Please stop complaining about challenging content, even if it's annoying

[00petar00]

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

Because your solution doesn't make it more enjoyable to everyone it makes it more enjoyable for you and those who specifically agree with your playstyle.

Obviously, you can't ever satisfy everyone but the point is the impact mechanic has on something that has no value to the survival players that keep arguing just for the sake of it or flavor.

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

I mean the same arguement applies to your point which is what I'm pointing out telling someone oh you can enjoy this survival mechanic so long as you don't actively attempt to engage with the solution is equally bad. It's like saying people who don't like bosses wilting to groups shouldn't complain they should all just use axes if you implement a permanent solution to a new mechanic the mechanic is superficial that ruins the enjoyment of the mechanic. To give another example it's like playing super mario bros but all the enemies and obstacles are in some high up path far off the main route like at that point what is even the point?

When it comes to the solution it's a group decision as well unless your telling me to play alone?

That's basically me using your argument against you and it still is much better because you are not going to miss years of content development if you don't use dreadstone pillars that you don't like or if hail didn't hurt mobs but stunlocked them.

Since you see how bad the argument is, maybe stop using it?

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

To you specifically your using your assumption and deciding how we feel about it.

It is pure logic, you can't really convince anyone how big of an effect hail would have on survival playstyle if it killed mobs over a long period of time, in the same vein with dreadstone pillar even if you build one in your base it will cover everything but it has such an impact to someone that wants to have 100 of them.

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

In your opinion and that's just wrong you feel it doesn't but that doesn't make it true.

It isn't just an opinion, you are arguing just to argue against these things. Anyone that puts any amount of thought into these things can see how minimal of an effect they have on survival playstyle.

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

This isn't true your asking for interactions to be removed to protect your playstyle that is a direct effect and when it goes thru we can't even do anything about this unlike you.

I am not speaking about specifics but fundamentally megabasing isn't forced on you but survival content is.  What can megabasers do about these mechanics? Are are going to mention world settings? The same can be said to you, why don't you modify them so that game is more difficult? 

In reality we can't do anything about these mechanics and have to put up with them because a lot of us prefer to play on mostly vanilla settings and only turn off wildfires and disease when it was in the game.

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

This is still bias because your judging this from the perspective of protecting your interests that is infact bias and you also have supported some unreasonable ideas everyone has them.

Using emoticons or liking a post doesn't mean that I agree with everything that they say and I believe that most of my suggestions are reasonable, everyone has those moments including me when I am frustrated and may have ranted about mechanics or update but that doesn't mean that I want everything I spoke about negatively scrapped from the game.

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

So your just going to lie again with no evidence? How would my run last shorter than yours oh right because your the authority on how everyone plays? This isn't a logical argument your making up your own facts then debating me for disagreeing with your made up facts on how I myself and other who don't play like you play this is the very definition of bias and is completely illogical with nothing to back it up.

Did I specifically pick you out and say that you play a specific amount of days? Stop picking something stated in general as if it has to be about you. Most survival players don't stick around for 3000 days or longer, I'd give them 200-300 days at maximum.

Survival becomes much easier the longer you play so after all the bosses are killed a lot of the players that enjoy that type of gameplay decide to reset.

You are just arguing in bad faith here and again you are not going to convince anyone that survival players are playing for thousands of days, maybe there is a couple of survival players in the whole world that play like that without megabasing but I doubt it. 

It is a bit sad that I have to be this clear or it will be taken out of context but I am specifically speaking about survival players that don't start megabasing after overcoming the difficulties.

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

So we negatively impact the experience of survival players who stick to long term worlds because how the game plays doesn't matter to anyone but megabasers?

Where are you finding these survival players that stick around for 5000 days? I have not seen anyone else confirm that they play like this, we have had quite a few discussions and you have mentioned this multiple times the forums, how has no one replied to me that they also play like this and that you aren't alone if even you do this but I doubt it unless you megabase in some shape or form?

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

This is a strawman and you can't tell me you really think most survival players want this.

Have you not been reading the same forum threads as me? The most vocal ones want uncompromising survival and anything that klei throws at them should stay that way even if it means their base being destroyed.

[Capybara007]

All i get from this whinning from the survivalists side is that they want the game to be how they want even if it affects tremendously other playstyles

If their message was something else, they failed miserably at delivering it

[Mysterious box]

45 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

but the point is the impact mechanic has on something that has no value to the survival players that keep arguing just for the sake of it or flavor.

In your opinion your not the one who decides that and the fact it's a point being argued at all should be enough proof of that.

 

46 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

That's basically me using your argument against you and it still is much better because you are not going to miss years of content development if you don't use dreadstone pillars that you don't like or if hail didn't hurt mobs but stunlocked them.

Since you see how bad the argument is, maybe stop using it?

Your right I won't miss years of development instead the interactions will be completely ripped away forever gone so noone can experience it clearly you could never make another world where you could experience this new content without threat to your current specialized builds that surely would be too much to ask of you.

I must ask how do you not see the problem here? You only see your own benefits in this and thus you automatically assume your argument is stronger and a victimless solution.

50 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

It is pure logic, you can't really convince anyone how big of an effect hail would have on survival playstyle if it killed mobs over a long period of time

As someone who asks for all mobs to be made unable to go extinct please explain these consequences on the world in a scenario where extinction was solved?

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

in the same vein with dreadstone pillar even if you build one in your base it will cover everything but it has such an impact to someone that wants to have 100 of them.

This is completely misguided first what makes you think my base is small? Ah yes your assumptions right? Why would I care about protecting my base if it were super small late game? Second we are the vocal minority both me and you the majority of the community is not building a base that's big enough for more than 10 pillars and even that is probably a stretch.

57 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

It isn't just an opinion, you are arguing just to argue against these things. Anyone that puts any amount of thought into these things can see how minimal of an effect they have on survival playstyle.

No anyone who puts in the smallest amount of thought to it can easily see your not using any logic your just stating your opinions as fact and expect people to go along with it more or less saying "I'm right because I say so and it's obvious" isn't a arguement it wouldn't hold up you should kinow in any debate we use facts not just assumptions.

1 hour ago, 00petar00 said:

I am not speaking about specifics but fundamentally megabasing isn't forced on you but survival content is.  What can megabasers do about these mechanics? Are are going to mention world settings? The same can be said to you, why don't you modify them so that game is more difficult? 

In reality we can't do anything about these mechanics and have to put up with them because a lot of us prefer to play on mostly vanilla settings and only turn off wildfires and disease when it was in the game.

Look let's be real here like really really real I myself hate that all I can say to this is use the settings I don't like suggesting this but you need to understand your playing a survival game the default experience is a survival game and I hate to say it but if you hate survival content being the default experience maybe you shouldn't be playing this game?

1 hour ago, 00petar00 said:

The same can be said to you, why don't you modify them so that game is more difficult? 

Because the option doesn't exist for us currently and if it did you'd probably be upset about missing out on content because survival content isn't just about being more difficult it's about challenging your playstyle and forcing you to survive in spite of it.

If Klei added exclusive survival content and had it turned off in the settings by default I'd have absolutely no problems with it but you'd feel like you were missing out on content no? If not let's join hands and push for it. I can practice what I preach in this case so long as the option to is available.

1 hour ago, 00petar00 said:

Using emoticons or liking a post doesn't mean that I agree with everything

I agree but that wasn't what I was talking about.

 

1 hour ago, 00petar00 said:

I believe that most of my suggestions are reasonable

Do you believe people who make unreasonable suggestions think they're being unreasonable?

