Some Rational and Angry Criticism/一些带着理智与愤怒的批评

[SirToastyToes]

2 hours ago, adminaaassh said:

Wendy's Shadow Ability—A Poorly Thought-Out Design
Imagine a Wendy player carefully gathers butterflies over a long period, preparing for a boss fight. During the battle, they use Abigail’s shadow transformation skill, only to suddenly trigger four Krampuses. Their teammate dies, they barely win the fight, but all their teammate’s items are stolen.
(Did the developers completely forget about Krampus when designing this skill? Did they expect players to catch mosquitoes instead? Or did they deliberately make this skill come with such a bizarre cost? Compared to other character abilities, this one feels particularly flawed.)

This one is very strange to me

Krampus is... not a tough mob? At all? Not only is he completely neutral meaning your teammate had to go out of their way to get themselves to die to it, but spawning 4+ Krampus is part of a boss fight already - Klaus - and that is by far the easiest part of his fight.

[xhyom]

2 hours ago, adminaaassh said:

Before getting into specifics, I want to make one thing clear: in my view, a good game should offer multiple choices. Players should be able to achieve their goals in various creative ways through different game mechanics, as long as these methods do not significantly break game balance. This approach satisfies a broader range of players, ultimately expanding the player base and increasing revenue—a fundamental and straightforward concept for any game company.

For instance, some players prefer defeating bosses purely through movement and skill, while others do not want to rely on manual dexterity. Why bring this up? Because on the forums, many people unconditionally defend the developers without logic. They force their opinions on others, claiming that the game should only be played in a certain way and that any alternative methods are "wrong." Whenever the developers make changes that remove certain mechanics, these people immediately proclaim that the modifications are "reasonable" and dictate how the game should be played. They are highly intolerant of differing perspectives and blindly defend the developers without objectively evaluating the pros and cons of each change. Essentially, they impose their definition of the game while silencing other voices.

With that foundation established, here are some specific issues I see with the developers and the forum environment.

Your post starts with some strange accusations of someone dictating what YOU should do, followed by things that YOU don't like in the updates and that YOU think should be shaped to what YOU understand as better and more creative. Are you sure that it's everyone besides you who is dictating something?

2 hours ago, adminaaassh said:

1. Some Developers Have an Alarmingly Shallow Understanding of the Game

It seems that some developers design content based on sudden bursts of inspiration rather than deep comprehension of the game.:

These are just a few examples, but I suspect there are many more. The core issue is not these individual problems but rather what they reveal: some developers have a poor understanding of the game and rely on fleeting "eureka" moments for design decisions—moments that lack a solid gameplay foundation. This leads to unnecessary disruptions to established mechanics, frustrating long-time players, and resulting in shallow, unimpactful changes.

"Alarmingly shallow understanding of the game" followed by the most not alarming things that ever happened to the game.

2 hours ago, adminaaassh said:

2. The Forum's Toxic Culture of Unconditional Dev Worship

I already mentioned this earlier, but it needs to be emphasized: this is a serious problem. The forum’s culture and the developers’ decisions are closely intertwined, forming a toxic feedback loop.

Whenever someone raises concerns about the game’s design, a group of players blindly defends every developer decision with alarming loyalty. Their primary argument? "This is how the game should be played."

This lack of logical discussion is frustrating. A successful game should attract and retain a diverse player base through positive updates. Expanding the player base leads to higher revenue—an extremely basic principle for any game company. Yet, some forum members reject any differing opinions, imposing their narrow view of how the game should be played without considering player diversity.

This mindless defense of the developers stifles meaningful feedback. It forces those who want to provide constructive criticism into exhausting, repetitive arguments, further discouraging discussion. Among the Chinese community, there's a saying about the forums:
"Don't bother suggesting changes there. No matter how bad the design is, you'll face relentless, baseless opposition."

Seriously, just say that you want the developer to go to hell and that you thought the update was crap like any normal person at this point, that doesn't differ at all from a furious MOBA player. It's unbearable how arrogant and hypocritical you guys are sometimes, no one here is worshiping a developer because they liked or aren't as critical of an update that YOU didn't like, this is only brought up as a problem that exists when people discover that they are not the only people with an opinion, coming from the same people who accuse everyone all the time of "forcing an opinion" on them. I also don't want most of suggestions, SAME WAY, the difference is that you won't see me come here and say that they're silencing me and that different opinions are not accepted because MINE wasn't chosen.

I wish this forum would stop being so pedantic and stopped with this kind of topic. It's really annoying to have a topic like this everyday acting like completely neutral analytic while being so clearly biased because one thing that didn't fit what you expected upset you

 

[Uedo]

Like clock-work. You were asking for this type of response @adminaaassh, as evidenced by your post :P 

And people wonder why it's just the same few voices - good luck with getting your point across! haha

[Wawchik]

I'm pretty new to game forums in general, but i still haven't seen a single "blind worshiper" that people talk about. Heck, most of the time when talking about skill trees, there's one "skill trees are so bad Klei dug themself a hole" guy that just HAS TO HATE on everything in the update. 

