The Centurion: Countermeasures Against Infinite Farming

[Romulus]

I just mentioned realistic farm cost because it was one of your concerns. Food-only units are women... I can't see how you can defend yourself by massing women. You can use the market in special moments to exchange some resource for another one, but you can't rely on that tactic to maintain your resources income, it's only useful for specific emergency moments. That being said, I do not find any imbalance at all, therefore I don't find taxation useful in the game to fix an unbalance that isn't there in first place.

Upkeep costs has been discussed in the past, and as Erik said in this thread before, we're aiming for a fun game, not a simulator... And from the upkeep costs discussion I understood that it would make the game less fun complicating things and even make the game slower. These are the reasons IIRC it wasn't implemented.

How would you define fun then? What is fun?

What if I said that micromanaging and taxation is fun? Because it is to me.

[LordGood]

then go play stronghold or simcity or something else

this isnt what this game is about

[Enrique]

A good equilibrium between war tasks and economic tasks with dynamic pace.

I respect your opinion about what is fun to you, but you have to understand that your view may not be shared by a lot of people, and from the feedback we receive, I think the direction 0ad has right now is in the good direction.

[feneur]

How would you define fun then? What is fun?

What if I said that micromanaging and taxation is fun? Because it is to me.

Well, maybe 0 A.D. isn't going to be your favorite game then I still hope that 0 A.D. will provide some enjoyment for you, and mods can definitely do other things than the official release, but the main game has always been intentioned to be a war/economy game and not an economy/war game or citybuilder. In other words, the area where the game is likely to become more complicated is rather the fighting than the gathering.

[Romulus]

then go play stronghold or simcity or something else

this isnt what this game is about

I have

Uninviting tone such as yours to the players of 0 .A.D is surely frowned upon.

Think before you post in retaliation.

A good equilibrium between war tasks and economic tasks with dynamic pace.

I respect your opinion about what is fun to you, but you have to understand that your view may not be shared by a lot of people, and from the feedback we receive, I think the direction 0ad has right now is in the good direction.

To me that's pretty biased wouldn't you say?

Totally un lenient towards one side, and totally devoted to the peoples reviews... Lol this is not what open source is about. Mainstream preference is catered for by companies... The open source movement catered for what's right

This is an open source game not a company so why fall into the same mindset as them? And why do I have to explain this to you in the first place?

I'm with you on your description of what you call fun 100%. However again, we do not agree to some factors if we break it down a bit.

Firstly, according to you, you say that infinite farming is balanced and there's no reason to change it.

Well I say you wrong.

Probably the reason is that you play it in a standard way and totally different to how I play it.... As evident in you not acknowledging the reason for this argument.

The reason to name a few...

How do you effectively apply a strategy to starve an enemy that has a bottomless manner pit right on their CC's doorstep?

But you still haven't confronted this question, bevause probably you don't play that way and therefore it doesn't matter to you.

Again a biased sentiment...

Well, maybe 0 A.D. isn't going to be your favorite game then I still hope that 0 A.D. will provide some enjoyment for you, and mods can definitely do other things than the official release, but the main game has always been intentioned to be a war/economy game and not an economy/war game or citybuilder. In other words, the area where the game is likely to become more complicated is rather the fighting than the gathering.

And Erik what you fail to understand is that some of us on here have become fans of this game by always monitoring it and sticking to it. We grow with it just like you the team that's in it. Think about that for a second. All 3 of you do that.

What's with this condescending vibe like ((oh well if you don't like it then play and go some place else)) ????? Uncalled for, atleast try and show a little courtesy to the fans than treat them like some outcasts for crying out loud...

I've been with 0 A.D. since the early Alpha days... Ill be darned just to forget about in a drop of a hat and go play something else.

I've become to attached to it for that. What all 3 of you need to realize. This isn't fun when you expect a voice from the players/fans BUT then tell them go play something else????

Why don't you close the doors then and become a corporate game brand???

There we go problem solved!

