Progression system in dst

[Szczuku]

So a while back I made a thread where I asked if dst needed a progression system. Most people answered 'yes' but I decided to ask that question once again in a form of this poll.

In this thread I'll give my own ideas regarding the progression system. Imo the progression system should happen throughout the entire game, as 1 event that changes the entire game would be too much of a Terraria rip-off. I believe that a progression system would be a way for Klei to make game more interesting for experienced players while still keeping early game simple for the majority of players

Anyway here are some of my ideas:

-After launching a boat for the 1st time neutral turtles would begin spawing near the shoars. Could be a source of a new material to make armor/structures with

-After surviving a season the next time it'd happen it'd get more content to it:

Winter:

1. Snowstorms could occur (no they wouldn't slow you like sandstorms do) which would spawn piles of snow around the map. Source of a new material: snow. Could be used for crafting. A new enemy would also spawn from those piles of snow. Cave entrances could get blocked and would require a shovel.
2.  Ice bergs begin floating around the sea making sailing a bit more tough. They would also be a spawnpoint for a new enemy.
3.  Deerclops get's an update. More attacks, a bit toughter when it comes to stats, maybe equiped with a 2nd phase

Spring: 

1.  New enemies start spawning in the swamp and around ponds: giant worms, walking fish, tentacles respawn (if they don't already). Small rivers start flowing through the map. They wouldn't block your path but would slow you down and make you wet.
2.  Moose/Goose gets an AoE attack
3.  Acid rains could accur which would require a new type of protection. Umbrellas, eyebrellas etc wouldn't work

Summer:

1.  Lavae naturally spawn from lava ponds
2.  Sea levels decrease revealing a new island to explore or a sunken ship 
3.  Small volcanos activate in the caves creating magma biomes

Autumn:

1.  Winds that spawn piles of leaves. Something simmilar to tumbleweeds
2.  Sunflowers- an actuall flower that causes overheating when you're near it. Would only spawn while you can still over heat from the world temperature. A source of a new material
3.  New type of merm invading from the sea. Something similar to how some real life fish travel back thousands of kilometers to the place where they were born. These merms would be aggresive but also drop some unique items.

-After surviving an entire year Pigs could begin getting smarter- collecting stuff from the ground, creating tools, planting seeds in the ground (like Wormwood) and protecting them, chopping nearby trees and crafting stuff. They'd reach their 'full inteligence' after like 3 in-game years

-After making the Luanr Island crafting station full moons could have more stuff in them: gestlats spawning, influence on more creatures, moonglass chunks appearing randomly of the ground for the durration of the night etc

-Defeating the Fuelwaver would have probably the biggest impact on the game:

• Mumsy and Billy either being a wandering npcs or having their (undestructable) houses spawb somwhere. You'd trade with them
• We can craft some Forge-like items
• Anything related to Them would start happening after that

-Defeating Toadstool for the 1st time could result in creatures with mushroom parasites spawning in the caves and maybe surface

Please know that I do not want the progression system to be only based around making the game harder. I simply think that progression system is a way for Klei to add a lot of content without making the early game feel like it's overpacked. For example imagine Mumsy and Billy walking around the map when you're on your 1st Autumn.

Also...

Most of the ideas I presented were described quickly as to not make this post an even bigger wall of text. Everything that i mentioned would in one way or another be usefull for a player. Either by dropping a new materials for crafting or something like that. So don't think that all of my ideas mentioned above were only about making the game harder. 

[Zeklo]

I'd prefer difficulty to be linked with time than by player action. The latter allows for players to control difficulty artifically which is more or less the same problem with optional bosses. 

Having year two bring new stuff compared to year one is the way I think it should go. Thus constantly applying pressure on players with everpresent danger they need to overcome.

[Owlrust]

I appreciate you suggesting to "add" stuff instead of solely changing existing stuff. Things like that would make each season more fun, while also not instigating a constant potential stream of buffs and nerfs on a regular basis like other games. May I also add to the suggestion? The more the game add new stuff (creatures, mechanics, bosses, seasonal events, objectives, etc) there will be both less time to do everything you would need to, and there runs the risk of too many things happening at once. In short, I would also love to have certain things appear on different year cycles to make things feel even more unique each oncoming year. 

[reverentsatyr]

I personally love almost all of these ideas. I'd welcome almost any form of new content.

[Canis]

Two big thumbs up from me, for obvious reasons.

 

 

also this https://discord.gg/UF7FKpn

[user1464576869]

4 hours ago, Zeklo said:

I'd prefer difficulty to be linked with time than by player action. The latter allows for players to control difficulty artifically which is more or less the same problem with optional bosses. 

Having year two bring new stuff compared to year one is the way I think it should go. Thus constantly applying pressure on players with everpresent danger they need to overcome.

I both agree and disagree? I'm personally not a fan of waiting around for things to happen. And I like the idea of being "punished" for unlocking, toying with, or trying to achieve new items.

Like uh, the way I always imagine progressions to work is that a player works towards getting something good, once they get that item which makes previous dangers easier to deal with it instantly "punishes" the player (or rewards them with challenges rather, or not even anything necessarily difficult every time as mentioned in the thread) with other kinds of more dangerous things showing up, and those dangers too has drops or a potential for even more and stronger item unlocking and summoning more challenges.

But yeah, it's not so much in the spirit of survival though if that's what people take issue with. If true survival was the goal then I don't suppose there would be any items, just a ramping amount of dangers?

[Sacri]

6 hours ago, Zeklo said:

I'd prefer difficulty to be linked with time than by player action. The latter allows for players to control difficulty artifically which is more or less the same problem with optional bosses. 

Having year two bring new stuff compared to year one is the way I think it should go. Thus constantly applying pressure on players with everpresent danger they need to overcome.

The way I see it, it should be both, with some things evolving over time and some others unlocking based on previous actions.

And I just have to say it, man, that's just the best idea EVER (in my modest opinion ^^').

[Banjobear92]

I like it gives the game more of a challenge and keep the game where it at and combining the other two games of the Don't Starve Shipwrecked and a Don't Starve Hamlet together giving it a new place by adding on to the game giving it a new a new flavor like cooking and and still keeping the old ways of Don't Starve Together the way we love it.

[maciu67]

"Progression happens once. After defeating a meaningful boss like Fuelweaver the game gets like 2 times more content"

Don't Starve: Hardmode

 

First option is much better.

14 hours ago, Szczuku said:

Winter:

I think all seasons should have weather events like e.g. Snowstorm in winter

[Jessie_]

6 hours ago, Ogrecakes said:

Hehe, your wish is my command.

seen this discord invite posted like a dozen times for no reason already, this even allowed? just make a thread for this instead of spamming it everywhere

[Szczuku]

18 hours ago, Zeklo said:

(snip)

Well yes but as you can see the ideas I mentioned above are more or less still forced on the player: The idea about seasons getting more content and Pigs developing is based around years survived. The other ideas are mostly based around players' ambitions sure you can play the game without fighting the Fuelweaver but you know that you should defeat him. It's the same as with Minecraft and Terraria- you can play the game without fighting most of the bosses but you're going to fight them anyway as they unlock more content.

But yeah sure- time based progression is needed

15 hours ago, Canis said:

Two big thumbs up from me, for obvious reasons.

also this https://discord.gg/UF7FKpn

1. tHEn LiKe tHe pOsT

2. As someone has already said- everyone has seen that discord link at least 4 times by now. I don't want to mod the game for it to be better. I want devs to make the game better for it to be better

[maradyne]

4 hours ago, Szczuku said:

As someone has already said- everyone has seen that discord link at least 4 times by now. I don't want to mod the game for it to be better. I want devs to make the game better for it to be better

It's been clearly shown that the game won't be going in this direction on its own at this point, though; and while these sorts of forum topics have been around since much earlier on in the games life, that hasn't really changed.

