Permadeath in Don't Starve Together announced as OPTIONAL

[XirmiX]

Perma death should be required no matter what. I mean there is always perma death in single player so why wouldn't there be for multiplayer? Once you're dead, you go back to the multiplayer map selection screen and the button join is not an option for you anymore. Of cource if you leave the world surely can join back!

[ARamblingSpider]

I have read a lot of threads on these forums related to multiplayer coming to Don't Starve.  Don't Starve is a game that myself and several of my friends own, and like.  However, we prefer to play games together, and therefore single player games rarely get much play from us.  We have all agreed that Don't Starve would be a very fun game to play together, just as so many other games can be.  However, a good deal that I have read about the opinions of people on exactly what should be done to Don't Starve in regards to multiplayer on these forums leaves me thinking that my friends and I will never play it at all, even though we all own the game.

 

Specifically, I am talking about permadeath in multiplayer.

 

Don't Starve is a single player game.  Permadeath makes sense in a single player game.  There are always ways to delay permadeath in Don't Starve.  Upon finally dying, the game world, and all progress in it, is lost.

 

Now let me put forth a scenario for you.

 

Myself and three friends are playing Don't Starve Together.  We have been playing for maybe an hour.  One of us, who is completely new to Don't Starve, let alone multiplayer, dies very, very stupidly.

 

What happens now?

 

According to what I've seen a lot of people say, we need to start an entirely new world, or we're "casuals".  If we have to start an entirely new game world everytime someone dies, no matter what the reason, we're not going to play, because we play games together and having to exclude a person after they die isn't playing together.

 

Permadeath should not exist in a mulitplayer game.  I keep reading these threads about what people think that multiplayer Don't Starve is going to be.  From my experience in other multiplayer survival games, it's not going to be a massive server with a hundred different people playing.  It's more likely going to be, at most, 8 friends playing together.  And they are not going to want to have to restart from scratch every time someone dies, which will happen a lot when you have people who are new to the game, as there are a lot of ways to die stupidly.

 

I have also seen various suggestions on how to deal with this issue.  I propose the following:  Upon death, the player respawns.  All items carried remain at the site they died at.  Their maximum statistics (Health, Hunger, Sanity, etc), are lowered by 1/5th multiplicatively (multiplied by .8), and the time it takes them to complete a task would be increased by 1/5th additively.  Their model would become increasingly desaturated as they accumulated more deaths, until it was completely desaturated at 7 deaths, at which they would have their maximum sanity, health, and hunger be approximately 20% of normal maximum and it would take them 2.6 times as long to perform a given action, either by directly increasing the time, or, with things like chopping down a tree, making it take more actions to perform.  At this point, they would fail to accrue further penalties.

 

This provides an initial steep penalty for death, and an equally steep penalty for further deaths, without punishing the people you are playing with for your own stupidity, lack of foresight, or inexperience with the game.  Everyone can continue to play in the same game world.  The penalties could be lifted, and the player could 'return to life' and become less desaturated, by the consumption of death-prevention items that already exist, or by the consumption of a new item that could be created for just such a purpose.  The number of items needed to be consumed to restore the character could also go up based on the number they have previously used.  1 MacGuffin might be sufficient to restore you to life the first time, 2 might be needed the second, 4 the third time, 8 the fourth, etc, etc.

 

This would allow friends to continue to play together without having to abandon a world, while at the same time providing steep penalties for death to discourage people from throwing themselves into the worm's mouth willy-nilly, and also allowing for resource-intensive means of negating those penalities.

 

But for the love of god, don't make me be completely unable to play Don't Starve Together because my friends and I will not be down with constantly restarting the world every time someone dies because 'muh permadeath'.

