2026-09-15 11:53:49
Anonymous:
Align resumed design work and confirmed expedition choices
hold the flood/design plan.md ..
@@ 1,40 1,38 @@
# Hold The Horde — Design Plan
-
We are correcting the design so that ordinary play delivers a discovery-focused survivorslike: massed enemies, expressive builds, urgency, surprising discoveries and a growing home. The owner resumed work on 9 September after finding that the earlier design was too small and deliberate, difficult to read, and weak on the player's experience.
+
You leave home with a modest rig, fight through a growing horde, discover a powerful interaction between your equipment and the station, and return with something that changes the next expedition. The design must make that sequence exciting on the third trip as well as the first.
-
## The current proposal
+
## The current correction
-
The corrected pitch, representative expedition and three build examples are ready for owner reaction in [The Game](/Hold%20The%20Flood/The%20Game) and [Hordes and Builds](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Hordes%20and%20Builds). The expedition must let a reader picture preparation, crowd pressure, a build breakthrough, a consequential discovery, a climax and relief. The builds must show visible behavior, player choices, growth and an earned payoff.
+
The owner chose fresh hordes each expedition and regular combat growth with larger transformations. Permanent changes and physically carried property remain, while temporary power resets on returning home. The [Owner Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) records the complete requirements.
-
The two designers completed independent first drafts, the Reviewer supplied one combined critique, and each author completed a bounded response. PM checked the actual sources and integrated the result. The owner has selected resetting temporary combat upgrades on every return home, with physical equipment and loot retained. Dates and worker states are on [Progress](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Progress).
+
The team is developing two connected proposals:
-
## What makes the proposal ready for reaction
+
- [Build Comparison](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Build%20Comparison): three builds with different ordinary play, growth, manual specials, physical costs and discoveries using their parts in the station.
+
- [Expedition Proposal](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Expedition%20Proposal): three successive outings with fresh growth, meaningful hordes, changing objectives and permanent progress.
-
- The ordinary expedition, not just an exceptional scene, is recognizably a survivorslike with massed enemies and consequential movement.
-
- Three builds create substantially different visible results and choices. Their power is understandable as something the player constructed and developed.
-
- Discovery changes what the player understands or can attempt. At least one substantial payoff goes beyond completing maintenance.
-
- The explanation connects events and mechanics to intended fun, challenge, pressure, release and emotion, and names credible ways those experiences could fall flat.
-
- A first-time reader can follow the proposal without chat history, unexplained codes or a tour through technical reference pages.
-
- The proposal respects the [Owner Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) and labels new choices as proposals. Agreement between agents and coverage counts do not establish readiness.
+
An independent reviewer will examine the stopped drafts against criteria saved beforehand. Each author receives one consolidated response, then PM checks the revised work and records its disposition. Actual task states and delivery estimates are on [Progress](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Progress).
-
## Rewrite the wiki around the game
+
## What makes a proposal ready
-
The reading path will run from the promise and an expedition to combat/builds, discovery and the changing station, people/home/story, and finally detailed reference. Main articles begin with player actions and examples. Each rule has one owning location; useful dependencies are linked and unfamiliar terms defined where introduced. Older debates and versions stay in revision history. Source hashes, review exchanges and delivery records stay in project administration or chat.
+
The reader must be able to picture ordinary play: the player's immediate goal, movement, decisions, growing pressure, breakthrough and relief. Hordes and ridiculous builds must be meaningful throughout the expedition. Discovery must change an understanding or a later action, with at least one payoff larger than routine maintenance.
-
The four-page reading route now covers an expedition, hordes/builds, discovery in the shifting station, and people/home. Both new discovery and home articles completed their combined critique, one author response and PM verification on 10 September. Eight reference pages received scoped dependency repairs.
+
The builds must differ in behavior and attention, not just appearance or damage. Their strongest results should feel constructed and discovered. Costs must create interesting decisions rather than automatically suppressing powerful combinations. A proposal should identify one plausible way its intended pleasure could fail.
