The Ghost of Christmas Future, II

[burgingham]

@Loftar

Well, hence my question on your exact plans for the game.
In an environment where I meet someone else every 2 months of walking around one might call those meetings the "societal experiment", but that wouldn't really fit what I had in mind. Society for me is more of a constant state defined through the relationships with others.

So my guess is that the term "single player game" is either not really what you have in mind or that we have indeed no society building game experience ahead of us.

Oh and no judgement either way, just a clarification question.


Hi, Amanda!

[dongodson081294]

I wonder which will come first. The ghost of Christmas Future, III or world 8 for current haven and hearth?

[soapdish]

I don't see why people would think this affects casuals more than no-lifers

Casual players aren't going to bother playing a game if they can't play with their friends. Hardcore players will play regardless

i wish it wasn't true, but it is
at least I'll still have the forums
and a dead game...

[loftar]

So my guess is that the term "single player game" is either not really what you have in mind or that we have indeed no society building game experience ahead of us.

Certainly, what I think Jorb meant by "single-player game" is that we develop Haven from the perspective of the individual character rather than "top-down", but I don't really think that is different from what we've always done. I don't doubt that emergent behaviors will emerge. :)

[LadyV]

Although it may be more difficult to find others it should still be possible to travel to them. I wouldn't call it hopeless. A challenge for sure, but not hopeless. I may be giving Loftar a bit of friendly jab but its not a bad change. The only things I really see as necessary to keep is a way to add your friend to your kin list that does not allow tracking until you meet and the ability to chat even if you have not met. Then at least you have some social possible. The rest will just be new and needing to be gotten used to.

[burgingham]

So my guess is that the term "single player game" is either not really what you have in mind or that we have indeed no society building game experience ahead of us.

Certainly, what I think Jorb meant by "single-player game" is that we develop Haven from the perspective of the individual character rather than "top-down", but I don't really think that is different from what we've always done. I don't doubt that emergent behaviors will emerge.

Ok, thank you.

But will there be a heightened focus on aspects and features that might lead to societies and factions forming? Right now small "towns" are the biggest thing possible, limited by several factors. Will you lean more towards keeping it that way or even limiting it further? Or are there any ideas for bigger forms of society like networks between towns, kingdoms and the like to emerge?

[ArvinJA]

I don't doubt that emergent behaviors will emerge.

I hope that at least one of you will actually track those this time around. It's kind of weird when all you guys ever do when you try your own game is to hermit, which is a minuscule entry-level part of the game as a whole. It always baffles me when it turns out you guys aren't aware of things like "oath killing" and so on. I get that it's time-consuming and so on to keep updated on "end game" stuff, but I think the game would be so much better for it in the end.

[loftar]

But will there be a heightened focus on aspects and features that might lead to societies and factions forming? Right now small "towns" are the biggest thing possible, limited by several factors. Will you lean more towards keeping it that way or even limiting it further? Or are there any ideas for bigger forms of society like networks between towns, kingdoms and the like to emerge?

I think it's safe to say at least that we won't try to limit any such things. I think we'd like to encourage it, but as ArvinJA correctly points out, the real problem is that we virtually never use those mechanics ourselves, so it's not something that constantly itches us personally.

That said, I've had some loose, minor ideas on such things, so don't count on it not happening, at least. :)

It's kind of weird when all you guys ever do when you try your own game is to hermit, which is a minuscule entry-level part of the game as a whole.

I see what you're saying, but I would also like to state that I don't think it would be all that good if we only just always focus on "end-game features" either. I also feel some danger in the general direction of adding mechanics for things that may just as well be organized by human endeavor. I think there's a case to be made for keeping those things as "emergent" as possible or at least within reason. Not that I don't see your point at all.

I would like to state, though, that the "world wars" part of the game that is the constant hum of the forums is just one part of the game.

[krikke93]

Instead of a smaller world, have player spawns happen in more concentrated clusters in several places on the map.

I have strongly considered something like this.

How about making the "clusters" large islands. You'd need a large boat to travel from island to island (thus getting to your friends if they're not on the same island). Idk, just spitting out some random thoughts.

We're gonna need a bigger boat.

[Jesus_Smith_Nandez]

With that island idea, I'm sure it would devolve into chaos with so many people stuck on one island. Just because they aren't with their friends doesn't confirm that they'll get along.

And that's were this whole idea falls apart; just because you have to socialize in-game doesn't mean everyone will get along and make villages and everything will be dandy. Right now, people with similar ideals group on the forums to make a village; splitting them a up and dumping them with randoms in the wilderness with no way to regroup would just make things worse and result in a world with only hermits until a proper way of finding and traveling to one-another has been established.