Summer Wildfire Re-invented

[goatt]

3 hours ago, Cheggf said:

This isn't really "re-inventing wildfires", it's just keeping them exactly how they are but reducing how many things get burned. I think they should actually be re-invented, they aren't a problem at all, they don't hinder your ability to survive, they're easy to deal with. All they do is randomly destroy off-screen possibly unrenewable resources that you unluckily passed by at the wrong time and hinder creativity by forcing you to either spam ugly flingos everywhere or build exclusively in oasis/caves.

Other than the wordplay part, I agree. The title isn't really that good if you put it under scrutiny. I guess I meant re-inventing its implementation. My whole post is rather from low-level technical point of view.

 

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

I'm aware what pubs entails I actively play in them and I'm not holding it to single player don't starve standards what's happening is you trying to gloss over what working in a group means it means you share achievements and failures I don't support the idea of removing only the failure aspect because people don't want to teach and accept failure in games. If we're removing the possibility of failure then why even pretend it's still a survival game? Your saying it's limiting creativity but that's what happens when you join a group your individual creative ideas are limited by other people this is just a basic fact.

I agree with the shared achievements and failures. The difference between yours and mine is I want to also emphasize boundaries. So the question is, while we share achievements and failures, what degree of this sharing is proper in the context of DST. You are saying, when other people cause wildfire and destroy your things, it's totally fair. I'm saying, that's bad game design simply because it brings negative gaming experience. I'm strictly speaking from game design perspective. It's irrelevant to talk about how to make peace with failure and compromise, because what matters is whether certain failure and compromise make players feel fair and fun. It's not about how players are supposed to adapt to a game as it currently is from moral standpoint of view. It's about whether the moral the game currently holds is a good one. And I say it is not.

 

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

But hey why stop there why don't we remove fire hounds, all the season bosses, lightning and anything else that could interfere with our creativity. After all we shouldn't be expected to have any level of accountability as a team nor accept any potential consequences for playing with less experienced survivors.

No need to mix up unrelated stuffs. It's distractive and unproductive to talk about unrelated stuff together. Wildfire accidents are just accidents that should be contained for the sake of DST. what mentioned above are legit challenges game introduced.

 

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

The conversation would probably go something like this:

Players: so how about monitoring griefers so as to improve our play experience.

Kiel: okay but we're going to have to start making our play experience far more monetized to pay for these new staff to do this monitoring.

Players: Wait what!?! Why can't you do it for free!?

You are introducing an ineffective solution to the problem. Having some ineffective solution doesn't mean the problem is unsolvable, or it shouldn't be solved. This is a distraction from the main discussion.

[bloopah]

11 hours ago, _zwb said:

Disease is a bad mechanics

Correction: Disease was a bad mechanic, Klei saw that disease was something that almost everyone turned off because it only made things unnecessarily worse and they finally removed it in the Reap What You Sow update. Maybe they will see it with Wildfires as well, but if they decide to just change its mechanics instead of completely butchering it like disease I would gladly settle with the "Heatless Summer Wildfire" suggestion. One burnt Structure is better than all of them.

[Mysterious box]

31 minutes ago, goatt said:

You are introducing an ineffective solution to the problem. Having some ineffective solution doesn't mean the problem is unsolvable, or it shouldn't be solved. This is a distraction from the main discussion.

Do you not think any solution they'd try to come up with will not cost money and new staff responsible for ensure this new method works?

 

31 minutes ago, goatt said:

No need to mix up unrelated stuffs. It's distractive and unproductive to talk about unrelated stuff together. Wildfire accidents are just accidents that should be contained for the sake of DST. what mentioned above are legit challenges game introduced.

Does the base getting destroyed by seasonal boss mechanics or fire hounds somehow not count of accidents? What makes wildfires different?

 

31 minutes ago, goatt said:

You are saying, when other people cause wildfire and destroy your things, it's totally fair. I'm saying, that's bad game design simply because it brings negative gaming experience. I'm strictly speaking from game design perspective.

The problem with your argument here is that wildfires aren't the only thing that cause destruction to bases. In my opinion when everything that does gets removed is when don't starve together finally stops being a survival game.

 

31 minutes ago, goatt said:

It's not about how players are supposed to adapt to a game as it currently is from moral standpoint of view. It's about whether the moral the game currently holds is a good one. And I say it is not.

I say it is therefore the stalemate I mean why even play a multiplayer survival game if the actions of the players don't have consequences on survival? There are plenty of different sims out there not based around survival that have building as their focus why make dst specifically something it's not?

It feels like you guys get this idea in your head that anyone not down for toning down all survival mechanics are solo players. But have you ever stopped to consider that overcoming these things as a group is how some of us have fun?

[Masked Koopa]

It would be nice if we could plant above average trees on land somehow. Perhaps add the ability to dig a well or something? The well could double as a freshwater source for watering cans, and perhaps even allow us to build tin fishin bins and water pumps on land.

