World Regrowth Grass Tufts Needed

[Ecu]

11 minutes ago, Trenix said:

What? Oh man, that's the worst thing you can do. Stick around to gaming long enough and you begin to realize that listening to the community continuously you end up with a broken and failed game. The best games went against popular opinion for good reasons. Sometimes I despised changes like everyone else did from developers and they ended up making things better, rather than worse. Stubborn people didn't want to admit to it, but most realized these changes were critical. I know business, I know game design. They're almost entirely different and listening to popular opinion will make you fail in both. Sorry, but you don't even know what you're talking about and I highly doubt you even experienced this in real life, clearly. If we were to stick to popular opinion and interest, indie games wouldn't even exist.

I fully agree specifically listening to popular opinion can indeed cause problems, however, understanding the experience a majority of people are looking for in your game will help you make a game that sells well.  This is what I mean by appealing to the majority of players.  Sometimes how you implement said experience is different than how the players imagined you doing so, I definitely agree.

13 minutes ago, Trenix said:

Those games are very poor examples of crafting survival games, aside from Don't Starve. Suggest you study up on games like Life is Feudal, Wurm Unlimited, The Forest, Haven & Hearth, Salem, Xsyon, and especially the Warcraft III: Frozen Throne map called Jungle Trolls Reborn which is possibly the closest thing you've got to Don't Starve Together which is arguably better currently.

If Minecraft is a poor example of crafting survival games, then there really isn't a good example.  Granted, I feel that Minecraft is not using the potential it has, as an engine, to provide a massively engaging experience.  However, it is one of the best selling games of all time and pretty much blows all others out of the water business-wise...and it is still selling more copies.

That said, I have also checked out The Forest and I used to play Jungle Trolls on WCIII.  Some of the rest of these I am at least familiar with to a minor degree.  There are quite a few modern survival games out there right now as well, which I've tried to keep up on at least to a passing degree.

As I am disabled, I cannot effectively afford all these games, but I do tend to check out videos, trailers, etc. showing off their gameplay.

18 minutes ago, Trenix said:

Opinions aren't to be taken as facts, which @Ecu does 90% of the time without any evidence of anything. Just look up fallacies, I won't lie, I admit I do some occasionally, but no where near @Ecu's level.

Actually, for the most part, I state things from my perspective for the most part.  Generally, however, said comments are based around interpretation of data, which I feel quite confident in.  You may disagree with me, but that does not mean there isn't truth to my comments/criticism.

--------------

Now...

All this out of the way, can we move on from belittling each other and discuss the actual topic of the thread, or should I just report it to have it be closed as it seems like it is no longer really being constructive?  If you want to continue to harp on me personally about how you feel I'm not worth discussing with, please just shoot me a private message.  I don't mind discussing things, but it is quite off topic.

 

[Tosh]

@Trenix I wasn't suggesting that all of @Ecu's arguments are valid or that they are based on anything other than personal opinion. I was merely stating the benefit of constructive dialogue over a univocal opinion. There many places where I would disagree with him (survival mode as the intended gameplay mode for example) and there are places where I would disagree with you. That is not to say that I can't find merit in the criticisms or ideas that either of you provide.

 

Anyway, I believe that world regrowth should take place and apply to many of the prefabs that currently lack a similar system. The main reason I give for this is not to spoonfeed the player, but to prevent the world from going barren, making it feel devoid of content and ultimately bore the player from repetitiveness.

I would like to see this implemented in a manner which improves on the semi-broken disease system by allowing it to randomly wipe out a single resource variant in a single season, while reintroducing it back into the world at some point the following year.

[Ecu]

1 minute ago, Tosh said:

@Trenix I wasn't suggesting that all of @Ecu's arguments are valid or that they are based on anything other than personal opinion. I was merely stating the benefit of constructive dialogue over a univocal opinion. There many places where I would disagree with him (survival mode as the intended gameplay mode for example) and there are places where I would disagree with you. That is not to say that I can't find merit in the criticisms or ideas that either of you provide.

Not really going to touch this, as it's a dead horse.  Shoot me a private message if you wish to discuss it and I will.  Just know that my viewpoint comes from the stance that survival mode is the intended experience and as such 100-150 days is generally maximum server world lifespan.

