Why skill trees aren't reworks 2.0

[BezKa]

10 hours ago, Faintly Macabre said:

If you hate them so much just don't use them or something.

Ah yes, the best argument ever offered in this discussion.

As for everything else, it really seems none of you realize why the original game was a success. It was precisely the lack of all this stuff they're adding now that made the game interesting and stand out. If the "learn until you survive" game isn't fun for them before they learn how to survive then I'm sorry it's not gonna be fun for them after. Because that still was the BEST part of the game, back before I knew anything and the game was extremely hard for me. You only get one chance at this experience, truly, and skill trees, scrapbook and all that nonsense are doing everything to take that experience away.

[finn from human]

21 minutes ago, BezKa said:

it really seems none of you realize why the original game was a success

i understand why and i like the new thing better

[BezKa]

11 hours ago, HowlVoid said:

Just before this you asked me "they keep dying (not having fun) why would they keep playing the game"

Because that's the fun part?

9 hours ago, Siren11 said:

Being told by the game to equip a torch after I’ve already died to darkness (as the example given) just feels condescending.

How is learning from the consequences of your actions/inactions condescending? Genuine question.

9 hours ago, Siren11 said:

It’s like information overload.

Ok, I can see this point, especially with how many people (including me) would like a bit sprucing up for what already exists and biomes and such, I can see this being too much for a new player to see and orient themself in. Still think scrapbook is detrimental to the experience, but I suggested ages ago that it should be opt in when you start playing, so you can choose how you want to discover the game, so players who need help and will use wiki anyway don't need to alt-tab from the game constantly.

9 hours ago, Siren11 said:

I joined the forums bc I wanted to talk to other players who are as passionate as I am. But I’m too scared to do that bc everything feels so unwelcoming to newer players. I know some of it is my own anxieties and insecurities, but I think it’s hard to deny that there’s some negativity that isn’t just a critique of the game (and new players aren’t even the only targets).

In the end internet is internet, and as much as people like to pretend "forums were the superior method of interaction" anywhere ideas and opinions clash is gonna be at least a bit unfriendly. Especially now, with the clearly controversial changes that have been happening to the game, and how passionate people get about all this- I have very strong emotional connection with this game, and I imagine a lot of other people do as well.

We rarely get new players on the forums, so most people don't bother being new-player-friendly (like not using spoiler warnings, openly treating new players as inexperienced and therefore lower in the hierarchy, often straight up turning arguments into "Think of the children (new players)!!!" screaming matches) which makes the forum unfriendly and the cycle closes. I apologize for contributing. I hope you feel comfortable enough to speak up on topics even when the community is against you.

10 hours ago, HowlVoid said:

At the end of the day, talking to all of you is truly a waste of time, this proves it.

Then why start a discussion? In all fairness making a post and then not engaging with people arguing with the post is okay. If you wanted to throw an idea on the forums and then step away and "not waste your time" with us, that's perfectly fine.

[Faintly Macabre]

1 hour ago, BezKa said:

Ah yes, the best argument ever offered in this discussion.

Yes but unironically. Ignore them or mod them away and they have no effect on you at all. And it's literally the only solution available to you because a whole year of this nonstop whining has accomplished nothing and never will. It's time to move on.

1 hour ago, BezKa said:

As for everything else, it really seems none of you realize why the original game was a success. It was precisely the lack of all this stuff they're adding now that made the game interesting and stand out.

No, it's actually you that doesn't realize why the original game was a success. What made the game a success is all kinds of things. Quirky art styles, amusing characters, silly sense of humor, attention to detail, a great early access effort, dark themes, deep mysteries, a great DLC, constant communication from the dev team about things in the pipeline, working closely with the game's modding community... the list goes on and on.

And yes, for some people, maybe even most people, its willingness to kick you in the shins with little or no warning and run off giggling was pretty charming too. But it's a cool game with a lot to offer beyond just YOU DIED constantly popping up, and the discontented's insistence that they can't have fun if others are doing so in a way they don't like is an incredible disservice to it and its creators, who understandably want to share this cool thing they made with as many people as they can.

[BezKa]

I don't think I can say anything more that I haven't said before whenever this discussion arises, but I want to remind everyone upset at what is happening with the game that at the very least, we have not lost the original Don't Starve, and I fully believe Klei will never add the content we dislike so much retroactively to our beloved singleplayer experience. It's still there, and we can come back anytime. It doesn't have a lot of the things we love about DST, and there is no mutliplayer of course, but when someone asks for a difficult, unforgiving survival game, we can with clear conscience recommend Don't Starve. And it remains as proof of success that these types of games are wanted and loved, and if one exists, more will come with time.