[goatt]

47 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Do you not think any solution they'd try to come up with will not cost money and new staff responsible for ensure this new method works?

I mean, the community has come up with ways to improve the gaming experience drastically. It means the situation as it currently stands against griefers are fine. Why introduce new stuff like Klei official moderators? Klei official servers are well known for its un-moderated state and its side effect. Every solution costs something, which depends on if they are willing to invest, as DST design philosophy says, nothing comes free. Cost itself is not a downside. Unreasonable cost is. I'm not against Klei servers having moderator. But I'm happy too if they don't, cuz I never had confidence to play there for long term anyways for the obvious downside. There are many other quality servers and services thanks to the love of the community.

 

52 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Does the base getting destroyed by seasonal boss mechanics or fire hounds somehow not count of accidents? What makes wildfires different?

No, it's not, to the first question mark. Those are posed as real challenges including the base destruction, with advanced warning, battle music, long reaction time, AND limited damage. Take antlion's sinkholes for example, it's not gonna destroy your entire base, when wildfire can. Bearger and Deerclops can be easily led out of base and their damage can also be contained, besides all the advanced warning and long reaction time. If wildfire's accidental damage is at the same level of regular seasonable bosses, and can be managed like you can lead bosses out of your base, I'd be glad. 

 

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

I mean why even play a multiplayer survival game if the actions of the players don't have consequences on survival?

I agree with you. But there are many different kinds of consequences. What I suggested was simply to create healthy boundaries on those consequences, rather than remove them all. In other words, fire as I suggested still have consequences on other players. What I removed was unreasonable, uncontrollable, demoralizing part of it.

 

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

But have you ever stopped to consider that overcoming these things as a group is how some of us have fun?

Fun has many different forms. Fighting bosses together is fun. Struggling together is fun. Paying attention to small details like a smoldering at far edge of your screen for 2 hours straight while multitasking may be fun to you, but not to some others.

So we can talk about fun in 2 ways. First is we can survey. If all people think dealing with the accidental consequences is fun, then yeah, it's fun. Second way is to study what "fun" mechanics are usually like, and compare them to fire. I did many comparison in my previous comments around the idea of balance, which is one major element of fun. And I came to the conclusion that from game design perspective, it's not fun. And I demonstrated from my anecdotal experience in pub servers in the past several years that accidental fire is not fun.

We should talk about fun in a more unbiased way from our anecdotal experience.

[Mysterious box]

10 minutes ago, goatt said:

No, it's not, to the first question mark. Those are posed as real challenges including the base destruction, with advanced warning, battle music, long reaction time, AND limited damage. Take antlion's sinkholes for example, it's not gonna destroy your entire base, when wildfire can. Bearger and Deerclops can be easily led out of base and their damage can also be contained, besides all the advanced warning and long reaction time. If wildfire's accidental damage is at the same level of regular seasonable bosses, and can be managed like you can lead bosses out of your base, I'd be glad. 

Your arguing the best cause scenario against the worst and it isn't a fair argument how is the player unable to deal with wild fires assuming my proposed changes went through but also equally skilled enough to deal with all the other seasonal threats? Is deerclops going to just destroy afew things tip it's hat and go away once it realizes they're terrorizing new player? To be clear I wasn't saying the current wildfires are ok I'm saying the range they happen from the player should shrink and the player should warn the player that it's happening.

 

18 minutes ago, goatt said:

I agree with you. But there are many different kinds of consequences. What I suggested was simply to create healthy boundaries on those consequences, rather than remove them all. In other words, fire as I suggested still have consequences on other players. What I removed was unreasonable, uncontrollable, demoralizing part of it.

I would agree if summer didn't have numerous counters but it does.

To me nerfing the mechanic for this feels like playing without a health bar and I know that might sound crazy but think about it for a second if you play perfectly wether you had it or not begins to not matter but I feel like for most people the idea that you can't die no matter how bad you screw up isn't a fun concept. For me making wildfires just a slap on the wrist carries the same weight.

36 minutes ago, goatt said:

We should talk about fun in a more unbiased way from our anecdotal experience.

Realistically this is impossible because no matter how hard we try we'll always carry some level of bias on the topic.

[Mike23Ua]

The entire reason a burnt structure yields back half the amount of resources you used in building it, is because Klei designed the game knowing damn well that S*** was going to happen that damaged or destroyed it.

like that’s literally WHY you can Hammer down a burned structure, Otherwise- It would just turn to Ash because: Uncompromising Survival game GG- Get Better.

And if your trying to Balance ANYTHING about DST around 6 players running around doing god only knows what… then you might as well create an entirely different (& highly changed…) game.

Noob + Firehound chasing them = Random Wildfire wherever they kill it.

