sealed vs open water storage. Tanks are widely more efficient storage than dams
at the moment, water tanks are *wildly* more effective then storing water in world; its (generally) easier, cheaper, unlocked sooner, more expandable, denser, can be moved around almost trivially, and doesn't evaporate.
this is very much a case of "your players will optimize the fun away", particularly for those that like to play challenge maps rather then design post-wonder cities.
since water-management is half of the game and creating effective in-world water-storage is more fun, I suggest the following:
1: Make water tanks "spoil" if unused for too long (I'm thinking about one full cycle, subject to map-settings), think like still water left out in mosquito season turning green kind of thing. a tank counts as "used" if it is both filled *and* unfilled a certain %. This should be pretty forgiving tho and I think this won't impact most players if they already store in-world anyway. I just want to encourage in-world engineering to survive bad seasons by making storing water through multiple cycles impossible at large scales. "I almost ran out during that drought" shouldn't be solved by slapping down a couple more tanks.
I could see some people spending the time to move water back and forth, but this would use up too much beaver time for large storage.
2: in the late game, you can unlock "sealed" tanks that ignore this, maybe entirely, but the log/plank costs are replaced with treated planks. making it *very* expensive to fully rely on sealed water storage.
3: To boost in-world storage: you can "seal" in-world water to massively reduce evaporation; roughly speaking, the fewer tiles are irrigated, the less evaporation--although sealing the bottom/top should help too.
4: Regardless of adding the above, the game should have a dedicated 'evaporation' part to the tutorial because of how important it is to understand how to minimize evaporation. ALL players should be told about it.
Comments: 2
Oldest
•
Newest
•
Most likes
•
Fewest likes
-
11 May
sneakHighlighted comment
https://timberborn.featureupvote.com/suggestions/708978/comment/780354#comment780354
Because the relative density is only one part; to balance them via that alone, you'd need to tweak the ratio a lot and you'd also change water income rates.
Also, most maps are at least partially balanced off current source-emittion/evaporation/flow rates.
Basically every map would have to be re-made and re-balanced.
Alternatively, the in-world water-rates are changed, but some challenge maps are balanced by how long you have before water/bad-tide is high enough, or flow rates, etc.
I suppose a working alternative is to give each tank a evaporation rate and make the larger ones (relatively) slower instead of denser.
TLDR: You gotta target *long-term* water storage without effecting short-term water *usage*.
nice to know the exact ratio tho, with the smallest holding 30/tank, water-tanks are 3-6 times more water dense (I think the tanks are 2 tall?) and it goes up from there with the larger sizes. -
09 May
Gin Fuyou AdminI wonder why you don't suggest simply increasing water "density" of environmental water?
Currently 1 cube is 5 water units, which as I understand can be changed just by adjusting pumps production rates, since it's only place where it's converted from water level