Lose resources for deleting building foundation

[Darkness01101]

@Strategerist112

I can’t believe there is an actual discussion where people are advocating losing a portion of the building cost just for saying, “might be nice to have a castle over there”…

Why do you have to plant a foundation when contemplating “it might be nice to have a castle over there”? Isn’t the giant proxy castle with brightness pulsating in and out visualization enough? PS: My all or nothing comment was in regards to “AoE1 had 100% resources lost,” while “AoE2 has 0% resources lost.” Going to “completely free” was a little much, imo

@CactusSteak2171

An unbuilt foundation = just 4 sticks in the ground forming a square. Sounds closer to HUD fantasy land than a complete castle.

Is quite a bit more than 4 sticks:

Plus, see my comment below where you cannot build where a foundation is. Foundations are clearly not in HUD fantasy land…

@CladAttorney738

The fact is that foundations, can be walked over, built over and are invisible to the enemy until construction starts.

Maybe to enemies and allies, but to yourself, you can’t build where you’ve placed a foundation until you delete the foundation. That is player feedback, in my opinion, that your action has ceased to be a theoretical move; and it is now a tangible move that has real-time affected the game map:

Creating unit and farm queues in the HUD haven’t affected the game map until they are actually built, so I’m okay with those being completely reversible… they still exist in the HUD/GUI land of make-believe

@CladAttorney738

It’s completely disingenuous to compare this mechanic to luring a boar or attacking a unit.

I never compared this to luring a boar or attacking a unit. I’m aware and agree those are different

@CladAttorney738

I think the confusion occurring here is that op thinks of building foundations in a very unique way that most AoE players do not.

Clearly the case, unfortunately And I’m afraid your shift-clicking example to try and give reasons against my thought is a little much; I would never advocate that. Try to undo or wait for 10 villager actions to play out as opposed to simply deleting a less-than-ideally-placed building(s) in your way

@TWest6709

In Aoe1 all building foundations appeared with 1hp immediately when they were placed (like Farms do in Aoe2), and you lost all resources when deleting a foundation. This system was redesigned deliberately for Aoe2.

I just tested, and AoE2:DE also has 1 HP upon placing a foundation; for every building I’ve tested so far. AND you can’t place a building on top of the foundations. It’s evident they’ve become a part of the map, so why there shouldn’t be a slight resource hit when removing them is odd to me, less than ideal, and unexpected/non-intuitive game behavior. The only reason it’s expected/intuitive now for experienced players is that AoE2 has given back all your resources for a long time:

@Gaudio3342

First time I see a suggestion to make the game more difficult instead of easier. At least I recognize how original the post is. Good job.

Thank you. Yes, I’m okay with there being consequences to this player action, and for not having my hand held by the devs/game

[TWest6709]

@Darkness01101

I just tested, and AoE2:DE also has 1 HP upon placing a foundation; for every building I’ve tested so far. AND you can’t place a building on top of the foundations.

The difference is in Aoe1 all building foundations were visible immediately for all players and could be interacted with as part of the map. Other players could not build on top of your foundations as soon as they were placed.

[Strategerist112]

@Darkness01101

I just tested, and AoE2:DE also has 1 HP upon placing a foundation

The foundation has 1 hp because if they gave it 0 hp, the game would kill it due to death mechanics. This is clearly not acting as actually having 1 hp as it cannot be damaged.

@Darkness01101

Is quite a bit more than 4 sticks

Like many things in the game, this is a visual cue to clarify your orders similar to a waypoint flag. Surely, giving a flanking command to your troops or setting a gathering point would not be understood as instantly placing a literal flag in your opponent’s town.

@Darkness01101

Maybe to enemies and allies, but to yourself, you can’t build where you’ve placed a foundation until you delete the foundation. That is player feedback, in my opinion, that your action has ceased to be a theoretical move; and it is now a tangible move that has real-time affected the game map

What sort of things are fully intangible to everyone but yourself? Your own thoughts and plans. So by your own example, foundations represent your civilization’s plans to construct something rather than any actual action.

So you cannot overlap plans without canceling interfering plans. This is no different from any other plans. I cannot sanely plan to both go to the grocery store and the movies at the same time. They interfere despite being fully internal and intangible. Even when I make interfering plans, at no point did I simultaneously plan to do two incompatible things at the same time.

