pearl, don't leave me alone...i can't handle this.

[WendyAbri]

bro, what do you think?

 

 

[gaymime]

bro, i think it is super weird you electively chose to do this to prove some abstracted point about being allowed to do whatever you wish with impunity because it sucks having consequences. it is quite literally impossible for this to occur without you proactively choosing to do it.

Edited May 24, 2025 by gaymime

[Radicaljoe]

Just now, gaymime said:

i think it is super weird you electively chose to do this to prove some abstracted point about being allowed to do whatever you wish with impunity because it sucks having consequences. it is quite literally impossible for this to occur without you proactively choosing to do it.

The base was built long before this beta. There has never been such a warning Pearl's island would become the centerstage for a massive destructive battle arena. What are these "consequences"? Punishment for not having clairvoyance to see this would happen? 

[gaymime]

Just now, Radicaljoe said:

The base was built long before this beta. There has never been such a warning Pearl's island would become the centerstage for a massive destructive battle arena. What are these "consequences"? Punishment for not having clairvoyance to see this would happen? 

dude handed her an eviction notice after the most evil person in the game said to do it. you dont need to be clairvoyant to see something bad is going to happen and you don't need clairvoyance to see that kicking pearl off of pearl's island is going to result in her not being there anymore. the base may have been there a long time but the op never had to go through all the effort to evict her. it is wholly elective and 100% within their control.

 

but to be reductive; the consequences of evicting pearl is that she isnt there anymore. that is the consequence of evicting pearl.

[Mike23Ua]

4 minutes ago, Radicaljoe said:

The base was built long before this beta. There has never been such a warning Pearl's island would become the centerstage for a massive destructive battle arena. What are these "consequences"? Punishment for not having clairvoyance to see this would happen? 

First of all, pearls island is a bazillion times smaller than any of your pictures on Xbox Consoles, secondly did the character inspection quotes, weird sounds and animations that have always pulsed from this island not give you any from of indication it would have further uses in the future?

[Radicaljoe]

2 minutes ago, gaymime said:

but to be reductive; the consequences of evicting pearl is that she isnt there anymore. that is the consequence of evicting pearl.

Ah, the classic "If you don't like it don't interact with it" argument. Not a great reason.

2 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

did the character inspection quotes, weird sounds and animations that have always pulsed from this island not give you any from of indication it would have further uses in the future?

No, because that's the theme of DST. There's weird stuff everywhere. Seeing Pearl plug some sinkholes with giant seashell tubas doesn't strike me with "oh my god, theres 100% GOING to be a massive 20 ton fight here in the middle of the ocean on this small island" It makes me think "hehe funny weird crab tuba"

[Mike23Ua]

You should probably go replay the game and read every character (except Wes) inspection quotes for the slowly erupting fissures.

#1- Dangerous Un-inhabitable Location temporarily made habitable by poorly plugging fissures.

#2- Several characters clearly state something sinister is going on and the sounds creep them out.

But as always: I do have a “Solution” that keeps the lore of the island in tact, but will not evict Pearl from the area.

The Solution being: Allow the players to use the new Wagstaff Bugnet/capturing device to capture creatures that are released when we “unplug” the fissures, and much like Wortox’s Soul Jars, allow the player to carry these captured entities to a designated area to release and summon the boss there instead.

But to play devils advocate: Anyone who does not read the Wikipedia and decided to build a base on “Celestial Champions Island” Would have discovered basing in the location you needed to assemble the alters was a bad idea. So I don’t really see how Pearls Island is any different from that.

[Maxil20]

15 minutes ago, gaymime said:

bro, i think it is super weird you electively chose to do this to prove some abstracted point about being allowed to do whatever you wish with impunity because it sucks having consequences.

Given that the world is ~25K days old and this has not been their first rodeo at showcasing base destruction, I assume they do this (at least for the latter 2 cases), and rollback/restore a backup to revert the damages.

