Why Are You Guys Quiet?

[BeanBagSonic]

11 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

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. 

At this point it's a problem on your end then, and the proposed singleplayer mode for DST would only benefit you, and if it doesn't, consider investing in a better internet plan or a better computer. I don't know what else to say, but I don't know how you could be against something that would benefit Don't Starve Together and Klei, along with its playerbase, in the long run. As @Crimson Chin has already stated, DS and DST are already such a huge split between the playerbases. Working towards something that would unify both playerbases is something that, ideally, most should vouch for. It would appeal to both playerbases, but would also provide more options in case one or the other craves multiplayer or singleplayer.

The only way you can actually make it clearer is to provide video evidence or something, because right now it's only you saying that you've got an issue that others have not experienced when hosting a 1 player-slot server with all the other details I have mentioned previously. I will continue to offer you "guidelines" because I believe there's a lot more you could actually consider, rather than just living with the fact that you suffer from connection problems and have to reduce yourself to having two copies of the same game.

EDIT: The sad reality is that not all games are meant to run on low-spec computers, and not all game developers can cater to low-spec needs. This is probably a case of your computer or internet provider to be improved so that you have more options in the future. To bring up an anecdote, I used to have a horrible laptop that was quite slow and was overall not meant for gaming, but I had still hosted DST servers without a problem, and with players in it no less. Nowadays I have a much better gaming laptop, and I can host DST servers fine without any issues, but my point is that even back when I had a laptop that couldn't run any other games besides DS, DST and various pixel games, I was able to host servers with people fine.

[pe5e]

24 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

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 guess we will just have to agree to disagree. To me those mentioned points that add hours of unique game play not possible in DST are enough to distingush. I can only explain my opinion. If you dont agree with that fine. The word you were looking for in your second sentence is sequal btw. But I guess Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy are the same games too since they both use the same basic mechanics. What do I know? Also dont put words in my mouth. I never said anything about the movement of the dragonfly as a point. I meant new bosses like the antlion.

24 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

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.

Because some of Kleis reworks are just not good see early Willow for that. Balancing for single player and multiplayer is very very different.

24 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

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.

I gave my reasons for why I dont agree here. Disagree if you must.

24 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

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.

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.

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

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. 

The entire point of DST existence was because Klei didnt belive it would work out to simply change DS itself and with SW and Hamlet it seem even more impossible. But we both stated our reasons for why we take which sides and nobody is conviced of the other side. So there is that.

23 minutes ago, BeanBagSonic said:

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.

I have mentioned often enough why I think they are seperate games and to me the suff that adds hours of unique game play clearly seperates them. You both seem to think basics alone make them the same. I dont think so. Mario 64 is not Mario Galaxy just because they have very simular basic mechanics. The surrounding stuff matters a lot. But I made this clear often enough.

23 minutes ago, BeanBagSonic said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am not going to respond to the rest of this because I am truely tired of this. We talk in circles and repeat ourselves plus you keep puting words in my mouth that I never said like I am trying to act as a developer or that I didnt read your posts fully. It should be pretty clear that I only represent my opinion on a forum and not anyone else. And I dont need to be belittled by you for those things that I never said or did.

I gave my reasons for my opinion multiple times and if you dont agree, then fine. But since a potential change would also affect me I though I would share them. Guess that wasnt that smart of an idea... If you have any further things to say PM me.

[Rellimarual]

1 minute ago, BeanBagSonic said:

At this point it's a problem on your end then, and the proposed singleplayer mode for DST would only benefit you, and if it doesn't, consider investing in a better internet plan or a better computer. I don't know what else to say, but I don't know how you could be against something that would benefit Don't Starve Together and Klei, along with its playerbase, in the long run. As @Crimson Chin has already stated, DS and DST are already such a huge split between the playerbases. Working towards something that would unify both playerbases is something that, ideally, most should vouch for. It would appeal to both playerbases, but would also provide more options in case one or the other craves multiplayer or singleplayer.

The only way you can actually make it clearer is to provide video evidence or something, because right now it's only you saying that you've got an issue that others have not experienced when hosting a 1 player-slot server with all the other details I have mentioned previously. I will continue to offer you "guidelines" because I believe there's a lot more you could actually consider, rather than just living with the fact that you suffer from connection problems and have to reduce yourself to having two copies of the same game.

As difficult as it can be to admit you are wrong, you really try it some time, just for a change of pace. The problem, as you say, is on your end.

However, it's worth pointing out that you are also incorrect in suggesting that I am against DST implementing what you call a "singleplayer mode" that scales down bosses. I don't think its necessary, and I've played solo games for a couple of years without it, but I have no objection to it. Like many, if not most, DST players, I usually play the game alone and in fact find it easier than singleplayer in several respects. I also have no objection to incorporating content from the singleplayer DLCs into DST and vice versa. The only thing I would object to is eliminating DS/singleplayer entirely, for the reasons I've stated. The two things--auto-adjusting solo mode for DST and DS/singleplayer--are in no respect mutually exclusive. There's no reason to take away an option from people who want it.

[Computer-7]

wow I like seeing a screen full of text whenever I look at this page.

[Crimson Chin]

3 minutes ago, pe5e said:

 I can only explain my opinion. If you dont agree with that fine. The word you were looking for in your second sentence is sequal btw. But I guess Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy are the same games too since they both use the same basic mechanics. What do I know? Also dont put words in my mouth. I never said anything about the movement of the dragonfly as a point. I meant new bosses like the antlion.

No offense, but the analogy you made with Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy is extremely poor. Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy are.... drastically different games. I can't really even take this analogy seriously. I'm sorry, but if you are trying to compare DS and DST's differences to Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy's differences we better just stop now, I am not going to be able to take this seriously. 

I also don't believe I am putting words into your mouth, you said something about bosses being changed, which I assumed you meant dragonfly as she is really the only one who went through minor changes. It doesn't really matter though, as these are still trivial.

Quote

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. To me those mentioned points that add hours of unique game play not possible in DST are enough to distinguish.

You are referring to the DLC's, the ones that could be enjoyed just as much on DST if it were possible, meaning they aren't really unique? I will use your example against you, Mario Galaxy and Mario 64 are entirely different games that require different things from you. This is just not the case for DS and DST.

 

[BeanBagSonic]

18 minutes ago, pe5e said:

I have mentioned often enough why I think they are seperate games and to me the suff that adds hours of unique game play clearly seperates them. You both seem to think basics alone make them the same. I dont think so. Mario 64 is not Mario Galaxy just because they have very simular basic mechanics. The surrounding stuff matters a lot. But I made this clear often enough.

You have overlooked an ungodly amount of additional details that we have provided that I no longer want to continue discussing this if you will continually refuse to acknowledge all the points that have been made. If you simply don't like to read long paragraphs, then please say so. Otherwise, don't engage in conversation if you will purposefully ignore and straw man our arguments. The Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy analogy is so off-base that I can't actually take that seriously. Yes, the surrounding stuff matters a lot, and that's the difference you clearly see in both games, not to mention all its other differences, from new game mechanics and graphics.

18 minutes ago, pe5e said:

I am not going to respond to the rest of this because I am truely tired of this. We talk in circles and repeat ourselves plus you keep puting words in my mouth that I never said like I am trying to act as a developer or that I didnt read your posts fully. It should be pretty clear that I only represent my opinion on a forum and not anyone else. And I dont need to be belittled by you for those things that I never said or did.

I have only taken direct quotes from you and explained the flaws behind them, but I do understand that this thread has indeed been a matter of talking in circles. I know you said you no longer want to engage in this conversation, but you would have to provide examples of me putting words in your mouth, because I have done none of that.

12 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

As difficult as it can be to admit you are wrong, you really try it some time, just for a change of pace. The problem, as you say, is on your end.

However, it's worth pointing out that you are also incorrect in suggesting that I am against DST implementing what you call a "singleplayer mode" that scales down bosses. I don't think its necessary, and I've played solo games for a couple of years without it, but I have no objection to it. Like many, if not most, DST players, I usually play the game alone and in fact find it easier than singleplayer in several respects. I also have no objection to incorporating content from the singleplayer DLCs into DST and vice versa. The only thing I would object to is eliminating DS/singleplayer entirely, for the reasons I've stated. The two things--auto-adjusting solo mode for DST and DS/singleplayer--are in no respect mutually exclusive. There's no reason to take away an option from people who want it.

Your first line didn't give off as much of a punch as you have hoped it would. You aren't explaining how I'm wrong either, so I can't take that statement seriously. If you can prove me wrong, I will very well admit that I have been wrong then, but for the time being I will stand by my posts. Though if you're telling me to try to admit I'm wrong, I'd suggest you do the same then.

If you weren't against it, would we be having this very discussion? I don't think so. You say now that you have no objection, to which I can only acknowledge. I would argue though that DS is slowly becoming an option that people don't actually want, but I suppose that's up for debate. Point is, as said multiple times, DS and DST are the same game, though others seem to disagree. Am I wrong? I don't believe so, but take points of mine and tell me how I'm wrong then, and if they're valid points, then that's great. It's a lot better to be proven wrong than to always believe you're right, so prove me wrong.

[56933043043]

7 minutes ago, Computer-7 said:

wow I like seeing a screen full of text whenever I look at this page.

i thought the point of forums was to discuss things in text form

[Rellimarual]

You're wrong about the source of the performance issues I and others have had with DST in Alone mode, for the reasons I stated. Without changing any aspect of how I use the game except my internet connection, I noticed enough of a performance decline to make me less interested in playing DST. How would I be able to prove something like that? Nevertheless, it is true, and you are wrong that there are no lag issues on hosted servers with singleplayers. You can't prove your claim either. 

You're also wrong about me being against Klei adding something like the Health Adjust mod to DST to make playing solo easier. At most, I said that it seemed unnecessary because the mod already exists and I'd rather see them add more content (which I suspect is a common sentiment). You also claimed that this would solve lag issues with DST, which is absurd. How can you prove that this "singleplayer" setting would be less laggy than playing DST on the Alone setting as is? Why should giving the bosses less health affect lag?

We are having this argument because, when asked by the OP why some of us continue to play DS, I offered the performance differences I've experienced as one of my reasons. That's it. Then you commenced to dispense a lot of patronizing advice that I do what I'm already doing and have been doing for years. Let me return the favor: If you were better at the game, you wouldn't need Klei to scale down the health of mobs and in fact you'd realize that DST is actually easier than DS. I suggest that you get in a bit more practice before jumping to these conclusions.

[Caochu]

25 minutes ago, Sketched_Philo said:

i thought the point of forums was to discuss things in text form

You are outdated. Now we use meme

Spoiler

I do not own this meme

Sorry to interfere with the discussion. That was my last s**tpost of the day 

[BeanBagSonic]

19 hours ago, Rellimarual said:

You're wrong about the source of the performance issues I and others have had with DST in Alone mode, for the reasons I stated. Without changing any aspect of how I use the game except my internet connection, I noticed enough of a performance decline to make me less interested in playing DST. How would I be able to prove something like that? Nevertheless, it is true, and you are wrong that there are no lag issues on hosted servers with singleplayers. You can't prove your claim either. 

If we were that dedicated to proving that we're both in the right or the wrong, we could host our own servers, have one join the other, and vice versa. If you're interested, you could PM me and we could try it out and see how things go. We'd play a normal world with default settings, and see how our performances are. So yes, we can't prove our claims by word of mouth, but we can try to host our own servers and have us join our servers and see how things play out. It's up to you, though. I personally don't mind. PM me if you're interested. If not, that's alright.

19 hours ago, Rellimarual said:

You're also wrong about me being against Klei adding something like the Health Adjust mod to DST to make playing solo easier. At most, I said that it seemed unnecessary because the mod already exists and I'd rather see them add more content (which I suspect is a common sentiment). You also claimed that this would solve lag issues with DST, which is absurd. How can you prove that this "singleplayer" setting would be less laggy than playing DST on the Alone setting as is? Why should giving the bosses less health affect lag?

As I've already said, mods don't fix problems, merely mask them. I do agree with your comment about wanting to see new content rather than focus immediately on a singleplayer mode, I can admit my wrongdoing there. It was my mistake to not mention that Klei could work on the singleplayer mode way after new content has been included. I didn't want the proposal to come off as a number one priority, but it would be an option that would create a more enjoyable experience for those that like singleplayer and also DST's refined engine. Klei can work on things at their own pace, and I can respect what they think is the main priority, which I would also say is new content at the moment. Your last two lines are a misinterpretation of my previous points. I did not directly link those two together as if adjusted boss health would fix lag, that is preposterous. I can't prove that the "singleplayer" setting would be less laggy, but ideally it wouldn't be laggy. I was proposing a theoretical, if that makes sense. The developers have the most knowledge on that though, and if they can clarify on that aspect, that would be appreciated.

19 hours ago, Rellimarual said:

We are having this argument because, when asked by the OP why some of us continue to play DS, I offered the performance differences I've experienced as one of my reasons. That's it. Then you commenced to dispense a lot of patronizing advice that I do what I'm already doing and have been doing for years. Let me return the favor: If you were better at the game, you wouldn't need Klei to scale down the health of mobs and in fact you'd realize that DST is actually easier than DS. I suggest that you get in a bit more practice before jumping to these conclusions.

