Ludeon Forums

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_rCdGYp3nbSUXFG4Ky96RZW1cJGt9g_6ANZZPOHyNsg/pub

This is Tynan Blog.

Two things; Fertilizer Pumps, which he removed under the pretense of a "more meaningful decision between hydroponics and soil growing" the trouble being that hydroponics in their current state are absolutely useless. They require power; which in the frequent solar exclipses and solar flares makes them nonviable in icy areas...where they are needed. Soil farming is essentially during growth periods in these places to keep gaining food; but soil can often be scare in tundra and desert biomes. Which is why fertilizer pumps were essential.

Now I am not saying add them back in; I am saying create a balanced alternative. Instead of just making the pumps;require they have either a hopper with fertilizer: AND that fertilizer is added to the game to let you make soil manually with your colonsts with a lot of work...

Moreover; today he removed tree sowing.....in favor of traders carrying trees. Trouble with this is that traders become less and less common with not guarantee of them being the trader you need and every gurantee you will need wood eventually for expansion, cheap repairs and for furniture. Don't remove trees; just make them take two or three times longer to grow and please for the love of rimworld; please at least create modules for things like this...

Instead of removing it outright; he should do what he used to do and leave mods in that add back in stuff like the fertlizer pump or tree planting....at the very least...as an option to the PLAYER and CONSUMER XD....

But still these are my complaint/suggestion and if I put this in the wrong place...oh well :P

:l Wait, he removed tree planting?
Why?

Quote from: CodyRex123 on March 04, 2015, 09:02:51 PM
:l Wait, he removed tree planting?
Why?

My guess is to force you to have to use rarer and scarce materials as your progress... but I don't really know....

It still not a good decision even if it makes sense. It kinda makes the game less  fun when you can't make a forest in a desert hahah or cover your tundra in teek trees :P

Still he been making a lot of decisions that have been about creating difficulty instead of making the game more fun and it been getting on my nerves a bit XD

yeah...

Don't understand the poll...
Maybe i don't ever do either tundra or desert, but i like being able to plant trees, especially when i have woodworking mod on.... why remove planting trees and instead make it so that they grow way slower and/ or make them give less wood, i mean, if your starting to grow trees, your gonna be mass purducing them anyways because how slow they grow already.

I'm interested to see how it goes. I play in cold climates where wood is scarce. Planting trees there is a slow process, even when grown in energy-intensive heated rooms. Traders that carry wood are rare, but I love getting them.

Before we go chain ourselves to trees, let's look at some context:

QuoteRebalanced and reformatted plant ecology tunings to lengthen crop cycles and slow wild plant spread.

So Tynan's rebalancing growth of both wild and cultivated crops. Wood availability is probably going to increase on some maps. This could range from trees yielding more wood overall, yielding wood at earlier ages, additional tree types that grow differently (eg, faster), and so on. Knowing that we can't plant trees anymore is only a small part of the picture. Tynan's gone back to balancing wood use (remember the Alpha 4 sawmill?) multiple times, so this is just another pass. Not only will Tynan tweak this internally, but public testing will be all over it as well.

Plus wild tree growth will define maps more. Boreal forest is more like BORING FOREST right now, a poor-man's tundra. Jungle is disease central heatstroke land. With wild trees being more important, one of these biomes' defining features becomes more important. Which is actually pretty realistic, considering logging is a big thing for both. Meanwhile, I won't be able to spam trees across the desert and shrublands like I can now.

edit: I also don't understand this poll :P

I think there needs to be some way of encouraging re-forestation if there's no capability to sow trees.

That is, instead of the guaranteed payoff of X logs in a given amount of time, there's no guarantee of new tree growth, but you can tend to the saplings which are already starting to grow. Seems reasonable, anyway.

Quote from: MarvinKosh on March 04, 2015, 10:38:26 PM
I think there needs to be some way of encouraging re-forestation if there's no capability to sow trees.

That is, instead of the guaranteed payoff of X logs in a given amount of time, there's no guarantee of new tree growth, but you can tend to the saplings which are already starting to grow. Seems reasonable, anyway.

Honestly; if he made trees take longer, give less wood, require processing into planks, and then added forest fires in during "Dry seasons" like summer (or whenever it hot; meaning frequently in deserts and savannas....)

Tree planting and wood need to be BALANCED not REMOVED

That aside; he definitely should re-add it as an optional mod (tree planting)

Yeah, I sort of get the fertilizer pump thing, there's no such thing in real life, but no TREE planting?

I think this Poll lack a neutral option.

However I have to say that I would also prefer to stay able to plant tree even if those grow too slowly to really farm them (if only because they are plant like anything else).
Also on one game I was looking into planting tree for decoration purpose.
If Tynan want to make us more dependent on Traders, I hope he increase their frequency.
At least he made so we didn't need just wood for Working bench

As for the fertilizer, I don't mind.
I did used it to great effect in a Arid Shrubland but it was pretty much OP with no interesting mechanic. I would prefer some new mechanic to make a soil not only fertile but extra-fertile (so that if at first not starving is hard it is less so latter.)

as timber is useful (both as a structural material AND a furniture material) I think they SHOULD stay, or REMOVE ALL TREES AND CROPS!!!! and let the fools starve that thought that landing on a rimworld would allow them to survive

Trees should be plantable, but as a long-term thing. It should take a couple years for them to grow.

No opinion on fertilizer pumps since I never played with them.

Quote from: lusername on March 05, 2015, 04:41:47 AM
Yeah, I sort of get the fertilizer pump thing, there's no such thing in real life, but no TREE planting?

Well there is a machine that mixes soil and fertilizer in real life but it a wheeled machine; I mean my guess is the pump takes the soil/rock under it and slowly processes it into organic materials and then dilutes into a water solution and sprays it in its range...

Quote from: MarvinKosh on March 04, 2015, 10:38:26 PM
I think there needs to be some way of encouraging re-forestation if there's no capability to sow trees.

That is, instead of the guaranteed payoff of X logs in a given amount of time, there's no guarantee of new tree growth, but you can tend to the saplings which are already starting to grow. Seems reasonable, anyway.

The trouble with that is it relies on existing growths...which doesn't work in deserts nor in tundras: to understand something; planting trees for logging is common practice in the real world. and we are probably dealing with genetically modified trees here reengineered for hostile environments; so it not really a leap to say they can grow there...

Quote from: DNK on March 05, 2015, 10:01:43 AM
Trees should be plantable, but as a long-term thing. It should take a couple years for them to grow.

No opinion on fertilizer pumps since I never played with them.

Fert pumps cost 50 metal; need to be powered, and expand slowly overtime a radius of soil; their a little overpowered but lately Tynan finding it fun to remove things rather then rebalance them....which is the point of this entire thread.

It is getting rather...irritating; I mean we get it it's his game; but we play it too.

Anyway; I completely agree, should take a really really long time for them to grow. (120-360 Days)

Quote from: harpo99999 on March 05, 2015, 05:46:14 AM
as timber is useful (both as a structural material AND a furniture material) I think they SHOULD stay, or REMOVE ALL TREES AND CROPS!!!! and let the fools starve that thought that landing on a rimworld would allow them to survive

Heh; although I appreciate the sentiment; please post things that keep this thread running :)

Still; removing tree sowing will make wood inherently difficult in the late game to get as traders become scare which means taking food or materials out of your stock pile to get it in order to use wood for floors, furniture and cheap construction.... there are more tactful ways of doing this though :P

The primary problem with shifting wood to traders (specific traders at that) is that he hasn't adjusted frequency of trade ships nor implemented a way to call traders.

This just makes wood nigh inaccessible in late game. To make it worse, there are several constructions that can't be made without wood.

If this is a balance thing, it needs to not be done half-way.

Quote from: Vaperius on March 04, 2015, 08:09:11 PM
the trouble being that hydroponics in their current state are absolutely useless. They require power; which in the frequent solar exclipses and solar flares makes them nonviable in icy areas...where they are needed.

If a solar eclipse kills your colony, that's totally preventable through power diversification and/or batteries.

I have survived with little problem through the long winters in cold biomes on hydroponics with a little hunting so i can make fine meals.  Yes, the crop will die from time to time.  You just need to have enough people on farming, and have enough capacity so that you have built up a buffer of food to tide you through the down-time.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 05, 2015, 04:48:02 PM
The primary problem with shifting wood to traders (specific traders at that) is that he hasn't adjusted frequency of trade ships nor implemented a way to call traders.

Um, he's just starting alpha 10.  It isn't wise to complain about a change based on the assumption that no other balancing changes will be made.  He can't make all changes simultaneously.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 05, 2015, 04:48:02 PM
The primary problem with shifting wood to traders (specific traders at that) is that he hasn't adjusted frequency of trade ships nor implemented a way to call traders.

This just makes wood nigh inaccessible in late game. To make it worse, there are several constructions that can't be made without wood.

If this is a balance thing, it needs to not be done half-way.

Well actually he made those things stuffed in the same stroke; which is why I posted a direct link to his dev blog;  people that hadn't already found it can book mark it and keep track of his progress and critique him...

Still; it not exactly practical to make a butcher table out of stone or metal....since stone is a essential art and construction material for mid-late game construction and metal is...well. hard to find in late game as you hollow out entire maps to expand your compound.

Quote from: Eleazar on March 05, 2015, 06:25:41 PM

Quote from: Vaperius on March 04, 2015, 08:09:11 PM
the trouble being that hydroponics in their current state are absolutely useless. They require power; which in the frequent solar exclipses and solar flares makes them nonviable in icy areas...where they are needed.

If a solar eclipse kills your colony, that's totally preventable through power diversification and/or batteries.

I have survived with little problem through the long winters in cold biomes on hydroponics with a little hunting so i can make fine meals.  Yes, the crop will die from time to time.  You just need to have enough people on farming, and have enough capacity so that you have built up a buffer of food to tide you through the down-time.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 05, 2015, 04:48:02 PM
The primary problem with shifting wood to traders (specific traders at that) is that he hasn't adjusted frequency of trade ships nor implemented a way to call traders.

Um, he's just starting alpha 10.  It isn't wise to complain about a change based on the assumption that no other balancing changes will be made.  He can't make all changes simultaneously.

Oh....thanks for reminding me...when the power goes out...in winter...in a far north tundra mountain biome..and wood is scare...you aren't going to have enough to keep all your colonists warm...

Granted maybe he trying to contrive the environment by making it more challenging but honestly I don't see the point; we already have to deal with endless waves of ever growing raiders....and forcing us to use metal over wood;wood being a weak and conservative choice to our precious metal reserves...well..you get the picture...

Also; Solar Flares; DISABLE ALL ELECTRONICS....no amount of power diversification is going to keep your crops from wilting in the cold...a warm fire inside the room might if it is properly insultated but aside from that...nope :P

Ehem; Anyway; it more about having to chose between costly long term hydroponics; and cheap but slow growing soil which require complex engineering to keep them working indoors...

Just checked the changelog, no issues here.

My current game is on a Taundra map and literally all farming has to be done indoors (I detest hydroponics for the reasons mentioned.)

I'm late enough into the game that it's time to start sculpting and smithing, no wood for either tables, and it took me a while to realize that traders don't sell it. I've been waiting for my small plantation of oak trees to grow for ages. I'd much rather just buy a few logs.

I don't really care if fertilizer pumps get re-implemented, but it would be nice if different plant types could be grown on different soil. I found the caveworld flora mod and it really feels like mushroom farming should be in the game proper.

I've been liking to use trees as a decoration. The complete removal of tree sowing seems like a bit too radical decision, imho.

What I'm hearing is a lot of complaints that the two easiest ways to circumvent harsh environments (Arctic, desert, etc) are now nerfed/removed. And I say good riddance. No one has any idea what balance for A10 will look like and should hold their complaints until it is out. Tynan and private testers will surely be working on balance.

These environments should be incredibly difficult, and should play radically different from temperate ones, beyond just basic temperature control for pawns bedrooms!

I'm fine with the concepts of sowing trees and fertilizer pumps being reintroduced, but clearly they need a massive rebalance so that different biomes play differently and so that the game mechanics fit well within the rimverse/reality. For trees that probably means making grow times much much slower, and for fertilizer pumps making them much much more expensive to operate. Terra-forming an entire desert or arctic tile in a few game-weeks means the system is broken.

Quote from: Gennadios on March 06, 2015, 03:14:13 PM
Just checked the changelog, no issues here.

My current game is on a Taundra map and literally all farming has to be done indoors (I detest hydroponics for the reasons mentioned.)

