Featuring Limited Resources, and Procedural Planets, Raph Koster Addresses What Stars Reach is 'Abou

System · August 1

Featuring Limited Resources, and Procedural Planets, Raph Koster Addresses What Stars Reach is 'About' | MMORPG.com

A new devblog from Raph Koster goes into the themes of Stars Reach and how Playable Worlds supports previously discussed design pillars with the core content and emphasis on learning to work together.

Read the full story here

Tiller · August 1

Designed from the ground up to be a mobile game, but play on PC.

Ridrith · August 2

Designed from the ground up to be as unappealing as possible. Crazy.

ShinyFlygon · August 2

You're going to be generating a LOT of worlds to replace ruined ones, Raph. In an MMO, as in life, there are a lot more selfish "watch it burn" types than altruists.

olepi · August 2

ShinyFlygon said:

You're going to be generating a LOT of worlds to replace ruined ones, Raph. In an MMO, as in life, there are a lot more selfish "watch it burn" types than altruists.

Yeah, it only takes a few burners to ruin it for everybody.

As I've said before, if there is any non-consensual PvP in the game, the griefers will find a way to ruin it.

Raph · August 2

First: I've said it before, I'll say it again.

There is no non-consensual PvP in this game.

Second, statistically, the selfish "watch it burn" types are actually like 1-3% of the population at most. It's more that their IMPACT is hugely disproportionate. But yes, we have to be hypervigilant about them.

Champie · August 2

Imagine if Raph came here and announced that he's going to just STFU and make a game. It would be REVOLUTIONARY!

Scot · August 2

Champie said:

Imagine if Raph came here and announced that he's going to just STFU and make a game. It would be REVOLUTIONARY!

I am keen to hear what he has to say, but yes we do get too much process and not enough delivery these days.

Scot · August 2

Well this gets to what I was asking in the last article about SR, we need resources to create a civilization, when does that become plundering?

I am guessing here but if there is a health bar for the planet I am assuming as long as not too much is taken in a given period the bar will not start falling. That's a fair real world analogy, we have to have the resources, but the more quickly we take them out the more problems there are, mostly from pollution in fact.

I do feel it could feel a bit "tree hugger" though, the best way to avoid that is to tone down the "lesson" and state the facts, "your planets health indicator depends on how well you ration resource use." I don't think good management needs to be pointed out as good. For example when a landfill site reaches capacity it can be changed into a park, you don't need to tell people that's a good idea.

Champie · August 2

Has ANYONE here played ECO?

Amaranthar · August 2

Raph said:

First: I've said it before, I'll say it again. There is no non-consensual PvP in this game.

Second, statistically, the selfish "watch it burn" types are actually like 1-3% of the population at most. It's more that their IMPACT is hugely disproportionate. But yes, we have to be hypervigilant about them.

I think the concern is more about the 50-60% who will cheat "just a little."

Amaranthar · August 2

Raph said:

First: I've said it before, I'll say it again. There is no non-consensual PvP in this game.

Second, statistically, the selfish "watch it burn" types are actually like 1-3% of the population at most. It's more that their IMPACT is hugely disproportionate. But yes, we have to be hypervigilant about them.

Ya know, it's also not 1-3% against the entire player population.
It's 1-3% of hyperactive crazies against a specific subset of players, in a particular time and place.
What's worse is that, once this small fraction starts their focused attack and has success, the movement starts to grow.

Edit to add:
It seems to me that you'd be giving power to the 1-3%, which they'd use for control over the best resources in the game. If they can't have it, they'll make it worthless by over-harvesting, and look for the next best place. Rinse and repeat.

Scot · August 3

Amaranthar said:

Raph said:

First: I've said it before, I'll say it again. There is no non-consensual PvP in this game.

Second, statistically, the selfish "watch it burn" types are actually like 1-3% of the population at most. It's more that their IMPACT is hugely disproportionate. But yes, we have to be hypervigilant about them.

