Infinate World, Discuss?

[Zezarict]

Needed to make the title shorter than I would of liked. I simply just thought of asking because my world where I'm all set up and stuff is one small island, circle shaped.

To Developers, maybe just a simple yes or no to if it would be implemented, or if it's even possible for you, I'm not trying to push a suggestion, just asking.

To everyone else, discuss it, share your opinion on if it would be better or worse.

I see some pros as

Keep the game going for longer, with more to do with exploration

No running out of findable resources (or animals/places), while still keeping that they must be searched for

Cons

To some, (not me, but obviously to some) this may make the game easier, which it indeed may, but it might need to be implemented if you want to have more to do

Developers, could ya just close this thread if it's not possible?

[MrEntity]

Infinite worlds would have many issues in this game, not least of which would involve the massive amount of processing that would be necessary to keep track of everything's growth, actions, health, drops, etc

And I think that while _more_ resources would be better, an _infinite_ amount would make the game kind of pointless. If you didn't have to manage your resources there would be nothing to worry about. Chopped down all the trees on the islands and used the pinecones for fuel? Doesn't matter, just go look for more. Infinite worlds means every resource is infinitely available, and that would make survival very easy.

I maintain that a _larger_ world would be best. Perhaps twice as big as they are now - and mostly just to add to the length of time you can play and explore a world without seeing everything.

But what I really want is more biomes and diversity in the land. A bigger world with a few biomes added so everything isn't all samey would be awesome.

[Zezarict]

Also, to guarantee that certain things are in the map...

New map I'm on, also a single island, and there is not a single Beefalo...

[TheGreyPotter]

I kind've like that the world is small. Means some of your resources are finite, and you can exhaust them, either purposefully or by accident. There's only so much rock and flint in the world, and if you dont mind a resource like trees, you can eventually run out of them. While its not a huge challenge to be aware of what you're using and how to stabilize it, the idea that you can only tear down so much suits the game's tone more than infinite worlds do.

[Grover (PrinnyCast)]

I dunno is infinite would be a good idea in this game. It isn't like in minecraft where a area freezes in time when you get far enough away and isn't built to act like that either. I think maybe letting the player decide on a world size would be better. Maybe small, medium, large, massive? Chunking the game into areas would just be horrible imo, but that's just me.

[501105]

You could make it much bigger, but than you basically have a lot more of the current available biomes and thus nothing truly new. I think once more biomes are introduced an option for a normal or large world should be introduced and the world can be more spaced out.

[Excess]

Larger Worlds

[Royal]

Larger Worlds

Excess is taking the role of Toaster Fu while he vacations clearly.

Infinite is impossible, mathematically speaking. Larger worlds have been discussed.

[NeedPants]

Naaah, infinite worlds sounds like too much of a fairytale

But regardless of "larger" worlds, mayb one could implement a sortof "victory condition" (after the beta has adressed mid- and lategame). This victory condition wouldnt end the game when met, but would allow the player to generate a new world without losing the char or the process (amount of days alive specifically).

Currently making a new world doesnt reset ur RP (and RP is going to get changed Soon), but DOES reset ur days lived. From next patch iirc, making a new world also reset RP. But im not sure if this next patch also changes the way RP is gained. From what ive read, they want to reduce the grind involved with getting RP.

[501105]

The problem with a victory condition is that the game currently only has the start of your survival. The mid and late game are still nowhere to be seen, so talk about any kind of victory is a bit mood at this point imo.

[NeedPants]

Yup yup my fellow dutchman, which is why i suggested they implement it after the mid- and lategame have been adressed. It certainly is long term. For now im already dying for the next update! I want to USE my paper for something Currenly the amount of days lived is just a vanity project once u hit around 50-60. Everything explored, all the gear built/gathered. Its so nice of them to add the time of the next update in the starting screen of the game. In the meantime imma try mein herr Wulfgang and see how much harder he really hits!

[Royal]

The problem with a victory condition is that the game currently only has the start of your survival. The mid and late game are still nowhere to be seen, so talk about any kind of victory is a bit mood at this point imo.

*Moot

Also I disagree here. I think that discussing things we know will come about is good input for the devs. They get to see what we're thinking and what we want.

[Grover (PrinnyCast)]

I agree. the devs are watching and talking about current ideas will help them with decisions. I'm also thinking that the farther you go from the spawn area, the harder it gets, so if you do just exhaust all resources and move on, you're going to have a more and more difficult time. I never suggest it being impossible to advance because the hostility of a area but you're sure as hell not going to ever sit idle while there.

[Zezarict]

Mmm, I like the idea of the victory condition, and that you move to another world with your current character, maybe with that world somewhat harder, more dangerous. But yes, we need a mid and late game first too, we need it to be more difficult, as one could easily survive an infinate number of days as is now if they wanted to.

