Current public worlds for the win, as far as I am concerned. Rental worlds do not fill the content gap for me. Group oriented content on public worlds is what I am hoping for in the future. Every hunt I go on you meet new people and develop friendships, 20 to 30 people working together. If there were options of different “events” to do I think the player base would increase.
Yes, people willingly pay for a sovereign planet, in large part based on what they get for their money. If people don’t think it will be value for money (as has been echoed here by many about the current state), then less money for Boundless.
But what do you mean by ‘maintaining balance’. Sovereign worlds don’t add (and has never been suggested that they should) any uber new items that you can only get by paying money. Block colours are purely cosmetic, so unless you’re stating that cosmetics are a balance issue, I’m not sure I follow.
At the same time, other people have said a million times that rarity isn’t some binary decision between having things rare or utterly trivial. I don’t think anyone here is advocating creative or super-easy on private worlds, just that the colours are available to grind if you have something specific in mind.
I think this is something they did really nail. Being able to turn on plotting permissions, let people plot what they want and then turn them off again is a brilliant way to restrict unwanted plotting without being too onerous, and without having to develop any new systems like beacon transfers (although I hope that’s still on their radar).
Definitely. If I was James, I wouldn’t want everybody PM-ing me constantly trying to get information out of me. For someone who cares as little about what other people think of me as I do, it’s weird that empathy is the biggest reason I would never PM a dev with an information request.
I don’t even blame the people who do get the information. I’m sure there’s always some confusion as to which info is ‘allowed’ to be shared publicly, and what is supposed to be just a private BBF’s nugget of info.
Good communication just isn’t about building relationships with specific individual and giving some people access to privileged and arbitrarily sensitive information. It’s about being clear and concise about what you’d doing, even at the cost of people liking you. There was even a debate about what James meant by ‘Open for discussion’ because it’s just not clear. A more clear answer would have been:
“At this time, plots will work on sovereign planets in the same way they do on public planets. We’re going to let it sit like that for a while and make changes if a need develops. We’re open to ideas, but don’t expect them in this iteration version.”
Even if that’s what he meant, it shouldn’t be expected as implied or inferred information.
3 Likes
I’ve been following this game (and playing it) for a long time and rented worlds was the single most important feature for me since the beginning. That’s why I always paid attention to every bit of information that was handed to us over the years.
And I don’t feel that the initial version of the rented worlds feature that we currently witness on testing servers is in any way different to what has been announced and presented in the past. Neither is it a prove of some kind of huge chasm between player base and devs projects.
Apart from a few details that can be ironed out through testing and players feedback, the sovereign worlds prove to be what I expected and I’m sure they will find its fans among fellow Oortians.
There are going to be a few different kinds of rented worlds, as I’m sure we all know.
I wonder why are there so many dramatic posts treating this first iteration of only one type of rented worlds like something final. Reading through all discussions around the newest testing update, I see a tendency to treat the sovereign world as a feature that must hand full control to players if it comes to how they are created.
I’m sure that there is a plan to attach different level of control to different types of rented worlds. And when we eventually get to the point when all types of rented worlds are implemented, every kind of players will be able to find the one that suits them the most (while some might not be interested in any of them and focus on public worlds).
What people want isn’t necessarily what’s best for the game.
If there is any disconnect between players wants and devs ideas, half of the blame lays on players’ side, as many tend to approach new updates with expectations that have no base in reality (meaning what has been said about any planned update beforehand).
Also, devs have no obligation towards players other than promised bonuses for backers and any extra features for GC subscribers etc. They needn’t to cater any players wants if they feel it doesn’t fit the core game systems (be it world tiers, resource balance, progression balance etc.)
There are enough players who want the sovereign worlds and accept the general concept presented, where those worlds follow the live universe constraints (meaning no full customization conrol).
