Better population control.

[Kevin the Inkling]

This was always a problem with games like Banished which this seems to be heavily based on. The Shelter is handy in that it houses alot and people don't reproduce in em. At the same time. A house holds a few but they do reproduce. Often times regardless of the situation. Your struggling to feed everybody and just waiting to get the resources to make more food production here's 12 new kids to feed.

The ability to halt reproduction without having to destroy and rebuild houses would be such a god send. Or a simple Cap option where you prevent people from reproducing if there isn't a free housing slot for the child to occupy.

[Assemble_Skoddy]

This could be more negative, than you might think. If you halt the reproduction or so, you will get into trouble, when your adult settlers die. Imagine you have 50 settlers and 10 children and you say "Nope, no more intimacy for you" and they will stop making kids. After a few seasons, your adults might be too old and die, so you'll have, I don't know, 30 settlers (the majority of them is old or very old) and 0 children. If you allow them to reproduce again now, you might get 5-10 kids or so but that could've been a dead end, since it takes time until they grow up and in that time, the others die and you lack of worker in different professions - or, even worse, lack of food and water and you have no possibility to gather some/enough.

[Kevin the Inkling]

Originally posted by Assemble_Skoddy:

This could be more negative, than you might think. If you halt the reproduction or so, you will get into trouble, when your adult settlers die. Imagine you have 50 settlers and 10 children and you say "Nope, no more intimacy for you" and they will stop making kids. After a few seasons, your adults might be too old and die, so you'll have, I don't know, 30 settlers (the majority of them is old or very old) and 0 children. If you allow them to reproduce again now, you might get 5-10 kids or so but that could've been a dead end, since it takes time until they grow up and in that time, the others die and you lack of worker in different professions - or, even worse, lack of food and water and you have no possibility to gather some/enough.

Hate to disagree. But it's actually easy to halt reproduction. No Cabins/houses. Thing is it's kinda hard to maintain a slow steady growth or to maintain a population. Often times your population will grow faster then then it can build/repair infastructure to keep up with the growth. If it starts growing too fast. You have to order all the houses and cabins dismantled then. Once stablized you have to order them all built again.

"Hey we have a food shortage so we're tearing your house down." Yeah that makes alot of sense. Maybe some technolgy structure like "Provisional Goverment" Could work like the Town hall in Banished in giving more detailed information on the population, maybe give some minor benifits, tons of flavor text on various aspects such as lore, etc. Like regarding different buildings, the gear, tools etc, And of course simple population control law toggle. Simple on off switch.

For balance well toggled for restricting reproduction it has a negative buff to population happiness which is there until it's toggled off.

[Assemble_Skoddy]

Originally posted by Merku:

Originally posted by Assemble_Skoddy:

This could be more negative, than you might think. If you halt the reproduction or so, you will get into trouble, when your adult settlers die. Imagine you have 50 settlers and 10 children and you say "Nope, no more intimacy for you" and they will stop making kids. After a few seasons, your adults might be too old and die, so you'll have, I don't know, 30 settlers (the majority of them is old or very old) and 0 children. If you allow them to reproduce again now, you might get 5-10 kids or so but that could've been a dead end, since it takes time until they grow up and in that time, the others die and you lack of worker in different professions - or, even worse, lack of food and water and you have no possibility to gather some/enough.

Hate to disagree. But it's actually easy to halt reproduction. No Cabins/houses. Thing is it's kinda hard to maintain a slow steady growth or to maintain a population. Often times your population will grow faster then then it can build/repair infastructure to keep up with the growth. If it starts growing too fast. You have to order all the houses and cabins dismantled then. Once stablized you have to order them all built again.

Well, if you don't build any cabins, you won't make any progress.
You can slowly start to build them at the beginning of the game to balance your population. One or two cabins, then wait a bit. Then again. If you have around 10-12, you should build a shelter. No need to demolish your buildings. Just grow slower at the beginning.

