New default 91 days season length - discussion #25439
Comments
|
My suggestion? I would go with default season length of 30 days. Having season conceptually splitted in Early/Mid/Late with 10 days length, because I really liked the suggestion - this do not have to have any consequence in code, except in maybe in UI, showing Early Spring, day 1 instead of current Spring, day 1 etc. Long events like plant and animal growth would be defined as I agree that having unnatural season length brings problems, as short events like movement, crafting etc. takes realistic amount of time and long events would be scaled with season. Discussions if something should be in realistic time or scale with season are inevitable. Still, I agree with points raised about too long season from gameplay perspective and I think we might just replace one can of worms with another. |
|
Yeah, I wonder what was the reasoning between sudden change to 91 days long seasons. I don't mind it that much, I already set my seasons as somewhat longer but I don't think anyone requested that in particular, anyone could set it longer than previous average and many considered 91 too long. Seasons being longer than what we had in general is fine with me. I'd like the winter to last a bit requiring either quite some luck and skill to survive or, in case of more default settings - preparation and stocking to get through. It shouldn't be merely aesthetic, but sort of a challenge all in itself, requiring change in approach. Having things spoil in less adjusted manner, so things lasting a year will last a long year I also am fond of, since with earlier shorter seasons some things seemed to be adjusted for their duration and thus rot far too quickly. I would like to ensure that farming is however balanced for this too, allowing a harvest about twice, thrice a year tops without use of fertilizers. Books being rather quick to study through I don't mind at all. It's one of those things which made realistic would simply make the game not more challenging, but a chore. The difficulty should mostly lie in acquiring a relevant book, not in grinding it at home for a long time, just forcing the player to wait, watching the time pass by and stuffing the character with food/drink before resuming the wait. I do agree however that the 91 day long seasons affect the variety, making each season last too long, get bothersome and boring. Personally, through experience with trying various season lengths I usually settle at about 60 day long seasons, which do have better divisibility while maintaining pseudo-realistic expectations of the season. |
This has little to do with the season length, and is just unrealistic now as before.
Loot drops, skills and monster upgrades have nothing to do with the seasons. Crop growth was specifically one of the reasons for this change. I agree that spoilage should be adjusted now, though, but that's also a good change - we're not going to have the arguments about "food spoils in 3 years IRL, so should we put it as 3 in-game years or what".
And that's a problem how?
You have 180 days to prepare for it. That's three years of gameplay before this change. If a survivor makes it through to three years, they are probably a bionically augmented mutated combat-hardened veteran that can kill a jabberwock by spitting at it, driving a personal deathmobile.
So what? |
|
I can't help but to think that your tone is somewhat aggressive, which is funny, because these points were not raised by myself, so I should not care. |
|
I see the points you're making. For gathering supplies and whatnot for the winter, sure you have about 3/4 of the year to prepare for winter, and that making the winter 90+ days will be tough to survive just because of length and stored food but, it is more in the realm of the cataclysm. The time between the seasons are also dynamic, meaning that temperature outside slowly changes from warm to cold, and this effect is noticeable in 14 day seasons and will transfer over to 90. I most definitely agree that you can master pretty much everything and be very late game before winter and this should probably be addressed. (like making reading books take 10-20 days instead of 1-2 days.) As someone who plays with the 30 day seasons and always has, I think that probably 40-50 days is the balance that the cataclysm is made for. 30 days just seems too fast and before you know it, you are passing days left and right crafting or reading, etc. |
I think it was triggered by discussion in #25368 , just my wild guess. |
|
@Robik81: I also guess that the immediate impetus for the change was the discussion there. 91 days perfectly matches the real world year length (and is good for making spoilage realistic), but I found it a bit tedious and usually played with 30-40 days long seasons. I am not sure how to make farming/animals work with 30 days, but I definitely think that the unrealistic things that got even more visible with the new default (e.g. martial arts) could definitely be made to work with whatever the new default is. And I agree that the power curve, etc. should be somewhat flattened for the new defaults, whichever it was. It made sense that a winter character in 14 day seasons [roughly 60 days in] is end-game and armed to the gills, but doesn't make sense for a late summer character be end-game in 30 day seasons, let alone for one to be end-game before summer rolls around with 91 day long seasons. |