[Darkness01101]

@Strategerist112

The foundation has 1 hp because if they gave it 0 hp, the game would kill it due to death mechanics. This is clearly not acting as actually having 1 hp as it cannot be damaged.

Still, it has 1 HP showing in the GUI, not 0 HP. 1 HP would suggest it is more than just a hologram that exists in that spot. If it shows 1 but means 0, then that is erroneous, non-sequitur game logic that makes no sense to a discerning game player (i.e., it’s a bug). I’d rather there be a resource cost to deleting the foundation, but since nobody wants that, then a bug report should probably be filed to fix it

@Strategerist112

Surely, giving a flanking command to your troops or setting a gathering point would not be understood as instantly placing a literal flag in your opponent’s town.

Apples and oranges. If you were actually constructing flags on the map and literally placing them on the map to be built, like buildings, then, yep, there should be a cost for their removal. But they are a GUI/HUD element. Same with flares.

@Strategerist112

So you cannot overlap plans without canceling interfering plans. This is no different from any other plans.

That’s a good example. And is the crux of where me and everyone differs. The planning all goes on in my mind; and as soon as I place a foundation, that plan became action. For everyone else, the planning goes on in their minds AND after they’ve placed the foundation.

I’ll never understand why planning needs to continue to happen after you’ve already been given ample opportunity to plan before actually placing a foundation (including having a beautifully detailed proxy visual of the building before actually left-mouse clicking to plant it down)… but, you’ll never understand why I want the planning phase to end as soon as I plant a foundation. So, we agree to disagree. Goes down to personal preferences and how forgiving we want or need the game to be

[KilluniaDragon]

@Darkness01101

Still, it has 1 HP showing in the GUI, not 0 HP. 1 HP would suggest it is more than just a hologram that exists in that spot. If it shows 1 but means 0, then that is erroneous, non-sequitur game logic that makes no sense to a discerning game player

It’s not 0hp, it’s 1hp. Not a bug. It’s just a game mechanic, because 0hp means the building is destroyed. So the foundation starts at 1hp. You clearly don’t understand this.

@Darkness01101

I’ll never understand why planning needs to continue to happen after you’ve already been given ample opportunity to plan before actually placing a foundation (including having a beautifully detailed proxy visual of the building before actually left-mouse clicking to plant it down)…

Because not everyone has as erfect planning sight as you. Personally for me, my spatial sight is complete crap (because of an incurable eye condition). And like, do you think all buildings in the real world are also planned in mind only? I think this is actually completely realistic, as buildings, city quarters and such in real life are built with plans and with how they fit in the place and with each other without disturbing each other. They don’t exist only in someone’s mind. They can even be mapped out in the real terrain itself! And while yes, the DE version shows a more… elaborate build site, that’s just how they designed it.

@Darkness01101

but, you’ll never understand why I want the planning phase to end as soon as I plant a foundation.

No, we probably won’t. I don’t understand why you want the game to be even more punishing when it already is punishing enough for the mistakes you can make.

[Darkness01101]

@KilluniaDragon

It’s not 0hp, it’s 1hp. Not a bug. It’s just a game mechanic, because 0hp means the building is destroyed. So the foundation starts at 1hp. You clearly don’t understand this.

I understand it well enough. My point was 1 HP means something is there on the map. At least if you’re to factor in 99.999% of other video games and life experiences most have ever been experienced. In other words, it has reached the tangible realm and is no longer equivalent to a HUD icon in the typical, classical, ordinary, expected sense. I said that because everyone before was claiming nothing is there, it is 0 HP, it is not part of the map yet, it exists in the land of HUD/GUI make believe, it can be built over, etc, etc.

I understand it perfectly well… the game or game engine requires 1 HP to make it appear on the map. Good. But that’s a bug because, technically, it should be able to appear on the map with the more accurate “0 HP” value showing instead; that is, if we wish for it to reflect a foundation’s true meaning of it still being a planning-phase HUD/GUI icon equivalent.

