a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
I made pen and brought sheep in a single lifetime plenty of times. Heck, even made my own shovel for it. And no, the last thing a town needs is more clutter. The leading cause of death is not having space to drop item in hand so you can eat. Building more pens and filling the town with cooked mutton does not help.
And before I shore this sheep I moved four sheep carcasses out of pen, and there was like five poop just sitting there. The "shepherds" are just lazy fucks who create clutter and never clear it, and they never make enough wool for basics like sewing or medicine, let alone clothes. And then they stab people who actually work. HF playing this as singleplayer in a couple of months.
The problem is that the town was already too cluttered with mutton. Just like most of towns with sheep I've been to. People just fill up pens with slaughtered sheep and they never bother clearing them.
We don't need as much poop with the new improved compost, so higher cost wouldn't ruin it. And the cost of wool is too high because I just got murdered for shearing a sheep while there was still a mouflon in the pen.
Why the hell does it cost the same to either get an existing sheep to regrow wool or to get a whole new sheep with wool plus poop for compost? Obviously the latter choice is superior and everybody will go for it. The problem is that mutton is a little too good for the cost, so you wind up overproducing meat and it clutters everything. On the flipside there's a lot more demand for wool then there is supply, but the cost is too high to justify feeding shorn sheep for wool alone. IMO regrowing wool should be made cheaper (feed a sheep *any* fruit or vegetable maybe) and the cost of getting a new sheep should be higher (maybe two or three carrot berry bowls total).
Floors should be required for placing advanced stuff like shelves or stoves.
Or we can just stop pretending this is a PvP game. Go play Rust or something if you don't like that. Account/IP bans for people who kill excessively.
Don't cut yourself on that edge. Actually, do. Down the road, not across the street.
Another problem with teaching is that it's so easy for teacher and student to lose track of each other. The viewport is tiny, and people have to constantly run around to eat. Would be cool if there was a way to track a specific person like you can track your home marker, though it should probably have limited range. Would be very helpful for Eves raising kids on the road, too.
Single player sandbox mode could be a viable alternative to a full blown tutorial.
I think the problem is paradoxically that people don't spawn as Eve often enough. Well, rather the implication of this, ie the fact that babies spawn too much. When you're going to have 10+ kids, there's really no way to give any of them proper attention. Overly large families also water down the sense of familial attachment. If you only had like four or five kids, you'd try a lot harder to have them survive, and you'd be more inclined to teach them stuff and assign them jobs. So yeah, you'd have a bit more Eve spawns which might not be newbie friendly, but on the flipside they would virtually never get abandoned. This also means slower population growth, so newbies won't be as much of a strain on the local resources.
How about ossuaries, to let us stack multiple corpses in a single tile?
Loving this update, stew meta is fun. Could we have a change of graphics for half a bowl of stew please? Seen lots of people starve standing next to those, thinking they're empty bowls. Also, we should be able to carve and dry gourds for water containers.
Another interesting game for food models is UnReal World. There food has carbs, fats and proteins, and you have to get enough of all of them or you waste away. Maybe in OHOL we could have those three meters next to temp, and different foods give different things. Carb bar influences hunger drain rate, protein bar influences max hunger, and fat bar influences both. These bars deplete with hunger. Raw foods are usually fairly pure in one of the components, so you have to constantly rotate them. As you get more advanced foods they start to get more balanced so there's less annoyance of juggling different food types.
What if max bar was a function of food variety rather than age?
I'll make some time to play this game this weekend.
But it looks like the kind of complicated under-the-hood food system that I'm trying to avoid. Eating a fish eyeball satisfies you both along the fish and a sausage axes.
http://ringofbrodgar.com/wiki/Food_Satiations
There are currently 15 different satiation categories.
Yeah satiations are kinda BS, but even without them there is plenty of reason for varied diet due to different stat point combos (your highest stat determines points needed to raise any stat) and variety bonus being a big deal. If you're gonna play, try taking your character from 10 to 15 stats on a mono diet, and then try doing the same with another character but never eating the same food twice between two stat gains. The difference in time it'll take you humongous.
That's why variety bonus is great. Haven and Hearth is a food centered game too, only there you gain stats by eating. The higher your stats, the more food points you need to get the next increase, but each unique food eaten since the last stat gain the number of points is decreased by a percentage. In the early to mid game this means that most people strive to eat only one of each food between two stat gain events to maximize their efficiency, tho later it kinda fades away due to other broken mechanics (quality and tableware).
The idea of having it vary by life/person instead of over a lifetime is interesting. Like you're born with a kind of randomized "nutrition makeup" that you attempt to satisfy by trying different foods. There's this guy in the village who is just obsessed with figs and grows nothing but figs. I don't know what his deal is, because I've tried figs, and they're not that great.
But it seems like a weird puzzle to be solving in each life (taste-testing each food), and you'd be solving it through trial and error.
If the nutrition profile results from player actions in a given life, it's easier to understand and manage. I think arguments over what to grow are interesting. They're already happening, but are being argued with math. Having them be a matter of taste that varies from person to person based on their life experience so far (my mother raised carrots and I'm sick of them, but your mother raised sheep, and you're eager to try carrots) seems like a richer story.
If this is in reference to my suggestion, that's not what I had in mind. The idea is you get a bonus (whatever it is) whenever you eat any food type for the first time in your life. Play a "Mmmm" sound whenever this happens instead of the usual sound for that food, and it'll be obvious it's a good thing and players will try to replicate it. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out it triggers on new food.
IMO a buff rather than a penalty would be better. How about a slight decrease to hunger drain rate for the first item of any new food you eat within a life? All stacking and lasting until death. It could be a great way to have gourmet food which has poor calorie/effort ratio so you only cook it for the buff rather than nutrition. We could have all sorts of stuff like cakes and caviar and whatnot, and they'd all have a niche even though they do the same thing.
How many of murderers kill more than one victim? I bet it's like 90%. I understand that there are valid reasons to kill someone now and then, but there's never a valid reason to go on a killing spree. Yet the material cost of a single kill is the same as killing an entire village. Murder should cost something so there's a limit on how much of it you can do. Make the damn weapons break on murder already.
Would a grassland really be as fertile as a forest, though? In forests you have leaves or needles rotting and creating a layer of rich humus. I'm mostly thinking about development of agriculture in Europe where forest was the go to farmland, but then again pretty much all of Europe was a forest when agriculture arrived. But even if we go to origins of farming in the Middle East, it seems pretty much all of it was on flood plains rather than open savanna.
People did move farms all the time in primitive times. Though you couldn't just till the soil and be good to go. You'd cut down a forest and burn it on spot to fertilize. Whole trees is a bit much tech-wise, but kindling would be OK. So instead of disappearing, ashes would turn into fertile tiles that you can till into farm plots. Compost could be used to repair hardened rows while expanding would be done with fire.
Maybe stabbing a mother carrying a baby should kill the baby instead of mother. People would be more inclined to feed babies if they were usable as shields XD
Not really a fan of the idea of needing to go ever further to get water, and wells out in the wilderness would look kinda silly. Getting water should be a job accessible to kids, IMO. The adults could quarry rocks and build wells so the kids can avoid taking big trips with their little hunger bars.
What if berries cycled between harvestable and empty on their own? That'd remove the storage advantage, as you'd need lots of bowls to hold the harvest.