I don't know what skill level has to do with any of this. I was talking about ease-of-access for other players. This isn't about me at all. If my advice came off as patronizing, my apologies. I don't understand why you accept downgrading yourself though, as if you were more of a defeatist, and that's where I was trying to help. If you were offended at any point, my apologies. I meant no harm, I simply wanted to help out. As for you saying "That's it," well, I don't think that was it. I mean look where we're at now. I'm kind of lost with your further claims about skill level and all that in both games. I think that's irrelevant, as I was talking about mechanics operating more smoothly in DST. Mechanics working as they should doesn't mean a game is easier more so than it means a game is playable. I unfortunately can't follow through with your suggestion because you're bringing up skill level in a game, and I don't get what that has to do with what we've discussed.

[Crimson Chin]

7 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

You're wrong about the source of the performance issues I and others have had with DST in Alone mode, for the reasons I stated. Without changing any aspect of how I use the game except my internet connection, I noticed enough of a performance decline to make me less interested in playing DST. How would I be able to prove something like that? Nevertheless, it is true, and you are wrong that there are no lag issues on hosted servers with singleplayers. You can't prove your claim either. 

You keep saying he is wrong, but you can't prove it either. Even if you are somehow lagging the Devs could fix that and most likely have more knowledge than all of us here to as why you would be lagging. 

 

9 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

You're also wrong about me being against Klei adding something like the Health Adjust mod to DST to make playing solo easier. At most, I said that it seemed unnecessary because the mod already exists and I'd rather see them add more content (which I suspect is a common sentiment). You also claimed that this would solve lag issues with DST, which is absurd. How can you prove that this "singleplayer" setting would be less laggy than playing DST on the Alone setting as is? Why should giving the bosses less health affect lag?

Health adjustment isn't the only thing we are suggesting here, but yes that would help. I can not fathom why you guys are so against DST becoming singleplayer and multiplayer friendly. I refuse to believe that there is absolutely no solution to your lag problem. 

11 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

We are having this argument because, when asked by the OP why some of us continue to play DS, I offered the performance differences I've experienced as one of my reasons. That's it. Then you commenced to dispense a lot of patronizing advice that I do what I'm already doing and have been doing for years. Let me return the favor: If you were better at the game, you wouldn't need Klei to scale down the health of mobs and in fact you'd realize that DST is actually easier than DS. I suggest that you get in a bit more practice before jumping to these conclusions.

Extremely rude stuff right here, but I will still read through it I guess. You are suggesting massive health sponge raid bosses are a fun thing to deal with alone? You are straight up calling him bad, which is not only rude, but an assumption entirely. Not to mention some stuff just being tedious rather than actually difficult. DST's combat system is really just memory, what I'm trying to do with these changes is making playing alone just as enjoyable as it is on DS, not necessarily easier. This would erase the need for them to try and keep DS alive with content that could have been more beneficial to their more alive game, and make mostly everyone happy without splitting the player base in half.

[camelot]

I don't know about others but expect DS to have the same level of attention/priority of DST is not very realistic. Everything has its own product life cycle. I've played DS since 2012 but need to admit that DS is in its decline stage, even DST was or very close to this stage too. Release new contents for old games is a nice thing to do, but it often does not contribute significantly to the growth of the company.

I always feel that Klei is too ambitious with their projects and usually it's a good thing. But when you have a lot of games in the very first stage and need more attention like ONI, Hot Lava, Gritlands... you'll need to prioritize. It's sad that Hamlet feels unfinished when released but we should give them more time, for both releasing new contents/tweaking current contents and making announcements.

Expecting announcement after less than 2 weeks is weird. Klei is not even gathering enough data from enough people to make decisions. For Hamlet, I would expect around 2-3 months since they're quite busy to prepare for Turn of Tides update and ONI full release in July

You, as the players that only care about Hamlet (or DS) quality, have every rights to complain. But it's not likely to change the Hamlet situation since it's not in the high priority list but this might hurt Klei and Hamlet badly. Please consider that.

[oCrapaCreeper]

Lag has existed in solo play DST for years, even on LAN. Why is this even a debate?

