Jump to content

Make Don't Starve Together replace Don't Starve.


Recommended Posts

It's simple.

 

Release TtA.

Soon after, port Shipwrecked.

Make the "Alone" game-mode an option at all times (why isn't this already a thing..?)

Change "Host Game" to "Start Game"

Rename Don't Starve Together to Don't Starve, or Don't Starve Stage 2. Something like that.

Boom, done. Now it's only one type of code, so mods don't have to be made twice, DLCs don't have to be made twice, single-player and multiplayer are an option...

 

And just like that, all of the fanbase is happy.

 

EDIT: So I missed a slight bit. Add the options to enable and disable DLC when starting a game. It would be denoted what DLC is enabled on each server, or you can play singleplayer with or without SW/RoG.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not letting me edit so:

Add options in the world gen to change each character from Classic to Together, with it defaulting to Classic on Alone mode.

And then it's perfect-o.

 

And before anyone claims it's about them losing money: DST was promised as a FREE update. Not a DLC, not a new game. It's a null point. But I'm all for paying for Shipwrecked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Developer
4 hours ago, jackakerman031 said:

is this going to happen

Probably not. Search the forums, there are plenty of past threads with users talking about how DST is NOT a viable replacement for single player DS for them. I think there was one about people worried we were going to abandon DS that had a bunch of posts along those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, nome said:

Probably not. Search the forums, there are plenty of past threads with users talking about how DST is NOT a viable replacement for single player DS for them. I think there was one about people worried we were going to abandon DS that had a bunch of posts along those lines.

but why not? its kind of damaging to your rep to promise a free update then charge full price of DS for this game. and it's not exactly a massive amount of work (besides SW, which can be done later. To a higher standard. I don't think anyone is at all pleased with how barebones it is, so scrapping it to be released later with more stuff is hardly going to piss everyone off)

 

and there's absolutely no reason it's not viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Developer
6 minutes ago, jackakerman031 said:

but why not?

Because it's not clearly what our users want? And because technically speaking we cannot solve some of the issues, like the increased resource demands of DST. A lot of our users have older computers.

8 minutes ago, jackakerman031 said:

its kind of damaging to your rep to promise a free update then charge full price of DS for this game

Everyone who bought DS before the DST launch got DST for free, I don't see how that's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nome said:

Because it's not clearly what our users want? And because technically speaking we cannot solve some of the issues, like the increased resource demands of DST. A lot of our users have older computers.

Everyone who bought DS before the DST launch got DST for free, I don't see how that's true.

And everyone who bought DS after the free update would have still gotten the update.

The alone gamemode can have patches for this stuff. It kind of seems like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons not to, honestly.

Alone can shut down the overworld to host the other worlds, instead of all at once, for example.

Your users didn't want it because it wouldn't be the same. With the ideas I am proposing, it is exactly what Klei promised, and everyone will be happy with it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that DST acts like a sequel to DS, I don't think there's need to merge it. Having SW as a DLC might have been the wiser choice (though because that became an after-thought many problems are still unsolved both integration related and unrelated), but having DS and DST seperate might be the better idea. Though, like myself, it would be cool to be able to link one's DS vanilla and RoG worlds (not SW integrated) within DST after building the portal or something in your world (or it would be Wilderness or some form of Custom mode if you didn't add a portal or something).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Developer
6 minutes ago, jackakerman031 said:

The alone gamemode can have patches for this stuff. It kind of seems like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons not to, honestly

Hey, we don't like maintaining both, and we certainly don't have both as some kind of cash grab. If you can convince everyone it's the right path _without making false claims_, we'd be happy to do it. But so far you're making promises that aren't true. For example, a lot of DS users' computers aren't able to run even the overworld in DST.

More constructively, if you're really sure this is easy, start working on a DST:Alone mod! There's very little you need C++ access for, so please prove us wrong. I for one would love to eat crow on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, nome said:

Hey, we don't like maintaining both, and we certainly don't have both as some kind of cash grab. If you can convince everyone it's the right path _without making false claims_, we'd be happy to do it. But so far you're making promises that aren't true. For example, a lot of DS users' computers aren't able to run even the overworld in DST.