|
I think without a good reason not to use shorter season length (I agree with Kelenius' response to the points raised in the OP), it's best to just go with real season lengths, instead of some arbitrary shorter one. |
|
As someone that has basically always played 90/91 day seasons for multiple years IRL, I like this change, as it makes it more meaningful. Seasons that only last two weeks are silly at best, you barely need any effort to survive since you can get food within a few days with farming and winter barely shows up before it is gone. I agree with the idea to go to 90 for easy division, and many things will certainly need to be rebalanced a bit, but it isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. You have to plan for things instead of just go around without a care in the world for long term things, but aside from that, there isn't much change. The first few days is most of the difficulty, and there is no significant difference in those. You get more time to prepare for winter, even if it is longer, so you can easily preserve a bunch of food beforehand if you plan ahead of time. Games not typically lasting that long is player choice, outside the first few days. As to the power you can get ingame, it all depends on how you play. It is quite possible to end up practically immortal and able to kill anything within 2-3 days by breaking into an armory in a lab (Not nearly as hard as it sounds - get a pickaxe and a hacksaw) or be struggling to deal with hordes a year or two in if you go for woodland survival. There is no simple way to balance things out, as everyone plays differently. |
|
This change is more about making a statement more then anything else. Some features tend to develop towards default season length, and that caused and still cause confusion, sometimes resulting in absurd artificialy forced time adjustments of some features. This feature sets a different mindset into action. With an option at hand to shorten your seasons, you no longer have doubts what is the true axis of things that are coded into the game. Take food for example that has its spoil times based on true time lengths. You will no longer be under the impression that some food lasting for 2 seasons is borked, as it will now last 1 month. And if you lower the season length to less, you will understand what happend with prolonged spoil times. Another example is recent dogocalypse, where there was a confusion what time axis has to be applied. Lets set it strait once and for all. And if you prefer other lengths, nothing stands in your way to change that. I personaly would also think twice before choosing 91 days, but thats my personal preference, and on the other hand 15d is so short that I think about winter clothes at the second day of spring. |
|
I agree with most of what you wrote @nexusmrsep , except
Not really true if half of the game will be ultimately broken / unusable. Might as well not have that setting at all. To me, this abrupt change feels more like "Nope, it's too hard to proper implement features to work with variable season length. Let's ditch it." |
|
Yeah I think that's sort of the point of the change. Make everything work correctly with real season lengths, set that length to be the default, and stop prioritizing making everything work with shorter lengths. |
|
@Robik81, thats a valid issue too. So perhaps this will lead to a different conclusion, with default 91d seasons, and proper scaling infrastructure. This would be then a first step to set things right for shorter (optional) seasons. |
|
Crosslink to forum |
|
I didn't actually intend to merge with no discussion, and I'm happy to continue discussing it now, but just to warn you, the tl;dr for my comments so far is I haven't seen a compelling reason not to stick with 91 days as the default. Suggestions without rationales aren't helpful, there needs to be a reason to make it the default for everyone. Real-life durations are a clearly consistent default, and if we simply scale everything for real-world durations independently, it works. If you depart from this default, you can accelerate your way through seasons but it has consequences, like inability to copmplete crop cycles, or very long winters.
That's no more sensical if season lengths are shorter. It was never my intent that short seasons implied some kind of time dilation, so the fact that it's being interpreted as such is part of the problem.
Need evidence for this rather than a bare assertion it is so. For my part, I've been scaling things for 365 day years for years now.
Not a problem, if they want to experience other seasons we have start time options.
Good
My understanding is that the average survivor lives less than a week so it's not a change.
This is a nightmare code-wise, it requires careful coordination and thought between every element of the game that has a long duration, and will constantly cause breakage and regressions for certain players, and there's no good way to test everything with all the different settings.
This is spot-on, having the default be 14 days has confused and hampered development on a consistent basis for years now. IT's also a recognition that from a development point of view, "real-world timescales" have been the goal for years so it just updates the setting to match the reality.
