GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PVP BOYS<

[CoolKid95]

hello, and a firm welcome to anyone who heavily supports pvp in Don't Starve. I however do not, and the world is harsh enough without having people killing eachother on purpose. Speaking of killing..if you're like me you probably don't just stand there and take the hits given out from a tentacle spike/beefalo/koalefant, and you probably have developed your "kiting" skills to a appropriate level. So what does this have to do with PvP? Well the fact that unless you've made it into the middle-late game your ranged weaponry will be limited to a boomerang, and if you're being chased by another player you're probably gonna panic and not catch your boomerang leaving you open to melee, which would end up being a dance of who kites best.

                                                         Agree or Disagree?

TLDR; Kiting isn't very effective in pvp. PvP should be optional, and or a last resort. Surviving is a huge part of don't starve, and it should stay that way only now with friends and strangers.

[J20hawkz]

Kiting isn't very effective in pvp.

This would make sense if multiplayer was out and you had actually tried and tested PvP.

PvP should be optional, and or a last resort.

PvP has been announced as optional. See the link in my signature "PvP".

[oCrapaCreeper]

How to PvP in Don't Starve:

 

1. Join session as Maxwell

2. ?????

3. Profit

[Maximum124]

This would make sense if multiplayer was out and you had actually tried and tested PvP. Plus PvP has been announced as optional. See the link in my signature "PvP".

 

Yeah what J20hawkz said, and no doubt they're rebalancing and reworking things like ranged weapons so they'll work better for PvP

[the truthseeker]

Amazing how those comment on something they have absolutely no experience in. 

 

I'll get back to you all on how it does or doesn't work well after I try it, after it is released. 

[Pyromailmann]

http://forums.kleientertainment.com/topic/37450-dont-starve-together-progress-report/

Read the part where JoeW  talks about what they know. It's going to make this entire thing a waste, honestly.

[Hollowed Doll]

LOL of course it's optional..

 

They aren't gonna force you to something like that.

[Pyromailmann]

LOL of course it's optional..

 

They aren't gonna force you to something like that.

It's like what Mojang did back when they released Minecraft Multiplayer. They put PvP at a default but you could disable it in the server config.

[Veja]

PVP should not be optional. In the vanilla Don't Starve during the battle, you can accidentally hit an ally/neutral (whether pig, lobster, or anyone else) and thus provoke unexpected or you can stay in the fight without an ally for yours own negligence. In multiplayer, as follows from your logic, this possibility will not be - you just can not hit your friend (or random stranger in public, who decided to help you) and accidentally kill him, that's all, and it would go against the balance of the game. As a result, trips with friends turn into retributive justice light, which does not stop even gazebo.
You can not accidentally set fire to your friend using fire staff during the battle, or the case of a torch to light him instead of wood. You can not cut him down with an ax (accidentally, of course) if he has enough brains to crawl to you during felling a tree, can not freeze your friend, trying to cool a dragonfly. It's not fun, and ruins all the gameplay.
 

[jbeetle]

PVP should not be optional. In the vanilla Don't Starve during the battle, you can accidentally hit an ally/neutral (whether pig, lobster, or anyone else) and thus provoke unexpected or you can stay in the fight without an ally for yours own negligence. In multiplayer, as follows from your logic, this possibility will not be - you just can not hit your friend (or random stranger in public, who decided to help you) and accidentally kill him, that's all, and it would go against the balance of the game. As a result, trips with friends turn into retributive justice light, which does not stop even gazebo

I fully agree. However, they're already clearly heavily leaning towards having as many options as possible for DST. /shrug

[Hollowed Doll]

It's like what Mojang did back when they released Minecraft Multiplayer. They put PvP at a default but you could disable it in the server config.

 

That's still optional of course the server host decides stuff.

[Mobbstar]

Just a idea: Should there be some kind of Player-Damage Master Multiplier Setting for PvP? That way, the server host could discourage, but still allow PvP, Encourage PvP, or straight-up forbid it.