Most (if not all) would like changes to original (current testing) features, like more control of biome choice, some sort of free sovereign-world-exclusive plots etc. But there seem to be enough understanding around to accept there might be some waiting in order before we see the perfected version of the system and that 100% customization control is most likely not planned.
I’m sure connecting a sovereign world to any portal hub on the closest public world is as cheap as connecting it to player’s home world (meaning where they have their home beacon). Only difference is that the first adds a few portals on the way home.
I have a feeling that there is some logic behind the random world attaching that might escape our understanding atm (maybe to spread worlds more evenly between public planets rather than have 10 infesting one sky and none in another firmament).
5 Likes
Presumably then you’ve missed the bit on the official website where it talks about setting colours of sunsets or heights of mountains (which aren’t part of the current plan) and permission systems (which are part of the current plan)? And then missed it every time someone brought it up in a thread? When you read it, it’s understandable that people thought it’d be something other than what is currently proposed.
But people aren’t treating it as final. If they were, they’d decide to rent one or not, and leave it at that. They wouldn’t be suggesting changes, or giving ideas about things that haven’t been talked about yet. Given that we have so little to go on, and what we do have is sometimes contradictory, is it really such a wonder?
I totally agree. But the only way to temper those expectations is with actual, accurate information.
Again, agreed. But what they do need to do is just say “No, we are not doing this, at least not for the foreseeable future”, and preferably with a “because X, Y, Z”. Almost everything we have on the forums is a bunch of players with different views saying what they’d like, and that other people’s ideas are worse.
“Enough” seems like a very relative term than neither of us can actually know. Ignoring that though, cool, but that doesn’t tell me who the developers built it for, or the use cases it was designed to fill. It just says that some people happen to meet those design decisions. Say I want it for reason X, but it’s been built for purpose Y. If I don’t know purpose Y, I’m going to suggest changes to make it more like X, and be unhappy with it until it is what I want. If the Devs say, “This is to cater to Y”, then I can make an informed decision that this system was never meant for me in the first place.
This only works if the player’s home is right next to the portal hub. Otherwise, the player will have to run two portals (Sovereign to hub, hub to home) or expect a long walk. That’s already double the cost for most users.
But my point was less about the actuality, and more about the fact that it even had to be asked. It’s something that seems so basic and obvious I hadn’t even considered that you wouldn’t be able to pick what planet it orbits when you make it. If anything that further highlights how my view is just as flawed as I think the developers’ has become, and we that need group discussions to get things right. They don’t have to heed anything we say, but we can bring up points they hadn’t though about that they might choose to take note of.
I haven’t.
I haven’t missed people referring it either.
It’s just the website presents the game in series of very general and catchy glimpses. They are not there to give detailed idea of how game-play looks like or how particular features are implemented. “Travel to different worlds”, “collaborate in citizen-driven economy” etc. are hardly phrases promising anything in detail. And all sections there are written this way - in an attractive advertising style. They are hardly lies or set-in-stone promises.
The part about private worlds is a vague statement about private worlds in general (and they are called “personal” there, without going into actual types of them). Yes, this part could be re-written to be 0% misleading, but is it really misleading as much, especially if combined with the more important details given long time ago (as long ago as 2015) across many posts? Starting here:
2 Likes
If website content isn’t there to give information about what features will be available, then it shouldn’t detail features that will be available: “When you rent a world you can choose from a number of options, from the colour of a sunset, to the height of mountains and especially the little fiddly bits around the fjords.”. That sounds specific and concrete to me.
I know, right? Another source of ambiguous wording that directly leads people to NOT know what to expect. Although their whole website needs an update. It references ‘Lionhead’ being a neighbour, despite being defunct in 2016.
Sure, but you yourself have admitted you have paid particular attention to all the available news over this feature. That is not representative of all forum users, and to expect as much doesn’t provide a realistic basis of conversation. Unless we’re expecting all people (new and pre-existing) who have any interest in this to trawl through over 5 years of posts in case there’s something they don’t know?
