Character tiers in multiplayer

[mrtwoface]

Willow is the best one to fight the Dragonfly (if you are in a ROG multiplayer game) since she can't take fire damage - seeing as the dragonfly is arguably the hardest giant, it is a notable advantage, especially considering the other things people consider advantages. 

[Tonguetyd]

 

Willow is the best one to fight the Dragonfly (if you are in a ROG multiplayer game) since she can't take fire damage - seeing as the dragonfly is arguably the hardest giant, it is a notable advantage, especially considering the other things people consider advantages. 

 

Being able to defeat one enemy in the game easier than the others isn't a "notable" advantage.

 

Not if your world is low on saplings or grass. The convenience factor is undeniable.

 

That's a very specific situation: Willow can gather an easily attainable resource if your world is lacking in two very important and common resources with a little more convenience.

[mrtwoface]

Why must they be seperated into tiers anyway? It makes it sound like the dull PVP matches in big MMORPG games instead of survival-centered Don't Starve. 

 

It doesn't how many things you can kill as Wolfgang or Wigfrid if you starve/overheat/freeze to death. 

[Silentdarkness1]

Infinitely agreeing with @mrtwoface

 

This is Don't Starve, not Dark Souls. It's not all supposed to be combat, damnit.

[Tonguetyd]

 

Why must they be seperated into tiers anyway? It makes it sound like the dull PVP matches in big MMORPG games instead of survival-centered Don't Starve.

Because then we know who is best and who is not.

 

 

This is Don't Starve, not Dark Souls. It's not all supposed to be combat, damnit.

 

Tier's aren't only about combat, I ranked Woodie as the best character mostly because of his gathering abilities.

[Silentdarkness1]

 

 

Because then we know who is best and who is not.

 

 

Tier's aren't only about combat, I ranked Woodie as the best character mostly because of his gathering abilities.

 

1. If we have to be approaching this from a "Who's the best survivor" view, then you clearly don't get how this game is supposed to be played. Really. This is petty.

 

2. Woodie is a bit of a liability early on as far as wood-gathering. You either have to put a limit on the gathering, or constantly put yourself in a weakened state from all the Werebeavering.

[Problematicr]

And... what if there's a max number of tier?
I mean, i'm not good at english ^^" But, let's make an example:
Max number tier: 20 = Webber and Wolfgang in the same team can't carry any more character.
I'm trying to say: Every Character have a value: Webber 10 Wolfgang 8.5 Ecc... And there's a max number.
I don't know if you understand this... OMG i'm so bad at languages.

[Tonguetyd]

1. If we have to be approaching this from a "Who's the best survivor" view, then you clearly don't get how this game is supposed to be played. Really. This is petty.

Oh, gee, I thought the game was about surviving.

 

 

2. Woodie is a bit of a liability early on as far as wood-gathering. You either have to put a limit on the gathering, or constantly put yourself in a weakened state from all the Werebeavering.

 

Why would you want to stay away from Werebeavering if it doesn't have any negative effects, since your friends will be more than happy to plant trees for you to eat?

[Silentdarkness1]

Oh, gee, I thought the game was about surviving.

 

 

Why would you want to stay away from Werebeavering if it doesn't have any negative effects, since your friends will be more than happy to plant trees for you to eat?

1. Exactly. That's what it is. It's about every character doing what they can. Not having an argument about which characters are horrible or not.

 

2. You're not going to be able to Werebeaver forever. And then, when that happens, you'll be an immediate drain on resources, with lowered health, hunger and sanity.

[Tonguetyd]

1. Exactly. That's what it is. It's about every character doing what they can. Not having an argument about which characters are horrible or not.

 

That's true, but some characters doing what they can will be more useful.

I just wanted to share my opinion of what are the best characters.

 

 

2. You're not going to be able to Werebeaver forever. And then, when that happens, you'll be an immediate drain on resources, with lowered health, hunger and sanity.

 

I think the amount of resources you'll gather when you're in beaver mode make up for that.

[Silentdarkness1]

 

That's true, but some characters doing what they can will be more useful.

I just wanted to share my opinion of what are the best characters.

 

 

I think the amount of resources you'll gather when you're in beaver mode make up for that.

 

1. This feels like it exists purely to be inflammatory, to me. Honestly. You think some characters aren't useful? Okay. But keep in mind that in the right hands, even Wendy or Wes can turn a bad situation around.

 

2. You have 50 health, 50 hunger and 50 sanity, and none of your items, when you awaken from a beavered state. Far too easy to screw yourself over, especially if the enemy is still nearby when you passed out.

[Tonguetyd]

 

1. This feels like it exists purely to be inflammatory, to me. Honestly. You think some characters aren't useful? Okay. But keep in mind that in the right hands, even Wendy or Wes can turn a bad situation around.

 

Of course; But compared to Wendy or Wes, other characters can turn a bad situation around more easily.

This thread is about tiers, there's bound to be somebody at the bottom.

 

 

2. You have 50 health, 50 hunger and 50 sanity, and none of your items, when you awaken from a beavered state. Far too easy to screw yourself over, especially if the enemy is still nearby when you passed out.

 

That is indeed true, but since this is about multiplayer, other players can help you get rid of most of the Werebeaver's weaknesses.

[Silentdarkness1]

Yeah, maybe. But the point i'm trying to make is, you're gonna have trouble with Woodie early game, for SURE. You either don't use your special abilities and keep things stable, or you do, but you're constantly on the verge of dying.

 

Also, full moons. Problem.

[Craig_Perry]

no need for tiers, each character has their niche role to fill. While some are better at combat others are better at more passive things and a few have a mix up between the two.

[GreenWyvern]

I feel Maxwell should be higher in these "tiers"... could just be me?

[pwhampton]

Tiers are kind of pointless in this game since it is going to be mostly based off player skill. I, for example, can basically make any character top tier just because of the sheer skill and experience I have with the game. Also quick note about Wendy, can any other character take on an entire village of were-pigs on a full moon at once with out any issues?

 

Now back to tiers. One thing we have to keep in mind though is that klei may stick in restrictions preventing other players from using another character's special items. For instance; No one can wield Lucy but Woody, only Wendy can summon Abigail, Wickerbottem is the only one that can read her books (though I really want to be able to make books and pass them around, the massive sanity damage they do should be balanced enough), and only Wes can use his balloons, so on and so fourth. Webber is going to be another interesting character, because he will prevent you from having pig/rabbit allies AND his spiders may auto attack you on sight. Hopefully they make it so follows do not attack your buddy, but even then, Webber will be restricted on where he can set up his spider nests without harming his buddy.

 

There are my opinions, but until we start beta, we cannot say anything concrete.

[mrtwoface]

 

 

 

Of course; But compared to Wendy or Wes, other characters can turn a bad situation around more easily.

This thread is about tiers, there's bound to be somebody at the bottom.

 

 

That is indeed true, but since this is about multiplayer, other players can help you get rid of most of the Werebeaver's weaknesses.

 

Don't Starve characters cannot be set up into any kind of linear system of usefulness. Both the characters themselves and the game are too complex of entities to do something like that. Want to explore caves? Wendy is one of the best characters to do so with her reduced sanity loss to darkness and Abigail. Want to kill a giant? Wigfrid or Wolfgang. Want to experience the game with a harder character whilst having fun with balloons? Then Wes is the best character for you. 

 

I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinion on what your favorite character to play is. I do have a problem with the idea that some character has to be at "the bottom." 

[orian34]

Don't Starve characters cannot be set up into any kind of linear system of usefulness. Both the characters themselves and the game are too complex of entities to do something like that. Want to explore caves? Wendy is one of the best characters to do so with her reduced sanity loss to darkness and Abigail or webber with his friends in the depths(free friends and lots of danger vanished...).... . Want to kill a giant? Wigfrid or Wolfgang. Want to experience the game with a harder character whilst having fun with balloons? Then Wes is the best character for you. 

