Changes To Farming

[DiegoLBC1]

51 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.

You too.

Now I understand that you are also a textbook strawman, because at no time did I quote anything you said, not even your name...

[Niil945]

8 minutes ago, DiegoLBC1 said:

You too.

Now I understand that you are also a textbook strawman, because at no time did I quote anything you said, not even your name...

You decided to summarize what people were saying that were not happy with the changes to farming. I'm one of those people. I've read this thread. Literally no one asked for what you said they're asking for with the first point you made. The second point you made commented about alternative system that people (including myself) have suggested and seemed confused about why one methodology is different than the other. That has been explained by numerous people numerous times in this thread had you actually taken the time to try to understand their position. Even if you disagree, it's not a reach to in the least understand the distinction being made.

 

And for a good laugh, you also quoted the image that I posted of my inventory without farming, so you did in fact quote me.

[DiegoLBC1]

Just now, Niil945 said:

You decided to summarize what people were saying that were not happy with the changes to farming. I'm one of those people. I've read this thread. Literally no one asked for what you said they're asking for with the first point you made. The second point you made commented about alternative system that people (including myself) have suggested and seemed confused about why one methodology is different than the other. That has been explained by numerous people numerous times in this thread had you actually taken the time to try to understand their position. Even if you disagree, it's not a reach to in the least understand the distinction being made.

 

And for a good laugh, you also quoted the image that I posted of my inventory without farming, so you did in fact quote me.

 

If you know how to read, go back to the previous page and you will see the quotes I made, and in none of them I mentioned your name or any of your answers.

 

And yes, the summary of the topic is this, because, again, if you know how to read, you will see that 90% of the complaints are about  what I mentioned before.

And again I didn't mention you in the previous quotes. It's not just you in this topic, I talked about most, not all.

[Niil945]

4 minutes ago, DiegoLBC1 said:

 

If you know how to read, go back to the previous page and you will see the quotes I made, and in none of them I mentioned your name or any of your answers.

 

And yes, the summary of the topic is this, because, again, if you know how to read, you will see that 90% of the complaints are about  what I mentioned before.

And again I didn't mention you in the previous quotes. It's not just you in this topic, I talked about most, not all.

 

And? You decided to stick your foot in your mouth by trying to strawman all the complaints about farming when you said "let me summarize the complaints!" then proceeded to lie about what people want. Do you even know what a strawman is? It seems like that response was just a "no u!" comment.

 

None of the complaints are about what you mentioned in that post. And still amusing is at the bottom of your post you included the image that I posted of my inventory from the prior post I made. Whether my name comes up doesn't matter. You posted something directly from me. 

 

But more than that, who cares? I'll respond if I have something to say. That's how forums work. You don't have to like me pointing out your argument is just chest beating, white knighting, and fallacies. You can always post something substantive instead. I'd much prefer that than people devolving into browbeating everyone who doesn't share their opinion.

[Niil945]

43 minutes ago, pahbi said:

 

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

 

I don't mind the difference of opinion regardless of whether they're mods or not. They're human, they clearly invest a lot into the game as they're mods. They're going to have strong opinions. But the sideways insults at people who don't share their opinion are condescending, I agree. I'm happy to reciprocate though I know not everyone engages that way. If people (them included) said "I like the new farming system because x, y, z" and reflected on how the changes impact them and their preferred gameplay, cool. But so many of the arguments are predicated on what other people want, why they want it, and how they play. It's pretty silly from anyone, let alone someone with a mod tag. But again, they're human and ego is going to play a part of the discourse. I'd advocate that you still present your opinion, even if you ignore folks who are passive aggressive (or just straight up aggressive) if you're not down for a conversation that goes that way. It's probably healthier than my approach of engaging it

[pahbi]

1 hour ago, Niil945 said:

 

I don't mind the difference of opinion regardless of whether they're mods or not. They're human, they clearly invest a lot into the game as they're mods. They're going to have strong opinions. But the sideways insults at people who don't share their opinion are condescending, I agree. I'm happy to reciprocate though I know not everyone engages that way. If people (them included) said "I like the new farming system because x, y, z" and reflected on how the changes impact them and their preferred gameplay, cool. But so many of the arguments are predicated on what other people want, why they want it, and how they play. It's pretty silly from anyone, let alone someone with a mod tag. But again, they're human and ego is going to play a part of the discourse. I'd advocate that you still present your opinion, even if you ignore folks who are passive aggressive (or just straight up aggressive) if you're not down for a conversation that goes that way. It's probably healthier than my approach of engaging it

 

In my opinion moderators should moderate a forum, and potentially collect feedback for the devs to make decisions.  Not engage and argue with players (the customer) about mechanics.

 

The effort thats been put into defending farming is really bizarre, I've never seen anything like it before.

 

I know if it was me, I would be appalled if my moderators who are basically the face of my company, were engaging and argueing with my customers the way these moderators have done with farming.

 

 

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

[meganoth]

3 hours ago, Niil945 said:

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.

 

How would you know there is no strawman? For that you would need to understand my real position.

 

And I have been talking about the same topic again and again because I tried to rectify your misconception about what I meant and said and failed and failed again. YOU inadvertedly prompted me to stay on that side topic.

 

Now, if you want the last word, please tell me again what I think since you seem to know it better than myself 😉

 

3 hours ago, Niil945 said:

 

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.

 

31 minutes ago, pahbi said:

 

In my opinion moderators should moderate a forum, and potentially collect feedback for the devs to make decisions.  Not engage and argue with players (the customer) about mechanics.

 

You are not my customer because I'm just a player like you.

 

31 minutes ago, pahbi said:

 

The effort thats been put into defending farming is really bizarre, I've never seen anything like it before.

 

I know if it was me, I would be appalled if my moderators who are basically the face of my company, were engaging and argueing with my customers the way these moderators have done with farming.

