What is the point of random starting dupes?

[Maciej75]

Nice meme, Oozinator. Can you post some more? 

This discussion needs more similarly valuable messages if we want to find common understanding about desired ONI gameplay.

[Vim Razz]

9 hours ago, Technoincubus said:

With custom dupe system you can make weak dupes for challenge instead of ROLLING for weak dupes.

I feel like this was directed at me, since up to that point in the thread, I'm the only one who had shared the opinion that the risk of getting a bad dupe adds entertainment value to the game.

If that's the case, then you have also missed the point of random surprises, though perhaps that is my fault for being unclear.  No one to this point has advocated "ROLLING for weak dupes" in the course of normal play.

Surprises might give you nice things that make the game easier, or they might give you painful things that force you to change your gameplan to accommodate them. 

It's that uncertainty and the anticipation involved that can add excitement to the game --

• If a great dupe comes up on a random roll, then I smile, because I know that I'll be able to do the things I want more quickly and easily.
• If a bad dupe comes up on a random roll, then I smirk, because I know that I'll need to change things up to accommodate it.
• If a really bad dupe comes up on a random roll, then I might even roll my eyes and laugh, because I know that I'll need to rearrange my gameplan, and that my skills are going to be tested much earlier than I'm usually comfortable with. 

I like having those sorts of reaction.  They're fun, and the random elements keep the game from getting too predictable. Over multiple playthroughs, too much predictability becomes tedious, because nothing about the game is engaging me to think about what I'm currently doing, or pressuring me to do things differently than I've done before.

I fully understand that not everyone gets a rush out of that kind of uncertainty, and I'm not interested in telling them that they "should".

If you are unaware that the potential for his sort of fun exists, though, then I would certainly suggest checking it out sometime to see if you like it. 

It's not total randomness that undermines your ability to plan or think ahead. It's just a light random element that pokes and prods at your expectations, pressuring you to stay on your toes and think about what you're doing, rather than sinking into a rut.

[clickrush]

2 hours ago, watermelen671 said:

The point of a random map gen is cost-saving really.

It takes much less money to have a randomly generated world with certain guidelines.

Whilst on the flip side it take a whole lot more money (and time, which equals more money that they have to pay the devs) to individually craft each world to be unique and have completely different set pieces.

Imagine how ridiculous it would be if there was a map designer quickly drawing the map every time someone loads up a new world!

[Maciej75]

After rethinking discussion, I come to conclusion that people constantly rerolling Dupes for long time and dangerous to the game, and this feature should be strongly limited.

People that chooses team of better Dupes make game easier. This may leads to biased difficulty reports (especially automated ones), thus braking ONI for normal players by making it too hard. Also, weak Dupes are not tested and their impact on game stays unknown.

This is Alpha, and one of main points of Early Access is balancing the game. Being picky on dupes may thwart this. So when it comes in some "points" assignment in Full Game, values will be incorrect.

[clickrush]

1 minute ago, Maciej75 said:

After rethinking discussion, I come to conclusion that people constantly rerolling Dupes for long time and dangerous to the game, and this feature should be strongly limited.

People that chooses team of better Dupes make game easier. This may leads to biased difficulty reports (especially automated ones), thus braking ONI for normal players by making it too hard. Also, weak Dupes are not tested and their impact on game stays unknown.

This is Alpha, and one of main points of Early Access is balancing the game. Being picky on dupes may thwart this. So when it comes in some "points" assignment in Full Game, values will be incorrect.

I think you vastly overestimate the difficulty and progression rate relation to initial dupe stats. Not even the most avoided traits like "Flatulent" make the game all that difficult, but are just annoying to deal with.

The difference between an experienced player and a newbie is *vast* though. Contrary to popular belief around these boards I would say ONI is actually a difficult game, at least until you figured out how to solve all the major problems and inefficiencies. For a new player there are a lot of things that she/he needs to iteratively encounter via multiple playthroughs. But as soon as those problems are understood, the game becomes easy.

Also I would argue that ONI isn't much of a game at all. It is more like a toy, you play around with it and do w/e you feel like until you break it. There are no set goals and the external pressure is easy to deal with if you know how to. The fun comes from a mix of creativity and a sort of engineering. You have fun building your colony to your liking.

So in the end the difficulty is and probably will always be something almost purely related to how accessible the game is for new players and the duplicant rerolls will have a very small impact (if at all) on that.

[ScottFree]

21 minutes ago, clickrush said:

I think you vastly overestimate the difficulty and progression rate relation to initial dupe stats. Not even the most avoided traits like "Flatulent" make the game all that difficult, but are just annoying to deal with.

