"Slept in a shared room" shouldn't be a thing

Honestly, I fail to see why you insist that building own rooms for everyone is the direction we should take. When this game initially started and I bought it during the early alphas I did so because it was something I can be creative with, and I was like “woah, minecraft where I’m not the one who lays blocks”. But things like this limit the ways we can be creative with the game.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t dislike (don’t like it either) the thought system or that the game’s becoming more like The Sims, since I’m fine with most of the thoughts they suffer. But! When I see something that limits the way I can be creative with how I plan my city, I can’t help but wish there to be an option to turn it off altogether.

I can get behind this one as long as it’s not a constant thing. Such as sharing a room with a hearthling with a trait called “snores heavily” or if the hearthling has a trait “easily disturbed” they would from time to time get this negative effect.

But being constantly grumpy for sharing a room just makes no sense.

1 Like

Would it help if there was a system behind it that decided when a negative thought would pop-up.
Such a system would know about chains of circumstances (i.e. sleeping on ground → sleeping on mean bed → sleeping in comfy bed), it would wait with displaying the negative thought linked to the next circumstance, and instead display the positive thought linked to the current circumstance for a few days. The system could also watch the hearthlings peers, look at their conditions and use it to determine when it is the time for the hearthling to get more needy. (Also, there is the potential for traits here.)

For example, you get this chain of events

  1. Hearthling sleeps on the ground.
  2. Hearthling has negative “slept in the ground” thought.
  3. Hearthling get to sleep in a mean bed.
  4. Hearthling gets the positive “slept in a bed” thought for a few days.
  5. After a few days, the hearthling will not like or dislike a mean bed.
  6. A few days after that, the hearthling will start to long for a comfy bed. The hearthling gets the negative “slept on a mean bed” thought.

Being priviliged (having more comfort than other heathlings) will make the positive feeling last longer.
Being dispriviliged (having less comfort than other hearthlings) will make the positive feeling last shorter.


@Brackhar This thread has come up with a lot of ideas, how does the balance on pushing-players-to-build-individual-hearthling-housing lie when you combine them all as replacement of the current slept-in-a-shared-room?

I mean the combination of

  • lowering the penalty for sleeping in a shared room, but only if the two hearthlings don’t like/don’t particularly like one another (negative or neutral relationship, decision is up to you)
  • adding a penalty when the other snores hard, or is easily disturbed
  • adding a penalty when they sleep in a room with 3 or more hearthlings, i.e. dormitories.
  • adding a penalty if the hearthling is a loner, or if the hearthling slept with is callous, etc.
  • etc

This does not force the player to build individual housing in all instances, but I as player might be convinced that Poni Burlyhands really must have her own house, because she is easily a light sleeper.

2 Likes

Alright, I’ve made a few notes here to help me sort out my thoughts and responses from all the suggestions and ideas here. First I think it is very important to remember we are still in Alpha stages where all the systems aren’t implemented, heck there are probably systems that haven’t even gone past the “wishful thinking and storyboarding” stage of design. For example, a social system that includes the ability to create family units. I feel like that would HAVE to have an impact on what does and does not make a hearthling unhappy with regards to their sleeping situation. But more on that in a moment. I think that there may also be some issues, as players, with this thought based on our personal nature and possibly even our cultural and societal upbringing.

For myself I am an adult Male from a middle-class family in the North Eastern part of the United States of America. New York State specifically. I can see where my issues with shared space might differ from someone who lives in Europe somewhere. The first thought to cross my mind was years ago looking up something about Norway I think as being one of the top places to live across the globe and seeing an article from an American who moved there. Most Americans seem to value a certain amount of personal space that just isn’t there in other countries. Where our “home” is having a building that doesn’t share a wall and plenty of yard, both front and back, that isn’t the case as far as I’ve seen elsewhere. To be fair, shows like House Hunters are probably not the best research tool for what is and is not the norm in other countries.

