Farmfields

[auron2401]

I find having texture specific farm fertility is the wrong way to go.

Remember the river nile? Well the egyptians (and ptolmies) Used it to farm ALOT of the ancient worlds consumtpion. it was the belly of the ancient world. why? Not because it had the most fertile fields (oh contrare, i think you'll find their soil sucked, but they had an ace up their sleaves)

While the soil was shoddy, muddy at best, why did they keep growing unfailing large amounts of fudd That they had trouble eating all-of? Water. the nile river flooded, spreading its wartery jizz-ness all over the plants, thereby fertalising them, making them grow well.

water is the key to plant growth, not land, not soil. soil is only important if you are farming deep inland, where water is harder to get to, and plants have to figure out the hard way.

So instead of terrain specific fertility, why not just make it the closer to water you are, the better you farm.

Edited June 11, 2014 by alpha123

[AceWild]

this has been reported

[AceWild]

..........

Edited June 11, 2014 by AceWild

[scythetwirler]

Please, let's keep this polite and courteous. This discussion is about farmfields, not picking on people or delivering personal insults.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ok what is the problem that you see? The main one, animation is not problem for now.

And what are the suggestions?

[iNcog]

I think comparing with SC2 is a perfectly valid thing to do, SC2 is a great RTS and its better aspects should be examined imo.

IF and ONLY IF maps can be randomly generated so that each player gets equal resources and terrain tiles should adding a true farming bonus on fertile terrain be considered. However I have to commend the quality of random maps in 0 AD, generally speaking the maps are well-balanced in this game. Anyway, the real reason I thought of giving a terrain bonus to farming is to give players a (realistic) reason to push for map control.

I don't think it's a big issue and it's probably something that should be added way down the line, if at all.

Edited June 11, 2014 by iNcog

[feneur]

I find having texture specific farm fertility is the wrong way to go.

Remember the river nile? Well the egyptians (and ptolmies) Used it to farm ALOT of the ancient worlds consumtpion. it was the belly of the ancient world. why? Not because it had the most fertile fields (oh contrare, i think you'll find their soil sucked, but they had an ace up their sleaves)

While the soil was shoddy, muddy at best, why did they keep growing unfailing large amounts of fudd That they had trouble eating all-of? Water. the nile river flooded, spreading its wartery jizz-ness all over the plants, thereby fertalising them, making them grow well.

water is the key to plant growth, not land, not soil. soil is only important if you are farming deep inland, where water is harder to get to, and plants have to figure out the hard way.

So instead of terrain specific fertility, why not just make it the closer to water you are, the better you farm.

As far as I know the good thing about the Nile is just that it provided the farmlands with a lot of good soil when it flooded. But of course water is important in general as well.

[AceWild]

..........

Edited June 15, 2014 by AceWild

[AceWild]

I got a little suggestion about farmfields.

1# Dont you guys think that when building farmfields they sould be seeding the ground and not build with hammers like houses.

2# If possible farmers sould be farming on different spots on the field not in one line next to each other.

3# When destroyed it gets like burned grass with dirt.

I think it will look alot more realistic.

Another idea, is it possible to give different factions different plow animations.

I think these are good ideas to help make farms look more realistic. To add to these ideas what if the farm animations were different depending on where the farm was placed. For example on a hot terrain you might have maize (corn) or some other summer fruit or vegetable and on a cold terrain you might have cabbage or some other winter fruit or vegetable.

Edited June 11, 2014 by AceWild

[hollth]

I'm against the terrain specific bonuses. It seems like something that would have to be over tuned to give the perception of being worth it and feel good to use. To that end if it does induce people to fight over the area, i suspect it will be to much of an advantage to the one who eventually secures it.

I do agree that there isn't a sufficient motivator for map control, I just don't think that this is the right avenue.

[idanwin]

That would be really impressive.

To add to these ideas what if the farm animations were different depending on where the farm was placed. For example on a hot terrain you might have maize (corn) or some other summer fruit or vegetable and on a cold terrain you might have cabbage or some other winter fruit or vegetable.

[iNcog]

I'm against the terrain specific bonuses. It seems like something that would have to be over tuned to give the perception of being worth it and feel good to use. To that end if it does induce people to fight over the area, i suspect it will be to much of an advantage to the one who eventually secures it.

I do agree that there isn't a sufficient motivator for map control, I just don't think that this is the right avenue.

tweak the numbers so that the guy who gets some fertile terrain has an edge but not a game-winning advantage. or spread the fertile terrain around the map so that both players each have easy access to some fertile terrain, yet it will still be somewhat vulnerable .