Permadeath should still be in multiplayer. Now I'll agree that there should be some way to revive your friends back with amulets (Dying a cheap death very early does suck and I can see that as a bit of a problem) but without permadeath what's there stopping you say all attacking Deerclops with no armor? There's no threat anymore, nothing to fear. DS falls apart every easily without permadeath and multiplayer wouldn't be fun at all without a looming threat. Even minecraft which is terribly easy already punishes you for dying with items being able to be destroyed and despawning in 5 minutes. Don't Starve if you didn't know is a rogue like, rogue games NEED permadeath or they fall apart, I know Klei making the game much easier over time and pandering to the "larger audience" has made alot of people forgot about that rule that rogue games follow, And yes I read your suggestion which sounds so stupid to me. if you don't want death then why add something that seems so contrived and doesn't make sense in the world?

[redchemist]

I think if you die you should get a map of explored areas by you and you're friends and you can see resurrection Options on you're map so you can pick to spawn back at the touch stone you and you're friends found or the meat effigy. (This could make it interesting if you died before you could place a luge hovering amulet on you're Skelton and have a way for only you to come back

[NeoDeusMachina]

Although I would prefer permadeath, I'm trying to figure out an original and entertaining way of accomodating casual players. I'm suggesting a mix of ideas that were previously given, with my personnal addition:

 

Maybe this would be a nice opportunity to implement a ''skeleton character'' ? Once you die, you could be resurrected by another player (with life giving amulet?) but you will respawn at your skeleton and be that skeleton (the skeleton on the ground would thus disppear). Skeletons should have weaker stats, off course, and should be restricted from any further revival (can't activate touchstones, can't build effigies, can't wear life giving amulets, etc.). They also would not be able to revive other characters who died (a skeleton thus can't make another player a skeleton). If your skeleton gets destroyed before you were revived, you can't be revived anymore. Finally, if the last non-skeleton player dies, it's game over for everyone.

 

That would need some thinking and balancing, perhaps the skeletons could be revived by other players with life giving amulets and get worst stats everytime, like it was suggested previously?

 

Since we mostly don't want to see multiplayer exclusive things, this skeleton character could be unlockable either with EXP or when reviving someone for the first time in multiplayer ? He could be played in single player games (with lower stats, off course, perhaps he should not be able to use revival items as a perk? he's already been revived afterall!). He could also be used in multiplayer games for additional challenge (and a most pronounced permadeath/hardcore mode).

 

Thoughts?

[J20hawkz]

Reading through these posts the arguments for there being Permadeath have been very strong. That's not to say those that have shared ideas for there not being Permadeath aren't as good as the opposition. But based on votes it seems that most people want Permadeath otherwise those who voted for an option would have gone with no.

Regardless of votes, it's pretty clear Don't Starve Together without Permadeath wouldn't be Don't Starve. I think most of us can agree on that.

[NeoDeusMachina]

Reading through these posts the arguments for there being Permadeath have been very strong. That's not to say those that have shared ideas for there not being Permadeath aren't as good as the opposition. But based on votes it seems that most people want Permadeath otherwise those who voted for an option would have gone with no.

Regardless of votes, it's pretty clear Don't Starve Together without Permadeath wouldn't be Don't Starve. I think most of us can agree on that.

 

Well, when I look at the vote results, I see that more than 50% of the players who voted either want ''no permadeath'' or at least an option to turn permadeath off. The majority of players who voted do not want permadeath only in DST.

[J20hawkz]

Well, when I look at the vote results, I see that more than 50% of the players who voted either want ''no permadeath'' or at least an option to turn permadeath off. The majority of players who voted do not want permadeath only in DST.

Well true....but if people didn't want Permadeath at all, they wouldn't go with the option then. It would be 52 No and 13 Option.

Edit: Well that's how I see it. I guess some might want to play the game with no fear of death, a "Very Easy" mode. But they can ramp up the difficulty by turning it on later if they so choose to when they feel more comfortable in their ability to survive.

[NeoDeusMachina]

Well true....but if people didn't want Permadeath at all, they wouldn't go with the option then. It would be 52 No and 13 Option.

 

Depends! It could just be a ''I want permadeath, but I think it would be fair to have an option to turn it off for those who want to play causally''. We need to be careful when interpreting the results xD

 

Btw, any thoughts on the suggestion I made a couple of posts up? =)

[J20hawkz]

Depends! It could just be a ''I want permadeath, but I think it would be fair to have an option to turn it off for those who want to play causally''. We need to be careful when interpreting the results xD

Btw, any thoughts on the suggestion I made a couple of posts up? =)

You quoted me too fast, I made an edit to my post. But that's my own fault.

Your idea is good. I'm sure one of us mentioned something about turning into a skeleton on death in this thread or my Balancing DS for DST thread. But it's a bit sketchy. Being stuck as a skeleton isn't very appealing.

Could we just not leave a skeleton behind on death, which stays for a few seconds, giving someone a chance to quickly revive you with an Amulet (if there are no other means of revival like meat effigy or touch stones)? Once your skeleton despawns it's game over.

[NeoDeusMachina]

You quoted me too fast, I made an edit to my post. But that's my own fault.

Your idea is good. I'm sure one of us mentioned something about turning into a skeleton on death in this thread or my Balancing DS for DST thread. But it's a bit sketchy. Being stuck as a skeleton isn't very appealing.

Could we just not leave a skeleton behind on death, which stays for a few seconds, giving someone a chance to quickly revive you with an Amulet (if there are no other means of revival like meat effigy or touch stones)? Once your skeleton despawns it's game over.

 

haha yeah sorry for my quoting faster than light =)

 

I'm sure there is something interesting to do with that skeleton/revival idea people are talking about, without making it too easy. The idea with the ''skeletons can't revive other players'' was to give a chance to players who make small mistakes and end up paying with their life without penalizing other players, but by still keeping a pressure on the remaining players (if they all die, it's over). If a player that was already a skeleton dies and could still be revived by a living player (non-skeleton), it would make it ''non-permadeath'', but since game can be over if there is no living player left, it kind of a compromise between permadeath and non-permadeath. You could be revived many times, but game could also be over if everyone died at least once.

 

I like your idea of a ''timeframe'', it could promote group exploring and group adventure and punish players who prefer going out on their own. Strategically speaking, it's more efficient if everyone splits up to gather ressources, but it's also more risky since if you die, there is very little chance for someone to get to you fast enough to revive you. It will be Don't Starve ''Together'', and that would be a good way to promote that! =)

 

As you said, it's still sketchy, but I'm sure there is something interesting to do here.

 

Edit: As I mentionned earlier, as much as I would rather play DST with permadeath, I think we need to consider that Klei, by giving us multiplayer, probably aims at expanding their player base. If they make DST too restrictive and  severe (permadeath all the time for everyone), then they might end up losing a lot of new players who will quicly get bored of restarting a new world as soon as one of their friend dies. I think DST is a good opportunity to please both hardcore players and casual players.

[ThePreChewedTree]

Wow, it's sad to see so many people not wanting perma death.

How did you get 10 likes for that? o-0 I really want Permadeath honestly. But more as an option.

[jbeetle]

How did you get 10 likes for that? o-0 I really want Permadeath honestly. But more as an option.

They should just give the option of many touchstones...If only there was an option like that in the game.

 

---

 

Regardless of what they do, the ideas of interacting with other characters indirectly after you've died sounds really lame. It just sounds like people are thinking up mechanics just to think up mechanics, when in fact they aren't at all interesting. Also making the game chip away at your life after every death, making things take longer to craft etc - I feel the same about that too.

[NeoDeusMachina]

They should just give the option of many touchstones...If only there was an option like that in the game.

 

---

 

Regardless of what they do, the ideas of interacting with other characters indirectly after you've died sounds really lame. It just sounds like people are thinking up mechanics just to think up mechanics, when in fact they aren't at all interesting. Also making the game chip away at your life after every death, making things take longer to craft etc - I feel the same about that too.