 

1 hour ago, 00petar00 said:

everyone has those moments including me when I am frustrated and may have ranted about mechanics or update but that doesn't mean that everything I spoke about negatively scrapped from the game.

This is more or less what I was getting at everyone has unreasonable ideas at some point don't treat it as the person overall being completely unreasonable though and even then we can't assume we're the ones being reasonable in the situation even if we both agree to disagree.

1 hour ago, 00petar00 said:

Did I specifically pick you out and say that you play a specific amount of days? Stop picking something stated in general as if it has to be about you.

So you didn't say I'd only need 1 pillar and that it would outlast my entire run? I guess I just imagined that?

1 hour ago, 00petar00 said:

Most survival players don't stick around for 3000 days or longer, I'd give them 200-300 days at maximum.

So once again your pulling numbers out of nowhere without any actual proof beyond your assumptions of how people you do not know play the game but proudly stating it as fact nope nothing illogical here right? A completely reasonable argument who needs facts when you just have a gut feeling am I right?

 

1 hour ago, 00petar00 said:

You are just arguing in bad faith here and again you are not going to convince anyone that survival players are playing for thousands of days, maybe there is a couple of survival players in the whole world that play like that without megabasing but I doubt it. 

I see so good faith is pulling numbers out of thin air and assuming what thousands of players are doing? I don't know this seems really bad faith to me.

 

1 hour ago, 00petar00 said:

Survival becomes much easier the longer you play so after all the bosses are killed a lot of the players that enjoy that type of gameplay decide to reset.

By this logic most megabasers would also reset after all you can't keep building forever eventually you'll run out of things to build no? And even then I'd imagine most megabasers are build crazy multiple biome bases the idea that the majority of survival players are just gonna loop the same first 300 days as though they'd change just seems absolutely silly to me as it goes against the very idea of a Endless Survival Game. It's like playing a tower defense game and assuming everyone is going to only play the first 10 waves quit and start over.

1 hour ago, 00petar00 said:

Where are you finding these survival players that stick around for 5000 days? I have not seen anyone else confirm that they play like this, we have had quite a few discussions and you have mentioned this multiple times the forums, how has no one replied to me that they also play like this and that you aren't alone if even you do this but I doubt it unless you megabase in some shape or form?

I see are you implying because noone bragged about their thousand day survival worlds those players don't exist? This is like when people state how many hours they've played for to show that their opinion is more valid than others. Are you really trying to make the argument that any large portion of the dst community visits these forums or that any player with a high day count is automatically a megabaser because you have to see how silly that sounds because the implication here is that anyone who says that aren't a megabaser never made it past day 300 it seems.

 

1 hour ago, 00petar00 said:

Have you not been reading the same forum threads as me? The most vocal ones want uncompromising survival and anything that klei throws at them should stay that way even if it means their base being destroyed.

Even at the most vocal they are not a hivemind who automatically agree with everything that hinders you even you should know what your suggesting is silly. Just because they want more challenge and/or survival mechanics doesn't automatically mean most of the most vocal are going to want zero balancing of mechanics going forward.

46 minutes ago, Capybara007 said:

All i get from this whinning from the survivalists side is that they want the game to be how they want even if it affects tremendously other playstyles

If their message was something else, they failed miserably at delivering it

I see that is a interesting opinion and I'll take it into consideration however I found this thing that I hear is all the rage these days maybe consider reading it? https://forums.kleientertainment.com/guidelines/

[00petar00]

28 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Your right I won't miss years of development instead the interactions will be completely ripped away forever gone so noone can experience it clearly you could never make another world where you could experience this new content without threat to your current specialized builds that surely would be too much to ask of you.

I must ask how do you not see the problem here? You only see your own benefits in this and thus you automatically assume your argument is stronger and a victimless solution.

You are failing to understand my point, your "interactions" are completely optional, why can't you not build dreadstone pillar if you find that it makes survival trivial?

The difference is that the impact of 100 dreadstone pillars vs 100 stone pillars and how annoying it would be to repair them is huge. 

31 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

This is completely misguided first what makes you think my base is small? Ah yes your assumptions right? Why would I care about protecting my base if it were super small late game? Second we are the vocal minority both me and you the majority of the community is not building a base that's big enough for more than 10 pillars and even that is probably a stretch.

34 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

So you didn't say I'd only need 1 pillar and that it would outlast my entire run? I guess I just imagined that?

34 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

So once again your pulling numbers out of nowhere without any actual proof beyond your assumptions of how people you do not know play the game but proudly stating it as fact nope nothing illogical here right? A completely reasonable argument who needs facts when you just have a gut feeling am I right?

39 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

I see so good faith is pulling numbers out of thin air and assuming what thousands of players are doing? I don't know this seems really bad faith to me.

So you are insinuating that you are one of those players that go from survival to megabase. How do expect of anyone to understand your point when you use these arguments?

Do you not understand what generalizing means and is it that difficult to understand that most survival players don't stick around after killing everything or depending on their goal surviving and completing it? I can't really say what the average playtime per world is but I'd guess around 200 days.

I did say that you only need 1 pillar but during that discussion I was partially either assuming or generalizing you as a survival player which is completely fair considering your stance on certain mechanics and no one can tell how you play the game without seeing it, you can't really tell my playstyle before I start megabasing or my priorities.

You are always spinning this discussion in circles, survival players in general don't play that long on the same world. How is this a false statement?

That's why I am saying that you are arguing in bad faith, no one has the stats but by playing a multiplayer game with other players and discussing on discord/forums you can come to some conclusions.

42 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

By this logic most megabasers would also reset after all you can't keep building forever eventually you'll run out of things to build no? And even then I'd imagine most megabasers are build crazy multiple biome bases the idea that the majority of survival players are just gonna loop the same first 300 days as though they'd change just seems absolutely silly to me as it goes against the very idea of a Endless Survival Game. It's like playing a tower defense game and assuming everyone is going to only play the first 10 waves quit and start over.

You are completely correct and even megabasers reset. No one plays the loop of first 300 days as a survival player of thousands as a megabaser just to loop and not see any change, they do it because they can try different things and while the game has not changed map does and you can always have different priorities on what you want to achieve for each run.

44 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

I see are you implying because noone bragged about their thousand day survival worlds those players don't exist? This is like when people state how many hours they've played for to show that their opinion is more valid than others. Are you really trying to make the argument that any large portion of the dst community visits these forums or that any player with a high day count is automatically a megabaser because you have to see how silly that sounds because the implication here is that anyone who says that aren't a megabaser never made it past day 300 it seems.

 

Literally I have not seen a pure survival player that plays for thousands of days, there are survival players that become megabasers and that is completely different. When did I say that it is less valid? You are making things up, I said that I have not seen any of these players that you seem to be imagining to exist in droves on DST.

48 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

This is more or less what I was getting at everyone has unreasonable ideas at some point don't treat it as the person overall being completely unreasonable though and even then we can't assume we're the ones being reasonable in the situation even if we both agree to disagree.

I don't know where you are pulling these ideas that I have been making that you are calling me out on but when it comes to me ranting it is usually without ideas and rant is over by the time I am ready to make a reasonable suggestion. I want to see you link me a couple of so called "unresonable" ideas of mine.

51 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Because the option doesn't exist for us currently and if it did you'd probably be upset about missing out on content because survival content isn't just about being more difficult it's about challenging your playstyle and forcing you to survive in spite of it.

If Klei added exclusive survival content and had it turned off in the settings by default I'd have absolutely no problems with it but you'd feel like you were missing out on content no? If not let's join hands and push for it. I can practice what I preach in this case so long as the option to is available.

