Hold The Horde — Progress
Work resumed on 15 September. The immediate goal is a game proposal that delivers fresh horde combat, an exciting rise in power, surprising discoveries and builds that play differently on successive expeditions.
The owner has now chosen fresh hordes each expedition and regular growth through fighting, with larger transformations. Permanent changes and carried property remain; temporary combat power resets whenever you return home. The answers are recorded in the Owner Brief.
Latest result
Three proposal packages are complete today, 15 September: builds/expeditions at 12:08, story/survival at 12:32, and combat growth through the sample route at 12:45. Each passed one independent critique, an author response and PM checks. They provide concrete experiences for your reaction; practical validation remains ahead.
| Completed outcome | Result |
|---|---|
| 59 — Three different build experiences | Three ways to break a horde: stored electrical chains, timed ricochet fragments and movement-driven heat |
| 60 — Three worthwhile expeditions | The observation ward: repair, test an apparent window as an alien instrument, then reach a hidden refuge |
| 61 — Independent review and response | Corrected unearned puzzle inference, mismatched rig abilities, growth order and unexplained cost notation |
| 56 — Hospital story directions | Two core mysteries, with observable evidence, affected treatment and reversible consequences distinguished |
| 57 — Survival and loadout | Packing for spectacle and discovery: compare both kits at the same progression; both retain ordinary disc spectacle |
| 58 — Story/survival review and response | Clarified causal scope, evidence preservation and the real cost of the heavier kit |
| 62 — Growth and a renewed combat route | Combat Rules: regular improvements, a major breakthrough, meaningful crowds and discovery quiet mapped onto existing rooms |
| 63 — Combat review and response | Corrected oxygen accounting, retained deferred upgrades and made the major reward compatible with valid defensive play |
| 65 — Review of the fully sealed route | Found an unsupported crowd-total assumption and an upgrade-order problem; author correction remains in progress |
The chosen expedition and growth rules are recorded in the Brief and combat references. The new reader-path review found obsolete clearing and growth statements on The Game and in Hordes and Builds; correcting them is part of the current work. The new Ricochet and Gravity mechanisms are still proposed replacements for parts of the old detailed build rules; numerical reconciliation has not been declared complete.
Current work
Three outcomes are in progress across combat and wiki readability. The completed route uses open enemy sources. We are now resolving what the next expedition is like after the player permanently seals all four sources on that route. The player should keep the benefit of that work and still find a worthwhile horde, growth and a discovery.
| Outcome | Who | State | Next delivery, Jerusalem time |
|---|---|---|---|
| 64 — Fresh combat after every source is sealed | Systems Designer, then PM | Draft delivered 12:58; review 65 complete; one author correction working | Response 13:35; range 13:15–14:00. Reviewed package 15:00; range 14:00–16:00 |
| 66 — Review the six main reading pages | Temporary GPT reviewer | All six read; preparing the single critique | Critique 13:45; range 13:15–14:15 |
| 67 — Publish a clear, consistent reading path | PM | Reading complete; revision follows critique 66 | Reviewed pages 16:00; range 15:00–17:00 |
This work can continue while the owner reacts to the three build directions. The previous package is integrated into the room, encounter and survival references for its named route configuration. The additional case must explain visible fresh enemies without silently undoing seals, closing the shortcut or refilling a cleared area during the same expedition.
The original Claude Reviewer became reachable and received the readability assignment automatically, then stopped at a monthly spend limit at 13:03. Temporary GPT support is completing that review. The Lead was absent from the same directory check. Existing role/model settings are unchanged, and no manual message forwarding or new permanent agent is needed.
The outside Open Decisions review has been read and its fourteen groups triaged. Most room, character, language, interface and consistency work belongs to the team. The reported 49-page cleanup has not yet been independently verified by PM; current pages are checked as their topics are revised.
Delivery forecast
Updated 15 September, forecast F2.6. Estimates assume work continues today and about five further active working days for the first full pass. The dates will change when actual delivery or remaining decisions change the work.
| Milestone | Target | Plausible range | What will be ready |
|---|---|---|---|
| First reviewed build/expedition packet | Completed today 12:08 | Earlier than revised 13:00 target | Both proposals, critique, responses and PM checks |
| Growth and renewed-route draft | Submitted today 12:22 | Earlier than 13:00 target | A concrete rhythm and an example using the actual station plan; critique completed 12:27 |
| Reviewed story/survival proposals | Completed today 12:32 | Earlier than 14:00 target | Current proposals, one focused critique, one response and PM disposition |
| Reviewed growth/route packet | Completed today 12:45 | Earlier than 14:30 target | Proposal, critique, response and checked integration into supporting pages |
| Reviewed expedition after all four source seals | Today 15:00 | Today 14:00–16:00 | A concrete later expedition that preserves permanent work, with critique, response and integration |
| Clear, consistent six-page reading path | Today 16:00 | Today 15:00–17:00 | Main pitch, expeditions, builds, home and station connection with obsolete rules removed and necessary terms explained |
| Coherent revised design wiki | 23 September | 21–28 September | Readable core articles and supporting rules aligned with selected directions; consequential open choices explicit |
| Full detailed campaign design | 24 November | 3 November–22 December | Proposed progression, content, mysteries, ending paths and production scope developed across the campaign |
The near-term forecast has moderate confidence. The full-wiki estimate has low confidence; the detailed-campaign date has very low confidence and is a planning allowance pending a fresh content estimate. Neither means the game is built, tested, balanced or proven to last the desired number of hours. Development and playtests await separate authorization.
The first packet was initially forecast for 14:15 today, advanced to 13:00 as drafts arrived, and completed at 12:08. The pre-pause estimates were 15 September for the readable wiki and 17 November for detailed campaign design. Five paused calendar days and the outside review's unresolved core-loop findings require new dates. F2.3 resumed the story/survival review in parallel after reconciling current sources. F2.4 recorded the story package at 12:32. F2.5 records the combat package at 12:45, ahead of its 14:30 estimate, and adds the next concrete case after all four sources are sealed. F2.6 adds the six-page readability response and records the recovered Claude connection followed by its spend limit; temporary support keeps the current targets. The full-wiki and campaign dates are unchanged. Earlier estimates and actual deliveries remain in this page's revision history.
What must improve
- Each expedition provides fresh combat and a rise in power before its major challenge, while permanent discoveries and changes keep their value.
- Builds differ in movement, attention, cost and payoff, and permit useful combinations the player can discover.
- Hordes create urgency and spectacular releases; earned quiet gives discoveries room to land.
- Articles explain what the player wants, notices and does, and why the experience could be exciting. Consistent numbers and completed documents alone do not satisfy this standard.
Held work and earlier outcomes
The full tracker contains 67 outcomes: 61 preparation outcomes closed, 3 current, 0 held, 1 readiness assessment reopened and 2 parked. Earlier closure records document preparation and integration, not proof the game meets the brief.
| Outcome | State | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 38 — Full design readiness | Reopened | The player's experience and cross-page consistency still need work |
| 39–40 — Earlier detailed samples | Parked, unaccepted | Reassess after core corrections |
Previous completed work includes the discovery/home, combat, room/information, and build/expedition drafting batches. The latest owner answers supersede their permanent encounter-clearing and stage-only growth assumptions. Their useful content remains input to the correction.
Next owner decisions
The two immediate combat choices are answered. The owner is now being asked which of the three build directions to deepen first; this sets a priority without discarding the others. Next, PM will bring concrete story and rescue alternatives, then the effect of completing the station connection and a costed scope proposal. The fourteen review categories are not fourteen questions the owner must answer before work continues.