 

It's not really about thinking mechanics just for the sake of it, it's about giving people choices. It's also about helping Klei enlarge their player base, enlarge the community, etc. Not every player is a hardcore player, and DST will definitely attract more casual players. There is nothing wrong with giving people choice of playing hardcore (permadeath) or softcore. Everyone will find what they like and be happy about it. Sincerely, I don't care how Mr. or Mrs. X from Country Y decides to play with his/her friends, as long as I am given the chance to play as I want to.

 

There are good and bad ways of accomodating casual players, and the discussion is about finding some good one. If you do not agree with the suggestions, it's all right. You could also try to be constructive and propose some alternatives so that we can work together to find the best solution. That is, if you have any interest at all in doing so =)

 

Cheers!

[jbeetle]

You could also try to be constructive and propose some alternatives so that we can work together to find the best solution. That is, if you have any interest at all in doing so =)

 

Cheers!

I have.

 

Also, wanting permadeath doesn't mean you're a hardcore player. This game isn't competitive and never will be. It's about keeping the game's purpose intact. I'm not sure what people think of when they hear "permadeath." Maybe they still have in their heads the original version when the amulet didn't revive you, when touchstones didn't exist, when there weren't game world options to make the game really easy. When I think of permadeath, I think of a final, albeit small at this point from everything I've mentioned, punishment for screwing up. Without death, the game is pointless. And unlike Minecraft, losing items means diddly squat unless you're in a low level of the caves and have not prepared at all. Permadeath is already non-existent enough as it is, what with all the methods to revive + the fact you can just make a copy of everything and keep stockpiling it.

 

I've liked pretty much every decision Klei has made, so I'm sure they'll choose wisely. and that doesn't mean "I'm sure they'll agree with me." As soon as Klei is like "you can't die in DS anymore" or w/e, I won't continue to fight for it because they've made their decision. Until then...

[NeoDeusMachina]

I have.

 

Also, wanting permadeath doesn't mean you're a hardcore player. This game isn't competitive and never will be. It's about keeping the game's purpose intact. I'm not sure what people think of when they hear "permadeath." Maybe they still have in their heads the original version where the amulet didn't revive you, where touchstones didn't exist, where there weren't game world options to make the game really easy. When I think of permadeath, I think of a final, albeit small at this point from everything I've mentioned, punishment for screwing up. Without death, the game is pointless. And unlike Minecraft, losing items means diddly squat unless you're in a low level of the caves and have not prepared at all. Permadeath as already non-existent enough as it is, what with all the methods to revive + the fact you can just make a copy of everything and keep stockpiling it.

 

I agree with everything you said, and that is why I will only play with ''permadeath'', for what it means. I also strongly believe DS should be as unforgiving as it can. I even think touch stones should be removed (or have an option to remove them) and only reward players who invest time and ressources to craft the meat effigy.

 

However, I am trying to find solutions for those casual players who will die more often than experienced players, who will quickly use up all their touchstones, etc. I guess you could argue that they will learn the game the hard way, as we all did, and you would probably be right. I think Don't Starve is intimidating for a lot of people and dying is easy when you don't know what you're doing. I definitely don't want it to become a minecraft copy where you can revive infinitely without any consequences.

 

I'm guessing that there will be a bunch of players who will play for the first time in multiplayer. They will probably find it very unconveniant if one of them gets the brilliant idea to attack a beehive on day 6 and they all have to restart a new game because of that. Anyway, I guess this is a really mitigated aspect of DST.

[J20hawkz]

I'm 100% sure Klei have everything sorted, but it's always good to see how far off we were when things start to be more clear

[Ridley]

I reckon the casual gamers will alternate between permadeath being on and off. The more "hardcore" Don't Starvians will have it set at "on" all the time. It's good to have that choice.

 

I am by no means a casual player; I like to play with no way to respawn after I die and I have no problem getting past day 100. So since I am against perma death in MP, then your statement isn't correct. Casual players and Hardcore players can both decide perma death is awful in MP. You guys recognize it as a frustrating mechanic if one of your friends perma dies, but then brush it away because it wouldn't be Don't Starve otherwise. 

