World Regrowth Grass Tufts Needed

[sirknightdude]

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.

[Ecu]

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.

[Donke60]

I think he is complaining that with the longivty and unknowingness of new players they remove grass tufts that get destroyed and then to get grass they hunt grass geckos to extinction this is depletion the entire world of grass. So he's having an issue of natural occuring grass that can not be messed with not neccasily that it is the grass geckos or dieses fault but mainly on new players hunting the geckos to extinction and then people removing tufts for basebuilding to get destroyed by fire. 

[Ecu]

24 minutes ago, Donke60 said:

I think he is complaining that with the longivty and unknowingness of new players they remove grass tufts that get destroyed and then to get grass they hunt grass geckos to extinction this is depletion the entire world of grass. So he's having an issue of natural occuring grass that can not be messed with not neccasily that it is the grass geckos or dieses fault but mainly on new players hunting the geckos to extinction and then people removing tufts for basebuilding to get destroyed by fire. 

So...don't do that next time?  Someone who is experienced in the game can do without grass tufts all together.  In fact, as he stated, tumble weeds are such a good source of grass and sticks, it is almost better to just use them all together (unless you have a Wickerbottom, I suppose).  The game isn't meant to last forever, instead it is essentially meant to be a challenge to survive until everyone dies and then start over.  Currently, the game is actually kind of too easy even.

This is why I commented about them not playing survival mode, and instead likely eternal mode.  I've seen a few people suggesting things like this, with a trend towards that eternal style of play.  However, it is my viewpoint that this game is not (and should not be made into) Minecraft or similar such games.  DST is meant to kill people, with the goal of lasting as long as you can as a group before having to start over again.

As such (and as stated), it is completely legitimate to have resource access be reduced over time.

[Trenix]

Well I just lost faith in this game when I realized that many resources have not been added to the regrowth feature. To add disease but not regrowth from destroyed plants? Like I said before, they have no regards to public multiplayer whatsoever.

[Electroely]

2 hours ago, Trenix said:

Well I just lost faith in this game when I realized that many resources have not been added to the regrowth feature. To add disease but not regrowth from destroyed plants? Like I said before, they have no regards to public multiplayer whatsoever.

And THAT is what ruins bases are good for.

 

[Ecu]

3 hours ago, Trenix said:

Well I just lost faith in this game when I realized that many resources have not been added to the regrowth feature. To add disease but not regrowth from destroyed plants? Like I said before, they have no regards to public multiplayer whatsoever.

They have perfect regard for public multiplayer, they just don't have regard for players expecting Minecraft from DST.  You're meant to lose the game, and as such having resources be destroyed over time makes perfect sense.  In addition, the two primary resources destroyed by disease can be acquired via the Desert already.  Losing berries over time doesn't destroy the ability to continue playing the game, but does make it more challenging.

[JohnWatson]

Do people actually make grass farms in their base? I usually just settle near a place full of grass where I could pick a few stacks in one day. I always found that grass farms, or any non-meat farms in general, require too much maintenance for too little reward. And now with the addition of diseases, they're even less worthwhile to me.

[Trenix]

2 hours ago, Ecu said:

They have perfect regard for public multiplayer, they just don't have regard for players expecting Minecraft from DST.  You're meant to lose the game, and as such having resources be destroyed over time makes perfect sense.  In addition, the two primary resources destroyed by disease can be acquired via the Desert already.  Losing berries over time doesn't destroy the ability to continue playing the game, but does make it more challenging.

1) I really can't grasp where you're getting Minecraft out of any of this.
2) Why are you forcing people to play the game that YOU want to play? Also if what you're saying is true, then whats the purpose of pens, creative objects, pets, and all the other senseless decorative things? Also why is there a partial regrowth system intentionally made for DST?
3) Resulting to run to deserts for tumbleweed just remedy the loss of destroyed non-renewable plants is just flat out terrible game design. I doubt that's even intended.
4) We have settings for worlds for a reason, if you want to make the game difficult, you can set that up for yourself already.

