DoktorEnd

Why Are You Guys Quiet?

Recommended Posts

Roosev    787
On 18/05/2019 at 10:13 PM, Hell-met said:

seeing as how this thread is nothing but two users fellating eachother.

giphy.gif

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthTom    223
1 hour ago, Sketched_Philo said:

I'd argue that any forum fellating should remain public to keep posters attracted to the thread.

giphy.gif

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWY    1,515
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sketched_Philo said:

For a while I kept hearing about Wheeler being a mobile character but I didn't know what she looked like, so I assumed from the name that she was some kind of hedgehog/porcupine character.

...

pfft "wheeler"

is Wheeler a name tho?

it feels very weird.

Edited by MWY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 Da LOLs    1,703
2 hours ago, Crimson Chin said:

Solo play for DST needs to be a thing!

AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH YYYYYYYEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rellimarual    3,956
7 hours ago, Crimson Chin said:

I still don't understand why DST can't have a solo play option

There is an offline play option, but it can’t use skins and content like Wortox, which is how Klei monetizes DST and funds its continued development. The game needs to connect to their servers in order to verify that you own that stuff. This is where latency problems come in for those of us with poor Internet access even when playing alone

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rellimarual    3,956
9 hours ago, BeanBagSonic said:

I think what @Crimson Chin was saying, that you misunderstood, was that he wants DST to have a singleplayer option, or mode rather. Playing offline is not the same as playing singleplayer on DST, believe it or not. Going offline is a way of playing singleplayer, but not an officially implemented singleplayer mode. I believe that for new players, when hosting a server there's an option to set your server to Alone (alternatively setting player slots to 1) that the game recommends for all new players, though without proper mob, boss and mechanic tweaking for a singleplayer experience, new players could find themselves bumping into bosses more fit for raids and all that. To sum it up, a lot of DST's content is not singleplayer-friendly, and simply going offline won't solve the issue. As for skins not being able to be used, why should that matter? Skins are a cosmetic component in DST and have no effect on gameplay. This is not the case for Wortox, but this issue wouldn't be present if there was a proper singleplayer mode, which is what I believe is being brought up here

I do indeed understand this. It is Crimson Chin who does not because he claimed that a solo play option would eliminate the connection issues/lag. It would not, UNLESS you play offline:

On 5/20/2019 at 7:31 PM, Crimson Chin said:

I still don't understand why DST can't have a solo play option. It can't be that hard for Klei to scale mob HP and tweak things according to player count. This would solve the issue for everyone, you would be able to play with no connection issues (still solo unfortunately for you, since you enjoy multiplayer, curse lag!)

This is a separate issue from scaling the health of mobs, which is easily accomplished with the Health Adjust mod used by a lot of players when soloing DST or just playing with a very small group. That problem is trivial. It has already been solved. The latency problem has not and is one reason why some players prefer single-player.

Klei may not make much from skins, but they have been clear that the new DST content has to be funded somehow, which is why they are selling characters and skins. You may not care about such cosmetics, but lots and lots of people in the player base do. And now that some characters are purchasable and therefore can’t be used while playing offline, any solo players who do play offline to improve the game’s performance are having an even more diminished experience of the game. Adding caves— and I can’t imagine playing without them—makes it worse.

That’s my situation now, at least for the time being. DS is much more enjoyable to play because I don’t have to rely on a weak internet connection even when playing solo. DST having a “solo option” wouldn’t do anything to fix that. It’s not even a real issue! Lots of people play DST solo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rellimarual    3,956

Guys, I have 2000 hours in DST, which I have played for three years (with motion prediction turned off the whole time!), previously over broadband in a major metro area and recently via satellite internet in a rural area, with EXACTLY the same computer and settings. The difference is noticeable. The problem with lag playing solo DST has been a known issue for years, There must be two dozen threads about it in reddit alone going back to 2016, if you want to check there, but there have been many on Steam and these forums as well. Here is just one:

Once again, solo hosts DO lag. People have been observing and discussing this for a while.

2 hours ago, BeanBagSonic said:

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you listed a few issues about going offline, which is the current way to play singleplayer from what I understand, and now you're saying that playing singleplayer as it is (missing out on characters and cosmetics) isn't a real issue?

You’re confused because you’re mixing up DST solo play with “single-player,” a term longtime players use to refer to DS. I should not have assumed that you were familiar with that, and apologize if it was confusing. I sometimes forget that there are a lot of newer people on the forums these days.

Most people who play DST by themselves (solo) play online. Playing DST offline is pretty rare. DS (single-player) is always played offline, of course.

DST already has a solo option, in that you can play with a setting called Alone. That is not the same thing as “offline.” It’s two different settings. (People have been known to play DST offline with multiple players using an LAN.) You seem to be calling for a “solo option” of DST that would include SW and Hamlet content and that would scale the health of mobs and bosses according to the number of players. Would I have a problem with that? No. However, I don’t see why you think that this additional content and scaled health would fix my “weak internet connection issue.” That makes no sense at all.

In short, to fully enjoy all of DSTs content—including skins, skin drops, and purchased characters—the solo player must play online, and playing online presents performance issues (lag) for solo players who have poor internet connections, as has been widely acknowledged by the community for years. Playing offline might correct this (I don’t know because I don’t do it), but that means not being able to play with new characters like Wortox. I put up with the lag in order to have the full DST experience, but I also really enjoy how crisp and responsive DS is and that’s one reason why I prefer having it as an option. 

