PvP in PvE for Don't Starve Together announced as OPTIONAL

[Flare2V]

But grass, sticks, berries and trees are renewable. All you need is 30-40 of them and you're set for the entire game.

THE BEATDOWN:

I've been streaming Don't Starve for about eight months, I've got 570+ hours recorded on steam for this game and counting (about 150 offline), and I been playin' since way early beta. Use this information as you please. Next time read before you write, I'm done circlestrokin' around with "I'm friendly please no kill" players.

PS: For maximum effect, listen to this while reading the post and refer to the image below after you're finished.

[Spazmatic]

OMFG why everyone is thinking about ways how to harm others. Why can't you think the other way ? How to help each other rather then harm.

 

There's already plenty of ways to help each other, and to compliment character abilities in a MP scenario. If you want to focus on how people can help each other instead of harm, why not make a thread based around it? I'll be happy to provide you with ways to help instead of ways to harm. This thread is about PvP so the topics at hand will most likely be about the ways to harm each other, and how to do so. Based on that the people can make the judgement wether or not they want PvP to be seperated or not and how they want PvP to be in DST.

 

 

[orian34]

and the grass and twigs are ALWAYS renewable

[Spazmatic]

and the grass and twigs are ALWAYS renewable

Untill someone wants to watch the world burn and burns all saplings and grass tufts, that is... The way to obtain the resources is renewable, the source of the resources is not

 

But let's go back to discussing PvP ~

[Ashpoker]

OK i'm done with this thread. I seriously hope someone from Klei will read this and every argument in here and i really hope the devs in Klei are more humane than you. Have a nice day.

[Flare2V]

CAN'T STAND THE TOLD GETTIN OUT

<:^)

[Refurin]

"We believe that Don’t Starve Together will support 2-4 players simultaneously."

 

With a player cap that small, I can't imagine that multiplayer games would be anything but invite-only, or at the very least, accepting people's requests to join.

 

Another thing, about not having any friends that have the game, you've got three options, as far as I see:

1. Get your friends to get the game.
2. Play singleplayer.
3. Deal with griefing.

And if you're in control of who joins, it's purely up to you if they end up destroying your things. Don't play multiplayer in a game like Don't Starve, unless you trust them, or don't value your stuff.

 

Oh well, we can either hope Klei gets it right, or we can deal with it.

And please don't argue about how the cap could be bigger, because I wouldn't imagine it'd be too much bigger, and the point still stands.

[J20hawkz]

OK i'm done with this thread. I seriously hope someone from Klei will read this and every argument in here and i really hope the devs in Klei are more humane than you. Have a nice day.

Honestly I appreciate your view. It's against PvP in a way so I sort of share your opinion. But not completely sorry.

Oh I found the perfect thread for you. Started by @TheKingofSquirrels. I have no doubt you'll be "Running Riot" (*in a halo 4 voice*) there. I'll be happy to assist you there

[Flare2V]

Honestly I appreciate your view. It's against PvP in a way so I sort of share your opinion. But not completely sorry.

As much as I do appreciate opinions, when it has a chance of massively impacting a game in a negative way I can't take it lightly.

[J20hawkz]

Wait a sec! Ok just had a face palm moment here, OPTION 2 is exactly what OPTION 4 is. Should I just integrate the two summarises for both OPTIONS into one?

Edit: hmm they are different in the sense how we control the option. But same in the sense that PvP will always be in PvE.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

OMFG why everyone is thinking about ways how to harm others. Why can't you think the other way ? How to help each other rather then harm.

Every survival muliplayer game is like that, what are you talking about?

[Tonguetyd]

 

OMFG why everyone is thinking about ways how to harm others. Why can't you think the other way ? How to help each other rather then harm.

This thread is about PvP. You've come to the wrong place if you don't want to discuss PvP.

 

OK i'm done with this thread. I seriously hope someone from Klei will read this and every argument in here and i really hope the devs in Klei are more humane than you. Have a nice day.

Humane? How is it inhumane to kill something that doesn't exist?

[J20hawkz]

It's cool guys, people will have different opinions. He shared his opinion and voted, @Ashpoker has made a positive impact already

[jbeetle]

I don't think the current option 4 is "the best option." There's really no incentive to kill the people in your server, so why have pvp, you ask? Well, having the option of killing other players leads to increased longevity of the game. Just like singleplayer, you'll only want to play the game to its max so many times before it's the boring same thing every time, especially since I imagine dying will be nearly impossible on accident.

 

With the ability to kill players, your options go up. You could make your own game modes/rules to keep the game interesting...somewhat like people have mentioned. Hunger Games etc. Likewise, if you don't want to kill players, you probably won't have much of a problem. If there's trolls that want to kill just to screw with you, you're on a bad server, and even if pvp was disabled, they could still troll by destroying resources (as has been mentioned).

