a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Ah, it seems that everyone suddenly woke up!
Apocalypse is off again, for now.
But it created a cleanse that was sorely needed.
I'll be working on some other stuff today that will create more of a "natural" apocalypse when a village dies out for real (the next Eve will spawn very far away, in the wilderness). That, actually, might have been the problem. Everything was happening in the middle, very close together, and when a village would die out, a later generation would just resume it.
You would walk in any direction and find a village. It was getting very crowded.
The longest generation is 31. That's only 7 hours!
BUT some of these cities have clearly been developed for WEEKS. That means that after people die out there, later players discover and resume.
I do want ruins to be discovered sometimes. BUT the main game should be figuring out how NOT to die out. Dying out should matter. It should be a big deal. The village should be lost if it happens. Not just "respawn as Eve and follow the road back to the village and continue."
Offline
Ah, it seems that everyone suddenly woke up!
Apocalypse is off again, for now.
But it created a cleanse that was sorely needed.
I'll be working on some other stuff today that will create more of a "natural" apocalypse when a village dies out for real (the next Eve will spawn very far away, in the wilderness). That, actually, might have been the problem. Everything was happening in the middle, very close together, and when a village would die out, a later generation would just resume it.
You would walk in any direction and find a village. It was getting very crowded.
The longest generation is 31. That's only 7 hours!
BUT some of these cities have clearly been developed for WEEKS. That means that after people die out there, later players discover and resume.
I do want ruins to be discovered sometimes. BUT the main game should be figuring out how NOT to die out. Dying out should matter. It should be a big deal. The village should be lost if it happens. Not just "respawn as Eve and follow the road back to the village and continue."
But what’s the point in me or any other players creating anything if we know that at some point, we’ll just spawn a million miles away in another life and have to start all over again? I thought the whole point of this game was permanence via legacy. If there’s any sort of apocalypse, it negates all of that.
Offline
- Edit: took so long to write that I hadn't read Jason's last post. I like the thoughts he expressed. Leaving this here to maybe have some use.
At first, I was conflicted. My heart was not happy about the update, but my mind knew there had to be something meaningful behind it. I read all the posts in this thread, and I think I finally formed an opinion about this:
This mechanic HAS to exists, it improves the game dramatically, but its current state is really problematic.
I don't feel compelled to play the game if resets are happening so frequently. I know it's just because the update just came out and it's the hot new thing to rush to the apocalypse, but I think there are still some issues that need to be addressed. So here are my thoughts, if you'll indulge me.
- One Apocalypse, Fifteen Hells -
It seems that some people get it: this update is not a death sentence, but an opportunity to have a deeper play experience. Fearing the end of all things, people could team up to protect the monolith, create cultures that fear gold, and even build settlements or assign jobs just for the purpose of defending family and lineage. I love the idea of having a cursed object of immense power that needs to be kept safe for the safety of all humankind, but my fantasies are shattered by a couple of (maybe) questionable design choices.
As others have already said, I think that one apocalypse should not wipe all serves, but just the one it was triggered on. It is incredibly demotivating to think that, as a cohesive community, you could take all the necessary precautions to avoid the apocalypse and still be wiped out by a lone, unhindered griefer on server 13.
The same line of thought applies to another concern, which I'm not sure is justified. If I understand it correctly, there is more than one monolith on each server, meaning that even if wipes were limited to one server at a time, it would still be somewhat meaningless to try and protect a monolith. It would still be effort well spent, as people usually spawn from other people and are therefore more likely to encounter the nearest monolith first, but nothing could stop them from going further away and just find one that's unguarded. And they surely will, sooner or later, and most probably do so sooner that any expedition team you could send, as communities tend to settle down before engaging into risky activities and giving away resources that will not come back. I can imagine a somewhat interesting scenario even with multiple monoliths, but the thought that a naked man could trump all of the efforts of hundreds of more resourceful people is not appealing at all.
