Decision Time

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Hence why I think it should be togglable. This is not really a programming issue, it's a player preference issue, just like special events cameras. If we hard code for what we think the majority of players want, we're going to annoy the other half - who might be the actual majority. Togglable options will allow Smoth to micromanage and Alaska not to bother with the notifications at all.

Yes, and you should be able to change them on the fly. Say I want an immersive experience when I'm playing in organism mode in the early stages, but I want a gamey experience in strategy mode later on. We need to have extensive options, everyone has a different play style.

Simplest solution: pause game, go into options (which is usually near "save" and switch the toggle.)
Actually, I'd be surprised if we did it any differently, because that seems to be gaming standard.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Simplest solution: pause game, go into options (which is usually near "save" and switch the toggle.)
Actually, I'd be surprised if we did it any differently, because that seems to be gaming standard.

Some games don't let you change options like these in game, sometimes they even require you to start a whole new game to change them.

Smothmoth wrote:

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Simplest solution: pause game, go into options (which is usually near "save" and switch the toggle.)
Actually, I'd be surprised if we did it any differently, because that seems to be gaming standard.

Some games don't let you change options like these in game, sometimes they ever require you to start a whole new game to change them.

Head, meet keyboard.
I'm assuming these are the strat games that I don't play...
Seriously though, now that it's been discussed, I don't envision us doing it any differently, as those of us who are concerned know how frustrating the alternative is.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Head, meet keyboard.
I'm assuming these are the strat games that I don't play...
Seriously though, now that it's been discussed, I don't envision us doing it any differently, as those of us who are concerned know how frustrating the alternative is.

Mostly obscure Russian Strategy games, and agreed.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

Smoth, quick correction here: Feudalism doesn't exist. The system was invented in the flood of anti-cultural propaganda used to promote rennaisance ideals.

Now I have to go back and shake my finger at my middle-school history teachers. I never knew that. (Though, off-topic, feudalism is supposed to refer to pre-renaissance, not renaissance...)
However, we definitely have something called "Feudalism" hanging out in the tech tree - etymological debates aside, we can either a) rename it or b) consent to allowing it to remain defined and named as is.
Smoth, Tenebrarum and I often look too hard into the little details. Don't worry about it.

Back on topic, game spam may be incessant, but isn't there usually a cheat or toggle to disable it?

The rennaisance was a cultural revolutiondesigned to give power to it's instigators. They made up the concept of a system with oppressed the masses which supposedly everyone ascribed to. Part of the propaganda. Hence our stereotyping of the Dung Ages. Ironically the position of women was the highest it would ever be before sufferage during the Middle Ages, and one of the little aspects of the movement that likes to slip by unnoticed is their fall in status.

Sorry. I'm going way far OT here.

On the topic of spam: This game is gonna be slow people. Realtime. The player can speed it up, but if they ever feel swamped they can slow it back down again.

Tenebrarum wrote:

The rennaisance was a cultural revolutiondesigned to give power to it's instigators. They made up the concept of a system with oppressed the masses which supposedly everyone ascribed to. Part of the propaganda. Hence our stereotyping of the Dung Ages. Ironically the position of women was the highest it would ever be before sufferage during the Middle Ages, and one of the little aspects of the movement that likes to slip by unnoticed is their fall in status.

Again I will ask, what the Belgium are you talking about? I googled around, I can't find your theory of the Renaissance anywhere. Who told you this?

Tenebrarum wrote:

Sorry. I'm going way far OT here.

On the topic of spam: This game is gonna be slow people. Realtime. The player can speed it up, but if they ever feel swamped they can slow it back down again.

Yes, selectable play speed is also a genre standard.

Smothmoth wrote:

Again I will ask, what the Belgium are you talking about? I googled around, I can't find your theory of the Renaissance anywhere. Who told you this?

I googled around too, and found that a lot of historians find the word fuedalism is a term for so many different systems that it doesn't have any relevant meaning.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

I googled around too, and found that a lot of historians find the word fuedalism is a term for so many different systems that it doesn't have any relevant meaning.

That is true, there is some debate about the use of the term. It is still the most widely used term to describe the social system of Medieval Europe.

The part about the Renaissance era power grab conspiracy though, I can't find anything.

Smothmoth wrote:

That is true, there is some debate about the use of the term. It is still the most widely used term to describe the social system of Medieval Europe.

The part about the Renaissance era power grab conspiracy though, I can't find anything.

But, i do feel that as an economic branch feudalism is reasonable. And i think that having a word that doesn't have a strict meaning can be suitably used for a branch. Any arguments with that, Rex?

And smoth, i thought that mysticism would be a better branch for religion types to live under.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

And smoth, i thought that mysticism would be a better branch for religion types to live under.

I think Mysticism should be the first religion research, where everyone is worshiping things like the sun and moon. This moves onto more dedicated research into religion with Theology, which moves on into large Organized Religions.

