Please don't make the puzzle's comic pictures be a waste!

[XirmiX]

So when we got the puzzle everyone was really into it. It was awesome and everyone picked out all of the small details they noitced. Then it lead to a multiplayer announcement and everyone forgot everything about the puzzle and what message it was giving and went straight to suggesting a completely different multiplayer than the pieces of the puzzle would tell you.

The pieces of the puzzle was THE MAIN reason why I thought that multiplayer should:

1) have Wilson's door as a craftable item (craftable with the berries, silk and rocks as one of the pieces of the puzzle noted out. Not things really that would craft the machine, but it would make sense in terms of the puzzle).

2) Words Alone and Together as well as what the comic cartoon showed make me think that people should go through Single player world in order to join a another world or have people join your world. A gaming reason for the Multiplayer to be made this was is that less people would start playing Multi player. So if people have to go through Single player to actually have multiplayer, then that would make more people play Single player before hand.

3) What I noitced in the cartoon is that Wilson is building the machine during the FULL MOON. That caught my eye actually and I thought why Wilson wouldn't have built the Machine at any time? And then all that coordination of stars came in - this is why I think that Wilson's door which would enable multiplayer would be possible to activate only during the Full moon and would activate and keep active while it's full moon until the player who entered the map during the full moon would be there. The reason for this to be in the game is to have people actually experience the Single player mode and only until the Full moon would they be able to have more people enter or leave their world for good and go to someone elses' (Yes, I know, full moons might not be at the same time for everyone, but sinse we'll have servers there'll be hundreds of thousands of maps in them and you could choose any of them while it's full moon for them. I haven't much thought this through but surely it would work).

4) PvP was thought of by many people and was announced by Klei to be optional. There are a few reasons why it would not work in different terms:

* The story - The multiplayer puzzle showed us two main things about the game: Alone and Together. Now also including the fact that the title itself is Together shows us that we have experienced the Loneliness of the game and that now it's time for Togetherness to rise. This is really important, because the PvP would ruin the whole thing: you'd be Alone again having people around but who are actually nothing better than any monster around you. DST is supposed to make you feel like there is still hope and that the humanity isn't wrecked and you can just die cause you would have jo reason to live. This is what is so special about indie games: they show a MESSAGE behind them and if this game has PvP to it, then it would show a negative message and the game for what it stands would be completely wrecked.Now you might say "well that's optional" and well, the fact that it's even optional would already wreck the game's message. The end of the adventure mode, Wilson takes pity on Maxwell ALL THO he made him suffer through all that. Don't you get it? Game is about trying to survive yet keeping yourself stable and showing to never give up, no mstter how hard the times could be. I am not sure how many of you have actually realised that the game actually has a giant message behind it but I have, and that's why I stand up for it. This is why PvP would not be great as part of the update but as a mod.

The reason I am saying this is because we need to stop asking Klei for whatever WE want but concentrate on more of WHAT THE GAME ACTUALLY IS. This being said I mean the fact that everyone disagreed on Roof idea, and that's how we should be towards the multiplayer - to find pieces of evidence already about it, develop them and suggest the developers to implement it in the game. This system also would bring the good old Single player experience instead of having that untouched and forgotten. It's not what the game has that matters: it is what it shows and makes you feel.

And don't say tl;dr. This is very important and especially for Klei. Yes, may be it would benefit for Klei to listen to our wishes, but please, developers, don't forget what the game actually stands for. Yes, it does start a bit dramatically, and everyone likes a good story, but there is always a good ending which many of indie games have, and I'm hoping this will go that way too and hopefully after MP we'll actually find The Way to escape and have the full story, because THAT is what all indie games are worth its cost. If anything this game would be MORE worth than it is.

PS: what would really make the game great is if somewhere in the game you would put the videos like The final act or The Forbidden Knowledge in, cause that would really boost up its origin and originality, may be say have buttons somewhere at the start of that game that would give you glimpse of the game's story.

[ArcticFox789]

There are a few reasons why it would not work in different terms:

* The story - The multiplayer puzzle showed us two main things about the game: Alone and Together. Now also including the fact that the title itself is Together shows us that we have experienced the Loneliness of the game and that now it's time for Togetherness to rise. This is really important, because the PvP would ruin the whole thing: you'd be Alone again having people around but who are actually nothing better than any monster around you.

 

What sense does it make that there are these magical beings that you can't attack for whatever reason? If you truly needed to survive, murdering and eating your friend may be a viable/necessary option. I see no reason to disallow it. If your friends don't want to kill each other, then they don't have to. But no-PvP also makes no sense story-wise.

[VinylBread]

That does make sense. I mean, most people have enough set up by day 9-10 to go out and start progressing (getting harder to find materials, spelunking, preparing for winter), and is usually a relatively good anchor point for when everyone is on the same page during their playthrough. The portal doesn't seem too hard to make, in the sense that it requires silk, rocks, berries, maybe some crows, boards, and some form of mixture, it could be made by then with little hassle. By atleast the first full moon, a new player would have seen enough to know the bare basics of Don't Starve, and be ready to cooperate with other people to survive.

 

The puzzle all makes sense now!

[Maximum124]

Still there is a fine line between "Lets make this as story driven as possible" and "frustrating"

 

According to your logic, everyone will have to play as wilson and have a full beard inorder to build the multiplayer portal. And only people playing Wendy(?) and that other character can join a Wilson's multiplayer game

 

In the end it is a game and it needs to be accessible to people

 

What about the people who join the game after DST gets released? They werent around for the comic, they would have no idea how to access a large part of the game if you had your way.

 

Also the story its somewhat separate from the game itself, this is evident from the forbidden knowlage trailer, and all the William Carter puzzles. They don't have anything to do with the game currently, they're just there to set it up- just as the DST comic is there to set up multiplayer, it shouldn't have deep connection to it, its just their to explain that multiplayer is happening

[Tamazacat]

You're.... really hell-bent on making this a thing, aren't you?

How many posts have you made to the forum saying this? Quite a few.

Please stop spamming it. :/

I disagree - having played single player a lot, I'd like to jump on to multiplayer straight away with my fiancé - if he had to build a portal, he'd go nowhere.

Also, as for PvP, Wilson let them into his world - however, there is no indication as to whether or not those characters are friendly.

[spiritcrusher77]

...Are you kidding me? You're like one of those annoying people carrying picket signs. PvP is OPTIONAL. How hard is that to understand? There's no discussion on that anymore, okay? If I ever meet you on Don't Starve Together, we're not going to "all be friends". I'll probably tear down you base and steal the materials.

[Silentdarkness1]

You're.... really hell-bent on making this a thing, aren't you?

How many posts have you made to the forum saying this? Quite a few.

Please stop spamming it. :/

I disagree - having played single player a lot, I'd like to jump on to multiplayer straight away with my fiancé - if he had to build a portal, he'd go nowhere.

Also, as for PvP, Wilson let them into his world - however, there is no indication as to whether or not those characters are friendly.

THIS.

 

Stop with the multiplayer portal idea, it has no real legs. The comic puzzle bits were literally just artificial constructs, sadly.

[RalphKastro]

well, the only message I got is that candy and fancy clothes can cure my schizophrenia.

on a more serious note.
PvP is perfectly possible story-wise, since the people who come through the portal might just not be as  friendly as the one who let them in. And Don't Starve is NOT a story driven game. The comic was just for promotional purposes and it has no in-game implications. Also just because there will be multiplayer, doesn't mean it'll be the only mode people will play. I, for instance, am only going to play in the rare momments my only friend with DS is online, since I have no interest in playing with people I don't know and don't trust.

Also, you shouldn't force people to do something boring and annoying just so it fits the story. There's a reason you are basically free to do as you wish in your world and not be forced to follow some path dictated by a narrator who forces you to follow his story.


I agree with your PS, though. That would be pretty cool in the game
And no, instead of saving Maxwell, I just walked into the darkness, died, and was reborn, while he kept stuck in his suffering. That's an example of choice, something someone playing a survival roguelike (sandbox) game should have lots of, not have his every move dictated by story.

Now I'll explain why this is wrong

1;2)What would  be the point of having to be forced to play singleplayer all the way untill you have the required materials, which might cost some time, just so you can play with your friend? What would it add to the game? Would it be fun in any way?

3)Why can't people just choose if they can play only singleplayer or only multiplayer? It's like saying "oh, you want to play this mode of game? Here play this mode you don't want to play so you can experience it, even though you have no desire to do so". It just doesn't make sense. Also, If I wanted to play with a specific friend on a specific server, I would have to wait for full moon after building the machine, then pause the game and wait for full moon to arrive on my friend's game. That wouldn't also add anything to the game.

4)I agree. The game shouldn't be what WE want. Neither what I want. But it also shouldn't be what YOU want. What you're saying all this time is what you don't agree with. PvP would actually fit quite well into the game. Just not the way you apparently think it would be. It wouldn't be "KILL EVERYONE, THIS IS WAR" but "stay away from my farms, I have blow darts". It's still about survival, and if there was no PvP, there would be even more hostilities beetween players, since demolishing bases and burning everything would still be possible and the only counter-measure would be banning the player, which seems to be too heavy compared to just hunting him down and killing him

[PlusFiveCharisma]

 

they show a MESSAGE behind them and if this game has PvP to it, then it would show a negative message and the game for what it stands would be completely wrecked.Now you might say "well that's optional" and well, the fact that it's even optional would already wreck the game's message. The end of the adventure mode, Wilson takes pity on Maxwell ALL THO he made him suffer through all that. Don't you get it? Game is about trying to survive yet keeping yourself stable and showing to never give up, no mstter how hard the times could be. I am not sure how many of you have actually realised that the game actually has a giant message behind it but I have, and that's why I stand up for it. This is why PvP would not be great as part of the update but as a mod.

 

 

[jbeetle]

You're.... really hell-bent on making this a thing, aren't you?

This is nothing. Search his name and the word "roofs"

[Pyromailmann]

Basically what you're saying:

"I want the puzzle to be like the comic we saw in the puzzle and the portal will be craftable by only Wilson and we will be playable as Wendy and the characters we saw in the comic."

Okay, I agree with the portal being buildable so we don't get another million deaths of Wilson because all the people that wanted multiplayer decided to come back inexperienced and get nowhere. But honestly I don't want it to be realistic, I just want multiplayer.

[Tamazacat]

This is nothing. Search his name and the word "roofs"

Yeah, I've seen the posts recently.

@XirimiX I think the lesson here is to take a telling - this stuff probably won't be implemented to appease one person (or very few people compared to the majority.). It's a lot of unnecessary coding for something that's quite redundant. If 30 people agree while 100 don't, I'm afraid that idea probably won't be implemented, no matter how many times you ask or how many times you ask "why not?".

I don't want to get in an argument, but I also don't want to see the forums spammed with the same thing; it means that other ideas that could be implemented are pushed further back into the pages.

[J20hawkz]

XirmiX is just trying to make his suggestion heard is all. Granted we have read the same suggestion in a few other places, but it shows how passionate he is over it.

Until we learn more about Don't Starve Together from Klei and what will definitely be implemented, every opinion and suggestion is just as valid as the ones before and after it.

[Tamazacat]

XirmiX is just trying to make his suggestion heard is all. Granted we have read the same suggestion in a few other places, but it shows how passionate he is over it.

Until we learn more about Don't Starve Together from Klei and what will definitely be implemented, every opinion and suggestion is just as valid as the ones before and after it.

Opinions are fine and dandy, but when someone spams the forums over an idea and displays passive-aggressive behaviour, it's not on.

This idea has previously been met with controversy, which is fine, but from what I can see, the majority of people (who have spoken out about it) have disagreed.

If XirimiX could add a poll, it might be more helpful to see where people stand, seeing that there have been mixed feelings.

[J20hawkz]

@Tamazacat a poll would be a great idea, I suppose if XirmiX is reluctant to make one, maybe someone else should? Just don't tell @jbeetle

[MrKoopa]

Only because that "X" is optional does not mean it is canon in the DS universe. Ex in Stargate SG-1 the first movie is not canon.

I hope I said it right. 

 

Edit: pvp could work and yet have teams(by talking to 1 player in secret). Ex 2 vs 1 vs 1 and then if there is 2 left then they would fight eachother. If you don't understand then this will explain:

There is 4 players. Martin, Josef, Adam and John.

Martin and Josef have talked to eachother and teams up.

Then it is like

Martin + Josef against Adam and John = 2 vs 2

Adam fights against John, Martin and Josef = 1 vs 3

John fights against Adam, Martin and Josef = 1 vs 3

 

After a while Josef attacks Martin when Martin have low health. Killing Martin. Josef also takes his items and fort.

Now it is all vs all(with Martin perm dead)

[XirmiX]

What sense does it make that there are these magical beings that you can't attack for whatever reason? If you truly needed to survive, murdering and eating your friend may be a viable/necessary option. I see no reason to disallow it. If your friends don't want to kill each other, then they don't have to. But no-PvP also makes no sense story-wise.

Get some sense: if you went that far you would just not want to live anymore, sinse you woupd die anyway and wasting your life in a cruel world like that without cooperation, well SORRY but that would just make YOU an animal. This is not a horror game, you know!

[ArcticFox789]

Get some sense: if you went that far you would just not want to live anymore, sinse you woupd die anyway and wasting your life in a cruel world like that without cooperation, well SORRY but that would just make YOU an animal. This is not a horror game, you know!

 

That's not true. Read this, specifically the part on cannibalism. They didn't die. A few years ago, in fact, they met up and had a party. They are living their life to the full. Are they animals? They did what they could to survive.