And yes, if you grow too fast, you have to balance your buildings again. Demolish some houses or cabins and build some shelters. That's what I do all the time, if I grew way too fast and get problems with food or water.

[Kevin the Inkling]

The way reproduction works is kinda haphazard at the moment. If your too slow getting your first Cabins built. You'll have a mass die off crippling ya. Not due to starvation lack of medical care or clean water but due to a large number of the people dying of old age. "Oh here's 2 new children. And 5 adults died of old age. -_- Do I move the fisherman to carry water? etc.

Then the other problem is when the population booms too fast too hard. Oh okay so we got a population of 40 not too shabby here's the upgraded shelter nice, and the 4 Cabin.. 5 minutes later.. HOLY $*@ I HAVE 50 children! I don't have enough water! More jetties! I'm out of wood and scrap. KIDS BE THIRSTY!"

Too slow to get the population to grow slow painful death spiral, Growing too Rapidly you end up in said death spiral for different reasons.

Pacing your population growth is key. But tearing down then building building houses over and over doesn't feel well right. Feels like I'm more working around a bug then well playing the game right.

Will add. It took only 4 Cabins 10 mins to fill 3 upgraded Shelters. So.. Yeah.

[Assemble_Skoddy]

Part of Endzone is macro- and micromanagement. All I read so far is that you grow too fast, because you build too many houses early on and don't adapt to it. Yes, you will get many kids if you don't have an eye on those homes and build one for every settler. Since they don't get a Debuff if they are homeless, it's totally fine to leave them homeless for as long as you're happy with your growth. To stay at these numbers, you can build a shelter.

4 Cabins fill 3 Upgraded Shelters within 10 minutes? So you're saying they will make 150 kids in 10 mins? Sorry, but I doubt that :D

You can build a handful houses at the beginning of the game, so you'll get enough kids to survive the first "death wave" when your starting settlers die. Then you'll have to keep an eye on the houses etc. as I said above.

[Bokonon]

Originally posted by Assemble_Skoddy:

Demolish some houses or cabins and build some shelters. That's what I do all the time, if I grew way too fast and get problems with food or water.

I'm just hitting a point where I've been thinking of doing this, thanks for confirming it's a good strategy. Very early on I was having trouble gaining settlers so I built cabins to encourage breeding. I'm now approaching a point I think I've got too many children. I built both cabins and a shelter then went and added more cabins. Suddenly I realized I had a bunch of homeless so I built another shelter but I think I need to slow the reproduction rate a little.

Also, no debuff for being homeless? Is this an intentional decision you guys made or is this subject to change? I'm so used to games making it bad to have homeless it's ingrained in me to build more housing. What's the team's thinking behind this?

Thanks!!

[Kevin the Inkling]

Originally posted by Bokonon:

Originally posted by Assemble_Skoddy:

Demolish some houses or cabins and build some shelters. That's what I do all the time, if I grew way too fast and get problems with food or water.

I'm just hitting a point where I've been thinking of doing this, thanks for confirming it's a good strategy. Very early on I was having trouble gaining settlers so I built cabins to encourage breeding. I'm now approaching a point I think I've got too many children. I built both cabins and a shelter then went and added more cabins. Suddenly I realized I had a bunch of homeless so I built another shelter but I think I need to slow the reproduction rate a little.

Also, no debuff for being homeless? Is this an intentional decision you guys made or is this subject to change? I'm so used to games making it bad to have homeless it's ingrained in me to build more housing. What's the team's thinking behind this?

Thanks!!

This makes no sense to me as not having shelter especially in a world with rain, dust storms and radation storms. Shouldn't being homeless for any prolonged period of time put you at serious mortal and health risk? Also IDK about you but If I was even while employed. Hell especially if I was employed my morale would be absolute garbage if that were the case.

