Changes To Farming

[8_Hussars]

58 minutes ago, Roland said:

 

 I am for any solution that involves moving away from abstract mechanics-- re-introducing the rake and fertilizer in rewarding ways. 

 

IMHO the abstraction is sufficient (and well balanced in A20).  The variable return on seeds and the variable return on harvests is easily translatable to the under use / use / over use of fertilizer, water, weed control, pest control, and disease control.

More farming busywork would not add to game play.

[Roland]

21 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:

IMHO the abstraction is sufficient (and well balanced in A20).  The variable return on seeds and the variable return on harvests is easily translatable to the under use / use / over use of fertilizer, water, weed control, pest control, and disease control.

More farming busywork would not add to game play.

 

That is exactly how the bosses see it as well. The amount of farming the game has currently is the limit of what they really want in their game. I, personally, could be pleased with some more hands-on "busywork" but for that I'm sure I'll have to play a mod that adds it in. Some people are perfectly happy replanting each harvest as they see it as hands on farming actions while others see it as still too much busywork and would rather have the auto replant mechanic return. 

[Niil945]

4 minutes ago, Roland said:

Now when you are choosing to turn those fruit into seeds the result of that decision is in question and so not at all a given no brainer.

Except it is a no brainer. Right now at 0 it's a guaranteed 2 of the crop and a 50% chance of a seed. Odds are that each seed equates to ~3 of the crop before it fails out. The other side of the equation though, if I end up with 5 potatoes that means there's a good choice and a straight up bad one if one can make a seed. There's no point where anyone should ever, at 0 LotL, convert to seeds.

 

18 minutes ago, Roland said:

Yes, in a way. There is no tool required for farming which is why it's hard to see the parallel but put a steel pickaxe or a steel axe in your hand on Day one and start mining and chopping and see how successfully your stamina bar lasts unperked. We DO see very similar complaints about mining and salvaging and harvesting from new players who don't take the right perks and are handed an iron pickaxe too early. "Its completely broken!" they say. "It takes so long to mine having to wait between every other swing for stamina to recover!!" they say.

 

"You need to work your way up the progression with the right perks and get to be a higher level character with higher stamina levels before you can handle an iron or steel pickaxe", we say.

 

I fail to see how that relates or is comparable in any way. And I say that as someone who prefers an INT build and doesn't take anything that would make mining or other gathering skills that use stamina easier or more efficient, at least until pretty late. That's literally what I deal with most games as I build into INT until I have everything I want then I go into AGI typically.

 

31 minutes ago, Roland said:

Yes, it is fiction for A20. Just slight exaggeration for A19. It is a good reason why A20 is better than A19.

 

Maybe something drastically changed in my absence, but it wasn't a reality in early 19 either. If it got vastly easier in the middle of A19 somewhere I wasn't around for that as I came back for another round when A19 was released and played for a couple months before I bounced out for other games while waiting on the next alpha release.

 

33 minutes ago, Roland said:

In A19 you quickly got to the point where you could care less if you found seeds out in the world whereas in A20 you are always glad to find seeds because if you have LOTL 3 you still know that a portion of your crop is going to be converted and the more you find the less you have to convert and the more you have to keep.

 

If seeds were far more common than they are now I'd agree with you. And I don't mean if they dropped like candy, but I'm at day 24 on my current playthrough and I've kept every seed I found. I have 4 seeds now from looting. 1 pumpkin, 1 corn, 1 aloe, 1 potato. I also have a farm bundle I found in a supply drop that yielded 1 supercorn, 1 hop, and 1 pumpkin seed. If they were seed packs that contained a handful of seeds, say 2-3, that would put it on the cusp of being worth it to me. But 7 seeds, of which only 4 are actually food in 24 days isn't enough of a yield for me to even place down the farm plots. With LotL 3 I wouldn't even keep seeds as inventory space is too precious and 1 seed isn't worth the slot unless it's something I didn't have but wanted. Disregarding what I dislike about the changes getting 6 back is enough to make a seed + 1 and there's still a chance to get a seed. 

 

42 minutes ago, Roland said:

So while the end of the entire farming game was not within 7 days it was over much sooner (and without any investment needed) than in A20.

 

While I wouldn't say no investment, it is/was minimal I agree. It's still gathering materials for plots and having a safe place to put them. Albeit that's not that hard to do now compared to the last time I played. The material cost of the plots seems cheaper but that's just my memory of it and may not be accurate. However the yield is also minimal unless one spec'd into it. Without finding more seeds, it took 10 days to get enough back to make another plot. And it took a while to get the seed recipes too. By then someone who put points into LotL could have a large farm up and running fully stacked. Still we're talking about farming progression in a game where you said the devs don't want it to be a farming simulator or invest a lot into it so they abstract it. They want seeds to remain relevant. That requires some changes to be worth the investment now at all ends of the spectrum, from 0 to 3 LotL.

 

I see two issues here, the first being that the value of a seed relative to other sources of food which it competes against for filling food needs. It can be very valuable to someone who can cook it into a meal and not valuable at all to someone who can't. Then there's the increased yield of LotL 3 results in a sustainability wall that once over makes it trivial to mass expand and overproduce. To address the first issue, If they increased food value the food value of raw crops to be at least comparable to canned goods for a 0 LotL yield. 5-6 food, 2-5 water, maybe a small stamina bonus like cooked meals have but a weaker version. Then getting 2 corn or potatoes from a seed is at least as good as a canned good. With the time investment required have 2-3 seeds drop at the same rate they are now and suddenly its better if someone wants to invest the time with 0 points. The average return means that it's a 50/50 gamble to get 1 extra crop instead of a 12.5% chance for someone with 0 LotL. Reduce the yield on the high end from 6 to 4 (2 at 0, 3 at 1, 4 at 3 LotL).  This means it's not too good for someone spec'd into it without recipes to make but it's still much better than a can. Change seed recipes from 5 of the crop to 3 that way max LotL still gets a net gain even if a seed is needed. Leave the crop planted instead of returning a seed though. Then add food decay on perishable foods so that overproducing is a bad thing as it just goes to waste and people want to manage it a little bit. This one addition adds a whole new dimension to canned goods and cooking. It also cuts down on the 'just make as many plots as possible' and encourages people to make plots as their food needs grow. It adds no art assets to make and minimal coding alterations, leaves room to expand upon food with fridges and other stuff in the future if they want to or they could leave it to modders.