Also, DO NOT COMPARE DON'T STARVE TO MINECRAFT. And even Minecraft was getting criticized a lot for bad updates, features being added YEARS after they were promised and adding unfinished mobs. Just pointing out, that Minecraft is not perfect too, even though it's the most popular game in the world, I'd even argue Minecraft has more dev issues than DST

All other points just seem... Weird? 

You literally talked about Chinese community blindlesly raging on a dev just because they THOUGHT he worked on things they didn't like after dissing "Klei worshipers". 

The turf fix removed ONE cheese strat and there were people complaining even though the change was reasonable and easily understandable. "oOh tHEy dOn't LikE cReaTiVitY" they say after it was explained that world regrowth was the issue. 

Honestly, I did not understand the cannon complaint, catapult change was questionable, but I don't play Winona, so I'm not the one to speak

Bat bat nerf is reasonable, because it just makes sense, but, yeah, it does not sound right to nerf such a niche weapon. 

Wendy - no comments, I don't want to start a huge discussion with endless suggestions that will never be added.

[Prinha]

2 hours ago, adminaaassh said:

The forum has repeatedly erupted in conflicts over game updates, and the root cause is obvious. What I’ve always been curious about is why many of the developers—who are nearly twice my age—seem unaware of these issues. Or is it that they’re simply content with the status quo and unwilling to make changes…?

It's called Dunning Kruger Effect. You simply don't know what you don't know because you have no education or other professional knowledge in game design or community management.

I'm really amazed how somebody can run around and unironically think that they know more about game design than a company who has made several longlasting and clearly very successful games. No matter how often you claim the opposite, this is not rational, it's ignorant.

That doesn't mean that there could be some valid points in your post. Unfortunately it's all overshadowed by hate and conspiratory thoughts. For example you write as if you are expecting that you get a developer response on every topic discussed in this board. I don't know about Asia but for Western gaming companies it is a complete exception to get any developer feedback on any community posts. Klei is fairly generous with their community interaction by Western standards.

[xhyom]

5 minutes ago, Uedo said:

Like clock-work. You were asking for this type of response @adminaaassh, as evidenced by your post :P 

And people wonder why it's just the same few voices - good luck with getting your point across! haha

Do you mind quoting? After all, it's easier to believe that it's a conspiracy and that we blindly support what our god JoeW says than to accept that there are people with opinions that are not the same and, surprisingly, many people liked Wendy as much as others didn't no matter how much they try to portray it as a complete catastrophe.

3 minutes ago, Wawchik said:

I'm pretty new to game forums in general, but i still haven't seen a single "blind worshiper" that people talk about. Heck, most of the time when talking about skill trees, there's one "skill trees are so bad Klei dug themself a hole" guy that just HAS TO HATE on everything in the update. 

You literally talked about Chinese community blindlesly raging on a dev just because they THOUGHT he worked on things they didn't like after dissing "Klei worshipers". 

Blind worship is when update is not strictly about me =(

[Roodmas]

I mean, when you say that someone is blindly worshipping Klei, it sounds like you can't fathom that someone genuinely likes the game in its current state.

I, for one, actually like most things about the game, and I like that Klei is trying to do new things and change things in a way that they believe is better for the game overall. Me trusting them is not blind worshipping.

What matters is that at the end of the day I enjoy playing the game. I don't like all of the characters, I don't like all of the skill trees, but some people do, and I can just play the characters and skill trees that I want to play.

I believe some people mistake 'Klei listens to the community' with 'Klei should do everything we say'. Heck, the game would be a hot mess if the community was in charge of design decisions. I always say that if you're truly passionate about a change that you think should go into the game, you're welcome to learn how to make a mod.

As for the events, yeah they are weak, but I don't care much about the lunar new year events anyway (except for the one where you can collect kittens, that's cute).

I salute you for your relatively peaceful criticism though. I don't agree with 95% of it, but that's okay.

[Well-met]

consider that anger is an opposite of being rational

[Milordo]

What can I say. Great job, great post and great criticism. You leaved me speechless. Sure a bit rough in how you expressed yourself, it's very clear you wrote this out of anger ahahah, nevertheless a good post.

Btw I want to reiterate: 

4 hours ago, adminaaassh said:

 

---

2. The Forum's Toxic Culture of Unconditional Dev Worship

I already mentioned this earlier, but it needs to be emphasized: this is a serious problem. The forum’s culture and the developers’ decisions are closely intertwined, forming a toxic feedback loop.

Whenever someone raises concerns about the game’s design, a group of players blindly defends every developer decision with alarming loyalty. Their primary argument? "This is how the game should be played."

I have a simple question for them:
Where is the logic? What are the pros and cons? Can you provide a well-reasoned analysis of what is lost and gained with these changes?

Instead, their stance boils down to:

• Players lose established mechanics.

• Long-time players feel alienated.

• In return, the game supposedly becomes more "reasonable."

• Therefore, "the game is meant to be played this way."

This lack of logical discussion is frustrating. A successful game should attract and retain a diverse player base through positive updates. Expanding the player base leads to higher revenue—an extremely basic principle for any game company. Yet, some forum members reject any differing opinions, imposing their narrow view of how the game should be played without considering player diversity.

This mindless defense of the developers stifles meaningful feedback. It forces those who want to provide constructive criticism into exhausting, repetitive arguments, further discouraging discussion. Among the Chinese community, there's a saying about the forums:
"Don't bother suggesting changes there. No matter how bad the design is, you'll face relentless, baseless opposition."

