The Centurion: Countermeasures Against Infinite Farming

[niektb]

I created a patch which changes the footprint and obstruction size. Unfortunately it appeared that the whole 3D-model needs to be changed.

Field_ObstructionSize.patch

Before:

After:

Note that the last image was without increased ObstructionSize.

Edit: forgot to mention that the width and height are multiplied by 1.5. The total size is therefore 2.25x larger.

Edited January 14, 2014 by niektb

[quantumstate]

What both of you are failing to acknowledge, is the point of this thread and argument.

The point laymans terms, is the way we interact in a strategic way against either AI or humans.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Can you reword it?

The whole nature of "logical" strategy, (i.e. logical meaning relative to reality, and not fantasy), becomes totally flipped on its head and doesn't represent realism that an "historical" RTS is supposed to.

The line between fantasy and reality pivots on such mechanics, and the 0 A.D. team has to be aware of this, that it doesn't taint the game with unrealistic elements which destroys gameplay and the whole theme in general.

I fail to see what is especially unrealistic about infinite farms. As other people have mentioned real farms do have a tendency to be infinite as long as you keep a bit of last years crop to replant. They definitely don't continuously consume wood. We have to sacrifice realism in a very large number of ways in order to make a playable RTS game. (glaring examples are gathering some berries in order to have a woman magically appear after 30 seconds).

I was arguing in my previous post against your argument that infinite farms are unbalanced. The strategy you mentioned in the first post is not viable vs a skilled opponent. Infinite farms are not unbalanced, many other games have implemented infinite resources.

[wraitii]

We had a good discussion about the fact the farms should be way bigger back then, but never tried it...

[Romulus]

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Can you reword it?I fail to see what is especially unrealistic about infinite farms. As other people have mentioned real farms do have a tendency to be infinite as long as you keep a bit of last years crop to replant. They definitely don't continuously consume wood. We have to sacrifice realism in a very large number of ways in order to make a playable RTS game. (glaring examples are gathering some berries in order to have a woman magically appear after 30 seconds).I was arguing in my previous post against your argument that infinite farms are unbalanced. The strategy you mentioned in the first post is not viable vs a skilled opponent. Infinite farms are not unbalanced, many other games have implemented infinite resources.

What can you not understand with that previous statement? Looks pretty readable to me unless English isn't your native language.

Second, I did mention that strategy was for the AI ...

The picking berries and woman appearing magically is irrelevant to this argument and stupid.

As for "other games" which have infinite resources and that's why "other games" suck but 0 A.D. Is not "other games" now is it?

[niektb]

Basically, thanks to infinite farming one might be able to turtle with only a few farms as farms are relatively small and defendable by placing them right in the middle of your city.

If you make it not infinite then the player would run out of wood and therefore food as the player isn't able to build farms anymore. result: total defeat. It is indeed also not realistic to provide wood to maintain the farms.

Infinite farming is a sensible mechanic to help defensive players defend, but becomes annoying when the AI makes a bunch of them and makes it very hard as player to exhaust him. Secondarily the Roman abilities won't help too much for the same reason.

The best compromise (and still realistic) would be to enlarge the farms and making it less defendable and hard to place in the middle of your town.

[quantumstate]

What can you not understand with that previous statement? Looks pretty readable to me unless English isn't your native language.

Thanks, but I am a native speaker. Perhaps you could reword it to help me understand .

Second, I did mention that strategy was for the AI ...

How is a strategy good for an AI but not for a human? If an AI can play a strategy then so can I. (unless it has very high micro management requirements, but infinite farms clearly don't).

The picking berries and woman appearing magically is irrelevant to this argument and stupid.

By this am I to understand that you want to remove that from the game on the same grounds? If not then I don't see the problem with arguing that since one form of non realism is acceptable then this form of unrealism is acceptable because it is actually more realistic.

As for "other games" which have infinite resources and that's why "other games" suck but 0 A.D. Is not "other games" now is it?

I disagree that the other games suck. Here are some examples: AoM, AoE3, AoE Online, C&C Generals, Warcraft 3 (night elves and wood). I might not say all are great games but I think some are (AoM, Warcraft 3). You are free to hold a different opinion of course but since many other people agree based on reviews I think infinite resources are ok from this point of view.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Truth in me when said the farms the only thing is missing is a small wall bigger than a fence and smaller than a city Wall. But I mean stone wall , not palisade.

