Maybe something similar, a bit more limited than original idea here, but indeed different than regular exoworlds? Something unusual every now and again.
Every third/fourth (ish) exo planets could have 1 more exoworld connected to it. Every 10th (ish) exoworld would have 2 more connected that way, a “chain” of sort? Exo Twins and Exo Triplets you might say.
So, we would only see the first one in chain, the second would be seen from the first, and the third would only be seen from the second. That way initial wave of players would have to decide between staying on the first or going to the second (or third in case of triplets) and split efforts, making each of the triplets being ravaged slower and giving more chance to players who happen to miss first 24-48 hours of these worlds existence.
I think it would be beneficial if we didn’t know the exo we see is a part of a chain and could only find it out when landing on the first planet.
The twins/triplets could be of the same level or different levels, same or different type, same/similar or completely different color palettes, maybe of the same or different size too? A lot of things to decide how to play that out.
It is always a complicated situation when I think about a wipe. On one hand I see all the cool work people did and the expectation that was set about this being a persistent game, but on the other hand I see many avenues of benefit for the game as well. I think it would help balance and so many other components of the game to see how people move through the ranks if we wiped… I just don’t think we had the wiped needed to really solve some key things in the game.
I know the subject is not tolerated by many currently or ever will be… For me I see us closing the gap between a very stale universe because all the planets we have now cannot change in any way. Quickly the game is starting to feel like EA did the last year/8 months (before release announcement) because nothing on the planet level changes. It was the same thing over and over. Maybe more will understand this next year when they start getting bored of the same looking planet. Exo’s have certainly brought in new worlds but does nothing to solve the old worlds with various problems that can’t be fixed and we are forced to live on. Rented planets will just make the public universe worse feeling for this issue I fear.
I’d venture to say that it would probably not be tolerated by the vast majority. It’s a persistent world, for better or for worse.
However, that said, I do expect the landscapes to change as players build more elaborate things, bigger cities etc… and with farming on the horizon, I’d expect the landscape will change even more! Hardly stale when there is content to fill all the spaces with!
That is player landscape versus planet landscape. They are linked on some levels and completely not linked on others…
If we had a game mechanic that could change the land under us… adjust the biome or have diamonds appear on other planets and get removed on different ones or have colors change or have volcano’s destroy parts of planeets, etc… then my concerns would mostly be lifted on the staleness I see coming more and more.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, but it sounds terrifying - I wouldn’t want the biome I had built in to be suddenly adjusted to become a swamp or have a volcano suddenly appear next to me.
With regards to resource distributions, I’m sure they are already able to do this to some extents.
I would guess the reason it is not tolerated is the commitment stated by the developers that there would be no wipe after the initial launch. They have also stated that we have a persistent universe which is key in allowing things like portal networks. So if this changes, can we trust the word of the developers any longer?
If the planets in the universe were constantly changing or even disappearing then why spend hundreds of hours building anything? Why build any community or settlement when it could disappear at any time? Why construct a build on a lake that could suddenly become a desert, forest or lake full of lava? I would argue a large number of players build in specific locations because they like what the location looks like as well as how close it might be to other things like resources or portal networks. I am curious just how many players found the EA planets to be stale? I know a large number was looking forward to more content and more players, but were we as a group really that bored with the planets themselves? I know I was not.
As to the OP, I am certainly in favor of more Exo Planets. I know they are to be rare, but they seem a little too rare in my opinion. I think we take away from them being rare if we suddenly have 30 of them even if it is for a limited time.
I agree - they’re a little too rare at the moment, may be worth them increasing the spawn rate a little so that we’re never waiting for one to appear longer than a week
It really makes no sense to bring TRUST into a conversation about a possible wipe. In fact it is kind of not appropriate.
Things change and reasons change and anyone that is willing to not understand context is just being difficult. They said they would release a variety of things and haven’t yet. So should we not trust them because of that?
I agree it was a point they made and persistence is important but I am not naive enough to not be willing to considering changing the models originally developer to create a possible better solution in the future.
I guess we better abandon all building near the oceans as they rise. I guess we need to stop everything because we have can’t see the beauty of impermanence or that you just do things “because” it was cool in that moment. Stop everything because the rules might change somewhere…
Of course an adjusting landscape would be a careful thing to talk about and certainly something not very palatable on the existing planets. But, I don’t see it as a bad idea to have a discussion around at some point to find ways to combat Universe staleness. This isn’t the thread to do it on and certainly not with a community that doesn’t see the benefits of chaos or extreme change and prefers steady state.
Bologna. . . if a development team says a game is going to have a certain core feature and you buy the game based on it having that core feature, then players have every right to decide if they can trust the developers if they decide to change that core feature. It would bring into doubt everything that is in or planned to be in the game.
This is a game not the real world, and your point was to change a core feature of the game. It having a persistent universe. In any case I am sure This entire conversation is off topic. So I am done replying other than to the OP.