I'm late enough into the game that it's time to start sculpting and smithing, no wood for either tables, and it took me a while to realize that traders don't sell it. I've been waiting for my small plantation of oak trees to grow for ages. I'd much rather just buy a few logs.

I don't really care if fertilizer pumps get re-implemented, but it would be nice if different plant types could be grown on different soil. I found the caveworld flora mod and it really feels like mushroom farming should be in the game proper.

Well to be fair your suppose to enclose the trees, place heats to maintain a regulated temperature and light them with sun lamps when it below their growing range for temp.

But I never dis-advocated logging/wood trading; I am just suggesting making us have to choose more strategically between planting our own trees and processing the lumber or getting the preprocessed crap straight from a trader

Quote from: Dive on March 06, 2015, 05:55:41 PM
I've been liking to use trees as a decoration. The complete removal of tree sowing seems like a bit too radical decision, imho.

It is very radical; I am not really an advocate for wholesale reintegration; I want these features balanced properly rather then removed out right;

aside from all the other stuff; I think you should have bigger research chains for fertilizer pump and a "forestry; 1000pt" research topic to plant any kind of tree

Makes sense... except that nearly everybody has planted a tree in their lifetime so yea...

Quote from: akiceabear on March 06, 2015, 07:10:22 PM
What I'm hearing is a lot of complaints that the two easiest ways to circumvent harsh environments (Arctic, desert, etc) are now nerfed/removed. And I say good riddance. No one has any idea what balance for A10 will look like and should hold their complaints until it is out. Tynan and private testers will surely be working on balance.

These environments should be incredibly difficult, and should play radically different from temperate ones, beyond just basic temperature control for pawns bedrooms!

I'm fine with the concepts of sowing trees and fertilizer pumps being reintroduced, but clearly they need a massive rebalance so that different biomes play differently and so that the game mechanics fit well within the rimverse/reality. For trees that probably means making grow times much much slower, and for fertilizer pumps making them much much more expensive to operate. Terra-forming an entire desert or arctic tile in a few game-weeks means the system is broken.

I agree; they really need to re-balance; there is a good reason for this thread; it to bring up the fact Tynan removed these features without at least as far as we know; considering simply fleshing out and re-balancing them...

Research Forestry for trees etc and a deeper set of requirements to operate the pumps.

Deserts and Tundra should be difficult. Fundamentally these features didn't nerf them; it a very common and realistic idea of straightforward ecological engineering; Also terraforming is turning an inhospitable world and making it more earth like XD

What pumps and tree planting do is Ecological engineering; which is improving an existing biome to be more functional for Human or Animal Needs.

Quote from: CodyRex123 on March 06, 2015, 09:59:35 PM
Makes sense... except that nearly everybody has planted a tree in their lifetime so yea...

assuming your refering to the forestry thing; yeah it more "suddenly we can plant trees mean for tropical climates in a desert"

Hmm....there another nerf; diversify soil qualities so that you have to improve soil gradually to be able to plant larger and more impressive plant types.

Think about it; if soil had...grades

A,B,C,D,E,F

F Grade is potato's, Poverty Grass etc

A Grade is Devilstrand and Oak Trees

Get the idea; then you'd have to either seriously invest in improving soil quality to grow trees and devil strand (which as it is is kinda over-powered once you get your first load of it)

then we'd find a compromise...perhaps...thoughts anyone ?

Quote from: Vaperius on March 06, 2015, 10:06:39 PM

Quote from: CodyRex123 on March 06, 2015, 09:59:35 PM
Makes sense... except that nearly everybody has planted a tree in their lifetime so yea...

assuming your refering to the forestry thing; yeah it more "suddenly we can plant trees mean for tropical climates in a desert"

Hmm....there another nerf; diversify soil qualities so that you have to improve soil gradually to be able to plant larger and more impressive plant types.

Think about it; if soil had...grades

A,B,C,D,E,F

F Grade is potato's, Poverty Grass etc

A Grade is Devilstrand and Oak Trees

Get the idea; then you'd have to either seriously invest in improving soil quality to grow trees and devil strand (which as it is is kinda over-powered once you get your first load of it)

then we'd find a compromise...perhaps...thoughts anyone ?

Alright, You/your family has planted a tree before right? In real life? Thats what i mean, Why would it be any diffent so many years in the future, except on industrious worlds. But whatever, ya get what i mean.

Quote from: CodyRex123 on March 06, 2015, 10:37:41 PM

Quote from: Vaperius on March 06, 2015, 10:06:39 PM

Quote from: CodyRex123 on March 06, 2015, 09:59:35 PM
Makes sense... except that nearly everybody has planted a tree in their lifetime so yea...

assuming your refering to the forestry thing; yeah it more "suddenly we can plant trees mean for tropical climates in a desert"

Hmm....there another nerf; diversify soil qualities so that you have to improve soil gradually to be able to plant larger and more impressive plant types.

Think about it; if soil had...grades

A,B,C,D,E,F

F Grade is potato's, Poverty Grass etc

A Grade is Devilstrand and Oak Trees

Get the idea; then you'd have to either seriously invest in improving soil quality to grow trees and devil strand (which as it is is kinda over-powered once you get your first load of it)

then we'd find a compromise...perhaps...thoughts anyone ?

Alright, You/your family has planted a tree before right? In real life? That is what i mean, Why would it be any diffent so many years in the future, except on industrious worlds. But whatever, ya get what i mean.

Planting trees isn't a really common thing in Urban and Suburban areas...

Plus real life has soil quality; and in desert and tundra the ground is too poor in nutrients at the get go to plant in and just adding new soil doesn't cut it XD trees go deep into it, so grade would basically be representing how rich the soil is inherently. with grade A being rich enough for deep root growing oaks to prosper...



And for gods sake...capitalize your I's .... o.o

*Sigh* And thats what i kinda said, Industrious worlds won't really have that, However, seeing as we have both a cryosleep time and normal time, Who ever said that someone's past is the only thing they had happen in their life? What if 60 year old Sara had lived also on a glitterworld planet of which the main goal of life is enjoyment? Thats not including the fact that most back stories in the game gave a lot of room to plant a tree.
Also, Rather not deal with a grammar thing, If the spell check doesn't say its wrong, then its fine. Then again... thats is said to be wrong... WTF?

The fertilizer pumps were a ridiculous concept and absurdly overpowered. Seeing them gone is fine in my book. As for tree planting, I think this is for the best as well. I haven't noticed a shortage yet in places where trees would realistically be common, so long as I don't deforest huge swaths of map, and in places like deserts and tundras... Well, most trees do not survive in those environments. There should be a dearth of trees and, therefore, wood.
Tynan is promoting challenge and discouraging the homogenizing practice of holing up in fully self sufficient, automated killbox defended, roofed in fortresses. I see nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: Darkhymn on March 07, 2015, 01:43:03 AM
The fertilizer pumps were a ridiculous concept and absurdly overpowered. Seeing them gone is fine in my book. As for tree planting, I think this is for the best as well. I haven't noticed a shortage yet in places where trees would realistically be common, so long as I don't deforest huge swaths of map, and in places like deserts and tundras... Well, most trees do not survive in those environments. There should be a dearth of trees and, therefore, wood.
Tynan is promoting challenge and discouraging the homogenizing practice of holing up in fully self sufficient, automated killbox defended, roofed in fortresses. I see nothing wrong with that.

Frankly ? Why is he doing that...it's a game...challenge is fine but it shouldn't be so unrealistically enforced; anyone that understands the basics of biology and forestry knows how to get saplings for trees or compost dead things to create fertilizer....

My stance is to bring it back BETTER and BALANCED so its FAIR and not a giant mess of explotation;  I know full well tree planting and fertilizer are weirdly unbalanced; I am suggesting we improve both to be challenging, require more research, take more resources and be overall more difficult to use...or you know for him to just include them as secondary mods like he used to so we have a choice.

This argument of 'realism' is really wonky sometimes, if for no other reason that it's not.. realistic. At all.

If you want to introduce soil quality issues? Sure. Also introduce the very-easy-to-implement means we have of getting around these issues (i.e. fertilizer, and the ultimate end isn't any kind of depth or complexity, it's just a resource drain attached to primary resource generation).

Want lack of wood to be a problem because 'wood is hard to come by in the arctic'? Sure. The solution would be to just use things other than wood in constructions. Butcher table made out of stone would work fine (if not better) and would even be preferred if I have stone aplenty and no wood to spare.

That's really the issue at the heart of all of this. For all that 'muh realizm' is being used to justify this problem, actual realistic solutions are being shied away from.

There are already multiple kinds of terrain with multiple variables to them (growable, diggable, light, other stuff, too lazy to look into coding get the exact wording), I think limiting what can be planted by biome, and soil type, and pawn growing skill, would be reasonable.


For example, tundra might only be able to plant pine trees, and would have to be on a certain terrain type and by someone with a growing skill minimum 7.

Both game mechanics were OP as they previously were, but if they were significantly rebalanced they could be fine.

Example: Trees could be balanced by requiring a large amount of research into "genetically modified trees", with colonists having to individually research each type of tree. Trees should also take longer to grow, maybe a couple of years (certain real life hybrid poplar strains can be harvested for timber after their third growing season).  This timescale would make them useless in the short term, but useful for 3+year longplayers like me.

Example 2: Fertilizer pumps would require ammonia, which would be fixated in a Haber furnace.  The Haber furnace would be researched, consume a ludeonicrous amount of power, and require some source of hydrogen. This would balance fertilizer pumps.

-Argon

By definition tundra is an environment where trees do not grow!

I personally support moves to differentiate the biomes, even if it means my old easy strategies will be broken. Wash rinse repeat is very boring, and the biomes should be more than just new skins.

Quote from: akiceabear on March 07, 2015, 06:34:31 PM
Wash rinse repeat is very boring, and the biomes should be more than just new skins.

This is really the heart of it.

If a desert base looks just like a jungle base (but with slightly different heating facilities), something is wrong. In my book, anything that encourages more dramatic differences between biomes is good. Being able to build the same optimized, self-contained, killbox'd fortress in every biome and play out the exact same production lines is, to me, a total failure of game design. When each biome feels really different, that's where we win. I made this change because I think it moves further in that direction.

The realism argument doesn't move me. Real trees take decades to grow. If we made them grow realistically, there would be no point in planting them in RW since they'd be nothing more than saplings by the end of even the longest-lived colony. Have you ever heard of a town in the old west in 1875 planting a bunch of trees for lumber? It just doesn't happen because it doesn't make sense in real life. Reforestation is purely a modern phenomenon and only makes sense in the context of huge mechanized logging operations. The only old counterexamples are things like olive, fig, or cork trees, and only because these trees produce for decades after maturity and don't need to be chopped down.

You still have the choice between a tree-filled and a tree-scarce environment. If the idea of tree-scarcity seems horrible to you, just play boreal forest, temperate forest, or jungle. If you want a bit more of a desperate experience, play tundra or desert. You still have access to the same experiences as before, but with new more desperate ones emphasized.

I know that as players you *want* on some level to be able to optimize your colony perfectly into the same perfect base each time. After all, that's your goal at every moment while playing the game, and you feel a sort of dopamine rush pleasure when making progress towards that. It's natural to recoil from design changes that seem to take away what you *want*. But please recognize that a game that hands you your goal easily is not a better game. Games aren't fun because they give you what you want. They're fun because of the dramatic process of struggle, decision, story, and drama that you experience in pursuit of your goal. Just as in life, it's about the journey, not the destination. And when you finally do achieve that perfect base in a desolate tundra, even with the harder game mechanics and greater challenges, the emotional reward will be all the greater because you'll know you bloody earned it.

Quote from: Tynan on March 07, 2015, 07:53:52 PM

Quote from: akiceabear on March 07, 2015, 06:34:31 PM
Wash rinse repeat is very boring, and the biomes should be more than just new skins.

This is really the heart of it.

If a desert base looks just like a jungle base (but with slightly different heating facilities), something is wrong. In my book, anything that encourages more dramatic differences between biomes is good. Being able to build the same optimized, self-contained, killbox'd fortress in every biome and play out the exact same production lines is, to me, a total failure of game design. When each biome feels really different, that's where we win. I made this change because I think it moves further in that direction.

Ironically, I think this is a mark of success. Essentially, you've provided the players with the means to innovate a way to survive across a variety of different environments. I think it's something to understand that bases built to survive 3+ years are all going to be the same, just pallete-swaps of each other. This is something you see in real-live cities, all structured around maximum efficiency.

For me, at least, Rimworld isn't just Sim City with a wonky theme though. Every colony I build isn't made of 'maximum 3 year efficiency', it's made for 'keeping things going long enough to get off this fucking planet'.

That's where the experience is, I think.

