Jump to content

Conquer the bases.


Recommended Posts

^

 

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)

Guess I need to point out again that if you make someone else's stuff unhammerable then all someone has to do is put a giant grass wall around your base and it makes all your stuff unusable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

well, I disagree on which is funnier(I just imagine people in a server working together to find the griefer and kill him. That would be cool), but one thing I noticed is that there are many tipes of players. Ones would prefer to play PvP, while others wouldn't(and others would just burn everything because yes). But I think we all must agree, it wouldn't be fair to either kind of player if they were forced to play in the way they wouldn't like, so I believe PvP should remain optional(although I would prefer if it was the default, and non-PvP was optional. That's just my OCD and doesn't really need to be true)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, I disagree on which is funnier(I just imagine people in a server working together to find the griefer and kill him. That would be cool), but one thing I noticed is that there are many tipes of players. Ones would prefer to play PvP, while others wouldn't(and others would just burn everything because yes). But I think we all must agree, it wouldn't be fair to either kind of player if they were forced to play in the way they wouldn't like, so I believe PvP should remain optional(although I would prefer if it was the default, and non-PvP was optional. That's just my OCD and doesn't really need to be true)

I hope it isn't. It would seem like the devs promoted something that was against the game vision.

 

If servers really are going to have to put up with PvP/non-PvP griefers, then the devs should add support for some sort of griefing rollback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it isn't. It would seem like the devs promoted something that was against the game vision.

 

If servers really are going to have to put up with PvP/non-PvP griefers, then the devs should add support for some sort of griefing rollback.

after old bell, buzzards and caves, I don't see how PvP is against the game vision.

And griefers will always be there when there's multiplayer and popularity. No matter what Klei does, it won't keep them away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how the Old Bell is Klei saying, PvP is cool-beans. Buzzards aren't a problem unless you center your life around the desert biomes, and caves aren't good anymore thanks to what RoG did to them.

None of these fit into the game(the buzzards only gameplay-wise)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does the Old Bell not fit in?

a fly thing has a statue, which blooms a flower, which atracts the fly thing, whoose wings mixed with said flower somehow makes a bell using the instructions found inside the statue, which calls a foot from under the sea to step on the exact spot you rang it(let's not even mention dealing 1000 damage and being avaible by day 9). What part of this fits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Stop. Allow me to continue from there: So friend kills player. Player kicks friend. Player ditches friend to the nine hells. "Friend" loses friendly player for being a complete cold-hearted, backstabbing dimwit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop. Allow me to continue from there: So friend kills player. Player kicks friend. Player ditches friend to the nine hells. "Friend" loses friendly player for being a complete cold-hearted, backstabbing dimwit.

 

Right! Thank you! I've been so confused by the implication that allowing PvP means people suddenly loose the ability to understand what's happening and no longer can choose whether or not they play that way going forward. Maybe some people in this world can't learn from their mistakes right away, sure... it happens. But the player who was destroyed by the so-called "friend" is, more likely than not, going to learn the same lesson all of us did in single-player eventually.  

 

The world is uncompromising. It does not mold to your expectations. You will die, and more than once. Do what you have to do to survive. 

 

For the "friend", that meant destroying all potential allies. For the player, it should be pretty darn obvious that aside from whatever else they thought, it also means not playing with that "friend". But even it it weren't darn obvious for the player... isn't that their realization to come to? 

 

None of us can accurately predict how any other person will play based on our own experiences, we're biased because it's our own. My perception of "pretty darn obvious" is based on my experience, yet people still fall victim to the trap every day. I hope they learn from it, but even if they don't, I have no right to take away their ability to experience it if they made the choice to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

 

To tell you the truth , Its opional ,You can select between PVP and PVE so don't worry Bro 

I like your idea that the wolrd should be more larger :D which depends on the number of players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop. Allow me to continue from there: So friend kills player. Player kicks friend. Player ditches friend to the nine hells. "Friend" loses friendly player for being a complete cold-hearted, backstabbing dimwit.

well, I don't think any "friend"(from real life) would really do such thing. It wouldn't be funny in any way, just annoying. But if by "friend" he means somebody from the forums or just somebody that joined, then this scenario is very possible, which makes you ask "why would you trust someone you don't really know?"(which was cemented by klei saying there would never be MP, and suddenly MULTIPLAYER :()

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.

×
  • Create New...