And here lies the most crucial problem: accessibility. I get why some people say that "a man in a white house" could kill us all in real life, but there are extremely important differences between RL and OHOL. One is real and affects you every second, the other is a game that lasts as long as you want. In RL, an apocalypse would mean that even who caused it would suffer greatly, while here it makes them giggle and try it again. In RL, access to that "kill all" button is unobtainable by normal people, and requires incredible effort, power and luck, and those who get to it are certainly not going to make all their power and success just randomly vanish.
In OHOL, a naked geezer can destroy fifteen universes by waving his hand for a couple hours. This, in my opinion, is the single most unimmersive and nonsensical thing about the game in its current state. It's like a tumor that makes all of your meaningful experiences also taste like dirt. While it may controversial, I'm not against the idea of simulating such a tumor, but not for every single life of every single player. This is just too much.
But now, to avoid further rambling, I'll just get to my suggestions.
Apocalypse: YES.
Multiple monoliths: MAYBE.
All servers wiped at once: DEFINITELY NOT. (Bonus: Can you imagine how diverse and unique all the servers could be? How they could each have their own civilization and values and really have a story and a soul of their own? This update is the perfect opportunity to greatly expand the potential of this game)
Harder requirements each week: OF COURSE, and there's probably no need to increase the difficulty right now. The trend will die down, as all trends do. In a couple days we'll already see a difference. Just address the most pressing matters first.
Apocalypse requires a same-time cooperation of multiple people: MEH. IDK.
Timer between apocalypse trigger and execution: MAYBE. But I don't think that the game should tell you.
Apocalypse requires multiple lifetimes to achieve: MAYBE? I see the sense in that, but don't really like the concept.
Reward after apocalypse: NO.
Post the requirements for apocalypse on the forum: PROBABLY NO. And probably leave it cryptic. More fun, more challenging, it's content that lasts longer, and it can really attract people other than griefers.
With all of that said, I apologize for the long post, and hope that those that had the patience to read through it have found something worth their time in it. It may not seem like so, but I hate writing, and wouldn't have done it if this game hadn't become one of my favorite and most inspiring ones in such a short time. I am deeply grateful for the experiences I've had with it, and hope to have more great ones in the future.
So thank you, Jason. And thank you, mothers. Love ya.
Last edited by Ka (2018-04-06 16:59:11)
Offline
personally, I liked being able to find a village I left my mark on and seeing how it is. Looking and going, 'yah, I contributed that!' feels nice
Offline
How about localized apocalypse? Big enough radius that you'll always be in range of at least one monolith.
Offline
The longest generation is 31. That's only 7 hours!
I think that's the real problem.
Making eves spawn far from existing villages and decaying dead villages would be fine IF it was easier to keep a village going. Absent a successful griefer and lazy farmers, generations should last thousands of years as they do in real life.
Maybe each server should be a single civilization that dies when everyone on the server dies. Each server could have a cool down between births so in the event of famine or mass murder than a natural apocalypse would occur and the server would reset when the last person dies.
The appeal to me was to log on in a year and see a robot standing next to the well I built a million years ago (because you know, they are indestructible). I hoped everything you built would be tagged to your character and you could say "I built that" and be able to prove it.
P.S. I have played hundreds of lives and have yet to do everything in the tech tree.
Offline
I agree that just spacing things out a little may help. I know some people specifically look for their old villages, but I have accidentally found old villages I been into before. One time I actually spawned inside the walls of a village as an Eve. That was crazy, since there was a couple people in there too.
Offline
The game must be hard.
Always.
It should never be easy. You should never get to the point in the game where you can say, "Hey, we made it! Now what?"
If people are bored, that is a bad sign. It means the game has gotten too easy. Over the past few weeks, the game in many villages had gotten easy.
When things are too easy, player decisions don't matter very much. There's no drama. No "turning points."
All that said, balancing a game to be hard in this context (a multiplayer trans-generational game) is a VERY difficult design problem. I think the game is at a pretty good place. It's pretty hard for a while.
But the end game is still not there, in that there really isn't an end game. Just a persistent state. When your village has 15 wells and dozens of bear skin rugs and every tool under the sun.... and you're born there.... what do you do with your life? You're suffering the fate of the "trust fund baby." What you do with your life really doesn't matter. You can still make "a contribution," yes, but it's really just an aesthetic one, not a necessary one.
