|
|
Post by hardly on Jan 11, 2015 7:35:46 GMT
Hey I think I know what the preference will be but let's see in a poll. Changing the game so that time only passes in game would seem to be a simple change. Let's see how people feel about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spiderweb on Jan 11, 2015 8:20:11 GMT
I assume you mean in the PC version (noticed other mobile focussed users on this forum!)
They may have other opinions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2015 9:01:48 GMT
Multiplayer (Hubword) seems like the only compelling reason to have persisting worlds/timers while offline. It's hard to chalk the current system up to anything but a poorly implemented DeNA fueled resource deterioration mechanic. At least until you wipe out the Astari, then I suppose it becomes a boon of sorts.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Jan 11, 2015 9:07:23 GMT
Yeah definitely mean the PC version, I don't really care what they do with mobile.
I know 22cans had technical problems with hubworld but I'd be interested to see any designs they are were unable to achieve from a technical point of view.
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Jan 11, 2015 10:06:49 GMT
Did anyone here play SimCity, the online one? It has a pretty good thing with cities influencing each other while time doesn't really move while the player is not in the game. It's essentially a server-client singleplayer game where server-side statistics (Most notably, the World Market with its floating prices) let create influences on another single-player cities in the region.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aynen on Jan 11, 2015 10:30:39 GMT
Changing the persistence of the game would change more than you think. The entire balancing of the game is based on the idea that the game keeps going if you don't play. So almost everything would have to be revised if that persistence is gone.
I think the better question is 'how can we change the persistence we have so that it doesn't get in the way of a hardcore PC experience?'
|
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Jan 11, 2015 13:13:45 GMT
I like the concept of time passing while not playing but I really really don't like how it is implemented in this game. So there is no option for me to vote on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deth on Jan 11, 2015 13:16:33 GMT
Add my vote to other as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Jan 11, 2015 14:41:22 GMT
I think it is fairly a no-brainer that mobile has to continue to have time pass while offline since that is part of the nature of core mechanics for a mobile F2p. This being said , Spiderweb you are free to make a separate Poll for mobile if you would like. If you need assistance, PM me and I can help you or do it for you if you like. My vote for PC is a loud hard hell NO. I hate that, I am not going to play any game everyday or even every week. I am a casual gamer and I don't wish to be penalized for being so. People have jobs and families and studies and a billion other things to do and continued game play is a transparent means to make players play more in F2p and thus spend more. It does not belong in any non F2p game. Civilization, Sims, Sim City, Wow, StoneHearth, Populous, Monkey Island, Theme Hospital.....none progress time offline. Farmville, Cafe World, Settlers Online and Godus right now, all do. Nuff said. |
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Jan 11, 2015 15:49:07 GMT
What if you had a world where time progressed continuously and players could each form a settlement in that world where time only progressed while they were actively playing?
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Jan 11, 2015 15:56:46 GMT
What if you had a world where time progressed continuously and players could each form a settlement in that world where time only progressed while they were actively playing? You would get either WoW or SimCity. |
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Jan 11, 2015 16:07:28 GMT
What if you had a world where time progressed continuously and players could each form a settlement in that world where time only progressed while they were actively playing? As long as I can opt out of out. If time is progressing somewhere in the game, then it creates a feeling of missing out. I played enough of SO to know the pitfalls of having your game time always run. You will feel obligated to play it more and than is the exact opposite of what a game should make you feel. I don't want any obligation, or feelings of guilt or remorse for failing to play a game. I want to play for a month and stop for 2 if I so choose with no detriment for choosing to do so. |
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Jan 11, 2015 16:14:35 GMT
There would be no pitfalls coz your little settlement would remain exactly the same no matter how long you are offline and the world around it keeps living (trees grow and stuff).
