Marsh Giant : Rotfly

[ezjm]

This could be one giant or multiple smaller giants that spawn in the Marsh. They are more likely to spawn when you have lots of rot and manure in Spring or Summer, the same way Bearger spawns when you have more Beeboxes.

Rotflies are not incredibly strong, but they are fast and can apply a lot of nasty effects to your base/supplies.

Rotflies' attacks to you will cause any food you're carrying to have its 'days until spoil' reduced by 0.5

Rotflies disease (by touch) can be used on your ice boxes and slowly rot all the food. Using disease on bushes, saplings, grass, trees, or farms will cause them to become diseased. The effect does not come immediately, but after the Rotfly is 'infecting' the object for 5-10 seconds which can be interrupted by the player

Rotfly larva will spawn in the Marsh if you have lots of rot and/or manure stored in inventories and chests, and develop into Rotfly after 1 day if not killed. I think a good amount would be if you have over 100 combined rot and manure then they start spawning.

 

Possible Drops:

Rotgland - Can be used to make Rotsack: rots any perishable item in 1.5 days

                                                     Rotstone: 5 charges use on any spoilable item to make it 'fresh'/green

                                                     Rotserum: Remove disease from any plants: 10 uses

[DatShadowJK]

I like it, I also like the drop, it would help to make worthless seeds into rot, the main recipe for a booster shot

[DatShadowJK]

Or emergency flingo fuel/campfire fuel

[Ecu]

On 12/28/2016 at 7:09 PM, ezjm said:

Rotstone: Place in any fridge or inventory to slow rotting by 75%

No.  Fridges already reduce spoilage by a significant amount and currently food can be packaged to avoid spoiling all together (which mind you, I feel is broken).  So we don't need another spoilage reducer.

On 12/28/2016 at 7:09 PM, ezjm said:

Rotserum: Remove disease from any plants: 50 uses

Disease has a specific purpose of shaking up the base and slowly causing the decay of transplantable resources over time.  Allowing disease to be cured goes completely against this purpose.  As such, it would be inappropriate to add such a cure.

-----

I don't really mind a swamp-based giant being added, however, I think that it really needs to be reworked to avoid being another Bearger.  It really just doesn't feel uniquely swamp focused and instead just seems to be another base annoyance giant, which we already have Deerclops and Bearger, so adding another one really isn't needed.

[ezjm]

7 hours ago, Ecu said:

No.  Fridges already reduce spoilage by a significant amount and currently food can be packaged to avoid spoiling all together (which mind you, I feel is broken).  So we don't need another spoilage reducer.

Disease has a specific purpose of shaking up the base and slowly causing the decay of transplantable resources over time.  Allowing disease to be cured goes completely against this purpose.  As such, it would be inappropriate to add such a cure.

-----

I don't really mind a swamp-based giant being added, however, I think that it really needs to be reworked to avoid being another Bearger.  It really just doesn't feel uniquely swamp focused and instead just seems to be another base annoyance giant, which we already have Deerclops and Bearger, so adding another one really isn't needed.

 

I appreciate your input, but you really need to stop going around the forums telling people how the game is supposed to be played. I've only been here a couple months and i see you doing this in almost every topic. It's not a coincidence they all reply to you negatively.

Disease completely getting rid of some plants is fine, but having absolutely no way to get rid of it is antifun. The only similarity this has with Bearger is spawned by having a certain # of items and it affects your fridge. And how is a fly that rots and diseases things not swamp based? This is the type of reply i see you doing in other topics. Simply being against something just to be against it, even making things up to prove your point and convince people the game needs to be played a certain way.

[Diaboliko]

4 hours ago, ezjm said:

Disease completely getting rid of some plants is fine, but having absolutely no way to get rid of it is antifun.

Disable desease in world configuration menu.

4 hours ago, ezjm said:

11 hours ago, Ecu said:

No.  Fridges already reduce spoilage by a significant amount and currently food can be packaged to avoid spoiling all together (which mind you, I feel is broken).  So we don't need another spoilage reducer.