 

I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinion on what your favorite character to play is. I do have a problem with the idea that some character has to be at "the bottom." 

[Toros]

Don't Starve characters cannot be set up into any kind of linear system of usefulness. Both the characters themselves and the game are too complex of entities to do something like that. Want to explore caves? Wendy is one of the best characters to do so with her reduced sanity loss to darkness and Abigail. Want to kill a giant? Wigfrid or Wolfgang. Want to experience the game with a harder character whilst having fun with balloons? Then Wes is the best character for you. 

 

I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinion on what your favorite character to play is. I do have a problem with the idea that some character has to be at "the bottom." 

 

Except they absolutely can be set up into a system of usefulness, though it isn't exactly linear.

 

Wes will be the worst character, because he objectively is by design.

 

Wilson will be somewhere in the middle with his small benefits and lack of weaknesses.

 

 

For single player, there are absolutely characters that are more effective than others.

 

For multiplayer, it's more difficult due to having to account for synergies between characters.  (Wilson helps create effigies for teammates, wickerbottom has fast access to later tech, Wolfgang is a great fighter, but a drain on resources, etc)

 

But there are still going to be characters who are better than others.  Willow's powers are generally not very useful.

[mrtwoface]

Except they absolutely can be set up into a system of usefulness, though it isn't exactly linear.

 

Wes will be the worst character, because he objectively is by design.

 

Wilson will be somewhere in the middle with his small benefits and lack of weaknesses.

 

 

For single player, there are absolutely characters that are more effective than others.

 

For multiplayer, it's more difficult due to having to account for synergies between characters.  (Wilson helps create effigies for teammates, wickerbottom has fast access to later tech, Wolfgang is a great fighter, but a drain on resources, etc)

 

But there are still going to be characters who are better than others.  Willow's powers are generally not very useful.

A really good player can play Wes and be better then a really bad player playing a fully upgraded WX. There is no single definition of "useful" pertaining to this game that I can find. If you have trouble with nights, Willow is useful for you. If you are good at managing hunger but suck at fighting, Wolfgang is useful for you. If you are generally good at the game and don't want any negatives, you likely play Wilson. 

 

The reason I oppose the idea of character tiers is that it could make people pressure other people into playing certain characters just so the group will have a variety of strengths. This shouldn't happen; people should get to play who they want to play because they like to play them. 

[The Letter W]

Raggle taggle teams all over the place. That's how it's going to be.

Unless you're playing with friends, you're going to get stuck with a random team and have to deal with it. 

[Toros]

A really good player can play Wes and be better then a really bad player playing a fully upgraded WX.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with any argument for or against tier lists, because player skill and character power are independent.

 

There is no single definition of "useful" pertaining to this game that I can find. If you have trouble with nights, Willow is useful for you. If you are good at managing hunger but suck at fighting, Wolfgang is useful for you. If you are generally good at the game and don't want any negatives, you likely play Wilson. 

 

Except no one who is halfway competent has any problem with nights.  Wood is abundant, so campfires or at the very least torches are trivial to acquire.  Willow's lighter is easily replaced, and her fire immunity is helpful against all of one enemy.

 

 

Wolfgang works better for people who are better at the game.  You need to have a larger food supply than normal, manage his form to maintain efficiency, and eventually get a belt of hunger or hibernation vest.  His power, more than others, is a double edged sword.

 

Wilson has no negatives, and he's generally a good choice for less skilled players intending to survive for a long time, because his beard makes winter easier and he can make meat effigies easier.

 

 

The reason I oppose the idea of character tiers is that it could make people pressure other people into playing certain characters just so the group will have a variety of strengths. This shouldn't happen; people should get to play who they want to play because they like to play them. 

 

While I agree that people should be allowed to play whatever character they wish, being against the idea of character tiers does not make them exist any less, or be less relevant as information.

 

If I was in a multiplayer game of don't starve with strangers (something I wouldn't do, but let's pretend for a moment) and someone picks wes, I'm immediately going to assume they're a highly experienced player who picked wes looking for more of a challenge.

