Alpha 15 on Steam Latest!

What does “Add support for manually unlockable crafter recipes.” mean?

Sounds like next to automatically unlocking recipes with levels, there will be some system for special recipes that can only be researched, found or bought. Not completely sure though.

6 Likes

I am a little concerned by this trend of limiting what we can do in game to “fix” performance issues. First a citizen cap, now an inventory cap. This is rather troubling. It just seems like it punishes those with better machines, while sweeping under the rug any performance issues in code related to lots of entities. Wouldn’t it be better to have no caps at all, and then people can report what sort of practical limits they’re running into to drive development of better systems and/or nail down gameplay expectations and minimum system requirements?

I mean, this is an alpha after all.

1 Like

How many people were ever able to get past the max 50 citizen cap we have now before that cap was ever put in? I don’t think I ever saw someone pass 30. Most people had to just reject new citizens or the game would become unplayably slow - now they don’t have to do that manually every in-game day. This current max cap may raise later if needed and able, but honestly, at least from the original plans, Stonehearth isn’t about having a city of hundreds or more anyways.

I don’t know if it’s just a fluke from loading an old save or what, but the inventory cap is pretty far away for me. Mine’s at 1200 with 7 citizens (and I have less than 300 items.) This cap is “based on how many hearthlings a village has”, so it should be able to keep up with your town. And for a game partially [and apparently more in the future - “we’ll be adding gameplay elements around inventory in the future”] about resource and/or inventory management, is this really such a bad thing?

Also, don’t forget the limiting the queue per type of crafter to 20. Though, again, how many people will actually pass that in normal gameplay?

Lastly, depending how these limits are coded in, it might - just might - be possible to override them with mods if all else fails.

2 Likes

Well, you can start getting pretty close to the queue limit with some of the more complex crafters. For example, the blacksmith needs bars at hand at all times to make sure you can make stuff when you need it, because the game does not naturally support that kind of functionality. My blacksmith has to maintain all of the bar types if I want to make anything. The cook would be another good example of this.

If the devs intend to limit micromanagement, then the crafting queue will be more of a problem as time goes on. The carpenter, to maintain a pool of common tools and decorations, already has 14 items in his queue, not including lanterns or shop signs. If there are other crafters that have similarly large amounts of things to make, you could be running into this more and more.

The inventory limit is annoying, but I guess I understand it. Its just gonna be more and more of a problem the longer someone plays the game, or as they add additional stuff to the game. I guess it just comes down to what the dev’s targets are as far as the game goes. Toss out the idea of a massive city like they showed in the promotional materials, and I expect everyone will have a little bit more realistic ideas about the game.

1 Like

for this issue there is the smartcrafter mod - [MOD] Smart Crafter :wink: im not sure if it works for a15 but it should xD

1 Like

Yes,
It is intended that all of these limits are moddable (I will add modd-ability for crafter queues next unstable release). In fact, the hearthling cap is simply a value in user_settings.json and can be overridden easily. It looks like
"mods" : {
“stonehearth” : {
“max_citizens” : 100
}
}

The inventory cap is tuned per population. So you can create a mod and mixin to ascendary_population.json and rayyas_children_population.json the following line:
“inventory_capacity_equation”: “math.max(num_citizens * 150, 1200)”

You can change that equation to whatever you want. It can be if you’d like:
“inventory_capacity_equation”: “1000000”

The point of the limits are to provide a meaningful message to the average player about game expectations. I’m also very excited for implementing more inventory based gameplay because it means we’ll finally have an answer to the age old question of “why bother building things?” Building becomes more powerful when you can’t just keep hording infinite resources to gain networth. This way we can better guide the player to the ultimate goal of the game, which is to go from humble camp to bustling city (and a bustling city needs buildings!).

Thanks for the feedback!
-Yang

7 Likes

And like always a perfect explanation from you :smiley: Thank You! :heart::heart::heart:

2 Likes

Mods are irrelevant to me. I don’t want to play a game that modders make, I want to play the game the developers make.

Not being rude, I like what modders do to add content to a game, I just don’t like using them to fix game issues.

2 Likes

Dont take it wrong but then you cant enjoy stoneheath to the fullest ^^ Stonehearth is maked for Modding :wink:

But until its not full released everything can be changed :wink: So it was good that you give your feedback - so they can perhaps add this to the settings xD

Oh, I know that mods add a ton of cool things to a game, and extend its lifespan, etc. I get that. Im just not a fan of them being used as an excuse for the developers, for lack of a better term. Again, not saying anyone is doing this, just to be clear.

On topic though, @yshan ‘Bustling City’ is a pretty nebulous term. To me, that is the image that was invoked in the original promotional materials for the game, but it might not be what it means to you and the other devs. Its really hard for us looking in to see what your final vision is, and thats okay. Things change over time, its all good. As a sidenote, building would be more powerful if there was a point to building things. A rather arbitrary Shelter rating system doesn’t give you any reason to actually build houses for people. Or workshops, for that matter.

1 Like

What is the 1200 in the equation for? confused on that part.

main reason i am confused is that my max is 3000 which is just the first part before the comma. 20 max population; which is what I find my computer handles fluidly. Of course haven’t tried to increase my population just yet (More focused on the building mechanic). I don’t mind the an inventory limit, as long the selling and buying works. Having that problem someone else mentioned in anther post about selling things and not getting the gold.