[the truthseeker]

PVP should not be optional. In the vanilla Don't Starve during the battle, you can accidentally hit an ally/neutral (whether pig, lobster, or anyone else) and thus provoke unexpected or you can stay in the fight without an ally for yours own negligence. In multiplayer, as follows from your logic, this possibility will not be - you just can not hit your friend (or random stranger in public, who decided to help you) and accidentally kill him, that's all, and it would go against the balance of the game. As a result, trips with friends turn into retributive justice light, which does not stop even gazebo.

You can not accidentally set fire to your friend using fire staff during the battle, or the case of a torch to light him instead of wood. You can not cut him down with an ax (accidentally, of course) if he has enough brains to crawl to you during felling a tree, do not freeze your friend, trying to cool a dragonfly. It's not fun, and ruins all the gameplay.

 

Where to begin...at the beginning:

 

 

 

 

In the vanilla Don't Starve during the battle, you can accidentally hit an ally/neutral (whether pig, lobster, or anyone else) and thus provoke unexpected or you can stay in the fight without an ally for yours own negligence.

if you have a true ally, you CANNOT attack them accidentally. As a matter of fact, you need to hold down a key (often Control) just to attack an ally.

Don't believe me? Find Glommer. Now attack it without a force attack. 

 

 

Let's continue. 

 

 

 

 In multiplayer, as follows from your logic, this possibility will not be - you just can not hit your friend (or random stranger in public, who decided to help you) and accidentally kill him, that's all, and it would go against the balance of the game. As a result, trips with friends turn into retributive justice light, which does not stop even gazebo.

Your "logic" suggested you could accidentally hit an ally, now you say you can't. You just reversed your own position (which was using a poor example in the first place.)

 

And apologies, but could you re-translate this bolded part into more clear (United States of American if possible) English please? Your words make as much sense as this at the moment:

 

 

Thus coil, must of outly to gruntry from whethe rub; for that fly to oth makes, whips and makes of? There's thus more; and the retus makes this and scorns office, and name of retus and that pale calamity of us and lose in the the quieturns, and thought his no troubles coment a life, the have, the dream: ay, to suffer in the spurn awry, those bodkin? Who would fard that makes, puzzles, when weat that sleep to takes of dels bear the insolution. Thus count merit of die, by a bare bourn awry, and makes,

 

 

and in conclusion:

 

 

 

You can not accidentally set fire to your friend using fire staff during the battle, or the case of a torch to light him instead of wood. You can not cut him down with an ax (accidentally, of course) if he has enough brains to crawl to you during felling a tree, do not freeze your friend, trying to cool a dragonfly. It's not fun, and ruins all the gameplay.

 

What was the point again? We were not accidentally burning him like a tree, then not accidentally freeing him? 

 

Was I freezing my so called friend when they were cooling down a DragonFly with their own Ice attack instead of attacking the DragonFly?

 

Your posting is all over the place. Words aside, what's your intent here? Think about that, make a supportive argument, write it out, then have somebody who edits English well read it for consistency and structure. 

Then reply. 

[Pyromailmann]

PVP should not be optional. In the vanilla Don't Starve during the battle, you can accidentally hit an ally/neutral (whether pig, lobster, or anyone else) and thus provoke unexpected or you can stay in the fight without an ally for yours own negligence. In multiplayer, as follows from your logic, this possibility will not be - you just can not hit your friend (or random stranger in public, who decided to help you) and accidentally kill him, that's all, and it would go against the balance of the game. As a result, trips with friends turn into retributive justice light, which does not stop even gazebo.

You can not accidentally set fire to your friend using fire staff during the battle, or the case of a torch to light him instead of wood. You can not cut him down with an ax (accidentally, of course) if he has enough brains to crawl to you during felling a tree, do not freeze your friend, trying to cool a dragonfly. It's not fun, and ruins all the gameplay.

 

You must be the guy Cool Kid was talking about.

 

I think we can say PvP is optional, though. JoeW announced this.

and the truthseeker is right. You can't force PvP on people that don't want it. The game would be destroyed faster that DayZ was by tryhards and absolute jerks.