|
|
|
|
Post by Spiderweb on Jan 11, 2015 16:41:17 GMT
I think it is fairly a no-brainer that mobile has to continue to have time pass while offline since that is part of the nature of core mechanics for a mobile F2p. This being said , Spiderweb you are free to make a separate Poll for mobile if you would like. Was just checking which was being referenced, no need for another poll in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Jan 11, 2015 16:45:39 GMT
Changing the persistence of the game would change more than you think. The entire balancing of the game is based on the idea that the game keeps going if you don't play. So almost everything would have to be revised if that persistence is gone. I think the better question is 'how can we change the persistence we have so that it doesn't get in the way of a hardcore PC experience?' Hmm, that's good to know. Something to think about. What if you had a world where time progressed continuously and players could each form a settlement in that world where time only progressed while they were actively playing? As long as I can opt out of out. If time is progressing somewhere in the game, then it creates a feeling of missing out. I played enough of SO to know the pitfalls of having your game time always run. You will feel obligated to play it more and than is the exact opposite of what a game should make you feel. I don't want any obligation, or feelings of guilt or remorse for failing to play a game. I want to play for a month and stop for 2 if I so choose with no detriment for choosing to do so. This is where having different game play options would come in; single player, multiplayer, sandbox. The single player would/could have the option for either persistent or static time, multiplayer would likely be persistent but perhaps with a static homeworld, and sandbox could be either - depending on if you have it local or hosted on a server (like in Minecraft and similar games). More choices would be nice. A lot of this was suggested, and discussed by the community way back at the start, and here we are 2+ years later still hashing it out. |
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Jan 11, 2015 17:03:31 GMT
There would be no pitfalls coz your little settlement would remain exactly the same no matter how long you are offline and the world around it keeps living (trees grow and stuff). then what is the point of time progressing outside of your settlement if their is no effect and would that not involve a hubworld that has been taken off the table? |
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Jan 11, 2015 17:06:42 GMT
Changing the persistence of the game would change more than you think. The entire balancing of the game is based on the idea that the game keeps going if you don't play. So almost everything would have to be revised if that persistence is gone. I think the better question is 'how can we change the persistence we have so that it doesn't get in the way of a hardcore PC experience?' Hmm, that's good to know. Something to think about. As long as I can opt out of out. If time is progressing somewhere in the game, then it creates a feeling of missing out. I played enough of SO to know the pitfalls of having your game time always run. You will feel obligated to play it more and than is the exact opposite of what a game should make you feel. I don't want any obligation, or feelings of guilt or remorse for failing to play a game. I want to play for a month and stop for 2 if I so choose with no detriment for choosing to do so. This is where having different game play options would come in; single player, multiplayer, sandbox. The single player would/could have the option for either persistent or static time, multiplayer would likely be persistent but perhaps with a static homeworld, and sandbox could be either - depending on if you have it local or hosted on a server (like in Minecraft and similar games). More choices would be nice. A lot of this was suggested, and discussed by the community way back at the start, and here we are 2+ years later still hashing it out. Yes, I am all about players having choices in many aspects. I like being able to customize my game and I think it would broaden the potential overall market for the game and thus make it more fiscally sound and so this would trickle down to more advancements, updates and perks for the players. |
|
|
|
Post by Aynen on Jan 11, 2015 17:29:44 GMT
I strongly agree with Qetesh that there should be no detrimental effects to not playing for any length of time. This is what was most annoying to me about the happiness mechanic. Log back in to deal with the backlash of not having logged in sooner. Not fun.
This also applies to any combat mechanic, like the raiding parties.
It's why I added to my pitch that there should always be a defensive force supplied to the player for free, to deal with whatever threat the player didn't deal with, either for not being online at the time, or for wanting to do something else instead.
Player interaction with any aspect of the game, raiding parties included, should result in getting more than the minimum, and that minimum (the equivalent of the player doing nothing) should never amount to less than zero. So you don't get the effect Qetesh is describing, even if the world is persistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Jan 11, 2015 17:44:52 GMT
If you invest yourself, your time and love into building a little world, I feel that if time progresses when you are offline, you have that feeling of being neglectful and so a bad God and it can cause negative feelings by playing the game. Any game, no matter how much positive, if it causes negative feelings will lose my interest quickly. I don't see much gray area in this, except if there is an opt out for time progression for those they want their followers frozen in time till they have the whim to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by FuriousMoo on Jan 11, 2015 20:30:40 GMT
This is something I will be pushing for, I really hate the the offline progression. I don't know exactly what this will involve code wise, but it's something I will be trying to get a better answer on. I'll let you know when I have a better idea of feasibility and timeframe.
|
|
Aug 21, 2024 19:32:37 GMT
Aug 21, 2024 19:32:37 GMT