We could swap it around, Mysticism - Organized Religion - Theology.

Smothmoth wrote:

I think Mysticism should be the first religion research, where everyone is worshiping things like the sun and moon. This moves onto more dedicated research into religion with Theology, which moves on into large Organized Religions.

We could swap it around, Mysticism - Organized Religion - Theology.

But what inventions would fit under mysticism? Sacrifice, what else?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But what inventions would fit under mysticism? Sacrifice, what else?

Ritualism, Worship, Idolization, and Sacrifice

The problem with too many researches still stands. If inventions are researched too quickly, the player will have a hard time reacting. He could either slow the game down for the cost of very long playing time, or he could just select premade TOs instead of making his own, just to handle the pace, making every civilisation look similar.

My theory is based off a number of medieval studies professors I've met, and Terry Jones. No objections to economy other than the presence of the system before the term, and the negative conotations it brings with.

Also, note that the rennaisance as power grab only lasted a little while once a few members cemented themselves in power.

Commander Keen wrote:

The problem with too many researches still stands. If inventions are researched too quickly, the player will have a hard time reacting. He could either slow the game down for the cost of very long playing time, or he could just select premade TOs instead of making his own, just to handle the pace, making every civilisation look similar.

Long playing time is bad?

By long playing time, I mean about 24 hours of gameplay.

Other things under religion could possibly (if they don't already) include charity and conversion.

Commander Keen wrote:

The problem with too many researches still stands. If inventions are researched too quickly, the player will have a hard time reacting. He could either slow the game down for the cost of very long playing time, or he could just select premade TOs instead of making his own, just to handle the pace, making every civilisation look similar.

Have it so you can only focus on one branch at a time, inventions from the branches you are not focusing on get their discovery chance cut in half.

Tenebrarum wrote:

My theory is based off a number of medieval studies professors I've met, and Terry Jones. No objections to economy other than the presence of the system before the term, and the negative conotations it brings with.

Also, note that the rennaisance as power grab only lasted a little while once a few members cemented themselves in power.

I'm sorry, but where is the proof that Feudalism didn't exist? I've tried looking and I can't find anything mentioning a theory like yours, even on conspiracy loon sites.

This also tells me it is not a very popular theory, shouldn't we use the most commonly accepted view of history?

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Other things under religion could possibly (if they don't already) include charity and conversion.

Those would fit under Organized Religion, or Theology if US_of_Alaska prefers to swap the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

First paragraph goes over the fact that the system as it is stereotyped is highly disputed by historians. Not proof, I know, but I'd mark the first paragraph of the wikipedia article as mainstream enough not to be nut-job crazy.

Feudalism is the concept of one ruler who has bound peasants to him as slaves. That is what I'm disputing. They were not slaves. They had their own local government structure, (In some cases democratic) they were only bound as far as taxes were concerned, and were allowed to leave at any time. This is supported by accounts at the time.

Now, the Kinghts-Nobles-King hierarchy has a grain of truth in it, but that's Vassalage. Not Feudalism.

I admit my wording was poor. It didn't exist as it is stereotyped. The system of peasants vs. lords was there, but that has existed ever since civilization has. It's nothing that was created 1000 years in.

Religion points: Part of the Arbitrary Traits I beleive. We could add them as inventions though, if you think that'd be better.

I dislike the one research focus at a time idea. I really don't think this is nearly as bad as you people are making it out to be.

Tenebrarum wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

First paragraph goes over the fact that the system as it is stereotyped is highly disputed by historians. Not proof, I know, but I'd mark the first paragraph of the wikipedia article as mainstream enough not to be nut-job crazy.

The first paragraph mentions the debate about the use of the term, as US_of_Alaska mentioned. That still doesn't change the fact that Feudalism is the most common term, we need to stick with what most people know.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Feudalism is the concept of one ruler who has bound peasants to him as slaves. That is what I'm disputing. They were not slaves. They had their own local government structure, (In some cases democratic) they were only bound as far as taxes were concerned, and were allowed to leave at any time. This is supported by accounts at the time.

Now, the Kinghts-Nobles-King hierarchy has a grain of truth in it, but that's Vassalage. Not Feudalism.

I admit my wording was poor. It didn't exist as it is stereotyped. The system of peasants vs. lords was there, but that has existed ever since civilization has. It's nothing that was created 1000 years in.

Okay, they way you worded it made it seem like you were disputing the whole system. I still haven't found anything about that Renaissance era conspiracy though.

Tenebrarum wrote:

I dislike the one research focus at a time idea. I really don't think this is nearly as bad as you people are making it out to be.

I don't think this is a problem at all either, but some people do I guess.

Smothmoth wrote:

The first paragraph mentions the debate about the use of the term, as US_of_Alaska mentioned. That still doesn't change the fact that Feudalism is the most common term, we need to stick with what most people know.