 

For those confused about why that Discord server keeps getting plugged:
Most of the ideas suggested in this topic are already either implemented, in the process of being implemented, or planned to be implemented in Uncompromising Mode.
If you're interested in this sort of progress, challenges and appropriate rewards, you should check it out! There's a public beta available on Github (info in the server), and the more testing and input we can get, the better.

 

Honestly, one of my hopes for the mod is that it might get big enough to gauge if the community at large actually wants these sorts of changes; these topics come up a lot, but how many people are for/against restructuring the game like this is always pretty vague, given the small sample size. You can look at these polls, and see plenty of votes for...but you'll see just as many vocally against the same ideas in topics that are worded just a bit differently.
Being able to see how many people subscribe to and use a mod that implements exactly the sorts of changes that the community has been talking about for ages would be a more effective way to send the message.

Currently, this kind of talk can be easily passed off as 'well, people don't really know what they want, so lets do something entirely different!'.
That gets lessened a bit if people are actually willing to try the ideas that they push on the forums.

[Zeklo]

1 minute ago, maradyne said:

- snip -

Plugging anything over and over again is a bit rude, or at least poor etiquette.

[maradyne]

9 minutes ago, Zeklo said:

Plugging anything over and over again is a bit rude, or at least poor etiquette.

It's being plugged because it's directly relevant to those who would be interested in this topic; almost the exact same ideas people have posted here (and have been posting for years) are already being made available in-game; several already are.
If you want to have a playable version of the suggestions here, we've got you covered.

I can understand if people don't like the idea of modding the game, but...
Just about every idea here has been mentioned in pieces across the forums over the years. Several were anticipated as possible additions for Through The Ages (which became A New Reign).
If you're exclusively waiting for the devs to make these sorts of changes, you'll be waiting a long while; meanwhile, for those who want to play with the ideas in this topic, they're becoming available as we speak.

[Szczuku]

3 hours ago, maradyne said:

If you're exclusively waiting for the devs to make these sorts of changes, you'll be waiting a long while

Y'know I like to think that Klei has changed when it comes to dst. 

They've already proven to understand what we expect from characters (compare original Winona's perks to Wortox's ones) etc.

And by looking at the fact that they've decided to change background ocean into a playable area, I also want to believe that they're ready to add these changes that we're being suggested since NR into the game.

[dahl]

I wish dst was as full and unique as Hamlet, with many different mechanics and creatures, like big ponds forests and towns (one Lovecraftian in Moon Island and one in normal), from Hamlet and different sea locations from Shipwrecked.
Compared to Hamlet dst looks pretty empty for now.

But I think Klei know such feels and pretty soon we will see a lot of different and very creative content.

[Jessie_]

14 hours ago, maradyne said:

[more shilling]

from what i have heard, this mod just seems to add random tweaks and random small features, and they're not even related to the topic

you can't just have you and your friends spamming this over and over in every thread that's about adding more content to the game, all merely on the excuse that the mod adds more content to the game

if your mod project isn't getting as much attention as you want, then go make your own thread about it instead of attempting to hijack other threads

[user1464576869]

What I wanna know is why vote no. What's the idea there?

[GenomeSquirrel]

9 hours ago, Cosheeta said:

What I wanna know is why vote no. What's the idea there?

I want new content to be accessible, this is walling.

It’s also too focused on time sinks and speed bumps; all filler, no meat.

[user1464576869]

45 minutes ago, GenomeSquirrel said:

I want new content to be accessible, this is walling.

It’s also too focused on time sinks and speed bumps; all filler, no meat.

Hm. Well... If you have to beat all prior levels of a game to get to the end boss, is that end boss considered inaccessible? By preparing to fight the fuelweaver (or gathering materials to fight any other boss), and by having him hidden behind a giant tentacle, does that make him inaccessible? Is the thurible inaccessible? And also, with new content added continuously, don't you think it would eventually be overwhelming to have all things happening all at once less the world size was expanded too?

