move fields away from the CC

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's not just historical reality, it doesn't make any sense at all. 

But it does. It makes gameplay sense because it will be very hard to defend fields that are away far from the cc in the early game (and possibly late game)e. This change will entirely change the meta. Frankly, it doesn't take a long read of the forums to realize that big changes like this aren't always appreciated or that big changes like this don't actually improve the gameplay. 

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Some of us like roleplaying to play.

There isn't anything stopping you from building fields away from the CC if you so desire. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

It makes gameplay sense because it will be very hard to defend fields that are away far from the cc in the early game (and possibly late game)e.

If we're making an historical game about building cities and fighting wars, then building farms in the middle of town doesn't make "gameplay" sense anymore than than having triremes fire cruise missiles, even though that might be "better gameplay" to some people.

 

9 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

This change will entirely change the meta.

Good. The game is still in heavy development. 

 

9 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Frankly, it doesn't take a long read of the forums to realize that big changes like this aren't always appreciated or that big changes like this don't actually improve the gameplay. 

I know you're a good player and you like the way things are in the game, but frankly this game's past and future development is measured in decades. The developers need to build a game for the future, not for how some people liked it in one of its past alphas. You're just going to have to adapt to change. 

[chrstgtr]

10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I know you're a good player and you like the way things are in the game, but frankly this game's past and future development is measured in decades. The developers need to build a game for the future, not for how some people liked it in one of its past alphas. You're just going to have to adapt to change. 

  

On 11/03/2021 at 3:32 AM, smiley said:

Hot take, but end user software is meant to be developed for, well, end users. You can have the game be a fancy tea party for Devs, but if there are no end users, it's all for nothing. Something to keep in mind before blurting out "you aren't entitled to anything, we made this without getting paid, take it or leave". You might get what you wished for.

Developers are entitled to end users, not the other way around. That is of course, if the objective is to build a solid community around the product.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

23 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

  

 

that doesn't represent the majority of players.

[maroder]

4 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

It makes gameplay sense because it will be very hard to defend fields that are away far from the cc in the early game (and possibly late game)e. This change will entirely change the meta. Frankly, it doesn't take a long read of the forums to realize that big changes like this aren't always appreciated or that big changes like this don't actually improve the gameplay. 

First of all: Thank you for taking part in the discussion. I see people voting for the option to keep things as they are now, but no one who has a strong disagreement to this proposal has cared enough to say what exactly it is that bothers them about this.

Regarding your concerns: Yes, when looking at any of the options on their own, they would lead to fields that are very hard to defend, but that is not how this needs to end up in the next alpha. At the moment most players maybe build one or two sentry towers in phase one and palisades are mostly used to obstruct siege in phase three. One option to balance the proposed changes would be follow up patches that make these structures actually useful for defense in phase one (which is their original purpose afaik). So make sentry towers cheaper and palisades strong against a p1 rush, but weak as soon as the other player is phased up. My attempt at balancing is here (not as a proposal, only as food for thoughts): https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/38007-increased-realism-mod-and-random-unrealistic-changes

My point is that there are lot of options to include this change without having to cripple the gameplay. If it would help this discussion I can also propose a list of other possible things that can be used to balance this, but that seems like it can lead off-topic very quick.

On a side note: I actually thought that the fact that these changes reward aggressive play and rushing (maybe even with infantry) would be a positive thing?

[chrstgtr]

7 hours ago, maroder said:

On a side note: I actually thought that the fact that these changes reward aggressive play and rushing (maybe even with infantry) would be a positive thing?

My point is that no one actually knows how this will change things. But we do know that it can change gameplay a lot. It will be harder to protect fields. It will slow down gameplay a lot because you will now need to build a farmstand on the outskirts. Sentry towers and palisades won't be great at protecting fields at the start because those take res and time (which you will already be short on) and have their own deficiencies (i.e. a sentry tower can be quickly captured if men aren't closeby to engage in the fight; palisades can't stop archers' arrows)

 

In short, it forces a radical change to gameplay to fix what is essentially an aesthetic problem. If players really want their cities to look "real" then they can still build their fields on the outskirts. There are also smaller, more incremental changes that can be made to encourage more spread out farmlands that don't entirely disrupt the current meta (i.e. Vali's suggestion of reducing the number of farmers). But changing the entire gameplay meta to fix a small problem like this doesn't feel wise. 

[LetswaveaBook]

I would like to debunk an argument which I heard here and bothers me greatly. It is the argument of

 

¨The game is still in alpha.¨

 

To me this argument has some toxic value implying that we can make absurd changes and not bother on whether it benefits the game. As the game is in development, changes will naturally occur. However argument shown before does not give a license to (extraordinary) changes.