[Veja]

And apologies, but could you re-translate this bolded part into more clear (United States of American if possible) English please? Your words make as much sense as this at the moment:

 

I hope you know what is Google? Or sarcasm? No? Bad. Try to find "Paladin and Gazebo" (I thought that all have long known the old D&D joke). Yes, I made a mistake in a couple of words. But for some reason, only you did not understand me (or do not want to understand). And I do not understand why from the harsh game about survival, in which death can come suddenly and absolutely unpredictable (That's the sweetness of the game - you never expect it, when you can die SUDDENLY), you want to make a piece of ***** about friendship, magic and ponies.

[the truthseeker]

I hope you know what is Google? Or sarcasm? No? Bad. Try to find "Paladin and Gazebo" (I thought that all have long known the old D&D joke). Yes, I made a mistake in a couple of words. But for some reason, only you did not understand me (or do not want to understand). And I do not understand why from the harsh game about survival, in which death can come suddenly and absolutely unpredictable (That's the sweetness of the game - you never expect it, when you can die SUDDENLY), you want to make a piece of ***** about friendship, magic and ponies.

 

 

Well, being a 30+ year gamer (and would you like to guess what tabletop game this is I played since, "Elf" and "Dwarf" were a "class,") even I still missed the reference with how it was posted (if an old gamer like me didn't even get your KotDT reference.) 

 

 

You may wish to clean it up still and/or link it to this.

 

(Edit: and this is me not touching bronies with a 10-foot quarterstaff. )

[Pyromailmann]

I hope you know what is Google? Or sarcasm? No? Bad. Try to find "Paladin and Gazebo" (I thought that all have long known the old D&D joke). Yes, I made a mistake in a couple of words. But for some reason, only you did not understand me (or do not want to understand). And I do not understand why from the harsh game about survival, in which death can come suddenly and absolutely unpredictable (That's the sweetness of the game - you never expect it, when you can die SUDDENLY), you want to make a piece of ***** about friendship, magic and ponies.

Woah there, way to present yourself, sir. Look I don't know why you're being rude to @the truthseeker, not to mention you being rude to bronies. I understand if you hate bronies but you don't have to be a jerk about it.

I feel like I should report you but I'll give you a chance to explain yourself.

[Veja]

Well, being a 30+ year gamer (and would you like to guess what tabletop game this is I played since, "Elf" and "Dwarf" were a "class,") even I still missed the reference with how it was posted (if an old gamer like me didn't even get your KotDT reference.) 

Erick - Paladin

Ed - Dungeon Master

Gazebo - Gazebo (a small wooden gazebo)

"

ED: Do you see the garden, and in the garden there is a gazebo.

ERIC: Gazebo? What color is it?

ED: Hmm, white.

ERIC: Far from it?

ED: Fifty meters.

ERIC: Big?

ED: About 10 meters.

ERIC: I use the sword to define the good in it!

ED: It is useless, Eric. This gazebo.

ERIC: Uh, I call him.

ED: It does not respond. This gazebo.

ERIC: Get out of the sword, I pull out a bow and arrow! It somehow react?

ED: No, s**t, this gazebo.

ERIC: shoot a bow! And what is it?

ED: There's gazebo, and it sticks out of the arrow.

ERIC: It is injured?

ED: JESUS, NO, THIS GAZEBO!!

ERIC: But it was a arrow +3 !!!

ED: My friend, if you want to hurt gazebo, you should try it chopped down with an axe, or f**king burn it. But for what reason? This is f**king gazebo!!!

ERIC: I do not have an axe or fire magic. I'm running.

ED: None. It's getting late. You woke Gazebo. It catches and eats you.

ERIC: Well, I'll promptly inserted fire mage. He will avenge my paladin.

 

[the truthseeker]

Erick - Paladin

Ed - Dungeon Master

Gazebo - Gazebo (a small wooden gazebo)

"

ED: Do you see the garden, and in the garden there is a gazebo.

ERIC: Gazebo? What color is it?

ED: Hmm, white.

ERIC: Far from it?

