Reverse the Decision on Trees and Fertilizer Pumps...

[Vaperius]

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.

[akiceabear]

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"...

[Mathenaut]

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.

[akiceabear]

It'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.

[Igabod]

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.

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

[Mathenaut]

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.

[Vaperius]

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.

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.

[Vaperius]

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.

[Mathenaut]

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.

[b0rsuk]

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.

[Johnny Masters]

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.

[b0rsuk]

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

― Henry Ford

[Igabod]

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.

[Vaperius]

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.

[Vaperius]

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)