Multiplayer = Multiproblems

[An Artifact]

Griefing. Griefing is the main problem I'm worried about.

 

Easily destroying expensive buildings and/or whole bases with:

-Hammer

-Deconstruction staff

-Fire

-Gunpowder

-Bigfoot

-Giant

-Fire hound attack in someone else's base

-Etc.

 

These need to be severely weakened or something to stop an enemy strolling into your base, only needing 2 GRASS AND 2 TWIGS and having the capability to reduce all your work to ash.

 

Or you could play with friends only. That's what I will do.

[Amkar]

Or you could play with friends only. That's what I will do.

 

My point still stands.

[Doctor H. Derp]

My point still stands.

 

Indeed it does.

I've expressed similar worries about fire and how easy it's use would be in the hands of an enemy player in a standard PvP experience.

[Toros]

Griefing. Griefing is the main problem I'm worried about.

 

Easily destroying expensive buildings and/or whole bases with:

-Hammer

-Deconstruction staff

-Fire

-Gunpowder

-Bigfoot

-Giant

-Fire hound attack in someone else's base

-Etc.

 

These need to be severely weakened or something to stop an enemy strolling into your base, only needing 2 GRASS AND 2 TWIGS and having the capability to reduce all your work to ash.

Yeah, if you play with people you don't trust in a survival game, you're an idiot.

 

Don't starve together is meant to be played with friends, not with random people.

 

PvP modes make absolutely no sense given how Don't Starve is set up.  Let people force attack each other, and have friendly fire on, but pvp in don't starve will be pretty pointless, because with two skilled players you can assure mutual destruction.

 

What's the point in winning a fight if you're not going to survive summer/winter?

[Amkar]

Yeah, if you play with people you don't trust in a survival game, you're an idiot.

 

Don't starve together is meant to be played with friends, not with random people.

 

As I said, my point still stands. Just because people are friends doesn't mean they're going to want to be a team, and all's fair in love and war.

[DeadpanQuinkan]

Griefing. Griefing is the main problem I'm worried about.

 

Easily destroying expensive buildings and/or whole bases with:

-Hammer

-Deconstruction staff

-Fire

-Gunpowder

-Bigfoot

-Giant

-Fire hound attack in someone else's base

-Etc.

 

These need to be severely weakened or something to stop an enemy strolling into your base, only needing 2 GRASS AND 2 TWIGS and having the capability to reduce all your work to ash.

I find it likely that there will be some options the host can use to disable the mechanics that can be used for potential friendly fire.   

[Toros]

As I said, my point still stands. Just because people are friends doesn't mean they're going to want to be a team, and all's fair in love and war.

 

No, your point never stood.  If your friends want to screw you over, they can do that, and putting in anti-grief measures in a controlled environment is just starting an arms race Klei will never win.

 

So you make it so other people can't burn your base directly.

 

Now they drop something or burn something right next to your base and burn that.

 

Or they overfuel a campfire.

 

Or they lure a flame hound into your base.

 

Or they cause a lightning strike.

 

This of course doesn't take into account other griefing actions like dismantling, bee mines, walling things off, planting durians in your farms, stealing from chests/drying racks, using your tent, planting spider dens, ripping up turf, burning nearby forests, digging up nearby rabbit holes, destroying nearby pig houses, spawning tentacles, wiping out beefalo, and I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of.

 

If a stranger or a shitty friend wants to grief you, they will.

[DwerBomb]

Ok, about the griefing, I think it makes sense of it being like that (easy griefing and base distruction) because:

1-you play witj your friends, so griefing shouldn't be a thing;

2-more realistic survival! If a pleyer gets mad and destroys your base, he'll die. ("I'll kill it. I'll fu*king kill it!")

3-there is no other option, because how could you block a player from griefing if he has the tools?

[Maximum124]

Indeed it does.

I've expressed similar worries about fire and how easy it's use would be in the hands of an enemy player in a standard PvP experience.

 

Fire spread could have an on or off option like Minecraft.

[DwerBomb]

Fire spread could have an on or off option like Minecraft.

It should indeed.

[Doctor H. Derp]

Fire spread could have an on or off option like Minecraft.

 

Klei did add a slider for lightning and forest fires, I don't see why this would be an exception.

However, what about the default experience? Is the ability to grief so easily supposed to be a feature?

[DwerBomb]

However, what about the default experience? Is the ability to grief so easily supposed to be a feature?

I think it should be a thing.

[Doctor H. Derp]

I think it should be a thing.

 

I'm not so sure I agree considering how much time and preparation goes into a good base and how little time and preparation goes into a torch. There just seems to be an issue of parity.

 

I mean... at least if someone were to drop a few stacks of killer bees into someone's base, that took time, effort, and a bit of devious planning. A torch doesn't. It's crudely efficient.

[DwerBomb]

I'm not so sure I agree considering how much time and preparation goes into a good base and how little time and preparation goes into a torch. There just seems to be an issue of parity.

I mean... at least if someone were to drop a few stacks of killer bees into someone's base, that took time, effort, and a bit of devious planning. A torch doesn't. It's crudely efficient.

It's how it works IRL too.

just think about how is it is to destroy something that costs a goid amount of money like a computer or a tv. Just throw them on the ground and *bam!* destroyed!

[Doctor H. Derp]

It's how it works IRL too.

just think about how is it is to destroy something that costs a goid amount of money like a computer or a tv. Just throw them on the ground and *bam!* destroyed!

 

Sure, but IRL you can't just pick up a piece of flint and some twigs and make a standard-issue hand axe you could pick up at a store, certainly can't create a real ice staff, nor can you resurrect yourself from the dead with a bit of meat, wood, and snips of facial hair either.

