Dark Subject - What happens to dead people?

Gameplay
183

Lol, love the DF reference there. [BABYSNATCHER] lol.

Apart from what seems to be the streamlined thought going on here, I feel that aging would be a good addition to the game. Modding it into the game later would probably prove to fall short of what it could be if it were part of the game from the beginning. But it could be doable, depending on how scriptmodding-friendly Stonehearth chooses to be in the final product. (I don’t have the alpha so I have no idea how the format is presented in the directory as of now, sorry)

Limit the amount of offspring a “family” can have to three people, a female and a male and another one of random gender. Simple enough. The offsprings will inherit their parents’ jobs according to gender. This is a simple way, easier way to manage offspring without all the micromanaging hassle.

In the case that a spouse dies without producing the limit of two offsprings, well, tough luck. The offspring I’m suggesting here is merely to replace the parents upon their death. To ensure the continuation without having to rely on immigrants that magically appear. The third possible offspring is to ensure a population growth.

Yes, seeing a favorite character age and die can be heartbreaking but I feel that without both aging and family, the ‘story’ might become a bit stagnant. You know, super hero character from the founders slays his 10000th goblin after 100 years of service…seems a bit strange you know. Personally, I feel that having a legend would be more intriguing and having a son/daughter take after their parents’ legends would be pretty awesome to see.

If aging and families could be an option to gameplay, that would be great as it would satisfy both parties but if not, I cast my vote for aging, only if family-making is involved in the game.

1 Like
184

I’m generally opposed to the idea since it strikes me as ‘grindy’, but @athenalras’s idea is interesting, as it kills two birds with one stone (the desire to have children/families in the game and the desire to have people pass away). It can also leverage the idea that Radiant has that involves every job having a talisman; it’s the talisman that gets passed down from from parent to child and confers the ‘job’. I still have a couple of questions about this idea that I think would have to be considered, such as:

  1. When would a child inherit their parent’s job? Only at death, or could you do it before?
  2. What does a child do until then? Are they always a kid, or do they join the general labor pool?
  3. What about the general labor pool? How does that get refilled?
  4. Does the child inherit the job/class at the same skill level, or do they have to relearn (this is what I’d consider grindy about the process)?
  5. What if the child’s stats make them a terrible whatever? Are you stuck or could you override the game and give the job to someone else?

-Will

185

I would assume they have to relearn, this game is not meant to go by fast, they are slow.

186

Maybe when you picked random on a certain job it would prioritize the child who’s parent has the same job.
This means when not specifically picking someone it would happen on it’s own.

187

See, this is what I don’t like about this system. Let’s say I’ve spent hours and hours leveling someone up to be a bad-ass Magma Smith or Geomancer or what have you, By the time they get to that level they’ve potentially already spent a major part of their lifespan mastering these skills, and so after that I play for a few more hours then I get a message ‘oops, they’re toast, time to train a new one!’ I’d find that extremely frustrating the first time, nevermind the nth time it happens in a long game. It’s one thing if the villager dies due to combat or my own mistake, but just losing them after a certain period of time seems like it’s punishing the player for investing a lot of time in the game. Plus it also defeats the purpose of having children; if the kids start with no skills inherited from their parents, then why not just assign the job to a different villager?

-Will

188

Might be paraphrasing just a little bit. :wink: but I like that idea. heheheeheheheh > : D

189

guess im staying up a bit later than anticipated this evening…

shudders

190

Just wait until this gets modded into my mod. :full_moon: :scream: :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes
191

Looks like @Geoffers747 in the mornin’.

192

It’d be easier to code if children inherited their parents’ job upon death. Until then, children can stay as children and provide work in the general labor pool that don’t require tokens. Or the children can “up” their stats by staying around the areas that their parents are working by following them around.

Once they inherit their parent’s job, they are free to keep their talisman or change it.

Children should stay as children and not begin aging past a certain age until their parents die. That way, you won’t end up having a 41yo peasant suddenly becoming a magma smith after his 95yo parents passed away. That can present serious troubles.

While the idea of not starting aging (only infant to child) until the death of a parent of the same gender, it is much simpler.
And it won’t balloon (inflate outrageously) the population.

Just my further take on this idea.

3 Likes
193

I forgot to mention an additional thing to aging and death.

There shouldn’t be a ‘hard’ limit on the age of a character. For example, when a character reaches 60 years, that doesn’t mean he’ll die automatically.

In place of a ‘hard’ limit, I propose a ‘limit’ where once a character reaches “old age”, the probability of dying of old age increases. For example, the probability of a character dying once reaching 60 years is 10%. By 61 years, it will increase from 10% to 15% or something, until it reaches 99%. By no means should the increment be set so simply either.
Rather, with each progressing year, the probability of death should increase exponentially.
The reason I said 99% is because I’m not a fan of ‘hard’ limits. This makes it extremely unlikely a character will make it to 200 years old but still possible.

And to make this simpler, the game should “roll the dice” (so to speak) only once a year. By this, I mean that the probability of dying from old age shouldn’t be a continuous thing. It could be made much simpler (but at the expense of realism) by “rolling the dice” the moment the character’s age increases by 1.0 each time past the old age limit.