 

 

 

All moderators on this forum are just volunteers doing a side job of removing spam and enforcing forum rules.

 

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

[DiegoLBC1]

2 hours ago, Niil945 said:

You can always post something substantive instead. I'd much prefer that than people devolving into browbeating everyone who doesn't share their opinion.

I didn't intimidate anyone, I just expressed my opinion according to what I noticed here in the topic. Apparently you accuse others of what you yourself do: you put words where they were not said

[Niil945]

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

How would you know there is no strawman? For that you would need to understand my real position.

 

So by all means, point out what exactly you think I've written that was a strawman. I'm happy to try to resolve the problem and as I have done in this thread I own my mistakes and admit when I'm wrong or when I mischaracterize something stated. A misunderstanding isn't a strawman though, nor is mild hyperbole. You were triggered over me using the word 'crusade' when the substance was correct and you've said it yourself. Let me frame the point another way. Do you think BB is overpowered? If you answer no then I misunderstood your point. But I don't think with what you've written that you can honestly say that. Though it's possible. Maybe you assumed I was unaware of how percentages work and wanted to educate me when I know how it works and took that explanation along with other commentary you made about your view of the OP INT trader build to mean more than you intended. I still think that's an insulting/condescending way to view the matter, but it's one scenario that kind of fits the sequence of events that includes a misunderstanding of intent. I'm open to others. Do you think traders are OP? If you answer no then I can point you at a statement you made where you explicitly said that. I'm not sure exactly what you think I straw manned you over. Vague statements alluding to one and playing coy while verbally sparring isn't productive conversation, so if you want to actually have that as you indicated that starts with you actually acting like you want to have a productive dialogue and not just pumping out passive aggressive snark.

 

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

And I have been talking about the same topic again and again because I tried to rectify a misconception about what I meant and said and failed and failed again. YOU inadvertedly prompted me to stay on that topic.

 

This tangent started when I talked about me using an INT build and leaning into the perks and trader as a playstyle. You said something, and I'm going to paraphrase throughout so if you take umbrage to anything by all means point it out and we can talk about it, about the OP INT trader combo. You brought up BB, which to be frank I was surprised about because I don't think it's a big deal at all. I see DA as the vastly better option. Especially early game since the vendor price of low tier/quality loot is very low. Getting an extra 50 dukes doesn't make or break anything and I can't fathom how someone could possibly consider it OP at that level of the game. That dialogue devolved into the minutia of the benefits of BB where you kept trying to talk up the bonus. It's possible that I misunderstood your point, but we've been going in circles around it. You insisted on using bigger numbers to describe the power of the perk when the base language used in the game as a 25% bonus on either end of a sale describes it fine and means exactly the same thing. And then we danced around that over and over again. I asked this before and you never responded so I'll ask again. If 25% bonus to buying and selling is mathematically accurate, why do you feel the need to describe it by using bigger numbers and using limited circumstances? And initially being concise and ensuring that the impact was acknowledged and understood might have been a valid answer, even if it is a demeaning way to look at people, but it certainly wasn't after I made it clear I understood the point you were making. Do you do the same thing for every other perk that gives a % increase. When someone says, "motherlode gives an 100% increased resources" do you start intentionally complicating it by saying "oh well with miner 69'er it's 'effective value is x%!'" I doubt it. But you're going through all the trouble here to frame it that way with BB. What kept this conversation going was your insistence to put spin on the numbers.

 

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

Now, if you want the last word, please tell me again what I think since you seem to know it better than myself 😉

 

This is exactly what I was talking about above. Passive aggressive snark that's not productive. Just like your commentary about me not reading or understanding what you wrote. I read what you wrote. I didn't agree with the view you presented. That's distinctly different from not understanding it. If you failed to communicate your point that's not on me. I can only see the words you write. I can't mind read into your intentions or unspoken points. Regurgitating the same thing at me using different phrasing isn't going to add context that you're choosing not to add. Sorta like your implication that I strawmanned you but you didn't say what you think I strawmanned. When communication fails, because language is messy and tone is hard to read sometimes or people simply don't think about things the same way you have options that aren't being salty and throwing side insults. You could try to explain your point a different way entirely. You could just walk away from the conversation. There are a lot of options that won't come off as you being sore or perceived as being condescending. You can't blame your choice about how you react on other people.

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Niil945 (see edit history)

[bloodmoth13]

8 hours ago, BFT2020 said:

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.

I think there might be something lost in translation here, I don't want to get one seed and to never prioritize food ever again, I want ongoing costs.

 

Food is a gameplay limiter, having no food means no stamina and playing without stam is miserable. If food is too scarce you play a game that is miserable, too abundant and it's irrelevant.

 

Food demand is infinite, as in you will always need more food, so food supply needs to be infinite, that is what I meant by that. Where that food comes from is another question, we currently have either looted, traded or grown food, traded is very cheap but comes at an opportunity cost, looted is free but unreliable and often involves danger, currently farming is either unreliable, safe but free or reliable, safe and free.

 

My goal is to change farming to always be reliable but not free. Growing is safe but to get fertilizer you want to be hunting zombie animals and harvesting nitrate. That also adds an element of danger to it. So with my changes farming will be reliable, unsafe and not free. 

Baseline seed economy would be profitable but far from viable, 1 usable crop per harvest no matter what is barely going to cover anything and there should be a reward simply for the time invested crafting the seed and growing the crop.

 

I think this idea gives everyone the best of both worlds and lotl would still be very valuable just not mandatory. If you use it now you would still use it, but if you don't use it you could still engage in farming at lower profits.

 

And with a healthy baseline for food you could increase the costs elsewhere or make things more  difficult in other areas.

