|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Sept 6, 2014 19:26:07 GMT
I think it may turn out to be to curtail the inactive players' presence by effectively balancing the trading of goods to determine how happy each civilization makes the other. The happier all the civilizations are together, the safer their populations are to grow together (as well as possibly increasing immigration and population variety between them all), but this is in part reliant on their trading together to fully cap off their happiness. The idea is similar to the present situation: - Make your civilization.
- Encounter another civilization.
- Until you begin forming settlements, nothing happens, you just see each other.
- Once you form settlements, any other civilizations advanced to the same point are exposed and you begin competing to keep your people happier than theirs.
Where it may diverge is here: - For a time, this may prove slightly frustrating for both of you, but once you each advance to trading settlements, you begin to be able to make each other's civilization happier with fewer losses.
- Once you're able to trade your goods to them, it will offset the losses of both sides by reducing their desire to join you and for your people to leave but still maintaining immigration a small amount.
- This is done by making the desired elements of each other's civilization more readily available to one another at each other's homes.
- If a player has advanced to the initial stages of Happiness, but fails to keep his populace happy enough, they will quickly find themselves out of followers and booted back to Homeworld to try again.
- If a player has advanced to the later stages of Happiness, but fails to produce enough trade settlements and/or traders to stabilize their Happiness, then they will find themselves inundated with other civilizations' goods, encouraging their followers' to immigrate away and abandon the absent player's civilization. This also results in them being booted back to Homeworld.
- If a player does not advance to the appropriate stages for any of this progression to occur, then players may collectively destroy them to prevent griefing. Similarly, if they do advance to any other stage then stall (e.g. never reaching trading) then they will simply find themselves incapable of keeping up and losing this way, but at any point, if you're found unpleasant and others have enough belief, you may be destroyed.
What this does not address is the leader election process, which I suspect may involve the following: - The player that receives the most trade/immigrants is made the leader. This is an indirect form of election, but since you must decide whether or not to send traders their way, it's a form of pseudo-election.
- Once each player has begun trading with one another, this seems to undermine the above idea, but may be handled through the amount of surplus trade resources made and/or the amount of immigrants drawn to their civilization.
- By stabilizing immigration through trade, the only alternative to increase it again would be to make your civilization more distinct in some way, happier in some way. This is where cultivating different civilizations comes into play through the amount of holy forests/trees you spring up, how much you beautify, how many gifts you place, and probably something else we've not seen yet.
- Of course, if you don't like the looks of this person seizing the election for themselves, you may interfere through blocking their trade routes, destroying their civilization and followers, or in a less violent way, simply trying to catch up and outdo them.
The impression we've been given is that the first stage of Hubworld will be peaceful, and I think that's the overall intent, but I think it's an intent that has to be actualized by the players to proceed. By forcing them to work together in the first stage, it better prepares them for when they link up with other Hubs cooperatively and form larger provinces/nations, if you will. Through forum discussion and general self-regulation, troll-type griefing players will be weeded out through immediate destruction and/or disruption in later stages. What do you all think? Am I giving 22cans too much credit here? It's only built off of what they've loosely described here and in early dev notes. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 6, 2014 19:47:39 GMT
Regarding the migration of people - I think they should make this a cooperative mechanic rather than a competative one.
Allow diversification of the followers through choices. Then once you 'convert' followers from a different player, this ends up enriching the possibilities within your own civilization.
Refreshing the gene pool if you will.
That way, with exchanges happening in both directions. Its not just that someone is always "taking" your people. But rather that likeminded followers will join the god that supports their desires.
As such happiness shouldn't be an exclusively static stat.
Some followers would become happy from having industry set up, others are much more into agriculture or education. Stuff like that.
Some might prefer high density population while others desire their space. Some want to live large, others prefer the convenience of civilization.
This subsequently also allows for an exchange in culture rather than just material resources.
The potential is definitely there - though whether 22cans will pick up on it? I don't know.
