Two kinds of fields

[elexis]

The D227 concept is the one favoring experienced players, a dumb field would help players who might let their fields be unattended.

[LordGood]

the end result is the same, be forced into annoying micromanagement, or fall behind.

[Zeta1127]

Indeed, which is why, for example, MULEs, Spawn Larva, and Chrono Boost are important in StarCraft II, separating the good players from the average players.

[DarcReaver]

But Factions on SC 2 do not have a second type of Vespin Gas generator per faction, or another type of resource gatherer that does the same as probes but faster. Or a 2nd type of Headquarter that allows faster gathering. (Which is what's proposed here)

The usage of Chrono Boost or Spawn Larvae is more in line with Mauryan Indian construction elephants (-> use additional micro to increase building speed).

The only mechanic that works differently from the default SC 2 mineral gathering are the "golden minerals" present on certain maps on exposed positions which can be harvested faster. However, that's a map control element and not a gathering micro trick.

In 0 Ad it would be equivalent to farms producing more food when on some sort of "fertile land" that increases production in exposed positions.

Edited March 18, 2017 by DarcReaver

[wraitii]

Feel like there's absolutely no point having that in-game, but I would be okay with it for scenarios and whatnot however.

 

Edit: that or the complete opposite of the above: I think it would be interesting to remove all other sources of food but farms, with mimo's changes in that patch, and offer a few different types of farms good at a few different things. For example a slow but steady gold source farm (say, peppers?), a fast-but-needs-a-ton-of-space-and-hard-to-defend type of farm (wheat?) and a slower-but-takes-less-space-and-you-can-have-several-villagers-per-farm type of farm (potato  or whatever else ).

edit: ah wait I forgot we don't have gold as a resource, nevermind that one then 

[drsingh]

I would suggest keep a single type of farm. And different gathering rates depending on the location. Lesser near CC and bonus on farmlands. The total of 3 values are easier to understand and exploit by a skilled player.

With a gradual difference in gathering rate made possible by mimo's patch. It becomes near impossible for even best of players to assess their economy.

Also keep all infinite sources- to not require micro. So players can focus more on battle in late game. With staying on top of units to make them fight their counters with no over kill.

Edited March 20, 2017 by drsingh

[av93]

12 minutes ago, drsingh said:

I would suggest keep a single type of farm. And different gathering rates depending on the location. Lesser near CC and bonus on farmlands. The total of 3 values are easier to understand and exploit by a skilled player.

 

What is the general opinion on this? It favours rushing, and adds deeper strategy placement and control map thinking.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 hours ago, av93 said:

It favours rushing

I don't know if it favors rushing per se, but it does make it more difficult to defend your food source and encourages scouting and claiming sections of land, which is okay to me since the weird way that 0 a.d. allow making farms in the middle of town protects the food source too much imho.

[DarcReaver]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't know if it favors rushing per se, but it does make it more difficult to defend your food source and encourages scouting and claiming sections of land, which is okay to me since the weird way that 0 a.d. allow making farms in the middle of town protects the food source too much imho.

Yes this favors rushing, but on the other hand - make Civic Centers weaker and allow them in Phase I, that way external food sources can be connected to additional civic centers for defense. And since those weaker it's easier to capture them. Easiest solution...

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Just now, DarcReaver said:

Yes this favors rushing, but on the other hand - make Civic Centers weaker and allow them in Phase I, that way external food sources can be connected to additional civic centers for defense. And since those weaker it's easier to capture them. Easiest solution...

What is the civic center? What does it represent in the game?

[DarcReaver]

HQ, storehouse for all resources and training place for gatherers I suppose. Why do you ask? It doesn't make much sense that a main hall from a village can't be captured realistically at all (except maybe for Gauls, because of Asterix and Obelix ).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I'm saying, if the civic center represents the center of a town/city/metropolis, then why do you want it to act like some kind of forward resource camp? There's already such things: storehouse and farmstead.

[DarcReaver]

Those neither help in defense nor as a training site for gatherers. That's why they are kind of unfit for outer expansion bases. The proposal of using the Civic Center is to not require artworks for an outpost. Also, even though the Town Center represents the city - well, all fine. But that doesn't change the fact that you do not start off with a major, walled in town that can withstand massive attacks. Right now it's like you're starting with Rome without walls. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by DarcReaver

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

27 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

Those neither help in defense nor as a training site for gatherers. That's why they are kind of unfit for outer expansion bases. The proposal of using the Civic Center is to not require artworks for an outpost. Also, even though the Town Center represents the city - well, all fine. But that doesn't change the fact that you do not start off with a major, walled in town that can withstand massive attacks. Right now it's like you're starting with Rome without walls. 

