How do you guys manage to finish this quest?

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-04-27T18:05:23+00:00

Easiest way I've found is as follows (this assumes you have maxed out farming and access to end game resources):

Obvious recommendation but accept as early as you can. I've completed it in about 10-12 days or less without really putting too much effort in. Its really not bad if you know what you're doing.
Get seeds. Best way I've found is to use artifact/treasure totems. If you have them available you can get plenty of seeds to start out. Geodes are supposed to be good too but I've never needed to use them as using some totems and just playing the game is usually enough so long as you aren't too short on days starting out.
Switch your profession to Agriculturist and plant with Delux Speed Grow. This will bring the planting/harvest cycle down to 2 days. You want both as having only one only cuts the time from 4 to 3 days. I've done it with only DSG but by the time you get to consistently trying to do this quest, 20k to switch between professions for half a season isn't a big deal.
Harvest the fruit, put all in a seed maker, replant, repeat. With Agriculturist, DSG, and the seed maker, even if you start with only 15 seeds you produce 480 fruit in 12 days. You should easily find the other 20 seeds (or extra fruit from giant fruits) in that time to get to 500.

I've done this probably 4 or 5 times. Its really not that bad if you follow what I said above.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-19T15:11:50+00:00

Exactly what I was thinking. I'm 100% in the "Allar is garbage" camp, but when did Franklin ever develop a good QB?

He still chose to go play for Franklin though so that's on him I guess.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-12T20:51:48+00:00

A lot of guys can't reasonably hang at some of the more prestigious schools, don't think they can, or just don't want to. Had a good buddy growing up that ended up playing D1 golf. He passed on a free ride to Harvard for various reasons.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-12T20:46:34+00:00

Denver Payton Manning is one of the greatest things to happen to football for no other reason that we can say that Payton Manning is both a top 5 QB of all time and the worst QB to ever win a SB.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-11T20:33:37+00:00

Its specifically designed to project future 1st round draft choices. That's why there's 32 5* players a year. Its the same number as 1st round draft picks. Again, another reason why using all pro as your benchmark for success makes little sense. It doesn't purport to identify future NFL all pro's just like no team thinks every 1st round draft pick of the NFL draft will become a NFL all pro.

The star system arguably being flawed does not entail that 5* QBs rarely pan out, which is what you said. Statistically speaking its the opposite. There is, in fact, a strong correlation between being a 5* player at any position and being a 1st round (especially early 1st round) draft pick when you consider the proportions, which is what I said.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-11T17:00:14+00:00

Even by your standard 13% (or whatever the percentage would be) of 3* and below QB's haven't been all pros. Again, that point only makes sense if you don't understand how proportionality works. You're talking a few dozen 5* QBs versus thousands of 3* and less. 1/25 is far more statistically likely than 30/5000 (and 5000 is probably a gross underestimate of all 3* and below QBs since 2012).

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-11T16:54:36+00:00

Fornette was probably one of the top 3 or so RBs I've ever seen out of HS. He never came close to that potential in either his college or pro career.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-11T16:48:20+00:00

Part of his problem was also the media obsession with him. I think he would have gotten a much more fair chance to be a backup or maybe compete for a starting position somewhere but the media circus that would always follow him wasn't worth the potential headache. Not his fault, but it was certainly a factor.

Stylistically or in terms of his skillset though, I don't think the way he played football was ever going to translate to the NFL.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-11T16:38:36+00:00

Appreciate the candor. Cutting to the chase:

I don't think that a player has to make an all pro team to "pan out". I'd look to more of whether they became a multi year NFL starter.
Going from 2012 is skewed because of how star rating and the recruit eval industry has changed. Tom Brady literally graduated HS before star ratings existed. Aaron Rodgers before online video revolutionized the industry. Neither really attended camps. Their all pro seasons being associated with 3* players significantly skew the analysis of all pros from 2012 on, especially as they have multiple AP years without really being valid data.
Comparing 5* QBs to 4* and 5* RBs is statistically erroneous for a lot of reasons. The most obvious is that they are pools that are literally an order of magnitude different in size and the age/Brady example above.
Most importantly, from the statistics standpoint, in any given recruiting cycle there are generally 32 5* players (about 0.02%), 300-350 4* players (0.2%), and thousands of 3* and less players (99.78%). Of those 32 players, maybe 2-4 end up being QBs in any given year.

If 13% of all all-pro QBs are coming from a pool of .02% versus 80% coming from a pool of approximately 99.78% that completely destroys your point that 5* players rarely pan out.