Finally, some background: Klei has been experimenting for a while with finding ways to monetize new content for DST. They don’t want to charge for DLCs because then people who haven’t bought the DLC wont be able to play with those who have, which would split the community. So they have been selling skins up to this point. The post you keep quoting is from a thread started after they offered for sale a set of seasonal skins for only some of the characters, and players complained on the forums about not getting a full set of skins at that price. So Joe is responding in irritation to demands that Klei produce more skins and charge less for them. Obviously, they must be making some money from skins or they would have bailed on that business model by now, but it also seems likely that they’re not making quite enough to support the amount of new content they’re releasing, so now they are selling characters. I hope this is more clear.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BeanBagSonic    108
8 hours ago, Rellimarual said:

Guys, I have 2000 hours in DST, which I have played for three years (with motion prediction turned off the whole time!), previously over broadband in a major metro area and recently via satellite internet in a rural area, with EXACTLY the same computer and settings. The difference is noticeable. The problem with lag playing solo DST has been a known issue for years, There must be two dozen threads about it in reddit alone going back to 2016, if you want to check there, but there have been many on Steam and these forums as well. Here is just one:

Thank you for providing a thread that talks about lag in DST hosted servers. Now, the problem with this is that it's talking about lag due to several factors that I've already said are not related to connection issues: Player slots are set to 4, not 1, mods like the minimap mod are causing lag, world coverage and object count, it being a dedicated server and not a solo hosted server, all of which are reasons that do not pertain to connection issues. As much as the linked thread helped explain the technicalities behind game lag and not connection issues, it has only supported my claims more so than yours.

9 hours ago, Rellimarual said:

You’re confused because you’re mixing up DST solo play with “single-player,” a term longtime players use to refer to DS. I should not have assumed that you were familiar with that, and apologize if it was confusing. I sometimes forget that there are a lot of newer people on the forums these days.

Most people who play DST by themselves (solo) play online. Playing DST offline is pretty rare. DS (single-player) is always played offline, of course.

DST already has a solo option, in that you can play with a setting called Alone. That is not the same thing as “offline.” It’s two different settings. (People have been known to play DST offline with multiple players using an LAN.) You seem to be calling for a “solo option” of DST that would include SW and Hamlet content and that would scale the health of mobs and bosses according to the number of players. Would I have a problem with that? No. However, I don’t see why you think that this additional content and scaled health would fix my “weak internet connection issue.” That makes no sense at all.

In short, to fully enjoy all of DSTs content—including skins, skin drops, and purchased characters—the solo player must play online, and playing online presents performance issues (lag) for solo players who have poor internet connections, as has been widely acknowledged by the community for years. Playing offline might correct this (I don’t know because I don’t do it), but that means not being able to play with new characters like Wortox. I put up with the lag in order to have the full DST experience, but I also really enjoy how crisp and responsive DS is and that’s one reason why I prefer having it as an option. 

2000 hours and longtime-player terms, weird flex but okay. It isn't the best thing to assume that all new forumers are also new players. Now, apology accepted, but I believe you're mixing up your own statements and reformulating them on the spot, which is natural for people to do, but it doesn't help when trying to discuss core matters.

Most of what you've said here is omitting the basics that I have already covered. I wouldn't say I'm "calling for" rather than expressing an idea that if SW and HAM were included in DST, which admittedly isn't part of the singleplayer mode we're discussing, just a means of enriching the game since DST has a lot of potential, it would make DST an even greater game. The singleplayer mode proposal would not be meshed with content updates like SW and HAM, so that's just misinterpretation on your part. A singleplayer mode that follows the guidelines I had stated before but with scaled health for mobs and mechanics that are adjusted for a friendlier singleplayer experience would be more fair to solo players and it would actually help your "connection issues." To address your misinterpretations though, no, adding SW and HAM content that wouldn't be scaled towards the singleplayer mode proposal would not fix your "weak internet connection issues" as I have never explicitly stated that it would.

The last paragraph is repeating that hosts lag, but if you follow the guidelines that I had previously stated, you should not under normal circumstances be experiencing any lag. No UI mods, no player slots greater than 1, world coverage and object count being taken into consideration, there's more to game lag than connection issues, and I'm trying to tell you that it may be one of those factors since under normal circumstances, one shouldn't be lagging if they are their own host in their own non-dedicated world using their own bandwidth. DS being as crisp and responsive as you say it is is debatable. DS uses and older, dated and less refined engine than DST does, and it excludes a few mechanics that ultimately make DST a more enjoyable experience, also, both games are the exact same with little to no difference, save for SW and HAM, but even those DLCs are isolated content. Basically, having DS and DST exist is redundant and also confusing for new players who want to get into the game. Centralizing DST, since it already is the game that has more sales, would be a better business move and my proposed singleplayer mode would remedy your "connection issues."

9 hours ago, Rellimarual said:

Finally, some background: Klei has been experimenting for a while with finding ways to monetize new content for DST. They don’t want to charge for DLCs because then people who haven’t bought the DLC wont be able to play with those who have, which would split the community. So they have been selling skins up to this point. The post you keep quoting is from a thread started after they offered for sale a set of seasonal skins for only some of the characters, and players complained on the forums about not getting a full set of skins at that price. So Joe is responding in irritation to demands that Klei produce more skins and charge less for them. Obviously, they must be making some money from skins or they would have bailed on that business model by now, but it also seems likely that they’re not making quite enough to support the amount of new content they’re releasing, so now they are selling characters. I hope this is more clear.