Anyway was only curious.

Also note my inventory maintains roughly 2700-2800 items at least, so i’m pretty close. No worries in reaching the 3000 max it lists, since I’ve been building…

this the one you’re talking about?

http://discourse.stonehearth.net/t/gold-count-doesnt-update-during-trades/20334?u=8bitcrab

if so, it will be fixed in the next build :slightly_smiling:

2 Likes

yeah… it is… And I figured it would be since it was mentioned; hence me referring to other post. Thanks. :smiley:

1 Like

@Tamorr
That’s there to make it so the minimum inventory count is 1200 (math.max basically says take whichever of these 2 numbers are larger). This makes it so even when you start out with just 7 hearthlings, you still get 1200. It was just a number I played with and seemed to work out all right.

4 Likes

@thedrgnrbrn
Agreed on buildings not being clear for their immediate purpose at the moment. We do have designs aimed to make that more clear – they will come in a future alpha.

Thanks!
-Yang

5 Likes

Ah ok. Figured it was something like that. Although was almost thinking it was that plus it… Thanks for the clarification on that. :smiley:

A post was merged into an existing topic: Can’t promote second Farmer - or maybe error while mining

I get what you’re saying, but again I’d ask, why now? Why during the alphas? Shouldn’t players be pushing the game to its limits, and reporting those limits to devs? Don’t you benefit more from players doing weird and unexpected things instead of putting up artificial walls? Let’s not forget, when the game gets to its “1.0” release, the average player’s computer will be more powerful than it is today. It would seem to me that more testing is needed, now and well into the rest of the alpha process, before such limits “need” to be imposed.

I’m also a little trepidatious at the thought of devs dictating their game expectations in what was always described as a sort of sandbox game, where one can choose to play as one likes and pick objectives for themselves. Shouldn’t there be feedback from the Game Master, rather than arbitrary coded limits? If a player is hoarding stuff and not building anything, shouldn’t that be cause for giant monster hordes stealing that hoard by force, rather than the game just not letting you take that risk? That has always been my expectation, based on statements going back all the way to the Kickstarter, and reinforced since.

I will second @thedrgnrbrn that I’d rather prefer the game not rely on mods to eliminate or raise such limits when those limits are impacting players’ enjoyment of the game. When I heard that Alpha 15 was going to be a performance update, my assumption was that the game would be better optimized so that players could do more. I’m just concerned that it seems Radiant is heading in the direction of restricting players from doing more with these artificial limits, moddable or not, in order to hide the game’s limitations rather than fix them. I know better than most around here that code can only be optimized so much. If you can’t do better without prohibitive expense in coding time, and you’ve optimized these systems to the very best they’ll ever be, I’ll trust you guys, but the arbitrary stopping of players from reaching those limits in a number of different systems now is a troubling trend and I’m forced to wonder if you’re giving up too soon, or jumping ahead of yourselves in release-candidate-type restrictions of the game for the “average player” you’re trying to “message”. Personally, I think that sort of hand-holding is inappropriate with alpha testers who know they’re playing an unfinished game.

I just feel I must speak out, just as I did when Radiant was first considering Steam Early Access and the game was not ready for that. Radiant listened back then and it was really for the best. Agree with me or disagree with me, on this issue, but I’m worried again and have to say something.

Want to address these two comments, as they touch upon a sentiment that has come up elsewhere on the Discourse, in the website comments, Steam, etc. Lately I have been seeing more comments like @thedrgnrbrn’s above that mods are an “excuse” for the developers. I am having a hard time understanding where this concern is coming from. 3 builds ago (the second to last A14 build) a crafting queue limit was added, as multiple issues had been reported over the previous few Alphas of crafting queues simply not working. It was determined that this happened most often when there were many items in the queue, so a limit was implemented to prevent the queue from crashing. In A15, a scaling inventory cap was added. Almost immediately after both of these changes were announced, people came out against them. With the queue cap, it was made pretty clear that a number was picked that seemed to work well, and it would be adjusted as needed. I can only assume that the same thing would happen for the inventory queue.

With an in-development game, we get to see a lot more than one would normally when playing a game. Nearly every game out there has limits, even sandbox type games. Think about population limits in RTS games, limited inventory space in sandbox games like Minecraft. The difference there is that those limits existed when you first played the game. Launch a game of AoE and the population cap is front-and-center, and forces you to make decisions as you play the game. Because you never had an “unlimited” option, most people don’t think about it - it’s just part of the game. When the devs say you can “mod” the game if you don’t like it, that isn’t a cop-out, it is being open and transparent. The benefit we have with Stonehearth vs something like AoE or Minecraft is we can simply unzip a folder, change a few lines, and do whatever we want to any limits put in place. If those limits aren’t an issue for a majority of the players, and it helps ensure everything runs smoothly, then I am all for the limits. If when everyone is playing they find themselves bumping into the caps too quickly, then I am sure the devs will here it on the Discourse, and will take another look into the specific numbers.


To summarize: it seems the bigger issue isn’t the specific values of the limits, but that there are any limits whatsoever. No game is (or can be) truly unlimited, and to think Stonehearth would be is foolish. Making the game easy to mod isn’t a cop-out, it is letting the players make changes for themselves easily if they want to make a change.

5 Likes