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

[Ridley]

This kills the sandbox.

 

Sandbox?

 

I hope they don't add all those random rules

 

Those were really on-the-spot rules. The only one I truly stand by was the killer bees because it was logical. I PvE would not be fun if you could hurt other players on your team. Some people attack by holding the f button, and this would cause them to smack each other by accident. And killing a person who had to go afk for a moment, would be terrible.

[jbeetle]

Sandbox?

 

 

Those were really on-the-spot rules. The only one I truly stand by was the killer bees because it was logical. I PvE would not be fun if you could hurt other players on your team. Some people attack by holding the f button, and this would cause them to smack each other by accident. And killing a person who had to go afk for a moment, would be terrible.

Yea, my comment was more towards seemingly arbitrary rules - like in my sig now that i remember i put that there.

 

also, by sandbox, he means ruining the freedom-do-whatever-you-want aspect of the game. 

[Ridley]

Yea, my comment was more towards seemingly arbitrary rules - like in my sig now that i remember i put that there.

 

also, by sandbox, he means ruining the freedom-do-whatever-you-want aspect of the game. 

 

Teammates may not appricietate players decesion to do what ever they want, simply because they can.

 

I can hear the echos of, "umad bros?" deep from within the shadow manipulator.

[jbeetle]

Teammates may not appricietate players decesion to do what ever they want, simply because they can.

 

I can hear the echos of, "umad bros?" deep from within the shadow manipulator.

I can too... in any multiplayer game ever. but with such a small scale multiplayer game, that shouldn't be a huge concern for the devs, in my opinion.

 

Too much stress on preventing any deviation from one way of playing will hinder the people that genuinely just want to play in a different way. and even in the forums, Klei's motto has been to only interfere when absolutely necessary.

[Ridley]

Too much stress on preventing any deviation from one way of playing will hinder the people that genuinely just want to play in a different way. and even in the forums, Klei's motto has been to only interfere when absolutely necessary.

 

I have purposely been suggesting ideas for mainly everything but this, because its alot less fun to tackle. I don't want new limitations all over the place, but I really want to enjoy public servers too. Simply relying on community morals to play nice is a bit concerning, espically if people get mad at PvP so they backstab people on PvE public servers to feel better.

 

I would much rather just plain out test how griefy people would play against me, then suggest ideas that might be more efficent based on that.

[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 thread has turned into the "I don't understand trolling because I've never done it before, but I'm going to complain and make up silly rules or ideas (that won't prevent trolling in any way, might I add) because of how much I don't like it" thread.

If someone wants to mess with you, no matter how many countermeasures are in place, they're going to god damn mess with you.

[J20hawkz]

I thought I put this "fear of trolls" concept to bed.

Trolls will exist no matter what Klei do. You either put up with them "IF" you come across a troll in public lobbies, or you play with people you know in private lobbies. How you handle trollish situations in game is entirely up to you.

Now let's drop this and start discussing things that actually need discussing please.

[J20hawkz]

I believe Project Z (PZ) uses a turn on/off PvP option for PvE team based gameplay, before the game begins. Again this is something the host sets before hand. Is that true?

[KleiFan231]

I'm a sore loser, I don't take winning personally and even if I do and I don't lose I enjoy co-operation much, much more so I would prefer a separate option. Before I start the game with a friend for example we choose then if it's PvE or PvP. That isn't to say that co-operation can be done in PvP, only that there's the possibility to kill your co-op player while in PvE that isn't possible.

 

I don't think anything should be forced. More options = always better.

[Ridley]

 "I don't understand trolling because I've never done it before, but I'm going to complain and make up silly rules or ideas (that won't prevent trolling in any way, might I add) because of how much I don't like it" 

 

What? You are bashing me because I think you shouldn't be able to kill teammates in a no friendly fire PvE? Could you have at least been less rude about it? 

 

Is it unrealistic to believe that people would use players to get a base started fast, then kill them for enjoyment? I don't think the best idea is to turn the killed player and say, "Deal with it." Yeah there is so many ways to troll, but why can't we at least make sure that players don't kill players? 

 

As for going off topic, its still a constructive conversation. I normally try to not go off topic without some reason as to why.

[ShamanOgre]

I would like to request option 5. Simmiliar to option 4 but with the button always pressed for everyone.
the enviroment gets'an unfair disadvantage from not being able to accidentaly hit your friends.