This is okay for a while. But as the weeks wear on, you WILL grow tired of your decisions not mattering.
The apocalypse was one attempt at an end game. It also was an attempt to create a momentary shared collective experience. To create a memory. "Were you there back when there was an apocalypse? Wow, what a day that was!"
But allowing one faction to end the game for everyone really isn't that interesting of an end game. Why is why I built-in an OFF switch and used that switch right away.
So here's my vision:
The collective project of running a village across generations should be hard.
In fact, it IS hard. You run out of food, you run out of trees, you mismanage your human fertility (too many babies or too few). Transgenerational communication is very difficult (passed down through word of mouth). Every village dies out in less than a day, currently. That's great!
But, there's current a short-circuit.
Because new Eves spawn so close by, villages are all near each other. That means that when one village dies, it's way too easy to continue it.
A village dying, which should be the most dramatic moment in the game, is kind of meaningless. No problem. We can always find our way back to it tomorrow.
Thinking about the apocalypse, you can see how one person, working alone across multiple lives, was able to find their way back to the same forge and monolith over and over in just a few hours. That's because "dying out" was meaningless for them. Getting born somewhere else was also meaningless.
This is also what makes the higher number servers so popular. People can keep working on the same village week after week there even with low populations, because they can all find their way back, even if there's no continuous family line.
But a continuous family line is the POINT of this game. And should be necessary for a village that lasts.
If you have a village and care about it, you should be making arrangements for its care through the night before you go to bed. Currently, you know this doesn't matter, because you can always find your way back to it tomorrow.
But what if you couldn't?
That's the latest idea. The only way to keep working on a village is to keep a family line alive there. After the line ends, the next line will start far enough away to matter. Not so far away that returning to the original village would be impossible, but far enough that it would be a big project to return. Maybe even a trans-generational project. Like, "We can get back to the old village, let's start the journey now, and our great-great grand children will be born there someday."
A person can walk 4 tiles per second. Thus, in their hour-long life, they can walk 14,000 tiles.
So that's a good starting point for how far apart Eve spawns should be. Well, let's start with half that. 7000 tiles.
Offline
-
All servers wiped at once: DEFINITELY NOT. (Bonus: Can you imagine how diverse and unique all the servers could be? How they could each have their own civilization and values and really have a story and a soul of their own? This update is the perfect opportunity to greatly expand the potential of this game)
I had the same thought re: diversity of the servers--we might get an interesting trend in development that mirrors that of how the different continents developed IRL.
So, I have this question: are we to imagine the servers as different *universes* or as different *continents*? If universes, one apocalypse shouldn't wipe out all servers. If continents (albeit ones that will never make contact with one another), the one apocalypse should wipe all servers, but servers should have distinct traits that shapes how the tech tree develops on each. One server is primarily a desert biome, one is primarily grass, one is tundra, etc. That would be *so* interesting.
One worry I'd have, though, is that a nuked server might be simply abandoned by those who switch servers manually, so I totally understand the rationale behind wiping all of them. I was there for the first apocalypse and it was devastating in its enormity and exhilarating in the fact that I was part of that shared experience.
Offline
The game must be hard.
It should never be easy. You should never get to the point in the game where you can say, "Hey, we made it! Now what?"
A game doesn't have to be hard, it has to be FUN and it was a lot of fun before this nightmare. If I can never see what I built in the past and how it affected the future I see no point in playing as that was the appeal and the promise you made.
I'm probably high up in the charts of time played and I never got to the "Now What" place, there were still lots of things I haven't done. If you focus on adding craftable objects weekly as you said than nobody will ever reach the now what place.
Every village dies out in less than a day, currently. That's great!
No, it's not. It's also not realistic that humanity has lasted a maximum of 31 generations.
You could add things like disease and crop rot that makes the game harder as you evolve and thus more likely to end a civilization. Instead of making existing things harder (like adding worms) just add new things that are more likely to cause extinction.
Last edited by Gederian (2018-04-06 17:55:47)
Offline
jasonrohrer wrote:The game must be hard.
