An out-of-the-box solution to Chester

[GoshuaJoshua]

I've been reading some posts and comments about Chester in Don't Starve Together. Some people seem to think Chester is unique and there should only be one; on the other hand, other people want multiple Chesters to be available. Both could have their ups and downs.

 

One Chester keeps it a rare item that can be a competitive edge in PvP or a support in co-op groups. One chester could also lead to friendly kills out of jealousy. With multiple Chesters no one would have to fight to have their very own fluffy mouth box (assuming each player can only have one Chester...I can see the Chester train now). The confusion of multiple Chesters on the screen alone could be a game killer for me.

 

One Solution I saw that piqued my interest was J20Hawkz solution here: http://forums.kleientertainment.com/topic/36103-how-to-rebalance-dont-starve-for-multiplayer-console-commands-yesno-page-16/?p=499257

He suggests that four Chesters would be okay if finding each one was a challenge to obtain. This idea spoke to me because I like the fact that it’s not too easy to obtain such a good item.

 

Early Friday morning I read SethR's Fireside Chats post and I read a line that sparked an idea. SethR said "It’s often the case in game design that to solve a perceived problem, you need to change something about the game outside of the immediate problem area." I sat and thought if instead of changing chester, what if Klei changed something else that solved the issue indirectly.

 

Instead of having duplicates of what is supposed to be a rare item, a solution would be to have four unique items. Three new items plus the already lovable Chester makes four unique items for friends to collect and trade or enemies to hoard.

 

I’m not sure as too what the items could be as the idea is fairly new to me, but it is a simple solution that also has the opportunity to introduce new content. I just believe they should all have a different function and location. The eyebone seems to be found near a road. The others could be found in different biomes like the swamps, deserts, and caves. Or perhaps the other items don’t appear on the surface until each new season occurs in RoG.

 

I’m interested in what others think about my idea so leave a comment bellow. Also, post your ideas of what some other unique Don’t Starve items could be.

[Rosten]

You mean like we would have 4 unique chester-like entities, we already have 2

1 - Chester - Inventory

2 - Glommer - Sanity 

How about

3 - ??? - Hunger

4 - ??? - Heating

Each unique item helps with a major problem, each gives an edge similar to chester, but all do unique things.

[Ridley]

With Glommer in mind as a pet to go get right?

[GoshuaJoshua]

I sort of consider Glommer as a pet (comparable to catcoons) and Chester as a unique item/chest. Glommer can die and doesn't re-spawn almost instantly. Glommer could count as one but I think his sanity aura range would need to be increased. Maybe one item could be a portable crockpot, or maybe a Yeti that gives you ice and you can shave it to make new winter clothes(helping with both summer and winter).

[Vaan2931]

I really like the idea of that actually. However if they are adding it to multiplayer, they may have to add it to singleplayer too so that people who dislike multiplayer aren't missing out.

 

The issue with that is that it may be to OP in singleplayer to be running around with Chester, Gloomer AND two other helpful "creatures".

[Mobbstar]

The issue with that is that it may be to OP in singleplayer to be running around with Chester, Gloomer AND two other helpful "creatures".

 

Yetis like to eat gloomers as far as I can remember

[GoshuaJoshua]

@Vaan2931

 

Yea I agree that the two new creatures would need to be added to single player also, which I'd be perfectly fine with new content in my solo-games. Gloomer isn't very OP as of now, just gives some sanity gain I believe. Chester is just a walking chest.

 

I was thinking maybe a creature found in the caves like mentioned before, that way its a challenge to obtain and not OP for the early gameplay. Or perhaps a Yeti that only appears during winter(glommer only during fullmoons), and once found he will follow you while you carry his item, occasionally giving you ice.

 

Maybe a chicken that follows you around and lays eggs every morning, with the chance to lay a gold nugget.

[Vaan2931]

@Vaan2931

 

Yea I agree that the two new creatures would need to be added to single player also, which I'd be perfectly fine with new content in my solo-games. Gloomer isn't very OP as of now, just gives some sanity gain I believe. Chester is just a walking chest.

 

I was thinking maybe a creature found in the caves like mentioned before, that way its a challenge to obtain and not OP for the early gameplay. Or perhaps a Yeti that only appears during winter(gloomer only during fullmoons), and once found he will follow you while you carry his item, occasionally giving you ice.

 

Maybe a chicken that follows you around and lays eggs every morning, with the chance to lay a gold nugget.

 

I actually really like the idea of the chicken!

