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

[TheKingofSquirrels]

Don't Starve is going to have a mode where Co-op/PvE/team work, is key to survival. This is guaranteed. So we don't need to discuss that.

What I am saying is WITH that, should there be a separate PvP mode where you focus on killing or working against a player or should everything (PvP + PvE) be rolled into one mode to make a "Don't Starve Multiplayer" experience were we choose to play how we want, rather than be forced to work as a team or fight each other in separate modes.

 

Did they say that? Sorry, I didn´t know that. 

 

Oh ok, I get it now, the second option then =D. I rather have free will and make my own choice if I want attack someone or work with them. What do you think?

[J20hawkz]

@TheKingofSquirrels sorry if I didn't make that clear initially.

[Maximum124]

I agree with both options? A separate mode would be good for the people who just want to fight, and friendly fire as an option in normal co-op. Because some people want the total survival of the fittest experience and some people don't want player on player violence.

 

The title is really misleading, as there's no option for "No, I don't want PvP available at all"

[TheKingofSquirrels]

I agree with both options? A separate mode would be good for the people who just want to fight, and friendly fire as an option in normal co-op. Because some people want the total survival of the fittest experience and some people want player on player violence.

 

The title is really misleading, as there's no option for "No, I don't want PvP available at all"

 

Yeah, that´s what I was saying. 

[J20hawkz]

That kinda has to happen: All characters have the same speed by default, so trying to chase down your opponent would be rather futile.

Ambushes would have to happen, which will no doubt make owning a Bush Hat the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

I voted the latter option, because as a survival game Don't Starve should have the option to kill other people if it helps you stay alive.

 

Didn't Hunger Games kinda have alliances too? At least the book was like that.

In Hunger Games the "players" did form alliances, but the clever thing about that was even the ones working together knew there could only be one survivor so technically they weren't a "strong alliance". Although Katniss and Peeta's situation was different.

[J20hawkz]

I agree with both options? A separate mode would be good for the people who just want to fight, and friendly fire as an option in normal co-op. Because some people want the total survival of the fittest experience and some people don't want player on player violence.

The title is really misleading, as there's no option for "No, I don't want PvP available at all"

But if you choose "No" then you get to customise your game to include team killing or not. You just won't be able to have a mode solely for PvP.

Edit: changed title of thread. So you either choose to have a separate PvP mode with no choice but to work against other players. Or you choose to have PvP and PvE in one mode that you have the option of turning PvP on or off. Makes sense?

[Maximum124]

But if you choose option "NO" then you get to customise your game to include team killing or not.

 

Some people don't even want that though....

 

I also said I agreed with both, there should be a mode where your goal is to beat everyone else, and there should be an option to customize your server to have player on player damage.

 

Currently the options are

 

>A separate PvP mode

 

>Still based around survival with others PvP

 

And no option for "No player on player damage, No PvP"

 

I'm probably the only one who agrees with both options, so I'm not asking you to make one that includes both. But still a clear and concise option for "No PvP at all" is needed.

[J20hawkz]

Some people don't even want that though....

 

I also said I agreed with both, there should be a mode where your goal is to beat everyone else, and there should be an option to customize your server to have player on player damage.

 

Currently the options are

 

>A separate PvP mode

 

>Still based around survival with others PvP

 

And no option for "No player on player damage, No PvP"

 

I'm probably the only one who agrees with both options, so I'm not asking you to make one that includes both. But still a clear and concise option for "No PvP at all" is needed.

Ok. I'll add it.

[rezecib]

I definitely think coop PvE should be the focus (of balancing and content addition), but if that's the case, then why not have a for-shenanigans PvP mode?

 

If the host has an option to toggle PvP I could see that turning into pretty ugly griefing situations on public servers (say a server that claims it's coop, but then the host likes to toggle it on occasionally to kill other players for a laugh). If PvP is a toggle, then it should be handled like Terraria, where each player toggles on the ability to take damage from other players (so both have to turn it on for a real PvP fight to occur).

 

Personally, I think it makes way more sense for it to be a completely separate mode, rather than a toggle. With permadeath a thing, toggling on PvP at some point would then have very lasting consequences on the game, which seems weird... But I guess it would open up options for "1 h preparation into PvP" or something like that?

[J20hawkz]

I definitely think coop PvE should be the focus (of balancing and content addition), but if that's the case, then why not have a for-shenanigans PvP mode?

If the host has an option to toggle PvP I could see that turning into pretty ugly griefing situations on public servers (say a server that claims it's coop, but then the host likes to toggle it on occasionally to kill other players for a laugh). If PvP is a toggle, then it should be handled like Terraria, where each player toggles on the ability to take damage from other players (so both have to turn it on for a real PvP fight to occur).

Personally, I think it makes way more sense for it to be a completely separate mode, rather than a toggle. With permadeath a thing, toggling on PvP at some point would then have very lasting consequences on the game, which seems weird... But I guess it would open up options for "1 h preparation into PvP" or something like that?

I'm going to clarify this in the Original post.

