|
Post by rubgish on Sept 17, 2014 22:32:49 GMT
Pinned post on this facebook page is a compiled list of mobile players feature requests. www.facebook.com/groups/godus4chat/. Not sure if any of them are totally new, but it's quite nice and concise.
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 18, 2014 11:14:09 GMT
I'll take the liberty of dissecting this and splitting off the "new" requests and the "overlapping" requests. Mind you, I'm working off of what I've seen, I might not have seen some of them pop up on the PC community side. Anyone know if this FB group is iOS oriented, PC oriented or shared? Requests made by the PC community that are shared from the FB-list: - · Reallocation of shrines and other important items (especially the ones purchased with gems)
The request to move or even manually place such structures has been around for a long time.
- · Give miners the ability to dig out temples/chests on command
Heh, sounds familiar, how often did I pose this request now?
- · Power upgrades based on experience rather than stickers
No love lost for stickers on facebook either it seems...
- · Multiplayer wars
· If multiplayer wars are implemented in the future, they should be optional Interesting, so even though people want their multiplayer (hub #2 from hubworld last we've heard), they don't want it to be required - same as for PC players. - · Any level of camera rotation
- · Add option to turn off missions
· Add option to turn off in game notifications · Change the location of the voyage 'pop up' (it covers the 'close this screen' X button when you open an info screen). Option to control notifications, to turn off cards that you don't want, option to choose how to play rather than being told, same old requests here aswell it seems. - · Shape templates that apply changes in the land when pressing long enough at the same spot
· Add stair templates that followers can build up Seen this one pop up recently on the steam boards. - · Visiting other player/friend’s homeworld
In line with the old Jupiter promise, something that many players want, as they want to see what their friends are up to. - · Being able to play offline
You can play offline on PC? Its just the first time log-in that requires online connection... Though the request keeps coming back. - · Include multiplayer cooperative mode
· Add the option to trade with other players · Docks/ports with commercial ships for trading purposes Yea, where IS hubworld? - · Add some bonus for not sculpting too much land
Provide valid alternatives and choices with consequences to gameplay decisions... - · Being able to zoom out further
· Being able to see/share/export the whole map
- · Option to choose followers who would prefer to live in urban/forest areas
- · Being able to create new water springs
- · Farms with fenced areas with livestock
- · Fishing, animal farming, hunting wild animals on voyages
Resources from voyages in general seem to be requested quite often, though people would also want to see these resources in homeworld. - · Being able to add roads
ROADS! Yes... No awkward pathfinding! - · Research labs to progress through different ages
Follower research instead of random stickers? Who knew that people liked that idea... - · Weather control
· Earthquake power · More god powers More god powers...
- · Easier to handle water mechanics (rivers)
- · More decoration items
· Multiple kinds of trees and flowers for decoration · When you place trees in the beach, they could be palm trees instead of the pine looking ones. More cosmetic choice and variation. - · Ability to dig up land, without need to go by the start of a layer
(Re)introduce dig and raise land powers - · Churches of some kind for prayer. Could add to overall happiness or give rewards in exchange of devoted followers
Churches have been officially rejected by Peter in an interview, he fears that it might cause conflict with religious players. - · New buried temples
· More interactions with hidden temples - · Give some use to Astariville after all Astari are converted
· New tribes like the Astari, or enemies Expand on the Astari, make them usefull. Then expand on the AI tribe concept and add more tribes. - · Add commandments
- · New ages to progress
- · Boost followers with belief instead of wheat
Make the wheat belief booster an optional bonus, you can already boost without wheat when you don't have wheat to regen their endurance. - · Reduce the cost increase rate for placing trees
Bring back the old tree power, the new "holy forest" are some damned expensive bonsai's... - · Random disasters
- · Volcanos. Near buildings have higher belief but it comes with the risk of losing them
- · In game chatroom (friends only)
- · Give followers their own festival, like the Astari people
- · Include an “Undo button”, for the times we accidentally sculpt
- · Make cards need less stickers
- · Improve game stability
· Better AI - · Preview for the shrines area of effect
- · Recover save option also for guest users
Ah, there's the save management request... - · More beacons of expansion
- · Remove thunderstorms
Requests unique to the FB-list: - · New design for mines or turn them into buildings instead
Not seen it posed like this in regard to mines specifically, though I have seen the request for more cosmetic variation.