[raymond]

supporting all suggestions of the author of these thread.

another suggestion:

5 maximum workers for these big field are to less. Increase the count (maybe to 7) or make the field a little bit smaller.

Edited June 17, 2014 by raymond

[jlc420]

Personally I think the farming is the least of the worries in the game. Ok they could be a little faster to harvest but really I see no fault all in all. Tools at the time were extremely limited and also it took centuries to improve really. People remember u are crossing technology of what was available tot hen to now. Most was done by hand not with various tools. As for the hammering when building instead of seeding well first the had to prepare the land to be cultivated you can just throw seeds anywhere and expect them to grow. Land has to be turned and broken in order to plant. They didn't have tractors with tillers attached to tear through hard ground. Also plows were crude and broke extremely easily.

Think of the ground as need to be tenderized like a piece of meat before you season and cook it. So it only makes sense that how farmlands are done in the game.

Don't forget in the game there are a few civs that do give a little advantage with the turning of crops. So technically there is an upgrade but it depends on what civ you play as.

I can completely understand why this is not a priority for the developers. I've only been playing about 1 wk now and see more important things needing improvement.

If there was to be in the future room to improve I would say crops should be done in relation to fraction and or area. though I see this would also call for how much can be yielded at a time.

For instance your not going to grow a tropical plant in a cold climate (Alps) Just like you'r not going to grow temperate plants in a dry arid place (desert) Some Plants can be however multiple climates such as berry's and apples.

Anyway as far as all that goes I agree it's not a priority any time soon. Possibility in the future maybe.

[jlc420]

I find having texture specific farm fertility is the wrong way to go.

Remember the river nile? Well the egyptians (and ptolmies) Used it to farm ALOT of the ancient worlds consumtpion. it was the belly of the ancient world. why? Not because it had the most fertile fields (oh contrare, i think you'll find their soil sucked, but they had an ace up their sleaves)

While the soil was shoddy, muddy at best, why did they keep growing unfailing large amounts of fudd That they had trouble eating all-of? Water. the nile river flooded, spreading its wartery jizz-ness all over the plants, thereby fertalising them, making them grow well.

water is the key to plant growth, not land, not soil. soil is only important if you are farming deep inland, where water is harder to get to, and plants have to figure out the hard way.

So instead of terrain specific fertility, why not just make it the closer to water you are, the better you farm.

Actual the texture is relatively good

In regard to the water being the key you fail to realize neither is more important. Without land/soil there is no nutrition being being gained..

I have lived in Egypt literally and studied at a high ranking international school there 3rd in 10 top international schools (Cairo American College grades k-12),

Anyway their soils is far more different than you think. It is extremely rich in minerals. Egypt is not all desert as depicted in movies and tv or as read in books. There are vast majorities of grass land that is never shown on screen that are not close to the Nile or Mediterranean yet half a days walk approx. Sure it's a different world now than it was 2000+ yrs ago but the Nile was used for trade more than farming. fruit and veggies where not a top source yet meat was abundant. They actually transported water to crops more than farming right along the Nile. Not to mention that most of their fruits and vegetables were imported by trade from surrounding areas, Ethiopia Nigeria Kenya and Israel. Egypt was more stone quarries that made trade valuable ( lime stone, granite, marble). Just a little true history lesson that you wont learn unless you have lived there (not visited but lived). In reality the game is relatively accurate to a fault with farming. The only card up their sleeve was called "trade."

The Nile floods yes, but not as you think or where you believe. Flood waters are completely gone withing a month.

Not making fun of you or anything but just wanted to correct you on you statement. No offense what so ever meant.

[niektb]

"The Nile floods yes, but not as you think or where you believe. Flood waters are completely gone withing a month."

I thought it flooded more before the dam was built?

[hollth]

tweak the numbers so that the guy who gets some fertile terrain has an edge but not a game-winning advantage. or spread the fertile terrain around the map so that both players each have easy access to some fertile terrain, yet it will still be somewhat vulnerable .

You missed my point. I don't think it is in the interest of the game to introduce this mechanic. In the event that there is not a game winning advantage I do not believe the feedback loops will be strong enough to motivate people to take on the increased risk associated. A more than slight advantage needs to be gained to provide enough incentive.

There are a few primary reasons why I think this. There is a lower risk of having farm fields by initial CC. Building a new CC and new farm fields has a massive cost associated with it. Farms give infinite food (metal is highly contested over because it's limited)

So either the bonus provides enough incentive to change peoples behaviour and the bonus is quite large. You have after all invested a huge amount of time and resources in securing a bonus. Additionally, thats a huge amount of resources not invested in gaining a finite resources, which, being the more gating resource type, is more tactically important.

Alternatively, the terrain bonus is not enough to change peoples behaviour. In which case it's pointless.