1 minute ago, Tosh said:

Anyway, I believe that world regrowth should take place and apply to many of the prefabs that currently lack a similar system. The main reason I give for this is not to spoonfeed the player, but to prevent the world from going barren, making it feel devoid of content and ultimately bore the player from repetitiveness.

Given the average server world lifespan, the world probably won't go barren anyway...it really doesn't matter either way.  However, I feel that resources dwindling to nothing is actually a good mechanic.  Mind you, this will generally only be applicable when playing a private game with some friends, however, it creates tension when you don't have as easy access to resources.  It also pushes ya to go out and gather things again, which end up as opportunities for the game to wipe you out.

I do enjoy mechanics like the disease mechanic and how it turns one resource into another form of said resource and visa versa.  However, if the players intentionally destroy both sets of resources, I don't really feel bad when they have none left and can only consider that as a lesson to be learned for their next playthrough.

[Trenix]

36 minutes ago, Ecu said:

If Minecraft is a poor example of crafting survival games, then there really isn't a good example.  Granted, I feel that Minecraft is not using the potential it has, as an engine, to provide a massively engaging experience.  However, it is one of the best selling games of all time and pretty much blows all others out of the water business-wise...and it is still selling more copies.

I had Minecraft years before it become popular. Notch had an entirely perspective of the game and it's direction. When Notch passed the game down to Jeb, the game changed its course and instead focused on exploration and creative gameplay. The crowd and the community completely changed, it went from survival to creative and from all ages to mainly children. Every feature in Minecraft is watered down so badly that I wouldn't call it a crafting survival game, whatsoever. Jeb is a terrible lead developer and should not take any credit to Minecraft's success. The popularity from Minecraft from the reminiscence of Notch, which is highly incomplete. Minecraft is more of an open source software for modding than an actual game.

Quote

All this out of the way, can we move on from belittling each other and discuss the actual topic of the thread, or should I just report it to have it be closed as it seems like it is no longer really being constructive?  If you want to continue to harp on me personally about how you feel I'm not worth discussing with, please just shoot me a private message.  I don't mind discussing things, but it is quite off topic.

It's called criticism. It's not a crime and not reportable. Take it as constructive help over a personal insult. I'm not here to attack you, but to correct you. I'll tone it down though, sometimes I get carried away.

[Ecu]

7 hours ago, Trenix said:

I had Minecraft years before it become popular. Notch had an entirely perspective of the game and it's direction. When Notch passed the game down to Jeb, the game changed its course and instead focused on exploration and creative gameplay. The crowd and the community completely changed, it went from survival to creative and from all ages to mainly children. Every feature in Minecraft is watered down so badly that I wouldn't call it a crafting survival game, whatsoever. Jeb is a terrible lead developer and should not take any credit to Minecraft's success. The popularity from Minecraft from the reminiscence of Notch, which is highly incomplete. Minecraft is more of an open source software for modding than an actual game.

We can discuss this in private, as I really don't feel this helps this discussion anymore.

7 hours ago, Trenix said:

It's called criticism. It's not a crime and not reportable. Take it as constructive help over a personal insult. I'm not here to attack you, but to correct you. I'll tone it down though, sometimes I get carried away.

If we're just going to continue being off topic, it would be better to have the thread shut down as the thread itself is no longer constructive towards the purpose it was made for.  That's all.

[JohnWatson]

@Trenix Mate, I don't see Ecu here committing any fallacies. To be honest, it's quite clear here that you're being against him merely because you have a personal issue with him. Perhaps you were offended when he said that you should look into other games instead of continuing to play DST. What he have said may have been harsh and blunt, but I see it as merely giving you advice to play a different game in which you could take more pleasure in.

Ecu seems like someone I'd be delighted to argue with. He knows that he should be using his knowledge and is quite confident when he voices his thoughts. If people weren't so hostile towards him, his arguments would be seen more of as an exchange of knowledge. And I did learn some from him. Ideally, it should be desirable to have a discussion with a person that you have disagreements with, because you will be able to learn more from someone who does not share the same perspectives that you have. If you can't accept that people can disagree with you, then really you should try to control your emotions better. 