 

I've never actually even heard of Gloomer up until a few hours ago on this forum, so I'll definitely be checking it out to see what it would maybe be like in multiplayer...

 

If they do however make it possible to have four Chesters, it would be interesting to have different variations of him. Like a Chesterette! Or maybe even a completely different creature but with the same function.

[GoshuaJoshua]

@Vaan2931

 

Thanks, I think it would be cool to have a chicken that supplies eggs, because eggs don't really do much for hunger but it would aid you in adventuring. Oh and Gloomer is found in Deciduous Forests.

[GoshuaJoshua]

@Vaan2931

 

Oh and there are already different types of Chesters I believe, I've just never had one. You can change normal Chester into them. But I'd prefer four unique friendly creatures.

[SquirrelPup]

I think it would be best to just have one Chester at a time.  Have players pass the eye-bone around.

[Materite]

...It's the Glommer-Misspelling convention!

Still, I support. I think maybe we could have-instead of Glommer being one of the creatures- 4 different VERSIONS of Chester.

Chester for Storage

A walking crockpot, maybe, for cooking. Its item, like Chester's Eye-Bone, could be a T-Bone steak, as a joke.

A cat/dog/hybrid/something that looks cute for sanity, maybe. The item would depend on what creature it was.

And then, finally, a walking ice machine, just because, that in summer will overheat and turn into a magma rock dispenser? Better stockpile your ice while you can, in winter!

[GoshuaJoshua]

I think it would be best to just have one Chester at a time.  Have players pass the eye-bone around.

I totally agree. More than one chester would make him feel common and not as exciting.

[GoshuaJoshua]

...It's the Glommer-Misspelling convention!

Still, I support. I think maybe we could have-instead of Glommer being one of the creatures- 4 different VERSIONS of Chester.

Chester for Storage

A walking crockpot, maybe, for cooking. Its item, like Chester's Eye-Bone, could be a T-Bone steak, as a joke.

A cat/dog/hybrid/something that looks cute for sanity, maybe. The item would depend on what creature it was.

And then, finally, a walking ice machine, just because, that in summer will overheat and turn into a magma rock dispenser? Better stockpile your ice while you can, in winter!

Haha! I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was miss-spelling his name. =]

I mentioned the possibility of a crock-pot type creature, but that could be a little overpowered. Maybe a creature that drops food occasionally. Chicken=eggs? Cow=milk? 

Glommer is a creature that gives sanity, so that's already a thing.

And I like my idea of a Yeti, only obtainable during the Winter season, that drops ice better than a walking ice machine.

[the truthseeker]

It depends whether the non-eyebone players could place/remove items from Chester(s) or not. 

[Hugos10]

It depends whether the non-eyebone players could place/remove items from Chester(s) or not. 

 

I think there should be some kind of access-toggle, choosing if other people can access it or not! (But only the person with the eye-bone should be able to change the options)

[Gumhoy]

 

Personally I think Chester should be an independant in DST PVP that you can feed food to keep it loyal to you. Once the first player finds the eye-bone then uses it, Chester will appear.

• Works on a Loyalty point system based on feeding Chester, capped at 50.
• If your Loyalty with Chester is lower than another player, the Eye-bone poofs into their inventory.
• Chesters inventory independent. (PLAYERS CAN TAKE ITEMS FROM CHESTER IF THEY HAVE THE EYE-BONE. YOUR ITEMS. REMEMBER TO NOT STORE ANYTHING REALLY IMPORTANT!)
• Players can see Chester on the map close-by if they hit TAB. There should also be noises indicating Chester is near.
• When a player dies, Chesters Loyalty is set to 0 and there is no more eye-bone until he gains 1 point of loyalty.
• Do you want to risk giving food to Chester? Hurting your own chances of survival just so you can have the boon of an extra 9 inventory slots? Do you think another player would be happy with you feeding their Chester like that? No! NO I SAY!
• DONT TOUCH MY CHESTER!

However for PvE... *Rubs chin*

I would say Chester is more like a team puppy.

 

• The first player to find the eye-bone keeps it or gives it away as needed.
• All other players must craft a new lesser eye-bone or bone for Chester. (Possibly from Hound Attacks?)
• Tap Chester on the head with the bone and he will start following you!
• Chesters inventory is individual to player. (9 Slots on one chester, only if he follows you.)
• Untap Chester to have him stop following you! He will then go to the Eye Bone!
• You cannot swap loyalty with Chester while danger music is playing! Though you can stop him from following you!
• The Eye-bone will always take precedence over other bones. (If Chester follows the Eye Bone user he cannot be used or opened by others until the Eye-bone user untaps Chester)
• If a player goes far far away with Chester intending to keep him so far away you can never tap him with the Eye-bone again. Dropping the Eye-bone and picking it back up will cause Chester to respawn with all of his previous items intact.