6 minutes ago, Faintly Macabre said:

Yes but unironically. Ignore them or mod them away and they have no effect on you at all. And it's literally the only solution available to you because a whole year of this nonstop whining has accomplished nothing and never will. It's time to move on.

Nice try, but you can't stop me  

5 minutes ago, Faintly Macabre said:

What made the game a success is all kinds of things.

...fair point.

[Siren11]

1 hour ago, BezKa said:

As for everything else, it really seems none of you realize why the original game was a success. It was precisely the lack of all this stuff they're adding now that made the game interesting and stand out. If the "learn until you survive" game isn't fun for them before they learn how to survive then I'm sorry it's not gonna be fun for them after. Because that still was the BEST part of the game, back before I knew anything and the game was extremely hard for me. You only get one chance at this experience, truly, and skill trees, scrapbook and all that nonsense are doing everything to take that experience away.

I started with the original game, and I totally fell in love with the atmosphere, the hopelessness, the art style, the punishing survival mechanics, the puzzle-solving aspect, etc. I wouldn’t have even played DST if I didn’t love Don’t Starve so much. But since I joined so late, I realized pretty quickly that they were two different games. Luckily I ended up loving a lot of DST even more (the combat challenges and multiplayer aspect especially), and the heart of what I really loved from the original game was still there. (And the things that are kinda missing will hopefully always exist in singleplayer.)

I think you’re right that no one will enjoy the survival game if they don’t enjoy survival mechanics anyways, but I also don’t think it’s doing that much to change the experience for new players. Maybe I’m not new enough to comment on that.

Failing and learning and overcoming challenges is still the best part of Don’t Starve.

I’m a bit apprehensive about skill trees myself, but I do think they’re pretty fun to mess around with and I like that my friends are having fun. I don’t use them on a lot of my serious worlds, and I like that that’s an option too. We’ll see if I eat my words when more characters get them/when I actually make it to any planar content.

18 minutes ago, BezKa said:

How is learning from the consequences of your actions/inactions condescending? Genuine question.

Learning from the consequences of my actions is exactly what I want. I was referencing an earlier response that wanted the game to tell people to make a torch after they die to darkness, but I was too dumb to see the giant quote button lmao. If I die to something, I want to figure out how to beat it on my own. And I think just about everyone can figure out that the solution to dying from darkness is not being in the dark.

But being able to do my own thing and make my own goals (and mistakes) was the thing that initially drew me to Don’t Starve, so I was probably kinda touchy. I also just… really hate being told what to do in general. 

18 minutes ago, BezKa said:

Ok, I can see this point, especially with how many people (including me) would like a bit sprucing up for what already exists and biomes and such, I can see this being too much for a new player to see and orient themself in. Still think scrapbook is detrimental to the experience, but I suggested ages ago that it should be opt in when you start playing, so you can choose how you want to discover the game, so players who need help and will use wiki anyway don't need to alt-tab from the game constantly.

Opt in probably isn’t a bad idea. Sometimes I have more fun and feel more in-control when I have enough info to make a plan (at least after failing once lol), but obviously not everyone needs to play like me.

I’m actually also a fan of adding biomes and “sprucing up” what exists (I like that!) since some of my fondest memories involve exploring new places and I’m actually out of new places to explore. But I also think there are ways to do that without it being too much for new players (maybe combine with the needed cave and ocean reworks?). I just want more early-mid game stuff.

18 minutes ago, BezKa said:

In the end internet is internet, and as much as people like to pretend "forums were the superior method of interaction" anywhere ideas and opinions clash is gonna be at least a bit unfriendly. Especially now, with the clearly controversial changes that have been happening to the game, and how passionate people get about all this- I have very strong emotional connection with this game, and I imagine a lot of other people do as well.

I don’t think anyone would be here if we didn’t have a strong emotional connection to this game. I appreciate the passion, at the very least.

18 minutes ago, BezKa said:

We rarely get new players on the forums, so most people don't bother being new-player-friendly (like not using spoiler warnings, openly treating new players as inexperienced and therefore lower in the hierarchy, often straight up turning arguments into "Think of the children (new players)!!!" screaming matches) which makes the forum unfriendly and the cycle closes.

Yeah, I definitely noticed that. As stated before, I love info and I love getting into the mechanics of the game. I don’t really mind the lack of spoiler warnings personally (I’ve figured out everything I deem important besides like a third of the boss fights, and nothing any of you write will help me more than just practicing). I just don’t want to be treated like my opinion is worth less bc I haven’t been here as long.

18 minutes ago, BezKa said:

I apologize for contributing. I hope you feel comfortable enough to speak up on topics even when the community is against you.