Disease has a specific purpose of shaking up the base and slowly causing the decay of transplantable resources over time.  Allowing disease to be cured goes completely against this purpose.  As such, it would be inappropriate to add such a cure.

-----

I don't really mind a swamp-based giant being added, however, I think that it really needs to be reworked to avoid being another Bearger.  It really just doesn't feel uniquely swamp focused and instead just seems to be another base annoyance giant, which we already have Deerclops and Bearger, so adding another one really isn't needed.

 

I appreciate your input, but you really need to stop going around the forums telling people how the game is supposed to be played. I've only been here a couple months and i see you doing this in almost every topic. It's not a coincidence they all reply to you negatively.

He is right and you are wrong. Explaining you why will create a ****storm moving towards you, so please don't ask why.

[ezjm]

7 minutes ago, Diaboliko said:

Disable desease in world configuration menu.

He is right and you are wrong. Explaining you why will create a ****storm moving towards you, so please don't ask why.

Suggestions and feedback is for exactly that. Going around and telling everyone their ideas are wrong because they're playing the game wrong is against the purpose, and this is exactly what he is doing. Some of it is legitimate reasons, but a lot of it is just telling them they're playing the game wrong.

If you guys have a very specific way you want to play the game, that's fine, don't try to force it on everyone else.

[Ecu]

59 minutes ago, ezjm said:

Suggestions and feedback is for exactly that. Going around and telling everyone their ideas are wrong because they're playing the game wrong is against the purpose, and this is exactly what he is doing. Some of it is legitimate reasons, but a lot of it is just telling them they're playing the game wrong.

If you guys have a very specific way you want to play the game, that's fine, don't try to force it on everyone else.

Except I'm not going around telling people their ideas are wrong because they are playing the game wrong.  What I'm doing is explaining that the game is not designed the way you wish it to be intentionally.  As such, this suggestion is out of place, given the current design.

You are definitely welcome to make suggestions here on the forum and I would never presume otherwise.  However, this is a forum for discussing suggestions.  As such, I am allowed to express my viewpoint on your suggestion and that's exactly what I've done.  If others disagreeing with you offends you, then perhaps you should not frequent a public forum (no offense intended).

[LadyD]

Just a remind to stay on topic and keep things friendly on the forums. If you can't agree- move on, its just a forum and we are all here to have fun and discuss the games we love. 

[imsomony]

I like this idea, especially how it starts out as larvae that grow into the Rotfly when left unattended. I would suggest having it be a Summer spawn, as currently there's not much incentive for people to stay above-ground in Summer. One thing though, I'd say have some other conditions to spawning aside from just the amount of rot/manure, as the boss could be easily forced into existence by players, rather than keeping with some of the randomness of Deerclops/Bearger.

Rotgland: I like the idea, and would say that some amount of these should be the only drops given. They can be used to craft the other items you suggested.

Rotsack: not sure I see much use for this, except in PVP... which unfortunately, the game isn't quite tuned for yet. What were your thought/ideas around making a sack that causes things to perish?

Rotstone: seems too OP with such an overall effect. Maybe instead of a stone, it's a single-use salve of some sort, and it can be applied to individual food items that are perishing to bump back the spoilage by a small percentage?

Rotserum: definitely like this one! I would suggest less uses (10?), and a requiring a high amount of glands (and other materials) in order to craft it. Having it too readily available and with so many uses basically negates the entire disease mechanic, and we don't want that - just something we can work for to try to balance it out a bit.

[Ecu]

On 1/11/2017 at 11:19 AM, imsomony said:

Rotserum: definitely like this one! I would suggest less uses (10?), and a requiring a high amount of glands (and other materials) in order to craft it. Having it too readily available and with so many uses basically negates the entire disease mechanic, and we don't want that - just something we can work for to try to balance it out a bit.

You cannot balance this item the way you suggest.  From everything I can tell, the disease mechanic is meant to intentionally shake up your base and slowly reduce easy access resources in the world.  Allowing for people to circumvent this, even via a boss drop, goes against the entire purpose of the mechanic.

