Biomes in biome progression makes no sense

[khzmusik]

An Apology

Before I start, I just want to apologize about the length of this post. It's only because I've been thinking about the topic for a long time.

I know a lot of people won't make it through this post, and that's OK.

I have tried to make this comprehensible for people who actually want to think about this, but obviously YMMV. If your mileage doesn't vary then I'm OK with it.

About Biome Progression

The purpose of this post is not to question whether biome progression is necessary. Topics like loot caps or biome smoothies are off topic.

This post assumes that people should go through some kind of biome progression, however it is done. The post is considering which biomes should follow which other biomes.

Existing biomes

Forest biome

While it totally makes sense to start the player there, an argument could be made that this should be the destination biome for users. They start out in Hell and try to make their way into Heaven (metaphorically speaking).

It also does not make sense from a story point of view. The "big bad" is supposed to be a Native American. Native American traditions are connected to nature (I do not think it is controversial to say this, even among Native Americans).

Why would a Native American leader choose to rule from a desolated nuclear wasteland?

I don't want to dwell on this too much, because it goes against the general goals of a survival game, but I wanted to bring it up as something to think about.

Burnt Forest biome

This doesn't make sense as the second biome a player visits. This is supposed to be a desolated biome, where nothing survived because it was all burned to the ground.

If the goal is to survive, it should be a later stage biome.

Desert biome

Deserts in Arizona are harsh, but not so harsh that it should be harder to survive in them than in a biome where everything died by fire.

In reality deserts contain a lot of life. For an in-game example, this is the area where most rattlesnakes live, so it would make sense that in 7D2D snakes should spawn a lot here. Not in the burned forest biome.

As far as the game is concerned, many Native Americans live (and sometimes thrive) in desert environments. If the game is basing its survival upon Native American recipes or skill sets, then the desert is far more hospitable than the burnt forest.

Snow biome

What's interesting about the snow biome is that it is not all that different than the burnt forest biome in real life.

The game includes all kinds of animals there, and they probably shouldn't. The primary example is the bear. Except that bears hibernate in the winter, so if anything, bears should be absent from this biome.

That does not mean this should be an easy biome. Survival should be harder, not because of harder enemies, but because survival mechanics (dew collectors, farming crops, digging up clay) should be nerfed or even impossible here.

From a story point of view, if you're going to have NPCs here, make sure they're NPCs that the user can see are specifically designed to survive here (e.g. fur or pelt coats). The stereotypical Native American garb will not work for this.

Radioactive biome

I don't think anyone disagrees that this should be the most difficult biome. But what should be in it is controversial.

Since this is the hardest difficulty biome, surviving in it should be a chore. Everything should be radioactive. Maybe you should not be able to dig up clay soil in this biome, and digging only gives you useless (or worse) radioactive dirt. Dew collectors shouldn't work or should produce only radioactive water.

If there are animals, perhaps they should be animals that never give edible meat, like the zombie bear or dire wolf.

But this doesn't make sense from a story perspective. There is no reason that a Native American leader should choose the Wasteland as their home, and if you do away with that, then the story does not dictate going to the radioactive biome in order to finish it.

What I Advocate

This is how I, personally, think players should progress through biomes.

1. Forest biome. I have no objection to this biome. But, we have to keep in mind that we're starting the players in the most aesthetically pleasing biome, and that can often trump better weapons or equipment. From a story perspective, you'd probably want friendly Native Americans to live here.
2. Forest biome. It is easier - but not impossible - to grow crops in the desert. The temperature is extreme, but not so extreme that people cannot live there (yet). The animals attack but can be avoided. Native Americans can live here.
3. Snow biome. Most crops cannot grow here, they freeze. The temperature is extreme enough so you can't live there without protection - think Antarctica. There are lots of animals that can kill you (but not bears since they're hibernating).
4. Wasteland. You can't construct farm plots, because you can only dig up radioactive dirt. Temperature is often hot, but the biggest issue is radiation. Animals should all be zombies which give no usable meat. No Native American would ever step foot here.