You can obviously see that Ecu uses facts and his own reasoning to support his opinions. And you don't need to have evidence for 100% of your statements, you just need valid reason. Jesus, mate, this is not judiciary court, we're just exchanging ideas on an internet forum. Why do you insist on needing evidence for everything, do I need to make a dissertation, conduct a study, and perform a research before you can consider that my arguments are constructive? Ecu has already said that he took the time to analyze game design in survival games as a personal hobby, and that gives an amount of validity to his reasoning. Most game developers nowadays don't even concern themselves with good game design and just make unplayable eye candy.

And I can notice that you're expressing quite some hostility, mate. I don't believe you think that you actually think Ecu's posts are not intellectual and not constructive. You aren't even giving him constructive criticism, as you say you are, you're merely attacking him because his opinions differ from yours. And why do you even bother to attack him personally instead of defending your ideas and providing proper arguments. See here, mate, you're committing the fallacies yourself. Ironic, isn't it? And even if you actually think that Ecu is being unreasonable, then why do you feel the need to act in a hostile manner?

Please don't take this as me being hostile towards you, I am telling you this because I don't appreciate how you have been behaving recently. Also, I'd take Ecu's advice about just PM'ing him, maybe you can resolve this.

[Ecu]

38 minutes ago, JohnWatson said:

@Trenix Mate, I don't see Ecu here committing any fallacies. To be honest, it's quite clear here that you're being against him merely because you have a personal issue with him. Perhaps you were offended when he said that you should look into other games instead of continuing to play DST. What he have said may have been harsh and blunt, but I see it as merely giving you advice to play a different game in which you could take more pleasure in.

Ecu seems like someone I'd be delighted to argue with. He knows that he should be using his knowledge and is quite confident when he voices his thoughts. If people weren't so hostile towards him, his arguments would be seen more of as an exchange of knowledge. And I did learn some from him. Ideally, it should be desirable to have a discussion with a person that you have disagreements with, because you will be able to learn more from someone who does not share the same perspectives that you have. If you can't accept that people can disagree with you, then really you should try to control your emotions better. 

You can obviously see that Ecu uses facts and his own reasoning to support his opinions. And you don't need to have evidence for 100% of your statements, you just need valid reason. Jesus, mate, this is not judiciary court, we're just exchanging ideas on an internet forum. Why do you insist on needing evidence for everything, do I need to make a dissertation, conduct a study, and perform a research before you can consider that my arguments are constructive? Ecu has already said that he took the time to analyze game design in survival games as a personal hobby, and that gives an amount of validity to his reasoning. Most game developers nowadays don't even concern themselves with good game design and just make unplayable eye candy.

And I can notice that you're expressing quite some hostility, mate. I don't believe you think that you actually think Ecu's posts are not intellectual and not constructive. You aren't even giving him constructive criticism, as you say you are, you're merely attacking him because his opinions differ from yours. And why do you even bother to attack him personally instead of defending your ideas and providing proper arguments. See here, mate, you're committing the fallacies yourself. Ironic, isn't it? And even if you actually think that Ecu is being unreasonable, then why do you feel the need to act in a hostile manner?

Please don't take this as me being hostile towards you, I am telling you this because I don't appreciate how you have been behaving recently. Also, I'd take Ecu's advice about just PM'ing him, maybe you can resolve this.

Thanks for this.  Just wanted you to know I appreciate it.

[Trenix]

Ok really, lets stop trolling and move back to the topic. Move the rest of the off topic discussions to PMs like Ecu said but completely failed to do. Anyway, some people want regrowth for survival mode, others don't. So what do we come up with? A way to customize your own play style in the world settings which is the purpose of it to begin with. Everyone is happy, no mods required. I would really like to know why anyone would be against this.

[Ecu]

2 minutes ago, Trenix said:

Ok really, lets stop trolling and move back to the topic. Move the rest of the off topic discussions to PMs like Ecu said but completely failed to do.

Actually, I have moved discussion on the offtopic stuff to private messaging for the most part, and have only been leaving brief comments here, rather than full explanations.

3 minutes ago, Trenix said:

Anyway, some people want regrowth for survival mode, others don't. So what do we come up with? A way to customize your own play style in the world settings which is the purpose of it to begin with. Everyone is happy, no mods required. I would really like to know why anyone would be against this.