[Machine Reaper]

1 hour ago, oCrapaCreeper said:

Lag has existed in solo play DST for years, even on LAN. Why is this even a debate?

its a special delay before actions of any type put in order to make sure everyone has the same frame rate and nobody goes too fast or slow at the sametime.

but its not the type of Lag that happens due to bad connection or bad computer, it will remain no matter what.

it seems it has become a debate because people think its a real lag (which in reality is not), same way they also think Klei mostly earns thru Skins which I personally can tell only constitute for about less then 10% of the total profit at best.

and as said before, this Lag does not cause much difference in gameplay rather it gives players a bigger chance to perform actions in delayed manner and thus think a little more before doing anything.

[56933043043]

3 hours ago, oCrapaCreeper said:

Lag has existed in solo play DST for years, even on LAN. Why is this even a debate?

Most likely because it feels like this type of lag shouldn't exist when a player hosts a solo play world for a multiplayer game. It can be interpreted as a problem that Klei just didn't solve, as tends to happen.

With how slowly the game is updated and how often problems are not seen, both because of the scale of the game and if you subscribe to the theory that the developers don't play their own game(not to the extent that its players do), it's not a stretch to assume it's something that they don't know about.

 

1 hour ago, MWY said:

its a special delay before actions of any type put in order to make sure everyone has the same frame rate and nobody goes too fast or slow at the sametime.

I know absolutely nothing about multiplayer connection management, so I'd like a source on this if you happen to have it.

There's also the essential question: if there's only one player in a solo world, why is this delay necessary?

[Machine Reaper]

32 minutes ago, Sketched_Philo said:

I know absolutely nothing about multiplayer connection management, so I'd like a source on this if you happen to have it.

There's also the essential question: if there's only one player in a solo world, why is this delay necessary?

The delay is necessary because some engines do not support dynamic action response, which basically means if one player is like having over 200 ping and one player has just 50 ping then the 200 ping one will have about half second delay in each action they perform while as the the one with 50 ping will have about less then a quarter delay.

The engine if interprets this by itself, it will cause the action of the user with 200 ping to occur at the same time as the one with 50 ping one. 
The same way if one players computer is weak thus is not properly running the game then he will have frame loss which will cause his actions to be broken/delayed like, but the Dynamic Engine will also know this and smooth this out as well.

DST engine however lacks the completely and it was a big problem because some players Computers/Internet were causing lags which transported over to the server and the Engine did not interpret them properly,
 which meant one player was playing the game faster cause he had a better computer/internet while as other player was playing slower even with reasonable computer/internet,

The quickest way to fix this was to put an overall delay on the entire game which then made the lag equal for all players regardless of computer/internet.

Just like a Frame limit sort of thing.

The same has been done in Fallout 76 engine which had a massive problem in it where Players with Super Computers were able to literally make the engine Physics faster for them (Bullet travel faster, Players move faster etc) it was quite hilarious and became a viral Youtube comedy.

[MondayNight]

OP (or someone well familiarized with current state of DS: Hamlet DLC): can you pls list what are the main problems associated with Hamlet you imply player-base should be reacting to - aka at what we should not be quiet to?

 

I've only tested Hamlet for 3-4 small sessions when was in Beta last year and haven't followed it's development from there (after some pretty major errors, mostly black screens or teleporting at margin of map, off-land, decided will wait for DLC to come out of Beta).

I've loosely read news from updates on Steam, had some game-play snippets spoiled (well not really as in truth am not planning to play Hamlet anytime soon) from friends, but nothing really that major to make me think "wow, Hamlet is a mess, can't think is in this state" some comments around this section seem to imply (also I only read DST General Forum section, thus know next to nothing of what community talks between ...well, lots of collateral contradictions of which this thread doesn't shy from either).

 

So pls, can someone list the major concerns about Hamlet that makes it feel incomplete? Did Klei promised some features, mobs etc and didn't delivered on?

Thanks in advance to whomever will provide such list/enumeration!

 

PS: as for that recurrent "why did Klei give 12k copies of Hamlet to Beta-testers" seeming to pop time and again, in my eyes is quite simple: is a softcore damage control method and marketing stunt - as Hamlet faced a lot of delays and was facing even further ones, clearly steering ill emotions in community; good word-of-mouth publicity in the end - 2 birds 1 stone. Sure Klei is a nice company compared to what you see on the gaming developers' block, yet still a company in need of profit.