In addition...If the item is made too costly to craft, then you won't be able to create enough to circumvent disease and essentially the item ends up worthless.  If you can craft enough to keep your crops stable, you've negated a intentionally added mechanic and might as well just turn disease off.

All in all, it just really isn't something that should be implemented.

[imsomony]

@Ecu look man, you're welcome to disagree and state your opinion just like the rest of us, but there isn't an official statement from Klei on this. They've always been open to hearing feedback and ideas on how certain mechanics can change, and nothing is set in stone until they say it is. And even then, no one knows what the future will hold (No Multiplayer, anyone?).

I don't think "turn it off" is an appropriate response to working with an in-game mechanic, and based on statements I've seen from Klei over the years, I believe they would agree. They don't want to hand you the answers on a silver platter, but they also don't want you to feel there's no way around certain features and to just abandon them. "Turn it off" can also be said to people who find difficulty with Summer or the Giants... a struggle they may be, but we're given tools to work with them *or* we can turn them off. We're discussing ways to work *with* a mechanic rather than erasing it from the game completely, as well as come up with ideas for some new in-game content.

Engage in the brainstorming process with us... suspend disbelief for a moment, and imagine a world where this Rotfly boss actually came to life in the game. How would you like to see it reworked? Is its current iteration too easy or overpowered? Can it be exploited? Will players just abandon fighting it entirely? What could be a balance change that offers up a degree of challenge, but still provides just enough reward that the boss won't be ignored completely? What could those rewards be, and how could players utilize them?

[Ecu]

14 hours ago, imsomony said:

@Ecu look man, you're welcome to disagree and state your opinion just like the rest of us, but there isn't an official statement from Klei on this. They've always been open to hearing feedback and ideas on how certain mechanics can change, and nothing is set in stone until they say it is. And even then, no one knows what the future will hold (No Multiplayer, anyone?).

I don't think "turn it off" is an appropriate response to working with an in-game mechanic, and based on statements I've seen from Klei over the years, I believe they would agree. They don't want to hand you the answers on a silver platter, but they also don't want you to feel there's no way around certain features and to just abandon them. "Turn it off" can also be said to people who find difficulty with Summer or the Giants... a struggle they may be, but we're given tools to work with them *or* we can turn them off. We're discussing ways to work *with* a mechanic rather than erasing it from the game completely, as well as come up with ideas for some new in-game content.

Engage in the brainstorming process with us... suspend disbelief for a moment, and imagine a world where this Rotfly boss actually came to life in the game. How would you like to see it reworked? Is its current iteration too easy or overpowered? Can it be exploited? Will players just abandon fighting it entirely? What could be a balance change that offers up a degree of challenge, but still provides just enough reward that the boss won't be ignored completely? What could those rewards be, and how could players utilize them?

The thing is that I don't have a feeling one way or another on a Rotfly boss.  I stated initially that I feel its current incarnation seems to be too similar to the Bearger, but that's about it on the boss itself.  I personally would rather see some form of tentacle boss come from the swamp, than a monster fly (especially when we already have Dragonfly), but I wouldn't really be opposed to it being implemented if it had reasonably unique mechanics and benefits for killing it.

The primary issue I contended in this suggestion is that the suggested drops just don't work effectively given the current design of the game.  Disease is an intentional mechanic to force you to recollect and eventually run out of transplantable resources.  Allowing you to circumvent said mechanic would make the mechanics purpose pointless.  This means that said item would have to be very limited, making it rather worthless to farm.  All in all a disease curing item is a bad item for the game, as it is currently designed.

Similarly, fridges already provide the reduced spoilage mechanic, while packaging currently halts spoilage all together.  So having a boss drop item that reduces spoilage doesn't end up being a very viable item either.

So, if you're asking me how I would like to see this reworked, if it was actually implemented exactly as suggested...I would say remove it.  I would likely personally mod the game to remove said boss from the game given it's suggested incarnation as I feel it does not fit well within the game as written.

This may come off as harsh, but I honestly don't see viability in this current design.  I'm not invested in wanting a Rotfly boss, either, so unless @ezjm feels like offering additional ideas for how to make such a creature work within the current game, I will only critique it based on the suggested implementation, which I obviously feel is poor.

