Retribution Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Actually, the "Maxwell" idea's pretty good. You'd have to work on the balance a lot and add new things so your options weren't either swiftly exausted or swiftly locked off by buildings but having one player play the game as is and the other send hazards their way at the right time to try and sabotage them is actually something I could see.It doesn't break the atmosphere and it's a really original type of multiplayer. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414106 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximum124 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Actually, the "Maxwell" idea's pretty good.You'd have to work on the balance a lot and add new things so your options weren't either swiftly exausted or swiftly locked off by buildings but having one player play the game as is and the other send hazards their way at the right time to try and sabotage them is actually something I could see.It doesn't break the atmosphere and it's a really original type of multiplayer. It also steps up the time tables for say like a race, both players are trying to get resources, the survivor needs to have certain things to defend themselves and make surviving against the other players onslaught easier. Instead of just playing casually (You can easily just wander around the island for a good 7 days or so just living off of berries and carrots and felling the occasional tree) it would require planning ahead and trying to anticipate the other players moves before they happen. Have you ever heard of Dungeonland? Think of that but with more of a focus on survival and resources. Also @Doctor H. Derp You have to understand my anger at people shooting down ideas like this, because it would HAVE TO BE a mod, I've seen so many threads spammed with that no multiplayer emote and locked in the mod section just because someone mentioned multiplayer. People treat it as a taboo even though about 60% of the player population wants it Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414137 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battal Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 People treat it as a taboo even though about 60% of the player population wants itBecause 60% of the player population probably plays COD and Counterstrike. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414142 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximum124 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Because 60% of the player population probably plays COD and Counterstrike. You say that like its a bad thing That really saddens me You know I'm in a long distance relationship so me and my partner can't do much but talk, but online gaming means we can do things together. We can have fun together and interact with eachother more then skype could ever provide. people have friends that they want to get together with and unwind after a long day at school/work You're also comparing apples to oranges, COD and counterstrike are multilayer first based shooters, an entirely different genre to survival. You can have atmospheric, enjoyable multiplayer survival experiences. Multiplayer also extends a games lifespan. And in the end, you don't have to download the mod and play it. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414144 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battal Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Multiplayer also extends a games lifespan. Who says multiplayer extends a game's lifespan? Note that games where multiplayer is the main basis last longer. Don't Starve's essence is that of a single player survival game. Not every game needs multiplayer to be successful. Some games are better without multiplayer. And while 60% of players might immediately get on the game and start trolling, 40% will never use it. And in the end, you don't have to download the mod and play it. You have to download the update though. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414147 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosten Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I like the Maxwell God vs Player thing, although it would need to be carefully balanced so it doesn't end up like the Plants vs Zombies multiplayer where the zombies (Maxwell) could just swarm the player early on before they had any resources and win every time Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414148 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximum124 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Who says multiplayer extends a game's lifespan? Note that games where multiplayer is the main basis last longer. Don't Starve's essence is that of a single player survival game. Not every game needs multiplayer to be successful. Some games are better without multiplayer. And while 60% of players might immediately get on the game and start trolling, 40% will never use it. You have to download the update though. You're right I don't, I probably won't buy the DLC either. And yes not every game needs multiplayer to be successful, Don't starve is already successful. But look ten years down the line, will you remember Don't starve? Will you still be playing Don't starve? Probably not. Multiplayer can offer a new playerbase, new mod opportunities, and a second wind if you will. Yes trolling will always be a problem with any game, there will also always be ways to kick and stay away from problematic people. I'm basically playing devils advocate here since if someone like you says no everyone agrees, so excuse me for wanting something a little more from a game I love to death yet I'm entirely bored of. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414150 Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuGonce Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 It would not complicate on the resource part,on my opinion. While one gather stuff,the other fight. But this would ruin the game. Sometimes this game throws so many things at you that you can get confused on what to do first,and with multiplayer this would not exist. This if it's 2 players,max 3. But SIXTEEN? With this amount of people,you could all stunlock Deerclops without armor and win. Not to mention that just to make Log Suits for everyone,you would need to destroy a whole forest. Everything would be ridiculously easy. As the "God player vs Victim player" thing, trolls could easily put countless things to kill you before you could even get up after the intro. It would need a VERY complex "contextual" limit. Not that bad idea though, but hard to make enjoyable. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414151 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battal Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 There's about 3 games I remember from 10 years ago, much less games I play from 10 years ago. So that's not saying much. And yeah, the game gets kinda old after a while. That's why Klei keeps giving us more content. (Lava caves!) Also, if you reach 666 posts during our discussion, that's going to be awkward. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414152 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximum124 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 There's about 3 games I remember from 10 years ago, much less games I play from 10 years ago. So that's not saying much. And yeah, the game gets kinda old after a while. That's why Klei keeps giving us more content. (Lava caves!) Also, if you reach 666 posts during our discussion, that's going to be awkward. Just in the end you don't really have a place in this discussion if you don't want multiplayer, because it's counterproductive to the discussion if all you're going to do is to tell us to stop talking about it. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414155 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battal Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'm not telling you to stop talking about it, I'm engaging in a discussion with you. If you want to ignore my questions and blame me for things I didn't do, I have no inclination to continue. Goodbye. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414161 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greig91 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 To be honest I don't think multiplayer would hurt the game because if you didn't like it you could just not play it. As far as I am concerned though I don't feel it would add anything for me personally. Actually I would enjoy joining someones game as Wolfgang and running around eating every carrot, berry and mushroom in sight like some big featherless, unstoppable Gobbler. But I wouldn't because that would be impolite and entirely self serving, which I never am.. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414164 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneyHam Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Multiplayer is a bad idea and it should feel bad. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414178 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximum124 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Multiplayer is a bad idea and it should feel bad. Thank you for your entirely necessary comment Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414190 Share on other sites More sharing options...
emerphish Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 *sigh* Multiplayer would be optional in the first place so how the hell would it ruin single player?! Many people, myself included, just had the whole "no mlutiplayer thing shoved down our throats the second we got here. I'll second Maximum. Mulitplayer would add something a little different to Don't Starve. The whole time it is basically just run around exploring, be it surface caves or ruins. Building a base, same thing every game. Science machines and magic machines, crock pots farms and drying racks, then put some walls and you're done. Combat, just kite and hit, kite and hit over and over. After you get past day 100 starting from day 1 is no longer appealing, if you're anything like me. I just got the theuclite club and armor, and had achieved everything I wanted to, now the game isn't fun. Killed deerclops, Mactusk, Queens, Treeguards, and it only gets easier. Klei won't make mulitplayer, but that doesn't mean it is a horrible idea. The developers can be wrong. Now if there was a mulitplayer mode(more likely mod) then we would do the repetitive thing with friends . If you wanted to play online, you could, if not then you could play by yourself. A new option couldn't ruin something seperate. Yes, it would get really boring really fast and it would prob be stupid, but it would be fun for a while, and nice every now and again to take a break from the monotony. Good day. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414208 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwerBomb Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 YES I AGREE MULTYPLAYER IS THE BEST AND THEY SHULD AD ZOMBIES AND CARS AND GUNS TOO LK IN CALL OF DUTY MY FAVORITE GAME!1!!1!1!!11! Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414209 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ortorin Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 This is how I look at it: I have already played a ton of hours of this game. I had a lot of fun trying to survive and thrive in a seriously hostile environment. After awhile though, it all just became a grind. The problem is the fact that I am *NOT* trapped on this island fighting for my life, I am simply hitting a few buttons on my keyboard and mouse. That is a problem because the idea of "surviving" is tied into the life-span of the person, therefore, I am never going to feel like I survived anything because my own life was never in danger. That's the thing though... this game was designed to be a super-hard-core-survive-with-noting-but-sticks adventure, and it does a good job at that. What this games does *NOT* provide is any reason to continue playing after you've gotten the hang of the mechanics. There is next to no replayability to this game once you've mastered it, the only thing a player has left to do is... everything all over again. It's like playing WoW but once you hit max level you have to start all over at level one. The patch for the replayablity is end-game content and DLC. I'm not holding my breath about this DLC though. I foresee many cool new items, mobs, biomes, and what-not added to the game, but that is nothing more than a few more hours of play time tacked on with a $10 download. There needs to be a change of mechanics in order to add more replayability to this game, not just new items and stuff. I'm not even going to try to come up with mechanical changes to the game that would extend the replayability... I'm not as well learned in game design as I would like to be. Others are more willing to voice their opinion on that matter, that is multiplayer. I believe that the community at large can *feel* the lack of replayablity in the game design. Being unable to articulate what would truly make the game as it is (single player) last longer, many default to the most common idea anyone has about how to make a situation more fun... more people. The cry for multiplayer is the cry for more intelligence in the game. It is pathetically easy to just run away from everything or to lead them to their natural enemies in the game. There is nothing in this game that offers a unique challenge compared to anything else. Even the Deerclops is just copy+paste from any other mob templet with an AOE attack and a taste for collateral damage. Nothing more than a Treeguard +1. People want multiplayer because they want one of the hardest obstacle to survival every conceived... someone else thinking of ways to kill you. Adding other players to the game makes it harder. Everyone seems to focus on the resources and the base placement and blah blah blah... what about the truly crafty human elements that will be added in by those that want you dead? Imagine that you have stumbled upon another player's base that is un-protected. Guess what? Free stuff! So you run in the base, thinking that the guy that made the walls out of grass was an idiot, and proceed to open the fist chest inside. You think you got it made, but you are wrong. By the time you open the second or third empty chest and really start to wonder wtf is going on, I'm going to pop out of my Bush hat that I was wearing, block the entrance to my trap, and light the thing on fire... laughing manically as you turn to ash. The element of intelligence is what people truly want over multiplayer. This game lacks it, multiplayer *can* supply it. I don't think that multiplayer is the right way to go to add more intelligence to the game, but hey... to each their own. So, if what you are looking for is more people to play with, keep supporting multiplayer and hopeful there will be a mod made by/for you. If you are like me and want this game to have the ability to *TRULY* surprise you and *TRULY* challenge your survival skills, get off the multiplayer band-wagon and start thinking about what would add more intelligence to the game that can rival your own. That's my 2-cents. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414246 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximum124 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 YES I AGREE MULTYPLAYER IS THE BEST AND THEY SHULD AD ZOMBIES AND CARS AND GUNS TOO LK IN CALL OF DUTY MY FAVORITE GAME!1!!1!1!!11! You keep comparing don't starve to COD when the two have nothing in common, and if you read any of the posts here you could clearly see that we're not wanting zombies, cars and guns. And @Ortorin, you hit the nail on the head thank you. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414257 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwerBomb Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 You keep comparing don't starve to COD when the two have nothing in common, and if you read any of the posts here you could clearly see that we're not wanting zombies, cars and guns.And @Ortorin, you hit the nail on the head thank you.... I was jocking ... Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414262 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneyHam Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 *Lots of words*Amazing review, but I hate to say that you're only taking the intelligent group of humans into question here. If you take all of Earth, and the stupid people, you'll have whining kids, immature, rude, and stupid people. Everything is great in your 2 cents, but some things aren't meant to be. Of course, if you DID happen to run into that one great person that turns into your greatest rival, than I could see multiplayer being good. But, Don't Starve was meant to inspire a feeling of loneliness. And yes, I do agree with the whole "no replay-ability" thing, it would take a big change to grab a bunch of fans back in. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414292 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zandalf Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Careful sir, I have learned (From personal experience) that on these forums saying the word "multiplayer", will make you the most hated person in the universe. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414310 Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidneyBeanBoy Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 So, saying 0.5-player would make me more popular? Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414327 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ortorin Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 So, saying 0.5-player would make me more popular? Someone give this guy some sunglasses. xD Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414328 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greig91 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 If you wanted to play online, you could, if not then you could play by yourself. A new option couldn't ruin something seperate. Yes, it would get really boring really fast and it would prob be stupid, but it would be fun for a while, and nice every now and again to take a break from the monotony. Good day. I agree. I'm playing the new Tomb Raider at the moment and that game's multiplayer is horrendous, yet it doesn't detract at all from the amazing singleplayer. The only valid argument against a separate multiplayer mode is division of resources. But to be fair, I think that does kinda apply here because Klei aren't a very big team are they? They couldn't feasibly work on coding a brand new multiplayer mode that the game was never designed for without sacrificing a lot of the support they have planned for the singleplayer. And if the game had been multiplayer from the start it wouldn't be anywhere near as good as it is now, it certainly wouldn't be on PS4. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414387 Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteIsStarvin Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 Wow... Opened a can of worms... Sorry guys I didn't realise this had been raised and resisted so many times before.Before I say anymore, I just wanna point out that I've come here from the Battlefield forums. If some doesn't agree with you there then you get abused, trolled and hated on. It's great to see people squaring off opinions here rather then turning into a pack of mongrels!So, to clarify my first post:-I didn't mean to replace the single player with multiplayer, I believe SP is bloody good and it is the reason I purchased and play this game.-16 players might be a bit excessive! Haha. Maybe 6 then?-The world would need to be much, much bigger. So big you could almost have a single player game online; other players would have to be sought out early. Of course the use,of resources will eventually see players meeting.-Like I said earlier the resources would have to increase in respect to an increase of players. However if you do run out of something, you may have to either take it from someone else or trade. Imagine playing this game and stumbling on a wealth of a highly sort resource! Through the profit of trade you might never have to hunt again! The game could adopt its own economy, driven by actual supply, demand and more importantly the need to not starve!-Mobs would need to be made stronger to resist a pack assault. Additionally some mobs could be made so strong they can't be taken down by less then two people.-You are always going to get dickheads in online games, fact of life. However if some method of permadeath could be implemented (I'm not sure how, especially with servers etc) I don't think they would last very long. If they don't pay enough focus to their own survival they quickly end up in the middle of a frog charge!-And if they aren't trolls... Then who will they be? Imagine the excitement of seeing another player for the first time... Do you approach with weapons drawn or with arms wide open? Who are they? Hostile? In need of shelter and food? Or a trap to lure you from your defences and into an ambush!I love the single player. But as people have mentioned, eventually survival takes a routine and can become a cut and dry chore. While the AI is amazing nothing can compete with the sheer unpredictability, cunningness and strive to survive of other human players!Just my thoughts anyway... Thanks for reading. Link to comment https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/31487-the-potential-of-dont-starve/page/2/#findComment-414403 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.