My proposition of making the game more difficult, all the while eliminating most forms of undertelegraphed world griefing. Comment on thread for how you would raise game difficulty without base destruction

[chirsg]

Uncompromising survival is something in the hot seat of discussion. 
I'd like to offer one of my opinions that will probably piss off most boss rushers.
Here goes
Penalty for eating past hunger threshold.

I'll poke a hole immediately in this proposal by giving an example of wigfrid not being able to eat tall scotch eggs and meaty stew without a penalty.
She's my main and I present the idea at risk of this idea passing.

Earlier, I felt I cheated the game by healing off damage using bacon and eggs while in the fight against the ink trio.

I rarely heal past hunger threshold using food as a general principal, but I was almost going to die getting chomped on by Chungus blight.

I think difficulty can 100% be implemented without endangering builds. Especially endangering builds that are less than necessary for survival.

I ask anyone reading to discuss.

Wigfrid after eating 5 bacon and eggs to heal 100 hp.

[Mike23Ua]

Base destruction SHOULD be a thing though.. at least have a few mobs that target fences & walls and some mobs that want to try to get into and eat your crops.

Rabbits are an excellent example: they dig holes in the ground, so Logically they would tunnel underneath the decorative walls and fences you’ve built to invade and eat stuff out your gardens.

This is or well rather I should say WAS the Nature of the DS franchise.

Adorable Pogs waltz up to your storage chests & fling all your loot on the ground.

And I feel like this is something we shouldn’t try to “avoid” just because DST has 10,000 Pretty skins.

That said: Should Boulders rain from the heavens into your base with no way to prepare or prevent them? Probably not..

But if Klei wants to add a “Ink Blight Tick” that starts out small and goes around eating wooden items/structures to grow in size and power that is threat that IF your paying attention can be fought off/prevented.

And I don’t think any survival game should have content that actively tries to “avoid” your base.

Even freak Zeds will occasionally wonder into your base in SoD2.

People even wanted Pigmen Farm Raids in DST after a animated short teased them.

[chirsg]

Base destruction takes away incentive from building bases.
If players have no incentives to build bases, then why even keep a world longer than 100 days?
*You* the player is the only thing that defends the base from destruction. You cannot delegate mobs to do your job for you in a proper way.
Base building is not always synonymous with survival. You can wreck every single boss in the game without even a single crock pot. 
Structures are in a lot of cases, a humongous waste of time.
The amount of unmarked chests I've seen and people looking through 10000000000 chests just to find 1 piece of grass has occurred 100000000000000 times.
Time management is a more important part of survival and bases often interfere with that.

And a lot of times, when my base is destroyed, despite me having gear that takes HOURS to accumulate, I'll abandon the world despite having bundle wraps, ruins gear, weather pains, 

It takes me about 3 hours usually to get kitted out comfortably to kill Bee Queen, but if I'm in the middle of a build and my work is jeopardized, despite my ultimate solution to any instances of danger being eliminated, will scrap the world if unfixable destruction takes place.

The death of beauty to me is more tragic than the core goal of this game being defeated.

Watching players starve and die to a raid boss will never not be funny to me. 

Seeing bases getting destroyed when that is someone's literal art form is disgusting. 

[Antynomity]

I'm fine with base destruction as long as it's possible  and reasonable to counter, not just oh well I'll rebuild half of my megabase after the new epic mega rift that spawns in the middle of my base type of s-

[Masked Koopa]

I think the threat of base destruction is OK, as long as it means adding new failsafes. I quite enjoy growing trees, and putting down lightning rods to make sure an area is "secure", as it makes any areas safe from the usual threats feel earned, like pockets of safety in an otherwise unsafe world. People critisize the idea of a "one and done" solution, but I don't think consistently being forced to engage with the same few mechanics is fun, you eventually just reach the point of tedium. It's OK that glowcaps exist, it's OK that above average trees exist, it's OK that lightning rods exist.

[Gashzer]

But for threats to be actual threats... you need to be at risk of losing something precious. Ironically your character dying is not a high threat anymore as we have so many revive options now.

What people care about is their bases. The threats should be 100% counterable but it should be bad enough to make people scared and want to defend their bases. 

[GenomeSquirrel]

I don't see how food healing has anything to deal with base destruction.