Hope this makes sense to people, and thanks for listening.

 

[Lax]

You broke up the thread nicely to make it readable.

I would suggest instead of making crops unavailable at all in some of the harsher biomes to require a type of greenhouse to compensate, maybe hydroponics or something similar.

I also think starting out in the Pine Forest is fine and makes sense to let players get their grounding when entering the game.

Or go back to previous versions and allow random spawning in any biome, leaving the decision to the player to stay or move on to safer biomes. That would kinda disrupt progression though.

 

[khzmusik]

You broke up the thread nicely to make it readable.

I would suggest instead of making crops unavailable at all in some of the harsher biomes to require a type of greenhouse to compensate, maybe hydroponics or something similar.

I also think starting out in the Pine Forest is fine and makes sense to let players get their grounding when entering the game.

Or go back to previous versions and allow random spawning in any biome, leaving the decision to the player to stay or move on to safer biomes. That would kinda disrupt progression though.

I don't disagree with the objection that you can't grow crops. I would love hydroponics or some kind of greenhouse that was later game, perhaps walled behind recipes or workstation requirements. But they're not in the game now, and the stuff I suggested can actually be implemented by the current code.

As far as spawning - I really love the idea that a new playthrough of a game might be completely different every time. I would love it if your first playthrough spawned you in the pine forest, and was just a kind of "tutorial" survival, but other playthroughs would start you in e.g. the snow biome and were like The Long Dark.

Having said that, we do need to keep in mind that TFP will probably not implement anything if it is too difficult to do from a technical standpoint. Things like greenhouses or custom spawns are probably too much work to ask for.

 

[Lax]

I remember the days when Random Gen Worlds could drop you right in the middle of the Wasteland only to be greeted by a Zombie Dog....or 2! Welcome to the jungle.

 

[4sheetzngeegles]

As far as spawning - I really love the idea that a new playthrough of a game might be completely different every time.

This does/did happen to an extent. Prerequisite: replay the same map, and a number of preset destinations
in the Prefabs.xml in the world folder you are playing. It says random, but is dependent on having an original
to start from.

I have tested as I made large custom maps. I set 10 spawn points, and loaded the map under a different name
it then cycled through the locations. I then deleted my save and logged in the majority of the time I spawned in
my spawn point in the steeple of the cathedral. I didn't test with out any spawn point in prefabs.xml so that I can't
say yet. Maybe the new flatspot, mechanic can be adapted to allow this.

 

[khzmusik]

This does/did happen to an extent. Prerequisite: replay the same map, and a number of preset destinations
in the Prefabs.xml in the world folder you are playing. It says random, but is dependent on having an original
to start from.

I have tested as I made large custom maps. I set 10 spawn points, and loaded the map under a different name
it then cycled through the locations. I then deleted my save and logged in the majority of the time I spawned in
my spawn point in the steeple of the cathedral. I didn't test with out any spawn point in prefabs.xml so that I can't
say yet. Maybe the new flatspot, mechanic can be adapted to allow this.

I haven't played around with 2.x spawns yet (other than being spawned in when I stared games).

I'd love it if we could spawn in different biomes - but that's actually tangential to what I was talking about.

Even if we all agree that the forest should be the starting spawn point, that doesn't answer the question I posted in this thread.

What is the reason for progressing through these particular biomes? Would a different biome progression order make more sense?

I think I gave my reasons, so I won't repeat them here, but I'd love it if others gave their opinions. Perhaps I could make a mod out of it.

 

[Lax]

...What is the reason for progressing through these particular biomes? Would a different biome progression order make more sense?

I think I gave my reasons, so I won't repeat them here, but I'd love it if others gave their opinions. Perhaps I could make a mod out of it.

The biome needs to have a reason for visiting it. No reason, no visit. Here are the reasons why I visit the different biomes:

Pine Forest: Starting biome. Safety, easy plant resources and easy early game resources. (Water, food, cooking pot)

Burnt Forest: Maybe more abundant meat from hunting boars.

