I think I now understand why Pearl’s eviction bothers me so much.

[Mysterious box]

6 hours ago, DegenerateFurry said:

Entirely justified self-defense, they're hostile monsters. If you're Webber, they're livestock.

It's not though if your playing normal character you have no justifiable reason to harm a good deal of surface mobs besides they are more useful to you dead. Even Webber isn't free of this as his abilities actively encourage him to murder other spiders which will likely be even further expanded upon in his skill tree. The guiding compass for most of the survivors is not morality or self defense but survival itself. This doesn't necessarily make them bad people per say they want a way out and Wagstaff was their closest shot at reaching that Pearl was simply in the way of their end goal.

 

7 hours ago, DegenerateFurry said:

Also, the game doesn't go out of its way to try to make you bond with pigs, and they have no concept of loyalty. They'll turn on their own if ordered and will leave you if you don't constantly do the work of feeding them.

I mean it does it just doesn't force it the pig king is a helpful npc and pigs will ask you for food and treat you as a friend when you feed them even for a small piece of meat they'll help you chop trees and risk dying while fighting on your behalf. The pigs simply aren't very smart but neither is Wurt or Wormwood the only thing separating them is that we spend more time with them and learn more about their perspectives.

7 hours ago, DegenerateFurry said:

reject this premise wholesale. The players were thrust into this survival situation typically through trickery or against their will. Most of them want to leave, which is what Wagstaff tempts them with. The Constant is a hostile wilderness, but it's not apathetic like the nature of our world - it is hostile. The world itself actively seeks to drive you insane and kill you. Do you forget that it is a world created with intent, and one shaped by a then-insane former stage magician with a heart as black as coal? The survivors, finding themselves in this place, decide to band together and fight back against the darkness, building what they can to keep themselves alive, healthy, and sane together.

It's only with the rifts that the player truly becomes a net negative for the world, and they don't know what they're doing when they activate them.

Also, no, Don't Starve Together isn't a game with a deep moral message plot twist about the player being the true bad guy all along. It's a story about some evil cosmic forces fighting with a bunch of (mostly) innocent people caught in the crossfire and used as pawns.

I somewhat agree here in that they are pawns but I completely disagree on the only at the rifts do players become a net negative to the world the survivors have always done what they need to survive and that's definitely not wrong but the world isn't always in the wrong for fighting back. Take tree guards for example they aren't evil much like Wormwood they just don't like you harming their friends they also represent a hostile mob you can apologize to. Also for the most part the world's inhabitants aren't hostile without reason.

7 hours ago, DegenerateFurry said:

People bring up the work they put into Pearl's island because there's two major problems with evicting her: the morality of it/lore implications, and the gameplay element. Some people don't care about video game fictional moral consequences, and that's fine. Base-builders who like building at Pearl's island are going to be annoyed regardless of whether or not they care about the message evicting Pearl sends.

But that only highlights a issue in morality no? We know a lot of the creatures of the constant have human level or near human level intelligence but we care not for what we do to them a majority of the time only those who are considered our ally the survivors are already morally grey as is we just overlook it. We've even seen it in action with Willow she's burned down an orphanage and while we can justify it as self defense when she becomes an adult she burns down Wickerbottom's library and possibly caused other fires as well the only bit of maybe remorse we get is after she begins to realize it may have belonged to someone she now sees as a friend.

6 hours ago, DegenerateFurry said:

Hey, Fuelweaver deserves having his face smashed in!

Fuel Weaver is a victim one who despite everything still tries to warn you of the mistakes your making.

6 hours ago, Lovens said:

I would not consider initiating boss fights as something malicious that makes player immoral. A lot of the boss fights in this game are initiated as a result of player's curiosity, exploration and experimentation. Oh, I can hammer this giant bee hive and it drops me some honey, sweet...let's just get one more...Uh-oh! What a nice pretty white sack, must be presents inside, let's try and open it! Oh, a broken statue with a piece nearby, I'll try and repair it. A weird skeleton made from unique ancient fossils I mined, and I placed it in this cool arena, what if I try to reanimate it, it already worked on the surface once, must be something cool! You can see where I'm going with this. None of it is evil or malicious. It's surviving in the world, exploring it and becoming curious about things you interact with. None the boss fights except for Deerclops/Bearger/GDW are forced upon us players either, and even with the worst baddies there is always a pacifist route, you can choose to not fight them or deal with them other way (Antlion is a great example). 

It is though in a lot of cases even some you just mentioned. We know bees are in hives the other ones have shown it so what in the world would make them think taking a hammer to a giant one is a good idea? The fact that she doesn't attack immediately on the first strike is already a kindness beyond what others would show. You are 100% villain in this scenario. Then there's the sack it locked with a key that you have to scare and harm deer to get but even then what's in the sack is clearly not meant for you in this scenario you are a thief and after murdering the owner you steal his stuff. In the case of toadstool he's just defending himself from you. In the case of fuel weaver you not only have to go out of your way to murder the guardian but the shadow pieces should have been more than enough of a clue that what you are doing is bad. However if by some miracle you didn't realize this the fuel weaver outright says what you are doing is wrong. In the case of dragonfly you are invading her territory and if you leave she'll leave you alone.