 

That's just me spitballing for ~20 mins while I wait out the night here. I'm sure there are tons of other ways to go that don't introduce complex systems that don't turn it into farming simulator or add assets they need to generate. It makes seeds valuable to everyone regardless of level of LotL but it's more valuable to those who have it maxed due to the yield and the slightly increased food/water values. It requires maintenance of plots and crafting new seeds but doesn't require mass clicking every plant after a harvest. It adds some depth to when people want to cook stuff and when they don't. It adds choices about when people want to harvest versus leaving things there because that particular crop isn't needed yet. It encourages people to pay attention to what meals they consume. It's doesn't require adding a lot of code either. And if they decided at a later point to add some more depth to farming with irrigation or wilting if nor harvested, they can always add to it as it doesn't change anything about farming itself as it currently works.

 

2 hours ago, Roland said:

Finally, let me be clear that I am simply talking about the farming game as a mini progression game unto itself because I think we can both agree that without farming at all we can reach an end state for eliminating food constraint. Getting to a place where food is not a concern is not what I am talking about. I am simply comparing the progression of farming itself.

 

I don't disagree there and it's the reason I'm not bothered by the changes that much. I have an alternate path that so far hasn't necessitated any farming or cooking in my solo game so far. But even if I can completely avoid it, I would still prefer that when I find a seed with 0 in LotL that it seems worthwhile to pick up and use. It just goes with the vibe in a survival to try to get some kind of food production going, even if I'm not a build that masters it. In short, I like the idea of having a farm and that everyone can do everything even if someone isn't mastering the perk.

 

2 hours ago, Roland said:

I only walked through the door you opened when you admitted to liking to play super-efficiently. That usually carries with it a propensity to rush the progression.

 

Sure, I know more than a few people who are like that when it comes to gaming and everything else. But that's an assumption and not predicated on anything I said. I've advocated for a more immersive less abstract way to deal with plots and to not have farming be useless at 0. I think it would be silly to have massive farms going that sustain all my needs quickly too. I guess a simple way to say it is I think LotL 0 should at least be as effective as tracking down traders, vending machines, and POI looting of cans if someone invests into building/maintaining it.

 

2 hours ago, Roland said:

Most of the solutions that I've read have been to take out the 50% random seed return or have it get phased out as you go up LOTL 1, 2, and 3.

 

While I talked about the probability being bad at 0 and don't like that specific aspect of it, I've never advocated for getting rid of the 50% seed return and replacing it with nothing. I've advocated for things more immersive and less abstract and a better scale of usefulness from 0 to 3 of the skill. 

 

2 hours ago, Roland said:

I believe that it is because it messes with efficiency playstyles. Maybe I'm wrong but--

 

Eh, I don't want to speak for others. Maybe that is why some folks like the A19 system. It's not the reason I dislike A20 farming. If that was what I wanted I'm sure there's a mod out there that returns farming to the way it was in A19 or just trivializes food entirely. I missed out on the era where ground had to be tilled so I never got to experience it. I know a lot of people that I started playing 7D2D with were fans of it and they didn't care for the crop plots that much.

[Boidster]

11 hours ago, Niil945 said:

I'm at day 24 on my current playthrough and I've kept every seed I found. I have 4 seeds now from looting. 1 pumpkin, 1 corn, 1 aloe, 1 potato.

 

This seems very low indeed and I suspect you aren't prioritizing seeds in your looting. If you want seeds, search Shamway store produce shelves. The probability for seeds is "high" from them. As a test, I looted this store (just the produce shelves):

 

 

And here's what I got:

 

 

 

[meganoth]

18 hours ago, Niil945 said:

 

I'll explain my rationale. I believe you're aware that regardless of what the results are, 25% bonus to selling and buying is the same outcome as the one you describe which shows the maximum impact in limited circumstances. Yet you've consistently made an attempt to play up the effect and do so using bigger numbers. First by simply adding the bonuses together, which is not how it works in any scenario, and then by using a very specific example which is how it works but isn't the complete picture nor is it a picture of the bulk of duke generation and usage. You also glossed over that anyone can get an additional ~45% (5 magnum, 10 cigar, 20 awesome sauce, 10 candy) which is an even bigger bonus than the one provided by the perk at a 21 point investment into INT,. Though the conversation has threads all over the place so I don't see this as intentional, but it's a factor that matters that you haven't commented about. From our conversation I got the impression you're a bright enough person to understand the distinction between the framing. You cited a cherry picked example to make your opinion seem more valid. Which said example still just equates to 25% more from buying and selling. It's no different than talking about a perk which increases a loot item from 1 to 2 and talking about it being overpowered because it's a 100% increase in loot. They're both the same but describing it the latter way using a bigger number sounds more more potent than just saying 'it's an +1 loot of x item'. It's framing not unbiased data even if it is mathematically accurate. You have a bias that you haven't been shy about and it shows in how you describe the perk. Some would view that as just good arguing but it's word/number play. I explained I've worked in data a long time and have had held a position where I was legally responsible for ensuring that I was providing unbiased and complete data.

 

I have a mathematical background, numbers are important, especially if they are facts that are the basis of later arguments. So for me it is important to say that a 25% bonus on buying and selling is effectively more than just a 25% bonus only on buying or selling. How much this influences total trade then can only be an estimation, something which we are both aware of. And for a long time I didn't even know if you were disagreeing on the BB bonus being effectively more for buying and selling or if you were only disagreeing on the (estimated) total bonus of the whole average money trade.

 

Since I made the mistake of forgeting trader rewards I estimated other effects to be easily covered by the fact that the effective buy/sell bonus of this perk is actually more than just the sum. And now I would still say they are though it needs some help from perk points in Daring Adventurer to keep the effect somewhere in the area of 50%.

Maybe 1/3rd of the income of quest rewards are in items you then sell so even in quest rewards the BB's bonus applies partly instead of the Daring bonus. And Daring gives you more choices for the most expensive item, so that should increase average bonus one gets out of Daring.

 

And yes, I also thought about the barter bonuses from other sources, they decrease the bonus by a factor. But awesome sauce is a hard to come by end-game item (that you need highest master chef and super corn to cook them and the high bonus are indicators). The candy costs 100 coins per use so you have to pool stuff to sell and get the money later if you want to get near those 10%, and that time can be valuable as well if you can't afford an item you need or want (Your transaction volume has to be 1000 to even break even with the candy). Cheesecake only buffs buying, not selling.