 

Reading through these posts the arguments for there being Permadeath have been very strong.

Regardless of votes, it's pretty clear Don't Starve Together without Permadeath wouldn't be Don't Starve. I think most of us can agree on that.

 

The arguments I have seen are:

 

1. It just wouldn't be Don't Starve

 

2. It would be too easy

 

The obivous answer here is to give a smack-to-the-face consequence that is near perma death, but is in no way perma death. In SP, you aren't there to see what happens after you perma die, maybe some horrific monster will arrive to pick over your items. Maybe a different character is thrown into the world you left, which you would play as in MP.

 

People said MP wouldn't be Don't Starve. There is no reason to argue that a different mechanic couldn't be Don't Starve as well.

 

As for being too easy, you make that different mechanic just is fearsome as perma-death, but in a different way.

[J20hawkz]

@Ridley why would you only quote a part of my post when all of it complimented what I was saying as a whole? Here is what I said in its entirety;

"Reading through these posts the arguments for there being Permadeath have been very strong. That's not to say those that have shared ideas for there not being Permadeath aren't as good as the opposition. But based on votes it seems that most people want Permadeath otherwise those who voted for an option would have gone with no.

Regardless of votes, it's pretty clear Don't Starve Together without Permadeath wouldn't be Don't Starve. I think most of us can agree on that."

Clearly I was saying both sides have raised just as strong points as each other.

When I say "hardcore" I am generalising a group of players who prefer to play the game with as hard as possible settings. I'm not hardcore either. I play the game in default, but even though I prefer permadeath as it keeps me from having a feeling of godliness, I play quite casually, personally on default I find things very easy going. I wasn't clear so apologies for the confusion.

Edit: I completely understand your side and I wouldn't call anyone a hardcore player just because they want permadeath, but Don't Starve would become super easy without it. Not necessarily in terms of gameplay but that feeling of what ever you do could leave you with nothing, will be gone.

[Ridley]

@Ridley why would you only quote a part of my post when all of it complimented what I was saying as a whole? Here is what I said in its entirety;

Clearly I was saying both sides have raised just as strong points as each other.

Edit: I completely understand your side and I wouldn't call anyone a hardcore player just because they want permadeath, but Don't Starve would become super easy without it. Not necessarily in terms of gameplay but that feeling of what ever you do could leave you with nothing, will be gone.

 

I cut things to save space whenever I post, and to point out at which parts led to my response.

 

No, there has been only one strong point for perma death and that is that it makes it too easy. Which is why I then add another mechanic needs to take its place to make the game just as hard, but handles death appropriately for MP.

The whole "Just isn't Don't Starve" point is as pointless as this.    

Really I am just trying to stress that you can punish players dramatically like perma death, and have it remain interesting for MP. And that perma-death is not the ONLY path MP can take.

[J20hawkz]

@Ridley fair play mate. I also wouldn't say Permadeath is the only path MP can take, but it definitely is ONE path MP should take.

Still all will be clear when JoeW releases more information. We can discuss things further then

[Ridley]

@Ridley fair play mate. I also wouldn't say Permadeath is the only path MP can take, but it definitely is ONE path MP should take.

Still all will be clear when JoeW releases more information. We can discuss things further then

 

Why is it the ONE path?

[jbeetle]

Why is it the ONE path?

I guess because something has to be default.

[J20hawkz]

Why is it the ONE path?

It is ONE path Don't Starve Together should take out of MANY things that should be added. Permadeath shouldn't be left out altogether, but obviously if Klei feels it should to balance multiplayer, I won't mind.

So far I've been quiet satisfied with the decisions they have made no doubt they have Permadeath or whatever sorted out. We just have to wait.

[ARamblingSpider]

How did you get 10 likes for that? o-0 I really want Permadeath honestly. But more as an option.

I have no idea.

[Doctor H. Derp]

I have no idea.

 

It's because you spoke the truth.