You heard my complaint point out more flawed mechanics to justify the flawed mechanics that I'm highlighting. Give a suggestion for a possible solution that not only works but also allows you to incorperate lore into the structures etc and the world as a whole. (And yes I'm basing that idea in part off the Archives from Frost Punk. I see no reason why a post apocolyptic goverment wouldn't document their progress technolgy etc.

I don't know. I'm just dishearted that rather then hear or even respect the criticism and suggestions to improve the game. the dev merely responds with and I know this is a bit hyperbolic but it is true. "There's no problem here. Your just not using the right exploits to work around the problem." And "I'm gonna ignore what your pointing out and just say Git Good Intentionally ignoring the highlighted point.

My problem isn't "oh this is so bad it's causing me to lose." It's. I noticed I have to do this and it kinda annoying and breaks all logic for both this genre of game and the setting. Kinda taking the wind out my ability to enjoy the game.

Wanna make the game challenging? Add hostiles. There is zero reason why there wouldn't be hostile survivors, raiders, or just dangerous mutant animals.

[Assemble_Skoddy]

Originally posted by Merku:

Originally posted by Bokonon:

I'm just hitting a point where I've been thinking of doing this, thanks for confirming it's a good strategy. Very early on I was having trouble gaining settlers so I built cabins to encourage breeding. I'm now approaching a point I think I've got too many children. I built both cabins and a shelter then went and added more cabins. Suddenly I realized I had a bunch of homeless so I built another shelter but I think I need to slow the reproduction rate a little.

Also, no debuff for being homeless? Is this an intentional decision you guys made or is this subject to change? I'm so used to games making it bad to have homeless it's ingrained in me to build more housing. What's the team's thinking behind this?

Thanks!!

I don't know. I'm just dishearted that rather then hear or even respect the criticism and suggestions to improve the game. the dev merely responds with and I know this is a bit hyperbolic but it is true. "There's no problem here. Your just not using the right exploits to work around the problem." And "I'm gonna ignore what your pointing out and just say Git Good Intentionally ignoring the highlighted point.

My problem isn't "oh this is so bad it's causing me to lose." It's. I noticed I have to do this and it kinda annoying and breaks all logic for both this genre of game and the setting. Kinda taking the wind out my ability to enjoy the game.

@Bokonon:
Yeah, this is intended. They don't get a debuff for being homeless, but will get a buff, if they have a home. And there are no other negative effects that could influence a homeless settlers.


@Merku:
I think you're getting me wrong. I don't ignore your suggestions or ideas, I just say that you can already balance the settlers with buildings. And it's part of the game to find out, how you start your game and how many buildings and productions you need to supply the amount. And if you get too much people, you have to adapt and macro- and micromanage your settlement. And I said why it could be a problem if you can just forbid your settlers to reproduce.

And I think you just have a different opinion on how the game should be or what you would expect. And this is not meant in an offensive way. When I started to play the game, I also thought that there must be some debuffs or negative influences on homeless settlers. But that's not the case yet. Maybe it might be a bit confusing at the beginning, but you just need an other thinking, like me or other players. :D

I don't know why you call it exploit, since it's not. Building the right buildings and/or leave them homeless.


Of course we always want to hear your feedback, but not all ideas or suggestions will make it into the game. Some things are changed or implemented in a different way, some give us ideas for completely different features or buildings and some just don't fit to the game and/or to the vision of the devs. This is not especially said in your direction, but in general.

[Kevin the Inkling]

I call it an exploit since you said that there's no negatative to the population being homeless. No debuffs etc. That sounds like a glaring oversight or an exploit to me. Any anything that can allow you to bypass game mechanics or ignore them entirely is for all intents and purposes an exploit.

Look in no other game of this genre that I'm aware of you can just flat out ignore your population being homeless. Like Banished a game which this game micmicks to such a degree it's borderline a reskin of that game. Fail to provide shelter to your citizens in that game they die from freezing by death. Shelter is a basic and important need to cover.

Suggesting a combat system or military need to protect against hostiles/dangerous creatures in this game is merely a friendly suggestion so this game isn't simply a 100% reskin of Banished.