And may be the second have options with advance farming plant trees (Apple tree) and give other bonus and it counter bonus.

[Romulus]

Thanks, but I am a native speaker. Perhaps you could reword it to help me understand .How is a strategy good for an AI but not for a human? If an AI can play a strategy then so can I. (unless it has very high micro management requirements, but infinite farms clearly don't).By this am I to understand that you want to remove that from the game on the same grounds? If not then I don't see the problem with arguing that since one form of non realism is acceptable then this form of unrealism is acceptable because it is actually more realistic.I disagree that the other games suck. Here are some examples: AoM, AoE3, AoE Online, C&C Generals, Warcraft 3 (night elves and wood). I might not say all are great games but I think some are (AoM, Warcraft 3). You are free to hold a different opinion of course but since many other people agree based on reviews I think infinite resources are ok from this point of view.

I'm not going to break your quotes down because I'm lazy to.

But firstly lol... If you can't understand that, then give one good reason why I should help clarify it for you, when you have obviously an opposite opinion?

You yourself like the two I mentioned in my com, have ignored the argument. Why should I keep reiterating something so blatantly obvious.... Surely someone else can now seriously.

And where AoM have infinite resources???? I probably don't remember, as I haven't played it in years.

As for AoE III and WoW... Those SUCK!!!

Edited January 15, 2014 by Romulus

[Lion.Kanzen]

I'm not going to break your quotes down because I'm lazy to.

But firstly lol... If you can't understand that, then give one good reason why I should help clarify it for you, when you have obviously an opposite opinion?

You yourself like the two I mentioned in my com, have ignored the argument. Why should I keep reiterating something so blatantly obvious.... Surely someone else can now seriously.

And where AoM have infinite resources???? I probably don't remember, as I haven't played it in years.

As for AoE III and WoW... Those SUCK!!!

and here we go. I'm disagree with that. Each of them have a little seeds to contribute to this game. In some regions W3 was more played than AOE 2. Edited January 15, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[quantumstate]

I don't think we are getting anywhere. The decision to change farms to infinite resources was made recently and is unlikely to be reversed, though feel free to keep debating here if you wish.

(AoM had infinite farms, also Warcraft 3 != WoW)

[niektb]

Don't forget about the relics from AoE 2!!

Infinite farming isn't completely unrealistic, the main problem is that farms are too easily defendable.

I suggest as I (and others) already did: increase the farm's size, that should be enough to deal with the problem stated in the TS.

[Romulus]

I don't think we are getting anywhere. The decision to change farms to infinite resources was made recently and is unlikely to be reversed, though feel free to keep debating here if you wish.(AoM had infinite farms, also Warcraft 3 != WoW)

Yes my mind actually not on this subject right now for this discussion. I have had a long day and for that I will excuse myself for this point in time until due course

Meanwhile, for all the others that agree with me, voice your concerns.

And quantumstate: it would be helpful to gauge your views by exactly why do you think that infinite farming is justifiable, and how do you justify it as being a significant mechanic?

If you shed some light on the why's it will help my side of the argument understand yours

Edited January 15, 2014 by Romulus

[feneur]

To me the main argument pro having infinite farms is that it removes micromanagement in the late game: when you have to manage up to 300 units it can make a big difference if you have to go back to your farmers to make sure that your farms haven't run fallow. It could of course be slightly lessened with a reseed queue like in AoK:TC, but you would still have to keep checking back to make sure it wasn't empty. Another way to do it would of course be to make the reseeding automatic, however that would remove the direct control from the user (minor issue true, but infinite farms doesn't have that issue).

What both of you are failing to acknowledge, is the point of this thread and argument.

A question: do you actually want to influence the game or just argue a theoretical point? If the latter that's fine, but you have to forgive others for understanding it as being about the actual game and argue accordingly. If the former it would be beneficial to your cause if you would allow the discussion to be relevant to the game and not just include the arguments you personally deem relevant.

