[Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

jasonrohrer · 2020-03-10 17:02:00

Yes, I did consider that.

However, I thought it would be too brittle and hard for players to understand.

If the game is measuring majority in an area around a mother, if she takes one step to the left or right, the race of her next baby might change. Majority in an area is a fickle thing. Hard for players to know where the boundaries are.

pein · 2020-03-11 01:43:07

Told you: zones. If the city doesnt belong together, area buffs or nerfs cant be used, if a zone has a bonus and other zone has other bonus, is already closer to trade.
If just the girls turn out the same color as their mom and boys could switch race would have a bit of value. Could be something like checking around other males in the area for a longer time.

But i guess if there would be zones, one central item should be there to signal where is the middle of it and could have soe functions. Like a statue or totem to upgrade for benefits.

The_Anabaptist · 2020-03-11 10:38:54

Fertility Idols!

Touch the fertility idol and your next child is that race!

The_Anabaptist

Wuatduhf · 2020-03-11 11:28:19

The_Anabaptist wrote:

Fertility Idols!
Touch the fertility idol and your next child is that race!
The_Anabaptist

That would kinda perpetuate the mega-city nonsense that Jason's currently trying to combat. And uh...while I may have my disagreements about it, I won't disagree that if there's supposed to eventually be Macro-scale trading, the issue with players collectivizing is a serious hindrance to the game's meta-narrative.

pein · 2020-03-11 11:47:38

that's why I said that rather having a limit like that, we could have separate maps and allow travel with condition

thing is people don't travel much, live a life in 50x50
travelling isn't fun either so it could be skipped

if the cities would be re-centred around the eve spot and hard-capped or soft capped their size, it would still be okay
the rift wasn't bad for a family, it was bad for all the families, but a limited map would be decent for one single family

then a map seed could be "saved" if the family dies out, and people could go back or delete that map
let's say all players would get 1000 currency and each new player playing on that map would get a share of the pool, then some people earn up the currency, 10000 would allow you an Eve run or revival of a city
If you lived there before you could get a discounted price, could be some time limits, deadlines, high scores to reach, meet a quota or your family loses and you got to re-buy the map seed

fast travel with no fertility would be interesting, no megacities either and you could just meet up to trade some resources in a civilized manner
it's not a feature that people steal your stuff and run away with it, it's not interesting or fun, we need rules to prevent theft

Wuatduhf · 2020-03-11 14:12:45

pein wrote:

that's why I said that rather having a limit like that, we could have separate maps and allow travel with condition
thing is people don't travel much, live a life in 50x50
travelling isn't fun either so it could be skipped
if the cities would be re-centred around the eve spot and hard-capped or soft capped their size, it would still be okay
the rift wasn't bad for a family, it was bad for all the families, but a limited map would be decent for one single family
then a map seed could be "saved" if the family dies out, and people could go back or delete that map
let's say all players would get 1000 currency and each new player playing on that map would get a share of the pool, then some people earn up the currency, 10000 would allow you an Eve run or revival of a city
If you lived there before you could get a discounted price, could be some time limits, deadlines, high scores to reach, meet a quota or your family loses and you got to re-buy the map seed
fast travel with no fertility would be interesting, no megacities either and you could just meet up to trade some resources in a civilized manner
it's not a feature that people steal your stuff and run away with it, it's not interesting or fun, we need rules to prevent theft

As it stands right now, the game is eventually at some point going to gain a macro-economy. There are technically resources that cannot be wholly acquired by one single family, so it is reasonable to conclude that, if the game hit a point where multiple Town entities existed, each one would have its own "special commodity" that the others not only need, but cannot self-produce.

The Blacks have Horses, Flat rocks, Rare-minerals, and Glassware. They're probably the most 'fun' to play as, because they are the first ones to have access to Horse speed and Glass storage. They can also self-make gold. That makes them extremely valuable for trading materials.

The Gingers have Saltwater, Fish, Gold, and Oil. They're probably the middle-of-the road in terms of 'fun' to play as, because their tech has been nerfed or is otherwise pretty worthless for trade value. They technically have Gold, but so do Blacks, so that isn't as much an advantage to them.

Whites have language. They never have to worry about who they can chat with.

The Browns have Latex, Bananas, Palm oil, Tattoos, and Peppers. They are, in my opinion, the LEAST rewarding to play as, because of the high demands their resources have on them and the little utility they get as a result. They can only store latex in buckets. Their palms can only be stored in bowls, until they get glass from Blacks. They do get the ability to make Fries and Salsa, but those foods are so rarely prepared that it's neither here nor there. Tattoos are a joke, as they also require Gingers in order to obtain Black Dye.

Despite the fact that Gingers 'appear' to be the worst to play as, the majority of their specialty resources are not restricted by other specialty races. Meanwhile, Browns have the most restrictions on their specialty resources, and have no early-game utility to benefit from. Having such diverse starting positions in how wealthy each group can become, I won't be surprised if the new Home Lands system leads to struggling Browns and Gingers who can't quite adapt to the fact they either get little utility, or a rough biome to benefit from. Meanwhile, Whites and Blacks stand to be the 'stronger' of the races, because one can always communicate with others to trade, while the other has fast transportation and efficient resource storing.