With 1 HP showing, then if we delete it, our resources should deplete by at least 1/XXXX, or 1%, or something when we delete it… similar to how if villagers have built 46/xxxx HP of a building there will be a depletion of resources if deleted. Game engine-anomaly aside, please explain why a foundation should show 1 HP instead of 0 HP.

Everything everyone says above, including yourself, means a foundation should, technically, have 0 HP. So, it’s something that is an error and, ideally, should be fixed. And since we are talking about software, something that is an error and should be fixed is typically called a bug

[KilluniaDragon]

@Darkness01101

Game engine-anomaly aside, please explain why a foundation should show 1 HP instead of 0 HP.

I already explained it. Because if it’s 0hp, the building gets destroyed. That’s how the game works. If it has 0hp, the unit dies, the building is razed.

@Darkness01101

a foundation should, technically, have 0 HP

Purely techically speaking, yes. But, as I explained above, that is not how this game works. Because of the limitation of 0hp = dead/destroyed, it cannot be that value.

@Darkness01101

So, it’s something that is an error and, ideally, should be fixed. And since we are talking about software, something that is an error and should be fixed is typically called a bug

It’s not a bug, holy shit. It’s how this game works. Though if you want to rewrite the code of the game to allow 0hp foundations, feel free to do so. But it’s in no way a bug, it’s a feature.

[Darkness01101]

@KilluniaDragon

Because of the limitation of 0hp = dead/destroyed, it cannot be that value.

The game’s code could be revised to overcome this “limitation.” The code logic wouldn’t be that difficult…

• If buildingState = foundation, then hitpoints = 0 and buildingDisplay= foundation
• If buildingState = constructed or partially constructed, then hitpoints equal > 0 and buildingDisplay = constructionAmount
• If buildingState = foundation and userInput = deleteKey, then return all resources to user
• If buildingState = partially constructed and userInput = deleteKey, then return partial amount of resources to user based on constructionPercent

Took me 5 minutes there (slowly typing from phone), and I’m not even a developer.

@KilluniaDragon

It’s not a bug, holy ■■■■. It’s how this game works. Though if you want to rewrite the code of the game to allow 0hp foundations, feel free to do so. But it’s in no way a bug, it’s a feature.

Why are you so upset? Don’t appreciate the cussing. Nowhere has my disagreement with anybody on this been anything more than discussion. Please refrain from devolving into personal, “OMG why cant you just see it my way, how many times do I have to explain things, im right youre wrong!”

By your logic, any problem with the code could be dismissed as a “game mechanic” and “that’s how the game works.” I just wrote a foundation for the code. You and I both know the dismissive argument of, “If you don’t like it, then fix the code yourself” is a little disengenuous. Do you plan to do that for every game mechanic and bug you don’t like? What about when going to the car mechanic. Your transmission conks out, are you going to fix it yourself? We both know the world is filled with experts and specialists. There are developers who get paid to work on this game, and probably work 8+ hours a day on it. That is not me and this is not my job. We defer bugs and issues to them.

Yet, even though I’m not a dev, I bet my code logic above or a slight variation thereof is all that would be needed to fix. Could it become a 1-, 2-, or 8+ hour work endeavor for a dev to incorporate changes, plus UAT? Sure. But that’s not for me to know, assess the feasibility of, or decide; as it could also just be a 20-minute ‘fix’.

Regardless, another reason you shouldn’t get so upset is that I won’t be filing a bug report. So, don’t worry… the game mechanic that you feel is 100% necessary shall remain, unless devs see this thread and decide to fix it. The importance of changing 1 HP to 0 HP is the least of my worries with this game. To reiterate, I brought it up purely as a technicality and counter-argument to some things posted above

[CactusSteak2171]

Well it is kind of frustrating to argue with someone who is dead set on thinking that 1 HP totally means he is right. I would be ready to bet all my bucks that things are this way because:
1- playtesting showed people just didn’t like having to refund foundations they didn’t touch at all
2- leaving 1 HP to the foundation instead of doing an exception to let it have 0 HP is just so much faster and easier to implement, and absolutely no one cared (or even thought) about “but it’s no more in HUD fantasy land” convolutions.