Besides that, Worlds complying with the rules of the MMO in no way rules out being able to pick the colour of the sunset or the heights of mountains unless it allowed you to set mountains higher than could normally generate, or sunsets in colours that couldn’t naturally happen. It’s all still within the rules of the MMO, so it’s not beyond expectation (given the site) that at least some people thought it would be available.
3 Likes
Yes. It’s very much misleading in my opinion. The website is a form of advertisement for the game, before people decide to purchase and play. Often the only point of information people will read before making a decision to buy or not.
It sets expectations, even though vague as they are, that people can do these things. Stamping it with “coming soon” also sets the expectation that it will be released with those features described.
Personally I think there should be some time given by the devs, prior to and as features are developed, to setting and managing player expectations, so we all know what to expect before an update hits test.
I obviously know plans change during development for any number of reasons, but I still think it worthwhile keeping players appraised of those plans, so nothing is open to the wild speculations we’ve seen so much of on the forums.
Basically all I want is for us to be able to discuss facts, not “what-ifs” and “why-nots”.
4 Likes
it doesn’t promise one type of private worlds that gives full control over everything
well, anyway we could argue here forever,
my point is: let’s wait and see as next types of rental worlds are implemented before thinking that devs don’t know what they are doing or that they will hurt the future of the game (not talking about anything you personally said; just remembered a few posts of players who seem to be experts at game developing and marketing who predict bleak future if the sovereign worlds don’t offer more 
)
5 Likes
Yes, but it also doesn’t rule it out it either.
That’s fair, and very reasonable. That’s all we really can do at this point.
In fairness to the devs, I don’t think they don’t know what they’re doing. I just know we don’t know what they think they’re doing.
3 Likes
And I’m sure people will be able to do these things - but the sovereign worlds update came after a lot of information about how the so-called private worlds will be divided into different types.
So, sovereign worlds don’t represent the entire rental worlds category (and sure don’t represent entirety of devs plans for rental worlds) and if they don’t offer full creative control it doesn’t make “personal worlds” description on the website inaccurate (although it could use re-writing as much as a few other sections there, to be more in line with changing shape of the game).
1 Like
haha, that one made my day I think 
I think it’s too twisted for my current post-night work state of mind so it made me laugh at my flattening brain waves
2 Likes
Hmm I was just catching up on this, on my way to bed.
Then I saw this:
I’m surprised this wasn’t dug up for the plotting arguments discussions.
There are so many things that COULD be happening. I’m sure that there are systems and subsystems yet to be developed, and a lot of things that can likely evolve.
It’s good to see rental/private/sovereign worlds roll out. I’d have to agree that expectations are important, and one thing that has come clear is that there is an amazing spectrum of expectations here.
I suspect that among the developers’ intentions is a desire to keep things moving forward. When I came here things were very different in terms of communications, and I’d say I caught the very end of that, as I had several interactions with James during my first weeks on the forum and was completely shocked when it was pointed out to me that he was the CEO of the company.
I’ve literally never experienced that level of engagement with a development studio before, in truth the only time I’ve seen anything like it was from a publisher who wasn’t developing the game and thus could always “side with the users”.
Anyways there was a pretty clear point when things went sour, and I don’t resent the specific connections that James or other developers have retained with the community, though it sometimes seems like things would be a lot less contentious if they were just more open to begin with.
Despite all that the game continues to evolve and while we occasionally lose some players over new rules or features I feel like since release, it has mostly continued to get better.
I think it’s clear that this release can’t possibly suit everyone’s hopes for private planets by now. Still looking forward to seeing what they bring on though.
7 Likes
I know, right?
A beacon that protects the entire world haha 
well, me too
and then I got involved too much - now I’m truly retiring to my bedroom
A beacon that protects the world for you. Not from you. So it saves it all for you to do with what you will without interference from other players but still has regen rules instead of having the entire thing plotted. They just took beacon perms and applied them to the world.
Makes sense to me.
