Accepted Weather Seasons

[KabbyDankGod]

Yeah but we meant resources as things you can craft things out of, so maybe you get mushrooms to make poison at autumn etc.

 

[Euvrounin]

Seasonal Events would be a thing.

We dont like your Christmas to be sad

 

[Aekalix]

Interesting suggestion I know @KabbyDankGod has overlapping points but I'd like to give a more formal and official response.

Let's start with 'weather' seasons. Those are basically a no-go. These limit creativity in contrast to what most people think. Why? Well, you normalize the uniqueness of the world in that case. While it might sound more realistic to the real world it won't bring the same impact to the game. It packs a lot more punch if one specific region has a chance of tornadoes happening at any time at any moment instead of several regions or even worlds. But to tackle this properly takes a lot of thought and time and thus for now will be declined.

What I am interested in is actual seasons. First and foremost, I have seen people point out that seasons would then change and quite rapidly. This might seem like a good idea to attach them to ~90 Minecraft days but will push players into a corner to continuously focus on that part of the season to reap the most benefit of it instead of taking a day off and doing anything else. Seasons will feel like daily tasks that are required to progress which are not fun to do at all. Therefore, seasons would be far longer. Preferably synchronized with actual seasons.

So, then next up buffs and debuffs. In the thread, some good ones and less good ones were mentioned. Anything that affects core gameplay is pretty much a no. Any debuffs are immediately a no as well. Why? Because it affects core gameplay negatively. Seasons should be an add-on. Something that allows you to do more instead of less. Some points brought up by @Rednaxman in regards to skills changing depending on season or fire being more deadly in summer, again, affect core gameplay features and those should not be touched.

Now that I addressed most points given in this thread here's my take on it.

First off, seasons are 3 months each and they'll follow the northern hemisphere. Secondly, Seasons do not give any debuffs and do not give global buffs either. Plants will not grow faster in summer and ice will not be deadlier in winter. This supports to main idea about seasons being an addition to the game instead of a core mechanic. There will not be buffs or debuffs catered to any season. What seasons would influence is fish, plants, monsters, and possibly events available. Your summer plant simply does not grow in winter or any other season for that matter. So, you'd have season-specific items. These are bonuses to the game that can make your life easier but are not a must-have.

Because of the length of the seasons changing the map depending on season would be a lot more doable. Some places will receive simple texture changes (autumn leaves) others might be more severe. How about an ice blockage being removed during summer? A lake will be frozen during winter? Moreover, the duration allows interesting shifts in the economy. If a certain product becomes available again, its price will dramatically decrease.

And lastly, we could have different monsters available, different shops, different quests, different bosses, and quite a bit more.

So, now we have listed all the (good) opportunities that seasons bring to Dyescape. There are, of course, also cons. You will not be able to do a quest for another 9 months (potentially) if you happen to not do it within 90 days. Is this an issue? I don't think so. Based on my own premise that seasons do not influence core gameplay. I see no reason to not approve this suggestion as we will be needing it when writing the new upcoming lore. But I'd love to hear some (more) opinions.

Do note that specific events such as an Easter hunt or a Christmas Celebration are not a part of seasons and thus not addressed in this post. These will happen even if there are no seasons in Dyescape.

 

[MrDienns]

I mostly like the economic changes it can include. Special mushroom that only grow in Autumn, special ice that only happens in the winter, certain flowers that only grow in spring and a special crop that only grows in summer. Although this would likely go best with professions, once we have them, it could be a motivating factor for player trades and a more interactive economy.

An important point to also mention, is that I agree with the season length. I'd vouch to align them with actual seasons in real life. Should please the die-hard economy fans.

 

[Trook]

I feel like adding seasons in is a great way of creating refreshing new content that links the player's in-game experience to the person's own real-life experience. But an issue - if someone lives in a part of the world where they're currently in summer but the game is featuring winter how does that add up? Does it cater only to one region?

