2

Make Impatience Bad

  • Open

A
Anonymous

Impatience should be a bad thing. Nowadays, people deliberately jack up impatience to at least 50% in order to get hostility reduction and various other bonuses which scale with hostility. Instantly calling the trader and robbing traders have the side-effect of making the Queen impatient and this is supposed to be a bad thing, not a good thing. They also hold off on completing orders because they want impatience kept high. I want a return to the old ways where players were actually incentivized to keep the Queen's impatience low.

Currently, the only downside to high impatience is a small point penalty at the end of the game which doesn't bother anyone.

So here's the new system. Like storm hostility, the Queen's impatience exceeding certain levels will have negative effects. For example. @1: The colony is no longer a fledgling colony and the Queen withdraws her protection. She will no longer hold back the forest. (Lose a buff which reduces hostility and increases resolve by 1). @6: The colonists sense the Queen's ire. They worry she will abandon them. (-3 global resolve) @8: No more support. If you must succeed, do it with what you've already been given. No more cornerstones or colonist caravans during drizzle. @9: They sense desperation. Trader prices increase by 100%.

A

Activity Newest / Oldest

Avatar

PotatoMcWhiskey

The game clock making the game easier as it ticks up is the correct way it should work. Running out of time shouldn't make the game harder, you want a soft landing.

HOWEVER, there should be a benefit to having high and low impatience, scaling at both ends so that players aren't just choosing to jack it up early game.


Avatar

balistafreak

Vehemently disagree with this suggestion. Impatience serves as the game clock and having it make the game harder as it ticks up creates "unstable equilibrium"-style difficulty where the moment things start to get even a little bad, they get REALLY bad REALLY fast.

Unstable equilibrium style difficulty is extremely well documented in game design as disincentivizing risk taking and encouraging metagame tactics where a single mistake is worth reloading a save or even scrubbing and restarting an entire run. Some people consider restarting a roguelike run 20 times before settling on a "solid start" to be part of the charm of the genre; I call it tedious at best and cancerous at worst.

I feel like most of the people supposedly "abusing" the impatience-stacking are already playing on a lower prestige level that they can clear consistently and their idea of an "easier" run is completing it more quickly so they have less opportunity to hang themselves on their own petard and can start the next run more quickly. The later prestige multipliers (trader prices being higher, reputation only restoring 50% impatience) go a long way in crippling this strategy and I can say from experience that giving yourself less "final time" and making it impossible to call traders when you actually have amber to spend are sufficient downsides at higher prestiges.

That being said, impatience times into hostility which ties into the negative Storm modifiers you will face, which creates some humorous "lore" implications. Reassigning woodcutters to lower hostility and avoid the forest's wrath feels sensible. Flipping some distant monarch the middle finger and the forest mysteriously ceasing to throw lightning bolts at you has a weird gap in logic. Why does sending a sternly worded letter to coerce a trader to your colony stop your colonists from falling over dead to lurking spirits? Who knows.

Is it lore-friendly to be denied nice things and have thumbscrews turned when the going gets tough? Sure, but I don't think it'd be very much fun.

The game being more lenient as you approach the Game Over mark is a good thing, but the method by which it does so is a bit suspect.


  • Avatar
  • Avatar
  • A