Ya know, it's also not 1-3% against the entire player population.
It's 1-3% of hyperactive crazies against a specific subset of players, in a particular time and place.
What's worse is that, once this small fraction starts their focused attack and has success, the movement starts to grow.

Edit to add:
It seems to me that you'd be giving power to the 1-3%, which they'd use for control over the best resources in the game. If they can't have it, they'll make it worthless by over-harvesting, and look for the next best place. Rinse and repeat.

This depends on whether there are areas of "best" resources and over harvesting for the 3% would only make sense if it deprived others of resources. The set up of the game could stop that but like you I regard this as a concern.

Brainy · August 3

This is a total PVP move. Have the PVP planet in the area completely gut all the resources from the PVE planets, just because they can. Its definetely not 1-3% of the people that will do this.

Some competitive PVE'er guild with lots of xx mineral on their planet goes around and wipes out any regional competitors.

Brainy · August 3

Raph have your ever asked yourself how does this make the game more fun for the players? Seriously, who do you think wants this anyway?

As a designer, dont you think you need to put a tiny bit of thought into thinking, why is this good for the game? What percentage of your playerbase will say, Yes this makes the game more fun.

Lithuanian · August 3

I see absolutely no defense versus bad players. Whatever you invent, won't work or would harm normal population.
Situation: Alpha is a bad person, player killer-griefer, nolifer. All he wants is to destroy, since Alpha is not capable of creating. So - Alpha targets planet and starts destroying. Burning forests. Poluting or destroying rivers. Hunting everything huntable. If your planet has health bar - Alpha would waste all his time to ensure that bar goes low enough...and to see your planet turned into Mordor or debris.
Only solution: make every action consume energy. Alpha runs out of energy quickly - and either buys for $ or his grief stops.
Other solutions: make game moderators watch players. You question Alpha, why is he hunting every rabbit and dinosaur. Alpha answers it is his roleplay as an ancient Hunter, seeking mysterious KhazBhazRhaz, a gem in tribute of GhashBhash, lost by Alpha's dad...
You ask Alpha why did he burn entire forest. Alpha answers he needs tons of ashes for specific crafting (that really exists).
Now, ban Alpha for actions that looks like legit. Or restrict Alpha. Then you will have to restrict any normal player who (by accident) needs lots of ashes or meat...
Another solution (told by Raph): not to worry, Alpha has to ask community! So, to hunt pig I need to ask? To burn tree for ashes - I need to ask? Then we will see Alphas as planet governors, mocking every player. Or giving tasks like - "Ok, chop all trees, but please, kill player NNN". Or - "Ok, feel free to do anything, just make sure my enemy base on other planet is destroyed". Or even - "Whatever you wish, 20$ to my bitcoin account and do what you want". One Alpha is stopped, only for worse Alpha to have power.
Another solution: just ban Alpha and problem solved. Then you may auto-ban legit players, who just needed lots of ash.
It is possible to introduce limits, like 100 ash per one game day. Legit players may get nervous. If my Axe needs 518 ash and I need it to hunt dinosaur - it's either beg communty, or spend 6 days in crafting single axe.
"Wait wait, we will introduce law! Player police! Playe courts! ANd maybe jails!".
Sounds nice. And what will stop that police to become worse Alpha than original Alpha?

In short, it seems Raph's game promises almost everything to everyone, solve problems no mega-titles were able to solve and to do it with some magical technology.

Which makes me doubt if such game would be playable at all. I mean, you can launch game, only to see this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Brainy · August 4

I am actually not surprised that Raph (if I could just implement a 20th patch, I could fix griefing) Koster, came up with this concept with no thought of griefing at all.

He has always been unconcerned about griefing in his games.

I have a thought... maybe all this time Raph actually secretly likes griefing. Maybe he subscribes to all press is good press even if its negative press.

Its pretty obvious to see how this will be used to grief PVE players nonstop.

Considering he gave complete lip service in UO for his entire time as lead dev, when the population was dying to griefing in the game. He certainly didnt seem concerned then, so why would he be concerned now.