Banished has the same issues and system for reproduction. Maybe I'd like to not have every city builder just be Banished with different graphics?

[Assemble_Xer0]

Hi Merku,
there have been many valid points being raised and even guides and tips to help you, how you could tackle the fast raise of settlers.
If you would like your role-playing-approach of having all your homeless getting a shelter, which sounds great and passionate, but as mentioned should be taken with care with the current game mechanics.
As @Skoddy also mentioned we appreciate your feedback and suggestion about possible side-effects/impact on having too many homeless.
However, we cannot make any promises and there are many other suggestions and ideas, that have a wider audience/interest of players to be added and we simply have to prioritize, as well. Not to mention, even though we welcome all kind of feedback, suggestions and ideas, but simply cannot make any promises to get every single one of them into the game, sooner or later.
And last but not least: The game is still in Early Access and there will still be quite a lot of changes, additions, optimizations and more to come.

Summed up: Thank you for your feedback and we definitely have a look into this, but cannot make and promises so far.
In the meantime, simply take the help, support, tips and tricks you get here from the community and us.

-cheers

[Bokonon]

Originally posted by Assemble_Skoddy:

@Bokonon:
Yeah, this is intended. They don't get a debuff for being homeless, but will get a buff, if they have a home. And there are no other negative effects that could influence a homeless settlers.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question Skoddy!!

Don't take this in any way as validating Merku's rant, it's a fine difference but if it's intended behavior then by (my) definition it's not an exploit. There's no harm in building enough housing to not have homeless so it's a moot point anyway. If you think it's an exploit, don't do/use it, it's a single player game, there is no potential harm in not having any homeless, seems a silly thing to get upset about.

But, Merku's point about people sleeping outside in rain, drought and radiation not getting a debuff, well that is kind of a strange choice IMO. I'm not complaining, I was asking mostly because I was wondering about:

Originally posted by Bokonon:

What's the team's thinking behind this?

You guys are certainly not obligated to share your internal deliberations but I am curious why the decision was made if you guys are willing to elaborate.

Since you say that people with housing get a buff, I'll just look at this as the normal and consider homeless people without this buff as debuffed in my mind, that'll satisfy me, but I'm weird :P

Thanks again for interacting with your community, I recently found Endzone and have really fallen in love with it quickly, I'm super excited to see where it goes from here. Keep up the great work!

[IndigoFighter]

Originally posted by Bokonon:

But, Merku's point about people sleeping outside in rain, drought and radiation not getting a debuff, well that is kind of a strange choice IMO.

To be honest. I was surprised too, when I read that O_o I wasn´t aware of that. I was like :

Originally posted by Merku:

Look in no other game of this genre that I'm aware of you can just flat out ignore your population being homeless ... Fail to provide shelter to your citizens ... they die.... Shelter is a basic and important need to cover.

I always thought, when the red "Homeless people" notification popped up :"Uh, that´s bad, I have to build a shelter (population control in mind)" but now I´m confused about it, because, why build a shelter if not necessary ? And I´m not complaining, it´s an honest question. And that the settlers get a buff when they are not homeless anymore, well ... it doesn´t make much sense if they don´t have a debuff when homeless, outside in the rain. Maybe a higher sickness-/ death-rate would work after a certain time of being homeless ?

[Kevin the Inkling]

Originally posted by Assemble_Xer0:

Hi Merku,
there have been many valid points being raised and even guides and tips to help you, how you could tackle the fast raise of settlers.
If you would like your role-playing-approach of having all your homeless getting a shelter, which sounds great and passionate, but as mentioned should be taken with care with the current game mechanics.
As @Skoddy also mentioned we appreciate your feedback and suggestion about possible side-effects/impact on having too many homeless.
However, we cannot make any promises and there are many other suggestions and ideas, that have a wider audience/interest of players to be added and we simply have to prioritize, as well. Not to mention, even though we welcome all kind of feedback, suggestions and ideas, but simply cannot make any promises to get every single one of them into the game, sooner or later.
And last but not least: The game is still in Early Access and there will still be quite a lot of changes, additions, optimizations and more to come.