I would advocate: Extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary evidence, or applied to here extraordinary changes require extraordinarily strong arguments.

[maroder]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

In short, it forces a radical change to gameplay to fix what is essentially an aesthetic problem.

A problem that bothers people since years: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/4342 and https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/20406-changes-in-farms/

 

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

If players really want their cities to look "real" then they can still build their fields on the outskirts.

Yes and they will loose badly because the current meta punishes this layout.

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

My point is that no one actually knows how this will change things. But we do know that it can change gameplay a lot. It will be harder to protect fields. It will slow down gameplay a lot because you will now need to build a farmstand on the outskirts. Sentry towers and palisades won't be great at protecting fields at the start because those take res and time (which you will already be short on) and have their own deficiencies (i.e. a sentry tower can be quickly captured if men aren't closeby to engage in the fight; palisades can't stop archers' arrows)

True. It will change things, but without trying how they will play out we can not decide if these changes are good or not. As I said, there are also other options how this could be balanced and I really do think that with the right option we don't have to sacrifice gameplay. I am not opposed to trying out incremental changes as Vali's idea.

[maroder]

12 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I would like to debunk an argument which I heard here and bothers me greatly. It is the argument of

 

¨The game is still in alpha.¨

 

To me this argument has some toxic value implying that we can make absurd changes and not bother on whether it benefits the game. As the game is in development, changes will naturally occur. However argument shown before does not give a license to (extraordinary) changes.

I would advocate: Extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary evidence, or applied to here extraordinary changes require extraordinarily strong arguments

I apologize if my comment on the other thread stating this sounded toxic, but you cannot disregard that this is the reality at the moment. I also don't want to make absurd changes for no reason, I stated why I would like to see these changes and I tried to argument why they seem appropriate to me for a game which main feature is that it is open-source and closely based on history compared to other RTS.

An alpha version does mean that there probably will be changes, which will change the current meta. Which is hopefully for the better and if not, then the next version should try and fix that.

[Lion.Kanzen]

There are always going to be changes, beyond the alpha state.

you guys are forgetting the game still missing many planned features.

[Nescio]

On 18/04/2021 at 3:54 PM, maroder said:

If its worth it depends if you like a more realistic city layout. There are some people who would like that (again, see top post) but also people who are ok with the current unrealistic layout. I am just wondering why so many areas of the game are closely based on history, but the standard build order involves that the heart of the cities are turned into one giant farming area.

And again: the goal is not to make the game hyper-realistic. With the right solution we don't have to sacrifice a fun gameplay. The goal is to find a solution that is fun, but looks better/ and is more realistic than the status quo.

While I'm not necessarily opposed to realism, I remain unconvinced the proposed solutions are improvements. The easiest option is not always the best one.

I don't particularly like it fields are placed around civic centres, however, I already can (and do) build farmsteads at the edge of my starting territory and place fields there. I fail to see what's gained by forcing fields to be moved away.

[chrstgtr]

32 minutes ago, maroder said:

An alpha version does mean that there probably will be changes, which will change the current meta. Which is hopefully for the better and if not, then the next version should try and fix that.

I don't want to get into the weeds here as I think I have already said my piece here, so the last thing I will is this:

Just because a game is in alpha doesn't mean all of its pieces can or should be up for reconsideration all the time. If that was true then the game will never exit its alpha phase because everything will always be considered in flux and changes will always be getting made. It also means that we shouldn't revist things that have already been considered in the past unless there is good reason to do so (i.e. some other new feature has fundamentally changed the way the game relates to the subject that we are considering changing. For example, slingers were too strong in a21, so cav was made stronger in a22. But cav was too strong in a22 so cav was nerfed in a23 and slingers again became too strong. etc.). Fundamentally changing the way a city looks has apparently been considered several times throughout the years, but no action was taken. This indicates a choice that we are ok with the current arrangement. Additionally, this isn't like it is some feature that just hasn't been implemented yet--it has always been around but hasn't been changed. Nor has some new feature had an external effect on the way cities are built.  Revisiting the same topics over and over again only distracts from the projections completion. And, saying the game is in "alpha" doesn't automatically justify changes. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

This indicates a choice that we are ok with the current arrangement

It's actually because the dev team doesn't want to hear whinging from a loud vocal minority. The vast majority of players would adapt just fine. I would think you'd want to learn new build orders and strategies based on a changing meta and evolving gameplay, but apparently not. "Fortune favors the Mundane."

[chrstgtr]

21 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's actually because the dev team doesn't want to hear whinging from a loud vocal minority. The vast majority of players would adapt just fine. I would think you'd want to learn new build orders and strategies based on a changing meta and evolving gameplay, but apparently not. "Fortune favors the Mundane."

