[Dev Blog] Desktop Tuesday, Update on Steam Release, Plus Exp/Leveling Feature

Pretty much.

Also, note that DF migrations happen at set intervals - unless they’re all scared off by the charred field of elephant bones and tree stumps of course (god I loved reading the Boatmurdered story :smiley: ). Accordingly, I don’t see a problem with the migration model in competitive multiplayer. Sure, you won’t get the same balance as a tournament map* for StarCraft 2… but so what? SH is a sandbox game, and on average your good/bad luck should balance out in such situations.

*Without a custom map at least…

I’m going to disagree, but only with respect to the final product - one in which I imagine getting several immigrants at once, and where you can demote and reassign your settlers, DF-style. The current “special event” model however, works best with just workers I feel (mind you, testing it for migrants with pre-existing professions is also useful IMHO, and it’s an alpha etc).

1 Like

I go for a combination of both. The possibility to get immigrants by scenario, but also for food.
So you can get a nice town and get people join your village for free. Or go the food route. But the people you get for food are always poor workers.
This way you have more options to grow your village.


Ok, to all the comments above, the gist I get is random worker migration is insufficient for combat and other advanced Stonehearth modes/games. @Froggy I see your point, and I think that is why Radiant went down that path, but I’m keeping my eye focused on the big picture as presented during the kickstarter, and the current migration model is a change from what was presented during the kickstarter. Even @Tom said so during a steam.

For PvP modes to work I think you need a different “worker acquisition model”. Now I have nothing against having many different worker acquisition models for different game modes.

Lastly, the game masters judgment of my town might not match my play style then I am hamstrung by the game designers model not a deadly sandbox we all hope for. Currently I cannot sally out to get the goblins because I cannot replace my workers. The game master is limiting my play.

In my opinion, the game masters set judgement is perfect for PVP. If you don’t build strong food driven community with good shelter… but your opponent did. They deserve a better “Migrant Wave” than you do.

It doesn’t restrict how you build your town, as i’m sure there is multiple ways to build a safe and thriving city.

Edit: I should add that i DO understand why you would be worried, but I think it will work better than you might think for PVP assuming there are some tweaks to how/when migrants arrive.

1 Like

That is my point - the current model is already restricting how I build my town.

Primarily you cannot spread out because your workers do not move to a central point when rally is pressed. If you spread out, and fight goblins, you slowly get picked off AND cannot replace lost citizens.


Agreed, and as you indicate that’s more focused on the combat system than the migration system. I’m looking forward to rally points and patrol paths to take care of this in the future.

The Migrant idea is perfect. I would love to see this implemented.

1 Like

glad town xp is not happening but hope the citizen version stays strong as it would be a good reason for footman to train or something

1 Like

This brings problems when a single dwarf are related to all the others by blood, some of which have inbred.

Postponing Early Access was a good move. I haven’t checked the forums lately (too busy buying a house) so I had no idea until now.

Also RPG elements sound amazing, as well as leveling towns. As a mechanic that can be turned over later to the modders this is a really nice tool for all sorts of ideas. It fits the game well I think.

1 Like

I’m looking for “rally points and patrol paths” too but they don’t matter if you can’t replace your lost citizens at a faster pace than “migrations” allow. Without growth you have a purely defensive game with no offence capability because loses can’t be replaced.

In the event that you have a goblin “breakthrough” and lose half your villagers - now you have way more food, beds, and housing than you need - your citizens should be happy, they have great wealth, but I doubt most “game masters” would consider your city happy and healthy.

So now with an unhappy city you are in the spiral of death - unless - the game master then decides to “take it easy” on you. I don’t want to play a game that gets weak when I do. I want to have to build back up and fight tooth and nail to survive.

From a game design perspective - random migration system based on an algorithmic judgment of wealth/status forces the pace of the game to be limited to that algorithm, if you don’t meet that algorithms view you do not deserve more people. Having played Timber & Stone I know how limiting this model is.

One of the reasons I’m so passionate about this is an Extreme Programming principle of doing the “hard things first”. A migration model is easier than working out the long term consequences of a food = worker model. It’s taking a baby step to game design, the easy step, where now at this moment is where the hard things need to be tackled to set the direction of the game long term.

Start Stonehearth with a migration model and it will be stuck with one for a very long time - if not for the life of the application. And I think it is a bad direction that will limit Stonehearth’s potential.

Interesting that I think food = villagers seems like the easier route by far both from a programming standpoint and makes the game easy.

However, I trust that whatever Radiant does, they’ll end up doing it well. Whether they go your route, mine, or choose another.

Just do what Dwarf Fortress does, like everything else.

Lol, let’s hope not. That game can be the biggest headache ever… :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

They seem to have made a much friendlier version of superterranean Dwarf Fortress. Basic things like immigration would carry over fine, no?


That’s the hope, at least the hope I have. Time will tell I suppose?

That settles it, Berrivore needs to be in the game :stuck_out_tongue:.

Firstly - very smart move to wait with early access!

Secondly - in my opinion town experience is something that is nice but only as second supporting mechanic in a classic tech tree scenario controlled by structures.

Meaning that having your first structure, the settlement flag unlocks certain other available structures to be build. The classic approach would be now to have something like when you build a workshop you unlock upgrading the flag to a small building, when you build that you unlock building a smithy and so on.
Settlement XP could additionally limit the upgrading, so only when enough XP is gained one is allowed to do certain upgrades.

Also offering a gamemaster choice (maybe controlling different gamemodes or there is another second choice for that) and allowing these to be moddable could make for very differing game experiences in community mods.

Eh but getting the core game up and running as it should is ofc much more important :smiley:

1 Like

Honestly, looking at DF this comes down to you having to play better. For example, DF migrations & invasions come in waves periodically (the former being on a fairly-strict timetable as well). So, you need to plan ahead more: “I’ve just beaten off a goblin raid, so I’ve got maybe a month or two before they return. What can be done in that time?” is how you need to think - once you get into that habit, I don’t see why you can’t continue to expand etc in the face of hostile threats.

I’d say the game should weigh the mass deaths considerably more than the sudden increase in living space :slight_smile: .

Losing Is Fun :wink: .

More seriously, try this for a solution:

  1. Peaceful Mode: No bad guys spawn. All is sweetness and love and all that saccharine stuff.
  2. Easy Mode: Enemy attacks are scaled, in part, to your population. If half your town is wiped out, the enemy will send proportionally fewer soldiers next time.
  3. Hard Mode: Enemy attacks are not at all scaled to your population. If you have a mega-wealthy town with just 3 people in it, and they send in 20 raiders… congratulations on mis-managing your town :stuck_out_tongue: .

Some people are going to agree with you and want a tough climb back up from disaster, and some won’t - but I don’t see why SH can’t accommodate both types of people.

TBH I’d be surprised if the current model is kept as the main source of new migrants. As @Dwalus says below, just copy DF (but make it cuter!) and it should be fine.

I disagree. Now, I think having other sources of people (eg, breeding*) is a good idea, but look at DF - the big, periodic migration model seems to work fine there, at least as long as you know how to play properly and don’t make stupid decisions.

*But then what about child deaths vis-à-vis age rating, sales, and “game over” messages etc?

[quote=“Silas, post:62, topic:7352”]Lol, let’s hope not. That game can be the biggest headache ever… :stuck_out_tongue:
Only because of the UI & graphics though.

Superterranean surely :wink: ?

Replace “structures” with “professions” and I think you’ve got the Stonehearth model :wink: .

That is entirely true. Sorry, I still can’t seem to remember certain things about English, and prefixes are one of them.

1 Like