Sovrath · August 4

Brainy said:

I am actually not surprised that Raph (if I could just implement a 20th patch, I could fix griefing) Koster, came up with this concept with no thought of griefing at all.

He has always been unconcerned about griefing in his games.

I have a thought... maybe all this time Raph actually secretly likes griefing. Maybe he subscribes to all press is good press even if its negative press.

Its pretty obvious to see how this will be used to grief PVE players nonstop.

Considering he gave complete lip service in UO for his entire time as lead dev, when the population was dying to griefing in the game. He certainly didnt seem concerned then, so why would he be concerned now.

this is a bit over the top. Having said that, I think Raph is a bit of an academic and like many academics, they are a bit out of touch. Just his comment (in another thread) that "I thought I had stated this before ... " and then he talks about his stance on pvp.

Well, not very regular player is going to read his stuff. He might as well be writing and posting "to the choir."

The other thing is that he very well might not think his game will have "pvp issues" for non-pvp players but when the game is done maybe others will try to "break the game" and see what they can get away with.

In fairness the game isn't even out, not even in a state where players have access to it so given he thinks that "there is no non-consensual pvp" I'd take him at his word and see how things play out.

What's the worse that can happen? If there are issues then I'm sure there will be players more than happy to call him out on them.

Wargfoot · August 4

"If you wreck one, we can just generate another?"

You'll generate a new world with the base I spent 300hrs. creating already in place OR do I have to build that from scratch? Believe me, if it takes 100s of hours to build a nice base - and it only take 4 hrs. to destroy a planet, your game will be an endless string of burned-out planets.

Have you seen how angry people get when a PK can take 45 minutes of their work?

Imagine players losing 100s of hours of work to griefers - who turned a planet they spent 100s of hours developing in a dystopian nightmare.

Visit any open invite Minecraft server for a taste of the future.

Quizzical · August 4

ShinyFlygon said:

You're going to be generating a LOT of worlds to replace ruined ones, Raph. In an MMO, as in life, there are a lot more selfish "watch it burn" types than altruists.

So long as generating a new world is done automatically and doesn't require manual intervention for each particular world, this isn't a problem. How many dungeon instances does WoW generate each day?

Granted, generating an entire world is probably going to be a much heavier task than making a dungeon instance. But servers are massively more powerful than they were twenty years ago, so the hardware is probably up to the task.

Brainy · August 5

Sovrath said:
In fairness the game isn't even out, not even in a state where players have access to it so given he thinks that "there is no non-consensual pvp" I'd take him at his word and see how things play out.

What's the worse that can happen? If there are issues then I'm sure there will be players more than happy to call him out on them.

What's the worse that can happen calling him out on his stupid ideas right now?

Why should I take him at his word? What has he done to prove he understands the mistakes of the past? If anything he is continuing right where he left off, with a bunch of failing ideas.

No real protections from griefers at all LOL, newb dev mistake 101. PVE'ers are looking to be jacked in this game all around.

So you are right, at this point its all talk, but whats worse, is that what he is pitching has serious obvious problems that anyone can see. Doesnt really inspire confidence in his expertise. Doesnt sound like he has anyone in his organization where he can bounce these dumb ideas off of first.

Maybe, just maybe he will read these posts and fix the problem before implementing. I wouldnt bet on that though.

Sovrath · August 5

Brainy said:

Sovrath said:
In fairness the game isn't even out, not even in a state where players have access to it so given he thinks that "there is no non-consensual pvp" I'd take him at his word and see how things play out.

What's the worse that can happen? If there are issues then I'm sure there will be players more than happy to call him out on them.

What's the worse that can happen calling him out on his stupid ideas right now?

Why should I take him at his word?

Well, unless you have money on this horse why not?

I mean, it's no skin off your teeth if what they release is completely different and not what they were proclaiming.

I"m always for creatives making what they want to make. No matter what it is. I can then decide if I want to take part.