Noob + Standing Idle In base when Deerclops roars = Deerclops spawned on base.

Noob + Spring = Lightning Bolts of Zeus setting things ablaze.

Noob + Unappeased or fought Ant-Lion = 7 random craters in the surface somewhere.

My Woodie friend with an unbreakable infinity durability Axe + My limited time Hallowed Nights, Winters Feast or Summer Cawnival Trees = TIMBER!!!

The TL:DR Don’t play with other players if you can’t handle the consequences of also dealing with their lack of knowledge.

Also I have one more tip for You before I end my rant: You can quite literally pre-craft an entire base and leave the prototyped already built but not yet placed.. structures in your pocket to throw out like Pokémon from Pokeballs.

You should have “Replacements” on stand-by for when something Unfortunate happens..

[Mysterious box]

I've been thinking why doesn't Kiel just implement a new setting that makes so structures and things moved by players can't be damaged or burned. Feel like making that a setting would solve everyone's problems.

[goatt]

31 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

1 hour ago, goatt said:

No, it's not, to the first question mark. Those are posed as real challenges including the base destruction, with advanced warning, battle music, long reaction time, AND limited damage. Take antlion's sinkholes for example, it's not gonna destroy your entire base, when wildfire can. Bearger and Deerclops can be easily led out of base and their damage can also be contained, besides all the advanced warning and long reaction time. If wildfire's accidental damage is at the same level of regular seasonable bosses, and can be managed like you can lead bosses out of your base, I'd be glad. 

Your arguing the best cause scenario against the worst and it isn't a fair argument how is the player unable to deal with wild fires assuming my proposed changes went through but also equally skilled enough to deal with all the other seasonal threats? Is deerclops going to just destroy afew things tip it's hat and go away once it realizes they're terrorizing new p

 

layer? To be clear I wasn't saying the current wildfires are ok I'm saying the range they happen from the player should shrink and the player should warn the player that it's happening.

I don't want to post a educational video and  ask people to watch it before making comments but a lot of the stuff I said is based off this.

The warning, reaction, music, and atmosphere prepares players mentally to treat what's about to happen to be something epic, and any loss because of this unusual event is for a cause, which left players feeling defeated or victorious. Wildfire doesn't come with those. Its massive consequences doesn't feel legit, from game design perspective. It's just something happened, and my entire base is gone.

I'd be happy if wildfire has advanced warning, louder warning sound effect, more obvious visual cue, etc, to match its massive loss. Use Antlion sinkhole as comparison, it has a lot more obvious visual cue (shaking screen), good sound effects, but much less potential destruction (less things destroyed cuz items can't be destroyed, less maximum area affected). Because of that, players can be mentally prepared for Antlion sinkholes, and making peace with its consequences.

 

42 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

I feel like for most people the idea that you can't die no matter how bad you screw up isn't a fun concept.

I agree. But I think this is irrelevant here. My suggestion doesn't remove death.

 

45 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Realistically this is impossible because no matter how hard we try we'll always carry some level of bias on the topic.

I was trying to use this to discredit some stuff you said earlier, mainly about fun vs not fun.

 

26 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

I've been thinking why doesn't Kiel just implement a new setting that makes so structures and things moved by players can't be damaged or burned. Feel like making that a setting would solve everyone's problems.

Some people do turn off smoldering (talking about mode). But no one actually complain about fire itself being too hard or unfair. Please distinguish fire from wildfire.

 

30 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

The entire reason a burnt structure yields back half the amount of resources you used in building it, is because Klei designed the game knowing damn well that S*** was going to happen that damaged or destroyed it.

How much does a stack of 40 burnt grass yield back? How about berry bushes?

 

31 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

The TL:DR Don’t play with other players if you can’t handle the consequences of also dealing with their lack of knowledge.

That's the wrong understanding of my position. Game design affects players feeling and choices. People megabasing in oasis, for example, is the result of the game design. People hiding in cave to prevent the burn down of base or burnout from re-fueling iceflingomatic is also the result of game design. Why did players choose to do those? Because the game made them feel certain way in summer, and they have no choice but to do those. You are saying as long as game provides solution to a challenge, that challenge is fine as is. But there is a layer of human psychology and experience that's been overlooked when it comes to multiplayers.

I think it's totally ok to have base burnt down in DS, as each run rewards some exp points. But in DST, players come and go, but the server tends to stay for much longer. There is this mentality (at least for me) that base preservation is in higher priority than the survival itself, which is why the falling boulder from shadow rifts caused such a big pushback in the beta. This mentality or preference is unique in DST that doesn't exist in DS. And it shouldn't be overlooked.

This suggestion by no means to take away the uncompromising survival aspect. Because to be uncompromisingly surviving, no wildfire will occur in the first place. Having counter measure doesn't negate the unfair nature of the consequence. It's like saying stealing $10 is ok to be sentenced to life in prison, because it should be easy to control yourself from committing that crime in the first place. The punishment and the counter measures are 2 separate topics that shouldn't be mixed up. And I'm saying wildfire consequence is unfair.