Regardless, @Aekalix mentioned quests being locked based on season and I'm not in favor of the idea. That's like giving a kid a present for Christmas and then after a few weeks taking it back because it's no longer Christmas. Sure, if it's seasonal-only quests it makes sense to put them away until the season comes back but I feel like it defeats the purpose of the season if a player is not able to experience the content if they haven't been available all season to play.

As the economy goes which MrDienns brought up, it sounds good. Being able to get season-individual materials and items would increase the monopoly on the server causing more experienced players who have played longer to trade with new players who are interested in having the spring flower of bliss.

All-in-all I'm for the idea.

 

[KabbyDankGod]

Only thing I don't like is the fact that the seasons would last very long, and could lock certain quests for 9 months. I would rather do a season a month making the wait way less while also not making it so that you must play every day.

 

[Aekalix]

Only thing I don't like is the fact that the seasons would last very long, and could lock certain quests for 9 months. I would rather do a season a month making the wait way less while also not making it so that you must play every day.

I feel like adding seasons in is a great way of creating refreshing new content that links the player's in-game experience to the person's own real-life experience. But an issue - if someone lives in a part of the world where they're currently in summer but the game is featuring winter how does that add up? Does it cater only to one region?

Regardless, @Aekalix mentioned quests being locked based on season and I'm not in favor of the idea. That's like giving a kid a present for Christmas and then after a few weeks taking it back because it's no longer Christmas. Sure, if it's seasonal-only quests it makes sense to put them away until the season comes back but I feel like it defeats the purpose of the season if a player is not able to experience the content if they haven't been available all season to play.

As the economy goes which MrDienns brought up, it sounds good. Being able to get season-individual materials and items would increase the monopoly on the server causing more experienced players who have played longer to trade with new players who are interested in having the spring flower of bliss.

All-in-all I'm for the idea.

While both of you mention the same core 'issue' with this idea is that you're losing out on content. I would debate that this is a luxury problem that also comes with seasons. You will miss out on that one mushroom if you don't play. You will miss out on the easter event if you don't play those few days. All the quests will likely be seasonal quests and not core gameplay.

In regards to @Trook's analogy. I think it's not the proper analogy. We're not giving you a present. You get an opportunity to use it. You cannot go skiing if it's not winter.

In regards to @KabbyDankGod comments on season duration. A season a month is simply not doable in regards to content and maintenance of such a season.

And as a final remark; You get 90 days to play possibly 3-5 season quests. You can't play all 85 days and likely still be able to do those quests. Not being able to play for 90 days seems like quite a stretch as well. You would miss out on more content e.g. a server-wide event or limited-time quests. You are missing out on bonus content. Content that wouldn't be there in the first place.

 

[Perotin]

Interesting suggestion I know @KabbyDankGod has overlapping points but I'd like to give a more formal and official response.

Let's start with 'weather' seasons. Those are basically a no-go. These limit creativity in contrast to what most people think. Why? Well, you normalize the uniqueness of the world in that case. While it might sound more realistic to the real world it won't bring the same impact to the game. It packs a lot more punch if one specific region has a chance of tornadoes happening at any time at any moment instead of several regions or even worlds. But to tackle this properly takes a lot of thought and time and thus for now will be declined.

What I am interested in is actual seasons. First and foremost, I have seen people point out that seasons would then change and quite rapidly. This might seem like a good idea to attach them to ~90 Minecraft days but will push players into a corner to continuously focus on that part of the season to reap the most benefit of it instead of taking a day off and doing anything else. Seasons will feel like daily tasks that are required to progress which are not fun to do at all. Therefore, seasons would be far longer. Preferably synchronized with actual seasons.

So, then next up buffs and debuffs. In the thread, some good ones and less good ones were mentioned. Anything that affects core gameplay is pretty much a no. Any debuffs are immediately a no as well. Why? Because it affects core gameplay negatively. Seasons should be an add-on. Something that allows you to do more instead of less. Some points brought up by @Rednaxman in regards to skills changing depending on season or fire being more deadly in summer, again, affect core gameplay features and those should not be touched.