It actually does, you can make the game so much more difficult just using world settings by limiting boons and increasing dangerous creatures. 

I'd be much happier and find it much more acceptable if survival content you want was added to the game but turned off by default in world settings as long as it doesn't mean that only survival content is getting released and I need to wait a year for any big changes for my style of play.

53 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

As someone who asks for all mobs to be made unable to go extinct please explain these consequences on the world in a scenario where extinction was solved?

Do you realize klei has limited development time? They are investing so much more time to satisfy players that want to have hail deal damage to mobs. A lot of suggestions were also made for ice crystaleyezer that would make it a much more interesting structure but it would require too much time to develop. 

[lenship2]

does anyone here ever come to an actual agreement?

[Ulisesvolador]

5 minutes ago, lenship2 said:

does anyone here ever come to an actual agreement?

No.

[Mysterious box]

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

So you are insinuating that you are one of those players that go from survival to megabase. How do expect of anyone to understand your point when you use these arguments?

Having a large base does not equal mega basing you simply can't store everything you get in a small base if you actively explore the world and bring things back it's just unreasonable to even think otherwise. 

 

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

Do you not understand what generalizing means and is it that difficult to understand that most survival players don't stick around after killing everything or depending on their goal surviving and completing it? I can't really say what the average playtime per world is but I'd guess around 200 days.

Soon as you cite your source on this I can accept it I can declare random opinions too doesn't make them valid so I don't see why you believe your assumptions do your not presenting evidence beyond "trust me bro you know I'm right"

 

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

I did say that you only need 1 pillar but during that discussion I was partially either assuming or generalizing you as a survival player which is completely fair considering your stance on certain mechanics and no one can tell how you play the game without seeing it, you can't really tell my playstyle before I start megabasing or my priorities.

Ah I see your assumption is based on a set of rules you yourself decided rooted in "trust me bro" and as such it's entirely accurate despite the lack of evidence therefore you did nothing wrong. This is indeed the most reasonable conversation I've had to date.

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

You are always spinning this discussion in circles, survival players in general don't play that long on the same world. How is this a false statement?

Because you arbitrarily decided it without absolutely nothing to back it up? Is this some revolutionary concept to you?

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

That's why I am saying that you are arguing in bad faith, no one has the stats but by playing a multiplayer game with other players and discussing on discord/forums you can come to some conclusions.

So is the take away that my experiences in these listed scenarios are less valid than yours? That you are the authority on both megabasing and survival?

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

Literally I have not seen a pure survival player that plays for thousands of days, there are survival players that become megabasers and that is completely different. When did I say that it is less valid? You are making things up, I said that I have not seen any of these players that you seem to be imagining to exist in droves on DST.

So your assumption is that megabasing is the only thing high day count players do? Or is it that you believe that people who play for survival don't make a decently sized base to store their things and make said base look nice because they obviously don't want it to look ugly? I feel like your under the mistaken assumption that groups of players playing for survival content don't build bases or that people that build bases are automatically mega basers you can have a large base without making it span multiple biomes and just because your survival focused it doesn't mean you suddenly don't care about making your base look nice did you forget that your base is part of survival? Do you think people playing survival just don't care about their appearance? You said you had a survival friend so clearly you've seen survival players and I imagine what you've done with some of the others is just automatically assume with your bias. Base looks nice and is bigger than 1 screen = Megabaser but that's not how that works. 

 

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

I don't know where you are pulling these ideas that I have been making that you are calling me out on but when it comes to me ranting it is usually without ideas and rant is over by the time I am ready to make a reasonable suggestion. I want to see you link me a couple of so called "unresonable" ideas of mine.

How about placing player owned locks on items for one example.

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

It actually does, you can make the game so much more difficult just using world settings by limiting boons and increasing dangerous creatures.

Your just being willfully ignorant aren't you. That's like me saying oh you like megabasing so much go use super god mode, freecrafting, and turn off all seasons, mobs and bosses. If your going to play dumb why even pretend to be genuine?

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

I'd be much happier and find it much more acceptable if survival content you want was added to the game but turned off by default in world settings as long as it doesn't mean that only survival content is getting released and I need to wait a year for any big changes for my style of play.

I mean do you really think the devs are only going to focus on end game from here to the end of dst? Because that would alienate the majority of the playerbase and if you didn't know that's neither of us I don't get why people think Klei is gonna suddenly stop releasing pre rift content. So even if you suddenly dropped the rift content completely it's not like you wouldn't ever get new content suited to your style of play.

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

Do you realize klei has limited development time?

I do are you saying making all mobs renewable would be a waste of that time? Because I'm sure as heck a majority of the player base would disagree with you.

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

They are investing so much more time to satisfy players that want to have hail deal damage to mobs.

It's interesting you say to satisfy players who want hail damage when the devs themselves said this is what they wanted the mechanic to work like. They're working on a shelter system to satisfy megabasers just thought I'd make that clear. They also had to work on the pillar system, the umbrella barriers, and the portal and earthquake spawning habits to satisfy those players as well don't get me wrong I feel like the latter 3 were well worth the time especially the portal change as it spawning on top of your base was definitely a bad thing and I also agree it was the right decision to remove mobs taking damage from hail until they finish the shelter system they're working on but the way your saying it is making it seem like the survival players are the ones putting more work on the devs when clearly for the most part it's the opposite.

55 minutes ago, lenship2 said:

does anyone here ever come to an actual agreement?

I mean we have agreed on some things but a total agreement is probably impossible.

[00petar00]

10 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Soon as you cite your source on this I can accept it I can declare random opinions too doesn't make them valid so I don't see why you believe your assumptions do your not presenting evidence beyond "trust me bro you know I'm right"

This is the last time in this thread that I'll be replying to "give me the stats" when neither you or me can have them. Everything can be seen as subjective when it comes to experience or my view of discord/forums but these are literally the only metrics we have to go on.

12 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

How about placing player owned locks on items for one example.

I believe what you are pulling this from is my suggestion about adding slanty shanty/player housing to DST and for it to be lockable. That suggestion is a bit out there but I wouldn't say that it is unreasonable or at least players that were against it only used griefing as a reason but anyone that wants to delete or hide resources has a million different ways that are much easier to accomplish.

17 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

I mean do you really think the devs are only going to focus on end game from here to the end of dst? Because that would alienate the majority of the playerbase and if you didn't know that's neither of us I don't get why people think Klei is gonna suddenly stop releasing pre rift content. So even if you suddenly dropped the rift content completely it's not like you wouldn't ever get new content suited to your style of play.

Your definition of an endgame isn't the same as mine. I actually really like over 90% of the content that rifts provide and this isn't meant to be a survival only update. The only reason I'd prefer to see other type of content releases is because I don't know what will be added to the rifts in the future but cave rifts have been amazing while the surface rifts have brightshades without a good solution to deal with them for 6 months now? We were told that there would be more creatures but why not tune down the brightshades before that happens?

22 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

I do are you saying making all mobs renewable would be a waste of that time? Because I'm sure as heck a majority of the player base would disagree with you.

I do want everything to be renewable but where a lot of the players issues with hail is that we don't want creatures to die in our pens as that will mess with decoration and no one is going to use these mobs if they have to replenish them every so often.

24 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

It's interesting you say to satisfy players who want hail damage when the devs themselves said this is what they wanted the mechanic to work like. They're working on a shelter system to satisfy megabasers just thought I'd make that clear. They also had to work on the pillar system, the umbrella barriers, and the portal and earthquake spawning habits to satisfy those players as well don't get me wrong I feel like the latter 3 were well worth the time especially the portal change as it spawning on top of your base was definitely a bad thing and I also agree it was the right decision to remove mobs taking damage from hail until they finish the shelter system they're working on but the way your saying it is making it seem like the survival players are the ones putting more work on the devs when clearly for the most part it's the opposite.

There is a reason beta exists, developers need feedback on what players like and what they don't. According to you we should all agree on the vision developers put in front of us. Boulders in caves were destroying structures for no reason so that they had to make them not target structures when player was close to them before adding pillars. That was a vision they had on making the world more destructive that most players didn't agree on. There are countless changes done each beta that tailor the update to suit the playerbase as much as possible.

Also you classify yourself as a survival player yet you use pillars and after that you say that devs are putting more work just because of megabasers.

Hail dealing damage to mobs or not doesn't affect survival players, it is flavor and if you think that it is worth them going though all that trouble just so you can see a mob or two die in front of you, that's your belief. Most of the playerbase would be satisfied with the suggestion of hail dealing no damage but stunlocking mobs.

[Mysterious box]

2 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

This is the last time in this thread that I'll be replying to "give me the stats" when neither you or me can have them. Everything can be seen as subjective when it comes to experience or my view of discord/forums but these are literally the only metrics we have to go on.

My issue with it is basing you argument on subjective views isn't a good way to argue which is why I was trying to ask you to focus only on the facts in this regard.

4 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

We were told that there would be more creatures but why not tune down the brightshades before that happens?

I'd imagine because unlike lunar hail this would cause problems in larger servers with players looking to farm loot.

6 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

Your definition of an endgame isn't the same as mine. I actually really like over 90% of the content that rifts provide and this isn't meant to be a survival only update.

I mean I've enjoyed most of the content as well but you'd be hard pressed to convince me and some others that there's much content focused on survival in this survival game and I feel like the rifts are here to fix that for the most part that doesn't mean I think all the post rift content is going to be only focused on survival however I mean it technically already hasn't.

13 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

According to you we should all agree on the vision developers put in front of us.

 

48 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

don't get me wrong I feel like the latter 3 were well worth the time especially the portal change as it spawning on top of your base was definitely a bad thing and I also agree it was the right decision to remove mobs taking damage from hail until they finish the shelter system they're working on but the way your saying it is making it seem like the survival players are the ones putting more work on the devs when clearly for the most part it's the opposite.

Uh...did you miss this? You couldn't have right? I mean you yourself quoted it right?

20 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

Also you classify yourself as a survival player yet you use pillars and after that you say that devs are putting more work just because of megabasers.

Your the one who said it was us who was putting more work on the devs I just corrected you if your saying the reason they'll have to put more work into the hail mechanic isn't to appease mega base players your simply denying the facts and yes there are actual facts in this scenario. You represented it as us putting more work onto the devs not stating that this was how they wanted it to go and that we asked for something that would cause more dev time however the increased dev time is coming from Klei wanting to stick to their vision of the mechanic while causing as little problems as possible for people like you. That's not to say the pillar mechanic, umbrella barrier, and portal spawn changes weren't necessary for survival players as we needed them to protect our bases as well but if your asking whose asking for the most dev time in these scenarios it's clearly mega basers. Also are you trying to say survival players shouldn't use mechanics that would protect their base?

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

I feel like the latter 3 were well worth the time

Quick aside I updated my text to include earthquakes and forgot to update this to 4 if that's what you meant about the pillar part if that's what you meant about the pillar comment disregard the last sentence of the previous quote.

34 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

Most of the playerbase would be satisfied with the suggestion of hail dealing no damage but stunlocking mobs.

To be clear since it seems it's been awhile since we've discussed this I'm also fine with them just having the hurt animation and it dealing no damage we've already discussed this.

 

36 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

There is a reason beta exists, developers need feedback on what players like and what they don't.

This is true but that's not the way you represented things also despite what players may want the final decision is in the hands of the developers and we have to respect that all of us. Our role is to try to guide them in the right direction not give them orders on what they can and can't do.

[00petar00]

6 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

My issue with it is basing you argument on subjective views isn't a good way to argue which is why I was trying to ask you to focus only on the facts in this regard.

What is your point? No one has the graphs and stats except klei themselves, does that mean that we can't mention what is our experience on how other players play based on us playing with them? With your logic any time anything is brought up that can't be backed up makes it pointless?

8 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

I mean I've enjoyed most of the content as well but you'd be hard pressed to convince me and some others that there's much content focused on survival in this survival game and I feel like the rifts are here to fix that for the most part that doesn't mean I think all the post rift content is going to be only focused on survival however I mean it technically already hasn't.

I am not trying to, it is obvious to everyone that DST caters to casual and megabase players. I completely agree with you that most of the challenging content is completely optional and that is why I really enjoy DST so much. I can decide what I want to do and when I want to do it.

Most survival mechanics can be countered or outclassed with boss items, same goes with managing stats. Bundling wrap and now bearger bin make managing food so much less of a chore so that players can focus on fighting bosses,buidling or exploring and not caring for spoilage timer. The same boss Bee Queen drops royal jelly that restores in total 976-1098 health.

This isn't going to change now with the rifts either and it hasn't happened, only some minor things that you can counter. Obviously majority of the playerbase prefers optional content and now you'll ask me for stats but obviously klei has them and that's why they decided to take DST in this direction for so many years.

18 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

don't get me wrong I feel like the latter 3 were well worth the time especially the portal change as it spawning on top of your base was definitely a bad thing and I also agree it was the right decision to remove mobs taking damage from hail until they finish the shelter system they're working on but the way your saying it is making it seem like the survival players are the ones putting more work on the devs when clearly for the most part it's the opposite.

Uh...did you miss this? You couldn't have right? I mean you yourself quoted it right?

 

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

They're working on a shelter system to satisfy megabasers just thought I'd make that clear.

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

the way your saying it is making it seem like the survival players are the ones putting more work on the devs when clearly for the most part it's the opposite.

25 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Your the one who said it was us who was putting more work on the devs I just corrected you if your saying the reason they'll have to put more work into the hail mechanic isn't to appease mega base players your simply denying the facts and yes there are actual facts in this scenario. You represented it as us putting more work onto the devs not stating that this was how they wanted it to go and that we asked for something that would cause more dev time however the increased dev time is coming from Klei wanting to stick to their vision of the mechanic while causing as little problems as possible for people like you. That's not to say the pillar mechanic, umbrella barrier, and portal spawn changes weren't necessary for survival players as we needed them to protect our bases as well but if your asking whose asking for the most dev time in these scenarios it's clearly mega basers. Also are you trying to say survival players shouldn't use mechanics that would protect their base?

So you agree with most of the things they added and after that say that it is mostly for megabasers. Also it is mostly survival players that want hail to deal damage to mobs when a simple solution that everyone can agree on that requires the least of development time is for them to deal 0 damage and stunklock mobs, they would prefer if klei invests more time.

Simple solution that survival players don't want to accept when the only effect it has on them is flavor and they prefer that developers invest more time. 

Don't you think that the reason they are sticking to the original vision is because of how many players that are completely unaffected by the mechanic didn't want to move an inch and wanted it to stay like it was? 

I don't think that you can say that this is being done mostly for builds/megabasers when it is the other way around. Shelter wouldn't be required if the idea we and many others agree on, that hail can stunlock mobs without hurting them.

Survival players that want uncompromising base destruction can just not use structures that protect their base or build in meteor field. I did notice that you replied to the topic keeps being brought up recently that wildfires should burn the whole world down. There are players that want that experience and they can have it without ruining the game for everyone else by limiting what they build for protection.