 

Back on topic, no, it's a survival game. And you do what you have to in order to survive. If that means cannibalism, so be it.

 

 

@Tamazacat a poll would be a great idea, I suppose if XirmiX is reluctant to make one, maybe someone else should? Just don't tell @jbeetle

 

Why do we always need polls? Surely actually reading the comments and opinions gives the developers a better sense of how people feel than a poll does?

[polygone]

 

That's not true. Read this, specifically the part on cannibalism. They didn't die. A few years ago, in fact, they met up and had a party. They are living their life to the full. Are they animals? They did what they could to survive.

 

Back on topic, no, it's a survival game. And you do what you have to in order to survive. If that means cannibalism, so be it.

 

 

 

Why do we always need polls? Surely actually reading the comments and opinions gives the developers a better sense of how people feel than a poll does?

 

You missed one fine detail: They didn't murder anyone. Yes they resorted to cannibalism, but they only ate the people who died naturally, and even then they thought long and hard about it before trying it. Killing people for their meat would make you an animal, these people weren't because they didn't kill. They cooperated with each other to get out alive.

~~~~~

Also I really think it's a bad idea to force people to play single player to get to multiplayer. I have friends who would be willing to play multiplayer with me, but they don't really like the single player experience because they get bored being alone trying to survive. Being with someone else you can communicate with would make the game enjoyable for them, but if they have to play single player first they won't even bother and I'm sure they're not the only ones who feel that way. Plus if you die and have to go back to single player again for an hour just to get back to playing with your friend that isn't really very fun either, it's just punishing. Yes this is an uncompromising survival game, but it's a fair uncompromising survival game. Everything is balance and if you die it's generally because you did something to mess up, but then you can just go straight back to doing what you were doing in a new world. If you have to do some minigame in order to create a new world every time, then the game would be far less enjoyable. So adding an hour long wait timer on multiplayer by forcing you to play single player first is a really bad idea.

[XirmiX]

I read all of your posts. Some were just unnecessary (but fine) thought most of you made really good points. The biggest argument here was about PvP. Now it's not like I'd rage about it or anythjng, but the thing is that I thought everyone would start suggesting teams, which is completely off to what many others would even want, like one fellow here. If PvP you mean Ctrl + F to fight someone because of a certain reason, that would be fine, but if someone just wants to make it a wargame, just why? It's a survival game for goodness sake! Now many people, especially the newcomers might come straight into multiplayer and stsrt trolling and killing everyone when you're not preperared, wrecking you base etc. and that was my biggest concern about PvP which is whether it'll have an impact of someone kind of betraying you or something or if it woulf actually make us suffer -playing with strangers as PvP is the biggest question here: will anyone troll and start wrecking what people do?

While reading your posts you reminded me of something I wanted to write about but completely got it hit out of my brain, so thanks for a reminder. You mentioned that PvP could be used as self or base defense, which would be a valid reason to have that in the game while playing with strangers, but it might have a negative impact which of I already mentioned. Now you think about it, it might have a good impact, so I guess lets have PvP as a self defense mechanism and see what happens. Just please, don't make this into a war game?

The point you made about MP being optional and as a head start from the beginning is EXACTLY the reason why I suggested the Wilson's door being a thing (note: I never mentioned that Wilson was the only one who could build the door. That wouldn't even work. What I meant is that everyone could make the door EASILY and sinse the full moon starts around at day 10 it shouldn't be long while. Say you want to move to MP from your world to another: the game would be fully paused for you and you could choose between the many maps people have allowed to be multiplayer while they have full moon. Remember the full moon often lasts around 3 minutes and comes two days in a row. Plus the hundreds of maps to choose from made by random people you should find a lot of them at once. Also if you can join the map at any time you could end up joining during a dark night and die instantly and if the map is Perma-death you couldn't rejoin if no Resurrection stuff is placed in the world. Besides, waiting for joining multiplayer isn't the only thing you might need to wait: sleeping, resurrecting yourself only when the next day comes etc.). Okay where was I, so as I mentioned before, SP because of a symple enterring of MP would make SP really unpopular! If multiplayer went on for a year or so, what proportion of people would play SP most of the time rather than MP? One in a hundred? SP would be so unpopular nobody would even remember how the good old SP days were (well, may be you would).

I am not trying to start a neverending rage-debate here you know, like j20hawkz mentioned. I'm trying to make you guys move the game to the right direction and no, I am not trying to make the game like I want it: if it was up to me not caring about how the game worked up till now I'd say "Go for it! Let's make CTF, cuz why the heck not?!" or "Lets all just kill each other in the game and wreck each other's bases, causr that's fun!" You see so far DS has had Story telling videos connected A LOT to the actual game and having all that puzzle for nothing but to announce that multiplayer is actually coming kinda feels daft.

Yes, I know I posted a lot of this stuff twice or even thrice somewhere else, but I just wanted to stop with that jamming on other topics and let people boosh their ideas while I would just tell all this in one topic only (not saying that I won't check other people's topics and not comment; I just won't give all the same arguments all over again in every topic cause it really is waste of time).

[XirmiX]

You missed one fine detail: They didn't murder anyone. Yes they resorted to cannibalism, but they only ate the people who died naturally, and even then they thought long and hard about it before trying it. Killing people for their meat would make you an animal, these people weren't because they didn't kill. They cooperated with each other to get out alive.

