Traits and Families

[Karakoran]

Note: These 2 ideas are in the same thread because I find that they merge together very well. Read the thread if you're so interested in knowing how.

Currently, it seems that colonists are very similar people just sort of faffing about. While the amount they have going on is nice, I feel very little sorrow about a character getting shot, even if they were skilled in something. I've been playing Crusader Kings 2 off and on lately, and I find the characters more interesting. Each character has about 7-14 traits that define them. One character might be very cowardly and patient while another is cruel and cynical. It would be nice to see each character start with about 8 traits and gradually acquire and lose more based on what happens.

For example, a person might start out very kind and charitable, but then a raider attack comes and slaughters half the colony. Suddenly this very dramatic event changes him into a cruel and survivalist person who is fiercely loyal to the defense of the colony. He may even be paranoid of the people he doesn't know. He changes just like a person changes in real life based on dramatic events that happen to him. Children would be especially susceptible to these changes since people do change a lot more as kids than adults.

These traits may even be the things that affect what a person is good at. A person is patient? They get a buff to gardening. They're cruel? Guess who has no qualms about shooting. But Person 1, who is charitable, isn't going to get along with Person 2, who is a greedy jackass. Person 3 on the other hand is neither particularly charitable or greedy, so Person 1 and Person 2 are fine with him.

This brings me to my next suggestion - families. Characters are easily replaced and forgotten now. Imagine how much more interesting it would be if a father was shot dead and left their wife and kid, changing their traits due to the event. Suddenly interesting events can happen to characters that can make you vested in them. Who cares if Beard dies so long as you have enough guys to man the wall next time the raiders show up. If the guy who's been shaped for years by his environment and parents dies then you might shed a tear at an interesting character committing the ultimate sacrifice (or starving to death because you sold too much food by accident).

Families would start organically. People with likewise traits drift together and males and females hook up and start reproducing. Kids grow up and will likely take traits from their parents and possibly from others in the colony. Which brings me to heritable traits. They'd be very rare (usually) but also very defining to the person. Heritable traits would have a chance to be passed down (double if both parents have it). Of course they can be good (genius or strong) or bad (imbecile or weak). There could even be traits like inbred from bloodlines being too closely aligned.

These families would breed, pass on traits, and be shaped by their environment. Suddenly you could see totally different communities form each time you played. One time might see a fairly easy run with little problems so people are more kind and generous, due to an environment that never brought suffering to them. Meanwhile another that is plagued by raids and famine might be cruel, unkind, and hateful of the world that tormented them. They would see great differences, but switching back would never be impossible. Since fresh people regularly join the colony and traits are only heritable by chance, in time the population will always even out to equilibrium - assuming players don't go eugenics in their colony. But then that's just too much idea for one thread.

[colonistPally]

I want to expand also slightly more into the psychological portion. I had a "surgeon" but he was taking the same emotional/psychological damage from seeing my pile'o'bodies from me not getting graveyards to work right. People should maybe build up an immunity to things based on their behavior. Or if they're fragile they might just snap permanently and that would be it, no "getting them back."

Also the more they shoot, I wish they would level up like a little mini rpg. If someone is sitting there and lasts 5 rounds with his firearm he would be better... Maybe not to some OP level but better. It seems like either this can be done, or the statistics are weird because sometimes I run into a mob who seems to be around 3x better than normal, maybe like a mini boss?

Also like, not everyone has to eat as much.. or some people try to eat more. I guess there is more but I don't know a lot of the math yet. Like if they're a better builder if they actually build faster / use less materials. Things like that. So your little characters have legitimate benefits and weaknesses. Also I love the long range.. wish I could build towers. Maybe if you get a guy that has long enough range and high enough skill he just builds a tower all by himself, or something. And it gets named after him.. I don't know. Stuff to add permanence... that ties in with their traits, strengths, values, beliefs..

Like maybe if someone is a "zombie fan" or a wannabe necromancer they would love the bodies being around instead of not in the ground. Or a "vampire fan" would love being in a graveyard... instead of right now it just adding the insane multiplier on everyone regardless. Maybe if they were into heavy metal music or medieval lore they wouldn't mind scrap metal being everywhere and might even make their own weapons in a blacksmith they made special??. If they were more of a caveman type they wouldn't mind stones being everywhere, maybe just start making their own stone stuff.

