a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
But Jason, that's a pretty reducionistic way of seeing this post.
Resets are not the only way to keep lives feeling fresh, in fact i'd argue that your idea that it's either "nothing lasts but stuff is new" in opposiition to "we only have the same towns so its boring" is misunderstanding some other problem the game has. Metas get stale and incredibly so to the point resets few even more pointless since it'll be rebuilding towns through the same steps all over again
You wouldn't know this because this obly really happens in weeks you're on vacation but building megacities is not just out of desire for permanence, but it's the result of lack of content/challenges for us to overcome.
The rift should continue, you are right that we absolutely need spacial limits to our progress, but don't disregard complaints about boredom with "well, what you want is impossible". Towns can have variation that doesn't include literally letting them die so we build others. You've confined us in the rift, at least make our lives interesting inside it
Personally I'd like to be able to turn letters into letter stamps. So you'd only have to make a letter once before being able to write texts with it. That and some ink could make for interesting sign mechanics.
Yes I too like the idea of bear caves instantly wounding someone on occasion.
A lot of things that griefers spam could get a chance of wounding on use, even if small so normal use of that function would be unlikely to hurt well intended players
There's this field of math called game theory, it studies among other things the relationship between probability and people's choices. Would you play a gamble with 0% chance to win? Well what about 20%? 50%?
The solution here is so obvious for anyone that studies both math and game design that I can't see how Jason has overlooked this for so long, even tarr mentioned this before quitting, but fighting should be a 50/50. The current system gives 0 options for the defender but running away and gives the attacker certainty of victory. I still think the old point and click combat system was much better even with high skill entry level than this one, but it's obvious for anyone that has ever even studied the basic of games that the current system creates no dynamic choices, it's a self solving question of "the attacker always wins".
To me certainty is very bad design here.
Arguing about experience in defense of the guy that used to call himself an amateur lawyer is neat. Thx for joining us redram.
That being said people like you should be more aware that this kind of attitude is why we have a tarr monument instead of tarr playing the game nowadays
It would be fun if there were also natural structures in game that reflected the passing of time, like glaciers
I agree with howling, but the thing is, making carnitas edible already makes pigs twice as good
Jason is as usual somewhat unaware of the problem we're reporting (as seen by him stating limestone is the biggest problem) but we don't really need complex solutions either way. Is there any reason why carnitas shouldn't be edible?
Like I said, I don't think heat is much of a difference in the long run. Yum might be because of how easy it is to make yummy foods after you've got all crops but heat mostly caps pretty early. Fur clothing is very warm and lasts for long enough for people to transition into other clothing and all villages have a fire starting with their eve. Yum scales with tech, heat stops incredibly early.
Honestly there's the easy suggestion of making carnitas edible for low food amount. There's no sense in it not being edible, it doesn't evem have to be good.
Jason, idk if i've said this before, but the rift is probably the best long term project for this game.
That being said, I still wish it was more about surviving scarcity than outliving other families. Is it still the the idea of the rift to cause resources to run out?
This ties in with techtree issues, but i think players get up to perfect heat way to easily still. How many towns inside or out of the rift actually have builds to preserve heat? If heat and yum are supposed to increase as does a village'a wealth why does it cap at fire + fur clothing?
Other than that it is like you said, the random chance of only boys being born and girls dying can much more strongly affect small families. In this sense small lines are way more fragile. Why would we players try to kill other families though?
Assuming we'll trigger a reset that may feel more like a "family x defeaded others" rather than "family x survived for y in the rift"
Pigs should become the compost animal
Pros:
delay late game
Cheaper to feed than sheep
Nerfs mutton pies
To me it's not balanced that civs get stable supplies of clothing and soil at the same time, and it's terrible that even boars cannot be eaten unless you get lime, as Destiny said.
Easy to make? Easy to remove
Hard to make? Hard to remove
This rule should be true for most things in ohol tbh
Frankly speaking, we'd be lucky if the player counts got so high that it started to affect the rift or individual families. That's exactly how populations work and it's a shame we can't just easily emulate it in the game (as show by all the effort Jason has put into the rift and the fact its not yet very good).
Im much more afraid of people responding so badly to the rift that the game loses more players, causing even the rift to not be enough of a resource limitation factor.
Hopefully ohol can keep attracting players and we'll horribly starve but then thrive for some while in a balances rift one day
I don't see why we don't combine two easy to trigger parameters like number of families + highish infant death/starvation rate instead of a single one.
This plus some couple extra hours worth of eve window will probably be fine. Families otherwise are too easy to grief.
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.
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.
I'm not convinced we need better replanting or extra costs for branch production
Fast growth causes balance issues regarding wood production and still isn't useful early game because we need shears to produce saplings. Idk if shears before axes is a viable meta at all. And if we have no ax and shovel, what stops people from spamming trees to block tiles?
I don't think pein's idea fixes it either. Sure, we could soil trees to protect them but isnt it easier to just make all trees harder to chop in the first place? And do we give up free branch respawn?
Think about it, you'll always have to drop your axe to chop trees if its the first time they're interacted with, and they'll always have their first branches picked, thus adding at least one extra kindling to the world whenever someone griefs a tree.
All it takes is for Jason to literally remove one recipe for each of the trees. He could do it in minutes, i bet most of you could even change something like this in the code.
Rush shears, plant trees, survive on wellwater
Scavenge cacti and berries, spam rabbits. This is, assuming we get a reset and curses get fixed.
I'm sure this meta is about to change in the next few days but we need changes that absolutely make early and endgame more viable now, like trees being harder to grief (not being able to chop down trees with their branches helps)
Actually, this is exactly the time we should make an effort to keep some newb kids. If they're good eggs they'll try to learn and learn to like the game as we do
Did I become Morti?
Three, this update is an experiment, not even one of the worst like fences and specially swords.
I know it feels awful but try seeing some opportunity here for a more dinamic gameplay over time.
Right now we should pester Jason to fix obvious griefing tactics made possible by this change
I mean, it should be a priority to get cursing fixed now, shouldnt it?
Does anyone have the murder statistics for after the update?
The best idea right now to slow spam cutting of maple trees is disabling cutting while they still have a branch. Taking off the branch causes not only the griefer to stop before cutting the tree but also to drop the axe. Its a simple change that takes no new gimmicks
Juniper trees might become a target for griefs but then tinder could just work somewhat more like branches and needles (but respawning faster)
Other than that, we need an universal working curse system
I like Jords idea better but the overall sense of migrating because you can rather than absolutely needing too that pein mentioned is nice
Honestly whatever these rifts become its important that we have ways of getting through it with at least a minimum of pressure to do it. Or otherwise adapt to living life enclosured.
Personally, I like oceans and continents. Ships could move in the same direction until hitting another continent or crossing the world. And airplanes and radio get to have some marginal use too
Fun fact: i knew spoon's last comment was his because he started a sentence with "no" + wall of text
I'd like to say a few more important things
First: New players don't get to say old players are jinxing it because we have every reason to be careful of features Jason adds. Fences and swords are still mostly harmful features that we adviced him against many times (not only because they were bad, but because we knew fixing them takes time Jason doesn't have)
Secondly: honestly? We should play this new idea out though. Limiting the world is a decent idea. Ohol populations, unlike all populations in nature don't keep growing as long as space and resources are abundant -and thus eventually growing too big for all that. No, our populations are based on player population and unless the game grows big maps just can't function very well. To me the biggest worry is that we'll be stuck in a box for months before this develops into more interesting features. We'll, it also wprries me that smaller maps may also mean bigger biomes are less likely