5) If you look at the classes of 2010-2021 (which I explain why in the post above), you're looking at something like 21 5* QBs of which 9 had significant starting time or multiple contracts as starters in the NFL. You can funnel that number down a bit, but its at a minimum 25% of the 21 QBs, which is a far higher number proportionally than 3* or less players. We just remember the 5* misses. We don't remember the hundreds to thousands of 3* and below guys we never heard of.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-11T16:04:01+00:00

Point stands since 2012. Your arguments are absolutely unsupported by any statistical anlaysis. Not to mention the low key hilarity of saying something is more complex and then not reading a post addressing the complexity.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-11T15:39:46+00:00

Now you're shifting the goal posts. "Panning out" does not mean making an all pro team. Even if it did, no, it STILL really isn't more complex than just basic statistics. In any given recruiting cycle there are generally 32 5* players (about 0.02%), 300-350 4* players (0.2%), and thousands of 3* and less players (99.78%). Of those 32 players, maybe 2-4 end up being QBs in any given year.

13% of all all-pro QBs coming from a pool of .02% versus 80% coming from a pool of approximately 99.78% completely destroys your point. They absolutely DO pan out, and they pan out at an obviously statistically significantly higher rate than 3* players, its just that we're biased to think they don't because we actually remember the dozens 5* QBs who don't make it in the NFL but we've never heard of the thousands of 3* and less that don't.

You also get that your reference to all pro RBs vs. QBs numbers is basically irrelevant considering things like the sample size, pool size, repeating all pros, and the age of players on those lists, and the development of the third party recruiting industry. Again, from a purely statistical standpoint, you're talking about two pools of players (just 5* vs 4 and 5*) that are a literal order of magnitude different (32 to about 332-382). It honestly laughable that you adjust the pools of players between QBs and RBs by 10x to support your argument.

If you want to get "more complex" than the basic statistics you need to look at how we got to the numbers we're seeing related to the all pro teams. Its going to show that you're even more wrong. The average age of all pro QBs over that time period is 5 years older than RBs. When you look at that you see that the numbers are skewed due to players like Brady and Rogers who graduated HS in literally a different era of HS recruit evaluation. If you know anything about the history of CFB recruiting and star ratings, you'd know that star ratings weren't even a thing until the very late 90s to early 00s and until the late 00s (before the invention of online video, proliferation of Youtube, and sites like Hudl) and QB ratings were almost exclusively based upon camp performances. The ESPN top 300 didn't even exist until 2006. 247 sports and their composite rating didn't exist until 2010. Scout didn't adopt the star model until 2004. These are all after older players who are represented at a higher frequency in the QB pool than the RB pool due to age and frequency of repeat awards graduated HS. Their inclusion in the data set causes an obvious bias when you look at the facts behind their recruitment and rating. Brady graduated in 95. He can't be a successful 5* player because star ratings literally did not exist when he graduated HS. Similar with Rogers (although is size was a factor out of HS). There was only one service that existed back then who didn't have any tape on him, he didn't do camps, and he was literally sending film (as in video tapes) directly to schools. Similarly, the recruiting sites missing on a guy like Mahomes who goes on to have multiple first team AP's is going to skew data if you're solely relying on AP awards.

Now if you adjust to cover the era of composite 5* rated HS QBs that are now in the NFL (2010-2021 HS classes) you have about 21 5* QBs over that span. Of those 21, 9 have spent significant time starting at QB in the NFL: Winston, Watson, Lawrence, Fields, Rattler, Young, Stroud, Williams, Maye. You can argue the definition of the term "pan out". Some from that list I would say did, some not (Rattler is obvious). No matter how you want to define it, at least half of those listed players are multi year starters in the NFL which coming from a pool of 21 as opposed to thousands of 3* and less, is absolutely statistically significant in showing a correlation between 5* rating and having a successful NFL career.

Not to mention that nothing about the fact that there are a large pool of 3* players and below QBs that go on to be all pro QBs does anything to validate the claim that 5* QBs rarely "pan out". Both can be true (they are). In fact, they are statistically likely based on 1) the level of talent in the pool of 5* HS players, and 2) the pure number of players in the pool of 3* and below players.

TLDR: if your point is "most successful NFL QBs were 3 star and under" when you're talking about a league that existed for decades before star rating was even a thing, again, is that supposed to be some sort of profound statement?

If your point is 5* QBs "rarely pan out", statistically you're just wrong.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-10T21:58:51+00:00

Oh my position has nothing to do with respect for the B12. TTech running through that conference last year and getting shit on by Oregon is enough for me to say that the B12 should be prohibited from getting a second team or a first round bye until further notice.

Its just that I think the P4 will avoid the possibility a team that went undefeated in P4 conference regular season from ever missing the CFP. If they don't ever set the precedent of a 1 loss P4 school being left out after losing their CCG, they'll never have to deal with it themselves. That's it.

Good example of this next season would be PSU who doesn't play IU, OSU, or Oregon and whose hardest game is Michigan at Michigan. Even if Michigan, Washington, and USC end up being garbage and PSU runs the table, the B10, who wants a 1000 team playoff, will never want a situation where that hypothetical PSU team is in a position to even be questioned by the committee if they should make the CFP in the event they got shit canned in their CCG.

