Balance Wes for DST

[Careless]

You intentionally ruin my percentage of winning/surviving by making a poor decision and you're going to somehow turn the blame to me?

 

There is nothing wrong with truth, you playing a clearly terrible character/hero/champion reduces my chances of winning/surviving significantly.

 

The point of the game is to WORK TOGETHER, it's not about you and you alone. DS, is for that.

 

 

[Careless]

If my friend got on as Wes to team up with me in PvP, I'd consider him a griefer. Also you can grief in PvP, which is why admins ban players who burn everything and destroy bases.

 

You understand destroying bases is part of the point of PVP in a survival game. The characters themselves will, usually, have little to no difference in 'real' abilities, you're basically just clicking hit. What does matter in DST PVP is destroying the other persons chances of survival. Destroying a base before winter for example.

 

So, again, if you want to protect your bases you must either get really good, or WORK TOGETHER.

 

But honestly saying that destroying bases and resources in DST/PVP is griefing is stupid.

[Trenix]

You understand destroying bases is part of the point of PVP in a survival game. The characters themselves will, usually, have little to no difference in 'real' abilities, you're basically just clicking hit. What does matter in DST PVP is destroying the other persons chances of survival. Destroying a base before winter for example.

 

So, again, if you want to protect your bases you must either get really good, or WORK TOGETHER.

 

But honestly saying that destroying bases and resources in DST/PVP is griefing is stupid.

 

It's considered griefing when it's too easy to do. Maybe I should of used "exploiting" instead.

 

The point of the game is to WORK TOGETHER, it's not about you and you alone. DS, is for that.

 

Yeah makes sense, except for Wilderness mode of course, but nice try.

 

That makes no sense. Better players do better than worse players regardless of the character they are using. Also, using Wes is not griefing.

 

Stop with the balance nonsense. Games are supposed to CHALLENGE people. Imagine if during sports games, hockey or basketball, they would stop constantly to "balance" the teams. That would be retarded.

 

The only things that should be balanced, and have been, are things that destroy the challenge of a single player game made multi-player, like Willow's lighter.

 

Why was it nerfed? Grief possibilities aside? ... Simple, if that lighter was unlimited you'd have absoutely no real reason to work with others.

 

Wes by his very nature must work with with others in this game.

Oh yeah? Games are supposed to be challenging? Okay, let me put a guy who's really good at sports but has a broken arm on a team and see what happens. We'll see how quick he'll get thrown off of the team because of he's literally crippling it from performing well. You see, now that's a much better analogy.

[Careless]

It's considered griefing when it's too easy to do. Maybe I should of used "exploiting" instead.

 

 

Yeah makes sense, except for Wilderness mode of course, but nice try.

 

Oh yeah? Games are supposed to be challenging? Okay, let me put a guy who's really good at sports but has a broken arm on a team and see what happens. We'll see how quick he'll get thrown off of the team because of he's literally crippling it from performing well. You see, now that's a much better analogy.

 

1. That's not what griefing means and it's not exploiting either because the game is designed that way, it's designed as a wilderness/rogue/survival game. If bases were invulnerable to destruction it would destroy the entire point of the game. Not making yourself an easy target for attack is also part of the strategy.

 

2. Still makes sense. If you find a person on your travels you can either try to work together or, make your lives harder still. Even in PVP it makes sense to form groups, if possible. If not you're going to die if someone else is in a group.

 

3. Yes games are supposed to be challenging, if not they would not be games. What you said is not even logical. Your choice is either to accept a Wes player as part of your group, or, not. If Wes is played by a strong player, you may have made the wrong choice of not working with him.

 

I want to play a game, not just click things mindlessly.

[Trenix]

1. That's not what griefing means and it's not exploiting either because the game is designed that way, it's designed as a wilderness/rogue/survival game. If bases were invulnerable to destruction it would destroy the entire point of the game. Not making yourself an easy target for attack is also part of the strategy.

 

Who said for bases to be invulnerable to destruction? I specifically said that it's too easy to destroy a base. A step from easy isn't invulnerable.

 

2. Still makes sense. If you find a person on your travels you can either try to work together or, make your lives harder still. Even in PVP it makes sense to form groups, if possible. If not you're going to die if someone else is in a group.

 

You went from saying "it's not about you and you alone" to "you can either try to work together or, make your lives harder". Make up your mind...

 

3. Yes games are supposed to be challenging, if not they would not be games. What you said is not even logical. Your choice is either to accept a Wes player as part of your group, or, not. If Wes is played by a strong player, you may have made the wrong choice of not working with him.

 

I want to play a game, not just click things mindlessly.

 

You not comprehending what I'm saying doesn't mean that it isn't logical. Wes is what you'd call "handicap mode". If you selecting him instead of another character, you're essentially hurting your team. Just like a handicapped player in real life (broken arm), he may be really good at the certain sport, but his disability will make him play far worse than if he wasn't disabled.

