Alpha tester question - Does Old World = Game Over?

[dagrimreefah]

If I had my way a "world" would never end. New worlds are for the weak.

[Lord_of_War]

If I had my way a "world" would never end. New worlds are for the weak.

A lot would have to be fixed first.

[Caryl]

If I had my way a "world" would never end. New worlds are for the weak.

Will your people wear those black goggles all the time?

[AnnaC]

If I had my way a "world" would never end. New worlds are for the weak.

Will your people wear those black goggles all the time?

If the whiney babies in the morgue weren't idiots he wouldn't have to wear them.


About world end, I think in this game as it is world resets are required. To have a planned never-ending world the game would have to have a few changes, especially to how resources and the geography work in the game; they are a bit too static for a perpetual world currently. Resource nodes should gradually migrate, and/or deplete and new ones pop up to replace them. I know currently it's not possible for the world geography to gradually change but that might be nice as well, to have occasional events like a heavy rain season and have some of the waterways shift slightly. Things like that would keep the world more fresh, and allow things other than perpetual world expansion or resets.

Character stats are another thing that being perpetually open-ended require occasional resets to moderate. Although the scaling in the game is interesting and does give diminished returns higher up, the open-endedness of character growth does allow individual hearthlings to reach a near demi-god status where they can only be destroyed through meta-mechanics or general shenanigans. Not that this is as big of an issue as the static nature of resources and geography, it will still be a problem waiting to happen if there is a design idea for ever-persistant worlds.