PS. Grover, my picture in another site is Valvatorez, acting out! You must be re-educated to be a true prinny! Start over from level one, meet me in hades, follow the rules and oyu, one day shall work off your sins....

[Grover (PrinnyCast)]

OOT: HOLY CRAP, DOOD! Hades? Etna puts me through enough as it is!

[Zezarict]

No! You didn't include Dood in your second sentence!

[Palpetinus]

My suggestion would be that you can set the size of the map - Big, Medium or Small.

[501105]

*Moot

Also I disagree here. I think that discussing things we know will come about is good input for the devs. They get to see what we're thinking and what we want.

Thanks for the correction there.

I suppose you are right, if they know how we feel about a possible victory condition, than they can already form some ideas about it. I would like newly generated world that you enter after you victory to offer some kind of reward. Maybe a special resource/item that is not found in world on your first regular attempt.

[dra6o0n]

Why not give players a 'journal' ingame while surviving, and 'missions/quests' could appear when plots or certain things are discovered?

Like you enter a area and sees pig houses for the first time, the camera functions in a way to show how the pig houses got there...

You then see Maxwell poofing in the pigs and houses and stuff like he spirited them away from their homeworld lol.

I mean, he IS a demon, and he doesn't just poof only humans into his world.

[Wasserstern]

Maybe larger worlds, but not infinite worlds.

First problem: This will probably take lots of time to get implemented.

Second problem: It gets a lot less difficult that way, resources would be infinite.

Well.... I think they shouldnt implement that, what I really want right now are seasons that have effects on the gameplay.

(See this thread: http://forums.kleientertainment.com/showthread.php?1878-Suggesions-Seasons-!&highlight=seasons)

[mobius187]

In my opinion Don't Starve doesn't need an ending, complex plot, or quests. It should be enough to survive and explore.

[dra6o0n]

In my opinion Don't Starve doesn't need an ending, complex plot, or quests. It should be enough to survive and explore.

And it will kill itself off with repetition and boredom.

Survive and Explore alone isn't sufficient. You need Horror, you need Suspense, you need Action, and you definitely need Fun and Creativity.

The game needs scripts, complex or simple, but creative scripts that changes the gameplay over time so the player doesn't feel repetitive.

[Draugur]

Or solve that like Terreria did with allowing the player to progress the 'plot' as they saw fit. Giving the player the control over how difficult the game becomes as time goes is better than forcing them to progress as they meet some unknown pre-requisite such as crafting some item and unknown to you, you've just turned all spiders into flying scorpions that happen to be on fire as well.

You could even have Island based progression, where the world could be genned in a sort of circular pattern where you spawn on an island on the outskirts of the world, as you get closer to the center you'd find greater rewards and resources but you'll also encounter many more difficult creatures.

[mobius187]

And it will kill itself off with repetition and boredom.

That sounds a bit harsh. Minecraft, for example, may have an ending, but that's not a goal everyone is striving for. Minecraft is more about what you make of it. Meanwhile I've also played Kingdom of Amalur I knew the plot, completed all the quests, and ended the game. I don't play Kingdom of Amaulr anymore because I finished it. It's done. Game over.

Survive and Explore alone isn't sufficient. You need Horror, you need Suspense, you need Action, and you definitely need Fun and Creativity.

I agree. But what do that have explicitely to do with plots, quests, and endings? I'm fine for introducing all of these elemnts to the game without requiring players to jump through hoops (i.e. quests) or even need an ending. Of course if an ending is introduced and we're not forced to complete it, like in Minecraft, then I'm fine with that too.

The game needs scripts, complex or simple, but creative scripts that changes the gameplay over time so the player doesn't feel repetitive.

You hardly need scripted events for a game to be fun. I do like the idea of random events however to spice things up.

Or solve that like Terreria did with allowing the player to progress the 'plot' as they saw fit. Giving the player the control over how difficult the game becomes as time goes is better than forcing them to progress as they meet some unknown pre-requisite such as crafting some item and unknown to you, you've just turned all spiders into flying scorpions that happen to be on fire as well.

You could even have Island based progression, where the world could be genned in a sort of circular pattern where you spawn on an island on the outskirts of the world, as you get closer to the center you'd find greater rewards and resources but you'll also encounter many more difficult creatures.

If you're interested in the idea of ramping up difficulty over time, well then have you seen this thread?:

http://forums.kleientertainment.com/showthread.php?2106-Game-getting-harder-over-time-the-experience-bar

It may be of interest to you.

Edited November 23, 2012 by mobius187

[501105]

It is a tricky thing, part of the charm of the game is that there is no clear goal but to survive and the rest is up to you. I am sure that some extra story about Maxwell will be interesting, but end bosses and quests and the like could endager the game structure. When gamers finish quests they tend to have the feeling that all is really done in the game, since all the quests are done. A few of the only exeptions are the Elder Scrolls games.