 

I wouldn't say any of the characters are useless, but there are some that are significantly better than others, especially in a multiplayer situation.

 

Wickerbottom, for example, outclasses Willow in every aspect.  Would I be upset if someone picked Willow?  No.  In fact, I'd be more upset if they picked Wolfgang and spent time mighty without fighting anything.

[Malan-Tai]

I feel Maxwell should be higher in these "tiers"... could just be me?

I agree. He could be very useful with his clones and still easily defended. Plus he's well stuffed at the very beginning and doesn't need sanity items.

[mrtwoface]

This has absolutely nothing to do with any argument for or against tier lists, because player skill and character power are independent.

 

 

Except no one who is halfway competent has any problem with nights.  Wood is abundant, so campfires or at the very least torches are trivial to acquire.  Willow's lighter is easily replaced, and her fire immunity is helpful against all of one enemy.

 

 

Wolfgang works better for people who are better at the game.  You need to have a larger food supply than normal, manage his form to maintain efficiency, and eventually get a belt of hunger or hibernation vest.  His power, more than others, is a double edged sword.

 

Wilson has no negatives, and he's generally a good choice for less skilled players intending to survive for a long time, because his beard makes winter easier and he can make meat effigies easier.

 

 

 

While I agree that people should be allowed to play whatever character they wish, being against the idea of character tiers does not make them exist any less, or be less relevant as information.

 

If I was in a multiplayer game of don't starve with strangers (something I wouldn't do, but let's pretend for a moment) and someone picks wes, I'm immediately going to assume they're a highly experienced player who picked wes looking for more of a challenge.

 

I wouldn't say any of the characters are useless, but there are some that are significantly better than others, especially in a multiplayer situation.

 

Wickerbottom, for example, outclasses Willow in every aspect.  Would I be upset if someone picked Willow?  No.  In fact, I'd be more upset if they picked Wolfgang and spent time mighty without fighting anything.

 

 

 

People play their favorite characters, not the ones who have the best abilities. I don't play Wickerbottom because I don't really like her personality revealed through her dialogue strings, and it's the same with Wolfgang. You have to have some sort of connection with the character you are playing through some degree of likability. Otherwise, you are just playing a robot that has an ultimately insignificant bonus compared to another robot. 

 

I would plan on meeting some less then halfway competent people if you group with strangers who will just run around until night and then die from the dark. It's the nature of multiplayer that extremely new people or idiots will inevitability encounter you. 

 

If you just plain don't like a character then the powers they have aren't going to help you survive as them. You find out in roughly the first ten days of a world how you are going to play a character, and if you can't make it work you'll likely be dead by the thirtieth day. Whether or not the playstyle that works for you involves the character's power is irrelevant. 

[Toros]

People play their favorite characters, not the ones who have the best abilities. I don't play Wickerbottom because I don't really like her personality revealed through her dialogue strings, and it's the same with Wolfgang. You have to have some sort of connection with the character you are playing through some degree of likability. Otherwise, you are just playing a robot that has an ultimately insignificant bonus compared to another robot. 

 

Again, what is the relevance of this?

 

I would plan on meeting some less then halfway competent people if you group with strangers who will just run around until night and then die from the dark. It's the nature of multiplayer that extremely new people or idiots will inevitability encounter you. 

 

Yeah, which is why I'd be slow to put down a chest, and quick to murder anyone who made my survival more difficult.

 

If you just plain don't like a character then the powers they have aren't going to help you survive as them. You find out in roughly the first ten days of a world how you are going to play a character, and if you can't make it work you'll likely be dead by the thirtieth day. Whether or not the playstyle that works for you involves the character's power is irrelevant. 

 

You're wrong.  I'm not a big fan of Wickerbottom either, but that doesn't mean that surviving as her for 30 days isn't going to be trivially easy to do.  She's got a great set of powers.  

 

If you're too stubborn to use the powers of a character you're playing as, and it kills you, you suck.