Brainy · August 5

Sovrath said:

Brainy said:

Sovrath said:
In fairness the game isn't even out, not even in a state where players have access to it so given he thinks that "there is no non-consensual pvp" I'd take him at his word and see how things play out.

What's the worse that can happen? If there are issues then I'm sure there will be players more than happy to call him out on them.

What's the worse that can happen calling him out on his stupid ideas right now?

Why should I take him at his word?
Well, unless you have money on this horse why not?

I mean, it's no skin off your teeth if what they release is completely different and not what they were proclaiming.

I"m always for creatives making what they want to make. No matter what it is. I can then decide if I want to take part.

Or the other option is people can give good honest feedback and maybe just maybe these devs will stop making dumpster fires?

Part of the problem is all the people blowing smoke. The devs are in this little bubble and people around them are yes yes great idea .... when its obvious with just a tiny bit of thought it will ruin their game. Then they release the game and they wonder why nobody plays.

So yes I can let the blind lady walk in traffic and just watch/make a video. I prefer not to see the mess in the first place.

Scot · August 5

My guess is if Raph just expected us to take him at his word he would not do blog posts. "Its going to be a great game", what more would you need to say?

So you lay out your vision to see who will want to jump onboard and get feedback for tweaking. Makes sense to me.

But the last several years of MMO history make it quite reasonable if you want to call him out on what he is saying, from crowd funding to AAA things have not gone well with only the rare expectation. However, Raph is not responsible for that and that's why I give him the benefit of the doubt, otherwise we are all going to end up dyed in the wool cynics.

ShinyFlygon · August 5

Raph said:

Second, statistically, the selfish "watch it burn" types are actually like 1-3% of the population at most. It's more that their IMPACT is hugely disproportionate. But yes, we have to be hypervigilant about them.

I would love to know where this statistic came from. I suspect we have different definitions of "watch it burn" types.

You don't have to actively seek the destruction of the world. You can just be selfish and uninterested in the goals of society. Collect and hoard your resources for your own individual projects without regard to what's necessary for the survival and well-being of the community.

This group will build their own bases and watch the world burn, not out of spite, but because they just don't feel like engaging with others. Even though they aren't setting fires, the world still burns.

Sovrath · August 5

Brainy said:

Sovrath said:

Brainy said:

Sovrath said:
In fairness the game isn't even out, not even in a state where players have access to it so given he thinks that "there is no non-consensual pvp" I'd take him at his word and see how things play out.

What's the worse that can happen? If there are issues then I'm sure there will be players more than happy to call him out on them.

What's the worse that can happen calling him out on his stupid ideas right now?

Why should I take him at his word?
Well, unless you have money on this horse why not?

I mean, it's no skin off your teeth if what they release is completely different and not what they were proclaiming.

I"m always for creatives making what they want to make. No matter what it is. I can then decide if I want to take part.

Or the other option is people can give good honest feedback and maybe just maybe these devs will stop making dumpster fires?

Part of the problem is all the people blowing smoke. The devs are in this little bubble and people around them are yes yes great idea .... when its obvious with just a tiny bit of thought it will ruin their game. Then they release the game and they wonder why nobody plays.

So yes I can let the blind lady walk in traffic and just watch/make a video. I prefer not to see the mess in the first place.

I’m fairly certain that for many, many years, people have been giving “good honest feedback” and yet we still had some games that could be considered dumpster fires.

I would think that any developer who took a few posts of feedback as gospel isn’t worth their weight in Cheetos.

It could be an indication of “Where there’s smoke there’s fire “ but it could also be a few disgruntled players complaining as they often do.

I’ve said it numerous times but anyone who creates with the idea they’ll sell their creation needs to know their ability, experience, the market and their audience.

keeping in mind their budget and what they need to make.

If they’ve solved all that then they very well might be successful even if they make a niche product.

Howdy, Stranger!

Featuring Limited Resources, and Procedural Planets, Raph Koster Addresses What Stars Reach is 'Abou

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Featuring Limited Resources, and Procedural Planets, Raph Koster Addresses What Stars Reach is 'Abou

Comments