Then you don't have to put up with the players, this forum or the die hard fans

Edited January 17, 2014 by Romulus

[Zeta1127]

What are you going to do when corrals are fully implemented in a manner similar to animal nurseries from Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds, or the Satrapy Tribute for the Persian Apadana, Romulus, complain about another infinite source of resources?

[Rodmar]

Still, for the same average income, I'd like the American Conquest "intermittent" farming. I'm not saying that then, you could micro-manage your men to go for some other resource between two harvest, only that you would see the workers switching from one animation to the other. Food income would be either constant (whatever the animation) or periodical, being maximum when the crop is ready to be harvested.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Rodmar

[wraitii]

Totally un lenient towards one side, and totally devoted to the peoples reviews... Lol this is not what open source is about. Mainstream preference is catered for by companies... The open source movement catered for what's right

This is an open source game not a company so why fall into the same mindset as them? And why do I have to explain this to you in the first place?

We disagree on the definition of "what's right". I do not see how that leads you to think we have the "same mindset as them". Also "them", game companies, are far from all being kill-all-the-fun-give-me-your-money companies.

I'm with you on your description of what you call fun 100%. However again, we do not agree to some factors if we break it down a bit.

That means you're not agreeing 100%.

Firstly, according to you, you say that infinite farming is balanced and there's no reason to change it.

Well I say you wrong.

Probably the reason is that you play it in a standard way and totally different to how I play it.... As evident in you not acknowledging the reason for this argument.

Maybe because you're trying to force 0 A.D. to be a different game than the game it is.

How do you effectively apply a strategy to starve an enemy that has a bottomless manner pit right on their CC's doorstep?

But you still haven't confronted this question, bevause probably you don't play that way and therefore it doesn't matter to you.

Again a biased sentiment

It's not a biased sentiment, it's following the game design. It was never intended in 0 A.D. that you were able to starve your opponent. Again, this is not a simulator.

As for your point about being a long-term hardcore fan: we are happy to have long-term fans. But we assume that most fans agree with us on the general design of the game. Your feedback is about changing the core design of the game, in ways that we do not want. It is however totally applicable for a mod, which I would encourage you to try doing (and I'm sure others would).

Also: disagreeing with you doesn't necessarily mean we are "retaliating", just responding.

[feneur]

And Erik what you fail to understand is that some of us on here have become fans of this game by always monitoring it and sticking to it. We grow with it just like you the team that's in it. Think about that for a second. All 3 of you do that.

What's with this condescending vibe like ((oh well if you don't like it then play and go some place else)) ????? Uncalled for, atleast try and show a little courtesy to the fans than treat them like some outcasts for crying out loud...

I've been with 0 A.D. since the early Alpha days... Ill be darned just to forget about in a drop of a hat and go play something else.

I've become to attached to it for that. What all 3 of you need to realize. This isn't fun when you expect a voice from the players/fans BUT then tell them go play something else????

Why don't you close the doors then and become a corporate game brand???

There we go problem solved!

Then you don't have to put up with the players, this forum or the die hard fans

You are very much entitled to your opinion, and definitely to try and convince us to do things one way or another. And we most certainly listen to what you say, otherwise we would have stopped replying in this thread long ago. However, the game is not ultimately shaped by what you or I think is best but rather judged on its merits based on two major aspects: how well it conforms to the game's vision and whether or not it proves to be a good thing through playing the game. How historically accurate it is is one aspect of the vision, but also other things like the main idea for what the game is. Yes, we are open source, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing to let the game grow into something which is not a coherent whole.

And no one of us said that you can't play the game, but rather that if it doesn't live up to what your ideas about what it should be there are plenty of other games to play - or you could create a mod that does things your way.

As for the matter of infinite farms: I fail to see how not being able to completely starve your opponent has got any gameplay value? It certainly doesn't stop you from winning the game, especially since the walls in 0 A.D. doesn't exactly allow you to create an impregnable city in the first place, and most likely will never since, again, this is a game and not a simulation so things are not without a counter. True, historically a specific wall might have been effectively impossible to effectively counter since you might not have had siege weapons which would have been able to take it down. But in the game that should not be possible or everyone would always choose one civilization and the others would just be used to fill up the list of included ones.