Oh I was not trying to support/suggest the idea of an wipe with my statement. I was just saying that the way it was described, sounds extremely violent. and if actually happened the way as described, from a lore/physics standpoint, would be damaging.
As the OP, I am certainly open to an evolved conversation. The main reason I post is to promote conversation. My two cents: I spent over 1k hours of my precious life, in EA, “practicing” the game, accepting that it would all dissapear. I then spent 2k more hours after 1.0 resting assured that as I took my time and built the way I wanted, that it would be as permanent as I desired, therefore biding my time and playing at my pace (case-in-point, my house is only about a quarter finished even today.) If I were to log those hours and then look satisfied upon my creation only to face impending doom, this would not only verily crush my spirit, but also cause me to greatly lament my time invested and money invested into this product. I would staunchly defend my right to peace-of-mind, which I do prioritize above a perceived communal balance.
How about when you start up the game you can choose between the persistent universe, and a “seasonal” one. Every 3 months or so the seasonal universe gets wiped. Less than half total planets to plot and build on, and some type of gimmick for each season, like a trinket, that can be displayed in the persistent universe that are rewarded through coffers or something. Just spit balling
If you want to change a planet every so often then rent one when they are available. Then if you want to have everything regen or get a different planet to play on, do it. At least this way you are not harming any other players except those on your rented planet.
Since OP said he doesnt mind the convo evolving a bit I would like to piggy back on this idea.
I like the idea of an ever changing planet. Where one day you log on you could be walking into your base over an ocean and the next your base is engulfed inside of a giant mountain. For this idea to work we would need a few things to be clear/put in place.
These ever changing planets should not affect any planets currently in the live universe. They would need to be completely new permanent planets. I know most of us enjoy the security of our builds we’ve put months into.
2)Ever changing planets would need a limited number of permanent plots and a number of temporary plots. Permanent plots would hold your valuables-coils, storage, portal, etc. Temporary plots would be where you build say a bridge to get across that ocean that just appeared beneath your base. These temporary plots are subject to be completely destroyed at any time to allow the planet to continue evolving over time.
To spice these planets up even further, a reward could be given to players with max prestige at the time of wipe (planet evolution). Prestige is only applied to temporary plots, so the leaderboard would always be evolving with each planet evolution. We would need to constantly rebuild to regain prestige, but we would always have our permanent plot to fall back on.
Well in where I was going I was not promoting something that extreme on ocean today mountain tomorrow… I have not have any conversations with James or Ollie to even see if the regen model could be extending to slowly change planets.
Additionally I would not block players from being affected by this lifecycle model I am slowly developing the idea for this game. I already pitched that prestige plants should give a negative benefit if not kept up and I feel we should at some level consider how builds might change if people do not keep them up. I would never take away a persons coin or certain things but I think that a possible that since we do allow wear on machines we should consider discussions about how wear might be on other things… we have that with our house and cars and so many things in life and I don’t think it is completely wrong to at least talk about if those things make sense or not in this game.
For me I would not limit the idea to only new planets because that is not a feasible functional design for where the game stands now. New planets cannot come because of finances and limited player growth. I would consider all planets as a possible option but until more detailed discussion happens nothing would be off the table and nothing would be set in stone to stay on the table for the design.
Either way I don’t think this is the right thread to talk about that and until I can get more technical specifics from the developers about existing functionality and what IS possible versus what would be possible after development I won’t be really entertaining discussion in the forum for my idea. Especially considering the severe push back and current mindset of many in the community. I will never change my mind that it is a smart approach to always be willing to change your previous decisions and pivot designs, but just because you might consider it does not in any way ever mean you would actually do that since it comes down to risk/reward, need/benefit, etc…
How would this specifically “harm” someone? I’m having a hard time seeing ill intent in my suggestion. You’d be given a choice to join a seasonal universe.
Could even implement challenge rules for the seperate universe that would be wiped, like increased mob spawn, or something fun like reduced gravity. More choice isnt a bad thing I believe
If the seasonal planet has a resource on it then I may want to put a farm or something on it. But if it changes and the resource moves then the farm is not any good. So do you limit the planets where making a farm makes practical sense to the non-seasonal planets? Does this create more crowding on the non-seasonal planets? Do the non-seasonal end up with all the large builds and the seasonal end up mostly empty? These are my concerns and how they do impact the players that do not want to deal with the planet changing out from under them.
Are you limiting players to only play in seasonal or non-seasonal universe? If this is the case then are you creating a permanent split in an already small player base? This is not like a rented planet where you can move back and forth between the two. If it is separate then it is separate. If this is the case then you really probably only hurt players due to the smaller number of planets in each universe. If we cut the universe in two then each half (assuming half the players want the seasonal) gets 25 planets and probably fewer exo planets.
