Jump to content

It's been almost 4 years since DST released and the game largely plays the same


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Sweaper said:

Replace the seasonal bosses to the optional bosses. New game, totally revamped, with different strategies to deal with them.

4 years passes.

A new thread, you may know the title already. At least we got the entire 4 years to figure the best new strategy to make those bosses trivial, or was it a month? No one will know.

Imagine if that boss was fun, and DST had a nice combat system. Look at Terraria, everyone who has played it for a good amount of time knows how each boss works and their attack patterns, yet there is still a good amount of skill/timing required to take down that boss, that game's combat system is part of the reason why that game is so replayable. 

 

5 minutes ago, Sweaper said:

I think we have footage of people soloing those bosses while doing more than just chugging caps and holding ctrl+f. Could be a dream though.

But hey, imagine playing a sandbox and not playing the way you want to play.

Again you missed the point.... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

Imagine if that boss was fun, and DST had a nice combat system. Look at Terraria, everyone who has played it for a good amount of time knows how each boss works and their attack patterns, yet there is still a good amount of skill/timing required to take down that boss, that game's combat system is part of the reason why that game is so replayable. 

 

Again you missed the point.... :(

If DST isn't that replayable why there are so many people over 100h? And even some that goes over 1k, or worse 5k.

Did I miss the point? How so? I'm showing that what you said about the combat being just counting to a number, attacking is wrong and there is more to [edit: that], then you say to tank it up and just eat blue caps, I say there are people who will do more than that. Is the combat as simple as you said at first, you just proved yourself that it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

This Dark Souls comparison really got out of hand, I'm not asking for a combat system like dark souls. I'm just asking for something more skill based and engaging. I'm no game developer, but I can't really see any new content that can be added that won't suffer from DST's unengaging combat system or its lack of a progression system. I want to be proven wrong, really. 

"Skills" in this case rely on 2 things.  Memorization and reflexes.  Memorization is challenged by having more things to memorize such as quantity of enemies with different attacks, quantity of enemy attacks per enemy, and quantity of options you can perform to deal with them.  Reflexes are challenged by having quicker tells, and more events happening concurrently.

Requiring you to be more skillful doesn't make the game more engaging.  Engagement is more a factor of flavor than skill.  Dark Souls sets the tone for its own brutal game play.  DST sets the tone for something completely different.

As I said - a middle ground could be to add random attack patterns with tells to the different enemies, perhaps add some variance to attack properties via weapon choice, such as a weapon might have a slightly higher range, or faster / slower attack speed, but while these would add to the skill ceiling and create a bump in interest soon after their release, they wouldn't change engagement.  The combat would still be quickly mastered and you'd be back where you are now.

edit: a progression system isn't engagement either.  Its more a psychological game that continues to doll out content for you to unlock where you either end up with endless progression with nearly meaningless upgrades where the game is more a contest of who sunk the most time / money, or it caps out and then there isn't progression, only max level characters and whatever levers can be tweaked resulting in a different end-game.  The endless one is a sin in my book of game design as the invested progression typically overcomes any element of skill the game can test you on, the end of this evolution is games like Clash of Clans.  The one that does have an end build evolves into a game where you simply rush to get to the end build, in which case - why not just start with the end build? (as many mmo have done)

I'm not trying to be a downer here, you're not wrong that DST combat is pretty stale, its just every game has its limitations.  DST isn't a game that can easily inject intense and skillful combat.  The major bosses actually do a decent job if you want to fight them "Mano e mano," but part of this game is the choice to not do that... which means it will always be a choice to do that, a choice which you can make if you want.  Only 3 characters in this game are actually combat focused characters, while 4 are given minions to circumvent combat, not to mention almost anyone can hire pigs / bunnymen, and winona can literally build catapults and gg...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sweaper said:

If DST isn't that replayable why there are so many people over 100h? And even some that goes over 1k, or worse 5k.

Did I miss the point? How so? I'm showing that what you said about the combat being just counting to a number, attacking is wrong and there is more to [edit: that], then you say to tank it up and just eat blue caps, I say there are people who will do more than that. Is the combat as simple as you said at first, you just proved yourself that it isn't.

Memory takes some time, that's where those initial hours come from. Don't Starve is considered to be a cruel game to new players. Why? Because they don't know anything and they don't know how to kite. It can be frustrating even, as a lot of DST's threats you would never be able to know about without playing, which trial and error can be fun and is very much so present in Dark Souls... but that doesn't really mix well with DST's permadeath, which can be another issue entirely for a lot of players looking to get into the game. I personally, don't mind getting my teeth kicked in a few times, but I certainly understand that not being for everyone.... But then those players who enjoyed the challenge stick around and realize the game's difficulty goes out the window once you just memorize everything. So DST has this weird unhealthy loop where it scares away new players...... and old players... And as for that last bit, I think you should read @BeanBagSonic's post, which highlights how shallow DST's combat is compared to other games.

6 minutes ago, Shosuko said:

"Skills" in this case rely on 2 things.  Memorization and reflexes.  Memorization is challenged by having more things to memorize such as quantity of enemies with different attacks, quantity of enemy attacks per enemy, and quantity of options you can perform to deal with them.  Reflexes are challenged by having quicker tells, and more events happening concurrently.

Requiring you to be more skillful doesn't make the game more engaging.  Engagement is more a factor of flavor than skill.  Dark Souls sets the tone for its own brutal game play.  DST sets the tone for something completely different.

As I said - a middle ground could be to add random attack patterns with tells to the different enemies, perhaps add some variance to attack properties via weapon choice, such as a weapon might have a slightly higher range, or faster / slower attack speed, but while these would add to the skill ceiling, they wouldn't change engagement.  The combat would still be quickly mastered and you'd be back where you are now.

I said that before too, I don't just want the game to be JUST more challenging, I also want it to be more engaging. I very much so believe that a great combat system can make a game very engaging though. I can't offer perfect solutions, I'm just putting it out there that it might be worth a try at the very least. Like I said before, this game isn't going to survive on fluff updates for much longer. Its just hard for me to picture a world where we somehow get around these massive design flaws, but I would absolutely love to be proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Sweaper said:

 

Replace the seasonal bosses to the optional bosses [EDIT: and vice-versa]. New game, totally revamped, with different strategies to deal with them.

4 years passes.

A new thread, you may know the title already. At least we got the entire 4 years to figure the best new strategy to make those bosses trivial, or was it a month?

That's the point. In those 4 years there would be different stuff than the old stuff by at that point would be 8 years old.

 

Your saying no new content should be added because hey eventually it will be old

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, sudoku said:

That's the point. In those 4 years there would be different stuff than the old stuff by at that point would be 8 years old.

The point was in reality until someone figure a way to make those bosses trivial, which we already have. Edit: Is that what people call negative time?

 

55 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

And as for that last bit, I think you should read @BeanBagSonic's post, which highlights how shallow DST's combat is compared to other games.

Ok. Let's do that.

Quote

Stop comparing Don't Starve (Together) to other games and actually look at DST itself in its entirety. It's not even fair to compare Don't Starve (Together) to Dark Souls, which I believe you brought up in the first place, because Dark Souls actually has a combat system.

Dark Souls has a stamina mechanic, it has dodging that is affected by your weight (light, medium and heavy sets dictate your dodges), it has actual blocking/parrying, and Dark Souls has roughly 20+ weapons that you can choose from, not including the level-up system and the stats that you can choose from.

To compare a Don't Starve's lackluster walk-and-hit to Dark Soul's more calculated dodging and hitting with more consequence if you take damage is absolutely, completely and ridiculously unfair; it's unthinkable to even bring up such a comparison when DS(T) in itself has an inherently flawed combat system. It was sort of remedied by the introduction of Forge, but that was only a limited-time event and has been canned ever since.

I think it's this one, right?

Let's break down Dark Souls battle mechanics as he says.

Dodge (pretty important without a shield, with shield not so much)

Weight (go naked and you are good otherwise go with a tank build with shield)

As he says, those two are correlated but there is always the best or close to best way to choose things (it happens to DST too, right?) so we can choose between going dodge or tank pretty much here, two extremes, or balanced and anywhere inbetween, right? Knowing that, you pretty much build your character with the stats that better enhances your needs, right?

But how does it correlate in action? Well, it's either dodge -> poke -> repeat until kill or shield -> poke repeat until kill or a mix of these. Right?

Parrying isn't necessary for PVE, optional the same way making 500 darts are in DST.

Now we take stamina, just literally walk for a while.

The weapons we all know there are the better ones, use those and apply the same dodge/shield -> poke

The level up system is optional the same way armor in DST is optional

If you take damage in Dark Souls you should G-, no I won't say that, we are talking about the average player so he will take damage and that's definitely dangerous for someone inexperienced against the enemy he is fighting, right? What is that? Did I hear average players don't know how to deal with Deerclopes because it hits too hard? What a coincidence.

Wait, are you saying you can dodge and attack the same way your average player can kite and attack in DST? Or that one can tank with a shield and in DST with armour. Just a second... I saw someone using a broken sword in the last boss, wait a minute I'm seeing Wilson attacking Bee Queen with an axe, is that how it looks when people make poor choice of weapons?

Oh, no. Why they look so alike. Even though they are different genres, it shouldn't be like this. Not like this.

EDIT: adding commas.

EDIT2: if someone is confused, let me know what you didn't understand. I know it's a lot of stuff written and English isn't my first language. Don't be shy, I don't bite :cat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is a confusing mess to read

But here is the TL:DR of my point: DST has 17 playable characters (one of Which is still TBA) If they include SW+ Hamlet it will be 17+6= 23.

Out Of 23 Total Characters assuming SW+Hamlet join.. only 7 have been Reworked. 23-7= 16

That is 16 more Characters to still be Updated and Reworked for DST. Or 50% of the games cast.

So before we upgrade the games Enemy A.I. And change Combat it’s probably a good idea to wait for all these Reworks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Stop comparing Don't Starve (Together) to other games and actually look at DST itself in its entirety. It's not even fair to compare Don't Starve (Together) to Dark Souls

38 minutes ago, Sweaper said:

Let's break down Dark Souls battle mechanics as he says.

You read my post, and yet you missed the most important part of said post. Constantly comparing Don't Starve (Together) to major titles isn't going to help Don't Starve's case.

I can't help you if you think Dark Souls' mechanics are the same as Don't Starve's walk-back-and-forth, no-dodges and no-variety combat. I don't know why I even have to explain that to you. Play a video of both games side-to-side and you'll see the differences. Dark Souls' combat involves more button-presses than Don't Starve's A and D on the keyboard with your attack keys held down.

It is just objectively wrong to say Dark Souls' combat and Don't Starve (Together)'s are the same. You can word your Dark Souls experience however you want to make it sound similar to Don't Starve, but that doesn't make it the same.

Again, Forge actually did something to make combat more interesting, and it would've been great if it were properly implemented into the base game, much like Gorge's farming and cooking mechanics (which I, and many others, still want in the base game). If those two events weren't just, well, isolated events, it would have actually added more flavor to the game and more ways to play rather than just crippling yourself to make the game moderately enjoyable. I'm sure others have pointed out that Klei seems to mainly isolate content that would change the base game, and it's a real shame too because Forge and Gorge had potential to improve dated mechanics in the base game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is a "nice combat system"? you keep repeating this, never explaining it, only repeating the vague hypothetical positive outcomes that you think would come from it

a lot of people here are going "if klei just adds this, removes that, changes this, or replaces that, then the game would be all well and dandy" without ever explaining how or why

merely stating "x will fix the game" doesn't make that instantly true

again, discovering and using strats that lower the challenge of a game isn't a fundamental issue of the game, because that is, very obviously, the consequence of the player voluntarily choosing to lower the challenge of the game

and since DST isn't a game with a goal, there is no point in separating what is "optional content" (bad) and what is "mandatory content" (good)

what falls under either category is purely subjective

if my goal was to just survive, then the dragonfly would be optional content

if one of my goals was to kill every boss in the game, then the dragonfly would be mandatory content

these two categories are arbitrary and only come up in these types of forum threads

and if someone honestly thinks that "survival" is objectively the one true goal of the game, then that's their own problem, nobody else's

you can achieve "survival" just by sitting in one spot constantly making meatballs, have fun with that goal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BeanBagSonic said:

You read my post, and yet you missed the most important part of said post. Constantly comparing Don't Starve (Together) to major titles isn't going to help Don't Starve's case.

I can't help you if you think Dark Souls' mechanics are the same as Don't Starve's walk-back-and-forth, no-dodges and no-variety combat. I don't know why I even have to explain that to you. Play a video of both games side-to-side and you'll see the differences. Dark Souls' combat involves more button-presses than Don't Starve's A and D on the keyboard with your attack keys held down.

It is just objectively wrong to say Dark Souls' combat and Don't Starve (Together)'s are the same. You can word your Dark Souls experience however you want to make it sound similar to Don't Starve, but that doesn't make it the same.

Again, Forge actually did something to make combat more interesting, and it would've been great if it were properly implemented into the base game, much like Gorge's farming and cooking mechanics (which I, and many others, still want in the base game). If those two events weren't just, well, isolated events, it would have actually added more flavor to the game and more ways to play rather than just crippling yourself to make the game moderately enjoyable. I'm sure others have pointed out that Klei seems to mainly isolate content that would change the base game, and it's a real shame too because Forge and Gorge had potential to improve dated mechanics in the base game.

It wasn't me who started comparing those two games, I just went with it because someone did and I worked on top of that, then someone argued on top of my comment creating the chain.

Never said they were the same, did I?

Dark souls:

Dodge - one button

Attack - one button

Walk - analog stick

Dont Starve:

Kite - One button

Attack - One button

Walk - One button

All you need to beat a dark souls enemy right there, involves so much more button presses or you have the option to use those extras button.

Just because they are different games doesn't mean people can't compare them, it wasn't even me who started and continued to compare them so I'm definitely not alone on that thought (I thin I was the third person who entered the discussion on the comparison if I'm mistakes and then even more started comparing too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sweaper said:

Never said they were the same, did I?

On the contrary...

1 hour ago, Sweaper said:

If you take damage in Dark Souls you should G-, no I won't say that, we are talking about the average player so he will take damage and that's definitely dangerous for someone inexperienced against the enemy he is fighting, right? What is that? Did I hear average players don't know how to deal with Deerclopes because it hits too hard? What a coincidence.

Wait, are you saying you can dodge and attack the same way your average player can kite and attack in DST? Or that one can tank with a shield and in DST with armour. Just a second... I saw someone using a broken sword in the last boss, wait a minute I'm seeing Wilson attacking Bee Queen with an axe, is that how it looks when people make poor choice of weapons?

Oh, no. Why they look so alike. Even though they are different genres, it shouldn't be like this. Not like this.

:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sweaper said:

Look alike = Same

Woo, that's stretching.

My point was that you were arguing that they're similar, if not the same. It seems to be a recurring theme that people outright deny the suggestion of adding content and otherwise improving DST, and you've been arguing for the same reason, if not just for the sake of arguing. If I've got your motives wrong, then by all means do correct me, but right now this whole series of exchanges hasn't been helping in the slightest, so if we could be more objective and criticize DST for what it lacks, or what isn't as good as it could be, then we should do that instead.

15 minutes ago, Jessie223 said:

what is a "nice combat system"? you keep repeating this, never explaining it, only repeating the vague hypothetical positive outcomes that you think would come from it

a lot of people here are going "if klei just adds this, removes that, changes this, or replaces that, then the game would be all well and dandy" without ever explaining how or why

At the same time, you're also not explaining why or how these suggestions wouldn't benefit the game, except that it's new content, and people seem to be icky about that. I would assume that these suggestions would liven the game, adding more things to do, but to each their own I suppose. Some want to keep DST from growing into a polished, full-fledged survival game. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jessie223 said:

and since DST isn't a game with a goal, there is no point in separating what is "optional content" (bad) and what is "mandatory content" (good)

I dont equate optional content as being bad only that it lacks depth that would be present if developed as a clear gameplay pillar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BeanBagSonic said:

My point was that you were arguing that they're similar, if not the same. It seems to be a recurring thing that people outright deny the suggestion of adding content and otherwise improving DST, and you've been arguing for the same reason. If I've got your motives wrong, then by all means do correct me, but right now this whole series of exchanges hasn't been helping in the slightest, so if we could be more objective and criticize DST for what it lacks, or what isn't as good as it could be, then we should do that instead.

At the same time, you're also not explaining why or how these suggestions wouldn't benefit the game, except that it's new content, and people seem to be icky about that. I would assume that these suggestions would liven the game, adding more things to do, but to each their own I suppose. Some want to keep DST from growing into a polished, full-fledged survival game. :(

The combat system are comparable. Read the entire thread, you already got wrong that I was the one who started comparing the two. I don't know if you skipped one post or not, if [Edit: wrong words] not you did then please read everything to get the right context.

I explained extensively throughout this topic since the first or second page (maybe third), can't remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so instead of explaining, your response is to just tell me i just don't want the game to grow

great thread so far

2 minutes ago, sudoku said:

I dont equate optional content as being bad only that it lacks depth that would be present if developed as a clear gameplay pillar. 

how does it lack depth and how does turning them into mandatory content magically add depth

and again, mandatory to what goal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

This thread is a confusing mess to read

DST has 17 playable characters (one of Which is still TBA) If they include SW+ Hamlet it will be 17+6= 23.

Out Of 23 Total Characters assuming SW+Hamlet join.. only 7 have been Reworked. 23-7= 16

That is 16 more Characters to still be Updated and Reworked for DST. Or 50% of the games cast.

I don't know, Mike, your posts have been some pretty confusing illuminati level theory stuff.

 

1 hour ago, Sweaper said:

------------------

Man, all it takes for a new player to learn how to kite deerclops is to realize you can hit it like 4 times and walk away. Maybe it would be best to just slow down... step away from all this.. and ask yourself...... Do you really feel that DST's combat is perfectly fun and engaging as it is right now? I would love to understand where you are coming from, but I just can't.

 

8 minutes ago, Jessie223 said:

what is a "nice combat system"? you keep repeating this, never explaining it, only repeating the vague hypothetical positive outcomes that you think would come from it

We aren't devs man, we are just putting ideas out there. None of us here have perfect solutions, but I would like to believe one thing we can all agree on is that we want to see the best for the game. With threads like this.... my hope is that a dev or something reads it and can maybe try and understand the perspective from all kinds of players. I truly believe working to make the combat system more fun and adding a progression system could be what DST needs. Do I know for sure that would all work out? Of course not, but what I do know is that DST won't survive for much longer on fluff content. 

 

1 minute ago, Jessie223 said:

so instead of explaining, your response is to just tell me i just don't want the game to grow

great thread so far

If you want to see the game grow, why not be open to suggestions and discussion like this instead of pushing it off and suggesting that players don't know anything. Do you think DST's current path is really going to cause the game to grow?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Crimson Chin said:

Man, all it takes for a new player to learn how to kite deerclops is to realize you can hit it like 4 times and walk away. Maybe it would be best to just slow down... step away from all this.. and ask yourself...... Do you really feel that DST's combat is perfectly fun and engaging as it is right now? I would love to understand where you are coming from, but I just can't.

