The problem isn't the map - early game metas

Booklat1 · 2019-07-30 22:35:40

Title says it all

The issue isn't just only map generation that could be improved (yes, it could) but also the fact this game suffers from horrible single-meta syndrome. Jason stated in Thaulos' latest post that only 4 of the biomes have use early game and he is right. And even then you absolutely need these exact 4 to get to iron age always. We also absolutely need green for fire. Snow and desert are intended as late game biomes but why isn't jungle better early game? That was kind of the idea before it became an absolute mosquito hellhole right?

Is there a reason we don't make early game biomes and techtree better instead of biome generation itself?

Can't we have alternative pathways for early game technology? Jungle vines for rope, for example, and more recipes with wild foods. Make the limestone important and maybe copper too. If skewers allow us to skip hoes why not alternatives for bowls? Please, allow us to use our ingenuities to survive with newer tools.

NoTruePunk · 2019-07-30 22:42:10

In general it should be easy to form stable economic systems. Then uncommon hardship inducing events like disease, disaster, famine and war should be what actually serves to destroy those stable systems. Other unccomon events can make things interesting without hardship too though

Booklat1 · 2019-07-30 22:46:51

NoTruePunk wrote:

In general it should be easy to form stable economic systems. Then uncommon hardship inducing events like disease, disaster, famine and war should be what actually serves to destroy those stable systems. Other unccomon events can make things interesting without hardship too though

You're right. Early food should be easy but then population rise and resource depletion should cause the need for food production to increase.

All biomes should be made slightly more inhabitable early game, even arctic, at least on combination with other biomes.

sigmen4020 · 2019-07-30 22:54:13

Yeah an improvement to jungles would be nice. Making it live-able again makes sense, since it really shouldn’t be as inhospitable as the desert and tundra.

Thaulos · 2019-07-31 00:16:22

There could definitely be some relatively "easy" changes to make other biomes more viable for settlement.

Maybe you could have new trees that gave something like yew branches. Or some new milkweed variant that couldn't be farmed (no seeds).

You would still need curved branches and long shafts but not everything needs to be conveniently around. In some biomes you might just need a quick trip elsewhere to get some resources.

Last edited by Thaulos (2019-07-31 00:16:39)

pein · 2019-07-31 00:58:16

it's like a map chunk is made for 3 people tops, and each has to work hard, and go out and get food from 60-80 tiles still

finite resources and finite space is two different problems
i think a fixed amount of resource, maybe slowly getting lower would be better
small space will ruin the map eventually anyway
the more eves, the more fail starts and already ruined camps

actually if you check the last arcs map you see how much space is useless, like the bad biomes are too big, you wont build on them so not much reason to be so big
the green biomes only good if big enough and near some water, at start, later everything good but you wont get there if you don't have more resources at the start
re-removing the tall objects bug would be a good start or maybe a bit more dinamic map where wild food is based on needs of pop, but maybe only the ones who move a lot can get them
like banana trees which despawn and respawn elsewhere so you got some food, just you need to keep moving
more like a sandbox than a fast deathmatch

i think maps can still be reworked a bit, no reason for swamps to be big, they need the resources and they need to be near a good biome
same for savanahs, they don't need to be big, actually they too big right now

the amount of space you get by decreasing bad biomes, and increasing good ones, or just increasing resources, would mean that average players can survive in a spot a bit logner and thrive if they move

jasonrohrer · 2019-07-31 00:59:23

Because each separate path needs drawings, development, balancing, tweaking, etc.

It's hard enough to have one path working well, let alone multiple paths.

And it doesn't add much to the game.

I'm trying to steer away from "surface novelty" things, which players really don't care about in the long run (had ice cream lately?) and get down to the "what are we actually doing here?"

We're bootstrapping a civ. It's fraught with tension and potential disaster along the way (or should be). That part needs to be as tightly balanced as I can get it.

I need to stay focused and design one game, not four games.

Morti · 2019-07-31 02:06:43

jasonrohrer wrote:

I need to stay focused and design one game, not four games.

Less typy here,
more typy there.

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-07-30 22:35:40

The problem isn't the map - early game metas

#2 2019-07-30 22:42:10

Re: The problem isn't the map - early game metas

#3 2019-07-30 22:46:51

Re: The problem isn't the map - early game metas

#4 2019-07-30 22:54:13

Re: The problem isn't the map - early game metas

#5 2019-07-31 00:16:22

Re: The problem isn't the map - early game metas

#6 2019-07-31 00:58:16

Re: The problem isn't the map - early game metas

#7 2019-07-31 00:59:23

Re: The problem isn't the map - early game metas

#8 2019-07-31 02:06:43

Re: The problem isn't the map - early game metas

Board footer