That's also absolutely true. This is a feature that requires an inordinate amount of effort to maintain. We have hundreds of potential features to implement, and this one doesn't make the cut. |
If this is the case, then this merge becomes even more important to discuss before performing, as it changes from "a new default" to "something required". This statement here is, I feel, enough to ask that this change be reverted.
Yeah, no. I'd prefer it if I was able to actually access all these cool endgame features from time to time without having to cheat, or having the game explicitly discourage certain playstyles. You don't get to do that when you yourself are demanding the ability to play a certain way with butchering. (#24878 )
I feel that this is, in itself, a problem, but that's not related to this issue, so I'll drop it. |
My apologies if my OP sounded like I am blaming you for merging and closing the PR, that was not my intention. I think if it is stated this clearly, I have no other objection. My only problem is that my character will either be dead or a demigod before the harvest, so there is no point in farming, or other similar long term activities. |
You misunderstand, I've been saying no to this feature for years, this just brings the option in default in line with the lack of scaling support.
What cool endgame feature? Winter? Nothing is gated behind season length except more seasons. I might be misunderstanding your comment though.
Yes there's no reason to embark on long-term activities if you aren't set up to survive in the long-term that's working as expected. |
|
As I said before, the one complaint I can see is endgame level character in summer with 91 day seasons. That's a bit too fast if the game is supposed to be tailored to realistic length seasons. EDIT: "survive long term" != endgame character mutated and CBMed to the gills |
|
I really dislike the idea of 91 day seasons. In my opinion removes the difficulty and challenges of each season because by the time it changes you are a demigod. It is fun when you have to adapt to winter and get warmer clothes and deal with the lack of food/frozen food then for example. But that will not be a problem for somebody with 91 days between seasons because they will be demigods by that time. I believe this is also what was meant by:
I also agree farming will be pointless in a realistic timescale. It doesnt take a huge amount of time to get a ups food dehydrator and then just dehydrate a load of bears or ants or whatever and get enough food forever. |
|
I always play as a motorized nomad and plunder the zombie infested world for items and foods, so i can't speak about the stationary base and farming side of the game. I really don't think long seasons is a good change. Of course i have no experience about it so the followings are my fears about this change. Gameplay pace I'm not against longer seasons but 91 days is too long. I like to feel the time passes, seasons come and go and the zombies slowly change into deadlier form while i slowly overcome all post-apocalyptic problems. I will not feel the difference between spring 30. and spring 60. days, because nothing will change. Annoyingly slow or too fast advancement City sizes and creature quantities I feel this change will be an immersion breaker. |
|
Where does this notion that crafting speed, learning speed and zombie evolution are scaled with season length come from? edit: From what I can find, the following are scaled with season length:
|
It is an assumption because nobody ever stated - or i never heard of it - otherwise until this change. I'm sure many of us was under that impression this speeds are scaled to the 14 days season length, the few minutes long crafting times and the book reading times made it believable and i have to say it is strange to see it was never intended, it is just accidental. Also as i know it was never addressed as an issue, but anyway it was not a problem until this change, but now it is. I think the list you wrote are relatively new additions compared to the reading, crafting and zombie evolution, good to see they are planned to scale to the season length. |
|
What he listed are the only things that really change with season length, aside from underbrush refill time. Crafting is not, books are not (you are reading a chapter, not the whole book), evolution speed is not, learning speed is not. |
I think you missed my point. those are not scaled with season length, so bringing them up in this topic is irrelevant |
|
What is the rationale behind making the game specifically for 90 day season lengths instead of just sizing everything to whatever number the player wants. If the player wants 10 day seasons, scale it as such, same for 20,30,60,200, etc.
