a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
We should wear napkins before eating....
We live in a post apocalyptic society. Before the apocalypse, humankind has been at its peak. Scientists discovered everything that can be discovered. And of course, they found immortality. Soon they injected this miraculous medicine in every living being. No plant would rot, no creature would die, there was no need for greed or hunger. Of course recreation had to be limited. Soon the world existed in a fine balance and the golden age of immortality lasted for about 300 years. But one mad scientist, named Jason, couldn't abandon his love for the world before immortality immortality. He dreamt of a world where he could once again see the smile of his child. So in a mad usage of all his knowledge and skills, he liquified himself and spread his essence around the world. This had several horrifying effects on the world. First, every primate which breathes Jason essence that doesn't share enough DNA would die in suffering leading to extinction. Other animals would bear children that are a caricature of themselves. When the density of the the omnipresent Jason aether would get too high or enters the lungs of a female, a mortal human would be formed. With fierce hunger, living of the immortal land and thereby destroying it. All those humans will have only one father, the essence of the Jason. Ironically, Jason has no way to observe this brutally created new world. So his dream of seeing a child's smile one more time, died with his body. That is why animals are immortal and humans ain't.
PS: legend says Jason's immortal relatives still live underground up to this day.....
I don't think this idea fits the game very well.
I am a fan of attaching tools to BP, however I don't like the idea of attaching a mini arrow BP to a BP. Feels just like a weird inventory boost. And would lead to more miss clicks imo.
Increased firing range is also weird since you can already shoot everything you see (in vanilla at least).
Firing arrow is quite complicated for an mediocre effect. Why not just bring the meat home and cook it normally instead of bringing palm oil and fire to a hunt?
Furthermore, flaming arrows were traditionally used for combat, and that would feel more appropriate (except it is not really part of the game right now)
Sharpened arrow is again wildly complicated for a mediocre effect. It is more practical to just bring three arrows for bear hunting. Other animals already only need one shot
I think a weapon update would only work if the game mechanics allow for actual pvp combats (aka wars) of some kind. Right now I am not even sure how the killing system works exactly.
Required posse size = nearby enemies - nearby allies or something?
To become an expert player who can do things efficiently, you have to go through the stages of doing things wrong and inefficiently. Some of us know there are other ways to do that then just playing the game, but in-game is the most in the spirit of the game. Settlements die all the time, but the thing that will help them live longer in the big picture is helping all those enthusiastic new players level up.
+1
Yeah, I also would love to see the technology gap closed.
Stones, sharp stones and Flint chips could also be replaced in older towns, they are still prominently used for farming, baking, skinning. And there is not really a reason not to use them
Also hot coals
Also flat stones for smithing or bait or cooking
Also hunting rabbits - no way to domesticate
And I would love to have some animals dedicated to help with the work in some other way than transportation
Has anyone built a building within a building and tested out what happens when doors are opened / closed? I'm thinking a donut shaped building with the inner room being for fire & nursery.
The_Anabaptist
I put a building in your building. So you can insulate while you insulate?
Imo OHOL buildings are weird in its own way. It's just a bunch of walls without any roof. Good thing the warm air doesn't go upwards. I would love a good reason to have buildings. Right now it's only a small organization bonus plus small insulation bonus minus space and resources for walls?
To make things decay slower seems weird since most things do not decay......
Another weird idea: you can own a house by saying "this is my home" inside a building. Your children have the same home as you as long as they are young. And eating at home gives BONUS FOOD, yay!
You know how in old RPGs like pokemon the buildings seemed much much smaller from the outside than from the inside?
So what you think about this:
Surround a 2x2 area with walls and a door. Add a roof and you get a building.
The building is shown as a very big object with roof and everything. You can enter the building through the door. But inside it's not a 2x2 space, but an 8x8 space.
Buildings would very useful for a compact organization of towns and would provide lots of space to litter.
Also the look of a bunch of tiny houses would be nicer than the current looks of the buildings
I don't mean that as a serious suggestion btw. This probably would not fit the game very well. Also it probably would not work with the engine.
But still seems fun, at least in my head
I played this update today. It is simply amazing.
So many different foods in town, incentive to go out to gather wild foods. Live the yum dream!
Tables also went from okay to super awesome.
Imo this is exactly what you need in a game with thousands of craftable objects: mechanics that prevent dead content.
Thank you for reviving so many food items!
I would be soo happy if you would revive even more dead content. There is a lot of unused stuff out there....
Awesome sprite!
I think the smaller version looks funnier
Fits the "cartooney" style of humans and domnestic animals better.
You may want to make a bigger "entrance" such that it looks not like the person is standing behind the tank.