BEFORE the game starts the Host chooses whether to turn PvP on or off. After the world starts you can't change the options. Just how we can't customise setting once we click play after making changes or not to the world we are about to be placed in.

Either that or before the game begins everyone votes for PvP on or off. If it's a tie the host decides.

[psyk90913]

My mind is always kinda "Why not both?"
The poll should has an option Both

[J20hawkz]

@psyk90913 option 2 is both if you choose to turn PvP on for PvE only. Why would you want a separate PvP mode if you can do both in one?

As explained in an earlier comment PvE is definitely going to be in game. So option 1 which is saying that PvP should be a SEPARATE mode takes into account it is a SEPARATE mode to PvE, so you have a PvE and a PvP mode.

[rezecib]

I'm going to clarify this in the Original post.

BEFORE the game starts the Host chooses whether to turn PvP on or off. After the world starts you can't change the options. Just how we can't customise setting once we click play after making changes or not to the world we are about to be placed in.

Either that or before the game begins everyone votes for PvP on or off. If it's a tie the host decides.

 

Isn't that just the same has having a separate mode?

 

As I see it, there are three sensible ways to do things:

 

1) No PvP at all

2) Players can toggle (at any time) whether they can take damage from other players (essentially mutually-agreed ad-hoc PvP) -- see Terraria for how this might work

3) The host sets whether a given game is PvE or PvP

 

2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, though. You could have 3 modes, like so: Forced PvE, Forced PvP, and Toggled PvE/PvP.

[The Letter W]

I'm not really a fan of PVP in this sort of setting, but I chose it as the separate mode because if there's a matchmaking system, I think it would be a tad easier to have the PVP and PVE games as separate entities? And well, if there's actually a Puppetmaster vs. Player mode, that would probably be a whole slew of different things to consider, I'm sure.  

[NeoDeusMachina]

I find it funny that we are given the chance to play ''together'' and one of the first thing people think about is to kill each other! I guess this is in human nature.

 

To remain on topic, I have shared feelings about PvP. In a game where preparation is key and destroying anything is really easy, I think it will quickly become chaotic if there are any PvP option. Basically, the 1st one to find the other's base wins (grab a hammer, destroy and burn everything, gg). I know I wouln't personally enjoy PvP in Don't Starve, especially with the really basic fighting system. I just try to imagine myself trying to kite a player who is also trying to kite me and, well, it nevers ends well.

 

Anyhow, I understand that for some players, it might be fun, so I guess there could be an option when creating the multiplayer game that allows or forbid direct PvP.

[Tonguetyd]

In Hunger Games the "players" did form alliances, but the clever thing about that was even the ones working together knew there could only be one survivor so technically they weren't a "strong alliance". Although Katniss and Peeta's situation was different. 

Isn't it kinda the same here?

If you work together, you'll have limited access to your friend's Ice Box and farms.

If you don't work together, you'll have unlimited access to your "friend's" Ice Box and farms. And possibly get yourself killed.

Both have their own advantages and disadvantages, so choosing isn't always easy.

But in the end, there'll always be just one survivor. Unless you break the rules, like those two.

[J20hawkz]

Isn't that just the same has having a separate mode?

 

As I see it, there are three sensible ways to do things:

 

1) No PvP at all

2) Players can toggle (at any time) whether they can take damage from other players (essentially mutually-agreed ad-hoc PvP) -- see Terraria for how this might work

3) The host sets whether a given game is PvE or PvP

 

2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, though. You could have 3 modes, like so: Forced PvE, Forced PvP, and Toggled PvE/PvP.

1) No PvP at all = (My option 3)

2) Players can toggle (at any time) whether they can take damage from other players (essentially mutually-agreed ad-hoc PvP) -- see Terraria for how this might work = (My option 2)

3) The host sets whether a given game is PvE or PvP = (My option 2)

I personally think turning Don't Starve into a super brawl 2 v 2 or free for all is a bad idea. Like @NeoDeusMachina said;

"I just try to imagine myself trying to kite a player who is also trying to kite me and, well, it never ends well."

I feel the same way and if there was a seperate PvP mode that's how I would feel, Don't Starve isn't fighting orientated action type game.

But obviously you can argue;

"So what's the point of option 2 then? Surely J2O if you allow an option to turn PvP on and off then isn't it just the same as having a separate mode?"

Well no it's not the same. Because what's the point of having two separate modes if we can have one awesome multiplayer experience that combines both by giving us the CHOICE to play how we want. Don't Starve is all about player choice there shouldn't be different modes that forces you to play in the way that mode allows. Am I making sense here? If not please ask and I'll try to explain it better although I am kind of repeating myself from previous posts here.

[J20hawkz]

Isn't it kinda the same here?

If you work together, you'll have limited access to your friend's Ice Box and farms.

If you don't work together, you'll have unlimited access to your "friend's" Ice Box and farms. And possibly get yourself killed.

Both have their own advantages and disadvantages, so choosing isn't always easy.

But in the end, there'll always be just one survivor. Unless you break the rules, like those two.