 

Without making an exact calculation I assessed (and still think) that their influence on the overall bonus you get from INT is not that big. All of them except magnum have per-use fixed costs, all except candy need recipes, books or items to use them regularily, most players won't have all bonuses available until late game.

This doesn't apply to excellent min/maxers, but the typical player (including me) isn't even organized enough that he gets the theoretical limit of the bonuses of the boosters he actually has. I often just sell stuff immediately from quests while I really should put them into a chest in front of the trader and later sell with the best bonuses I can get. I don't know anyone who actually does that, i.e. save trader rewards

 

But lets calculate the effect of those other bonus sources and see if I was totally wrong or something: Lets assume that a player can get on average 125% from boosters (with per-use costs and average availability all factored in). What does it mean for the 125% buff from the perk only the Int player gets? It is the difference between 125% and 150% and that difference (if I made no mistake) is 120% down from 125% (If we instead assumed boosters at 130% on average that difference would be 119% by the way).

Recalculating the effective bonus of BB (with boosters in mind) would now land exactly on 150%. Assuming Daring being perked as well that leaves only coins you find in loot as the remaining factor, so I'd say my estimation of 150% is not too far from the truth. (And again, whether that number is too low, too high or just right for balance is another much much harder question and is highly subjective)

 

I didn't do the math with error interval and statistical analysis, I just gave an estimation then. But neither did you do the math. We both have not the statistical data to get any somewhat dependable results for the bonus overall. And we already both talk too much even without exactly calculating every step of our estimations 😉, so we both have to rely on guesses and estimations. Me getting to different numbers than you does not mean I'm automatically wrong and you are right and we both have to do a massive glossing over the details as a neccesity. And mistakes do not show intent, except in insurance cases probably, are you by chance in that field? Would explain much 😎

 

 

18 hours ago, Niil945 said:

Any perceived misrepresentation could be construed as criminal because the data I worked with was utilized to ascertain funding on a state level. I don't doubt I'm much more strict in how I view this than others because I've had to be. There are levels of dishonesty and we're talking about game mechanics here, and while it's not some horrendous sin to slant discourse in such a way that promotes your opinion as the right one. It's trying to win a debate by making the issue seem bigger than it actually is by intentionally using larger numbers and reframing (i.e. 'effective') .

 

Weeell, you assume yourself having higher authority because you analyse stuff for work, but it still doesn't mean that you are the arbiter of truth and especially of motives. For that you would actually have to do the work and analyse step by step, not handwave that you are right because you work in that field and I'm the culprit doing nefarious slanting. In this forum you have to reason like everyone else to make a point, which thankfully you do with a few exceptions.

 

18 hours ago, Niil945 said:

 

 

It's dishonest in the same way marketing often is which isn't a horrendous thing by any means, but it's still not intellectually honest discourse. Let me make my point another way. When I stated the numbers off the perk and explained my point of view, why did you feel the need to explain to me the 'effective' value as if using that number changed anything? We both know the answer to that.

 

No, you assume, I don't remember my brain being dissected by you 😉. The effective bonus of BB for buying and selling being higher than 25% is a hard mathematical fact and it is important to me just like I have corrected everone who said that LotL1 is a net loss on average. Those are the basic facts and I'm actually astonished that a data analyst who's primary job IS to evaluate from facts to come to reliable conclusions values those facts so low. 

 

18 hours ago, Niil945 said:

You and I are simply not going to agree on this point.

 

That said, we have different views on the impact of those perks. It's not unexpected that you would try to frame it in a way that implies it needs nerfed. I've shared that I think it's strong and what I think is strong about it. But I will say here, I don't think those perks are any stronger than perks in the other trees. Each one is good. I like that they each have different strengths and weaknesses and different styles. I've done builds using INT and without Daring Adventurer and Better Barter and the interesting thing to me is the things you say are too powerful for INT aren't vastly different from my experiences with other builds. I've even stated several times the things that I think are powerful about it and the things I like about it often times aren't what you think is too strong, or at least you haven't really made an issue out of the things I think are actually the strengths of the perks. To me that's indicative that (and I believe you said this already, though the conversation has gone on a while and I'm not 100% sure) that your issue is with traders themselves. INT seems to just exacerbate the issue you have as the build leans into the trader as a strength.

 

We could argue about the relative strength of attributes endlessly, lots of estimations and subjective views mostly derived from our personal play style and the few insights we get from playing with others. It would get too far from the topic of this thread as well.

 

As you say there is also the question if it is just the trader itself that has become too central and powerful in the game with or without BB, we can agree on that.

 

Since A18 I have never built my base more than a stones throw away from the trader and gameplay is usually very focused on doing quests and trading. Exploring the world outside of quest POIs is nearly irrelevant. I view that as detrimental to replayability, irrespective of the positive elements the trader brings to the game. It does not mean that I try to tell the devs every week this needs to change, it doesn't mean I do a campaign, post angry summaries or have a crusade running. I even sometimes appreciate that the game loop has become so easy that you don't need to remember what to do next time you start the game.

 

18 hours ago, Niil945 said:

I see it as an offset for the build in the sense that it's painful to try to mine, gather wood, salvage, anything that uses stamina.

 

One of my co-players already told me that he feels he doesn't need to mine anymore as enough materials to build a horde base and enough ammo to defend it on horde night are easily available from looting POIs and buying from the trader. No question this has a positive side compared to previous alphas where everyone had to do at least some mining and it put STR in a central position. The question is whether the pendulum swung too much in the other direction now.

 

18 hours ago, Niil945 said:

Early game INT can supplement it's poor gathering by buying items (a random assortment) from traders with the extra dukes it gets. It's nowhere near as effective as actually going into a gathering skill but it's more broadly applicable since the trader stock is all over the place. If we're going to have that discussion about how good extra dukes are, we need to talk about the other specs and how they can utilize the trader too. Both STR and PER builds can just farm materials in excess and sell to the trader what they don't need in addition to loot vendoring. Everyone can load mods into items for a large increase in sale price and both of those other specs are in a much better position to do so as they gather materials far easier. FORT and AGI don't have as much a of luxury there as they're slightly selfish specs, FORT with just farming but a lot of tankiness perks and AGI with the stealth and no gathering perks but both of those specs have other advantages that leads to less resource consumption due to the builds. Mid/late game the disparity vanishes as people cross spec as needed or for people who just pick up whatever benefits them from the get go instead of going deep into a tree they can mix and match as they choose.

