Blame
|
1 | # Hold The Horde — Design Plan |
||||||
| 2 | ||||||||
|
3 | 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). |
||||||
|
4 | |||||||
|
5 | 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. |
||||||
|
6 | |||||||
|
7 | ## Current status |
||||||
| 8 | ||||||||
| 9 | 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. |
|||||||
| 10 | ||||||||
| 11 | 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. |
|||||||
| 12 | ||||||||
| 13 | ## Next question: oxygen and observation |
|||||||
| 14 | ||||||||
|
15 | Lead and Systems completed their independent first positions; PM verified both saved texts and released them together in project chat. Systems has submitted [Oxygen and Observation](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Oxygen%20and%20Observation), separating in-world observation from interface reading and stating a proposed default, alternatives, accepted costs and unresolved dependencies. The focused review is complete. Systems retains article ownership for one reasoned response clarifying record contents, the paused display and the example. The owner has been asked whether notebook pauses should work during combat; that preference is pending. PM will evaluate the response and actual edits before a disposition. Similar initial preferences do not settle the choice: the timing boundaries and cost of moving discovery aboard ship still need explicit treatment. No oxygen rhythm is adopted; no simulation or player test is authorized. |
||||||
|
16 | |||||||
| 17 | ## First exercise contract (completed) |
|||||||
|
18 | |||||||
|
19 | 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. |
||||||
|
20 | |||||||
|
21 | 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. |
||||||
|
22 | |||||||
| 23 | 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. |
|||||||
| 24 | ||||||||
| 25 | 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. |
|||||||
| 26 | ||||||||
|
27 | ## Drafts |
||||||
| 28 | ||||||||
| 29 | - [Expedition Proposal](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Expedition%20Proposal) |
|||||||
| 30 | - [Build Comparison](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Build%20Comparison) |
|||||||
| 31 | ||||||||
|
32 | ## Acceptance |
||||||
| 33 | ||||||||
| 34 | - Faithful to the astronaut, hostile unofficial station, limited carried oxygen/unlimited ship oxygen, unexplained revival, rescued community and alien-language premise. |
|||||||
| 35 | - Discovery first and expressive builds second are visible in player decisions; ordinary horde combat matters. |
|||||||
|
36 | - 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. |
||||||
|
37 | - Systems do not contradict one another, and the immediate goal and survival information remain understandable. |
||||||
| 38 | - Unknowns and the largest content/scope risks are explicit. The 30/90/100–200 hour ambitions remain unvalidated. |
|||||||
| 39 | - An independent review identifies any material objection and the author responds with reasons. Acceptance never requires unanimity. |
|||||||
| 40 | ||||||||
|
41 | Lead and Systems draft in parallel, with one writer per article. Before review, reconcile shared assumptions about carrying burden, extraction conditions and relevant hazards. PM resumes Lead for an integration pass once Systems is ready, then gives the reviewer the exact reconciled revisions. 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. |
||||||