Mining Permanent node's? or strip mining?

Why not do both thing? So for example some ore despoits are inifitive but they are located under dungeons or protected areas so you need to take the goblin camps out ot get to them. Smaller ore despoits are located all over the map and are not so heavy guarded.

most of the discussion until now have been about how to combine them :slight_smile:

As soon as you have an infinite, equal-or-just-slightly-less-worse source of any resource, You Beat The Game. There’s no incentive to investigate further into getting more of said resource, or even care how fast you accumulate it because you’ll just fill stockpile after stockpile with said resource and call it a day.

That is not correct. If you need to build this mines far out of you main city. (they are different ore so you need more mines in different places) you can get raided by another player parties.

Dont forget we will have later on a “city raid” system in her so player can invade you city and maps and steal ore from you. A City builder without inifitive ressouces is not a city builder because you cant repair you City after a attack.

Also i talk to the devs on the kickstarter page about this topic (funny enough it was the 8 may) . They are planning to add at last some kind of permanent mining because of this fact but wasnt sure how to do it.

Edit: RepeatPan: Also it is a City builder player want to build a City and what would be a City without the ore?

If they are adding the value system to the game the difficulty will increase after you obtain more and more “value” items like gold and gems on the end big monster parties will show up and you need to fight them off.

I think you want to combine Survival with City Builder that work in games like Banished pretty well but even there you have inifitive ressouces. (even coal and iron and stone). But Stonehearth dont want to be a survivale game i guess so it will be more city building than Survival.

McRib

If you choose to play that way. I’m sure there will be a way of turning player raids on/off, even if it’s just a copy of the player and your real enemy is an AI using another player’s units. It also means that you have to be really unlucky with the map generation - it’s just as well possible that all necessary ores are concentrated in one place.

Which will not be real PvP to my knowledge, as mentioned above. It’s as good as any AI attacking, really.

Which was a year ago, so it might not be accurate anymore. Such design things change over time, especially right before they are implemented. To my knowledge, mining so far has always been “We have some ideas how to do it, but nothing is set in stone.”

I think Stonehearth era wise, cities would mostly be stone, not metal. Metal isn’t a real consumable, so once your city is built, you won’t have a real need for (large quantities of) metal anymore. Even during the construction, metal would likely play a very little role, compared to other (very much less finite or even renewable) resources.

It’s less about the aspect of survival and more about what happens when you have infinite resources. I’ll show you some possible examples.

  1. Mines are infinite, but inefficient. Players will just build lots of mines. It can’t get exponentially more expensive, only linearly, and since mines do have to make a profit at some point, you will gain (much) more than you invest.
  • Mines are infinite and efficient. One mine, one deus ex machina. If you’re fancy and want to care for possible spikes, build two. Because they are a very basic concept (as in, tier 2/tier 3 of the tech tree I would assume), building and maintaining a mine cannot be expensive. They have to be achievable after a few hours of game time, not after two weeks of grinding. Therefore, it is basically a sandbox device: Build one, forget about it.
  • There’s no mines, you just slowly get some metal from time to time. The same as #2, except without any kind of penalty.

The idea of any good city builder is in my opinion the possibility to optimize. As soon as you sit there and think “Well, I can’t do anything anymore”, the game is over (and boring). This happens in Minecraft a lot, and I think there are some parallels so I wish to show what I think about this infinite business following my usual Minecraft approach.

  1. Get first, simple tools.
  • Get a simple infrastructure working: Shelter, a furnace, some basic food.
  • Mine resources.
  • Build a turtle to mine resources. (or any other mining device)
  • Build first, simple automated infrastructure (automated smeltery, macerator/pulverizer)
  • Build 2-7 more turtles.
  • Build a mob farm. Farm ender pearls.
  • Equip turtles with a chunk loader.
  • Set up a proper storage system (AE or similar)
  • Either set up more turtles, switch to any better mining device (MFR lasers for example) or start ways to convert to get what you need (with ExNihilo or similar).

At this point, you’re done. You have automated the game. You’re sitting on several dozen stacks of every ingot in the game, a few million blocks cobblestone, probably more charcoal, lava, ender pearls and blaze rods than you can ever possibly use for anything useful.

At this point, I usually abandon the world. It’s no fun anymore: All you could do is either build something fancy (I’m the kind of guy who played Sims as game, not as architecture designer) which is rather boring in SP or “optimize” the existing networks (read: make it produce even more of the stuff you don’t need anyway).

This is the problem that about every game faces at some point and it’s inevitable, all you can do is possibly just delay it for as long as possible.