 

Therefore, I think turning pvp off should be the option, not the other way around, and when it is on/off it should be serverwide, not player specific (cuz that's stupid with only 4 people).

 

(I could have misinterpreted what you mean though with option 4)

[J20hawkz]

@jbeetle OPTION 4 is basically PvP always on. The Host can't choose to set up a custom game and toggle PvP on or off before the game starts for everyone. So automatically you cut that out of the equation.

The reason I think this option solves PvP in PvE is because the other reasons all run the risk of accidentally/unintentionally targeting and/or attacking a team member in the middle of a fight with a monster.

PvP is always on now so that isn't an issue. If you decided to go with OPTION 2 and the Host chose to turn PvP on for that game, you too have PvP always on. The main difference with OPTION 4 is by holding down the attack key while attacking mobs near a team member you will never target your team members.

The only way you will ever end up targeting a team member during any situation is by choice, by holding down a bind key such as Ctrl plus your attack key to activate PvP and target your team member for attacks.

Does that make more sense, or did you already know this? Sorry if I missed the point you were making.

Edit: technically I could combine option 2 and 4 together. To have the option to turn PvP on or off before a game (but only the host is in control of that) with the bind key suggestion in option 4. But again with option 4 the host has no control. As it's always on everyone can control when they want to attack each other.

[ThePreChewedTree]

My favorite part of Multiplayer is actually pvp. I would like it, But There would definitely need to be an option to turn it off.

[GreySlime]

pvp should be turn on or off one single time in the creation world option and never be modified

[J20hawkz]

pvp should be turn on or off one single time in the creation world option and never be modified

Would you also want the option to have a bind key to hold down and attack to prevent yourself targeting and attacking a friend, as explained in OPTION 4.

[MaxStrategy]

I'm mostly interested in co-op but pvp could be interesting and popular.

[Dekay]

Some players like Co-op while others like griefing. As long as the two are kept seperate for games there shouldn't be a problem, I'm sorta thinking back to CoD Zombies, in Bo2 you could either co-op or grief.

[jbeetle]

Some players like Co-op while others like griefing.

Griefing shouldn't even be considered. It's not Griefing vs co-op. It's Co-op vs. PVP, and even then it's not so cut and dry.

 

I guarantee you that no matter how they end up setting it up, someone will be able to grief. That is just the nature of multiplayer games just like this forum has had its trolls even though they aren't allowed.

[Flare2V]

I'm mostly interested in co-op but pvp could be interesting and popular.

 

Some players like Co-op while others like griefing. As long as the two are kept seperate for games there shouldn't be a problem, I'm sorta thinking back to CoD Zombies, in Bo2 you could either co-op or grief.

 

pvp should be turn on or off one single time in the creation world option and never be modified

 

My favorite part of Multiplayer is actually pvp. I would like it, But There would definitely need to be an option to turn it off.

 

See:

 

Trust me, there will always be a way for people to grief/harm you if they so desire.

 

Play with people you trust and not with strangers so you won't get griefed. You're extremely against PvP/griefing, find people that have the same mindset.

 

[Ridley]

Let's face it, you will have options to kill your comrades even in PvE anyway, by unleashing killer bees onto them, burning the ground under them et cetera. So having a seperate PvP mode seems kind of pointless.

 

That just sounds like lazyness. 

 

For example:

 

Killer bees aggro on the person who drops them first, with increased chase time because they hate being kept in pockets. Same for mosquitoes.

 

Buildings can not be ignited by player made fires.

 

Gunpowder will not hurt player made buildings or  chester, glommer, and players.

 

You can not teleport teammates unless they stand on a purple gem.

 

It takes two players to hammer a scructure.

 

etc.

[jbeetle]

That just sounds like lazyness. 

 

For example:

 

Killer bees aggro on the person who drops them first, with increased chase time because they hate being kept in pockets. Same for mosquitoes.

 

Buildings can not be ignited by player made fires.

 

Gunpowder will not hurt player made buildings or  chester, glommer, and players.

 

You can not teleport teammates unless they stand on a purple gem.

 

It takes two players to hammer a scructure.

 

etc.

I hope they don't add all those random rules

[Flare2V]

That just sounds like lazyness. 

 

For example:

 

Killer bees aggro on the person who drops them first, with increased chase time because they hate being kept in pockets. Same for mosquitoes.

 

Buildings can not be ignited by player made fires.

 

Gunpowder will not hurt player made buildings or  chester, glommer, and players.

 

You can not teleport teammates unless they stand on a purple gem.

 

It takes two players to hammer a scructure.

 

etc.

This kills the sandbox.