2026-09-07 22:22:56
Anonymous:
Close written foundations and start rescue/home milestone
hold the flood/design plan.md ..
@@ 1,59 1,37 @@
# Hold The Horde — Design Plan
-
The first written design exercise explored how discovery, expressive builds, horde survival and caring for rescued people can support one coherent experience under the [Owner Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief).
+
The team is designing a discovery-first survivorlike under the [Owner Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief), with expressive builds, meaningful hordes and an authored colony. The work below is design only. Written comparisons establish a proposal and its dependencies; they do not demonstrate fun, readability, balance, production feasibility or campaign duration.
-
This is the design plan for the registered [team](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Team), not settled game mechanics or permission to implement anything. No previous design settles the brief’s undecided systems.
+
## Current milestone: rescue and home
-
## Current status
+
The next outcome is one complete proposed loop: notice an authored person, understand and help them, get them aboard, and see their presence matter on a later expedition. Lead, Systems and Reviewer saved independent first positions; PM read, verified and released all three together. The positions overlap on preparation and a short consequential extraction but differ on its costs, failure consequences and the person's later contribution. Agreement is not evidence that any choice is best.
-
The first written exercise is complete and accepted by PM as a provisionally integrated design example. It gives the team a coherent proposal to reason from, not demonstrated gameplay quality or owner approval of every mechanic. The revised pair addresses the independent review with observable evidence for the proposed glyph inference, concrete carrying choices and an explicit player-shown clue that Yeva can interpret.
-
-
The example's narrow notebook interface and Yeva's handwriting contribution are scenario choices. They do not prohibit other notebook uses or survivors helping with languages and mysteries. Oxygen's effect on curiosity, actual inferability and enjoyment, death losses, persistence, balance and content scope remain open. Design only continues.
-
-
## Oxygen and observation — written comparison complete
-
-
[Oxygen and Observation](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Oxygen%20and%20Observation) is provisionally integrated following independent positions, focused review and a reasoned response. Its record contents, paused display and example are explicit. The owner decided that the rest of the game pauses while the journal screen is open, including during combat; the requirement is recorded in the [Owner Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief). Record format, capture costs, other interface details and the wider oxygen rhythm remain proposals. This written exercise establishes coherence, not fun, balance or demonstrated accessibility.
-
-
## Death and persistence — written comparison complete
-
-
[Death and Persistence](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Death%20And%20Persistence) is provisionally integrated after focused review, author response and final PM consistency corrections. The working proposal preserves carried items in recoverable caches and retains journal records. Gear availability and recovery journeys are costs; the equipment-versus-salvage capacity tradeoff also remains under the alternative of restoring pre-departure gear. The proposal requires a minimum useful expedition even after all carried equipment is cached. Systems is addressing that dependency below. Death-loss preferences and effects on experimentation remain unvalidated; broader survivor-loss and deliberate-death preferences are reserved for concrete decisions requiring the owner.
-
-
## Active milestone: exploration structure and build rules
-
-
The next outcome is a coherent proposal for repeated exploration and player-made combinations beyond the earlier example sortie. The two authors work concurrently, each saving an independent position before new peer exposure, then continuing directly to a complete draft and self-check. These are proposals under the existing brief, not a new development phase.
| Lead | [Exploration Structure](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Exploration%20Structure), author response active | Compare station arrangements; explain stable and changing places, route knowledge and revisits through a compact three-expedition example with narrative discovery and a practical consequence. |
-
| Systems | [Build Rules](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Build%20Rules), author response active | Compare ways to compose equipment; define understandable interactions with a small illustrative part set and three build paths, inventory costs and a minimum useful expedition after gear loss. |
-
| Reviewer | Review in project chat | Save independent starting alternatives before either new draft; inspect each verified submission as it arrives and their interface once both arrive. Report consequential objections and real uncertainties. |
-
-
Both drafts were published and reviewed under the advance assignment, without another PM permission step. Lead and Systems now have one coordinated response to the review, including a shared inspection/navigation contract, concrete goals and evidence, and traceable build effects. Systems writes the small shared contract first while Lead revises independent sections; each edits only their owned pages and reports any real conflict. Article ownership remains with the named writer. PM will inspect the actual responses and make a provisional disposition or relay a necessary preference. Current response assignment126 is in project chat. The initial reviewer is preparing an independent rescue/home checkpoint under127; after submitting their responses, both authors will prepare the same next question independently before reading peer conclusions. This prepares the next useful milestone without adopting rescue, colony or permanent-loss rules.
-
-
PM coordinates ready handoffs within active work sessions. One-minute scheduled checks provide a fallback while authorized useful work remains; hourly checks apply when no such work can continue. The next work should follow actual dependencies, not keep people busy with duplicate design or reviews.
+
| Lead | Rescue and Home | A concrete rescue story with the person's own choices, a horde-defence moment, a human response aboard, later interpretation and a tangible capability contribution; compare a credible physical-escort alternative. |
+
| Systems | Rescue Rules | A concise transfer/air/shelter contract and state table covering postponement, abort, interrupted transfer and astronaut death before or after the person is sent. |
+
| Reviewer | Focused review in project chat | Review each verified submission as it arrives and their interface together; inspect agency, evidence, local failure outcomes, supply/carrying costs and the actual colony transition. |
-
## First exercise contract (completed)
+
The authors work concurrently. Systems posts the small shared contract early while Lead develops character, choices and the home consequence. Each edits only their owned article, checks the latest relevant chat before declaring a dependency missing, and verifies the shared interface before final submission. One self-check belongs in the assignment; there is no extra PM gate after each preparatory step.