It makes sense when you look at it statistically. With a limited que of events, even Randy's long-term behavior isn't really that random and becomes a script of it's own in the long term. Because each AI draws from the same pool in just different order/frequency, the long-term game is going to play essentially the same, no matter the environment, no matter the storyteller. It is going to be difficult to do more than just really delay that.

What many of these changes really do is affect the short-term. When decisions aren't weighted under the assumption of 'being here for 3 years', you start to see the special sort of nuances that appear from 'temporary thing that accidentally became permanent because of a hiccup in the plan'. Loss of colonists is more significant because you aren't stacking up 20 of them, as more than 5-6 really piles on the cost of getting everyone out.

I think that the essential experience of Rim World lies in trying to get off the planet, not in sticking around forever. Things are desperate, dynamic, losses hurt, the research tree is only half-explored (in different orders, depending on environment), and everything is a god damned mess by the time you leave because the choice between 'optimize everything' and 'get the fuck out' isn't a choice.

QuoteThe realism argument doesn't move me.

Thank the gods.

I believe the common issue to both is that they have been removed to try and prevent people making a colony that is a bunker buried indoors with no way in for pirates and no challenge.

Fertilizer pumps were used to make large underground farms which were better than hydroponics, trees were also grown inside bases and this change is designed to make colonies be more accessible to the outdoors. If you make trees only growable outdoors and much slower so you have to plant a plantation too large to protect with walls, that should be a happy middle to the current option of wild growth only.

The real solution to underground bases would be making mining harder and slower to prevent people building whole bases inside a mountain (this isn't dwarf fortress despite the parallels), I find the game much more interesting and challenging if you have to build a set of buildings outdoors with little natural protection, defended by the colonists and clever base design not exploit-y kill boxes.

That wouldn't solve anything.

Some kind of method of fertilizing grounds should be possible; however, it should only be possible maybe in the late-game (prerequisite techs, the whole lot) as well as take a lot of power or production time to successfully administer.
That way you maybe could make a bigger farm in your desert cave colony, but only after a number of in-game years with certain material conditions applying as well as each usage of said method being useful for only maybe one tile per device/whatever.

Even if Tynan doesn't implement such a thing, there are mods already and will be mods doing so, I'm not quite sure what the ruckus is about.

QuoteSome kind of method of fertilizing grounds should be possible; however, it should only be possible maybe in the late-game (prerequisite techs, the whole lot) as well as take a lot of power or production time to successfully administer.

I'm also fine with its removal, but think if it is reintroduced it should be nerfed considerably. My thoughts:

Fertilizer pump requires soil balanced to it. All ground should have a positive fertility, but in tundra and desert biomes be so low that no plants except a basic moss or cactus will grow, and even then very slowly. A fertilizer pump will increase the fertility of an area by a multiplier, rather than converting the land to a new type. Thus fertilizer has a limited but positive affect in biomes like the desert, where it maybe only adds one more plant (a potato?) to the list of possibilities you can grow. If the power generation balances used in BTSG  (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=11253.0)are applied to vanilla that would also reduce the ability to spam fertilizer pumps.

Trees should be re-balanced to grow incredibly slowly, e.g. a year or more before harvest is possible. It's been requested many times, so perhaps not going to happen, but blights need to be balanced as well to make them only attack a set of genetically similar crops at one time.

Quote from: Tynan on March 07, 2015, 07:53:52 PM
I know that as players you *want* on some level to be able to optimize your colony perfectly into the same perfect base each time. After all, that's your goal at every moment while playing the game, and you feel a sort of dopamine rush pleasure when making progress towards that. It's natural to recoil from design changes that seem to take away what you *want*. But please recognize that a game that hands you your goal easily is not a better game. Games aren't fun because they give you what you want. They're fun because of the dramatic process of struggle, decision, story, and drama that you experience in pursuit of your goal. Just as in life, it's about the journey, not the destination. And when you finally do achieve that perfect base in a desolate tundra, even with the harder game mechanics and greater challenges, the emotional reward will be all the greater because you'll know you bloody earned it.

I really hope you'll stick with that philosophy. I agree completely.

But then again, I am very much a survival game masochist. I just can't get enough punishment as long as I can see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Even if the light is an incoming train ?

I need my pumps.
All this water is driving me mad!

Quote from: cultist on March 09, 2015, 11:46:08 PM

Quote from: Tynan on March 07, 2015, 07:53:52 PM
I know that as players you *want* on some level to be able to optimize your colony perfectly into the same perfect base each time. After all, that's your goal at every moment while playing the game, and you feel a sort of dopamine rush pleasure when making progress towards that. It's natural to recoil from design changes that seem to take away what you *want*. But please recognize that a game that hands you your goal easily is not a better game. Games aren't fun because they give you what you want. They're fun because of the dramatic process of struggle, decision, story, and drama that you experience in pursuit of your goal. Just as in life, it's about the journey, not the destination. And when you finally do achieve that perfect base in a desolate tundra, even with the harder game mechanics and greater challenges, the emotional reward will be all the greater because you'll know you bloody earned it.

I really hope you'll stick with that philosophy. I agree completely.

But then again, I am very much a survival game masochist. I just can't get enough punishment as long as I can see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Likewise - I'm a huge fan of choice and challenge, and most importantly that choices ripple through to gameplay. That includes making biomes matter throughout all/most gameplay decisions, not just a reskin and switching out heaters for coolers.

Overall very happy with the direction things are going!

I say yes to leaving tree planting in. But make it so that trees need two empty spaces instead of 1. Also, reduce wood quantity from harvesting dramatically to the 5 logs per tree range on oak trees and scaled equally down for the other trees. Another idea is to have a chance to fail to grow to maturity for all trees in general, and for planted trees specifically based upon the growing skill level of the colonist that planted it. I also like the suggestion of forest fire events that occasionally trigger when humidity levels are down or if there hasn't been rain in a while or if the temperatures get too high. Also, you could add in another event similar to the alpha beavers but it is illegal forestry done by an enemy faction. The foresters would cut down all the trees in an area and send the logs to their colony until they are killed or scared off. They would stop chopping and start shooting if your colonists got too close of course. All of these suggestions together would solve the whole issue with wood I think.

[edit to add] Also, you should only be able to plant trees that are native to the biome you are in. No teak trees in the tundra and no non-desert trees in the desert.

As for fert pumps, I think they should be replaced rather than removed. Instead of building a stationary item that magically turns sand into soil, make a compost heap where rotten organic material is placed and over time turns into fertilizer which can then be used to "build" a fertile soil tile. This would require a person to sacrifice some of their food by leaving it outside to rot. It would require time and would therefore not be OP. And then it would require work for a colonist to spread the fertilizer. The amount of time, work, and food could all be tweaked to balance this mechanism. You would have to research composting to get the compost heap too. And then you could leave the fert pumps in and have them require research which would require the composting research first. And as someone else suggested you should need a hopper full of fertilizer for it to actually work. It would then save you from having to make a colonist stand in one spot spreading fertilizer when they could be off doing other jobs. But you would still need to spend the time to create the fertilizer so it would still be much less OP than the original fert pumps.

Seeing some of these suggested alternatives just leaves me optimistic for the current changes in place, lol.

I agree with the change, but I think it should be more relative to reality, not the most popular opinion. Trees take forever to grow irl. They should grow super slow, and whatever you choose to cut down isn't going to grow back for another 30-50-80 years (outside of the games span). Once you deforest an area, thats it. Planting your own trees would be useless as they will never reach maturity in time to be used.

To offset this, I think they should produce a lot more lumber. Cutting down a couple trees should be enough for a decently sized building.
In reality, a tree mature enough to be used for lumber is usually huge. The problem I see is that trees are shown way smaller in game than trees grow in reality.

I don't like the genetically altered excuse, it seems like this games version of "Because.. Magic." Use it to explain away anything we don't want to actually think about.
A genetically altered tree that grows in a year or two would suck nutrients from the soil around it so quickly it would literally kill itself.

And cacti used for wood? That's just silly...

Quote from: Kirid on March 11, 2015, 03:35:01 PM
And cacti used for wood? That's just silly...

(http://static.fjcdn.com/large/pictures/0e/dc/0edc8e_722137.jpg)

StorymasterQ, I know the temptation to be facetious is strong but. Please avoid it. When you post stuff like that, other people will post more stuff like that and then the topic gets really really derailed.

:P

Anyway; figured this is a good time to step in.

A lot of continue argument has to put out to say "Removing Tree planting and Fertilizer's Pumps increases the challenge of the Game"

Yes, yes it does. Of course it does these features were unbalanced and made it easy to play in biome's that should otherwise be extremely difficult.

However, the ultimate point that been made in this thread in counter argument has not been to simply readd these features, but to balance them properly, finding a middle ground between how much they actually assist us.

Not simply adding tree planting, but making trees take longer to grow in the first place, a greater hindrance not only to artificial forests made in extreme biomes, but also to fundamentally make the game have options. Do you rely on wild growth to provide or do you use precious man hours maintaining these forests each harvest season.

Moreover, other compromises, like requiring processing, actually not just a compromise but an overall request, as ultimately requiring the processing of wood in planks makes sense for making objects such as tables and chairs at the very least.

Then it was also put forward that we might require research for "Forestry" so that we could actually plant these trees by "understanding the conditions needed for them".


I'd like to offer a general idea for planting/sowing system. We should need to obtain the seedlings/saplings to be able to actually grow something.

I am not sure if Tynan already has this planned. But a overall the system of being able to grow hundreds of potato plants from nothing and accrue thousands of potatoes in months has always struck me as odd.

Overall the growing system should have a new check essentially so we can't just instantly grow an entire field of Devilstrand right at the start.

See; every issue we prepose to tree planting could be solved with new checks and balances, instead of just removing it.

Why create a new a challenge when you can make a current feature have a new challenge to be used?

To be honest a lot of things in the game need to be changed.

I truly believe Tree Planting is important.

In any case.

On the subject of Cactus; eh; reality is unrealistic.

Quote from: Vaperius on March 12, 2015, 01:55:30 AM
On the subject of Cactus; eh; reality is unrealistic.

Saguaro cacti have been used for wood for centuries. When it dies and dries out it becomes just as hard as any other wood. It is easy to process into long boards before it dries and has been used as both fire wood and building materials by Native Americans.

I'm not sure where adding seeds or tossing in more research sinks really adds to the challenge of much. Convoluted =/= depth or complexity.

'Realism' isn't much of an argument either.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 12, 2015, 01:55:00 PM
I'm not sure where adding seeds or tossing in more research sinks really adds to the challenge of much. Convoluted =/= depth or complexity.

'Realism' isn't much of an argument either.

and your telling me that only being able to get wood from wild sources isn't a little convoluted since there likely going to a hundreds of players when it comes out in Alpha 10 trying to find ways to artificially manipulate the growth of said trees for their benefit.

Removing direct planting has done nothing but made it harder to grow our own trees.

Again; this is not just a compromise; plenty of systems in this game are under-balanced. The point isn't realism, it requiring you face a new challenge to succeed. Realism imposes challenge; and challenge has been the sole argument of many of the against parties.

Not only is wood  not needed for as much, but traders will be carrying it as common stock. If it's anything like it is presently with traders that have wood, it'll be cheap enough to get what's needed for those who insist.

The major impact this has is mostly on desert and tundra maps where wild sources of wood are infrequent, and the players already working those maps presently are working solutions to it.

Lastly, the problem with 'realism' is that it frequently doesn't impose challenge. If anything, it frequently removes challenge as alot of people citing 'muh realism' like to forget the very realistic solutions to the "realistic" problems they like to introduce.

Case in point: Don't have wood? Then build with something other than wood. Problem solved.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 12, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
Not only is wood  not needed for as much, but traders will be carrying it as common stock. If it's anything like it is presently with traders that have wood, it'll be cheap enough to get what's needed for those who insist.

The major impact this has is mostly on desert and tundra maps where wild sources of wood are infrequent, and the players already working those maps presently are working solutions to it.

Lastly, the problem with 'realism' is that it frequently doesn't impose challenge. If anything, it frequently removes challenge as alot of people citing 'muh realism' like to forget the very realistic solutions to the "realistic" problems they like to introduce.

Case in point: Don't have wood? Then build with something other than wood. Problem solved.

I don't have an argument for this. It hard to argue that this wouldn't add more challenge. Removing a easily obtained resource is obviously going to add more challenge. But for the last time. This thread isn't really about just readding it. It about fixing the damn thing so that those that want it can have it in a way that still gives a stratifying challenge as the game goes on.