I'll say what I've said before and most likely will say again: This is a game, not a simulation. Or in other words: We have to consider things both from a historical point of view and a gameplay point of view, and it's the latter which is predominant. And just to illustrate that it's not just my own personal opinion allow me to quote from the official vision document that has been guiding 0 A.D. for years:

It is a moment in time that never was.

It is important to note that "0 A.D." is a period in time that historically never actually existed. Historians go directly from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. and skip over “0 A.D.” So, what are we saying? We are specifying that this time period is a fictional time period.

and more specifically:

• Accurate History - All our content is validated by our History Department to ensure that it is true to source wherever possible (unless it negatively affects gameplay).

The point laymans terms, is the way we interact in a strategic way against either AI or humans.

Now, I'm not a native English speaker, so allow me to deconstruct the above sentence.

"The point laymans terms", I assume you mean "The point in layman's terms", which definitely is understandable, but seeing as you argue about language it merits being mentioned.

"The point [...] is the way we interact in a strategic way against either AI or humans." So in other words, the point of your arguments is that we interact strategically with either AIs or humans and that it's important to you that this interaction is historically accurate?

[GunChleoc]

From a gameplay point of view, I always found managing farms in AoE annoying, especially when my troops where fighting a war someplace else on the map. So, I welcomed it when infinite farms were introduced here.

[idanwin]

As I said before: how is infinite farms unrealistic??? You reseed seeds, you tend them and voila (easier to say than do xD)

You don't need 'wood' to rebuild a farm every so often! You need wood to build the farmstead once, you need wood to repair tools and for certain plants (e.g. tomatos but they didn't have those yet I think)

If your farm (and tools etc.) is destroyed, you will need wood (and time) to rebuild the farm. But as long as it doesn't get destroyed you don't.

You've been playing AoE 2 too much I think (where wood suddenly transformed into seeds to grow plants that weren't trees...)

[RoekeloosNL]

Truth in me when said the farms the only thing is missing is a small wall bigger than a fence and smaller than a city Wall. But I mean stone wall , not palisade.

And may be the second have options with advance farming plant trees (Apple tree) and give other bonus and it counter bonus.

i think that would nice yes and other type of farming fields different types for different civs like a apple field yes.

And for the Infinite farming maybe you can let you women re seed after a while but the field wont disappear it only cost you too buy seeds or something like that

Edited January 16, 2014 by RoekeloosNL

[Romulus]

To me the main argument pro having infinite farms is that it removes micromanagement in the late game: when you have to manage up to 300 units it can make a big difference if you have to go back to your farmers to make sure that your farms haven't run fallow. It could of course be slightly lessened with a reseed queue like in AoK:TC, but you would still have to keep checking back to make sure it wasn't empty. Another way to do it would of course be to make the reseeding automatic, however that would remove the direct control from the user (minor issue true, but infinite farms doesn't have that issue).

The queue bit of the farms at the granary/mill bit I'm in full support of. Why not just make 100 limit in the queue section?

this I think will be a win, win situation for the micromanagment folks and those that aren't.

A question: do you actually want to influence the game or just argue a theoretical point? If the latter that's fine, but you have to forgive others for understanding it as being about the actual game and argue accordingly. If the former it would be beneficial to your cause if you would allow the discussion to be relevant to the game and not just include the arguments you personally deem relevant.

I want to influence the game based on logic that applies to real life situations for the better promoting good gameplay. I also feel just to be a voice that maintains purity in 0 A.D. and not let go down the tubes. Despite what anyone says. This is my story and argument, and I'm sticking to it. And importantly to out-root the infinite resources because this borders on cheating... And excuse me is just complete fantasy. Also unfair to a besieging army that has to kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill and bloody kill just because they getting a bottomless pit of darn food which turns the scenario on its face, and eliminates the fun invovled.

Anyone in their right mind will get this point.

At some point, the player HAS TO RUN OUT OF RESOURCES because this is exactly what happens during a real siege. The enemy behind walls DOES NOT get sent infinite manner from the heavens to keep pouring and pouring people out.

My input on this subject will be a proposition....

First if infinite farms are to carry on, reseeding is an absolute imperative. Further more it has to be taxing. Seeds, labour etc,etc WOOD for tools and harvest equipment... Something realistic that will eventually make the enemy/opponent run out of resources.