At no point am I asking for easier food I just want costs that integrate with he rest of the game. Opportunity cost is the best cost

[Boidster]

Suddenly...sea lions.

[bloodmoth13]

Do you understand the system i suggest? It would likely mean less food overall for many players since it comes at a cost, resources would be limited in a healthy way where players can invest more into food if they want it or not by choosing fertilizer over gunpowder or duct tape (or whatever other use rotten meat has)

 

What are your actual arguments against my idea? you just seem to be making snide comments with no real substance and it just makes it seem like you have no actual idea on what im talking about.

"no need" food does need to be infinite as demand is infinite.

"just put points into living off the land" i dont want that to be mandatory to have a replenishable food source, the system should work fine without it and i think the design of it currently is either too rewarding with full investment or too punishing without investment. I want to cap how productive it is while making it so that without it its still worth farming.

 

"yeah infinite food but no pain no gain"

See, i just dont think solving an entire problem with 3 perk points is good design, i think that the rewards should be locked behind gameplay not just the menu. All other gathering perks make gathering better but not mandatory.

 

Meat is guaranteed from animals, you dont lose meat when harvesting chickens.

 

"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"

 

 

 

Yes. Being able to invest resources i would otherwise use to advance my state in the game on food because i dont want to go hungry is exactly what i want. Currently the only gameplay surrounding farming is whether you invested in LotL, i think that is bad design and having a way to make farming profitable by putting in some effort is a good compromise. Its not free, so why not?
 

"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."

 

Im not sure what you are trying to say here?

 

[bloodmoth13]

On 1/25/2022 at 3:21 PM, Niil945 said:

I do think that's ironically amusing.

 

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.

You make a good point about farm sizes, the game really does incentivize tons of plots because once you have LotL3 you are only limited by the number of seeds and the number of plots, so food is infinitely scalable which gets a little ridiculous. Fertilizer would bottleneck production which would mean less farm plots overall as outside of desperate situations nobody should be running plots without fertilizer as getting one crop per harvest isnt a viable food source, of food, its more bad luck protection than anything.
If players really want tons of food they can funnel their bones, meat and nitrate into fertilizer, if they dont need it though they can spend that on glue and gunpowder instead.

 

 

[DiegoLBC1]

2 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

Do you understand the system i suggest? It would likely mean less food overall for many players since it comes at a cost, resources would be limited in a healthy way where players can invest more into food if they want it or not by choosing fertilizer over gunpowder or duct tape (or whatever other use rotten meat has)

 

 

No, it wouldn't be "healthy". Satisfying hunger is just another aspect of survival, and as such it should also be part of your quest. You need to invest points in skills or read recipes to be able to do something, the workbench for example, and even with all the points in LotL you still need to learn some recipes (like making seeds). Some foods you need to learn by reading recipes or unlock by investing points in a specific skill. Unlike eggs, which you can only find in nests Likewise agriculture. It is not mandatory and you can very well survive without it. You argue that you don't want to invest in LotL to have a "sustainable farm", and I argue that it is not necessary to spend useful resources in other areas and have more work to have an agriculture without investing in LotL, as it would be much more painful due to time divided between hunting, loot, missions. By logic, farming is not mandatory, it is much easier to invest in LotL as my game evolves and achieve my stability, in the same way that I evolve my strength, my intellect, my health.

 

2 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

 

What are your actual arguments against my idea? you just seem to be making snide comments with no real substance and it just makes it seem like you have no actual idea on what im talking about.

"no need" food does need to be infinite as demand is infinite.

"just put points into living off the land" i dont want that to be mandatory to have a replenishable food source, the system should work fine without it and i think the design of it currently is either too rewarding with full investment or too punishing without investment. I want to cap how productive it is while making it so that without it its still worth farming.

 

I need the meat to make my food, so I go hunting. The supply of live animals is higher than zombie animals, so to get rotten meat I would have to take raw meat and turn it into rotten meat.

A lot of effort for nothing, even putting at risk the (little) supply of meat, as you said yourself, just to make agricultural plots and "fertilizers", to maintain a farm that is not mandatory. 

Everything in the game has its "reward" and its "punishment". If you die you get a penalty, if you get infected you can go a long time without finding antibiotics, but the lack of viable farming without investing in LotL is not a punishment, as I mentioned before, because you can survive without it,  isn't  mandatory, and many other things will be locked behind skill points or recipes, like better Weapons/Tools you need to invest in skills, and some you still need to read the recipe before you can do.

"I want to cap how productive it is while making it so that without it its still worth farming.",

Well, you can, just choose if you want to invest 1, 2, 3 or no points. Without any points you just plant the seed and reap the product. With all points you can plant, reap with some profit + chances of extra seeds. It is a scalable limiter.

 

2 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

 

"yeah infinite food but no pain no gain"

See, i just dont think solving an entire problem with 3 perk points is good design, i think that the rewards should be locked behind gameplay not just the menu. All other gathering perks make gathering better but not mandatory.

 

Meat is guaranteed from animals, you dont lose meat when harvesting chickens.

 

You don't lose meat when harvesting chickens, but you harvest a lot more when you invest in "The Huntersman". And with the meat collected you don't make another chicken, you have to hunt again, and again, and again. Likewise, you don't lose when you harvest agriculture, but you gain much more when you invest in LotL. If it is to be compared, we can then leave agriculture like the chicken, never return seeds to do other agriculture, and force everyone to plunder more and more to find new seeds. A little irrational, no? Yes, because there is no way to compare agriculture with animals in this case.

Food is not guaranteed with animals, as you always have to hunt, struggling with bad weapons at first, and harvesting little meat. So you improve your weapons, you improve your meat collection, and then you feel less and less need to hunt, as you start to collect more and more meat as you evolve until you find a "stability" (and stability is not a guarantee, as you will still need hunt sometimes to get more meat)
 

But to get there you need to invest in skills and / or learn recipes, whether to improve the collection of better meats, or manufacture weapons among other things, it needs a lot more investment.  Anyway: "No pain, no gain."

