The potential of Don't Starve...

[NailBach]

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.

Battlelol, stay away from Battelol.

on topic, i see where you come from, but i really think that i would need to be an entire new game to work as MP.

Resource trading is nice and all, but what happens when you log out for example. What if a somone manages to hoard all the gold before anyone else can even make a alchemy engine and then logs out?

As lomg as there are finite resources it would not work, atleast that's what i think.

As it stands right now Don't Starve is perfect as a Single Player experience, i want it to stay like that.

Other games, although with out Don't Starve charme, will come out which have what you are looking for, until then enjoy this gem, as you already do anyway.

[jbeetle]

The best I can manage as far as agreeing with the OP is that I think a spin-off of Don't Starve that had 4 players would work, but it'd have to be more of a nod to the original game rather than part of it.

[Maximum124]

The best I can manage as far as agreeing with the OP is that I think a spin-off of Don't Starve that had 4 players would work, but it'd have to be more of a nod to the original game rather than part of it.

 

If you're thinking of making a brand new game entirely, then that wouldn't be don't starve multiplayer would it?

[NailBach]

it also wouldn't be Don't Starve if it had multiplayer.

The game is about you (your character) and your fears and yours alone. As I said before not every game needs MP but this new generation of gamers doesn't seem to understand and enjoy the joys of single player only.

If you want a challenge, set yourself one and don't expect someone else to do that for you.

[ThePreChewedTree]

Multiplayer would be fun, But it would DESTROY The feeling of the game. Its meant feel Lonely and dark.

[Maximum124]

If you don't want multiplayer please stop replying to this topic since its counter productive to it thank you

 

Yes atmosphere and all that, but again and again I keep saying you don't have to play it if you don't want to that simple.

[Battal]

Once again, we are discussing.  How is that "counter productive"?

[Greig91]

If you're thinking of making a brand new game entirely, then that wouldn't be don't starve multiplayer would it?

 

Well Klei have already said that they will not be doing that, regardless of how much some people want it. It's not part of their "vision" of what they want this game to be. You have to respect that. Well.. you don't have to but it wont make a difference either way.

 

Look how stubborn they were about adding trophy support on PS4. They're a small company making games that aren't particularly costly to them which is why they aren't afraid to target such niche markets. Which is good as far as I'm concerned, but it also means they don't need to shift 500,000 purchases to be financially successful. So they're going to do things their way instead of trying to please everyone. This game wouldn't even exist for you to want a multiplayer mode for in the first place if they weren't like that. Neither would Mark of the Ninja which I loved.

[MaxStrategy]

Think of Don't Starve with the common public.

Dicks. Dicks everywhere.

So it would literally be a survival multiplayer game like Rust before they added pants.

^{_{Why they went to the trouble of animating dicks is beyond me and I don't really want to think about the unfortunate implications..}}

 

Not to beat a dead horse but this comes up so often that I am pretty sure I'm not the only one that would love a co-op Don't Starve or the ability to host a private server for friends. Perhaps for the (hopefully planned) sequel since you pretty much have to design a game for multiplayer from the start. I rarely a see a company that promises multiplayer post-release actually keep their promise so I greatly respect Klei for not getting our hopes up with empty promises.

[NailBach]

Once again, we are discussing. How is that "counter productive"?

Don't you know that having a different opinion is deemed as counter productive these days

[Greig91]

Don't you know that having a different opinion is deemed as counter productive these days

 

Technically it is counter productive.. to the other person's opinion lol

[the truthseeker]

Once again, we are discussing.  How is that "counter productive"?

 

 

Don't you know that having a different opinion is deemed as counter productive these days

 

 

Technically it is counter productive.. to the other person's opinion lol

 

Gee if only there was a sub-forum  for DS Suggestions and Feedback (so I don't have to read people posting strife that the user responded to them causing these) in DS General?

 

And if only Klei would have a Multiplayer response about their game, maybe also in that Suggestions and Feedback Sub-Forum?

 

 

And maybe, just maybe, you could go to the Mods sections and Get Multiplayer from here or there (not even counting Steam Workshop which you need to be logged on to Steam to get) or build one yourself (or get somebody else if you can't) if not satisfied still? 

 

Oh wait, they do?!

For ALL?!

REALLY?!

 

 

 

 

*Whispered to* Oh that's not what was meant by too many Dicks here? And  I'm not also supposed to be a one of those rude too many Dicks too? My mistake. 

 

But seriously, the first five (new) links (six if Steam Workshop is counted) are serious, and the first is where you post suggestion and feedback if you don't want us laughing at or teasing any of you. (The second one is why we are BTW, and Senior Members should know Klei's position on DS Multiplayer of course.)

[Maximum124]

Don't you know that having a different opinion is deemed as counter productive these days

 

The topic is about multiplayer, and what would be in it if such a thing were to occur, stating that it wont work or that it kills the game doesn't help with any the ideas for the topic

 

What you can do is say "I think multiplayer would ruin Don't starve's atmosphere" And then say something that might fix that, say, "Make the other players appear as hallucinations, or ghosts."

 

its called constructive critique, because criticism by itself doesn't fix or contribute anything much

[Zalyn]

The topic is about multiplayer, and what would be in it if such a thing were to occur, stating that it wont work or that it kills the game doesn't help with any the ideas for the topic

 

What you can do is say "I think multiplayer would ruin Don't starve's atmosphere" And then say something that might fix that, say, "Make the other players appear as hallucinations, or ghosts."

 

its called constructive critique, because criticism by itself doesn't fix or contribute anything much

 

Constructive critique doesn't necessarily require accepting the original premise; it just requires that reasonable feedback be given. If someone wanted to jump off a cliff, they shouldn't be surprised if among the "make sure you swan dive!" or "turn a triple somersault!" there are also people saying, "I don't think that's a good idea to do because XYZ." That's perfectly constructive even though it's outside the bounds the OP may prefer.

 

The OP gave reasons for why they thought multiplayer would help DS achieve its full potential, and people are giving reasons why they think it goes against the premise of DS - those are parallel discussions in general. I'm frankly quite impressed at how civil and reasoned people have been in their disagreement here, and the penalty flags that keep getting thrown come off a bit... unconstructive to discussion.