Important Dates

Latest Posts

Topic: making farmers consistent

hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 1171
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2020-02-17, 17:29

Solstice_s_Return wrote:

hessenfarmer wrote:

Solstice_s_Return wrote:

I agree that a farm with three or maybe even four fields shouldn't reach 100% productivity.

Why not?

Mostly for visual reasons, but it makes them also too easy to place. The other side of the coin is obviously that AI benefits from low field requirement, which is a good thing.

Maybe there is a room for improvement: Speeding up the farmer with food. Then it would eat fish or meat and work faster as a result. Two actions per fish or meat would be proportionate to get 50% extra speed and 6-7 active fields effectively used. What do you think?

that would be ok for a new tribe and as far as I have looked so far this tribe might be europeans. Unfortunately this !thread is only available in German yet.
For me it is common sense not to change the legacy tribe in such fundamental way as it would be hard to balance everything again. So for them we stick with 4 fields I believe.
By the way Frisians already need more space for farms.


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1493
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: North of Germany
Posted at: 2020-02-17, 18:06

hessenfarmer wrote:

Solstice_s_Return wrote:

hessenfarmer wrote:

Solstice_s_Return wrote:

I agree that a farm with three or maybe even four fields shouldn't reach 100% productivity.

Why not?

Mostly for visual reasons, but it makes them also too easy to place. The other side of the coin is obviously that AI benefits from low field requirement, which is a good thing.

Maybe there is a room for improvement: Speeding up the farmer with food. Then it would eat fish or meat and work faster as a result. Two actions per fish or meat would be proportionate to get 50% extra speed and 6-7 active fields effectively used. What do you think?

that would be ok for a new tribe and as far as I have looked so far this tribe might be europeans.

Yes

For me it is common sense not to change the legacy tribe in such fundamental way as it would be hard to balance everything again.

For me too

So for them we stick with 4 fields I believe.

Yes, that would be better

By the way Frisians already need more space for farms.

Exactly, so keeping the other tribes at 4 fields brings more variety.

By the way, usually farms use more than 4 fields because they don't work perfectly intelligent.

Solstice_s_Return wrote:

hessenfarmer wrote:

Solstice_s_Return wrote:

I agree that a farm with three or maybe even four fields shouldn't reach 100% productivity.

Why not?

Mostly for visual reasons, but it makes them also too easy to place.

On many maps they are not easy to place. Maps like Fjords and Archipelagosea could suddenly become even more unplayable face-wink.png

And there are also visual reasons which are an argument for 4 fields: One can place farms in a nice grid and even place a small building next to them, looks very nice.

The other side of the coin is obviously that AI benefits from low field requirement, which is a good thing.

Exactly

the-x wrote:

Is there any advantage of having only 3/4?

Read the thread again and see


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 701
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-02-17, 18:36

I also think that improving farms with food supplies could be interesting in a new tribe but is not for the existing tribes.

The space requirement of all tribes' farms is also fine as it is imho.

Edited: 2020-02-17, 18:36

Top Quote
hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 1171
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2020-02-24, 11:16

So as this thread diverted from the original question. I propose to implement the solution that Nordfriese suggested. (using maxcaps allowing to plant between buildings but not at the shore) this would improve the current situation for all tribes except atlanteans and only worsen atlanteans capabilites as they can't plant at shores anymore.
Any objections?


Top Quote
GunChleoc
Avatar
Joined: 2013-10-07, 15:56
Posts: 3159
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: RenderedRect
Posted at: 2020-02-24, 11:26

Let's try it face-smile.png


Busy indexing nil values

Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1493
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: North of Germany
Posted at: 2020-02-24, 18:35

hessenfarmer wrote:

So as this thread diverted from the original question. I propose to implement the solution that Nordfriese suggested. (using maxcaps allowing to plant between buildings but not at the shore) this would improve the current situation for all tribes except atlanteans and only worsen atlanteans capabilites as they can't plant at shores anymore.
Any objections?

Yes, it's not fun if farmers cannot plant at the shores. How do you define shores, will 1 water triangle ruin a building spot?

Maps like Archipelago Sea and Fjords could be suddenly unplayable.


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 701
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-02-24, 18:44

A field is considered inland if the field and all six neighbouring nodes are touched by at least one walkable ("land") triangle each. Otherwise it is considered shore. So you can have up to five out of six triangles water and it may still be inland depending on the surrounding nodes.

For frisians, empire and barbarians, this change will not make any currently usable nodes unusable.

Edited: 2020-02-24, 18:44

Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1493
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: North of Germany
Posted at: 2020-02-24, 22:30

Nordfriese wrote:

A field is considered inland if the field and all six neighbouring nodes are touched by at least one walkable ("land") triangle each. Otherwise it is considered shore. So you can have up to five out of six triangles water and it may still be inland depending on the surrounding nodes.

So the inner of the sea is defined as shore? face-wink.png

This a complicated definition. Why not determining if a field can be planted only by the number of water triangles around it? I don't like compromises, but maybe we need one here. For example plants could be planted everywhere where at least 2 land triangles surround the node. After all water is good for plants and it's only a computer game, isn't it?

For frisians, empire and barbarians, this change will not make any currently usable nodes unusable.

Because they cannot plant if there is one water triangle, right? This is frustrating.


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 701
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-02-24, 22:47

WorldSavior wrote:

Nordfriese wrote:

A field is considered inland if the field and all six neighbouring nodes are touched by at least one walkable ("land") triangle each. Otherwise it is considered shore. So you can have up to five out of six triangles water and it may still be inland depending on the surrounding nodes.

So the inner of the sea is defined as shore? face-wink.png

This definition of "inland/shore" only applies to the space flag for workers' findspace programs. You can also call them "space" and "occupied" if you want, the code does not even bother giving them names, there they are just return true and return false.

And smaller plants (reed fields, berry bushes, grapes, …) have a more lenient definition: they can use any node the worker can reach at all.

This a complicated definition. Why not determining if a field can be planted only by the number of water triangles around it?

because that is more restrictive than the current system and might make maps with many sparsely distributed water triangles unplayable face-wink.png

For frisians, empire and barbarians, this change will not make any currently usable nodes unusable.

Because they cannot plant if there is one water triangle, right? This is frustrating.

Yes they can, as long as all six surrounding nodes are walkable. Imagine these two situations:

The left field is not usable, because the node southwest of it is water-only. The right field is usable because all six neighbours are walkable.

Edited: 2020-02-24, 22:47

Attachment: shot0001.png (219.8 KB)

Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1493
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: North of Germany
Posted at: 2020-02-25, 21:47

Thanks for the example. Though the left spot looks to me like it should support all plants, and the right one as well face-wink.png


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote