An out-of-the-box solution to Chester

[Gumhoy]

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. 

Sometimes there is no simple solution. Humans often go for the easiest way to solve a problem, even if it isn't the best - and I feel that it wouldn't be right in this kind of situation. (Leaving Chester as he is with whoever has the eye-bone wins) Shouldn't Chester feel much more like a point of contention? Shouldn't he evoke emotions? Such as curiosity? Jealousy? The Devs themselves did say as well that one of the goals they were looking to achieve was interesting event based interaction.

Finding a player is interesting. Finding a player with Chester is VERY interesting.

This feels... like a sticky subject, it's uncomfortable to bring up - because the Devs have made it crystal clear:

"No new content that isn't available in single player mode." 

While the idea of bosses I brought up in a different thread might not be right for Don't Starve (I was off-base), having systems in place designed around making multi-player a more enjoyable experience all around would be helpful. If not necessary.

This leads to the question of what constitutes as, "content."

If there is a new monster/passive mob, that sounds like content to me! Both DS and DST should have it!

If there is a new item/weapon, that sounds like content to me! Both DS and DST should have it!

If there is a new world type being introduced, that sounds like content to me! Both DS and DST should have it!

If there are new mechanics related to Chester that are only affected by having multiple players around - is it better to leave the mechanics only designed for and used in Multiplayer in a Multiplayer setting? Would it be better to Jury-rig Multiplayer mechanics into Single-player? (Or the absolute worst, leave SP designed mechanics in-place for MP)

How would you implement someone stealing chester in Single Player? How would you implement sending Chester to different areas on the map in Single Player? What would he even do? These questions have never been asked because in Single player these issues previously didn't exist. Who would steal Chester anyways!? Why would Chester ever need to leave my side to go half way across the map?

Is it really, "content" if all I recommend is a system that gives you further control over mechanics already in-place? Mechanics that are not in single-player and never would be required in single-player? If you still stick to the banner of, "No new content that isn't available in single player mode." then:

Perhaps the items in multi-player could then have a different purpose in single-player yet still exist. That way we get the best of both worlds in a strange sort of way - such as making the lesser eye-bone an item like a Rattle - that attracts creatures to you but lets you tell chester who wants him to go where and when in Multi-player. Though developing with that mind-set sounds like a bit of a nightmare since some items will be dual-purpose for either mode.

I hope this wasn't too confusing, but improved mechanics can give the game more depth - without feeling like Multiplayer is getting MORE than Single Player. The only difference should be and FEEL like that there is more players - and the mechanics I've proposed I FEEL do just that. (Especially with the dual-purpose rattle concept.)

Thank you.

I am seriously Jealous of your Chester plushie.

 

[Hugo M.]

One chester is for the best, the team would have to he more of a 'team' and trust more on eachother also if you know someone's gonna be 'that guy' why would you ever play with him/her/they/ to begin with?

[Gumhoy]

One chester is for the best, the team would have to he more of a 'team' and trust more on eachother also if you know someone's gonna be 'that guy' why would you ever play with him/her/they/ to begin with?

If you're joining a public server with the intent to play - why not avoid "that guy" situations all together by removing a possibly harmful situation? If they're still going to be "That Guy" with Chester and run him into traps/get him killed while carrying the eye-bone you can either ignore or leave - but the point is to take the power out of the abusers hands as much as possible. If you have the eye-bone and can't share Chester in some way without possibly losing him, it's only right that you should not try to share him at all. In that case what's the point of even starving together? (Unless everyone in your group is nice enough to swap the eye-bone back and forth without getting greedy.)

Hopefully an Admin would be right on the bad egg - but sometimes this just doesn't happen.

I know we all have plans to play possibly with each-other because we're nice folk, but for new players to the game, ones that have never experienced Don't Starve before; (Who could either be productive or destructive.) is it really responsible to leave the mechanics the way they are? (Especially if someone is fooled into giving away their eye-bone by another manipulative player?)

I don't feel there's enough in place.

[Hugo M.]

If you're joining a public server with the intent to play - why not avoid "that guy" situations all together by removing a possibly harmful situation? If they're still going to be "That Guy" with Chester and run him into traps/get him killed while carrying the eye-bone you can either ignore or leave - but the point is to take the power out of the abusers hands as much as possible. If you have the eye-bone and can't share Chester in some way without possibly losing him, it's only right that you should not try to share him at all. In that case what's the point of even starving together? (Unless everyone in your group is nice enough to swap the eye-bone he'd die far easier than chsdter. and forth without getting greedy.)

Hopefully an Admin would be right on the bad egg - but sometimes this just doesn't happen.

I know we all have plans to play possibly with each-other because we're nice folk, but for new players to the game, ones that have never experienced Don't Starve before; (Who could either be productive or destructive.) is it really responsible to leave the mechanics the way they are? (Especially if someone is fooled into giving away their eye-bone by another manipulative player?)

I don't feel there's enough in place.