The primary reason I would be opposed to regrowth options for survival mode is that it is development time that could be better put to use elsewhere.  It would have to be disabled by default (as well as disabled on official servers) and purely an option for servers that really want it.  However, at that point...why waste the official developer's time?  Why not utilize a server-only mod that offers regrowth and is community supported.  Just seems like a better solution for something that the the average experience would never need.

[Sairdontis]

On 12/3/2016 at 10:14 PM, Ecu said:

I disagree.  The entire purpose of disease wiping out grown grass and replacing it with lizards is specifically there to cause the very effect you are complaining about.  I'm sorry, but I get the impression that you're not playing survival mode via this suggestion.  The game is seemingly focused on survival mode gameplay (as it is the most commonly played game mode, as well as the only one officially supported via official servers).  As such, it makes perfect sense to reduce resources in the world in the attempt to kill off players and force them to restart the world.

I would say that your suggestion is best left to a mod.\

You should die do a mistake not because the game simply fails to keep up with multiday scenarios.  Grass in the wild WILL grow back .  They fixed to the oversight with flint which is something that would not grow back .  Grass and twigs should always be regenerating though at a slow rate.

 

[Ecu]

36 minutes ago, Sairdontis said:

You should die do a mistake not because the game simply fails to keep up with multiday scenarios.  Grass in the wild WILL grow back .  They fixed to the oversight with flint which is something that would not grow back .  Grass and twigs should always be regenerating though at a slow rate.

I'm honestly not sure that berry bushes, twigs and/or grass tufts actually grow back if they were transplanted and wiped out by disease.  Last I understood, they did not and you would slowly dwindle said resources over time if you didn't manage them well.

[ezjm]

2 hours ago, Ecu said:

I'm honestly not sure that berry bushes, twigs and/or grass tufts actually grow back if they were transplanted and wiped out by disease.  Last I understood, they did not and you would slowly dwindle said resources over time if you didn't manage them well.

I see you shouting this 100-150 day average on server time in every freaking topic. You know that's only because the game gets incredibly boring at around day 100-150 and there's literally nothing else to do, not because the players don't actually want to continue long term. A vast majority of people I play with want to play long term and make huge bases, it's just that after day 80-120 there is literally nothing else to achieve. They would prefer to continue on surviving longer days, but they don't because there is nothing left to do.

[Ecu]

10 hours ago, ezjm said:

I see you shouting this 100-150 day average on server time in every freaking topic. You know that's only because the game gets incredibly boring at around day 100-150 and there's literally nothing else to do, not because the players don't actually want to continue long term. A vast majority of people I play with want to play long term and make huge bases, it's just that after day 80-120 there is literally nothing else to achieve. They would prefer to continue on surviving longer days, but they don't because there is nothing left to do.

That is very likely one reason.  However, another and more common reason is because on the average public survival attempt, after 100 days, the people that started the attempt have generally left as they would have been playing around 13 hours by that point.  Once people start leaving, the server usually ends up resetting due to a death (or via someone dieing intentionally to reset it), and the world starts over.  You'll notice this by the majority of servers being in August at any given time.

Regardless of the reason, however, the end result is the same...the game tends to play the best at around 1-2 years of in-game time.

[FistfulOfZen]

On 12/16/2016 at 9:41 AM, Tosh said:

Anyway, I believe that world regrowth should take place and apply to many of the prefabs that currently lack a similar system. The main reason I give for this is not to spoonfeed the player, but to prevent the world from going barren, making it feel devoid of content and ultimately bore the player from repetitiveness.

I came up with an idea in my Willow thread regarding creating renewable resources. In that case, I was talking about ways to help deal with the largest issues that people have with Don't Starve version Willow, which I prefer over the joke that she's become, but that said...

What if there were Alchemy level research to craft seeds.

5 (or 10/20/40) Grass to 1 Grass Tuft seed.

5 (or 10/20/40) Twigs to 1 Sapling seed.

5 (or 10/20/40) Berries to 1 Berry Bush seed.

Also Flint is a MAJOR problem. For new players. Maybe have new Flint appear halfway through every Winter.

The inability to find Flint is the #1 obstacle for new players surviving effectively past the first few days.