Once again, having the default be 14 or 90 is exactly the same if everything were to scale accordingly, but right now, there is not a lot of code supporting that variability. Don't get me wrong, I support making the default 90, but there will be some issues everywhere (that people are all mentioning above me) to be handled if this goes through (not just variable ones, but you also have to change all 14 day technicalities to 90). Many less issues would come of just supporting variable season length since we already have features that have that. Changing all static variables pertaining to 14 day season lengths can just be updated as we go. Or is it planned to just remove the variable option altogether? |
Quoting my previous reply:
Such arbitrary scaling is not simple, it's not easy, and it's not reliable. It also ends up touching huge numbers of different parts of the code. |
By wrote "they are planned" i meant to refer to the list you wrote. But bringing up the reading, crafting and zombie evolution is necessary in this topic because - as it turned out - they are not scaled to any(?) season length. Are they scaled to anything? |
|
Removing the season variability option will just cause issues of another kind, with community. People still want to play with seasons of particular length no matter the issues that may cause, as long as it's voluntary thing and they'll get a warning that it may break thing, I'd leave it in. Hell, I wouldn't even mind leaving certain scalability as an optional, default-off thing - as mechanics slowly outgrows it it may be not overtly helpful but many people will still enjoy it, for whatever reason from preference for quicker changing aesthetics to succession games - and there may be those who'd rather maintain it than get rid of it. All social media discussing this issue prove that changing it is one thing, but actively taking things out to prevent players from enjoying the option is just generating discontent and outcry that could easily be avoided. There may be practical benefits to it but when it apparently hits and pushes away considerable portion of the community - bigger than many other controversial changes till now - then it doesn't serve the game, just individuals. |
|
I'm going to say a thing that needs to be repeated: the argument given for this change is "the game scaling is off and times aren't right". Fix the way time works. It's been brought up before, ""why aren't things tied to consistent time units?". If you want something to be "per season", why is that not there? Surely if changing the seasons to 91 days doesn't require changing massive amounts of the code base, you could just as easily tie it to a time_per_season * seasons_in_day variables, unless there has been absolutely no tying of timers to variable units and all this crap is hard-coded i.e. evolution happens day 20 stuff regrows day 60 etc. But days don't make sense!. Emphasize: days. We know how long seasons are. If you want to scale things, scale them to seasons: 1/3rd of a season is a month, 1/30th of that is a day, etc. Don't throw a fit because the game being fun has less preference than "realism". Having runtime-derived proportioned values to seasons also introduces another obvious thing: scales will be individually selectable. Someone's upset farmings too fast? Ok they set crop growth rates to .5 scale. Someone thinks it's too slow? Ok 1.2. Zombie evolution too fast? Same thing. Reading times too slow? Same thing. I would EXPECT this behavior. Don't like the decimals? Change it to fractions. Change the default season length to 15 days (not a big change, but watch!). Season length->6 : 1. Crafting times 1:6, Reading 1:6, etc. Game runs and calculates rates. There, now the seasons are ninety days long with same game speed. One single world customization menu versus changing and breaking things consistently for all users except you. |
Oh, you think it's so easy to implement. How cute! One single world customization menu means tons of work to implement, tons of work to balance and tons of work to maintain, not to mean all kinds of issues with this. And all this for what? For the sake ungrateful users that complain most of the time on most of the changes? |
Yes, it does.
Yes I do, if you check, I did.
That's kind of a bizarre thing to do considering I've consistently said otherwise, but hey, feel free to ignore what I'm saying, and I'll do the same for you. |
|
I think the main contention here Night-Prynik is not users thinking something is simple to implement but rather frustration that things have been scaled already to a 91 day seasons "before" it was a default. The game had a variable season length and all of the dev's were aware of this but choose to ignore it and hard code a set time rather then being flexible to variable time. I haven't done extensive work in the code so I am honestly just guessing with some of this but the responses lead me to this conclusion. You cannot expect users to suddenly want to play one way when before they had options ( even if things were broken with variable length) the perception was there that it was an option. It was also an option for quite some time. Is perhaps a compromise to have a set restricted option such as 15, 30, and 90 day options? I am unsure if that would minimize the amount of code and work needed to convert over. Or if it would just be the same as having it completely variable? |
...Ah. Ok, I uh... I drop my objections to this change, then. |
|
Kevin, i try to turn my worries into (vague) questions about the future:
Really the whole problem with this change we can't get a clear picture about the long term consequences. |
|
Keep the conversation sane guys, if you are all mean towards each other then we stop actually working to give opinions or facts about how to handle the actual issue at hand. If you disagree or have your own opinions to add, give reasonable reasons about it. For people who disagree, don't just say "no", please. It's basically ignoring someone without backing yourself up. |
This is one of the things this change attempts to address. The game has always been scaled for a 365-day year in that as features are added, the guidance has consistently been to, "make things take as long as they do IRL", and explicitly to not scale things based on season length, because the sole purpose of season length is to adjust how long the seasons are, nothing else. If players and/or developers think of season length as a generic time scaling factor, that is a misunderstanding that needs to be fixed, not a feature that needs to be implemented.
