Conquer the bases.

[Crapplejacks]

I can imagine this being a scenario:

 

Player opens server for friends. Friend joins. They create a lovely base, with amazing components. Friend kills player. Friend inhabits server, and base becomes theirs.

 

Do y'all think this could be a thing?

[J20hawkz]

No. Turn off PvP.

[spiritcrusher77]

Leave on PvP. It's fairer that way. I will never play a server that has PvP off.

[RalphKastro]

could be, but I don't think it would be likely, since said players are friends and one wouldn't do that kind of thing to a friend

[spiritcrusher77]

could be, but I don't think it would be likely, since said players are friends and one wouldn't do that kind of thing to a friend

I don't know, I'd take my friend's base and things on Don't Starve Together, and I hope that he'd do the same to me, given the chance.

[Smithy17]

How many days you think people would really last in pvp?

[imsomony]

I can imagine this being a scenario:

 

Player opens server for friends. Friend joins. They create a lovely base, with amazing components. Friend kills player. Friend inhabits server, and base becomes theirs.

 

Do y'all think this could be a thing?

 

Sure, it could totally be a thing. If any friend of mine did that though, I'd no longer play with them. Troll other people, fine... troll me and we're done.

[RalphKastro]

How many days you think people would really last in pvp?

depends. If they play "to the death" and try to kill the other player any time they see them, it'll not last a complete in-game year even in the best cases. But if they play "just stay away from my crops and I won't get your head", then it could actually last very long(until they all get bored and either try to kill each other, or just quit the game)

[Silentdarkness1]

Leave on PvP. It's fairer that way. I will never play a server that has PvP off.

Why?

[spiritcrusher77]

Why?

Which statement are you inquiring about? The first, or the second?

[Crapplejacks]

I would steal bases, but only if that was the reason why we were playing.

[Hugo M.]

If you play with me ya'll be all fine, unless i get bored, then chaos and sadistic feelings will get into me (this applies to game).

[Silentdarkness1]

Which statement are you inquiring about? The first, or the second?

The second. Why? What's wrong with coop survival?

[Tayburro]

Is DS going to become a lawless PVP hellhole like Rust or Day Z, I hope not.

Plus it's called Don't starve together.

Not starving implies surviving. Together implies comradery whilst doing so.

Surviving together involves not being stupid and killing each other.

If there is PVP the name might as well be changed to "Squabble like idiots, rather than surviving like you are supposed to"

 

Plus I don't see DS as having the correct engine and gameplay style for PVP.

However I do support the idea of larger worlds that would encourage more tribe-like gameplay involving trading and special events which require the collaboration of many people to mitigate the effects (Hell, why not a bigfoot bossfight?)

The above idea would however requre many more than just 4 player slots (I honestly hope for 16 or more with 4X size worlds.)

[spiritcrusher77]

 

The second. Why? What's wrong with coop survival?

Oh, we can still cooperate... I just want the option to stab you in the back when the time comes.

 

Is DS going to become a lawless PVP hellhole like Rust or Day Z, I hope not.

Plus it's called Don't starve together.

Not starving implies surviving. Together implies comradery whilst doing so.

Surviving together involves not being stupid and killing each other.

If there is PVP the name might as well be changed to "Squabble like idiots, rather than surviving like you are supposed to"

 

Plus I don't see DS as having the correct engine and gameplay style for PVP.

However I do support the idea of larger worlds that would encourage more tribe-like gameplay involving trading and special events which require the collaboration of many people to mitigate the effects (Hell, why not a bigfoot bossfight?)

The above idea would however requre many more than just 4 player slots (I honestly hope for 16 or more with 4X size worlds.)

They already announced that pvp is optional, take your argument outside.

[Silentdarkness1]

Oh, we can still cooperate... I just want the option to stab you in the back when the time comes.

Thing is, the biggest way to stab someone in the back doesn't even require PvP to be on. Also, If you're gonna be having the "i'm plotting to murder you" mentality, don't be surprised if the pool of potential candidates shrinks.

[polygone]

I don't know, I'd take my friend's base and things on Don't Starve Together, and I hope that he'd do the same to me, given the chance.

Thing is, the biggest way to stab someone in the back doesn't even require PvP to be on. Also, If you're gonna be having the "i'm plotting to murder you" mentality, don't be surprised if the pool of potential candidates shrinks.

What Silent said. To be honest, the only thing it'd take to give someone the chance to kill you is if they happen to find a log suit and spear on a skeleton at the first five minutes of the game, you wouldn't have had time to build up any defense against it and they can just run you down. And if you're going to play with someone who knows you'd be willing to stab them in the back, odds are they aren't going to just sit around and let you hang about their base to 'cooperate'. That's why some people don't like Dayz and Rust, there isn't really much of a cooperation aspect. Most of the gameplay revolves around ruthlessly murdering each other in a lawless town. Sure people can form groups and tribes to survive, but those groups still go around hunting down and murdering other groups and survivors. It's just not very good for the theme of Don't Starve, since you can't respawn easily. The goal is to survive, not kill everything ever.

