ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

Zodzby · 2018-03-07 20:56:49

Biome segment:

Tell me gentlemen, where was every single civilization worth its salt started? ... That's right, by a body of water, particularly that of fresh water rivers! Yet, the only examples of water in this game are minuscule duck ponds. What is the solution? Rivers, generated very rarely, and emanating either from an underwater spring or a mountain top (though a half-screen wide underwater spring hole would certainly be easier and make more sense for the game than a small unclimbable mountain). The rivers would be approximately half a screen wide, un-traversable except at randomly generated fording points (would be represented by rocks sticking out of the water, and a rocky bed visible beneath the shallow watered area). That, or you could have shallow/deep rivers, with the former having fording points, and the latter having none at all. The rivers would end in either a lake or an ocean biome, but a lake would once again work better with the current game mechanics.

This would open up a multitude of tech tree opportunities, ranging from boats for river-based travel and commerce to bridges, fishing, and so on. But the greatest and most important part of the river? It's bonus to soil fertility. Soil around the rivers would be permanently fertile (unless a drought occurred or a dam was built upriver of it, which would be neat but brutal features). If you built a dam, the whole river below it would dry up, and a lake would form behind the dam. Droughts could be an every epoch event, every few epochs, or whatever Jason prefers.

In closing, rivers would help with the advancement of civilization in a logical way (that maintains difficulty by killing unprepared civilizations via drought >:] ) and make the wild lands away from rivers all the more frontier-like, as the river civilization would inevitably expand into the interior.

Man segment:

There is Eve, and the child of Eve, but there is no Adam. Why would that be? Allowing Adams to spawn (albeit at a lesser rate than eve for rebirth purposes) would do wonders for civilization. Rather than waiting to birth a boy, and taking the time to raise him before he can be truly useful, there is a man already grown to do the necessary civilization building without fear of babies randomly popping out.

I could get into the possibilities of a sex system (ala Minecraft bumping, hearts, that's it), but that isn't anywhere near as important as the inclusion of Adam as a spawnable individual. I'm sure Jason has a very good reason for why he hasn't implemented an Adam, but it may just be the shot in the arm the playerbase needs to succeed, with emergent Adam and Eve families carrying the metaphorical torch of civilization.

( if a sex system was implemented though, what would it do? I have my own ideas, but I think they would harm the amazing emergent nature of the game)

What are yall's thoughts on these two ideas?

Last edited by Zodzby (2018-03-07 20:57:39)

xoomorg · 2018-03-07 21:18:12

What good are men?

Zodzby · 2018-03-07 21:36:50

xoomorg wrote:

What good are men?

In-game, they can do everything a woman can without defecating babies.

IRL, they do that (minus the fact that they have to get the whamen pregnant, not random baby poofing into existence) + can carry/hold more <-----would be neat feature, can hold two items in hands as a man and would end the whole "hurr durr men are useless" meme.

Last edited by Zodzby (2018-03-07 21:39:22)

asterlea · 2018-03-07 21:56:31

Men can already carry more because they don't have to carry babies.

There is literally only one thing that females can do in game that males can't, and that thing can be as much a burden as a benefit. The idea that males are useless is ridiculous, unless you think that the only useful thing to do in game is sit around and pop out babies and nothing else. The game shouldn't be made unbalanced because some people have gotten this weird idea in their heads.

xoomorg · 2018-03-07 22:24:50

asterlea wrote:

Men can already carry more because they don't have to carry babies.
There is literally only one thing that females can do in game that males can't, and that thing can be as much a burden as a benefit. The idea that males are useless is ridiculous, unless you think that the only useful thing to do in game is sit around and pop out babies and nothing else. The game shouldn't be made unbalanced because some people have gotten this weird idea in their heads.

Okay, I'm joking a bit with the "useless" part. It's more that if we need to control for population anyway (because we are a tiny carrot farm on the brink of starvation trying not to eat the seed carrots) then letting half the population of babies starve and respawn as (hopefully) somebody else's problem, is a viable strategy. More than once I have seen a viable farm perish because only males are left, or the only females are too old -- which was itself sometimes the result of a sudden "no more babies!" rule imposed by a panicked farmer. Since culling male babies both cuts the birth rate effectively in half AND tends to favor always having young/fertile females around, it kills two birds with one stone.

ned · 2018-03-07 22:26:45

asterlea wrote:

Men can already carry more because they don't have to carry babies.
The idea that males are useless is ridiculous, unless you think that the only useful thing to do in game is sit around and pop out babies and nothing else.

Without children, settlements don't continue. With 1 parent/ 1 child rules, a small matriarchal hamlet of 3 to 4 people can operate with remarkable potency and stability. When I raise a boy I remove that stability. He can't reproduce, so he puts more strain on the women to reproduce. The autonomy gained by not having children is negligible, as many mothers can still do the work they need to between intermittently feeding the child.

Until reproduction is sexual (or at the very least requires a male and female to be close to each other), I will continue to disregard male babies, because they are literally inferior to female babies. Even when I'm born a male, I run off into the woods to be eaten by a wolf or starve. Xoomorg said it well:

xoomorg wrote:

Since culling male babies both cuts the birth rate effectively in half AND tends to favor always having young/fertile females around, it kills two birds with one stone.