[Capybara007]

what some people here dont get is that a mob or boulder destroying your entirely decorational flower garden with walls and fences does not affect your survival, which means it is not difficult

people just like the idea of destroying your base because it gives the fake ilussion of uncompromising, the same goes for acid rain, people think its uncompromising but all it does is make you go to surface, run away from the problem, wait 30 irl minutes and then go back so you can do the content

[Mike23Ua]

1 hour ago, GenomeSquirrel said:

I don't see how food healing has anything to deal with base destruction.

To that I still think there should be a toggle to choose if eating food items can heal you or not.

1 hour ago, Capybara007 said:

what some people here dont get is that a mob or boulder destroying your entirely decorational flower garden with walls and fences does not affect your survival, which means it is not difficult

people just like the idea of destroying your base because it gives the fake ilussion of uncompromising, the same goes for acid rain, people think its uncompromising but all it does is make you go to surface, run away from the problem, wait 30 irl minutes and then go back so you can do the content

I actually have dare I say this: “Fun” having to rebuild my base when disaster strikes, it gives me a reason to actually LEAVE my base & go gather the resources to rebuild and repair whatever gets destroyed- More importantly…

With Klei changing a lot of the games core mechanics to make what was once non-renewable resources, Renew themselves- I am going to go ahead & assume they actually have MORE plans for destructive world features.

Catcoon Dens, Volt Goat Herds & most recently Mushrooms was added to world Regrowth- Klei is very much aware that these items are at danger of going extinct over prolonged game sessions, so now they’ve added a way to recover them. 
 

This simply means that it isn’t “The End of The World” if a freaking Firehound accidentally gets killed on top of a Mushroom Ring anymore.

So with that said- Expect even more destructive features/mobs to be added later.

[Well-met]

eating too much foodtype.goodies should cause the character to retch and lose hunger

[gamehun20]

Just now, Well-met said:

eating too much foodtype.goodies should cause the character to retch and lose hunger

Make their teeth fall out and not be able to eat anything 

[Falkenpelz]

45 minutes ago, Well-met said:

eating too much foodtype.goodies should cause the character to retch and lose hunger

This makes me extremely uncomfortable...

[GenomeSquirrel]

2 hours ago, Well-met said:

eating too much foodtype.goodies should cause the character to retch and lose hunger

as long as I cold stay warm with hot chocolate only …

[_zwb]

2 hours ago, Well-met said:

eating too much foodtype.goodies should cause the character to retch and lose hunger

Why nerf Wanda & Wormwood like this?

[Shosuko]

5 hours ago, Gashzer said:

But for threats to be actual threats... you need to be at risk of losing something precious. Ironically your character dying is not a high threat anymore as we have so many revive options now.

What people care about is their bases. The threats should be 100% counterable but it should be bad enough to make people scared and want to defend their bases. 

idk thing is we already have things that target and destroy the bases, but they are counterable.  Being counterable just means we add another structure, but nothing changes about the game play loop.  Its kinda like upping the damage all monsters deal only to then up the protection of all armor to match...  It shakes things up for as long as it takes to figure out how to put the answer before the problem.  If you like base destruction just don't build these things and enjoy your base getting destroyed and set ablaze every spring / summer.  You can even invite Deerclops and Bearger to your base to fight to get a little destruction in Autumn and Winter lol

Or heck base in a meteor shower area to get random destruction year round 

13 minutes ago, _zwb said:

Why nerf Wanda & Wormwood like this?

idk about you but my Wanda is on a strict diet of almost exclusively cooked monster meat.  I don't even make a crock pot except to make jelly beans, which I only do b/c... I can't just let the royal jellies rot lol

They *say* her favorite food is taffy but imo her *real* favorite food is nm fuel.

[lenship2]

21 minutes ago, Shosuko said:

They *say* her favorite food is taffy but imo her *real* favorite food is nm fuel.

thats why i use nightmare fuel for filler in my taffy 

[Cheggf]

This has been discussed time and time again. It's a bad idea, and does nothing but stifle player choices & creativity. Currently the best way to heal is jellybeans by far, which would be entirely unaffected by this change, but before you kill Bee Queen you can the two biggest choices you have are either food for a cheap heal that perishes quickly, or consumable items which last a lot longer and stack better but have a slower use animation. Both of them are equally balanced with eachother with their own pros and cons, and I personally only use food if I'm trying to rush something right off the bat. I find items to be far more convenient than something that needs to be used right away.

There are no upsides to this. This does not make the game harder. This just forces you to do one thing instead of being able to choose between two. If you don't want to be able to heal with healing food, pick Warly or Wormwood (who would be much more generic & boring if everyone sucked at healing with food instead of just them). They're already there for you.