Desert: Yucca, Oil Shale

Snow Biome: Blueberries, snow, meat from hunting (wolf, deer, lion, bear), better gear from loot, higher XP kills, primary base setup

Wasteland: Better gear from loot, highest XP kills, end game base setup


Once I have what I need from that biome I usually don't plan to go back. I spend 80 - 95% of my play time in the Snow and Wasteland biomes. I spend the least time in the Burnt Forest. Once I have enough Yucca to plant and Oil Shale to produce fuel, I'm pretty much done with the desert.

If the other biomes had more appealing reasons to go back, I might revisit. But for now, I don't find them compelling at all.

 

[theFlu]

I do like you thinking there, nice post overall.

The "from hell to heaven" progression idea makes sense, but it's not the only route; the larger "hero's journey" can be "conquering hell and turning it to heaven" - taking over the wasteland and thriving there fits in that sense. Explorer spirit and whatnot. It does want for lore reasons atm, not sure how they're going to write it - or if they are.

Wasteland as the "main story boss site" could be a way. The bad guy lives there, so we need to go there. Why's the bad guy there? Technically there would be benefits from living in a ruthless environment .. castles are put on high ground not to just look nice from a distance, but to be hard to approach.

Radioactive wasteland though.. that does sound like a risk no-one would take, no glory in dying to cancer. Maybe his crew knows it's not actually radioactive (for the most part, at least). That way it would serve as natural intimidation without threat. Or perhaps they're just nuts, seen mad max one too many times "We're all dead anyway, you scared of a little radiation?"

Or of course we could go for the native tropes with a medicine man having all the cures, including to nuke-induced radiation.. but even I think that might be a tad lame.

It may have been "their homes" before the nuking, that could explain why they'd _want_ to be there, but the duke doesn't seem like a nostalgic guy...

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

Things like greenhouses or custom spawns are probably too much work to ask for.

Are they? Initial biome spawn sounds like an option in the settings menu to me. And why would requiring greenhouses in the snow biome be any harder than requiring dew collectors be unobstructed by anything overhead? Would someone complain they have to build one because they don't like building in the game? Sure, but who would care?

This game desperately needs depth and common sense, imo.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

What is the reason for progressing through these particular biomes? Would a different biome progression order make more sense?

No reason to think like TFP. Players should be able to go anywhere they wish in any order they like in an open world game but for the places they need to go to follow the story. I gather that's why there's an option to turn biome progression on and off. Hopefully, there will be one for traders soon as well.

As for story mode, I think it's fine as it is. We don't know the Duke's compound will necessarily be in the Wasteland. In fact, he may actually banish his people to it when he's decided they've screwed up. He's not a nice guy. The story doesn't have to follow a linear road through the biomes, either. It can, as in Subnautica, if the story is just intended to be a breadcrumb trail through the biomes.

 

[khzmusik]

Are they? Initial biome spawn sounds like an option in the settings menu to me. And why would requiring greenhouses in the snow biome be any harder than requiring dew collectors be unobstructed by anything overhead?

I think this was a miscommunication. Greenhouses imply that crops could only grow in certain temperatures, and this is not something that is in the game now, and is not easy to implement.

I should know, because it's something that I've been trying to mod in for a long time. Temperatures are easy to determine for blocks, but most of the temperature calculations have nothing to do with blocks - they're related to entities (specifically player entities). An example would be the (old) heat system. Player entities could be affected by heat-related conditions, such as whether they're indoors or wearing a specific mod. But blocks can't - for example, there's no game variable that shows whether a block is "indoors". Crops grow on blocks, not entities. Players could get anti-cold buffs from a campfire, or from being indoors; farm plots can't.

We don't know the Duke's compound will necessarily be in the Wasteland. In fact, he may actually banish his people to it when he's decided they've screwed up. He's not a nice guy. The story doesn't have to follow a linear road through the biomes, either. It can, as in Subnautica, if the story is just intended to be a breadcrumb trail through the biomes.