[niektb]

I have to say that I like to play a game both fast paced and in a relaxed. (Basically to try a lot of different things and approaches without having to worry about war, but wage war when I like and the way I like) so I would like to have a few simulator mechanisms as long as they do not remove nor have too much influence on the 'fast paced approach'.

I agree that having too much infinite resources removes the micromanagement almost completely (like in RoN) but having a few adds really to the gameplay because you don't have to worry about everything and it removes the threat of games dying out due to a lack of resources (like in AoE 1). Unfortunately it leads to unrealistic siege warfare. So it's the choice between the risk of unrealistic siege warfare or games dying out. A solution that would solve both would be best, if ther aren't any I do prefer the problem of the siege warfare rather than dying games.

Edited January 17, 2014 by niektb

[wraitii]

I will say for the record I'd be interested in a brutally realistic and unbalanced mod.

[Enrique]

I have

Uninviting tone such as yours to the players of 0 .A.D is surely frowned upon.

Think before you post in retaliation.To me that's pretty biased wouldn't you say?

Totally un lenient towards one side, and totally devoted to the peoples reviews... Lol this is not what open source is about. Mainstream preference is catered for by companies... The open source movement catered for what's right

This is an open source game not a company so why fall into the same mindset as them? And why do I have to explain this to you in the first place?

I'm with you on your description of what you call fun 100%. However again, we do not agree to some factors if we break it down a bit.

Firstly, according to you, you say that infinite farming is balanced and there's no reason to change it.

Well I say you wrong.

Probably the reason is that you play it in a standard way and totally different to how I play it.... As evident in you not acknowledging the reason for this argument.

The reason to name a few...

How do you effectively apply a strategy to starve an enemy that has a bottomless manner pit right on their CC's doorstep?

But you still haven't confronted this question, bevause probably you don't play that way and therefore it doesn't matter to you.

Again a biased sentiment...

And Erik what you fail to understand is that some of us on here have become fans of this game by always monitoring it and sticking to it. We grow with it just like you the team that's in it. Think about that for a second. All 3 of you do that.

What's with this condescending vibe like ((oh well if you don't like it then play and go some place else)) ????? Uncalled for, atleast try and show a little courtesy to the fans than treat them like some outcasts for crying out loud...

I've been with 0 A.D. since the early Alpha days... Ill be darned just to forget about in a drop of a hat and go play something else.

I've become to attached to it for that. What all 3 of you need to realize. This isn't fun when you expect a voice from the players/fans BUT then tell them go play something else????

Why don't you close the doors then and become a corporate game brand???

There we go problem solved!

Then you don't have to put up with the players, this forum or the die hard fans

lol romolous, after reading this post I'm unable to take you seriously. In first place LordGood's comment is not out of place, he didnt say anything offensive at all, you on the other hand were califying of stupid some comments of another person who was just arguing in a polite manner with you.

You can't be more wrong about the dev team listening to the people in the forums, there has been a ton of non-devs suggestions that were implemented to the game, but they were reasoned and correctly argued, unlike your suggestions that the only arguments at their favor are "because I'd like to play that way" and when someone rebates your idea and argue you back, you simply get upset and say that this is not democratic... And players voice is not listened... Open source means dialogue, and that's what is happening here, the problem is that you just want x and y feature because it could benefit your playstyle, which it is not a valid point (for me at least)

[Romulus]

We disagree on the definition of "what's right". I do not see how that leads you to think we have the "same mindset as them". Also "them", game companies, are far from all being kill-all-the-fun-give-me-your-money companies.

Read my post again and go over it. Its easy to understand the reason me getting that idea.

Companies cater for the masses. That's why quite frankly there's @#$% on the market

So yes I will stick to my definition of what's right thanks.

That means you're not agreeing 100%.

Then that just as easily means your description is floored and proved contradicting.

It was never intended in 0 A.D. that you were able to starve your opponent. Again, this is not a simulator.

Really? then this isn't an RTS ... Simple

Your feedback is about changing the core design of the game.....

No I am not.

What a few balancing code got to do with changing the core? Or eliminating unbalanced mechanics for that matter.