---

 

Literally me on 2023 when I created the movement against skill trees with reasons, facts and logic and no-other on the other side wanted to listen, discuss or even proved me false with counter-points.

3 hours ago, Evelo said:

I tend to side with developers way more than I side with the player base. Simply because players are in general, excellent at finding issues, but horrible at coming up with solutions.

Have a real issue? Awesome bring it up, explain why it is an issue and define what makes it an issue (unfun, game breaking, flow issue, etc). But don't always offer solutions because that is the designer/developers job. Sure some solutions are good, however I want to guess 80% of the time the solutions are non-sense.

Also I would upvote this x10 ^

 

[Crimson Hollow]

I'm frankly surprised how nobody has brought up the rabbit king yet. One of the most confusing choices klei has made recently that's rather poorly executed as well. 

[Uedo]

3 hours ago, xhyom said:

Do you mind quoting? After all, it's easier to believe that it's a conspiracy and that we blindly support what our god JoeW says than to accept that there are people with opinions that are not the same and, surprisingly, many people liked Wendy as much as others didn't no matter how much they try to portray it as a complete catastrophe.

Blind worship is when update is not strictly about me =(

It's the first post in the thread. 

I'm literally clueless about what you're asking me to quote here.

[xhyom]

16 minutes ago, Uedo said:

It's the first post in the thread. 

I'm literally clueless about what you're asking me to quote here.

Quote me, after all you were referring very clearly to what I said after i said it, better than staying with "Ah here they come  the blind worshipers who don't accept any criticism as mentioned" trying to disqualify an opinion contrary to this stupid idea that some people defends bad updates (debatable) out of pure fanaticism.

[Echsrick]

"worshippers"....thats a new one....

[layangan putus]

FACTS

1. Time Spent

• 1,000 in-game days x 8 minutes = 8,000 minutes or 133.3 hours
• 10,000 in-game days x 8 minutes = 80,000 minutes or 1333.3 hours

(not counting the time spent to learn the game, run simulation, or chilling in public or private server)

2. Game Price
    It should be less than $14.99 (could be cheaper with price localization and other special offers, skins excluded)

3. Dev-Community Boundary
    The dev team has power to determine how the game should be played according to their dynamic vision meaning any updates like the one of the latest like "Some Turf Changes Prevent Tree Planting" should be understood as if the team doesn't want the trees to be planted there for reasons like realism or Woodie exploit against AFW or etc. Note that they may change this in the future to fit their dynamic vision since they own the game so it's up to them to do whatever they want - You don't want me to tell how you should decorate your room, right?

 

 

ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION

1. Exact Number
    Your statement regarding "Long-time players feel alienated" which I assume players that have played at least 133 hours to over 1,333 hours. How many percentage does this specific sample represent out of total playerbase? 5%? 10% 25%? 50%? Klei for sure knows the exact number.

2. Missing Data
    For your first issue titled "Some Developers Have an Alarmingly Shallow Understanding of the Game", do you happen to have more data outside this post? Because I fail to see how you can produce valid conclusion without showing the data you've collected like have you made the dev team take some quiz related DST development for analyzing their understanding and it happened to be that most of the team member got less than 50% correct? Or maybe you personally interviewed them all?

    I ask this because if people just use their perspective out of given examples to conclude the issue then they may get wrong conclusion. Like in this case, I get it you are upset with the examples above but then how can you surely conclude that Klei is abandoning their community and go with their own way? Let's say I push you to fall, thus you getting hurt from it. Can you then say, "Whoa! This guy over here is rude and have little understanding about social interaction", without knowing my intention first? My intention pushing you is to save you from the falling flower pot to your head. Your view alone being upset upon pushed and getting hurt shouldn't be used to make proper conclusion so you need to use more relevant data to convince me.

    I'd suggest exploiting tool like poll to get quantified data related from each example you want to discuss. The poll result may produce new insight for us all, also it would be relatively easy to be understood by dev team. This post has interesting examples to discuss, I want more.

 

 

BE PRACTICAL & EMPATHETIC

    Related to second issue, let's assume the percentage is low like 10%, is it wise for any game companies to spend resources in order to satisfy this small number? I mean isn't it wiser to spend the resources to attract new players or just to do small update at a time for the 90%? This requires further study with full acknowledgement to dev power. Still everything has consequence meaning even then we have no power to change the game directly, we still have control over the decision to play the game or not, which would then affect the data from steam.

    Last, do mind that the dev has known many criticism including ours since I feel most of them are nothing brand new and despite many similar criticism which may imply something, yet I've still no idea why the dev still hold some of their ground for particular stuff. Should they explain their reasoning over every decision made to the community? It may consume their precious time tho in purpose for good PR. Also related to third issue from this post, can anyone enlighten me in how the dev team would process the feedback given by the community?