Time sinks I can agree on, that's where I put my objection on and rather wishing to let things be accessible/activated through player action than based around arbitrary amounts of time passing.

Unless you're talking about some other kind of time sink? Also what do you mean with speed bumb? Something specific?

[GenomeSquirrel]

42 minutes ago, Cosheeta said:

Hm. Well... If you have to beat all prior levels of a game to get to the end boss, is that end boss considered inaccessible? By preparing to fight the fuelweaver (or gathering materials to fight any other boss), and by having him hidden behind a giant tentacle, does that make him inaccessible? Is the thurible inaccessible? And also, with new content added continuously, don't you think it would eventually be overwhelming to have all things happening all at once less the world size was expanded too?

This isn’t the legend of zelda, fights with ancient fuelweaver may keep you from being bored, but it’s ultimately yet another time sink. The focus is getting food. Players progress from berry pickers to owning massive farms . Why let combat lock content when hunger and health is the focus?

1 hour ago, Cosheeta said:

Unless you're talking about some other kind of time sink? Also what do you mean with speed bumb? Something specific?

A time sink is wasting time and resources for no benefit. Although here it might actually be closer to self sabotage than no benefit.

A speed bump is something with so little impact, that it will barely goes noticed, like the summer larva in df desert lava polls.

[user1464576869]

1 hour ago, GenomeSquirrel said:

This isn’t the legend of zelda, fights with ancient fuelweaver may keep you from being bored, but it’s ultimately yet another time sink. The focus is getting food. Players progress from berry pickers to owning massive farms . Why let combat lock content when hunger and health is the focus?

A time sink is wasting time and resources for no benefit. Although here it might actually be closer to self sabotage than no benefit.

A speed bump is something with so little impact, that it will barely goes noticed, like the summer larva in df desert lava polls.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning, I assume it's because we've got different views on what elements in the game are best enjoyed and wished to be enhanced. However isn't this equally true for every entity and concept inside the game? The entire game may keep me from being bored, but it's ultimately yet another time sink.

The focus is getting food? So uh, well I guess I just don't see why combat isn't allowed to be in the equation to progress here. I'm personally fine with non-combat ways of unlocking progression as well though, really the more intricate and varied ways of progressing the map all the greater. But I wouldn't either condemn some combat-related ways of upgrading the map. I find it hard to say combat (as clunky as I find it) isn't already so tightly interwoven into the game already that I don't understand what you mean when it's almost as if you suggest that it should stop being expanded? Stop being implemented in new content?

The way I see it, after you get the berry bushes and farm plots, what else is there left to do than to indulge in time sinks? With combat being another form of action to perform in the game, why not have it lead to something as a result. It's been locking out content of the game so far, why stop now and here?

[Canis]

On 10/17/2019 at 11:14 AM, maradyne said:

Uncompromising Mode

 

On 10/16/2019 at 9:27 PM, Ogrecakes said:

Hehe, your wish is my command.

 

Guys, I already posted the link in the first few posts of the thread. If you could not spam it and effectively lower our rep with the community that'd be great.

[GenomeSquirrel]

2 hours ago, Cosheeta said:

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning, I assume it's because we've got different views on what elements in the game are best enjoyed and wished to be enhanced. However isn't this equally true for every entity and concept inside the game? The entire game may keep me from being bored, but it's ultimately yet another time sink.

The object of games is to win. Defeating bosses in Zelda isn't a time sink because it's mandatory. In Don't Starve, the objective is to survive, while killing spiders for loot has a risk and reward component, food is mandatory, so it's a worthwhile endeavor; on the other hand, defeating a boss to make surviving more difficult is contradictory to surviving. I might agree to a version that isn't self sabotage and detrimental to the group as a whole. Temporary loot that can only be used by one person does not qualify.

