Question of intended player experience

[Tosh]

In light of recent discussions, I wanted to ask @JoeW or some of the devs (@nome @V2C @JanH) if they have any comments on what the intended experience is DST. 

If there is a single intended experience is it:

1. A communal roguelike experience, where the intention is that the world will eventually kill you. This path seeks to add content to challenge the player. Disease could be seen as a supporting this experience, as it can gut the world of a particular resource and never replace it. @Ecu argues that because all the official servers are Survival servers and the average world only lasts 100-150 days, this is (or should be) the intended experience.

2. A long term survival experience, where the intention is that players should be striving to survive as long as possible (or indefinitely). This path seeks to add content to keep the game world full and interesting even after the first 150 days. The presence of Endless/Wilderness modes would support this; as would the release of recent content which only appears after the first year; similarly the release of decorative items and skins supports the play style of mega-base builders such as @Glhrmzz.

3. The intended experience is constantly evolving, and is a collaborative experience. The devs make the game, players play the game in ways that the devs didn't expect, thus causing the devs to expand their vision of the game.

4. All of the above.

I'd be really appreciative if anyone that works at Klei gets a chance to comment on this. I believe that it would really help to inform the suggestions and feedback that we're able to give.

[Ecu]

9 minutes ago, Tosh said:

1. A communal roguelike experience, where the intention is that the world will eventually kill you. This path seeks to add content to challenge the player. Disease could be seen as a supporting this experience, as it can gut the world of a particular resource and never replace it. @Ecu argues that because all the official servers are Survival servers and the average world only lasts 100-150 days, this is (or should be) the intended experience.

Thanks for this post.  I would like to know what Klei feels as well regarding this, as I've only been able to use information I have available to make a educated guess as to the "best" direction for the game.

I wanted to add to this post specifically regarding survival servers in that not only do the official servers generally only last 100-200 days, but a overwhelming majority of survival servers do, from initial research.  Given that there are generally four times the amount of survival servers as any other server, if this isn't the intended experience...the game needs a rather large overhaul.

[numberkruncher]

As a player I personally see the Don't Starve Together experience as a roguelike game with a hostile world that you and your friends strive to tame and then eventually overcome at which point your reward is essentially to build a mega base (should you want to). Of course the late mega-base game still has its risks, but when working as a team these risks aren't quite so bad.

I can see how a lot of people might get bored when they have a stable base with a stable food supply, etc and as such want to start anew. These would almost certainly fall into this 100-200 days time frame. But some people enjoy taking it a lot further than this.

Ultimately I think it comes down to what the player perceives the experience to be along with the play style that they have. Some players don't explore too much and make do with the limited supplies that they have whilst other players scour the entire map and have a sort of blueprint in their head of how they want their core base to be. Don't Starve and Don't Starve Together give players a pretty decent platform to play in whatever ways they choose to.

I don't really think it's about "guessing" as you put it @Ecu, I think if people suggest ideas that Klei and other members of this community like then they'll make it into the game in some form or another.

[Ecu]

19 minutes ago, numberkruncher said:

Ultimately I think it comes down to what the player perceives the experience to be along with the play style that they have. Some players don't explore too much and make do with the limited supplies that they have whilst other players scour the entire map and have a sort of blueprint in their head of how they want their core base to be. Don't Starve and Don't Starve Together give players a pretty decent platform to play in whatever ways they choose to.

What I'm curious about is Klei's intended experience, not an individual's personal experience.  Regarding individuals, they can play however they so choose for sure.  However, when suggestion design changes and/or feedback here on the forum, I feel the Klei's intended experience should be taken into account.  If someone wants to suggest something different than this experience, it isn't unreasonable to suggest modding as a solution rather than expecting Klei to change things to suit them.

19 minutes ago, numberkruncher said:

I don't really think it's about "guessing" as you put it @Ecu, I think if people suggest ideas that Klei and other members of this community like then they'll make it into the game in some form or another.

I think you misunderstood, I wasn't stating that Klei is guessing.  I was stating that I was making an educated guess as to the "best" direction for the game, based on the information I have available to me.

-----

@Tosh, I wanted to add as well to the general discussion that it personally feels like private, long term, survival gameplay is the actual goal.  Since that is where the best experience comes from given the current mechanics.  Mind you, that isn't to say the other methods of playing aren't enjoyable on an individual level.