 

Great post! I find high relatability from the majority of it - Quite provocative tho

[Popian]

On bug reports, I have noticed that they are likely to be more successful in the periods that they are actively looking through the bug tracker. It is not clear why some may not immediately get resolved, but here are some possible reasons:

1. The report was not read
2. The report was read, but forgotten
3. The report is vague or about a mod
4. The report is complex or needs to be discussed internally

A thing you could do is document the reports you make by maintaining a dynamic list with link, title, subjective priority, subjective impact, date posted, last follow up date, date resolved, etc. for each one and post a link to that list on every report that you make saying "I have added this report to my list here".

By doing this you can most likely rule out 1 and 2 occurring (and 3 if you know you are making high quality reports) and require transparency to determine whether it is about anything else.

[SilverSpoon]

12 hours ago, YouKnowWho142 said:

I really dislike when people blindly say it's "dev worship" when someone has a different opinion from themselves. Everyone here has been quite open to criticizing the game when they feel like something's wrong. I don't even disagree with a lot of the points you made. However, it is very rude to assume that the community is toxic worshippers just because they don't agree with you or see the game differently from you.

When someone has a different opinion from Klei or themselves on Klei's side, I've saw many many many player who purposely behave rude, obnoxious, or actively trying to provoke in order to provoke anger, defending the developer's without having played the game or by spreading fake information. Such people deserve to be called "dev worship".

[adminaaassh]

13 hours ago, crushcircuit said:

what i said was not directed towards you personally. you are clearly trying not to take out your anger on other people, and i greatly respect that. i don't disagree with what you've said, either.

the only thing i "disagree" with is that i struggle to think of anybody that blindly agrees with klei's every decision. a vast majority of people are really, really aggressive to the developers. i don't think what you described is a nonexistent problem, but i don't think that "developer worship" is the reasoning.

i cannot pitch in on this because the lunar new year isnt something that i celebrate, therefore meaning that its not nearly as important to me as it is to you. however, i do want to point out that this specific topic is tangential to your original post.

Your statement is correct, and part of my thinking was wrong. Simply assuming that people who passionately defend the development team in a post are blindly following them is a mistake.

Let me explain why:
Today, I had a conversation with my friend, and he told me: "They don't have a clear understanding of what you're talking about. Take Winona's Catapult as an example—most Don't Starve Together players typically play for only 200-300 in-game days before starting a new world. During this time, bases remain relatively small, and Winona is often present in the save. Even if the player controlling her leaves, someone can temporarily switch to Winona to handle things. Because of this, they lack an understanding of certain mechanics. For instance, they may not fully grasp the importance of Hound defense in long-term worlds where there's no dedicated player for a specific character. In short-term saves, players are usually around, so calling for help is easy. If you really want them to empathize with your experience, a simple analogy would be: imagine if Klei suddenly changed Ham Bat so that it lost durability like Bull Kelp Stalk, dropping durability with every hit. At that moment, they might understand your frustration.

This also explains why some players believe that making Winona's Catapult exclusive to her is reasonable. They lack the concept of frequent Hound attacks in long-term saves where Winona isn't always available. They might think, ‘I played with six people for 200+ days, and we were mostly present. Even if someone wasn't there, we could handle it by temporarily switching.’ This mindset leads them to instinctively oppose your suggestion and say things like, ‘I think the developers did a great job; this design is reasonable.’

This is where the widespread defense of the developers stems from. Moreover, just like with Cannon, they might not grasp its importance. To them, it could be as irrelevant as Feather Hat—a feature they rarely use or think about. So, when someone criticizes the developers' decisions on the forum, they instinctively defend them based on simple emotional attachment. It’s a subconscious cycle: ‘I don't use this feature much, but I haven't deeply considered its impact. Since I naturally assume the developers made a reasonable choice, anyone criticizing them must be wrong.’

Yes, these players make up the majority, which is why, as a long-term player, talking to them can be exhausting. Some developers might genuinely believe the game is only meant for this type of player, or they subconsciously design primarily for them, failing to consider other perspectives. This results in repeated controversies.

My friend said a lot more, but I won’t write everything here. However, I think his words make a lot of sense, so I’d like to summarize my thoughts:

First, my original statement was partially wrong. I shouldn’t have claimed that people defending the developers on the forum are blindly idolizing them. The reality is that short-term players make up the majority, and some game changes simply don’t affect them. But for long-term players like me, certain updates and the process of giving feedback to the developers can be frustrating. When I voice concerns after an update, these players instinctively oppose me based on their own simple, gut-level reactions. This is why so many forum comments say things like, ‘I think the game should be played this way’ or ‘I think the developers made the right decision.’ These arguments are so common that I constantly find myself explaining and re-explaining my point of view, which is exhausting.

I believe the core issue is that short-term players’ understanding of the game can’t match that of long-term players (please don’t take offense—I don’t mean this in a derogatory way; I just think this is a factual statement). Many players react to an update with thoughts like, ‘This doesn’t really affect me, and I think the change is fine at first glance. But someone is criticizing it, so I need to defend it.’ This emotional response leads them to say things like, ‘This design is reasonable’ or ‘The game should be played this way.’

In conclusion, I am revising my original statement because it was indeed incorrect. Instead of saying that some players blindly defend the developers, I should say that short-term players—who are the majority—don’t understand long-term players' habits. There is a gap in gameplay experience and understanding between these two groups, which leads short-term players to instinctively defend the developers in criticism posts, repeatedly saying in various ways that ‘this is reasonable.’