If someone is going to use the old bell on one of his friends tanking a giant the player getting hit, no matter what and The same should go with gunpowder and blowdarts.

Else the eviroment just gets screwed over.

 

And seeing as it should be impossible not to damage someone standing ontop of Gun powder to prevent cheezing the bosses.
It should be impossible to turn pvp off in any way in case people do it on purpose.
 

[J20hawkz]

I would like to request option 5. Simmiliar to option 4 but with the button always pressed for everyone.

the enviroment gets'an unfair disadvantage from not being able to accidentaly hit your friends.

If someone is going to use the old bell on one of his friends tanking a giant the player getting hit, no matter what and The same should go with gunpowder and blowdarts.

Else the eviroment just gets screwed over.

And seeing as it should be impossible not to damage someone standing ontop of Gun powder to prevent cheezing the bosses.

It should be impossible to turn pvp off in any way in case people do it on purpose.

You're asking for an option like OPTION 4, but the bind key basically targeting a team member is always on instead of holding it down to turn it on?

You want OPTION 2 or OPTION 3 then.

[KleiFan231]

After reading this thread it sounds like a more complicated issue than I initially expected. However, from Klei's perspective they will obviously want their customers satisfied and in the world of business that usually also imply an increased number so the more options the better (so no specific group is left out).

 

This might have been mentioned earlier but why not leave it as an option to be able to turn it on or off in-game and leave it off completely before the game starts. That way you have forced PvE, forced PvP and optional PvP.

 

As for the server setup, old school LAN and a dedicated server option. Personally I hate P2P server structures as there's always a lack of control that affects gameplay negatively (my opinion) but adding that along with local LAN and dedicated server is perfectly fine.

[ShamanOgre]

After reading this thread it sounds like a more complicated issue than I initially expected. However, from Klei's perspective they will obviously want their customers satisfied and in the world of business that usually also imply an increased number so the more options the better (so no specific group is left out).

 

This might have been mentioned earlier but why not leave it as an option to be able to turn it on or off in-game and leave it off completely before the game starts. That way you have forced PvE, forced PvP and optional PvP.

 

As for the server setup, old school LAN and a dedicated server option. Personally I hate P2P server structures as there's always a lack of control that affects gameplay negatively (my opinion) but adding that along with local LAN and dedicated server is perfectly fine.

 

Where you are wrong tho is in assuming that more options is better.

 

The first argument against it I have already posted that it could potentialy be very game breaking. There is also no way to turn of monster damage to you ether (besides mods). Because it is part of the game experience. And I think that not being able to accidentaly hit your fellow players even in co-op is very game breaking.

 

Now you can tell me you can always choose to not want PvP turned on. But if there are people what dont want to PvP they will turn it off. But then players like me who don't really want to PvP but DO want Player damage because it simply fits in with the game will have less people to play with and be more likely to be places with people who want to PvP. wherass i simply want player on player damage in a PvE enviroment.

 

[LadyAzure]

I guess I am probably mostly alone in this but I don't think there should be a player vs player mode. The reason I love this game is because it is cute, and yes you kill mobs or monsters but as of now its a single player game. I don't mind bringing in a co-op and having to work together because that is fun and you can make friends. What I don't like is corrupting the game with jerks who want to fight you like every other MP game out there. Cant there be some sort of endless mode or something were the player can choose to play in a world with AI survivors? Or increasingly harder monsters? Get a challenge in other ways other then pitting players against each other? It is a survival game not the Hunger Games. 

[KleiFan231]

Now you can tell me you can always choose to not want PvP turned on. But if there are people what dont want to PvP they will turn it off. But then players like me who don't really want to PvP but DO want Player damage because it simply fits in with the game will have less people to play with and be more likely to be places with people who want to PvP. wherass i simply want player on player damage in a PvE enviroment.

 

Forcing an option to make groups larger for you to find players doesn't sound like a valid argument, you would force others to play a game you consider more legitmate when in fact they might enjoy a game with more leniency and therefore more options are better.

[J20hawkz]

Good job I watched it and know why so people are referencing Hunger Game to Don't Starve Together.

Makes up for being forced to watch it by younger brothers and sisters over World War Z.

On topic. I totally agree that Don't Starve Together should focus primarily on team based gameplay. But just having the option to allow team killing is better than having no option and either being forced to kill each other, or being forced to work together. Most likely the majority of people will have team killing off, but feel satisfied that they could play with it 'on' in a future match up.