35 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

This is true but that's not the way you represented things also despite what players may want the final decision is in the hands of the developers and we have to respect that all of us. Our role is to try to guide them in the right direction not give them orders on what they can and can't do.

Respect and find the changes agreeable are two different things. I agree that we need to give them feedback to guide them but that also has its limits and sometimes a mechanic is added to a game that is completely unacceptable to the players (this hasn't happened to me with DST yet outside of beta),but we should be able to speak out about features that aren't really enjoyable and that we wouldn't be able to keep playing the game without turning it off. It doesn't mean that we have to accept and play with every feature that is added to the game. Most of the players try their best to play as vanilla as possible but some mechanics like wildfires are too intrusive and destructive, unless someone is going to build in oasis and they want a big base they may want to turn it off.

[GelatinousCube]

19 hours ago, Reiko24 said:

The game is not a building simulator, I feel like a lot of people forgot that. It's an "uncompromising survival game", so "uncompromising survival mechanics" will always be a part of it and WILL be added.

Its actually a Survival/Sandbox game and always has been. Nice cherry picking of what the game is by literally leaving out the second half of its official genre listing. 

Here let me try.

It has always been a sandbox game where once you are no longer struggling and in the survival phase you are thriving, there has always been base building, terraforming and decorative structures with a heavy emphasis on base building and "mega basing" once you complete all the bosses and other content. This has always been a part of the game and will always be added in new updates. 

Edit: I've read through the whole thread and you don't appear to even support lunar hail or some of the other really annoying and destructive (but not challenging..) mechanics of late like Rift Earthquakes and claim to be a mega baser yourself so I'm a little confused. Seems you like mainly made the thread in regards to Brightshades which I don't really have a problem with. I'd like to be able to control to a degree where they go (more than just the dragonfruit at lava ponds trick), close rifts naturally (not just turned off in settings) and other options but I have no real problem with Brightshades as they currently exist. We (late game/"mega base" players) want cool new challenging features too, just not tedious overly destructive mechanics specifically aimed at mobs or decorative elements of the game/your base/unrenewable resources/mobs. 

[Cassielu]

16 hours ago, Reiko24 said:

I'm not talking about the lunar hail. I'm talking about stuff like brightshades

Once you learn how to fight them, they become the similarity.

kill about 60 Brightshade each year, but the probability of death for each time is close to zero. I wouldn't die to Brightshade from first wave, why would it be challenging in next all the time?

Ultimately, players just don't want to be forced to do the same thing over and over again.

[Guille6785]

14 hours ago, Reiko24 said:

plant dragonfruit near lava ponds

we did it boys, we achieved uncompromising

[Mysterious box]

9 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

What is your point? No one has the graphs and stats except klei themselves, does that mean that we can't mention what is our experience on how other players play based on us playing with them? With your logic any time anything is brought up that can't be backed up makes it pointless?

No but you shouldn't make your entire argument built on a vague gut feeling if you feel your right you can bring that up but don't treat it as evidence your right there's a difference. For example I could say I believe something to be true while trying to use evidence to back it up but I can't say something is true just based on what I feel and treat it as a undeniable truth your doing the latter which is where I have a problem. You can't say you don't have proof but clearly your right because you feel that to be the case based on your experience that's confirmation bias.

9 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

Obviously majority of the playerbase prefers optional content and now you'll ask me for stats but obviously klei has them and that's why they decided to take DST in this direction for so many years.

I wouldn't be so sure about that there's a large amount of people who want a shake up which is why they're so desperate for updates that wow them and a large amount of casual players get bored specifically because so much of the early game experience is so optional and Klei has taken note if this design change is any indicator. Heck when you check across various platforms there is a large amount of people upset with the rifts specifically because it's locked out of most of their reaches with many asking for the entire questlines to be removed. Think about it many casual players hang around base asking what to do but why is that? Sure some of them legitimately don't know what to do but there's also a large amount who just feel like everything's done and that they don't want to be a world traveler just to try to experience something even more so when there's not much benefit to exploring past the main island. Optional content just isn't popular that isn't to say people want all content forced on them but people want content to engage them as part of a natural progression not isolated loops.

 

9 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

Most survival mechanics can be countered or outclassed with boss items, same goes with managing stats. Bundling wrap and now bearger bin make managing food so much less of a chore so that players can focus on fighting bosses,buidling or exploring and not caring for spoilage timer. The same boss Bee Queen drops royal jelly that restores in total 976-1098 health.

This isn't going to change now with the rifts either and it hasn't happened, only some minor things that you can counter.

I think your missing the point here old survival mechanics being outclassed and replaced for newer stronger survival mechanics is what survival progression is all about.

 

9 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

Also it is mostly survival players that want hail to deal damage to mobs

And mostly the devs which I also later understood why being that the hail killing mobs would force lunar transformations on upcoming lunar mutant variants. (which on a side note will have also lowered the amount of brightshades that spawn since they pull from the same pool you know.) 

 

10 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

Also it is mostly survival players that want hail to deal damage to mobs when a simple solution that everyone can agree on that requires the least of development time is for them to deal 0 damage and stunklock mobs, they would prefer if klei invests more time.

Once again your misrepresenting the reality of the situation so allow me to highlight this the reason more dev time is being used is because Klei is trying to appease megabaser's mob farms it has nothing to do with survival players who agreed with the dev's original intent in this scenario.

The issue here is your using your own desires to deny the facts to condemn survival players when people who have a issue with creature death by hail are at fault this isn't to say they're bad for feeling that way but don't pretend that it isn't them who increased the dev time.

10 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

I don't think that you can say that this is being done mostly for builds/megabasers when it is the other way around. Shelter wouldn't be required if the idea we and many others agree on, that hail can stunlock mobs without hurting them.

 

I mean the shelter wouldn't be required if megabasers weren't making player zoos as it doesn't do any damage to player structures so...

 

10 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

Survival players that want uncompromising base destruction can just not use structures that protect their base or build in meteor field. I did notice that you replied to the topic keeps being brought up recently that wildfires should burn the whole world down. There are players that want that experience and they can have it without ruining the game for everyone else by limiting what they build for protection.

This is once again being willfully ignorant and why it's hard to take you seriously as trying to be reasonable how is it survival if you can't protect your base? It feels like you don't even understand the concept of a survival game your making the most irrational suggestions on how people can play to experience survival pretending like your even being slightly realistic. The blatantly disrespectful way you approaching the conversation is like saying "Oh your cold well go jump in a volcano that'll warm you up. What? Your not gonna do that well then clearly your not cold so shut up."

10 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

Respect and find the changes agreeable are two different things. I agree that we need to give them feedback to guide them but that also has its limits and sometimes a mechanic is added to a game that is completely unacceptable to the players (this hasn't happened to me with DST yet outside of beta),but we should be able to speak out about features that aren't really enjoyable and that we wouldn't be able to keep playing the game without turning it off. It doesn't mean that we have to accept and play with every feature that is added to the game. Most of the players try their best to play as vanilla as possible but some mechanics like wildfires are too intrusive and destructive, unless someone is going to build in oasis and they want a big base they may want to turn it off.

You don't need to just accept what the devs want but at the same time you should equally understand that the devs have the final say not you no matter how unacceptable you feel something is also you shouldn't keep using your personal experiences to represent how the whole of the community feels as there are always going to be people who like and dislike mechanics just because you don't like the survival aspect of the game doesn't mean everyone does.

