Degree of perfection

[Mike Dawson]

I want to know what degree of perfection Chris wants to go. For exemple, if we can cut trees will they grow back years later? Will the crafting system requiere diverse materials like wood, leather, etc. ? (Because building a farm with stone or "building material" is not really logic)

Also, will we need to eat and drink to live? Will it be the same for npc? Will we ba able to stole the provision of trade caravan before they depart so that they die of hunger and we can easily loot them?

And, since we will have archers, will we be able to go on walls? Build sentinel towers?

I have so much more questions, but it will be all for now!

[CalPal]

I believe the walls and sentinel towers already exist and you can, in fact, go on the walls, but because there's no ranged weaponry, there isn't much use for people to stay on those walls. Perhaps if those features and others (say sieges: http://www.lofigames.com/phpBB3/viewtop ... =16&t=3077... ignore the blatant self-promotion, if possible) were put into the game, we could see the walls being a more relevant feature of the game.

Food and starvation actually sounds like a pretty good idea, and it would explain the dire situation faced by hungry bandits - because, you know, they're actually starving and likely won't survive long. I also like that idea of being able to steal food from caravans and making money by taking their stuff when it turns out they've starved to death, that sounds deliciously creative (oh god, the pun!).

I don't know how the crafting system is going to be built on or whether we can use trees and lumber as building materials, but waiting actually takes a long while in the game and I'd rather not have to rely on lumber as a building material unless we actually have a lot more lumber to take from nature. I would also like it if we could carry entire planks of wood over our shoulders, similar to carrying people, and taking it back to a lumber mill to be converted into, say, 4 wooden building materials. That would feel a lot more realistic and emphasize the need for keeping people together, in case there's an ambush by raiders or something.

[Mike Dawson]

Thanks a lot for your answer! I'm really the kind of player who just builds and crafts stuff and avoids ennemies until he's overpower. This game has such potential and an epic community, I want to place a stone in this castle.

I hope Chris wants to make this game realistic, to the point where it is like real life! Oh! will we be able to make children? I mean, if you build a city by yourself, it would be normal o have a population that can grow by itself, right?

[CalPal]

Both genders will be available in the game, but I don't know if Chris will give them functioning parts, so to say. Children might be left out in favour of self-sustaining generating of random characters, would be a bit simpler to program that way and I doubt one could take seriously the idea of a late pregnant lady character fighting hoards of hungry bandits, though having them do nothing but wait for the baby is gameplay wise a really bad idea.

Myself personally, I think the idea of having children would be a greater motivator to protecting your cities, as well as deciding whether you want to completely dominate the world under your sword; hell, you could build a whole narrative around keeping your children safe at any cost. I also think factions should have certain perspectives of you based on what you do to children, if they're added in the game. If you help children out or even raise some, they'll look upon you favourably; if you kill children or abandon them to the wilds, there should be permanent negative penalties for doing so.

[Mike Dawson]

Both genders will be available in the game, but I don't know if Chris will give them functioning parts, so to say. Children might be left out in favour of self-sustaining generating of random characters, would be a bit simpler to program that way and I doubt one could take seriously the idea of a late pregnant lady character fighting hoards of hungry bandits, though having them do nothing but wait for the baby is gameplay wise a really bad idea.

Itought more like, you can have children when a female and a male are under the same house, so probably not your first character you create. But if the pregnant female would need to defend herself, being pregnant could be a negative effet to her fighting abilities. I would really like to see your faction/city grow as it goes, not just hire some random guy in a bar.

Myself personally, I think the idea of having children would be a greater motivator to protecting your cities, as well as deciding whether you want to completely dominate the world under your sword; hell, you could build a whole narrative around keeping your children safe at any cost. I also think factions should have certain perspectives of you based on what you do to children, if they're added in the game. If you help children out or even raise some, they'll look upon you favourably; if you kill children or abandon them to the wilds, there should be permanent negative penalties for doing so.