-
Combat Rules and Build Rules now have readable replacements, with scoped repairs to acquisition, mechanical interfaces, the roster and all ten encounter placements. A single combined review, author response and PM integration are complete. The revised written proposals allow massed ordinary encounters, multiple ordinary weapons, paused link editing and temporary combat upgrades that reset on every return home. Thunderhead now works as one manual special with automatic restoration of charging. Exact populations, effects and growth cadence remain proposals.
+
Readable prose leads with the player and explains necessary terms in context. Each rule has one owning article; detailed references support the explanation. Review history and execution records stay outside game descriptions. Written consistency is useful but cannot establish fun, balance or campaign duration.
-
The station-space and player-information batch is integrated after one combined review, one response per author and PM verification. It preserves physical crowd sources, short rescue routes, the twelve equipment parts and the five save examples. Two concrete living-return traces now expose the cost of repeatedly walking farther to fresh combat. Existing detailed samples remain parked.
+
## After the core proposal
-
The build and expedition batch is integrated at 13:53 on 10 September after one combined critique, one author response each and PM verification. The three builds now have consistent geometry, charge, heat and recovery rules. The early expedition rig and assembly timeline are corrected, and the passenger carriage is clearly separate from optional cargo delivery. Neither travel proposal is selected. The third outing's missing temporary-power rise remains an explicit weakness, so readiness stays open.
+
First align combat, growth, persistence, equipment and their examples with the selected loop. Then develop the hospital and alien setting, characters, short rescues, language discoveries and story consequences through concrete scenes. Present the owner with consequential creative alternatives; handle routine consistency and readability within the team.
-
The next parallel batch rewrites Hospital Story Directions and Survival And Loadout for a first-time human reader. Story will lead with curiosity, dread, reinterpretation and consequential action; survival will lead with preparation, crowd pressure, a tempting find, packing choices and relief at home. Detailed reference rules remain linked and traceable. The same Reviewer will provide one focused combined critique after the stopped drafts. Actual handoffs to all three original roles are verified. Drafts target 14:35 (14:15–15:00); the reviewed batch targets 16:00 (15:30–17:00). See [Progress](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Progress).
+
Use [Open Decisions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Open%20Decisions) as the issue index. Its recommendations remain proposals, and its categories overlap. The team should not wait for fourteen separate owner answers or assume that every criticized rule needs wholesale replacement.
-
These tasks continue useful readability and player-experience work while the growth preference remains unanswered. Writing and static consistency do not establish fun, balance or campaign duration.
+
The full reading path runs from [The Game](/Hold%20The%20Flood/The%20Game) through an expedition and builds, into the changing station and its discoveries, then home, people and story. Supporting articles will be revised from their current live text, preserving the outside review's useful cleanup.
-
## Scope and next decision
+
## Open questions
-
This is design work. The selected engine is Unity and intended platform is Steam. Implementation, simulations, playtests and game assets await their relevant owner authorization. The hospital/godhood story remains a revisable leading proposal. The five earlier owner questions remain open. The additional current choice is whether temporary power grows regularly during fighting with milestone transformations, or only on clearing or sealing a horde. The latter remains provisional; silence settles neither this choice nor the earlier ones.
-
-
PM is carrying forward independent corrections while keeping specific unanswered owner choices open. An unanswered choice blocks only the work that depends on it. Actual new submissions will inform the detailed-campaign estimate. Additional permanent agents will be proposed only for a concrete independent workload. The earlier readiness declaration is withdrawn; the [readiness page](/Hold%20The%20Flood/V1%20Readiness) records the current decision.
+
- Which precise growth rhythm, reward presentation and milestone conditions best support the selected direction?
+
- How should permanent changes alter fresh crowd placement without creating long empty approaches?
+
- Which story and rescue consequences should be offered to the owner next?
+
- What does completing the station connection do, and what content scope can support the intended journey?
+
- The rules and numbers are proposals; practical testing awaits the owner's development-phase authorization.
