Sign In

### Topic

#### Easier method to remove a tree from your yard

I would like to see an easier way to kill/remove trees from my yard. Currently I think the only way I can change what type of trees I have planted is to not water them until they die. I run into problems because I only want to replace one tree so I am still watering/petting the rest of my orchard.
I try to remember to not water the one I want to replace, but sometimes I forget and if I water it once all of my previous efforts are for naught.
I would like the ability to chop down a living tree in my yard, I can understand limiting this ability to back yards only, as otherwise people would be cutting down all of the trees everywhere.

Posted 23 months ago by Zaphod | Permalink

### Replies

- Seems worthwhile, I've been wondering about this myself.
  Posted 23 months ago by RobotGymnast | Permalink
- It would be nice to indicate with a red mark that a tree is to be taken down, much in the same way that foresters do. That would remind you not to water or pet and at the same time perhaps it could also trigger some automatic withering process. This could be extended to streets and community woodland within reason. However being able to cut down a healthy tree goes against the grain of most "green" principles except where the tree species is invasive and disturbing a natural habitat. These needn't apply to glitch of course but it would be nice if they did.
  Posted 23 months ago by bluto | Permalink
- Good point; Glitch's whole atmosphere is based on construction; if they start allowing destruction, it sort of tampers with that feeling. A red mark would be a non-destructive way to destroy.
  Posted 23 months ago by RobotGymnast | Permalink
- Well, but isn't some construction dependent of destruction? To build a house, you need to level the ground, to plant new trees, you need to cull the old ones...I find the idea of players being able to choose whether they build the world up or down exciting.
  Posted 23 months ago by Cefeida | Permalink
- Deconstruction projects could be just as fun as construction ones, imo.
  Posted 23 months ago by Nanookie | Permalink
- Deconstruction can be fun but someone almost always gets hurt.
  Posted 23 months ago by bluto | Permalink
- Not if you put the charges in just the right spots...:-)
  Glitch's whole atmosphere *right now* is based on construction, but the bigger premise actually contains a destructive element that we just have not experienced yet. I really hope after the reset we will get to play less with street building and more with combating rook-blight and creeping malaise.
  creeping malaise!
  Posted 23 months ago by Nanookie | Permalink
- Creeping malaise would make a good handle :)
  Posted 23 months ago by bluto | Permalink
- I read that as creeping mayonnaise.
  Blegh.
  Posted 23 months ago by Cefeida | Permalink
- in the final game it'll make sense if whole regions could disappear from neglect, or at least change in appearance to feel more hostile.
  not to say that every area has to be filled with people all the time, but regions built up and then abandoned make the game look built up and then abandoned, which isn't good.
  i think the rook will have something to do with this. and specifically with making sure that there aren't "empty" game areas. if you want to save an area from the rook you've got to prove the area is worth it by defending it .. and if you don't the rook will make the area deteriorate and possibly even disappear entirely.
  ok .. but the original topic, trees.
  i think when you plant a tree, the game should force you to think carefully, because it shouldn't be easily removed .. but for a tree in the backyard i can see chopping it down all on your own or putting a mark on it that'll make it die more quickly. perhaps the chopping could be much more labour intensive if the tree is still alive.
  my preference for public trees is a bit different. i'd like to see a system whereby players could vote against keeping the tree around. this could be done in different ways, like a straight up vote or it could be more like "chops versus pets/waters" where the number of people who've tried to chop the tree down is measured against the number of people harvesting and petting - once the chops win, the tree drops. watering and petting would be less energy intensive than chopping, so there'd be a clear preference for life, but if a significant group of players are willing to spend a significant amount of energy on felling a live tree, it ought to work.
  both of those could be overkill tho. it might be that all that's needed is a more explicit progress bar showing how long it is going to take for the tree to die. sometimes making the game world a little bit easier to understand through UI feedback can be as important to easing frustrations as making the game world easier to understand because the players can destroy and create it at will.
  Posted 23 months ago by striatic | Permalink
- Perhaps once a tree has received three chops, a red mark appears and the withering process begins as I suggested for backyards above? It could still be stopped by regular petting and watering but at least the mark lets players know other players want the tree to go?
  Posted 23 months ago by bluto | Permalink
- "i think the rook will have something to do with this. and specifically with making sure that there aren't "empty" game areas. if you want to save an area from the rook you've got to prove the area is worth it by defending it .. and if you don't the rook will make the area deteriorate and possibly even disappear entirely."
  I like that a LOT.
  I think that whatever happens, the tree life cycle should be made clearer, and this would make it easier to see how close a tree is to withering, for example. Right now it's even hard to tell whether a tree is fully grown or not.
  Posted 23 months ago by Cefeida | Permalink
- bluto, yes that would work. at least better than how things currently work.
  it should take a significant amount of petting to save a marked tree though. if a significant number of players are willing to spend a significant amount of energy on felling a live tree in an peripheral location, it ought to work despite random petting and harvesting here and there.
  in practice, i imagine it would play out something like this:
  in core, super busy areas it would be almost impossible to fell a living tree unless lots of people respected the mark and joined in either by chopping or by not petting. in that situation the status quo would invariably save the tree.
  in less busy areas, the reverse would be true. a significant number of players could decide to drop the tree, and the low level of ambient petting wouldn't be enough to save it.
  this would make it nearly impossible for organized groups players to screw around with key public areas by turning them into mud-patches or mono-cultures without a majority of players going along with the plan. on the other hand, it would leave the "frontiers" open for experimentation, without allowing random players here and there ignoring a mark to prevent the group from working on its plan.
  there are a ton of different ways such a process could be implemented in-game. the key is that nothing dies unless multiple people want it to, and that it takes some time for the tree to die - so that an "undo button" doesn't lead to planting without forethought.
  Posted 23 months ago by striatic | Permalink
- Yup, sounds like a plan. :)
  Posted 23 months ago by bluto | Permalink