This was my mistake.

I have revised my original statement, and once again, I sincerely apologize if my previous claim—that the majority of players are blind in their defense—was offensive to anyone.

I believe my argument is now more refined. In hindsight, my reasoning was flawed because I oversimplified the cause. However, I still believe that the excessive and aggressive defense of the developers remains a serious and significant issue.

[adminaaassh]

8 hours ago, DST enjoyer said:

事实

1. 逗留时间

• 1000 个游戏日 x 8 分钟 = 8000 分钟或 133.3 小时
• 10000 个游戏内日 x 8 分钟 = 80000 分钟或 1333.3 小时

（不包括学习游戏、运行模拟或在公共或私人服务器中放松所花费的时间）

2. 游戏价格
它应该低于 14.99 美元（价格本地化和其他特别优惠可能会更便宜，不包括皮肤）

3. 开发社区边界：
开发团队有权根据他们的动态愿景决定游戏的玩法，这意味着任何更新，如“一些草皮变化阻止植树”，如“一些草皮变化阻止植树”，都应该被理解为团队不希望在那里种植树木，原因包括现实主义或伍迪对 AFW 的剥削等。 请注意，他们将来可能会改变这一点以适应他们的动态愿景，因为他们拥有游戏，所以他们想做什么就做什么 - 你不想让我告诉你应该如何装饰你的房间，对吧？

 

 

要求澄清

1. 确切数字
：您关于“老玩家感到疏远”的陈述，我假设玩家已经玩了至少 133 小时到超过 1,333 小时。此特定样本占玩家总数的百分比是多少？5%?10% 25%?50%?Klei 肯定知道确切的数字。

2. 缺失数据
对于您的第一期标题为“一些开发人员对游戏的了解非常肤浅”，除了这篇文章之外，您碰巧还有更多数据吗？因为我没有看到你如何在不展示你收集的数据的情况下得出有效的结论，比如你有没有让开发团队参加一些与测验相关的 DST 开发来分析他们的理解，碰巧大多数团队成员的正确率不到 50%？或者，也许您亲自采访了他们所有人？

    我问这个问题是因为如果人们只是从给定的例子中得出他们的观点来得出结论，那么他们可能会得到错误的结论。就像在这种情况下，我知道您对上面的示例感到不安，但您如何确定 Klei 正在放弃他们的社区并走自己的路呢？假设我推动你跌倒，因此你因此受伤。然后你能说，“哇！这边的这家伙很粗鲁，对社交互动知之甚少“，却不知道我的意图吗？我推动你的意图是将你从掉落的花盆中拯救到你的头上。你的观点本身是不安的，不应该被用来做出正确的结论，所以你需要使用更多相关的数据来说服我。

    我建议利用像 poll 这样的工具，从你想讨论的每个例子中获取相关的量化数据。投票结果可能会为我们所有人带来新的见解，而且开发团队也相对容易理解。这篇文章有有趣的例子要讨论，我想要更多。

 

 

务实且富有同理心

与第二个问题相关，假设百分比很低，比如 10%，任何游戏公司花费资源来满足这个小数字是明智的吗？我的意思是，花费资源来吸引新玩家或只是一次为 90% 的人做一些小的更新不是更明智吗？这需要进一步研究，并充分认识到开发能力。尽管如此，一切都有后果，这意味着即使这样我们也没有能力直接改变游戏，我们仍然可以控制是否玩游戏的决定，这会影响来自 Steam 的数据。

最后，请注意，开发人员已经知道许多批评，包括我们的批评，因为我觉得他们中的大多数都不是全新的，尽管有许多类似的批评可能意味着什么，但我仍然不知道为什么开发人员仍然坚持他们的一些立场特定的东西。他们是否应该解释他们对向社区做出的每一个决定的理由？这可能会消耗他们宝贵的时间，目的是为了好的公关。同样与本文的第三个问题相关，谁能告诉我开发团队将如何处理社区提供的反馈？

 

很棒的帖子！我发现其中大部分都有很高的相关性 - 相当挑衅

Thank you for your sincere response.

I understand the issue you're trying to address.

1. Regarding Game Price

I’ll skip your first point about time and start with game pricing. I believe you're bringing up the game's price to suggest that since the game is relatively inexpensive, we shouldn't demand too much from the developers. If that’s your point, I’d like to say this: game updates introduce new mechanics and cosmetic packs, which generate revenue for the developers and attract more players. Since updates contribute to the game's continued success, they should aim to accommodate a broader audience (I’ll explain why in the next point).

2. The Role of Developers and Their Limitations

You mentioned that developers have the right to do whatever they want, but in reality, that’s not entirely true. Simply put, developers are employees unless they own the company. If they were to follow your reasoning completely and disregard players like me, they would need to tell their boss something like:

"Dear boss, we believe we should narrow the scope of our game to cater only to a specific group of players. We won't concern ourselves with the requests of others or try to understand their perspectives. This may lead to a shrinking player base and potentially lower revenue. Are you okay with that?"

If you were in the developer's position, you might claim you have the right to make such decisions, but that would be a flawed mindset. I believe that as you read my description, you instinctively felt that something about it didn’t seem quite right.