More constructively, if you're really sure this is easy, start working on a DST:Alone mod! There's very little you need C++ access for, so please prove us wrong. I for one would love to eat crow on this.

What false claims?

I have no coding skills. Never claimed to. You and your team at Klei are amazing. These changes only make it easier for you with only one code base, and no porting DLCs and features. Is DST really that demanding compared to DS? Because it still runs better than Shipwrecked, so if we count that as DS, doesn't that make it a naught point?

It's not EASY, hence why I said get TtA out first. It's easiER in the long run, with only one code base for modders and devs alike.

I'm not trying to be rude, you're a legend, frankly.

EDIT:
Here's something you could do:

The owners of the original Don't Starve would keep it, under a different name. Like Don't Starve Classic, or something. They could get some unique Skin too. Then, no false promises, easier codebase, no porting DLC, and the fans of the original still keep it. How does that sound?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

Considering that DST acts like a sequel to DS, I don't think there's need to merge it. Having SW as a DLC might have been the wiser choice (though because that became an after-thought many problems are still unsolved both integration related and unrelated), but having DS and DST seperate might be the better idea. Though, like myself, it would be cool to be able to link one's DS vanilla and RoG worlds (not SW integrated) within DST after building the portal or something in your world (or it would be Wilderness or some form of Custom mode if you didn't add a portal or something).

But why not just make it one game like the original pitch?

Higher res items: Check

Extra features (TtA): Check

Easier for developers to maintain, such as @nome: Check

Easier for modders to well... mod: Check

Downside: Time.

So after Through the Ages, I think they should work on making DST replace DS and rename it to Don't Starve. DS could be kept as "Don't Starve Classic" in the original owner's library, and taken off sale. Shipwrecked should be sold at ~£8 rather than the original £4, and actually be finished and complete, with multiplayer aspects. Servers would have DLC marked on the server list, such as a photo of Warly cooking to denote that SW Is enabled. Maybe Walani's surfboard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, jackakerman031 said:

But why not just make it one game like the original pitch?

Higher res items: Check

Extra features (TtA): Check

Easier for developers to maintain, such as @nome: Check

Easier for modders to well... mod: Check

Downside: Time.

So after Through the Ages, I think they should work on making DST replace DS and rename it to Don't Starve. DS could be kept as "Don't Starve Classic" in the original owner's library, and taken off sale. Shipwrecked should be sold at ~£8 rather than the original £4, and actually be finished and complete, with multiplayer aspects. Servers would have DLC marked on the server list, such as a photo of Warly cooking to denote that SW Is enabled. Maybe Walani's surfboard.

 

1) Original pitch?

2) True...

3) True...

4) What Nome said >.>

5) Mmmm perhaps

6) The whole idea of a sequel game is there, so, because of this either DS or DST main theme would become obsolete and perhaps even Shipwrecked main theme too! The games are there as a prequel and a sequel. Yes, maintaining both is a trouble, but merging the two together at this point? For one, I'm not sure, but it might cause huge issues in the game functioning for one and two, "Don't Starve Classic" is just down-right absurd as it would be an entity that would still exist as an abandoned project that used to be the initial thing that players used to play on. Shipwrecked being ~£8 or so and being given more content, I would agree with, however. At this point, whilst refunding players for SW and having SW worlds or SW integrated world be inactive until the user purchases SW again would be pretty bad, so I don't think doing that would be a smart idea, but buffing the price higher whilst having it for the previous sale perhaps for a week or so could skyrocket the prices after some more content is added and then the thing being finished after some more time. @nome I hope you're reading this, because even if you have no relation to SW, many players, myself included want more content for SW and would be willing to pay some extra just for more content, so giving some nudge to other devs for after they implement TTA would be great... Oh, actually, perhaps; what if the price gets doubled, but you would get two copies of the SW DLC instead of one after some more content is added and finally a whole bunch is added?! That way others who payed just the ~£4 would not really get away with the lower price as they would only have one copy of the DLC. Might not be the best idea out there, but it's something to smoothen things out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and one thing I agree with you the DS SW this fully lagado on pc's that support a lot of games with better graphics and till now nothing fix for this to replace the ds by the dst and a half to play everything down the drain, and ignore the fact that the ds existed. " -the only I'm concerned about the abandonment of the klei with the Ds that I made to accompany the ds and dst for it to worry about the dst more and abandon the ds  I prefer to play something else :/ I was running down the back of the ds more to see that it doesn't help the answers are just: wait , wait , wait already I waited more to the dlc I go in February I think and look in that month are to send me to wait for the last hope that I have, and a day 2 that will come out for xbox and ps4 if not get out an update at least of optimization goodbye don't starve, sorry my English