Yes. We could easily remove such an easy way to nullify the challenge of a tundra or desert and force reliance on traders. But you need to remember and issue of such advocacy is relying on traders means trading for silver, so you need to sell sculpture and food products in the first place to get silver for wood. So now all you done is force people to sacrifice the option of planting it for themselves for instead buying yet another resource off of traders in a system that require enormous amounts of food to make any money in.

Anyway. You make valid points. But I still think the game needs Tree planting as an option, even if it needs to be nerf'd into supreme oblivion of usefulness in tundras and deserts. There are flaws going either way, and fundamentally we may as well meet at the middle in the coming Alpha, see how that effects gameplay and if it didn't work THEN we should consider removal or even more serious rebalance.

Anyway. Thank you for posting :)

I'd agree with this, except for two points.

On one, wood is already available aplenty outside of desert and tundra. It's also already scarce in desert and tundra.

Keeping the planting as-is, you'd likely encounter more than one trader if not have stonecutting already developed long before your first tree harvest (probably faced your first raid or two by then too. 20 days is a long time, and this is assuming you're planting on rich soil).

Even if you're unfortunate enough to have nothing but food to sell, you're looking at about 2-3 units of wood for every simple meal, and 4x as much for every fine meal (unless it changes, wood is kinda cheap).

So, really, while I more understand why taking out the pumps was a bit breaking, it seems almost pointless to remove tree planting, as in A10 it's pretty much the most difficult way to access wood for alot of things you'll no longer need wood for anyways.

Outside of aesthetics, I don't know what you'd want wood for anyway. It's a terrible building material, wood floors give poor bonuses, and it's only a marginally better art trainer than stone. Seems to me that these considerations coupled with how cheap it is from traders and how readily available it is in all but two biomes, that there would be no problem here.
I'm not even sure how you'd go about balancing, beyond making them take longer to grow, and even that would be a lame solution.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 12, 2015, 10:27:55 PM
I'd agree with this, except for two points.

On one, wood is already available aplenty outside of desert and tundra. It's also already scarce in desert and tundra.

Keeping the planting as-is, you'd likely encounter more than one trader if not have stonecutting already developed long before your first tree harvest (probably faced your first raid or two by then too. 20 days is a long time, and this is assuming you're planting on rich soil).

Even if you're unfortunate enough to have nothing but food to sell, you're looking at about 2-3 units of wood for every simple meal, and 4x as much for every fine meal (unless it changes, wood is kinda cheap).

So, really, while I more understand why taking out the pumps was a bit breaking, it seems almost pointless to remove tree planting, as in A10 it's pretty much the most difficult way to access wood for alot of things you'll no longer need wood for anyways.

Traders become less common as your progress* at least from what I've observed. I might be wrong.

Second on point; agreed that fertilizer pumps are going to need a ridiculous amount of rebalance before you ever put them back in you know ? I mean it not like I am not well aware they can be abused really easily. I am suggesting we rebalance them really really neatly.

Aside from that; while a fair point on the stone cutting and everything. It still doesn't take into account extremely hot or cold biomes where you rapidly need to construct/find shelter nor really the fact you actually need to research that and it unlikely you will have a sufficient stockpile of stone before your first raid to build anything really impressive.

QuoteIt still doesn't take into account extremely hot or cold biomes where you rapidly need to construct/find shelter nor really the fact you actually need to research that and it unlikely you will have a sufficient stockpile of stone before your first raid to build anything really impressive.

Actually, it does. These biomes should be incredibly hard, with most colonies failing. If you don't want a grueling challenge, don't play in the arctic or desert.

Quote from: Vaperius on March 13, 2015, 02:05:26 AMAside from that; while a fair point on the stone cutting and everything. It still doesn't take into account extremely hot or cold biomes where you rapidly need to construct/find shelter nor really the fact you actually need to research that and it unlikely you will have a sufficient stockpile of stone before your first raid to build anything really impressive.

Somewhat relating to the post above, yes the issue of wood is difficult for desert and tundra, however these aren't things that tree planting will fix. They're things that, as Tynan thankfully realized, expanding the stuffs system would fix.

It means that desert/tundra colonies will have a slightly rougher start, but there's more than enough metal to get your research table, turret, and power needs situated.

Quote from: cultist on March 09, 2015, 11:46:08 PM

Quote from: Tynan on March 07, 2015, 07:53:52 PM
I know that as players you *want* on some level to be able to optimize your colony perfectly into the same perfect base each time. After all, that's your goal at every moment while playing the game, and you feel a sort of dopamine rush pleasure when making progress towards that. It's natural to recoil from design changes that seem to take away what you *want*. But please recognize that a game that hands you your goal easily is not a better game. Games aren't fun because they give you what you want. They're fun because of the dramatic process of struggle, decision, story, and drama that you experience in pursuit of your goal. Just as in life, it's about the journey, not the destination. And when you finally do achieve that perfect base in a desolate tundra, even with the harder game mechanics and greater challenges, the emotional reward will be all the greater because you'll know you bloody earned it.

I really hope you'll stick with that philosophy. I agree completely.

But then again, I am very much a survival game masochist. I just can't get enough punishment as long as I can see a light at the end of the tunnel.

+ from me to both of you.

Quote from: Andy_Dandy on March 14, 2015, 09:09:01 AM

Quote from: cultist on March 09, 2015, 11:46:08 PM

Quote from: Tynan on March 07, 2015, 07:53:52 PM
I know that as players you *want* on some level to be able to optimize your colony perfectly into the same perfect base each time. After all, that's your goal at every moment while playing the game, and you feel a sort of dopamine rush pleasure when making progress towards that. It's natural to recoil from design changes that seem to take away what you *want*. But please recognize that a game that hands you your goal easily is not a better game. Games aren't fun because they give you what you want. They're fun because of the dramatic process of struggle, decision, story, and drama that you experience in pursuit of your goal. Just as in life, it's about the journey, not the destination. And when you finally do achieve that perfect base in a desolate tundra, even with the harder game mechanics and greater challenges, the emotional reward will be all the greater because you'll know you bloody earned it.

I really hope you'll stick with that philosophy. I agree completely.

But then again, I am very much a survival game masochist. I just can't get enough punishment as long as I can see a light at the end of the tunnel.

+ from me to both of you.

....Add to the Discussion o.o Don't just quote someone and move on...Actually this is a perfect operating to put in my two cents on those guys opinion isn't it...

Some people prefer overcoming a challenge presented rather then a challenge created.

Basically instead removing Tree planting is an example of creating a challenge because of it's absence whereas a lot of the rebalancing ranging from increasing tree planting length, adding a research requirement, and even increasing work times, requiring you have saplings and a variety of other ideas to inherently make it more challenging by offering a challenge.

Granted, it's all moot, still, its clearly this topic is important enough on it own not to need to be that. Tree planting clearly effects the game play, and a lot more then we originally appreciated. I strongly believe a rebalance over a removal of it from game must be done.

All the arguments to keep it out are it adds challenge, or it makes the game more fun, and here it is. Not everyone agrees with this point of view, or wants it taken out of their own games. A compromise should be reached rather then going one way on the topic.

QuoteNot everyone agrees with this point of view, or wants it taken out of their own games. A compromise should be reached rather then going one way on the topic.

It's Tynan's game, so he'll follow his vision - which so far I'm very happy with.

But don't let vanilla hold you back! Feel free to mod it back in! My impression is that the rest of this conversation is more or less happy with some form of nerfing trees and growing...

The 'adding challenge' thing is mostly alot of empty sophism, if I'm not going to mince words about it.

Tynan wanted variation in environments and wanted to stress the differences in playing between them. Not only is this not explicitly 'challenge', but the changes actually make things easier overall.

The only reason I'm against it's removal is because it's kinda pointless. With expansion of stuffs and traders carrying wood, tree-planting functionally has no real impact on gameplay.

Quote from: Tynan on March 07, 2015, 07:53:52 PM

Quote from: akiceabear on March 07, 2015, 06:34:31 PM
Wash rinse repeat is very boring, and the biomes should be more than just new skins.

This is really the heart of it.

If a desert base looks just like a jungle base (but with slightly different heating facilities), something is wrong. In my book, anything that encourages more dramatic differences between biomes is good. Being able to build the same optimized, self-contained, killbox'd fortress in every biome and play out the exact same production lines is, to me, a total failure of game design. When each biome feels really different, that's where we win. I made this change because I think it moves further in that direction.

The realism argument doesn't move me. Real trees take decades to grow. If we made them grow realistically, there would be no point in planting them in RW since they'd be nothing more than saplings by the end of even the longest-lived colony. Have you ever heard of a town in the old west in 1875 planting a bunch of trees for lumber? It just doesn't happen because it doesn't make sense in real life

Yes, this is an issue.

Part of the issue is that hydroponics is so OP currently. It's a tech that's accessible in the first 3 months and pretty much ends your need to deal with your biome for sustenance. So long as you make modern-era techs immediately available and practicable, you make nature almost a pointless backdrop.

Another part of the issue is even then deserts have a lot of soil. You don't have to spread your plantings all over the place in whatever little patches of soil you can find because: 1) there's large globs on every map, 2) the soil is just as good as any other soil, 3) plants still grow at the same pace, and 4) water isn't important. A desert biome should force you to have a very spread out base, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to grow enough to feed your colony, but currently that's not the case, nor is bio-planning ever really the case in A9.

Also here's a plug: it'd be nice to have some sort of adobe/clay building stuff in a later alpha. It's a very common building material in the real world, weak but easy to put up structures with.

The whole premise of technology is overcoming difficulty and solving problems. Hydroponics only really works in the case where you have a large and stable energy supply.

If you're running low difficulty and have a geyser conveniently accessible next to you, then sure, that's alot of trouble saved. Though, you're pretty much just lamenting the lack of trouble when you've gone out of your way to avoid it. Hydroponics wouldn't have water issues either.

It's worth pointing out that currently in A9, tundra starts which are far enough north will have next to no wild tree growth because of the lack of light. That in itself is quite rough, as I discovered on my own.

That being said, having access to wood from traders means that it's possible to build campfires in cold conditions even when you've run out of wild trees to harvest. Instead of having some square cellage devoted to growing trees indoors, you can do something else that will allow you to trade for what you need.

I feel that not being able to grow everything that you need makes the game more interesting!

Quote from: MarvinKosh on March 15, 2015, 01:21:05 PM
It's worth pointing out that currently in A9, tundra starts which are far enough north will have next to no wild tree growth because of the lack of light. That in itself is quite rough, as I discovered on my own.

That being said, having access to wood from traders means that it's possible to build campfires in cold conditions even when you've run out of wild trees to harvest. Instead of having some square cellage devoted to growing trees indoors, you can do something else that will allow you to trade for what you need.

I feel that not being able to grow everything that you need makes the game more interesting!

I feel that one of the biggest early-obstacles to tundra/desert colonies isn't wood, so much as the time needed to research stonecutting. The game doesn't really even 'begin' until that point, really.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 15, 2015, 06:54:04 PM

Quote from: MarvinKosh on March 15, 2015, 01:21:05 PM
It's worth pointing out that currently in A9, tundra starts which are far enough north will have next to no wild tree growth because of the lack of light. That in itself is quite rough, as I discovered on my own.

That being said, having access to wood from traders means that it's possible to build campfires in cold conditions even when you've run out of wild trees to harvest. Instead of having some square cellage devoted to growing trees indoors, you can do something else that will allow you to trade for what you need.

I feel that not being able to grow everything that you need makes the game more interesting!

I feel that one of the biggest early-obstacles to tundra/desert colonies isn't wood, so much as the time needed to research stonecutting. The game doesn't really even 'begin' until that point, really.

To be honest more rock chunks need to drop from mining and the overral bricks you get from it needs to be a bit higher; and the research should take a tad longer...

Still; hmm... I wonder if snow/water will ever become a resource you need to use in farming ? o.o or having to actually till soil...

There is a mod for tilling soil to create rich soil tiles.

I don't want to make judgements on something I havn't seen implemented yet.

All this topic has done makes me want to do a no chopping down tree's "tree hugger" colony in the tundra or dessert. I bet it's going to do just fine. I might miss wood doors - will make getting plasteel ones feel that much more awesome.

Quote from: Teague on March 16, 2015, 01:35:41 AM
I don't want to make judgements on something I havn't seen implemented yet.

All this topic has done makes me want to do a no chopping down tree's "tree hugger" colony in the tundra or dessert. I bet it's going to do just fine. I might miss wood doors - will make getting plasteel ones feel that much more awesome.

I've never once used the tree planting feature in A9. Nor have I ever had a shortage of wood in any biome. Wood just isn't that important at any stage in the game except at the very beginning before you've researched stonecutting. Even then, you start with enough silver to buy all of the wood you will ever need from the first trader to pass by, if you're willing to waste it.