There is no indication that players need to go to the wasteland because the Duke "banishes" them to it. The game devs have made it clear that the wasteland is the end goal in the biome progression, and that the biome progression is a fundamental part of the story, not some kind of punishment.

Also, I wouldn't count on the 7D2D devs writing a subtle or human plot. They're simply not capable. This is not a diss, it's an acknowledgement of the fact that they haven't hired a dedicated writer, and only a dedicated writer could make their plot work. Hopefully that will change before the story is written and set in stone.

 

[khzmusik]

Once I have what I need from that biome I usually don't plan to go back.

This is unfortunate, and exactly the kind of thing that I think should be better.

Each biome should, IMHO, have a reason for its existence, even if you're at level 300 with all legendary tools, weapons, and armor.

My question is - how would the game make that happen?

 

[Kyoji]

I don't think putting restrictions on crops is the best idea. Perhaps different species of crops, but at the end of the day you will only force people out of unsustainable biomes and that doesn't seem like the thing that would make many happy as we just got done removing biome progression order and loot caps.

The burnt forest is where it is as it aesthetically looks similar to the wasteland. The progression starts the way it does because there wouldn't be a point in starting out fighting harder enemies in a harder biome and then move to safer and better biomes. It's reverse progression. You would have harder enemies to start and easier ones to finish. I agree with the logic, but for gameplay purposes I can't say I agree.

Also they could do bear skins such as polar bear, but mountain lions, etc. all live comfortably in colder weather. It's not Antartica, but a cold area in Arizona.

As far as things needed to further facilitate growing crops or general living I wouldn't be against it so long as it's reasonable.

Again, I appreciate the thought process, but disagree that it would make for a fun game.

Each biome should, IMHO, have a reason for its existence, even if you're at level 300 with all legendary tools, weapons, and armor.

My question is - how would the game make that happen?

Offer better visuals to start and more variety. It's nice to have a fancy can eating animation, but when I am looking at a ground texture that is ugly and repeating then it takes away from the enjoyment. I would think each biome needs it's own version of grass, plants, rocks, etc. For example wasteland with pools of radioactive water, mutated grass species, tinted rocks. The burnt forest should have a few scattered flaming trees (we already have flaming pipes), mounds of burnt flora/trees, trees with glowing red hot embers at the base of the tree, etc. Either way the general idea is to spruce up the world with more visual eye candy.

 

[Lax]

This is unfortunate, and exactly the kind of thing that I think should be better.

Each biome should, IMHO, have a reason for its existence, even if you're at level 300 with all legendary tools, weapons, and armor.

My question is - how would the game make that happen?

The key issue I believe is that the "reason for its existence" needs to be compelling/appealing to the player.

Why would I return to the Burnt Forest just to gather Nitrate when I can gather it in another biome while I'm also gathering iron?

Why would I hunt for boar there when I can hunt for deer, wolf, lion and bear in the Snow Biome?

What would make a biome like the Burnt Forest more appealing? It needs to possess something that I really desire, early game and possibly end game.

The things you need and want early game are obvious, but end game needs/wants are a challenge because by then you're really no longer surviving but thriving. That's usually when the game starts to feel somewhat boring/repetitive, less of a challenge and the time to start over kicks in.

Is there a compelling reason to keep playing once you have enough food, water, ammo, Dukes, Zed kills? Usually not.

I will say this: no matter how many times I play or how unfulfilling the end game becomes, I always seem to want to start over. The gameplay is compelling and unmatched by other games which keeps me coming back. Expand on that, incorporate that feeling into end game content and you'll have your solution.

 

[khzmusik]

The things you need and want early game are obvious, but end game needs/wants are a challenge because by then you're really no longer surviving but thriving. That's usually when the game starts to feel somewhat boring/repetitive, less of a challenge and the time to start over kicks in.

Is there a compelling reason to keep playing once you have enough food, water, ammo, Dukes, Zed kills? Usually not.

This is exactly the kind of things that I'm asking you all about.