They overall seem hesitant to implement any mechanic that becomes too involved for the player - putting these things off or simply denying them alltogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Sept 6, 2014 19:52:24 GMT
Regarding the migration of people - I think they should make this a cooperative mechanic rather than a competative one. Allow diversification of the followers through choices. Then once you 'convert' followers from a different player, this ends up enriching the possibilities within your own civilization. Refreshing the gene pool if you will. That way, with exchanges happening in both directions. Its not just that someone is always "taking" your people. But rather that likeminded followers will join the god that supports their desires. As such happiness shouldn't be an exclusively static stat. Some followers would become happy from having industry set up, others are much more into agriculture or education. Stuff like that. Some might prefer high density population while others desire their space. Some want to live large, others prefer the convenience of civilization. This subsequently also allows for an exchange in culture rather than just material resources. The potential is definitely there - though whether 22cans will pick up on it? I don't know. They overall seem hesitant to implement any mechanic that becomes too involved for the player - putting these things off or simply denying them alltogether. It only becomes competitive if you're aiming to lead your Hubworld, but I see what you mean especially for the early stages (if they remain similar to how they are and how I predict they may be). I would love to see Happiness made deeper so that followers are drawn to the other civilizations according to their differing focuses/designs, and they've shown some hints of wanting to do this themselves with the early versions of alternate follower types like the orange-haired Wildmen. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 6, 2014 23:08:01 GMT
I think a big factor to keep in mind is the main factor that Hubworld will be serving as.
Which is the competition for God of Gods.
While ofcourse we have no guarantee that this is still going to be implemented in this manner - it'll be hard for them to drop it entirely considering how they already have one guy who IS the god of gods and is going to need to get his part of the deal.
As I understand it, Hubworlds was supposed to become some form of knock-out tournament or ladder.
With whomever is left at the top being allowed to "challenge" the god of gods for his title.
Bryan would be god of gods for the first 6 months I believe - after which the 'winner' would take this throne and be god of gods for the next period.
With that in mind, the ultimate overarching goal for hubworlds IS competition.
The rest all depends on how hubworlds are set up - but knowing the average gamer, most of them are quite competative and will want to take a jab at leading their hubworld if there's a reward to be had.
Unless a player isn't interested in hubworld at all, I don't see how hubworld will not turn out to be competative to some degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Sept 6, 2014 23:49:13 GMT
With that in mind, the ultimate overarching goal for hubworlds IS competition. The rest all depends on how hubworlds are set up - but knowing the average gamer, most of them are quite competative and will want to take a jab at leading their hubworld if there's a reward to be had. Unless a player isn't interested in hubworld at all, I don't see how hubworld will not turn out to be competative to some degree. Later parts of hubworld are intended to be that way, at any rate. It'll be interesting to see how they try to push for the lower tiers to go through a rhythmic collaborative-competitive motion as they strive towards the top, for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 7, 2014 0:11:04 GMT
I agree, it would seem that finding the balance between collaborative content and competative movement is crucial should they want hubworlds to become successful.
On top of that there's the everburning question - What happens to the people that do NOT advance?
To take the simple example they've provided:
Hubworld 1 is trade
Hubworld 2 is gladiatorial combat.
1 out of 4 players will advance to hub 2 to "represent" their previous hub.
1 out of 4 players will advance to hub 3 to "represent" their *two* previous hubs.
But what of the other players? Will a non-elected person from tier 1 be able to play non-ranked gladiatorial combat?
Just for fun and personal enjoyment? (Allowing both the ability to just have fun, but also to hone your skills in a free environment and perhaps play with/against friends).
Aswell as another question - what if a player drops out. Will inactive players be replaced or will you be left as the sole ruler of an otherwise empty wasteland?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Sept 7, 2014 0:38:32 GMT
I hold somewhat to the notion that hubworlds don't remain static game modes. I think there's a possibility of tier 1 worlds shifting into gladiatorial combat mode as soon as they launch their leader to tier 2, by replacing the leader with an intruder. Albeit we also have on hand the consideration of mixing AIs into all of this, so at some point as they reach, say tier 3, interconnecting Hubworlds, they may unite the newly met civilizations through a common enemy or set of enemies.
|
|
|
|
Post by banned on Sept 8, 2014 22:30:58 GMT
for 50 gems 10% of their followers convert to worship you.