I do not see it as something that can be fixed by changing the values of the terrain bonus. The discrepancy between the bonus needed to make it seem worth and a bonus that does not change behaviour is too big.

[Stan`]

Enrique implemented a seeding animation some time ago, but only for macedonians I think...

[jlc420]

"The Nile floods yes, but not as you think or where you believe. Flood waters are completely gone withing a month."

I thought it flooded more before the dam was built?

People forget how long it really is. it is not only in Egypt it runs into/through Sudan. It floods more in the southern most area of Egypt than it does in northern to central Egypt actually. This is because it rain's one month every 9 months.Anyway we're loosing track of the main discussion partly my fault. Anyway if you want to learn more just post me on my page. This is a subject area I am always excited to talk and share my experiences about .

[iNcog]

You missed my point. I don't think it is in the interest of the game to introduce this mechanic. In the event that there is not a game winning advantage I do not believe the feedback loops will be strong enough to motivate people to take on the increased risk associated. A more than slight advantage needs to be gained to provide enough incentive.

There are a few primary reasons why I think this. There is a lower risk of having farm fields by initial CC. Building a new CC and new farm fields has a massive cost associated with it. Farms give infinite food (metal is highly contested over because it's limited)

So either the bonus provides enough incentive to change peoples behaviour and the bonus is quite large. You have after all invested a huge amount of time and resources in securing a bonus. Additionally, thats a huge amount of resources not invested in gaining a finite resources, which, being the more gating resource type, is more tactically important.

Alternatively, the terrain bonus is not enough to change peoples behaviour. In which case it's pointless.

I do not see it as something that can be fixed by changing the values of the terrain bonus. The discrepancy between the bonus needed to make it seem worth and a bonus that does not change behaviour is too big.

Well, it's not such an expensive investment overall given that you >should< be building CCs to get map control anyway. You're pushing out for the map to get natural resources like metal and forests, correct? Why not do the same thing for food? Farming as of right now is oddly one-dimensional, you just put down farms and forget about it. Nowadays when I build CCs (obviously I'm a nub at the game) I just plop them down wherever I feel is nice, which is generally either somewhere that annoys my opponent or somewhere that secures a mine or forest. I think it could be interesting to put down CCs where there is also fertile farming terrain. It's a way of making food a resource which is more map dependent, even though it's an infinite resource. I don't see it raising any more problems than the fact that mines and forests are spread around the map.

Sure, there's some risk to putting a CC out on the map, but there's always some risk in pushing for map control, that's what makes the game fun!

Proper design and balance can be achieved in a number of ways: balancing the amount of fertile terrain on the map, balancing the bonus fertile terrain gives, putting natural barriers around fertile terrain, etc. There are lots of variables to play on.

Edited June 13, 2014 by iNcog

[hollth]

Well, it's not such an expensive investment overall given that you >should< be building CCs to get map control anyway. You're pushing out for the map to get natural resources like metal and forests, correct? Why not do the same thing for food? Farming as of right now is oddly one-dimensional, you just put down farms and forget about it. Nowadays when I build CCs (obviously I'm a nub at the game) I just plop them down wherever I feel is nice, which is generally either somewhere that annoys my opponent or somewhere that secures a mine or forest. I think it could be interesting to put down CCs where there is also fertile farming terrain. It's a way of making food a resource which is more map dependent, even though it's an infinite resource. I don't see it raising any more problems than the fact that mines and forests are spread around the map.

Sure, there's some risk to putting a CC out on the map, but there's always some risk in pushing for map control, that's what makes the game fun!

Proper design and balance can be achieved in a number of ways: balancing the amount of fertile terrain on the map, balancing the bonus fertile terrain gives, putting natural barriers around fertile terrain, etc. There are lots of variables to play on.

The reason that you wouldn't do the same for food is because food is primarily from farms which is infinite. So its the rate not the amount available thats the is the important gating factor. If the rate is too low there is the safer option to build another farm near your original CC without the significant investment. You wouldn't build a CC just for the terrain bonus unless it was an OP bonus that made food more redundant (because the rate is so high you're never in need) and allowed food to be traded for the other resources. If it just so happened to be at a place that there was a mine or forrest that needed to be secured, then you have even more of an advantage than you would normally get.

It wouldn't make food more map dependent again because is food is primarily gained from farms which can be built anywhere. You only need to a achieve a certain rate of food. Once thats gained theres no reason to have a higher rate. You yourself said that you build farms and forget about them. You forget about them because there is no need to keep them in mind. You've reached a rate that allows you to progress without constant attention. Essentially farms are designed to be non map dependent, so to try and force them to be map dependent is basically trying to smash together two opposing designs.