I won’t say much about this since I never had a steak in Pearl Bases (on my almost 22K day world I procrastinated to the point I never made anything substantial on it…) and I don’t know if they will change it given that the arc is built around this. My real gripe is that her stuff is just forced oddly in moon quay so it makes it hard to do a decorative build in that spot for players who wish to do that. I personally like the idea of being able to  bring her anywhere you wish, since that sounds neat and would still open up some neat creative potential.

[gaymime]

1 minute ago, Radicaljoe said:

Ah, the classic "If you don't like it don't interact with it" argument. Not a great reason.

No, because that's the theme of DST. There's weird stuff everywhere. Seeing Pearl plug some sinkholes with giant seashell tubas doesn't strike me with "oh my god, theres 100% GOING to be a massive 20 ton fight here in the middle of the ocean on this small island" It makes me think "hehe funny weird crab tuba"

-shrugs- what can i say to that? i can't make anyone media-literate, i can't make anyone care about a video game, i can't make anyone look inside of themselves to see what kind of person they wish to be when noone is there to observe them BUT i can balk and push back on the notion that the player is always morally in the right and nothing is wrong as long as they don't feel bad about the choices they make.

every person who chooses to evict pearl did so knowing that she was no longer going to live there. making the weak soft claim that there was no way to know what was going to happen =after= the player knowingly and willingly evicts her is wholly irrelevant. the crux of the matter is that you as the player could have said no. you could have dumped the map in the ocean, could have never done the quest at all, could have refused wagstaff from the very beginning and you did not. you chose to find out what would happen and your being upset when it was something bad is you putting your hand in a fire marked "dangerous" and blaming the fire for getting burned. you have free will and agency. you have choices, you have options; unfortunately actions have consequences and this consequence burns.

6 minutes ago, Maxil20 said:

Given that the world is ~25K days old and this has not been their first rodeo at showcasing base destruction, I assume they do this (at least for the latter 2 cases), and rollback/restore a backup to revert the damages.

I won’t say much about this since I never had a steak in Pearl Bases (on my almost 22K day world I procrastinated to the point I never made anything substantial on it…) and I don’t know if they will change it given that the arc is built around this. My real gripe is that her stuff is just forced oddly in moon quay so it makes it hard to do a decorative build in that spot for players who wish to do that. I personally like the idea of being able to  bring her anywhere you wish, since that sounds neat and would still open up some neat creative potential.

yeah i figured that too and cut out a para about the importance of rollbacks and back-up copies before posting since they almost certainly don't need me to say something that self-evident.

 

for sure though having her move to the quay feels like it has some real intent to it but because that part is not technically complete i am going to refrain from speculating about what the ramifications of it is. frankly i like the iea of choosing but i also know from the whole thing with jimbo how awkward semi-random movement is and how easy it is to screw up something as complicated as re-placing a multi-part set-piece can be especially since both an rng style and an exact-placement style are both easy to bork

[Radicaljoe]

4 minutes ago, gaymime said:

BUT i can balk and push back on the notion that the player is always morally in the right and nothing is wrong as long as they don't feel bad about the choices they make.

okay first of all, not that deep. I just want to build my pretty base and not have to turn it into a battle arena. I care about evicting Pearl because I like living with her, but you totally glossed over the point that I want to live there too.

[gaymime]

15 minutes ago, Radicaljoe said:

okay first of all, not that deep. I just want to build my pretty base and not have to turn it into a battle arena. I care about evicting Pearl because I like living with her, but you totally glossed over the point that I want to live there too.

forgive me for lumping you in with the general consensus but i didn't see anything in your post that indicated your reasons and so could not have avoided failing to account for said reasons

 

to reiterate though regardless of motivations there is always a choice. it super sucks that pearl is getting cheated and duped but it is a thing that can be wholly avoided if the player chooses pearl over whatever wagstaff might theoretically provide. do you lose out on loot? yeah, undoubtedly, do you lose out on knowing what will happen? yeah that is the nature of choosing but if you care about maintaining sanctity on her island then it should be a choice you are willing to make to not hand that paper over. you are the final arbiter and you have the power to choose how you want the story to be told, same as me, same as op, same as everyone who makes it that far. we all get to choose and whatever we choose is what we get be it pearl on her little island home or to once more follow wagstaff into the dark unknown

Edited May 24, 2025 by gaymime

[Vixen Doe]

29 minutes ago, gaymime said:

-shrugs- what can i say to that? i can't make anyone media-literate, i can't make anyone care about a video game, i can't make anyone look inside of themselves to see what kind of person they wish to be when noone is there to observe them BUT i can balk and push back on the notion that the player is always morally in the right and nothing is wrong as long as they don't feel bad about the choices they make.

every person who chooses to evict pearl did so knowing that she was no longer going to live there. making the weak soft claim that there was no way to know what was going to happen =after= the player knowingly and willingly evicts her is wholly irrelevant. the crux of the matter is that you as the player could have said no. you could have dumped the map in the ocean, could have never done the quest at all, could have refused wagstaff from the very beginning and you did not. you chose to find out what would happen and your being upset when it was something bad is you putting your hand in a fire marked "dangerous" and blaming the fire for getting burned. you have free will and agency. you have choices, you have options; unfortunately actions have consequences and this consequence burns.

calm down son it's just a drawing

[Tarnishedmax]

30 minutes ago, gaymime said:

-shrugs- what can i say to that? i can't make anyone media-literate, i can't make anyone care about a video game, i can't make anyone look inside of themselves to see what kind of person they wish to be when noone is there to observe them BUT i can balk and push back on the notion that the player is always morally in the right and nothing is wrong as long as they don't feel bad about the choices they make.

I like eating banaba pops and moonglass

[viblym]

7 minutes ago, gaymime said:

forgive me for lumping you in with the general consensus but i didn't see anything in your post that indicated your reasons and so could not have avoided failing to account for said reasons

 

to reiterate though regardless of motivations there is always a choice. it super sucks that pearl is getting cheated and duped but it is a thing that can be wholly avoided if the player chooses pearl over whatever wagstaff might theoretically provide. do you lose out on loot? yeah, undoubtedly, do you lose out on knowing what will happen? yeah that is the nature of choosing but if you care about maintaining sanctity on her island then it should be a choice you are willing to make to not hand that paper over. you are the final arbiter and you have the power to choose how you want the story to be told, same as me, same as op, same as everyone who makes it that far. we all get to choose and whatever we choose is what we get be it pearl on her little island home or to once more follow wagstaff into the dark unknown

I don't think Gameplay should be sacrificed for the sake of Lore- especially in this instance where the rational is flimsy and honestly isn't necessary at all. Overall your replies come across as really rude to the person in question. It's nobody's "fault" that Klei decided to implement something like this, nobody is to "blame" for choosing to make a lovely base at a landmark like Pearl's island- especially since what Klei did is so unusual compared to what they've done in the past. I don't think anyone is in the wrong for not wanting to take this one sitting- I don't like the change myself and I don't want it to be this way. The initial post didn't even Have that much text so turning the thread into something about the plot being in the player's hands when that really isn't the case just feels vindictive.

[gaymime]

1 minute ago, viblym said:

I don't think Gameplay should be sacrificed for the sake of Lore- especially in this instance where the rational is flimsy and honestly isn't necessary at all.

could you please elaborate?

3 minutes ago, viblym said:

It's nobody's "fault" that Klei decided to implement something like this, nobody is to "blame" for choosing to make a lovely base at a landmark like Pearl's island

none of that is in contention. i am only commenting on the op having evicted pearl then asking the forum what they thought about it.

[viblym]

2 minutes ago, gaymime said:

could you please elaborate?

I don't think Pearl's island being a necessary landmark for the boss fight justifies the changes.

 

3 minutes ago, gaymime said:

none of that is in contention. i am only commenting on the op having evicted pearl then asking the forum what they thought about it.

I think it could have been worded better.

[HowlVoid]

12 minutes ago, viblym said:

I don't think Gameplay should be sacrificed for the sake of Lore- especially in this instance where the rational is flimsy and honestly isn't necessary at all. Overall your replies come across as really rude to the person in question. It's nobody's "fault" that Klei decided to implement something like this, nobody is to "blame" for choosing to make a lovely base at a landmark like Pearl's island- especially since what Klei did is so unusual compared to what they've done in the past. I don't think anyone is in the wrong for not wanting to take this one sitting- I don't like the change myself and I don't want it to be this way. The initial post didn't even Have that much text so turning the thread into something about the plot being in the player's hands when that really isn't the case just feels vindictive.

Its not exactly Klei's fault either. We don't know how many years in the making this story is.

Its not a big loss, the game is about adapting. And unless you abuse roll backs ive lost bases to tragedies in the past. You rebuild. Next game just don't build there.

One of things that has always lured me into this game is base destruction. I think it's more sacrificing gameplay to cater to megabuilders which are the minority of players.

[gaymime]

1 minute ago, viblym said:

I don't think Pearl's island being a necessary landmark for the boss fight justifies the changes.
 

may i ask what you think would be a better way to tell the player that they are on a bad path in a way that has a tangible negative impact?

 

1 minute ago, viblym said:

I think it could have been worded better.

true, it could have been. i must confess i am not exactly articulate

[Bumber64]

6 hours ago, gaymime said:

the crux of the matter is that you as the player could have said no. you could have dumped the map in the ocean, could have never done the quest at all, could have refused wagstaff from the very beginning and you did not. you chose to find out what would happen and your being upset when it was something bad is you putting your hand in a fire marked "dangerous" and blaming the fire for getting burned. you have free will and agency. you have choices, you have options; unfortunately actions have consequences and this consequence burns.

So what you're saying is that they shouldn't interact with the new content, and that Klei is spending yet another update on stuff a number of players won't use?

Edited May 24, 2025 by Bumber64

[gaymime]

42 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

So what you're saying is that they shouldn't interact with the new content, and that Klei is spending yet another update on stuff a number of players won't use?

if they care about pearl? yes.that is simply a reality of non-linear games. a number of players have never(and would never) play as woodie, a number of plays have never( and would never) fight the twins. and in the end a number of people will never take this wagstaff quest. please do not make the erroneous assumption that all players will(or even should) engage with all content. this is not how games like these have ever been played in all the history of their existence and to put this particular game in a position where any failure to engage with every single player is unilaterally a failing feels really reductionist and unreasonable.

 

klei is telling a story through player-initiated options. please consider trusting them enough to let them tell it? or if that is too much please consider that klei is trusting us to be aware enough of the game to recognise that there is a story that could be told.

[Topis]

omg bro is cooked af

[viblym]

13 hours ago, gaymime said:

may i ask what you think would be a better way to tell the player that they are on a bad path in a way that has a tangible negative impact?

Enabling rifts already has some downsides, things like hail, brightshades, possessed bosses, etc. They're all world hazards you trigger.

[Semind]

1 hour ago, viblym said:

Enabling rifts already has some downsides, things like hail, brightshades, possessed bosses, etc. They're all world hazards you trigger.

I really don't think I see anything wrong with putting up a warning like this for the Pearl's eviction situation.
Disclaimer: haven't gotten to it yet.

[Hollow soul 3]

10 hours ago, Bumber64 said:

So what you're saying is that they shouldn't interact with the new content, and that Klei is spending yet another update on stuff a number of players won't use?

For real. If you view it as a choice, the pearl side is severely lacking in content. It's not a branching path, it's pushing the end point back as normal world progression. 

[Mysterious box]

11 hours ago, Bumber64 said:

So what you're saying is that they shouldn't interact with the new content, and that Klei is spending yet another update on stuff a number of players won't use?

I mean the alternative is just that Kiel isn't allowed to make unique changes to the world because it might threaten previous builds no? It's kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.