The difference between an experienced player and a newbie is *vast* though. Contrary to popular belief around these boards I would say ONI is actually a difficult game, at least until you figured out how to solve all the major problems and inefficiencies. For a new player there are a lot of things that she/he needs to iteratively encounter via multiple playthroughs. But as soon as those problems are understood, the game becomes easy.

Also I would argue that ONI isn't much of a game at all. It is more like a toy, you play around with it and do w/e you feel like until you break it. There are no set goals and the external pressure is easy to deal with if you know how to. The fun comes from a mix of creativity and a sort of engineering. You have fun building your colony to your liking.

So in the end the difficulty is and probably will always be something almost purely related to how accessible the game is for new players and the duplicant rerolls will have a very small impact (if at all) on that.

Oni isn't much of game? You do realize this is early access?

[clickrush]

5 minutes ago, ScottFree said:

Oni isn't much of game? You do realize this is early access?

Yes I do! The difference I wanted to make there is of semantic nature. In the sense of Chess being a game and Lego being a toy. This is equivalent to for example Starcraft being a game and ONI being a toy. A game normally has rules that are about winnig and losing, there is a set goal. ONI is much more of a sandbox. The rules don't tell you what you should/have to achieve but how you can mold it to your liking.

[Maciej75]

1 hour ago, clickrush said:

"Flatulent" make the game all that difficult, but are just annoying to deal with.

As all Dupes has an individual look and animation, I am expecting them to have some personality and background in full game.

Like e.g. fighters in Mortal Combat. Not much, but things like "flatulent" does it, and this is currently my favorite individual trait that separates one of Dupes from rest of team.

So that's why all things should be tested.

[Vim Razz]

5 hours ago, Coolthulhu said:

There is pretty much never a reason to accept those, because lack of point system means they do not have anything to outweigh the cost.

There's never any particular reason to reject any given dupe, either.  That's purely a matter of your personal preference.  No dupe trait is so debilitating that it makes this game unplayable.

While there's nothing wrong with playing the game how you want, pretending that you're being forced to cycle through dupes until you get a set that stacks the deck in your favor is utter nonsense.

Normal gameplay just isn't challenging enough to require you to select an optimal set of duplicants in order to build a successful colony.

 

3 hours ago, Coolthulhu said:

People here keep pretending ONI is like Rimworld, where you either...

Exactly two people prior to you brought up Rimworld in this thread, and neither of us did so in the context that you're complaining about:

1. The OP brought it up in relation to the similarities in starting conditions and a popular mod that provides functionality they'd like to see in ONI. (which, tbh, does look pretty cool, though I have mixed feelings about it as a vanilla feature.)
2. I brought it up as a nod to the similarities in starting conditions in relation to the specific gameplay elements they introduce (which I enjoy).

Nobody here has argued that the games should (or do) play out in the same way beyond that -- certainly not to the level that you've described.

If there's some outside context that clarifies the relevance, then it would be helpful if you were to introduce that so we can see where you're coming from.  Otherwise, it just looks like you're putting words in people's mouths.

[Roxanne4018]

Giving that a base lasts for so long re rolling is, percentage wise, so small. The only was its really inconvenient is when you make a "test lab" involving dupes. But I think the randomness of it is awesome during the gameplay when you need a new dupe but no decent one comes out so you are stuck with the choice of waiting and lacking the workforce required or taking a bad dupe, both of which could kill you. 

Most importantly it's fun because it's different from other games.

[CobraA1]

8 hours ago, clickrush said:

Yes I do! The difference I wanted to make there is of semantic nature. In the sense of Chess being a game and Lego being a toy. This is equivalent to for example Starcraft being a game and ONI being a toy. A game normally has rules that are about winnig and losing, there is a set goal. ONI is much more of a sandbox. The rules don't tell you what you should/have to achieve but how you can mold it to your liking.

An interesting topic.

Maybe there's not a strict winning condition in that you will get a "you've won" screen, but there is a strict losing condition: You do lose if all of your dupes die. So theoretically speaking, you "win" by making your base self-sustaining, which basically guarantees you won't lose.

That said: Does the distinction matter all that much, if at the end of the day the player finds enjoyment? I'd rather play a compelling "toy" than a terrible "game."