Yes, but we still don't even have a universally accepted definition for it. We'd be using a nebulous word with huge baggage with it to describe something that didn't really exist as we think of it as, in addition to sticking it in a place that makes no sense when the closest thing to a definition of it would logically point to it's inception at the dawn of the agricultural revolution. It's like calling the technology to travel at near light-speed "Stasis" because of the side-effects. It makes no sense.

Smothmoth wrote:

Okay, they way you worded it made it seem like you were disputing the whole system. I still haven't found anything about that Renaissance era conspiracy though.

The conspiracy was incredably small and confined, as well as idealogical. I hate calling it a conspiracy because A. it makes me sound like, well, a conspiracy theorist and B. these people really did believe they were doing the right thing. It was started by a small group almost akin to a gentlemen's club and eventually grew into a movement of wealthy lords and the like calling for more power. It would be like calling the Tea-Party movement a conspiracy.

In any case, it really has no bearing on us. That's Earth-centric.
P.S. Try reading Terry Jones' "Medieval Lives" if you're still interested.

Smothmoth wrote:

I don't think this is a problem at all either, but some people do I guess.

Okay then, will someone please explain why having a willy-shrivelingly huge research tree is bad per se? It's not bloated, just big. And it needs to be! I mean, this game is huge. Simplification is good and all but the research tree's code will, if I'm correct, be some of the simplest coding here. Nothing challenging at all. It just unlocks stuff. And having a big confusing tree is no worse than anything else. We just have to hunt for redundancies and slip-ups to make sure that everything on the tree is in fact logical and understandable.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Yes, but we still don't even have a universally accepted definition for it. We'd be using a nebulous word with huge baggage with it to describe something that didn't really exist as we think of it as, in addition to sticking it in a place that makes no sense when the closest thing to a definition of it would logically point to it's inception at the dawn of the agricultural revolution. It's like calling the technology to travel at near light-speed "Stasis" because of the side-effects. It makes no sense.

Does the average person know about any of this debate? Most likely not, when most people hear the word Feudalism they are going to think of the Middle Ages. I think thats all that matters.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Okay then, will someone please explain why having a willy-shrivelingly huge research tree is bad per se? It's not bloated, just big. And it needs to be! I mean, this game is huge. Simplification is good and all but the research tree's code will, if I'm correct, be some of the simplest coding here. Nothing challenging at all. It just unlocks stuff. And having a big confusing tree is no worse than anything else. We just have to hunt for redundancies and slip-ups to make sure that everything on the tree is in fact logical and understandable.

I completely agree, we need to have a large and detailed Research Tree.

Smothmoth wrote:

Does the average person know about any of this debate? Most likely not, when most people hear the word Feudalism they are going to think of the Middle Ages. I think thats all that matters.

Alright, seriously? We're trying to base this game on reality. Does the average person know how star-type effect the chorophil of the plants on planets orbiting said star? No, but we're still working on that information, and no-one's arguing against that. Why would we include feudalism if it doesn't do anything?

Smothmoth wrote:

I completely agree, we need to have a large and detailed Research Tree.

While I'm still remembering this, it's my assumption that we have agreed to release Thrive in chunks, right? First the editors, then the game, piece by piece, starting with microbe and gradually going longer and bigger until we finally finish Post-Ascension. Then we'd go back and start working on and releasing anything we wanted to do but descided against. A great big research tree would allow for significant growth of the race between the point of downloading the next chunk and the release of the next one.

Thrive is gonna be big. No player should be able to hit Ascention in less than maybe 150 hours at a minimum.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Alright, seriously? We're trying to base this game on reality. Does the average person know how star-type effect the chorophil of the plants on planets orbiting said star? No, but we're still working on that information, and no-one's arguing against that. Why would we include feudalism if it doesn't do anything?

But it will do something, it will be a Research Branch that contains inventions relating to medieval sociology and economics. Including things like Vassalage and Serfdom.

Tenebrarum wrote:

While I'm still remembering this, it's my assumption that we have agreed to release Thrive in chunks, right? First the editors, then the game, piece by piece, starting with microbe and gradually going longer and bigger until we finally finish Post-Ascension. Then we'd go back and start working on and releasing anything we wanted to do but descided against. A great big research tree would allow for significant growth of the race between the point of downloading the next chunk and the release of the next one.

Thrive is gonna be big. No player should be able to hit Ascention in less than maybe 150 hours at a minimum.

150 hours is a bit much, but otherwise I agree.

Smothmoth wrote:

But it will do something, it will be a Research Branch that contains inventions relating to medieval sociology and economics. Including things like Vassalage and Serfdom.

Actually most medieval culture spawns from Vassalage, so you can just use that. As in, serfdom comes from the seperation of the vassal and the peasantry, guilds come from the peasantry organizing themselves due to that, etc. Even Free Church comes from that seperation. We good?

Smothmoth wrote:

150 hours is a bit much, but otherwise I agree.

What would you put down as Minimum?