Terrain modification mechanism in this game is not so intuitive. I still can’t fully understand how this system works.
I had to carefully choose a starting point and spend large amount of time, working meticulously to achieve good results.
If I didn’t, I would end up with one of two outcomes: a village placed on a slanted surface or a bumpy, ugly landscape. Neither is satisfying.
Sometimes, I couldn’t build structures because of oddly “distorted” terrain. To fix this, I had to repeatedly flatten the ground, which was a tedious and annoying task.
It is very difficult to naturally connect two terrains of different heights.
Usually, it ends up looking like an unnatural stepped terrain or two separate, disconnected sections. (The village appears “cut in half” in the middle.)
Villages that naturally spread across the terrain, definitely has its own charm. However, there will surely be players who don’t like it.
Terrain flattening always requires the same labor cost, proportional to the selected area size.
However, I found it hard to accept that the cost was the same for both gentle plains and rough terrain. It make me grumble throughout the game.
The cost of labor for flattening work should be flexible, depending on the terrain (or the type of ground).
In my opinion, mountainous terrain requires more labor than average, while relatively flat terrain should require less labor.
This can provide greater satisfaction for players who want to build large villages on gentle plains.
On the other hand, developing rugged mountainous areas will be more challenging, offering a new and worthy level of difficulty for players who enjoy challenges.
Feature that shows the result when the terrain flattening is completed.
This could reduce the hassle of players having to use the flattening function repeatedly.
Or, I think it would be a good idea to allow players to set their own reference point for the terrain they want to change.
If the terrain is flattened based on the ground specified by the player, rather than the surrounding environment, it would be easier to create a flat area.
Adding a feature to connect two terrains of different heights (with bridges, ladders, or elevators).
This would be a great solution to the problem of city expansion being blocked by terrain.
However, as a trade-off, such structures would require a lot more resources ─ wood, planks, stone, bricks, etc. This would make players think carefully about the direction of city expansion.
If it’s possible to build bridges over lakes or other bodies of water, I would be even more pleased.
A feature where resources are gained or consumed during the process of changing terrain (this is kind of a possibility).
Players could use resources like sand or clay to fill in depressed areas of terrain, or conversely, carve through rugged, rocky mountains to obtain stone, iron ore, etc.
Perhaps this feature might not align with the direction of Farthest Frontier, but I think it’s a new idea that could make the game more interesting.
…
I plan to keep uploading these posts several times (Honestly, there is still too much left).
For now - Construction / Maintenance / Citizen / Shortcut key / User Interface / Resource display / Alarms / Data map / Combat elements / Game event, etc. ─ are mainly scheduled.
Thank you to the developers of Farthest Frontier, and all users.
Cost of labor is a good idea, but it would require a re-balancing of maps. Try playing an arid highlands map which is completely composed of hills and mountains.
It’s difficult as it is because there are no vegetables, no medicinal root, no herbs and fertility is REALLY bad. Flattening the ground here to be able to build a building would be time consuming and prolong the wait to get the resources required to actually survive.
I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, but needs to be considered carefully. There’s a huge difference between playing on idyllic valley and arid highlands and it would make it even simpler for idyllic valley and even harder for arid highlands (which might be a good thing because it raises the challenge ).
I think you’re right. That’s why I think these features can make more interesting changes when playing highland maps.
Imagine Vietnam’s traditional terraced rice paddies, South America’s mountain city ruins, and villages on coastal cliffs in the Mediterranean.
If stairs, bridges and improved flattening systems are added (And if it works in combination) - We could be able to build other forms of cities that are more Vertical.
Of course, it will be a tough challenge, but I think it’s worth a try.
Excellent thread. Good ideas, very well explained. The flattening tool is very counter intuitive to use, hard to predict, and at times frustrating. Both because it sometimes doesn’t flatten enough to build on, and sometimes it flattens one area too much and renders the boundary unpathable. Accidentally turning a mountain into a series of disconnected step-like plateaus is kind of annoying. It’s also open to “abuse” to provide perfect defence against raiders.
Adding stairs would be a nice touch IMO. Or even for overly steep paths to automatically become stairs
).