[4 Da LOLs]

3 hours ago, x0VERSUS1y said:

Did Klei promised some features, mobs etc and didn't delivered on?

yes they said they'd add more seasons and effects of them before release (i think it was in the one they added Wormwood but i don't know exactly)

4 hours ago, x0VERSUS1y said:

So pls, can someone list the major concerns about Hamlet that makes it feel incomplete?

there aren't much deviations or set pieces

the fog season doesn't have many options to deal with effectively and cheaply

the idols don't have much worth to them for an item that doesn't stack

the ruins have no deviations and you can just run through most of them

oinks can be gained at large amounts without much effort or cave exploration

some items have functions that are never stated in game (weevil mantel, tree seeds)

Wilfrid and Weber are downgrades in almost all regards

[Roosev]

10 minutes ago, 4 Da LOLs said:

yes they said they'd add more seasons and effects of them before release (i think it was in the one they added Wormwood but i don't know exactly)

there aren't much deviations or set pieces

the fog season doesn't have many options to deal with effectively and cheaply

the idols don't have much worth to them for an item that doesn't stack

the ruins have no deviations and you can just run through most of them

oinks can be gained at large amounts without much effort or cave exploration

some items have functions that are never stated in game (weevil mantel, tree seeds)

Wilfrid and Weber are downgrades in almost all regards

No ruin reset available.

Seasons have stayed the same since beta/early access.

Aporkalypse is still pointless.

Lack of new mobs since beta/early access. (not including bosses)

Obviously cut/not finished additional content that is still left inside the game files. (such as all of the unused music in the game files that alludes to additional jungles/islands)

 

Sorry, just had to. I still love you Klei, and Hamlet.

[Rellimarual]

I don't recall them saying they planned to add more season, only that they'd add more unique elements to the existing seasons. The bramble bloom in lush season was very good, but humid season has no advantages. Maybe they want to have one season in each DLC that is all downside, but it does make it tempting to just turn it off in the settings because you're not going to miss anything.

[Bluegeist]

5 hours ago, Roosev said:

Obviously cut/not finished additional content that is still left inside the game files. (such as all of the unused music in the game files that alludes to additional jungles/islands)

I don't know about this being a strike against them, there are things in there that have been unimplemented since SW. Unimplemented stuff is always gonna be in game files, we are just fortunate to be able to see it. I'd rather criticize the game as it is, than to worry about what could have been. I mean, we have to assume that some things were simply not feasible to finish or include with their budget/time, and call it a day.

[oCrapaCreeper]

25 minutes ago, Bluegeist said:

I don't know about this being a strike against them, there are things in there that have been unimplemented since SW. Unimplemented stuff is always gonna be in game files, we are just fortunate to be able to see it. I'd rather criticize the game as it is, than to worry about what could have been. I mean, we have to assume that some things were simply not feasible to finish or include with their budget/time, and call it a day.

People make a big deal over cut content too much IMO. If people could see all the unused content for any of their games that aren’t in the files, they would have heart attack.

[minespatch]

47 minutes ago, oCrapaCreeper said:

If people could see all the unused content for any of their games that aren’t in the files,

Sees Concept art: Must print out and use for future art refs.

[Roosev]

5 hours ago, Bluegeist said:

I don't know about this being a strike against them, there are things in there that have been unimplemented since SW. Unimplemented stuff is always gonna be in game files, we are just fortunate to be able to see it. I'd rather criticize the game as it is, than to worry about what could have been. I mean, we have to assume that some things were simply not feasible to finish or include with their budget/time, and call it a day.

BUT I WANT MORE CONTENT!

 

[inferjus4]

13 hours ago, Roosev said:

No ruin reset available.

Seasons have stayed the same since beta/early access.

Aporkalypse is still pointless.

Lack of new mobs since beta/early access. (not including bosses)

Obviously cut/not finished additional content that is still left inside the game files. (such as all of the unused music in the game files that alludes to additional jungles/islands)

 

Sorry, just had to. I still love you Klei, and Hamlet.

Most of the islands have only one certain unique thing and you won't be coming back to revisit them after gaining that item.

Warbucks removed for no reason.

Some characters have disadvantages that can not be dealt with any way (like Wagstaff that can not go to Sick Rainforest without not being able to see or taking damage; or Webber that if he lives in Pig City and there is fog, he has to move slowly because Shamlet mask does not protect him from the fog)

Higher price and less content than SW.

No end-game dungeon like Ruins or Volcano.

Quite useless items like Pherostone, Cork Barrel, Cork Bat and set of Tin Armor.

 

But after all, I still find Hamlet enjoyable.