Jump to content

Permadeath in Don't Starve Together announced as OPTIONAL


A poll on Permadeath  

389 members have voted

  1. 1. Should DST have Permadeath?

    • Yes
      131
    • No
      37
    • Yes/No as an Option in world customisation
      242


Recommended Posts

Except that has never been new. This ninja change back when I was the first to stumble on it, is not the same as a mechanic as old as the game.

 

Lol I had no idea. Had never given them one before. They certainly had more value as other players and I had several pan flutes just sitting around at the time.

 

I was just glad they didn't rob me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is a very sensitive/important topic, hence why I made it now so you guys can make your voice heard before Klei release anything official.

Thanks for discussing things in a civil manner and keeping this thread on track. Most appreciated :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From reading all of the replies in this thread, I've determined two core issues people have regarding permadeath.

 

  1. Don't Starve isn't Don't Starve without permadeath. Death has to be heavily punished otherwise it isn't really a survival game.
  2. As it is implemented in single player, permadeath raises some issues in multiplayer. Namely that most of us will probably be playing the game in a closed server full of friends and not a huge server full of strangers. It's not fun to have to sit out if you die or restart the server any time that just ONE player dies.

 

I can think of a compromise that would solve both these problems, though. If the goal is to survive and cooperate, then the team could have a shared pool of lives (equal to the number of players, or maybe configurable?) and if someone dies, they respawn without their inventory and the team loses a life.

 

Once the number of lives is at 0, the entire team will lose if someone dies again, and the game is over. Lives are, of course, an extremely scarce resource and the urgency of survival would only grow as the team's lives start ticking down towards 0. The team and individual players are still punished for dying, but the game isn't over for a player just because they died once.

 

What do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From reading all of the replies in this thread, I've determined two core issues people have regarding permadeath.

 

  1. Don't Starve isn't Don't Starve without permadeath. Death has to be heavily punished otherwise it isn't really a survival game.
  2. As it is implemented in single player, permadeath raises some issues in multiplayer. Namely that most of us will probably be playing the game in a closed server full of friends and not a huge server full of strangers. It's not fun to have to sit out if you die or restart the server any time that just ONE player dies.

 

I can think of a compromise that would solve both these problems, though. If the goal is to survive and cooperate, then the team could have a shared pool of lives (equal to the number of players, or maybe configurable?) and if someone dies, they respawn without their inventory and the team loses a life.

 

Once the number of lives is at 0, the entire team will lose if someone dies again, and the game is over. Lives are, of course, an extremely scarce resource and the urgency of survival would only grow as the team's lives start ticking down towards 0. The team and individual players are still punished for dying, but the game isn't over for a player just because they died once.

 

What do you guys think?

That'd be fine, but I think that number should start at zero. It could be increased by finding touchstones, having amulets equipped, and building meat effigies.

My only problem with that is it makes it a bit "arcadey." It'd be perfect if, when at zero lives, one person dies they don't respawn. What's the difference between forcing you to end the game and agreeing to end the game?

 

(also, kudos for reading all those pages. it's pretty repetitive if I recall correctly)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mirtrius good idea, I can definitely see this putting added pressure on the whole team. The number of lives pooled should then equal the number of players. In a 2 man team we share 2 lives between us. So if player A dies that's 1 life out of the pool still leaving 1 more life for both players.

But what happens to touch stones, meat effigies and amulets then? That's already too many ways of reviving. So I'm honestly not sure this would work. It makes the game easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you said you're against sliders that change core mechanics yet you also said to just change the current sliders to make it perm day which night is also a core mechanic

 

I assume this is directed at me?

 

The way I define "core mechanic" is what's common between all games. The lowest common denominator. You can make a world that's permanent night, for example. Well considering how a world with permanent night would exclude day and dusk, how could day and dusk be considered "core" then?

There is a core mechanic of time passing. Even if you're in the caves, even if you can't see the sun dial ticking away, time will be different when you leave the caves.

 

other games you just run around in the night here you just die in total darkness

 

Well no not necessarily. If you're caught out in total darkness, Charlie attacks, but you're not necessarily dead. I once tanked multiple subsequent Charlie bites with the use of a log suit and a marble suit I had found and I had on hand, for example. My suits were in tatters and I had practically no health or sanity left, but I did survive.