- · Saving the game in the cloud
Not much love lost for the cloud on PC, I believe most PC players instead would rather have seperate saves locally whereas it is 22cans intent to go with cloud later on.
- · Time delay on builders when evicted, so it’s easier to redirect them to a new desired location
Not necessarily seen it in this form before, though I did see the request to get some control over evicted followers so they don't just rebuild right away. - · Add restrictions to be able to build beacons (number of specific buildings, height)
Wait what, they want it to be even more restrictive??? - · Big settlements unlock new abilities for followers living in them (climbing two layers at once, swimming, increased stamina, farming settlements could grow trees and flowergardens)
Not seen it in this shape before, though people would like such abilities. - · Sacrificial pit
No point requesting what we already have right? - · Being able to build up big amounts of land (as opposite to the meteor effect)
Haven't seen this on steam before, Have I just missed it or what? - · Card that unlocks the ability to sculpt 10 layers at a time
- · One 5-10 dollar purchase to make the cards need 50% less stickers
Really? - · Add some way to unleash blocked followers
Just leash them again... - · New god power in voyages, like stop or rewind time for 100 b/s or something.
Interesting, not seen this one before... - · Add some kind of minigames
Really?! They'd rather have minigames than actual content?
I have a feeling that a number of the ones I dropped in the FB exclusive list aren't actually FB-exclusive but have been spotted on the Steam Boards. Though just not by me.
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Sept 18, 2014 17:43:53 GMT
I was thinking last night about the issues of large population management and groups, and thought as usual, what if I flip the problem on its head. Instead of trying to make larger populations more controllable through a hierarchy, instead make it so that large populations are the win condition, and advancement requires restarting with a few followers again. I think I remember Settlers 2 doing this, and other games, where they have you build up and send some of your current world resources through to the next one. Actually, Black&White did that, and a lot of people liked that I think. They really felt like they had some input into how difficult the next level was, based on what they could stuff into the portal. Would you prefer more worlds over better control of a single world? So with this recent video, it sounds like you guys might be going ahead with something similar to this?
|
|
Raspofabs
Former 22Cans staff
Posts: 227
I like: coding, high peat single malts, ... , yeah, that's about it.
I don't like: object oriented design, and liver.
Steam: raspofabs
|
Post by Raspofabs on Sept 18, 2014 19:32:50 GMT
I was thinking last night about the issues of large population management and groups, and thought as usual, what if I flip the problem on its head. Instead of trying to make larger populations more controllable through a hierarchy, instead make it so that large populations are the win condition, and advancement requires restarting with a few followers again. I think I remember Settlers 2 doing this, and other games, where they have you build up and send some of your current world resources through to the next one. Actually, Black&White did that, and a lot of people liked that I think. They really felt like they had some input into how difficult the next level was, based on what they could stuff into the portal. Would you prefer more worlds over better control of a single world? So with this recent video, it sounds like you guys might be going ahead with something similar to this? Hah, yes, though I didn't hear about it until Monday. Could be another one of those cases of inevitable invention. Interestingly, it has meant that we've got a lot of changes to the save system, again, in a rather short period of time. So once this feature is done, we're probably going to have to do a longer opt-in period to make sure we're not borking people's saves all over the place.
|
|
Raspofabs
Former 22Cans staff
Posts: 227
I like: coding, high peat single malts, ... , yeah, that's about it.
I don't like: object oriented design, and liver.
Steam: raspofabs
|
Post by Raspofabs on Sept 18, 2014 19:42:29 GMT
- Add stair templates that followers can build up
Recover save option also for guest users
Sacrificial pit
Card that unlocks the ability to sculpt 10 layers at a time
Recovering a guest is a tricky thing, because we're not allowed to know who you are according to Apple guidelines, unless you sign-in. So out problem is, "recover what?" Sacrificial pit on iOS would be interesting, I think a big one off IAP (like 50%-80% the price of the Steam version of the game) would be fair. Though I must add the caveat that I am insane when it comes to pricing things, as I would release the game for £5 on iOS, and not have any IAPs at all. And unlocking 10 layer sculpting... you really don't want it. I've sometimes turned it on in debug and it just rips through belief like nobody's business. If you're mining out the big treasure temples, you're better off using meteors and then beautifying after you're done lowering the land.
