Reverse the Decision on Trees and Fertilizer Pumps...

[akiceabear]

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!

[Igabod]

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.

[Mathenaut]

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

[Kirid]

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...

[StorymasterQ]

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

[Vaperius]

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.



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.

[Igabod]

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.

[Mathenaut]

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.

[Vaperius]

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.

[Mathenaut]

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.

[Vaperius]

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

[Mathenaut]

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.

[Darkhymn]

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.

[Vaperius]

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.

[akiceabear]

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.

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.