This however was way back just after Adventure Mode was completed so maybe it's changed, maybe Charlie's teeth pierce armor now, I don't know, even still it's not necessarily a death sentence if you're at full health and you only take one bite.

 

you also appear to be against things that dont affect you whatsoever

 

How could I be if I was in favor of the general sliders we already have in place or mods?

 

you're being against what you say and against stuff that wont affect you but you don't want others to have it. why you don't want others to have something you don't care about (as in you wont bother with it) is confusing i mean

you don't want it but you don't want others to have it? how does that make sense?

 

I'm against what I believe will compromise the integrity of the game.

Again, how many times have people made arguments on these forums to increase the drop rate of the Krampus Sack? How many people would that make happy? Quite a few. Klei could easily make a slider to be able to edit the direct drop rate of the sack. Maybe 1% -- the current drop rate -- is the "Less" setting and the "Lots" setting would be 20%. Well it would make people happy, so why not? If you're "hardcore" you can keep it at the oldschool 1%, it doesn't effect you whatsoever, so why not? Why can't we have that 20% drop rate on our worlds?

 

Why not? Because Klei had a vision for the Krampus Sack. They've repated, ad nauseam, that the entire design behind the Krampus Sack even existing as a item and being able to find it is supposed to be a "nice surprise."

 

"Why not? It doesn't effect you!" does nothing to address the design intent behind permadeath. This isn't about me caring if you download a mod to remove permadeath in your game, this isn't even about me thinking that there's no point to your side, maybe permadeath is going to be problematic in a multiplayer scenario, hence why I'm open to compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That'd be fine, but I think that number should start at zero. It could be increased by finding touchstones, having amulets equipped, and building meat effigies.

My only problem with that is it makes it a bit "arcadey." It'd be perfect if, when at zero lives, one person dies they don't respawn. What's the difference between forcing you to end the game and agreeing to end the game?

 

(also, kudos for reading all those pages. it's pretty repetitive if I recall correctly)

 

Even if it's a bit arcadey, if it compliments the gameplay and it works, then I don't see a problem with it. I agree that the manner in which the lives are handled (and even the number of lives) should be configurable though. The reason I suggested having the number of lives equal to the number of players is that, even though the same player may die multiple times, the total number of lives is the same as if each team member had only one life. 

 

If you were playing PvP especially or playing competitively, it wouldn't make sense to share the life pool and have everyone lose when someone dies of course. You would want it where everyone has one life and are toast once they lose it.

 

@Mirtrius good idea, I can definitely see this putting added pressure on the whole team. The number of lives pooled should then equal the number of players. In a 2 man team we share 2 lives between us. So if player A dies that's 1 life out of the pool still leaving 1 more life for both players.

But what happens to touch stones, meat effigies and amulets then? That's already too many ways of reviving. So I'm honestly not sure this would work. It makes the game easier.

 

I'd say get rid of amulets, but make the meat effigies consumable so that they add another life to your life pool. Or the devs could add another consumable item that is harder to make and does the same. These are some of the things that the devs would have to either omit or tweak to keep the game balanced in multiplayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From reading all of the replies in this thread, I've determined two core issues people have regarding permadeath.

 

  1. Don't Starve isn't Don't Starve without permadeath. Death has to be heavily punished otherwise it isn't really a survival game.
  2. As it is implemented in single player, permadeath raises some issues in multiplayer. Namely that most of us will probably be playing the game in a closed server full of friends and not a huge server full of strangers. It's not fun to have to sit out if you die or restart the server any time that just ONE player dies.

 

I can think of a compromise that would solve both these problems, though. If the goal is to survive and cooperate, then the team could have a shared pool of lives (equal to the number of players, or maybe configurable?) and if someone dies, they respawn without their inventory and the team loses a life.

 

Once the number of lives is at 0, the entire team will lose if someone dies again, and the game is over. Lives are, of course, an extremely scarce resource and the urgency of survival would only grow as the team's lives start ticking down towards 0. The team and individual players are still punished for dying, but the game isn't over for a player just because they died once.