Thanks, I appreciate this. I love a good debate! Just take me seriously!

(Sorry for the essay. I clearly don’t have a problem talking anymore)

[Cassielu]

1 hour ago, BezKa said:

It doesn't have a lot of the things we love about DST

Oh... That was one of the parts that broke my heart the most.

The best updates in the history of DS/T to me happened around the time they added RoG and Cave into the DST (and maybe ANR), they did lot of work to turned that little browser game into a game that was truly worth exploring and playing for a long time. DS feels like a WIP game by comparison.

Edited March 6 by Cassielu

[Cruvimaster]

"Why skill trees aren't reworks 2.0"

It doesn't even take much effort to understand the difference.

In the rework process, everyone was forced to accept the new character standards, whether they liked it or not. In the skill trees everything is optional.

[Swiyss]

18 hours ago, Theukon-dos said:

 

Don't Starve doesn't NEED progression. That's the entire problem. Sure, I'll admit that I'm probably biased on that front. But DST has been wildly successful despite not having any of that for 8 years now. So why does the game suddenly need it now. Actually; hell. You reference DST's XP system to justify skill trees. But that was basically just a ticker to keep players from getting overwhelmed by character choice. If you're that desperate for a skinner box, Klei should just add a "total days survived" counter that gives you a random skin drop after an exponentially rising amount of days lived.

 

At the end of the day. There just isn't room for skill trees. The vast majority of DST's characters are already completely fleshed out mechanically. Sure, there are a couple of underbaked lads that benefit like Woodie or Willow. But the vast majority of characters are going to have skill trees that range from generally underwhelming to absolutely dogwater. Klei themselves have even admitted this, stating that Wolfgang's skill tree is so bland because he already has a lot of little perks that would have otherwise made sense as skill tree perks ala better sailing. Maybe they could have worked if we got skill trees INSTEAD of character refreshes. But as it stands, skill trees are just a half-baked mechanic shoved into the game to make a line go up and make Klei's share holders happy.

 

"But they're good for new players" No. If new players need skill trees to enjoy the game, they can go play something else. I know that sounds harsh... mostly because it is. But the notion that "Media needs to appeal to the broadest market possible" has been a force of absolute destruction in the industry that has made common media so, so much less interesting. A game that tries to appeal to everyone is a game that appeals to no one. Don't Starve as a franchise has done amazingly by slipping into a niche market. It doesn't and has never needed to try and sculpt itself into something that it isn't to try and appeal to a market that otherwise wouldn't even give it a second glance.

There is no problem with caring for newer players, and I think Skill trees were said to be meant for experienced players anyways.  The scrapbook was something for a newer audience, and it did wonders.

 

18 hours ago, Theukon-dos said:

Again. Not every game should be for every player. I'm not going into the Magnum Opus discord demanding they make the puzzles less puzzling becuase I don't have the attention span to solve them.

 

And sure. Maybe I am gatekeeping by the strictest definition. But only because Klei has actively made the game worse in order to appeal to those new players. Call it a bitter breakup. But the game I fell in love with has been altered and warped beyond recognition. And I feel no shame in making that clear.

You're totally wrong here I think.

The game CAN be for everyone, although very hard, it is still possible. However it is better to pin point audiences and gamestyles so we properly catter for a wide variety of players. Doing that can greatly increase the player experience.

We got a million things already in the game that certain audiences don't even interact with, and that is proof that new things can be added for everyone. 

I loved the reap what you sow update because of the casual tone of it. But I am not the biggest fan of certain skill trees for some characters. Although I think they could improve, I also don't bother not playing them.

There a thing to do in-game for everyone, there is a progression system for everyone. There are bosses and creatures for everyone. And there is a character for almost everyone.

[arubaro]

30 minutes ago, Swiyss said:

The game CAN be for everyone, although very hard, it is still possible

I dont think nothing of quality can be developed for that statement. Neither book, film or videogame

We can discuss how much efforts should be aimed to only the niche market of something vs adding accessibility or adding stuff that might like to other people but the more you dilute the efforts the less special or good quality you can achieve 

Just see films made to please everyone... you have a film with action, love, fantasy, scifi, philosophy, blablabla all in one film but dont stand out in any regard.  Same goes for certain games that adds puzzles, gathering, action, farm simulation, rpg progression, character personalization, etc but anything is implemented in a deep way or in a way that offers something new...

