Do we really need this?

[Cruvimaster]

In any given world, it might be harder to get the Krampus Sack than the Enlightened Crown.

[xhyom]

13 hours ago, dzzydzzy said:

And to me, what makes the game fun to megabase in as a casual gamer is ruined by rifts. Adding more challenges beyond feels like building scaffolding on top of scaffolding on top of a finished building. 

He means that for him, if you want to make a megabase as a casual player, rifts make your experience worse, not that rifts shouldn't exist for that reason. He's obviously saying that for a portion of players who aren't interested in going that far, it's pointless, for the portion that is in the lategame with their megabases, it's discouraged, and Klei itself doesn't want to mess with that. So what's the point? Do we really need another ultrasuperduper extra late boss?

3 minutes ago, Cruvimaster said:

Klei took great care of players by unlocking these machines in the first second of a new world through the settings.

It doesn't make sense to me for someone to say they want AFW or CC loot without having to face them.

Buddy what the are you talking about

[Draggofroot]

3 minutes ago, SilverSpoon said:

In all of your cases, there are ways to prevent from base destroying, so they are not "UNCOMPROMISING."

And the rifts are prevented by a litteral on/off switch

4 minutes ago, ALCRD said:

Nah that would be "Don't Starve"

"Don't Starve Together" is a very compromising somewhat "survival" game, has been for a long while.

It's supposed to be an uncompromising survival game. If it ever wasn't then Klei is trying to fix it with rifts

[Cruvimaster]

4 minutes ago, xhyom said:

He means that for him, if you want to make a megabase as a casual player, rifts make your experience worse, not that rifts shouldn't exist for that reason. He's obviously saying that for a portion of players who aren't interested in going that far, it's pointless, for the portion that is in the lategame with their megabases, it's discouraged, and Klei itself doesn't want to mess with that. So what's the point? Do we really need another ultrasuperduper extra late boss?

Buddy what the are you talking about

I'm talking about the argument some people make that Klei is creating late game content that is only accessible to a portion of the players, which is not true.

[SilverSpoon]

1 minute ago, Draggofroot said:

And the rifts are prevented by a litteral on/off switch

Well... So what? I still think base destruction is griefing, and I hope that they never add more griefing to the game.

[ALCRD]

5 minutes ago, Draggofroot said:

It's supposed to be an uncompromising survival game. If it ever wasn't then Klei is trying to fix it with rifts

It's supposed to but it simply isn't.

-Way more lenient death penalties and revival options compared to DS

-Way more options to reduce the difficulty or turn off difficult elements compared to DS

-Characters are way more versatile and powerful with their "downsides" being barely noticable unlike in DS

And so on

DS is still Uncompromising

DST is not really

[xhyom]

3 minutes ago, Cruvimaster said:

I'm talking about the argument some people make that Klei is creating late game content that is only accessible to a portion of the players, which is not true.

On this subject, it is also strange to create late game content, which people in late game do not like in the long term, many people do not get there because it is too late game and requires a lot of commitment to a server, and then encourage players to activate this late game content... in the early game using settings... So it goes back to the original question of the topic, do we really need this? Another latelatelategame boss?

[Cruvimaster]

5 minutes ago, SilverSpoon said:

Well... So what? I still think base destruction is griefing, and I hope that they never add more griefing to the game.

Let's say Klei wants to bring new biomes based on the base DS DLCs to replace some old ones. So they couldn't do it because there are old player worlds? Should Klei have this limitation in development in your opinion?

[Draggofroot]

3 minutes ago, SilverSpoon said:

Well... So what? I still think base destruction is griefing, and I hope that they never add more griefing to the game.

Some people buy their advertised uncompromising game to experience uncompromising and want their base to be destroyed

 

3 minutes ago, ALCRD said:

It's supposed to but it simply isn't.

-Way more lenient death penalties and revival options compared to DS

-Way more options to reduce the difficulty or turn off difficult elements compared to DS

-Characters are way more versatile and powerful with their "downsides" being barely noticable unlike in DS

And so on

 

Okay ig youre right but the Rifts have a lot of potential to fix this. The shadow one is my favourite featurewise because it makes the caves way more unforgiving. Lunar has the potential to do so too but sadly the devs have just turned it into a boss dispenser. I hope they make the posession Gestalts posess more things that aren't bosses

[Cruvimaster]

1 minute ago, xhyom said:

So it goes back to the original question of the topic, do we really need this? Another latelatelategame boss?

Ok. Klei can cancel the beta and stop all updates on DST. We don't need anything new in the game. We can make 5000 day bases with all the vast content we already have.

We don't need new bosses, skill trees or anything new to play. DST was already a complete game before Return of Them.

That's the straightforward answer you want.

 

[Dr. Safety]

51 minutes ago, xhyom said:

The way you guys managed to interpret someone finding new content pointless, tiring and stressfully late as: "I hate things breaking my megabase" and getting angry in your own head with the hypothetical megabase player who prevents Klei from doing things is impressive. Like dawg that's not what he said

I'm definitely guilty of this, and I apologize. I was at lunch when I commented and quickly scanned through what was said, and I think I was more responding to the comments than the original post.

Responding to what was actually said, I agree. I think Klei is going the Terraria direction, which I guess I'm not completely against since the survival elements are still there, but the two games clash too much for it to be cohesive. Terraria has a long list of bosses that you beat in order, and each boss drops stuff to help you beat the next boss.

The big difference between Terraria and DST, is that fighting bosses in DST generally require SO much more commitment. Gear breaks or needs maintained, unlike Terraria. Dying can be costly where in Terraria, reviving is free (and you don't lose your items unless you opt into that modifier). Boss health scales in Terraria, so solo players don't have to fight for several minutes like they do in DST.

It's just two very different games and trying to replicate the "boss checklist" progression that Terraria has does not translate well into casual DST without some major changes to the way things are in DST.

Edited May 30, 2025 by Dr. Safety

[xhyom]

7 minutes ago, Cruvimaster said:

Ok. Klei can cancel the beta and stop all updates on DST. We don't need anything new in the game. We can make 5000 day bases with all the vast content we already have.

We don't need new bosses, skill trees or anything new to play. DST was already a complete game before Return of Them.

That's the straightforward answer you want.

 

Well, that's your problem, the enemies in your head are yours. Keep making things up, talking nonsense and getting stressed about things that others DIDN'T say. And swallow with a spoon what they serve you, since, following your modus operandi, IT IS FORBIDDEN TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING, WE MUST KEEP QUIET... (Casual exaggeration)

[Cruvimaster]

1 minute ago, xhyom said:

Well, that's your problem, the enemies in your head are yours. Keep making things up, talking nonsense and getting stressed about things that others DIDN'T say. And swallow with a spoon what they serve you, since, following your modus operandi, IT IS FORBIDDEN TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING, WE MUST KEEP QUIET... (Casual exaggeration)

I'm not going to take advantage of almost all character skill tree updates and that's fine with me. Now, the player who won't take advantage of a new boss for whatever reason is not fine with him.

Not every update will be interesting to every player. That's about it.

[Evelo]

43 minutes ago, SilverSpoon said:

If you want to play an uncompromising survival game, I recommend another game.

I would if they existed. DST use to be that. Somewhat. Still is, compared to other "survival" games.

[Hi.]

I mean there has to be some kind of end to the game. Idk if they are gonna have a final boss or something like og DS.

[SilverSpoon]

1 hour ago, Cruvimaster said:

Let's say Klei wants to bring new biomes based on the base DS DLCs to replace some old ones. So they couldn't do it because there are old player worlds? Should Klei have this limitation in development in your opinion?

No. If there is absolutely no way to introduce it other than overwriting existing player bases, I would say fine.

However, I still insist I hope that they never add more  base destruction to the game. That's why I'm saying not to make it a WARBOT island by replacing Peal island this time.

1 hour ago, Draggofroot said:

Some people buy their advertised uncompromising game to experience uncompromising and want their base to be destroyed

This game isn't advertised as "Your base will be destroyed game." I think that people who buy this game, even who expecting "uncompromising", that is a minority who enjoy their base destroyed or who never rollback when their base is destroyed.

Edited May 30, 2025 by SilverSpoon

[Well-met]

I mean, wait until the update is finished first.

[Radicaljoe]

6 minutes ago, SilverSpoon said:

This game isn't advertised as "Your base will destroyed gam

I do feel like some people don't understand uncompromising doesn't mean the game will try to make you stop playing it forever. It just means it won't hold your hand as you progress. But it seems people want antlion fissures to be following them 24/7 and wildfire should be an all year event.

[Semind]

26 minutes ago, Evelo said:

I would if they existed. DST use to be that. Somewhat. Still is, compared to other "survival" games.

Unrelated, have you checked out Noita? It's not a survival game, exactly... but I think it's more than a match for DS/DST in the department of "I don't know what's going on and I'm dying all the time, but also there's no end to how deeply you can dig into the mechanics"

[Cruvimaster]

10 minutes ago, SilverSpoon said:

No. If there is absolutely no way to introduce it other than overwriting existing player bases, I would say fine.

However, I still insist I hope that they never add more  base destruction to the game. That's why I'm saying not to make it a WARBOT island by replacing Peal island this time.

This game isn't advertised as "Your base will destroyed game." I think that people who buy this game, even who expecting "uncompromising", that is a minority who enjoy their base destroyed or who never rollback when their base is destroyed.

I understand what you're talking about. Sometimes old worlds end up colliding with new Klei projects. The island you mentioned is one example. Caves were another recent problem (which Klei has created solutions for). Moonstorms are also a problem for the bases outside of the oases. Before, Klei didn't even create retrofits for old worlds, forcing players to create new worlds to have new content. Klei's solution for old worlds now seems to have become a problem for them.

[Evelo]

2 minutes ago, Semind said:

Unrelated, have you checked out Noita? It's not a survival game, exactly... but I think it's more than a match for DS/DST in the department of "I don't know what's going on and I'm dying all the time, but also there's no end to how deeply you can dig into the mechanics"

I have not only because Pixel Art annoys me greatly. Kind of shallow that way x.x

[SilverSpoon]

28 minutes ago, Cruvimaster said:

Klei didn't even create retrofits for old worlds, forcing players to create new worlds to have new content. Klei's solution for old worlds now seems to have become a problem for them.

Thank you for your understanding. I understand that not destroying existing worlds might be a limitation of the fun, as you say.

However, I hope Klei treats making existing worlds obsolete or destroying players' bases as a last resort when no other options are available, and not as a common practice.

Edited May 30, 2025 by SilverSpoon

[Bumber64]

1 hour ago, Cruvimaster said:

I understand what you're talking about. Sometimes old worlds end up colliding with new Klei projects. The island you mentioned is one example. Caves were another recent problem (which Klei has created solutions for). Moonstorms are also a problem for the bases outside of the oases. Before, Klei didn't even create retrofits for old worlds, forcing players to create new worlds to have new content. Klei's solution for old worlds now seems to have become a problem for them.

Retrofits are one-time things. This is every time you do rifts content. Pearl's island is suitable pre-rifts, then ruined after. Any time someone wants to fight the boss, the base will be destroyed.

Edited May 30, 2025 by Bumber64

[Cruvimaster]

29 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Retrofits are one-time things. This is every time you do rifts content. Pearl's island is suitable pre-rifts, then ruined after. Any time someone wants to fight the boss, the base will be destroyed.

The creative choice of the island seems to reveal another dark side of Wagstaff. The question is whether Klei developers should abandon their creative choices when any of the players are affected. If the answer is yes, then Klei may have to give up on Moonstorms, since they also cause disruptions to many bases. Let's see if Klei gives up and makes Wagstaff more kind, while Charlie suffers the brunt of the evil.

And just to add: I am fully convinced that there are some players around the world who also have a base on Monkey Island and therefore were impacted by Pearl's arrival. They just didn't come to the forums to show it.

And if Klei creates a new island in the ocean, there is a chance that it will affect some world where some random player has some kind of building there.   

Edited May 30, 2025 by Cruvimaster

[Milordo]

4 hours ago, Maxil20 said:

Look, regardless of how you feel about it, world options are a customizable part of the game that exist in every version.

This game has gotten quite big, and there are aspects of this game I like a lot, even in recent updates, and there are some aspects I don’t like and I know I won’t like, and actively drag down my enjoyment of the game. In my mentioned rift examples, I love a ton of the cave rift effects (and especially how it impacts mobs), the lurking nightmares, and the fissure enemies. The problem for me is that this is bodied by the near constant stream of ickers/masques that appear on the bridges. Ickers have some counterplay at least to where they can spawn, even if I still don’t like how they can OHKO 80+% of the cast, but masques quite literally don’t and are dangerous to literally any mob in the game. Fighting the masques off to protect said mobs gets tedious extremely fast, especially if you get multiple masqued lobsters and especially if you get a wrathful rabbit king from masqued bunnymen.

Like, these mechanics are things that actively drag down my enjoyment of the game, but I know there is an equal ground that also like these aspects. I don’t really want them nerfed massively just to please the base building group. If there was a world option for these mechanics, I would just disable them since they are unfun for me and live my life with the aspects I do find fun, but because there are not any for either masques or ickers, the alternative is to entirely disable/plug up all the spawns shadow rifts. This is what I have gripes about and why I wish world options were more kept up to speed.

It doesn't matter how do I feel it, it's a fact. You're changing the normal standard experience. You're modifing the game. Of which I say, and? Who cares. I'm not judging you for doing it. Look at me. I practically play always full vanilla, as Klei intended, unless I want to play a randomizer or a cool thematic world. Howeverrrrr it would be a lie telling you that I play with wildfires for example. I don't play with wildfires. They're a pain in the a-s-s and not to mention a very terrible design, yelled by the community for eons to be reworked --> exactlyyyy for your same sentiments. I have also recently an auto-balancing boss mod, made and coded by me in the freetime and it feels great to have Dragonfly or Ancient Fuelweaver having armor and patterns/attacks adjusted for the players in the arena, so they're well balanced for 1-2 or don't pop as bubbles with 5-6. Never felt better. Having a blast of fun. However it's not the true (bad) side of the intended version by Klei. 

We want the same thing in the end. The only thing I can't grasp in your message is....nerf? Nerf? Balanced should be the word. I wish that all the mess piling up in the game through the years could be balanced so we are not forced to change it at the custom options or through other means. Don't be scared to voice a change to the game. It doesn't need to be precise if you're scared to "nerf" these new contents. Just give a general feedback and Klei will sure find a solution. Ickers, masquerades and what else should be absolutely adjusted and balanced for your righteous criticism. If people have a good argument/critism.

Edited May 30, 2025 by Milordo