1 hour ago, JohnWatson said:

Do people actually make grass farms in their base? I usually just settle near a place full of grass where I could pick a few stacks in one day. I always found that grass farms, or any non-meat farms in general, require too much maintenance for too little reward. And now with the addition of diseases, they're even less worthwhile to me.

You're right, it's one of the problems with the game. I was thinking of doing this actually or just turning off disease which I really didn't want to do. I think a big problem with this game is that there isn't enough customization in the world settings. Also relying on mods nowadays isn't recommended being that most are outdated and therefore don't work.

[Donke60]

I think some seasonal spawners that turn off during winter and summer but also when they appear the go to different places on the map this stops people for just hanging at a spawner all year would nicely fix the issue 

[Diaboliko]

On 05.12.2016 at 5:11 AM, JohnWatson said:

Do people actually make grass farms in their base? I usually just settle near a place full of grass where I could pick a few stacks in one day. I always found that grass farms, or any non-meat farms in general, require too much maintenance for too little reward. And now with the addition of diseases, they're even less worthwhile to me.

It's kinda usefull to do deep in ruins(especially at the ancient guardians arena) since usually you don't want to bring stacks of grass and sticks back to base(since there are other things to bring, like nitre for gunpowder(to later screw up and waste a good chunk of it, thats fun!)). It is also "just another thing in to do list"

[Myself49]

On 4. 12. 2016 at 4:14 AM, 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.

In practically every post you make you seem to be forcing your view of games that should last 100-150 days at most. I really suggest you cut that out. You aren't the spokeperson for the game developers nor for the community. I don't want to seem hostile and this will definitelly trigger an argument but I think you seriously need to stop telling people how the game is supposed to be played and how the developers mean the game to be played. It is getting really annoying. Yeah, we get it. You want short games with resets that happen often. And then there are people that really want to make the world their own and make it last as long as possible which doesn't mean that they want it to be less challenging. Personally I want both a challenge and a long lasting world. And I know it is possible and once I properly explore the game to its fullest I will be making plenty of suggestions on how to achieve that. Other games can do it and DST is no exception.

I really don't think the devs want to FORCE the players to restart the world. In fact I think they want the exact opposite seeing how the early days are the most tedious ones and repeating them again and again will just make people dislike the game.

On 5. 12. 2016 at 2:48 AM, Ecu said:

They have perfect regard for public multiplayer, they just don't have regard for players expecting Minecraft from DST.  You're meant to lose the game, and as such having resources be destroyed over time makes perfect sense.  In addition, the two primary resources destroyed by disease can be acquired via the Desert already.  Losing berries over time doesn't destroy the ability to continue playing the game, but does make it more challenging.

You say you are MEANT to lose the game. Well I don't think that is the point at all. I think you are meant to learn how to survive in a new world and constantly deal with the threats for as long as you can and if eventually you lose, then you lose. But it is not something that is meant to happen. You keep saying that people shouldn't expect Minecraft from this game. Well you should stop trying to expect Dwarf Fortress from it.

There are ways that can make it more challening to survive without destroying the natural non-renewable resources.

 

[HamBatter]

Grass tufts could use some sort of desolation regrowth. That's over two game years, which is longer than the 100 day expectancy.

With disease affecting a non-renewable resource, it's sensible to simply not move them and travel more from time to time. There isn't much you can do about those unaware of the mechanic, griefers, or short-term thinkers though.

[Ecu]

4 hours ago, Myself49 said:

In practically every post you make you seem to be forcing your view of games that should last 100-150 days at most. I really suggest you cut that out. You aren't the spokeperson for the game developers nor for the community. I don't want to seem hostile and this will definitelly trigger an argument but I think you seriously need to stop telling people how the game is supposed to be played and how the developers mean the game to be played. It is getting really annoying. Yeah, we get it. You want short games with resets that happen often. And then there are people that really want to make the world their own and make it last as long as possible which doesn't mean that they want it to be less challenging. Personally I want both a challenge and a long lasting world. And I know it is possible and once I properly explore the game to its fullest I will be making plenty of suggestions on how to achieve that. Other games can do it and DST is no exception.

I really don't think the devs want to FORCE the players to restart the world. In fact I think they want the exact opposite seeing how the early days are the most tedious ones and repeating them again and again will just make people dislike the game.