[00petar00]

4 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

No but you shouldn't make your entire argument built on a vague gut feeling if you feel your right you can bring that up but don't treat it as evidence your right there's a difference. For example I could say I believe something to be true while trying to use evidence to back it up but I can't say something is true just based on what I feel and treat it as a undeniable truth your doing the latter which is where I have a problem. You can't say you don't have proof but clearly your right because you feel that to be the case based on your experience that's confirmation bias.

4 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

I wouldn't be so sure about that there's a large amount of people who want a shake up which is why they're so desperate for updates that wow them and a large amount of casual players get bored specifically because so much of the early game experience is so optional and Klei has taken note if this design change is any indicator. Heck when you check across various platforms there is a large amount of people upset with the rifts specifically because it's locked out of most of their reaches with many asking for the entire questlines to be removed. Think about it many casual players hang around base asking what to do but why is that? Sure some of them legitimately don't know what to do but there's also a large amount who just feel like everything's done and that they don't want to be a world traveler just to try to experience something even more so when there's not much benefit to exploring past the main island. Optional content just isn't popular that isn't to say people want all content forced on them but people want content to engage them as part of a natural progression not isolated loops.

 

Where are your stats? Are you making an argument based on your vague gut feeeling and is this your experience that is confirmation bias.

The same argument can be turned against everything you say when mentioning other players and what they want the game to be and that is how I'll discredit what you say since that is what you keep doing to me whenever I mention my "experience" whether it be discord/forums or even playing with others.

4 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

Once again your misrepresenting the reality of the situation so allow me to highlight this the reason more dev time is being used is because Klei is trying to appease megabaser's mob farms it has nothing to do with survival players who agreed with the dev's original intent in this scenario.

The issue here is your using your own desires to deny the facts to condemn survival players when people who have a issue with creature death by hail are at fault this isn't to say they're bad for feeling that way but don't pretend that it isn't them who increased the dev time.

That is because it is a simple solution that many people don't want to accept. The game is survival/sandbox and if boulders destroyed my base without a chance to counter them and hail killed so many mobs, what is the point of that? Maybe as you said it is possible that hail would be used for gestalts to possess creatures that die but these are just your personal thoughts/guesses on what might happen in the future.

4 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

I mean the shelter wouldn't be required if megabasers weren't making player zoos as it doesn't do any damage to player structures so...

You were able to do that since forever, same with plants that are now infested by brightshades. This game is not just survival but sandbox too and it will never be the purely destructive survival game that you hope it to be.

4 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

This is once again being willfully ignorant and why it's hard to take you seriously as trying to be reasonable how is it survival if you can't protect your base? It feels like you don't even understand the concept of a survival game your making the most irrational suggestions on how people can play to experience survival pretending like your even being slightly realistic. The blatantly disrespectful way you approaching the conversation is like saying "Oh your cold well go jump in a volcano that'll warm you up. What? Your not gonna do that well then clearly your not cold so shut up."

How is what you are describing a game and not a job? pile up enough survival mechanics that I am forced to repeat and you have defined what you see as survival mechanics is something that can't be permanently stopped, so that makes it a chore. There is a limit to how many of these can exist in the game  without completely annoying the player that wants to stay and build after 300 days.

4 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

You don't need to just accept what the devs want but at the same time you should equally understand that the devs have the final say not you no matter how unacceptable you feel something is also you shouldn't keep using your personal experiences to represent how the whole of the community feels as there are always going to be people who like and dislike mechanics just because you don't like the survival aspect of the game doesn't mean everyone does.

Same can be said to you and your first few paragraphs in this post, that is your experience and you are explaining it as if it was a fact. Also same can be said about the chore-like survival mechanics that you want added to the game, you can see the pushback it is getting on the forums and that is why we got permanent dreadstone pillar.  Just because you don't like building decorations it doesn't mean that everyone else does.

[Mysterious box]

15 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

Where are your stats? Are you making an argument based on your vague gut feeeling and is this your experience that is confirmation bias.

The same argument can be turned against everything you say when mentioning other players and what they want the game to be and that is how I'll discredit what you say since that is what you keep doing to me whenever I mention my "experience" whether it be discord/forums or even playing with others.

See the difference is I'm bringing to your attention that there are many people out there who do want things to shake up I'm not telling you that people who don't want a shake up don't exist or claiming that they're in the minority nor am I basing my entire argument on this one point like you are by deciding the entirety of the community's playstyle preferences and debating me on them for disagreeing with the vague claims like you know for sure I'm not saying you can't say many players this or most players that but when you start claiming that these assumptions are absolute truths because trust me bro that's when I have a issue.

4 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

Optional content just isn't popular that isn't to say people want all content forced on them but people want content to engage them as part of a natural progression not isolated loops.

I will admit however I overstepped here.

24 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

That is because it is a simple solution that many people don't want to accept.

In your opinion one could equally make the argument that a simple solution people don't want to accept is to not keep pets both would be equally valid you would just be very against the latter because it's the only one that would negatively impact your experience and before you say it doesn't impact x or y player who are you to decide that?

28 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

The game is survival/sandbox and if boulders destroyed my base without a chance to counter them and hail killed so many mobs, what is the point of that?

This would be compelling if the average player on the survival side wanted boulders to have no counters but they don't so I don't know why you keep acting like they do. As for hail as mentioned they've already said they're working on it.

 

29 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

Maybe as you said it is possible that hail would be used for gestalts to possess creatures that die but these are just your personal thoughts/guesses on what might happen in the future

• Gestalts that have targeted corpses essentially decrease the amount of Brightshade Gestalts released by the Lunar Rift, thereby speeding up the Rift's closure.

Actually no I came to this conclusion because that's what we were told in the patch notes.

36 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

You were able to do that since forever, same with plants that are now infested by brightshades.

Oh I'm aware I'm just saying if your talking about simple solutions that players don't want to accept I just laid it out in front of you. To give a better example it seems in your eyes a crime is only victimless if it isn't happening to you. Your going so far out of the way to demonize survival players that your even trying to pin the blame on something that's happening specifically because you have a problem with it on them.

48 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

This game is not just survival but sandbox too and it will never be the purely destructive survival game that you hope it to be.

This game is not just sandbox but survival too and it will never be the purely base sitting sim where all mechanics and threats are turned off that you hope it to be.

50 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

There is a limit to how many of these can exist in the game  without completely annoying the player that wants to stay and build after 300 days.

Huh it's almost as though I and some others have agreed that older mechanics should slowly be cycled out to make room for newer mechanics as you reach the next stage of gameplay naaah I couldn't have said that because it wouldn't have fit your I hate survival players narrative imagine actually discussing a topic without forcing your own vision of how they see the world on it.

52 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

How is what you are describing a game and not a job? pile up enough survival mechanics that I am forced to repeat and you have defined what you see as survival mechanics is something that can't be permanently stopped, so that makes it a chore.

Sorry I forgot you were the authority on what is and isn't fun and no one can enjoy things that exist outside of your personally decided rules this conversation is really getting tiring.

53 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

Just because you don't like building decorations it doesn't mean that everyone else does.

Sigh... I think this might help you.

A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used with the purpose of deceiving or misleading someone. The practice of communicating lies is called lying. A person who communicates a lie may be termed a liar. Lies can be interpreted as deliberately false statements or misleading statements.

[xhyom]

18 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

I'd be much happier and find it much more acceptable if survival content you want was added to the game but turned off by default in world settings as long as it doesn't mean that only survival content is getting released and I need to wait a year for any big changes for my style of play.