If someone wants to add to my idea, feel free to.

If someone wants to say that my idea is trash, feel free to.

1 Like
194

This is a great idea, maybe this can even be a trait like long life or short life that’s passed on. Making the amount the percent increases lower or higher depending on the trait.

195

P.S. dang when did this thread get 193 posts? hmm
http://www.page-online.nl/po/img/emoticons/emoticon_huh.gif

196

This is an interesting idea, and your variables make a lot of sense. But, quick question: as someone ages, should their performance drop? (Carpenter being slower, Soldier getting less hits in, etc.?)

197

Pretty much my idea but it would make some more variation, if the child that has lived longest inherit the talisman of the person dying, instead of his own child. The talisman should also inherit a little bit of the abilities from the person wearing it. so every new generation would be a bit better doing the job

198

Ideally, it’d be best if performance drops as someone ages. But the best way to execute this would be having a ‘stat floor’ (umm, if you’re familiar with price floor and price ceilings, similar concept). That way, those who happen to live a very long time won’t end up becoming vegetables or cannon fodder during a siege.

So each year past old age, in addition to ‘rolling the dice’ for dying of old age, the character can take a “stat hit” where his performance and stats will decrease a certain amount due to old age.

Another few things I’d like to point out for this “family/aging” idea. Since it’d be bad if settlers got married and had kids late age (disadvantage to heirs because old age comes sooner), Every year, “single” settlers will look for a mate of the opposite gender. That way, nobody is single unless there is an odd number of settlers, in which case, too bad for that one settler.
OR, once a settler reaches a certain age, they will begin a family if possible. For example, a settler reaches age of 20, he starts looking for another settler of opposite gender to begin family. If no luck in finding partner the year he turns 20, he will try again at 21. The script can prioritize older ‘singles’ to be paired with new eligible singles, so that the player won’t end up with a 40yo virgin.

Performance drop once old age begins, should not affect the stats of the children since the children won’t be inheriting stats but the talisman of their parent.

@thorbjorn42gbf
Hmm…the idea of talismans inheriting additional stats and abilities every generation is a really good idea!
But the only problem I can think of is that eventually, your settlers will become super-powered if there is no cap on the additional stats/abilities a talisman can gain. But I also assume that a ‘stat ceiling’ was implied.

(Apologies in advance for using your idea without permission)
If I may, I’ll elaborate my take on your idea. So, in addition to talismans pertaining to classes, as a talisman ‘levels up’ a certain amount, after a certain generation, there should be “secret” classes that are a special variation of the same class. I mean, after so many generations of having the same trade being passed down, you’d expect them to advance. Changing talismans to ‘advance’ isn’t the same feeling as having an upgrade in the same class.

I know this sounds a bit confusing. I’ll try to reword it here. Lets say a family has been a trapper for 10 generations. The talisman reaches lv. 10. So now, the talisman evolves and the class of super trapper (the name is only for example) is unlocked. The super trapper can perform the same tasks as a trapper but only better, faster, etc.

Or another idea I have for this. Instead of evolving to an upgraded class, perhaps, once a talisman reaches a certain point, you can combine it with another talisman (only once). I’m not a great fan of this idea since it defeats the purpose of separate classes doing their own thing, but at least it presents an advantage to the family heirloom (the talisman)

2 Likes
199

I like you idea a lot and i must say that you description i much better than mine.

The upgrade part i think could be done better with specialization instead of just getting better fx. the talisman reaches lvl. 10 and now you get the possibility to specialize the trapper into either a rabbit hunter or (inset some other name here). the hunters will then get better at what they are doing but can only do that.

200

Bury or Cremate them or they become zombies. Simple. That’s what should happen. But burying would have to be in a blessed area or something.

201

In terms of dealing with dead bodies, @DinoD123 got it on spot. Really not that difficult.
However, I’d like to elaborate a little.

Eventually, there comes the problem of overcrowding in graveyards.

I propose that there should be a crypt building where dead bodies can go to get buried. It takes up limited space on the map and it provides more burial lots than a plot of land designated as a graveyard.

So unlike other buildings, you can’t look inside the crypt (for obvious reasons). That way, it can be left to the player to imagine how vast and expansive the crypt actually is.
However, this can prove to be a bit of a cheap. So instead of making the crypt readily available from the start, the crypt should be quite expensive.
Crypts should also not have “unlimited” lots but rather be “upgradeable”. The number of upgrades are unlimited and with each upgrade, the maximum capacity of the crypt increases.

So what to do when you don’t want to zone an extra graveyard or don’t have enough resources to upgrade the crypt? Have something like a “potter’s graveyard”, something that resembles mass graves. The negative downside to doing this is the large probability of becoming an undead.

Cremation should also be an option in game, so that after 10 millenniums in-game, the memory won’t become bloated with all the names of the dead and their deeds. That way, you can decide who to bury and remember and who to cremate (and save RAM when reading the save file and HD space when having a savegame on the computer).

Just my take on dealing with dead bodies

202

And maybe farther ahead the crypt becomes the workshop of a necromancer or something.

1 Like