It should never be easy. You should never get to the point in the game where you can say, "Hey, we made it! Now what?"
A game doesn't have to be hard, it has to be FUN and it was a lot of fun before this nightmare. If I can never see what I built in the past and how it affected the future I see no point in playing as that was the appeal and the promise you made.
I'm probably high up in the charts of time played and I never got to the "Now What" place, there were still lots of things I haven't done. If you focus on adding craftable objects weekly as you said than nobody will ever reach the now what place.
jasonrohrer wrote:Every village dies out in less than a day, currently. That's great!
No, it's not. It's also not realistic that humanity has lasted a maximum of 31 generations.
You could add things like disease and crop rot that makes the game harder as you evolve and thus more likely to end a civilization. Instead of making existing things harder (like adding worms) just add new things that are more likely to cause extinction.
This ^. If you want the game to be harder, there are countless ways you can do that without a WIPE ALL SERVERS button triggered by a single player.
Last edited by Verinon1 (2018-04-06 18:02:33)
Offline
But a continuous family line is the POINT of this game. And should be necessary for a village that lasts.
If you have a village and care about it, you should be making arrangements for its care through the night before you go to bed. Currently, you know this doesn't matter, because you can always find your way back to it tomorrow.
But what if you couldn't?
That's the latest idea. The only way to keep working on a village is to keep a family line alive there. After the line ends, the next line will start far enough away to matter. Not so far away that returning to the original village would be impossible, but far enough that it would be a big project to return. Maybe even a trans-generational project. Like, "We can get back to the old village, let's start the journey now, and our great-great grand children will be born there someday."
A person can walk 4 tiles per second. Thus, in their hour-long life, they can walk 14,000 tiles.
So that's a good starting point for how far apart Eve spawns should be. Well, let's start with half that. 7000 tiles.
I like this idea Jason, you have my support (not that you need it). As myself and others were saying in discord, the old villages had become stale and too easy to survive in without having to anything past baking a few pies or growing carrots.
I will say, with this new spawning apocalypse vision that you have, you are going to have to seriously nerf griefing (or give us armor, watchtowers or something). The bottom line is that no family tree can last sufficiently long at the moment, because of griefing. We just need a way to fight back. Then we can really fulfill the true vision that you outlined here, multigenerational families working towards the advancement of our societies.
Last edited by Portager (2018-04-06 18:22:08)
Offline
I will say, with this new spawning apocalypse vision that you have, you are going to have to seriously nerf griefing (or give us armor, watchtowers or something). The bottom line is that no family tree can last sufficiently long at the moment, because of griefing. We just need a way to fight back. Then we can really fulfill the true vision that you outlined here, multigenerational families working towards the advancement of our societies.
Yes. Very much this. I'm 100% on board with the vision, but murder griefing should be much more difficult. I look forward to inevitable resource raids, intergenerational feuds, and clan warfare, but we at least need a chance to defend ourselves and save our family line if that's to continue to be the focus. IMO a knife should kill in two hits, not one, with a shorter cooldown than it has currently. This would give victims a chance to run, defend themselves, or carry their only daughter to safety as the victim bleeds out (some fun, dramatic RP possible there). I'd even be OK if arrows still killed with one hit--that'd be the weapon of choice for warfare--but close-range instant death by knife is unrealistic and can be absolutely devastating for a bloodline.
Offline
If Eve always spawns thousands of tiles away from civilization then boys are even more useless. If you are a man and don't see a woman around there is no point in continuing.
One Hour One Life Crafting Reference
https://onetech.info/
Offline
I personally found the apocalypse refreshing. I was really feeling what Jason was saying. I'd spawn in the middle of a big town with everyone around me and thought, "I guess I'll take over the carrot farm?" The game had become very boring for me. It got to the point where every time I'd spawn in a big city, I'd immediately book it and wait to starve out. Then I'd repeat until I either spawned as an Eve or was born to one that was just starting out. That was the only time the game became enjoyable, except when I'd take two steps and stumble upon another dang city. I really can't grasp this concept of everyone wanting to put on the same old socks they've been wearing for years. I feel like so many people have missed the concept of this game. This isn't minecraft, this isn't DST, and I don't want it to be. There are games for that. But I love the idea of a hard game where it's a struggle to survive, and feels satisfying when you do. And if you die out, you start all over again. That's the beauty of it for me personally.