 

This challenge may be fun in singleplayer, but not in multiplayer where you're impacting other players. I'm sure that you may not care and find it fun, but others may be annoyed. It's just a overall terrible mechanic because you're working against your team rather than for it.

[Careless]

Who said for bases to be invulnerable to destruction? I specifically said that it's too easy to destroy a base. A step from easy isn't invulnerable.

 

 

You went from saying "it's not about you and you alone" to "you can either try to work together or, make your lives harder". Make up your mind...

 

 

You not comprehending what I'm saying doesn't mean that it isn't logical. Wes is what you'd call "handicap mode". If you selecting him instead of another character, you're essentially hurting your team. Just like a handicapped player in real life (broken arm), he may be really good at the certain sport, but his disability will make him play far worse than if he wasn't disabled.

 

This challenge may be fun in singleplayer, but not in multiplayer where you're impacting other players. I'm sure that you may not care and find it fun, but others may be annoyed. It's just a overall terrible mechanic because you're working against your team rather than for it.

 

1. Why should it be hard to destroy a base made out of rickety materials in a survival game?

 

2. lol wut?

 

3. What you said isn't logical to a game, it's not. Wes is designed for advanced players that want to challenge themselves. A good player playing Wes is still, always, going to be played better than a strong character played by a weak player.

 

4. If you're not getting annoyed by a game at some point, it's not a good game. Chess, Poker, Backgammon, classic games - all, extremely annoying at some point. That's why after hundreds or thousands of years (Chess) they're still around.

[Trenix]

1. Why should it be hard to destroy a base made out of rickety materials in a survival game?

 

Realism doesn't make for a good game. I want balance more than anything and for a new player to destroy hours of my hard work in a matter of seconds, is ridiculous.

 

2. lol wut?

 

First you said this game is not about playing alone, then you said it's about play alone or with someone else. Wilderness starts you out in the middle of nowhere and you might not find anyone until a few days in. Even when you do finally find someone, they might not even wanna team up with you, or even worse, they'll kill you. So wilderness mode proves that there is solo play at work in this game.

 

 

3. What you said isn't logical to a game, it's not. Wes is designed for advanced players that want to challenge themselves. A good player playing Wes is still, always, going to be played better than a strong character played by a weak player.

 

Playing Wes doesn't just challenge a single player anymore, now it's an entire team. I'll stop repeating myself now.

 

4. If you're not getting annoyed by a game at some point, it's not a good game. Chess, Poker, Backgammon, classic games - all, extremely annoying at some point. That's why after hundreds or thousands of years (Chess) they're still around.

 

They're not annoying games and they're still fun to this day. However those games are nothing like Don't Starve and the only resemblance they have to this game is that they're both games, that's all.

[Mysanthil]

3. What you said isn't logical to a game, it's not. Wes is designed for advanced players that want to challenge themselves. A good player playing Wes is still, always, going to be played better than a strong character played by a weak player.

 

I believe @Trenix is saying that a good player playing Wes is worse than that same player playing Wickerbottom or any other character. While that's true, I think Trenix is taking it to the extreme in saying that playing Wes at any time is griefing.

 

I see Wes' purpose as a challenge and fun. It adds extra challenge to the player/team/server when a Wes is present. This is a challenging game, why not have a challenging character? It's sorta (not really) like having your kid brother/sister on your sport-of-choice team. Sure, the kid will get kicked out of any professional team, but you're just mean if you kick them out of a for-fun friendly (but still competitive) game. And who knows, maybe that kid's a natural.

[Careless]

Realism doesn't make for a good game. I want balance more than anything and for a new player to destroy hours of my hard work in a matter of seconds, is ridiculous.

 

 

First you said this game is not about playing alone, then you said it's about play alone or with someone else. Wilderness starts you out in the middle of nowhere and you might not find anyone until a few days in. Even when you do finally find someone, they might not even wanna team up with you, or even worse, they'll kill you. So wilderness mode proves that there is solo play at work in this game.

 

 

 

Playing Wes doesn't just challenge a single player anymore, now it's an entire team. I'll stop repeating myself now.

 

 

They're not annoying games and they're still fun to this day. However those games are nothing like Don't Starve and the only resemblance they have to this game is that they're both games, that's all.

 

You want balance, what's not even about the torch ability? Since when did balance mean fair? That being said, I still think two server modes should exist PVP and a real PVE mode where you cannot simply find people and burn up their craftable items.

 

I said the game is not about YOU AND YOU ALONE. I then said "If you find a person on your travels you can either try to work together or, make your lives harder still." -- It's not a single player game, you're going to make it harder on yourself if you can't find a way to group with someone, even a Wes. Even in wilderness the monsters still have higher XP than on DS.

 

Wrong.

 

They're fun because you only win if you're better than the other player. An excellent DST player using Wes is still going to always be a more effective team-mate than a weak player playing any other character.