Cannibalism (not a joke this time)

[RalphKastro]

Honestly, who dies of starvation?

how I wish we could focus on that....

but since we want flashy things like multiplayer, let's focus on the issue here.

firstly, in my opinion, the meat should give very low satisfaction, probably lower than meat(not very chubby...)

second the drawbacks should be higher and innovative, like heavily decreasing sanity over time, so you can't just counter it with clothes and meat, or other Klei-ish stuff they could pull out

third, the only scenario I see that could be something fun to eat the meat(and dangerous) would be either with PvP, with people destroying your base, and you having to sustain yourself with what you can scavange from them, after defending, or like said before, if people are in a precarious situation(which is not possible in the game's difficulty....) and someone starves to death first

[Khrayfish]

Give a reason for players to prefer to kill each other than help each other out.

 

No thanks, that's just hassle.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

Give a reason for players to prefer to kill each other than help each other out.

 

No thanks, that's just hassle.

Like I´ve said before, the point of this is not to encourage hunting and killing players (you would know this if you had read the post). Eating players is not something you would want to do, because it hurts your sanity. This idea of this would only come into play when a teammate dies and you are in a very desperate situation where you need food.

Also, cannibals or not, players kill you for supplies, bases or simply for sport. 

[J20hawkz]

Like I´ve said before, the point of this is not to encourage hunting and killing players (you would know this if you had read the post). Eating players is not something you would want to do, because it hurts your sanity. This idea of this would only come into play when a teammate dies and you are in a very desperate situation where you need food.

Also, cannibals or not, players kill you for supplies, bases or simply for sport.

So are you saying a dead character's body will lie there until we eat it? What if we aren't desperate for food? We bury the body?

Why?

[TheKingofSquirrels]

So are you saying a dead character's body will lie there until we eat it? What if we aren't desperate for food? We bury the body?

Why?

If you had read the post, you would know that if you buried them you would gain sanity. Also, I though graveyards for players was an cool idea, with stuff like "Here lies J20hawkz". That way you´ll remembered for ever.

After a while, the body would turn into a skeleton, but before that, it will act like an evil flower, it will drains sanity if players are close by (because obviously seeing their friend dead would depress them at least a little bit).

I don´t want players to just despawn when dead, it needs more of an event. Someone dying, especially in a permadeath where they won´t be able to come back, should be a big deal.

[J20hawkz]

I have read it....many times. So to make someones death "worth it" we eat them?

Your idea hinges desperately on whether Don't Starve Together will have permadeath. Because if it didn't this would be both pointless and seriously exploitable.

If you want deaths to be worth something why not have it like this?

I like the idea of R.I.P graves though.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

I have read it....many times. So to make someones death "worth it" we eat them?

Your idea hinges desperately on whether Don't Starve Together will have permadeath. Because if it didn't this would be both pointless and seriously exploitable.

If you want deaths to be worth something why not have it like this?

I like the idea of R.I.P graves though.

Yes, this all depends whether it´s permadeath, which I think it´s pretty much guaranteed...Hopefully...

[J20hawkz]

Yes, this all depends whether it´s permadeath, which I think it´s pretty much guaranteed...Hopefully...

I doubt it. Permadeath in DST would be pointless unless Klei have come up with a way to die that is balanced for DST but sticks to the roots of DS. I particularly wouldn't be comfortable if a friend of mine made a stupid mistake and died leaving me to either play alone or leave a 100+ hour (random number) game.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

I doubt it. Permadeath in DST would be pointless unless Klei have come up with a way to die that is balanced for DST but sticks to the roots of DS. I particularly wouldn't be comfortable if a friend of mine made a stupid mistake and died leaving me to either play alone or leave a 100+ hour (random number) game.

Without Permadeath, the game falls apart. There really isn´t much else to argue.

[INeed3Quid]

There's obviously multiple layers of multiplayer in games, usually co-op and pvp.

I think both would be extremely enjoyable. Obviously with pvp cannibalism would come with it.

Imagine a multiplayer game, where every person trying to be the one to get the things to escape. Everyone could even start with a thing each at the start and eventually have to fight it out, or just out survive each other. 

That would be cool as fonz.

[RalphKastro]

I doubt it. Permadeath in DST would be pointless unless Klei have come up with a way to die that is balanced for DST but sticks to the roots of DS. I particularly wouldn't be comfortable if a friend of mine made a stupid mistake and died leaving me to either play alone or leave a 100+ hour (random number) game.

permadeath is the only remnant of the "the world hates you" feel.

I know it would be frustrating in MP, but it's also very frustrating in SP. It just means you have to be extra careful

maybe they could do it in a different way, but Permadeath has to remain in some way

[J20hawkz]

permadeath is the only remnant of the "the world hates you" feel.

I know it would be frustrating in MP, but it's also very frustrating in SP. It just means you have to be extra careful

maybe they could do it in a different way, but Permadeath has to remain in some way

Ok started a thread for Permadeath. Please vote and leave a comment. http://forums.kleientertainment.com/topic/36834-should-there-be-permadeath-in-dont-starve-together/

[Toros]

Ok, let´s go through this together:

1. No need to be rude, we are all friends here. There is no need to start acting like a child just because you disagree with someone else´s opinion.

