arguements, etc. At the end of the day Krom and I will not implement something that we both disagree with, so yes, our decision is final. But people can change our minds. For example if we didn't consult the community we would have just used proportional weapons production in the next release, but now we experimenting with other ideas because we've learnt that people found the old system useful and based their strategies around it.

I strongly disagree with the statement: "the stuff posted here is basically irrelevant because only some people join the discussions here". The discussions here are extremely relevant. It's just not useful for questions like "Do the majority of players think X" (IMO questions like that are pretty pointless). I mean, that's what statistics is all about. You NEVER get access to the opinion of the entire population, you just get a small sample. But does that mean the sample is useless? Certainly not, in fact it's incredibly useful. The discussions here are very valuable to us because they are an insight into what our players think. It can never tell us exactly what the majority of players think, but that doesn't matter at all. We get more opinions and a wider range of ideas/suggestions. If someone thinks we are wrong and explains why logically, often we can be convinced by their arguments, or at least take on board their opinion and come to some compromise.

[H.A.H.]

In my understanding of the arguments:

- sequential production is handy whenever one has the need to suddenly change the production
- proportional production is handy whenever one sets the order at the beginning of the production, and then does not have to look out after it anymore

I have a simple proposition, that is, to change the dynamics whenever the order changes. Statically, both ways are good on their own: but they have wrong mechanics whenever orders changes.

Try to reason from the point of view ofthe craftsman: it is possible that orders continually change, so try to waste at least as possible. For instance, if one orderes 100 axes now but at a later point only 50 axes are needed, while he made 100 axes: it's a waste of 50 axes in the eyes of the craftsman. He could have spent that time doing other jobs, like lances or bows.

Now let's define the concept of "potential waste": that is, it is more likely to waste production capacity on huge order quantities than on smaller quantities (after they are produced). This is because bigger produced items may change negatively at more times, resulting in more loss, than smaller numbers, which can be changed negatively less times than bigger numbers.

Recap: the craftsman has to
- maximise production
- minimize potential waste

We could therefore argue that the job of the craftsman is to try to prevent as many loss of work, whenever it is possible that orders change. Example: you want to order 100 axes, 30 lances and 30 bows. In the case of sequential production, the potential waste is not minimum, because it is quite likely that all orders change. In the case of proportional production, the potential waste is larger than with sequential production (try to think about why).

In order for the workshop to minimize potential waste, it depends on how he sees the risk of loss. Let's say the chance of changing the order negatively depends on how much it is changed. This can be debated on (and is essentially the same question on whether "sequential" or "proportional" production should be used: it is a different scale of chance as defined here). We also have the trivial case of positive change, where nothing will be lost. But after the order has become bigger: there still exists the chance of becoming smaller, and therefore increase the chance of negative orders.

We can solve all this debate and thinking hard on scales waste risks whenever we introduce the following dynamic: a contract. A contract basically means that we can guarentee the craftsman that we will not change the order in the middle of the process. However, we can also cancel the contract at any time. But anyway, the contract does change the way the risk management happens: it is not possible that quantities decrease or increase, it is only possible that the contract gets canceled. Whenever a quantity will not be negatively cahnged, there is no risk in producing more of it. It will be therefore "prioritized" over those orders who have significant risk of negative change. But it includes that the player may not negatively change the order.

This makes sense: both modes (sequential, proportional) are simply different scales of risk management. And the latter suggestion makes it possible for players to have a bit more control over the production process, however with a small price to pay (namely unable to decrease the order).

How can we display this logic in a UI? We can use a "priority" icon, with a tooltip that explains the contract, which when set will disable the "substract 1 from order"-button. Whenever the priority icon is unset (canceling the contract), the craftsman will try to reason in terms of those stated above in loss risk management.

Recap:
- the craftsman wants to reduce potential loss
- the 'risk of loss'-scale determines the way production will choose jobs
- contracts allow craftsman to have a guarentee of some quantity, and makes it less risky to produce that job (effectively prioritizing it)

(Edit: deleted wrong example.)

We can change the risk scale to mimick proportional or sequential production. The example above is in-between of sequential and proportional production. (Sequential = constant risk, Proportional production = risk per amount by total amount, Alternative production = risk per amount)