So one of my first notes was about the idea that no one should be upset about sleeping in a shared room because that’s silly, who has a problem sleeping in the same room as other people? I mean, sure if they disturb your sleep because they snore (as I do) or because they are up to use the bathroom 3 to 4 times a night and make noise, or if they get up early and you like to sleep late, or if they come to bed late and you went to bed early, that could make you irritated because it disturbs your sleep. Barring all of the variables that make real people annoying to sleep with over the long term physically, have we forgotten the emotional and psychological end of sleeping with people? I went to college and spent my first two years in the dorms. That meant a space smaller than my bedroom at home (which was probably about 20’x20’, I know that seems spacious to some) was being shared with another guy. I liked the guy each time, but that still meant that my privacy was nearly non-existent. I wasn’t unhappy, per se, but when I got an apartment off campus with friends and had a room to myself again, even if it was half the size of my already small dorm rooms, I was certainly happier than I was living with someone. So being unhappy over shared space isn’t just about the sleeping I’d say. There’s a psychological element there about privacy.

Which really kinda brings up the point about traits. I can see where a Loner would be much more upset about being grouped with other hearthlings in one room. That should certainly be displayed somehow in their thoughts if you force them to be with other hearthlings. Perhaps, in addition, their comfort polygon thing should be affected by hearthlings in addition to solid objects like walls? I think that would help further the idea that they aren’t comfortable when they are around others for long and would encourage building for them away from the community perhaps.

Regarding how towns and cities of the “era” of the game would have functioned, first I wonder have the devs actually set out a “time” for the game? My estimation, if we were to use the real world exclusively as our base, is that we are seeing roughly the 12th century or earlier seeing as the Engineer is the odd man out class and there really isn’t any gunpowder usage in the game that I’ve seen. We can also assume that the Ascendency is analogous to Western and Central Europe during that timeframe and that Rayya’s Children are Middle Eastern, and North African in style. While I certainly would agree that in that era there would likely be flophouses and inns that were constantly overbooked inside the cities, I would also still imply that the close quarters living alone would have been an irritant on the best of days. It was a reminder of who was and wasn’t poor, but it was also about being jammed in with other people who were equally miserable about their terrible living conditions. You know who lived better? People with money, men of luxury, those who could afford to have a room to themselves were (theoretically) happier people. Another thing I’d like to point out is that, at least initially, the hearthlings are settler’s here. There’s no city, just wide open spaces. Maybe they’re from a city and anticipate not having the same cramped feeling of living in one?

As far as complex defenses and people living under siege, while I understand the sentiment that they shouldn’t be complaining about shared spaces if goblins are slinging stones over the walls, the reality is that they’ll still be bothered by it. It just wouldn’t likely be their FIRST thought. I mean, personally, I’d probably first complain about the Orc pounding on the door all night, then about my meager ration of food, and THEN about the fact that, to top it all off, I can’t even go sleep in my own warm bed because it’s outside the castle walls and I have to share this miserable room with these miserable people (some of them are even crying!) and damn it I just wish I had some space! Soldiers, on the other hand, should perhaps get a slight break. They are kind of expected to live in a barracks.

I know that this has been a wall of text so as a sort of TL;DR let me see if I can bullet point it as a recap;

  • Culturally as players we might be responding to the shared spaces issue different. As an American I value my personal space in a way that may be at odds with someone from another country.
  • While there’s a physical discomfort in “disturbed sleep” there’s a psychological issue of privacy that comes from shared spaces.
  • The Loner trait really should have a harder penalty, perhaps amplified by the “polygon of comfort” interacting with other hearthlings.
  • In the real-world comparable era cities may have had flophouses where people lived, but we don’t begin the game inside a city. And people living in those flophouses were still likely miserable in part due to the number of people they had to live with.
  • In the real-world comparable era cities also had people who were (likely) happier about their living conditions. These people had homes of their own and rooms all to themselves without the need to share. They were also, generally, wealthy and happier for it.
  • In dangerous situations being unhappy about space allocation shouldn’t be a top complaint, but that doesn’t stop it from being a complaint that people will have.
  • In fortress and military situations perhaps it would be more appropriate to let the footman/archer/knight be unaffected by group living.