 

If we were to talk about things I think are broken with Better Barter, it's how the Secret Stash works. The levels that get the extra stash aren't actually "extra" at all. They're entirely separate stashes. If you wear Nerdy Glasses and look at the stash, buy what you want, then take off the glasses and look at it again, if the INT loss deactivates a level of the perk that gives access to a bonus level of the stash it gives you an entirely different stash completely. This means that people who use it can actually have access to 2 completely different stashes on each and every trader. It's not a trick that I use until late game when I'm trying to complete superfluous book sets, but it's a trick that can be extremely valuable early game that I think is just gaming the system. That is broken.

 

Agreed. Most importantly because of the exploit or trick, but also because it boosts multiplayer without need (as the same double-dipping can be done absolutely legal in MP). And sometimes it also leads to the INT player being punished for having a higher BetterBarter. It would be much better if the higher stashes simply extended lower stashes and I would guess this is probably already on TFPs to-do list somewhere, but pretty low.

 

18 hours ago, Niil945 said:

See, you take offense when I hyperbolize something too. But I apologize, I didn't look back at the post and see the exact wording you used when I wrote that and if that description is excessive I wasn't attempting to put words in your mouth.

 

Not wrong or horrifying at all. It's fine if that's the route they decide to go as there are alternatives. Everyone makes a choice about whether a given risk, time, and/or effort is worth the reward. The current system is too much grind and too flakey on the rewards to be worth the investment to me. It's not any more complicated than that. There's no Wheatleygasm to speak of. It's literally a decision between "pray for uncontrollable drops, if I get them then invest time, maybe get the result I want that also dead ends my food source if I don't get enough seeds to keep it going while questing/farming" and "feed self while questing and buy from vending machines/trader" I choose the latter. If this was like Ark or ONI or another game with farming where I could actively try to get a certain farm setup by acquiring seeds and planting them but I have no options in that regard in this game. They've done a better job at making certain farm POI's common so specific things are easier to acquire, but they also made it unsustainable at 0 LotL so it's better to just cook those rather than use them as seeds. For max LotL and in between, I'm okay with not getting all the seeds back (if they stayed planted). But it's like they implemented in a way that maximizes the amount of busywork just for the sake of making people spend monotonous time doing it. I'd rather they require fertilizer or irrigation and build systems that require maintenance than just staring at my backpack crafting seeds and replanting them constantly. It's the way that maintenance happens rather than that there is maintenance. It's simply not fun to me.

 

 

While I can't speak for others, that's simply not what I have an issue with nor what I liked about the old system. I liked it because, and I've said this a few times, everyone can do everything in this system just some builds are vastly better at whatever it is. At 0 before I got a farm going slowly, it never became something that was my sole source of food. But it was a supplemental source that built up over time and as I acquired seeds and recipes. Most of my food came from collecting things and cooking them once I acquired the recipes from drops or just eating canned/vending machine/trader food. Converting to seeds now at 0 is just a bad choice where before it was one that mattered. Plant and get a slow but stable food supply later to supplement or use the crops in recipes for an immediate meal. A seed now is less valuable food wise than they used to be since odds are I'm only going to get ~3 corn or potatoes or whatever out of it where before it meant 1 crop every other game day as long as it didn't get destroyed. That made for some interesting choices and meant it had more value in the long haul. And then there's the maintenance they implemented. They could have gone a lot of different ways here but they went a method that was mechanical and grindy. We could have to weed our crop plots, or water them, or apply fertilizer. Instead it's converting food that's, at least early game, in demand back into seeds and then clicking to place it. Over and over and over and over again.

 

 

 

Eh, you and I have very different views of what makes a survival game a survival game. Every survival game people start off scrambling. Hunger, thirst, bad weather, injuries, hostile creatures, everything is a threat or a problem. As the game progresses those things become less of a factor. Eventually the stress shifts from "find food and drink" to "kill the big bad" or "do the quest" or "progress the story" and those initial threats of simple basic survival needs are effectively a non-factor. It's a progression that happens over time. There's no game where players don't have the tools to overcome randomness in regards to survival aspects as they play that I can think of. It doesn't matter if it's Rimworld, ONI, Ark, Rust, Conan Exiles, The Forest, Subnautica, this, or any other survival game. The basics as a challenge always phase out in favor of other factors. The challenge to get to a stable point in survival games is what I like about them and why I keep playing them and replaying them. The fun comes from being unable to control those things to overcoming and trivializing those challenges for me. Once I hit an effective peak of power in whatever game it is, I have all the stuff, beat all the bosses, did all the dungeons, whatever, and things are no longer challenging I tend to get bored and then I start over. Each time I refine my gameplay so that I can do everything better, and by better I mean in a way that allows me to maximize the time doing things I find entertaining while minimizing the time I spend doing things I don't. In 7d2d it's leveling up, getting better gear, clearing POI's, trying different builds and combinations along the way. I haven't seen or played a survival game where you both start and end the game struggling with the basics like getting food and drink. Even now, the changes to farming didn't introduce nondeterministic results the players can't plan for and the end result is exactly the same as what it was before for someone who specs into LotL, overflowing food coffers. While randomness is a factor, I certainly don't think that 100% survival demands a game completely dictated by random factors is true at all. It requires challenge and juggling competing needs, and the exact nature of those challenges can be caused by randomness (i.e. getting infected on day 1 in 7d2d, a blight on crops in Rimworld when food is low, a sandstorm when adventuring early game away from base in Conan Exiles, etc.).

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Nicholas_Newson]

Farming is really not easy.