I'm quite serious when I say this is unacceptable to continue with infinite resources.

I'll say what I've said before and most likely will say again: This is a game, not a simulation. Or in other words: We have to consider things both from a historical point of view and a gameplay point of view, and it's the latter which is predominant. And just to illustrate that it's not just my own personal opinion allow me to quote from the official vision document that has been guiding 0 A.D. for years:

Where does infinite resources feature in this quote?

Sacrifice the historical bit for fantasy gameplay ... Nice way to kill the game.

Now, I'm not a native English speaker, so allow me to deconstruct the above sentence.

"The point laymans terms", I assume you mean "The point in layman's terms", which definitely is understandable, but seeing as you argue about language it merits being mentioned.

"The point [...] is the way we interact in a strategic way against either AI or humans." So in other words, the point of your arguments is that we interact strategically with either AIs or humans and that it's important to you that this interaction is historically accurate?

Yes precisely that.

The way we interact in strategic way againts players................

This means that how can we apply strategies which simulate real life logic with fantasy mechanics such as infinite resources??? You cannot!

That is the point.

To conclude everything mentioned here,

Yes I understand these are early (trial & error) days.

Yes I understand that not everybody sees this view in the same light. That is why there's an argument or a debate rather.

Personally I don't want to see 0 A.D. Becoming like Empire Earth, RON, WoW etc ...

I want to see it retain that same realism that AoE had, that's what makes it special. Don't kill it with these unrealistic gameplay features, it will a darn shame to see waste away down the same path of those rubbish RTS games. When I discovered 0 A.D. I thought Jesus at last!!! A real RTS has come from heaven, I was really thrilled. But the I started seen this bit with the farms and immediately, I started shaking my head.

Don't kill it.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Romulus

[nylki]

<snip>

you know there is also always the possibility to fork the project now or when it's finished and implement modifications of features or own features. This may just as well be a farmland modification. Thats the great thing about opensource projects.

Edited January 17, 2014 by nylki

[tau]

By the way if players will be forced somehow to build farms far from CCs this practice could be replaced by building corrals there. Corrals do require micromanagement but will be as easily defendable as farms i guess.

[niektb]

The queue bit of the farms at the granary/mill bit I'm in full support of. Why not just make 100 limit in the queue section?

this I think will be a win, win situation for the micromanagment folks and those that aren't.

I want to influence the game based on logic that applies to real life situations for the better promoting good gameplay. I also feel just to be a voice that maintains purity in 0 A.D. and not let go down the tubes. Despite what anyone says. This is my story and argument, and I'm sticking to it. And importantly to out-root the infinite resources because this borders on cheating... And excuse me is just complete fantasy. Also unfair to a besieging army that has to kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill and bloody kill just because they getting a bottomless pit of darn food which turns the scenario on its face, and eliminates the fun invovled.

Anyone in their right mind will get this point.

At some point, the player HAS TO RUN OUT OF RESOURCES because this is exactly what happens during a real siege. The enemy behind walls DOES NOT get sent infinite manner from the heavens to keep pouring and pouring people out.

My input on this subject will be a proposition....

First if infinite farms are to carry on, reseeding is an absolute imperative. Further more it has to be taxing. Seeds, labour etc,etc WOOD for tools and harvest equipment... Something realistic that will eventually make the enemy/opponent run out of resources.

I'm quite serious when I say this is unacceptable to continue with infinite resources.

Where does infinite resources feature in this quote?

Sacrifice the historical bit for fantasy gameplay ... Nice way to kill the game.

Yes precisely that.

The way we interact in strategic way againts players................

This means that how can we apply strategies which simulate real life logic with fantasy mechanics such as infinite resources??? You cannot!

That is the point.

To conclude everything mentioned here,

Yes I understand these are early (trial & error) days.

Yes I understand that not everybody sees this view in the same light. That is why there's an argument or a debate rather.

Personally I don't want to see 0 A.D. Becoming like Empire Earth, RON, WoW etc ...