So, now my suggestions I suppose. I like the idea that @nikosthefan has about a varying level of “comfort” with things. Perhaps we would start with hearthlings not being bothered at all about sleeping in shared space and then it pops up as a single negative after a couple of days and eventually it caps at a 24 hour long negative until they aren’t sleeping in shared space. I think the idea of the quality of their sleep creating a fluctuating positive/negative thought speaks also to the psychological aspect of the hearthlings. Regarding them as people, not pixels, which can in a way organize our thoughts on why they like or dislike the things that they do. This also would influence the Loner as perhaps starting out at a single negative and gradually reaching a double or triple negative because they really do not like being with other people.

I would very much like to see a social element to the game that allows for family units to be created and to let that have an effect on shared space. Husband and Wife never have a negative “shared space” reaction (and perhaps get a positive reaction with each other), but they can develop a “shared space” issue if their bedroom includes other people. It might take longer if those others are family, but it will still happen. For the parents here, think about how irritating it would get (on a level of privacy) if your children were always in your bedroom with you. Alternately having the “children” get a negative “shared space” reaction would encourage you to build them someplace so they can move out and be independent.

The military jobs should perhaps be made exempt from this reaction. We assume that soldiers are going to get accustomed to sleeping in barracks and will therefore not complain about it. It may not be a positive for them, but it’s nothing that creates a legitimate negative for them either.

I saw a thought about how decorations might influence the happiness of the hearthlings in a room and that might be nice too. For the “end game” buildings where each hearthling has an individual room it would add a sense of luxury and give the player a way to increase their happiness once they are already in their own place. Alternately it gives the player a means of offsetting the negative of “share space” by having the hearthlings living in a “lovely space”. The comfort of not being cramped for space is elevated by having flowers inside, and paintings, and higher quality items. Will I be a little grumpy if I’m living with 6 other guys? Sure, but if the bed is soft and the chairs are comfortable and my belongings are stowed in a fine looking dresser that feeling may be offset by the fact that I’m living in a 5 star luxury barracks and not a hole-in-the-wall shack.

I’d also like to second the idea of an in-game Encyclopedia eventually being developed. Maybe have it be like an achievement system? Some of the core concepts are already there for you to look up like a basic tutorial on the building system or how to click and drag to harvest resources, but the others are unlocked as you encounter them. So until your hearthlings complain about being cramped you won’t have an entry about that particular issue, and even then it won’t give you numbers about fixing it and instead explains what causes it. It leaves some ambiguity and creativeness up to the player rather than just dictating “If they feel cramped build a 12x12 room for each individual.”

I think that about sums it all up. Sorry again for the wall of text guys. I’ve been thinking about this off an on all night at work…

3 Likes

That was a great read, walls of text are not always bad :merry:

1 Like

I agree with Fornjotr, that was a great read indeed and I agree that such things should probably be considered for the mid-beta or the final game at the very least.

As a complete sidestep to the main conversation:
Regarding the American that went to Norway… I have no clue how that impression was made; Norway and Finland are perhaps two of the five-or-so countries in the world that has the largest ‘comfort zones’, as in, being uncomfortable
with people in close proximity, no matter the situation. I actually have several Scandinavian friends who’ve traveled to the US and claim that personal space doesn’t seem to be a thing at all. That might very well be an exaggeration, I honestly can’t say, since I’ve never been there myself. Of course, you did speak about it as in housing and not general proximity, so it might be right, but I just find it very doubtful.

I have to agree with @Hyrule_Symbol and @CrazyCandy on this one: even in a world where it’s obvious that the snoring is causing a disturbance, why do you insist on having 100% of Hearthlings snore and 0% of them being comfortable sleeping in a shared quarters? It seems to me like having a universal “shared rooms give a penalty” is a very heavy handed approach to design. I think the point being made is why are we being penalized for playing a certain approach? Yes, you certainly could build a min/max shared space that’s cheaper and easier, but I could easily build a shared space that is significantly nicer and more expensive than two separate min/max designed bedrooms. So ultimately your design goal is not achieved, and I’m still punished as a player.
This is why many have advocated for there being bonuses over penalties. I can tolerate sacrificing a bonus for having a shared room, and that is significantly more palatable than having an active penalty. As others have mentioned, Rimworld does a superior job by looking at the overall size and beauty/cleanliness of the room when determining the quality of the space. This prevents min/maxing, and changes the way a shared room is treated compared to an individual occupancy.

