Should Spelunker Bridges Collapse while Unloaded?

[JazzyGames]

Today I discovered that spelunker bridges, when left unloaded and not fully under the protective range of a pillar, run the chance of collapse from earthquakes and cave-ins. I built roughly 30 units of bridges, left the caves for about 10 days, and when I returned they were all gone. Others seem to be of the mind that this mechanic is working as intended.

With an incoming caves update I am hoping that we can revisit this mechanic and possibly consider a revision. And the following are my arguments:

Firstly, the pillar being more or less a hard requirement for the retention of bridges is unusual considering they are different crafting tiers: the bridge requires an alchemy engine but the pillar is locked behind a boss. If the cost of a pillar is necessary to the bridge then I think it should be built into the assembly cost. There can maybe be a separate design for a bridge pillar on the alchemy engine tier that functions solely to support the bridge and protect it from damage.

But secondly - and this is my main objection - the destruction of an unloaded structure is wildly inconsistent with the behavior of environmental threats in DST. I struggle to think of other world events that trigger the destruction of unloaded structures; everything typically happens around the player and we have built worlds with that assumption in mind. Wildfires occur locally around players; they do not burn forests or set structures on fire in unloaded areas. Cave-ins do not occur in caves when no player is present and destroy unprotected structures. Deerclops does not destroy bases while no player is on the surface (and furthermore we would currently have no means of countering this). Lightning does not strike random unloaded areas during Spring. Moongleams do not burn unloaded brightshades, gekkos, or grass gators.

If the notion of these world events occurring in unloaded areas and destroying structures has been off the table for the entirety of the development of DST then I am unsure why spelunker bridges would suddenly appear as an exception. Furthermore if the cost of a pillar is an absolute necessity to maintaining bridges - as an additional cost on top of the already exorbitant cost of bridges - then it should be more implicit to the design of bridges and accessible to players at the same time in a world's progress. Otherwise you are introducing threats before providing any means of countering them.

[ShadowbirdRH]

I think it's important to balance power/utility with cost/risk. Being able to bridge gaps underground is extremely useful, so needing to pay a high cost or deal with their vulnerability is fair balance. As for being able to build them before you're able to protect them, they still have a degree of utility if you can use them right after placing them, even if they're probably not going to be there when you return, which may or may not be a cost worth paying depending on the situation. It sucks that you deployed 30 of the things only to have lost them all, but learning punishing lessons is pretty in character for Don't Starve.

I think the destruction of unloaded bridges is fair because unlike so many other structures that only serve their purpose when they are loaded, the bridges' function is to be counted on when you need it, even if you only use it a moment at a time. It makes less sense to offer that kind of protection by default to something that would otherwise have a very small window of vulnerability, as oppose to base structures where you/others are likely to be hanging out around a lot.

[cybers2001]

1 hour ago, ShadowbirdRH said:

I think it's important to balance power/utility with cost/risk. Being able to bridge gaps underground is extremely useful, so needing to pay a high cost or deal with their vulnerability is fair balance. As for being able to build them before you're able to protect them, they still have a degree of utility if you can use them right after placing them, even if they're probably not going to be there when you return, which may or may not be a cost worth paying depending on the situation. It sucks that you deployed 30 of the things only to have lost them all, but learning punishing lessons is pretty in character for Don't Starve.

I think the destruction of unloaded bridges is fair because unlike so many other structures that only serve their purpose when they are loaded, the bridges' function is to be counted on when you need it, even if you only use it a moment at a time. It makes less sense to offer that kind of protection by default to something that would otherwise have a very small window of vulnerability, as oppose to base structures where you/others are likely to be hanging out around a lot.

Getting a one-time use out of a bridge because you crossed a gap and then didn't return to that area for multiple seasons is hella cost ineffective. Especially considering that lazy explorers trivialize it anyway.

[ShadowbirdRH]

  

42 minutes ago, cybers2001 said:

Getting a one-time use out of a bridge because you crossed a gap and then didn't return to that area for multiple seasons is hella cost ineffective. Especially considering that lazy explorers trivialize it anyway.

Hence, "may or may not be a cost worth paying depending on the situation."

[JazzyGames]

Actually most of the bridges I’ve seen in worlds are built around cave bases. Earthquakes happen a lot in the caves so I think the windows of potential destruction would be quite frequent.

Every time you place a structure you do so with the expectation that it will be available when you need it. Tooth traps during a hound wave, tents for healing, docks for traversal. I really don’t think bridges are an exception in this regard. Docks are equally useful for bridging gaps, cheaper, significantly more versatile, and not subject to random destruction, certainly not while unloaded. So I’m not sure why a two-tile bridge in the caves needs to be at any special extra risk of unloaded destruction.

Edited 1 hour ago by JazzyGames