[Game Update] - 673461

[wormwood123]

1 minute ago, _zwb said:

probably a bug

yeah im making another world because my betas always mess up on the first world somewhere lol

[Lovens]

1 hour ago, landromat said:

Some DST players hate changes. They want to build a big base and future updates to revolve around it. 

"Nooooo Klei you can't change the island i already built pretty fence here so it is a big nono just make new island"

Even if it was not possible to build on Pearl's island at all (except for the plot required saw horse and chairs) I would still argue that it's bad to entirely ruin an existing cohesive unique part of the game just so a new boss can happen there. It's a landmark of the world regardless of whether or not players build there. I would say the same about Moon Quay or any other unique setpiece in the game. 

They didn't place Nightmare Werepig on top of Pig King, evicting it to the swamp. They didn't place Scrappy Werepig on top of the stage setpiece, completely destroying it in the process. I once again ask a simple question that I saw nobody else answer yet - why can't a new boss fight happen on its own island? It's not like there's no room in the ocean to retrofit another one. Players constantly complain there is not enough existing content in the ocean and barely any reason to go there. A new boss island could be a reason for some more ocean exploration. And just so it's not as painful, Wagstaff could hint at where the new island is - either drop a map for it from abandoned junk, or have astral detector point there, or just run towards it so we know the general direction. 

Man, there are so many possibilities with this new arc! It just doesn't need to destroy a landmark in a favour of placing the new boss. 

The relocation feature is not bad either and I get why some people would like it. Ideally I would love to see it stay but not be forced on players. People who don't like sailing to her island can move her closer to their bases. People who don't care about her/don't interact with her past her questline can just leave her on the island. Players who just care about keeping her on the island and preserving its original state could do that too. And we get exactly the same boss stuff happening, just somewhere else. I don't see why would anyone argue that the boss fight has to be happening exactly in this part of the world. There is nothing too special about it except the fact that it's an island (not big enough so we even have to expand it with docks) and we have other islands that could suit this purpose, or have an entirely new island as well. 

Edited June 6, 2025 by Lovens

[Dr. Safety]

Would people feel better about this if they added a few more small islands that have no unique resources, and no significance what so ever? Essentially Pearl's island but without Pearl? 

I like that we have to be heartless to Pearl and I hope that doesn't get changed, but I also know that the one chill and unique island losing its uniqueness is rough. I just don't know if people like the island because of Pearl or if they like it because of the island itself

Edited June 6, 2025 by Dr. Safety

[SilverSpoon]

6 hours ago, Edible Coal said:

read the fine print before u open rift next time

read the fine print before u post here next time

[Milordo]

36 minutes ago, Dr. Safety said:

Would people feel better about this if they added a few more small islands that have no unique resources, and no significance what so ever? Essentially Pearl's island but without Pearl?

YES.

[Cruvimaster]

@V2C Please don't leave us a week with this bug.

[Mike23Ua]

46 minutes ago, Dr. Safety said:

Would people feel better about this if they added a few more small islands that have no unique resources, and no significance what so ever? Essentially Pearl's island but without Pearl? 

I like that we have to be heartless to Pearl and I hope that doesn't get changed, but I also know that the one chill and unique island losing its uniqueness is rough. I just don't know if people like the island because of Pearl or if they like it because of the island itself

They like it because it was the one “safe haven” in the game where most of the games gameplay effects never even could occur there. In fact I think the only actual danger I ever had on pearls island was after enabling rifts and the same berry bushes I needed to place on the island for her quest (if you opt to enable rifts as a world Gen setting instead of doing all the tasks and opening them naturally)

Is that Brightshades will Infest the same plants your trying to place to complete her quests with.

Its the one downside I’ve actually seen for Pearls Island but i am assuming that NOW the end game Pearl Eviction Notice is meant to relieve some of that Brightshade island infesting issues.

[Kvetevk]

1 hour ago, Dr. Safety said:

I like that we have to be heartless to Pearl and I hope that doesn't get changed,

This is the way.

[Lovens]

1 hour ago, Dr. Safety said:

Would people feel better about this if they added a few more small islands that have no unique resources, and no significance what so ever? Essentially Pearl's island but without Pearl? 

I like that we have to be heartless to Pearl and I hope that doesn't get changed, but I also know that the one chill and unique island losing its uniqueness is rough. I just don't know if people like the island because of Pearl or if they like it because of the island itself

Personally I like the island for both reasons - because it has Pearl and because of its unique features (shapes, structures, little objects unique to the place like driftwood trees growing out of the ground or little glassy rocks here and there). It feels completed and it has immersion - something very crucial to me when playing games.

When I discovered Pearl for the first time and found out about her quests, it became one of my favorite parts of the game. There was something cool about this chill little island and I would find myself repeatedly coming even after completing all her quests and getting the pearl. I didn't even need the pearl - I dreaded Crab King back then and never defeated it in that world. But I remember how proud I was to discover I could repeat the salad quest so I made it a little tradition to go to her in summer just so she could snack on it and give me a heartwarming quote. Pearl's island was off the Oasis desert in that world and I'd just grab cactus and sail to her from there and cook it on the boat (I didn't use bundling wraps for a long time). Then she'd give me shells and I used them to decorate a little Pearl-themed dock I built in the Oasis desert (before docks even were in the game, I just placed down some wooden tiles and a lighthouse).