This. Change. Does. Not. Remove. Options.
That's not a compromise, that's a feature request, and it has been rejected already. Limiting the number of options reduces the amount of testing required to ensure it doesn't break things (hint, no one is going to test things using variable season lengths, so it doesn't matter how much testing effort is reduced), but it doesn't reduce the amount of code has to adjust based on season length, and it doesn't reduce the number of bug reports we would receive based on people using non-standard scaling.
No
Same as happens now when a character sleeps for ~8 hours at a time. The game goes into a fast execution mode where it doesn't do expensive screen drawing and is able to run the game forward very fast. This is not perfect yet and can use a lot more work, but that sort of thing is the basic idea.
The plan was already for world size to expand, it has nothing to do with this change.
I'm not sure I completely understand the question, but yes cities will be far apart, and there will be reasons to travel between cities.
Just the opposite, a larger world gives more opportunities for adding interesting scenarios like travelling to a distant location in search of something special instead of cramming everything into a small area.
Before adjusting distance between cities, I plan on implementing auto-travel so that routine travel (e.g. following an already-cleared path) will be very short from the player point of view, but will still consume resources.
It took me a while but I get that now, from my point of view this is just one tiny piece of plans that are already in motion, so it didn't even seem worth comment. The plans in general are to make the game world more and more expansive, but at the same time to add features to make managing things as easy or easier to achieve, like auto-travel, better food management, scheduled activities. |
|
Ok, that alleviates a lot of my concerns. |
|
I just don't feel like the game is in a state where making 90 the default -- or especially removal of the season length option -- is a good idea. The game is supposed to be in a state of feature freeze, and I respect that the intended design philosophy is supposed to be a 360 day year, but with the current state of the world, this represents a hard regression for the average player. Until changes to world scale are in place, you're either dead or an omnipotent god of life and death long before 90 days. Unless there are people committed to fixing these issues ASAP, how long are you willing to accept the game being in a worse state? |
|
HOW is it in a worse state? Those are the only significant changes I can even think of that the default change causes. What else? |
Tons of work, perhaps. Balance? Are you kidding? That's what the refactor is for, that the result is 1:1 except we can change a value with breaking everything. "Tons of work to maintain." Literally the only reason this thread EXISTS is because many game mechanics are being rewritten against themselves to a different timescale, instead of an even basically functional interface. "Issues". Issues for you, because "it's different". "Ungrateful users". The game is having gameplay overhauls, at the cost of developer time, while immersion bugs or game-breaking bugs still exist. This is a problem for everyone.
http://dontstarve.wikia.com/wiki/World_Customization There is an example of a way it's done well. I skimmed through looking for mechanics based on time unit lengths,
So we have a functions and variables/constants/macros for times...
Some stuff is hard coded for a "usable" context...
Introducing fixed code because hard-coding is being sought, instead of using existing timescales. So far all I can see is a number of places where a function could replace a variable, and other places where hard-coded values could be replaced by functions or variables. Is there any place where there'd be a real problem instead of "I don't want to do it"? |
|
My concerns are mainly with the first and second points. I haven't had functional issues with the seasonal transitions. I feel like while this seems to be progress towards release from a project management perspective, it drastically reduces the variety of experiences for (particularly newer) players. If there are no time sinks available on a scale large enough to push players to experience new seasons, the world is going to feel a lot more static. Is there no way this change can be delayed until after the framework for an increased world scale has been implemented? At least at that point, the issue can be band-aided by increasing inter-city travel time until alternative timesinks are added (potentially post-release). |
There should not be option to change option that does not exist, or that is not supported. Anyway...