|
|
zeruelb
Junior Apprentice
Posts: 63 
|
Post by zeruelb on Sept 9, 2014 5:17:18 GMT
the former tier 1 player gets replaced by a new player ofc and the timer starts anew. Or all that didnt get voted up have to start from scratch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 9, 2014 8:17:07 GMT
the former tier 1 player gets replaced by a new player ofc and the timer starts anew. Or all that didnt get voted up have to start from scratch. This is incorrect, based on the fact that they have stated that the 'voted' person will represent their hub in higher hubs and that rewards will 'trickle down' based on their future performance. On top of that hubworlds have been mentioned to carry a persistant nature rather than a transient one... Suggesting that the 'hub' will serve as a permanent basis from which activities are initiated between the members of that hub. With the nature and form of those activities being unclear (apart from "trade" and "gladiatorial combat" reveals). Hubworlds weren't described as an advancement track - you are literally chosen/elected to represent your peers in higher hubs. Or atleast, thats how it was originally described, we've yet to hear a more recent take on this. |
|
zeruelb
Junior Apprentice
Posts: 63
|
Post by zeruelb on Sept 9, 2014 12:04:58 GMT
so, basically you get stuck with the 3 others you got assigned with in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 9, 2014 12:23:51 GMT
Based on what we've been told so far - yes.
Mind you, none of this is set in stone, however we've yet to be informed of alterations to this plan.
I personally forsee a requirement of a less restrictive and more freeform alteration of this mechanic being necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Sept 9, 2014 20:01:09 GMT
 I just remembered writing a sizable post about gods uniting in feudal hierarchy where vassals would get advantages from their suzerain with him getting some bonus from his vassals. Back in 2013 or even in 2012. Weird thing? I digged on the backer forums and there were none. |
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Sept 9, 2014 21:51:03 GMT
I just remembered writing a sizable post about gods uniting in feudal hierarchy where vassals would get advantages from their suzerain with him getting some bonus from his vassals. Back in 2013 or even in 2012. Weird thing? I digged on the backer forums and there were none. I'm fairly positive some of my original posts in discussions on the Backer forum disappeared after the transition to the new format and platform, too. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Sept 10, 2014 10:32:15 GMT
I mean, the whole thread disappeared.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 10, 2014 10:58:38 GMT
Both the 22cans backer forums aswell as the steam boards have undergone rigorous pruning in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Sept 12, 2014 23:24:13 GMT
Both the 22cans backer forums aswell as the steam boards have undergone rigorous pruning in the past. They told us they would not do that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Sept 13, 2014 2:19:43 GMT
Both the 22cans backer forums aswell as the steam boards have undergone rigorous pruning in the past. They told us they would not do that. Actually pruning is a rather healthy and normal practice done in most online communities. Its the active cleaning out of the "older" and often "irrelevant" trashy posts, with rigorous moderators sometimes cleaning more than they needed to. In the case of the 22cans backer forums there's also the move to their new site and forums. It is possible that poor competency resulted in not moving over all the old content correctly. Any "good" community however will 'archive' their content, rather than deleting it outright. Pruning isn't a matter of sensorship, its just a matter of cleaning house. Removing the cobwebs and dust. |
|
|
|
Post by banned on Sept 13, 2014 3:53:41 GMT
They told us they would not do that. Actually pruning is a rather healthy and normal practice done in most online communities. Its the active cleaning out of the "older" and often "irrelevant" trashy posts, with rigorous moderators sometimes cleaning more than they needed to. In the case of the 22cans backer forums there's also the move to their new site and forums. It is possible that poor competency resulted in not moving over all the old content correctly. Any "good" community however will 'archive' their content, rather than deleting it outright. Pruning isn't a matter of sensorship, its just a matter of cleaning house. Removing the cobwebs and dust. pruning to "improve the brand" in a community so poisoned with lies and astroturfing is nothing but stupidity in the internet age. |
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Sept 13, 2014 8:24:35 GMT
They told us they would not do that. Actually pruning is a rather healthy and normal practice done in most online communities. Its the active cleaning out of the "older" and often "irrelevant" trashy posts, with rigorous moderators sometimes cleaning more than they needed to. In the case of the 22cans backer forums there's also the move to their new site and forums. It is possible that poor competency resulted in not moving over all the old content correctly. Any "good" community however will 'archive' their content, rather than deleting it outright. Pruning isn't a matter of sensorship, its just a matter of cleaning house. Removing the cobwebs and dust. I would disagree in this case. There are some serious conflicts about the nature of was told to the backers, and for them to remove those threads would be nothing more than more deception to hide their dirty little secrets. What they did to us, was wrong and if they are trying to hide that under the carpet from their new gamers it is obvious and and total censorship. |
|