Now that I addressed most points given in this thread here's my take on it.

First off, seasons are 3 months each and they'll follow the northern hemisphere. Secondly, Seasons do not give any debuffs and do not give global buffs either. Plants will not grow faster in summer and ice will not be deadlier in winter. This supports to main idea about seasons being an addition to the game instead of a core mechanic. There will not be buffs or debuffs catered to any season. What seasons would influence is fish, plants, monsters, and possibly events available. Your summer plant simply does not grow in winter or any other season for that matter. So, you'd have season-specific items. These are bonuses to the game that can make your life easier but are not a must-have.

Because of the length of the seasons changing the map depending on season would be a lot more doable. Some places will receive simple texture changes (autumn leaves) others might be more severe. How about an ice blockage being removed during summer? A lake will be frozen during winter? Moreover, the duration allows interesting shifts in the economy. If a certain product becomes available again, its price will dramatically decrease.

And lastly, we could have different monsters available, different shops, different quests, different bosses, and quite a bit more.

So, now we have listed all the (good) opportunities that seasons bring to Dyescape. There are, of course, also cons. You will not be able to do a quest for another 9 months (potentially) if you happen to not do it within 90 days. Is this an issue? I don't think so. Based on my own premise that seasons do not influence core gameplay. I see no reason to not approve this suggestion as we will be needing it when writing the new upcoming lore. But I'd love to hear some (more) opinions.

Do note that specific events such as an Easter hunt or a Christmas Celebration are not a part of seasons and thus not addressed in this post. These will happen even if there are no seasons in Dyescape.

Overall I agree with basically all of this-- I would like to see seasons have more than a cosmetic affect (I understand it'll affect the economy still but adding debuffs/some core mechanics would just add to the complexity of Dyescape, making it richer and more immersive), but I get wanting it to be a limiting factor.

One idea I really liked in this thread was the idea of regions and having weather based on the region, would this still apply? (e.g. can't grow certain crops in colder climates etc.) I know this could be considered a 'debuff', but I would argue it's worth doing since the option still exists (find a suitable region), rather than just altogether eliminating the option.

 

[Euvrounin]

One idea I really liked in this thread was the idea of regions and having weather based on the region, would this still apply? (e.g. can't grow certain crops in colder climates etc.) I know this could be considered a 'debuff', but I would argue it's worth doing since the option still exists (find a suitable region), rather than just altogether eliminating the option.

I tried this in my old mc project, like we really do have complex system that is directly tied to the game weather and seasons- all the way from the specific crops growing on a specific region, and season, to materials availability (fertilizers, seeds, gardening tools, etc..) down to the economy from trading, selling and cooking of the harvest crops, etc...

as cool as it sounds, it isn't as fun as people might think
There are lot of things that needs to be discussed to properly execute this idea since creating a dynamic and natural world isn't easy considering it can be link to everything.

Anyway, anything added in-game aside from the core contents are bonus contents (time limited or not).
- Do the event, you'll be rewarded
- Do not, you wont be rewarded
It is as simply as that, besides there are still lot of things players can do in-game and they can probably wait for the next season or event. We only provide contents, It is up to the players if they want to do them, we are not going to force them.

Who knows, there may be dungeons, monsters or random hidden places you can explore during these seasons or events

I am not suggesting evil Santa on Christmas

 

[Aekalix]

Overall I agree with basically all of this-- I would like to see seasons have more than a cosmetic affect (I understand it'll affect the economy still but adding debuffs/some core mechanics would just add to the complexity of Dyescape, making it richer and more immersive), but I get wanting it to be a limiting factor.

One idea I really liked in this thread was the idea of regions and having weather based on the region, would this still apply? (e.g. can't grow certain crops in colder climates etc.) I know this could be considered a 'debuff', but I would argue it's worth doing since the option still exists (find a suitable region), rather than just altogether eliminating the option.

The issue with debuffs is that you'll be negatively impacted 3/4th of the year.