I'm not sure how valid your background claims are, considering that you're not a developer, but I'll cover it anyway. I've read and heard that Klei doesn't want to charge for DLCs, I got that. They sell skins now, and the post that I've only quoted once (kind of unnecessary to say that I "keep" quoting it) is that they don't make much money off of skins. I do apologize for saying this, but you're recounting and summarizing a story that I'm already aware of, so it's a lot of fluff that I unfortunately have to skim through because it does not pertain to the topic at hand. I do appreciate the summary though, but it hasn't helped me in however way you wanted to to help, but I could say that firstly, they have been making some money on skins, sure, but not enough. In a sense, they sort of are "bailing" on the business model, or at least not focusing exclusively on said business model. Yes, they are selling characters now. Is it making them enough money? I'm not sure, and debatably character DLCs can also split the community, so the whole DLC distribution and community splitting is a matter of walking on thin ice, since even smaller DLCs like character ones also separate those who do have the character from those who don't, and as a result don't get to experience the (overpowered at the moment) perks of the paid characters, which at least can be weaved with spools, but then how many players are buying characters as opposed to weaving them? Sorry to say, but a lot isn't actually clear, and it's almost never a case of black-and-white, but that's why we have the forums; we can hopefully discuss our uncertainties with each other and try our best to clarify some aspects of a topic. In my opinion though, we're trying to cover a lot of topics and sub-topics without clarifying other variables, which leads to puzzles rather than posts. Hopefully we can separate individual topics and sub-topics that we are not clear about, and focus on those only, though I have my doubts about that since we seem to be deep into the main topic and its sub-topics that it would need new threads on its own to cover all bases.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pe5e    28
On 21.5.2019 at 1:31 AM, Crimson Chin said:

I still don't understand why DST can't have a solo play option.

Nobody has to miss out! This issue doesn't have to exist! Solo play for DST needs to be a thing!

Like I said in the other thread, this is just ludacris and assumes that DST is simply DS with multiplayer aspect. It is clearly not! DST has the same basics and that is about it. Even without DS DLCs there is still a lot of differences. It would be very hard if not impossible to combine both into one game without sacrificing a lot of stuff. Like world hopping, 3 different world themes and the list goes on. But of course some people would rather talk about such an utopian DST dream in which everybody is happy, there is free ice cream and wouldnt it all be nice?

Let me tell you again: Not everyone would enjoy this! Since DS > DST single player in just about every way, only people who enjoy multiplayer game play would enjoy this change. So lets not **** over a large portion of the single player base for this nonsense. Really, what is the problem anyway with having a game for solo play and one for multiplay? That "problem" seems to laughably small in comparision to what such a drastic change would create.

Keep DST and DS seperated! If you are instered in both games then simply buy both! They are both laughably cheap for such huge games with such depth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BeanBagSonic    108
1 hour ago, pe5e said:

Like I said in the other thread, this is just ludacris and assumes that DST is simply DS with multiplayer aspect. It is clearly not! DST has the same basics and that is about it. Even without DS DLCs there is still a lot of differences. It would be very hard if not impossible to combine both into one game without sacrificing a lot of stuff. Like world hopping, 3 different world themes and the list goes on. But of course some people would rather talk about such an utopian DST dream in which everybody is happy, there is free ice cream and wouldnt it all be nice?

Woah woah woah, let's settle down here. I did take the liberty of looking into what other thread you mentioned, and as much as I'd love to address the points you made there too, I would very much like to avoid juggling multiple threads. Despite your stance on DS and DST, they are actually the same game, from art style to mechanics to gameplay to general dynamic and so on so forth. DS is an out-of-date DST, with dated mechanics that have since been fixed/tweaked for a more fluent experience. Take for example the inability to attack-cancel, since that's a major complaint I've seen when comparing the two. DST essentially fixes that problem, and has also fixed other issues like bees having more range than they should (though I would debate that their range in DST is almost a bit too small, but then you have treeguards who have had short hit range for a very long time). DS DLC does make the difference, and even then at the core of each DLC, the gameplay is the same but with varied flora and fauna. Now, I don't mean to be rude in any way, but I'll have to call you out on the rather short list you've provided. Yes, DST is missing world-hopping and 3 different world themes (which arguably can be incorporated into DST's world without the HAM or SW assets being hamfisted into the world and sticking out like a sore thumb), but then you say the list goes on, to which I'd have to ask how so? You immediately cut your list short by claiming that @Crimson Chin is on a "high horse" holding an "arrogant" and "utopian" standpoint, asking if the DST dream would be nice. The way you're saying everyone would be happy, sure, it sounds nice. Why wouldn't it be? Anyway, by throwing such claims at Crimson Chin, you're also mounting your own high horse and calling him out so adamantly on something he is not and justify those claims simply by your say-so.

2 hours ago, pe5e said:

Let me tell you again: Not everyone would enjoy this! Since DS > DST single player in just about every way, only people who enjoy multiplayer game play would enjoy this change. So lets not **** over a large portion of the single player base for this nonsense. Really, what is the problem anyway with having a game for solo play and one for multiplay? That "problem" seems to laughably small in comparision to what such a drastic change would create.

That general statement could apply to absolutely anything and everything, to say that "not everyone would enjoy X" is such a broad statement that it holds no power in your statement. It is true that there will be people who will not enjoy something, and that's unavoidable. Now, I'm not sure if I would agree with DS being better than DST, even in its singleplayer aspect. I have already mentioned DS's dated engine, and to be honest, it's quite off-putting. Also, if we're talking about a singleplayer change in a multiplayer game, wouldn't such a change centered around singleplayer appeal to those who play singleplayer? Please refrain from swearing, even if you do censor it, as it does not strengthen your points in any way, it merely comes off as immature and impulsive. No one is belittling a large portion of the single player base, and the requested change isn't "nonsense" as you claim. The problem is that both games are the same. That's the major issue. Two copies of the same game are being sold, with little difference between the two. Brief example, show some gameplay images of both games to your friend who doesn't know about the game. Would they be able to tell the difference? The problem isn't laughable in any manner. Either that, or I don't see the humour behind wasting money on two copies of the same game.

2 hours ago, pe5e said:

Keep DST and DS seperated! If you are instered in both games then simply buy both! They are both laughably cheap for such huge games with such depth.

This is almost a bogus statement with so much inconsideration, sorry to say. Firstly, "laughably cheap" for you can be "terribly expensive" for another individual. I would never jump to the conclusion that a game is so cheap that anyone can pick it up, that is simply untrue. Secondly, they are actually quite short games once you realize the game's main objective, and many have argued that the game is quite repetitive and there isn't much to do after X or Y has been done. Essentially, this last line of yours is heavily subjective for each person, and to jump the gun and say "it's cheap and it's a huge game" is an overstatement.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pe5e    28
12 minutes ago, BeanBagSonic said:

Woah woah woah, let's settle down here. I did take the liberty of looking into what other thread you mentioned, and as much as I'd love to address the points you made there too, I would very much like to avoid juggling multiple threads. Despite your stance on DS and DST, they are actually the same game, from art style to mechanics to gameplay to general dynamic and so on so forth. DS is an out-of-date DST, with dated mechanics that have since been fixed/tweaked for a more fluent experience. Take for example the inability to attack-cancel, since that's a major complaint I've seen when comparing the two. DST essentially fixes that problem, and has also fixed other issues like bees having more range than they should (though I would debate that their range in DST is almost a bit too small, but then you have treeguards who have had short hit range for a very long time). DS DLC does make the difference, and even then at the core of each DLC, the gameplay is the same but with varied flora and fauna. Now, I don't mean to be rude in any way, but I'll have to call you out on the rather short list you've provided. Yes, DST is missing world-hopping and 3 different world themes (which arguably can be incorporated into DST's world without the HAM or SW assets being hamfisted into the world and sticking out like a sore thumb), but then you say the list goes on, to which I'd have to ask how so? You immediately cut your list short by claiming that @Crimson Chin is on a "high horse" holding an "arrogant" and "utopian" standpoint, asking if the DST dream would be nice. The way you're saying everyone would be happy, sure, it sounds nice. Why wouldn't it be? Anyway, by throwing such claims at Crimson Chin, you're also mounting your own high horse and calling him out so adamantly on something he is not and justify those claims simply by your say-so.

That general statement could apply to absolutely anything and everything, to say that "not everyone would enjoy X" is such a broad statement that it holds no power in your statement. It is true that there will be people who will not enjoy something, and that's unavoidable.

I am sorry but I cant see how they are the same game, when 2 DLCs exist with entirely different stuff that DST doesnt have, jumping through multiple worlds, adventure mode, more than one cave, multi-world game play and so on. As I already said their basics are the same but beyond that they arent very alike. Even ROG alone is quite a bit different to DST because of all the updates to DST over the years. Bosses where added and changed, different mechanics like the sandstorm and so on. That sounds quite different to me. 
Obviously DS has some QoL problems and I am personally sad that Klei didnt adress those in the QoL update back then but that still doesnt mean that DS is a "lesser" game and that support for it should be stopped. Those are quite harsh statements to players that only play singleplayer. Not to mention that DST has some problems of its own and some changes to mobs and mechanics were at least controversial, some to me even bad.
I didnt think I needed to name more than 3 but see above for more differences between the games.

The reason I said it is an utopian view is because it seem very very difficult if not impossibe to me to merge single player and multiplayer along with 2 DLCs into one game without having to sacrifice a lot. That would annoy a lot of people who liked those and I just dont see the benefit in that huge change that would take ages to programm and balance when one could just buy both games. And if it is just multiplayer hamlet and SW that is wanted then there are already mods for that.

I am not sure if @Crimson Chin wanted to come off as such. But even you say that one shouldnt make broad statements. When he then says that "everyone will be happy with this" and "this will work out better for Klei" without giving much reasoning if any for it, then to me that at least sounds arrogant or at least naive. I even asked him in the other thread if he could explain his views, but nope. And he is simply repeating those statements in multiple threads. If he at least explains it than we can work out where we stand and find a middle ground but this just seems off to me.

12 minutes ago, BeanBagSonic said:

Now, I'm not sure if I would agree with DS being better than DST, even in its singleplayer aspect. I have already mentioned DS's dated engine, and to be honest, it's quite off-putting. Also, if we're talking about a singleplayer change in a multiplayer game, wouldn't such a change centered around singleplayer appeal to those who play singleplayer?

I can see at least that it is a subject of opionion but to me at least it CURRENTLY seems very hard to favour DST solo play over DS. Are those small QoL things really that much of a problem to you that you would rather create a completly new singleplayer aspect for DST? That seems excessive to me. I would also appreciate it if you could name some of those since I asked @Crimson Chin the same and he didnt give me a reply to this.

12 minutes ago, BeanBagSonic said:

No one is belittling a large portion of the single player base, and the requested change isn't "nonsense" as you claim. The problem is that both games are the same. That's the major issue. Two copies of the same game are being sold, with little difference between the two. Brief example, show some gameplay images of both games to your friend who doesn't know about the game. Would they be able to tell the difference? The problem isn't laughable in any manner. Either that, or I don't see the humour behind wasting money on two copies of the same game.

This is the crux between our disagreement. Because of the reasons mentioned above they arent the same game to me and every time a new player on reddit asks what the difference between the games is, ussually the answer is a big paragraph. Since they are so different to me, I dont see how this DST solo play option would be a good option and no one has given me a good answer yet why 2 games dont work. I am also quite sure if I show someone SW gameplay and then DST game play with multiple people that they could tell me if they are the same game.

12 minutes ago, BeanBagSonic said:

This is almost a bogus statement with so much inconsideration, sorry to say. Firstly, "laughably cheap" for you can be "terribly expensive" for another individual. I would never jump to the conclusion that a game is so cheap that anyone can pick it up, that is simply untrue. Secondly, they are actually quite short games once you realize the game's main objective, and many have argued that the game is quite repetitive and there isn't much to do after X or Y has been done. Essentially, this last line of yours is heavily subjective for each person, and to jump the gun and say "it's cheap and it's a huge game" is an overstatement.

For the content in both games they are very cheap and I really dont think one should complain about the price here. Dont try to make it sound like I said anything like that! I never said it is cheap for anyone, but come on. 8€ for DS and 15€ for DST is pretty low when you consinder that DS without any DLCs takes about 15 hours at least to survive one year and you can add another 10 to 20 hours on top of that if you consider going into the ruins or adventure mode to truly see all content in the game. That sounds to me like enough of game time for 8€... Any DLC which are also cheap then add another 10 or so hours on top of that.

Of course DS isnt for anybody but than just look for something else. Being down on the game because it wasnt your taste seems odd. It is quite well made and stands out among survial games. It is true that you can reach a point where you run out of stuff to do, but this is the nature of a sandbox. Simular to minecraft you have to find your own entertainment after you done the survial part of DS. If you dont want to then that is also fine.

I dont think I made an outrages statement that DS and DST are worth buying. Or are you saying theay are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crimson Chin    165
2 minutes ago, pe5e said:

I am sorry but I cant see how they are the same game, when 2 DLCs exist with entirely different stuff that DST doesnt have, jumping through multiple worlds, adventure mode, more than one cave, multi-world game play and so on. As I already said their basics are the same but beyond that they arent very alike. Even ROG alone is quite a bit different to DST because of all the updates to DST over the years. Bosses where added and changed, different mechanics like the sandstorm and so on. That sounds quite different to me. 
Obviously DS has some QoL problems and I am personally sad that Klei didnt adress those in the QoL update back then but that still doesnt mean that DS is a "lesser" game and that support for it should be stopped. Those are quite harsh statements to players that only play singleplayer. Not to mention that DST has some problems of its own and some changes to mobs and mechanics were at least controversial, some to me even bad.
I didnt think I needed to name more than 3 but see above for more differences between the games.

They are the same game. The DLCs are separate and like I said could exist without Don't Starve single player just fine on DST. The things you listed here are so trivial, this is like saying I could release a game and update it then release an older version of that game and call them separate games. Are you really saying that things like moving dragonfly, having a different cave system, and other minor features like adventure mode make the games completely different? @BeanBagSonic made a great point, you would absolutely not be able to tell the difference between the two games if you compared two pictures of them. So no, these don't sound quite different to me.

I still can't understand why you think this will hurt people's singleplayer experience. DST gets content that singleplayer will never receive, like character reworks. They have already given up on updating the base game it seems, that's why it makes even less sense to keep adding DLCs that would work just fine on DST to DS. This would allow everyone to enjoy the same content the way they want to.

9 minutes ago, pe5e said:

The reason I said it is an utopian view is because it seem very very difficult if not impossibe to me to merge single player and multiplayer along with 2 DLCs into one game without having to sacrifice a lot. That would annoy a lot of people who liked those and I just dont see the benefit in that huge change that would take ages to programm and balance when one could just buy both games. And if it is just multiplayer hamlet and SW that is wanted then there are already mods for that.

I guess we will just have to disagree here. I do believe it would be worth porting the DLCs over, but I already said I understand they are already finished and porting them over now would be an unreasonable thing to ask for.. Ah geez I feel like I'm repeating the same thing over and over again. I just can't see how me requesting to not have to own a separate game JUST TO HAVE AN ENJOYABLE SINGLE PLAYER EXPERIENCE is anything close to a utopia! Very few games split apart like this to be multiplayer and single player! I know you think that is silly for some reason, but I just can't understand why. Merging the games now might be more difficult sure, but stopping development on single player and making DST essentially the ultimate Don't Starve experience... is really not. I can name you a thousand games that have added multiplayer without splitting into two separate games. And your not a game dev and neither am I, who are we to say something like this would take ages. It would take work of course, but this work would be worth it.

16 minutes ago, pe5e said:

I am not sure if @Crimson Chin wanted to come off as such. But even you say that one shouldnt make broad statements. When he then says that "everyone will be happy with this" and "this will work out better for Klei" without giving much reasoning if any for it, then to me that at least sounds arrogant or at least naive. I even asked him in the other thread if he could explain his views, but nope. And he is simply repeating those statements in multiple threads. If he at least explains it than we can work out where we stand and find a middle ground but this just seems off to me.

I apologize, I understand saying "Everyone would be happy" as if absolutely every living soul would be pleased, is just not true, but I do not see how this would upset many people. You keep saying I didn't explain myself in those threads, but I have. Anyways, people could play the same content as everyone else, alone or together. There is already an ugly split between the community. Since DST is not solo play friendly, of course players have to go to DS if they don't like multiplayer. These players miss out on all of DST's new content. And since DS doesn't have multiplayer people get upset that they can not play Hamlet or SW online, and on the better game engine. These issues are silly and unnecessary.

I have already explained multiple reasons why I believe this would benefit klei in the other thread you responded me to in. I suppose I can repeat myself again. DS has a much smaller player base than DST. DST gets so much more traffic and has much more potential to make Klei money. I think maybe looking at things in long run could help you understand what I'm saying. Lets say Klei released Hamlet for DST, rather than just out right charging for it they could have released it a long side a skin pack. Now the skins will directly make them money, but the massive content that Hamlet contains would keep players coming back and bring new players in. These players would keep playing and keep the game alive. This would benefit them even more in the long run. Hahahahahaahahaha well not that Hamlet is the best example, as literally anything besides what they actually did would have made them more money (12k copies for free). Also, like it or not, multiplayer is a big selling point to a lot of people. That's just how it is right now, I get that leads to some ugly situations in other games, but why is that a bad thing if this multiplayer isn't hurting the solo experience? 

26 minutes ago, pe5e said:

I can see at least that it is a subject of opionion but to me at least it CURRENTLY seems very hard to favour DST solo play over DS. Are those small QoL things really that much of a problem to you that you would rather create a completly new singleplayer aspect for DST? That seems excessive to me. I would also appreciate it if you could name some of those since I asked @Crimson Chin the same and he didnt give me a reply to this.

Don't you think that its a bit excessive that I have to own a separate version of the same game just to play single player? Anyways I'm doing that now, but I haven't replied to you because believe it or not I can not be on the forums 24/7, and have been busy doing other things.

31 minutes ago, pe5e said:

This is the crux between our disagreement. Because of the reasons mentioned above they arent the same game to me and every time a new player on reddit asks what the difference between the games is, ussually the answer is a big paragraph. Since they are so different to me, I dont see how this DST solo play option would be a good option and no one has given me a good answer yet why 2 games dont work. I am also quite sure if I show someone SW gameplay and then DST game play with multiple people that they could tell me if they are the same game.

There has been various reasons listed by others and myself on this thread & the other one. And no, if someone unfamiliar with this situation saw SW gameplay and some gameplay of DST, it would still be very difficult to tell that these are not the same games. They are the same game, they share the same art style, basic mechanics, and only differ due to multiplayer and in the long run those other very minor differences you listed.

35 minutes ago, pe5e said:

For the content in both games they are very cheap and I really dont think one should complain about the price here. Dont try to make it sound like I said anything like that! I never said it is cheap for anyone, but come on. 8€ for DS and 15€ for DST is pretty low when you consinder that DS without any DLCs takes about 15 hours at least to survive one year and you can add another 10 to 20 hours on top of that if you consider going into the ruins or adventure mode to truly see all content in the game. That sounds to me like enough of game time for 8€... Any DLC which are also cheap then add another 10 or so hours on top of that.

But, I shouldn't have to spend 15 dollars to play Don't Starve alone on the older and less refined engine.

36 minutes ago, pe5e said:

Of course DS isnt for anybody but than just look for something else. Being down on the game because it wasnt your taste seems odd. It is quite well made and stands out among survial games. It is true that you can reach a point where you run out of stuff to do, but this is the nature of a sandbox. Simular to minecraft you have to find your own entertainment after you done the survial part of DS. If you dont want to then that is also fine.

I dont think I made an outrages statement that DS and DST are worth buying. Or are you saying theay are?

Hey there is a game that has multiplayer and singleplayer on the same game. Minecraft didn't completely split up and make a separate game to allow for multiplayer. A better example if you want one is Stardew Valley. When he decided that he wanted to implement multiplayer he didn't create a standalone version of the game and then release different content updates on each one. DS's situation happens very rarely in games. I understand why they made the decision to do so, but treating them like they are different games is silly for the various reasons that have been stated. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BeanBagSonic    108
58 minutes ago, pe5e said:

I am sorry but I cant see how they are the same game, when 2 DLCs exist with entirely different stuff that DST doesnt have, jumping through multiple worlds, adventure mode, more than one cave, multi-world game play and so on. As I already said their basics are the same but beyond that they arent very alike. Even ROG alone is quite a bit different to DST because of all the updates to DST over the years. Bosses where added and changed, different mechanics like the sandstorm and so on. That sounds quite different to me. 
Obviously DS has some QoL problems and I am personally sad that Klei didnt adress those in the QoL update back then but that still doesnt mean that DS is a "lesser" game and that support for it should be stopped. Those are quite harsh statements to players that only play singleplayer. Not to mention that DST has some problems of its own and some changes to mobs and mechanics were at least controversial, some to me even bad.
I didnt think I needed to name more than 3 but see above for more differences between the games.