How is that any different than just turning off the rain. And what do you mean by only survival content being released? We literally got purely decorative structures, new bosses, new items, but this tiny grain of sand that does not fit your gameplay means the END of ALL bases?... No futurology please, the CURRENT update didn't do this, there is no sign that something like this would happen, we can't be mad at something that doesn't happen.

20 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

I am not speaking about specifics but fundamentally megabasing isn't forced on you but survival content is.  What can megabasers do about these mechanics? Are are going to mention world settings? The same can be said to you, why don't you modify them so that game is more difficult? 

In reality we can't do anything about these mechanics and have to put up with them because a lot of us prefer to play on mostly vanilla settings and only turn off wildfires and disease when it was in the game.

Are you literally just suggesting for us to make a mod? How could megabase be forced this don't even make sense, this is a survival game, of course survival aspects would be mandatory, if there was no danger you wouldn't even fell the need to make a huge base full of resources if there was no benefit, you wouldn't have a zoo for farming meat if hunger was not mandatory, the whole concept of megabasing is basically overcoming the wilderness using all your experience as you always did, this is just a new challenge to overcome. And you understand that anyone that play this game has a base right? It can be destroyed, tiles wide, a bunch of chests with a lot of resources, none of that is being destroyed by rain lol...

"We can't do anything about these mechanics" *Gives a clear example of a thing you can you, and ALREADY does*

[00petar00]

18 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

See the difference is I'm bringing to your attention that there are many people out there who do want things to shake up I'm not telling you that people who don't want a shake up don't exist or claiming that they're in the minority nor am I basing my entire argument on this one point like you are by deciding the entirety of the community's playstyle preferences and debating me on them for disagreeing with the vague claims like you know for sure I'm not saying you can't say many players this or most players that but when you start claiming that these assumptions are absolute truths because trust me bro that's when I have a issue.

Doesn't matter, no stats and you can't back up what you are saying. You don't know for sure if what you are saying is true, it is your experience.

20 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

In your opinion one could equally make the argument that a simple solution people don't want to accept is to not keep pets both would be equally valid you would just be very against the latter because it's the only one that would negatively impact your experience and before you say it doesn't impact x or y player who are you to decide that?

I try to see things objectively, someone being able to keep mobs in pens is much more valuable to their playstyle compared to seeing 1 mob die every 100 days from hail.

22 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

This would be compelling if the average player on the survival side wanted boulders to have no counters but they don't so I don't know why you keep acting like they do. As for hail as mentioned they've already said they're working on it.

Because you were saying how developer time is used more to satisfy one side when as you say everyone wants pillars.

24 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

• Gestalts that have targeted corpses essentially decrease the amount of Brightshade Gestalts released by the Lunar Rift, thereby speeding up the Rift's closure.

Actually no I came to this conclusion because that's what we were told in the patch notes.

That doesn't mean that hail exists for that purpose and it is completely your guess, maybe it has some merit but we can kill mobs on our own or different mobs can fight each other.

28 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Oh I'm aware I'm just saying if your talking about simple solutions that players don't want to accept I just laid it out in front of you. To give a better example it seems in your eyes a crime is only victimless if it isn't happening to you. Your going so far out of the way to demonize survival players that your even trying to pin the blame on something that's happening specifically because you have a problem with it on them.

So it is just my personal vendetta according to you and not my experience on the forums for the last year? You can take this as my subjective belief but anyone can go ahead and read all the threads even years in the past.

31 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

This game is not just sandbox but survival too and it will never be the purely base sitting sim where all mechanics and threats are turned off that you hope it to be.

Have we been playing two different games? You can sit at base for as long as you want. Almost all threats can be turned off. I have literally spent every season semi-afk.

33 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Sorry I forgot you were the authority on what is and isn't fun and no one can enjoy things that exist outside of your personally decided rules this conversation is really getting tiring.

So only you are able to give your opinion on mechanics? I have never said that everyone must feel the way I do about these mechanics and them being chore-like are my thoughts but I do believe that there is a reasonable amount of players that feel the same way.

33 minutes ago, xhyom said:

How is that any different than just turning off the rain. And what do you mean by only survival content being released? We literally got purely decorative structures, new bosses, new items, but this tiny grain of sand that does not fit your gameplay means the END of ALL bases?... No futurology please, the CURRENT update didn't do this, there is no sign that something like this would happen, we can't be mad at something that doesn't happen.

Hail has been changed and even if it wasn't, it wouldn't have been the end of all bases, that is a quite and exagarration. I don't think I have said that at any point in this thread.

35 minutes ago, xhyom said:

Are you literally just suggesting for us to make a mod? How could megabase be forced this don't even make sense, this is a survival game, of course survival aspects would be mandatory, if there was no danger you wouldn't even fell the need to make a huge base full of resources if there was no benefit, you wouldn't have a zoo for farming meat if hunger was not mandatory, the whole concept of megabasing is basically overcoming the wilderness using all your experience as you always did, this is just a new challenge to overcome. And you understand that anyone that play this game has a base right? It can be destroyed, tiles wide, a bunch of chests with a lot of resources, none of that is being destroyed by rain lol...

"We can't do anything about these mechanics" *Gives a clear example of a thing you can you, and ALREADY does*

I'd prefer if klei made options before world generation of the world if we are going to be getting into these debates every single update.

Megabasing provides benefit but it is mostly done to decorate the world. I can survive any amount of time without building a single structure.

You are picking and choosing what is convenient, hail (before change) was going to kill mobs in pens and we couldn't do anything about it without building near water so that we can use knobby trees, this limits base decoration by a wide margin.

Boulders when they were first introduced destroyed structures without enough of a warning and the only reason we got changes is because we asked for them. 

Most of the players have said that these mechanics aren't challenging, how does hail killing a mob in a pen make the game more difficult for you? How will hail limit meat farming? When structures that you can build or place like spiderden/pig house/rabbit hutch exist for example. Hail wouldn't do anything to stop these farms because unlimited amount of mobs spawn from them.

 

[Popian]

15 hours ago, GelatinousCube said:

I'd like to be able to control to a degree where they go (more than just the dragonfruit at lava ponds trick)

There is more you can do. Knowing the mechanics you can make more maxed out herds for them to go to and manually kill those with fire from Wormwood bushes or stacked Charcoal or Rope. This lets you use plants for decoration as long as you maintain the culling schedule and limit your decor herds to 35 plants or less.

[Mysterious box]

1 minute ago, 00petar00 said:

I try to see things objectively, someone being able to keep mobs in pens is much more valuable to their playstyle compared to seeing 1 mob die every 100 days from hail.

This is not a objective opinion.

 

2 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

Because you were saying how developer time is used more to satisfy one side when as you say everyone wants pillars.

To be clear you were the one who started the claims on who was wasting more time I'm just the one who pointed out it was megabasers who were the main ones who demanded the changes I even said I even agreed with some of them because some were valid but if your pushing the blame anywhere it's clear who is causing more dev time pushing it in any other direction is just misdirection since the way you were trying to justify it is by agreeing with the devs survival players were causing more work for them since now they had to appease both sides but that's just not a logic representation of the facts.

 

5 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

That doesn't mean that hail exists for that purpose and it is completely your guess, maybe it has some merit but we can kill mobs on our own or different mobs can fight each other.

Very true but it should would remove the "chore" of doing it yourself no? I mean your all about removing chores right?

6 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

So it is just my personal vendetta according to you and not my experience on the forums for the last year? You can take this as my subjective belief but anyone can go ahead and read all the threads even years in the past.

Your opinion isn't the vendetta it's when you keep making these cartoony strawmans where survival players are complete psychopaths who only enjoy seeing things destroyed not building anything or doing anything else it's like looking at war propaganda posters but you actually seem to believe they're real.