Now that I've said the above, I can make perfectly clear that I do believe the apocalypse mechanic was broken. There's no reason why any one person should have the ability to reset the server....ever. It really should be a group decision, requiring at least 5 people in my opinion (somewhat open to 3). I just want to say I appreciate the addition of the apocalypse, but it I feel like it needs to be reworked. I still have many gripes with the game, (unchecked and unbalanced griefers to name one of many) but this was not one of them. Just wanted to say my piece as I am apparently one of the few that enjoyed this.
Believe you're right, but don't believe you can't be wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Days peppers/onions/tomatoes left unfixed: 120
Do your part and remind Jason to fix these damn vegetables.
Offline
Portager wrote:I will say, with this new spawning apocalypse vision that you have, you are going to have to seriously nerf griefing (or give us armor, watchtowers or something). The bottom line is that no family tree can last sufficiently long at the moment, because of griefing. We just need a way to fight back. Then we can really fulfill the true vision that you outlined here, multigenerational families working towards the advancement of our societies.
Yes. Very much this. I'm 100% on board with the vision, but murder griefing should be much more difficult. I look forward to inevitable resource raids, intergenerational feuds, and clan warfare, but we at least need a chance to defend ourselves and save our family line if that's to continue to be the focus. IMO a knife should kill in two hits, not one, with a shorter cooldown than it has currently. This would give victims a chance to run, defend themselves, or carry their only daughter to safety as the victim bleeds out (some fun, dramatic RP possible there). I'd even be OK if arrows still killed with one hit--that'd be the weapon of choice for warfare--but close-range instant death by knife is unrealistic and can be absolutely devastating for a bloodline.
Personally, I strongly disagree with these statements. As much as I hate murderers, I think that things are fine as they are now. We do have ways to defend ourselves, and actually hold more power in our hands than griefers. We all can use the same weapons, plus we can collaborate and organize ourselves.
First, a knife isn't such a useful tool that we need to craft one at all costs. You can say the same for bows, too, as you can catch sheep without the need of killing the adult. As for bears, if they attack a village they can just be lured away, and while their pelts are nice to have, they are not a necessity, and so many people just die trying to get them. And I don't think I need to talk about wolf pelts.
Second, if a murderer is about, people can know that fairly quickly by seeing the dead corpse and spreading the word. Then, they can assign someone to guard duty and protect, for instance, the most populated areas. Also, since names are a thing and a murderer gets heavily slowed down after a kill, any witness can easily identify them and inform the others (or, if they can, kill them on the spot).
Third, if Eves spawn further away, it won't be that easy to get a hold of a weapon and go around killing everyone with pies in your backpack. And in advanced cities, we could also make it so that valuable things are kept safe by an assigned person, and have to be earned through visible contribution. One other person may be assigned to check on the population for needs and, in the meantime, observe how everyone acts.
In my opinion, griefers are not the problem. The lack of cooperation is. This truly is an accurate representation of real life.
And as a side note: I don't mean to be mean, but the idea of knives requiring two hits while bows don't is, honestly, against all balance logic. Melee hits are harder to land than ranged auto-aimed hits; have you never seen those guys that, knife in hand, chase people like madmen without being able to get to them? And have you never seen people killing friends by mistake because they misclicked with a bow in hand? If anything, it's bows that could maybe require two or more hits, but I guess that limited ammo that takes space in your backpack is already enough of a downside compared to knives. Maybe make them sometimes break? IDK, and IDC. Weapons are bad and dangerous, a constant threat to civilization, and that's just how things are. This isn't an action game where you take 20 weapon hits and are left with more than half health. This is a life simulator, where weapons kill and one bad person with a weapon can ruin hundreds of lives. Period. If you want a game where life is easy, don't play one where naked children starve to death.