It isn't me forcing a view that games should last 100-150 days, it is that it is actually how it is on average.  A majority of the servers utilize survival mode.  Of said survival mode, a majority of servers are also 150 days or less.  These are facts, not just my opinion.  This is further supported by the official servers also only being survival mode (and following the same pattern generally of restarting on/before 150 days).

Since this is the average user experience for the DST game, it only makes sense to design the majority of all game mechanics around this period of time.  In addition, it is far from a short period of time.  To get to day 150, the server would have had to been playing on that world for 20 hours.  Generally speaking, it is rather uncommon for an individual to play that long in a single play session.  Since the server restarts after that period of time, it is rather common for an individual player to play only between 30-75 days, rather than 150.

This is all factual information that has been gathered via play experience and statistical analysis of server information.

4 hours ago, Myself49 said:

You say you are MEANT to lose the game. Well I don't think that is the point at all. I think you are meant to learn how to survive in a new world and constantly deal with the threats for as long as you can and if eventually you lose, then you lose. But it is not something that is meant to happen. You keep saying that people shouldn't expect Minecraft from this game. Well you should stop trying to expect Dwarf Fortress from it.

There are ways that can make it more challening to survive without destroying the natural non-renewable resources.

Actually, the game intentionally escalated the hounds specifically towards the goal of eventually overwhelming you.  Don't Starve has always been about seeing how long you can struggle through.  Don't Starve Together is just small group multiplayer added to Don't Starve.

It definitely isn't as difficult a challenge as I feel it should be, I definitely admit that.  There are indeed additional ways to challenge the player, I'll also admit that.  However, having resources destroyed if you don't handle them well is definitely a legitimate game mechanic.  If you handle resources well, you'll not have problems.  If you handle them poorly, you will.

Given the standard server life mentioned above, you will only really run out of resources if you poorly manage them and/or people grief.  Even if such a situation happens, every resource (I believe) for crafting is already renewable in its own fashion.  This means you always have a method in which you can continue to try survive, even if you poorly manage your resources.

[Trenix]

2 hours ago, Ecu said:

It isn't me forcing a view that games should last 100-150 days, it is that it is actually how it is on average.  A majority of the servers utilize survival mode.  Of said survival mode, a majority of servers are also 150 days or less.  These are facts, not just my opinion.  This is further supported by the official servers also only being survival mode (and following the same pattern generally of restarting on/before 150 days).

Since this is the average user experience for the DST game, it only makes sense to design the majority of all game mechanics around this period of time.  In addition, it is far from a short period of time.  To get to day 150, the server would have had to been playing on that world for 20 hours.  Generally speaking, it is rather uncommon for an individual to play that long in a single play session.  Since the server restarts after that period of time, it is rather common for an individual player to play only between 30-75 days, rather than 150.

This is all factual information that has been gathered via play experience and statistical analysis of server information.

Actually, the game intentionally escalated the hounds specifically towards the goal of eventually overwhelming you.  Don't Starve has always been about seeing how long you can struggle through.  Don't Starve Together is just small group multiplayer added to Don't Starve.

It definitely isn't as difficult a challenge as I feel it should be, I definitely admit that.  There are indeed additional ways to challenge the player, I'll also admit that.  However, having resources destroyed if you don't handle them well is definitely a legitimate game mechanic.  If you handle resources well, you'll not have problems.  If you handle them poorly, you will.

Given the standard server life mentioned above, you will only really run out of resources if you poorly manage them and/or people grief.  Even if such a situation happens, every resource (I believe) for crafting is already renewable in its own fashion.  This means you always have a method in which you can continue to try survive, even if you poorly manage your resources.

Have you ever considered that maybe people play survival mode above all others because it's the most complete mode currently available? It's the complete rip of singleplayer into multiplayer with very rough multiplayer balances. Endless and wilderness mode can't be very enjoyable due to the fact that there is a lack of long term challenges, late game features, and PvP hasn't got any consideration to benefit with Wilderness mode. Only recently have we been getting content for more late game features. Also what you're providing is statistics, not facts. Fact would be the developer stating the game is supposed to last 150 days.