Going back to your original comment, being able to handle the consequence has nothing to do with whether the consequence is fair.

[Mysterious box]

2 minutes ago, goatt said:

I agree. But I think this is irrelevant here. My suggestion doesn't remove death.

You've completely missed the point if the consequence is nothing more than a slap on the wrist you never feel threatened by that consequence which makes surviving it meaningless.

6 minutes ago, goatt said:

The warning, reaction, music, and atmosphere prepares players mentally to treat what's about to happen to be something epic, and any loss because of this unusual event is for a cause, which left players feeling defeated or victorious. Wildfire doesn't come with those. Its massive consequences doesn't feel legit, from game design perspective. It's just something happened, and my entire base is gone.

I'd be happy if wildfire has advanced warning, louder warning sound effect, more obvious visual cue, etc, to match its massive loss. Use Antlion sinkhole as comparison, it has a lot more obvious visual cue (shaking screen), good sound effects, but much less potential destruction (less things destroyed cuz items can't be destroyed, less maximum area affected). Because of that, players can be mentally prepared for Antlion sinkholes, and making peace with its consequences.

I mean I'm not against the idea of adding more warning signs to wildfires the very reason I settled on character quotes was mostly because it'd take less development time. However not every challenge in survival should feel epic and just because it doesn't shouldn't mean the consequences should be minor. From a game design perspective your group wasn't alert in a high stakes season and you faced the consequences further affirming your actions or inactions have consequences and that every part of the team is important to keep track of.

15 minutes ago, goatt said:

Some people do turn off smoldering (talking about mode). But no one actually complain about fire itself being too hard or unfair. Please distinguish fire from wildfire.

This is a half truth only, because no one complains about fire outside of wildfires specifically because fire is such a small part of gameplay outside of them there's a reason people consider Willow's fire immunity mostly useless and don't use fire staffs it's a element that's almost always completely under the player's control and rarely made to inconvenience the player started outside of accidents. Wildfires are just fires that try to go outside the players control so there's no reason to distinguish them because at the end of the day they are both fires.

 

25 minutes ago, goatt said:

I think it's totally ok to have base burnt down in DS, as each run rewards some exp points. But in DST, players come and go, but the server tends to stay for much longer. There is this mentality (at least for me) that base preservation is in higher priority than the survival itself

That's what the regrowth settings try to plan for but if survival needs to take a back seat and make failure far less meaningful then it's no longer a survival game. You can't account for everything being safe no matter who joins while also asking for a meaningful survival experience it really comes down to do you want a multiplayer survival game or do you want a safe social basing experience with some fights in-between?

[goatt]

21 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

That's what the regrowth settings try to plan for but if survival needs to take a back seat and make failure far less meaningful then it's no longer a survival game. You can't account for everything being safe no matter who joins while also asking for a meaningful survival experience it really comes down to do you want a multiplayer survival game or do you want a safe social basing experience with some fights in-between?

You still missing point. So I quote myself: 

"It's like saying stealing $10 is ok to be sentenced to life in prison, because it should be easy to control yourself from committing that crime in the first place. The punishment and the counter measures are 2 separate topics that shouldn't be mixed up. And I'm saying wildfire consequence is unfair... being able to handle the consequence has nothing to do with whether the consequence is fair."

"Disease was bad, so just turn it off, and problem solved". But the problem of disease is not how to handle it, but whether it's fun, fair or meaningful. Saying something is solvable hence it's not a problem is missing the point. I'm discussing whether particular part of the game is fair. I think you have missed this point repeatedly, so I want to bring your attention to this.

 

49 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

From a game design perspective your group wasn't alert in a high stakes season and you faced the consequences further affirming your actions or inactions have consequences and that every part of the team is important to keep track of.

Game design perspective assumes many things about players. In DS, it assumed players are spooked and alerted all the time. But in DST, the atmosphere, art, pace and things are very different. Check out the tranquil music of farming. Game design should make players feel they are responsible for their actions, but not they are responsible for uncalled consequences unrelated to their actions. It's ok to place blame on players, but at the same time, it should make the players also feel and agree they are the one to be blamed.

 

54 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

That's what the regrowth settings try to plan for but if survival needs to take a back seat and make failure far less meaningful then it's no longer a survival game.

Irrelevant. Regrowth (of grass and berries) doesn't affect survival because it happens after maybe 20 days, which is inconsequential to the immediate punishment. It also missing the point mentioned above. It has nothing to do with the fairness of the consequence. So I want to bring your attention to this part.

 

59 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

This is a half truth only, because no one complains about fire outside of wildfires specifically because fire is such a small part of gameplay outside of them there's a reason people consider Willow's fire immunity mostly useless and don't use fire staffs it's a element that's almost always completely under the player's control and rarely made to inconvenience the player started outside of accidents. Wildfires are just fires that try to go outside the players control so there's no reason to distinguish them because at the end of the day they are both fires.

People do complain about any small details of the game. They even complained about smoldering, which is only a subset of fire, much smaller than fire. Small isn't the reason why fire is not being complained about. Fire is fine because it's not unfair like wildfire.

Your other point about willow is a related distraction to the main discussion, I think.

 

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

You've completely missed the point if the consequence is nothing more than a slap on the wrist you never feel threatened by that consequence which makes surviving it meaningless.

I didn't miss your point. You think accidental smoldering deserve death or punishment of similar level. I think that's unfair (in the specific case of side effect in DST accidents). Does accidental smoldering by other strangers who came to server in summer and lived half a day (because of map icon), deserve death?

Should accidents by internet randos just be a slap on the wrist?

[Mysterious box]

12 minutes ago, goatt said:

You still missing point. So I quote myself: 

"It's like saying stealing $10 is ok to be sentenced to life in prison, because it should be easy to control yourself from committing that crime in the first place. The punishment and the counter measures are 2 separate topics that shouldn't be mixed up. And I'm saying wildfire consequence is unfair... being able to handle the consequence has nothing to do with whether the consequence is fair."

"Disease was bad, so just turn it off, and problem solved". But the problem of disease is not how to handle it, but whether it's fun, fair or meaningful. Saying something is solvable hence it's not a problem is missing the point. I'm discussing whether particular part of the game is fair. I think you have missed this point repeatedly, so I want to bring your attention to this.

And I disagree here the game's punishments not stopping because your playing on a server that moves on without you isn't unfair. The game punishing you for not preparing for it's limited time harsh season isn't unfair. Having a greater risk to your base with a public server isn't unfair. Things burning down off screen without warning is unfair and I even agreed that part should be changed. I haven't missed the point.

17 minutes ago, goatt said:

Game design perspective assumes many things about players. In DS, it assumed players are spooked and alerted all the time. But in DST, the atmosphere, art, pace and things are very different. Check out the tranquil music of farming. Game design should make players feel they are responsible for their actions, but not they are responsible for uncalled consequences unrelated to their actions. It's ok to place blame on players, but at the same time, it should make the players also feel and agree they are the one to be blamed.

If I'm being real this is baffling to me games shouldn't have to dramatically handhold the player into knowing x or y is dangerous. If something bad happens the player understands that they want to prevent that from happening that's the trial and error nature of don't starve together and most games that don't handhold with tutorials really.  Also it really feels like your reaching in the differences in don't starve and don't starve together unless maybe your comparing the dlcs to dst? But even that still feels like a stretch.

28 minutes ago, goatt said:

Irrelevant. Regrowth (of grass and berries) doesn't affect survival because it happens after maybe 20 days, which is inconsequential to the immediate punishment. It also missing the point mentioned above. It has nothing to do with the fairness of the consequence. So I want to bring your attention to this part.

It has nothing to do with survival if your playing less than 20 days I'd imagine but regrowing resources you might need for survival after a punishment might have something or other to do with the fairness of helping you continue to thrive after the fact.

 

33 minutes ago, goatt said:

Your other point about willow is a related distraction to the main discussion, I think.

I'd argue trying to separate wildfires from fires is equally a unrelated distraction as they're always interlocked.

 

34 minutes ago, goatt said:

Fire is fine because it's not unfair like wildfire.

It's fine because it's not meaningful is how I interpret it.

36 minutes ago, goatt said:

I didn't miss your point. You think accidental smoldering deserve death or punishment of similar level.

Nope that's what you'd call missing the point. My point once more is that if the consequence is inconsequential to the point that we as the player don't feel punished then it becomes meaningless as a mechanic for survival because we've effectively overcome nothing. 

39 minutes ago, goatt said:

I think that's unfair (in the specific case of side effect in DST accidents). Does accidental smoldering by other strangers who came to server in summer and lived half a day (because of map icon), deserve death?

My problem with this logic is this applies to all forms of mechanics that can destroy your base seasonal bosses and fire hounds included you seem to be giving wildfires special treatment in this regard for reasons I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around or do you just chalk all other forms of base destruction due to rando carelessness up to griefing?

 

42 minutes ago, goatt said:

Should accidents by internet randos just be a slap on the wrist?

No they shouldn't just be a slap on the wrist because you chose to be on a public team so you have to accept what that entails both the positive and negative. It might sound harsh but when your playing team based games not everyone is going to pull their weight and sometimes they'll hold you back it doesn't mean the game should hold back because not everyone was feeling up to it or chose not to learn from their mistakes. The game already gives us the tools to lessen the burden of others through the settings.

[Mike23Ua]

If your counting Grass & Berry Bushes as being part of your “Base” I really don’t know what to tell you at that point…

maybe set them up in Flingo Range, or Under a Large Tree Canopy or even down in Caves where Wildfires don’t exist.

But to me it’s a bit silly to include HIGHLY FLAMMEABLE Items as being part of something you want wildfires not to effect.

I mean at that point… why not just store your grass tufts and berry bushes inside a Scaled Chest? (Which is flame proof by the way…)

For me and particularly when it comes to newer content like Deadly Brightshades- I don’t want grass anywhere NEAR my actual base unless I want to deal with Little Shop of Horrors talking killer plants being in my base.

In fact: Brightshades simply existing at all has made me adapt a new play style- Rather than clustering all my grass tufts close to one another like - - -

I instead space them even further apart like -      -      -

Not only does this force me to play the game in a whole new way… but it also prevents groups of Brightshades from spawning so closely to one another.

And since Brightshades target grass/berry bushes, I would argue that they’re even more of a threat than Wildfires are.
 

In fact I’ve hilariously died to several Brightshades while running through the dark at night holding a torch only to be Unaware that DBS have spawned & taken over an area and as I run through.. I’m almost 1 shot insta-killed.

A Wildfire is only going to burn some stuff and that’s it.

BUT now that grass tufts and berry bushes renew themselves overtime, who cares? Just go gather more and maybe next time keep some on standby in fire proof chests to replace later if need be.

[Popian]

Active Flingomatics should instantly extinguish anything burning/smoldering in range when getting unloaded and it'll be fine.

[bloopah]

4 hours ago, Popian said:

Active Flingomatics should instantly extinguish anything burning/smoldering in range when getting unloaded and it'll be fine.

That won't fix the issue people are talking about here at all.

[Jakepeng99]

On 8/4/2023 at 10:25 PM, Mike23Ua said:

Alternatively I would prefer that it CAN happen off-screen, and any random location.. just like in real life, but maybe we can build some structures for Wildfire prevention.

Personally I want to set up a large tree canopy that shades my base then dig out a moat so if a sea of flames rolled across the forest it would hit a dead halt at my moat, yes sure there’s scaled flooring for this exact purpose.. BUT it wouldn’t be as fun as digging a moat full of water.

If you are being serious with this, it is a really bad idea. It just ruins everything and is really toxic and makes the multiplayer issue with fires worse.

4 hours ago, Popian said:

Active Flingomatics should instantly extinguish anything burning/smoldering in range when getting unloaded and it'll be fine.

This does help with some issues, but it does not fix the main issue. They need fuel, and in a multiplayer game you can not trust everyone to fuel them. 

14 hours ago, bloopah said:

Correction: Disease was a bad mechanic, Klei saw that disease was something that almost everyone turned off because it only made things unnecessarily worse and they finally removed it in the Reap What You Sow update. Maybe they will see it with Wildfires as well, but if they decide to just change its mechanics instead of completely butchering it like disease I would gladly settle with the "Heatless Summer Wildfire" suggestion. One burnt Structure is better than all of them.

I kinda wish they added a way to cure disease or something.

5 hours ago, Mike23Ua said:

And since Brightshades target grass/berry bushes, I would argue that they’re even more of a threat than Wildfires are.

The difference is that wildfires remove progress and destroy things. Brightshades are an enemie sitting it out in your base that you can deal with anytime. You could leave them there for as long as you want without worry, though would eventually need to kill them to make your farm safe again. In addition, brightshades can be advantagious with their loot.

[cropo]

I'd rather items got superhot to the touch, and attempting to use them burns YOU and does some damage.  Think of putting out a smoldering fire. So the items don't combust into flames, but using them costs upfront health and won't leave the ''simmering'' state until you ice-staff it or do some other things like wear a chilled amulet.

 

This would give scale-mail another use as well as Willow and make the threat of summer more engaging. Kind of like how Monsoon season can flood your alchemy engine and other appliances rendering them unusable.

 

You can also buff scaled flooring to make anything built on it unaffected by this mechanic.

 

Additionally, standing in the vicinity of these items can increase the rate the player gains heat even higher than typical summer heat so you can't just leave items to simmer forever until the season ends. 

[abrocator]

On 8/4/2023 at 11:25 PM, Mike23Ua said:

Alternatively I would prefer that it CAN happen off-screen, and any random location.. just like in real life, but maybe we can build some structures for Wildfire prevention.

Please make this man president.

On 8/5/2023 at 6:35 AM, DinsdaleP said:

Are wildfires a real, actual problem for... well, anyone? Serious question, not trying to be sarcastic here, because I spend pretty much all my summers above-ground and never had even the slightest problem with wildfires.

No, it isn't a problem.

... Because I fit my playstyle to the dangers of summer. And the smoldering is ever-present above-ground outside the oasis and big trees. Which in turn decides what I can do.