In my opinion, everyone is making a much bigger deal out of this than it actually is. Yes, slept in a shared room gives a small penalty. However, this penalty is only -1, and thus easily offset by placing comfortable beds (+1) in a shared room. To reference to the disturbed sleep idea: People in comfortable beds in shared rooms are in a deep sleep, not being disturbed. However, in a mean bed, the hearthlings are probably having trouble sleeping due to the bed, adding people next to you moving and trying to get to sleep could easily annoy anyone.

I fully agree with @Brackhar that this mainly motivates building large and complex buildings for end game cities and adds complexity to the game. The current penalty of having unhappy hearthlings is that they look sad and walk slightly slower, thus not in any way punishing anyone for the way they play.

I want to add that there are some guys that are considering this as two hearthlings in the same house. It is not.

You can have as many hearthlings you want in the same house right now. They only need to not see the other hearthlings in the house, you don’t even need a wall (though that would be the best), it can be some objects between them too. That is it.

Also note that this effect only plays if both sleeps at the same time.

Considering how fast sleep can be, it is rare to see they getting this effect. The only easy way for me to see this happening is if I add more than two beds, like a lot.

And considering how low influence it has in happiness and how many different thoughts a hearthling can have, most good ones being easy in late game, and most bad ones being related to fights. I really see no problem with it.

2 Likes

Yes, that’s definitely in the plan. And I’d like to get on it fairly soon, to be honest.

So, some of this is the framing. In the happiness system, the hearthlings don’t start at 0 happiness; instead they start midway up the graph as “content.” As such, there’s a design consideration involved in defining what “content” is, and then the +'s and -'s that occur represent a drift from whatever that imagined state is. So to use the bed analogy specifically, I’d presume that someone sleeping in a normal bed represents them being content. As such, sleeping on the ground would be a high negative, sleeping in a crummy bed would be a small negative, sleeping in a normal bed would have no thought, and sleeping in a comfy/awesome bed would be a positive thought.

If we had used a system where the hearthling starts at 0 happiness, you’d instead see a pattern where sleeping on the ground gave no thought, a crummy bed gave a small positive, a normal bed gave a medium positive, and a comfy bed gave a large positive to happiness. That’s an entirely valid way to make a system like this, too. However, what it also means is that the hearthling would always be affected by a ton of thoughts (which would then need to be displayed), even if there’s not much “special” about what’s going on at the moment. The starting at content approach allows us to display fewer and fewer thoughts the closer the hearthling is to this imagined “average” state, which reduces visual noise. For instance, since a hearthling probably spends roughly 95% of their lifetime at full health, it’s really not that useful to see “Full Health +25 Happiness.”

So, thinking through it some, I think this is in part the problem. As a designer I see the numerical choices and understand the relative impacts that these thoughts have on happiness. However, when we made the UI associated with happiness, we made a strong decision to avoid expressing numbers here, as we wanted to keep the approachability of the system high. This has lead to a place where my view on the world as a developer is diverging a lot from your perspective as players, and that’s not healthy. So, in the short term I’ll talk with the team about changing the UI representation to be a numerical one, so at least we can talk from the same place.

All that being said, thank you all for your honestly really pleasant and cogent arguments on the topic. It’s really nice to have good, well reasoned discussions like this. Since, as I said, switching to a positive is almost identical design wise, and it’s something you guys seem to care a lot about, I’ll go ahead and make the change. It should be in the next patch.

I do reserve the right to bring the negative thought back after we improve our building editor to handle internal walls, though. :slight_smile:

5 Likes