I'm always finding myself in need of wood. That's because i like to build outside and build cozy wood cabins.

I didn't follow this post closely so i won't give any insights, but i figured i should voice my POV.

I haven't played much with planting or used the pumps in any extensive manner, but when i did it provided me with a fun time, it entertained me, which is the purpose of the game, so the idea of removing both of these COMPLETELY AGE-OLD NATURAL AND OBVIOUS ABILITIES (planting stuff and fertilizing stuff) feels pretty radical for me. Perhaps its the fact that i never used with an exploiting mind, even so it just shows that it's not the idea of planting trees and fertilizing the ground that is wrong: it's the execution of it (well, obvious right?).

So, i'll throw right back at ya: All the mantra here of not getting moved by the "realism" argument is bollocks (and i mean this in a friendly way). You're just spitting on the plate you ate, everything is built upon "realism", and while we don't need to factor every reality bit inside a game, or how its being said: a game doesn't need to be realistic, but it does need verisimilitude. There's absolutely no reason why 5k years from now the human race and your intrepid group of spaceship builders wouldn't be able to plant a tree or build a fertilizer pump.

Taking away both, like it has been pointed, just feels like a cheap way to challenge or to make a biome unique.
Want to make it unique? Give it unique events, give it unique fauna & flora, resources availability, power generation potential, enemies. Already on track? Good! Enhance upon, just don't take away options, improve them.

What's so bad about planting trees? The speed they grow? There are exploding mice in the game. Is it exploitable? Slow the growth speed, make it require a specific soil, an expensive growing technique or a terraforming gardening equipment, seeds, constant care, specific animals, birds, rain, whatever reason. Make it impossible to plant in a desert, its okay, it makes sense, but geez, let me plant my tree garden in my hard-earned dream colony, let me put a tree in front of Ross' house so he can have a shade and watch the birds.

Fertilizer pump is OP? Uhh, nerf it? Lower the radius, denies certain terrains to become soil, make it require water or some other resource, make it so if you delete it, it returns to its old terrain type, move it waaaay further in tech tree, make it require hard-to-buy equipment, change its purpose a little. I mean, all these rimplanets have all been terraformed but your rapidly-advancing colony can't built a fertilizing pump?

Well, that sounded a bit ragey, but i just didn't see a good justifiable reason that couldn't be addressed in a better way

Quote from: Johnny Masters on March 16, 2015, 07:02:02 AM
I'm always finding myself in need of wood. That's because i like to build outside and build cozy wood cabins.

I didn't follow this post closely so i won't give any insights, but i figured i should voice my POV.

I haven't played much with planting or used the pumps in any extensive manner, but when i did it provided me with a fun time, it entertained me, which is the purpose of the game, so the idea of removing both of these COMPLETELY AGE-OLD NATURAL AND OBVIOUS ABILITIES (planting stuff and fertilizing stuff) feels pretty radical for me. Perhaps its the fact that i never used with an exploiting mind, even so it just shows that it's not the idea of planting trees and fertilizing the ground that is wrong: it's the execution of it (well, obvious right?).

So, i'll throw right back at ya: All the mantra here of not getting moved by the "realism" argument is bollocks (and i mean this in a friendly way). You're just spitting on the plate you ate, everything is built upon "realism", and while we don't need to factor every reality bit inside a game, or how its being said: a game doesn't need to be realistic, but it does need verisimilitude. There's absolutely no reason why 5k years from now the human race and your intrepid group of spaceship builders wouldn't be able to plant a tree or build a fertilizer pump.

Taking away both, like it has been pointed, just feels like a cheap way to challenge or to make a biome unique.
Want to make it unique? Give it unique events, give it unique fauna & flora, resources availability, power generation potential, enemies. Already on track? Good! Enhance upon, just don't take away options, improve them.

What's so bad about planting trees? The speed they grow? There are exploding mice in the game. Is it exploitable? Slow the growth speed, make it require a specific soil, an expensive growing technique or a terraforming gardening equipment, seeds, constant care, specific animals, birds, rain, whatever reason. Make it impossible to plant in a desert, its okay, it makes sense, but geez, let me plant my tree garden in my hard-earned dream colony, let me put a tree in front of Ross' house so he can have a shade and watch the birds.

Fertilizer pump is OP? Uhh, nerf it? Lower the radius, denies certain terrains to become soil, make it require water or some other resource, make it so if you delete it, it returns to its old terrain type, move it waaaay further in tech tree, make it require hard-to-buy equipment, change its purpose a little. I mean, all these rimplanets have all been terraformed but your rapidly-advancing colony can't built a fertilizing pump?

Well, that sounded a bit ragey, but i just didn't see a good justifiable reason that couldn't be addressed in a better way

I could see both of these things fitting into the game under two sets of circumstances:
1) The fertilizer pump requires compost or some other form of biomatter and can only enrich existing soil, not create it from nothing.
2) Trees grow much, much more slowly, and require a lot more space to grow big enough to cut for lumber.

Agreed on the Fertilizer pump front and the Tree plant front.

Frankly as the discussion has gone on Tree planting re-balance suggestions have propagated this entire thread. From Research, to slower growth times, etc...

Its important to voice our opinions and agreement with the idea though.

Many seem to be ignoring that trees do not grow on tundra, and to some extent not in deserts either. So even if they are readded with balance (e.g. a 1-2 year grow cycle), they still should not be growable in those biomes. I think it's a bit silly to demand the same trees be growable in every biome and then also imply the biomes can be differentiated using "flora/fauna"...

The whole point of hydroponics, greenhouses, and general agriculture is planting of flora in environments not otherwise suited to them.

It's not silly to demand that people be able to do things that they could reasonably do. Reasonably do with little effort, given the technology available.

I still see removing tree planting as a pointless gesture. With all due respect, I don't think that Tynan has made a very strong point behind removing this feature, given the changes he's already made to render it mostly unnecessary to exploit.

I'd argue that the fertilizer pump is being abused for massive farms in part because the alternative (NPD) is so horrible.

QuoteIt's not silly to demand that people be able to do things that they could reasonably do.

Most classic arctic/tundra communities lived off of marine wildlife, not vegetation, and most modern ones live almost exclusively off of imported food. Wood there is extremely scarce and expensive, since it is only naturally occurring as drift wood. Many structures are built out of refurbished steel cargo containers.

I imagine it is similar in small desert communities (but with their own specific flora/fauna). Using massive greenhouses/hydroponics simply isn't economical/efficient, given the local environmental constraints.

What this points to is greater specialization (away from standard cookie cutter grow-colonies), making each biome have its own key products that it must trade with neighbors to the south/north/skies for survival.

Quote from: akiceabear on March 16, 2015, 09:21:15 PM
I imagine it is similar in small desert communities (but with their own specific flora/fauna). Using massive greenhouses/hydroponics simply isn't economical/efficient, given the local environmental constraints.

(http://coolsandfools.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/wadi-rum-farming-fi.jpg)

I just wanted to point out that this is currently being done in deserts here on Earth using little more than water.

Quote from: akiceabear on March 16, 2015, 09:21:15 PM
Most classic arctic/tundra communities lived off of marine wildlife, not vegetation, and most modern ones live almost exclusively off of imported food.

They also didn't have access to reliable power and modern agriculture. As pictured above.

Reality is seriously unrealistic for some people.

Quote from: Igabod on March 16, 2015, 09:32:33 PM

Quote from: akiceabear on March 16, 2015, 09:21:15 PM
I imagine it is similar in small desert communities (but with their own specific flora/fauna). Using massive greenhouses/hydroponics simply isn't economical/efficient, given the local environmental constraints.

(http://coolsandfools.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/wadi-rum-farming-fi.jpg)

Actually that specific kind of irrigation is called Central Pivot Irrigation; Irrigation has been going on for quite a long time in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and California...so much so that huge swaths California would otherwise be desert without and the majority of water usage in the first three states if for agricultural.

I just wanted to point out that this is currently being done in deserts here on Earth using little more than water.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 16, 2015, 09:55:08 PM

Quote from: akiceabear on March 16, 2015, 09:21:15 PM
Most classic arctic/tundra communities lived off of marine wildlife, not vegetation, and most modern ones live almost exclusively off of imported food.

They also didn't have access to reliable power and modern agriculture. As pictured above.

Reality is seriously unrealistic for some people.

Well; We are dealing with scavengers from Urb upwards to Glitterworlds so; lets for sake of argument assume they understand manufacturing, basic pneumatics, physics and mathematics. Which they probably do; as any one can figure out how to build something given enough time and the general idea already shown to them. Collectively not impossible to believe that Humans on rimworlds couldn't figure out how to build at least the level of agricultural sucess early Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures experienced with irrigation; with the bonus of understanding other aspects they could avoid those cultures mistakes and ultimately irrigate and terraform a region of the planet into a man-made oasis. 

I mean a good portion of this (Earth) planet is supposed to be under water, desert, or arid grass land. But through decades figuring out how to make use of tedious farming techniques,dikes,levies, dams, and irrigation we basically reclaimed quite a bit of land for use in agriculture.

Quote from: Vaperius on March 16, 2015, 11:48:17 PM
Well; We are dealing with scavengers from Urb upwards to Glitterworlds so; lets for sake of argument assume they understand manufacturing, basic pneumatics, physics and mathematics. Which they probably do; as any one can figure out how to build something given enough time and the general idea already shown to them.

Which they probably do, because a background as pilot, commissar, researcher, medic, or engineer, all mean that they know how to math and build things.

Given the scale of these communities, it isn't remotely necessary to take on a global terraforming effort. A greenhouse doesn't require advanced knowledge or alot of effort.

As a side note, the majority of our planet still is water, desert, arid, frozen, mountainous, or just generally uninhabitable. That much hasn't really changed.

How effective you can be at growing stuff in the desert is largely irrelevant to this discussion. The important thing is: do fertilizer pumps make the game more interesting ? They don't, because with them every colony looks the same. No matter the biome.

Quote from: b0rsuk on March 17, 2015, 02:45:03 AM
How effective you can be at growing stuff in the desert is largely irrelevant to this discussion. The important thing is: do fertilizer pumps make the game more interesting ? They don't, because with them every colony looks the same. No matter the biome.

They do, just look at the voting. While i get said argument, i don't think it's a good one or one that can't be solved by fixing the pump instead of taking it out.

Quote
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.

― Henry Ford

Quote from: b0rsuk on March 17, 2015, 06:10:09 AM

Quote
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.

― Henry Ford

Right, but in this case we just want our horses back. They have been taken away by Henry Ford but he isn't giving us a Model A in return.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 17, 2015, 02:03:31 AM

Quote from: Vaperius on March 16, 2015, 11:48:17 PM
Well; We are dealing with scavengers from Urb upwards to Glitterworlds so; lets for sake of argument assume they understand manufacturing, basic pneumatics, physics and mathematics. Which they probably do; as any one can figure out how to build something given enough time and the general idea already shown to them.

Which they probably do, because a background as pilot, commissar, researcher, medic, or engineer, all mean that they know how to math and build things.

Given the scale of these communities, it isn't remotely necessary to take on a global terraforming effort. A greenhouse doesn't require advanced knowledge or alot of effort.

As a side note, the majority of our planet still is water, desert, arid, frozen, mountainous, or just generally uninhabitable. That much hasn't really changed.

Water parts of our planet not being significantly inhabited is because of A. Cost of Construction B. Gross Environmental Impact that even small mining operations have on oceans. C. There no current reason to spill over into the oceans because there still plenty of land to inhabit.

Deserts are actually inhabited surprisingly often on our planet; this is due to oasis present, survival techniques, irrigation, and a variety of technological and engineering feats people in these places have accomplished; and I assure you the desert regions are smaller then the rest of the habitable areas.

Mountains isn't relevant; People live on, even in, and around them all the time for thousands of years. Millions if you count our distant ancestors.

Finally; uninhabitable means you can't inhabit it because it not suitable to Human life in the slightest; an active volcanic island spewing toxic gasses, a desert island with no food or shelter or water, or the vacuum of space are this. Deserts,Tundra,Mountains and Oceans are not Uninhabitable; they are just inhospitable; which means they are very challenging places to live in unless (and usually are) modified or exploited creatively by Humans.

They really are two different words meaning very different things.

Anyway; I am not proposing planet wide terraforming here. Far smaller communities turn deserts into farm land in a few generations; not hard to believe that communities of 20+ individuals with knowledge from space faring societies couldn't do it in under a few years with great effort.