-
The design lead will own one short player-experience proposal, supported by a systems comparison and reviewed independently. Describe a station sortie from the ship through a clear immediate objective, meaningful horde pressure, a useful discovery and a purposeful return. Include a concrete human consequence involving an authored survivor. For this initial comparison, use a representative sortie to recover useful station salvage and return. This is a proposed design exercise, not a mandated opening mission; its exact fiction remains open.
+
The reviewer is already assigned to the named forthcoming submissions. Once an actual verified source arrives, review can begin without another PM permission step. The independent starting position remains preserved. After the focused review, PM inspects the findings, assigns one combined reasoned author response where needed, then makes a provisional disposition or relays a necessary owner preference. No review until unanimity is planned. Current bounded assignment140 and the unchanged first positions138–139 are in project chat.
-
Compare **two materially different build approaches to the same objective**: what the player acquires, chooses and sacrifices; how power grows; what limits or failure cases remain; and how a learned interaction remains useful beyond one specially prepared room. Preserve the desired tradeoff between equipment and salvage. Enemy manipulation may contribute without becoming the main subject of experimentation.
+
No global survivor-permadeath rule is settled. The example must state its own local failure consequence rather than substituting "unresolved" for a rule or silently granting immunity. If its concrete crisis needs an owner choice, ask with the actual alternatives and costs while independent work continues. Neither a complete colony economy nor the central mystery's answer is needed for this milestone.
-
Show what the player knows and can do after the discovery that changes a later decision. Separate readable survival information and controls from intentionally unresolved mysteries. Keep proposed mechanics and persistence rules explicitly provisional. Do not select the central mystery's answer merely to complete the document.
+
## Completed written foundations
-
Aim for a readable proposal of roughly 1,200 words plus a compact comparison; useful clarity matters more than an exact quota. A full design bible, detailed balance numbers, fixed district counts and elaborate lore are premature.
+
- [Expedition Proposal](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Expedition%20Proposal) and [Build Comparison](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Build%20Comparison): a provisional sortie with observed glyph evidence, contrasting equipment/cargo builds, carrying choices and a survivor interpreting a player-shown clue. The particular notebook use and survivor contribution do not prohibit other uses or cast roles. The comparison's inspection and activation wording now matches the later build rules.
+
- [Oxygen and Observation](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Oxygen%20and%20Observation): provisionally integrated record/display proposal. The owner decided that opening the journal pauses the rest of the game, including enemies and oxygen during combat; that requirement is in the brief. Other journal details and the wider oxygen rhythm remain proposed.
+
- [Death and Persistence](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Death%20And%20Persistence): working proposal for persistent recoverable caches and retained records. Equipment availability and recovery journeys are costs. The suit baseline proposed in Build Rules answers the minimum-expedition dependency on paper; actual reach, part supply, abandonment and recovery viability remain unvalidated.
+
- [Exploration Structure](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Exploration%20Structure): provisionally integrated fixed geometry with varying state, reach and access, concrete goal examples and narrative reinterpretation. Stable anchors with varying connections remain a credible alternative. Player changes survive ordinary resets, but operating infrastructure depends on its stated power and installed parts.
+
- [Build Rules](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Build%20Rules): provisionally integrated connected equipment grammar, illustrative shared-part builds, causal-event rules and suit baseline. Navigation records traversed breadcrumbs without promising an unseen safe route; local equipment previews remain understandable while learned families help with unfamiliar objects and preparation. Fields, capacities and performance are not tuned or validated.
-
## Drafts
+
The foundations milestone closed after review125, coordinated responses and final PM consistency edits, disposition137. Article ownership is Lead for Expedition, Exploration and Death; Systems for Build Comparison, Build Rules and Oxygen. No further broad foundations review is pending. Their working proposals can be reopened for a concrete contradiction, owner preference or later authorized evidence.
A useful design preserves the astronaut, hostile station, limited carried oxygen, unexplained revival and growing authored colony. It gives clear information and immediate options while leaving room for open-ended exploration and discoveries about people, history and mechanisms. Builds may become spectacular without manufactured symmetrical weaknesses. Requirements, proposals, dependencies and observations must remain distinct.
-
- Faithful to the astronaut, hostile unofficial station, limited carried oxygen/unlimited ship oxygen, unexplained revival, rescued community and alien-language premise.
-
- Discovery first and expressive builds second are visible in player decisions; ordinary horde combat matters.
-
- The two approaches create materially different player decisions and power payoffs beyond a single scripted event. Describe actual costs and limits without requiring symmetrical weaknesses or weakening spectacular builds to fit a template.
-
- Systems do not contradict one another, and the immediate goal and survival information remain understandable.
-
- Unknowns and the largest content/scope risks are explicit. The 30/90/100–200 hour ambitions remain unvalidated.
-
- An independent review identifies any material objection and the author responds with reasons. Acceptance never requires unanimity.
+
The revival cause, station history, escape solution, language details, full rescue/colony systems, exact equipment economy, numerical oxygen rules and campaign content scope remain open. The 30/90/100–200 hour ambitions remain unproven. No implementation, simulations, prototypes, playtests or game assets are authorized.
-
The first exercise used an integration pass before independent review. The active milestone above instead assigns review of the named submissions in advance; the reviewer also checks their shared interface, and PM coordinates any required response with one writer per article. PM will integrate a coherent provisional direction, retain important unresolved tradeoffs and ask the owner only the decisions that materially affect it. Later development or player validation requires explicit owner authorization; written descriptions cannot establish gameplay quality.
+
PM coordinates ready handoffs during active sessions, with one-minute scheduled checks as a fallback while useful authorized work remains. Hourly checks apply only when no such work can continue. The [Team](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Team) page records the working agreement. Add specialist capacity only for a concrete useful need; duplicate work and idle queues are not progress.