 

What do you guys think?

 

OMG!

Like OMG OMG!

 

I love that idea!

It solves everything!

 

Permadeath still plays an important role, it removes worries of an early game death, makes death still mean something, and it has plenty of lore potential! Some shadowy menace from beyond the veil carefully watching and toying with the survivors!

 

Dude! Well done!

10/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG!

Like OMG OMG!

 

I love that idea!

It solves everything!

 

Permadeath still plays an important role, it removes worries of an early game death, makes death still mean something, and it has plenty of lore potential! Some shadowy menace from beyond the veil carefully watching and toying with the survivors!

 

Dude! Well done!

10/10

I disagree. It solves the permadeath part, but like J20 said it screws up the revival items and therefore part of the preparation. It also adds the unnecessary mechanic of ending the game if only one person dies. If everyone wants to stop after one person dies, they will choose to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. It solves the permadeath part, but like J20 said it screws up the revival items and therefore part of the preparation. It also adds the unnecessary mechanic of ending the game if only one person dies. If everyone wants to stop after one person dies, they will choose to do so.

 

It doesn't screw up revival items and preparation because having those safety nets spare the team's pool of lives when someone does die. There is incentive to preserve the team lives as opposed to the materials for a meat effigy.

 

It's is unnecessary in the sense that it doesn't have to be implemented, but it is necessary in the sense that it adds incentive to not wanting to lose team lives.

 

I don't think it's a perfect idea, but it's been the best one I've heard so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't screw up revival items and preparation because having those safety nets spare the team's pool of lives when someone does die. There is incentive to preserve the team lives as opposed to the materials for a meat effigy.

 

It's is unnecessary in the sense that it doesn't have to be implemented, but it is necessary in the sense that it adds incentive to not wanting to lose team lives.

 

I don't think it's a perfect idea, but it's been the best one I've heard so far.

perhaps the best compromise so far (I still think the original permadeath gives plenty of chances). hopefully Klei doesn't settle just to settle though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah...

 

Never going to be a perfect solution between 2 mutually exclusive positions.

I agree. but I still don't consider the way Don't Starve is currently to be even close to permadeath anyway. As soon as days start to actually matter, you either haven't played the game enough to survive (and therefore you'd need to get better) or you're experienced at the game and never come close to dying because you have so many safety nets.

 

The way Don't Starve is now is already in compromise mode :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't screw up revival items and preparation because having those safety nets spare the team's pool of lives when someone does die. There is incentive to preserve the team lives as opposed to the materials for a meat effigy.

It's is unnecessary in the sense that it doesn't have to be implemented, but it is necessary in the sense that it adds incentive to not wanting to lose team lives.

I don't think it's a perfect idea, but it's been the best one I've heard so far.

Of course it does. Having a pool of lives is an extra pool of revives. So why should we focus on making a meat effigy, it's pointless, why lose max health if we have a sure way of being revived. Why waste resources or time getting a life amulet?

Think about it, if the number of extra lives in the pool ramped up with number of players to a maximum of 4. Technically one person has 4 easy ways of being revived (considering no one else ever dies). Early game then you can afford to take risks until you start making/finding revival items late game. Even then you will always know you got those easy revives stored.

It's a good idea but needs a lot of tweaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it does. Having a pool of lives is an extra pool of revives. So why should we focus on making a meat effigy, it's pointless, why lose max health if we have a sure way of being revived. Why waste resources or time getting a life amulet?

Think about it, if the number of extra lives in the pool ramped up with number of players to a maximum of 4. Technically one person has 4 easy ways of being revived (considering no one else ever dies). Early game then you can afford to take risks until you start making/finding revival items late game. Even then you will always know you got those easy revives stored.

It's a good idea but needs a lot of tweaking.

maybe the items decay so you lose them and you temporarily lose a perk like wolfgang would be stuck at low hunger or maxwell would lose his dapperness this sort of thing would last probslly 10-20 days of course you're freinds could defend you so how about we throw another thing in how about you're hunger goes out rather fast which will mean less reasources for all and you cant contribute making going low on resources very easy it would be a game of decisions which can mean alot especially whenthere are 4 players so do you want to rush effigys or amulets or do you wanna lose a bunch of perks (probally more then i listed) sure 4 people would defen each other but there are so many conditions that can happen like the deerclops AOE freeze it could be very problematic very fast only upside is you to be the pig to all the food. Oink Oink! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe the items decay so you lose them and you temporarily lose a perk like wolfgang would be stuck at low hunger or maxwell would lose his dapperness this sort of thing would last probslly 10-20 days of course you're freinds could defend you so how about we throw another thing in how about you're hunger goes out rather fast which will mean less reasources for all and you cant contribute making going low on resources very easy it would be a game of decisions which can mean alot especially whenthere are 4 players so do you want to rush effigys or amulets or do you wanna lose a bunch of perks (probally more then i listed) sure 4 people would defen each other but there are so many conditions that can happen like the deerclops AOE freeze it could be very problematic very fast only upside is you to be the pig to all the food. Oink Oink!

Good idea but again I'm not convinced. If you died on day 1 would you be happy to play the rest of the game with your favourite character having lost a perk or even having your normal meters drain faster than normal? You have to think carefully would you really want that to happen? Personally I would hate it.

Edit: ok fair enough it lasts for a certain number of days, so what? We defend the person for that amount of time then everything is back to normal. So technically there are no permanent consequences to dying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good idea but again I'm not convinced. If you died on day 1 would you be happy to play the rest of the game with your favourite character having lost a perk or even having your normal meters drain faster than normal? You have to think carefully would you really want that to happen? Personally I would hate it.

Edit: ok fair enough it lasts for a certain number of days, so what? We defend the person for that amount of time then everything is back to normal. So technically there are no permanent consequences to dying.

well like i said it would be harder too defend with barely any resources which if you were too die early on you would already have less later on its not a big deal but early on yes it is so maybe a different tactic later on? still trying too think of one any suggestions arew welcome to add on the my current one too but i guess the penalty would have to change to be more dire late game 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well like i said it would be harder too defend with barely any resources which if you were too die early on you would already have less later on its not a big deal but early on yes it is so maybe a different tactic later on? still trying too think of one any suggestions arew welcome to add on the my current one too but i guess the penalty would have to change to be more dire late game

Lol I'm not sure myself. I just want bog standard Don't Starve permadeath in Don't Starve but in such a way that if I were to die I don't want to wait for a friend to finish playing with my other friends or until they decide to start a new game just for me (only an issue early game, as later on you should have ways of reviving set up).

Honestly we would be going round in circles every time someone dies. Right now I can't find a solution and what I want isn't what everyone wants so I can't force something I don't know much about yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got to agree with everyone about the slider not having any effect on you, man. I won't be using it myself, but just let them have their slider. Some people just don't play games the same way you do. Also, permadeath may be a large feature in the game, but it's hardly a core aspect. If you turn off permadeath, you could simply not make the respawn point static as well as having a decay timer on dropped items in order to have a consequence for dying.

 

Now, I'm going to actually lay out an idea for this instead of just adding to this seemingly endless argument. I believe that a ghost mechanic would work, especially with a random spawn point for the ghost. I think it woud even be fun to die on occasion if you include the dead player in their own resurrection. Say that when you die you become a "ghost," but all it really does is make you a nightmare creature yourself. All of those mobs are still hostile towards you, so the threat of vanishing from the session is still there. If you die again, you're done for. No resurrection by any means. In this state, you can't be seen by any players unless said player's sanity is low enough. To add a little more danger to the dead player's state, a "Death" style mob could be added to hunt the dead player. That would be the fun part. If your friends have low enough sanity, they too could see this thing hunting you and attempt to help you kill it. It would have to be very difficult, but I think it would be a good way to be forgiving while still punishing a player for not having any source of resurrection prepared.

Similar idea to what @polygone has suggested here but you've added to it. I personally wouldn't mind it, but again if I knew I'd come back as a shadow creature and have a chance to revive myself it would take away the fear of dying. Or are you saying we are stuck as a shadow creature forever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...