I hope we'll see more cooperation now that it holds even more importance. More cooperation, and more affection, too. For me, the best part of this game is how heartwarming it is, even when filled with so much sadness.
Offline
I'm disappointed by this update and I'd like to explain why I feel the apocalypse mechanic ruins the game for me. I told a lot of people at GDC about this game and it has 3 unique features that make it stand out from the heaps of other games in this genre type.
3) After 60 minutes, you die. Your character is impermanent. This means dieing is that that important, what is more important is moving the game forward for the next generation, raising the next generation, etc.
2) For the first few minutes of play, you are a helpless baby. You have to beg other players to take care of you. This gives time to become attached/invested in the community you have been born into. (Note that adding names actually damaged this slightly as people began valuing their name living on over everything else)
1) The world is persistent. This means if players screw up and ruin natural resources, that is it, they are screwed and have to move on. This makes the desire to pass on knowledge to other players very strong and pushing players to find inventive sustainability solutions as well as drawing parallels to the real world.
Adding a reset button to the game, which is what the apocalypse feature does, ruins the most unique aspect of the game.
I had assumed a slow decay nature reclaim would be eventually introduced for sectors that went for a few days without players interacting with tiles. Essentially, rebuilding a block of the server in the wild state if abandoned long enough or something along those lines as a game world does eventually have to deal with the finite nature of itself, but I was expecting something that would be less than obvious to the player, and more importantly, outside the players direct control, thus ruining an area could not be quick fixed. So now I would like to outline the problems this feature introduces.
1) Players never know when the the world could be reset next. They can never expect to some day come across the same city they were in once days or weeks ago. They wont think, "some day the pile of rocks I put here as I starve as an eve could be used by another player." They will think, "the sever is just going to get reset eventually anyway, no point."
2) Using up limited resources doesn't matter anymore. After all, the server is just going to reset anyway.
3) Griefing behaviors don't matter because the city is going to vanish when the server resets anyway. If they don't matter, they become normal gameplay.
4) One group is building a new city and having fun. Another group has ruined their city and desires to reset the server, and they do. Screwing over the other players.
5) New meta game, grief the whole server at once by resetting it!
Now I would like to focus on what made the server not being reset so cool.
1) Thoughts like: "Some day, when the city is stable, I can create a caravan with others and we can build a new city in an area that couldn't support people otherwise."
2) "We can build roads to link cities."
3) "We can polish and refine our city to be better than ever."
4) "We can explore because we have enough food."
5) New players can learn how to play here before getting blind sided by wilderness.
I guess what really struck me about the game was the ripple effect. How my action changed the world and the experience for everyone, for good or bad. And eventually any action would be sponged away, through the march of time, as players picked up and moved anything I put down, as time decayed it. An instant wipe conflicts with this, so I'm not a fan of how it is being implemented.
I'm sorry that this isn't edited and coherent and pretty, but I have to take off for something. I just thought it would be helpful to articulate the reasons why the server reset button kind of killed the game for me and some others. I also happened to sit through one already and it seems like it may have crashed some stuff too, but that aside if this were to be implemented, one that has to be prevented is better than one that is initiated. (IE enough players have to do x y and z every day to stop a reset, or something like that). I am out of time though. Anyhow, was enjoying the game until now, so thanks for that.
Last edited by Darcie (2018-04-07 02:40:33)
Offline
Because new Eves spawn so close by, villages are all near each other. That means that when one village dies, it's way too easy to continue it.
A village dying, which should be the most dramatic moment in the game, is kind of meaningless.
But a continuous family line is the POINT of this game. And should be necessary for a village that lasts.
A person can walk 4 tiles per second. Thus, in their hour-long life, they can walk 14,000 tiles.
So that's a good starting point for how far apart Eve spawns should be. Well, let's start with half that. 7000 tiles.
SO happy about this change. Frankly, I was really disappointed when I first started playing because I thought that a new Eve would only spawn after everybody had died out, and then the server would be wiped. I understand why that wouldn't work (with the need for players to be able to log in at any time), so this new change is very welcome. If I spawn as an Eve, I think I should be in a (relatively) untouched wilderness.