Perhaps then that each civic center casts its own territory, and new ones you build aren't at the highest tier, but are village centers, then are upgraded to town, city, etc. There's not one giant contiguous territory added to by civic centers, but rather dynamic provinces created. Your outer provinces are villages and towns, while inner provinces are cities.

[Palaiogos]

My idea is to make the fields an option. Like in the options or multiplayer menu it says, "Infintely Regenerating Fields, or Fields that every X amount of harvests, you have to replant.

[DarcReaver]

46 minutes ago, Palaiogos said:

My idea is to make the fields an option. Like in the options or multiplayer menu it says, "Infintely Regenerating Fields, or Fields that every X amount of harvests, you have to replant.

Replanting sucks because it takes automatism from the gathering since it also is required when there is no economy harassment is going on. So it's pretty unnecessary. There's a reason why AoM and AoE II features auto queues and unlimited farm food.

I'd rather agree to have them unlimited and factor in a bonus for harvesting for a longer period of time like originally suggested. It will work better, because the unharmed economy is more automatic while attacking farms is more rewarding. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by DarcReaver

[Lion.Kanzen]

11 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't know if it favors rushing per se, but it does make it more difficult to defend your food source and encourages scouting and claiming sections of land, which is okay to me since the weird way that 0 a.d. allow making farms in the middle of town protects the food source too much imho.

And is unrealistic. At city point or metropolis phase.

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Perhaps then that each civic center casts its own territory, and new ones you build aren't at the highest tier, but are village centers, then are upgraded to town, city, etc. There's not one giant contiguous territory added to by civic centers, but rather dynamic provinces created. Your outer provinces are villages and towns, while inner provinces are cities.

So like the towers we need more visual actor for doing the upgrade. ( CC)

 

[Wesley]

Ha I'm probably the only one here with degree that includes agriculture and I can't make up my mind. So many good arguments on both sides.

While no ones suggesting it; Adding finite farms to one civilisation however may make them unplayable. If we're going to differentiate civilisations, making the farm graphics look different visually may suffice. The paddy fields in the Han mod.  

[Libervurto]

As a purely visual thing I would like it.  Possibly if seasons were implemented then different crops could be planted at different times of the year.

As for making farms finite, that seems like an option to be set before the start of a match.  Otherwise, if you give faster harvesting rates to the finite farms then that's the one everyone will use, so it makes the other farms redundant.

[DarcReaver]

8 minutes ago, Libervurto said:

As a purely visual thing I would like it.  Possibly if seasons were implemented then different crops could be planted at different times of the year.

As for making farms finite, that seems like an option to be set before the start of a match.  Otherwise, if you give faster harvesting rates to the finite farms then that's the one everyone will use, so it makes the other farms redundant.

Yea, put seasons in an RTS. And let's rename the game to "Farming Simulator 0 - AD"  while we're at it.

[Libervurto]

20 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

Yea, put seasons in an RTS. And let's rename the game to "Farming Simulator 0 - AD"  while we're at it.

Not quite, I would like to see seasons because the seasons played a huge role in warfare in ancient times.  There are a whole load of ideas for seasons but that would be appropriate to discuss in a separate thread.

[DarcReaver]

1 minute ago, Libervurto said:

Not quite, I would like to see seasons because the seasons played a huge role in warfare in ancient times.  There are a whole load of ideas for seasons but that would be appropriate to discuss in a separate thread.

All I know is that global weather systems that affect fighting are despised in multiplayer. For campaign/single player missions that's an entirely different matter though and perfectly fine. Just don't suggest that as a basic concept for the game.

[wraitii]

Quote

All I know is that global weather systems that affect fighting are despised in multiplayer.

That's entirely dependent on what type of game you are playing/making.

I do agree that it's most likely not a good idea for an AoE-like RTS though.

[Servo]

 

If morals can be added to boost combat unit abilities it's very nice especially if there are constant variety of food resources. If chicken or trees and the likes that can regenerate even in a trickle automatically if not consumed there's not much micromanagement adjustment needed. 

If multiplayer people don't like it give them infinite resources options and battle until they become bored and revert back to standard playing mode. I started playing infinite resources and a lot others than standard then guess what they/I became bored and realized the beauty of having to do more than just war. Take the case of RoN, there were more players playing infinite resources than standard but now almost none. Some went to standard but the complexity made is just reserved for the pros. Guess what dominates Nomad, very low resources and very expensive technology start. The setting is really enjoyable and have more strategy applied. Lots of thinking on behalf of the players.