 

2 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

 

"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"

 

Yes. Being able to invest resources i would otherwise use to advance my state in the game on food because i dont want to go hungry is exactly what i want. Currently the only gameplay surrounding farming is whether you invested in LotL, i think that is bad design and having a way to make farming profitable by putting in some effort is a good compromise. Its not free, so why not?

 

 

It's no use having abundant and infinite agriculture, guaranteed food, if you also need to invest in weapons, strength, health, specific skills for certain weapons. I don't want to share resources with agriculture, because you can live very well without a farm.
 

See: just like other points in the game, agriculture is there, you can plant a seed and get some return, and you will receive much more if you invest more too. Without investment in LotL farming will be like hunting meat: you will always need to loot to find seeds/end product, or buy the seeds/end product from the Trader.

This is called SURVIVAL, and hunger is just another aspect of survival.

Anyway, you won't starve to death without farming. You can hunt, you don't have to follow a single path, you have choices.

 

2 hours ago, bloodmoth13 said:

 

"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."

 

Im not sure what you are trying to say here?

 

 

Yeah, farming also takes time and challenge to get. By investing in Huntersman you get a lot more meat, but you still need to keep hunting, apart from other investments I've mentioned above (weapons, health, intellect, strength).

Your challenge in agriculture also exists, as you need to go out, loot, find many items to do many things, including seeds. Agriculture is not free either, because even with investment in LotL you can go bankrupt if you don't know how to manage your stock. For example ammo: even if you can manufacture and have "abundance" in the loot, your ammo can run out if you don't know how to use it, if you spend it unnecessarily

In the same way you can use all crops just to make food and run out of resources to convert into seeds, and the chances of return are also not guaranteed, you can plant 10 plots and only receive 4 seeds after harvest, so you will need to convert products in seeds to replace the 6 that were missing. In the next harvest you can receive 7 seeds, or even 3 seeds. Probability does not mean guarantee. BTW: I'd rather "waste time" replanting the seeds than wander around aeh looting the Pois and return home without sucess.
 

Anyway, nothing will fall from the sky if you don't move. You need to loot, hunt, fight, heal your wounds/infections, satisfy your hunger.

And check it out: you said that meat is not so easy to get, but according to the image posted earlier, your statement seems wrong. Oh yes, there was effort, it was necessary to hunt or harvest meat from the bodies/carcasses scattered across the map. So, honestly, I don't see any difference regarding the initial difficulty in agriculture. On A19 it was very "easy", while currently on the A20 I consider it much more balanced.

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by DiegoLBC1 (see edit history)

[Biscoitoso]

Hello everyone!!! 😄

 

Heres my opinion 😅

 

1: I dont like the replanting method, it is very irritating. Also I think we should have a machine what automatically collect the crops, but of course it is a top tier machine for late game.
2: Why farms grow too fast?

3: Why farms dont need water?
4: Why we can have good farms in the desert, wasteland and snow?
5: Why we dont need fertilizers?

[DiegoLBC1]

14 minutes ago, Biscoitoso said:

Hello everyone!!! 😄

 

Heres my opinion 😅

 

1: I dont like the replanting method, it is very irritating. Also I think we should have a machine what automatically collect the crops, but of course it is a top tier machine for late game.
2: Why farms grow too fast?

3: Why farms dont need water?
4: Why we can have good farms in the desert, wasteland and snow?
5: Why we dont need fertilizers?

In a short answer I could say "it's still in Alpha". But that would be too generic. Based on that, I believe (but I'm not sure) that they will be able to modify the system before the game goes gold. 

I agree with your points, and would like you to add them in the future:

1- Agree, we had hoe before. A harvesting machine would be welcome

 

2- They could actually increase the growth time of the plants. Maybe different times for each type, for example, corn takes longer than pumpkin

 

3- It's another nice addition, for obvious reasons.

 

4- A good point, although I'm not sure if they could implement it, and how to implement it. Maybe need a greenhouse to plant in the desert, or something. Being a climate-controlled greenhouse, it would be suitable for any biome. They could change the harvest "profits" according to the biome, perhaps implement harvest loss due to hostile weather, in short, there are many possibilities.

5- I believe that the agricultural plot is made "already fertilized". One option would be to reduce the health of the plot with each harvest, so you need to "fix" it using some material (similar to wood/concrete blocks). as "fertilizer", and uses it to repair the agricultural plot.

Again I say, the game is not finished yet, so I'm not using the "Alpha version" argument just to justify, but with the hope that they will be able to implement these changes before officially releasing the final game.

[meganoth]

16 hours ago, Niil945 said:

 

So by all means, point out what exactly you think I've written that was a strawman. I'm happy to try to resolve the problem and as I have done in this thread I own my mistakes and admit when I'm wrong or when I mischaracterize something stated. A misunderstanding isn't a strawman though, nor is mild hyperbole.

 

Very well, I'll try one more time.

 

AFAIK straw man arguments do not assume intend by the way, so a misunderstanding is perfectly viable as the basis for a following straw man argumentation. 

 

One thing that happened is that I made a limited claim where you then assumed there were no limits. The 66% number is and always was just meant to mean the limited bonus for the case that someone sold and bought items with full BB, it was meant as the basis of a more accurate estimation of the bonus an INT player would get fully perked. I never said it was a general bonus an average player would see.

Also that I disagreed with your 25% and said the bonus was more like 50% was me correcting a number I thought did not give the whole picture (more about that below), it did not automatically mean that INT was underpowered at 25% or overpowered at 50%. I got the impression that INT is OP mainly from playing myself and from other posters on the forum or friends who valued INT as good or better as STR, at least for experienced players.  