Just because games last 150 days on average, doesn't mean they should last that long or that they're intended to last that long. Survival mode is about surviving as long as you can. Everyone enjoys that type of game mode but not everybody believes that the depletion of resources should be part of the survival challenge. If people want it turned off, like hounds for example, than why shouldn't they be allowed to? You are forcing people how to play, clearly. I say we should have a regrowth option.

Oh and by the way, the hound wave feature is for all game modes, even endless. So that's another hypothesis that's incorrect.

[Donke60]

6 hours ago, Ecu said:

It isn't me forcing a view that games should last 100-150 days, it is that it is actually how it is on average.  A majority of the servers utilize survival mode.  Of said survival mode, a majority of servers are also 150 days or less.  These are facts, not just my opinion.  This is further supported by the official servers also only being survival mode (and following the same pattern generally of restarting on/before 150 days).

When you constantly shoot down peoples thoughts with out giving them the slightest consideration or go to a thread just to tell them how stupid their idea is that is shooting it down, is it wrong no, is it annoying? yes. Also I have to agree with @Trenix here but for a different reason and that is that Survival mode is the Standard Don't Starve Experience it is the gamesyle that everyone is farmilier with and is the default option when you start a server.

6 hours ago, Ecu said:

generally speaking, it is rather uncommon for an individual to play that long in a single play session.  Since the server restarts after that period of time, it is rather common for an individual player to play only between 30-75 days, rather than 150.

This is all factual information that has been gathered via play experience and statistical analysis of server information.

While true most servers have people coming and going at a random pace so it really common to see servers have long lifespans

Just because those are your findings and the data youi gathered does not make it true all the time or even for the period you recorded for these stats to be considered true we would need multiple data gatherings and a fact study from a third party to prove that your information is correct.

6 hours ago, Ecu said:

Given the standard server life mentioned above, you will only really run out of resources if you poorly manage them and/or people grief.  Even if such a situation happens, every resource (I believe) for crafting is already renewable in its own fashion.  This means you always have a method in which you can continue to try survive, even if you poorly manage your resources.

Well you already said the problem greifing and poorly managed resources experinced players and Admins can not micromange every player on the server and give everyone a tutorial on the best ways to do things. Even if that is possible you would have to account for that some people don't care and won't listen.

And if you say that you have been studying game design for about 6 years then you should know the concept of supply and demand and why you wouldn't be wrong the supply of grass you need for a sustained survival is quite high and that doesn't factor in what characters you have or mods or people behavior due to competetion  while every one would flock to the desert to move base this will also but a massive stain on the dessert resources then factor in new players and mob spawn killing to even make room for player's bases. This creates a great migration that leaves many places barren as they move because people want to take everything they can with them. This would leave supply for tumbleweeds or samplings and rocks the basic resources to skyrocket and not able to compete with the demand.

I will give you @Ecu that this process is slow but that doesn't make it a issue that shouldn't be addressed because with the game mentality of people and game telling people to survive as long as possible. It is going to happen and kiel fixed the issue with rocks and twigs when it happened and all they have to do is spread it out more for grass instead of leaving to one biome all we need is some normal grass spawners that randomly appear and disappear across the map at random but not often intervals and the problem for the most part will be fixed.

P.s I don't care how experienced or how long you studied game design this is the internet where I can say anything I want and it could or could not be true and even if it is true that you are training to be a game designer that does not but your opinions obove anyone else if you have a problem with how i'm treating you PM me I don't care but i'm getting tired of this smugness that appears when you talk sometimes.

[HamBatter]

Does the 150 day average include PvP servers and users that can't make it past the first Winter/Summer?

[Donke60]

3 hours ago, HamBatter said:

Does the 150 day average include PvP servers and users that can't make it past the first Winter/Summer?

Not necissarly for most people play with friends or strangers join at random intervals 

The 150 day average is just the genral data that accounts for the life span of survival servers
according to @Ecu stats but it is not concrete I would suggest that if you want know for yourself you do your own research.