However, I just question this decision as it ignores the perception the game will have due to the public server system.  People are not going to experience a majority of the mechanics and in general get a poorer experience by playing publicly if this is the route they continue to follow.  It also ends up creating a conflicted intention, as the official servers do not actually represent the design direction for the game, but more of a watered down demo.

So yeah, I question this as a serious design direction.

[Trenix]

I also would like to hear an answer and hope that Klei is making sure that all aspects are being touched upon. There really is no reason why we shouldn't take every playstyle into consideration. For example it's clear that not all people want to play survival in the way that @Ecu believes it is. However, with the game's current sense of direction of adding content over any balances or polishes, makes it near impossible to determine what's going on with this game.

I do recall that the developers said they're working on adding more long term challenges, however that doesn't explain much since it can mean to make you die sooner or to make you play longer. I personally believe that games should last longer and even indefinitely to increase the games longevity. Players who want a shorter game, should do so by utilizing map settings to make the game more harsh. That should be the default in my opinion, where I know others would said the opposite.

[TitanCat]

I think don't starve's world setting need more Presets to meet each of these "intended experiences"

Like the long term version to have slower diseases or not at all, also more abundant resources, and have several stuff to be renewable

While the roguelike survival one has a difficulty that scales the longer you spent in the world

The thing about intended experience is pretty vague, as everyone has a different opinion and each the devs might also have a slightly different opinion about it

 

[JohnWatson]

Well, "Don't Starve is an uncompromising wilderness survival game full of science and magic" according to its official description. What this most likely means is that it aims to provide a difficult experience, when you play you should regularly feel as if the game is trying to kill you, you should feel like you aren't meant to continue being alive. You get fun from being able to survive the challenges the game throws at you.

I think that the game could still be roguelike while also allowing for the building of long-term mega-bases. Disease isn't the only mechanic that tries to shorten a world's lifetime, there are also hound attacks, bosses, spontaneous combustion, lightning, frog rain, and more. I don't know why people only complained about disease while there are many other mechanics that get in the way of building mega-bases, but I guess it's because it's just a newly added mechanic. What if I didn't want Lightning Rods in my mega-base because it ruins the decor? What if I hate the look of seeing Lureplants around my base? What if I think Ice Flingomatics don't fit my base design?

I think that the game should get significantly more and more difficult the more time passes. This could be done through making random events that the player cannot prepare for effectively. For example, hound attacks from Day 70 onwards should have a chance of having no warning, have most flammable player-built structures suddenly be set ablaze on Day 108, or have a Frog Rain but with the frogs all automatically hostile on Day 119. To tell the truth, nobody and nothing is really meant to last forever, it's all going to end soon, whether you can accept that or not. The only way to truly make your base last indefinitely is to stop playing on that world, you're bound to eventually get bored doing the same chores over and over again on a 1000-day world.

There can still be long-term goals, but I don't think they should start making the game compromising for those who want to reach thousands of days. If there are long-term goals that needs hundreds of days to reach, then most likely only a small minority of players will actually be able to access that content. And come on, there's nothing stopping you from reaching several hundreds of days even if they bump up the difficulty of the game, reaching hundreds of days actually becomes a bigger and more satisfying achievement if the game is actively trying to prevent you from doing that. If the game just holds your hand throughout your thousand-day journey, then where's the fun in that?

There's also nothing inherently wrong with changing the World Gen options to fit your playstyle. I myself, for instance, play with small world size, no diseases, very slow regrowth, and less common resources because I think I enjoy the game more with those settings. I still wonder why other people refuse to touch the World Gen options while it could easily get them what they want.

[Ecu]

48 minutes ago, Trenix said:

There really is no reason why we shouldn't take every playstyle into consideration.

Actually, I disagree.  There is a distinct difference between the experiences provided by the different game modes, especially regarding public servers.  As there is a limited amount of development resources that can be devoted to the game, it should predominantly focus on a single experience and provide for said experience the best it can.  Other experiences can always be provided by modding.

48 minutes ago, Trenix said:

However, with the game's current sense of direction of adding content over any balances or polishes, makes it near impossible to determine what's going on with this game.

I totally agree here.  They've been primarily supporting the short term (100-200 day) survival play on their official servers, but their stream comments and recent additions have muddled the whole concept of what kind of experience they themselves want.

48 minutes ago, Trenix said:

I personally believe that games should last longer and even indefinitely to increase the games longevity.

How would you recommend achieving public long term gameplay, without essentially turning the game into a more sandbox, base building, game?  I've found that in my limited experience playing long term games, you eventually have very little threats and the game kind of turns into a more Minecraft style experience where you just build pretty layouts and farm.

