System requirements and performance questions

[Tynan]

How much variability and customization (of graphics) will be available? Will a user be able to turn particles down, or reduce the number of objects rendered while still keeping them in play?
On the flip side of that, will we be able to ramp graphics up, and make the game so beautiful we can just bask in its glow on a high-powered machine? With the wide variety of computers out there, I'd like to know who I can recommend this to when it is released.

I'm only asking for what's planned, it's never fun to select a graphics options button and see just a resolution dropbox and a "Fullscreen" checkbox.

I'll try to expose the Unity baseline options, though I think only AA settings will really be useful.

As for the rest of it, I'd rather just optimize the game to look perfect and run well on lots of PCs without configuration. It'll never need any super-crazy hardware.

[Ben]

My computer has been marked as incapable to run a Prison Architect... I know, the graphics are only alike and not the mechanisms but it's just for a completely separate point.

Anyway, it says I was incapable of playing it yet I can run it until I have around 50 prisoners or something tremendous like that. The point is I don't know whether this will be the same, will I be able to play this game to a certain degree with my computer but be restricted on gameplay, or if it does occur will the amount of my colony even be restrictive? How will gameplay be with a small colony compared to a large?

[Tynan]

You're never supposed to have more than about 20 colonists anyway.

[Ben]

You're never supposed to have more than about 20 colonists anyway.

Ah, so if I can run it from the start I should be safe then!

[NotUserFriendly]

You're never supposed to have more than about 20 colonists anyway.

Only twenty? No absurdly laggy 'Towns'-like, mega-polis?

This raises another question, will there be a form of 'Sandbox' mode where we can try to break our computers?

[Tynan]

Well, I'm trying to make the game scalable to large numbers of colonists. But there are problems to be solved as you get bigger and bigger. Large colonies aren't well-explored in playtesting yet so I'll have to watch some of how those play before I make a decision on how to handle them. In principle I don't want to artifically limit you from trying something interesting; at the same time you should understand there are technical and design challenges to solve as the colony gets bigger and I may not have the time or resources to solve all of them.

[nomadseifer]

It seems reasonable to me that there would be a limit on the number of colonists. Firstly, how many unique colonists are required to develop interesting storylines?  That number is certainly below 20.  You could have a very interesting game, I imagine, with just two trying to rough it the whole way through.  Second, how many colonists is too many to the extent that you stop feeling like they are individualized and start treating them like the Zerg in an RTS?  I'd personally put that number below 20 as well. 

[Tynan]

It seems reasonable to me that there would be a limit on the number of colonists. Firstly, how many unique colonists are required to develop interesting storylines?  That number is certainly below 20.  You could have a very interesting game, I imagine, with just two trying to rough it the whole way through.  Second, how many colonists is too many to the extent that you stop feeling like they are individualized and start treating them like the Zerg in an RTS?  I'd personally put that number below 20 as well.

You've traced my thought patterns pretty well. I'd only add that there is an inherent pleasure in having a colony grow - though there are ways to do that besides adding colonists.

I've also considered the notion of adding mobile characters who take on some of the roles of colonists without really being full people. Say, robots who do one job. A HaulBot, for example.

[GC13]

A HaulBot, for example.

I'm GC13, and I approve this message.

[Hypolite]

I reached more than 26 colonists, and it become a management game more than a story-creating one. I had to spend quite some time in the overview panel to prevent my whole colony to jump on any small fire at once, or to leave their most proficient duties to perform badly in better prioritized tasks. I was looking at an ant nest more than a human colony. 20 is an absolute limit not to be reached without problems. I'd say a simple inter-colonists relationships system would certainly spice things up in that matter.

[nomadseifer]

20 is an absolute limit not to be reached without problems.

Sorry, can you clarify what this specific statement means?  The wording is confusing me. 

[GC13]

My best guess is that he means that you can't get up to twenty colonists without the gameplay becoming un-fun.

[Hypolite]

Let's clarify: I think the game balance should be made so that the player should have increasing difficulties as he tries to include more and more people, and having 20 colonists should be a nightmare to manage. Either because it's not possible and/or too costly to grow enough food for 20 people, or because people start yelling at each other and fighting all the time.

Right now Hydroponics tables are supplying a near-infinite amount of food, and the excess food can be sold to slave traders in exchange for new colonists as I did in my most recent game. The thing is at 20 people I started reasoning in terms of teams instead of colonists. I have the Growing team, the Construction team, the Mining team, the Hauling & Cleaning team, the Firefighting team, and they all include different colonists. I barely know the name of each one of the colonists and it's a hindrance to the story part of the game.

There should not be a static cap because a player should be allowed to try to reach the highest colonists number possible, but he would have to jump through so much hoops that he would have to make up his own stories in order to get there. He would have to separate groups of colonists to avoid fights, give them larger living quarters, better decoration, buy food from farming vessels, and maybe sell the least useful members of his colony to make way for a more competent one.

Except for the relationship system, everything already exist now in the game, it's a matter of balancing.

[nomadseifer]

Let's clarify: I think the game balance should be made so that the player should have increasing difficulties as he tries to include more and more people, and having 20 colonists should be a nightmare to manage. Either because it's not possible and/or too costly to grow enough food for 20 people, or because people start yelling at each other and fighting all the time.

Right now Hydroponics tables are supplying a near-infinite amount of food, and the excess food can be sold to slave traders in exchange for new colonists as I did in my most recent game. The thing is at 20 people I started reasoning in terms of teams instead of colonists. I have the Growing team, the Construction team, the Mining team, the Hauling & Cleaning team, the Firefighting team, and they all include different colonists. I barely know the name of each one of the colonists and it's a hindrance to the story part of the game.

There should not be a static cap because a player should be allowed to try to reach the highest colonists number possible, but he would have to jump through so much hoops that he would have to make up his own stories in order to get there. He would have to separate groups of colonists to avoid fights, give them larger living quarters, better decoration, buy food from farming vessels, and maybe sell the least useful members of his colony to make way for a more competent one.

Except for the relationship system, everything already exist now in the game, it's a matter of balancing.

yes