I posted this in a different thread. Though what I think it should be still stands. If you want to have the completion required to unlock multiple chesters that's fine. It sounds balanced, a great reward for a great challenge. HOWEVER, If you do want to let 4 Chesters be active at once FROM THE GET GO WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING JUST FINDING THE BONES - perhaps the amount of players carrying an Eye Bone could speed up the rate at which hounds attack. Thus limiting the free movement with 36 extra inventory slots people keep talking about because hounds will show up literally every day or two, the four chesters should be used mainly for base relocation or transporting a large amount of items out of caves back into the real world.

It does sound interesting to have 2 mobile chests with 4 players until you unlock the third and fourth (By beating adventure mode together) It sounds awesome.

[the truthseeker]

I'd love to hear from devs if this could work or not, but sounds interesting....

[An Artifact]

I would prefer Chester to be a one-of-a-kind. Having multiples really would ruin this great feeling you get every time you find an eyebone. Honestly, I don't think we really need any fancy-shmancy mechanics around this. In PvE, whoever needs storage space the most can take the eyebone and then hand it over when it's not needed anymore, and in PvP, the guy who gets the eyebone first has a small advantage, not that big of a deal.

[GoshuaJoshua]

It depends whether the non-eyebone players could place/remove items from Chester(s) or not. 

I'm not sure what they'll do with this.

[GoshuaJoshua]

I would prefer Chester to be a one-of-a-kind. Having multiples really would ruin this great feeling you get every time you find an eyebone. Honestly, I don't think we really need any fancy-shmancy mechanics around this. In PvE, whoever needs storage space the most can take the eyebone and then hand it over when it's not needed anymore, and in PvP, the guy who gets the eyebone first has a small advantage, not that big of a deal.

I totally agree with this!

[GoshuaJoshua]

I posted this in a different thread. Though what I think it should be still stands. If you want to have the completion required to unlock multiple chesters that's fine. It sounds balanced, a great reward for a great challenge. HOWEVER, If you do want to let 4 Chesters be active at once FROM THE GET GO WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING JUST FINDING THE BONES - perhaps the amount of players carrying an Eye Bone could speed up the rate at which hounds attack. Thus limiting the free movement with 36 extra inventory slots people keep talking about because hounds will show up literally every day or two, the four chesters should be used mainly for base relocation or transporting a large amount of items out of caves back into the real world.

It does sound interesting to have 2 mobile chests with 4 players until you unlock the third and fourth (By beating adventure mode together) It sounds awesome.

I really don't like any of this. The idea of a Chester that everyone can open and have individual inventories doesn't sound fun to me. Nor do I want there to be four Chesters. But I like the idea of there being four separate unique creatures to find and use for different purposes.

[Gumhoy]

I would prefer Chester to be a one-of-a-kind. Having multiples really would ruin this great feeling you get every time you find an eyebone. Honestly, I don't think we really need any fancy-shmancy mechanics around this. In PvE, whoever needs storage space the most can take the eyebone and then hand it over when it's not needed anymore, and in PvP, the guy who gets the eyebone first has a small advantage, not that big of a deal.

I agree, I wish there was a simple solution to this problem (In PvP there is, as you said just a small advantage) - but the problem is not Chester himself. The issue is human interaction. With your friends the former solution is viable - everyone passes around the eye-bone as needed. Friendly. Easy. Simple. What about with people who are not your friends?

I wish everyone were a perfect teammate, or a graceful enemy - inevitably you will find people that do not fit the bill.

In Co-op:

---

Say a player had the eye-bone, and you wanted it for something (Transporting more grass tufts/dug-up twigs to the base). No matter what you do to try and convince them you need Chester - they will not give him to you. He is to much of a boon, and more importantly they may be attached to Chester (Since they found him first). What happens if they give the eye-bone to you on good commitment/trust, then you leave the server never to return; or simply refuse to give the eye-bone back?

What's stopping a player from taking Chester for themself? If they are trusted to give him back, but they don't - how awful would it feel to be the generous player?