 

...but either way, it's best to have it a toggle option.

~~~~~

Also, if some random friend came onto my server after I had a base set up and just killed me for it, then we wouldn't be friends anymore at that point. Because that's really a ****** move.

[XirmiX]

Leave on PvP. It's fairer that way. I will never play a server that has PvP off.

You kinda creep me out...

[RalphKastro]

Why?

to me it could be more like a counter-measure, like cooperate, but if I'm desperate, if he turns on me, or someone logs in and start burning my stuff, I could just kill him to ensure my own survival

[Silentdarkness1]

What Silent said. To be honest, the only thing it'd take to give someone the chance to kill you is if they happen to find a log suit and spear on a skeleton at the first five minutes of the game, you wouldn't have had time to build up any defense against it and they can just run you down. And if you're going to play with someone who knows you'd be willing to stab them in the back, odds are they aren't going to just sit around and let you hang about their base to 'cooperate'. That's why some people don't like Dayz and Rust, there isn't really much of a cooperation aspect. Most of the gameplay revolves around ruthlessly murdering each other in a lawless town. Sure people can form groups and tribes to survive, but those groups still go around hunting down and murdering other groups and survivors. It's just not very good for the theme of Don't Starve, since you can't respawn easily. The goal is to survive, not kill everything ever.

 

...but either way, it's best to have it a toggle option.

~~~~~

Also, if some random friend came onto my server after I had a base set up and just killed me for it, then we wouldn't be friends anymore at that point. Because that's really a ****** move.

^

 

The DayZ "kill or be killed" mentality would DESTROY DST as a game. That's NOT what the DS vision entails. Save it for roleplays.

 

to me it could be more like a counter-measure, like cooperate, but if I'm desperate, if he turns on me, or someone logs in and start burning my stuff, I could just kill him to ensure my own survival

Orrrr, the devs could make it so that players can't burn or hammer other players' stuff. The problem with this is that it enables the KLR gene in all/a sizeable portion of us. (KLR is short for Kill Loot Repeat)

[RalphKastro]

^

 

The DayZ "kill or be killed" mentality would DESTROY DST as a game. That's NOT what the DS vision entails. Save it for roleplays.

 

Orrrr, the devs could make it so that players can't burn or hammer other players' stuff. The problem with this is that it enables the KLR gene in all/a sizeable portion of us. (KLR is short for Kill Loot Repeat)

I can get the hammer thing, but I don't see how it would be possible to prevent players from burning other people's stuff without making silly things like "fire started by other players can't burn stuff made by others" since they can just set a bit of grass near the structures.

Also, when a bunch of people play to kill and only kill, they'll end up playing all alone again, and get bored eventually. If they just use PvP when it is necessary(say, somebody destroys your crops, or steals all your gold) to get justice/revenge, the game might last much longer. I like to think of it more like anarchy than real PvP, since players aren't actually fighting all the time

[Silentdarkness1]

I can get the hammer thing, but I don't see how it would be possible to prevent players from burning other people's stuff without making silly things like "fire started by other players can't burn stuff made by others" since they can just set a bit of grass near the structures.

Also, when a bunch of people play to kill and only kill, they'll end up playing all alone again, and get bored eventually. If they just use PvP when it is necessary(say, somebody destroys your crops, or steals all your gold) to get justice/revenge, the game might last much longer. I like to think of it more like anarchy than real PvP, since players aren't actually fighting all the time

Eight words to explain to you why that logic is flawed.

 

If you bring it, they will abuse it.

 

There'll always be someone who literally just goes from server to server, lurking around for players to hunt. Which would, of course, make any public server uninhabitable.

[mitboy]

Trade friend for a base? Sounds like a good idea!

[RalphKastro]

Eight words to explain to you why that logic is flawed.

 

If you bring it, they will abuse it.

 

There'll always be someone who literally just goes from server to server, lurking around for players to hunt. Which would, of course, make any public server uninhabitable.

until somebody kills them. And that would happen too without PvP, just that, instead of killing people directly, they would set everything on fire and use different methods, such as hounds, spiders and werepigs to kill you. That will always be present, and it's a price to pay for multiplayer(hence why I'll only play in private servers with select friends). The only ways to get rid of these people would be banning them, or killing them. Which one seems more funny and fair?(not against non-PvP servers, just proving how PvP can make sense)

[Silentdarkness1]

until somebody kills them. And that would happen too without PvP, just that, instead of killing people directly, they would set everything on fire and use different methods, such as hounds, spiders and werepigs to kill you. That will always be present, and it's a price to pay for multiplayer(hence why I'll only play in private servers with select friends). The only ways to get rid of these people would be banning them, or killing them. Which one seems more funny and fair?(not against non-PvP servers, just proving how PvP can make sense)

You're gonna be shocked when I tell you that banning them seems like the funnier way. The PvP should be kept in the DayZs and the Rusts and OUT of my multiplayer DS.