The survivors actions here are like going up to a group of lions then killing all of them because you were shocked they didn't react well to that. While there are a few fights where their actions are justified due to the passive nature of most of the dst bosses the survivors do come up being the aggressors most of the time.

3 hours ago, Bumber64 said:

WX knows exactly how trustworthy Wagstaff is, and by extension the survivors that actually care about Pearl.

To be fair I imagine the survivors don't take him seriously or at least I hope they don't considering his whole destroying all organics goal.

[Lovens]

2 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

It is though in a lot of cases even some you just mentioned. We know bees are in hives the other ones have shown it so what in the world would make them think taking a hammer to a giant one is a good idea? The fact that she doesn't attack immediately on the first strike is already a kindness beyond what others would show. You are 100% villain in this scenario. Then there's the sack it locked with a key that you have to scare and harm deer to get but even then what's in the sack is clearly not meant for you in this scenario you are a thief and after murdering the owner you steal his stuff. In the case of toadstool he's just defending himself from you. In the case of fuel weaver you not only have to go out of your way to murder the guardian but the shadow pieces should have been more than enough of a clue that what you are doing is bad. However if by some miracle you didn't realize this the fuel weaver outright says what you are doing is wrong. In the case of dragonfly you are invading her territory and if you leave she'll leave you alone.

The survivors actions here are like going up to a group of lions then killing all of them because you were shocked they didn't react well to that. While there are a few fights where their actions are justified due to the passive nature of most of the dst bosses the survivors do come up being the aggressors most of the time.

You got some points here I could agree with, however I disagree that this logic should justify developer's urge to "punish" us after forcing us to destroy Pearl's island if we want to fight the new boss. In almost all of the above mentioned boss fights we are not forced to permanently destroy a world's landmark in order to face a boss fight challenge. The Gigantic Bee Hive we hammered - it doesn't disappear after this, it regrows back in 20 days and if we don't defeat BQ and choose to simply run away from her, the hive returns back to its non-damaged state right away. The deer we scared into trees to get their horns don't need to be murdered, and both deer and Klaus sack respawn each year. We don't destroy dragonfly's lava ponds when facing her. Ruins and AG regenerate as new, and the Atrium Gate doesn't get destroyed (we are even helping to repair it when we activate Shadow Rifts). Moose spawners don't burn or disappear and will continue being a landmark after it's killed. Antlion sinkholes heal after time even if they spawned on top of some setpieces. NMWP pillars and Scrappy Werepig piles, Frostjaw island, Crab King's castle, Toadstool mushroom - all these unique landmarks and boss setpieces respawn and stay fully intact after our interaction with them. Shadow pieces statues is the only exception sadly, and even then the game rewards you with the sketches so you can repeat the boss fight whenever you can. Although I would very much prefer it if in addition to it the marble statues we originally repaired simply broke but didn't despawn upon boss activation, and dropped their suspicious marbles back on the floor. Mining it during full moon to spawn regular clockworks shouldn't keep statues intact though, since that fight was never meant to be repeatable more than one time. 

A lot of other "bad" things we do to the world are reversible too or can be repaired. A lot of resources regrow, a lot of mobs can be re-populated either naturally or by players (sadly, not all of them, I see it as developer's oversight). But things like trees, mushtrees, rabbit holes, catcoon dens, reeds, cacti, mushrooms, waterlogged spider dens, grass gators will respawn or regrow when destroyed. Even berry bushes and grass tufts can slowly regrow if you leave it on in the settings. 

My point here is that this is the first time devs are punishing us by forever taking away a unique and cohesive established world's landmark in order to have the new boss in its place and I see it as a completely unnecessary change that takes away from the game experience more than it adds to it. Getting to the boss fight itself doesn't have to be a punishment. And I find it very hard to justify it with the fact that some players have the freedom to be "bad" to the Constant's world if they choose to. The key word here was always "choose" - you can choose to play in a way where you actively preserve unique resources and unrenewable objects in the world when you don't have to, like choosing to feed 4 monster meats to a pig to get pig skins instead of breaking down its home. You can tell all you want about moral implications of killing a mutated monster that will murder you if you don't kill it first, but it's not destroying pig population entirely, and not allowing you to get rid of their king. Just because some players choose to be destructive to the world doesn't mean everybody needs to "suffer the consequences".

[Wormboi]

4 hours ago, FillerText said:

Why did this Discussion get skewed into how ethical nuclear bombs are?

I have a feeling that is thread is gonna get locked soon

[Milordo]

5 hours ago, cybers2001 said:

People complain the minute an update drops before they even open the game, so you learn to take it with a grain of salt.

That's sadly true. I have my rule of thumb for 5 years now, when new things get added or changed in videogames, wait for 1 week or two after you have tested/played thoroughly it and you will know precisely if it is bad, good, strange, ecc...

[Mysterious box]

6 hours ago, Lovens said:

Just because some players choose to be destructive to the world doesn't mean everybody needs to "suffer the consequences".