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jackakerman031 said:

and there's absolutely no reason it's not viable.

 

2 hours ago, jackakerman031 said:

I have no coding skills. Never claimed to.

 

Then how do you know how it's not viable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

1) Original pitch?

2) True...

3) True...

4) What Nome said >.>

5) Mmmm perhaps

6) The whole idea of a sequel game is there, so, because of this either DS or DST main theme would become obsolete and perhaps even Shipwrecked main theme too! The games are there as a prequel and a sequel. Yes, maintaining both is a trouble, but merging the two together at this point? For one, I'm not sure, but it might cause huge issues in the game functioning for one and two, "Don't Starve Classic" is just down-right absurd as it would be an entity that would still exist as an abandoned project that used to be the initial thing that players used to play on. Shipwrecked being ~£8 or so and being given more content, I would agree with, however. At this point, whilst refunding players for SW and having SW worlds or SW integrated world be inactive until the user purchases SW again would be pretty bad, so I don't think doing that would be a smart idea, but buffing the price higher whilst having it for the previous sale perhaps for a week or so could skyrocket the prices after some more content is added and then the thing being finished after some more time. @nome I hope you're reading this, because even if you have no relation to SW, many players, myself included want more content for SW and would be willing to pay some extra just for more content... Oh, actually, perhaps; what if the price gets doubled, but you would get two copies of the SW DLC instead of one?! that way others who payed just the ~£4 would not really get away with the lower price as they would only have one copy of the DLC. Might not be the best idea out there, but it's something to smoothen things out.

A sequel of sorts is not a sequel. The lore would still carry on if it was an update. Your point is naught, as the normal lore would apply in Alone mode. Original pitch, meaning that DST was originally called a free update to DS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jackakerman031 said:

Logic is a crazy thing, man. They already have an Alone mode built in, but hide it away...

An alone mode with more health for monsters.

An alone mode with a different setting, lore wise speaking.

An alone mode that runs differently than single player, you setup servers and join them locally, instead of resuming other simulations.

An alone mode that is different from the alone mode created 3 years ago.

An alone mode with different mechanics.

6 minutes ago, jackakerman031 said:

And that's not mentioning the fact there are all the strings still left-over in the code to play single-player. Makes me doubt the "technical issues"...

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about because you have no coding skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DarkXero said:

An alone mode with more health for monsters.

An alone mode with a different setting, lore wise speaking.

An alone mode that runs differently than single player, you setup servers and join them locally, instead of resuming other simulations.

An alone mode that is different from the alone mode created 3 years ago.

An alone mode with different mechanics.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about because you have no coding skills.

Alone mode's mechanics are quite easy to code in via world-gen options that default to "Alone" when in Alone mode. Judging by your skills, you could actually do it...

 

But that's none of my business, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jackakerman031 said:

Alone mode's mechanics are quite easy to code in via world-gen options that default to "Alone" when in Alone mode. Judging by your skills, you could actually do it...

 

But that's none of my business, eh?

Again.

How. Do. You. Know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...