~~~~~

Also I really think it's a bad idea to force people to play single player to get to multiplayer. I have friends who would be willing to play multiplayer with me, but they don't really like the single player experience because they get bored being alone trying to survive. Being with someone else you can communicate with would make the game enjoyable for them, but if they have to play single player first they won't even bother and I'm sure they're not the only ones who feel that way. Plus if you die and have to go back to single player again for an hour just to get back to playing with your friend that isn't really very fun either, it's just punishing. Yes this is an uncompromising survival game, but it's a fair uncompromising survival game. Everything is balance and if you die it's generally because you did something to mess up, but then you can just go straight back to doing what you were doing in a new world. If you have to do some minigame in order to create a new world every time, then the game would be far less enjoyable. So adding an hour long wait timer on multiplayer by forcing you to play single player first is a really bad idea.

About canibalism - you're right. All tho I don't know what the fuss is all about! The only thing a dead person drops in this game is a skeleton and you can't eat bone shards, can you? So all that thing about canibalism which came out of nowhere is completely ridiculous in my opinion for DS.

If you make a SP game, then join multiplayer and die you would just go back to the Multiplayer map choosing screne (you could only rejoin the map if it was a full moon there and/or if the map was non-permadeath or something, idk didn't think details on this). You would still have the "SP" world went to multiplayer to. Enuff said? I think not, but hei, just wanted to suggest the game to follow kind of by the story of the puzzle not to start a debate on game logic.

[polygone]

About canibalism - you're right. All tho I don't know what the fuss is all about! The only thing a dead person drops in this game is a skeleton and you can't eat bone shards, can you? So all that thing about canibalism which came out of nowhere is completely ridiculous in my opinion for DS.

If you make a SP game, then join multiplayer and die you would just go back to the Multiplayer map choosing screne (you could only rejoin the map if it was a full moon there and/or if the map was non-permadeath or something, idk didn't think details on this). You would still have the "SP" world went to multiplayer to. Enuff said? I think not, but hei, just wanted to suggest the game to follow kind of by the story of the puzzle not to start a debate on game logic.

So basically it's a buildable advnture door that leads you to multiplayer. That could work as long as it's fairly cheap, since as I said there are people who don't like the single player experience. The full moon bit isn't as good of an idea though, we should be able to enter multiplayer whenever we're ready. (tbh it'd probably just be when you build the portal)

 

Also, they said permadeath on servers is optional so if someone dies they can rejoin someone's game if it's off.

[XirmiX]

So basically it's a buildable advnture door that leads you to multiplayer. That could work as long as it's fairly cheap, since as I said there are people who don't like the single player experience. The full moon bit isn't as good of an idea though, we should be able to enter multiplayer whenever we're ready. (tbh it'd probably just be when you build the portal)

 

Also, they said permadeath on servers is optional so if someone dies they can rejoin someone's game if it's off.

Wilson's door: a few berries, rocks and silk. Seems simple enough (it's just because it was in the puzzle )

[VinylBread]

Maybe there's a series of 4 islands and the characters use the portals to travel between them?

 

Like, 4 different islands on the server of decent size, and to get to different people, you must use the portal?

[RalphKastro]

lots of stuff

I'll assume this was directed at me, and hope it really is, or it could get awkward

What I meant at the PvP thing is exactly that it wouldn't become a wargame. Think about it, if people just play trying to madly kill each other, then when they manage to kill all the other players(which would be pretty quick, considering how combat works), they would then get bored while waiting for other players to join, just so they could boringly kill them. That wouldn't be feasible.

And even without PvP, griefers would still be a big thing, since they will be able to destroy your base, while you can do nothing about it. I know, it wouldn't make sense story-wise, but gameplay-wise many people would like to do that(just to see the world burn), and the only option on how to react would be banning the player, which has the same results, but with a far less fun way of doing it than doing justice with your own hands