sounds great. I just hope such features will eventually be implemented and the entire effort will not end with just changed default season length. I plan to do a run with halved skill progression and halved evolution to see how the pacing feels. Oh, by the way, players who use things like StatThroughSkillls or add bunch of points to distribute should not complaint about being demigods too fast as they are complicit in that. I hope all people who raised this issue are playing with somewhat standard settings in this regard. |
|
There is one important thing @SunshineDistillery spotted, that would certainly do a great job to untie this knot of season mentality, and that thing being true callendar including:
Lack of true callendar did it's job convincing people to expect elastic season lengths. Introduce true callendar, let it sit in and you'll get a proper mindset eventually. |
|
I don't care about season adjustments, but I really dislike the idea of auto-anything. Auto-crafting, Auto-farming, and the like should be pushed onto NPCs. That would also give players a reason to build bases and transition from survival to long term faction goals. Auto travel would be better handled as something in game, like teleporters in a lab finale that connect to another linked teleporter 4 or 5 map tiles away, allowing to cover long distances quickly. Or maybe refitting a subway train or something. Basically, instead of just getting an option to skip content, you should have a goal to build or find something that rewards convenience. For example, I consider building a water purifier the milestone where a character graduates from hobo to real survivor. Auto eating and drinking from your inventory while crafting would be a cool option though. |
|
An in-universe "auto-travel" would be interesting: join an NPC caravan that stops every so often to gather a bit or set up camp. You'd just wait and the game would take care of itself around you. A lot more sensible and far less immersion breaking than skipping over the game. Auto-farming equipment for NPCs to manage themselves would ease binding all the intelligence itself. |
|
The plan to move to 365 day years seems fine in the overall abstract. I will kind of miss the ability to scale seasons personally, but I'll survive. I'm a little concerned about the effect it may end up having on the overall pace of the game - there's already a fairly large amount of time dedicated to very static time sink activities (reading, dehydrating, vehicle construction/repair), and I'm somewhat concerned that these will be dramatically expanded to fill the huge amount of new time in a year. The management for these static activities is already a bit frustrating, as they often involve walking through an interminable series of (potentially important) interruption and warning messages, and once your local inventory becomes substantial (as it usually does), it can already take quite a bit of real time to resolve a read or sleep action. My current games tend to get up to nearly 1sec/min to resolve time spanning actions, which is painfully slow - so if we're expected to spin by 4x as much time in fast resolution, that will need to be optimized substantially. |
|
My question is, why does a shorter season mandate some kind of time dialation? The Cataclysm could very well have altered the momentum of the entire planet, accelerating the precession of its axis of rotation and making it wobble like the solar system's most ponderous top. This could easily shorten the seasons to a mere two weeks, without altering the length of a day, or the length of a year (though the actual time the Earth takes to complete an orbit of the sun would be less relevant if the axis is moving around faster than once every several millenia). As for scaling spoilage and farm times, this can be attributed to Earth's native life forms, the bears and the bees and the microbes that cause spoilage, being evolved to follow the seasons rather than actual time. When's the last time a moose read a calendar, after all? Drastically shortened seasons would provoke drastically increased activity in all life forms native to Earth, in all kinds of ways. |
Serms unlikely: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_Laws
But if it has happened somehow, I don't think all on earth like crafting, construction, reading, learning, spoilage, farming and breading would scale to it. That's, btw, exactly how it is going to work as per Kevin's statements made. Furthermore, such a sudden change in climate might render some plants and animals completely extinct IRL. |
|
:D I think that with interdimensional portals opening up all over the place
and spewing forth alien materials and life forms, it is safe to say that
this will be categorized as a mass-extinction event, even putting aside any
shifts to the climate.
Along those lines, I'd like to see the climate become harsher year over
year in the game, just for challenge and RP purposes, with colder
winters/hotter summers, the eventual re-introduction of acid rain storms,
and so on. It'd be nice to see the climate evolve along with other threats.