I mean the world is likely going to undergo a lot of changes in order to progress the story with the only way to avoid that being to just freeze the story in place you can't really just continue the story by making a new land mass every time something major happens and even if you could all stakes would be lost due to everything being placed in litteral content islands that showed up out of nowhere.

6 hours ago, Lovens said:

You got some points here I could agree with, however I disagree that this logic should justify developer's urge to "punish" us after forcing us to destroy Pearl's island if we want to fight the new boss. In almost all of the above mentioned boss fights we are not forced to permanently destroy a world's landmark in order to face a boss fight challenge. The Gigantic Bee Hive we hammered - it doesn't disappear after this, it regrows back in 20 days and if we don't defeat BQ and choose to simply run away from her, the hive returns back to its non-damaged state right away. The deer we scared into trees to get their horns don't need to be murdered, and both deer and Klaus sack respawn each year. We don't destroy dragonfly's lava ponds when facing her. Ruins and AG regenerate as new, and the Atrium Gate doesn't get destroyed (we are even helping to repair it when we activate Shadow Rifts). Moose spawners don't burn or disappear and will continue being a landmark after it's killed. Antlion sinkholes heal after time even if they spawned on top of some setpieces. NMWP pillars and Scrappy Werepig piles, Frostjaw island, Crab King's castle, Toadstool mushroom - all these unique landmarks and boss setpieces respawn and stay fully intact after our interaction with them. Shadow pieces statues is the only exception sadly, and even then the game rewards you with the sketches so you can repeat the boss fight whenever you can. Although I would very much prefer it if in addition to it the marble statues we originally repaired simply broke but didn't despawn upon boss activation, and dropped their suspicious marbles back on the floor. Mining it during full moon to spawn regular clockworks shouldn't keep statues intact though, since that fight was never meant to be repeatable more than one time. 

A lot of other "bad" things we do to the world are reversible too or can be repaired. A lot of resources regrow, a lot of mobs can be re-populated either naturally or by players (sadly, not all of them, I see it as developer's oversight). But things like trees, mushtrees, rabbit holes, catcoon dens, reeds, cacti, mushrooms, waterlogged spider dens, grass gators will respawn or regrow when destroyed. Even berry bushes and grass tufts can slowly regrow if you leave it on in the settings. 

My point here is that this is the first time devs are punishing us by forever taking away a unique and cohesive established world's landmark in order to have the new boss in its place and I see it as a completely unnecessary change that takes away from the game experience more than it adds to it. Getting to the boss fight itself doesn't have to be a punishment. And I find it very hard to justify it with the fact that some players have the freedom to be "bad" to the Constant's world if they choose to. The key word here was always "choose" - you can choose to play in a way where you actively preserve unique resources and unrenewable objects in the world when you don't have to, like choosing to feed 4 monster meats to a pig to get pig skins instead of breaking down its home. You can tell all you want about moral implications of killing a mutated monster that will murder you if you don't kill it first, but it's not destroying pig population entirely, and not allowing you to get rid of their king. Just because some players choose to be destructive to the world doesn't mean everybody needs to "suffer the consequences".

However that aside while I understand why people got invested in Pearl's island making the event take place on Pearl's island is what makes it so impactful. It showed real change happening to a major landmark this gives a real feel of progression. It also highlights the survivors moral ambiguity which for better or worse makes them feel more human. More than anything however it shows just how cruel Wagstaff can be to get what he wants no matter who gets in his way it's his big villian moment that anyone who doesn't watch the shorts doesn't know about until now. Moving it to another random island and making him harass some unknown fodder npc would ruin the questline's impact.

I do think it's unfortunate that some people lost their bases but this is also why I think landmarks should be the targets of these changes as going forward people can simply avoid building at landmarks and Klei won't have to worry about where to put a major event like this because major landmarks would become that area of change.

[Bumber64]

16 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

you can't really just continue the story by making a new land mass every time something major happens

How many major happenings are you expecting? This was the final lunar boss. The other islands were reconned into existence without in-game events. (Moon quay could've been made a result of CC, but they decided to add it to pre-CC, so it's something Wagstaff did shortly after the moon landing lunar impact.)

It's a missed chance to build a land mass with our own hands.

16 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

people can simply avoid building at landmarks

Doesn't that miss the point of why people build at landmarks to begin with?

Edited June 22, 2025 by Bumber64

[Mysterious box]

1 minute ago, Bumber64 said:

How many major happenings are you expecting? This was the final lunar boss. The other islands were reconned into existence without in-game events. (Moon quay could've been made a result of CC, but they decided to add it to pre-CC, so it's something Wagstaff did shortly after the moon landing lunar impact.)

Now call me crazy but I get the feeling that this won't be the last we see of the moon just the last we see of it in this arc. As for the islands I'm very much aware of how they came to be but that doesn't mean it should be the answer to all future major content.

Also moon quay couldn't have been the result of the moon without the pirates mutating as per the theme of lunar content.

9 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Doesn't that miss the point of why people build at landmarks to begin with?

I mean yeah but like what else are they supposed to do?  They can't just throw every bit of new story content on a random island.

[lowercase skye]

15 hours ago, DegenerateFurry said:

It makes me question the morality of the developers who designed it. Who even thinks of this kind of thing? It's the mindset of someone who'll tear down a family-owned restaurant to put in a McDonald's.

That's a very anti-art line of thinking, implicitly condemning anyone who wants to explore dark topics in their stories. Does it take a violent and horrible person to come up with the idea of a first person shooter, since you're going around with guns and killing people? Does something as tame as Undertale make you question the morality of its developer, because you have the option to kill off its cast of characters for a darker route through its story? Does it truly require a horrible person to come up with any slightly dark idea?

[Bumber64]

16 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Also moon quay couldn't have been the result of the moon without the pirates mutating as per the theme of lunar content.

Scrappy Werepig uses a lunar laser cannon without mutating. It's not inherent to lunar tech, but a result of gestalts interacting with dead stuff.

Lunar portals won't turn things into zombies any more than the postern can create enthralled mobs. It's just a means They use to pull things into the Constant.

Edited June 22, 2025 by Bumber64

[Mysterious box]

7 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Scrappy Werepig uses a lunar laser cannon without mutating. It's not inherent to lunar tech, but a result of gestalts interacting with dead stuff.

Lunar portals won't turn things into zombies any more than the postern can create enthralled mobs. It's just a means They use to pull things into the Constant.

The lunar islands mobs are mutated due to exposure to it as well as not everything there died first see the salamanders and spiders for reference. Lunar tech and lunar energy are the same source but the difference is that Wagstaff's tech seems to be what prevents the mutations from happening which is why it needed to be Wagstaff who brought them there and not just the moon itself. Heck we even have a hands on example with Wurt and her merms while they can mutate due to eating moon glass they can also mutate by being bathed in the concentrated lunar energy her staff emits.

[Lovens]

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

However that aside while I understand why people got invested in Pearl's island making the event take place on Pearl's island is what makes it so impactful. It showed real change happening to a major landmark this gives a real feel of progression. It also highlights the survivors moral ambiguity which for better or worse makes them feel more human.

I don't need to feel more human in the game where I already have health, sanity and hunger to worry about, as well as mostly human-like appearance. What the new arc makes me feel is not understanding why, as a human, a sane and perfectly capable of thinking and standing for myself character with established territorial defending abilities, can't stand for the ground I care about and protect my only friend in the world that I invested half of my game time into. Why do I have to feel guilty for being forced to destroy the unique landmark if it was developers who made me do it without me giving a choice? 

Quote

More than anything however it shows just how cruel Wagstaff can be to get what he wants no matter who gets in his way it's his big villian moment that anyone who doesn't watch the shorts doesn't know about until now. Moving it to another random island and making him harass some unknown fodder npc would ruin the questline's impact.

We already know Wagstaff is a bad person and it was perfectly conveyed though animated shorts and previous interactions with them. It wouldn't make the story less impactful or less fitting if the final boss fight happened on the Lunar Island where CC fight already happens. 
 

Quote

I do think it's unfortunate that some people lost their bases but this is also why I think landmarks should be the targets of these changes as going forward people can simply avoid building at landmarks and Klei won't have to worry about where to put a major event like this because major landmarks would become that area of change.

Regardless or players ability or will to build around world landmarks they should stay intact because they bring uniqueness and flavor into the otherwise monotonous world with nothing interesting in it. It's the presence of landmarks and their position relative to each other that makes each world truly unique and different from other similar worlds. Klei clearly were able to add a few bosses recently with their onw unique setpieces and create new landmarks, surely they could have done it this time as well. They just chose to go the lazy route because of the time limits of their ridiculous Klei fest deadline they forced upon themselves, and now are stubborn to fix what was already implemented because it's now on prod and it works. I guess nobody at Klei even remotely cares that so many people are unhappy with it - not a word from any of the developers about the most controversial aspect of this update after all this time. 

[Mysterious box]

31 minutes ago, Lovens said:

I don't need to feel more human in the game where I already have health, sanity and hunger to worry about, as well as mostly human-like appearance. What the new arc makes me feel is not understanding why, as a human, a sane and perfectly capable of thinking and standing for myself character with established territorial defending abilities, can't stand for the ground I care about and protect my only friend in the world that I invested half of my game time into. Why do I have to feel guilty for being forced to destroy the unique landmark if it was developers who made me do it without me giving a choice? 

Story telling isn't about watching meters go up and down it's about how our characters engage with the world. As much as people keep bringing up that you are forced to do this you really aren't if it's really making you feel that guilty then don't do it but doing it was the only way to follow up on one of the few leads they had to get back home. This is a case of what you want them to do not aligning with what they feel they need to do and it makes sense as at the end of the day they aren't self inserts they are their own people.

40 minutes ago, Lovens said:

What the new arc makes me feel is not understanding why, as a human, a sane and perfectly capable of thinking and standing for myself character with established territorial defending abilities, can't stand for the ground I care about and protect my only friend in the world that I invested half of my game time into.

Honestly this might just be you not understanding the survivors plight and that's also fair considering how powerful the survivors seem gameplay wise but the reality is that they are just barely getting by constantly hurt or even dying. Wagstaff from their perspective is their best shot at getting back and escaping the cycle of suffering or potentially being able to use his inventions to stop Charlie. It's not like they want Pearl dead they just want to get home.

50 minutes ago, Lovens said:

We already know Wagstaff is a bad person and it was perfectly conveyed though animated shorts and previous interactions with them. It wouldn't make the story less impactful or less fitting if the final boss fight happened on the Lunar Island where CC fight already happens. 

The thing is not everyone watches the shorts while it's nice for those that do this is our in-game equivalent.

As for the impactfulness we'll just have to agree to disagree.

57 minutes ago, Lovens said:

Regardless or players ability or will to build around world landmarks they should stay intact because they bring uniqueness and flavor into the otherwise monotonous world with nothing interesting in it. It's the presence of landmarks and their position relative to each other that makes each world truly unique and different from other similar worlds. Klei clearly were able to add a few bosses recently with their onw unique setpieces and create new landmarks, surely they could have done it this time as well. They just chose to go the lazy route because of the time limits of their ridiculous Klei fest deadline they forced upon themselves, and now are stubborn to fix what was already implemented because it's now on prod and it works. I guess nobody at Klei even remotely cares that so many people are unhappy with it - not a word from any of the developers about the most controversial aspect of this update after all this time. 

I disagree having major changes to landmarks due to our actions I feel gives the player a greater feel for how we're impacting the constant as a whole throwing random set pieces everywhere is the lazy option as you don't really feel the impact it's just insert random thing that showed up one day.

Honestly if they have to backtrack this they may as well just end the story now because it'd be clear they just aren't allowed to do anything special just place random boxed off content that doesn't overlap with any existing inch of the world and at that point why even bother continuing the story? We'd already know nothing impactful is allowed to happen right?

Also let's talk about choice for a moment it's kind of annoying that there's still this idea that advancing the story is being presented as something you have to do because if that's the case then this game isn't a sandbox but it clearly is advancing the story is a choice you make noone is forcing you to do it and the game giving out rewards to do so does not suddenly remove your ability to make your own decisions it's simply increased incentives to reward those who take on the risks it brings. The we don't have a choice debate just feels like to me like an excuse to tell the devs to remove content that some people might not like at this point.

[Lovens]

3 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

 

Honestly if they have to backtrack this they may as well just end the story now because it'd be clear they just aren't allowed to do anything special just place random boxed off content that doesn't overlap with any existing inch of the world and at that point why even bother continuing the story? We'd already know nothing impactful is allowed to happen right?

Who said it has to be random and not fitting to the story, or not overlap with already existing land? Any other alternative suggestion that was posted here on the forums would have been well thought out and could have been incorporated into the story in a fitting manner, underlining character traits as well. 

Have an animated short showing Wagstaff doing his experiments and building stuff in the constant, and regularly dispose of random metal junk and scrap into the ocean. Bingo, you will have both a way of showing yet again how evil he is (polluting the environment) and a justification for a new floating island made of garbage and scrap show up to host the final boss made of the same garbage pretty much. It can even be a small island at first and then Wagstaff realises it can be expanded by those ugly scrap docks that will feel right at home there. And before lunar energy needed to power the boss mentioned again - yes, but we bring that lunar energy to Wagstaff in the form of captured gestalt already, so the ground doesn't need to have it. Bonus points of "being impactful" on the world of constant while also fitting the fact that after collecting so much garbage and scrap Wagstaff would inevitably litter the world with all of this junk. 

Or if that's too much work, simply put it on the main Lunar Island that has plenty of room, fits thematically, already has another lunar boss arena, doesn't need extra code to implement and retrofit the new island. And has all that lunar energy in the ground people keep mentioning. If it needs to have same qualities such as Pearl's island, make her give a blueprint for shell plugs for lunar fissures, easy. Lunar island would be a lot more fitting location for the final boss of the lunar side rather than a random island a little crab lady chose as her home. 

Don't want to put it on the main lunar island? Fine, there are lunar satellite islands that are just as fitting story and theme-wise. 

There's plenty of options that could have been brainstormed and explored if developers weren't too deaf on this subject and actually listened to feedback. Why even have betas if feedback gets ignored anyway? 

[lowercase skye]

9 minutes ago, Lovens said:

There's plenty of options that could have been brainstormed and explored if developers weren't too deaf on this subject and actually listened to feedback. Why even have betas if feedback gets ignored anyway? 

Not responding to every single piece of feedback doesn't mean they aren't listening to it, it just means they aren't implementing that specific feedback. If they were "ignoring" feedback from the beta, then we wouldn't even have the Hermit Rehomer item at all.

12 minutes ago, Lovens said:

Don't want to put it on the main lunar island? Fine, there are lunar satellite islands that are just as fitting story and theme-wise. 

This would place the boss arena in the middle of my base, which means there are probably tons of other people who also built there and would be dissatisfied. We would be having this exact same conversation right now, but splice in "lunar island" over any mention of "Pearl's island."

[gaymime]

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

-snip-

welp, i am out of the conversation! you said it better than i ever could and in a way that makes my story-loving artist's heart feel seen<3 (you also pretty succinctly explained why even though i don't always like the direction klei takes the story i wouldn't ask them to change a thing)

[Lovens]

17 minutes ago, lowercase skye said:

Not responding to every single piece of feedback doesn't mean they aren't listening to it, it just means they aren't implementing that specific feedback. If they were "ignoring" feedback from the beta, then we wouldn't even have the Hermit Rehomer item at all.

Look, implementing it and acknowledging it are two different things. They could have simply mentioned it in one of their update posts saying "We have heard your concerns about Pearl's island but we chose this route and it's never going to change no matter how many players are unhappy with it" or "We saw your feedback on it and when we have time we will consider alternative options but for now it will stay this way". But no, they deliberately choose to ignore this topic even when directly mentioned and I find it extremely neglectful and disrespectful to passionate players. By the way, the very same players who used to pour real money into the game each update by buying skins mainly aimed at base builders. At least they are not getting a single dime from me anymore until they fix what they did to Pearl or at least explain why it had to be this way and not any of the other suggested options. I wish more base builders boycotted Klei by not spending money on skins anymore. But most people got excited about the relocation kit, forgetting at what cost we got it, and how poorly it is implemented, and what we lost in the process. Especially since we could have had it all - the relocation kit, the original island intact, and the new boss somewhere else. 

Quote

This would place the boss arena in the middle of my base, which means there are probably tons of other people who also built there and would be dissatisfied. We would be having this exact same conversation right now, but splice in "lunar island" over any mention of "Pearl's island."

Lunar island does already have a boss arena in it though so it wouldn't be too out of place to have another fight happen exactly in the same place. Ideally it should be a place picked by the players like CC design already allows you to do. That's why I mentioned the shell plugs - they could have been placed into lunar fissures by us players so we could pick a spot where the boss fight happens. From the size of the warbot/scion arena I can tell it roughly takes about the same size as the CC fight, so if you based on Lunar island you would already have a part of your base dedicated for boss arena and wouldn't need to sacrifice any building space or destroy existing builds. And unlike CC, the new boss arena has boundaries as well which would prevent the boss from leaving it and destroying the rest of your base like CC would. 

Having its own dedicated island would have solved the issue with possibly grieving any bases entirely though. 

[Mysterious box]

51 minutes ago, Lovens said:

Who said it has to be random and not fitting to the story, or not overlap with already existing land? Any other alternative suggestion that was posted here on the forums would have been well thought out and could have been incorporated into the story in a fitting manner, underlining character traits as well. 

I sincerely doubt this as from what I've seen the solution keeps going towards throw it on a random island which again is just lazy and doesn't have the same impact as how it currently is designed. This questline clearly makes people feel something you remove the Pearl element from it and you lose that. Currently it makes you dislike Wagstaff, it makes you question how far our survivors will go to escape their unfortunate fates, and it makes you feel bad for Pearl that's not lazy that's good compelling story. Now let's go with the other option we throw it on some island it just becomes oh Wagstaff by the lunar side how is that more compelling? But hey at least Pearl's home is safe no? Also what about that is fitting who exactly does that fit? I could be reaching but you seem to want them to be defined as "the good guys" but the survivors were never "the good guys" they were always just people trying to survive. They put their survival above Pearls home that doesn't make them evil or suddenly out of character.

1 hour ago, Lovens said:

Have an animated short showing Wagstaff doing his experiments and building stuff in the constant, and regularly dispose of random metal junk and scrap into the ocean. Bingo, you will have both a way of showing yet again how evil he is (polluting the environment) and a justification for a new floating island made of garbage and scrap show up to host the final boss made of the same garbage pretty much. It can even be a small island at first and then Wagstaff realises it can be expanded by those ugly scrap docks that will feel right at home there. And before lunar energy needed to power the boss mentioned again - yes, but we bring that lunar energy to Wagstaff in the form of captured gestalt already, so the ground doesn't need to have it. Bonus points of "being impactful" on the world of constant while also fitting the fact that after collecting so much garbage and scrap Wagstaff would inevitably litter the world with all of this junk. 

I'm actually baffled the big he's evil moment after everything is "Wagstaff litters so now we know he's a problem!" After everything the player has seen up to this point you believe littering is what's gonna clue them into Wagstaff is a bad guy? This is what I mean this has no weight why should the player care that he's polluting a land controlled by what are basically elder gods? Why is the big battle special when it just goes to some random island of zero significance this just makes it so that the only important part once again is that Wagstaff gets caught.

1 hour ago, Lovens said:

Or if that's too much work, simply put it on the main Lunar Island that has plenty of room, fits thematically, already has another lunar boss arena, doesn't need extra code to implement and retrofit the new island. And has all that lunar energy in the ground people keep mentioning. If it needs to have same qualities such as Pearl's island, make her give a blueprint for shell plugs for lunar fissures, easy. Lunar island would be a lot more fitting location for the final boss of the lunar side rather than a random island a little crab lady chose as her home. 

As mentioned already this creates the same issue you have about it being on Pearls island for other people but even then I'd imagine the main reason it's on Pearls island is that the energy built up there over time making plugs suddenly and then it just being ready wouldn't make much sense plot wise as it does for Pearl's island if this is the case.

1 hour ago, Lovens said:

Don't want to put it on the main lunar island? Fine, there are lunar satellite islands that are just as fitting story and theme-wise. 

There in lies the problem though it doesn't have the same impact as Pearl's situation is a large part of that impact.

1 hour ago, Lovens said:

There's plenty of options that could have been brainstormed and explored if developers weren't too deaf on this subject and actually listened to feedback. Why even have betas if feedback gets ignored anyway? 

The devs have listened to the feedback and they compromised by letting the player send Pearl where they want you not liking them sticking to their vision and not bending to your will is not them ignoring feedback it's honestly insulting to try and frame it that way.

46 minutes ago, Lovens said:

Look, implementing it and acknowledging it are two different things. They could have simply mentioned it in one of their update posts saying "We have heard your concerns about Pearl's island but we chose this route and it's never going to change no matter how many players are unhappy with it" or "We saw your feedback on it and when we have time we will consider alternative options but for now it will stay this way". But no, they deliberately choose to ignore this topic even when directly mentioned and I find it extremely neglectful and disrespectful to passionate players. By the way, the very same players who used to pour real money into the game each update by buying skins mainly aimed at base builders. At least they are not getting a single dime from me anymore until they fix what they did to Pearl or at least explain why it had to be this way and not any of the other suggested options. I wish more base builders boycotted Klei by not spending money on skins anymore. But most people got excited about the relocation kit, forgetting at what cost we got it, and how poorly it is implemented, and what we lost in the process. Especially since we could have had it all - the relocation kit, the original island intact, and the new boss somewhere else. 

No this is disrespectful and infuriating due to how often you guys like to say this no megabasers are not the only ones who invest into skins and no this should not be a way to try and blackmail Klei into listening exclusively to your desires this whole "we megabasers are your biggest supporters therefore our word should mean more" thing needs to stop it really does it's actually really disgusting. Argue for or against change that's fine but don't stoop to that level I'd like to believe we're all better than that.

[lowercase skye]

4 hours ago, Lovens said:

By the way, the very same players who used to pour real money into the game each update by buying skins mainly aimed at base builders. At least they are not getting a single dime from me anymore until they fix what they did to Pearl or at least explain why it had to be this way and not any of the other suggested options. I wish more base builders boycotted Klei by not spending money on skins anymore

come on

[Lovens]

3 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

I sincerely doubt this as from what I've seen the solution keeps going towards throw it on a random island which again is just lazy and doesn't have the same impact as how it currently is designed. This questline clearly makes people feel something you remove the Pearl element from it and you lose that. Currently it makes you dislike Wagstaff, it makes you question how far our survivors will go to escape their unfortunate fates, and it makes you feel bad for Pearl that's not lazy that's good compelling story. Now let's go with the other option we throw it on some island it just becomes oh Wagstaff by the lunar side how is that more compelling? But hey at least Pearl's home is safe no? Also what about that is fitting who exactly does that fit? I could be reaching but you seem to want them to be defined as "the good guys" but the survivors were never "the good guys" they were always just people trying to survive. They put their survival above Pearls home that doesn't make them evil or suddenly out of character.

I'm actually baffled the big he's evil moment after everything is "Wagstaff litters so now we know he's a problem!" After everything the player has seen up to this point you believe littering is what's gonna clue them into Wagstaff is a bad guy? This is what I mean this has no weight why should the player care that he's polluting a land controlled by what are basically elder gods? Why is the big battle special when it just goes to some random island of zero significance this just makes it so that the only important part once again is that Wagstaff gets caught.

As mentioned already this creates the same issue you have about it being on Pearls island for other people but even then I'd imagine the main reason it's on Pearls island is that the energy built up there over time making plugs suddenly and then it just being ready wouldn't make much sense plot wise as it does for Pearl's island if this is the case.

There in lies the problem though it doesn't have the same impact as Pearl's situation is a large part of that impact.

The devs have listened to the feedback and they compromised by letting the player send Pearl where they want you not liking them sticking to their vision and not bending to your will is not them ignoring feedback it's honestly insulting to try and frame it that way.

No this is disrespectful and infuriating due to how often you guys like to say this no megabasers are not the only ones who invest into skins and no this should not be a way to try and blackmail Klei into listening exclusively to your desires this whole "we megabasers are your biggest supporters therefore our word should mean more" thing needs to stop it really does it's actually really disgusting. Argue for or against change that's fine but don't stoop to that level I'd like to believe we're all better than that.

And we're back to the same argument. No, I don't think we are the bad guys. We are the protagonists in this story, the victims of the circumstances. We are just trying to survive and find our way back home, we should not be punished for simply doing that. I fundamentally disagree that we have to be "taught a lesson" and "feel the consequences of our actions" when it's the only plot line mandatory by the developers that stripes players of any form of free will and requires them to "be bad" in order to complete the story line. Undertale was mentioning here earlier in the thread and while I haven't played it, from brief googling I already can see that the game offers you the choice to kill or spare every boss in the game, and the story line has different modes and lines depending on your choice. We easily could have had that. Don't Starve was always about freedom of exploration and decisions and experimentation. We are prompted to choose different things in this game and see what happens depending on our choices. In Don't Starve we are allowed to choose to take pity on Maxwell by turning off the gramophone and releasing him from the nightmare throne, instead of straight up murdering "the bad guy" at the end of the story line. We can choose to release a sick canary or to murder it, and we get different loot based on our decision. We can befriend numerous mobs instead of killing them. Even "evil" by its nature Wortox is offered a naughty or nice in his skill tree! We choose which gems we insert into Crab King's shell to activate him instead of straight up tasked by the game plot to blow him up with dynamite. We choose if we want to fight Antlion or to give her rocks trinkets to pacify her. Even with destructive rifts we are offered a choice to activate them or to not progress the world. Why can't we be offered a choice to spare Pearl's island by developers?

Being forced into the only plot at the end of the game story with a cartoonishly "bad" villain and becoming "bad guys" and "deserving a punishment" in the form of destruction of Pearl's island is incredibly disappointing and makes the game ending unsatisfactory. And while I and a lot of people do care about this sort of destruction, players who don't care (or happy with Pearl being moved) won't get taught a lesson or "feel more human" or "face consequences". If they don't care for Pearl's place in the first place, they won't see it as a punishment, they will see it as entertainment. It only really punishes people capable of developing sentimental attachment, or base building/decorating her island. Is it really fair to take away the plot ending from everyone that has their reasons for sparing her home (be it moral reasons or just a desire to have free will in the game they are playing, or desire to stand for their builds on her island)? 

I dont think we can ever agree on what makes the story fitting or impactful. When I write it down here on the forums post mortem as an alternative suggestion by the player, of course it would look like a stretch and since we have an official story line that doesn't match what I wrote you would be arguing with me to death proving it's not fitting or not impactful or not punishing enough (side note why do videogames need to be punishing for simply trying to complete them? I thought the main goal was enjoyment first things first. It's Klei Entertainment, not Klei Punishment). But imagine for a second that we are in an alternate universe where Warbot happened on its own dedicated island or on Lunar island. I doubt a single person would be here arguing that it's not fitting the story line, not impactful enough, doesn't teach players a lesson, and in order to tick all these boxes it absolutely needs to be moved to Pearl's island. I doubt anyone would ever consider her island as a place where the final boss fight should happen. It would feel like an absurd idea straight out of fever dream and people would argue its random and too small to be an impactful location for the final boss, and that such an important fight deserves its own point of interest at least, or the most fitting to the lunar side iconic location already tied with the first big lunar boss fight. 

[cropo]

God I can't believe this has probably worked in the past to make Klei backpedal on the themes and story elements in past updates. The game has slowly lost it's satiric wit over the years and I consider that to be rather unfortunate and seeing these kinds of complaints just makes it feel all the more unfortunate.

[Capybara007]

You all can get as philosophical as you want just remember gameplay > inmersion

This reminds me about when lunar hail was introduced and people cried that it didnt damage walls because "dst is supposed to be cruel and unforgiving!" Even though the only reason you would build walls is for decoration and almost never for survival

[cropo]

12 minutes ago, Capybara007 said:

You all can get as philosophical as you want just remember gameplay > inmersion

This reminds me about when lunar hail was introduced and people cried that it didnt damage walls because "dst is supposed to be cruel and unforgiving!" Even though the only reason you would build walls is for decoration and almost never for survival

Lunar hail added nothing to the story though; it was a gameplay feature and not a story decision. Evicting Pearl is a story decision. 

Lunar hail is literally just some rocks falling down, there was no story justification or meaning to it existing and doing what it did. It just...did, Wagstaff very clearly gives us an in-universe and in-character reason for why we are evicting Pearl.


If Lunar Rain was more fleshed out as a mechanic and had a more meaningful introduction into the game I would be defending it even if it griefed critters.

Edited June 23, 2025 by cropo

[Capybara007]

Just now, cropo said:

Lunar hail added nothing to the story though; it was a gameplay feature and not a story decision. Evicting Pearl is a story decision.

Fair enough

[Radicaljoe]

Everytime this argument pops up it really feels like the two sides boil down to.

"My ability to enjoy the game is undeniably worsened by this change" vs the trio of "you should feel bad" "Wagstaff is the bad guy now, you totally couldn't tell before" and "It's soooo important for the story that this old woman's island is turned into a parking lot you have no idea." 

[cropo]

The main difference this time is that there is a storyline significance to the change; it's not just Klei going "oh we're going to throw this hazard in your direction, said hazard will at random drop a bunch of structure-destroying pieces down for no thematic reason or purpose" like many of the previous other "fun ruining" updates. Those were gameplay focused, this is story focused.

The only thing that is lost here is decorating Pearl's home to be some kind of fancy resort, where what is gained in its place is progression in the actual story; this has been a recurring criticism by many players that the story has not been gainfully progressed in years.

The main issue of this topic, the way I see if is far less focused on Pearl-Island-Beautifying and more focused on two sides of "This makes me a bad person and I don't like being forced to be a bad person to advance the plot" and "Klei had a vision they want to uphold and and that is more important than your discomfort." Everything that follows is just building context to why one or the other is right.

This isn't the same as the previous changes that had this issue.