[Niil945]

2 hours ago, meganoth said:

Assuming Daring being perked as well that leaves only coins you find in loot as the remaining factor, so I'd say my estimation of 150% is not too far from the truth. (And again, whether that number is too low, too high or just right for balance is another much much harder question and is highly subjective)

 

Daring Adventurer bonus is only 20% extra dukes not 25%. But we're getting way in the weeds here. You're talking about an 'effective' bonus on a subset of rewards without any substantial way to demonstrate how much of the duke generation is made from utilizing both ends of the selling/buying bonus. Of which those bonuses vary depending upon whether it's quest reward dukes or dukes that come from finding extra items or whether it's a quest reward itself, which could be a bonus of DA if it's an extra item but not if it's one of the options you would have had anyways without DA. And if you're trying to figure DA into the 'effective' value you're talking about a 25 point investment in INT. You can't talk with any confidence about it being a 50%+ bonus without being able to actually figure all of that out. And adding a caveat that it's on a subset that you can't determine how much of the income is means talking about an 'effective' bonus as if that number is relevant in any way is bogus as is trying to roll the benefit of DA up into BB and couch it as if that's an 'effective' anything of BB. The only thing you can actually say without it being spin is that sometimes the 'effective' value is going to be greater than a 25% bonus. You can't say how much, you can't even say it's most of the dukes a player will generate. And that number in and of itself even if you could calculate it wouldn't say anything about whether it's overpowered because you'd have to look at what position a player would be in investing those 25 points into another tree. How much better or worse they'd be relative to taking say STR and Sex Rex and mining skills instead. How much easier combat would be. How much easier breaking chests would be. How much duke generation could they get selling excess materials for dukes, etc. To put it simply, such a determination is very subjective. You can't gloss all that over by speaking about a high percentage from the narrowest of circumstances that are the best case scenario for the perk and make any honest argument that it's overpowered.

 

As I stated before, I typically don't even take BB until after I have everything else I want from the tree because there comes a point where dukes aren't important. If you have enough, it doesn't matter if you have more. It's like food in that respect that there's only so much benefit you can realistically get. I'm in that position regardless of what build I play so I don't see it as having value worth pumping it up as fast as possible. The biggest benefit comes from the Secret Stash late game for Solar and that's entirely a quality of life purchase. Any build can lean heavily into the trader for buying and selling. Many of them have perks that can enhance how good the trader can be, whether it's from resource gathering or loot selling. Of the attributes only AGI and FORT don't have early game boosts from selling and buying from the trader but they have selfish perks that make it easier running POI's so they can just chain run missions. And now every build that leans into the trader is also incentivized to run quests in harder areas for better quality loot to sell to the trader, which has a much larger impact than BB does by far. If you're doing that in an INT build early, it's a lot harder than it would be doing it with other builds.

 

And then there's just smart play. Loading mods into a weapon to sell to the trader can almost double the value and that's something anyone can do if you find a few mod recipes.

 

3 hours ago, meganoth said:

Weeell, you assume yourself having higher authority because you analyse stuff for work, but it still doesn't mean that you are the arbiter of truth and especially of motives. For that you would actually have to do the work and analyse step by step, not handwave that you are right because you work in that field and I'm the culprit doing nefarious slanting. In this forum you have to reason like everyone else to make a point, which thankfully you do with a few exceptions.

 

At no point did I speak of myself as a higher authority on the matter. That's you putting words in my mouth that I did not say. You already admitted you think the trader is OP. You're the one pointing at BB and trying to pretend that a very narrow set of circumstances makes it too powerful by quibbling to get the biggest number you can present to prove it. I don't have to demonstrate your bias, you're doing that already.

 

3 hours ago, meganoth said:

As you say there is also the question if it is just the trader itself that has become too central and powerful in the game with or without BB, we can agree on that.

 

Not at all. I'm saying that you think the trader is too powerful and thus anything that leans into the trader is too powerful by extension because of your opinion of the trader. I think the trader is fine, even with the price increase in A20. There may be fringe things that I think are excessive (like double dipping the Secret Stash or the price benefit of loading a weapon with mods being too high) but for the most part I like the trader. Ultimately though players reach a point where the value of the trader is low and dukes start piling up. That used to be something I would put into ammo manufacturing but in A20 that's a nonfactor. I would like to see more cosmetic options that are expensive or something to use dukes on later in the game but there's still a lot to come with bandits and the new armor sets and radiation areas. They have a lot of places they can go there.

 

3 hours ago, meganoth said:

One of my co-players already told me that he feels he doesn't need to mine anymore as enough materials to build a horde base and enough ammo to defend it on horde night are easily available from looting POIs and buying from the trader. No question this has a positive side compared to previous alphas where everyone had to do at least some mining and it put STR in a central position. The question is whether the pendulum swung too much in the other direction now.

 

That's an A20 thing specifically. In previous alphas I used to buy ammo from the trader to supplement crafting ammo. They've already announced the nerfs to ammo drops in 20.1 which is a good thing imo. In my group game the only thing our miners mined was a little iron for steel production, shale for gas to supply all our vehicles, and a little bit of nitrate for farm plots. The shape helper blocks from the trader are neat but they come with good and bad. They're also not guaranteed, but when they are offered they vastly reduce the amount of resources necessary to relocate a base. Still, with the way zones scale for loot now it incentivizes starting somewhere safe and then relocating to harder and harder biomes near traders that haven't had their quest completions finished. It's interesting but I haven't decided if I think it's too much or not. It definitely takes away from the need to mine for base building but it also comes at the cost of not getting upgrade experience. I want to see how things shake out with bandits and how taxing they are on bases as well as other changes coming down the pipe before I decide whether I think it's too much.

 

3 hours ago, meganoth said:

Agreed. Most importantly because of the exploit or trick, but also because it boosts multiplayer without need (as the same double-dipping can be done absolutely legal in MP). And sometimes it also leads to the INT player being punished for having a higher BetterBarter. It would be much better if the higher stashes simply extended lower stashes and I would guess this is probably already on TFPs to-do list somewhere, but pretty low.

 

I agree, I found it by accident because the trader had an item I wanted in the stash, a chem bench, I went back to base to grab my dukes and while there I leveled up BB. When I went back the item was no longer in the stash. I figured out what was different and decided to take off my glasses to see and there it was. I can't imagine they aren't aware and would prefer that they fix it eventually. It's certainly not as critical as, say, turrets falling through the floor and vehicles teleporting.

[Niil945]

4 hours ago, Boidster said:

 

This seems very low indeed and I suspect you aren't prioritizing seeds in your looting. If you want seeds, search Shamway store produce shelves. The probability for seeds is "high" from them. As a test, I looted this store (just the produce shelves):

 

 

And here's what I got:

 

 

 

 

That specific POI might have a high rate for seeds, which is great, but doesn't mean my experience is abnormal. There are hundreds (thousands? I don't know at this point) of POI's so picking one of the best ones to test seed loot in doesn't mean anything. RWG dictates which POI's even exist on the map and I'm not a player that just randomly does buildings. I burn through trader quests as quick as I can. This is the third solo playthrough and this isn't any different from my other 2 solo runs in A20. It makes me wonder if RWG is skewed in any way as every single map I've generated with it I see tons of Savage Frontier and Mo's Electronics and very few Shamways. I haven't seen a single one of any size this playthrough and I know on the MP game there wasn't a Shamway factory on the map. Either way, while I have kept every seed I've found I'm not actively trying to find and clear POI's that have seeds. I burn through trader quests though there's probably some overlap as I do prioritize food related POI's when choosing quests. Still, as everything, RNG has a large impact as some people will find beakers and chem benches regularly while others go 50 days without seeing them. 