We can apply this on a micro scale to Stonehearth too. All of this is, as far as I know, unconfirmed, unofficial, just pops in my mind as “What I would like to do” right now and won’t be in the final game at all or in that way.

First thing, I stumble across an infinite iron ore deposit outside the city (for the fun of it), about 30s-2min away from the plaza. I decide to build a mine and have one miner and one supplier (guy who walks back and forth with food/ores).

After a while, the AI kicks in and my supplier gets attacked by wildlife, the supply chain breaks, the miner almost starves. I dispatch an escort to the supplier and that situation is solved.

Some time after, I have laid down the basic infrastructure and start to seriously need metal for further expansion. I send more miners, a few more delivery guys and some more escorts. To speed things up, I build a simple dirt road between the two places.

This gives me just about enough iron to slowly but surely extend my army, my tech tree and whatever else I might need iron for. I decide that it’s time to go all-in though, I have an excess of food and settlers and I might as well could use some army. I dispatch another dozen settlers to the mine, build a stone road, and have wardens patrolling the whole road as well as stationary points.

Much later, I might want to hop onto that “industrial revolution” everyone is talking about. I thought I was going all-in before, but this is the breaker. I send primitive power tools and steam boilers to the mine, build a railroad and abandon the street. All delivery guys are sent to the mines. So it goes.

By this little surreal example you can see two things: First, mines are not central gameplay. You won’t notice or care about mines until you notice that you could really use some metal, in which case you will likely aggressively expand the mine. It’s not linear, it will be rather abrupt: Huge upgrade, hours of nothing, huge upgrade, hours of nothing, huge upgrade…

Second: Every upgrade is worth it. You don’t have to decide “should I really take the time and resources to build a road? Should I really invest X to this mine?” because the answer is “Yes”. There’s literally nothing that requires a single investment to improve anything and could not yield a profit in the long run. The mine is just a stationary thing, you click on it, feed it some resources and it poops ore for all eternity.

This is boring. As soon as your mine is running at maximum efficiency, said mine is removed from the gameplay for you: You don’t have to care about it any more than for, say, a fire pit, a random house or a berry bush. There’s nothing left to optimize, nothing left to worry about.

Cue: Finite mines. With finite mines, this looks vastly different. You have to think on a macroscale, instead of thinking “Is it worth building a road to this infinite ore pool?” (which will likely always default to “yes”), the question would be “Is it worth connecting this area, which has plenty of ore, with a road?”. Because now, your investment has a risk: The ore is finite (even incorperating my layers-idea and the possible infinite layer, it would be more expensive to run an infinite mine 2km away than running an finite one on the first layer 50km away), which means at some point, whatever you invest will be worthless. Sure, you will have a road, or some huts, or a railroad, but it will be useless as soon as the mine closes.

Now we’re entering the realm of both strategy and casual play.

Casual: You build mines, but don’t really think about upgrades too much. You don’t care for ultimate efficiency, you’ve heard that a mine that yields more than X ore per week profits from a road, but that’s it.

Strategy: There are so many factors that can come into this, but mostly you want to go the extra mile - and then across the ocean too. Some examples:

  • People you can spare right now for the construction of the infrastructure or running it
  • Quantities of ore that you can get from each mine
  • Costs to build new mines in an area
  • Threat level of said area (wildlife, defence possibilities, proximity to other players/AI)
  • Accessibility
  • Urgency of additional ores (incoming war, pressing expansion plans)

To just name a few. These are things that you need to consider again and again with finite mines. It’s something that people can write complete guides or possibly books for - but don’t need to. With an infinite mine, you have all this too, of course, but it’s once and the answer will very likely be “once it’s done, never touch it again.” Investments can be done as soon as you don’t need the resources elsewhere, because the mine will always exist it’s worth defending and/or upgrading it.

Personally, I think the aspect of moving mining sites could be very, very interesting. It would create abandoned-looking places that could especially look awesome in city raids. Imagine you’re searching for another player’s city, starting in the mountains. You find abandoned mines around a few broken-down huts with a road leading down. The road is heavily worn out and soon disappears in the forest, leaving you with little clue as to where you have to start now…

I think I might be overthinking this. I doubt that the game will, or even can, remotely work this way. But it’s food for thought I guess.

3 Likes
  1. If all ore are on the same spot than something must be really wrong with the map generation because it would be pointless if all ressouces are on 1 spot.