Last edited by ned (2018-03-07 22:33:00)

xoomorg · 2018-03-07 22:28:16

I should clarify that I only support a "let male babies starve" strategy given the current state of civilization. Elsewhere, I have proposed that all the Eves gather in one place so they can centralize and control the spawn point for new babies. If we got to that point, then we'd need males to go out into the surrounding area and establish and expand farms, textile plants, logging, etc. We aren't there yet though, and females are currently more useful -- even if for just that one thing, because sometimes that one thing is exactly what your farm needs -- so sorry for the baby boys.

xoomorg · 2018-03-07 22:32:23

Rethinking it (and putting my roleplaying cap back on) maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe older boys just get kicked out of the village at a certain age, to explore on their own and maybe revive (or relocate) an abandoned settlement or find a road they can follow (or extend.) That's more in line with what I'd expect to happen if all the Eves gathered in one place anyway. It would reduce the time you had an extra mouth to feed, but would give the males at least a sporting chance... at least as much as a new Eve would.

Uncle Gus · 2018-03-07 22:39:44

What's the problem with just letting the males do work?

xoomorg · 2018-03-07 22:43:14

Uncle Gus wrote:

What's the problem with just letting the males do work?

When they do, that's great. But many -- especially newbies -- do not. They're just an extra mouth to feed. At least with a female, you still have new babies spawning.

Zodzby · 2018-03-07 23:46:00

Welp, so much for the biome discussion lol. If we're only gonna talk about the male part, does anyone have any ACTUAL balancing solutions?

Until reproduction is sexual (or at the very least requires a male and female to be close to each other), I will continue to disregard male babies, because they are literally inferior to female babies

I'm all for there being Adam spawns + able to carry more (1 item more). Your idea to make the Adams and eves able to reproduce when they're in range with each other is a great idea, and could even replace the virgin birth mechanic if Adams and eves were spawned purposely close to eachother.

Baby suicide is wrong imo (though I get why it's done), just send the boys off exploring once they're old enough (implying they reach that age at all before starvation).

Frankly I'm worried on how my proposed solutions would truly affect the game.

Last edited by Zodzby (2018-03-07 23:52:31)

jasonrohrer · 2018-03-07 23:48:23

The original design of the game had a "birth cost" for each baby born, in that it essentially wiped the mother out and required a big meal right afterward.

That further increased the difference between males and females.

I turned this off shortly after launch to make it easier, but I will probably dial it back in over time.

Regarding rivers and other bodies of water, I really have to pick my battles. Getting a river system in place, with boats and such, would require a lot of extra coding.

At some point, I needed to stop adding engine features (feature creep) and just make content with the engine that I have. That engine has TONS of possibilities that are worth exploring. Rivers are not one of those possibilities.

Any time I spent programming rivers would mean weeks without content updates during that time....

Zodzby · 2018-03-07 23:56:55

jasonrohrer wrote:

The original design of the game had a "birth cost" for each baby born, in that it essentially wiped the mother out and required a big meal right afterward.
That further increased the difference between males and females.
I turned this off shortly after launch to make it easier, but I will probably dial it back in over time.
Regarding rivers and other bodies of water, I really have to pick my battles. Getting a river system in place, with boats and such, would require a lot of extra coding.
At some point, I needed to stop adding engine features (feature creep) and just make content with the engine that I have. That engine has TONS of possibilities that are worth exploring. Rivers are not one of those possibilities.
Any time I spent programming rivers would mean weeks without content updates during that time....

Absolutely understandable on the coding, go with what your current engine can offer (I figured it wouldn't be able to work with your current terrain generation system). Feature creep sucks ass indeed. In the meantime, I'll dare to dream for that beautiful River experience... maybe someday

As for the spawnable Adams, might I ask, why you decided not to put them in the game? I'm very curious!

Last edited by Zodzby (2018-03-08 00:07:49)

Uncle Gus · 2018-03-08 00:08:09

The whole point of spawning as an Eve is that there isn't a suitable mother to be spawned to. Spawning as an adult male doesn't solve that problem.

Zodzby · 2018-03-08 01:02:25

Uncle Gus wrote:

The whole point of spawning as an Eve is that there isn't a suitable mother to be spawned to. Spawning as an adult male doesn't solve that problem.

It does if Adam's specifically coded to spawn near an Eve, and then proceed to spawn babies. My whole reasoning for it is that having that extra pair of hands from Adam helps raising the children immensely, and speeds up the initial bootstrapping process without constant eve/baby starvations unless they do something actually stupid.

It's just my opinion, not trying to force it down Jason's throat. It's his game, lol.

Last edited by Zodzby (2018-03-08 01:04:38)

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2018-03-07 20:56:49

ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#2 2018-03-07 21:18:12

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#3 2018-03-07 21:36:50

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#4 2018-03-07 21:56:31

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#5 2018-03-07 22:24:50

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#6 2018-03-07 22:26:45

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#7 2018-03-07 22:28:16

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#8 2018-03-07 22:32:23

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#9 2018-03-07 22:39:44

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#10 2018-03-07 22:43:14

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#11 2018-03-07 23:46:00

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#12 2018-03-07 23:48:23

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#13 2018-03-07 23:56:55

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#14 2018-03-08 00:08:09

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

#15 2018-03-08 01:02:25

Re: ITT: Biomes and the Purpose of Man

Board footer