[ezjm]

On 1/14/2017 at 1:36 AM, Ecu said:

This may come off as harsh, but I honestly don't see viability in this current design.  I'm not invested in wanting a Rotfly boss, either, so unless @ezjm feels like offering additional ideas for how to make such a creature work within the current game, I will only critique it based on the suggested implementation, which I obviously feel is poor.

People telling you how you come across and asking for legitimate criticism is not being offended. You could have written 'stupid idea' and accomplished the same thing as your wall of text, it seems you are the one who cannot handle criticism where you don't actually address anything I said but go into great lengths about how we're playing the game wrong. The majority of your actual points is 'Disease isn't meant to be countered', everything else is 'I don't like this' or 'you're playing the game wrong' If you have some real criticism that's fine, but majority of what you wrote isn't actual criticism.

Having a counter to disease does not make the disease mechanic pointless. If an aspect of difficulty in the game cannot be countered in any form, a majority of people would agree that's not fun. Also, the numbers I  mentioned are just rough figures, obviously they aren't exactly what would be in the game, but it's the mechanic behind them that is the point. I mention this because you say they are overpowered, but the mechanic itself is not overpowered with the right numbers.

[hkhm]

13 hours ago, ezjm said:

Having a counter to disease does not make the disease mechanic pointless.

this exactly. i like my game difficult so i leave it on, but i would like a way to cure my plants. i love gardening in real life and i don't just take a shovel to any diseased or infested plant i find. i treat it and help it recover.

with fire i like a way to put it out, with a flingo for example. with poisoning in sw: you can sweat it out or craft anti-venom. you have a choice. but with disease, as soon as it hits, your plant is done for. and you have to move fast or you will lose a lot more. i'd like the ability to make something to administer to help it recover, even if that would take a while. or perhaps you have to apply it before the disease is full-blown, so you have a window of opportunity. which means you can't just leave your base for days at a time, you need to be mindful of plant-health... just like in real life.

[halfrose]

@ezjm I like your idea of rotfly and I wanted to doodle something about it so here is my take on it

[ezjm]

8 hours ago, halfrose said:

@ezjm I like your idea of rotfly and I wanted to doodle something about it so here is my take on it

Very nice, thanks everyone who is having a constructive discussion on this

[imsomony]

Please, keep offering suggestions @ezjm and @hkhm. Some of us like this idea and are considering ways it could work within the current game state, as well as how it could work with future tweaks. Also, your doodle is awesome @halfrose.

 

@ezjm, just in case you missed my earlier thoughts and questions (I didn't call on you specifically during them),

I'd love to hear your further thoughts to expand on the idea of Rotfly and/or clarify. Lets keep going, and see if there's something solid here that we can come up with together. Doesn't mean Klei will implement it, but there's never any harm in brainstorming, and you never know, maybe it can help ping some of the creative minds there. I feel like you've come up with a good foundation here that meshes with some of the core aspects of the game. 

 

"No" is not an answer in technology or development...  "unlikely" or "possibly" or "yes" are. Don't let the dream die, lets see where we can go with this.

[Ecu]

On 1/16/2017 at 9:13 PM, ezjm said:

People telling you how you come across and asking for legitimate criticism is not being offended. You could have written 'stupid idea' and accomplished the same thing as your wall of text, it seems you are the one who cannot handle criticism where you don't actually address anything I said but go into great lengths about how we're playing the game wrong. The majority of your actual points is 'Disease isn't meant to be countered', everything else is 'I don't like this' or 'you're playing the game wrong' If you have some real criticism that's fine, but majority of what you wrote isn't actual criticism.

Having a counter to disease does not make the disease mechanic pointless. If an aspect of difficulty in the game cannot be countered in any form, a majority of people would agree that's not fun. Also, the numbers I  mentioned are just rough figures, obviously they aren't exactly what would be in the game, but it's the mechanic behind them that is the point. I mention this because you say they are overpowered, but the mechanic itself is not overpowered with the right numbers.