  2. Right it is not real PvP but still you will lose iron and gems for you fighters that died in that raid. And correct me if im wrong but normaly a iron sword need iron right? :wink: Even if im only sending 10-20 Soldier i would need a lot of iron to componsat 2-3 lost fights. So you can make the ore spots bigger but the downside is that non PvP player will get more iron than they need out of it that would lead to you problem again. Or you get not enough and need to restart because you lost to often in a city raid? That would be a really bad design choice. (and see below dont happend read the link) So bigger plots of iron/gold are not a good way to componsate that. Because of the different playstyle.

  3. They say it is a Sandbox game and in that topic her i ask the same question:
    Suggestion: Ressouces infinite

Geoffers​747 answer me (really in the bottem of the topic):
"Edit: So yes, resources will be renewable and accessible throughout, you shouldn’t reach a point where you are unable to access certain resources and have to restart."
4. Sorry but agian this game is more Sandbox/City Builder than a Survivale Game. As long they dont change the entire game it wont happend that this game will turn to be a harsh survivale game where you get to a point there you get overrun and complety destory. Survivale will be a part of this game yes but i think you overthink that a bit. The focus will lay on the building part.

McRib

The last thing we heard about the PvP is that it is asynchronous and would not affect your settlement in any way. So you don’t need to worry about losing anything.

You’re right in that it doesn’t seem like the team want to go down the Dwarf Fortress level of difficulty, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be a certain level of difficulty there, or that accessing and acquiring resources will be easy.

They said it would just be a lame reason for losing the game if you ran out of resources, but I would guarantee that we will have to weigh up the potential benefits of our decisions to gather certain resources.

This isn’t aiming to be a sandbox city builder where you have access to everything from the get go and can build to your hearts content. I imagine a game mode like that will emerge either within the vanilla game or a mod, but the experience isn’t solely focussed on providing a sandbox experience.

So to reiterate the point I made. Resources are infinite in the respect that you will always have a way to acquire them. They will not be infinite in the sense that you constantly have an unlimited supply.

2 Likes

I dont mind if it is hard. I dont want to raid a Goblin camp with 6 settles that is not want or to attack a Dungeon it need to be a challenge. If that wont be the case i would make my own “boxes” and make the map harder ;). A part of the game is still fighting and exploration and this parts need to be reason to do so. For example in a another topic we talk about some kind of “blueprints” for better weapons. Or you need to offer better ground or something that make this place attractive.

P.s still waitung for the news update ;).

If the PRNG is worth anything, chances that all ores end up in one place (close to each other) is about as likely as ending up in a place where there are no ores Yes, it’s not remotely as likely especially if each ore has a different noise map but for the sake of it, there’s a chance A happens and there’s a chance B happens and they’re both so unlikely that they’re about equal even if their magnitude isn’t in the same range. There shouldn’t be any “If this place has no ores, add some” mechanics, as that just causes problems. See the current tree generation, I think their density maps are a great way to visualise what those ores could look like.

Well, assuming that equipment from dead soldiers does not simply vanish but rather drops on the ground (ready to be collected again), you could easily gather lots and lots of equipment if you survive a raid. If you can melt that stuff back to ores, it might even be a lucrative way of gaining metal.

Metal will certainly have other uses than just weaponry (I’ll make sure of that if it comes to that). For example, you could always have that 120m tall @Geoffers747 statue that boosts your citizens with +1% speed in a radius of 5m.

Just throwing resources at the player won’t be fun, believe me. If you can build a mine anywhere and you’re settled, that’s not a challenge - not even in a survival way, but in a city builder way. I’m not supporting the scarcity that some Minecraft mods promote (“tweaked diamond gen: one diamond ore is now found in approximately every 5000th chunk”) but I’m against an excess. Ideally, it’s between “being at the very minimum” and “playing with little excess” in every possible play style. Chances are that your army can’t grow faster because of a lack of food/soldiers before you should have metal issues, assuming you want to expand really fast.

I think you’re mistaken: It’s not a sandbox game (per se), but it will have a sandbox mode. In that mode, you can go nuts because you will have everything excessively, can probably toggle each threat as you please and just focus on building. The default game mode will be a bit challenging however.

With a recent patch, your guys now die when they are starving, leaving little tombs behind. I don’t know, but that’s pretty much the definition of survival (, lack of success in). Yes, the game won’t be focusing on survival, but it won’t be Voxel Medieval City Simulator. You can lose. You can fail horribly. The game won’t be holding your hand with every step. Mistakes can cost your city.

If you want to call building the main focus of the game (I would disagree), then resource acquisition is part of that. You need resources to build something, and those resources need to be gathered somehow, which usually means you have to build more stuff.