2 Likes
Also of note…if Aenea is right and we can PM the devs with an idea of what we want then mountain height and sunset color are both configurable via the biomes we choose and the lighting (if this can be set independently of profile…which like technically in world builder it can be.
Also I PMed Leah about folks sharing “well James said this to me” thing if that info should not be made public. She said to take all of it with a grain of salt. He shares general ideas with the original oortian backers and that things change daily there at HQ. She also admitted that they need to share more info on Sovereigns and that this info would be coming soon (like Aenea said).
1 Like
EXACTLY what I have been asking for.
Information allows people to make informed opinions. Currently the lack of information for my issues is turning me off from continuing to play and support the game. I get that Wonderstruck is a small studio, but the lack of information from the devs just continue the next point below.
Yes! This. This is SPECIFICALLY why I continue to ask about a roadmap. Devs, why so silent on this? I’m so tired of seeing threads constantly full of “what-ifs” and “why-nots” and other spreading of information that may or may not be factual because person X posts about subject C stating developer J mentioning this in a private message. Don’t get me wrong, I know there’s backer perks for additional info, but for crying out loud, backers shouldn’t be getting ALL of it while we continue to bark up the wrong tree, figuratively speaking. And this doesn’t involve just Sovereign Worlds, but more importantly the direction the game itself as a whole is going. I feel so many of the existing systems (Crafting, Resource gathering, Mining, Cave-exploration/spelunking, Economical actions (Buying, selling, etc), Combat, Character customization, Skills, Farming, Goo & Pigment processing, Spray Painting, and so on) … are half-baked, half-finished, half-implemented systems with no rhyme or reason behind why certain things are currently certain ways. We don’t know why certain things are certain ways, and the developers seem super tight-lipped on answering any questions about this.
- Crafting
- What are the tiers supposed to be?
- Why do the tiers seem to overlap?
- Why are there 5 or 6 steps across 3 or 4 different machines for certain blocks compared to other blocks?
- Combat
- Titans?
- Shields?
- Hunting updates?
- Colors
- Why color rarity?
- Why can only X and Y be spray painted, but A and B cannot?
The list can go on.
I wish they’d see that other parts of the game also need further explaining on both plans and why systems are like they are, not just Sovereign Worlds.
2 Likes
Fully right there with you. Feels like the period between 2016 and 2017 with weekly dev log updates was a golden age and none of us knew we were living the dream until it had already passed and now we’re in the informational dark ages 
After a break, I open the forum to see if anything catches my eye, stumble on this thread, start reading…
I thought the ‘world stone’ or whatever it’s called would offer a ton of customization options, I trusted the devs to do good work, so I wasn’t reading a lot on the forum these days, but randomly jumping on this thread to read shows gives me some concerns.
OBVIOUSLY, the landscape on a Sovereign World would be really important. I’m never gonna rent a world if I can’t decide how every aspect of the world looks.
If I’m to establish a base/house on a new world, I will scout available worlds until I find one that has the kind of landscape that fits my desires. I can’t believe that the devs wouldn’t think of this.
Also, I wouldn’t want a world where it snows or rains all the time (but someone might want that!).
OBVIOUSLY I would want my world to be close enough to my base on Raxxa…
And with this, I still don’t know how much a sovereign world would cost…
This goes back to something I said a while ago, and one of the reasons I haven’t played the game in 20+ days without missing it : there is no roadmap > we don’t know what’s coming and when (but we know a few things because of some people like Xaldafax - which should be the work of a community managers) > the devs work on stuff while keeping us in the dark > they spring features on us in testing phase > it’s basically already too late to argue with them on a lot of things.
They tell you something a few days ago and somehow that is not final! Apparently they do not have design documents or think things through at all…
Nah, I really do not believe that, does tell me I will shut the fk up in the future tho! 
Well you heard it from a dev so perhaps we should take it with a grain of salt that we get more info? 
2 Likes