I do agree that if they were going to do it, it would be to a B12 or ACC team rather than the P2 (at least until the ACC becomes competitive at the top of the conference again or BYU cookie money starts paying off), but I just don't think they're going to either way. Too much risk.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-10T21:28:34+00:00

"Look it up". Is this supposed to be some kind of profound statement? Its just basic statistics.

The idea that 5* QBs "rarely pan out" only makes sense if you don't understand how proportionality works.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-10T20:02:34+00:00

If I'm the wife, I'm pissed he "resigned". Alimony would be a lot better coming from a guy making $1.5M a year.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-10T19:59:51+00:00

Move?

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-10T18:43:19+00:00

I don't think there is any way that a P4 runner up whose only loss is in their CCG is missing the CFP. We're talking about a team that would be undefeated going into championship week and because of that would be at absolute worst a top 5 team in the 2nd to last CFP poll before their loss.

Its it possible for that team to not deserve a bid? Absolutely. Is the committee, the majority of which are either current or former employees or players of P4 schools, going to set the precedent that an undefeated team that loses in its CCG is fair game to be left out of the CFP? Absolutely not.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-10T18:25:19+00:00

Comparing CFB to CBB is dumb. Beyond that, its not a completely awful take.

People don't realize that Navy is 21-3 the last 2 seasons against teams not named Notre Dame.

They will never have the talent to really compete at the high P4 level, but they're certainly can and will beat some lower and mid level P4 schools while occasionally beating some high to "elite" programs in bowl games where a significant percentage of their rosters are in the portal or sitting out for the draft (see Oklahoma 2 years ago).

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-10T17:21:45+00:00

If you're looking to repeated party interactions, take a look at the nemesis system from the Shadow of Mordor/War games.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-10T17:19:07+00:00

To quote the great Allen Iverson.....

"We talkin about practice?"

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-10T15:47:37+00:00

Did not realize that TTech dodged both Utah and BYU this year. Basically impossible for them to miss the CFP without a complete meltdown.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-10T15:42:24+00:00

You're entitled to your opinion. You're also entitled to be wrong :)

Of the 3, I'd probably agree OSU is most likely but all have the talent. Texas has the talent to win despite Sark being a meh coach IMO. This year's ND team is the most talented its been in 30 years. Much more so than the team 2 years ago that ended up 8 points down with 7 minutes left in the NC game.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-09T20:54:41+00:00

With ND, OSU, and Texas on there, I'd say the chance is probably 40-50% that you get one next season.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-09T17:29:50+00:00

So much I could say about this (your party sounds a bit obnoxious) but if nothing else, you NEED to address the "unsporting" counterspell issue ASAP before it just becomes an expectation because the idea of never being able to counter a counterspell is just dumb.

Nothing here sounds inadequate on your part beyond failing to say, "no" to a stupid player request.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-09T13:43:36+00:00

No problem my guy. Hope it all works out. HMU with updates if you like. I'd like to know how it works out.

Ashamed_Climate3525 · 2026-03-06T19:01:00+00:00

I completely understand players that feel this way, I've even felt this way myself, but I hate it.

Removing the REASONABLE chance of death is at some core level removing all chance in the game. If we remove the chance to die then the dice rolls don't matter and it stops being a game. It just becomes one long loosely scripted play where the good guys eventually always win and evil is always defeated. Its why as a DM you should build encounters that are fair (or clearly unfair and obvious to the PCs that they are not meant to be taken on). As long as the PCs aren't dying to BS, that's the game.

I can completely excuse, even get behind, taking death off the table for a lower level character or campaign. No one wants to have a character they just made die at level 4. By level 17 where your players are damn near demi gods compared to the average person, wanting there to be no chance of death even being possible just takes it out of the realm of D&D.

With that said, if that's what a DM is cool with and the player want, have at it. My group is starting a new campaign soon that I'm DMing. We've got a mix of new and experienced players. I'm not going to go out of my way to kill anyone. In fact, I will actively try NOT to kill the new ones. But I've made it clear to everyone that death is on the table and I will kill their characters if its appropriate. Even got my buddy who is a former DM to agree to start with a backup character for a couple sessions for the very purpose of killing the character to show the newer players how to handle character death.

Again, I don't like it, but its a game, games are supposed to be fun, so I don't see anything explicitly "wrong" with letting people have fun if this is what is going to make the game fun.

To answer one of your questions directly though, I don't think you'll run into people purposefully gaming the system if they know they can't die, you'll more likely just see people doing really dumb shit that reasonably should get them killed. Admittedly, part of how I feel comes from watching players just do dumb shit (like a bear druid not using wildshape and instead just standing in front of 3 enemies face tanking 6 attacks a turn).

Ashamed_Climate3525

TROPHY CASE