And that means that summer is much more limited in terms of what I can do unless I had decided to do something like tame a beefalo or spend all summer in the caves.

Summer for somewhat experienced players isn't a problem because it kills them. It's a problem because it limits the scope of the game for 15 days of the year.

[goatt]

12 hours ago, Mike23Ua said:

If your counting Grass & Berry Bushes as being part of your “Base” I really don’t know what to tell you at that point…

maybe set them up in Flingo Range, or Under a Large Tree Canopy or even down in Caves where Wildfires don’t exist.

But to me it’s a bit silly to include HIGHLY FLAMMEABLE Items as being part of something you want wildfires not to effect.

I don't know why you don't understand my point. I don't know how to be more straightforward. I can only repeat myself and feel guilty for repeating myself: solutions to accidents and punishments to accidents are two separate topic. (not to mention your solution doesn't solve the accidents at all, namely, accidents under the canopy trees and within flingomatic range)

I'm talking about very specific case. But you are talking about something else.

 

12 hours ago, Mike23Ua said:

BUT now that grass tufts and berry bushes renew themselves overtime, who cares?

It's a setting only automatically enabled on Endless server, not on Survival servers, I believe. And the regrowth frequency is so low that it won't help you anytime soon after the disaster. But it doesn't matter. Because again, having solutions doesn't justify excess punishment. I want to bring your attention to my thief metaphor as I replied to you here. I think it's a real law argument applicable to game design in punishment and reward.

 

15 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

And I disagree here the game's punishments not stopping because your playing on a server that moves on without you isn't unfair. The game punishing you for not preparing for it's limited time harsh season isn't unfair. Having a greater risk to your base with a public server isn't unfair. Things burning down off screen without warning is unfair and I even agreed that part should be changed. I haven't missed the point.

Ok so let me quote you and check line by line

- "the game's punishments not stopping because your playing on a server that moves on without you isn't unfair", not what I meant.

- "The game punishing you for not preparing for it's limited time harsh season isn't unfair", not what I meant.

- "Having a greater risk to your base with a public server isn't unfair", slightly relevant to what I meant, but by the way you worded the sentence, I intend to think you didn't get what I meant. It's not "greater risk" that I care about. Everything in public server is at "greater risk", for example, your items in chests, your items left on the ground, grass tufts got removed at portal, bosses accidentally destroy your base because of other players. EVERYTHING is at greater risk. But none of them bothers me. It's not the greater risk that I care about. Summarizing my specific case as "greater risk" is inaccurate and unprecise. So you still missed the point.

- "Things burning down off screen without warning is unfair and I even agreed that part should be changed." still not what I meant.

I think... I think you missed the point.

 

15 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

My point once more is that if the consequence is inconsequential to the point that we as the player don't feel punished then it becomes meaningless as a mechanic for survival because we've effectively overcome nothing. 

My suggestion didn't trivialize the punishment. The punishment is consequential. And by tuning the numbers, it can become extremely consequential within reasons. You missed it again because you thought "if ... inconsequential".

 

15 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

No they shouldn't just be a slap on the wrist because you chose to be on a public team so you have to accept what that entails both the positive and negative.

When the bee allergy is not a slap on the wrist for Walter and can't be countered by armors, people didn't like it, because it's perceived as excess punishment for a trivia mob. You are missing the point if you can't separate solution from punishment.

 

I'm sorry that I personally attacked you by calling you "miss the point". I feel frustrated and tired by reading your comments, because I feel you keep talking past me. I don't know how to work with you. I think probably I should give up replying to you for my mental health. I'm not mentally stable.

[Mike23Ua]

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you just don’t truly like the actual gameplay of DST? I mean yes obviously you like the game.. but do you like it for the challenges & hardships it’s known for, or do you like it for what you want it to become?

Case in point: Most people turn Wildfires off because they feel it’s not a fun or fair game mechanic, however as of a previous QoL update you can actually now toggle Wildfires to happen MORE often.

Why would ANYONE want that?? It’s there for the people who actually enjoy the challenge & more importantly the hardships that Wildfires actually bring.

If I were to say: Turn Wildfires off, then I’m effectively just playing in WINTER but instead of needing regular fires I need to use Nitre for Endothermic fires.

and if I were to remove Overheating then I may as well turn Summer off and just play in a Autumn/Winter only world.

Finally: If Wildfire mechanics were changed to be significantly easier to deal with as a threat- then they become a forgettable afterthought, with easy solutions.

For example if Wildfires were changed so that only one thing caught flames and it burst into a huge firewall with smoke and your character coughing, giving you plenty of time to react- Get to the area and put that single fire out or else… it eventually turns into a sea of flames rolling across your screen consuming and setting fire to everything it continues to come in contact with but can be dealt with by using things like Watering Cans, Water Balloons, Ice Staffs, Weather Pains, Luxury Fans (Wind Staffs), Large Tree Canopies, Ice Flingo Machines.. etc etc…

Then you have an easy to deal with minor problem with a ton of solutions.