In addition to this, you have the issue that you can no longer use mechanics like resource reduction via disease, limited spawned creatures, etc. as it allows for a few player's actions to eliminate said limited resources from the world.  Solving this by having the resources respawn over time, eliminates the purpose of said mechanics and the challenge they present over time.

48 minutes ago, Trenix said:

That should be the default in my opinion, where I know others would said the opposite.

In my opinion, I do definitely feel opposite.  However, this is because by going the direction you want, I think it ruins the roguelike elements completely.  Long term gameplay has definitely been a part of Don't Starve throughout, however, the experience of playing long term with a few friends on a private server, vs. the experience of playing long term on a public server are quite different.  The issues that public servers have just don't generally happen for private.  To fix the issues in one direction, you harm the other.

So if this is indeed the direction they wish to go with the game, I feel we need the experience to be overhauled to really keep the feel.

34 minutes ago, JohnWatson said:

There's also nothing inherently wrong with changing the World Gen options to fit your playstyle. I myself, for instance, play with small world size, no diseases, very slow regrowth, and less common resources because I think I enjoy the game more with those settings. I still wonder why other people refuse to touch the World Gen options while it could easily get them what they want.

I agree with a majority of your response, and just wanted to add something specifically regarding this comment.  People should not only utilize world generation options, but modding as well.  These systems are specifically in place and integrated to allow you to customize your experience.  It really does not make sense that others are unwilling to utilize them.

My roommate, for instance, has implemented a whole slew of world generation and behavior changes via his own server-side only mod (well, less a mod and more altering the files for his own server), just to create a more interesting experience (as he sees it), for those that join it.  He's not some professional developer either, just someone tinkering with the scripts.

[ScootyPuffJr]

I'd have to think it'd be number 4.  Klei really seem to want to let players experience the game on their own terms and not feel forced to pursue asinine tasks for things like achievements or such.  All that really matters is if you survive or you die.  How you do it, that's up to you and your fellow players.  Each server may have it's own "intended" experience but the game overall is pretty agnostic about how to play it.

Want to play as a group and share everything good and bad? Cool! Want to wander around the world nomadically, only making contact with others when you bump into them? Also cool!  Make a reclusive base in the ruins and live off of bananas and monkey meat? Again, it's cool!

I don't think there's a "wrong" way to play the game other than dying or griefing.  And even dying can have certain benefits if you do it correctly (haunting hounds for gems, etc.) and have a good method of revival at hand.

[Ecu]

4 hours ago, ScootyPuffJr said:

I'd have to think it'd be number 4.  Klei really seem to want to let players experience the game on their own terms and not feel forced to pursue asinine tasks for things like achievements or such.  All that really matters is if you survive or you die.  How you do it, that's up to you and your fellow players.  Each server may have it's own "intended" experience but the game overall is pretty agnostic about how to play it.

Want to play as a group and share everything good and bad? Cool! Want to wander around the world nomadically, only making contact with others when you bump into them? Also cool!  Make a reclusive base in the ruins and live off of bananas and monkey meat? Again, it's cool!

I don't think there's a "wrong" way to play the game other than dying or griefing.  And even dying can have certain benefits if you do it correctly (haunting hounds for gems, etc.) and have a good method of revival at hand.

I agree that people should be (and are) allowed to play the game the way they wish to play it.  However, that does not mean there should not be a primary direction for the game.

As I've mentioned, there is a difference between how the game plays out given the different game modes.  If you play public survival, on average, the world only lasts until day 100-200.  Given that a majority of public servers are survival, this is the experience a majority of players have.  However, if you play endless (or wilderness), the world can last indefinitely.  

Each of these experiences plays out differently due to multiple factors, including both game mechanics and human behavior.  As such, trying to design the game so that all options play well ends up leaving all options mediocre.  This is why I feel them trying to please everyone is a poor design decision.

[ScootyPuffJr]

13 hours ago, Ecu said:

I agree that people should be (and are) allowed to play the game the way they wish to play it.  However, that does not mean there should not be a primary direction for the game.

As I've mentioned, there is a difference between how the game plays out given the different game modes.  If you play public survival, on average, the world only lasts until day 100-200.  Given that a majority of public servers are survival, this is the experience a majority of players have.  However, if you play endless (or wilderness), the world can last indefinitely.  

Each of these experiences plays out differently due to multiple factors, including both game mechanics and human behavior.  As such, trying to design the game so that all options play well ends up leaving all options mediocre.  This is why I feel them trying to please everyone is a poor design decision.