But Imo in the current state of the game it would be pretty bad to add more tools of destruction.
Mr.XIX wrote:Crumpaloo wrote:As for maturity theres plenty of old and experienced players who have played the game long enough to know what works in-game and what doesn't.
This won't be the case when working with the current polling system, unless you factor in play-time.
Don't all players need to decide what is best for the game?
Isn't new player experience best described by... new players?DrRoy wrote:The decicion how to handle that issue should be in the hands of the developers.
This will obviously be the case, we have only 1 cook who makes this game.
The developer still asks the questions, and still has the final say.My question is, in what way would you ask the poll-questions for this to be useful? (examples?)
I think the same way old players should have a louder voice is the same reason people that play games competitively should be heard, they know more then anyone how the game operates. Ask a new player about how to fix eve's being spawn blocked by the males of dead towns preventing race restricted resources from being accessed and they will have no clue what your talking about.
As for new player experiences, the vets can get a pretty good idea. Lot of babies being abandoned as a result of too many babies being born into one family instead of being spread over multiple ones. This makes new players frustrated because they cant even live long enough to do things on their own much less learn how the game works.
I will make an example of a question that would be beneficial imo:
Which of the following is the most annoying in the game:
- I can not build everything I want to
- I cannot carry my stuff everywhere I want to
- I can not kill everyone I want to
- I don't know where the things are
- griefers destroy everything
- I don't know what to do
- Life is boring
- None of the above
Then, depending on the result, Jason could work on a solution or make another poll for further clarifications
I think careful polling can help.
They say players are excellent to point out problems with the game, but they are bad at solving them. I think this is mostly true (even if sometimes some player turns out to also be a capable designer).
So, I don't think it would be good to vote which features to implement or which feature should be removed. Otherwise you will have side effects. Maybe the player base turns your game more and more into a mixture of different popular games and destroy its orginality. Or the solutions just don't work in practice etc.
Also, there is a 'too many cooks' problem. It could end up as a weird patchwork product.
But I think voting which aspect of the game is the least fun or the most annoying can be helpful. The decicion how to handle that issue should be in the hands of the developers.
Maybe an overhaul is better than to delete a feature. Maybe its best to add content to overcome the issue and thereby creating new in-game motivations….. You just need to have a good overview of the engine, the current mechanics and the player data to make a solid decision.
What would the upgrade be there?
People have talked about a stove or whatever, but how would it be better than hot coals?
Imo there is a lot of design space for improvement.
Stove could not take a whole minute to turn on, add fuel, fire it and you're ready to start.
Stove could have two or more slots, so you could make several things at once.
A stove could be used for the old food and also enables new food etc.
Jason is an asshat we can all agree.
No, I absolutely do not agree to that.
He developed a game that you seem to care about.
Maybe not all of his decisions are good in your perspective.
Maybe you don't like that he trusts himself more than the community.
Maybe you don't like him as a person.
But he is passionate about what he is doing. He puts a lot of work and thoughts into everything. He rarely insults someone
And he is certainly not an asshat.
Game design is hard. I have great respect for this project and the amount of work put into it. It is very hard to create something while people are constantly throwing dirt at you and your work.
While I don't really enjoy how sheeps feel (lamb does from hunger, sheep does not. Only grows whool when fed etc.) I disagree with you here pein.
The game is updated every week and can thus change the value of each and every item. Imo it would be bad design to reach for a perfect balance and smooth workflow. If you now nerf poop, maybe next update we don't have enough and need to rebalance again - not a nice way to solve this.
This game is said to be about problem solving. And 'too much poop' as well as 'too few poop' are imo nice problems.
As long as it doesn't break the game I would always prefer an in-game solution.
If poop is rare we can feed the shorn sheep in order to avoid too many bones and mutton, then we can use dung boxes for proper storage.
If there is too much poop we also have the option to clean. Put it in a bucket, bring it out of town, let it decay there. Or maybe pens are just not viable anymore and we now need free roaming sheep + carrot garden?
However, when there is no in-game solution that feels good (shoveling dung out of a bucket is repetitive and tedious), I would prefer a overhaul of said solution. Maybe let us empty a dung bucket all at one to get a big warm smelly pile of sh** that decays after half an hour. Maybe even let us fill carts with dung.
You get the idea, don't remove the problem, improve the solution.
In real life, almost everything that is hard to build can be destroyed easily. You don't need to be an expert to crush cars, printers, books etc.
What prevents the "real life griefers" from just destroying things?
I think the existence of real life griefers is easily proven. Our main train station is demolished on a regular basis by hooligans or teens.
Imo the thing that prevents regular destruction of valuable things is a fleshed out stable society that has security mechanisms to defend against 'bad guys' (like walls, security Service etc.).