Heck your way of thinking makes me think of SC. Whoever was in charge of foundations in this game went even further than you and made it so that nothing happens until your worker reaches the place you clicked. That’s right, there is no foundation displayed at all and your ressources remain in your stockpile until the last second. Which makes things super awkward to manage the instant you try to make more than one thing at once. Because chances are you will end up paying for a building, then create a unit, which makes you unable to pay the building anymore, then when you come back to check on it you realised you just got tons of idle times, and the list could go on. After bearing with this I’m all the more happy AoE2 does it right.

[Darkness01101]

@CactusSteak2171

Well it is kind of frustrating to argue with someone who is dead set on thinking that 1 HP totally means he is right.

Why do you get so frustrated? Nothing to get emotions involved about. Just because I have a different opinion than you? You do realize, right, that it should be equally frustrating, if not moreso, to have a cavalcade of opposing viewpoints each step of the way for me this entire thread; when erroneous and hyperbolic info is given at times throughout which I’ve needed to research and counter? (Remember how you said a foundation was just “4 sticks in the ground”?) But, it’s not really that frustrating because we’re doing what should be done in the forum: discussing. Just because your thoughts and opinions differ from mine doesn’t induce a knee-jerk, “I’m right, you’re wrong, think my way otherwise you frustrate me” reaction.

PS: The 1 HP, again, is an example to counter statements that were made by others (maybe even yourself) above to disprove said statements. Instead of trying to claim it’s a gameplay “mechanic” that needs to be in the game, just admit you were maybe wrong? I even said above, prove to me how 1 HP is better than displaying 0 HP for a foundation. Not that hard to prove, if you’re correct, right? Still waiting for the proof. Besides, KilluniaDragon admitted I was, technically, correct. So now you’re jumping in to say I’m, technically, not correct? Please provide proof… sound bug-free, game engine quirk-free reasoning proof… that 1 HP is better to show, and I’ll admit you were right. Let the topic die off and don’t reply if you think it’s a silly thread that deserves no time from yourself.

@CactusSteak2171

I would be ready to bet…
1- playtesting showed people just didn’t like having to refund foundations they didn’t touch at all
2- leaving 1 HP to the foundation instead of doing an exception to let it have 0 HP is just so much faster and easier to implement, and absolutely no one cared (or even thought) about “but it’s no more in HUD fantasy land” convolutions.

1. Could be. We’ll never know. I could equally say it was just a directive put upon the players because of an internal meeting; or it could be that it was an oversight because it didn’t get enough attention in meetings and focus groups. Doesn’t really matter, though, as it’s all conjecture and we’re talking about current state of the game and whether or not we like it
2. So quality control isn’t a priority? I highly doubt your suggestion is a reason. Hypothetical dev meeting: “Let’s try to slip this one in under the radar guys… and not track it to ever fix, even though fixing will probably take us 5 minutes. They’ll never know.” Kind’ve doubt it…

@CactusSteak2171

Heck your way of thinking makes me think of SC.

Yes, let’s attack a strawman (StarCraft) because the OP author (me) clearly would’ve wanted the exact same thing as SC because he wants an AoE planted foundation to mean something other than absolutely nothing. It’s a little silly, imo, to use that as a way to try and discount what I’m saying, but if it somehow makes you feel better or scores points with like-minded players, then that’s cool. For the record, though, I would not have advocated that SC style you describe, and I’d prefer to stay on-topic.

[Strategerist112]

@Darkness01101

Yes, let’s attack a strawman (StarCraft) because the OP author (me) clearly would’ve wanted the exact same thing as SC because he wants an AoE planted foundation to mean something other than absolutely nothing. It’s a little silly, imo, to use that as a way to try and discount what I’m saying, but if it somehow makes you feel better or scores points with like-minded players, then that’s cool. For the record, though, I would not have advocated that SC style you describe, and I’d prefer to stay on-topic.

While the SC mechanic is not what you are asking for, it isn’t really a straw man either. If I were to summarize things so far, you want people to pay for deleting things. The general response has been foundations are nothing, so you don’t pay for nothing. To which you responded with arguments that the foundations are clearly not nothing. This is where the SC discussion plays in. Even if foundations represent nothing, they need to display as something so that the game does not play very awkward like SC (where the nothing foundations are actually nothing, no display, no immediate resource drain).

The whole SC discussion is not an argument against your original desire, but against your argument that foundations are clearly something and not nothing.