DestinyCall · 2020-03-11 19:30:14

I still think it makes a lot of sense to merge the races into dark and light skintones. So darks would have horses and the bounty of desert and jungle, while lights would have the solidarity of oil and snow paired with the ability to communicate with roving dark riders.

It wouldn't create perfect balance, but it would make for an interesting dynamic.

The current four races are just wonky and do not compliment each other.

Dodge · 2020-03-11 19:52:22

The more you merge the less you have interactions, since interactions happen between the separated entities.

So merging is not interesting imo since it limits it to interactions between dark and light instead of having ginger with black, brown with black, white with black, ginger with brown etc.

Only real issue is the whites since they dont have unique ressources and only language and language can be cheesed either with notes or simply by using non verbal communication.

pein · 2020-03-11 20:42:11

Yeah but I still miss the part where you truly specialize and adapt to your surroundings.

Take an example like Tropico. The tech is the same, sometimes you go for oil, sometimes you go for mining, sometimes logs, lumber furniture, boats. Tropico 4 had two better strategies, where you either go for oil or to sugar/rum. But other than that it had plenty of depth, based on the size of the islands, you either went high tech and low pop or high pop and lower-tech, sometimes tourism. Generally is best to use up raw resources, combine them and make finished products. Tropico 6 has several high tech options like 3 steps to use up resources.
Hides into leather, cotton into textile, into apparel. Iron and coal into steel and rubber into cars. Cocoa and sugar into chocolate. etc.

the issue with ohol:
- the processing of resources is instant and major, one clay into one bowl, one tree into a log and 2 firewood so the focus is on gathering them not processing them
- time of the players doesn't worth anything really, you don't rely on manpower to finish jobs, you rely on resources, without resources there are no jobs, without jobs, there is a feeling of stagnation where there is nothing to do I think it worked only because people didn't know the recipes, but when they do, everything is fast to make. You would require 80% of the players gathering yet you don't see that. Or you would require more steps, more time spent into converting resources, smaller steps, but more time spent on it. More densely-packed map. A tree would give more wood but would require extra steps to clean it up and make usable resources.
- parallel tech choices: if everything made the same way and the map is kind of the same, there is no adapting, specializing and no choices, the tech tree is way too simple
there is one way to make water, one way to get iron (iron engine is a meme now) one way to get soil (composting is okay but kind of wasteful)
yet there are no transportation tech levels, most jobs are carried out on foot, maybe a cart
why would you buy a bucket if you can make your own? convenience? if the trading system would be simpler and instant, maybe people would buy water and sell excess items like meat or wheat, right now surplus is bad, making too much of something is not a good strategy
- just because you need others, they don't need you, they just need your resources and right now that is either thievery or charity
taking your horse is faster than asking for it, taking your buckets is faster than making them
even if the players are forced to return to their own wells, the towns are not too special and the locations aren't balanced, that would require a premade map or revamped travel and transport
so people will still likely give up their fertility and join mixed families than to return thousands of tiles with exchanged items, in fact, only forces you to make home near each other

cachinnus · 2020-03-12 11:11:24

So traveling for trade is boring at best, difficult with biomes, and dangerous at worst, yet absolutely necessary if required to keep our own villages and trade.

Another problem would include having babies while traveling, which should be solved if the wells are updated.

Roads help, but still suffer from the same issues. I think I've been killed by more wildlife while hoofing it down a road than looking for iron in badlands. That.. could just be me though.

Popular opinion seems to be unrestricted horses. It could be interesting if there were just different biome horses or if a family would change the appearance of a horse.

Immunity while hauling a cart? Teleporters, insert map and go? Rail systems that require town cooperation?

I somewhat disagree that the language barrier is a big issue. And I have died from taking too long trying to get rubber back to my family after no one would talk to me. With a translator.

Gogo · 2020-03-12 16:06:19

So trade means you won't only need rubber and kero for your town, you will also need to distribute them, so you will wait longer for supplies. So water crisises will be longer and bigger and at least in 3-4 towns = even more boring and frustrating.

Currency will probably means the same - you will wait even longer for water. xD Everything will comes down to it, bigger system = more delays.

Are my predictions wrong?

DestinyCall · 2020-03-12 22:44:39

Gogo wrote:

So trade means you won't only need rubber and kero for your town, you will also need to distribute them, so you will wait longer for supplies. So water crisises will be longer and bigger and at least in 3-4 towns = even more boring and frustrating.
Currency will probably means the same - you will wait even longer for water. xD Everything will comes down to it, bigger system = more delays.
Are my predictions wrong?

Standing in line at the DMV - the ultimate evolution of OHOL.

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2020-03-10 17:02:00

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

#27 2020-03-11 01:43:07

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

#28 2020-03-11 10:38:54

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

#29 2020-03-11 11:28:19

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

#30 2020-03-11 11:47:38

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

#31 2020-03-11 14:12:45

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

#32 2020-03-11 19:30:14

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

#33 2020-03-11 19:52:22

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

#34 2020-03-11 20:42:11

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

#35 2020-03-12 11:11:24

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

#36 2020-03-12 16:06:19

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

#37 2020-03-12 22:44:39

Re: [Discussion] A look back on "the Property Update" and Trade...

Board footer