[Ecu]

9 hours ago, Trenix said:

Also what you're providing is statistics, not facts. Fact would be the developer stating the game is supposed to last 150 days.

Strictly speaking statistics themselves aren't facts.  However, since it is derived from collected data and said data is a fact, it is not inappropriate to say that my information is factual.

9 hours ago, Trenix said:

Just because games last 150 days on average, doesn't mean they should last that long or that they're intended to last that long. Survival mode is about surviving as long as you can. Everyone enjoys that type of game mode but not everybody believes that the depletion of resources should be part of the survival challenge. If people want it turned off, like hounds for example, than why shouldn't they be allowed to? You are forcing people how to play, clearly. I say we should have a regrowth option.

I disagree.  Given that 150 days equates to roughly 20 hours of actual play time, it is absurd to feel that an average person will actually play this long during a single session.  In my research, I've found that generally speaking, even getting through summer is not all that common for a single player as that already requires more than 8 hours of play to accomplish.

Couple this with the fact that all officially supported servers are survival mode, and it makes perfect sense to assume that the intended game experience is in line with the averages I've found.  So, it also makes perfect sense that my design suggestions and rebuttals focus on said experience.

7 hours ago, Donke60 said:

When you constantly shoot down peoples thoughts with out giving them the slightest consideration or go to a thread just to tell them how stupid their idea is that is shooting it down, is it wrong no, is it annoying? yes. Also I have to agree with @Trenix here but for a different reason and that is that Survival mode is the Standard Don't Starve Experience it is the gamesyle that everyone is farmilier with and is the default option when you start a server.

I'm sorry if I offend people by providing feedback to their design decisions, but just because you have an idea, does not mean others will agree with it.  When posting on a suggestions forum, it is natural for people to reply as to whether they agree or disagree with an idea and why.

Personally, I am taking into consideration what seems to be the current intended experience and using that to inform my opinions on other people's designs.  It isn't that I'm not considering the suggested idea, but that I may feel it is a poor direction to take the game.  Generally I come to these conclusions via multiple forms of information, including my own personal viewpoints.

If you disagree with me, fine.  You are free to do so and even explain why, however, I am also free to respond to said feedback.  Such is the nature of forums like this one.

7 hours ago, Donke60 said:

Just because those are your findings and the data youi gathered does not make it true all the time or even for the period you recorded for these stats to be considered true we would need multiple data gatherings and a fact study from a third party to prove that your information is correct.

You can quite easily see for yourself via https://my.jacklul.com/dstservers/statistics, that at pretty much any given time a majority of servers are survival mode.  Then, by opening the game and looking through all the survival mode servers that have players in them, you can quickly see a pattern.  In all honesty, you can even see the pattern itself via the linked site as a majority of servers generally are always in autumn.

While this is indeed not a significantly in-depth study to be considered scientific, it is reasonable enough to draw conclusions from.

7 hours ago, Donke60 said:

And if you say that you have been studying game design for about 6 years then you should know the concept of supply and demand and why you wouldn't be wrong the supply of grass you need for a sustained survival is quite high and that doesn't factor in what characters you have or mods or people behavior due to competetion  while every one would flock to the desert to move base this will also but a massive stain on the dessert resources then factor in new players and mob spawn killing to even make room for player's bases. This creates a great migration that leaves many places barren as they move because people want to take everything they can with them. This would leave supply for tumbleweeds or samplings and rocks the basic resources to skyrocket and not able to compete with the demand.

I'm sorry, but supply and demand is primarily the field of business, not game design.  While generally speaking, you do need to understand business practices to be successful as a game studio, to be a game designer it isn't required.

Your assumptions assume a form of play that isn't in line with averages.  Going with the business side of things, the best thing to do would be to appeal to the majority of players.  As a majority of players do not play on servers that support this type of play, it isn't a design avenue worth pursuing.  At least, not from a business sense.

From a purely game design sense, resources running out is solid game design.  It encourages cooperation and effective management of resources by the players involved.  This is quite typical in roguelike games, actually.