[Ecu]

6 hours ago, FistfulOfZen said:

I came up with an idea in my Willow thread regarding creating renewable resources. In that case, I was talking about ways to help deal with the largest issues that people have with Don't Starve version Willow, which I prefer over the joke that she's become, but that said...

What if there were Alchemy level research to craft seeds.

5 (or 10/20/40) Grass to 1 Grass Tuft seed.

5 (or 10/20/40) Twigs to 1 Sapling seed.

5 (or 10/20/40) Berries to 1 Berry Bush seed.

Also Flint is a MAJOR problem. For new players. Maybe have new Flint appear halfway through every Winter.

The inability to find Flint is the #1 obstacle for new players surviving effectively past the first few days.

As has already been stated by me here in this thread, and is fairly obvious by the way Klei designed the disease mechanics without adding added renewal...they want resources to dwindle over time.  Implementing additional renewal mechanics completely goes against the existing and intentional design they've already put in place.

Such renewal methods are better left to mods.

[FistfulOfZen]

Just because they implemented diseases doesn't make it a great idea or make my idea invalid, @Ecu. Do you get that?

[Ecu]

1 hour ago, FistfulOfZen said:

Just because they implemented diseases doesn't make it a great idea or make my idea invalid, @Ecu. Do you get that?

You are definitely entitled to your opinion, however, it doesn't make a solid suggestion for the official game.  Could make for an interesting mod, though.  It just doesn't make much sense to add content to the game that specifically negates the intentional reduction of resources.

[HamBatter]

6 hours ago, Ecu said:

As has already been stated by me here in this thread, and is fairly obvious by the way Klei designed the disease mechanics without adding added renewal...they want resources to dwindle over time.  Implementing additional renewal mechanics completely goes against the existing and intentional design they've already put in place.

Such renewal methods are better left to mods.

Just because it exists like so does not necessitate it is intentional. There are bugs and there are oversights.

The challenge you are looking for should be done by removal of a luxury resource that makes survival easier, like Flint (even then, free Flint drops were added to give new players a weapon and prevent early "lock out" from crafting). It is more of a fake difficulty to remove a staple resource (for light and heat) and require new players to exploit exiting the game at night if they don't find a base, Fireflies, certain set pieces, an open Cave, or Desert. Such a world join roulette should not be part of the default experience, and better served in mods.

The main argument for renewables is that the group shouldn't be held accountable for an individual's actions, related to what happened with Willowfire. If anything, the mistake a diligent player makes that results in losing Tufts is playing together, which doesn't seem to be what the game is about. People have stated that they don't mind going a year or two without Tufts as long as can expect their return. Going Tumbleweed only is more of a chore than it is a challenge for players who have settled down.

[Ecu]

5 hours ago, HamBatter said:

Just because it exists like so does not necessitate it is intentional. There are bugs and there are oversights.

The challenge you are looking for should be done by removal of a luxury resource that makes survival easier, like Flint (even then, free Flint drops were added to give new players a weapon and prevent early "lock out" from crafting). It is more of a fake difficulty to remove a staple resource (for light and heat) and require new players to exploit exiting the game at night if they don't find a base, Fireflies, certain set pieces, an open Cave, or Desert. Such a world join roulette should not be part of the default experience, and better served in mods.

The main argument for renewables is that the group shouldn't be held accountable for an individual's actions, related to what happened with Willowfire. If anything, the mistake a diligent player makes that results in losing Tufts is playing together, which doesn't seem to be what the game is about. People have stated that they don't mind going a year or two without Tufts as long as can expect their return. Going Tumbleweed only is more of a chore than it is a challenge for players who have settled down.

From what I can tell, the way resources dwindle over time is specifically focused on long term private server gameplay.  During the average public server experience, you won't generally run out of resources like that.  For roughly half the average world lifespan on an average public server, disease doesn't even trigger.  So you're generally not going to run into dwindling resources there.

On private long term servers, punishing the group for the actions of one is fine as the group is meant to be people you trust to work together.  As such the mechanic works as intended and discourages transplanting everything for fear or running out of convenience resources.  Failure to do so causes said resources to dwindle and forces you to alternative means, such as tumbleweeds.

