Two kinds of fields

[elexis]

In alpha 21 the old fields have been replaced with new ones. I was wondering whether it would be better to have 2 variants of fields: one that provides food indefinitely and another that has a finite food supply, but faster gather rates. Thus we could also use both models (to me they look like wheat and grapes or apple trees).

[fatherbushido]

I vote no.

[elexis]

Why?

[feneur]

To me it seems like added complexity without enough benefits. Especially since we have a ton of buildings without that much difference already. If so make one bigger and one smaller, that way the difference could be: small, cheaper temporary fields which can only be gathered from with one unit, bigger, more expensive, fields with infinite supply which can be gathered from by multiple units. That way there would both be a bigger difference than just gather rate, and also incentive for building farms farther away from the Civic Center which would make raiding farms more viable. Just a thought

[elexis]

The major difference in my proposal is that one type of field would be only a finite supply. So you have to replenish fields every N minutes if you want the faster gahter rate. So players would have to decide whether they want the benefit from paying much attention to the economy or whether they don't have the time to focus on it and pay with slower gather rates - or combine both approaches.

It would also look graphically very different, some green apple tree fields, some of these new wheat fields.

[feneur]

Yeah, it can certainly be done. I'm just saying that in my opinion it doesn't add enough to warrant adding another "building", and that we might want to be careful about adding more buildings in general since there is quite a few without that much difference already.

[LordGood]

Not sure I like that idea, I tried different variations before when these fields were introduced and they looked terrible together.

im thinking of removing the darker wheat variants to homogenize them further, actually

[Lion.Kanzen]

Can be an upgrade. I suggested in another topic.

 

Edited November 7, 2016 by Lion.Kanzen

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

20 hours ago, feneur said:

Yeah, it can certainly be done. I'm just saying that in my opinion it doesn't add enough to warrant adding another "building", and that we might want to be careful about adding more buildings in general since there is quite a few without that much difference already.

Indeed. In my mod I even remove palisades (seem overly redundant with other wall).

[Lion.Kanzen]

My idea is similar to this.

[JC (naval supremacist)]

Basically elexis wants a new kind of field : something between the current field and the corral .  Why not ?  

Its just a balance the player wants to find between food resources and brain resources. 

In my case, sometimes i delete fields near my CC in order to build a castle.  So, rather then deleting it, having a temporary field might be a good idea.

 

I vote yes

[JC (naval supremacist)]

On 11/11/2016 at 11:34 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:

My idea is similar to this.

 

Its also a good idea. Its a long term investment.  But just make sure that at the end, it worth it .

[WhiteTreePaladin]

Maybe fields could be finite at first and then upgraded to infinite fields by a technology? (Not sure what to call it, but there are probably several good names.)

As a side note, I think it would be nice to have a visual way to quickly know which fields have the maximum gatherers. A glance over the fields is a lot easier than having to hover over each one.

[scythetwirler]

It adds unnecessary micro IMO. We already have a micro-intensive alternative to farms in corrals. We should aim to simplify econ tasks for the player and have top level players focus on battles while only using hotkeys for most homeward econ management.

[shieldwolf23]

I think we can have both, if having both won't be much of a bother. That way, we can let players choose what suits him best. 

[Palaxin]

8 hours ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:

Maybe fields could be finite at first and then upgraded to infinite fields by a technology?

8 hours ago, JC (naval supremacist) said:

In my case, sometimes i delete fields near my CC in order to build a castle.  So, rather then deleting it, having a temporary field might be a good idea.

This problem is partially addressed by ticket #4342 "dirty aura for civic center".

I think we could combine the ideas of finite fields with the intention to move fields away from the CC:

finite fields

• finite food supply (e.g. 500), slowly depletes, also when no one is gathering (thus it is guaranteed that the field will finally vanish)
• no minimum distance to CC required
• fast and cheap to build (e.g. 50 wood)
• small field size, only few gatherers per field (e.g. 2)
• slightly lower gather rate (e.g. 80% of infinite fields)

infinite fields

• infinite food supply
• require a minimum distance to CC, but not military colony (e.g. 80-120 m, thus not covered by CC range)
• long build time, high costs (e.g. 150 wood)
• huge filed size, more gatherers per field (e.g. 5)
• slightly higher gather rate

technologies

• Unlock technology for infinite fields. Alternatively, infinite fields can be unlocked by advancing to Town phase.
• Technology for finite field enhancements. This enhancements only apply to finite fields which are separated from CCs by a minimum distance.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Palaxin

[fatherbushido]

For information: there were yet many discussions about finite/infinite farms debate (see irc logs or forum search).

[scythetwirler]

Just for the record, farms were finite prior to Alpha 14 and many players found it a bother to have to replace them (and the indication that the farms had run out was usually that they couldn't train any more units due to lack of food - trust me, that was not a good feeling to have :P).