I remember rolling back that world when fire hounds spawned on Pearl's island and burnt the whole place down. I didn't have a single structure placed there (sawhorse quest didn't exist yet) so all I lost was just flowers, berry bushes and her trees/driftwood. And I even managed to beat the hounds and survive myself but I was upset to see her place ruined even though nothing of value was lost. There's some special bond that game cultivates with you gradually with this place, and it feels devastating to see this little heaven ruined.  

I've had worlds where I'd challenge myself to survive on the ocean only but allowing Pearl and some of her quests, and her island was like a breath of fresh air in the otherwise pretty boring and monotonous ocean. Every time I had to reason to go back there I was excited to see my fave place. 

I wouldn't be against having new islands on the ocean but I don't see the purpose of having them with the same resources or themes as already existing biomes. Pearl's island is cool because you can't find another place like that and it has a unique NPC living on it which is very fitting her personality. Remove one of them and that whole part of the game wouldn't feel cohesive anymore. 

I care a lot about world's unique features and I like to keep them intact whenever possible. I'm that person who will go out of their way to feed monster meat to pigs and kill them for guaranteed pig skins instead of ruining their homes. If I absolutely need to hammer down a pig house I'll choose a standalone one instead of destroying an entire village, even if it's a quick boss run and not a long-term megabase world. I always go an extra mile to not bump my boats into wobster mounds and sea stacks because they cannot be created by players. I won't intentionally destroy a slurtle mound, killer bee hive, a shattered spider nest, a merm house, and I'd rather harvest fossils from stalagmites rather than spilagmites just because there are a lot more of them in the world and both are not renewable. I don't burn or destroy any Moon Quay huts in any of my worlds because once again they are not renewable, even though monkeys are a huge annoyance. All those unique features, spawners (even hostile enemies) and structures are what makes the game for me and creates the immersion. Having places ruined for no good reason just ruins the immersion with it. 

Edited June 6, 2025 by Lovens

[Creatorofswamps]

Come on, guys, take the "Hermit Rehomer" and bring the pearls back to her island, what's your problem?

[Lovens]

7 minutes ago, Creatorofswamps said:

Come on, guys, take the "Hermit Rehomer" and bring the pearls back to her island, what's your problem?

The new scrap docks cannot be destroyed, can they? And you cannot turf them with nice fitting texture either. So the island will forever stay in its trashed state and will lose its natural teardrop shape. And the unique non-renewable objects (driftwood trees and glass shard boulders) will be destroyed by the new boss. 

[HopelessBot]

9 minutes ago, Creatorofswamps said:

Come on, guys, take the "Hermit Rehomer" and bring the pearls back to her island, what's your problem?

I love how the plot and mega basers are always against each other.

this item is amazing we can finally bring pearl to main island and people still complain.

[Lovens]

3 minutes ago, irangod said:

I love how the plot and mega basers are always against each other.

this item is amazing we can finally bring pearl to main island and people still complain.

The key word here is not "can". We are forced to bring here somewhere else and I don't like that. What if I don't want to bring Pearl to my megabase? What if I like her on her island and I would like to keep her there. I don't hate the option of moving, I'm fine with the possibility being in the game for those who want it. Heck, maybe I myself will use it in some worlds and maybe I won't. But don't force me to move her when it can be avoided! Let the players have freedom and choose to keep her place intact. The boss fight doesn't have to happen on her island. It feels super out of place and doesn't fit the storyline and the game immersion. 

[HopelessBot]

4 minutes ago, Lovens said:

doesn't fit the storyline and the game immersion. 

It exactly fits the storyline and the game immersion.

It shows that pearl is moving on with her life and Wagstaff not caring for a thing in this world.

Pearl went to that island to find her lover but at this point of story he's dead/lost his mind so there is no point for her to stay there.

[Lovens]

7 minutes ago, irangod said:

It exactly fits the storyline and the game immersion.

It shows that pearl is moving on with her life and Wagstaff not caring for a thing in this world.

Pearl went to that island to find her lover but at this point of story he's dead/lost his mind so there is no point for her to stay there.

We already know about Wagstaff's personality from the shorts and previous interactions with him. We get it, he's a jerk who only cares about his experiment and will exploit people for his own benefit. It was all perfectly conveyed without destroying this island. Developers choose the extremity of what character's impact on the world will be. It doesn't have to be so extreme to only convey this point. Plus he already conducts an experiment on Lunar Island so it would only be fitting if he continued there or on one of its satellites.

[Dr. Safety]

6 hours ago, Instant-Noodles said:

Celestial Scion (previously known as Celestial Abomination)

  Reveal hidden contents

Unfortunately had to shrink the image size of this 467 frame APNG to fit Imgur's 20mb upload limit. A GIF of this animation introduces artifacts (Klei Forums doesn't support APNGs/WEBPs uploads & Imgur doesn't support WEBPs).
APNG (left) vs GIF (right) comparison

 

 

Well now that is very interesting...

Just gonna leave this right here in the thread that Klei might look through for no particular reason

[Edible Coal]

8 minutes ago, milsonmeow said:

yes, and I want to see him actually suffering the consequences of leeching off Alter's powers. Let him actually straight up PERMANENTLY die for once, and we will now can see Them actually be terrifying as Maxwell said. That's a good plot, now that's it? Same with the Pearl eviction arc, we can now see how Wagstaff is now so driven of his attempt to 'conquer' the moon god and you just can't wait to see what he deserved.

i think possess would be a more likely case

[Draggofroot]

8 hours ago, Lucas Rego said:

 

  Hide contents

If you notice, this Wagstaff is not an illusion, at least it's what it appears to be, is he coming to the constant finally?

 

Spoiler

Im pretty sure that wagstaff doesnt have that effect in his animation files, theyre only added once he's rendered

 

[Mysterious box]

11 hours ago, Radicaljoe said:

The fine print that states "we are going to evict grandmothers and flatten your island base" of course, I should have seen it. It's so incredibly detailed from the 3 sentences it gives you.

It says changes you can't take back will happen honestly I wish it happened more post rift but they likely didn't want to rock the boat and thought it wouldn't be as rocked with just one old lady. I wish it happened more honestly like imagine us messing with powers we didn't understand impacted the mainland outside of just the expected like what if the pig king got infected or fled elsewhere leaving the remaining pigs to become hostile and this becomes the spark for pig raids the possibilities are endless.

1 hour ago, Lovens said:

The key word here is not "can". We are forced to bring here somewhere else and I don't like that. What if I don't want to bring Pearl to my megabase? What if I like her on her island and I would like to keep her there. I don't hate the option of moving, I'm fine with the possibility being in the game for those who want it. Heck, maybe I myself will use it in some worlds and maybe I won't. But don't force me to move her when it can be avoided! Let the players have freedom and choose to keep her place intact. The boss fight doesn't have to happen on her island. It feels super out of place and doesn't fit the storyline and the game immersion. 

You aren't forced though progression is optional you have the freedom to not do it.

[Frosty_Mentos]

I like that we can now bring Pearl to main base. We can finally trade with her more often without traveling forever just for some shells. 

Also, she won't be lonely anymore which is probably nicer for her. She and Corvus Goodfeather can now start dating.

[WolfoIsBestWolf]

Why can't we just have both, a new island that Wagstaff finds more desireable, and a way to move Pearl whereever we please in the endgame.

The game wants you to build there at least a little bit for the quest, everyone who gets to this point in progression will have their stuff broken. Even if its just a couple berry bushes, a chair or a Bee Box. It seems weirdly rude to the player compared to everything else the game has.

The "changes that cant be undone" isn't an argument, people want to play the new content and people should give feedback about this.

 

[landromat]

4 hours ago, Lovens said:

why can't a new boss fight happen on its own island?

Question is why can't it happen on pearl's island. It adds well to narrative and actually changes something with you playing further. I love how the world evolves the longer you play.

Landmark? Island is still here, just without pearl. And im pretty sure you can just relocate her back when you decide that you're done with this bosses fights

Let's be real the only reason you're against it because boss destroys anything you built on this island, which returns us to the first point

Edited June 6, 2025 by landromat

[SilverSpoon]

11 minutes ago, landromat said:

Let's be real the only reason you're against it because boss destroys anything you built on this island

Thanks for the summary. Actually, I deeply hate this so much by only one that reason.

Edited June 6, 2025 by SilverSpoon

[Kvetevk]

43 minutes ago, Draggofroot said:

  Hide contents

Im pretty sure that wagstaff doesnt have that effect in his animation files, theyre only added once he's rendered

 

Spoiler

I don't think he will have the effect cuz his glove have this examination.

If what you mean is the static effect.

 

Edited June 6, 2025 by KvetekSK

[Uedo]

4 hours ago, Mike23Ua said:

They like it because it was the one “safe haven” in the game where most of the games gameplay effects never even could occur there. In fact I think the only actual danger I ever had on pearls island was after enabling rifts and the same berry bushes I needed to place on the island for her quest (if you opt to enable rifts as a world Gen setting instead of doing all the tasks and opening them naturally)

Is that Brightshades will Infest the same plants your trying to place to complete her quests with.

Its the one downside I’ve actually seen for Pearls Island but i am assuming that NOW the end game Pearl Eviction Notice is meant to relieve some of that Brightshade island infesting issues.

I don't think this is remotely true Mike. Outside of boss spawns, which you claim we need more of, no.

2 hours ago, irangod said:

I love how the plot and mega basers are always against each other.

this item is amazing we can finally bring pearl to main island and people still complain.

I mega-base, on pearls island I'll sometimes make some stuff. I like her being evicted, it's nice environmental world building.