How would you have limited access to your friend's ice box and farms? If you work together and your friend is happy to share what he finds, cooks, stores and farms, then surely you both can help each other?

"there'll always be just one survivor"

I'm not sure if you are talking about Hunger Games or Don't Starve, sorry mate. If Don't Starve Together is solely about surviving together with very little focus on team killing then surely the main goal will be to get everyone to last as long as possible.

I'm very high in favour of no team killing (basically no PvP full stop) but I also like the fact you can turn on your friends in order for you to survive. Although thinking about it.....it doesn't feel right to have an option for team killing at all. Still an option is better than nothing at all.

[Tonguetyd]

 

 

How would you have limited access to your friend's ice box and farms? If you work together and your friend is happy to share what he finds, cooks, stores and farms, then surely you both can help each other?

I said "limited" because I'm quite sure your host wouldn't like you eating everything from there. And being threatened with violence because you ate all the Meatballs wouldn't be that cozy.

 

I'm not sure if you are talking about Hunger Games or Don't Starve, sorry mate. If Don't Starve Together is solely about surviving together with very little focus on team killing then surely the main goal will be to get everyone to last as long as possible.

 

Of course, you'll help your friend because he is useful. He gathers useful stuff, he helps you fight mobs, he functions as a meat shield, he's nice company.

But if you had to choose between saving your own hide or sacrificing yourself to let your friend live, I'd save my own hide and I think many would do it too.

[J20hawkz]

@Tonguetyd fair enough. Can't argue with that

About the trust issue. There will be Private Servers. So teaming up with people you know and trust, will most likely stop any issues rising from "trolls" or strangers you have never met before.

Trolls in game = some random dude with hammer who joins game, smashes everything up then leaves.

[Denshin]

There's no reason not to have it a feature you can turn on or off to suit your liking, some people want to work together, some like to compete, sometime folks like to have a break of pace and mess around.

 

With this option, I propose you to be allowed to customize the world so it may support an either coop or pvp focused gameplay. For instance coop could have the players spawn closer together on the initial go in a standard map generation, whereas a pvp setting would spawn players more spread out in the world where resources and biomes are a little more equally distributed.

[rezecib]

1) No PvP at all = (My option 3)

2) Players can toggle (at any time) whether they can take damage from other players (essentially mutually-agreed ad-hoc PvP) -- see Terraria for how this might work = (My option 2)

3) The host sets whether a given game is PvE or PvP = (My option 2)

I personally think turning Don't Starve into a super brawl 2 v 2 or free for all is a bad idea. Like @NeoDeusMachina said;

"I just try to imagine myself trying to kite a player who is also trying to kite me and, well, it never ends well."

I feel the same way and if there was a seperate PvP mode that's how I would feel, Don't Starve isn't fighting orientated action type game.

But obviously you can argue;

"So what's the point of option 2 then? Surely J2O if you allow an option to turn PvP on and off then isn't it just the same as having a separate mode?"

Well no it's not the same. Because what's the point of having two separate modes if we can have one awesome multiplayer experience that combines both by giving us the CHOICE to play how we want. Don't Starve is all about player choice there shouldn't be different modes that forces you to play in the way that mode allows. Am I making sense here? If not please ask and I'll try to explain it better although I am kind of repeating myself from previous posts here.

 

As I understood it, my (3) was your (1) -- the host setting it at the start makes it a separate mode. As opposed to you being able to toggle it in the middle of playing a world, which was my (2).

 

I don't think it matters whether you call it a separate mode or the host sets it at the start, either way a given game is being specified as PvP-only. Unless you were thinking that there would be other things different that were specific to PvP, like a special map or something? I don't think that would be a good idea, because it would use significant dev time on making PvP, which is exactly what I don't want. I want the devs to focus on balancing coop, and have anything PvP-related by just a toggle, either at the start or in the middle, or both.

 

As for whether PvP is fun or not, I don't think either of us are in a position to judge that for other players. Personally, I agree. If I do PvP, I'd approach it more as a planning/trapping process, where I try to burn down their forests, plant spider dens near them, lay traps, or raid their base to make them unprepared for the next season. The combat itself would necessarily be dull, but because run speed is pretty much constant, if you don't want to fight you can just keep running anyway.

[Flare2V]

There's no option to have pvp without option, which is how it should be.

[Fat Goomba]

Why would you want to kill your team mates, the people you are relying on to survive together, in a harsh world. Of course there is always an incident where you may be swinging a spear at something while a friend is too and oopsie daisies you swung too hard and overshot, hitting your ally (which would cover mouse misclicks being lore friendly, because If memory serves me there isnt a way to alt+space to attack mobs any more).

 

Again though why would you WANT to kill your friends? In jest I hear you reply, surely you must have an overflowing source of rocks berries and silk to revive your dearest ally just for a simple joke, but laughs aren't cheap, killing a friend of yours surely wouldn't be good karma. Nor would retaliation.

[J20hawkz]

There's no option to have pvp without option, which is how it should be.

A no option PvP or a no seperate PvP mode is Option 3. "There should NEVER be PvP"