 

So what exactly did I claim:

 

I made the initial claim that the full BB bonus is approximately 50% for an average player. This is actually not true (as I found out when we discussed it) as it needs Daring Adventurer as well.

So the correct statement after I did some more accurate estimations I made, would be now that the full INT trade perks bonus would be approximately but definitely less than 50% for an average player. (And yes, I know that daring only gives 20% at full perk, but it also gives two rewards to sell which makes the total bonus more than 20%).

 

Now you are correct that we could call the bonus of say 45% a buy/sell bonus of 22.5% and the game does exactly that with the expection of one pie. BUT a buy/sell bonus is uncommon in the real world where most trade is one-way, we always buy stuff and get a rebate of 3% for example, or some item costs 40% less in a sale.

But even more importantly, other bonuses in the game are one way as well, the bonus on mining is say 5% on what you get out of the earth, you don't put stuff back into the earth with a 5% bonus. The bonus on farming is one-way, the bonus of perks on weapon damage or range is one way, ALL other perk advantages (if I haven't overlooked something) are one-way, all resource-getting bonuses especially are all one-way. The only percentage in the game beside BB that is really both ways is the difficulty setting which applies the bonus to both zombie and inversely to player damage.

 

And this is why I made the point of translating the bonus BB gives so that the number is comparable to other bonuses in the game. And sure, a mining percentage bonus still can't be trivially compared to a buy percentage bonus, but it is a better foundation for comparison.

 

This is no spin, no desperate attempt at getting higher numbers, this is my honest opinion, that this is the right way to view it in comparison to other perks.

 

16 hours ago, Niil945 said:

You were triggered over me using the word 'crusade' when the substance was correct and you've said it yourself. Let me frame the point another way. Do you think BB is overpowered? If you answer no then I misunderstood your point.

 

My current answer would be "I don't know". I think the trader generally is too central, important and OP in the game, but as I already acknowledged it is perfectly possible that the trade bonuses INT gives is overkill for utilizing the OP trader. And I myself always put my first point into DA, but seldom one in BB (but I tend to not play the "trader mini game", i.e. I usually don't put much effort in getting best prices and amass lots of money since I prefer to find useful stuff while scrouncing instead of buying).

 

16 hours ago, Niil945 said:

But I don't think with what you've written that you can honestly say that. Though it's possible. Maybe you assumed I was unaware of how percentages work and wanted to educate me when I know how it works and took that explanation along with other commentary you made about your view of the OP INT trader build to mean more than you intended. I still think that's an insulting/condescending way to view the matter, but it's one scenario that kind of fits the sequence of events that includes a misunderstanding of intent. I'm open to others. Do you think traders are OP?

 

Yes. Too central and OP. For various reasons.

 

16 hours ago, Niil945 said:

 

If you answer no then I can point you at a statement you made where you explicitly said that. I'm not sure exactly what you think I straw manned you over. Vague statements alluding to one and playing coy while verbally sparring isn't productive conversation, so if you want to actually have that as you indicated that starts with you actually acting like you want to have a productive dialogue and not just pumping out passive aggressive snark.

 

 

This tangent started when I talked about me using an INT build and leaning into the perks and trader as a playstyle. You said something, and I'm going to paraphrase throughout so if you take umbrage to anything by all means point it out and we can talk about it, about the OP INT trader combo. You brought up BB, which to be frank I was surprised about because I don't think it's a big deal at all. I see DA as the vastly better option. Especially early game since the vendor price of low tier/quality loot is very low. Getting an extra 50 dukes doesn't make or break anything and I can't fathom how someone could possibly consider it OP at that level of the game. That dialogue devolved into the minutia of the benefits of BB where you kept trying to talk up the bonus. It's possible that I misunderstood your point, but we've been going in circles around it. You insisted on using bigger numbers to describe the power of the perk when the base language used in the game as a 25% bonus on either end of a sale describes it fine and means exactly the same thing. And then we danced around that over and over again. I asked this before and you never responded so I'll ask again. If 25% bonus to buying and selling is mathematically accurate, why do you feel the need to describe it by using bigger numbers and using limited circumstances?

 

I think I answered this above, hopefully.

 

16 hours ago, Niil945 said:

 

And initially being concise and ensuring that the impact was acknowledged and understood might have been a valid answer, even if it is a demeaning way to look at people, but it certainly wasn't after I made it clear I understood the point you were making. Do you do the same thing for every other perk that gives a % increase. When someone says, "motherlode gives an 100% increased resources" do you start intentionally complicating it by saying "oh well with miner 69'er it's 'effective value is x%!'" I doubt it. But you're going through all the trouble here to frame it that way with BB. What kept this conversation going was your insistence to put spin on the numbers.

 

 

This is exactly what I was talking about above. Passive aggressive snark that's not productive. Just like your commentary about me not reading or understanding what you wrote. I read what you wrote. I didn't agree with the view you presented.

 

And you repeatedly insinuated lots of motivations to why I say this or that. Is insinuation/innuendo still passive aggressive or already aggressive? It's a bad discussion style at the least.

 

16 hours ago, Niil945 said:

That's distinctly different from not understanding it. If you failed to communicate your point that's not on me. I can only see the words you write. I can't mind read into your intentions or unspoken points. Regurgitating the same thing at me using different phrasing isn't going to add context that you're choosing not to add. Sorta like your implication that I strawmanned you but you didn't say what you think I strawmanned. When communication fails, because language is messy and tone is hard to read sometimes or people simply don't think about things the same way you have options that aren't being salty and throwing side insults. You could try to explain your point a different way entirely. You could just walk away from the conversation. There are a lot of options that won't come off as you being sore or perceived as being condescending. You can't blame your choice about how you react on other people.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Boidster]

3 hours ago, DiegoLBC1 said:

And with the meat collected you don't make another chicken

 

Well...maybe YOU don't.