3. The Difference Between Veteran Players and Long-Term Save Players

There’s an error in your later argument. Veteran players and long-term save players are two overlapping but distinct groups. You should be referring to long-term save players, who indeed make up a smaller portion of the player base. However, veteran players likely represent the majority of the community, though most of them don’t engage in long-term saves.

4. On Missing Data

I could actually provide extensive information on this topic. I could list numerous bugs that were fixed but later reappeared, discuss past developer decisions, and even consult my community group to dig up past issues and compile them into a comprehensive record. However, I don’t want to do that—it’s simply too exhausting. I believe a limited set of examples is enough to highlight a significant part of the problem. If you still insist that there is missing data, then I have nothing more to say. But perhaps you could reflect on how some of the initial designs were inherently unreasonable for long-term save players.

5. The Cost Argument

You seem to believe that accommodating long-term save players would increase development costs, but that’s not necessarily true. My primary goal is for the developers to consider long-term players when designing new content. As I mentioned earlier, they lack a comprehensive understanding of the player base, and I hope they improve in this regard to create better designs. This isn’t about financial cost. If anything, the main cost involved would be the effort required to communicate with the player base more effectively.

Furthermore, when a flawed design is introduced, the cost of fixing it is often lower than you might think. The assets and code are already in place, and only minor adjustments may be needed to make the feature more suitable. Of course, this isn’t always the case—for example, the Wendy rework was a more complex issue.

If you expect me to provide more detailed examples and use quantitative tools to convince you, I must decline. Convincing you is not my goal. I personally believe that what I’m saying is factual, and whether you believe it or not is up to you. For me, the examples I’ve provided are sufficient. The developers themselves are well aware of their past mistakes and how many repetitive debates they’ve been through.

6. Researching Other Games and Player Environments

At the beginning of my post, I already stated that my primary audience is the developers, with discussions among players being secondary. If you're still uncertain, I suggest researching other games—such as Minecraft or Terraria—and comparing their player environments, community atmosphere, professional reviews, and Steam comments. You can also search forums for past events or check my previous posts to understand how the game was originally designed. Doing so might help you find the answers you seek.

[Guille6785]

1 hour ago, adminaaassh said:

This also explains why some players believe that making Winona's Catapult exclusive to her is reasonable. They lack the concept of frequent Hound attacks in long-term saves where Winona isn't always available. They might think, ‘I played with six people for 200+ days, and we were mostly present. Even if someone wasn't there, we could handle it by temporarily switching.’ This mindset leads them to instinctively oppose your suggestion and say things like, ‘I think the developers did a great job; this design is reasonable.’

I'm not trying to be mean but can you please not do this whole "western players only play the game in X way so they don't understand the game like WE do" thing, I can tell you as a regular that there is no discernible pattern whatsoever about the playstyle preferences of western players, you will find just as many people who play worlds to 1000s of days while goofing around with friends as you will people who are dedicated to creating obscure farm designs or routing intricate speedruns, this attitude displayed by multiple chinese users on this forum that the western community is somehow not "enlightened" enough to understand how you play the game does not help people to see your points

[adminaaassh]

4 minutes ago, Guille6785 said:

I'm not trying to be mean but can you please not do this whole "western players only play the game in X way so they don't understand the game like WE do" thing, I can tell you as a regular that there is no discernible pattern whatsoever about the playstyle preferences of western players, you will find just as many people who play worlds to 1000s of days while goofing around with friends as you will people who are dedicated to creating obscure farm designs or routing intricate speedruns, this attitude displayed by multiple chinese users on this forum that the western community is somehow not "enlightened" enough to understand how you play the game does not help people to see your points

Don't be self-righteous or distort my views. I won't make any further comments about you.Many thanks

[Prinha]

2 hours ago, adminaaassh said:

"They don't have a clear understanding of what you're talking about. Take Winona's Catapult as an example—most Don't Starve Together players typically play for only 200-300 in-game days before starting a new world. During this time, bases remain relatively small, and Winona is often present in the save. Even if the player controlling her leaves, someone can temporarily switch to Winona to handle things. Because of this, they lack an understanding of certain mechanics. For instance, they may not fully grasp the importance of Hound defense in long-term worlds where there's no dedicated player for a specific character. In short-term saves, players are usually around, so calling for help is easy. If you really want them to empathize with your experience, a simple analogy would be: imagine if Klei suddenly changed Ham Bat so that it lost durability like Bull Kelp Stalk, dropping durability with every hit. At that moment, they might understand your frustration.

I have played world to 3000+ days with groups of 6-7 people. The concept of dedicated characters is a very strange one to me. I would never try to force somebody to play the same character for 3000+ days. The only rules in those cooperative servers was not to loot somebody elses stuff or grief somebody else's builds. That's it. 

I'm amused that you might think that I wouldn't understand the "complexity of hound defense without Winona" because we simply build Houndius Shootius instead of catapults for that purpose. For early game I can recommend toothtraps.

It sounds as if you are sitting in an echo chamber. You and your friends affirming each other that you know so much more about the game than everybody else while endlessly discussing things that aren't really problems. 

And for the record: I don't like the sleepmode thing on Winona's catapults either and I strongly oppose any movement that wants nerf the portal or make character craftables exclusive. There's good reasons to critisize these things yet your arguments boil down to "I'm right and if you disagree then you simply don't understand what I'm talking about."
 