Summed up: Thank you for your feedback and we definitely have a look into this, but cannot make and promises so far.
In the meantime, simply take the help, support, tips and tricks you get here from the community and us.

-cheers

I'm not looking for tips and tricks. Nobody suggests game ideas, fixes or highlights problems to get tips and tricks or walkthroughs. Infact not only is that dismissive but also insulting.

I can build and stablize a large city just fine. My problem is because of the flaws of the game in how reproduction works and how your means of growth are so wonky.. It makes the experience not fun.

Originally posted by IndigoFighter:

Originally posted by Bokonon:

But, Merku's point about people sleeping outside in rain, drought and radiation not getting a debuff, well that is kind of a strange choice IMO.

To be honest. I was surprised too, when I read that O_o I wasn´t aware of that. I was like :

Originally posted by Merku:

Look in no other game of this genre that I'm aware of you can just flat out ignore your population being homeless ... Fail to provide shelter to your citizens ... they die.... Shelter is a basic and important need to cover.

I always thought, when the red "Homeless people" notification popped up :"Uh, that´s bad, I have to build a shelter (population control in mind)" but now I´m confused about it, because, why build a shelter if not necessary ? :lunar2020thinkingtiger: And I´m not complaining, it´s an honest question. And that the settlers get a buff when they are not homeless anymore, well ... it doesn´t make much sense if they don´t have a debuff when homeless, outside in the rain. Maybe a higher sickness-/ death-rate would work after a certain time of being homeless ?

There's very very little different about this game then Banished. Heck even the expedition system is a major let down, so little to it heck even more details flavor text and lore would go a long way.

My point of giving more control over the population growth that doesn't involve mass house tear downs and mass house building is to fix the same garbage reproduction system this game flat out copied from Banished. I kinda lost my patience with the dev's response here. Keeps ignoring my feedback. I gave feed back I highlighted problems offer several solutions to fix it.

Hell even suggested a combat/hostiles system so this game wouldn't be quite as shallow as Banished. That was also met dismissal. Yeah because a post nuclear war wasteland screams peaceful and gentle doesn't it?

Look I'm likely gonna get banned from these discussions but yeah. I did everything I reasonably could to help that I realistically can, highly problems offer solutions, suggest content so the game actually doesn't end up just being Banished with Rust.

Will say this if the devs for this game are dead set on just flat out plagerizing Banished why even engage with us on the forums? If your not gonna take our complaints or suggestions with any degree of seriousness why waste both of our time?

[IndigoFighter]

Originally posted by Merku:

Hell even suggested a combat/hostiles system so this game wouldn't be quite as shallow as Banished. That was also met dismissal. Yeah because a post nuclear war wasteland screams peaceful and gentle doesn't it?

About this : Raiders; combat; defense ect. was suggested many, many times in this forum and the Devs answered it same amount of times. Maybe just use the search option here at the forum startsite and you´ll get all the answers about that specific topic

In short : many people want something like combat and raiders and the Devs said, if it will be implemented, it´ll be with full release (planned April 2021) and it´ll be optional.

Originally posted by Merku:

If your not gonna take our complaints or suggestions with any degree of seriousness why waste both of our time?

That´s not true. Example : some people mentioned something like mining and the Devs implemented it with the last Update; the techtree wasn´t in the game 2 month ago; the overlay for the buildings is new after suggestions ect. The Devs listen to the community and try to implement as much as wanted but still trying to fulfill their vision for the game and that´s not easy to balance. One more point, this game is still in EA untill the planned full release. That said, there will be more to come.

[Bokonon]

Originally posted by Merku:

<a lot of ranting>

Why did you buy the game if you hate it as much as it seems you do? You do realize EA means it's unfinished right?