12 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

So only you are able to give your opinion on mechanics? I have never said that everyone must feel the way I do about these mechanics and them being chore-like are my thoughts but I do believe that there is a reasonable amount of players that feel the same way.

No your completely free to give your opinion what you aren't free to do however is decide how the people your debating feels or even plays. There's a big difference between giving your opinion and telling people what they want as if you know them better than they do themselves.

10 minutes ago, 00petar00 said:

Have we been playing two different games? You can sit at base for as long as you want. Almost all threats can be turned off. I have literally spent every season semi-afk.

Didn't you say there were so many tasks to do you can't even find time for breathing room?

[Mike23Ua]

I’m gonna repeat this story one more time, I’ve played several other survival sandbox games (the key word there is survival not sandbox..) and those games would frequently get updates to remind me that I wasn’t just playing a SANDBOX game, but also a Survival Based one by adding new content that either challenged my ability to survive, OR prevented me from using old tactics.

Some examples include: Building a Boat-Base in a survival game because it’s sea was empty of any dangers & then the game gets updated to add hostile creatures to its Sea that were only Designed to destroy my Boat.

Building a Tower of 1 block all the way up into the sky to survive the dangers of Nightfall until the game gets updated and adds a hostile flying mob that swoops at you and knocks you off of that block tower.

Building a Base out of easy to gather resources like Wood and that works.. right up until the developers add Flaming Zombies into the game that’s only design intention is to run into and ultimately set your wooden base ablaze.

My point is that a Survival game should ALWAYS be challenging your ability to survive, and when it STOPS doing that, it needs to get updates to start doing it again- And if it doesn’t then most survival games end being considered as “conquered” and the devs state their done making content for it so players move on to their next Survival Sandbox fix.

Im at the point with DST Now where I’m wanting to directly contact the developers and ask them if there will be new content that both challenges my ability to survive, and forces me to adopt new tactics in how build and maintain my bases, or if I should start looking for my Survival Sandbox fix elsewhere because DST is not, and will not ever be that type of experience.

[_zwb]

22 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

Survival game should ALWAYS be challenging your ability to survive, and when it STOPS doing that, it needs to get updates to start doing it again

However it can't. A game will only receive a finite number of updates, and at one point the developers will stop updating.  Unless the game poses challenges with no solutions, it will be "concoured" eventually. Even procedurally generated challenges can't avoid this, because they have a set pattern you can learn, it's made with a procedure after all.

So yeah you could go on and find another survival game only to repeat the cycle of beating a game - finding next game

 

[00petar00]

38 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

This is not a objective opinion.

That is your opinion.

38 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Very true but it should would remove the "chore" of doing it yourself no? I mean your all about removing chores right?

It would make the world feel more out to get you if hail killed a neutral mob and it revived as an aggressive one attacking the player. I do believe that this would be good but at the same time we need protection for mobs that are kept in pens as one interesting mechanic shouldn't invalidate this. The only problem is that we can only build knobby trees on water, if there was something like that but for land all of disagreements about hail would stop and this would alleviate wildfire problem.

I can build a reasonably big base half of it on docks and half on land completely covered in knobby trees but docks are ugly as we can't change turf and it really limits your base location.

38 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Your opinion isn't the vendetta it's when you keep making these cartoony strawmans where survival players are complete psychopaths who only enjoy seeing things destroyed not building anything or doing anything else it's like looking at war propaganda posters but you actually seem to believe they're real.

I have only stated that once after seeing the recent rise in threads wanting wildfire to burn the whole world down. I don't know why are you generalizing and trying to make all my arguments invalid based on this.

38 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

No your completely free to give your opinion what you aren't free to do however is decide how the people your debating feels or even plays. There's a big difference between giving your opinion and telling people what they want as if you know them better than they do themselves.

If you have never built a decoration mob pen which I believe you mentioned something along those lines, obviously I know what is affecting me and other players who do that. I am not telling you how to feel about the changes I am suggesting, I am just stating that they don't fit the playstyle of some range of players that build these things.

38 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Didn't you say there were so many tasks to do you can't even find time for breathing room?

I have moved to cave basing mostly even before rifts and I can spend any amount of time afk. Winter and spring near furnace or probably now even whole spring can be survived with Umbralla since it regenerates with acid rain, I usually have enough food production and I stockpile a year's worth in bundling wraps so I only cook once a year. I can use bush hat or snurtle shell armor in case of worm attacks and have rock lobsters to kill them.

I can sit in my base for as long as I want with minimal interaction required from me.

Most of the threats can be completely invalidated and that is what DST has been about for so long and it literally still is.

 

[Frosty_Mentos]

I haven't read everything here but the point of complaining is usually telling that something feels not right or just unjust. The game is a sandbox multiplayer and not an MMO, having ways to prevent and help your indoor props like walls or animals stay alive is part of the sandbox experience. It's nice we get new challenges but it's not great when it washes over our sandcastles we've built in many hours spent planning and making.

Game throws already a lot of those problems at the start, with each having their own unique solutions thankfully. Fire probably being most volatile of them all and remaining as king of worst nightmares for base builders. Big plus being we don't need to toggle anything anymore to make it stop from happening. Then again, DST has least threatening fires and suppression methods are very powerful (try carrying around a feather fan and a watering can in a flingo-less base. It works really well for me so far!)

New hazards that damage mobs though... is a very new and strange. Fire sometimes does it but never ever anyone made it into a center focus, especially since it's not very global. Glass rain is volatile alright. Having penned animals die slowly to it sucks. Why? They don't regain health. It's probably the biggest issue when most creatures without health regen just have to die in vain. It's a leftover old mechanic, unlike for how beefalos can just tank and gain back health slowly, nothing else really recovers so that players could finish them off sooner or later (I assume. Or the implication of global damage was never a thing considered by Klei.).

Brightshades are kinda weak as they are unless in packs, which makes a fairly new and refreshing mob to fight after spiders, since they come in packs and swarms but are very lowly enemy to face. ... But there's really not much else to talk about, to be frank.

Nothing is added much new to complain about. They make a nice challenge but they don't really make a threat to anyone much unless bad builds or placements. Heck, megabasers like me be damned if the base becomes slightly more hostile to hang out at. Sucks of course to make a peaceful screenshot without sudden need to murder but I don't see anything more to it than a small nuisance.

[xhyom]

3 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

Most of the players have said that these mechanics aren't challenging, how does hail killing a mob in a pen make the game more difficult for you? How will hail limit meat farming? When structures that you can build or place like spiderden/pig house/rabbit hutch exist for example. Hail wouldn't do anything to stop these farms because unlimited amount of mobs spawn from them.

I didn't said a thing about hail limiting in any way meat farms, just pointed that you build and make those structures because it's beneficial and make survival easier in the long term, when you don't want to be bothered to get food after a thousand days, you make a hound arena with statue walls catapults because etc etc and you would build something new to overcome a new addition if needed... Of course rain will not affect mobs, because it doesn't damage then, but still here we are arguing about the rain because some find it annoying and can't be bothered to just disable it, if it's or isn't challenging doesn't matter.

3 hours ago, 00petar00 said:

Hail has been changed and even if it wasn't, it wouldn't have been the end of all bases, that is a quite and exagarration. I don't think I have said that at any point in this thread.

Yeah it was changed, and yeah it wouldn't be, so what else are there to discuss. It's basically ambiance at this point, not that I think there was anything "survival" related to it before, just a cool adition which I'm accostumed to, as we already have a bunch of similar mechanics for different contexts.