You can always kill the "bad egg" and take chester for yourself. Also its not like "that guy" also couldnt do the same with a bunch chesters and pick up all the eye bones and take them to 'some dangerous place'. What do you mean by abusers? Taking chester/eye bones to a dangerous place sounds more like a strategy than simple 'abuse' to me, also there isnt a completely inpenetrable place in DS, some may be hard to get to, but in one way or another you(and your friends, perhaps)'d be able to get the eye bone back if were cardful and thought enough about 'how to get in there without harming yourselves. Killing chester? That dude is a hude tank, if the 'bad egg' were to put him and chester in a dangerous place, he'd, he has a manureton of hp and recovers it faster than anything in the game, and even if he dies whats so bad about? Tops you lose some food and flammable stuff (that is, uf theres even anything to set those itdms ablaze). Whats the point of starving together if evetyone's greedy? I doubt one whos greedy would only be greedy about chester, but would also be greedy about many, MANY more things than chester, and so i adk again, why would you even play with someone like that? New people can learn, we all were new at some point, but we also learned, didnt we? Manipulative players probably would only happen in PVP, if there happens to be one in coop i bet the other players would ban him or kill him all the time.

I feel like theres enough in place. If only nine slots arent enough, there always are chests and packpacks if you want.

[the truthseeker]

Sometimes there is no simple solution. Humans often go for the easiest way to solve a problem, even if it isn't the best - and I feel that it wouldn't be right in this kind of situation. (Leaving Chester as he is with whoever has the eye-bone wins) Shouldn't Chester feel much more like a point of contention? Shouldn't he evoke emotions? Such as curiosity? Jealousy? The Devs themselves did say as well that one of the goals they were looking to achieve was interesting event based interaction.

Finding a player is interesting. Finding a player with Chester is VERY interesting.

This feels... like a sticky subject, it's uncomfortable to bring up - because the Devs have made it crystal clear:

"No new content that isn't available in single player mode." 

While the idea of bosses I brought up in a different thread might not be right for Don't Starve (I was off-base), having systems in place designed around making multi-player a more enjoyable experience all around would be helpful. If not necessary.

This leads to the question of what constitutes as, "content."

If there is a new monster/passive mob, that sounds like content to me! Both DS and DST should have it!

If there is a new item/weapon, that sounds like content to me! Both DS and DST should have it!

If there is a new world type being introduced, that sounds like content to me! Both DS and DST should have it!

If there are new mechanics related to Chester that are only affected by having multiple players around - is it better to leave the mechanics only designed for and used in Multiplayer in a Multiplayer setting? Would it be better to Jury-rig Multiplayer mechanics into Single-player? (Or the absolute worst, leave SP designed mechanics in-place for MP)

 

 

I do agree (as I have stated in other posts) that rebalancing may need to be done for multiplayer, Characters included. The points you make I quoted above are very good. Up to that point. Then the problem is where you continued. 

 

 

 

How would you implement someone stealing chester in Single Player? How would you implement sending Chester to different areas on the map in Single Player? What would he even do? These questions have never been asked because in Single player these issues previously didn't exist. Who would steal Chester anyways!? Why would Chester ever need to leave my side to go half way across the map?

Is it really, "content" if all I recommend is a system that gives you further control over mechanics already in-place? Mechanics that are not in single-player and never would be required in single-player? If you still stick to the banner of, "No new content that isn't available in single player mode." then:

Perhaps the items in multi-player could then have a different purpose in single-player yet still exist. That way we get the best of both worlds in a strange sort of way - such as making the lesser eye-bone an item like a Rattle - that attracts creatures to you but lets you tell chester who wants him to go where and when in Multi-player. Though developing with that mind-set sounds like a bit of a nightmare since some items will be dual-purpose for either mode.

I hope this wasn't too confusing, but improved mechanics can give the game more depth - without feeling like Multiplayer is getting MORE than Single Player. The only difference should be and FEEL like that there is more players - and the mechanics I've proposed I FEEL do just that. (Especially with the dual-purpose rattle concept.)

Thank you.

 

You assume the multiplayer=PvP. PvP is optional in DST, and the players who join that kind of server will agree to it. In PvP-edit: world conditions set by the world creator aside-anything goes, whether it's a battle royale, a guild v guild, alliances who stab each other in the back, etc. Including how they fight over Chester. 

 

But co-op is about how you share the Chester(s). (And if any players are expecting co-op players to steal from them and run off, you need to find new co-op players!) The only question one should have is if there is an efficient way to fast trade between players, including the eyebone(s) when half a game world and/or two cave levels down? This was not an existing problem in single player, but now a trade/mail system becomes a viable question if it should be implemented or not, or if we just drop it off in a chest somewhere for others to get?

 

 I note a potential Chester plural since it's been suggested by players that all players have a Chester or (and I'm not doing another scavenger hunt, just know the dev suggested for DST that) a dev suggested a limited number of Chesters in a world exist for the players to find and use with each other as they see fit.

 

But if we need to re-balance again for a PvP as well as a co-op, i understand. As many veteran MMO player will tell you all, PvP is a totally different beast than PvE. 

 

 

I am seriously Jealous of your Chester plushie

Huh? What Plushie? I (like others) ordered one on Kickstarter, but haven't gotten mine yet.  Now, if you want to know my devotion to Chester, you can click the link on my sig, where i got my Title of course.