I am not sure where you get the idea that I feel you should play the game a specific way, as I've never stated such.  The game allows for modding and anyone can pretty much play the game however they wish.  However, that doesn't mean I feel that the way you wish to play the game is the way the game should be designed officially.

As for countering disease, it's entire purpose is to shake things up.  If you can counter this in a reasonably easy fashion, then the mechanic cannot actually do it's job and ends up rather pointless.  If you the means to counter it is too difficult, then it makes the counter not worth the effort and it itself becomes pointless.  There really isn't a sweet spot here and that is indeed the issue with disease cure mechanics, they go against the very mechanic disease achieves.

The game already has a sizable amount of content (at least around 30% of the items) that a majority of players never use.  As such, I feel hard pressed to support adding additional items to the game that either trivialize an intended mechanic or are too cumbersome to use that they don't generally see use.  That is why I don't support your items.

[Cryogen]

2 hours ago, Ecu said:

As for countering disease, it's entire purpose is to shake things up.  If you can counter this in a reasonably easy fashion, then the mechanic cannot actually do it's job and ends up rather pointless.  

I will give my opinion about this:

I'll have to admit you're right @Ecu, the disease mechanic is meant to "shake up" a player's gameplay. Always in need to have a maintenance and a careful and a well planned thought in order to survive the disease mechanic. But this is where your statement has its wrongs.

I'll question you about if you're giving both sides justice. Because I feel you're too inclined on that side and not even giving a chance of redemption on the other side. (This statement will somehow be personal) If you were to give a suggestion to someone's idea, the best answer you can give yourself to improve the suggestion are having both answers of every given side at the same time. Always at middle makes up the best formulated answer you can get.

Another thing, suggestions are always open up to improvements or ideas. Every suggestion requires a chance for improvement. It has potential to add depth and flavor  to the game.

 

[Ecu]

38 minutes ago, Cryogen said:

I will give my opinion about this:

I'll have to admit you're right @Ecu, the disease mechanic is meant to "shake up" a player's gameplay. Always in need to have a maintenance and a careful and a well planned thought in order to survive the disease mechanic. But this is where your statement has its wrongs.

I'll question you about if you're giving both sides justice. Because I feel you're too inclined on that side and not even giving a chance of redemption on the other side. (This statement will somehow be personal) If you were to give a suggestion to someone's idea, the best answer you can give yourself to improve the suggestion are having both answers of every given side at the same time. Always at middle makes up the best formulated answer you can get.

Another thing, suggestions are always open up to improvements or ideas. Every suggestion requires a chance for improvement. It has potential to add depth and flavor  to the game.

I have not shut down @ezjm's suggestion as a whole though and have specifically welcomed them to offer more refinement to the idea.  However, I've stated pretty thoroughly why disease cures cannot work effectively in the current design of the game.  If disease was to change, perhaps I would feel differently.  However, given how disease is designed, adding a cure would be counterproductive.

To be completely honest, I am not really on anyone's side.  I guess you could say I'm on the game's side as what I strive for when critiquing a design suggestion is what it would offer to the game.  This suggestion, as it is written, would be a poor design to implement given my understanding of the game and how the mechanics work.  If anyone has any other suggestions as to implementing the suggested creature concept, in a way that does work with the current design...by all means present them.

If not, I can only give my opinion based on how the design is currently presented.

----

P.S. - Didn't say this before, but really neat concept art.  Still a bit wary of adding another fly-like boss, but the concept art is rather awesome.

18 hours ago, halfrose said:

@ezjm I like your idea of rotfly and I wanted to doodle something about it so here is my take on it

 

[Cryogen]

17 minutes ago, Ecu said:

I have not shut down @ezjm's suggestion as a whole though and have specifically welcomed them to offer more refinement to the idea.  However, I've stated pretty thoroughly why disease cures cannot work effectively in the current design of the game.  If disease was to change, perhaps I would feel differently.  However, given how disease is designed, adding a cure would be counterproductive.

@Ecu. Thanks for the very concern about the suggestion, even though I didn't wanted to portray to you about shutting down his/her idea. Sorry for my part for the miscommunication about the message I wanted for you to read up. Well I'm not frustrated at you or anything about this and I appreciate but I do want you to have a new thought or the very least a new idea that you can sink into.

