Removing world regeneration vote from Survival

[blizstorm]

I like to request that world regeneration vote be removed from survival game mode.

Glommer Goop server recently survived to 1600 days. However, 5 new accounts logged in, and voted successfully to regenerate the world. One of them played just long enough, 20 days, to start the regeneration vote

World regeneration vote would have its utility in endless and wilderness mode, but not much in survival mode. From my experience, regeneration vote in survival is mainly due to trolling, or accident, a misclick of rollback. None of these purposes are desirable. Survival mode all along has the regeneration condition when all players are dead; players in survival mode can still regenerate a world by suiciding.

A world has many stakeholders; among them players who have built the world but were offline during the vote. Requiring just a simple majority during the vote severely underplays the contributions of long term and friendly players.

[WilsonGuy_]

Thanks for the idea. Would you mind posting such things HERE next time?

[ImDaMisterL]

2 hours ago, Wilson_pl said:

Thanks for the idea. Would you mind posting such things HERE next time?

Moved!

[SinancoTheBest]

yea, perfect idea. If the players want it they can reset the server by all dying so it really serves no purpose in Survival mode aside from screwing thing up. It should be kept for Endless and Wilderness though as you said.

[fimmatek]

If you want a long-term game, why don't you play on an endless, maybe even moderated world? 

In my experiences, world regen was more useful than harmful. At least twice we had a world where a single player didn't agree to start again (and it wasn't an old world - we were still in first year), so without voting we couldn't have regenerated. 

[blizstorm]

To facilitate discussion, I would define long term as expecting the world to live beyond 180 days, which is beyond 1 physical day. It does not necessarily be in the region of 10000 days, but having that would indicate a good pool of players interested in the long term survival of the server.

I play long term on survival because I take death seriously, both at the start of the game, and even the later stage. I have lost of a few world of 1+k days due to complacency. I also like Klei server for its server performance, huge player pool and mix of players. Building megabases on unmoderated public server is also an inspiration for others.

World regeneration vote, is bundled together with rollback and votekick. Even other dedicated hosts are unable to specifically disable world regeneration vote.

14 hours ago, fimmatek said:

In my experiences, world regen was more useful than harmful. At least twice we had a world where a single player didn't agree to start again (and it wasn't an old world - we were still in first year), so without voting we couldn't have regenerated. 

World regeneration vote made short term players overpowered. Just because short term players have a simple majority for 30 second, other players, offline players, who previously played hours or even days, have their contributions to the server forfeited. This removal, is to shift the balance of power towards long term and friendly players. The gracious thing for you to do is to simply move on to other servers, and even to host your own.

One of the more 'sefless' reason from griefers are to liberate server, or to get to start a new world. When people do not pass world regeneration vote, they burnt bases to force it. 

[Nullum]

On 2/26/2019 at 1:05 PM, blizstorm said:

This removal, is to shift the balance of power towards long term and friendly players. The gracious thing for you to do is to simply move on to other servers, and even to host your own.

Then you are asking yourself to have long term players have the balance of power on their side. I do respect your own playstyle but the Klei servers are for everyone and I mean "everyone" even including lawless players. How about hosting your own server instead or play on player hosted server? These servers are meant to reset again and again for the sake of replayability and you want to bottleneck one good thing that these servers provide for entertainment.

Long term servers have no fun for new players who enter the world. There's no survival that thrills the player only comfort that makes people bored. And it is the exact reason why public servers like Klei reset again and again. It is for the replayability of the game, one of the aspects of the developers want to incorporate into.

[blizstorm]

On 2/27/2019 at 5:23 PM, Aeschwutz said:

Then you are asking yourself to have long term players have the balance of power on their side. I do respect your own playstyle but the Klei servers are for everyone and I mean "everyone" even including lawless players. How about hosting your own server instead or play on player hosted server? These servers are meant to reset again and again for the sake of replayability and you want to bottleneck one good thing that these servers provide for entertainment.

Long term servers have no fun for new players who enter the world. There's no survival that thrills the player only comfort that makes people bored. And it is the exact reason why public servers like Klei reset again and again. It is for the replayability of the game, one of the aspects of the developers want to incorporate into.

I am asking for balance of power to be shifted towards long term, not to be on their side. There is a difference. To give you a numerical example:

Lets say the government has $100 to allocate. $1 is given to the poor, and $99 is given to rich. Asking the government to give $10 to the poor, $90 to the rich, is to shift the allocation towards the poor, but the allocation is still on the side of the rich.

A major nerf long term player has to deal with is the reality of sleep; I am unsure, even with this change, long term player has more power. For a world to survive more than 180 days, is unlikely the wish of a sole player.

You claimed that Klei servers are inclusive, including lawless players and hence griefers? This argument falls apart on 3 factors.

Klei servers being for everyone, including arsonist, is unrealistic. Most players do not welcome arsonist; these greifers would be vote kicked, their actions undone by rollback. By your claim, implementation of votekick and rollback must be a serious mistake. There would not be anyone who is not welcomed, and there should not be some actions that should be undone.