7 hours ago, Donke60 said:

P.s I don't care how experienced or how long you studied game design this is the internet where I can say anything I want and it could or could not be true and even if it is true that you are training to be a game designer that does not but your opinions obove anyone else if you have a problem with how i'm treating you PM me I don't care but i'm getting tired of this smugness that appears when you talk sometimes.

I am not actually training to be a game designer.  I just have a highly over reactive visuospatial ability and as such solving puzzles is very enjoyable.  Coupled with a innate understanding of human psychology, game design is a field that makes for a really interesting hobby.  In general, I don't actually tend to actually implement my designs personally.  Instead, I usually just share them with others on forums or via chat.

A lot of my recent study on game design has been focused around survival games.  One of the major sparks of said study is Minecraft, and from there it spread to other survival games such as Fallout, Don't Starve, ARK, etc.  I find it quite enjoyable to dissect said games to better understand how to create improvements to them.

In the end it is really just an intellectual interest.  You might consider this all to be smug talk, but to be completely honest, how can one explain their experience and expertise in a field without coming off somewhat smug to some people?  I speak with conviction when I speak as my experience gives me confidence.  If I am wrong, I am usually the first to admit such when given evidence or good argument as such.

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

That all said, this thread has gotten quite off topic.  Regarding regenerating tufts, I continue to feel that they would be a poor design decision given the current ecosystem.  If the developers were to change the direction they were going with the game and started altering their official servers accordingly, perhaps I would be willing to change my mind on this.  However, that currently isn't the case.

[Tosh]

Is the reason that the official  servers are survival servers not simply their low maintenance? If they were endless or wilderness it would be problematic due to the fact that someone joining one of these servers would more than likely be placed into a world that is very different from what a player should expect otherwise; e.g. a new DST player could join an official server and encounter a mega base or a completely barren world. This would firstly be a misrepresentation of the core game to new players, and secondly would introduce the issue of having to divert funding/manpower into the policing of these servers (not even mentioning issues of how to regenerate a public world diplomatically). I believe the use of survival servers is out of pure pragmatism and shouldn't reflect the devs intentions for the game as a whole. I would even go so far as to argue that the ocuvigil and cartographers desk are designed to benefit the wilderness mode the most.

The fact that there is a regrowth mechanic at all, and the fact that recent content (no eyed deer and Klaus) were intended to only occur in the second Autumn onwards demonstrates that the devs intend to add content to encourage players to try to survive longer. We'll only be able to say for sure as we see how the rest of the ANR content shapes up. 

I think some form of grass regrowth could be added, but maybe only after grass tufts and geckos have achieved a critically low population. I have no issues with players being forced to live off of tumbleweeds for a while, so long as this isn't also forcing them to rely solely on them so long as that server lasts. Decreasing a players' options to force them to adapt to a different play style is good, while dictating that they should only play one way is bad and will ultimately bore the player.

 

I personally appreciate @Ecu's feedback on any ideas I come up with. I study Philosophy in college, so I'm very familiar with the fact that the best ideas are strengthened by being able to stand up to criticism. Having someone who is familiar with game design take time out of their day to give detailed criticisms and feedback is incredibly helpful. 

[John]

I don't see where the controversy lies, a lot of new players can stumble onto barren servers alongside marathon-players, it's frustrating for both these parties.

Randomly generated tumbleweed yields are short-term solution, and I'm very skeptical any of the devs thought of it as anything other than a cool little random subsidy to your resources.

I would suggest it would be nice if there was a regeneration aspect to grass, maybe...
-When there is less than the minimum number of X; another X spawns elsewhere (It's a world defined by a deity, so why not)
-Poo, rot and seeds left on the floor will sometimes generate plants
-Gekkos mate and replant
-No gekkos or disease, plants move around during the night

I'd like to see something similar with flint too (meteor strikes?).

That's just me spitballing, but I think you get the gist. Regardless some-kind of, perhaps optional, way of making sure that you can walk into a server post-creation and have a shot is something that I'd like to see.