Public survival PVE is probably the most "intended" game mode.  Player experience and game modes are a bit different though.

By default, most people seems to expect a communal base.  Most people seem to expect to be carried.  Honestly, it can be annoying but in some ways it's also the most brilliant part of DST.  It's self-balancing in a mixed group.  If you have hundreds of hours you probably no longer worry about dying in most circumstances.  Noobs are going to struggle to even survive more than a handful of days.  As an experienced player you can help them, thus making the game harder for yourself.

I wouldn't say that Klei tries to appease everyone, but that they take a hands-off approach when it comes to telling you how to play their game.  You can see the sort of "intended" experience as you play more and more.  The experience is what you make of it, it's figuring out how the systems work.  Figuring out that you don't need to keep a torch running all night or set a campfire if you can burn a tree or two, especially if you've got boulders to mine, resources to pick, etc. near the burning tree.  It's challenging yourself to try to rush the ruins as early as possible or kill the Dragonfly, or build a swanky base kitted out with the coolest looking decorations.

The intended experience seems to be that you are presented with a seemingly unforgiving world that puts pressure on you from many different angles and you have to survive those pressures without compromising yourself in any other way that eventually ends you.  Figuring out the advantages to every seeming disadvantage is part of the experience.  The very nature of DST specifically being a multiplayer game means that there needs to be a multiplicity of experiences.  Look at any MMO, there are different roles.  Heck, each different character in DST plays differently.  As Wendy, you want to fight things at night if you can help it, you take on swarms, you facetank treeguards so Abby doesn't die in two seconds.  As Webber, you might make your home amongst a vast field of spider nests.

Beyond simply surviving so that you continue playing the game, the experience is what you make of it.  Or at least, that's what it is to me.

[Ecu]

@ScootyPuffJr, I understand where you are coming from.  However, it doesn't work in practice to allow for all sorts of experiences as you seem to be suggesting.  You cannot balance the game around the current average public survival experience and at the same time have the public eternal mode experience also balanced by default.  You could certainly individually balance the game for each game mode, however, human behavior alone messes with this.

A great example of this is the situation @Clwnbaby had mentioned in another thread where a public survival server is kept from restarting by continued support from multiple players on that server being constantly around to make sure someone is always alive on it.  When combined with human behavior and the game not designed around that sort of public long term play, resources end up being drained and the world ends up bare.

However, if you were to refocus the game design towards that style experience, the average public survival experience would suffer instead as many of the mechanics wouldn't even be touched upon and the user doesn't actually get the full experience.

So you kind of have a multi-prong problem here.  You could try to design and balance around each experience individually, however, then you're spending a large amount of development resources towards experiences a majority of your players will not experience.  You could focus on one experience, but then you have to choose which experience you focus on.  If you focus on the more long term experience, then you need to work out how to allow a majority of your users to experience this.  Otherwise, you end up once again with poor situation.

This is why I personally focus on the 100-200 day experience.  To be completely honest, achieving 100 days already means a player has sat and played over 13 hours straight.  That is quite a bit of time to ask an individual player to play.  Currently, in this amount of time, you get through just over a single year.  However, with the current design of items and gameplay, you generally don't utilize around 1/2 the content the game has.

At the end of the day, I feel it would be good to get an idea as to how Klei wants to handle these issues as it would indeed help us better offer feedback and suggestions that will work well with the game.

[HamBatter]

Klei knows better than to take the bait :/

I wonder why season harshness and monster waves are capped if sandbox is unintentional. The nature of sandbox has the user creating content from many arrangement permutations, rather than the developer creating limited rehashes of Tentacles (two-swipe) Spider Warriors (lunge) and Wee MacTusk (follower targeting) that get solved in a week.

If they're expecting profit/sustainability, then they should be pumping out rose skins for existing users who have already purchased the game and finding ways to reduce the initial harshness (Telltale Heart, Regrowth) for those who have not.

 

Klei's position is that they are the provider of the medium of expression and what you do is your business, unless otherwise arranged.

On 12/12/2013 at 11:17 AM, JoeW said:

Make it clear that your creation is your own, and not by us.

Therefore if players are RPing WilsonxMaxwell on Klei servers, it does not necessarily mean that Klei supports WilsonxMaxwell.

[ScootyPuffJr]

@HamBatter I think you put it really elegantly with your post and you've said what I was trying to get at in a far more concise fashion.