And again I cannot believe I have to explain this--devs should play the game and interact with players. Forum posts and comments that exist apart from the actual game only are important insofar as those posts/comments reflect actual gameplay/player experience no matter how self-important those posters/devs feel they are. Again, I'm not trying to indict the entire development team as there is obviously a lot of great work that is done and this isn't a pervasive opinion held by all the devs. But the attitude expressed above is simply toxic. 

 

On 11/03/2021 at 3:32 AM, smiley said:

Hot take, but end user software is meant to be developed for, well, end users. You can have the game be a fancy tea party for Devs, but if there are no end users, it's all for nothing. Something to keep in mind before blurting out "you aren't entitled to anything, we made this without getting paid, take it or leave". You might get what you wished for.

Developers are entitled to end users, not the other way around. That is of course, if the objective is to build a solid community around the product.

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by chrstgtr

[Stan`]

10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's actually because the dev team doesn't want to hear whinging from a loud vocal minority.

There is a bit of that it's true. But also silence or inactivity is not consent. Just because I didn't implement stone quarries in the game doesn't mean I'm okay with units mining a stone by being around (I am mostly, but I think it could look better with https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2372) 

 

2 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

And again I cannot believe I have to explain this--devs should play the game and interact with players. Forum posts and comments that exist apart from the actual game only are important insofar as those posts/comments reflect actual gameplay/player experience no matter how self-important those posters/devs feel they are. Again, I'm not trying to indict the entire development team as there is obviously a great of good work that is done and this isn't a pervasive opinion held by all the devs. But the attitude expressed above is simply toxic. 

I think it's important to mention there are two types of devs, some are working on the engine, and some are working on the game. When I started the whole balancing PM and this community of advisers my goal was to leverage the community into getting more involved with the developpment because there is not enough people to do both and there are actually more people working on the engine than the game, and we need to keep the engine improvements in order to support better new player hardware else the game won't run at all but we also need the gameplay developpers because else there will be no players anyway.

Point is, not every dev has the knowledge or the skills to do the balancing. Just putting everyone in the same basket is not productive. There are a lot of types of developpers. And we don't have the kind genius that can do everything. So let's help each other instead of tearing each other apart. PLEASE.

 

 

 

 

[chrstgtr]

1 minute ago, Stan` said:

Point is, not every dev has the knowledge or the skills to do the balancing. Just putting everyone in the same basket is not productive. There are a lot of types of developpers. And we don't have the kind genius that can do everything. So let's help each other instead of tearing each other apart. PLEASE.

 

Not my intention at all. See below from my original post. I 100% agree with you and is, in large part, what I actually say. 

Also, glad to see you are back, Stan. 

20 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Again, I'm not trying to indict the entire development team as there is obviously a lot of great work that is done and this isn't a pervasive opinion held by all the devs.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's actually because the dev team doesn't want to hear whinging from a loud vocal minority. The vast majority of players would adapt just fine. I would think you'd want to learn new build orders and strategies based on a changing meta and evolving gameplay, but apparently not. "Fortune favors the Mundane."

yes it is what I have always said the people who were offended were people who got used to winning in multiplayer for 3 years in a row and now that we change the rules of the game (to put it in some way)This person who are quite scandalous who did not blame that they are good players in Alpha 23 but that things had to change because the game before 24, It was quite imprecise and very disorganized, Now games are much more organized and the screen feels a little more controlled, you can micromanage the game much better.

 

What it does is that Alpha 24 still feels incomplete regarding some things and has some bad decisions regarding some of its structures. The Romans for example are quite limited with their special buildings, most of them were ruined)

 

But we will launch an update to silence those criticisms ( Or at least that's what we're going to try to do this time).

 

From there, away from the usual suspects, there were no criticisms from the general public. No criticism on social media beyond some trolls even less than that, a single one.

 

The game in Alpha version was not intended to always be balanced.

 

We are all just Alfa testers.

 

We have to start looking for how to restore the functionality of some factions.

 

How to fix the due operation of many structures.

 

And how to go further, with asymmetrical factions.

 

 

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

So with all of this, I would say that a middle ground is possible.  People like turtling; it's a staple of the RTS genre, and if people want to farm in the safety of their protective shell, perhaps they should not be overly penalised for doing so.  That said, I would still say there should be ways to encourage people to use other areas due to increased output at the risk of being raided in those areas.  In addition, there could be a few benefits to realistic urban planning around the Civic Centre.  This all could help encourage better map control and more thought with building placement; all to say, I think that there is a compromise to this whole matter that is not too extreme.  

[Lion.Kanzen]

16 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

But it does. It makes gameplay sense because it will be very hard to defend fields that are away far from the cc in the early game (and possibly late game)e. This change will entirely change the meta. Frankly, it doesn't take a long read of the forums to realize that big changes like this aren't always appreciated or that big changes like this don't actually improve the gameplay. 