…On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:08 AM ixi ***@***.***> wrote:
My question is, why does a shorter season mandate some kind of time
dialation? The Cataclysm could very well have altered the momentum of the
entire planet, accelerating the precession of its axis of rotation and
making it wobble like the solar system's most ponderous top.
Serms unlikely: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_Laws
The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube
of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
But if it has happened somehow, I don't think all on earth like crafting,
construction, reading, learning, spoilage, farming and breading would scale
to it. That's, btw, exactly how it is going to work as per Kevin's
statements made.
Furthermore, such a sudden change in climate might render some plants and
animals completely extinct IRL.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#25439 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIl3iRyZ8Poe9_77wKpaFGtuOzjTRVa4ks5ua0fUgaJpZM4Wfw6s>
.
|
|
On the plus side, we won't need to worry about climate change for any foreseeable future. |
Only if it can be disabled and the speed of progression of it adjustable with no connection to other things. Otherwise certain types of games and scenarios (especially ones without access to certain materials like full innawoods games) would be just disrupted. I am not sure if portals opening up would have direct effect on climate, anyway. I wouldn't mind some late-game content though when there's particular structure/enemy responsible for it that can be destroyed so the climate can be affected through gameplay. But this whole conversation goes kinda out of scope of this ticket. |
|
I recall reading in the lore somewhere that some of the portals were
belching out vast plumes of acidic crap and so on, and definitely
transforming the environment in various inhospitable ways. Dunno if that
was retconned out.
…On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:59 PM FulcrumA ***@***.***> wrote:
It'd be nice to see the climate evolve along with other threats.
Only if it can be disabled and the speed of progression of it adjustable
with no connection to other things. Otherwise certain types of games and
scenarios (especially ones without access to certain materials like full
innawoods games) would be just disrupted.
I am not sure if portals opening up would have direct effect on climate,
anyway. I wouldn't mind some late-game content though when there's
particular structure/enemy responsible for it that can be destroyed so the
climate can be affected through gameplay. But this whole conversation goes
kinda out of scope of this ticket.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#25439 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIl3iSeLs31L7DnX16XQsBzVcncmRWAKks5ua-B3gaJpZM4Wfw6s>
.
|
|
I've read most of the discussion here, a little late to the party and all, but, I am a new and recent player who is very much interested in the development of this game as I love playing it. I thought maybe the perspective of a new player may help. Although I must admit, something I am having a hard time grasping is just how deeply the season length affects the game. Especially with the Construction Scaling option. My current understanding is allowing this to be variable requires a ton of upkeep and maintenance and "can" cause all kinds of strange issues. The suggested solutions and the developers intent are to correct this by introducing a true to life calendar for the game to run its simulations and calculations on, weather, seasons, all that jazz. And it seems most of the features are designed already for this. From a new player perspective, this sounds like a great idea. I'm already confused about the season length option, and even more so now, and having it preset and not having to worry about how it may affect my game if I happen to live more then 2 weeks is a relief to me. Giving me, a new player such a dangerous option that's not an option (if I'm understanding Kevin's post about it never being intended) that has dramatic effects on the gameplay is not a good idea. Remember though, this is only the opinion of a user and I'm not picking sides. I just want to make sure I get the true and correct CDDA experience when I start a new game, so this being preset and not changeable is no big deal to me, but, I am only 1 person, and others opinions may vary. I also 2nd that using "days" "weeks" "months" and "years" that actually match the season length makes sense for spoilage other UI stuff. Displaying spoils in 1 season, but my season is 14 days makes it all weird. |
|
This is just meandering at this point. |
no it wasn't what the hell are you smoking |
|
It is as easy to produce tons of flour from cattails in winter as it is in other seasons (in fact even easier since starch doesn't spoil as fast). No need to prepare anything but a few rags and cookware. |
and others
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Default season length was abruptly changed in #25429 before any meaningful discussion could take place.
Describe the solution you'd like
This change has non-trivial consequences and I think it would be better to give people some time to think about it and post their opinions - and already merged and closed PR is probably not the best place for it.
Reasoning behind the change
Describe alternatives you've considered
Crying in the corner.
Additional context
Some points raised by people in the PR thread:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: