GentleWilson Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 Have nightmare fuel restore 20-25% of the Vortex Cloak durability instead of 5%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Nick- Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 A vortex cloak buff in general would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumking7 Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 2 hours ago, GentleWilson said: Have nightmare fuel restore 20-25% Would be nice if the dark tatters Ancient Herald dropped would restore around this durability when used on the vortex cloak. Dark Tatters are practically worthless after the first Ancient Herald kill, unless you want to make more vortex cloaks or just really like sacrificing the tatters to the volcano for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BezKa Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 Completely rework the way Ballphins and their palaces work. I'd love them to work properly and to have cute little neighbors that i don't have to welcome personally every morning to come out. I'd also enjoy more save slots. One is taken by my first ever world in which I completed adventure mode, one is my long-term world, one is a cool seed I found. That leaves me two which I'm kind of afraid of using up cause what if I find another cool world? I need at least one open for testing stuff and doing boss fights just for the music. I'm already extremely happy with the bugfixes- it was commonly thought that tuber trees don't regrow around the people I talked with, when they were just missing their regrown sprites and you had to chop them with a machete to make them visible again. And other small things like that. There was plenty, and I just can't wait to hop into my old good world and see nettles growing correctly, bushes and trees swaying in the wind properly, all that stuff... I think if they keep fixing stuff like that I'll be plenty happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonytoony Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 Adding baby water beefalos back into the game would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathem99 Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 Adding Warly's new sideview artwork from DST to DS would be great. I post a picture in comparison below: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ansuman Posted February 3, 2023 Share Posted February 3, 2023 I would love to see the smoldering mechanics and dwarf star duration tuning from DST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KXWl1 Posted February 3, 2023 Share Posted February 3, 2023 1 hour ago, ansuman said: I would love to see the smoldering mechanics and dwarf star duration tuning from DST. I TOTALLY AGREE. The fire spread through smoldering can be in RoG, SW and/or HAM DLC(s), while the star duration can be in all versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CameoAppearance Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 Quick dropping would be nice; I use a mod for it after getting used to it in DST, but consoles don't have mods. Similarly, I use a mod to add more save slots. I'd like it if Walani got some buffs, like maybe to her insanity resistance or wetness resistance. I don't really feel the need to bring over a bunch of stuff from DST like the new farming system or crafting menu or whatever. Let DST be its own thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCDA Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 On 1/30/2023 at 8:07 AM, ArubaroBeefalo said: Just having access to the structure skins would make a huge difference That would officially kill of mega basing in DS, since it'd make decorating pay-to-win... Buy DS, buy all three DLC, you have all the crayons in the crayon box at your disposal. 100%. Adding DST skins, and locking them behind ownership of said skin would ruin this. We'd probably be brought down to the 50% range. Imagine paying for Photoshop, but all shades of brown require an additional fee. Your building potential would be arbitrarily limited in a single player game if you don't spend like $500~~ Yeah, I'd rather have no skins in DS, than being forced to pay an extra fee if I wanted the brown crayon in my crayon box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArubaroBeefalo Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 10 minutes ago, KCDA said: That would officially kill of mega basing in DS, since it'd make decorating pay-to-win...  ???? the hell? idk that adding skins makes you uneable to use unskinned items as you do now what kills megabasing in DS for me is having waaaay less structures than in dst despite having more structures when you link the 3 worlds (and not having raid bosses to have action in between... but that is another topic) i dont believe that dst skins would be added to DS but if they do i cant understand how having 4 rocky walls skin would kill megabasing for a game that only has 1 rocky wall design 11 minutes ago, KCDA said: Yeah, I'd rather have no skins in DS, than being forced to pay an extra fee if I wanted the brown crayon in my crayon box. you said it: EXTRA  13 minutes ago, KCDA said: Imagine paying for Photoshop, but all shades of brown require an additional fee imagine paying for photoshop and suddenly you have a add-on that gives you more tools  tbh, you comment makes no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finn from human Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 1 hour ago, KCDA said: That would officially kill of mega basing in DS, since it'd make decorating pay-to-win... I know it's like, a sin to mention someone's past actions in an internet argument, but I can't help but feel like perhaps it's notable that you KCDA have quite literally spent days not using the main menu in DST, and directly connecting to servers via their IP, because there's a free skin on valentines day and you hate skins so so much you hate skins with all your heart and you have to open the free skin gift to get to the main menu. I don't think that's the common stance on skins at all. People like skins, especially in DST, and would be happy to have the extra options in DS. This wouldn't kill anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCDA Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 3 minutes ago, sylvia wander o said: it's notable that you KCDA have quite literally spent days not using the main menu in DST, and directly connecting to servers via their IP, 2 days at most, and I never directly connected to servers via IP. (Because I couldn't.) 4 minutes ago, sylvia wander o said: and would be happy to have the extra options in DS. This wouldn't kill anything. It's not extra options. You suddenly go from being able to use every tool in the toolbox, to having new tool, in your toolbox, taunting you, that you can't use unless you pay extra. I'm not sure you tried to understand the argument I was making... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primalflower Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 3 minutes ago, KCDA said: It's not extra options. You suddenly go from being able to use every tool in the toolbox, to having new tool, in your toolbox, taunting you, that you can't use unless you pay extra. I'm not sure you tried to understand the argument I was making... I certainly don't. I can tell you with certainty from a lifetime of playing games with skins and even actual objects barred from me with dlc (little big planet 1, 2, and 3) that your point makes no sense and skins would absolutely only serve as extra options, and do nothing to lessen the value of whats already there. This train of action simply does not happen. Not having access to x or y tent skin does nothing to stop me from decorating with the regular tent that i was already using to decorate with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finn from human Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 32 minutes ago, KCDA said: It's not extra options. You suddenly go from being able to use every tool in the toolbox, to having new tool, in your toolbox, taunting you, that you can't use unless you pay extra. I'm not sure you tried to understand the argument I was making. I understand your argument, I just think it's a silly way to look at things. As it is now there is one option for fences that looks ugly and unappealing to me. If skins were added, there would be several options. Yes, you would have to pay money or spools for those options. But as it is now there are several structures I barely use in megabasing because they don't look good. If there were skins, I would use those structures, because there would be more options for how they look visually. To make a toolbox comparison myself: as it is now we have a toolbox full of hammers. We can only build wooden objects that can be put together with nails and hammers. We could, however, buy a wrench, which would give us access to pipes, nuts, bolts, and all sorts of objects we could bulid with them. You could argue that the pipes and nuts and bolts and etc we already have in our homes are now taunting us until we buy that wrench, but hey, would you really rather we be limited to wood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArubaroBeefalo Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 26 minutes ago, KCDA said: It's not extra options. You suddenly go from being able to use every tool in the toolbox, to having new tool, in your toolbox, taunting you, that you can't use unless you pay extra. I'm not sure you tried to understand the argument I was making... dont pay then(?) you pass from being able to use 100%of ds content to being able to use 200% of content. Nobody is stealing you or making you pay for the old and already accessible 100%... if that kills single player basing to you only means that you already dont like single player basing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oCrapaCreeper Posted February 6, 2023 Share Posted February 6, 2023 Skins would be nice, but I personally wouldn't use them. Not going to go through mental gymnastics though to find a way to oppose them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKingDedede Posted February 6, 2023 Share Posted February 6, 2023 1 hour ago, KCDA said: Yeah, I'd rather have no skins in DS, than being forced to pay an extra fee if I wanted the brown crayon in my crayon box. If we were to use an example, let's use Fences as the "brown" crayon in this instance. With Don't Starve, you only have access to one variant of brown crayon (Does Hamlet count in this scenario if Hedges are counted as fencing?). With Don't Starve Together, you are given potential access to various shades of the color brown, and they're all entirely optional to use, with all of their designs appealing to people differently. Some may like the Gingerbread variant of Fences, others may dislike it. They can also be earned slowly over time with spools and unspooling gifts and log-in items. Could you explain what you mean when you use the term 'forced' to pay an extra fee? I believe the term you would be looking for in this instance would be, "tempted to pay an extra fee..." Plus, in this hypothetical scenario, it would be the consumer's money in this instance. No one else should have a say as to how this hypothetical consumer spends their money, as it would be their money and theirs alone to spend. Why should another player have power as to what someone else should and shouldn't buy? Even if this were to be added into the game, it would be entirely optional regardless of it being there to tempt players (Or, "forced" as you put it), and we've been stuck with the single variant of brown crayon for the longest time in single player, officially speaking outside of the realm of mods. No one would force you to use the skin system since it's a single player game, and I don't understand how it would make decorating bases "pay-to-win" from a decorating standpoint, since it only changes items aesthetically and since it's a single player game and only the player playing the save file should see the changes being made unless the base were to be screenshotted or recorded via video and shared with the rest of the world. If we're going with YouTube, I guess you would get more comments, likes and views if you had skins? Would people be more impressed by your base and your taste in aesthetics, garnering you more views? How much would this really change? Can you elaborate on the proposed pay-to-win aspect that you brought up? 2 hours ago, KCDA said: Buy DS, buy all three DLC, you have all the crayons in the crayon box at your disposal. 100%. Adding DST skins, and locking them behind ownership of said skin would ruin this. We'd probably be brought down to the 50% range. Imagine paying for Photoshop, but all shades of brown require an additional fee. Your building potential would be arbitrarily limited in a single player game if you don't spend like $500~~ Shipwrecked and Hamlet brought about many visual changes when they were introduced, and the items and turf that they brought could be used in the other worlds. If a person were to not buy the DLC, they'd be limiting themselves in terms of building potential. What would be the difference in having to pay for the DLC and paying for skins if both purchases can potentially change the game's aesthetics? That the DLC brought about many gameplay changes? What justifies the aesthetic changes brought about by the DLC in comparison to the skins? I almost feel that, as a hypothetical, a person could choose to not to buy the DLC for DS, simply because they dislike the aesthetics brought about by Shipwrecked and Hamlet. They could then use this argument, adjusting it as needed to suit their position, and attempt to dissuade people from buying the DLC because of a dislike for them. (For the record, I love the aesthetics of Shipwrecked. That island/beach aesthetic along with the color palette is top shelf.) One of the few ways I could see this being pay-to-win in terms of aesthetics and skins is if someone hosted a contest with a theme that participants had to adhere to. Those who don't have the skins required could probably be left out at a disadvantage... from a contest standpoint. Gameplay-wise, the skins would only be seen by you unless you're the type to share screenshots. That, and the aforementioned YouTube/social media platform/forum of your choosing. From what I've seen from the Steam Workshop, people have also created mods that allow you to use skins from DST. Not a single person, from the forums here to Steam to Discord and anywhere else, has forced me to download any of these mods because they're all entirely optional to use. Essentially, the same argument can be adjusted to point out that because these mods exist that allow you to rekin items to appear as their DST skinned counterparts, everyone else is arbitrarily limiting themselves to one shade of brown crayon for a system that is completely optional to opt in. If the system to allow players to use their skins were to be added into DS, it would only increase the amount of options available to all players at any given moment. Those who do not wish to use skins can simply choose not to, and their decisions wouldn't harm or impact anyone else. There would simply be more visual options to choose from that don't give players any benefits whatsoever apart from subjective visual appeal. 44 minutes ago, sylvia wander o said: To make a toolbox comparison yourself: as it is now we have a toolbox full of hammers. We can only build wooden objects that can be put together with nails and hammers. We could, however, buy a wrench, which would give us access to pipes, nuts, bolts, and all sorts of objects we could bulid with them. You could argue that the pipes and nuts and bolts and etc we already have in our homes are now taunting us until we buy that wrench, but hey, would you really rather we be limited to wood? This metaphor confuses me because KCDA never specified what the tools were supposed to be in this instance. Are they supposed to be the game's various structures with the default skins they have now? What do they mean by different tools? Are we comparing tools and their brands or additional parts, and saying that one brand is superior to the others objectively? Are the DLCs the tools? Is it bad that we get more tools? Aren't tools used to solve problems? The metaphor needed to be worked on more. To wrap this up, I would like more visual, decorative options in DS. I would like to add that I seriously doubt that such a feature would ever come about to a game that, as of this writing, is receiving a beta to test an incredibly large patch that is keen on fixing the large amount of bugs in the game after it was left alone and left in a rather poor state after Hamlet was released. A future quality of life patch is coming in the future and will most likely bring more bug fixes along and maybe some changes introduced into DST, but I can only speculate as to what it may bring and I do not have a definitive answer. If such a feature were to be added (The ability to access the skins you have obtained in DST in DS), simply give players the option to opt out of doing so. That way, players won't be tempted or 'forced' as some may say. Just give the option to disable this potential, not-yet-realized-and-most-likely-will-not-happen access to their library of cosmetic items. Put it in the options menu for DS, have it say something like, "Use your DST catalogue of cosmetic skins? (Skins only, DST characters are not supported)" and have the player change it at their own discretion. More options please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCDA Posted February 6, 2023 Share Posted February 6, 2023 I'd like to say that creating art is simply for the sake of creating art. It's not about gloating, not about the money you spend, and not about getting views. It's about your own artistic expression and personal satisfaction. 15 hours ago, TheKingDedede said: Shipwrecked and Hamlet brought about many visual changes when they were introduced, and the items and turf that they brought could be used in the other worlds. If a person were to not buy the DLC, they'd be limiting themselves in terms of building potential. What would be the difference in having to pay for the DLC and paying for skins if both purchases can potentially change the game's aesthetics? You buy DS, ROG, SW, and HAM. You have every single tool / option included right out of the box. Run you maybe $15 - $30 these days? All the decor options in the code are yours, 100%, (and if you don't care about decor, good for you, you bought it for the gameplay like the rest of us.) Now if we add skins to the mix, you don't have access to 100% of the options you would have previously. You're arbitrarily prevented from using some options, despite it already being in the code of the game itself, you just aren't allowed to use them. You have lets say 50% of the total options you would've had otherwise. Currently in DS, we have access to all the decoration options, 100% of what's in the code (slight exaggeration of course, obviously most things on the "Removed Features" section of the wiki don't count) we can use, all for $30 at the most. If DST's skin system was brought over to DS, that figure would be more like $1,000. (Obviously, didn't do math for that figure, and it's not based on the Steam Market either. Historically seeing $40 for a Crockpot skin is by no means unheard of.) (Main point)  Sure, there's "more options" in a sense, but it's like buying a crayon box claiming to have 200 crayons, you'd be expecting a full rainbow. However, when you open it up, you'd find there's only 40 crayons in this 200 crayon sized box, and some of the advertised colors have been swapped with "I Owe You" notes. Can you "make do" with some of the free default colors? Sure, but if you had a flash of inspiration and really needed the real vibrant crimson red, not the I.O.U. vibrant crimson red, you're out of luck unless you pay another $5 - $40, on the spot. You'd be really disappointed in this right? If you bought a crayon box with only these 40 crayons in it, but it only advertised the 40 in the box, you wouldn't be disappointed, you have all the crayons you're gonna have. There isn't any compromising, and certain colors (aesthetic themes) aren't hanging over your head 24/7, constantly reminding you, and limiting your creativity. Big note, this isn't an "anti-monetization" rant, Klei's pretty mild with this kind of stuff. If EA's "consumer friendly" monetization methods consistently score a 1.5/10, Klei scores an 8/10 at the lowest. 9.5/10 at the highest. A lot of times, I see DS as an art program. Can I work with a self-imposed limited color set? Yes. Can I work with a tech-imposed limited color set? (Think back to some ancient art programs, like Mario Paint which only gave the user 30 colors to work with.) Yeah, I can make it work. But if I'm artificially limited, against my will, and not redistricted by the technology, then it's reasonable to be frustrated, knowing that more colors exist, in a program you fully paid for, but not being allowed to use them. When I say: 18 hours ago, KCDA said: it'd make decorating pay-to-win... Of course I don't mean mechanically. A different looking Crockpot isn't going to cook faster. I'm talking about decorating as a whole being downgraded, because "better" options (skins) exist, and not paying even more money for them means you have tools in your toolbox, that you aren't legally allowed to touch. The one's and zero's already exist in your game, you just don't have permission to, "use the vibrant crimson red crayon" (if you let me borrow my own analogy.) You know it exists, you know it'd be perfect for this exact scenario, and it'd look "worse" if you didn't use it. But you haven't payed the $5 - $40 fee to redeem that I.O.U. so here it mocks you, limiting your own creativity. If you didn't know that the "vibrant crimson red crayon" existed, would you be upset in this scenario? No. That's what I mean by "pay-to-win." If you don't pay, you "lose" your potential creativity. You can't just "pick another color" in that scenario, you have no other suitable colors. 15 hours ago, TheKingDedede said: From what I've seen from the Steam Workshop, people have also created mods that allow you to use skins from DST. Not a single person, from the forums here to Steam to Discord and anywhere else, has forced me to download any of these mods because they're all entirely optional to use. That's a poor argument right there. We aren't talking about mods that port skins into DS (which I think those kinds of mods used to get struck down commonly in years past? Idk, I'm not in the modding scene.) We're talking about them being added to DS officially. Sure, the mod Hungry With a Chance of Meatballs exists I guess, and no-one's forcing you to play with it. Klei officially adding them though, wouldn't be the player's choice. It'd be forced onto the player. It'd be an official part of the code, that you arbitrarily cannot get access to. (Plus, I'm personally against the usage of mods wholesale, so it's an especially strange argument to use against me. I'm very much a "don't mess with the code" kinda person.) 15 hours ago, TheKingDedede said: To make a toolbox comparison yourself: as it is now we have a toolbox full of hammers. We can only build wooden objects that can be put together with nails and hammers. We could, however, buy a wrench, which would give us access to pipes, nuts, bolts, and all sorts of objects we could bulid with them. You could argue that the pipes and nuts and bolts and etc we already have in our homes are now taunting us until we buy that wrench, but hey, would you really rather we be limited to wood? 15 hours ago, TheKingDedede said: This metaphor confuses me because KCDA never specified what the tools were supposed to be in this instance. Are they supposed to be the game's various structures with the default skins they have now? What do they mean by different tools? Structure to structure, item to item. (Yes, grounded items also count as decor. Be it as simple as a road lined with Gold Nuggets, or lined with Lucy The Axe(s), or different weapon skins placed around a Dev Graveyard to make it look like a long-past battlefield.) Primarily the structures though, since those are your big ticket items. (Might I interest you in another infamous $40 Crockpots reference again?) 15 hours ago, TheKingDedede said: Are we comparing tools and their brands or additional parts, and saying that one brand is superior to the others objectively? No brand shenanigans. 15 hours ago, TheKingDedede said: Are the DLCs the tools? DLCs certainly have / introduce more tools. More Turfs, more structures, more mobs, more grounded items (and floating too), and more plants. All have their uses, each being a unique color. The world(s) are your canvas, and you should be able to paint with every color your heart desires (and is in the game.) Not have half of them locked away behind separate purchases for a game you already own all the content for / 10K hours of AFK grinding. 15 hours ago, TheKingDedede said: Aren't tools used to solve problems? Assuming the tools themselves don't need tools, and you don't need to be signed-in / paid a fee to use it. (In that analogy, you're already holding the tool, but it refuses to work. In the same way, the code already exists in the game.) 15 hours ago, TheKingDedede said: The metaphor needed to be worked on more. Gave multiple metaphors for a reason. To add clarity, and prevent confusion. 15 hours ago, TheKingDedede said: If such a feature were to be added (The ability to access the skins you have obtained in DST in DS), simply give players the option to opt out of doing so. That way, players won't be tempted or 'forced' as some may say. What would "opting out" even do? Spent a good five minutes trying to figure out what you could've meant by that, so here's some (bad) interpretations: Opting out would make it so skins aren't viewable in the menus? Opting out would LET YOU USE ALL THE SKINS? Regardless of you owning it or not? (I love that option, but let's be honest, it's unlikely & silly.) Opting out would prevent you from using all skins? And they'd still be visible in menus? Opting out would un-skin all items and structures in a saved game? (Like if you copied a friend's world, and suddenly all the items / structures in the copy save would no longer be skinned when you boot up the game?) Opting out would have the same functionality as "opting in." Anyway, hope my explanations helped get my point across, I'd like to once again say, I'm not anti-monetization, Klei does a commendable job about it, and have a good [Insert Time Of Day Here.] (Fixed some small typos like forgetting to say "hours" in "10K hours" I always triple check what I write before posting, and yet, things fall through the cracks.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CameoAppearance Posted February 6, 2023 Share Posted February 6, 2023 I'd like it if it was easier to make replacement surfboards in Hamlet since the original is fairly fragile! Maybe the oddity shop could sell seashells? Also I put these in the bug tracker because I wasn't clear on whether they were intentional but I wish spider monkeys would be neutral to Wilbur and the gas rainforest would affect mobs more consistently since right now it only kills players and gnats, which is especially weird as Wilba since she's a pig but it doesn't affect any other pigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKingDedede Posted February 6, 2023 Share Posted February 6, 2023 30 minutes ago, KCDA said: You buy DS, ROG, SW, and HAM. You have every single tool / option included right out of the box. Run you maybe $15 - $30 these days? All the decor options in the code are yours, 100%, (and if you don't care about decor, good for you, you bought it for the gameplay like the rest of us.) Alright, so in this scenario, we would have bought Don't Starve in its entirety. Back then, before we entertained the idea of having Don't Starve Together skins in DS, we had the game as it was. I'm with you so far. 35 minutes ago, KCDA said: Now if we add skins to the mix, you don't have access to 100% of the options you would have previously. You're arbitrarily prevented from using some options, despite it already being in the code of the game itself, you just aren't allowed to use them. You have lets say 50% of the total options you would've had otherwise. Currently in DS, we have access to all the decoration options, 100% of what's in the code (slight exaggeration of course, obviously most things on the "Removed Features" section of the wiki don't count) we can use, all for $30 at the most. If DST's skin system was brought over to DS, that figure would be more like $1,000. (Obviously, didn't do math for that figure, and it's not based on the Steam Market either. Historically seeing $40 for a Crockpot skin is by no means unheard of.) I agree with you to an extent. I am not expecting cut/beta features to be added into the game even if the code was dummied out beyond normal means that were offered to me. However, I don't believe that in this instance, it would be "arbitrary" to no longer have "access" to these skins. I can only assume that in the scenario where this would happen, the devs have locked away these skins away from me, as it were, because they did so with the intent that players would buy the skins to continue their company's financial support. I am not saying that this would be their sole avenue of revenue, nor am I claiming that this would be the source of the largest profits for the company. So they wouldn't just lock the skins for no apparent reason or would just do so on a whim. I can only assume that in this instance, it was done with the intent of gaining more capital. The DS DLC are one time purchases, so I can only assume that devs would have to play around with the idea of tempting players to gain access to skins by having them buy them. I don't entirely agree with this outcome in the world of gaming in general. The company deserves to make money for the effort that they put in for their products. It can be argued that it isn't worth investing so much effort into cosmetic items that don't affect the gameplay apart from the aesthetic/decorative purposes of base building. I also don't know if using the example of $1,000 as a general amount of money to determine the amount needed to 'unlock' other options would make sense. If we're not basing it off of the Steam Market, where the prices can fluctuate wildly with seemingly no rhyme or reason, then can't we use the in-game DST store to determine that? If you wanted my personal opinion, full disclosure, I do indeed think paying that much money for cosmetic items would be absurd. I couldn't stop anyone from spending that much money, since it wouldn't be my place to say, but I'd consider it absurd if I had to spend that much money for cosmetics. I would like to stress that in this scenario, I understand if I dont have access to a skin, then that would be on me. They would still be optional, but in my following point, it would begin to set an annoying precedent for Klei if the players allowed. If I may pull an example from a different game entirely, Monster Hunter Rise comes to mind. If you're not familiar with the franchise, cosmetic items used to be given out for free in previous installments. Past games would have a ton of collaborations with other properties and they would be in the game for free, with the player only needing to put in the effort of getting the items from sometimes difficult quests. And then Rise happened... Spoiler  The price you would have to pay for the amount of cosmetic DLC in Rise is absurd. You would need to pay roughly $170 (Someone did the math and reported the number on January 22, 2022, and it has only gone up as of now because of updates.) In addition to this, many players share the belief that, while the game still offers quests for free cosmetic items, the items from the game's DLC shop far trump and outshine the aesthetics from the items that are given out for free from Event Quests. It's still all entirely subjective as to the actual quality of the items being sold versus being given out for free, but I will admit that nothing compares or shares the same looks as the 'Lost Code' set of items, or the Plushie weapon reskins from a future update. I like the looks of these item sets, but I did not buy them because I knew I could make do without them, they had no real impact on my gameplay and I had no interest in obtaining the DLC items themselves. Again, it would be up to the consumer to determine whether or not they wanted to buy something or if it even fits an aesthetic/base design that they would even like to aim for or build. Spoiler https://steamcommunity.com/app/1446780/discussions/0/3202622816412046034/ The source of my number, if needed.  1 hour ago, KCDA said: (Main point)  Sure, there's "more options" in a sense, but it's like buying a crayon box claiming to have 200 crayons, you'd be expecting a full rainbow. However, when you open it up, you'd find there's only 40 crayons in this 200 crayon sized box, and some of the advertised colors have been swapped with "I Owe You" notes. Can you "make do" with some of the free default colors? Sure, but if you had a flash of inspiration and really needed the real vibrant crimson red, not the I.O.U. vibrant crimson red, you're out of luck unless you pay another $5 - $40, on the spot. You'd be really disappointed in this right? If you bought a crayon box with only these 40 crayons in it, but it only advertised the 40 in the box, you wouldn't be disappointed, you have all the crayons you're gonna have. There isn't any compromising, and certain colors (aesthetic themes) aren't hanging over your head 24/7, constantly reminding you, and limiting your creativity. Maybe? Again, what confuses me is that currently, both DS and DST are their own separate things. Before we began entertaining and debating the idea of skins being present in DS, I'm going to argue that the game was sold as a "(box) of 40 crayons". If we're being consistent, the box didn't always have 40 crayons in it, because DS was given more updates content later down the line (Beta, DLC being made avaialble for purchase that significantly changed gameplay cycle) i.e. more crayons. Some of the crayons were given out for free to... those who beta tested them? (Hamlet, I mean) It would be more akin to waking up the next day after having bought the original box and finding out that another box set was made, this time offering 200 crayons and unique features/colors that were not offered in DS (To keep consistency and clarity, the box with 200 crayons is DST, and the crayons mean more available cosmetic skins, but also gameplay features offered in DLC, as well as DST's updates... I think?). But the big box, I guess in this scenario, would have some of the crayons missing in order to incentivize buying individual crayons/skins, but in terms of main gameplay features, the crayon box would have it. Regardless on anyone's feelings on the features I'm bringing up, sailing is available to all players. Visiting the Moon Island is available to everyone. All bosses are available to everyone. Specfic colors would be available to everyone regardless of what they paid, and for those who continue to support the devs/makers of the crayons by buying colors that they do not have access to initially, then everyone else gains more colors by default i.e. gameplay features that everyone can have access to. Which sounds weird, what crayon colors do we consider... essential? Also, crayons can be combined and mixed, like coloring pencils. Also, if we used crayons n this situation, wouldn't that mean that the crayons were always meant to be backwards compatible in a sense? Nothing restricts me from using crayons from one set with another. Also, I don't know how true this metaphor is. It almost implies that I should have access to the skins regardless if I pay for them or not. With crayons, it's different because that situation would suck. I do deserve 200 crayons if I bought the box expecting that. DST is different because they still add more colors/features. I can't find the source at the moment, but I remember one person finding a box of markers claiming that it had 80 pieces... and then they counted the markers and saw that it only had 40 markers and the company counted the caps as their own separate pieces. So 40 markers total. 1 hour ago, KCDA said: Big note, this isn't an "anti-monetization" rant, Klei's pretty mild with this kind of stuff. If EA's "consumer friendly" monetization methods consistently score a 1.5/10, Klei scores an 8/10 at the lowest. 9.5/10 at the highest. A lot of times, I see DS as an art program. Can I work with a self-imposed limited color set? Yes. Can I work with a tech-imposed limited color set? (Think back to some ancient art programs, like Mario Paint which only gave the user 30 colors to work with.) Yeah, I can make it work. But if I'm artificially limited, against my will, and not redistricted by the technology, then it's reasonable to be frustrated, knowing that more colors exist, in a program you fully paid for, but not being allowed to use them. Which is a fair viewpoint to have, but since the topic of skins and their looks are subjective (And if I may continue using the crayon metaphor or analogy), then I think some crayon colors are absolutely awful, and I would never want to use them regardless. If a person wants to buy every single skin so that they would have access to a wider variety of cosmetic items, more power to them. We could argue that they may be getting taken advantage of, but they're gaining access to a product that they paid money for, and they're gaining that access without access to it being taken away from them... For now. But that's a whole other discussion that may or may not be worth having. I would also argue that a person who has made it their mission to have access to all of the items make up a very small majority of players. I cannot prove it, since there's no hard data to support this point, but this is just going off of an assumption. I can only argue that there are many players in DST who are either starting the game for the first time and playing regardless of their item count, or others who have played for a very long time and understand that not having access to one specific skin or skins is not the end of the world, and can play the game fine regardless. It might bother them, not having access to a cosmetic item, but they can get on without or have a friend use theirs. This wouldn't work in DS if they suddenly wanted to have that skin and didn't have access to it due to the aforementioned hypothetical access to their cosmetic library, but I doubt it would be a massive issue other than a personal one. 1 hour ago, KCDA said: Of course I don't mean mechanically. A different looking Crockpot isn't going to cook faster. I'm talking about decorating as a whole being downgraded, because "better" options (skins) exist, and not paying even more money for them means you have tools in your toolbox, that you aren't legally allowed to touch. The one's and zero's already exist in your game, you just don't have permission to, "use the vibrant crimson red crayon" (if you let me borrow my own analogy.) You know it exists, you know it'd be perfect for this exact scenario, and it'd look "worse" if you didn't use it. But you haven't payed the $5 - $40 fee to redeem that I.O.U. so here it mocks you, limiting your own creativity. If you didn't know that the "vibrant crimson red crayon" existed, would you be upset in this scenario? No. That's what I mean by "pay-to-win." If you don't pay, you "lose" your potential creativity. You can't just "pick another color" in that scenario, you have no other suitable colors. Again, maybe? I would still have other choices, in a sense. Maybe the other options don't appeal to me. I dislike the Creepy Cauldron skin, but I wouldn't be upset if I didn't have access to it. In fact, I don't have access to it and I still make bases regardless of whether or not I have it. If my friends wanted to make a base with a spooky look to it, then that would be on them to get that specific skin to tie the look of everything together. If they didn't, it wouldn't be the end of the world and we move on with out lives. The spooky aesthetic is not one that appeals to me, and again, it depends on the person if they want to aim for that suggestion. Also, I don't know how much this counts for, but skins and characters can be spooled for. It takes an absurd amount of time if you choose to get items this way unless your luck is off the charts, but it's an option regardless. I'd argue this doesn't count for much, much like getting the premium currency in a gacha game. 2 hours ago, KCDA said: That's a poor argument right there. We aren't talking about mods that port skins into DS (which I think those kinds of mods used to get struck down commonly in years past? Idk, I'm not in the modding scene.) We're talking about them being added to DS officially. Sure, the mod Hungry With a Chance of Meatballs exists I guess, and no-one's forcing you to play with it. Klei officially adding them though, wouldn't be the player's choice. It'd be forced onto the player. It'd be an official part of the code, that you arbitrarily cannot get access to. (Plus, I'm personally against the usage of mods wholesale, so it's an especially strange argument to use against me. I'm very much a "don't mess with the code" kinda person.) Regardless of how you feel about mods, they exist as an option. The ability to use mods is still supported by the devs, and if I were in the same boat as you, I would have to acknowledge that in this situation, yes, they would be an option that other players can use. Even if I have to opt into them myself, I would also probably have to drive myself crazy in finding a sufficient amount of mods that would have every single skin that was present in DST. So no, I would not like to use such cosmetic mods myself. Also, now that I think about it, even with skins, doesn't that mean that you could only really reskin items from the base game, as well as Reign of Giants? So half of the game would have skins. I don't know if structures that appear in all DLCs would count, though. I am not suggesting them as a solution to you, but be aware that others may consider them a potential solution if they really wanted every single cosmetic skin at their disposal if Klei were to fail to deliver. 1 hour ago, KCDA said: Structure to structure, item to item. (Yes, grounded items also count as decor. Be it as simple as a road lined with Gold Nuggets, or lined with Lucy The Axe(s), or different weapon skins placed around a Dev Graveyard to make it look like a long-past battlefield.) Primarily the structures though, since those are your big ticket items. (Might I interest you in another infamous $40 Crockpots reference again?) Was the price of the $40 crock pot one that was set by the community on the Steam Market? That might have more to do with supply and demand and Klei or some other force limiting access to that specific skin, regardless of what it was. I think a better example would be the Funko Pop skins, which the figures themselves... kind of fit the Don't Starve aesthetic? Again, subjective, but those would be a better example since I know the Tesla Lantern goes for pretty high prices on the Steam Market itself. I would argue that those skins would probably fit your argument better. They're limited in how you can get them and if you really wanted them, then it would be a complete hassle or impossible to do so. I know I would have to move on eventually, I have other games to play. Full disclosure, I have the Tesla Lantern skin, but the other skins from the set didn't interest me. They might appeal to others, but again, skins are not essential to gameplay, are optional, and I would argue are not worth stressing out over. 2 hours ago, KCDA said: No brand shenanigans. Fair enough. Still don't know if brands would be skins in this situation, though.  2 hours ago, KCDA said: DLCs certainly have / introduce more tools. More Turfs, more structures, more mobs, more grounded items (and floating too), and more plants. All have their uses, each being a unique color. The world(s) are your canvas, and you should be able to paint with every color your heart desires (and is in the game.) Not have half of them locked away behind separate purchases for a game you already own all the content for / 10K of AFK grinding. I agree for the most part, though I am confused by your 10,000 comment. 10,000 of what? Hours? Players also do not own the skins outright in DST, you'd still have to buy them or spool them. It's not my favorite system, but it's there. 