The only area in which this mechanic suffers is public long term servers.  On endless mode servers, said resources are already renewed via two methods, one has them renew around the spawn and another has birds drop them.  Therefore the only time you really experience the specific punishing all for the actions of one issue, is public survival mode servers that happen to break the mold and last longer than the average timeframe.

This is a highly unique situation and from what I can tell doesn't generally ever happen to the official servers.  Therefore, I recommend a simple renewable mod to assist with such servers.  It could, in theory, even be done as a server only mod, so that users don't have to download anything.  Why is this a bad solution?

[HamBatter]

10 hours ago, Ecu said:

From what I can tell, the way resources dwindle over time is specifically focused on long term private server gameplay.  During the average public server experience, you won't generally run out of resources like that.  For roughly half the average world lifespan on an average public server, disease doesn't even trigger.  So you're generally not going to run into dwindling resources there.

On private long term servers, punishing the group for the actions of one is fine as the group is meant to be people you trust to work together.  As such the mechanic works as intended and discourages transplanting everything for fear or running out of convenience resources.  Failure to do so causes said resources to dwindle and forces you to alternative means, such as tumbleweeds.

So Disease is a maintenance challenge, and once the resources affected by it are gone, it no longer has a purpose. Why is this in the game again? It is not adding anything worthwhile, except arguments with your friends that make wildfires in summer. Droughts, on the other hand, give something to look forward to.

Do you notice how people don't care as much about losing Saplings in such topics? That's because Twigs are super renewable (from being so vital to crafting and filler) while the only alternative mean to acquiring Cut Grass from Tufts/Gekkos is from Tumbleweeds. The real issue probably lies in the idea of being forced to travel to one biome regularly.

10 hours ago, Ecu said:

This is a highly unique situation and from what I can tell doesn't generally ever happen to the official servers.  Therefore, I recommend a simple renewable mod to assist with such servers.  It could, in theory, even be done as a server only mod, so that users don't have to download anything.  Why is this a bad solution?

It is a solution, but this is the Suggestions and Feedback forum. People are giving feedback about Disease because they feel it is incomplete and not fun. If Disease does not happen on the official servers, why did they add it in the first place?

[Ecu]

3 minutes ago, HamBatter said:

So Disease is a maintenance challenge, and once the resources affected by it are gone, it no longer has a purpose. Why is this in the game again? It is not adding anything worthwhile, except arguments with your friends that make wildfires in summer. Droughts, on the other hand, give something to look forward to.

The purpose is specifically to dwindle resources to such a point and shake up bases that just transplant tons of resources.  Just because it can finish completing it's purpose, doesn't make it a worthless mechanic.

9 minutes ago, HamBatter said:

It is a solution, but this is the Suggestions and Feedback forum. People are giving feedback about Disease because they feel it is incomplete and not fun. If Disease does not happen on the official servers, why did they add it in the first place?

Probably because they expect people to primarily play with their friends.  Given that over half the servers currently being hosted are either password protected, or friends-only, this would seem likely.  As such this mechanic intentionally dwindles resources where they want it to, while not negatively impacting the official servers as well.  Decent plan, if you ask me.

[HamBatter]

37 minutes ago, Ecu said:

while not negatively impacting the official servers as well.  Decent plan, if you ask me.

Because you're unaffected by it?

[Ecu]

3 minutes ago, HamBatter said:

Because you're unaffected by it?

No, in general.  If indeed the intention is to have people primarily play private games for long term play, and they want to have resources dwindle over time, then this is indeed a reasonable method.

[FistfulOfZen]

On 12/3/2016 at 7:50 PM, sirknightdude said:

With the changes to disease and lizards, every grass tuft dug will turn to rot or get turned to lizards.  The ignorant hunt geekos instead of leaving them alive.  Or grass tufts get transplanted to some fool's base that goes up in flame in summer or to some troll's torch.  In a survival server that lasts over hundreds of days there can be a grassy beefalo biome that's completely without grass forever.  And what are we left with?   Everyone moving to the desert for tumbleweeds.  New joining players dying to darkness and freezing because they can't make a torch or campfire.  Basically, it's a graveyard.

Grass is the most essential crafting tool.  With grass being non-renewable there's a problem in the long run.

If Klei cared about public servers, they would have added this ages ago. I just turn off all the newer settings.