There isn't anything stopping you from building fields away from the CC if you so desire. 

The territory of the civic center does not give enough space to create the perfect environment to create a farmland in early.

[maroder]

On 19/04/2021 at 7:11 PM, Nescio said:

While I'm not necessarily opposed to realism, I remain unconvinced the proposed solutions are improvements. The easiest option is not always the best one.

I don't particularly like it fields are placed around civic centres, however, I already can (and do) build farmsteads at the edge of my starting territory and place fields there. I fail to see what's gained by forcing fields to be moved away.

Yes you can indeed do that, but the/a favored layout is at the moment this: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/15271-0-ad-on-youtube/page/84/?tab=comments#comment-422786

 

So what I hope would be gained by any of the proposed changes would be a city layout that looks more like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wolf-Dietrich-Klebeband_Städtebilder_G_123_III.jpg

On 19/04/2021 at 8:57 PM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

So with all of this, I would say that a middle ground is possible.  People like turtling; it's a staple of the RTS genre, and if people want to farm in the safety of their protective shell, perhaps they should not be overly penalised for doing so.  That said, I would still say there should be ways to encourage people to use other areas due to increased output at the risk of being raided in those areas.  In addition, there could be a few benefits to realistic urban planning around the Civic Centre.  This all could help encourage better map control and more thought with building placement; all to say, I think that there is a compromise to this whole matter that is not too extreme.  

Yes that is exactly what I am trying to communicate the whole time. I get that my original proposal (split cc functionality) was to far out there, that's why I included other options in the discussion. And I also like turteling, in my opinion it just looks better when it is done using actual defensive structures
 and is less reliant on a building that looks not at all like a defensive structure.

On 19/04/2021 at 7:25 PM, chrstgtr said:

this isn't like it is some feature that just hasn't been implemented yet--it has always been around but hasn't been changed

I don't understand. There are literally open tickets regarding this topic, waiting for a design decision. That is why I opened this discussion and it seems like there are people who would appreciate a more realistic approach (see the poll). I don't try to convince everybody to pick a specific solution, this is a open discussion how we could incorporate this while maintaining a fun gameplay. I fail to see why we should not try to find a solution that looks more realistic and still has a nice gamplay. To not even consider new features only because they may influence the current meta, seems like an very unhealthy attitude for a project that is in development. Then we can just stop development now and call it a day.

[Nescio]

15 minutes ago, maroder said:

So what I hope would be gained by any of the proposed changes would be a city layout that looks more like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wolf-Dietrich-Klebeband_Städtebilder_G_123_III.jpg

That's actually a depiction of Rome in the 16th C AD, when the city was still much smaller than in Augustan times and people were farming inside the old Roman city walls.

[maroder]

8 minutes ago, Nescio said:

That's actually a depiction of Rome in the 16th C AD, when the city was still much smaller than in Augustan times and people were farming inside the old Roman city walls.

My bad, my collection of antique maps is not that good. But would you agree that generally the farming was not done in the middle of the city? As you said, maybe inside the (in this case old) city walls, but not in the very heart of the city.

[Nescio]

1 minute ago, maroder said:

My bad, my collection of antique maps is not that good. But would you agree that generally the farming was not done in the middle of the city? As you said, maybe inside the (in this case old) city walls, but not in the very heart of the city.

Yes, I fully agree the current situation is far from perfect. Nevertheless, I'm unconvinced limiting player freedom (or breaking the AI) is the way to go.

[maroder]

43 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Nevertheless, I'm unconvinced limiting player freedom (or breaking the AI) is the way to go

Yes fair point, but there are also options which would not restrict player freedom. We don't need to use a hard restrictions, we could also use incentives as farmlands or auras that encourage building placement around the CC. The hard restrictions were only mentioned as an option regarding the comments that these soft solutions are to "convoluted". And of course, breaking the AI is not the goal. Depending on the solution we may not even have to change that much. Also, I guess there will probably be other changes that need to be included in the AI, as the turrets for example. So I think this shouldn't be the main reason not to consider changes, as the new alpha is just out and there is still plenty of time to the next release.

[maroder]

At the moment most people choose the idea of DE style farmlands. One option to test these changes in a cautious way (idea by @faction02) would be to implement it on a map level first. We could include a version of the mainland map in a25 which has these farmlands, so that the idea can be extensively tested.

This way, we could discuss the implementation (percentage of farmland, strength of positive effect, location ect.) without changing the complete meta.

Also we don't have to touch the AI. Just adding a label which say this map is not suitable for it, would be enough.

Edited April 21, 2021 by maroder