[Ecu]

2 hours ago, Tosh said:

 

Is the reason that the official  servers are survival servers not simply their low maintenance? If they were endless or wilderness it would be problematic due to the fact that someone joining one of these servers would more than likely be placed into a world that is very different from what a player should expect otherwise; e.g. a new DST player could join an official server and encounter a mega base or a completely barren world. This would firstly be a misrepresentation of the core game to new players, and secondly would introduce the issue of having to divert funding/manpower into the policing of these servers (not even mentioning issues of how to regenerate a public world diplomatically). I believe the use of survival servers is out of pure pragmatism and shouldn't reflect the devs intentions for the game as a whole. I would even go so far as to argue that the ocuvigil and cartographers desk are designed to benefit the wilderness mode the most.

Perhaps, I'm not honestly sure.  I don't believe Klei has specifically come out and stated the reasoning behind them only hosting survival servers.  However, I can make the conjecture that since DST is basically a small group multiplayer rendition of DS, that it is kind of the intended game mode.  I do not think, however, that the intended duration for people's play experience is meant to be limited to 20 hours (150 days) before reset, as I feel the overall intent is that you get together with friends and play more on private worlds than public.

However, when looking at things from the outside and asking myself how best the experience they seemingly desire could be offered via public servers, I kind of end up with a sense that a majority of an individual experience should fall within the first year (in-game) of playtime.  This way an individual can sit down with a reasonable amount of time (roughly 8 hours) and feel accomplished by the end.

2 hours ago, Tosh said:

The fact that there is a regrowth mechanic at all, and the fact that recent content (no eyed deer and Klaus) were intended to only occur in the second Autumn onwards demonstrates that the devs intend to add content to encourage players to try to survive longer. We'll only be able to say for sure as we see how the rest of the ANR content shapes up. 

I agree with the idea that they indeed seemingly intend to have people survive longer than a year by adding the additional late game content they have been adding.  The only thing I can reasonably take from this is that either they are ignoring the average play experience of public games, in favor of private games with friends...or they are intending on overhauling the experience all together to be more long term.  

The latter seems to not be the case as we haven't seen any change to the official servers.  As such we can only really assume that public games are there to just let people mess around with the game, while private games with friends are the more intended gameplay experience.

2 hours ago, Tosh said:

I think some form of grass regrowth could be added, but maybe only after grass tufts and geckos have achieved a critically low population. I have no issues with players being forced to live off of tumbleweeds for a while, so long as this isn't also forcing them to rely solely on them so long as that server lasts. Decreasing a players' options to force them to adapt to a different play style is good, while dictating that they should only play one way is bad and will ultimately bore the player.

If following the prior paragraph I wrote and the actual official viewpoint is that you're mostly meant to get together with a few friends and play, then why do we need regrowth?  The only real place that regrowth would be needed is in eternal mode public servers.  On private servers with friends, you will be playing with people you can coordinate with and as such not have issues of primary resources running out for a very long time.

By not having such regrowth mechanics you encourage people to use resources more cautiously when intending to try last out for an extended period of time.

2 hours ago, Tosh said:

I personally appreciate @Ecu's feedback on any ideas I come up with. I study Philosophy in college, so I'm very familiar with the fact that the best ideas are strengthened by being able to stand up to criticism. Having someone who is familiar with game design take time out of their day to give detailed criticisms and feedback is incredibly helpful. 

I appreciate this.

2 hours ago, John said:

I don't see where the controversy lies, a lot of new players can stumble onto barren servers alongside marathon-players, it's frustrating for both these parties.

Personally, my frustration with suggestions like this is that I feel the reduction in overall transplantable resources over time is a good gameplay mechanic.  It encourages people working more long term to make plans and not to just try to uproot everything they see (while still allowing them to do so, if they wish).

The only argument I've seen for adding such regrowth mechanics is specifically for endless servers.  Which honestly seem more like an extra for those that want it, rather than an intended gameplay experience.  Not a single official server is currently endless mode, and when promoting DST,  it has always been about trying to survive as long as you can.  When combined with the mechanics you end up with more of a roguelike survival game feel, than a base building sandbox style feel.

Except that suggestions like this one seemed aimed at that more base building sandbox style play, which doesn't seem to be the primary intended experience.  This is why I've suggested creating mods when presented with such ideas.