ED: Fifty meters.

ERIC: Big?

ED: About 10 meters.

ERIC: I use the sword to define the good in it!

ED: It is useless, Eric. This gazebo.

ERIC: Uh, I call him.

ED: It does not respond. This gazebo.

ERIC: Get out of the sword, I pull out a bow and arrow! It somehow react?

ED: No, s**t, this gazebo.

ERIC: shoot a bow! And what is it?

ED: There's gazebo, and it sticks out of the arrow.

ERIC: It is injured?

ED: JESUS, NO, THIS GAZEBO!!

ERIC: But it was a arrow +3 !!!

ED: My friend, if you want to hurt gazebo, you should try it chopped down with an axe, or f**king burn it. But for what reason? This is f**king gazebo!!!

ERIC: I do not have an axe or fire magic. I'm running.

ED: None. It's getting late. You woke Gazebo. It catches and eats you.

ERIC: Well, I'll promptly inserted fire mage. He will avenge my paladin.

Perhaps i wasn't clear. you might want to clean up your original post with cleaner-understanding language (for example, "justice light," you mean Paladin, right? it doesn't make sense when you literally say "justice light" in English, guessing you are Russian based on that wording BTW,) and link the post with a hotlink to the original comic. I was reading KotDT since episode one. Anyway, if you were going to quote something, it's best to quote the direct source. For example

 

 

 

but due to its size and need to put in spoilers, this is why i recommended a link to it in your original post. Let me know if you have any questions on how to make a URL link in forum posts. 

[RalphKastro]

some people like to play it in a safe-ish enviroment with other friendly players, others like to kill every living thing and some like the tension of not knowing if this guy you just found is friend or foe, how long will it take for all his friends to try and backstab them, or what's the best timing to backstab a partner.

Can't we just accept that PvP is also viable and possible(and fun) and just leave it optional for the people who prefer not to play it? Everybody says that "multiplayer is optional, so it won't hurt the main game", so how will optional PvP hurt the non-PvP part(or vice-versa)?

[Silentdarkness1]

I am so very firmly, staunchly against PvP for DST. Really. Where to start?....oh don't worry, i'll try to avoid making a text wall out of this.

 

The current kiting system is jank and uninteresting for player versus player combat, that's for sure. Therefore, that means it turns into a race to see who can make the cheap(balance-wise, not resource-wise) blowdarts and murder and knick the poor fool's stuff first. Now while it is likely that Klei will make significant changes to the combat mechanics to remedy this, I have my doubts that they will be able to make this fun for me, or anyone who happens to think like me. Not for lack of trying, though.

 

Now, the argument some people use is enjoyment of the "thrill" of knowing whether it's friend or foe, ally or backstabber. If only there was actually a chance of the person being friendly more than 1 out of 100,000,000 times. Seriously. Sorry, but I do have to draw comparisons to other survival games with PvP multiplayer. DayZ, Rust....Nether. Any sense of "fun" or "thrill" quickly disintegrates when it turns out that 95% of players would rather butcher you with a Ham Bat/Blowdart/BARE FISTS than look in your general direction. If cannibalism becomes a thing, it'll get even worse with experienced(i.e, players who have survived for a good long while) players DESTROYING freshly spawned players for whatever the human meat will end up being. That hasn't been confirmed yet, I don't think, so i'm not gonna go further on that. When PvP gets turned on, everyone becomes an enemy. A friendly player being the exception, not the rule. You eventually end up getting into the habit of shooting every player you see because you presume that he was about to kill you. Also, LOOT LOOT LOOT LOTTSALOOT (repeat ad nauseum)

 

This disgusts me to no end. I remember a friend of mine suggesting a type of Fort Wars(think MC Clan Wars) where one team has to bust up the enemy's base with a hammer and have them die off slowly. I can't restate how quickly that would get tiring. When both teams make bases, then both leave and crush each other's bases, then start over and make bases and then crush each other's bases and both teams make bases, then both leave and crush each other's bases, and both teams make bases, then both leave and crush each other's bases, and both teams make bases, then both leave and crush each other's bases, and I THINK YOU GET THE IDEA.