2. Yes, I agree. If Don´t Starve together has pvp, cannibals or not, it is guaranteed that there will be some players  hunting each other for supplies, bases or simply just for sport. If you had read the post, you would have seen that there is heavy consequences to eating human meat. We have said that it could have a drain on sanity and there have been suggestions that it could also drain health. We have also said that the point of this is not to encourage players to kill each other, but instead raise moral debates between players when teammates die. Do you do the right thing and bury your friend? Or do you do what is necessary for your survival? Even if it means being a monster. It´s up to you.

 

1) I'm not being rude.  Your idea is terrible, and your analysis of game theory is weak.  I'm not coddling you, as both of these are facts.

 

2) There is no moral debate that cannibalism in Don't Starve will introduce.

 

There are roughly 4 general playstyles in a multiplayer game that allows pvp or cooperation.

 

1. Always cooperate:  These are the players who everyone likes to see.  They make good allies and are often soft targets for player killers.

 

2. Tribal (cooperate in-group, everyone else is a target): This is what happens when people play with their skilled friends, and what dominates games like DayZ.  There's no need for additional cooperation, meaning they either ignore or destroy additional people.

 

3. Maximizing:  These players pick the most effective strategy, as a rule.  They pick the "strongest" character, they cooperate when it's beneficial to do so, they kill allies or strangers when it's beneficial to do so.

 

4.  Griefing:  These players pick the strategy most harmful to other people.  It's generally highly inefficient, and absolutely ruins games for every other player.

 

 

Group 4 will always kill other players.  But the more benefits you provide, the more likely you will have groups 2 and 3 killing other players.

 

Group 2 kills based on the risk/benefit to the group, and group 3 kills based on the risk/benefit to the individual.

 

Problem is, don't starve lends itself to long games, and the difficulty isn't particularly high, so there's not a lot of NEED for cooperation.  Public servers are going to be an absolute mess as a result anyway, cannibalism just adds more fuel to the fire.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

1) I'm not being rude.  Your idea is terrible, and your analysis of game theory is weak.  I'm not coddling you, as both of these are facts.

 

2) There is no moral debate that cannibalism in Don't Starve will introduce.

 

There are roughly 4 general playstyles in a multiplayer game that allows pvp or cooperation.

 

1. Always cooperate:  These are the players who everyone likes to see.  They make good allies and are often soft targets for player killers.

 

2. Tribal (cooperate in-group, everyone else is a target): This is what happens when people play with their skilled friends, and what dominates games like DayZ.  There's no need for additional cooperation, meaning they either ignore or destroy additional people.

 

3. Maximizing:  These players pick the most effective strategy, as a rule.  They pick the "strongest" character, they cooperate when it's beneficial to do so, they kill allies or strangers when it's beneficial to do so.

 

4.  Griefing:  These players pick the strategy most harmful to other people.  It's generally highly inefficient, and absolutely ruins games for every other player.

 

 

Group 4 will always kill other players.  But the more benefits you provide, the more likely you will have groups 2 and 3 killing other players.

 

Group 2 kills based on the risk/benefit to the group, and group 3 kills based on the risk/benefit to the individual.

 

Problem is, don't starve lends itself to long games, and the difficulty isn't particularly high, so there's not a lot of NEED for cooperation.  Public servers are going to be an absolute mess as a result anyway, cannibalism just adds more fuel to the fire.

 

Not to sound snarky, but I would say they´re more your opinions, rather than facts.

 

To be honest, I´m not really interested in the cannibalism part of this thread anymore, I still think it would be an interesting feature that would intensify the realism and tension on the game, but now the only thing I really care more about is what happens to players when they die. I really hope they don´t just despawn into thin air like their existence was nothing, especially if the game is permadeath, the death of a player should be a big deal.

 

The whole four groups thing is interesting, but I think you missed one out. Some players in multi-player like to be alone, and before you say "Well then just play single-player" , they enjoy the occasional human presence. Either because it adds tension to the game because of the fear of bandits and killers, or because maybe they can find someone and befriend them. Maybe this is Group 3 from your list. I'm saying this because that´s how I player multi-player open world games.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

1) I'm not being rude.  Your idea is terrible, and your analysis of game theory is weak.  I'm not coddling you, as both of these are facts.

 

2) There is no moral debate that cannibalism in Don't Starve will introduce.

 

There are roughly 4 general playstyles in a multiplayer game that allows pvp or cooperation.

 

1. Always cooperate:  These are the players who everyone likes to see.  They make good allies and are often soft targets for player killers.

 

2. Tribal (cooperate in-group, everyone else is a target): This is what happens when people play with their skilled friends, and what dominates games like DayZ.  There's no need for additional cooperation, meaning they either ignore or destroy additional people.