You need to remember that the map you play in rimworld is just a single tile that makes up a region on a far larger world; not terraforming the whole world; just that one tile: which Humans do all the time, we come into a region, even a desert and with a lot of work can turn them into lush and fertile farm land.

Quote from: b0rsuk on March 17, 2015, 02:45:03 AM
How effective you can be at growing stuff in the desert is largely irrelevant to this discussion. The important thing is: do fertilizer pumps make the game more interesting ? They don't, because with them every colony looks the same. No matter the biome.

Not really; a large part of the discussion here been more about Tree Planting then the Fertilizer Pumps. We been debating on the merits of how trees and other plants grow in deserts.

As for Fertilizer Pumps. Frankly they only did that because you could just fire and forget them after they were built and powered. They should been rebalanced to have higher resource,research and prerequisite (like fertilizer to actually pump, and therefore a hopper)

Quote from: b0rsuk on March 17, 2015, 06:10:09 AM

Quote
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.

― Henry Ford

1. Contribute to the conversation in the posts you make beyond a quote from someone not relevant to the discussion. Frankly I would of gone with someone else... should been someone that owned a plantation or something; just a thought heh

Anyway; they would of asked for faster horses because you don't need to pay 2 $ for 9/10 of a gallon to run them :P

*writes down we should add biofuel and oil to the things you can power your base with*

Anyway; Fertilizer Pumps and Tree Planting are not a modernization of transportation in the developed world....they are just topics of this game that is critically disliked by one half and crucially loved by another.

Sadly Tynan in agreement with those that prefer to remove them and them be damned then those that would rather have them completely rebalanced and kept in the game for the sake of having the option of being able to use them.

While ultimately moot for mods. This thread exists for principle; features shouldn't be just removed, real effort to rebalance them should be made instead.

Harder biome = more recources (include electricity) to survive. Thats why you play harder biomes right? I mostly play biomes where growing period is "never" and when there is not much soil i reserve all of it for trees. You can be stucked at start many hours (it takes me around 2-6 hours till i start to have decent production in colony and can expand) but thats why you picked that biome and settings right? I believe those biomes are for ppl who like challenge. I also appriciate that i need to have good temperature or i have percentage penalty (1-10°C) so i need to heat up place i grow plants. When there is -50°C outside and you lost your electricity (heat + sun lamps) trees stop to grow up (Some of the lost leaves like in winter that is realy realy great :) ), but they will resume growing after you resume electricity supplies. So i dont see problem at all.
Cecropia Trees are best for start -> Fastest grow.
Believe me, that i want fertilizer as much as you, but it should be used to make huge colonies effective in late game, not to make start easier. At least thats how i see it.

First, point taken that there is irrigation in deserts by large societies. My point, however, was that I wasn't aware of any small communities that independently do so. Show me a community of 1-20 people in the desert that manages 100% self-sufficient irrigation and I'll concede the point. I'm extremely skeptical anyone can make that point about tundra biomes.

Second, even assuming the above is possible by small desert communties - there are clearly enormous balance issues with the way the game mechanics around growing worked before. Basically every colony in every biome is a exercise in optimizing layout and flow on heating/cooling, with little need for further differences. Tynan explained his views on why earlier - and I agree - gamers are "trained" to optimize, even it is boring. At the very least the system needs to be rebalanced to introduce real tradeoffs between biomes and strategies, rather than one size fits all.

Third, just a suggestion: be aware that Tynan is clearly not in favor of going back to the prior state, where one strategy fit all biomes. That leaves two options - wait and see how the new gameplay works, or begin planning your mods to fix it. I, for example, could endlessly complain about fog of war and how great the game would be with it, but its clear its not a priority - so I said my bit, and move on. I'm not interested enough to mod it myself, and I still enjoy the game, so why gripe endlessly on the topic? That's even more the case here, where people haven't even had a chance to play the next iteration that includes these changes.

Finally, I strongly disagree with the thought that any vote on this forum should matter for game design, or the narrow minded principle that features in the alpha version of a game should never be removed. In general design by committee is terrible, not just in games but in general, while the latter philosophy is a great recipe for feature-creep. Being good at playing a game doesn't make one good at designing it, and vice-versa. Based on what I've seen so far, I'm quite comfortable with trusting Tynan's judgment until I have a chance to give it a spin myself.

While it's certainly possible to do intensive agriculture in the desert, it requires a certain amount of capital and infrastructure building to manage. The water comes from aquifers, which can be well below the surface, requiring well drilling and pumping. Some places lack such aquifers, and these are for all intents and purposes (barring futuretech) non-arable even for modern man, at least not economically speaking.

And isn't a large part of the challenge in games like these resource management, not just of natural sorts but also of time and "money" (proceeds from labor)? Moving to a desert biome should make agriculture harder, and thus the gameplay more challenging, since it requires additional resources to manage as well as in a tropical climate: you need to research additional techs, you need to build additional facilities to extract water from deep aquifers, and you need to build additional power supplies to maintain the pumps, not to mention defend it all (especially if we treat aquifers like geysers and have them only in small locations around the map).

If you go to a jungle biome,  you don't even need to worry about irrigation since rain takes care of it for you. It's less challenging therefore (in my proposed version at least).

Well, large scale desert agriculture takes many years. Growing a plant in the desert is easy if you just give it what it needs to grow. There's no 'desert police' to walk over and say you can't grow something there without money and a permit. When you set up a greenhouse, the only threat to your plants is the integrity of your greenhouse. It is literally just low-rent hydroponics. You can do it at home right now and raise all manner of flora not native to your region.

It's that easy.

While I understand the concern behind fertilizer pumps making 'every colony look the same', the problem is that pumps have just been replaced with more aggressive use of hydroponics (for those not using the soil-tilling mod). So really.. not only does this not address the underlying issue (diversity in design), but this actually undermines it by removing the only viable alternative to a hydroponics array.

Because lord knows nobody is defaulting to NPD in it's current state.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 17, 2015, 09:32:45 AM
Because lord knows nobody is defaulting to NPD in it's current state.

I do, in many situations, especially in cold climate. Nutrient Paste Dispenser is 2 times more efficient than simple meals, and 4 times more efficient than lavish meals. And that's not counting the extra labor of a) the cook and b) harvesting the big-ass field.

I just finished a game in mountain tundra. I ran with NPD for most of the game, and in late game decided to rebuild it. There simply weren't enough animals to make lavish meals, and I didn't feel fine meals were such a huge jump in quality. So I used meat only for lavish meals, and when meat ran out - NPD. I had a stockpile of lavish meals to deal with cold snaps, psychic waves and so on. And that was because of a biome difference.

You are not guaranteed to get colonists with either high cooking or a passion for it. It's a surprisingly hard skill to raise in the game.

QuoteWell, large scale desert agriculture takes many years. Growing a plant in the desert is easy if you just give it what it needs to grow. There's no 'desert police' to walk over and say you can't grow something there without money and a permit. When you set up a greenhouse, the only threat to your plants is the integrity of your greenhouse. It is literally just low-rent hydroponics. You can do it at home right now and raise all manner of flora not native to your region.

It's that easy.

While I understand the concern behind fertilizer pumps making 'every colony look the same', the problem is that pumps have just been replaced with more aggressive use of hydroponics (for those not using the soil-tilling mod). So really.. not only does this not address the underlying issue (diversity in design), but this actually undermines it by removing the only viable alternative to a hydroponics array.

Because lord knows nobody is defaulting to NPD in it's current state.

Your starting assumption for desert survival seems to be an abundance of running water, making the construction of a greenhouse the only obstacle/requirement to scalable agriculture. My question is - where do the recently crashed survivors obtain the knowledge and means to tap an aquifer at a quantity sufficient to feed them and their fields? Also, where does the nutrient rich soil come from?

I think these questions are important to consider if the goal of the game design is to include colony-survival gameplay in addition to colony management and design - otherwise the game risks breaking down into just a very simple (but unique) version of SimCity, with the occasional disaster (raid) that momentarily upsets city (colony) balance... oh, and with different skins by biome.

Quote from: Wujc on March 17, 2015, 07:18:25 AM
Harder biome = more recources (include electricity) to survive. Thats why you play harder biomes right? I mostly play biomes where growing period is "never" and when there is not much soil i reserve all of it for trees. You can be stucked at start many hours (it takes me around 2-6 hours till i start to have decent production in colony and can expand) but thats why you picked that biome and settings right? I believe those biomes are for ppl who like challenge. I also appriciate that i need to have good temperature or i have percentage penalty (1-10�C) so i need to heat up place i grow plants. When there is -50�C outside and you lost your electricity (heat + sun lamps) trees stop to grow up (Some of the lost leaves like in winter that is realy realy great :) ), but they will resume growing after you resume electricity supplies. So i dont see problem at all.
Cecropia Trees are best for start -> Fastest grow.
Believe me, that i want fertilizer as much as you, but it should be used to make huge colonies effective in late game, not to make start easier. At least thats how i see it.

First off; no one is advocating that; we really really really aren't. We want it balanced; not removed. That is all this thread been about; replacing/rebalancing Tree Planting and Fertilizer Pumps so they aren't so op that they have to be removed to preserve balance.

Quote from: akiceabear on March 17, 2015, 11:18:44 AM
Your starting assumption for desert survival seems to be an abundance of running water, making the construction of a greenhouse the only obstacle/requirement to scalable agriculture. My question is - where do the recently crashed survivors obtain the knowledge and means to tap an aquifer at a quantity sufficient to feed them and their fields? Also, where does the nutrient rich soil come from?

- You don't need an abundance of water for a greenhouse. By principle, it's structured for conservation and higher efficiency. This is why greenhouses are useful even in temperate climates for smaller scale agriculture of all kinds. Also, it does rain in the desert and condensation builds during the low temperature night cycles (which can get damn cold). In general, the problem with flora is less about moisture and more about the extreme environment. So yes, a greenhouse addresses the greatest hazards facing flora.

- You also don't need extremely rich soil, though that will factor into efficiency. Also easily resolved with crop rotation or composting any variety of organic material.

- Basic education isn't a stretch for spacefaring colonists. Especially those with military, science, industry, or agriculture backgrounds (or just being colonists, as this is sort of important to know when making a colony). If anything, I think it's a bigger stretch to presume that spacefaring colonists forgot how to make a wheel and need to reinvent it.

After reading what Tynan said I agree with what he is trying to do.  Biomes shouldnt be the same level of challenge and interchangeable.  Same thing just different critters.  Not letting people plant trees actually doesnt bother me.  I didnt even know I could do that until rather recently.  I have however been playing a desert map for fun.  So I now understand how people can feel the lack of wood can hurt.  That being said I find it odd though that you can harvest a cactus for wood.  The frequency of traders is something that can be rebalanced some other time once more pieces are in play.

The Fertilizer Pump is my issue.  Not the pump per say but something that lets me shape a farming area where I want.  Also something that lets me get rid of the mud that stops me from building in some places.  Now mud could be removed via a work order like smoothing stone, water could be built over with 'platforms' or some such.  For farming area, well how do we do it in the real world?  Grind up animal bones! (since we dont have manure... yet?)  Letting corpses rot away yields bones, so should butchering.  Grind them up and use them to make soil.  Maybe as a type of flooring.  Then the grow zone has an option to fertilize.  Your colonists have to work the field to make it 'rich' soil and different crops use it at different rates.  Might make farming more intensive but could be fun.  Grind up the bones of your enemies to make your berries grow faster and then eat the berries.  Sort of like, indirect cannibalism.  Rotten foods could also be used as compost maybe?

Bottom line is that we should be able to make farms wherever we want, just some locations will be much more resource intensive than others.  Maybe deserts loose fertility faster or something.  Eventually I'm sure water use will come into play.  So it wont ever be easy to farm in the desert, just more convenient on its location.

In addition to my fertilizer idea.  For hydroponics, instead of power they should need fertilizer.  (and water if/when that comes around) since they already need power for the sunlamps. 

Hopefully this all stays within the balance you are aiming for. 

@Mathenaut Whenever you remove crops from a greenhouse you remove water.  So you still need a lot to feed into them.  Just not so much while they grow, only at harvest.

It's not that Greenhouses need 0 water, just significantly less than open farming. I'd argue enough that it isn't a great obstacle in the desert.

My objection to removing trees is that it seems pointless.
My objection to removing fert pumps is that it doesn't really help the issue of why they were removed (if not making the issue worse). I think that we can brainstorm different ways to make each biome unique. Past a point, many bases are going to share similar structure. Just like most buildings in general do.