I accept your apology, but I'm disheartened to hear that you can't see the similarities. The things you've listed are merely trivial content that don't justify releasing two copies of the same game. Yes, SW and HAM add new assets, even after the fact that DST is gaining in popularity, but these two DLCs are isolated and don't actually add to the base game. They add to their own game. To clarify, you don't see people talking about their DS worlds as DS worlds with SW and/or HAM. Instead, people either talk about how their HAM world is, how their SW world is (though you can travel between RoG and SW, and even the same for HAM, but that's travelling between isolated content, not actually adding to the base game), or how their DS/RoG world is. Even if you were to evaluate every DLC and the two games, they're the same games with some variation in flora and fauna. I don't know what more to say, since this will just be a back-and-forth of "I think game is same" and "I think game is different." When presented with the evidence though, and objectively looking at said evidence, it boils down to the same game with similarities I have already stated in my previous post. Other changes that you have mentioned are also trivial ones. Tweaking a boss' stats and adding one or two mechanics doesn't equate to a different game. As I've said, DST has a more refined engine than DS does, but they both use the same engine and everything else. You could see it as a harsh statement, but it's the truth, objectively speaking. DS runs an older, dated engine and uses older, dated and unpolished mechanics. I understand that some people do play singleplayer only, but isn't that what we're discussing in terms of DST and adding a singleplayer mode for those who enjoy singleplayer? This whole thread has become so convoluted that the main point of this thread is more or less out the window. To sum this part up though, having a proper singleplayer mode in DST would be even better than DS because of DST's better engine. I don't know what else to say on that point because DST's engine is just objectively better and is more polished and refined than DS's, which makes it a real shame that SW and HAM were implemented into the older, dated game.
Well, you thought wrong, and I would also appreciate it if you expanded upon the problems that DST has faced, as I would like to know the specifics so that we could go over them in detail.

59 minutes ago, pe5e said:

The reason I said it is an utopian view is because it seem very very difficult if not impossibe to me to merge single player and multiplayer along with 2 DLCs into one game without having to sacrifice a lot. That would annoy a lot of people who liked those and I just dont see the benefit in that huge change that would take ages to programm and balance when one could just buy both games. And if it is just multiplayer hamlet and SW that is wanted then there are already mods for that.

This is an opinion, and though I believe all opinions should be valued, they aren't facts. Now, I wouldn't speak for the developers saying what is easy and what is not for them, as I am not a developer. The same would apply to you. As for sacrifices, there might actually be less sacrifices than you think there would be. I would ask that you elaborate upon what exactly would be sacrificed in the hypothetical situation that DS content and DST would be merged. Why would you buy both games when they're more or less the same, save for two isolated DLCs? It's a waste of money and a waste of resources from a general perspective; you're dividing a group into two teams for two similar games, one of which is refined and up-to-date, and as I've said already, mods don't fix problems, merely mask them. Refer to my previous posts for further explanation of that.

1 hour ago, pe5e said:

I am not sure if @Crimson Chin wanted to come off as such. But even you say that one shouldnt make broad statements. When he then says that "everyone will be happy with this" and "this will work out better for Klei" without giving much reasoning if any for it, then to me that at least sounds arrogant or at least naive. I even asked him in the other thread if he could explain his views, but nope. And he is simply repeating those statements in multiple threads. If he at least explains it than we can work out where we stand and find a middle ground but this just seems off to me.

Admittedly, those do come off as broad, but he has already given his reasons on previous posts of his, so I'm not sure if you're not reading all of his post, or just skimming through what you have time for. I understand that some people don't like the idea of reading large paragraphs, but it's is crucial for a better understanding and so that you could possibly save yourself from typing a paragraph about something that has already been covered. I think a solution to your problem would be to PM @Crimson Chin about your specific questions, because right now in this thread and in the other thread, there are so many topics and sub-topics trying to be covered at once that it's almost impossible to get all the answers you want, so I would suggest PM'ing him, maybe even make a group chat with the three of us in case a third perspective is necessary. Whatever you're comfortable with.

1 hour ago, pe5e said:

I can see at least that it is a subject of opionion but to me at least it CURRENTLY seems very hard to favour DST solo play over DS. Are those small QoL things really that much of a problem to you that you would rather create a completly new singleplayer aspect for DST? That seems excessive to me. I would also appreciate it if you could name some of those since I asked @Crimson Chin the same and he didnt give me a reply to this.

Well, if you want my opinion on DS versus DST singleplayer, I believe I have already mentioned that the absence of attack-cancelling, for one, is very off-putting to me. Considering that combat in DS(T) is a crucial mechanic in the game, I would believe that it's more of a big deal than a small one, but to each their own, and this "singleplayer aspect" we're talking about wouldn't be a "completely new" thing, it would be expanding upon the already-existing Alone gamemode. As for what you've asked, I unfortunately don't know what exactly you did ask for, but I would again recommend PM'ing me or Crimson Chin if you have any specific questions.