|
|
|
Post by Deth on Sept 18, 2014 19:50:38 GMT
Hah, yes, though I didn't hear about it until Monday. Could be another one of those cases of inevitable invention. Interestingly, it has meant that we've got a lot of changes to the save system, again, in a rather short period of time. So once this feature is done, we're probably going to have to do a longer opt-in period to make sure we're not borking people's saves all over the place. To late my save already borked today. On long term pricing idea. Pixel Peopl has a mine for free you can get 2 of their in game paid currency for a day. If you pay 2.99 or 4.99 you can get 10 a day. I brought that and still from time to time buy more of them because I like the fact that they give me free currancy and I will buy some to speed something up and to support them. But I do like your Idea of a one time fee.
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 18, 2014 20:06:55 GMT
Recovering a guest is a tricky thing, because we're not allowed to know who you are according to Apple guidelines, unless you sign-in. So out problem is, "recover what?" Sacrificial pit on iOS would be interesting, I think a big one off IAP (like 50%-80% the price of the Steam version of the game) would be fair. Though I must add the caveat that I am insane when it comes to pricing things, as I would release the game for £5 on iOS, and not have any IAPs at all. And unlocking 10 layer sculpting... you really don't want it. I've sometimes turned it on in debug and it just rips through belief like nobody's business. If you're mining out the big treasure temples, you're better off using meteors and then beautifying after you're done lowering the land. I don't know how you'd deal with it on iOS - but on PC its as simple as multiple saves... Just start a new save for your "guest". Frankly, I think that if you sold the Pit of Doom for $5 or $10, people would buy it... Especially once they know how gem-heavy the game is. They'd either quit or buy the Pit of Doom... Agreed, more layer sculpting would be horrid - though not for the cost reason you mention (thats a matter of balancing, and sculpt:belief ratio is far off atm). I think that the NEED for 10-layer sculpting is a bigger thing to address. The buried hidden temples go against the entire game concept of "don't sculpt too much" that Peter wants to enforce. It doesn't really "add" to the game if you ask me. Though these are all requests that come from the Facebook page, I merely put them in line with the requests I have or have not seen from the Steam community.
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Sept 18, 2014 22:54:58 GMT
So with this recent video, it sounds like you guys might be going ahead with something similar to this? Hah, yes, though I didn't hear about it until Monday. Could be another one of those cases of inevitable invention. Interestingly, it has meant that we've got a lot of changes to the save system, again, in a rather short period of time. So once this feature is done, we're probably going to have to do a longer opt-in period to make sure we're not borking people's saves all over the place. Hm. That's interesting. Can you elaborate very much on how it's to function, or will we have to wait till the official official word? - Add stair templates that followers can build up
Recover save option also for guest users
Sacrificial pit
Card that unlocks the ability to sculpt 10 layers at a time
Recovering a guest is a tricky thing, because we're not allowed to know who you are according to Apple guidelines, unless you sign-in. So out problem is, "recover what?" Sacrificial pit on iOS would be interesting, I think a big one off IAP (like 50%-80% the price of the Steam version of the game) would be fair. Though I must add the caveat that I am insane when it comes to pricing things, as I would release the game for £5 on iOS, and not have any IAPs at all. And unlocking 10 layer sculpting... you really don't want it. I've sometimes turned it on in debug and it just rips through belief like nobody's business. If you're mining out the big treasure temples, you're better off using meteors and then beautifying after you're done lowering the land. By insane you must mean relatively reasonable by any average person's account, but mad to any accountants. =P As to the 10 layer sculpting, have you guys caught my highlight each layer then drag suggestion, to prevent slipping up on using the full extent of the upgrade(s)? Also...You have to be considering rebalancing it given that, because I don't think encouraging using meteors is intended in the design.
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Sept 19, 2014 2:46:03 GMT
The Meteor is God's Shovel.
|
|
|
Post by earlparvisjam on Sept 19, 2014 2:48:58 GMT
The Meteor is God's Shovel. If there's one thing to say about Godus game play, it's anything but subtle.