I want to see it retain that same realism that AoE had, that's what makes it special. Don't kill it with these unrealistic gameplay features, it will a darn shame to see waste away down the same path of those rubbish RTS games. When I discovered 0 A.D. I thought Jesus at last!!! A real RTS has come from heaven, I was really thrilled. But the I started seen this bit with the farms and immediately, I started shaking my head.

Don't kill it.

you know there is also always the possibility to fork the project now or when it's finished and implement modifications of features or own features. This may just as well be a farmland modification. Thats the great thing about opensource projects.

Yup, Romulus. We could try in our mod and see what works better.

[Enrique]

What Romulus fails to see here against his argument, and has been stated a few times, is that realistically farms do not cost any resource. The siege mechanic is represented in 0 A.D. by denying your opponent to expand, and therefore, making your opponent unable to access resources.

To his argument that you can trade food for any resource because it is infinite, a very experienced player (and anyone who has played 0ad in a medium level) knows that it isn't enough. You can have all the food you want in the game, but if you're not able to gather other resources at a good rate, you're not going to be able to defend your farms for a long time (unless you're playing against a dumb AI)

Another argument, reseeding... Why bother the player with any kind of interaction in reseeding, if the farms realistically do not cost any resource? aren't the workers intelligent enough to know when they need to reseed the field? is like having a worker idle after a tree has been depleted and you have to tell him which tree to cut next. The only thing that would make sense is to make some "rebuild" time in the farms representing a new batch of crops growing, but this is balanced already by the lower gathering rate of food.

To his argument about infinite resource being a game killer, why on earth he creates a thread to consider forest plantation?

Conclusion: in my opinion making farms bigger would look more realistic, but I don't think it's going to make farms harder to defend... people will just place them in the most defended/hardest place to reach in their city, just a few arrows shot at the farm and you'll have to pay the wood penalty to replant them. Send a raid near the farms and you're going to see the females garrisoning in the nearest building, and stopping food production, and to be fair, I've never seen until now someone complaining about infinite farms since they were implemented (just the opposite when they weren't)

[Romulus]

It's not that I fail to see that farms cost 0 resources. Its about the never ending supply chain of units getting made from that infinite food, which isn't realistic at all.

And if you want to talk about being real, the farmers have to be paid??? There's taxation right there!

Okay.... We have reached a break in this argument so how's this?

The way to effectively combat this disposition, is by implementing a totally new feature.

How's coinage????

A monetary system which could be called gold?

This cuts the balance issue and sorts everything out.

It will cost gold to keep armies, it will cost gold to run an economy... It will even cost gold to run the farms.

Say that I'm not wrong?

[niektb]

Ever played American Conquest: Fight Back?

It features a hyper realistic gameplay (even famines and deserting soldiers take place!), but it a bit too realistic as it decreases the playability. Having a lot of realistic features it good, too much is no fun anymore.

About coinage:

What you basically want is a combination from Settlers V's implementation and having to pay a trickle of gold to a lot of structures / units to keep 'em running? Hmmm, it has its pros and cons.

Edited January 17, 2014 by niektb

[LordGood]

poor horse has been beaten to death, and then some

with a stick

I'm against making farms bigger, if only for their square footprint. I think we should get a little more creative with decals and substructures if we want to make huge farm fields. Maybe that brush or tree fringe between farm fields, or a chicken coop here or there in variations. Then we could get rid of that awkward overlap where we have two plants growing in the same place.

Ever played American Conquest: Fight Back?

It features a hyper realistic gameplay (even famines and deserting soldiers take place!), but it a bit too realistic as it decreases the playability. Having a lot of realistic features it good, too much is no fun anymore.

oh dude I love American conquest. Its super fun all the time!

love the way city combat and formation fighting works in that game

[Enrique]

It's not that I fail to see that farms cost 0 resources. Its about the never ending supply chain of units getting made from that infinite food, which isn't realistic at all.

And if you want to talk about being real, the farmers have to be paid??? There's taxation right there!

Okay.... We have reached a break in this argument so how's this?

The way to effectively combat this disposition, is by implementing a totally new feature.

How's coinage????

A monetary system which could be called gold?

This cuts the balance issue and sorts everything out.

It will cost gold to keep armies, it will cost gold to run an economy... It will even cost gold to run the farms.

Say that I'm not wrong?

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.