[Niil945]

6 hours ago, meganoth said:

This is no spin, no desperate attempt at getting higher numbers, this is my honest opinion, that this is the right way to view it in comparison to other perks.

 

Okay, so all of this back and forth was predicated on the desire for me to write about the skill using the bigger number because you feel it's the 'right' way to speak about the bonus of the skill, even though the game describes it that way and it's mathematically accurate to simply say 25% bonus to buying and selling and it doesn't require any exposition on when and how it's worth more than 25%?

 

First, and I'm not trying to be intentionally mean here. No, I won't speak about it that way. I use terms the game uses and it's a hell of a lot less wordy when talking about it. The fact that it's %'s on two different things that sometimes interact means that the 'effective' value is sometimes going to be higher by nature. It doesn't need to be explicitly defined and can actually be erroneous if you give it a value as it fluctuates. The closer to end game you are the more opportunity one has to sell junk and buy things resulting in more of someone's dukes coming from the combined bonus particularly as the tier and quality increases and the sale values get higher and higher, but at the same time the less 'need' someone has to buy things from the trader. It becomes more convenience and less of a survival factor exactly like solar is. If the only source of dukes was buying and selling that would change the situation for me but it's not, and that phrasing could easily be misconstrued to make it seem like BB is far more powerful than it actually is. It also doesn't make sense to speak about a bonus in terms of 'up to x% effectiveness' on a tooltip. Particularly when people want to know exactly what they're spending points on and there's already a way to explain it that's simple and encapsulates all the situations where that 'up to' would matter exactly the way the game details it. So no, I won't use phrasing that's imprecise and potently misleading.

 

Second, a strawman is when someone changes the argument another makes with the intent of refuting that altered argument. I'm not doing so. I think you can easily acknowledge that I've been debating excessively with you over the actual content of the argument you're making. I'm saying I don't believe your claim regarding your intent/motivation for arguing about the topic in the first place. That's not me putting words in your mouth, that's me putting words in mine so to speak. And while it's not a binary thing the precision/accuracy argument makes no sense to me. Your methodology of describing it is not more precise or more accurate than the way the game already describes the perk and it's far more concise to boot. But it's natural that you don't like that I don't believe your claim. Unfortunately your response to my question about whether BB is OP doesn't shake my assessment, it strengthens it. Had you said no I would have had to reconsider even if I thought your desire to have everyone speak about it in the personal 'right' way was weird.

 

7 hours ago, meganoth said:

And you repeatedly insinuated lots of motivations to why I say this or that. Is insinuation/innuendo still passive aggressive or already aggressive? It's a bad discussion style at the least.

 

Maybe my phrasing could be better, but when I talk about things like motivation it's me conveying my opinion not a factual presentation or an insinuation at all. As above where I straight up said that I don't believe you. I'm pretty blunt. People don't need to infer anything from me. Whether it's a discussion style you like isn't really relevant to me, though it does make sense. We're very different personalities, I'm very direct and explicit, I say exactly what I mean. It's a matter of logic not emotion to me. You're not as direct and are often on the other side of the fence as to debate style. I can point to a dozen places in the last post where you implied things or places where you could have clarified but you left things vague. It's far more common for people to be like you than like me so I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with it. But saying it's 'bad discussion style' is just an emotional appeal that doesn't mean anything to me. I don't feel the value in limiting my voice so that other people feel better when I have things to say that I know they won't like. That doesn't mean those things are intentionally mean or hurtful, just I don't sugar coat things or powder people's backsides so they don't have a negative emotional reaction to what I'm saying. But I do appreciate your arguments are often substantive even if we don't agree. Even the snarkier elements of your posts aren't really that snarky. I see it as a positive outcome when people can have a discourse and walk away disagreeing but with an understanding of perspective of the other side.

 

I don't even see anything wrong with the view that the trader is too much of an influence on the survival aspect whether I agree or not. I can certainly see how players who want it to be more of a pure survival experience see the trader as easing gameplay challenges. That's merely a matter of preference and it's one that players can lean into or away from based upon how they choose to play.

[meganoth]

On 1/26/2022 at 10:39 PM, Niil945 said:

 

Okay, so all of this back and forth was predicated on the desire for me to write about the skill using the bigger number because you feel it's the 'right' way to speak about the bonus of the skill, even though the game describes it that way and it's mathematically accurate to simply say 25% bonus to buying and selling and it doesn't require any exposition on when and how it's worth more than 25%?

 

"1/2 + 1/2" and "0.5 + 0.5" are both mathematically accurate ways of saying the same thing, but sometimes one way has advantages over the other. In this case I was of the opinion that transforming the buy/sell bonus into the more common buy bonus all the other bonuses adhered to was an advantage.

 

On 1/26/2022 at 10:39 PM, Niil945 said:

 

First, and I'm not trying to be intentionally mean here. No, I won't speak about it that way. I use terms the game uses and it's a hell of a lot less wordy when talking about it. The fact that it's %'s on two different things that sometimes interact means that the 'effective' value is sometimes going to be higher by nature. It doesn't need to be explicitly defined and can actually be erroneous if you give it a value as it fluctuates. The closer to end game you are the more opportunity one has to sell junk and buy things resulting in more of someone's dukes coming from the combined bonus particularly as the tier and quality increases and the sale values get higher and higher, but at the same time the less 'need' someone has to buy things from the trader. It becomes more convenience and less of a survival factor exactly like solar is. If the only source of dukes was buying and selling that would change the situation for me but it's not, and that phrasing could easily be misconstrued to make it seem like BB is far more powerful than it actually is. It also doesn't make sense to speak about a bonus in terms of 'up to x% effectiveness' on a tooltip. Particularly when people want to know exactly what they're spending points on and there's already a way to explain it that's simple and encapsulates all the situations where that 'up to' would matter exactly the way the game details it. So no, I won't use phrasing that's imprecise and potently misleading.

