Catastrophic Events

  • That's actually a good point that I didn't think about @Scots! My idea was more for the late alpha/early beta than the Alpha, due to the assets and coding required to make such a thing even happen.

    The only possible issue I have is that it might become very repetitive for players until then - because all you do is basically grind resources until the inevitable happens. I think that just having severe impacts on the system instead could help fine tuning the simulation further, even if it is for unlikely events at the beginning.

  • well i believe the asteroid or endgame disaster should be one of the last thinks to implement. i would think that adding other stuff like ice age or other thinks that make the game hard should be implemented. just my idea .. i agree just grinding resources would be boring .. but just grinding until an asteroid comes could also be boring

  • I think Viral outbreak, even zombisim, would be very interesting. You would have to quarantine players (in essence that character you made will be unplayable until cured, or playable but locked up in some quarantine building that would need food supplied by the player-government. Thus you'd need to create an alternate character, which you may use to help look for the "cure" for your other character, or just write them off. Alternatively you could declare open season on all infected. Another option with zombisim specifically. The character may be unplayable however if "quarantined" there is a "chance" you could find a cure. Of course you could use these players as test subjects and that could have a chance to mutate the virus to something stronger...think resident evil... though this would also lead to a greater chance at finding a cure and lead to other research trees (stronger immunity to other ailments. A decreased need for sleep, weapons...for medical purposes the possible side-effects would be interesting)

  • i think zombies would be a bit over the top for the vanilla version .. viral outbreak ... like the common cold ... eve something even more severe player and animal life .. yea why not =P this could even apply to plant life ( i guess pollution is basically doing something like this already tho )

  • What if concentrated pollution in one area could cause a outbreak in the animal population of that areas that turned them into something like zombies. It could then spread to humans and end the world.

  • No zombies. There's enough "zombie apocalypse survival" games out there and most of the communities are just toxic. I agree that maybe some disease that spreads from animals to players could be useful, but definitely nothing supernatural. An epidemic should be a nuisance, not a hard mode trigger.

  • What if pollution can mutate the ecosystem. Change the temper of animals, aggressive undergrowth growth so trees can't grow, or other plants that hinders the player and animals?

  • Not all ailments are transferable from animals to humans or vice-versa. Some could sure and some can mutate to be able too, especially blood born ailments, however I don't think the apocalypse to come should be all to complicated. No one should be scratching their heads wondering why everyone is dropping dead or becoming zombies. It would think it should be either "we did this and so it caused this" or this is going to happen so prepare for the worst. Also a catastrophe once caused I think a well prepared person or community should be able to bounce back from though perhaps with great difficulty.

  • An alternative idea would be to allow for a little ice age. Now, I don't have any idea how the meteorite is supposed to be stopped, but what if there was a possibility of partial success? Instead of the world either being destroyed or completely saved, suppose that an ice age is triggered. The players then have to adapt to the new environment and find ways to survive. The environment would then heal after, say, another 30 years has passed - or rather the temperatures would stabilize.

    And of course, if the meteorite isn't destroyed at all there should still be a chance of bringing the environment back to balance.

    The only issue of course is extinction. Maybe a set of future skills, like cloning extinct species, could be possible? Or, alternatively, a way to catch live game and store in some way. Like building a zoo, but protected.

    If you allow for underground dwellings, green houses (glass roofs to concentrate warmth, pipe irrigation), and underground growing areas with artificial lighting that would also allow for adaptation scenarios. Just as importantly, such possibilities will allow for people to specialize as "Survivalists" who, rather than trying to stop disaster, or actively preparing for it. This type of player would actually make issues worse for the players trying to stop disaster, but at the same time would make surviving the disaster itself more likely. They would also likely be more difficult to be spotted very often on the surface meaning that the antisocial element is introduced to a very social game.

    EDIT: Also, if you allow such things, it creates the possibility that everyone will just try prepare for the disaster rather than meeting it head on. In that case maybe another meteorite could arrive every so often?

  • The concept of a "seed bank" and shelters as a different way to survive a disaster - such an "end" might allow the world to recover, eventually, while emphasizing how difficult it can be to try and restore an ecosystem after catastrophic change.

    Remediation is a smaller aspect of the game before full-blown catastrophe; the alternate scenario where remediation is an absolute necessity to survive at all, once everything is blown or destroyed...

    Extinction should be a real danger right from the off. At every stage animals and plants and ocean life should be able to expire, never to return. Oh, sure, some animals will survive - cockroaches have a tremendous survival record, partly because they can eat just about anything and live just about anywhere (at least the generalist ones - some specialist cockroaches are as vulnerable to extinction as any other animal life).

    At some point, pending the disaster, there should be a bifurcation point where the society has to make the choice of averting the disaster, or withstanding it: it is doubtful any society would have the resources to prepare for both, and this might prove an agonizing or even impossible choice for some societies.

Log in to reply