Offline
It also was an attempt to create a momentary shared collective experience. To create a memory. "Were you there back when there was an apocalypse? Wow, what a day that was!"
Jason: you big, beautiful doofus. Do you see what you're doing? You've worked your way so deep into our feels that we're inclined to hate you for threatening any of our tiny owned changes. Yeah, you're probably a bit worried over the hoopla, but you should also be grinning ear-to-ear. People are invested in their eleven carrots and a snare, and you've only just scratched the surface (pun intended, failed, moving on) of how people can mark their environment.
I'm going to write more thoughts elsewhere, but I just wanted to say that the Apocalypse is another great step towards the stakes that this game must have. I hate it so much, enough that my mild-mannered self typed in "Fuck you people" on the Twitch channel responsible for the 2nd one before catching myself and wondering at my investment. As the game gives me more ways to alter the world, the Apocalypse will become even more anathema. If married to ways to thwart it, evade it, or, failing, to cast something into the void in the hopes of transcending it, we'll be in an awesome place.
A lot of work to do to get it just right, but the End of Days is going to be a great feature of this project one day.
Also, just registered for the forums. Some great ideas floating around on here (and some awful ones). Cannot wait to see where this goes. The well of natural inspiration to draw from seems limitless, and there are so many hints at interesting designs that OHOL suggests.
More to come..
Offline
Side comment - Mac full screen works fine. Maybe slight lag at times, but that could be be my computer
Offline
I like the idea for this update, but I think it would be cool if the players didn't die so people could have longer family chains.
Edit:
Also you could just wipe the server every time you make a new update
Last edited by Aqua (2018-04-07 02:19:42)
Offline
I get this is an issue of the fans wanting to consume more than what can be produced-- but how many games do you need to sell before you can hire someone? There are likely a ton of scripters who play this game- and if you opened yourself to receiving mods, you could probably do even more without pissing off the fan base.
This design of the Apocalypse though, I do not like. The game as it stood gave me a really better understanding of history- and actually sparked historical education on my part. A part of that is simply being able to go back to old villages and see how they evolved and altered. It has profoundly altered how I see my every day world, and for many friends as well.
I am sad that this was not apart of your vision- but I do think it's worth it. I hope you see it as having value.
As much as I dislike it, I can't say it wasn't needed. If you are spawned as an eve in a village of eve's -- things are clearly then moving in a direction no one really wants, food sustainability and building- and random kids from random eves circling coming in. Ah, yes. SORELY needed.
Honestly- I wish maps were far bigger.
Once upon a time there was a lizard who wanted to be a dragon...
Offline
Honestly- I wish maps were far bigger.
I'm pretty sure the maps are huge, just a small spawn radius.
Offline
Auner wrote:Honestly- I wish maps were far bigger.
I'm pretty sure the maps are huge, just a small spawn radius.
There's a video of Jason demoing the game on Youtube. He gives the size of the map in units Jupiter. Don't remember how many Jupiters he said, but I was okay with it.
..
For now.
Offline
My suggestions for Apocalypse
But for it to kinda work it needs to be all somewhat local
1. Monolith spawns ontop of mountain what is in middle of lake.
2. People need to build actually bridges to get to it and ladders to reach it maybe even a lift for the horse (lift kinda makes you need at least 2 people if not more)
3. For nowadays tech tree Apocalypse you need to sacrifice that gold crown horse next to the monolith (so you will need extra knife + work for the bridge and all ladders and maybe lift) (in later days needs to be more advance stuff)
4. Once the horse is killed with all requested stuff the 24h count down starts and monolith collapsed
5. All people get arrow pointing towards the Apocalypse center
(I also like idea of only people with gold crows who are atleast age 50 can see the arrow so fresh don't run into wirderness)
6. Since sacrifice collapsed the monolith and started the Apocalypse you can stop it from happening by restoring/building new monoliths in its place and giving offering.
7.There will be constant battle of people destroying bridges ladders trying to save the world or end it...
I also like idea of megastructure like towers and later more advanced lighthouses what allow you to see further.
And megastructure like wonders or something.
Offline