Klei Server are for everyone, except for long term players, would be hypocritical. You seem to welcome everyone, short term players and outlaws, but you are asking long term players to play on non-Klei servers.

The inclusivity argument, is invalid towards the removal of world regeneration vote. Both short term and long term players can play with world regeneration vote. Both short term and long term players can still play without world regeneration vote.

On 2/27/2019 at 5:23 PM, Aeschwutz said:

Long term servers have no fun for new players who enter the world. There's no survival that thrills the player only comfort that makes people bored.

Given the lack of qualifiers, the above argument is interpreted as: long term servers have no fun for all new players who enter the world. All the new players do not get to enjoy the thrill of survival, and all the new players would be bored by comfort. Making such an absolute argument would be easy to refute, and I would disagree with such absolute argument.

Going by your arguments, I should perhaps see no players who joined after day 180, to stay for less than 20 days? The world must be so boring that they left before 2 hours of real time.

In terms of survival, an older world does change the rules of survival, for both new and old players. For new players, it would be a world with scarce flint, grass and pig skin. Spiders and tentacles distribution would be abnormal. You likely also have to deal with a season other than autumn. For old players, it would be a battle against ruin, misery toadstool, ancient fuelweaver, and even arsonists. if you so dislike the comfort a base, you always have the option of surviving alone. This would appeal to your survival thrill with the harder challenge of scarce resource.

Even if some of later players enjoy less than older players, this does not forfeit the ability of older players to enjoy too. Just because some of the later players are unable to enjoy as much as the older players, the world must be destroyed and new one rebuilt looks like the history of communism.

I do not know how often the server should be reset. I doubt you an authority to determine how often the server should reset. My interpretation on why server reset is simply because a computing resource frees up.

[Nullum]

3 hours ago, blizstorm said:

I am asking for balance of power to be shifted towards long term, not to be on their side. There is a difference. To give you a numerical example:

Lets say the government has $100 to allocate. $1 is given to the poor, and $99 is given to rich. Asking the government to give $10 to the poor, $90 to the rich, is to shift the allocation towards the poor, but the allocation is still on the side of the rich.

A major nerf long term player has to deal with is the reality of sleep; I am unsure, even with this change, long term player has more power. For a world to survive more than 180 days, is unlikely the wish of a sole player.

You claimed that Klei servers are inclusive, including lawless players and hence griefers? This argument falls apart on 3 factors.

Klei servers being for everyone, including arsonist, is unrealistic. Most players do not welcome arsonist; these greifers would be vote kicked, their actions undone by rollback. By your claim, implementation of votekick and rollback must be a serious mistake. There would not be anyone who is not welcomed, and there should not be some actions that should be undone.

Klei Server are for everyone, except for long term players, would be hypocritical. You seem to welcome everyone, short term players and outlaws, but you are asking long term players to play on non-Klei servers.

The inclusivity argument, is invalid towards the removal of world regeneration vote. Both short term and long term players can play with world regeneration vote. Both short term and long term players can still play without world regeneration vote.

Given the lack of qualifiers, the above argument is interpreted as: long term servers have no fun for all new players who enter the world. All the new players do not get to enjoy the thrill of survival, and all the new players would be bored by comfort. Making such an absolute argument would be easy to refute, and I would disagree with such absolute argument.

Going by your arguments, I should perhaps see no players who joined after day 180, to stay for less than 20 days? The world must be so boring that they left before 2 hours of real time.

In terms of survival, an older world does change the rules of survival, for both new and old players. For new players, it would be a world with scarce flint, grass and pig skin. Spiders and tentacles distribution would be abnormal. You likely also have to deal with a season other than autumn. For old players, it would be a battle against ruin, misery toadstool, ancient fuelweaver, and even arsonists. if you so dislike the comfort a base, you always have the option of surviving alone. This would appeal to your survival thrill with the harder challenge of scarce resource.

Even if some of later players enjoy less than older players, this does not forfeit the ability of older players to enjoy too. Just because some of the later players are unable to enjoy as much as the older players, the world must be destroyed and new one rebuilt looks like the history of communism.

I do not know how often the server should be reset. I doubt you an authority to determine how often the server should reset. My interpretation on why server reset is simply because a computing resource frees up.

There is nothing to work to strive a goal on a long term server for new players. There's still elements of surviving up until you reach the headquarters but all has been taken care of. It kills the motivation of why to play the game especially for those who play Klei's servers because it is already been done by another player. Long term servers become social public servers in that regard.

[blizstorm]

On 3/1/2019 at 5:34 AM, Aeschwutz said:

There is nothing to work to strive a goal on a long term server for new players. There's still elements of surviving up until you reach the headquarters but all has been taken care of. It kills the motivation of why to play the game especially for those who play Klei's servers because it is already been done by another player. Long term servers become social public servers in that regard.

I believe I have addressed most of your concern previously. Encouraging the social aspect of DST could be ideal since DST is a multiplayer game after all, and this aspect is likely to make DST a pleasant game.