 

If we were writing a "Howto play 7D2D" then yes, going into details that much and converting numbers would be the wrong way and confusing to readers. But where is the danger of misinterpreting things when we were just discussing it and both knew what the numbers mean? 

 

On 1/26/2022 at 10:39 PM, Niil945 said:

 

Second, a strawman is when someone changes the argument another makes with the intent of refuting that altered argument. I'm not doing so.

 

At least in the wikipedia definition (for what its worth) of "straw man argument" I don't read anything about intent. But straw man is often used as an accusation of intentionally and unfair debating. Let me say again I didn't mean that you were doing it intentionally and I'll take it back.

 

On 1/26/2022 at 10:39 PM, Niil945 said:

I think you can easily acknowledge that I've been debating excessively with you over the actual content of the argument you're making. I'm saying I don't believe your claim regarding your intent/motivation for arguing about the topic in the first place. That's not me putting words in your mouth, that's me putting words in mine so to speak. And while it's not a binary thing the precision/accuracy argument makes no sense to me. Your methodology of describing it is not more precise or more accurate than the way the game already describes the perk and it's far more concise to boot. But it's natural that you don't like that I don't believe your claim. Unfortunately your response to my question about whether BB is OP doesn't shake my assessment, it strengthens it. Had you said no I would have had to reconsider even if I thought your desire to have everyone speak about it in the personal 'right' way was weird.

 

 

Maybe my phrasing could be better, but when I talk about things like motivation it's me conveying my opinion not a factual presentation or an insinuation at all. As above where I straight up said that I don't believe you. I'm pretty blunt. People don't need to infer anything from me. Whether it's a discussion style you like isn't really relevant to me, though it does make sense. We're very different personalities, I'm very direct and explicit, I say exactly what I mean. It's a matter of logic not emotion to me. You're not as direct and are often on the other side of the fence as to debate style. I can point to a dozen places in the last post where you implied things or places where you could have clarified but you left things vague. It's far more common for people to be like you than like me so I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with it. But saying it's 'bad discussion style' is just an emotional appeal that doesn't mean anything to me. I don't feel the value in limiting my voice so that other people feel better when I have things to say that I know they won't like. That doesn't mean those things are intentionally mean or hurtful, just I don't sugar coat things or powder people's backsides so they don't have a negative emotional reaction to what I'm saying. But I do appreciate your arguments are often substantive even if we don't agree. Even the snarkier elements of your posts aren't really that snarky. I see it as a positive outcome when people can have a discourse and walk away disagreeing but with an understanding of perspective of the other side.

 

I don't even see anything wrong with the view that the trader is too much of an influence on the survival aspect whether I agree or not. I can certainly see how players who want it to be more of a pure survival experience see the trader as easing gameplay challenges. That's merely a matter of preference and it's one that players can lean into or away from based upon how they choose to play.

 

"I don't believe you" is not an insinuation, as well as "I disagree". Perfectly harmless. Notice both sentences are about what you think.

But "And trying to cherry pick such an example just demonstrates how far you have to and are willing to reach to 'win' an argument." is a direct attack and interpreting motivations into statements I made. Notice how you claim to know what I thought.

And that is not logical as you can not predict from a statement whether it was made with intent to deceive, or from error of judgement, or using wrong facts, and there is even the possibility that it is you who might be wrong. This was not a logical deduction from facts of the topic at hand.

 

Now I'm not perfect as well, I sometimes use imprecise language in argument, especially in a language not my own. It might lead to misunderstandings like ours.

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Niil945]

4 hours ago, meganoth said:

In this case I was of the opinion that transforming the buy/sell bonus into the more common buy bonus all the other bonuses adhered to was an advantage.

What advantage? It's not more precise because the value varies. To be accurate you have to give 3 different numbers and estimate how much each part makes up the whole and it's going to vary over gameplay based on the player and how quickly they invest in the perk. Because of that it's a far less concise way to describe the effect and there no explicit average that can be pointed at that really captures a holistic view of the perk throughout gameplay. We'd need vastly more data than we can get a number to point at with any confidence and it still wouldn't be accurate for a specific playthrough or specific point in time. It can be referenced in a manner that gives a ballpark average but, again, that comes with a lot of required caveats to be intellectually honest when talking about it. The only advantage I see is shaping perception about the perk because it can sometimes be a bigger number if one narrowly applies it over the original method, and doing so isn't very useful or meaningful.

 

4 hours ago, meganoth said:

But where is the danger of misinterpreting things when we were just discussing it and both knew what the numbers mean? 

If we both knew what the numbers mean then when I said that it wasn't a 50% bonus, that it was 25% buying and selling, you could have just said, "Yes, you're right, that's not an accurate value, I'm describing what the value can peak at because sometimes it compounds, when it does it's x, but it doesn't always because not all dukes come from selling and that it's difficult to ascertain an exact value. I think it happens about half the time for me but I have no real way to confirm that at all." But instead you went to great lengths to push the numbers you were providing instead of just acknowledging that we understood it the same way regardless. Initially I was just pointing out that saying 50% or 66% is not accurate. And it's true that it's not. 

 

5 hours ago, meganoth said:

At least in the wikipedia definition (for what its worth) of "straw man argument" I don't read anything about intent.

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Just because it doesn't say the word intent doesn't mean it's not speaking about it. That's just google. I'm sure wikipedia mentioned something very similar. 

 

5 hours ago, meganoth said:

But straw man is often used as an accusation of intentionally and unfair debating.