Anyway totally agree with what you're saying. Trying to expand on it.. The idea gets far out there but it's basically personal traits having actual real effect into the game to add that extra oomph of personality. Further down the road the vampire chick and caveman guy hook up and you get a caveman vampire that doesn't mind caves, rocks, and graveyards...

[Vagabond]

Hello,

I think all survival/colony/sim games need families. They characters are more invested in each other, and you're more invested in them as well.

Main disputable thing is how fast kids should grow. Most games that include kids, have them grow rapidly. So parents aren't tied up for years, and the children can be used. In a sci-fi setting, it would be easy to write off a shorter gestation period*, and a faster to-age-of-majority speed with a history of genetic manipulation in humans. Colonist would need to age and die though.

This would force you into making different styles of colonies too, more realistic with single family homes and such. Instead of the bunkers that seem to be popular.

*Hell, if you wanted to avoid sex or "woohooing", it could be treated like in Demolition Man (Sylvester Stallone) where two consenting adults appeal for a baby and go in to either have one grown in a vat, or artificially implanted.

Cheers,
Michael

[colonistPally]

Vaga you had to go there! Demolition Man is one of my favorite movies of all time!

So *ahem* we need to formally request a new building.

"Mommy, daddy, how do you make babies?"

"When a man and a woman love each other very.. very much! They go to the StorkVat building and both give dna samples, and in 7 days, VIOLA! We come get you"

"Ewwwwwww!"

I guess it'd maybe fast-track them to 17 years old in 7 days? Does that seem fair? I don't recall seeing any colonists under 17 years old.

Man this would be really, really fun and insane and outrageous.

[Untrustedlife]

Traits will have actual value later in development, Tynan has stated this. So they will matter.

But dynamically changing traits like from "kind" to "revenge seaking" and adding more would be A great feature.

It would really add to the game in my opinion, large prolonged amounts of fear should also scar people for life as-well.


Now my opinion on children.

I don't think families and children fit the game at all (well, at the moment). My reasons you ask?

I dont have an easy time just replacing my colonists, but how does making it so that people can make replacements make it more memorable?
Doesnt it just make it more of a problem

Considering this quote from the main website:

You won't get hundreds of colonists - we want to keep the number small enough that you can know each one individually.

All storytellers also have low set population limits, under 30 (except randy and phoebe). (tynan added population limits for this reason, so that you do get to know each colonist individually.)

Allowing colonists to have children could also have the opposite effect that you think would happen and possibly would just make each individual colonist less memorable if alot were born (your population would increase exponentially, making every colonist more of a "cannon fodder" then anything) . "Who is that guy, oh hes their kid".

Of course if these babies followed the population limit then  its fine and I would welcome it.

The main part of this game is the stories you get, and I can see how children fit that.

But i don't think it adds much to game-play at the moment until we have more things to do, threats to deal with types of colonists, etc.


Dwarf fortress does in fact have this.
Perhaps, after more features are added, it would be cool. But not right now.

edit:
@colonist parry
I think tynan should just change the timescale to seasons and years. if this were implemented. It would make more sense anyway.And would fix the "children growth" issue.

@Vagabound

That is not a bad idea at all *Vat grown babies*

[Vagabond]

Now my opinion on children.

I don't think families and children fit the game at all (well, at the moment). My reasons you ask?

I dont have an easy time just replacing my colonists, but how does making it so that people can make replacements make it more memorable?
Doesnt it just make it more of a problem

I would have to disagree. With how fast colonist are killed (at least in my experience), it is hard to really get to know any of them, except the ones with the best combat abilities. Having families who rely on each other emotionally, it would force you to try to ensure their survival because if dad dies, mommy and jr. will be impacted hard as well. So instead of simply losing one colonist, you'd lose one, and the efficiency of two others.

I would think in an advance setting, you wouldn't have to really worry about baby-boomers. Especially if it was a process.

For example: David and Angela are a couple. The game checks to see what their relationship level is. If they are above 90 (75 being the minimum relationship needed to become a couple), the game will send them to a doctor/therapist type character. His skill level will determine if they are in fact prepared to be parents. A lower skilled therapist type person will have a harder time making a positive determination of their compatibility.

This check would happen once a month or so. If the doctor gives the okay, then they move on to the next stage of artificial insemination, or giving dna for a vat birth (which ever Tynan would decide to use). Either way, there would always be a chance that something would go wrong and the baby wouldn't come to term. If it's artificial insemination, then being injured would be bad for example. If equipment for a vat baby failed, that would be bad.

Regardless, I don't suggest that babies pop up like weeds. Two people becoming a couple would be as much of a hassle once you factor in all their traits and such. I'd like to note that "relationships" between even non-couples should be influenced on traits, too, I think. Crimes of passion/murder/betrayal would be interesting as a side effect of poor relationships between colonists, not just the happy stuff like baby making.

So not only would traits affect population growth through children, they would also affect population loss through poor relationships (and general unhappiness/death for other reasons).

Considering this quote from the main website:

Quote

    You won't get hundreds of colonists - we want to keep the number small enough that you can know each one individually.

All storytellers also have low set population limits, under 30 (except randy and phoebe). (tynan added population limits for this reason, so that you do get to know each colonist individually.)

I was incredibly pleased that Tynan thought of others when he gave story tellers with higher population caps. Not sure about anyone else, but it takes quite awhile for me to build up high numbers of colonists, But I don't like artificial "invisible walls" in the games I play. Especially in games that are supposed to be non-linear open-ended sandbox type games.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that while I like certain ideas, I'm not suggesting in which order. Obviously certain things would be more immediately gratifying and useful sooner, rather then later. While other things would prove to simply bring everything together.

Cheers,
Michael

[Karakoran]

Allowing colonists to have children could also have the opposite effect that you think would happen and possibly would just make each individual colonist less memorable if alot were born (your population would increase exponentially, making every colonist more of a "cannon fodder" then anything) . "Who is that guy, oh hes their kid".

As much as I hate cutting just cutting out segments of posts (has a way of making things a lot harder to comprehend and much more cluttered), I would like to say that even identifying someone as just "that guy's kid" is a lot more than random dude that got picked up 20 minutes ago.

Really I think families would be a nice addition to the colony because they add some sort of permanence to the colony. Rather than just being a Hell-hole where people live for a year max and then die, horribly, it can be a place where you can see people survive, then actually live, raise a family, and start a proper life on the colony. It makes the whole ordeal come full circle, I suppose. You've gone from a small survivor team to a proper colony with families and children and people living their lives. Rather than just survivalists surviving and dying.

[OobleckTheGreen]

I think the idea about children is actually pretty realistic, considering the setting. If you think about it, these colonists spend their days digging, building, farming & repairing. Pretty droll, if you ask me. They have to blast the occasional raider, here and there, but overall, life needs some entertainment. As I see it, these poor souls ain't got anything fun to do, so I'm guessing there's probably a lot of ****ing going on...  Kids are a natural byproduct of such, um, activities 

[BattleFate]

I actually really support this idea. It would need to be implemented properly of course, and heavily balanced to ensure it still remains true to the game. But I can see how it would fit and work perfectly well.

On that note, it makes me wonder if maybe we're starting with too few 'known' colonists and have too many strangers for families. Maybe instead of three survivors from the shuttle, we should start with three and instead of wanderers and so many incapacitations from raiders we just have more pods landing... Others who you knew on the ship who managed to make it to a pod, but the pod only just came in for a landing...

I mean afterall, are you really going to trust the raider who attacked your colony, or the shipmate who you knew before the crash?

[colonistPally]

Oh this's going to be hard! Bear with me.

For example: David and Angela are a couple. The game checks to see what their relationship level is. If they are above 90 (75 being the minimum relationship needed to become a couple), the game will send them to a doctor/therapist type character. His skill level will determine if they are in fact prepared to be parents. A lower skilled therapist type person will have a harder time making a positive determination of their compatibility. -Vaga

I love this idea. It's so hilarious and perfect and in character. They also need to have little hearts that grow and grow and start to throb. Maybe you watch them go pick out flowers or something to take to the other one. Oh I would just die!!!!!!  Colony romance!

Crimes of passion/murder/betrayal would be interesting as a side effect of poor relationships between colonists, not just the happy stuff like baby making. - Vaga

Wow yes this definitely adds an edge doesn't it. They're all carrying guns and can just put one between the eyes of the other in their sleep, "friendly fire," or smother them with a pillow. (Not to mention you'd need 2-person beds.)Then you introduce the whole "2nd amendment" situation because up until this point in the game if someone gets upset they just toss their firearm down and start punching people. This really opens up people doing things like having "no gun zones" where they only allow people they designate as military to have firearms and forbid military from having relationships.. Wow. That immediately deepens the game by quite a bit. HmmmMmMmMm...

So not only would traits affect population growth through children, they would also affect population loss through poor relationships (and general unhappiness/death for other reasons). -Vaga

Yeah because there'd now be debuffs for "wants a relationship, but can't get one." As well as the ever dreaded, "your colony is a sausage fest, needs more women." Or you end up with an amazonian-style woman clan that only needs men to breed, aaaaaah! The men have to live in an off-site colony where it only gets raided during season.

Really I think families would be a nice addition to the colony because they add some sort of permanence to the colony. Rather than just being a Hell-hole where people live for a year max and then die, horribly, it can be a place where you can see people survive, then actually live, raise a family, and start a proper life on the colony. It makes the whole ordeal come full circle, I suppose. You've gone from a small survivor team to a proper colony with families and children and people living their lives. Rather than just survivalists surviving and dying. -Kara

Kara, totally agree. This's a colonizing survival game, and people want to live there and call it home and be the place that they love to be, and thrive and survive. Having future sustainable generations successfully is definitely a successful "end goal" of sorts.

I think the idea about children is actually pretty realistic, considering the setting. If you think about it, these colonists spend their days digging, building, farming & repairing. Pretty droll, if you ask me. They have to blast the occasional raider, here and there, but overall, life needs some entertainment. As I see it, these poor souls ain't got anything fun to do, so I'm guessing there's probably a lot of ****ing going on  Kids are a natural byproduct of such, um, activities -Oob

Oob totally agree. Just need to develop a "double bed" with a heart on it like the first Sims "Hot Date." In fact that's what it could be. You have to buy the "DNA Date" bed. Aaaaaaah.  And it needs to have a little sound effect that goes, "bow chicka wow-ow!"

Of course I have to say it, another facet of this... You need to open up same-gender relationships also just to be completely totally fair. I don't have a problem with the idea but I can see there being all kinds of uproar if this isn't done without some careful consulting from folks in the know to make sure it's received as intended.

On that note, it makes me wonder if maybe we're starting with too few 'known' colonists and have too many strangers for families. Maybe instead of three survivors from the shuttle, we should start with three and instead of wanderers and so many incapacitations from raiders we just have more pods landing... Others who you knew on the ship who managed to make it to a pod, but the pod only just came in for a landing... -Battle

Battle. Ah yes good thinking. There should be pre-existing families in some scenarios. That'd actually help quite a bit smooth things out as there could be less relationship building required. Like "a couple" is passing through instead of a single person. And instead of capturing them you could just ask them to join on the spot. The guy would probably be protective for obvious reasons but .... ug that's just gut wrenching though. I'm sure some people'd just shoot the guy to keep the girl and all of that weirdness but there's already a lot of violence allowed in the game, this just adds another dimension ..... It's hard to think about the good stuff without the evil. And this game allows people to be pretty violent. Definitely something to think about. I guess if you want to roleplay a space prison colony, things could get yucky very fast..........

I mean afterall, are you really going to trust the raider who attacked your colony, or the shipmate who you knew before the crash? - Battle

Well now you're talking about differentiating "friendships," "blood relationships," and "sexual or love relationships." I definitely like the idea and it boils back to what Vaga was saying where not every relationship ends up with a happy ending. Those differentiations would definitely support his idea.

Wow okay I better hit post before more people post!

[SPAZZx7]

I can honestly state that I've never gotten to know/care about all of my colonist members individually. I normally, however get to know and very much care for the individuals that I consider to be the leaders. Those individuals hurt my moral to lose, (normally only 3 or 4 ex. Head master/guard/construction/farming leader.) I will go out of my way to protect those that hold these positions, and normally they are the last to fall. I could care less if anyone else died, but if these 4 had babies and started caring for people, it would start to get complicated, in a good way.

[colonistPally]

I can honestly state that I've never gotten to know/care about all of my colonist members individually. I normally, however get to know and very much care for the individuals that I consider to be the leaders. Those individuals hurt my moral to lose, (normally only 3 or 4 ex. Head master/guard/construction/farming leader.) I will go out of my way to protect those that hold these positions, and normally they are the last to fall. I could care less if anyone else died, but if these 4 had babies and started caring for people, it would start to get complicated, in a good way.