[JohnWatson]

Surviving as long as you can is not much of a challenge if difficulty does not accumulate. To be honest, I think the second year (after the first Summer) should be a lot harsher than it currently is, and it gets increasingly difficult every year that passes. It's easy to live hundreds of days if you are patient enough, really the only things that will kill you in this game is unpreparedness and overconfidence.

Maybe there should be more random events instead of just hounds and bosses, to catch the player off-guard. For example, have a bunch of hostile ghosts head straight towards you at night on the seventy-sixth day, have random structures bursting into flames on the one hundred eighth day, or have a walrus hunting party arrive to you hostile without warning on the ninety-fourth day.

Oh, and I think I should point out that you can disable Diseases in the World Gen options, if you wish to play on a world forever.

[Ecu]

7 hours ago, JohnWatson said:

Surviving as long as you can is not much of a challenge if difficulty does not accumulate. To be honest, I think the second year (after the first Summer) should be a lot harsher than it currently is, and it gets increasingly difficult every year that passes. It's easy to live hundreds of days if you are patient enough, really the only things that will kill you in this game is unpreparedness and overconfidence.

Maybe there should be more random events instead of just hounds and bosses, to catch the player off-guard. For example, have a bunch of hostile ghosts head straight towards you at night on the seventy-sixth day, have random structures bursting into flames on the one hundred eighth day, or have a walrus hunting party arrive to you hostile without warning on the ninety-fourth day.

Oh, and I think I should point out that you can disable Diseases in the World Gen options, if you wish to play on a world forever.

Totally in agreement here.  The game currently doesn't feel as difficult as I feel it really should feel given it's name.  I feel like DS was actually more difficult in some respects, just because you had less hands to gather resources and defend against threats.  In DST, it really is quite easy to setup a base that can sustain 8 people indefinitely, without even being a megabase.  With certain characters such like Webber, it can be done even easier.  I also agree with the idea that we need more things to mess with the status quo.  Additional base threats, disease-like effects, etc. that really throw wrenches in the works.

This is why I really just cannot agree with additional methods for renewable resources, it just feels like it goes against the spirit of the game and makes it even easier than it already is.

[Trenix]

On 12/14/2016 at 7:31 AM, Ecu said:

Your assumptions assume a form of play that isn't in line with averages.  Going with the business side of things, the best thing to do would be to appeal to the majority of players.  As a majority of players do not play on servers that support this type of play, it isn't a design avenue worth pursuing.  At least, not from a business sense.

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.

Quote

A lot of my recent study on game design has been focused around survival games.  One of the major sparks of said study is Minecraft, and from there it spread to other survival games such as Fallout, Don't Starve, ARK, etc.  I find it quite enjoyable to dissect said games to better understand how to create improvements to them.

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.

Quote

In the end it is really just an intellectual interest.  You might consider this all to be smug talk, but to be completely honest, how can one explain their experience and expertise in a field without coming off somewhat smug to some people?  I speak with conviction when I speak as my experience gives me confidence.  If I am wrong, I am usually the first to admit such when given evidence or good argument as such.

Lmao, what? You act like your opinions are fact. When proven wrong you never admit to anything, you just change the subject. You essentially ignore anything that proves you wrong or challenges you. Nothing intellectual, nothing constructive, not even real arguments. I would argue with you all day, but it's just so nonconstructive a waste of time. I'm glad people are seeing this for themselves. I have nothing against you, just you make for a poor argument with anything put up for discussion. We can disagree with each other to be constructive, but we can't do it the way you're doing it.

On 12/14/2016 at 0:39 PM, Tosh said:

I personally appreciate @Ecu's feedback on any ideas I come up with. I study Philosophy in college, so I'm very familiar with the fact that the best ideas are strengthened by being able to stand up to criticism. Having someone who is familiar with game design take time out of their day to give detailed criticisms and feedback is incredibly helpful. 

If you take philosophy like I have, you'd see that there is nothing but fallacies throughout all his arguments continuously. He's the type of person my professor warned of and told me to avoid arguments with because nothing productive will come out of them. Philosophy is a good course, but if you're truly taking it, you should know how a person should argue, compared to how someone shouldn't argue. 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.