I'm actually drawn to the freedom of a sandbox, and many games I play are sandboxy in nature. I'm currently playing Zelda: Breath of the Wild, which has an ending. But you know what? I'm just having fun exploring the world and doing side quests and random things that interest me. I don't know if I'll actually ever get to the ending of Zelda. (Same with Skyrim - I actually never finished that game, I just enjoyed the open ended nature of it - I think I actually somehow lost track of the main quest line)

The idea of whether or not a game should have a proper ending reminds me of Minecraft. Minecraft is pretty much pure sandbox; nearly all of the objectives in the game are realized through self-created personal goals. Yet Notch wasn't satisfied, and felt like it wasn't a "proper" game without an ending. So he added "the End" and has you fight a dragon, after which there is a lengthy narrative and I think a credits scroll. It's an ending, so to speak.

Although it's not a strict ending: You're allowed to continue playing the game, and there is more to explore in "the End."

. . . and it's not as if all goals are about winning the game, either: Achievements are goals for players, but usually don't have much to do with winning or losing the game. In games with crafting systems, crafting the highest level item is often a goal as well. In games with tech trees, discovering all technologies can be a goal.

And despite loving sandbox games, I also like to have game-driven goals. One of the reasons why I quit Minecraft was because I really couldn't think of anything I really wanted to do.

. . . and to be completely honest, because of the grind. In the end, I really didn't like spending a lot of time mining, and mining is so core to Minecraft.

Anyways, those are my thoughts. I don't really have a conclusion, I'm just interested in exploring the topic.

[Coolthulhu]

13 hours ago, Vim Razz said:

While there's nothing wrong with playing the game how you want, pretending that you're being forced to cycle through dupes until you get a set that stacks the deck in your favor is utter nonsense.

Punishing players with tedium IS forcing. This isn't difficulty, it's just extra bits of annoyance and making the game less fun when your dupe farts wilt plants and you need to keep the specific dupe away from farms, loud sleeper dupe applies big debuffs to nearby dupes (who don't even move away to spend the rest of the night in silence), anemic dupe is too slow to perform any job other than cooking and researching etc.

This isn't as bad as during early Occupation, when lack of Twinkletoes or equivalent meant dupe was totally unusable for anything other than challenge in tedium, but it's still bad design to have random rerolling be less tedious than dealing with the results.

13 hours ago, Vim Razz said:

Exactly two people prior to you brought up Rimworld in this thread, and neither of us did so in the context that you're complaining about

Absolutely irrelevant. I brought up Rimworld to compare your (and not only your, but ones I've seen on forum earlier) reasons for randomness in ONI (challenges) to it. Rimworld has a goal, difficulty scaling, and most importantly massive risks that can totally wipe out your colony. Out of those, ONI has only starvation and suffocation. It doesn't have random risks or challenges other than engineering.

The point is, in Rimworld, you can either accept a bad colonist or risk getting overwhelmed. There is a downside to not accepting a bad colonist and it's simply not having enough people to deal with problems of growing colony. In ONI, not accepting a bad dupe only forces you to wait 3 cycles to check the pod (possibly more than once) to get a better one. And accepting a bad dupe forces you to provide for another dupe, meaning you actually lose more than you gain.

Avoiding balancing the game with tedium is pretty much the core of non-terrible design. Tedium can be a lesser evil, but in this case it isn't, because there are easy to implement actually lesser evils (point systems, automatic rerolling, automatic rerolling when dupe is below some point value).

Balancing the game with tedium is a feature of Skinner boxes, not good games.

[Technoincubus]

If you want challenge - no problem! Noone is asking to remove negative traits. Players will always find a workaround, and EVERY stream I saw had people rolling till they get what they want. One minute, 5, even 10. Sure, you can remove dupe selection but then players will, once again, be punished with tedium because that will not stop people from restarting the game.

It's like Baldur's Gate - sure, roll until you have huge stat pool but other RPGs had stat system where you cannot have more that you are given and you should build upon that.

[TheScaryOne]

It should be an option. RNG dupes or points. I think this was an option in the first Neverwinter Nights? If they convert to a point system for your starting dupes you should be able to select negative traits to earn bonus points like in Wasteland 2. This would appease both categories of player, but if they keep RNG dupes as an option they need to trim down the contradictory dupes like yokels who have interest in research.

[Vim Razz]

On 2/4/2018 at 2:10 AM, Coolthulhu said:

This isn't difficulty, it's just extra bits of annoyance  ...

... I brought up Rimworld to compare your (and not only your, but ones I've seen on forum earlier) reasons for randomness in ONI (challenges) to it ...

You've pretty clearly ignored the reasons I've discussed for enjoying the random elements in dupe generation, which I have both explicitly stated, and expanded upon in detail.in this very thread.