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Sept 19, 2014 3:00:06 GMT
The Meteor is God's Shovel. If there's one thing to say about Godus game play, it's anything but subtle. On the flipside, its sound assets are. Yo simple god power suggestion right off the bat using existing assets, blight land. How'd we make the jump to swamps/meteor without this tossed in?
|
|
|
Post by hunter328 on Oct 20, 2014 21:53:51 GMT
Larger mines and wheat fields should count more toward the total number of active mines/fields. As it stands now, in order to progress along the card timeline you're better off building a bunch off m/f that are the smallest size possible, which is counter productive to reaping the larger harvests needed to build anything.
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Oct 21, 2014 5:39:30 GMT
I would like to draw the attention of the members of this board aswell as any 22cans employees that still lurk around here to two threads I have made recently on the steam boards with regards to paving the way to future mechanics within Godus. I by no means think these are necessarily the only solutions, but I think its worth planning ahead for the future and that these concepts are worth consideration to that effect. I present you: Godus Settlements - going into the future.and Farming - a timed conflict of interests? Or a viable solution.I hope you find these interesting reads and that potentially someone at 22cans can take some use out of these. I truely believe that 22cans and Godus would be far better off without a heavy reliance on freemium monetization at the core of Godus. It is entirely possible to make money (to make a LOT of money) off of your game, without shoving monetization in the players face at every opportunity.
|
|
Raspofabs
Former 22Cans staff
Posts: 227
I like: coding, high peat single malts, ... , yeah, that's about it.
I don't like: object oriented design, and liver.
Steam: raspofabs
|
Post by Raspofabs on Oct 22, 2014 15:43:27 GMT
Hah, yes, though I didn't hear about it until Monday. Could be another one of those cases of inevitable invention. Interestingly, it has meant that we've got a lot of changes to the save system, again, in a rather short period of time. So once this feature is done, we're probably going to have to do a longer opt-in period to make sure we're not borking people's saves all over the place. Hm. That's interesting. Can you elaborate very much on how it's to function, or will we have to wait till the official official word? Well, it's not much like I was thinking. I was thinking of it as more of a hub, rather than a stepping stone. I've not actually had enough time to go and explore it myself yet, but using debug tools, I personally think the colours are a bit garish. If wey world was a little less gamey, and a little more like a gateway, and maybe with two small worlds off of it (containing what we appear to have put in the wey world), then maybe it'd be closer to what I was thinking. That or if you couldn't go back, and it was all about the inexorable progress of life and burnt bridges. Either would be fine, but I don't like the fake feeling limit of resource transfer that we have apparently put in. Maybe it's different to play than it is to hear about. What's your opinion, and where would you take this new stuff now we've got the tech for multiple concurrent worlds?
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Oct 22, 2014 16:18:14 GMT
What's your opinion, and where would you take this new stuff now we've got the tech for multiple concurrent worlds? As it currently is turning out, the game is taking more and more focus towards monetization. Its almost as if in an attempt to monetize, the actual gameplay is being sidelined. Take the specialized resource area's (the grey 'rugged' terrain, the green 'verdant' terrain and the pink 'sacred' terrain) - rather than providing a tactical element. They further restrict the play-value of this new zone. As if someone is telling the player "No! BAD! You've been playing far too fast-paced!" The key ofcourse being that if you want to play faster, you should use gems to speed things up... What is being proposed as this awesome method introducing strategic planning, is no more than an elaborate jigsaw puzzle to cram as many plots in a small area as possible. So in its current format, Weyworld is actually worse than Homeworld was. And Homeworld wasn't very enjoyable to begin with. Introducing a tech-tree the way Peter sketched in the Q&A video will not change this. If anything, the current focus would indicate that it would funnel the player even more into a pre-defined freemium driven playstyle. And atleast on PC nobody is waiting for that. I can't speak for the mobile players, but given the statistics that are available its not looking too good there either. I don't know who designed the current format of Weyworld. But it seems to me that whoever did it has never played the game through. But instead only played short bits of it, possibly even with cheats. If I'm seeing that the most artsy of Godus players that actually enjoy sculpting the land even resort to cheats to allow them to do so, I can't help but think there's some conflicts of interest going on within the development team with regards to which direction Godus is taking. And what Godus was pitched as. Which is a shame, since the potential is there. Even now, without necessarily altering the entire game. There are plenty of mechanics that can be implemented to greatly improve the entertainment value that Godus can provide. The current direction however doesn't seem to do it. And I'm afraid that even adding Hubworld or multiplayer to the current concoction is not going to have the result that Peter expects or hopes for.