[Boidster]

33 minutes ago, Niil945 said:

That specific POI might have a high rate for seeds, which is great, but doesn't mean my experience is abnormal. There are hundreds (thousands? I don't know at this point) of POI's so picking one of the best ones to test seed loot in doesn't mean anything.

 

It's not that specific POI. Possibly you are confused about how the loot system in 7D2D works. Any POI which contains grocery displays would have the same searchable containers. It is most likely to be any of the various Shamway Foods POIs, but there may be others. The point is that the game has put lots of seeds in a place where it makes sense that you'd find them.

 

33 minutes ago, Niil945 said:

RWG dictates which POI's even exist on the map and I'm not a player that just randomly does buildings.

 

Okay, if you are not a player who will search the places where seeds are likely to be found, then I'm not sure complaining about the lack of seeds makes much sense? Do you think that trash piles (another location where seeds can be found, though at much lower rates) should have the same chance of producing seeds as a literal potato display in a grocery store?

Edited January 24, 2022 by Boidster (see edit history)

[Niil945]

2 minutes ago, Boidster said:

The point is that the game has put lots of seeds in a place where it makes sense that you'd find them.

I've done sooo many farms. That's a place I'd expect to find seeds and I've received very few there.

 

3 minutes ago, Boidster said:

Okay, if you are not a player who will search the places where seeds are likely to be found, then I'm not sure complaining about the lack of seeds makes much sense?

I wasn't complaining about the lack of seeds. I made a point about seeds I found in my playthroughs. And it's not that I don't search places that have seeds and thus miss them or I avoid places that have seeds. I'm doing trader quests. Anything and everything that comes up, prioritizing by quest type and distance. I preference quests that are food related, which those stores that have seeds fall in that category. It's not uncommon for me to burn through 3 quests a game day or more when working trader tier completions. Pretending my position is what you claimed above it is is false. Going into god mode and teleporting to a poi that has a high return on them isn't how I play the game. It certainly doesn't demonstrate my experiences aren't true.

[Pr00ch]

Just another one in a series of perplexing design choices. The game really did peak in A16, and it's been all downhill from there. 

[BFT2020]

Nah, I think the game has gotten much better since Alpha 18.  I don't miss Alpha 16 at all.

[Pr00ch]

Ha, I envy you. A14-A16 was some of the most fun I've had in video games. Now all I feel is "eh"

[Boidster]

52 minutes ago, Niil945 said:

I wasn't complaining about the lack of seeds.

 

 

My apologies. I misconstrued your earlier comment about how few seeds you'd found. I incorrectly understood you to be asking for seeds to be far more common.

 

18 hours ago, Niil945 said:

If seeds were far more common than they are now I'd agree with you. And I don't mean if they dropped like candy, but I'm at day 24 on my current playthrough and I've kept every seed I found. I have 4 seeds now from looting. 1 pumpkin, 1 corn, 1 aloe, 1 potato.

 

 

54 minutes ago, Niil945 said:

It certainly doesn't demonstrate my experiences aren't true.

 

Well it's a good then that I wasn't trying to demonstrate any such thing. I mistakenly thought you wished for seeds to be more common, and pointed out POI types where they are very common indeed. Your playstyle doesn't really allow for searching those POIs, though, so the quantity of seeds you get will be limited compared to players who seek them out (possibly missing out on a day of questing in the process).

 

52 minutes ago, Niil945 said:

I've done sooo many farms. That's a place I'd expect to find seeds and I've received very few there.

 

This is a very good point. Good target for a modlet, if we could identify a farm-specific (or at least farm-common) loot container. The produce shelves have the advantage that they were specifically created for grocery store-type POIs. Unsure what there is for farms, but probably there is something we could stuff extra seeds into.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Boidster (see edit history)

[Niil945]

1 hour ago, Boidster said:

My apologies. I misconstrued your earlier comment about how few seeds you'd found. I incorrectly understood you to be asking for seeds to be far more common.

 

No worries. It's a convoluted discussion that has a lot of tangents and points can easily be misunderstood out of context of the full scope.

 

1 hour ago, Boidster said:

Your playstyle doesn't really allow for searching those POIs, though, so the quantity of seeds you get will be limited compared to players who seek them out (possibly missing out on a day of questing in the process).

 

I don't go out of my way looking, but that's predominantly because in a meta sense I understand how the RWG works on a basic level and my prior experiences with it. There's no guarantee of a specific POI on a map. In part I like to explore the world but with a purpose (i.e. trader quests) so I scope out things there and back and don't just go randomly searching for things (that I may not even exist at all). If I see something of value on the way I will hit it up quick if it's not too late in the day, but since I know that the trader resets POI's I'm careful not to game a building by hitting it up, resetting it and doing it again. I accept that as an outcome if I end up getting a trader quest to a place I already had a trader quest to as a necessary evil of the system in a way but try not to abuse it. This is mostly personal preference and I don't begrudge people who do at all.

 

1 hour ago, Boidster said:

I mistakenly thought you wished for seeds to be more common, and pointed out POI types where they are very common indeed.

 

All good. I was talking about what it would take for me to feel that LotL at 0 points is worth building farms with the current return and harvest system versus the old system. Increasing seed drops, not dramatically, would do that. I'm not set on any particular resolution or adjustment, I just would like LotL 0 to feel comparable to every other skill at 0.  But I'm also not expecting anything as I'm sure the dev's have a vision of how they want things to work. Just providing my feedback that in A19 I thought it was in a good place. In A20 I don't feel it is and additionally I'm not fond of the specific maintenance methodology they implemented.

 

1 hour ago, Boidster said:

This is a very good point. Good target for a modlet, if we could identify a farm-specific (or at least farm-common) loot container. The produce shelves have the advantage that they were specifically created for grocery store-type POIs. Unsure what there is for farms, but probably there is something we could stuff extra seeds into.

 

If there was a loot container that matched up without being common elsewhere too that could be a fix that wouldn't flood players with seeds that would work. I'm certainly not someone who avoids using mods even though it's rare that I use them beyond things like complete revamps (Darkness Falls or Ravenhurst type stuff).