Also I hope when Willow gets her skill tree she can put out things that are already bursting into full fledge flames.

 

[_zwb]

5 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

Case in point: Most people turn Wildfires off because they feel it’s not a fun or fair game mechanic, however as of a previous QoL update you can actually now toggle Wildfires to happen MORE often.

Why would ANYONE want that?? It’s there for the people who actually enjoy the challenge & more importantly the hardships that Wildfires actually bring.

people who wants more wild fire exist doesn't disprove the idea "it’s not a fun or fair game mechanic". It's still not fun and unfair for the most people. Frankly I don't understand what are you trying say here.

[goatt]

11 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you just don’t truly like the actual gameplay of DST? I mean yes obviously you like the game.. but do you like it for the challenges & hardships it’s known for, or do you like it for what you want it to become?

Case in point: Most people turn Wildfires off because they feel it’s not a fun or fair game mechanic, however as of a previous QoL update you can actually now toggle Wildfires to happen MORE often.

I think this is too much of conspiracy type of argument. I can't accept nor deny. So I don't know how to respond.

 

12 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

If I were to say: Turn Wildfires off, then I’m effectively just playing in WINTER but instead of needing regular fires I need to use Nitre for Endothermic fires.

and if I were to remove Overheating then I may as well turn Summer off and just play in a Autumn/Winter only world.

This is taking my concept for far, and inevitably, twisting my original points. I don't like this type of argument because they become irrelevant very soon. For example, in this case, none of what you said has anything to do with accidents.

Accidents such as accidentally activating pincher, lazy forager or pirate bird accidentally picking up some stuff, these are called accidents. And many of them have been fixed as QoL. If you can't talk about accidents, and I don't know how to respond to your argument because we are talking past each other, and I am not really interested in other topics such as the one you mentioned.

[Jakepeng99]

38 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you just don’t truly like the actual gameplay of DST? I mean yes obviously you like the game.. but do you like it for the challenges & hardships it’s known for, or do you like it for what you want it to become?

Case in point: Most people turn Wildfires off because they feel it’s not a fun or fair game mechanic, however as of a previous QoL update you can actually now toggle Wildfires to happen MORE often.

Why would ANYONE want that?? It’s there for the people who actually enjoy the challenge & more importantly the hardships that Wildfires actually bring.

If I were to say: Turn Wildfires off, then I’m effectively just playing in WINTER but instead of needing regular fires I need to use Nitre for Endothermic fires.

and if I were to remove Overheating then I may as well turn Summer off and just play in a Autumn/Winter only world.

Finally: If Wildfire mechanics were changed to be significantly easier to deal with as a threat- then they become a forgettable afterthought, with easy solutions.

For example if Wildfires were changed so that only one thing caught flames and it burst into a huge firewall with smoke and your character coughing, giving you plenty of time to react- Get to the area and put that single fire out or else… it eventually turns into a sea of flames rolling across your screen consuming and setting fire to everything it continues to come in contact with but can be dealt with by using things like Watering Cans, Water Balloons, Ice Staffs, Weather Pains, Luxury Fans (Wind Staffs), Large Tree Canopies, Ice Flingo Machines.. etc etc…

Then you have an easy to deal with minor problem with a ton of solutions.

Also I hope when Willow gets her skill tree she can put out things that are already bursting into full fledge flames.

 

Most bases are forced into the Oasis, if you do not the punishment is huge and tedious. Dealing with wild fires solo is not so bad since you have a flingo or two, you know you need to refuel it and can trust yourself to, and if you fail to you know it is your fault. In multiplayer, your base can die because someone, experianced or not, anyone, has accidently triggered a fire in base without noticing, or unaware of their existance. In multiplayer dedicated servers this is way worse aswell since players will more likely not be equipped to deal with or respond to them. We shouldn't be forced to live and make everything in the Oasis because of how tedious and unfair wildfires can sometimes be, nor migrate every person into the caves. This is a multiplayer focused game, and wild fires are not balanced for it.

Yes fig trees are an option, but they are really limited in range and require alot. If wildfires were fair and not near as damaging, people will still consider and use all the existing methods, but are not punished drastically for not being able to flawlessly pull them off.

 

Things like fire hounds and antlion you can react to well enough. 

[Mysterious box]

2 hours ago, goatt said:

 

Rather than continuing this I think it's better we both just drop it because it feels like we both feel like the other is missing the point and are defending said point while saying the other doesn't get it. It might just be a communication gap but your right we shouldn't take this any further in any direction since it isn't that serious and we're mostly going in circles.

[goatt]

36 minutes ago, Jakepeng99 said:

flawlessly pull them off

Truth.