How would you all feel this impacts how you play? For example, maybe there can be no chance to gather nitrate in the Burnt Forest biome. What does everyone think about this change? Does it make the game worse (more of a "grind") or better (more of a "progression)?

 

[Lax]

This is exactly the kind of things that I'm asking you all about.

How would you all feel this impacts how you play? For example, maybe there can be no chance to gather nitrate in the Burnt Forest biome. What does everyone think about this change? Does it make the game worse (more of a "grind") or better (more of a "progression)?

You could treat it like Oil Shale only found in the desert. But that doesn't fix the issue. Once I go there and mine enough of the stuff, I'm still not coming back to this place that doesn't appeal to me. After all, I only came here to get this. Now that I have it, there's really no need to stay or come back.

You need to come up with compelling reasons to keep a player coming back. Those brand new glowing mushrooms in the Wasteland that I can't grow and need to go back to pick more if I really want them?

Give me a decent food recipe for them that has an unmatched buff and I'll keep going back to collect more. Use that same kind of thinking for each biome and all biomes will suddenly become relevant, more appealing.

 

[Kyoji]

Without faster modes of transportation it would be hard to encourage players to visit every biome regularly. Biome spread is just too far for even Motorcyles. Perhaps Gyrocopters can traverse at a reasonable speed but that is very late game tech. Plus the way the world generates biomes in essentially boxes makes it even harder.

My amazing paint image attached showcases what biome generation that favors regular biome traversal may look like but then you might have the issues we had in the past with part of a city being in both the snow and forest biome as an example which obviously might break immersion.

 

[Lax]

Here's another example of making a biome more relevant:

Lately some people have been asking for fishing to be included in the game. I think I also saw it mentioned in the recent patch notes.

Ok, fishing gets added. Have several fishing spots but only certain fishing spots that can be found in the Pine Forest. Once caught, it can be used in a new food recipe with unique buffs.

Have the fish depleted after a certain amount of fishing, then allow them to respawn over time for more fishing. The biome has now become more appealing.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

I think this was a miscommunication. Greenhouses imply that crops could only grow in certain temperatures, and this is not something that is in the game now, and is not easy to implement.

Why would it have to rely on temperature and not simply indication of biome?

There is no indication that players need to go to the wasteland because the Duke "banishes" them to it. The game devs have made it clear that the wasteland is the end goal in the biome progression, and that the biome progression is a fundamental part of the story, not some kind of punishment.

That's a miscommunication. To clarify: we don't know the Duke's compound will be in the Wasteland. OP assumes it will be. (The banishing thing -- and not of the player -- is a what if. He might use for that and not necessarily live there.)

 

[Xacsis]

An Apology

Before I start, I just want to apologize about the length of this post. It's only because I've been thinking about the topic for a long time.

I know a lot of people won't make it through this post, and that's OK.

I have tried to make this comprehensible for people who actually want to think about this, but obviously YMMV. If your mileage doesn't vary then I'm OK with it.

About Biome Progression

The purpose of this post is not to question whether biome progression is necessary. Topics like loot caps or biome smoothies are off topic.

This post assumes that people should go through some kind of biome progression, however it is done. The post is considering which biomes should follow which other biomes.

Existing biomes

Forest biome

While it totally makes sense to start the player there, an argument could be made that this should be the destination biome for users. They start out in Hell and try to make their way into Heaven (metaphorically speaking).

It also does not make sense from a story point of view. The "big bad" is supposed to be a Native American. Native American traditions are connected to nature (I do not think it is controversial to say this, even among Native Americans).

Why would a Native American leader choose to rule from a desolated nuclear wasteland?

I don't want to dwell on this too much, because it goes against the general goals of a survival game, but I wanted to bring it up as something to think about.

Burnt Forest biome

This doesn't make sense as the second biome a player visits. This is supposed to be a desolated biome, where nothing survived because it was all burned to the ground.

If the goal is to survive, it should be a later stage biome.

Desert biome

Deserts in Arizona are harsh, but not so harsh that it should be harder to survive in them than in a biome where everything died by fire.

