Endless play

[Argon]

With the new shields and rocket launchers, raiders are more able than ever to defeat killboxes, the result is a hindrance of endless play.

What do the rest of you think?

-Argon

[Teague]

Traditional ones sure.

Crashed mech ship + psychically deaf colony still quite effective, actually more effective due to them having rockets and blowing eat other up. There is also the wearing frayed clothing thought the raiders often have now.

I imagine fire boxes still work  even if they are a pain in the A to use.
Toying with idea of frag gernade spam with trigger happies.

[TheSilencedScream]

I'm one of the biggest advocators for endless play on the forums, I suspect (I mention it as one of my criticisms every chance I can), yet I don't see these as hindrances.

I don't want an endless game in the sense that my colony is all powerful and self-sufficient. That's boring. You hit that point, and it becomes a repetitive movie where you simply watch the same scenarios occur over and over again - that's not a video game.

I want there to be the possibility of an endless game, where the challenge isn't removed - and I think the ability for bandits to be able to handle small killboxes is a right step towards this. I don't want the all-mighty killbox to be unbeatable - if that's the concern, play on the lowest difficulty of Phoebe, you'll be fine.

I want to run the most challenging of Randy, get into a scrape, and be able to come on here and say, "I'm sad my colony's dead, but - holy hell - they put up a great fight!"

[CodyRex123]

I tend to play infinite on randy casual, With the mods i have, it kinda risky still.
Then again, My luck is legendary and famous.

[_alphaBeta_]

There was some additional discussion on this here recently.

I don't want an endless game in the sense that my colony is all powerful and self-sufficient. That's boring. You hit that point, and it becomes a repetitive movie where you simply watch the same scenarios occur over and over again - that's not a video game.

I want there to be the possibility of an endless game, where the challenge isn't removed - and I think the ability for bandits to be able to handle small killboxes is a right step towards this. I don't want the all-mighty killbox to be unbeatable - if that's the concern, play on the lowest difficulty of Phoebe, you'll be fine.

This is consistent with my own feelings. The key is the possibility of playing indefinitely and not being subjected to the ever-increasing challenge level. As the linked thread touches on, however, this is a difficult sweet spot for an AI storyteller to hit over a large time frame - always keeping pace, but not grossly overwhelming the player.

[Vexare]

I agree with above remarks. I too would like more freedom for endless play and not just take-off-in-ship-game-over. But I also don't want 'creative mode' a' la Minecraft. I'd like survival mode to continue, and raiding / attacks to continue. I just don't want them to scale up to insane levels over time to the point it's unplayable. Seems to be a balance in there is necessary and could even be an option to one of the storytellers (I've suggested "Sandbox Sam" or something)... where it's somewhat random like Randy but not scaling up insanely over time.

[Kegereneku]

Sometime I see Endless Sandbox as a cancer...

Somehow it doesn't matter if the game maker tried to make a suspenseful game with carefully balanced game phase, multiple way for the story to go, critical resources management, multiple ending all with a sense of urgency and survival.
...because people, on the flawed logic that "infinite is better than finite", inappropriate comparison with Minecraft, or the hope that the developers will upscale everything to "the next level"... people will vote for endless play not knowing if it mix well with the gameplay, wreak havoc in the balance or just deny everybody a good end.

We are all forgetting the innate advantage of a story with a start and a end : It allow us to be satisfied after a good game and ask for nothing more than to start again without being handed down an already successful situation.
Alternatively the main way to deal with near-infinite playtime is to have uniformly simple/boring game mechanic that cannot fail on the long run.

So I'm not saying we shouldn't have a "keep playing" option or the possibility to avoid a "End" (spaceship end or else), just that the game shouldn't treat it as normal and should keep putting pressure on the player.
At best I would suggest an "end hook" specific for "endless players" which end the tales, show the credit and THEN give explicitly the choice between a storyteller that will try to annihilate them or one that don't.
[/opinion]

*If you don't understand what I mean, consider the following.
- One player will like to build and launch one spaceship under heavy fire. Like in a epic tales.
- Another however want to build several spaceship of killer cyborg (since they are remembered).
Both demand for the Storytelling AI to know what you want to do, distinct End is a mean to that.

[Geertje123]

Sometime I see Endless Sandbox as a cancer...

Somehow it doesn't matter if the game maker tried to make a suspenseful game with carefully balanced game phase, multiple way for the story to go, critical resources management, multiple ending all with a sense of urgency and survival.
...because people, on the flawed logic that "infinite is better than finite", inappropriate comparison with Minecraft, or the hope that the developers will upscale everything to "the next level"... people will vote for endless play not knowing if it mix well with the gameplay, wreak havoc in the balance or just deny everybody a good end.

We are all forgetting the innate advantage of a story with a start and a end : It allow us to be satisfied after a good game and ask for nothing more than to start again without being handed down an already successful situation.
Alternatively the main way to deal with near-infinite playtime is to have uniformly simple/boring game mechanic that cannot fail on the long run.

So I'm not saying we shouldn't have a "keep playing" option or the possibility to avoid a "End" (spaceship end or else), just that the game shouldn't treat it as normal and should keep putting pressure on the player.
At best I would suggest an "end hook" specific for "endless players" which end the tales, show the credit and THEN give explicitly the choice between a storyteller that will try to annihilate them or one that don't.
[/opinion]

*If you don't understand what I mean, consider the following.
- One player will like to build and launch one spaceship under heavy fire. Like in a epic tales.
- Another however want to build several spaceship of killer cyborg (since they are remembered).
Both demand for the Storytelling AI to know what you want to do, distinct End is a mean to that.