[meganoth]

4 hours ago, Niil945 said:

 

Daring Adventurer bonus is only 20% extra dukes not 25%. But we're getting way in the weeds here. You're talking about an 'effective' bonus on a subset of rewards without any substantial way to demonstrate how much of the duke generation is made from utilizing both ends of the selling/buying bonus.

 

My last post was almost exclusively talking about estimations how much of the duke generation is made from buying/selling. I don't fault you for not wanting to read or understand it, this discussion is having too many tangents and details now, but don't say it isn't there.

 

4 hours ago, Niil945 said:

Of which those bonuses vary depending upon whether it's quest reward dukes or dukes that come from finding extra items or whether it's a quest reward itself, which could be a bonus of DA if it's an extra item but not if it's one of the options you would have had anyways without DA. And if you're trying to figure DA into the 'effective' value you're talking about a 25 point investment in INT. You can't talk with any confidence about it being a 50%+ bonus ...

 

And I never did. Where does that "+" for the bonus suddenly come from?

 

At a minimum it shows our talk isn't constructive anymore. 

 

 

[bloodmoth13]

people seem to have conflicting ideas on how farming needs to work.

 

Food needs to be infinite in this game as long as you want people to be able to play without having to die to reset their energy levels. If food is too scarce gameplay becomes miserable, so having some reliable food sources imo should be a must. Food can drive gameplay, but to do that there needs to be ways for players to be able to prioritize it and actively and successfully obtain food if that is their main concern at the time. 

 

Farming solves that, but currently farming is only profitable with LotL investment, which removes any access to reliable crops.

Some players seem to think that its fine as is. Some argue that its good that food isnt reliable and the current system isnt broken, but they all use living off the land 3 so i see that as dishonest since they are playing with those rules removed and LotL 3 just reverts everything to a19 standards with more legwork.

 

 

Seeds and farms should be profitable baseline without any perk investment, even if just barely, and a secondary resource should be brought in to make farms successful without being free and Living off the land shouldnt be required.

 

I wrote a post on this but most people who 'read' the post completely missed the point and argued against things i never suggested.

 

Food doesnt need to be either overabundant OR unobtainable, there is a middle ground and i think that comes from being able to turn other valuable resources into food.

Currently the food economy is completely isolated from the rest of the game but if you were choosing between repair kits/gunpowder and food that would be a more interesting choice. Thats why i suggested fertilizer as an ongoing upkeep cost for farming that cost rotten meat, nitrate and bones which competes with gunpowder and duct tape.

Early game you need to funnel those resources into food to survive but when you get a competent farm running with a decent supply of resources you can funnel those resources into weapons and tools instead. nitrate is near infinitely abundant while rotten meat and bones spawns with undead animals so they take time and some challenge to obtain (not free) but will nearly always be accessible. That i believe is a healthy system.

 

[Niil945]

25 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

My last post was almost exclusively talking about estimations how much of the duke generation is made from buying/selling. I don't fault you for not wanting to read or understand it, this discussion is having too many tangents and details now, but don't say it isn't there.

 

 

And I never did. Where does that "+" for the bonus suddenly come from?

 

At a minimum it shows our talk isn't constructive anymore. 

 

 

 

So you didn't talk about Daring Adventurer and the coins from that? Oh, I quoted you, you did and responded to that and the rest of your commentary. The next line is just snarky for the sake of being sore.

 

The + means the wild range of framing that you bounce between, whether it's 50% more or 66% more 'effective' in best case scenarios that doesn't reflect the overall impact of the perk. It's like claiming lucky looter is OP while citing the one time you get high tier quality 6 loot out of boxes and ignoring the other 99 containers that contained nothing special. Our talk stopped being productive when you tried to spin a 25% bonus to buying and selling into more than what it is because you think traders are OP.

 

36 minutes ago, bloodmoth13 said:

Some argue that its good that food isnt reliable and the current system isnt broken, but they all use living off the land 3 so i see that as dishonest since they are playing with those rules removed and LotL 3 just reverts everything to a19 standards with more legwork.

 

I do think that's ironically amusing.

 

39 minutes ago, bloodmoth13 said:

Currently the food economy is completely isolated from the rest of the game but if you were choosing between repair kits/gunpowder and food that would be a more interesting choice. Thats why i suggested fertilizer as an ongoing upkeep cost for farming that cost rotten meat, nitrate and bones which competes with gunpowder and duct tape.

 

Most farming systems in survivals require some upkeep so I get the desire to not have forever farmable plants. Many also use fertilizer as a source of maintenance. No one is asking for LotL 0 to be a wellspring of infinite food. It's interesting to me that people have commented that the devs talked about the game not being a farming simulator but the system they put in place promotes creating massive farms and requires extensive time in the UI and clicking plots to maintain when it could be things like hunting zombie bears, dogs, and vultures for rotting flesh for fertilizer. And in the end, unless they limit the number of plots in an area or dramatically change the system there's going to be a wall of food struggle that once over becomes a complete non-factor. That wall can also be overcome not by farming at all, but by collecting food supply kits and using dukes. I'm at early day 28 in my current solo play and aside from a handful of bacon and eggs I haven't cooked anything. And it wasn't like I needed to do that, it was just nighttime busywork. So much for a farming system/progression at all I guess. Maybe it's meant to be like solar in that it's a quality of life thing that isn't necessary at all. Peace of mind that there's always going to be food there for those who feel the need to dump 3 points into LotL. I'll still eventually make a farm because I feel like I should in a survival game but it can be decorative since I'll never make back the seeds to keep it stocked or use it.

 

 

[meganoth]

11 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

people seem to have conflicting ideas on how farming needs to work.

 

Food needs to be infinite in this game as long as you want people to be able to play without having to die to reset their energy levels. If food is too scarce gameplay becomes miserable, so having some reliable food sources imo should be a must. Food can drive gameplay, but to do that there needs to be ways for players to be able to prioritize it and actively and successfully obtain food if that is their main concern at the time. 

 

Farming solves that, but currently farming is only profitable with LotL investment, which removes any access to reliable crops.

Some players seem to think that its fine as is. Some argue that its good that food isnt reliable and the current system isnt broken, but they all use living off the land 3

 

"all" is definitely wrong, I have been saying I like the unreliably food and I have been using LotL1 in 2 of my games in A20. In a third game I'm not the farmer and he is at LotL2

 

11 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

so i see that as dishonest since they are playing with those rules removed and LotL 3 just reverts everything to a19 standards with more legwork.

