"PhilL" wrote:So I see there are solutions to this concern already being hashed out in private games being developed by some of the forum members. Very cool BTW.
"PhilL" wrote:As stated by Tobing There always is a optimal block and in his model (correct me if i am not understanding this correctly) it is so complex that adding just one building varies the pathing of existing areas that were previously stable and could disrupt them. This behaviour would lead one to see the pathing as a more random system.
For the most part the people here discussing this are more hardcore players and might welocme this as an advancement in city building but the average player this would be a giant turn off. Getting midway through a map and then attempting to develop the city for additional housing to meet the goals and doing so disrupts the initial build out so much the city crumbles.
because the walker are so "smart" than the player doesnt truely understand how they make decisions.
No, it's not like that, the walkers are really smart here. They go where they are needed most, and the decay of goods and services is such that IF you can get enough goods into the area (i.e. to the distributing markets) then you won't have everything crumble down. They system is quite stable, things only become unstable when you can't get enough goods to the market(s). If that is the case, the houses nearer to the market are served better (same for services and such). Near refers to path length on roads, btw.
You can try yourself btw, this part of Villages and Cities is completely implemented and actually quite mature right now (with some room for improvements when it comes to storage yards and overall control of goods flow all over the map).
When I say complexity here, I really mean that the algorithms behind the scenes are complex. Each single game system is simple enough, yet they interact with each other, so there's complex emergent behavior (not really complicated).