After seeing how badly you've mangled and misrepresented my own position, I have no confidence that you've got any idea what other "ones [you've] seen on the forum" might have been intending to say, either.  Your opinion on other people's opinions has no real credibility.

Try speaking for yourself and starting from there. 

What do you like, and how does that relate to the topic at hand?

On 2/4/2018 at 2:10 AM, Coolthulhu said:

[ONI] doesn't have random risks or challenges other than engineering.

I'd thought that this could be implicitly assumed, but apparently it cannot.

Those little challenges pressure you to build things a little bit differently each and every time.  It's one of the primary factors (with the other big one being mapgen) that gives each colony it's own unique character and charm, rather than being a cookie-cutter repetition of the previous build.

It keeps things from getting too repetitive from one colony to the next.  It keeps me engaged through those stretches of the game which otherwise tend to get boring, because I've already played them however-many times before.

That is something I like.

More specifically: That is something I like about the way that random dupe generation affects the overall game, and my experience playing it.

On 2/4/2018 at 2:10 AM, Coolthulhu said:

The point is, in Rimworld, you can either accept a bad colonist or risk getting overwhelmed....

So what?  The mid-game differences between Rimworld and ONI have nothing to do with anything anyone has said that you appear to be arguing against, so unless there's something in here that you're trying to argue for, then none of this is relevant.

Also, you don't have to accept a bad colonist among your starting three in Rimworld.  Plenty of people don't.  They even offer you a list of pre-rolled alternate colonists now (which I personally think is pretty dumb and takes away from that "buckle up, we're going in" vibe that you used to get, so I ignore it, but some people seem to like it).

On 2/4/2018 at 2:10 AM, Coolthulhu said:

Balancing the game with tedium is a feature of Skinner boxes, not good games.

Removing elements of the game that prompt you to think and act differently than you have on previous playthroughs sounds a lot more repetitive and "Skinner box"-ish to me than these things that you're complaining about. I don't see the appeal.

 

EDIT: You keep arguing as if hardcore min-max cost-benefit analysis is the only meaningful consideration (in a game where it clearly isn't), and as if that somehow invalidates the reasons that some of us enjoy the current system (which it does not, because it's completely irrelevant to those reasons).

What are you even trying to accomplish here? 

It's not just to establish that you and I like different things, because you keep pushing far, far beyond that, to the point of repeatedly trying to argue that the things I like are inherently invalid.

If you're trying to convince me that I would enjoy the game more if it was different than it currently is, than you've forgotten to include the bits that I'm actually supposed to like more than the things that I currently do.

 

 

[Coolthulhu]

19 hours ago, Vim Razz said:

What are you even trying to accomplish here?

Something completely and utterly futile it seems: trying to get you to understand that forcing randomness in character creation but allowing a reroll button results in tedium for anyone who doesn't play your personal challenges.

You could do your challenges in a better system, I can't have my non-tedious character generation in the current one.

[Ichikai]

Guys, guys, GUYS.

Why can't we have both? Keep as is for those who like it as is.

Add a points system as an option for those who prefer to not sit reshuffling before actually playing the game.

Simple? Simple. No one should care about how the other prefers to play their game.

[Oozinator]

1 hour ago, Ichikai said:

No one should care about how the other prefers to play their game.

Devs should!
^^

[Ichikai]

Only to the extent to make the game enjoyable/compelling for as many people as possible.

[PhailRaptor]

21 hours ago, Vim Razz said:

EDIT: You keep arguing as if hardcore min-max cost-benefit analysis is the only meaningful consideration (in a game where it clearly isn't), and as if that somehow invalidates the reasons that some of us enjoy the current system (which it does not, because it's completely irrelevant to those reasons).

What are you even trying to accomplish here? 

It's not just to establish that you and I like different things, because you keep pushing far, far beyond that, to the point of repeatedly trying to argue that the things I like are inherently invalid.

If you're trying to convince me that I would enjoy the game more if it was different than it currently is, than you've forgotten to include the bits that I'm actually supposed to like more than the things that I currently do.

Pretty sure what's being attempted here is to demonstrate to you that not everyone enjoys the things you do, but that it's ultimately irrelevant whether people enjoy the same things or not, because making the game more fun for others in this way will have exactly zero impact on how you like to have fun.

But at every turn, you have come back with arguments based entirely on the concept of "if it doesn't have randomness in it, I don't like it".

I really don't understand why this has become an argument in the first place.

[Vim Razz]

1 hour ago, Coolthulhu said:

Something completely and utterly futile it seems: trying to get you to understand that forcing randomness in character creation but allowing a reroll button results in tedium for anyone who doesn't play your personal challenges.