All it takes to kill a hollow is to press a single button a few times, easier than Deerclops. Why don't you compare harder stuff to kill with harder stuff to kill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jessie223 said:

so instead of explaining, your response is to just tell me i just don't want the game to grow

great thread so far

I've explained in other threads long ago how, for example, combat should be enhanced, or how Gorge's farming and cooking mechanics have already enhanced the base game's farming and cooking, albeit in an isolated zone. No one's a fan of repeating themselves when they've already stated their point multiple times, like @Crimson Chin has. Simply undermining this thread and not reading posts in their entirety isn't helping your case either.

On that note, nothing productive is coming out of this thread, which is a real shame. It's always threads that suggest new content be added that the "veterans" of Don't Starve (Together) essentially bully newcomers that want DST to grow, myself included.

5 minutes ago, Sweaper said:

The combat system are comparable. Read the entire thread, you already got wrong that I was the one who started comparing the two. I don't know if you skipped one post or not, if not please read everything to get the right context.

I explained extensively throughout this topic since the first or second page (maybe third), can't remember.

I could say the same for you replying to my lengthy posts the moment I submit them, that you don't read mine in their entirety. As someone else had said prior to our exchange, agree to disagree, and leave it at that. We're bickering about a different game than Don't Starve at this rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jessie223 said:

how does it lack depth and how turning them into mandatory content magically add depth

To use an example Ive already thrown out: If the lunar islands had a boss that can be killed. That to me is pretty shallow. But if the lunar islands had a boss that impeded your progress, say in the form of a global sanity drain, then there is now decisions that have to be made that add depth to the gameplay. Do I fight the boss when it spawns to get rid of the drain altogether, or do I maybe need to focus on my sanity management until I can get the preparations ready, or maybe my sanity management is in a pretty good spot atm and i can choose to delay the fight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BeanBagSonic said:

I could say the same for you replying to my lengthy posts the moment I submit them, that you don't read mine in their entirety. As someone else had said prior to our exchange, agree to disagree, and leave it at that. We're bickering about a different game than Don't Starve at this rate.

If you don't see any way to compare those two systems, in any way, form or shape then yeah.

13 minutes ago, sudoku said:

To use an example Ive already thrown out: If the lunar islands had a boss that can be killed. That to me is pretty shallow. But if the lunar islands had a boss that impeded your progress, say in the form of a global sanity drain, then there is now decisions that have to be made that add depth to the gameplay. Do I fight the boss when it spawns to get rid of the drain altogether, or do I maybe need to focus on my sanity management until I can get the preparations ready, or maybe my sanity management is in a pretty good spot atm and i can choose to delay the fight. 

Or ignore it because who cares about sanity, I'm not wasting time on a public server to go to an island just because something is draining sanity.

Edit: And now every casual is voting to reset the world, nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sudoku said:

To use an example Ive already thrown out: If the lunar islands had a boss that can be killed. That to me is pretty shallow. But if the lunar islands had a boss that impeded your progress, say in the form of a global sanity drain, then there is now decisions that have to be made that add depth to the gameplay. Do I fight the boss when it spawns to get rid of the drain altogether, or do I maybe need to focus on my sanity management until I can get the preparations ready, or maybe my sanity management is in a pretty good spot atm and i can choose to delay the fight. 

i don't really see that as a meaningful depth, it just shifts "fight this boss" from optional to mandatory if your initial goals don't involve fighting that boss

which to most new players would be confusing and to some other players just annoying

and this doesn't stop players from just repeating the easiest strategy against the boss if they just wanted to quickly get rid of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
  • Create New...