[FeXoR]

On 7.11.2016 at 1:06 PM, elexis said:

The major difference in my proposal is that one type of field would be only a finite supply. So you have to replenish fields every N minutes if you want the faster gahter rate. So players would have to decide whether they want the benefit from paying much attention to the economy or whether they don't have the time to focus on it and pay with slower gather rates - or combine both approaches.

It would also look graphically very different, some green apple tree fields, some of these new wheat fields.

Well, this contains the main reason why I don't like this idea so much: More attention for higher outcome.

There are enough excessively micromanagement dependent RTS games out there.

I'd like 0 A.D. to be more the "convinient" type of RTS where the more boring/repititive tasks are automated, not so much the "hasty" kind where the faster clicking player wins (Being faster still helps ofc., it's a large army RTS in the end).

[vladislavbelov]

Probably use one type of fields, but with different states (different models). F.e. it's fertile field, after N cycles the land will less fertile and less amount of food per gather. So need to build a field in other place (like real farm).

[Lion.Kanzen]

if are infinite but generate the resources more slowly.

for example in ancient cultures culture the olive oilwas used for   in cooking,  whether for frying or as a salad dressing. It is also used in cosmetics, and my point is here olive oil has been used for religious rituals, medicines, as a fuel in oil lamps, soap-making, and skin care application. . Olive oil, a multi-purpose product of was a chief export and commerce so this generates income.

Quote

Olive oil was common in ancient Greek and Roman cuisine. According to Herodotus, Apollodorus, Plutarch, Pausanias, Ovid and other sources, the city of Athens obtained its name because Athenians considered olive oil essential, preferring the offering of the goddess Athena (an olive tree) over the offering of Poseidon (a spring of salt water gushing out of a cliff). The Spartans and other Greeks used oil to rub themselves while exercising in the gymnasia. From its beginnings early in the 7th century BC, the cosmetic use of olive oil quickly spread to all of the Hellenic city states, together with athletes training in the nude, and lasted close to a thousand years despite its great expense.^[15][16] Olive trees were planted throughout the entire Mediterranean basin during evolution of the Roman republic and empire. According to the historian Pliny the Elder, Italy had "excellent olive oil at reasonable prices" by the 1st century AD, "the best in the Mediterranean", he maintained.

 

 

its like an industry than a simple farming to subsistence.

source

Quote

Agriculture was incredibly important to the Roman economy and, as such, the Romans exported crops to other countries, such as grapes, oil and grain. Derived from these original crops, products like wine and olive oil became prime exports for Italy

 

[DarcReaver]

On 21.11.2016 at 10:09 AM, vladislavbelov said:

Probably use one type of fields, but with different states (different models). F.e. it's fertile field, after N cycles the land will less fertile and less amount of food per gather. So need to build a field in other place (like real farm).

 

On 21.11.2016 at 11:58 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:

if are infinite but generate the resources more slowly.

for example in ancient cultures culture the olive oilwas used for   in cooking,  whether for frying or as a salad dressing. It is also used in cosmetics, and my point is here olive oil has been used for religious rituals, medicines, as a fuel in oil lamps, soap-making, and skin care application. . Olive oil, a multi-purpose product of was a chief export and commerce so this generates income.

its like an industry than a simple farming to subsistence.

source

 

You're making an RTS, not a city building game. There is one type of resource to be gathered: food. So it's logical to only have one type of economic building to supply food. Introducing multiple food sources for civs doesn't reflect this.

In theory, if you're doing multiple farms, there also should be additional ways to harvest lumber or mining minerals. Which leads more towards a city building gamestyle.

Infinite resource gathering is used to create a simple, automatic process. If you make the gathering process less automated this process is automatically more complicated while not serving its original purpose (generate resources).

Thus you automatically disrupt players from other game aspects. I'd suggest to play a couple of matches in AoE I and then reconsider why it's annoying to have to replant farms (which is similarly disrupting from a gameplay perspective).

@feneur is right that extending the game mechanic with another building type doesn't have enough benefits up the game. Of course fields could be different in appearance from a random variation (some fields contain olive trees and some don't).

Alternatively, there could be additional models for berry bushes. Or roman civs start with a certain amount of olive trees around their base as an additional food source early on which can be gathered quickly (similar to how Incas on AoE II start with an additional turkey).

Edited March 17, 2017 by DarcReaver

[sphyrth]

I think "The Corral Argument" is sufficient for me to vote for "No".

[elexis]

To clarify, I referenced this in the light of D227. We might want to have one kind of field with the changes proposed there and one type of field that requires less player attention but is less rewarding. Don't have a significant opinion and having only one type of field is perfectly fine.

[LordGood]

it rewards micromanagement, which would mean competitive players wouldn't build slow fields and new players would be forced to do so as well to stay on par. Which would mean slow fields would be redundant outside of campaigns and casual single player games.

 it'd be a no from me