 

It's true that in order to allow for the player to really resonate and relate to the gaming experience there has to be some reference, some anchors, grounded in the real world to call back to, but that's no excuse to not balance a game.

[Amkar]

I mean... at least if someone were to drop a few stacks of killer bees into someone's base, that took time, effort, and a bit of devious planning. A torch doesn't. It's crudely efficient.

 

It seems my point got put across poorly, but this is my exact point.

 

I'm not saying it should not be possible to cause destruction to an enemy's base. I think it's perfectly fine to have it as an option.

 

However, as it's put here, all they need it a torch. That takes quite literally a matter of seconds to find materials for and make and it can instantly destroy and enemy's base with current fire spread.

 

What about something like Bigfoot? I'd be willing to bet that could take out a base even quicker than fire, nor is it particularly hard to make. Just one click and then hours of work gone. This sort of thing is fine in the base game, since you're going to avoid doing it in your base at all costs, but in DST other people could destroy your base instantly.

[DwerBomb]

But people could help you build the base too! So it's balanced, isn't it?

[randompandora]

I really don't want to argue with a stranger right now, but think before posting.

1-Players can disconnect from the server when winter starts and log in after it ends. Also what happens if a player goes to sleep?

2- Charlie cannot be seen.

3- That's not a suggestion. Clone machine was a joke.

 yes you do or you wouldn't  have posted this in a public forum of discussion...but I digress

1. I'd like to think that you would simply lose your membership in that game if you left  on a timer that wouldn't last more than a day (reasonable time to reconnect if its a legitimate d/c), and the sleeping issue is basically solved by a queue for everyone to do so or not (like minecraft, terrarria, etc. its been done)  Since there is no urgency and cannot be, as the game itself won't let you sleep if danger is around I don't see how this doesn't work somehow in your mind. 

2. So?

3.  thanks for wasting everyone's time. 

[Doctor H. Derp]

But people could help you build the base too! So it's balanced, isn't it?

 

What? Just so that same single guy with that same single torch can burn it all down within seconds again?

Not only that, but it's not like burnt structures give you back 1/2 of the materials like hammering them down would, you get 1/4 if I'm not mistaken along with some charcoal.

You lose what... 3% durability on the torch and you've effectively destroyed however many structures that had the misfortune of being built just a wee bit too close to one another?

Doesn't matter if I had 9 people working to rebuild that base, where are all those gears supposed to be gotten back from? Ruins exploration? Camping out in the desert for weeks?

Besides, if that same guy was that deadset on screwing with us, what's to stop him from torching the rest of the world while we're busy rebuilding that base anyway? No more mushrooms, no more tall grass, no more saplings, no more reeds...

 

And again, all that destruction, 1 torch.

 

So much griefing value from one of the cheapest items to craft and it's not even an item you need to prototype I might add.

 

I'm not even entirely opposed to the notion of griefing, but come on. Come on, come on.

None of this, "I trol u1!1one11" more like, "Trolling is a art."

[DwerBomb]

Well I'm sure there will be a way to ban a player, so that if it griefs it get's banned.

What could be a solution?

[DwerBomb]

yes you do or you wouldn't have posted this in a public forum of discussion...but I digress

1. I'd like to think that you would simply lose your membership in that game if you left on a timer that wouldn't last more than a day (reasonable time to reconnect if its a legitimate d/c), and the sleeping issue is basically solved by a queue for everyone to do so or not (like minecraft, terrarria, etc. its been done) Since there is no urgency and cannot be, as the game itself won't let you sleep if danger is around I don't see how this doesn't work somehow in your mind.

2. So?

3. thanks for wasting everyone's time.

Oh yea sure. Let's force everyone to join every day, and if someone doesn't join he must be banned! Yea! YEA! Let's force everyone to play every moment of their life! Plus, WICKERBOTTOM CAN'T SLEEP! So? How can it work if a player that plays as her CAN'T sleep? Your point now?

As for Charlie, she can't be seen, so if the werebeaver sees what can't be seen what will happen?

And I don't think anyone is wasting time other than me replying to you.

[Spazmatic]

I just thought of something whilst reading the reply from @Amkar about Bigfoot.. There can be only one player that has the recipe for the old bell at a time, since the blueprint from Glommer's statue is the only way to get said recipe. I wonder what that effect would have on the one with the recipe and the other survivors.. That's bound to be interesting, especially with PvP. Food for thought

 

Imo, players should always be able to rejoin a game after they left for whatever reason, provided there's a spot free. There could be some options when making a new game regarding players joining: You have the option to only allow the people that joined your game at first to be able to rejoin. I choose this instead of a public/private game setting so there's still the option to play with a select group of strangers without the need of having them on your Steam friendslist (though if they are nice, you can add them ). Alternatively you could choose to make everyone able to join your game, but potentially meaning that the three people you started with will be left out at any point. This is also the risk for every active player in the server. This option has more of a pick up and play style to it, but would most likely let the players feel less attached to what they do in the world (someone else could take their place and use their belongings, or worse destroy them). Maybe the latter option isn't needed/wanted at all, just giving some ideas here!

 

Should someone die without means of ressurrection in either option, there will be a slot free for others to join. Whilst they start from 0 when it comes to items/research, the longer surviving players have the potential to help the newcomer out (if they want to, that is.....)

[MaxStrategy]

I've got 99 problems but multiplayer's not one.

[stinkmasterfunks]

You guys have some really insane ideas about how this is going to work.

 

Stop thinking Minecraft and start thinking Left4Dead.

[Amkar]

You guys have some really insane ideas about how this is going to work.

 

Stop thinking Minecraft and start thinking Left4Dead.

 

Left 4 Dead is an FPS zombie game with slight survival aspects. It's pretty much nothing like Don't Starve, unless you meant something else.