It's not about unfair. It's about being logically unsound. Why it's logically unsound depends on the specific fallacy, but in the case of a strawman it's not simply misunderstanding what someone says. It's purposefully changing someone else's position and then arguing against that erroneous position because it's easier to 'win' the debate that way. The method in which the argument is altered varies, reductivism and hyperbolism were used by someone else above that I pointed out, etc. But yes, lots of people throw around claims of fallacies without actually understanding what they mean because they want to use them to 'win' arguments. That's fallacious too  It's something that tends to amuse me a lot.

 

5 hours ago, meganoth said:

But "And trying to cherry pick such an example just demonstrates how far you have to and are willing to reach to 'win' an argument." is a direct attack and interpreting motivations into statements I made. Notice how you claim to know what I thought.

I'm directly speaking to what I believe about why you're saying what you're saying. If you presume I'm speaking about it as if I'm stating a fact I can see how you'd perceive it that way but to reach that conclusion you'd have to ignore context from statements before and after it. That context matters. Granted, I may get facts wrong and I'm happy to admit it and be educated on whatever I'm speaking about that's incorrect, but I don't fabricate a 'fact' because it supports my argument and I don't pretend my opinion is a fact. Part of it is the tone I write in too I think. If I see someone giving snark I tend to reciprocate in the way that I write by being sharper. The lines between objective discussion and subjective discussion can get blurred there with strong phrasing. 

 

5 hours ago, meganoth said:

Now I'm not perfect as well, I sometimes use imprecise language in argument, especially in a language not my own. It might lead to misunderstandings like ours.

Oh absolutely. English is a very murky language. We could tangent on the failings of the language for quite a while, let alone someone who isn't a primary speaker of the language using it and the common miscommunications that happen. But neither of us are perfect and I certainly don't see your commentary as trollish, even if we don't share the same perspective on things.

[theFlu]

That has got to be the longest interpretative dance around A/B != B/A ever. Best part is, you guys are still firmly in the starting grid.

 

I'll feed in another line of lighter fluid;

The BB description says 25%, but its practical effect is almost always more than that. Why? Cigar and magnum are completely passive, so everyone's base price is going to be 85. Sugar butts are plentiful enough to call the baseline for any actual purchase 75. Adding the BB 25% to that, the real effect is 33% of the price. Just for buying. And there's more to get to increase the effect in Awesome Sauce.

 

The way it stacks, 25% is a poor description. Accurate, but not fully descriptive.

[Roland]

On 1/25/2022 at 11:23 AM, Niil945 said:

If people (them included) said "I like the new farming system because x, y, z" and reflected on how the changes impact them and their preferred gameplay, cool.

I like the new farming system because

 

x: It more fully creates a progression arc for farming from very basic simply planting seeds you acquire to grow some ingredients to be saved for filling meals as a small part of the player's strategy of maintaining their hunger to spending 1 point in LOTL which enhances that strategy by getting more crops from harvest and on up to finally LOTL 3 where you are guaranteed to have large farms and farming is the core of your strategy for maintaining hunger. It beats A19 in this regard because there was no progression. You could attain large self sustaining farms with no perk investment so the progression was super flat and uninteresting.

 

y: It fits better with the rest of the game where you can do an activity at a basic level for modest returns unperked but can do much greater things once perked up. Anyone can plant seeds and bring in a harvest of crops without spending any points and those crops can be used for food without spending any points (provided you find the recipe of course). That is the basic rudimentary level. With perks you can do so much more.

 

z: I like finding seeds in loot now whereas before it was pretty much a non-issue once I had plants in the ground because those plants were eternally regrowing. Seeds quickly became a complete non-issue. It is still a much more exciting find the first time you get a seed you did not have before but even after you have a farm well developed it is a happy find to get some seeds.

 

w: The new farming has impacted our team by making it a more co-operative experience. We all help out in ways that we can. Obviously, only the highest perked person is going to harvest but everyone can help plant and there is a lot more communication between us as far as what seeds we need to be on the lookout for and celebrations when someone announces they found a seed we were needing. Nothing near this level of teamwork ever existed for us prior to A20 in any of the past iterations of farming.

 

v: I like the planting requirement over the regrowth feature. I know that some find it tedious but I like active farming more than auto farming in this game. Everything is just clicks of the mouse when you boil it down and what is fun vs boring will differ for each person but planting seeds doesn't feel any more chore-like than mining ore or upgrading blocks. I like being able to reconfigure the farm plots each time.

 

 

I'm glad TFP made this change and I think it is a huge positive step in the right direction. I agree with the philosophy of design in which we can do things at a basic level and have many different avenues available to us for getting food and if we want even better results and guarantees then we can invest points in those areas in order to have that improvement. I believe farming moved in just such a direction whereas before it was too easy and too rewarding for zero investment.

[meganoth]

3 hours ago, theFlu said:

That has got to be the longest interpretative dance around A/B != B/A ever. Best part is, you guys are still firmly in the starting grid.

 

I'll feed in another line of lighter fluid;

The BB description says 25%, but its practical effect is almost always more than that. Why? Cigar and magnum are completely passive, so everyone's base price is going to be 85. Sugar butts are plentiful enough to call the baseline for any actual purchase 75. Adding the BB 25% to that, the real effect is 33% of the price. Just for buying. And there's more to get to increase the effect in Awesome Sauce.

 

The way it stacks, 25% is a poor description. Accurate, but not fully descriptive.

 

You are really late to the party, we already discussed the effects of those items. And you are also partly wrong (if I understand your statement correctly), since all those items are available to everyone they tend to diminish the relative effect BB has.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Roland]

On 1/25/2022 at 12:19 PM, pahbi said:

The effort thats been put into defending farming is really bizarre, I've never seen anything like it before.

 

 

How do you know if you have all of us on your ignore list...lol