The other variables are irrelevant. They assume that the design is solid, which I contest. None of those address any of the things I've brought up.

Let's rephrase the question. What is the purpose that this change aims to achieve? Do we even want these changes? E.g. Is it to make food less one dimensional?

[Sighvatr]

Basically this thread is a poll for limited resources versus infinite? If farms were to be limited, gameplay would be more decisive if a player controls all of the key resources like metal and stone.

[iNcog]

It wouldn't make food more map dependent again because is food is primarily gained from farms which can be built anywhere. You only need to a achieve a certain rate of food. Once thats gained theres no reason to have a higher rate.

Completely untrue, I want the highest rate possible, as should everyone. The higher the rate of food, the higher the rate at which you can produce units and replace them as well. So someone with farms on fertile terrain over normal terrain has a gather rate advantage.

You yourself said that you build farms and forget about them. You forget about them because there is no need to keep them in mind.

I forget about them because there's nothing to do to make farms generate more resources faster. Unlike stone, metal and wood where it's better to make sure that storehouses are close and that gatherers aren't annoying each other. Also because stone, metal and wood are found on the map and you have to go get them. If I had an incentive to go out on the map for fertile terrain, I'd think a bit more about where to build CCs for good farmland.

You've reached a rate that allows you to progress without constant attention. Essentially farms are designed to be non map dependent, so to try and force them to be map dependent is basically trying to smash together two opposing designs.

Farms are currently designed to not be map dependent but they can be designed so that building farms on fertile terrain makes them gather faster. It could be an interesting change.

The other variables are irrelevant. They assume that the design is solid, which I contest. None of those address any of the things I've brought up.

Let's rephrase the question. What is the purpose that this change aims to achieve? Do we even want these changes? E.g. Is it to make food less one dimensional?

The purpose is to add another dimension to the game. Instead of putting down farms behind your CC and forgetting about it, you're going to look so secure the portion of the map where there is fertile terrain. It's a map objective, getting this objective means that you get a bonus in food gathering. This means more variety in maps. I completely believe that 0 AD is a game that will greatly benefit from hand-made maps, just like Brood War and Starcraft II. This is a way of making maps more interesting. It's a lever that players can use to obtain an advantage; you could base a strategy around trying to control fertile terrain asap so as to use that extra food income to boom economically. Or you can use that extra food income to get an economic boost and attempt to overrun your opponent with units. That sort of thing.

Do we want these changes? I agree that there are other priorities at the moment, this is just theory-crafting on my part. It's an addition for later, much later. However I like this little idea and I "want" these changes because they add depth to the game. You'll see me constantly talking about depth. But it's a great thing to have in an RTS. You should be able to give a player lots of different tools to work with; the player becomes the artisan who will use these tools in their play. The more tools a player has, and the more varied these tools are, the better it is for the game. The more tools a player has, the deeper the game. The deeper the game, the variety of possible strategies.

One of the things that I really like about 0 AD is that the devs are more than willing to incorporate unique stuff in the game. I'm thinking of sanderd's work on props, where units on walls or in towers are now targetable. Isn't that exciting? There are lots of example like this in the game. It's great, it adds depth.

Answered in bold.

[Sanguivorant]

How would crop productivity be implemented in deserts or tundras or islands?

It just seems a bit too complicated to make some areas more fertile than others and having players compete for it. But at the same time, it does sound interesting.

[Radagast.]

As Stan already mentioned Enrique + Mythos_Ruler already experimented with seeding animations. I think we can expect more at some point.

How would crop productivity be implemented in deserts or tundras or islands?

Desert is when the texture shows a desert . Therefore I think texture based productivity is pretty awesome + flexible.

You wouldn't build a CC just for the terrain bonus unless it was an OP bonus that made food more redundant (because the rate is so high you're never in need) and allowed food to be traded for the other resources. If it just so happened to be at a place that there was a mine or forrest that needed to be secured, then you have even more of an advantage than you would normally get.

If maps could be a bit bigger, then trading via rivers would be more important (as reaching the sea might be difficult). Then you would fight for control of

- rivers (water resource, trade, quickly reach the sea via ship, ..)

- hilltops (higher range for ranged units, higher vision range which once was planned but for now is no longer as performance influence is uncertain.)

- terrain (for farmland, ...)

- wells/oasis (water resource => fertilizing fields).

Climate dependent crop types (at least visuals) would indeed be awesome. Should it be automatic and therefore visual only or should we let you decide, i.e. toggle the farm's harvest type (aka 'rotating crop type', e.g. this summer corn.maize, next time corn.wheat, ... )?

It can be questioned if we avoid introducing a new building for each crop-sub-type to relieve the art department.