P.P.S.: Feather Hat has uses.

[adminaaassh]

21 minutes ago, Prinha said:

I have played world to 3000+ days with groups of 6-7 people. The concept of dedicated characters is a very strange one to me. I would never try to force somebody to play the same character for 3000+ days. The only rules in those cooperative servers was not to loot somebody elses stuff or grief somebody else's builds. That's it. 

I'm amused that you might think that I wouldn't understand the "complexity of hound defense without Winona" because we simply build Houndius Shootius instead of catapults for that purpose. For early game I can recommend toothtraps.

It sounds as if you are sitting in an echo chamber. You and your friends affirming each other that you know so much more about the game than everybody else while endlessly discussing things that aren't really problems. 

And for the record: I don't like the sleepmode thing on Winona's catapults either and I strongly oppose any movement that wants nerf the portal or make character craftables exclusive. There's good reasons to critisize these things yet your arguments boil down to "I'm right and if you disagree then you simply don't understand what I'm talking about."
 

P.P.S.: Feather Hat has uses.

It's not that I want to silence others; I just want to explain as clearly as possible how these so-called "reasonable" arguments come about in my understanding. Of course, I'm not saying that every reply falls into this category, but many do. I'm also not claiming that an entire feedback thread is filled with such comments—just that they are quite common.

This brings us back to a simple truth: there are both good and bad people in the world, and rational individuals understand this clearly.（I feel the need to add that I'm not saying those who make these "reasonable" arguments are bad people. I just want to emphasize that we shouldn't take things to extremes.）

Also, I do know that the Feather Hat has its uses, but very few people actually craft it. There's no need to specifically point that out to me—I already understand.

[hyoton123]

6 hours ago, adminaaassh said:

Winona's Catapult as an example—most Don't Starve Together players typically play for only 200-300 in-game days before starting a new world. 

I would venture to guess that “most” DST players don’t live to day 70. Or play in 3+ groups for that long; a mere 200 days is more than 24 hours of gameplay. 

Anyway if you cant handle hound attacks after day 100 or so without the extremely immobile catapults or other people on the server, I think you’re doing it wrong. Chalk me up to the short term world people.

[layangan putus]

6 hours ago, adminaaassh said:

Thank you for your sincere response.

I understand the issue you're trying to address.

1. Regarding Game Price

I’ll skip your first point about time and start with game pricing. I believe you're bringing up the game's price to suggest that since the game is relatively inexpensive, we shouldn't demand too much from the developers. If that’s your point, I’d like to say this: game updates introduce new mechanics and cosmetic packs, which generate revenue for the developers and attract more players. Since updates contribute to the game's continued success, they should aim to accommodate a broader audience (I’ll explain why in the next point).

2. The Role of Developers and Their Limitations

You mentioned that developers have the right to do whatever they want, but in reality, that’s not entirely true. Simply put, developers are employees unless they own the company. If they were to follow your reasoning completely and disregard players like me, they would need to tell their boss something like:

"Dear boss, we believe we should narrow the scope of our game to cater only to a specific group of players. We won't concern ourselves with the requests of others or try to understand their perspectives. This may lead to a shrinking player base and potentially lower revenue. Are you okay with that?"

If you were in the developer's position, you might claim you have the right to make such decisions, but that would be a flawed mindset. I believe that as you read my description, you instinctively felt that something about it didn’t seem quite right.

3. The Difference Between Veteran Players and Long-Term Save Players

There’s an error in your later argument. Veteran players and long-term save players are two overlapping but distinct groups. You should be referring to long-term save players, who indeed make up a smaller portion of the player base. However, veteran players likely represent the majority of the community, though most of them don’t engage in long-term saves.

4. On Missing Data

I could actually provide extensive information on this topic. I could list numerous bugs that were fixed but later reappeared, discuss past developer decisions, and even consult my community group to dig up past issues and compile them into a comprehensive record. However, I don’t want to do that—it’s simply too exhausting. I believe a limited set of examples is enough to highlight a significant part of the problem. If you still insist that there is missing data, then I have nothing more to say. But perhaps you could reflect on how some of the initial designs were inherently unreasonable for long-term save players.

5. The Cost Argument

You seem to believe that accommodating long-term save players would increase development costs, but that’s not necessarily true. My primary goal is for the developers to consider long-term players when designing new content. As I mentioned earlier, they lack a comprehensive understanding of the player base, and I hope they improve in this regard to create better designs. This isn’t about financial cost. If anything, the main cost involved would be the effort required to communicate with the player base more effectively.

Furthermore, when a flawed design is introduced, the cost of fixing it is often lower than you might think. The assets and code are already in place, and only minor adjustments may be needed to make the feature more suitable. Of course, this isn’t always the case—for example, the Wendy rework was a more complex issue.

If you expect me to provide more detailed examples and use quantitative tools to convince you, I must decline. Convincing you is not my goal. I personally believe that what I’m saying is factual, and whether you believe it or not is up to you. For me, the examples I’ve provided are sufficient. The developers themselves are well aware of their past mistakes and how many repetitive debates they’ve been through.