 

So, suffice to say, I don't think PvP for this game can be made fun, because of human nature. Something that cannot be properly bandaged, not even by the best game developers ever. There. Congratulations, you have now survived my argument.

[RalphKastro]

Lots and lots of stuff

only have 3 things to point out. 1)PvP WILL be optional, so you will not be forced to play it, and I won't be forced to play a PvP-less game. 2)destroying bases is already way too easy, so in a not PvP game, there would still be an awful lot of griefers destroying your stuff every time you're not around, which you will be beacause you'll eventually log off, and the world is quite small(one more reason why I think MP is a bad idea). 3)Cannibalism, if it's ever made into a thing, would probably be made so it's not worth wasting your time hunting down some player in some random spawn area.(probably with a low nutrition level or something. These guys are way too skinny to get a nice meal). And, although I'm greatly in favor of the idea, I highly doubt it would ever be implemented. Too gorey and disgusting for the game.

[Quady14]

I want to be an optimist and say that I like being friendly in games even when it's easier to just kill others off, because you get so much better, and more intricate of a social experience meeting strangers. Exploring with others and seeing all of the cool things you can do with just two people that you couldn't do on your own, it's an awesome feeling.

 

Even if killing someone for their loot takes out the unpredictability of a second party, and leaves you better supplied than before, it's a much less gratifying experience in the long-term, it's just short-term satisfaction and if you ask me I think people just get more and more jaded because of it on both sides of the conflict.

 

Victims get tired of being abused by others and become overly defensive, killing other people who might have only the best intentions, and thus perpetuating the cycle. That's where the major issue with multiplayer survival games show worst, killing either out of greed for wanting their stuff, or fear that they'll do the same to them.

 

That said, I'm not a big fan of the types of communities that flock to games like DayZ or Rust, I once found a guy in Rust who feigned attempting to be my friend, then once I turned my back tried to bludgeon me to death with a rock, the most basic, ineffective weapon in the game. I spent a good 5 minutes running across barren landscape until he gave up and left, but it was a really simple, inane interaction that could've been much more fruitful if he hadn't turned into a screaming, cursing neanderthal (even if that is somewhat fitting for Rust in its current form). Best part is he mentioned he was recording it for his Youtube channel. I'm sure people would be massively entertained by him slowly chasing after another unarmed player for 5 minutes. >_>

 

So... I don't know where I stand on the issue, PvP inarguably is not in a state of complexity that would make competitively fighting other players worthwhile in any case, so I'm glad there's an option to disable it. On the other hand I think we should be able to make use of PvP when it's necessary, maybe chasing an ill-intending firebug away from our well-established base, that sort of thing.

 

Still, I'd like to point out Minecraft's PvP is pretty awful too, but for some reason it still manages to spawn a lot of competitive PvP servers for people to play on somehow. I think people just like the thrill of it, even when the combat boils down to flailing around and who has the best armor, I hope that Don't Starve doesn't attract this vibe as much, but I get the feeling it inevitably will. Best thing to do is be the change you want to see in the world, so if you ask me I'll be trying to be as helpful and cooperative to others as I possibly can. The world's hard enough to survive in, we all need a little help now and then.

[Silentdarkness1]

only have 3 things to point out. 1)PvP WILL be optional, so you will not be forced to play it, and I won't be forced to play a PvP-less game. 2)destroying bases is already way too easy, so in a not PvP game, there would still be an awful lot of griefers destroying your stuff every time you're not around, which you will be beacause you'll eventually log off, and the world is quite small(one more reason why I think MP is a bad idea). 3)Cannibalism, if it's ever made into a thing, would probably be made so it's not worth wasting your time hunting down some player in some random spawn area.(probably with a low nutrition level or something. These guys are way too skinny to get a nice meal). And, although I'm greatly in favor of the idea, I highly doubt it would ever be implemented. Too gorey and disgusting for the game.

1. That's like saying, "The water hole is poisoned, but you can still drink from it.", imo. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I am quite tired of hearing the same fallback statement over and over.