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Oct 22, 2014 16:28:22 GMT
Hm. That's interesting. Can you elaborate very much on how it's to function, or will we have to wait till the official official word? Well, it's not much like I was thinking. I was thinking of it as more of a hub, rather than a stepping stone. I've not actually had enough time to go and explore it myself yet, but using debug tools, I personally think the colours are a bit garish. If wey world was a little less gamey, and a little more like a gateway, and maybe with two small worlds off of it (containing what we appear to have put in the wey world), then maybe it'd be closer to what I was thinking. That or if you couldn't go back, and it was all about the inexorable progress of life and burnt bridges. Either would be fine, but I don't like the fake feeling limit of resource transfer that we have apparently put in. Maybe it's different to play than it is to hear about. What's your opinion, and where would you take this new stuff now we've got the tech for multiple concurrent worlds? Glad to see someone in 22cans also finds the inability to transfer resources feels off. I'm not sure how you would split weyworld into three worlds, myself, (weyworld as similar to homeworld but gateway to hubworld, sideworld introducing you to the lands and another sideworld training you with comets?) but I do think to a degree that or cutting off access to Homeworld might be better (not my first choice, personally, though). I think what I would aim at is: -Belief should permeate worlds, no doubt about it in my mind. It may seem imbalanced, but when you consider how costly certain abilities are, it would constantly deplete anyway. -Enabling salvage (for both beacons and the ark, unless the ark is intended to be repaired at some point) for awhile (e.g. set length of time or however long it takes to extract all resources), this way you have a steady flow of resources without having it feel like a full reset. -Beacons as they're repaired consume resources and so on, but as they fall away after completion, a certain amount of those resources is recovered, this way it doesn't feel like a total loss of those resources and nothing but more "work" to do in return. -As salvage offsets the reset feeling but begins to wind down a little, have it so the player reactivates the Lighthouse to guide trade vessels to enable an exchange of resources, not repaired (do NOT make it so it must be reactivated to switch between worlds). -An info panel might be created for the Lighthouse and you can use this to adjust the figures for resource transfer in some way. -Enabling retroactive presence of unlocks (e.g. powers/more advanced structures), this way the worlds feel more like a cohesive whole rather than gamey separate realities (one stuck in the past, the other in the future). These are some of the main thoughts that spring immediately to mind, but I've some others I'll work out later. Edit: -Transfer of people would be great too, which wouldn't totally solve the overpopulation problem (as Danjal and I have proposed, there are numerous "easy" ways to do this), it would still reduce it slightly. Could be adjusted similar to other resource transfers at the lighthouse. -Worlds dedicated to back and forth combat could be a thing now, similar in some respects to my voyage suggestion earlier, except perhaps even more active than I proposed (maybe no total conquest of these worlds or something? basically turn them into a follower meatgrinder for quick access to resources through looted enemy villages).
|
|
Raspofabs
Former 22Cans staff
Posts: 227
I like: coding, high peat single malts, ... , yeah, that's about it.
I don't like: object oriented design, and liver.
Steam: raspofabs
|
Post by Raspofabs on Oct 23, 2014 11:28:24 GMT
Edit: -Transfer of people would be great too, which wouldn't totally solve the overpopulation problem (as Danjal and I have proposed, there are numerous "easy" ways to do this), it would still reduce it slightly. Could be adjusted similar to other resource transfers at the lighthouse. -Worlds dedicated to back and forth combat could be a thing now, similar in some respects to my voyage suggestion earlier, except perhaps even more active than I proposed (maybe no total conquest of these worlds or something? basically turn them into a follower meatgrinder for quick access to resources through looted enemy villages). The overpopulation problem could be fixed with the ideas I've seen from you guys. I prefer the solutions that are to do with inherent difficulty of maintaining larger populations. I'm not sure who's ideas I'm merging here, but my favourite is some combination of the following: - cities that pollute, and having a birth rate that can go negative, but are the largest source of belief.