2 hours ago, KCDA said: Assuming the tools themselves don't need tools, and you don't need to be signed-in / paid a fee to use it. (In that analogy, you're already holding the tool, but it refuses to work. In the same way, the code already exists in the game.) I don't know, the tools should work regardless of how they look. It wouldn't bother me since many things in this game break eventually, others don't. Their cosmetic appearances are not vital, moreso the mechanical purpose and less so the cosmetic purpose. Function over form is what I would argue. You would also still have access to the tool in that scenario, it would just look different. It wouldn't be rendered inoperable until you had a technician look at it like some sort of John Deere tractor. The technician being access to the internet, in this case.  2 hours ago, KCDA said: What would "opting out" even do? Spent a good five minutes trying to figure out what you could've meant by that, so here's some (bad) interpretations: Opting out would make it so skins aren't viewable in the menus? Opting out would LET YOU USE ALL THE SKINS? Regardless of you owning it or not? (I love that option, but let's be honest, it's unlikely & silly.) Opting out would prevent you from using all skins? And they'd still be visible in menus? Opting out would un-skin all items and structures in a saved game? (Like if you copied a friend's world, and suddenly all the items / structures in the copy save would no longer be skinned when you boot up the game?) Opting out would have the same functionality as "opting in." Anyway, hope my explanations helped get my point across, I'd like to once again say, I'm not anti-monetization, Klei does a commendable job about it, and have a good [Insert Time Of Day Here.] 1. If we had to entertain and expand the idea, let's say the Clean Sweeper was an item in the game if you said yes. If you say yes, it appears in your worlds that you generate and you can craft it, using it much like in DST. If you select no, it doesn't appear, you don't have access to your skins and you can play. The concern of having access to skins would fall moreso on the player. It would be up to them to open themselves up to the dilemma of not having access to every skingle skin, but I would argue that again, these players would make up the minority. The majority would most likely be happy or enthused to have access to skins and not every single skin. 2. If you opt out, you use default skins only, and the Clean Sweeper is gone as an item. I don't know if we should include the option to switch back to "Yes" when a world is active and then have the Clean Sweeper be available when the player changes their mind. But I'd say sure, let them do that, more options the better. 3. Skins don't appear at all, if I believe that you were arguing that seeing them at all would somehow convince a player to buy every single one available. Again, that would probably be a very rare case. 4. Sure, remove the skins from all items. I pointed out in 2 that it would be a weird option, and I'm going to argue here that it would be difficult to implement, but more options for the player and more power to the devs if they could do it. 5. Maybe. As a question, would you at all be concerned if a player somehow chose to buy every single skin? I doubt that that would happen and again, to reiterate a previous point, would probably be a rare case. Extremely so, even. Anyways, to sum everything up, I would like for cosmetic skins to be available in Don't Starve, but again, I reiterate that this is something that is most likely not going to happen. If it happen, I doubt that such a concern would arise from the community where large swathes of forum goers would somehow complain that they didn't have access to every single skin because they didn't buy every single skin from Don't Starve Together. I do not like the ability to buy skins in games generally, but I find that Monster Hunter Rise is an experience that I am far more familiar with and is an example of one whose cosmetic DLC practices I do not like. There is an argument to be made that DS and DST could be setting a dangerous precedent for the future in terms of cosmetics, but as long as DST's sales pitch is cosmetic items that I can buy whenever I feel like it that have no real effect on the game, as well as supporting its continued development in some small way, then I am fine with it. Off-topic ever so slightly, but the only game I've seen that has made cosmetic items not be a controversial hassle is Deep Rock Galactic. If I may, I used to want the Biohazard skin pack incredibly badly in Deep Rock Galactic, but after realizing that, even though it was a multiplayer game, granted, it was merely cosmetic. It may have preyed on my desires to obtain the pack, but I had to come to the realization that it wasn't important and didn't affect anything. The only thing that would happen is that if I did have it, other players would most likely simply compliment me on its looks and then go about their gameplay. If I did buy it, worse case scenario, I was supporting the devs and showing my support, since the game was bought for me as a gift. If you've seriously read everything up until this point, then I would like to thank you for that. Really, sincerely. This is a whole disgusting block of visually unappealing text and you even did the same for the last essay/post I made. You debated with me, I learned a bit more about your view point and hopefully vice versa. I wish you a good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoth143 Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 I'd like the Hamlet shops to get a bit of refinement. As they stand now, they're handy but not as handy as they could be plus if you decide to steal from them, they won't restock, at all. Mud Spa could sell nettles and nettle rolls for Lush Season which is handy for the first year especially if you haven't set up your sprinkler system yet. If you're trying to earn oinks, it would be an interesting form of gameplay to take on jobs from shop owners, not just selling refinement items or gems, but having a little goal board to earn a few extra oinks. Completely optional of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Nick- Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 HD textures please. I would love to see Shipwrecked and Hamlet HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornete Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 Unlikely to happen and a bit of a small thing, but I would really like to see a touchup on Wheeler's character model in-game. My main gripe is with her hair, everything else I adore. The way her hair is designed leads to a lot of ugly looks with a lot of hats in-game, and I simply think it doesn't do the model shown in shorts/portraits enough justice, and comes off as a bit stiff and not as fluffy/dynamic as it could be. The front piece of her hair feels like a static png on top, rather then being incorporated into the background layers of the hair. TL:DR poofier hair for Wheeler, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArubaroBeefalo Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 i wish the price balance between moggles and glow berries were fixed, makes no sense to buy glow berries with higher price than the whole item crafted. You end up not refilling moggles, just buying new ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.