....

 

 

10 hours ago, Niil945 said:

 

So you didn't talk about Daring Adventurer and the coins from that? Oh, I quoted you, you did and responded to that and the rest of your commentary. The next line is just snarky for the sake of being sore.

 

The + means the wild range of framing that you bounce between, whether it's 50% more or 66% more 'effective' in best case scenarios that doesn't reflect the overall impact of the perk. It's like claiming lucky looter is OP while citing the one time you get high tier quality 6 loot out of boxes and ignoring the other 99 containers that contained nothing special. Our talk stopped being productive when you tried to spin a 25% bonus to buying and selling into more than what it is because you think traders are OP.

 

See, what you are claiming I said is far from what I really said or meant. You are attacking straw men.

Whether it is my inability to confer what I mean or your inability to read what I mean doesn't really matter. It just means we are at an impasse and there is no use to continue.

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by meganoth (see edit history)

[BFT2020]

11 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

people seem to have conflicting ideas on how farming needs to work.

 

Food needs to be infinite in this game as long as you want people to be able to play without having to die to reset their energy levels. If food is too scarce gameplay becomes miserable, so having some reliable food sources imo should be a must. Food can drive gameplay, but to do that there needs to be ways for players to be able to prioritize it and actively and successfully obtain food if that is their main concern at the time. 

Food, like a lot of resources, should be scarce, not infinite or abundant.  Having unlimiting and easy to obtain resources means that this is not a survival game, just a zombie killing game.

 

If anything, food is still too abundant in the game.  A reliable food source is not a must, and really shouldn't exist.  Some of the best games I played were games I knew I was going to die eventually (or fail or go bankrupt), but the driving force is seeing how long I can survive before I die or fail.

Edited January 25, 2022 by BFT2020 (see edit history)

[Boidster]

14 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

Food can drive gameplay, but to do that there needs to be ways for players to be able to prioritize it and actively and successfully obtain food if that is their main concern at the time.

 

I completely agree with this statement. Where we'd disagree, I guess, is in my contention that LotL is one of those ways to prioritize a sustainable food source. And I'd add the modifier advanced food, since basic food is abundant in the game. Too abundant maybe. There is zero need to farm in the game if you just want food to stay alive. The crops give you access to advanced recipes and if you don't care about those then don't worry about farming at all. Get fat stacks of meat and canned food.

 

 

[DiegoLBC1]

I will summarize the 2 main points of the topic:

 

1- "I want all the benefits of LoTL3", but I don't want to invest points to do this 😑

 

2- "Current agriculture requires a lot of time, work and resources (points, planting, harvesting, making seeds)", and the solution is to add more time, work and resources (rotten meat, fertilizers and etc).🙄

 

And farming isn't even mandatory...🤷‍♂️

[DiegoLBC1]

15 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

Food needs to be infinite in this game

 

No need.

 

15 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

Food can drive gameplay, but to do that there needs to be ways for players to be able to prioritize it and actively and successfully obtain food if that is their main concern at the time. 

Just put some  points in LoTL 3

 

15 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

Some argue that its good that food isnt reliable and the current system isnt broken, but they all use living off the land 3 so i see that as dishonest since they are playing with those rules removed and LotL 3 just reverts everything to a19 standards with more legwork.

Yeah, infinite food, but, "no pain, no gain".
 

15 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

 

Seeds and farms should be profitable baseline without any perk investment, even if just barely, and a secondary resource should be brought in to make farms successful without being free and Living off the land shouldnt be required.

 

 

It is not necessary, agriculture is not mandatory. You actually need it to survive, and so it shouldn't be guaranteed, just as meat and other resources aren't guaranteed. Play your game, run after, survive.

 

15 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

 

Thats why i suggested fertilizer as an ongoing upkeep cost for farming that cost rotten meat, nitrate and bones which competes with gunpowder and duct tape.

 

Oh yeah, farming is a lot of work, so I want to do more work, spending other resources that I use to make better weapons, hunt better, just survive better, because I don't want to keep planting every seed and invest points in LoTL

 

15 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

 

Early game you need to funnel those resources into food to survive but when you get a competent farm running with a decent supply of resources you can funnel those resources into weapons and tools instead. nitrate is near infinitely abundant while rotten meat and bones spawns with undead animals so they take time and some challenge to obtain (not free) but will nearly always be accessible. That i believe is a healthy system.

 

 

"they take time and some challenge to obtain (not free)"

 
🤔 ???????????


Why not an extra challenge to have a viable agriculture? You invest in strength, health, intellect to be able to manufacture things and survive, suffer less damage. But NOTHING will fall from the sky if you just sit at home. Except the Air Drops, but you still need to go to them.

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by DiegoLBC1 (see edit history)

[Niil945]

4 hours ago, meganoth said:

See, what you are claiming I said is far from what I really said or meant. You are attacking straw men.

You quibbled over a 25% bonus to buying and selling in numerous large posts, trying to play up how potent BB is by using the largest number you could (try to) justify using. All over me talking about what how I like to play and just tangentially mentioning I like playing INT with DA. In a thread about farming changes. There's no straw man there.

 

But yes, we're not going to agree on the trader or BB. I don't see them as op, you do. It's been this way for quite a long time, though it wouldn't surprise me if they tweaked anything in this game considering the farming changes. If they do they do. 

 

1 hour ago, DiegoLBC1 said:

I will summarize the 2 main points of the topic:

 

Now this, this is a textbook strawman. "Let me put words in your mouth that are not what you're saying and then pretend such an idea you didn't say that I actually said is stupid while I condescend to you." Cool, those things that you said that literally no one said in this thread who dislikes the farming change said doesn't make sense. I agree.

[pahbi]

46 minutes ago, Niil945 said:

Now this, this is a textbook strawman. "Let me put words in your mouth that are not what you're saying and then pretend such an idea you didn't say that I actually said is stupid while I condescend to you." Cool, those things that you said that literally no one said in this thread who dislikes the farming change said doesn't make sense. I agree.

 

The very first time I posted anything about farming, the responce I got from mods was condescending.

 

Its bizarre how much effort they have put into defending the new farm system.  At this point, I've pretty much given up on trying to provide any feedback, and found it easier just to put the mods on ignore in the forum system.