What you are thinking of, I think, is much more of a browser game style, where resources just pop up every X minutes and you can use them to build whatever you want. Little numbers go up and if you buy gems you can speed that whole process up. Or become a premium member and get a diamond horse.

Well, I don’t think that’s accurate. Surely if an (AI controlled) enemy player army wreaks havoc on your settlement, you can lose units permanently? The other player does not lose anything, or gain anything, but the threat for you is real I thought.

I don’t know how you can “lose” the game if the map will truly have an “infinite” size. You can just spread out to gather more resources. I mean, using portals or pseudo-railway-lines or what not, you could possibly even have very, very remote areas connected to your main region without the need to simulate every “chunk” in-between… Just thinking out loud.

I’m sure that the AI will scale accordingly to your exploration, similar to DF for example. The longer you play, the nastier the AI gets. They could probably pull something like the AI director from Left 4 Dead too, where the AI tries to “measure” your current stress level and reacts accordingly.

Just one thought as example: If you sampled the clicks per minute for, say, 20 minutes of the game, you could have a “feel” about how a player plays normally. Then you could spawn a little enemy, see the reaction, measure it… From there on, you could spawn a new threat whenever the player seems to be too relaxed or bored, with little pauses in-between to give you a chance to simply rebuild, expand or take a look at your glorious city.

Before it’s eaten by a giant manatee.

When they spoke of the PvP it was about how it would be asynchronous - that you would “download” a copy of a settlement and then attempt to assault it. Whilst this could change, it isn’t a real time version of your settlement that is being attacked and doesn’t affect your settlement in any way. Whether this means that this is separated from your save file so any units lost are not lost permanently I’m not sure.

Losing a fight? A titan? Any of the “end game” scenarios they’ve spoken about. Hunger?

Err. I meant resource-wise. You’re bound to generate some new resources at some point, so it’s impossible to “run out of” possible resources.

Oh … That was the point? They said it would be a bit of a stupid way for the game to end if you were no longer able to access certain resources.

Yupp. If you have infinite maps, you also have infinite resource spawns - which means that you cannot really lose because resources are no longer available to you. So just by having infinite maps, that problem would be solved.

Of course there’s also the possibility of AI trading, for example.

That was the key thing I’ve seen brought up during many live streams. If you harvest all the trees around your area or collect all the ore you’ll still be able to get it one way or another.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For this type of game I can’t really see an ore node working. It doesn’t seem to fit in with the rest of the gameplay. You don’t build a lumbermill to collect trees or a hunting lodge to collect fur.

The strip mining in games like gnomoria, Towns, and Timber and Stone just feel better in my opinion and fit in with the rest of the theme Stonehearth is setting. I find that choosing an area to mine and watching villagers go and mine out an area is more satisfying than just plopping down a mine and slowly gaining resources from it.

Now the mining systems in those games are a little rough though. Making a few enhancements to it I believe would make the game more enjoyable. A few enhancements I could see done would to have blocks of ore smelt down into more than one bar. This would allow ore to go a little farther than it does in those other games.

Also keeping the engineer class in mind, what if they pulled a Tekkit type approach and allowed the engineer to prototype types of machines like a macerator that would further boost the production of ingots?

The geologist class sounds interesting but with all the other classes that are going to be available I think this one wont have the necessary skills to outweigh the extra person it takes up. The more classes there are the less workers you’ll have for other things.

3 Likes

That is true, but what if there was multiple approaches?

Bear with me on this.

If we want food, we can harvest berry bushes, if we want a larger more sustainable source of food we can plant crops.

If we want lumber, we can harvest trees, if we want more lumber we can harvest larger trees.

So, if we want ore, why not have it so:

  1. Small amounts of ore can be gathered from outcrops on the surface
  2. Larger amounts of ore can be gathered through excavation, similar to how other games utilise mining.
  3. The largest amount of ore is gathered through utilising mines/ mineshafts.

What if mines are needed to gain access to the best quantity/ quality material? The area the mine is extracting ore from could even be excavated as if you were designating it yourself, but it does it automatically and perhaps subtly increases the amount of material you receive due to you using a mine? Or does this run against the logic that the best gains are to be had when you focus your attention on the system?

There could then be added gameplay elements that seek to bolster the mine experience, the idea of the geologist that we’ve spoken about could be one such way to improve efficiency?

I’m sure at some point we will be able to plant trees, however, in a fashion similar to Settlers (3) where you had a forestry that was supplying trees to multiple lumbermills. The same goes for animal farming. It might be part of “going the extra mile” though.