In game, we have property fences. Not everybody is a big fan, but it is something. We also have a leadership. But the society feels totally chaotic and anarchic.
And in some way, it makes sense. For big inventions to happen, you always need a stable society. And if you look in your history book, before the industrialism florished there where big social changes.
Maybe the question should be more like: "how can we get more fleshed out stable societies that allow us to use hard to obtain- easy to destroy stuff?" in contrast to "how can we change stuff in order to fit the chaos anarcho-communist society we are used to?".
Just some shower thoughts
@DestinyCall CCM sounds like a nice Experiment. I think I try it some day to see how it feels. Although I have the feeling that 'milkweed but with some other sprite and name' is not the best design choice (feels a little 'flat').
Your comments on the leaning idea sound reasonable. I guess if you would be able to dissassemble carts, then it would be easier to teach others. You could although use paper to teach and learn skills. Just make it possible to put a known skill on a piece of paper, and everybody that picks up the paper learns that particular skill. Surely would need a lot of balancing work to feel good (which are basic tasks? how high are the probabilities of inspiration? is it better to learn a whole 'batch' of skills etc.)
Imo the flaws with auto cursing you pointed out are valid. The 'how to protect new players from griefers?' problem seems to be a very hard one….
@pein I think I got what you mean with limitations. Is it about choices on a grand scale? About more pathes to the same objective? Linear gameplay also has some Benefits. But maybe non-linear gameplay suits this 'open world sandbox' style games a little better.
@jasonrohrer It is true that object radar feels unrealistic. But the important question is, if it feels too unrealistic. Every game needs unrealistic elements in order to function. Just look at 'exact information about your hunger, yum bonus, curse counter', orders from leaders, ley lines, Combat system etc. in ohol. I don't know it the idea I talked about breaks immersion.
Furthermore, I clearly see the frustration due to differences between player knowledge and character knowledge (if you want to put it that way). But on the other hand, the games I enjoyed most in my childhood where 'Zero to hero' games like gothic. In this games you always knew that certain actions are possible in general (and how they would be played) but are restricted due to 'character knowledge'. Still it just felt awesome to get better and better. I wonder what is needed to catch that feeling instead of frustration. Maybe the difference is between RNG and accomplished by your own hands…. It could be possible that a well adjusted system like that leads to more diverse starting conditions where you have to figure out how to Play without everything available. A little bit like capablanca random chess in contrast to chess. Or the amount of frustration is just too high.... Idk
Thank you Pein for your input I am not quite sure I understood everything. Sorry that I did not manage to sound logical to you.
I think from a design perspective it is interesting to differ from the typical tech tree such that things can be forgotten or lost if no one cares. But interesting does not equal fun and I see your point there.
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by 'limitations I can't overcome'. Every game has such limitations right? And it is necessary to function. You can not go left in mario world. You can not go out of the predefined area in open world games. You can only jump that high, run that fast etc. I suppose you mean something different. I was taught "Limitation leads to creativity" and creativity can be fun. Of Course there is a well done kind of limitation and a poorly done one. And if I understand you correctly you think the limitations I wrote about are too restrictive since it blocks too much gameplay for you. That is an interesting inside
Thank you all for your interesting viewpoints.
decay is not fun, for food I would understand, but then we would need hourly income
Keep in mind that decay timers could be an hour or two. Does this change something for you?
that's a weird knowledge implementation, we would need higher tier tech first
Can you specify what makes this implementation weird?
Lot of things are getting meshed into scales and grids, aren't they?
I'm not sure I find that interesting or not.
Wonder what got Jason on this, ley line, craze..
Would a system without grids but with pointers to nearest object of a specific king be more interesting for you?
DrRoy wrote:1. Make biomes really really huge and some natural items really really rare, but show the nearest occurance of [stuff] when Player types \[stuff]. Maybe buff wild Food. Would Eves settle down in their spawn region cause the 'greener pastures' are to far away creating different starting conditions? Would it encourage trade and conflict since different villages have easy Access to different ressources?
That looks impossible. Eve can't settle down : milkweed is only on green, clay only in marsh, maple trees... You got the idea. If anything can grow in any biome, then it's not "biome" anymore right ? Any example of really really rare natural items ?
Yes, this is very true. In my mind you would either completely overhaul (or add to?) the tech tree to make different bootstraps in different biomes possible or make ressources not biome exclusive. It could still be a biome if the spawn rate in the home biome is much larger than in other biomes so it runs out much quicker. Does this change something for you? Rare items would be something like Gold, Copper etc. Would need balancing.