That sounds like it would have been a more interesting start to the conversation than effectively saying 'that thing you like is invalid, because of a button you never bother to push'.

The notion that fully forcing random dupe generation is a necessary extension of any randomization system seems bizarre to me, though.  Both you and @PhailRaptor have now indicated that such a system is necessarily implied, and I find it baffling that you both might have come to that same conclusion.  Where does the idea even come from?

I'd assume that people who currently re-roll would just back out another menu layer, and re-roll the entire set under such a system, which sounds even more cumbersome.  It would accomplish nothing.

 

1 hour ago, Coolthulhu said:

You could do your challenges in a better system, I can't have my non-tedious character generation in the current one.

Sure. I appreciate the desire for more control in game setup.

The purpose of my initial comment wasn't to deny that, though, it was simply to point out the aspects of the current system I personally happen to enjoy.

 

 

1 hour ago, Ichikai said:

Guys, guys, GUYS.  Why can't we have both? Keep as is for those who like it as is.

Pity the poor peacemakers!  Their work will never be done!

[Ichikai]

@Vim Razz Not necessarily trying to make peace, I just don't see the issue when we easily could have both at no cost to either.

The ability to customize your 3 starting dupes does not seem like that much of a big deal to the game. Some people simply take the things they're given and play the game, others sit reshuffling for several minutes to get a lineup that's satisfactory, then play the game.

What's wrong with eliminating the shuffling ad nauseam?

Plus, who doesn't want to create a flatulent, loud sleeping narcoleptic that's also a buff twinkletoes with diver's lungs?

[PhailRaptor]

Interesting that you tagged me in your post, but you didn't even attempt to address what I said.  Nobody in this thread has discussed removing randomly generated starter Dupes, only to allow the option to "create your own" if desired.

How does this negatively impact you?

5 minutes ago, Vim Razz said:

The notion that fully forcing random dupe generation is a necessary extension of any randomization system seems bizarre to me, though.

I have not said this.  I have only made a single comment that could be construed as this, and it was an obvious hyperbole.  More importantly, how is this at all relevant to the discussion about starter Dupes?

[Vim Razz]

2 hours ago, PhailRaptor said:

I have not said this.  I have only made a single comment that could be construed as this, and it was an obvious hyperbole.

You literally said that in this post:

On 2/2/2018 at 4:31 PM, PhailRaptor said:

 What you are really asking about is not implemented in the game (fully random Dupes, where you are dropped straight into the world with 3 random Dupes, and every time the Printer is ready it produces a random Dupe without giving you the option to reject, and without waiting for you to select one).

If this statement was intended as hyperbole, then the framing wasn't clear to me, as it claimed that I intended things that I did not.
 

2 hours ago, PhailRaptor said:

More importantly, how is this at all relevant to the discussion about starter Dupes?

In the context of this thread, both you and Coolthulhu expressed similar sentiments in comments directly responding to me, followed immediately by statements that seem to imply I was trying to force my ideas on others.

I found that to be a curious coincidence, and tagged you in the event that you might be able to shed some light on where the idea might have came from.  (Thank you for replying, btw!)

If you're not interested, though, it's nothing important -- just idle curiosity.

 

Backing up a bit, though....

2 hours ago, PhailRaptor said:

Interesting that you tagged me in your post, but you didn't even attempt to address what I said. 

In regards to our earlier exchange? You tried putting words in my mouth, so I rejected them.

if you'd like to see a more detailed response, then you'll need express your argument in a less ham-fisted manner .

2 hours ago, PhailRaptor said:

Nobody in this thread has discussed removing randomly generated starter Dupes, only to allow the option to "create your own" if desired.

How does this negatively impact you?

You and Coolthulhu both directly challenged the reasoning that I offered in support of my opinion.  Why should I not respond to that?

 

 

2 hours ago, Ichikai said:

@Vim Razz Not necessarily trying to make peace, I just don't see the issue when we easily could have both at no cost to either.

I actually do have somewhat mixed feelings on the inclusion of such a feature, depending on how it was implemented.

That's not a topic I've bothered engaging with in this thread, though, as I've primarily been responding to challenges to my opinion that there's value in a system with randomized dupes to begin with.

[Le0n1des]

The whole thing could be an additional drop menu on the custom world generation. Could even implement handicapped (I.e. heavy on the debuffs)/balanced (vanilla)/enhanced (heavy on the buffs)/eugenics (manual traits selection). This should support multiple play styles and using the same logic as germs and stress