The fact that Moonstorms and electrical attacks ignite plant mobs, causing fires, and that this can’t even be disabled in the settings, is far too destructive.

[Mike23Ua]

1 hour ago, cropo said:

I seriously can't fathom why it's so hard to support adding an optional, default turned off option in the world settings for this feature. Harp on all you want about the divinity and sanctity of survival elements(Read: Incredibly easy chores that aren't affecting people actually playing for survival.) but you've seriously lost me at being against adding it as an optional toggle.

It's so weird that in other survival games and survival lite games you're able to manipulate nearly any setting you want, Project Zomboid literally allows you to take off zombie infections from bites or limit it to only bites and not scratches(the main threat and entire point of the game), Valheim lets you disable portal restrictions on transporting ore (The number one time-sink they use to keep people in the game.) Minecraft lets you turn off creeper explosions damaging the environment, and inventory loss on death and even Don't Starve itself has been constantly adding new toggles for players to use in their world creation. 

Even if you adamantly defend that random fires in megabases is a tried and true trait of the survival genre, you still don't really have any reason to be against a toggle.

If it’s toggled to off by default heck yeah I do.

You don’t seem to understand that there’s relaxed mode and endless mode-

On Endless Mode resources that do not EVER Respawn on Survival are toggled by default to respawn over time.

if you play a mode titled “Survival” you should have to endure by default, survival elements without having to opt to turn those on later.

If you toggle Minecraft to “Hardcore Mode” expect to only have one life and have your world deleted upon dying.

Its not even up for debate, it’s common logic.

[cropo]

19 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

If it’s toggled to off by default heck yeah I do.

You don’t seem to understand that there’s relaxed mode and endless mode-

On Endless Mode resources that do not EVER Respawn on Survival are toggled by default to respawn over time.

if you play a mode titled “Survival” you should have to endure by default, survival elements without having to opt to turn those on later.

If you toggle Minecraft to “Hardcore Mode” expect to only have one life and have your world deleted upon dying.

Its not even up for debate, it’s common logic.

People aren't asking for a generic 3 or 4 choices that change things behind their back, rather they want specific customizations for specific features. Something DST and DS have already had. If a player doesn't like certain this or that, they can individually target each one of those and toggle them on or off, just like every other survival game out there. Things like "endless" or "casual" or "adventure" are just the default presets for people who don't want to go through that customization and that's fine if they want to pick a general swathe of changes without any oversight on their end.

Most games are honestly starting to follow this trend, even in non-survival games where it's not just "hard medium easy" but allowing the player to change specific parts of balance rather than being limited to 3 or 4 presets that change far more than they asked for.

In Minecraft you can make a hardcore world, but still disable creeper griefing. 

[Bellium]

18 hours ago, lowercase skye said:

I am still waiting for anyone to explain how balls of electric lunar energy starting random fires that kill a specific selection of mobs is a fun and thematically satisfying challenge to overcome. It seems like the argument is just "it's destructive, so it's good", even though it makes no sense thematically and does not have any interesting or satisfying countermeasures.

It has easy solutions of "have fire protection for your base" and the fun narrative of "leaving alters to moon god open causing cosmic storms to sweep the continent can be bad actually" 

[Lovens]

6 hours ago, Bellium said:

It has easy solutions of "have fire protection for your base" and the fun narrative of "leaving alters to moon god open causing cosmic storms to sweep the continent can be bad actually" 

Covering a base the size of a whole biome with flingomatics and constantly maintaining all of them is not an "easy" solution. It's a tedious chore nobody asked for. Not to mention some people care about the rest of the world too and you can't cover the whole world in flimgomatics. Having things burn in all seasons uncontrollably is the opposite of fun. It doesn't add any challenge or danger to the player's survival. 

There should be a toggle in the settings to turn off the electric fires on plant mobs. This mechanic is not fun and not well thought out. We already have other destructive mechanics such as wildfires, rift earthquakes and giants. All of these things have toggles in the settings so people who dislike them can turn them off. I don't think a single person in this thread who is currently unhappy with electric fires will continue ranting about them if an option to turn them off is introduced. Come on, even things like Stage and Balatro machine can be turned off in the world settings and they are not even destructive yet developers still added these options in case people would like to try a world without them. Almost every other aspect of the game is customizable as well. 

Edited August 14, 2025 by Lovens

[Mike23Ua]

4 minutes ago, Lovens said:

Covering a base the size of a whole biome with flingomatics and constantly maintaining all of them is not an "easy" solution. It's a tedious chore nobody asked for. Not to mention some people care about the rest of the world too and you can't cover the whole world in flimgomatics. Having things burn in all seasons uncontrollably is the opposite of fun. It doesn't add any challenge or danger to the player's survival. 

There should be a toggle in the settings to turn off the electric fires on plant mobs. This mechanic is not fun and not well thought out. We already have other destructive mechanics such as wildfires, rift earthquakes and giants. All of these things have toggles in the settings so people who dislike them can turn them off. I don't think a single person in this thread who is currently unhappy with electric fires will continue ranting about them if an option to turn them off is introduced. Come on, even things like Stage and Balatro machine can be turned off in the world settings and they are not even destructive yet developers still added these options in case people would like to try a world without them. Almost every other aspect of the game is customizable as well. 

Sometimes I wish bases had a “size limit” this way people can’t whine when they try to turn the entire biome into their base that it’s not conforming to base standards.

But anyway…. Outside of that I wish Klei would make the new content that they add to their game actually be freaking cool for once.

Take the Tingle Node fence and the electrocution state of enemy mobs for example: it would be cool if this fence “Attracted” Moon Gleams to it. both to prevent moongleams from burning your base, and to uhh *very creatively build a boss incinerator oven*

That makes use of the fence, the electrocute status, and the destructive moongleams. 

[Lovens]

32 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

Sometimes I wish bases had a “size limit” this way people can’t whine when they try to turn the entire biome into their base that it’s not conforming to base standards.

But anyway…. Outside of that I wish Klei would make the new content that they add to their game actually be freaking cool for once.

Take the Tingle Node fence and the electrocution state of enemy mobs for example: it would be cool if this fence “Attracted” Moon Gleams to it. both to prevent moongleams from burning your base, and to uhh *very creatively build a boss incinerator oven*

That makes use of the fence, the electrocute status, and the destructive moongleams. 

If you don't like terraforming entire biomes, don't do it. I don't see why other players should be limited in their creativity by artificial restrictions though. I see this new electric fire as one of these annoying restrictions. Fire in general has been always a frustrating mechanic not really threatening the player (and survival gameplay) but hurting base builders when it comes to a larger scale. Not a single in-game solution to wildfires/regular fires works properly and scales well for large bases. Anything that's bigger than a couple of screens is annoying to maintain, and flingomatics are super limiting with their small range, circular area, large placement footprints, low durability time (once turned on, they run out of fuel in like 3 days. It'd be great if they could have at least been upgraded to be powered by CC shards for infinite fuel, like Winona catapults. Or at least have their capacity incresed to last at least a season without refueling), slow and bad reaction time when they are in a standby mode. Not to mention flingos look ugly, it's a large mechanical thing that is taking up a whole tile, doesn't allow to place walls or fences close to it anymore to hide it, and it also makes obnoxious sounds when turned on. Ice crystaleyezers are even worse than flingos because they are actively trying to kill players in their proximity even in summer, spawn glaciers around, have a dead icy zone around them where you can't stand without dying and therefore can't use this for any building or planting, and are incompatible with thermal stones (ruin their durability and will make them go cold when you enter the area). 

Anyway, at least this all nonsense and frustration with imperfect solutions to an annoying game mechanic can be ignored if you turn wildfires and fire hounds off in the settings. I don't see any reason why electric fires can't get their own setting as well. 

Edited August 14, 2025 by Lovens

[Mysterious box]

On 8/12/2025 at 2:06 PM, grem6 said:

tbf this has nothing to do with survival, you can survive very comfortably with no structures at all other than alchemy, and rebuilding an alchemy is very cheap, so plant creature ignition basically doesn't affect that, assuming you'd even get plant creatures near somehow

You can survive without a base but it's like surviving with just a spear and grass armor it's possible but your quality of life goes down significantly if survival structures aren't a factor then the only options would be directly harming the player but those sorts of choices are limited due to newer content and reworks completely bypassing restrictions like food limitations while they don't always have to be able destruction specifically having survival content effect bases givings more meaningful interactions with survival.

[SilverSpoon]

3 hours ago, Mike23Ua said:

Sometimes I wish bases had a “size limit” this way people can’t whine when they try to turn the entire biome into their base that it’s not conforming to base standards.

Criticism of the Ice Flingomatic’s narrow range is never “whine.”

This game has added tons of new base structures, but has the Flingo’s range ever been improved since solo Don't Starve? It actually was via the Above-Average Tree Trunk. However, for whatever reason, this update has canceled that.

Quote

Take the Tingle Node fence and the electrocution state of enemy mobs for example: it would be cool if this fence “Attracted” Moon Gleams to it. both to prevent moongleams from burning your base, and to uhh *very creatively build a boss incinerator oven*

That makes use of the fence, the electrocute status, and the destructive moongleams.

To be fair, that would be a good solution. It should be made togglable for that the mob zoo doesn't turn into a mob grinder.

Edited August 14, 2025 by SilverSpoon

[lowercase skye]

1 hour ago, Mike23Ua said:

Sometimes I wish bases had a “size limit” this way people can’t whine when they try to turn the entire biome into their base that it’s not conforming to base standards.

Why are you so vitriolic towards people who play a sandbox game in a different manner from you? No base builder has ever gone on this forum and said "I wish the game would kill you if you didn't build a big enough base, so that those whiny babies who don't megabase are forced to!", because that would be a really mean and unnecessary thing to wish on people who are enjoying the game in a different way from you.

[Mike23Ua]

3 minutes ago, lowercase skye said:

Why are you so vitriolic towards people who play a sandbox game in a different manner from you? No base builder has ever gone on this forum and said "I wish the game would kill you if you didn't build a big enough base, so that those whiny babies who don't megabase are forced to!", because that would be a really mean and unnecessary thing to wish on people who are enjoying the game in a different way from you.

It’s a survival based game where the description on the product box reads that I’m living in a hostile world full of things that hate me and want me to die.

therefore I do not expect enemies and events to politely look for a place that it is allowed to spawn that is not considered part of my “base”

This rule goes TRIPLE TRUE if my base is taking up entire biomes.

Im not even arguing I’m just stating logic.

[lowercase skye]

6 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

It’s a survival based game where the description on the product box reads that I’m living in a hostile world full of things that hate me and want me to die.

It's a survival based game where the store page proudly shows off a content creator's base which spans half the world, as an example of something you're encouraged to do in the game:

And again, no base builder has ever tried to use that as a way to say "those whiny babies who don't like megabases should be FORCED to make one that spans multiple biomes, because that's what the game is ACTUALLY about! I'm just stating logic here, which doesn't care about your feelings!"

[SilverSpoon]

32 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

It’s a survival based game where the description on the product box reads that I’m living in a hostile world full of things that hate me and want me to die.

However, don’t ignore what it also write that.

Well well well... would you look at that, it’s listed before “uncompromising” or “survival,” and it’s even capitalized for emphasis. This is good decision, don't you? Since this game sells SKINs not survival BATTLE PASS or uncompromising BATTLE PASS.

Edited August 14, 2025 by SilverSpoon

[GrapeVruit]

44 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

It’s a survival based game where the description on the product box reads that I’m living in a hostile world full of things that hate me and want me to die.

Mike, that's in the Steam description for singleplayer, not DST. The two games seem similar on the surface, but when you get into them, the two experiences couldn't be more different from one another. 

[linabagel]

9 hours ago, Mike23Ua said:

这是一款生存类游戏，产品盒上的描述是，我生活在一个充满敌意的世界里，这个世界里的一切都恨我并希望我死。

The game you mentioned is called DS, and it stopped being updated several years ago.

Edited August 14, 2025 by linabagel

[Capybara007]

Mike when i make a base and survive a year instead of dying in day 5 to a frog

[Captain_Rage]

12 hours ago, Mike23Ua said:

Sometimes I wish bases had a “size limit” this way people can’t whine when they try to turn the entire biome into their base that it’s not conforming to base standards.

But anyway…. Outside of that I wish Klei would make the new content that they add to their game actually be freaking cool for once.

Take the Tingle Node fence and the electrocution state of enemy mobs for example: it would be cool if this fence “Attracted” Moon Gleams to it. both to prevent moongleams from burning your base, and to uhh *very creatively build a boss incinerator oven*

That makes use of the fence, the electrocute status, and the destructive moongleams. 

Yes, as in a soft limit. This is actually a spot-on point. If you have a reasonably sized base the upkeep is more than manageable and environmental hazards won't be tedious to prevent or recover from, or even noticeable with proper planning. If you want an overly sized base you better start planning ahead and make contingency plans and build accordingly. If you insist to turn DST into SimCity and want to take over the map your butt will hurt only because you decide to go against the core ideas of a survival game. Annoying and destructive bosses and environmental hazards is still a part of what makes DST a survival game. One of the fundamental concepts of both Don't Starve and DST has always been to keep the player on their toes and never have them feel entirely safe. 

As someone pointed out, perhaps the fire that Moongleams cause now is simply another survival check the devs decided to throw into the game. The timing was perhaps a bit random but it would make sense to add a trade-off to giving players the ability to activate full moon lit nights at a whim with the benefits it brings.

[Mysterious box]

11 hours ago, Mike23Ua said:

It’s a survival based game where the description on the product box reads that I’m living in a hostile world full of things that hate me and want me to die.

therefore I do not expect enemies and events to politely look for a place that it is allowed to spawn that is not considered part of my “base”

This rule goes TRIPLE TRUE if my base is taking up entire biomes.

Im not even arguing I’m just stating logic.

 

11 hours ago, lowercase skye said:

It's a survival based game where the store page proudly shows off a content creator's base which spans half the world, as an example of something you're encouraged to do in the game:

And again, no base builder has ever tried to use that as a way to say "those whiny babies who don't like megabases should be FORCED to make one that spans multiple biomes, because that's what the game is ACTUALLY about! I'm just stating logic here, which doesn't care about your feelings!"

Techinically your both right the game wants you to expand your area of operations but it also wants you to defend that expanded base we call this a survival sandbox. The larger your base the more effort required to maintain.

[Mysterious box]

Also as an aside for anyone who wants to claim base isn't part of survival just look at our seasonal bosses. Deerclops intentionally goes after your structures, bearger goes after your stored foods, and antlion punishes you for tunneling in base the game couldn't be clearer where it stands on that argument.

[SilverSpoon]

2 hours ago, Captain_Rage said:

Yes, as in a soft limit. This is actually a spot-on point. If you have a reasonably sized base the upkeep is more than manageable and environmental hazards won't be tedious to prevent or recover from, or even noticeable with proper planning. If you want an overly sized base you better start planning ahead and make contingency plans and build accordingly. If you insist to turn DST into SimCity and want to take over the map your butt will hurt only because you decide to go against the core ideas of a survival game. Annoying and destructive bosses and environmental hazards is still a part of what makes DST a survival game. One of the fundamental concepts of both Don't Starve and DST has always been to keep the player on their toes and never have them feel entirely safe. 

Megabasing had long been a allowed playstyle in this “Fight, Farm, Build, and Explore Together. And, incidentally, survive” game. We could do to deal with Giants and Hounds to set up battle zones or use a Telelocator, to deal with Smoldering to plant Above-Average Tree Trunks or by keeping it raining. or simply, switch off destructive mechanics altogether.

With this update, that playstyle has suddenly become heavily constrained. Whatever you or anyone else says, Flingo micromanagement is bad game design that forces chores instead of gameplay, it's not just me who's saying this, other people are saying it too. Setting aside personal philosophy about survival games or Don't Starve because it depends on different opinions, by what logic is it ever good for a playstyle that had been possible up to now to suddenly become impossible?

2 hours ago, Captain_Rage said:

As someone pointed out, perhaps the fire that Moongleams cause now is simply another survival check the devs decided to throw into the game. The timing was perhaps a bit random but it would make sense to add a trade-off to giving players the ability to activate full moon lit nights at a whim with the benefits it brings.

As I said before, even if Moonstorm's downside wasn't enough, tacking the game's harshest punishment, base arson, on like a booby trap to a system that was previously universal since 4 year is an absolutely bad idea.

If Moonstorm’s downsides are really insufficient, at first we should consider what would actually be commensurate.

Edited August 14, 2025 by SilverSpoon

[Bumber64]

13 hours ago, SilverSpoon said:

Well well well... would you look at that, it’s listed before “uncompromising” or “survival,” and it’s even capitalized for emphasis. This is good decision, don't you? Since this game sells SKINs not survival BATTLE PASS or uncompromising BATTLE PASS.

What's more, it only claims to be related to a game with uncompromising survival. It doesn't actually promise to add more of it. Clearly compromises were made for multiplayer.

1 hour ago, Mysterious box said:

Also as an aside for anyone who wants to claim base isn't part of survival just look at our seasonal bosses. Deerclops intentionally goes after your structures, bearger goes after your stored foods, and antlion punishes you for tunneling in base the game couldn't be clearer where it stands on that argument.

Those all give an ample warning for you to just leave base. You can also disable them. This was already addressed earlier in the thread.

Edited August 14, 2025 by Bumber64

[SilverSpoon]

2 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

Techinically your both right the game wants you to expand your area of operations but it also wants you to defend that expanded base we call this a survival sandbox. The larger your base the more effort required to maintain.

Some people really don't enjoy that game design what "The larger your base the more effort required to maintain", tbh it looks like a tax. Isn't expanding your base enough effort?

I think DST devs are aware of this, so they implemented solution as the Above-Average Tree which requires an initial investment but  a permanent and requires no maintenance, and why they postponed the newly added "effort required to maintain" Boulderfall that occurs after the Shadow Rift but until after "after the Rift" the endgame and implemented solution as pillars that do not require too much maintenance effort.

---

Looking at your opinion, the example that fits best for me is RimWorld. It’s not a survival sandbox but a colony-management game, yet it has a system where raids intensify as the “asset value” of your base and supplies goes up. That system is largely accepted by most players, so I don’t deny that what you’re proposing can be good gamedesign.

That said, I think it’s accepted in RimWorld because there’s a cap on raid size, there are ton of in-game countermeasures, and most importantly, the settings let you tone raids down or disable them entirely. so I think that system where “the you better, the more effort you have to do” only works well when it’s as fair as possible to the player.

Edited August 14, 2025 by SilverSpoon

[00petar00]

It is interesting that the same people will always argue for every single punishment or chore that is added in the game to stay even when it doesn't affect them for the most part.  

This is so niche that most players wouldn't even know If they don't visit forums so who knows how many bases will burn down and it will continue happening in the future, maybe someone has moonstorm on only to gather materials for CC and this doesn't happen to them for months of playing but there will be a coincidence where it all aligns and their whole base burns down.

Why does it always come back to the wording "uncompromising survival" that can mean literally so many different things or nothing at all for DST. There have been years of updates that have been more casual or building focused and the game has been getting easier to play so why do you think developers will walk it back now and focus on survival? 

Skins are the primary income for DST so obviously for profit they have to let us build as much as we want, there can't exist mechanics that are uncontrollable by the player or tied to a switch like rifts when you have years worth of content tied behind it.

I'll be the first one to support all of the survival, chore like and base destroying mechanics If they are added to world settings and turned off by default, the player base should've been split by now between megabasers/casual players and survival players. Why don't we have different game modes that are more flshed out and fit specific playstyles compared to the current ones?

[Mike23Ua]

2 hours ago, Bumber64 said:

What's more, it only claims to be related to a game with uncompromising survival. It doesn't actually promise to add more of it. Clearly compromises were made for multiplayer.

Those all give an ample warning for you to just leave base. You can also disable them. This was already addressed earlier in the thread.

Aight look I’m sorry but… what kinda of freaking game are you guys even playing? No im not being a jerk I’m asking a legit question that I want an actual honest answer to…

Have you ever played this game on Xbox? And if you have… have you ever played with Random Newbies? And if you have do you realize how hard if not impossible it is to get people to run away from base whenever any sort of destructive event is about to happen?

Deerclops, Bearger, Fire Hounds, Antlion Sinkhole Earth Quakes, Eye of Terror/Twins of Terror when they Enter Phase Two.

That last one plays Spin the Bottle and randomly picks a player it wants to date for the night.

My point is that in order for this to be a “Safe Farming & Base Building Game”

You have to intentionally toggle off every destructive feature, and/or Kick players &/Or Password Protect Your World so underexperienced noobs can not join and destroy your Mega Base. Either by intentional trolling, or through unintentionally lack of knowledge as to how every little feature in the game works.

You can choose to disagree with me all you want but the games core gameplay elements, which can’t be avoided unless you turn them off or have EVERYONE in the server agree to flee the area so it off-loads, heavily implies that Once you Mega Base: Your no longer playing the game the way it was intended.

Thats my opinion, that’s my stance, I explained it logically.. and it’s going to be hard for me to become wavered from it.

Edited August 14, 2025 by Mike23Ua

[oregu]

On 8/12/2025 at 10:11 PM, cropo said:

I seriously can't fathom why it's so hard to support adding an optional, default turned off option in the world settings for this feature. Harp on all you want about the divinity and sanctity of survival elements(Read: Incredibly easy chores that aren't affecting people actually playing for survival.) but you've seriously lost me at being against adding it as an optional toggle.

It's so weird that in other survival games and survival lite games you're able to manipulate nearly any setting you want, Project Zomboid literally allows you to take off zombie infections from bites or limit it to only bites and not scratches(the main threat and entire point of the game), Valheim lets you disable portal restrictions on transporting ore (The number one time-sink they use to keep people in the game.) Minecraft lets you turn off creeper explosions damaging the environment, and inventory loss on death and even Don't Starve itself has been constantly adding new toggles for players to use in their world creation. 

Even if you adamantly defend that random fires in megabases is a tried and true trait of the survival genre, you still don't really have any reason to be against a toggle.

i mean, it takes like 20 secs to make a mod for it. i hate spontaneous combustion with a passion, so im probably gonna make a mod if theres not setting for it.

[AliceShiki]

On 8/12/2025 at 11:11 PM, cropo said:

I seriously can't fathom why it's so hard to support adding an optional, default turned off option in the world settings for this feature. Harp on all you want about the divinity and sanctity of survival elements(Read: Incredibly easy chores that aren't affecting people actually playing for survival.) but you've seriously lost me at being against adding it as an optional toggle.

It's so weird that in other survival games and survival lite games you're able to manipulate nearly any setting you want, Project Zomboid literally allows you to take off zombie infections from bites or limit it to only bites and not scratches(the main threat and entire point of the game), Valheim lets you disable portal restrictions on transporting ore (The number one time-sink they use to keep people in the game.) Minecraft lets you turn off creeper explosions damaging the environment, and inventory loss on death and even Don't Starve itself has been constantly adding new toggles for players to use in their world creation. 

Even if you adamantly defend that random fires in megabases is a tried and true trait of the survival genre, you still don't really have any reason to be against a toggle.

I don't think a toggle in the settings is the right way to go about it, but I also definitely would never complain about any toggle in the settings ever.

Like, I'm always happy with devs giving player more options. I've suggested some stuff being added as toggles in the settings before too.

I forgot what it was that I suggested before, funnily enough, but I remember suggesting it would be something that would be off by default, so... Yeah, I can get the idea behind it.

I just think that a downside being added to Moonstorms was accidental, but was also a good accident, and I would be happy if more downsides would be added to Moonstorms in the future too... But if options in the settings are added, I also consider it a win-win, because more options are never a bad thing IMO.