When I play the game I never build a spaceship and go away, simply because I find it too much of a waste to leave my base alone. I like to push the limits and get the most colonists and the largest base possible. I do not feel the need for an 'end'.

[akiceabear]

I'm in the same camp as Kegereneku. I would like for the mid-late game to have some more interesting possibilities, but in my eyes "endless" play is an impossible and mostly thankless task - most players won't get there, and the ones that do (via min-max'ing for example) will never be satisfied. I think it is more worthwhile to improve the richness and variety of experiences in the early-mid game (e.g. first ~10-20 hours of a colony) than try to improve hour 100+ of a colony.

[Apophis]

With the new shields and rocket launchers, raiders are more able than ever to defeat killboxes, the result is a hindrance of endless play.

First of all, I don't think you need traditional killboxes.
Sometimes, though, it is nice to make them, so your colony has less trouble with killing raiders. However, my killbox is not less effective in alpha 9 than it was in alpha 8. So I think the first statement is not correct 

Endless play would be nice, but for now, I think more midgame options are more important, as they will shape the endgame later on.

[CodyRex123]

HA, my base is always open and without kill boxes, I tend to have walls sticking out from my defensive area to make sure that they have time to be shot, thats it.

[magicbush]

I am against it honestly as it seems boring and repetitive after you get to a certain point. The enemies should scale up until they can finally break your defenses, and just trying to stay alive as long as possible beating your previous play through should be the challenge and what keeps a player going(at least it does for me ). I like rogue-like games though and don't care if I lose as I just learn and improve each time . Unfortunately I seem to be in the minority here, but that is what keeps me playing most games otherwise I will get bored and move on to another game.

[hyperkiller]

I agree to if you want to endlessly play, then do it on a lower level. i tend to like to play randy on the challenge and lower.

[Vexare]

We are all forgetting the innate advantage of a story with a start and a end : It allow us to be satisfied after a good game and ask for nothing more than to start again without being handed down an already successful situation.

*hops up on gaming philosophy soapbox* (Long but thoughtful / respectful speech incoming)

Games with a start and an end are out there aplenty, as are games considered open-world and sandbox. But why does there have to be a distinct division between the two? Cannot both exist in the same game and be enjoyed by different players with different tastes?

While I do enjoy a good story and a satisfying ending to some games, many games just lend themselves to episodic / legacy type play. And by that I mean endless only in the sense that you continue playing even beyond the basic storyline. Skyrim is a good example of a successful game that has this optional playstyle. It's an example of a game designed quite a few years back that had a very finite storyline but was beloved so much by fans it continues to be one of the top most recommended games of all times long after most other games of it's era and genre have been put to rest.

There are two reasons Skyrim is still so popular beyond just a pretty looking game. For one, the modding community is huge and very active and allows for creative additions to the game including entirely new lands to play through complete with quests (Falskaar for example) made entirely by players but blending amazingly well with the original game. And secondarily but equally important, Skyrim is an open world sandbox game with so much content and exploration and side stories and quests, no two fresh start games will ever be the same nor will the 'ending' be an expected finite event. You never have to take the dragonborn quest and finish the game if you don't want and you are not penalized for that. The player can choose how it ends (even build your own house and just 'retire' if you want).

And therein lies the crux of this issue and the simple answer: Choice.

Do not force a player to play the game your way simply because that's how you want it or like it played. You alienate half your fanbase right out of the box. Not everyone wants to end their colony and take off in the ship and for most of us, doing that once or twice is enough but why should that mean we have no other choice but to shelf the game?

I found your remarks somewhat off-putting and narrow minded. I respect your gameplay preference to have a game with a finite start and ending and thus you should respect those of us who enjoy open ended gameplay where our imagination and storytelling are in the forefront. You said comparing this game to Minecraft was inappropriate but I think you missed the point. The point was, the reason that blocky childish looking game is so insanely popular even after all these years is because of it's infinite potential for whatever the player can imagine and build. Children are automatically drawn to it for it's easy interface and intuitive system. Adults are drawn to it for it's creative potential as legos are appealing generation after generation for people worldwide. I did not compare so much as suggested aspiration to be that great.

Do not limit the player with narrow static dynamics. Give the player choice. That is why the games mentioned, including Dwarf Fortress have survived the test of time and been listed as all-time classics. RimWorld has the potential to be in that category because it straddles the genres and appeals to many types of gamer playstyles. Tynan is a wizard and I have every confidence in his ability to make the game work for those who enjoy an ending and those who do not without negatively affecting either's experience. We both can exist in the same game world with vastly different game goals.

[CodyRex123]

Yes, it makes sense for the 'colonists' to want to leave the planet, but who says they have had their ship crash enough times and decide that they rather die of old age in a colony THAT they built, Yes, they miss the new tech, But eventually, you'll lose interest in exploring it, and you can expect to crash many times in a "lifetime" So why leave something that you both created and like, and who says they wouldn't have a ship ready, to leave when they want, and the fact also is, you can build many, so who says that everyone wants to leave? This is a story, Not a absolute end!