My argument is not centered and aimed changing the game. Its here in hope it doesn't change!

I will hate to see it go down the same rout as RTS hybrids on the market.

lol romolous, after reading this post I'm unable to take you seriously. In first place LordGood's comment is not out of place, he didnt say anything offensive at all, you on the other hand were califying of stupid some comments of another person who was just arguing in a polite manner with you.

You can't be more wrong about the dev team listening to the people in the forums, there has been a ton of non-devs suggestions that were implemented to the game, but they were reasoned and correctly argued, unlike your suggestions that the only arguments at their favor are "because I'd like to play that way" and when someone rebates your idea and argue you back, you simply get upset and say that this is not democratic... And players voice is not listened... Open source means dialogue, and that's what is happening here, the problem is that you just want x and y feature because it could benefit your playstyle, which it is not a valid point (for me at least)

Your opinion.

If that's the way you feel you are free to leave this thread really... You will always find an excuse or something against my argument.

So why should I debate with you if you not at all inclined to listen? Instead trying to say that now all of a sudden I can't be serious ... ???

Well guess what? I am. So you can leave if you want.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Romulus

[niektb]

Read my post again and go over it. Its easy to understand the reason me getting that idea.

Companies cater for the masses. That's why quite frankly there's @#$% on the market

So yes I will stick to my definition of what's right thanks.

Then that just as easily means your description is floored and proved contradicting.

Really? then this isn't an RTS ... Simple

No I am not.

What a few balancing code got to do with changing the core? Or eliminating unbalanced mechanics for that matter.

My argument is not centered and aimed changing the game. Its here in hope it doesn't change!

I will hate to see it go down the same rout as RTS hybrids on the market.

Your opinion.

If that's the way you feel you are free to leave this thread really... You will always find an excuse or something against my argument.

So why should I debate with you if you not at all inclined to listen? Instead trying to say that now all of a sudden I can't be serious ... ???

Well guess what? I am. So you can leave if you want.

May I ask when a game is for the mass and when one isn't and what's wrong with attracting a lot of people (the mass) to a open-source game?

Next, do you think that a game is being killed if only one mechanic is implemented that doesn't your exact view of how a RTS should work, a mechanic that solves other problems being involved?

Lastly, I do think that open source games should be a solid game and be democratic, and should function as a solid base for mods. These are what makes a good open source game a good open source game.

Edited January 17, 2014 by niektb

[wraitii]

I'm bailing out.

[Romulus]

May I ask when a game is for the mass and when one isn't and what's wrong with attracting a lot of people (the mass) to a open-source game?

? Could you be more clear on this

Next, do you think that a game is being killed if only one mechanic is implemented that doesn't your exact view of how a RTS should work, a mechanic that solves other problems being involved?

One mechanic can influence an entire game. Its that sensitive.

With this infinite food thing, you can see how.

Lastly, I do think that open source games should be a solid game and be democratic, and should function as a solid base for mods. These are what makes a good open source game a good open source game.

Yes agreed. Dialogue. Not a mono convosation with fixed ideas.

And so far out of this argument so far, I don't feel it has been addressed. Addressed in the sense that the dev have actually said, we'll, how about "this" or "that"? Either a compromise or a backtrack to mend balance issues or the like. None of it has happened.

So how do conclude this?

I'm bailing out.

By all means.

Your previous post shows you didn't really understand what I said, so why were you in here to begin with?

I really did not start this thread to upset people. I brought this forward to state the mechanic is unacceptable. Not for 2 devs here trying to find a loop hole in my argument to try and justify this thread as been otherwise. Exactly what you and Enrique are doing

If you not interested in being constructive in coming up with a means to at least bring sone sort of balance then why the hell did you 2 engage in this thread to begin with?

I don't understand your logic. It is as weird as infinite farming...

[feneur]

And so far out of this argument so far, I don't feel it has been addressed. Addressed in the sense that the dev have actually said, we'll, how about "this" or "that"? Either a compromise or a backtrack to mend balance issues or the like. None of it has happened.