1 hour ago, pe5e said:

This is the crux between our disagreement. Because of the reasons mentioned above they arent the same game to me and every time a new player on reddit asks what the difference between the games is, ussually the answer is a big paragraph. Since they are so different to me, I dont see how this DST solo play option would be a good option and no one has given me a good answer yet why 2 games dont work. I am also quite sure if I show someone SW gameplay and then DST game play with multiple people that they could tell me if they are the same game.

This comes down to how X is for me, and how X is for you, to which I can't say more about that. If your belief is that they're two different games, then so be it, but objectively speaking they are very similar games, dare I say the same. Correct me on this, but I believe places like Reddit, and even Klei forums, can at most times be biased, and people would respond more out of emotion than out of rational thought. Have you looked at what the big paragraphs have actually said? The 2 games don't work, simply put, is because they are both the same game. DS has an old, dated and unpolished engine, DST has a more refined, up-to-date and polished engine. The answer you provided is not entirely true. You're answering with the thought that the other person has knowledge about what DS and DST offers, so the other person couldn't actually distinguish the fact that DS' screenshot is in an isolated DLC called Shipwrecked and not just another part of the DS world, and DST with multiple players doesn't actually say anything because both DS and DST share the exact same art style. That, and you can use console commands to spawn in characters into DS and vice versa, so it's not actually as obvious as you think it to be. That is an example of a bias.

1 hour ago, pe5e said:

For the content in both games they are very cheap and I really dont think one should complain about the price here. Dont try to make it sound like I said anything like that! I never said it is cheap for anyone, but come on. 8€ for DS and 15€ for DST is pretty low when you consinder that DS without any DLCs takes about 15 hours at least to survive one year and you can add another 10 to 20 hours on top of that if you consider going into the ruins or adventure mode to truly see all content in the game. That sounds to me like enough of game time for 8€... Any DLC which are also cheap then add another 10 or so hours on top of that.

Again, you're making the assumption that X price is cheap to everyone, to which again it's not. Again, it's very inconsiderate of you to immediately jump to such a conclusion. You are sort of backing off from your broad statement, but now you're saying that it's "pretty low" when a lot of variables are not taken into consideration. How many people would actually get to experience all the content? DS doesn't exactly hold your hand, and that has been off-putting for a lot of people to the point where they either refunded the game or haven't played the game for more than an hour, so again, game time and such is subjective to the player. Either way, it may sound like enough game time for you for 8€, but it might not even be worth it for other people. Again, it's better to consider other than just yourself when talking about these kinds of topics.

1 hour ago, pe5e said:

Of course DS isnt for anybody but than just look for something else. Being down on the game because it wasnt your taste seems odd. It is quite well made and stands out among survial games. It is true that you can reach a point where you run out of stuff to do, but this is the nature of a sandbox. Simular to minecraft you have to find your own entertainment after you done the survial part of DS. If you dont want to then that is also fine.

Saying that others should simply go elsewhere is a horrible argument, since that takes away sales from the developers. Why drive people away from a good game with so much potential—Don't Starve Together—when you can instead build upon an already great game and make it even better, which would then welcome many more new players and increase revenue? I would argue that I'm "down on the game" because it's visibly dated and is wasted potential that could have been used on the refined version of the game. Don't Starve is not a sandbox. I don't know why people label the game as a "sandbox with survival elements" but it's not by definition a sandbox, unless a sandbox to you is a slab of rock that you can only sit on, because there are quite a lot of limitations in Don't Starve, hence making it a survival game more than a sandbox. Minecraft has a lot more to explore, with a nearly unlimited world to explore and a lot more building that can be done. I mean, take a look at all the creations people have made in Minecraft. Can you do the same in Don't Starve? Absolutely not.

1 hour ago, pe5e said:

I dont think I made an outrages statement that DS and DST are worth buying. Or are you saying theay are?

I don't believe I've said anything of the sort. It's only a matter of interpretation on your end, and if I came off as such, my apologies. I mean only to express a different angle of critical thought from yours. To briefly answer your question though, I think it's redundant to buy both games when they're both the same game for reasons already stated.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rellimarual    3,956
7 hours ago, BeanBagSonic said:

A singleplayer mode that follows the guidelines I had stated before but with scaled health for mobs and mechanics that are adjusted for a friendlier singleplayer experience would be more fair to solo players and it would actually help your "connection issues." To address your misinterpretations though, no, adding SW and HAM content that wouldn't be scaled towards the singleplayer mode proposal would not fix your "weak internet connection issues" as I have never explicitly stated that it would.

I don’t know how I can be any clearer about this, but I’ll restate it for you one more time as simply as possible. I am not using any of the lag-producing settings that you think are causing DST to perform poorly for me personally: no mods, set to Alone, etc. More to the point, the *only* thing that has changed is my internet connection. Same computer, same game settings, same everything, playing on brand new worlds. The switch from broadband to satellite is the ONLY VARIABLE THAT IS DIFFERENT and yet there has been a marked performance drop. Is that clear? It’s about as close to a controlled experiment as it gets. Please stop obtusely offering me “guidelines” that I am already observing and have been for years. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now