[LadyAzure]

Good job I watched it and know why so people are referencing Hunger Game to Don't Starve Together.

Makes up for being forced to watch it by younger brothers and sisters over World War Z.

On topic. I totally agree that Don't Starve Together should focus primarily on team based gameplay. But just having the option to allow team killing is better than having no option and either being forced to kill each other, or being forced to work together. Most likely the majority of people will have team killing off, but feel satisfied that they could play with it 'on' in a future match up.

Yes I can understand putting an option of player damage, of course I would not personally have it on if it is an option. I prefer working together as a team. 

[J20hawkz]

Yes I can understand putting an option of player damage, of course I would not personally have it on if it is an option. I prefer working together as a team.

Yep same here. I'll probably only have it on when I invite someone I don't like very much.

[LadyAzure]

Yep same here. I'll probably only have it on when I invite someone I don't like very much.

Loool, yes trolling never gets old. Then again I do not have people on my friends list that I do not like but hey if an arch enemy happens to wonder into my lobby then its on.

[ShamanOgre]

Forcing an option to make groups larger for you to find players doesn't sound like a valid argument, you would force others to play a game you consider more legitmate when in fact they might enjoy a game with more leniency and therefore more options are better.

 

 

It is not only a larger group to play with. It will mean that the people who want to actively PvP will choose the PvP option. And will push the people who simply want to play the game away from the PvP mode because hey it is PvP so the players must want to kill me. Leaving a larger perentage  of people who want to actively PvP

 

While this is not the case. It is called don't starve together there is no mention of PvP. And thus the reason why i want an option

 

"5. PvE with Friendly fire always enabled and no possible way to turn the friendly fire off".

 

Because in my opinion Having friendly Fire turned off Will ruin the game experience. But I don't particularly want to be grouped in with  PvP. You got to vote for your option I should be able to vote for mine no?

 

Name a reason why Friendly Fire should be disabled, Because if someone online wants your ingame character dead, it will die regardles. Besides without friendly fire you don't have means to defend yourself.

 

@LadyAzure

 

PvP mode is not corrupting the game. Without PvP/ friendly fire mode you will simply be unable to defend yourself from  people who ARE corrupting the game.

[J20hawkz]

Loool, yes trolling never gets old. Then again I do not have people on my friends list that I do not like but hey if an arch enemy happens to wonder into my lobby then its on.

I'm kidding you guys are awesome.

However if you happen to find someone, send me an invite. We'll destroy them!

[LadyAzure]

It is not only a larger group to play with. It will mean that the people who want to actively PvP will choose the PvP option. And will push the people who simply want to play the game away from the PvP mode because hey it is PvP so the players must want to kill me. Leaving a larger perentage  of people who want to actively PvP

 

While this is not the case. It is called don't starve together there is no mention of PvP. And thus the reason why i want an option

 

"5. PvE with Friendly fire always enabled and no possible way to turn the friendly fire off".

 

Because in my opinion Having friendly Fire turned off Will ruin the game experience. But I don't particularly want to be grouped in with  PvP. You got to vote for your option I should be able to vote for mine no?

 

Name a reason why Friendly Fire should be disabled, Because if someone online wants your ingame character dead, it will die regardles. Besides without friendly fire you don't have means to defend yourself.

 

@LadyAzure

 

PvP mode is not corrupting the game. Without PvP/ friendly fire mode you will simply be unable to defend yourself from  people who ARE corrupting the game.

How are other people going to corrupt the game exactly?

[J20hawkz]

@ShamanOgre please explain how we will defend ourselves from people who can't attack us if PvP is off?

Some troll destroying our base wouldn't warrant a legitimate explanation as we can do the same to them.

[KleiFan231]

Name a reason why Friendly Fire should be disabled, Because if someone online wants your ingame character dead, it will die regardles. Besides without friendly fire you don't have means to defend yourself.

I suppose if someone doesn't have any friends on their friend list that they trust and just want to play with someone but have that rule applied in the game. I can see the realistic approach to have FF on, I wouldn't mind that playing with people I trust but I don't see a reason to always force it on in case people want the "PvE forced experience", e.g no player violence whatsoever even if it means it will be a small group. I also don't think it's wise to have pre-defined rules like yours (FF always on, not option to turn it off) to streamline the process of finding like minded people to play with it, there's likely far more efficient rules for that like filters when you search for a server or host one yourself with rules that will be displayed for others.