[_zwb]

3 hours ago, lenship2 said:

thats why i use nightmare fuel for filler in my taffy 

Wait, you can do that?

[Shosuko]

9 minutes ago, _zwb said:

Wait, you can do that?

It surprised me too O_O but you can !

Now I'm gonna have ANOTHER nm fuel sink lol  time to line up some statue farms XD

[Baark0]

9 hours ago, Masked Koopa said:

I think the threat of base destruction is OK, as long as it means adding new failsafes. I quite enjoy growing trees, and putting down lightning rods to make sure an area is "secure", as it makes any areas safe from the usual threats feel earned, like pockets of safety in an otherwise unsafe world. People critisize the idea of a "one and done" solution, but I don't think consistently being forced to engage with the same few mechanics is fun, you eventually just reach the point of tedium. It's OK that glowcaps exist, it's OK that above average trees exist, it's OK that lightning rods exist.

Having to "engage" with up to 4 geese and 4 mactusk camps is my single least favourite part of my main world. Sure I have found solutions to them, but it involves having spend a day waiting on 5 houndius to kill the geese (and goslings if they spawned) and if I forget about them then the goose wanders and breaks a bunch of walls. 

Seriously hoping way to remove geese nests or walrus camps is coming soon, holy hell I can't take dealing with these pests. It's getting to the point where I'm considering disabling then just so I can actually build more, but if I ever need to re-enable them I dont want to deal with them in my base.

[Juanasdf]

24 minutes ago, Baark0 said:

Having to "engage" with up to 4 geese and 4 mactusk camps is my single least favourite part of my main world. Sure I have found solutions to them, but it involves having spend a day waiting on 5 houndius to kill the geese (and goslings if they spawned) and if I forget about them then the goose wanders and breaks a bunch of walls. 

Seriously hoping way to remove geese nests or walrus camps is coming soon, holy hell I can't take dealing with these pests. It's getting to the point where I'm considering disabling then just so I can actually build more, but if I ever need to re-enable them I dont want to deal with them in my base.

I have no Idea what you could do about the geese, but in my world I walled the mctusk's camps and left 4 homeless merms in each of them. That's enough to kill them easily, and they regen their HP fast.

As for the main topic of not being able to heal past max hunger.... I could see it but only if they reworked cooking a bit and tweaked the rest of the healing methods

[-Nick-]

I DO think base destruction is a good thing if there are ways to handle it in a way that's fair to the player.

Base destruction should only happen on the carelessness of the player. It having a learning experience for the player to remember next time on what not to do.

One great example is lightning. I cannot count how many times i forget to craft a lightning rod and all of a sudden a bolt of plasma decides to strike my character and light everything on fire. Causing me to lose a lot of progress.

Of course I am extremely sad that this happened. The game punished me for my recklessness. It never felt unfair to me because it was my own fault. I had plenty of time to set up a lightning rod, but I never did.

[Popian]

2 hours ago, -Nick- said:

Base destruction should only happen on the carelessness of the player. It having a learning experience for the player to remember next time on what not to do.

Going by this the original rift boulders were okay.

Make builds with open areas and take the ~6 seconds to assess and go to the least inconvenient area to drop them, preferably micrododging or tanking them. Having so many of them may be to encourage using Brightshade Bombs to clear them, but that seems so expensive for something that one could have avoided by being Maxwell or not being in caves.

[Shosuko]

41 minutes ago, Popian said:

Going by this the original rift boulders were okay.

Make builds with open areas and take the ~6 seconds to assess and go to the least inconvenient area to drop them, preferably micrododging or tanking them. Having so many of them may be to encourage using Brightshade Bombs to clear them, but that seems so expensive for something that one could have avoided by being Maxwell or not being in caves.

I think a bit more warning would be needed, but basically yes.  I thought the original "drop anywhere" boulders were okay if they only came a few at the tail end of the quake.  This way you would have the duration of the quake to get to a clear area if you were in your base, but then the full destructive capability were there.  imo this would feel more real then having them purposefully dodge structures.

[Masked Koopa]

I'm really not a fan of a solution being "don't be around it" when it comes to world hazards. It just makes it way too obvious that we as the player are loading in the area around us, and it's not even consistent between mechanics. Meteors will break things even when offscreen, but earthquakes apparently only drop things specifically on you.