Totally agree. I'm with you on that. The only time I ever get even remotely attached is to where if they're really really quirky. I had a colonist in one of my videos strip down at some point and was naked for several hours worth of play before dying in a hail of gunfire trying to save one of our other colonists. They only had two real jobs. It was like Research and Warden and that was it! So they were usually idle just wandering around naked because there was nothing else to assign them to.

Aside from that there is like, whoever my first dedicated "miner" is I usually get attached to. But that passes as soon as I have enough colonists to where it isn't a worry anymore. I guess I do have a guy named Ryu with a bright purple mohawk that has a really quirky sense of humor. He's like a bi outgoing superstar hairstylist or something, I have no idea. Anyway He's absolutely hilarious and I imagine him going from person to person doing everyone's hair to keep morale up. But those are like two characters out of probably 100 that I've gone through.

You add in families and that just increases exponentially.

[Untrustedlife]

I think the idea about children is actually pretty realistic, considering the setting. If you think about it, these colonists spend their days digging, building, farming & repairing. Pretty droll, if you ask me. They have to blast the occasional raider, here and there, but overall, life needs some entertainment. As I see it, these poor souls ain't got anything fun to do, so I'm guessing there's probably a lot of ****ing going on...  Kids are a natural byproduct of such, um, activities 

keep in mind the game will already be more exciting later In development. It's basically dwarf fortress in space, we can expect this. But, I guess dwarf fortress does have babies.
(though I still think this feature should wait)

The game is supposed to be all about the story (tynan calls it a story Generator) and it lives up to this, it will live up more to this later in development.I agree that adding babies will help with this(The only other game that can actually make this claim is dwarf fortress, which this game is obviously heavily inspired from, (babies are in that one too)) (ever heard of Boatmurderd?)

I would like to notify you of some more things that are confirmed:
Hes also adding a randomly generated world with randomly generated factions.

These factions include everything from genetically modified sapient animals. To other human factions. To mutated humans. To sapient animals that ENSLAVE humans.

All, have been mentioned.

^ I would personally rather have this, before babies.
(I'm sure you understand)

Vagabound stated though that the order isn't the issue here.

Children should be added, and perhaps the vat would be one way for them to come about. (I think natural births should happen as-well though)  babies would probably be more "adapted" to the planet we are on. Vat-grown babies is something for the elite, a nobel has a family, then growing them in a vat, might be the best way for him.

Crimes of Passion, I LOVE that idea. Also people should have romantic dates as-well (the two maybe go away from the colony and watch the stars?)


Also, I suggest kidnappers, there is a chance that someone will sneak int your colony and abduct a child. (Who may later come as a raider?)

edit:

I hate to break it to you guys but after a quick search I found this:
Semmy the Moderator stated this in that topic.

Hello once again d-;

Tynan has previously stated that reproduction doesnt really fit the lore of the game.
The lore doesnt really say that you are on that planet long enough for children to mature.
There might come a form of kids someday but not soon.

This means babies are probably a no-no.

at least until late in development.

[Semmy]

Simply said tynan has stated something along the lines off.
The game doesnt last that long. So getting kids wont have a added value or addition to the gameplay.

[Xakyrie]

Even if the game won't last that long, I do want to consider even short term benefits though.  Or at the very least possible story dynamics.

Let's assume that children are entirely useless.  They are an extra mouth to feed.  They won't grow up in any realistic time frame within the game.  You do not have any direct control over them.  However, they do give the parents a happiness bonus.  If the child dies, the parents obviously get affected.  In such a way, the children are actually a handicap that you must manage.  as bad as dwarf fortress or king of dragon pass kids XD

Or if you want to get really realistic, you could also have the baby in a crib interrupt sleep XD  and take the mother out of action many times a day.  Quite the handicap.  But otherwise a happiness bonus.

Maybe even make it a choice that conception is denied, causing couples to be unhappy for a short time to avoid the long term handicap.  (maybe even arrest baby and sell to slave traders? mwahahaha)

Alternatively, assuming a couple wants a child, you 'could' opt for VatGrown kids as well.  This would allow you to effectively have a new colonist in a few days time.  would require research, a specific building, and resources.  Maybe increase the chance the parents will choose VatGrown for each VatTank or whatever? but make Natural Conception always a possibility?

Dunno.  Maybe a part of me just wants to see a child I can't control follow a squirrel around dangerously close to freshly landed raiders akin to a kid chasing a ball into the street.

Tell me that wouldn't be hilarious 'only yourself to blame' story drama.  you bad parents you.