After all, the player found the eye-bone, they deserve to keep it! It shouldn't be something you need to be wary of when passing around Chester to "teammates." (Unless it was designed to be that way... Don't Starve is unforgiving.)

We want to stop abuse first and foremost in multiplayer - including with Chester. We want a team to feel like a team!

If a team is all fighting over Chester, even if it's simply 1 or 2 players bickering - why bring that negative interaction into the game? Chester would be more beneficial if several players could use Chester, at different times or places as needed; while the Eye-bone holder is the administrative figure and gets to keep that sweet feeling of control over their powerful find if they would like to.

What happens if a player tries to troll by making Chester useless or running him into hazards while the rest of the team weeps unable to do anything? Should the eye-bone drop upon death? Should the eye-bone respawn if Chester dies? If so how would you ever take it away from a player that's misbehaving since you can't straight up kill him. (Aside from praying for them to be hit by 20 frogs/Splumonkeys) It would be very frustrating!

In PvP

---

As far as PvP goes - looking back on it the Loyalty system is very bloated and seems unnecessary. Though the one thing it accomplishes is inciting player interaction more than just a simple "I must kill that guy to acquire Chester." If a player kills another player then picks up the eye-bone, will Chester still have the previous items still inside? What I want is to give players more options in how to deal with Chester. For instance:

1. That player has Chester!
2. I'll kill them and take Chester for myself!
3. That player's equipment is way better than mine! I'll probably lose...
4. Maybe if I quickly feed Chester before he notices me I can run away with Chester before he can catch up.
5. It's a good thing I had this Meaty Stew!
6. SEE YOU PAL! GOOD LUCK GETTING CHESTER BACK!
7. Wow that player had some good stuff! They should've watched Chester more closely!
8. (Continued if the other player continues chasing) Leave me alone! Stop following me!
9. I hope I have more food items and torch material than they do!
10. (Gets chased half-way across the map just for Chester) HAHA THEY HAD TO STOP AND GET FOOD! Good thing I had all this Food prepared!

Not only did the player score a 9-slot inventory expansion from another player, they burned 150 possible hunger points to do it (Meaty Stew, possibly more if the other player gives chase) and saved themselves the trouble of fighting another player in direct combat! If you want Chester from say a Maxwell with the Dark Sword/Night Armor with all four shadow clones active at once - How in the HELL ARE you supposed to take Chester by fighting directly? (Gunpowder is hard to get, AoE Magic items are crafted from Giant Drops/late game drops) What about Webber with his spider Friends? What if the player was Wigfrid or a Well-fed Wolfgang?

I feel like without some kind of system to "steal" Chester aside from open combat - characters who excel in combat or have backup will forever monopolize the poor puffy cheeto - atleast from more farm-based or non-combat based characters.

We certainly dont want to push players into a proverbial character box in PvP - everyone should play who they want from what's available based on their personal style. NOT because of what's a better objective choice related to the mechanics!

I never want to see a guide that tells me: (Play these characters if you always want to maintain control of Chester)

Why wouldn't I play Wolfgang, Wigfrid, Maxwell, Webber, Wendy or WX-78 in PvP?

What if I want to play Wilson, Willow, Wickerbottom, Woodie or Wes? None of whom have direct combat bonuses! ( Go ahead, chop 38 trees in the time it takes you to fight someone - then have all your stats drop to 50/50/50 once you come out of the werebeaver curse especially if you lose and die right there and tell me Woodie is a direct combat character)

I should be able to use my wit against another players brawn to steal if I can; it would dumb the game down if I could not.

Thank you for reading.

This is not personal, I am trying to merely extrapolate how I feel about this - and your opinion is completely valid Mister @MeingroessterFan - You seem like a cool, laid-back fellow with good friends and I hope you enjoy DST with them. I also hope the devs do read this, as I would like more information regarding Chester in DST. Hopefully they work out the issues I'm looking to avoid on their own! So we can all have a more positive experience together in the future!

 

[the truthseeker]

If it's along and complicated suggestion, it likely isn't a good solution, especially if it goes against the "no new content that isn't available in single player mode" promise. 

[An Artifact]

Many clever words

 

 

Thank you for the kind words, good sir. I have to admit that I did not really think myself into the multiplayer "meta" a whole lot so far, since the only thing I want to use DST for is Coop with some friends. You make some good, fair arguments that are hard to disagree with. I usually would find ways to disagree with them anyway, but Im driving off to the baltic sea in half an hour, so I don't really have the time right now