3 hours ago, Cosheeta said:

The focus is getting food? So uh, well I guess I just don't see why combat isn't allowed to be in the equation to progress here. I'm personally fine with non-combat ways of unlocking progression as well though, really the more intricate and varied ways of progressing the map all the greater. But I wouldn't either condemn some combat-related ways of upgrading the map. I find it hard to say combat (as clunky as I find it) isn't already so tightly interwoven into the game already that I don't understand what you mean when it's almost as if you suggest that it should stop being expanded? Stop being implemented in new content?

The way I see it, after you get the berry bushes and farm plots, what else is there left to do than to indulge in time sinks? With combat being another form of action to perform in the game, why not have it lead to something as a result. It's been locking out content of the game so far, why stop now and here?

The food farms are a prudential way of surviving, you get food when you need it, silk and pig skin if you need an umbrella, lots of flexibility. Rewarding combat just feels silly, like rewarding the drunken dad who spends his time in the bar instead of the mom who works and feeds the kids. I'd rather new content give the mom more spice and variety than make the drunken dad even more self indulgent. You can argue why not both, but developers can only work on one thing at a time, concurrent releases are just switching time between working on one thing and a different one thing

[user1464576869]

6 hours ago, GenomeSquirrel said:

The object of games is to win.

Ah I see now, the quarrel is based in a conquest vs survival opinion.

So I get the notion, some people want the survival to stay true and be as rogue-like as DS has been in it's early conception. See the reason I no longer agree that "the objective is to survive" is because of the recent addition in permanence with decorative options. In true rogue-likes there is both nothing lost in dying and everything lost in dying. You might loose your progress and tools but none of those bears a face, there is no personal attachment to any part of the world, since it's impersonally regenerative and rather static. But DST introduced so many ways to touch the landscape and beautify your surroundings. It turned the rogue-like into a lego box to express and decorate your day-to-day activity. This is something to loose, this is a kind of permanence attitude towards the world you now inhabit. And I'd at least argue, it's the earliest steps away from survival and towards a conquest design philosophy. To stay in the one island you had until you see it through to the fullest. To protect the base you made, and to one day rule over the dangers around it. I personally believe decoration to be an aspect in the game not fully compatible with the survival philosophy. And there are more smaller decisions other than decorations that has turned the game away from survival.

I think DST and DS would actually benefit from a conquest ideology. DS has already introduced housing with a roof, furniture and everything. Dying simply isn't a welcomed option when you can loose so many things now inheriting a personal touch and attachment.

I also strongly believe the lingering survival aspects is what handicaps the conquest. It wouldn't be considered a sabotage if the rewards were better, and benefiting the base and all players as a whole. I don't get why Klei is so stingy on endgame items. And as for it being contradictory, well I just don't agree, any game has a difficulty curve. The more of it you survive or conquest or win or play or interact in any way, the more it rewards you with a rising difficulty. It isn't an actual punishment per se it's a chance to have more engagement. I don't like to think of the penultimate version of DST to be one that never goes beyond berry bushes.

So then, besides all of that. Whether Survival or Conquest, whatever you believe the core of the game suits it's future the best. I don't even see how the concept of progression is against either of those? How you choose to design progression I fully understand how it can favour one or the other. But most people here even seemed to rather be in favour of letting progress be behind a timer instead of player action? If you survive with your berry bushes for enough time the world starts introducing more dangerous hazards? Isn't that rather true to survival? Doesn't that give you a reason to stay alive?

Your comparison to a drunken father is rather intriguing if also insulting. In one way it is thought-provoking to contemplate on games as a kind of family structure and how aspects of it can be detrimental. On the other hand I find it lacking introspection to claim your righteous-proclaimed interpretation of a game to be of any different calibre or to be the single truth in a thriving family in that very context. Not to mention it paints a picture that you don't want anyone in your family to find spiritual meaning in their own way. What if their indulgence as you put it wasn't a bar but something that brought value to the household? This would be my interpretation of a progression system.