 

3. Maximizing:  These players pick the most effective strategy, as a rule.  They pick the "strongest" character, they cooperate when it's beneficial to do so, they kill allies or strangers when it's beneficial to do so.

 

4.  Griefing:  These players pick the strategy most harmful to other people.  It's generally highly inefficient, and absolutely ruins games for every other player.

 

 

Group 4 will always kill other players.  But the more benefits you provide, the more likely you will have groups 2 and 3 killing other players.

 

Group 2 kills based on the risk/benefit to the group, and group 3 kills based on the risk/benefit to the individual.

 

Problem is, don't starve lends itself to long games, and the difficulty isn't particularly high, so there's not a lot of NEED for cooperation.  Public servers are going to be an absolute mess as a result anyway, cannibalism just adds more fuel to the fire.

Oh also, I forgot to say that I replied to your Chat comment a couples of days back, but it got deleted by Moderators, yours did as well.

[Toros]

Not to sound snarky, but I would say they´re more your opinions, rather than facts.

 

To be honest, I´m not really interested in the cannibalism part of this thread anymore, I still think it would be an interesting feature that would intensify the realism and tension on the game, but now the only thing I really care more about is what happens to players when they die. I really hope they don´t just despawn into thin air like their existence was nothing, especially if the game is permadeath, the death of a player should be a big deal.

 

The whole four groups thing is interesting, but I think you missed one out. Some players in multi-player like to be alone, and before you say "Well then just play single-player" , they enjoy the occasional human presence. Either because it adds tension to the game because of the fear of bandits and killers, or because maybe they can find someone and befriend them. Maybe this is Group 3 from your list. I'm saying this because that´s how I player multi-player open world games.

 

I might have missed that group, but honestly, the "multiplayer like single player" group doesn't really affect anything.  They don't cooperate or pk, and they get rolled by organized groups.

 

If you are willing to meet and band together with other players, it's more of a "proto-tribal" strategy, where theoretically if you played enough on a big enough server you'd have a tribe form.

[Zandorum]

I like the Cannabilism but I dislike how your going about it; I voted no. I think players should just die as is and drop a little extra meat that only other players can see that says something long the lines of "Huh... Wonder where that came from..." (I quoted this from someone else I don't remember who). Other than that it should be nothing else; No looking like Gobblers or anything stupid like that.

 

Edit: Note: The meat would have to be Tagged as player meat so it wouldn't stack and each meat thing would be separate so specific players couldn't see the meat. The meat could be named "Strange Meat". It would most likely have Stats akin to Monster Meat.

[jbeetle]

Why in times of loneliness, despair and insanity would you want to kill those who you've been with for a long time? Why?! You're just maniac minded!

to craft things. I didn't necro it, so it's cool.

[nedpeople]

It's devoid of humanity ,but I like the idea haha.

But i will turn off PVP System anyway.

[spiritcrusher77]

Yes. A thousand times yes. One question though, can you eat the meat off of someone, and then bury whatever's left? Also, I don't really like the Gobbler thing. Everything else is great, though.

[RalphKastro]

Them looking like gobblers would make it worse rather than make it any better, since you can't really tell who's more meaty

[Zandorum]

Them looking like gobblers would make it worse rather than make it any better, since you can't really tell who's more meaty

That should actually be a feature not the gobblers thing but the meaty thing; Wolfgang in his full form yield more meat than Wolfgang in his weak form or full form vs. Wes.

 

Speaking of Wes hes gunna be an interesting thing on online since he can spam balloons. Maybe make a Ballon Limit option for MP which the Admin can set so the Admin can be like oh only 30 Ballons per Wes; Putting it to -1 would make it infinite which would be the default where as 0 would make it none and make his Balloons useless except for giving the Catcoon.

[RalphKastro]

That should actually be a feature not the gobblers thing but the meaty thing; Wolfgang in his full form yield more meat than Wolfgang in his weak form or full form vs. Wes.

 

Speaking of Wes hes gunna be an interesting thing on online since he can spam balloons. Maybe make a Ballon Limit option for MP which the Admin can set so the Admin can be like oh only 30 Ballons per Wes; Putting it to -1 would make it infinite which would be the default where as 0 would make it none and make his Balloons useless except for giving the Catcoon.

well, I actually meant that people are probably more meaty than gobblers(and the various differences between killing a gobbler and a player), but that makes sense too

[TheKingofSquirrels]

I like the Cannabilism but I dislike how your going about it; I voted no. I think players should just die as is and drop a little extra meat that only other players can see that says something long the lines of "Huh... Wonder where that came from..." (I quoted this from someone else I don't remember who). Other than that it should be nothing else; No looking like Gobblers or anything stupid like that.

 

Edit: Note: The meat would have to be Tagged as player meat so it wouldn't stack and each meat thing would be separate so specific players couldn't see the meat. The meat could be named "Strange Meat". It would most likely have Stats akin to Monster Meat.

Well, those are just possible ideas, if you vote yes, you are just voting for the main concept. I might delete the other stuff to avoid confusion.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

It´s been so long since I´ve been on this thread, I´m amazed it has survived.