6. Researching Other Games and Player Environments

At the beginning of my post, I already stated that my primary audience is the developers, with discussions among players being secondary. If you're still uncertain, I suggest researching other games—such as Minecraft or Terraria—and comparing their player environments, community atmosphere, professional reviews, and Steam comments. You can also search forums for past events or check my previous posts to understand how the game was originally designed. Doing so might help you find the answers you seek.

1. You're being too greedy
    If you divide the price by hours then you've already made a good deal out of it. There are two types of greed, good one and bad one. Yours is good one like although you highly demand thing yet you offer explanations and solutions to get that certain thing. But in this case, fulfilling your demand wouldn't necessarily attract new players or increase product sales. At the very least, I disagree with your thought for reasons below

 

2. Dev as a whole has power in technical aspect since the owner may not have necessary skill in coding
    I can't really tell their contractual relationship between owner and dev but at least the owner transfers the responsibility for performing certain contractual duty to the dev. Basically, "Dev, we won't intervene with your job - As long as we are green then we are good. You can do whatever you think is optimal to reach the green". This delegation may result in dev ignoring our suggestions if they think the game development is already optimal especially when the green is already achieved so it's a power to recognized.

 

3. You admit being small group's voices
    Being minority as advanced gamer has its own downsides. One being hard to understood by both of the dev and the community as well as more difficult to see the bigger picture arising from one issue. It doesn't mean dev should actively ignore your suggestions but don't be surprised when they just do.

 

4. If you wanna have good house, get good material
    To make some statement like "dev baka, update no good, me mad" being true, you need to really collect relevant data. But lemme emphasis that you've got your conclusion truer with your given examples by saying "Once again, the dev fail to understand what players want - Here's why...". Although, despite the statement sounds true, I think it's still weak because nobody would truly understand what other people want to some degree without good communication. Even when the communication is good, we have another obstacle below.

 

5. Higher cost is inevitable
    Each working day within each month for one year and so on, the dev need to choose what to work by following their schedule. I think you may underestimate in how to fix a flawed design especially if you are a perfectionist in that sense like each individual is already busy enough with their work schedule, thus maybe they choose to work on something new for the future rather than fixing things especially when the issue is about game mechanics involving in the advanced gameplay - Again, only small portion of people benefited when it's done. It seems to me that dev keep moving forward instead of try to fix things past its time unless the community goes mad. I mean we should try to position ourselves as one team with the dev instead of opposing them for mutualistic symbiosis. So should Klei hire one more expert to handle this matter? Note they may have more games to managed unless the game is totally finished. If they really try to prioritize fixing or modifying things then future work schedule may get pushed to later date making the development longer. I am not trying to subjugate you with this since both update quality and time-based development plan are important.

 

6. Trying to understand your perspective
    First, I wouldn't use much outside data from different games since they consists of different dev, different people, different vision, different context etc. To be frank, I've no time to research but hopefully in the future when I've time to get relevant data. Next, until now I find that you've made 15 topics with video evidence and reasoning for good elaboration which then I must ask, How many the topics in total were responded by the dev? What interactions did you get with the dev? I only know the planting intervals which then you asked them to restore it back. Those topics are:

• [June 9, 2024] limited use of winona's catapults
• [June 15, 2024] powder monkey + cannon factory
• [June 21, 2024] planting interval of gloomthorn and sproutrock
• [June 21, 2024] suggestion for ocean debris loots
• [June 21, 2024] suggestion about rose-colored glasses
• [June 22, 2024] restoring the original planting intervals for shadow reaper usage
• [June 24, 2024] some findings and bugs
• [August 8, 2024] seeking advice from the experts related to modifying old save file
• [September 14, 2024] unpredictable behavior of GDW
• [September 16, 2024] a more refined design for GDW attacks
• [September 24, 2024] further adjustments for GDW
• [November 23, 2024] suggestion for soul jar
• [December 7, 2024] suggestion for soul jar when wortox dies
• [March 12, 2025] suggestion for special skin
• [March 27, 2025] bat bat nerf; cannon and catapults; turf changes preventing players to plant trees; wendy's shadow ability

    I can tell each member of your group cooperates to execute ideas by building various factories for quite amount of in-game days. Furthermore, some updates may or already ruin the result of it especially the powder monkey interaction with cannons, limited usage of Winona's catapults, and GDW terror for base builders out there. It must be tiring to figure things out when building new factories with new rules - Such is life. I figure the dev may think that veterans would be able to deal with inconvenience arising from the new mechanics. I guess it is just that bad when certain playstyles like exploits, automation, and long-term base get reduced to ashes. I mean the dev spend resources to design other playstyles meticulously to then get thrown away by these unintended discovery or natural tendency by the community. Is there a compromise for this or is this thing falling to middle ground fallacy?

[Uedo]

17 hours ago, xhyom said:

Quote me, after all you were referring very clearly to what I said after i said it, better than staying with "Ah here they come  the blind worshipers who don't accept any criticism as mentioned" trying to disqualify an opinion contrary to this stupid idea that some people defends bad updates (debatable) out of pure fanaticism.

I don't know you, nor have I ever consciously recognised you. This is literally the first time I have ever read one of your posts.

Maybe not everything is about you?