Is good to make the game less painful for new players or trying to keep them, also is good to try to make more complex combat by adding flashy things. Clearly klei is reading steam or other shops reviews improving and/or changing the game based on the feedback you can find there which, surprise surprise! Is not the feedback usually found in the forum because nobody that drops a game logs in the game's forum. They already started that with the scrapbook because a huge ammount of bad reviews were based on "needing to play with wiki open". The logical step was to add "combat skills" since another good portion of bad reviews are based on "kitting is boring" (but pressing 4 buttoms in league of legends wihtout needing skill is super fun...sure)

So tldr: games has niches and focusing on these nices can improve the quality instead of wasting resources on trying to please everybody while they can change stuff to change staff thst commonly is dislike

[Mysterious box]

31 minutes ago, Swiyss said:

There is no problem with caring for newer players, and I think Skill trees were said to be meant for experienced players anyways.  The scrapbook was something for a newer audience, and it did wonders.

 

You're totally wrong here I think.

The game CAN be for everyone, although very hard, it is still possible. However it is better to pin point audiences and gamestyles so we properly catter for a wide variety of players. Doing that can greatly increase the player experience.

We got a million things already in the game that certain audiences don't even interact with, and that is proof that new things can be added for everyone. 

I loved the reap what you sow update because of the casual tone of it. But I am not the biggest fan of certain skill trees for some characters. Although I think they could improve, I also don't bother not playing them.

There a thing to do in-game for everyone, there is a progression system for everyone. There are bosses and creatures for everyone. And there is a character for almost everyone.

This is factually incorrect it is impossible to appeal to everyone every game developer has to decide who their audience is going to be and sometimes they make the call to change who their target audience is over time and there's nothing inherently wrong with that even though it does often end up alienating groups of players.

Skill trees much like character refreshes are things that appeal to a wide variety of players and definitely not just veteran players because it directly impacts the base experience with little to no barrier of entry it's how games get stuck in the rework cycle because despite being a really tough pill to swallow new characters and character reworks are often the most popular way to attract players even more so than content updates.

As for the community not interacting with most of the content I'd argue it's mostly the fault of the content itself. The reason players don't interact with content can usually be summed up with it takes too long to access or it's not very rewarding/little to no incentive to interact.

[Swiyss]

1 hour ago, arubaro said:

I dont think nothing of quality can be developed for that statement. Neither book, film or videogame

We can discuss how much efforts should be aimed to only the niche market of something vs adding accessibility or adding stuff that might like to other people but the more you dilute the efforts the less special or good quality you can achieve 

Just see films made to please everyone... you have a film with action, love, fantasy, scifi, philosophy, blablabla all in one film but dont stand out in any regard.  Same goes for certain games that adds puzzles, gathering, action, farm simulation, rpg progression, character personalization, etc but anything is implemented in a deep way or in a way that offers something new...

Is good to make the game less painful for new players or trying to keep them, also is good to try to make more complex combat by adding flashy things. Clearly klei is reading steam or other shops reviews improving and/or changing the game based on the feedback you can find there which, surprise surprise! Is not the feedback usually found in the forum because nobody that drops a game logs in the game's forum. They already started that with the scrapbook because a huge ammount of bad reviews were based on "needing to play with wiki open". The logical step was to add "combat skills" since another good portion of bad reviews are based on "kitting is boring" (but pressing 4 buttoms in league of legends wihtout needing skill is super fun...sure)

So tldr: games has niches and focusing on these nices can improve the quality instead of wasting resources on trying to please everybody while they can change stuff to change staff thst commonly is dislike

Oh I see, if we're talking about making the game completely available for everyone than it is impossible to achieve, I agree.

My concern with his initial comment was the idea that these groups of players won't "feel" like they have a home in the game. We got players who enjoy the unreal engine style for example; it is obviously impossible for dst to appease them. So, taking these random factors out of the discussion, I feel like it is possible for something with quality to come out of it.

My take is that, INSIDE dst, when player retention was already effective, there is definitely a world where every player can feel at home. There's people who like to build fancy homes, face challenges etc..

The skill trees can make characters feel both ways. CAN, cause currently they only take care of specific things. So because of that, my suggestion is that there should be atleast most areas of gameplay added to each skill tree.

What if I like playing Wurt but hate to fight things, so I let my merms deal with bosses. And let's say that because her skill tree has only combat stuff, I'm forced to participate in those fight.

That shouldn't be the case, but it is for some characters current tree. That's why I think there should be a world for everyone.

Klei should take in consideration more styles of gameplay I feel. I would like to play maxwell with thurible and not participate in fights, but also be able to join the fight if I want to. I can already do that, but skill trees could "set this tone" for him in a much more creative way, making combat fun for everyone.

Dueslist specialist build.

Dark sword efficiency build.

Maximum gather power build.

Something that looks like wx78 circuits, we can totally do that for everyone. Maximum hp, sanity or hunger wx78 build. Those options is what makes the game fun since you can play it multiple ways.