Don't Starve Together is a Sandbox Game

[Well-met]

39 minutes ago, SuperMeatGoy said:

because they can be fun when done correctly & makes character more "unique". if downsides truly a tool of balance we'd be seeing alot harder ones than a 1.1x sanity drain (or maybe we'd downsides that DONT immediately turn into upsides like Wendy's 0.75x damage that is more often than not actually 1.16x damage.)

Also i question whether or not you actually read the OP judging by this poor attempt at deflecting everything i said with what is overall a meaningless question. You do realize characters can have a downside but still be busted right? If would-be OP characters were actually shackled by downsides like youre implying this game would be a hell of alot less fun.

those 1.1 and 0.75 things are usually of the older generation of characters. The newer ones have very significant downsides such as wormwood and walter

also you seem very agitated and perceive offenses where there are none.

[Mysterious box]

12 hours ago, Horsheen said:

At it's core the game is still a survival game. Yes, the game is easier than it used to be but don't forget the fact that you can tweak the world settings and overall just avoid things you don't like. Think farming is too strong? Then just don't farm. Don't like Wanda? Just don't play her when she comes out.

The game is becoming more accessible and I think it's a good thing. I never played DST for it's difficulty, I played it for it's unique world and characters. Now of course I'm not everyone and people play DST for different reasons, but this of course means that not everyone will be pleased.

Why does balance even matter for a co-op game? I'll never know.

Depends on how you look at it if kiel released a character that rained down every day boss drop and ancient science machine craft from the sky for 2 twigs it probaly wouldn't be a issue but then working for anything in the game begins to seem pointless no?

[Scrimbles]

Ah, the classic "Things have changed, stop having opinions and stop wanting things." argument.

No thanks?

You recommend Uncompromising Mode, which I appreciate, but as the head dev I don't think it's fair to just tell people to "mod the game". Not only do console players not have that option, but you are automatically locked out of pubs, and like 90% of the servers being hosted, and honestly it would be nice to get some official content that strives to do what me and my team are trying to accomplish.

[Seero]

ok

[WoodieMain45684]

I'm glad you mentioned us btw.

Unlike Scrimbles, I have kinda accepted that the base game's balance is never going to truly be in-line with what the team or the collection of players we develop for would like to see. We're a small margin of the player base. I can hope that the game comes to be what I would like it to be, but I know that every single one of my individual preferences will not be fulfilled in the future, it's unreasonable to think so for a game that's designed for more people than just me.

I know that I can voice my opinion, but I know it's much more effective to just create my own environment. (Plus I get to make all sorts of cool creatures n stuff while doing it). I can make things more powerful, I can change how something works, I can make something weaker. I can change the tone of the game. I can create a new thing entirely. That kind of power is intoxicating.

For that, I would like to thank Klei for their support for the modding system thus-far. I'm not sure if I would still be playing as much Don't Starve if it wasn't there. Mostly because I would have already done all that the game has to offer, just visiting back for a few major updates. Now I can allot some time into creativity and develop new ideas that I have that klei may not be able to get to, like a lunar dragonfly or something, maybe one day : ) . It's actually kinda hard to stop being creative and attempting to do it in such as way that makes it "fit" with everything else.

[SuperMeatGoy]

16 hours ago, Auth said:

I can understand the argument that some people like the game getting easier and overall more sandboxy, however starting a thread as dismissively as "get over it" and effectively saying "The game you want will never exist! Stop giving your opinion & shut up you big dumb idiot!" is just a really bad move.

This is either an incredibly inflated strawman or you just skimmed through my post. Probably both, I don't like reading long things either so I dont blame you. I never stated that I liked nor disliked the new direction the game is going. 

There is a big divide in the community (not just the echo chamber that is the Klei Forums) over fans of the original spirit of the game and people who enjoy the newer, easier, more casual experience. For all of those on team OG, it's a losing battle. I don't see what's wrong with advising them to go modded. There is a whole community of people like them who have put matters into their own hands, much better than cries laying on deaf ears.

Of course there's also the console players on this board like Schizo Mike but I don't really care about them very much & I'm fine with my advice only being followable to the PC players.

17 hours ago, Auth said:

As an example, even though Minecraft's current development seems centered around refurbishing existing areas of the game, I can still ask for entirely new directions to take, even if that's not where the ship's currently being pointed.

Also, theres a big difference here, your comparison doesn't work. You're merely talking about refreshing content VS adding new content. A more accurate comparison would be if Mojang decided to make their game not casual via temperature, phantom waves, having mobs break beds, seasons where no crops can grow, automatic farms jamming, permadeath being default. Would they suddenly start listening to the fans of the original casual game after all this progress to undo it?