I like this idea. I didnt thought of the rp behind it. We could also build shcools and university and fighting camps to train them toward a job.

But, if we implement children growing, this means we arrive with death. Meaning that our main character will eventualy die... Do we want "time" in this game?

[Meynolt]

One of the problems in Kenshi's current end-game is that if you kill everyone in a town, they stay dead and don't respawn. The fact that NPCs can be wiped out is cool, but I'd love to see some kind of regeneration effect. The birth of children could fix this... Newborns grow up, and go off to occupy jobs left vacant (perhaps if the job's in another town, they could latch onto a trade caravan and make their way over to their new home).

You could also add in an ageing process.. Perhaps where 1 day in game = 1 year of age. Old warriors could lose strength after a certain age, and might be better suited to training up the new recruits rather than being put on front-line combat.

Or maybe I've been playing too much sims 3. I dunno .

[nilloc93]

aging sounds dumb, 1 day in game is 1 day, my character would be over 100 years old by now and that would just be dumb

[DayDreamer]

please dont implenment too much features out of sims in the game
a random born rate in each city would be cool i and if a city is overgrown, some people go out and unite as an banditgroup, tradegroup or they go and look for a new home eventually the players city, and please no aging i hate this... (in sims i turn it off)

[Meynolt]

aging sounds dumb, 1 day in game is 1 day, my character would be over 100 years old by now and that would just be dumb

I guess I didn't explicitly state it, but your character would die when they reach a certain age or age bracket (say somewhere between 70 and 100). Despite your comprehensive argument, I still think it's a cool idea. The aging rate could be coded to be user-adjustable (or turned off) for longer games where users are attached to particular characters.

In the current late game, when you hit 10 to 15 fully geared and trained characters, everything becomes super-easy. Sack Towns. Raid caravans, etc. An aging process would 1) replenish towns through natural birth simulation. 2) allow me to roleplay a dynasty elite warrior monks. The women* could stay at home to look after the crops and raise the upcoming generation of warriors.

*my monks aren't chaste

I can see that maybe that's not everyone's cup of tea, but I don't see how it's dumb.

please dont implenment too much features out of sims in the game
a random born rate in each city would be cool i and if a city is overgrown, some people go out and unite as an banditgroup, tradegroup or they go and look for a new home eventually the players city, and please no aging i hate this... (in sims i turn it off)

Yeah, I slowed it right down when I was playing too. But, in the sims 3, I got a lot more attached to my characters. In Kenshi, I think it would make the end game more interesting.

[arkhometha]

Basically, I agree with the OP. I'd love to see survival elements in the game. And I wouldn't mind aging either, Mount and Blade feature a somewhat good feature like that. Basically, after a long time, the chars would lose stats and would be better suited to teach than to fight.

[Melchya]

I gotta say, this sounds really good and its one of those things that can really make the player immerse him/her self with the game. It has my support as a player, lets hope Chris see's this and will give it some thought

[Aku]

Time is already in game guys, you start on day 180, and it progresses. I think right now it matches Real time, because at max speed, it seems 1s=1minute in game. I don't know if theres an effect on old age or not (I'd be surprised at this point). It would also add an incentive to not just running from the bandits as they come because you'd be leaving kids and women to lag behind, most likely.

[Jake_j_a]

Actually children and aging could be good, if implemented properly to not bog gameplay. This is not our world, it's it's own world, so children and aging would not have to be "realistic" as we see such things. For example, children could grow rapidly, be fully grown within several months, and not "get old" for many years. At first this system would strike you as "unrealistic," however, watch a few nature documentaries, and this would actually make perfect sense, and not make children "pointless" because of the time needed for them to grow. Humans of the real world actually have an abnormally long childhood to lifespan ratio. Gestation time would have to be a little unrealistic though, as it is universally related to life-span (among mammals) but that wouldnt be "game-breaking" lack of realism.