As I said in my last post: the only argument you seem to have as to why infinite farms is bad is that it doesn't allow one specific tactic to be used. I address that in specific there, but even in terms of the specific tactic of starving your enemy I fail to see how having farms be finite or infinite changes the game in any kind of way. If you can keep your enemy within a limited area of the map you have the benefit of having more resources and thus the upper hand in either case. The only thing you might not be able to do is to starve the other player completely, but you wouldn't be able to do that anyway as he could still trade with himself.

I just don't see how there is any gameplay reason to starve the other player completely, if you (and I mean this in the general sense not you personally, here and later) have to wait that long you fail to capitalize on your advantage anyway. If only farms and trading is what they have left you should have an enormous advantage, if nothing else because you can farm/trade over a large area. Maybe you're just wanting to torture the other player by having the game drag on for longer than necessary.

And to speak of being historically accurate, many sieges in history have been abandoned well before everyone inside was starved to death.

[av93]

I just want to say that, regardless of the final game and if there's an unlimited farms or not, that you guys are making a great project. Not only its free and awesome, you always are open for the fan feedback (of course, they cann't do it everything that is suggested)

People should think about it, its only a game. And remember, you are arguing against another human that are making that not for money. Be a little more humble, please...!

[idanwin]

@Romulus:

Let's end this discussion.

By all means make a mod that does not have infinite farming and does exactly what you want, I'll be glad to try it out and so will many other people. However infinite farming is a design choice that seems settled for most people and I believe we're no longer doing any constructive arguing. We seem to be repeating the same arguments over and over on both sides and that will lead us nowhere.

[niektb]

I only wanted to point out as Mythos_Ruler did in an other topic: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1318

The planned features for the farms.

[Romulus]

The only thing you might not be able to do is to starve the other player completely, but you wouldn't be able to do that anyway as he could still trade with himself.

Exactly, and here you have a clear reason of why infinite farming is unrealistic. It's because the reality is that the Enemy will ultimately starve and surrender. Not have an infinite amount of food coming from nowhere.

I just don't see how there is any gameplay reason to starve the other player completely

And to speak of being historically accurate, many sieges in history have been abandoned well before everyone inside was starved to death.

@quote in highlighted in red: You kidding me right? This was a tactic deployed by the Romans and countless of empires. And prominent during castle sieges.... wtf....

The reason? --- Please honestly tell me, should I explain what the reason is? Don't you think it's incredibly obvious?

@Romulus:

Let's end this discussion.

By all means make a mod that does not have infinite farming and does exactly what you want, I'll be glad to try it out and so will many other people. However infinite farming is a design choice that seems settled for most people and I believe we're no longer doing any constructive arguing. We seem to be repeating the same arguments over and over on both sides and that will lead us nowhere.

Maybe. I feel this discussion hasn't reaped any fruit. The sad reason for this is, that no one has actually understood the reason for this argument.

Yes I can make a mod for it, but my personal preference is it being official

I hope to see this RTS be the best. And I have no hesitation to try and influence it as such. If the dev would only listen.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Romulus

[LordGood]

Maybe we'd be more receptive if you would compromise every once in a while. There are limits to this kind of game

rather than reiteration and trying to make your opposition sound stupid you could actually try to reason with us

[Josh]

This discussion really is a back and forth with little headway on either side, but I'll throw in my thoughts.

So, lets reason from a purely historical context. Now, farms were not truly infinite par-se but that was the effective result in the short term historically. Did sieges where the enemy became starved happen? Yes, but why? They starved not because their farms weren't infinite, but because their farms were outside their defences and the enemy destroyed them. If they had payed to defend them they wouldn't have starved.

This same metric already applies in 0 A.D. If you want to pay the significant cost to wall in and defend your farms they will be secure, but otherwise they could be destroyed and your civilization would effectively starve. This has happened to me. I don't think any changes need to be made to make it more accurate.

[alpha123]

I’m locking this because it’s going absolutely nowhere except up in flames. Burzum, you need to show a bit more respect to the staff.

I definitely don’t mind a topic about potentially nerfing infinite farming, but this isn’t that topic.