- farming villages, have to be small otherwise farmer to farm distance affects gathering time.
- trade towns, medium size, large enough to have enough workers to process resources, which are required to push cities past their natural popcaps.
- coastal villages, hill villages, other hamlets that are concentrated around resource gathering and production all in the intention of 10x or 100x empowering the cities that they are feeding.
- Building any of the smaller places near a city makes it affected by the pollution.
- Building too many small villages near each other makes no sense as they usually are small because their gathering requires "space" from which to gather, and overlapping helps no-one unless it's orthogonal resources, such as the hunters can work side by side with the foresters, as they don't interfere, but farmers and foresters make no sense as the trees would get in the way of the fields, and miners wont share because of the unique landscape requirements.
With that, I think it would be inevitable that people would build more realistic towns, cities, and villages that provide and produce, and consume, resources. In my opinion, it's really important to enforce through gestures of what is possible, rather than take the whip to someone because they are not doing it how you intended. That's why I don't like the new "high resource" areas. They are the wrong sort of positive reinforcement.
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Oct 23, 2014 11:43:08 GMT
@ Raspofabs - If you can get the design team to agree on these kinds of changes, then I think the game could very much improve indeed. It would help in making settlements (and the followup expansions thereof) more realistic. Though I would still warn you for clogging up the interface if you keep each settlement 'seperate' in design, since having dozens of different settlement types to scroll through won't make the game play any better. (I'm sure you can think of adequate ways of dealing with the, be it through 'clever' resource production settlements or through other means that reduce the clutter.) Wouldn't want the settlement interface to be the timeline all over with a scrollbar that takes 30 seconds to get through. I agree that the current implementation of the high resource area's is the wrong kind of focus. Its something that I suggested an alternative for in my " Farming" thread by offering a more versatile implementation of a similar mechanic. Though ofcourse there are also alternate ways of dealing with it, this is merely one way I forsaw that dealt with taking the good bits and avoiding the bad bits of the current high resource 'efficiency jigsaw puzzles'. So I do hope that Peter and the design team are willing to look into some of these options, be it as you posed them, as I've posed them or as others have suggested. The fact that so many people remark on it seems to indicate that there's room for improvement. =) Overall I believe that Godus has been taking the 'stick' approach a bit too often, trying to force players to play in a singular effective way by making it the only valid way and punishing all others. As opposed to using the 'carrot' approach and making specific ways more attractive through improved results. The followers are a key element in improving this. Use their 'free will' and their 'desires' as a motivational tool for the player. (Followers of a certain type want certain environments or like certain things - while they dislike others.) Shouldn't be too hard to simulate basic concepts like that.
|
|
|
Post by Deth on Oct 23, 2014 11:58:18 GMT
With how a lot of people say they want to be a god and not micro manage the people. Why not instead of having a menu full of settlements have just Settlement and depending on where you place it, that determines it type. We as gods could have some form of "god sight" that when we select settlement different areas would light up different colors for different settlement types based off the resources in the area. To help keep things from being to cookie cutter I would say let us place resource plots, thought that might move the menu spam from one section to another.
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Oct 23, 2014 12:06:03 GMT
With how a lot of people say they want to be a god and not micro manage the people. Why not instead of having a menu full of settlements have just Settlement and depending on where you place it, that determines it type. We as gods could have some form of "god sight" that when we select settlement different areas would light up different colors for different settlement types based off the resources in the area. To help keep things from being to cookie cutter I would say let us place resource plots, thought that might move the menu spam from one section to another. To me, the easiest solution that avoids clutter would be to have a single designative focus within a settlement. Say you end up with "industrial" "agricultural" "social/architectural" etc settlements. Right now these serve ore, wheat and builders respectively. But if later on new resource types (sheep, fish, lumber, metal and so on) get added, they could easily fall in a discipline underneath one of these existing collectives. It would not be very fiddly or micro-management to have a single designative toggle where you can choose to alter the focus. This could easily be combined with an algorithm that picks what the game thinks is best. But in the spirit of giving the player control over the world I do think its key to give an option not to rely on basic AI if you don't want to. Allowing a little flexibility for those that want it, while keeping the game clean for those that do not. Maybe your artistic vision did not want wheat there, but sheeps roaming those hills instead.
|
|