I didnt say they needed 0 water.  Just that what comes out must equal what goes in.  (within tolerances for it being a game and fun)

Trees make life easier, some biomes are supposed to be harder.  I didnt see the need to remove them from the grow list but not a big deal for me at least.  Maybe if we could make bricks from sand or something it can give us an alternative.  Or ice blocks for the snowy areas. 

Fert pumps I think should make fertilizer out of organic stuff placed in hoppers around it.  Not magically make soil out of concrete. 

Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on March 17, 2015, 03:04:58 PM
Trees make life easier, some biomes are supposed to be harder.  I didnt see the need to remove them from the grow list but not a big deal for me at least.  Maybe if we could make bricks from sand or something it can give us an alternative.  Or ice blocks for the snowy areas. 

Fert pumps I think should make fertilizer out of organic stuff placed in hoppers around it.  Not magically make soil out of concrete.

Jimmy, i think most people who want planting and fertilizer back are aware that they need balancing. I understand you never used to plant tree, but some of us did, just for fun, for eye candy or for the resources. Removing them altogether seems, IMO, similar to removal of mountains because dwarfing makes the game easier (arguably, but for most people it does).

I like your alternatives to fertilizer but its because you're offer a replacement/solution to the the things it did.

Of course a pump creating rich soil out of stone is bad, or planting trees of a biome in another biome without some sort of penalty or heavy investing. But taking away without offering alternatives is equally bad. And it's always a possibility to make something cost more: more time, money or research, but there should always be the possibility.

Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on March 17, 2015, 03:04:58 PM
Trees make life easier, some biomes are supposed to be harder.

I really think some of you should read the changes to A10 if you seriously think this is an issue.

Making Fert pumps more trouble than they are worth won't fix it either. I'll just have people using soil mod or teching to hydroponics sooner.

Quote- You don't need an abundance of water for a greenhouse. By principle, it's structured for conservation and higher efficiency. This is why greenhouses are useful even in temperate climates for smaller scale agriculture of all kinds. Also, it does rain in the desert and condensation builds during the low temperature night cycles (which can get damn cold). In general, the problem with flora is less about moisture and more about the extreme environment. So yes, a greenhouse addresses the greatest hazards facing flora.

- You also don't need extremely rich soil, though that will factor into efficiency. Also easily resolved with crop rotation or composting any variety of organic material.

- Basic education isn't a stretch for spacefaring colonists. Especially those with military, science, industry, or agriculture backgrounds (or just being colonists, as this is sort of important to know when making a colony). If anything, I think it's a bigger stretch to presume that spacefaring colonists forgot how to make a wheel and need to reinvent it.

All good points, the first two which I concede. This still suggests a massive rebalance is necessary the make the extremes of each biome unique, both in how they impact your colony and in what options you have to address those challenges. I'm still unclear what the huge fuss is, given it is known that trees can be modded into the game (there are several mods that do so already). Removing tree planting is simply Tynan's first try at rebalancing this. Is it not worth giving that a try before complaining about it?

I disagree with the final point, which implies that all colonists are walking encyclopedias. This is after a crash where presumably many other members perished. This ties in with a great suggestion I saw recently that colonist skills should shape the cost and/or availability of some research trees. Unfortunately, I think that for most players that would just lead to more min-maxing via character rolling or mods to game the system. That is despite the fact that constraints are a good part of any story...

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 17, 2015, 02:54:12 PM
It's not that Greenhouses need 0 water, just significantly less than open farming. I'd argue enough that it isn't a great obstacle in the desert.

K, you go live in the desert for a year with a greenhouse and no water and let us know how it goes. You're greatly underestimating the water needs. "Significantly less" than 350,000 gallons per acre of corn (for open farmland) is still a LOT of water in an environment with no surface water or precipitation.

Every time you take crops out of your greenhouse, the water leaves with them. You need to replace that water for new crops, even if you've created a magically sealed greenhouse that lets 0 humidity out (in a desert, which you made out of stone blocks and wood from plans you made up on the fly...). Plants are 90% water. If your colonists consume 30# of crops per person per week, that's about 27# of water per person per week needed just to replace the water that was eaten out of the greenhouse. I suppose you could find some way to recycle fecal matter humidity... sure. Time/resources/bad thoughts.

And your people need to drink. A lot. Typically 3-4 liters per person per day.

And you need to clean things (not simulated). And you need it for a lot of industry (like smithing), which in reality tends to take up most of nations' water usage.

So where's all that water coming from. At least 50L/person/week is needed for everything in a desert (assuming 0 humidity loss from the greenhouse, which is absurd, especially since we don't have greenhouses in the game).

Quote from: akiceabear on March 18, 2015, 07:08:15 AM
All good points, the first two which I concede. This still suggests a massive rebalance is necessary the make the extremes of each biome unique, both in how they impact your colony and in what options you have to address those challenges. I'm still unclear what the huge fuss is, given it is known that trees can be modded into the game (there are several mods that do so already). Removing tree planting is simply Tynan's first try at rebalancing this. Is it not worth giving that a try before complaining about it?

I disagree with the final point, which implies that all colonists are walking encyclopedias. This is after a crash where presumably many other members perished. This ties in with a great suggestion I saw recently that colonist skills should shape the cost and/or availability of some research trees. Unfortunately, I think that for most players that would just lead to more min-maxing via character rolling or mods to game the system. That is despite the fact that constraints are a good part of any story...

I don't really bother with wood but for a few things. The only real issue I had has been addressed (expansion of stuffs system), so I don't really have a horse in the race. I'm just wondering what the justification is, as the previously stated justification doesn't hold in light of the changes made.

I also wouldn't say that each colonist is a 'walking encyclopedia', I'm more just arguing against the incredulity of colonists not being educated. People see research as something similar to 4x games where they are uncovering new knowledge. It's more akin to engineering, where it's less about knowing how to do it and more about designing how to jury-rig it.

Quote from: DNK on March 18, 2015, 10:02:13 AMI don't know how deserts work

The mohave desert reaches 100 precipitation and gets cold enough to snow. Even the saharah desert averages 20% (more during winter) and can occasionally rain, and this doesn't even include the underground systems. Not to mention how access to power and temperature control can expand means of managing small environments.

It's not the movies. Deserts are ecosystems, they aren't cartoonish homologous backdrops extending to forever.

I believe this is getting a bit derailed; Please focus on the gameplay effects of Tree planting and Fertilizer pumps.

Anyway; I am absolutely sure it will become an issue in the next update; more of one depending on how this all ultimately affects the game...

That's the thing, though. These changes make trees the least efficient and most troublesome means of acquiring not-really-needed-as-much wood.

Removing the fert pumps just means more hydroponics. That's not more diversity in base design, that's explicitly less.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 20, 2015, 07:14:32 AM
That's the thing, though. These changes make trees the least efficient and most troublesome means of acquiring not-really-needed-as-much wood.

Removing the fert pumps just means more hydroponics. That's not more diversity in base design, that's explicitly less.

Not necessarily; if a production chain was required to fuel the fertilizer pumps beyond simply it works... Would have to for example, build a section to compost waste...

Actually; hmm the concept of waste as a by product of eating food and using materials to build stuff etc craft things...hmmm that be interesting;
Then having the objective of dealing with it by dumping it in trash heaps or potentially recycling it...

Quote from: Vaperius on March 21, 2015, 12:38:10 AMNot necessarily; if a production chain was required to fuel the fertilizer pumps beyond simply it works... Would have to for example, build a section to compost waste...

Then it's just a solution to a problem of your own design.

Easier to just use Hydroponics and avoid the BS alltogether.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 22, 2015, 11:28:26 AM

Quote from: Vaperius on March 21, 2015, 12:38:10 AMThat's the thing, though. These changes make trees the least efficient and most troublesome means of acquiring not-really-needed-as-much wood.

Then it's just a solution to a problem of your own design.

Easier to just use Hydroponics and avoid the BS alltogether.

You just...quoted your self... huh.. well in any case; whatever the purpose; I am still on board to just rebalance tree planting and make it nerfed enough that it not a problem to challenging gameplay but still worth it so we can keep wood stock close to base without relying on natural growth...

Huh. Bad editing on my part. Meant to crop out something else.

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 24, 2015, 12:55:12 PM
Huh. Bad editing on my part. Meant to crop out something else.

OH....and in that case seeing what you quoted... eh; the fact that colonists don't create waste at all has bothered me...its more then a fertilizer and tree planting issue...it should be in the game in the first place because you don't always use all the wood or all the food you make etc...there at least a certain amount of waste from incompetence and a lack of hungry respectively....

The fertilizer pump removal is much more annoying. Mud and marsh are forever the enemy of nice-looking bases and (for now) geothermal power.

Some way to remove those terrain types (and maybe shallow water) would be nice.

Quote from: SSS on March 26, 2015, 10:32:53 PM
The fertilizer pump removal is much more annoying. Mud and marsh are forever the enemy of nice-looking bases and (for now) geothermal power.

Some way to remove those terrain types (and maybe shallow water) would be nice.

If all you want is a way to build on top of mud then you can use the mod (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11199.0;attach=7403) I attached to the bottom of this post. You can build on mud just like it were soil.

[attachment deleted due to age]

Personally i have to many left over woods. my preferred biome is a boreal forest and i dig into mountains. saving most my steal for solar panels and basins for food ive now got over 200 hydroponic basins and still its not enough food for my 60 colonists with my food supplys slowly dwindling constantly and meat scarce i think for me at least the real problem is food.

Quote from: quxzcover on March 28, 2015, 01:07:55 AM
60 colonists

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/mog1.gif)

Quote from: SSS on March 26, 2015, 10:32:53 PM
The fertilizer pump removal is much more annoying. Mud and marsh are forever the enemy of nice-looking bases and (for now) geothermal power.

Some way to remove those terrain types (and maybe shallow water) would be nice.

It be very much appreciated indeed. Still Fertilizer pumps were quite unbalanced. This forum is ultimately about rebalancing these features before they get put back in. We want them back though !

I'd like to hear more on this about pumps, too.

How is pushing more people to hydroponics a good solution to fert pumps? How is nerfing pumps to the point that they are skipped for hydroponics a viable solution to fert pumps?

Is it understood that this is what is happening?

Quote from: Mathenaut on March 29, 2015, 07:21:58 PM
I'd like to hear more on this about pumps, too.

How is pushing more people to hydroponics a good solution to fert pumps? How is nerfing pumps to the point that they are skipped for hydroponics a viable solution to fert pumps?

Is it understood that this is what is happening?

Well Hydroponics have a few disadvantages; first off they take up valuable amounts of power, space and metal. Space being the most finite, and no don't use Ludicrous maps as a counter argument, that isn't a viable option for every player. Metal isn't really non-object in places where it is used for everything from the walls to the heater/cooler; we are talking about wood deprived areas for this argument of course, so I digress. Then the power being the notable one, in soil deprived areas where temperature is a serious problem, any serious devil-strand operation is fraught with difficulty as is when it comes to protecting it from raids/fire/animals and getting a worthwhile harvest grown to maturity. Devil strand is completely non-viable with hydroponics as a reliable income source. Granted I suppose this is where you claim this is part of the additional challenge of the Environments, but again, nerfing fertilizer pumps would be just making it more expensive to research, a little more to build, and actually require fertilizer; making it a reliable alternative to but not just as good as hydroponics.

I only used Fertilizer pump once on a desert in the first place, hydroponic was to grow things fast in case of emergency but I only use them for Devilstrand (hoping to never face that event).

The main thing this will change for me is make securing food source/food type an higher priority over the rest. (you got to care about food before Art)

All in all I believe Tynan know what he is doing and will offer balanced solution later.

Quote from: Kegereneku on March 30, 2015, 01:14:04 PM
I only used Fertilizer pump once on a desert in the first place, hydroponic was to grow things fast in case of emergency but I only use them for Devilstrand (hoping to never face that event).

The main thing this will change for me is make securing food source/food type an higher priority over the rest. (you got to care about food before Art)

All in all I believe Tynan know what he is doing and will offer balanced solution later.

I'd hope he would but from what I understand of his opinion of fertilizer pumps and tree farming there is a real need to push forward a discussion to inquire to a new and balanced form of these features as it unlikely he will do so unprompted. In any case; "Incident Trolling" is quite possibly the most annoying thing as there is little you can do about it; it especially annoying that solar flares affect electrical systems; which they would only do so initially, solar flares would primarily affect electronics.

Then there is the blown fuse thing which there shouldn't have happen unless you fail to install "load balancers" :P

Hydroponics have disadvantages, but so do fertilizer pumps and farming in general.

What is it, explicitly, about fert pumps that is wildly unbalancing? How? In what context? Not that I have a horse in this race, but the lack of answers to those questions is irksome to me.

