Would you like progression system in dst?  

116 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like progression system in dst?

  2. 2. If yes; how would you implement it?

    • Progression happens throughout the entire playtime. Most actions trigger something new to appear
    • Progression happens once. After defeating a meaningful boss like Fuelweaver the game gets like 2 times more content
    • I chose 'no' in the 1st question


Recommended Posts

Owlrus98    359

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. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reverentsatyr    2,372

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

Edited by reverentsatyr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cosheeta    259
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?

Edited by Cosheeta
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sacri    0
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 ^^').

Edited by Sacri
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banjobear92    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maciu67    354

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Szczuku    8,953
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maradyne    4,447
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.

Edited by maradyne
typo
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeklo    17,244
1 minute ago, maradyne said:

- snip -

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maradyne    4,447
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.

Edited by maradyne
  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Szczuku    8,953
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dahl    39

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jessie223    622
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

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GenomeSquirrel    482
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cosheeta    259
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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GenomeSquirrel    482
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cosheeta    259
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?

Edited by Cosheeta
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canis    8,940
On 10/17/2019 at 11:14 AM, maradyne said:

 

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

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GenomeSquirrel    482
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cosheeta    259
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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 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