DrRoy wrote:2. Make crafted objects decay over time (different timers for different objects), but let some natural ressources regrow over time (like animals, trees, wild Foods). Would it give more meaning, since what you do has a more direct Impact?
Animals could reproduce, indeed. Regarding object, most of them already decay. But I can't see the relation between this and more meaning. Not at all.
Maybe it does not give more meaning. The idea is that "there are tons of pies someone made ages ago" feels different than "it is important that someone is always there making pies so we don't starve".
DrRoy wrote:3. Implement Knowledge: When a Player spawns as a baby it has only very basic knowledge about crafting (can pick stuff up, eat stuff). When a character witnesses some other character doing something he also learns this skill. Sometimes, a random character can have a random epiphany, meaning he learns something out of the blue that is related to his current Knowledge. Would this be annoying or another way to implement different conditions for different families and therefore the need for trade of goods or knowledge? Or even raids for goods that one family can not provide? Would it give meaning in the sense, that the Players feel dedicated to teach the knowledge of their character to younger?
Can you be more specific ? How do you learn skill in the first time ? I mean the first eve can't do anything ? How will it work ?
In this game, player already learn from watching, I'm not sure this will help.
The idea is that characters have knowledge. First eve and every baby would just have the basic skills - maybe stop with stone tools and simple tasks for that (stacking stuff, Picking stuff up, pulling a cart etc). When your character is on the same screen as someone who does perform a task that you dont know, you learn the skill and can do it yourself right after (learn how to chop trees/make steel/bake pies). This makes it important to 'teach' the skill to characters (not players). Every once in a while a random character gets a random skill based on his current skill set as epiphany (I suppose you would need to implement a skill tree or something). Thus the things you could and could not do would differ from family to family and progression would be slowed down. The idea is that the characters learn from watching (additionally to the Players I guess). A system to easily check which skills you have would be required.
DrRoy wrote:4. Auto Curse with killing or abandoning: Instead of Donkey town or current curse system, if a character dies through the hands of another character, a character curses another character, a mother lets her baby die or a Baby runs away add both respective players to each others blacklist. A Player that is on the blacklist of another Player cannot spawn a descendent of the other Player. Would this prevent toxic players from beeing near others? Scenario, we protect our family against outsiders since there is a Chance that a toxic player it among them. Or would it make lineages die out faster?
So when you kill a griefer you get auto-cursed ? When you have to abandon a child because you don't have any food left and too much babies, auto-curse ? I don't like this. At all.
Let me clarify that donkeytown and old curse system would be no longer valid. So the disadvantage is that you cannot be Born into the lineage of someone who did something you did not like or kill you. Someone you don't want to play with to begin with? Does this change something for you? Can you specify what you don't like?
Hello everyone. For a moment, suppose the race restriction, tool slot restriction, killing restriction and the latest update are undone.
I would love to discuss several game design alternatives with you that are meant to solve the same Problems in a different way. I don't want to say any of the following are better than the current solution or necessary to improve the game. I just would love to discuss some Pros and Cons with the community.
What do you think about the following attempted solutions (arbitrary combinations may be allowed) to the Problems "where is trade?", "where is conflict?", "where is meaning?", "Don't kill off new Players for fun!":
1. Make biomes really really huge and some natural items really really rare, but show the nearest occurance of [stuff] when Player types \[stuff]. Maybe buff wild Food. Would Eves settle down in their spawn region cause the 'greener pastures' are to far away creating different starting conditions? Would it encourage trade and conflict since different villages have easy Access to different ressources?
2. Make crafted objects decay over time (different timers for different objects), but let some natural ressources regrow over time (like animals, trees, wild Foods). Would it give more meaning, since what you do has a more direct Impact?
3. Implement Knowledge: When a Player spawns as a baby it has only very basic knowledge about crafting (can pick stuff up, eat stuff). When a character witnesses some other character doing something he also learns this skill. Sometimes, a random character can have a random epiphany, meaning he learns something out of the blue that is related to his current Knowledge. Would this be annoying or another way to implement different conditions for different families and therefore the need for trade of goods or knowledge? Or even raids for goods that one family can not provide? Would it give meaning in the sense, that the Players feel dedicated to teach the knowledge of their character to younger?
4. Auto Curse with killing or abandoning: Instead of Donkey town or current curse system, if a character dies through the hands of another character, a character curses another character, a mother lets her baby die or a Baby runs away add both respective players to each others blacklist. A Player that is on the blacklist of another Player cannot spawn a descendent of the other Player. Would this prevent toxic players from beeing near others? Scenario, we protect our family against outsiders since there is a Chance that a toxic player it among them. Or would it make lineages die out faster?
I would love to read some thoughts about these ideas.
Pages: 1