Sovereign world developer intentions

[the-moebius]

@Peyago

You are dead on, I haven’t been a newbie for years. Honestly most of the people on this server have been playing for quite awhile, and many of us learned the game under different rule sets and different issues

[Marrash]

@boundmore

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.

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.

@boundmore

I wonder why are there so many dramatic posts treating this first iteration of only one type of rented worlds like something final

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?

@boundmore

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

I totally agree. But the only way to temper those expectations is with actual, accurate information.

@boundmore

They needn’t to cater any players wants if they feel it doesn’t fit the core game systems

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.

@boundmore

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.

“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.

@boundmore

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).

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.

[boundmore]

@Marrash

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?

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:

@james

The Private Oort Online Worlds will come in 2 flavours:

1. Worlds complying with the rules of the MMO : This means that the world was created respecting the standard distribution of resources throughout the world. They don’t break the economy of the game. They can be connected by portals to the main MMO. Think of them as a beacon that protects the entire world exclusively for you.
2. Worlds beyond the rules of the MMO : This means that the world can be anything, allowing mountains made of diamond, and trees made of glass, etc. These worlds would break the economy of the game, and so can’t be connected to the main MMO.

[Marrash]

@boundmore

They are not there to give detailed idea of how game-play looks like or how particular features are implemented.

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.

@boundmore

private worlds in general (and they are called “personal” there, without going into actual types of them)

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.

@boundmore

especially if combined with the more important details given long time ago (as long ago as 2015) across many posts?

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.

[Stretchious]

@boundmore

but is it really misleading as much, especially if combined with the more important details given long time ago (2015) across many posts?

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”.

[boundmore]

@Marrash

“ 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.

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 )

[Marrash]

@boundmore

it doesn’t promise one type of private worlds that gives full control over everything

Yes, but it also doesn’t rule it out it either.

@boundmore

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

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.

[boundmore]

@Stretchious

It sets expectations, even though vague as they are, that people can do these things.

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).

[boundmore]

@Marrash

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.

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

[Nightstar]

Hmm I was just catching up on this, on my way to bed.

Then I saw this:

@james

The Private Oort Online Worlds will come in 2 flavours:

1. Worlds complying with the rules of the MMO : This means that the world was created respecting the standard distribution of resources throughout the world. They don’t break the economy of the game. They can be connected by portals to the main MMO. Think of them as a beacon that protects the entire world exclusively for you.

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.

[boundmore]

@Nightstar

I’m surprised this wasn’t dug up for the plotting arguments discussions.

I know, right?
A beacon that protects the entire world haha

@Nightstar

on my way to bed.

well, me too

and then I got involved too much - now I’m truly retiring to my bedroom

[Clexarews]

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.

[Clexarews]

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).

[SephirothWS]

@Marrash

just that the colours are available to grind if you have something specific in mind.

EXACTLY what I have been asking for.

@Buugi

Ive said multiple times but again here i go… communication nowadays is lacking.
Information is for all.

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.

@Stretchious

Basically all I want is for us to be able to discuss facts, not “what-ifs” and “why-nots”.

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.

@Clexarews

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).

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.

[Clexarews]

@SephirothWS

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.

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

[anon34275467]

After a break, I open the forum to see if anything catches my eye, stumble on this thread, start reading…

@Marrash

This strongly hints that developers don’t think that having nice landscape features is high on our list of importance.

The fact that James had to ask why a player would want their sovereign orbiting a specific planet was slightly concerning. Was it not obvious that players might want to keep their sovereign close to their home to keep ort costs down? Or that they might want to rent a few planets and keep then in a mini network around the same planet?

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.

[AeneaGames]

@Clexarews

She said to take all of it with a grain of salt.

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!

@Clexarews

She also admitted that they need to share more info on Sovereigns and that this info would be coming soon (like Aenea said).

Well you heard it from a dev so perhaps we should take it with a grain of salt that we get more info?

[Clexarews]

@anon34275467

OBVIOUSLY, the landscape is really important. I’m never gonna rent a world if I can’t decide how every aspect of the world looks.

You’ve got a lot of work ahead of you my man!

Here’s the work you’ll need to do for colors:

Testing 245: Sovereign Worlds!

While I’m sharing things, and apologies for going off topic here… This is the work that goes into 1 palette. This one is for umbris worlds. The visualization looks like this (so I get why folks say they’re too red): [image] But the math to cause the color variation looks like this (apologies for not being able to scroll out far enough to get this all in one shot… [image] [image] [image]

Then you can get started on the harder stuff. Make some prefabs (easy enough), assign constraint types to them and you’re ready to go! Time to make sure you get the density and threshold noises to within about .001 of the value you want. Repeat for each prefab (this is trees, rocks, etc.).

Once those are all nice and set for one biome you gotta get to the cave system by perfecting some 3D noise. Simple enough. But since this is for a sovereign world you gotta make sure you don’t make it too OP with 0 guidelines.

Then tackle some strata. This is about 1/80th of the work needed for a “good” strata if you really want to control every aspect.

After that you get into heightmaps. They look easy but if you’re trying to control every variation of noise within the practically countless variations of possible seeds so that you can control every aspect of your world then more power to you!

Repeat the above per biome.

I’m excited to see how it looks!

I will say I agree and always have agreed on roadmap and needing more details.

[anon34275467]

Well, yeah, of course there would be a lot of things to do.
But I would rather do this than paying for a world that doesn’t fit what I need.

[bucfanpaka]

@Marrash

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).

Absolutely!!

I do want to throw out one possible add-on suggestion on this, having been thinking on this a lot- might be better in another/separate thread so feel free to move mods if needed…

A “Regions” tab or option on Overview on the World Control. This would give a list of regions on the planet, with override options on the plotting permissions (not visiting, but on plotting this might be doable). So say I have a world where I have given ten people plotting permissions. I could go into the Regional control and disable certain regions from ANY plotting. I could also maybe enable public plotting for all on a few others. If someone visits, they can open the Regions tab on that world and just see No Plotting Permissions or Permissions to Plot on each region on the list (Edit: To make it even better, for these rentals, also add in ability to warp to the region center for 100c!). Also, it would give the owner the ability to reclaim all beacons in just that region.

This would be very valuable I think in keeping people within certain areas and protecting others, without having to tell every friend or especially if you want to allow public building but only in certain areas - “Ok, build here, don’t build here, ect.”