 

 

Note: @Arlesienne, you're scaring me with you're nearly yandere intentions by liking @Ecu's post on this thread. Getting up that weird feeling by looking at that tiny detail. (You don't need to reply and attack me @Arlesienne with your statements, I'm just noticing and please keep that to yourself. Thanks in my heart's desires.)

[halfrose]

I rush-ly animated it because I couldn't resist. This could be a mod honestly.

btw @Ecu , @imsomony and @ezjm, thanks!

[MoloMan]

11 minutes ago, halfrose said:

I rush-ly animated it because I couldn't resist. This could be a mod honestly.

btw @Ecu , @imsomony and @ezjm, thanks!

Creepy, ugly and disgusting... Fits perfectly! The art is brilliant!

[ezjm]

11 hours ago, Ecu said:

I am not sure where you get the idea that I feel you should play the game a specific way, as I've never stated such.  The game allows for modding and anyone can pretty much play the game however they wish.  However, that doesn't mean I feel that the way you wish to play the game is the way the game should be designed officially.

As for countering disease, it's entire purpose is to shake things up.  If you can counter this in a reasonably easy fashion, then the mechanic cannot actually do it's job and ends up rather pointless.  If you the means to counter it is too difficult, then it makes the counter not worth the effort and it itself becomes pointless.  There really isn't a sweet spot here and that is indeed the issue with disease cure mechanics, they go against the very mechanic disease achieves.

Okay if you're just going to repeat what you said in the last 3 posts please go elsewhere. You're not actually responding to anything I said you're just repeating the same things over and over. Please don't clog up this thread with spam.

You have not said why disease should not be countered, in fact you hardly give any explanations to the things you say, you just say 'that's how it should be' or 'wouldn't be viable' or 'isn't how the game is designed' with no explanation, PLEASE go elsewhere if you're not going to be constructive. In case you missed the parts where you don't explain yourself at all:

would be a poor design to implement given my understanding of the game and how the mechanics work

However, I've stated pretty thoroughly why disease cures cannot work effectively in the current design of the game.  If disease was to change, perhaps I would feel differently

Actually, you haven't stated anything thoroughly, you just keep saying disease isn't meant to be countered

" I don't really mind a swamp-based giant being added, however, I think that it really needs to be reworked to avoid being another Bearger "

I've already explained it only has minor similarities with Bearger and you keep repeating this over and over

" really isn't needed" " game is not designed the way you wish it to be intentionally this suggestion is out of place "

" I am not sure where you get the idea that I feel you should play the game a specific way, as I've never stated such "

Here's where YOU got offended that someone didn't accept your empty criticism blindly. Funny how you feel the need to repeat what you already said to new people posting to anyone who isn't agreeing with you

"  If others disagreeing with you offends you, then perhaps you should not frequent a public forum "

" This may come off as harsh, but I honestly don't see viability "

I have not shut down @ezjm's suggestion as a whole though and have specifically welcomed them to offer more refinement to the idea

Yet you keep repeating the same 2-3 reasons you think it wouldn't work over and over, even when we have arguments against it.

" You cannot balance this item the way you suggest. "

A mechanic being counterable does not make it pointless, quit repeating this over and over

" Allowing for people to circumvent this, even via a boss drop, goes against the entire purpose of the mechanic "

" All in all, it just really isn't something that should be implemented. "

" suggested drops just don't work effectively given the current design of the game "

" So, if you're asking me how I would like to see this reworked, if it was actually implemented exactly as suggested...I would say remove it. "

" I will only critique it based on the suggested implementation, which I obviously feel is poor. "

" The thing is that I don't have a feeling one way or another on a Rotfly boss "

Here you go repeating the same thing about disease for the 20th time

"trivialize an intended mechanic or are too cumbersome to use that they don't generally see use.  That is why I don't support your items"

 

The funny thing is, none of these are taken out of context, because most of your posts don't have content, you just repeat the same things over and over usually with no explanation