Regarding the mining system: I just want you to keep something in mind which, again, happens in Minecraft. If you have to mine for resources, and you have any sort of automation available (we will have: our citizens) the result will be holes.

Big, really really big holes in the ground. Void space that was strip mined for its resources and now has little to no use. This space is usually lost, not exactly healthy for performance (as you have to render not only the ground blocks + potentially 3 walls, which are each side_width * hole_height) and looks just ugly. In DF and all its derivatives, this might work because you are actually building underground in a somewhat-2D-world (layer-based is still 2D in my book). You don’t actually build on the surface, you’re digging your home. That’s not the approach SH is going for (unless the dwarves will do that, of course).

In any case, if you have to mine for raw blocks and smelt them in, chances are that you will end up with a lot of stuff you don’t need, which will usually be stone. You can tweak that value as you please, but it will either end up being ridiculous (“mined one block, got enough metal for the Eiffel tower”) or horribly boring (“oh look, I can dig another mine shaft.”)

The AI, so far, is going into the direction that you roughly tell it what to do, but the execution is left in their authority. You mark a tree, how it is dealt with is not your problem. If we used the same pattern on mines, we would end up with a designated mining spot and they decide how they get the ore out of it.

Alright, let’s combine these few ideas.

  • To mine lots of stuff, you need a mine.
  • A mine has different levels. The deeper you go, the more expensive it will be (in terms of time, wood/tool requirements, maybe safety)
  • On each level, you can decide where you want to mine by selecting blocks you wish to mine for (where a “block” would be a rather huge 2D area)
  • The designated miners will then automatically dig in a certain pattern (similar to Minecraft strip mining; i.e. some sort of grid with main/side routes). They place beams for support too.
  • The stone that was removed has a chance of containing ore. Depending on the layer and its noise map, this can be more or less ore.
  • The geologist is a class that walks through mines and takes a look at these walls. Should he find anything interesting, he marks the wall (with a pencil or a sign) and a miner will come over and take another pick at it. This will yield much more ore and can be done at any time, even when the mine was closed.
  • Through research or what not you might be able to change the pattern, up to DIY.

Let me show you what I mean.

First, the “visible” design.

Grey is unmined rock, white are tunnels, yellow is the entrance (ladder, pulley, elevator of some sort).

Next, the “noise map layer”, i.e. where ores are placed. They are not visible per se (I would say, but it might be more appealing if you saw an iron nugget hanging out a block here and there…) but rather used for the math.

As you can see, the ore resources where the tunnel were dig has been completely exhausted, plus a bit more. There’s still ore in-between two side tunnels though; this ore could be “collectively” collected after a geologist has marked such an area.

The last image would be the layout, i.e. what you as player have marked (based on your knowledge of said map, which could be provided by geologists):

I guess we could offer different “brush sizes” for this task. If you don’t care about optimisation, you just mark everything. Otherwise, you follow the ore density (as I did here) to gain maximum efficiency.

I think this is a pretty fair, all-ideas-so-far-including approach.

3 Likes

Pictures. I love picture. :smiley:

Now I understand more what you guys are talking about. From what I was understanding before I thought you meant you’d make a stockpile type designaiton, your workers would build a mine entrance there and having the “5+ Iron Ore” notification randomly pop up from it. lol

I still like my idea of the engineer creating macerators though. :smiley:

1 Like

That was the plan so far, minus the constant +5. It would still use the layers above, i.e. the location of the mine would matter and it wouldn’t be infinite (at first). It definitely wouldn’t change the map though.

That’s not exclusive. Whatever they bring up could be refined (a lot). I would suggest that’s something that geologists do though, maybe with machines built by the engineer.

So my idea of mining all the rock beneath my village thus creating a sinkhole that swallows up the entire population and throws them into a lava pool of hell is off the table? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

When did I turn this evil? :sweat_smile:

3 Likes

That’s exactly one of the problems I have with “real” mining, see the hole thing above. You will end up with huge holes that you need to fill somehow. Yes, this could be done with all the stone you get from another mine (or just a tunnel), but it still would require lots of management. You wouldn’t want to accidentally build a cathedral on an ex-mine just to notice that it all crashes fifty meters into the depths as soon as they install the last bell…

I’m not sure. It’s complicating many things. I’m not saying it’s not interesting, but mining-changes-the-landscape would make building-underground more complicated due to lots-of-area-already-gone, especially if you add cave-ins.

1 Like