In reality deserts contain a lot of life. For an in-game example, this is the area where most rattlesnakes live, so it would make sense that in 7D2D snakes should spawn a lot here. Not in the burned forest biome.

As far as the game is concerned, many Native Americans live (and sometimes thrive) in desert environments. If the game is basing its survival upon Native American recipes or skill sets, then the desert is far more hospitable than the burnt forest.

Snow biome

What's interesting about the snow biome is that it is not all that different than the burnt forest biome in real life.

The game includes all kinds of animals there, and they probably shouldn't. The primary example is the bear. Except that bears hibernate in the winter, so if anything, bears should be absent from this biome.

That does not mean this should be an easy biome. Survival should be harder, not because of harder enemies, but because survival mechanics (dew collectors, farming crops, digging up clay) should be nerfed or even impossible here.

From a story point of view, if you're going to have NPCs here, make sure they're NPCs that the user can see are specifically designed to survive here (e.g. fur or pelt coats). The stereotypical Native American garb will not work for this.

Radioactive biome

I don't think anyone disagrees that this should be the most difficult biome. But what should be in it is controversial.

Since this is the hardest difficulty biome, surviving in it should be a chore. Everything should be radioactive. Maybe you should not be able to dig up clay soil in this biome, and digging only gives you useless (or worse) radioactive dirt. Dew collectors shouldn't work or should produce only radioactive water.

If there are animals, perhaps they should be animals that never give edible meat, like the zombie bear or dire wolf.

But this doesn't make sense from a story perspective. There is no reason that a Native American leader should choose the Wasteland as their home, and if you do away with that, then the story does not dictate going to the radioactive biome in order to finish it.

What I Advocate

This is how I, personally, think players should progress through biomes.

1. Forest biome. I have no objection to this biome. But, we have to keep in mind that we're starting the players in the most aesthetically pleasing biome, and that can often trump better weapons or equipment. From a story perspective, you'd probably want friendly Native Americans to live here.
2. Forest biome. It is easier - but not impossible - to grow crops in the desert. The temperature is extreme, but not so extreme that people cannot live there (yet). The animals attack but can be avoided. Native Americans can live here.
3. Snow biome. Most crops cannot grow here, they freeze. The temperature is extreme enough so you can't live there without protection - think Antarctica. There are lots of animals that can kill you (but not bears since they're hibernating).
4. Wasteland. You can't construct farm plots, because you can only dig up radioactive dirt. Temperature is often hot, but the biggest issue is radiation. Animals should all be zombies which give no usable meat. No Native American would ever step foot here.

Hope this makes sense to people, and thanks for listening.

A few things, seperated as it relates to your thread -

Forest - Why would someone want to be in the nuclear wasteland full of supplies, technology, resources, etc instead of the forest that lack those things in any amount considering that trading , making dukes, and power are the obvious things the big baddie cares about. That being said I would like it if we had a choice to flip things around or be able to dictate what biome is the "end game" biome. Personally, I leave the forest as soon as possible, skip the burnt forest, and go straight to the desert so I can get to snow as fast as possible.

Burnt forest - Makes perfect sense. Your assumption is wrong that nothing exists or it isn't worth going to for two main reasons -
1. Coal really as simple as that. Really, Charcoal but semantics.
2. From the ashes new life rises which creates fertile soil for growing and things like mushrooms to flourish...odd that.

Desert - From a survival aspect the Desert should be the 2nd hardest place to exist. The absence of water, high heat, venomous animals & insects. I will agree they need to have more snakes and it was a bit better when the desert was where you really found the vultures as it makes sense.

Winter - Bears enter more of a Torpor than hibernation and not all bears do this. They do this only when not disturbed and the food source is lacking. If we start including things like their main meals will be zombies, rotten flesh, and infection leading to zombie bears it doesn't make sense to assume Bears will naturally adhere to previously observed behaviors.

Wasteland - If we are assuming this is Nuclear Fallout than most of what you say wouldnt be accurate. Now if they added like Radioactive elements in the ground like Uranium than your concerns would make more sense.