 

2. That falls on handling griefers, which i'm sure Klei will make some changes to help deal with.

 

3. Players can just set up bases around the spawn areas, complete with farms and crap. And uh....making an effigy out of meat and wood isn't weird? Nor the fact that you can gladly eat raw meat?

 

I want to be an optimist and say that I like being friendly in games even when it's easier to just kill others off, because you get so much better, and more intricate of a social experience meeting strangers. Exploring with others and seeing all of the cool things you can do with just two people that you couldn't do on your own, it's an awesome feeling.

 

Even if killing someone for their loot takes out the unpredictability of a second party, and leaves you better supplied than before, it's a much less gratifying experience in the long-term, it's just short-term satisfaction and if you ask me I think people just get more and more jaded because of it on both sides of the conflict.

 

Victims get tired of being abused by others and become overly defensive, killing other people who might have only the best intentions, and thus perpetuating the cycle. That's where the major issue with multiplayer survival games show worst, killing either out of greed for wanting their stuff, or fear that they'll do the same to them.

 

That said, I'm not a big fan of the types of communities that flock to games like DayZ or Rust, I once found a guy in Rust who feigned attempting to be my friend, then once I turned my back tried to bludgeon me to death with a rock, the most basic, ineffective weapon in the game. I spent a good 5 minutes running across barren landscape until he gave up and left, but it was a really simple, inane interaction that could've been much more fruitful if he hadn't turned into a screaming, cursing neanderthal (even if that is somewhat fitting for Rust in its current form). Best part is he mentioned he was recording it for his Youtube channel. I'm sure people would be massively entertained by him slowly chasing after another unarmed player for 5 minutes. >_>

 

So... I don't know where I stand on the issue, PvP inarguably is not in a state of complexity that would make competitively fighting other players worthwhile in any case, so I'm glad there's an option to disable it. On the other hand I think we should be able to make use of PvP when it's necessary, maybe chasing an ill-intending firebug away from our well-established base, that sort of thing.

 

Still, I'd like to point out Minecraft's PvP is pretty awful too, but for some reason it still manages to spawn a lot of competitive PvP servers for people to play on somehow. I think people just like the thrill of it, even when the combat boils down to flailing around and who has the best armor, I hope that Don't Starve doesn't attract this vibe as much, but I get the feeling it inevitably will. Best thing to do is be the change you want to see in the world, so if you ask me I'll be trying to be as helpful and cooperative to others as I possibly can. The world's hard enough to survive in, we all need a little help now and then.

Paragraph by paragraph breakdown:

 

1. My learning is that you have to search very extensively to find people who aren't opportunistic dicks who wait for the right time to kill you and nick all your stuff.

 

2. THIS. You understand!

 

3. Perhaps PvP is a proper way to deal with a griefer. However, I don't know if 100% PvP is good under these circumstances.

 

4. Indeed. Minecraft PvP IS awful. And you are again correct. People make a difference. I think Klei has proven themselves not entirely deaf to their initial fanbase. Together we can help shape this game into something that won't feel like a 2D Nether.

[Lonestarr01]

PVP should not be optional. In the vanilla Don't Starve during the battle, you can accidentally hit an ally/neutral (whether pig, lobster, or anyone else) and thus provoke unexpected or you can stay in the fight without an ally for yours own negligence. In multiplayer, as follows from your logic, this possibility will not be - you just can not hit your friend (or random stranger in public, who decided to help you) and accidentally kill him, that's all, and it would go against the balance of the game. As a result, trips with friends turn into retributive justice light, which does not stop even gazebo.

You can not accidentally set fire to your friend using fire staff during the battle, or the case of a torch to light him instead of wood. You can not cut him down with an ax (accidentally, of course) if he has enough brains to crawl to you during felling a tree, can not freeze your friend, trying to cool a dragonfly. It's not fun, and ruins all the gameplay.

 

 

You actually can't attack a hired pig or lobster unless you hold left CTRL and left click them. Otherwise it just examines them