Myself I would consider the whole "Make ANY soil farmable using energy" to be quite ambiance breaking, plus how it facilitate walled in base.
However I hoped to be able to plant tree for decoration.

I don't think the problem come from removing them, it come from the wait before Tynan create an alternative of make their loss negligible.

If I had to nail it down exactly, the problem is that fertilizer pumps change the terrain type from barren to 100% fertile.

No intermediate stages, no cap on what can be achieved through artificial means, and no need to integrate it with the rest of the ecosystem i.e. you should need to expand from existing soil because that's where the existing soil organisms live.

Quote from: MarvinKosh on April 03, 2015, 09:13:29 AM
If I had to nail it down exactly, the problem is that fertilizer pumps change the terrain type from barren to 100% fertile.

No intermediate stages, no cap on what can be achieved through artificial means, and no need to integrate it with the rest of the ecosystem i.e. you should need to expand from existing soil because that's where the existing soil organisms live.

Yes, and to make matters even more unbalanced it consumes no items in the process.

-Argon

Quote from: Argon on April 03, 2015, 11:27:08 AM

Quote from: MarvinKosh on April 03, 2015, 09:13:29 AM
If I had to nail it down exactly, the problem is that fertilizer pumps change the terrain type from barren to 100% fertile.

No intermediate stages, no cap on what can be achieved through artificial means, and no need to integrate it with the rest of the ecosystem i.e. you should need to expand from existing soil because that's where the existing soil organisms live.

Yes, and to make matters even more unbalanced it consumes no items in the process.

-Argon

Hope it is okay to breathe some life back into this thread.

I really do want to promote depth and growth of the features discussed in this thread.

Fertilizer Pumps and Tree Planting.

Fertilizer Pumps need to be rebalanced; they need to require resources to use, more in-depth research, and they can not just terraform barren stone and land; should have to manually break up rock first to start terraforming.

Tree Planting; well we discussed back on forth on the why's and why not's of it so for recap

Tree Planting is seen on one side as an unnecessary game breaking feature; on the other side its a essentially but unbalanced feature that should be fixed and balanced instead of out right removed

Suggestions for this range from research to longer growth times and such...


Sooo basically... "save the tree...saplings?"

Soo...yeah hope this is alright to recap on :P

The net effect of not having tree planting is this:

If you're going to build using wood, you need to locate your base near naturally-growing trees.
You now have an interest in fighting forest fires before they spread out of control.
You are more likely to have occasional wood shortages.
You may need to trade for wood.

The net effect of allowing worktables to use stuff instead of just wood is that you need far less wood to get a base up and running (but you may need to use more steel).

Hopefully providing this insight into the next build alleviates your concerns. :)

Not voting the poll cuz I don't understand it. But don't want to see trees go and do miss the fertilizer pump.
I am up for new ways and ideas in the game so not totally spewing about it. Maybe make trees just harvestable after 1 year in game with not much gain and full gain after 2 years. I do like to plant them around the base cuz it adds beauty and looks good (for pawns and me). Creatively adding trees around the base fun. If not maybe add more shrubs n bushes (that last a while) to add beauty.
I'd like to see fertilizer pumps come back because growing devilstrand in hyrdoponics is just depressing with the solar flares. It also helps building base entrances through marshes to set up epic defences. If it is gone than so be it but would like to see some form of terra forming to replace it, if not for farming but just to work with marshes. We are talking fairly low tec dealing with marshes or lakes n ponds but if it messes with the game to much then no probs 8)

Found it! Not really a fan of killboxes but have had a few in the past, here is one from A8. Only possible with the good old fashion fertilizer pump. Across a marsh and nobody runs through the water. I'd like to see some form of terra forming with marshes so this and other stuff is possible. If its gone from farming then no worries. Laters
(http://i.imgur.com/1we9LRS.png)

I dont get the problem. Trees and fertilizer always been fine for me. I'd say: If its overpowered for you, just dont use it?! But please give it back to those essentials back for those players who need it (desperatly!). Pretty pleeeease.

The biggest advantage of RimWorld is that it is a Simulation and it let u play like _u_ want. If I want Killboxes because Im unable und too stupid to play without, let me, please. Its me and my fun about the game. Same for fertilizer pump and trees. If u dont have fun playing this way, great, everybody enjoys the game his / her own way.

Playing in tundra iceshelf needs some indoor farming (and dont say the h-word! Every 5 min they are out of power for some reason and food for the next 5 weeks just gone, cause it just despawns) and so I need some fertile floor inside.

And dont ask me why I play Tundra / Iceshelf only, I dont know, I just keep doing it. And pleeeease let me.

I was actually wondering what happened to fertilizer pumps. I play almost exclusively on tundra and ice maps. Pumps would help me fertilize an interior space to grow things. I'm almost always resorting to cannibalism now a days with no crops. Hydroponics is not a viable large scale operation, is slow and my plants die a lot anytime power is cut. Adding to the starvation and frustration of my play through.

All fps do in my mind is spread a thin layer (like 20-30cm) of dirt over the existing floor. So i do think that they are not op should be added back in. Perhaps after further research an advanced pump could be made that creates rich soil or grinds up rock and turns it into soil.

Also, while we're on the topic of growing, hydroponics are very overpriced, no?

Nah, they don't seem overpriced to me. Sun lamps are the only problem I have with them, they require so much energy, but it's capable to run em. This is not applying to ice sheets, as I don't play on em so I have no idea.

I think that they were overpowered in their previous implementation, but could be added in a balanced way.
Something that need work from pawns and takes resources.

New workbench that turns bones / food / decomposing animals into fertiliser.
Require pawns to use the fertiliser to build the soil so the process is not completely automatic.

I wish theyd kept fertaliser pumps. I quite liked the concept. Unfortunetly i got the game after it was removed. I also liked the tree planting. Although considering i rarely used it, because i mostly play on ice sheet and tundra maps, but recently ive played some forest maps, and while i only needed to use it once, it did come in very handy, so i dunno why youd remove a perfectly viable feature. As for the fert pump, it may have been a bit op but it really wouldnt take much to nerf.

It was hugely overpowered before so its good that version was removed.

If it is added back in it should be nerfed. Superior Crafting does this by placing it at the end of a very long tech tree. Another way would be to make it much slower, costlier and more power intensive. Perhaps also make them require a certain temperature and manual labor.

In the prior version it was very easy to spam them on any biome. Recall that Tynan's goal in removing them was to make biome differences more meaningful. I think he made good progress and should push even further in that direction, not away from it.

It would be meaningful if it didn't work on all floors, and normal soil 'wore out' from growing crops and plants, to only be revitalized by burned or decaying organic matter or a fertilizer pump with the previous nerfing, or by letting it lay fallow for a certain period.

The pump should just turn normal soil into the rich stuff BUT at like a stupily slow rate or some thing else i am okay with that but tynan was right it was op at its current form

This thread has been going for 3 alphas.

Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on July 10, 2015, 07:05:00 PM
This thread has been going for 3 alphas.

I would like the pump back though

Quote from: Zerg HiveMind on July 10, 2015, 06:43:32 PM
The pump should just turn normal soil into the rich stuff BUT at like a stupily slow rate or some thing else i am okay with that but tynan was right it was op at its current form

Quote from: Jaxxa on July 09, 2015, 07:29:38 PM
I think that they were overpowered in their previous implementation, but could be added in a balanced way.
Something that need work from pawns and takes resources.

New workbench that turns bones / food / decomposing animals into fertiliser.
Require pawns to use the fertiliser to build the soil so the process is not completely automatic.

I like these two suggestion. Using a fertilizer pump to maintain rich soil, at the cost of material put in a hopper, like bones etc.

Perhaps the fertilzed area could be produced in a radius, like the snow from an evil ship part, and degrade over time, or perhaps after 1 or two plant growths. It would need to be on existing soil already, as it should only fertilize soil automaticall, not generate soil.

Thoughts?

Quote from: Axelios on July 10, 2015, 11:00:55 PM

Quote from: Zerg HiveMind on July 10, 2015, 06:43:32 PM
The pump should just turn normal soil into the rich stuff BUT at like a stupily slow rate or some thing else i am okay with that but tynan was right it was op at its current form

Quote from: Jaxxa on July 09, 2015, 07:29:38 PM
I think that they were overpowered in their previous implementation, but could be added in a balanced way.
Something that need work from pawns and takes resources.

New workbench that turns bones / food / decomposing animals into fertiliser.
Require pawns to use the fertiliser to build the soil so the process is not completely automatic.

I like these two suggestion. Using a fertilizer pump to maintain rich soil, at the cost of material put in a hopper, like bones etc.

Perhaps the fertilzed area could be produced in a radius, like the snow from an evil ship part, and degrade over time, or perhaps after 1 or two plant growths. It would need to be on existing soil already, as it should only fertilize soil automaticall, not generate soil.

Thoughts?

Actually holy shit that's actually perfect, a fertilizer that increases plant growth at the cost of bones. EVERYBODY grows plants, so it would always be useful. We needed a use for bones, and that entirely solves how useless bones are.

Now that we will have Tamed animals, I think we can have Manure as a resources to place as a floor and turn soil/poor-soil into rich-soil/the level above.

a la Don't Starve

But if it only enhances rich soil, then its useless to players like me who prodominetly play on and ice sheet/ frozen tundra maps, because there so soil at all in ice sheets, and its too cold in tundras to grow outside anyway. Id like the fert pump so i could use it to turn an under mountain room into a growing area. Thats what i liked about it

Maybe it has a smaller radius, requires bones, and very slowly turns the ground around it to soil and then once soil, it increases growth speed.

Quote from: killer117 on July 11, 2015, 08:01:42 PM
But if it only enhances rich soil, then its useless to players like me who prodominetly play on and ice sheet/ frozen tundra maps, because there so soil at all in ice sheets, and its too cold in tundras to grow outside anyway. Id like the fert pump so i could use it to turn an under mountain room into a growing area. Thats what i liked about it

The way I see that 'manure' idea you could stack it over any thing until it become even a very bad soils (Tynan recently added the ability to get rid of Floor and uncover the soil, same logic).
I don't have much experience with the Ice sheet challenge but we wouldn't want it to become easy don't we ?

In Tundra the challenge is to heat up an indoor field, Ice sheet is just harder.

Yeah, but id like the fertaliser pump in order to do one thing in ice sheet. Growing devilstrand. Because of it long growing time and solar flares, its almost impossible to grow on ice sheet. But with the fertaliser pump i could grow a small amount indoors. Which'd be nice

What about fetiilzer pump producing very bad soil? For example something that makes crop grow 4x slower (random number thrown, could be as well 10x times, or 2x times. But this would enable us to terraform terrain, and it would require bigger effort to move all your plants indoors. Sunlamps still would be necessity, and you would not have outdoors efficiency of production.

Quote from: Vaperius on March 04, 2015, 08:09:11 PM
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_rCdGYp3nbSUXFG4Ky96RZW1cJGt9g_6ANZZPOHyNsg/pub

This is Tynan Blog.

Two things; Fertilizer Pumps, which he removed under the pretense of a "more meaningful decision between hydroponics and soil growing" the trouble being that hydroponics in their current state are absolutely useless. They require power; which in the frequent solar exclipses and solar flares makes them nonviable in icy areas...where they are needed. Soil farming is essentially during growth periods in these places to keep gaining food; but soil can often be scare in tundra and desert biomes. Which is why fertilizer pumps were essential.

Now I am not saying add them back in; I am saying create a balanced alternative. Instead of just making the pumps;require they have either a hopper with fertilizer: AND that fertilizer is added to the game to let you make soil manually with your colonsts with a lot of work...

Moreover; today he removed tree sowing.....in favor of traders carrying trees. Trouble with this is that traders become less and less common with not guarantee of them being the trader you need and every gurantee you will need wood eventually for expansion, cheap repairs and for furniture. Don't remove trees; just make them take two or three times longer to grow and please for the love of rimworld; please at least create modules for things like this...

Instead of removing it outright; he should do what he used to do and leave mods in that add back in stuff like the fertlizer pump or tree planting....at the very least...as an option to the PLAYER and CONSUMER XD....

But still these are my complaint/suggestion and if I put this in the wrong place...oh well :P

I have come up with a way of permanently growing crops. build walls around soil put heaters and sun lamps inside boom greenhouse.

Quote from: tylers2001 on July 14, 2015, 06:51:00 PM

Quote from: Vaperius on March 04, 2015, 08:09:11 PM
[...]

I have come up with a way of permanently growing crops. build walls around soil put heaters and sun lamps inside boom greenhouse.

Just wanted to point it, this is from march, so some months ago and an alpha or two ago.