Don't Suffer Together (Pooled Health Drain/Automatic Resurrection Discussion)

[Quady14]

This is a terrible suggestion, because punishing players in a way they can't prevent is bad game design.

You can't keep people alive. You can help, but ultimately their lack of skill is the deciding factor, especially in a sandbox survival game.

OP spent a lot of time trying to get an unworkable idea to work. It won't, and any "solution" will ultimately detract from the game more than his suggestion will add to it.

In that case would you care to pitch an entirely different new system to replace the current one to us? Because it's one thing to try fixing a system that's in place even if it's difficult to work around, (which I think the community is doing a good job offering suggestions and fixes with our discussion) but it's quite another thing to just walk in, say the idea is terrible and all solutions to fix it are terrible, then leave without any sort of recommendation for an alternative.

 

I refuse to the notion that there is absolutely no way to make this particular mechanic work. In its current state it needs significant reworking, but depending on the goal you are trying to reach with a game, in this case to create a fulfilling co-op survival experience that doesn't fall as easily to the traps of a kill-or-be-killed mindset, being closed-minded about conventional game design and saying that certain things automatically make a design good or bad will take us nowhere. I'd rather see Klei trying new ideas and failing in their experimentation rather than giving us the base minimum of a multiplayer mode because they're afraid to develop further and make some mistakes along the way.

 

I mean, do you want DST to be good? Help out then! Klei is one of the rare and beautiful examples of a development team that actively listens to their community, take advantage of that! It's a wasted opportunity not to voice your opinion beyond just, "I hate this, it's bad." because that helps nobody.

[Mario384]

The whole ghost mechanic was so cool, until they added the tiny time cap to it.  Perhaps they could add in a ghost survival where everyone but one player becomes human, and there's one permaghost.  The ghosts cannot die, and must try to sabotage players in trying to have them die as well.  The humans must attempt to rebuild the Teleportato to restart the game, and they lose if everyone dies.  No Telltale hearts, either!

[Paradoxical]

So, my friend wanted to stay anonymous, but he had this to say about the issue (apologies for length. this was originally a skype chat):

 

 

My Friend:

 

lets look at it like this

who are the players most likely to die?

1) New players

2) Adventurerous players

3) Bad Players

why do they die?

1) Inexperience

2) Adventure

3) Inability with the game

punishing bad players is a grey area

but otherwise all you're doing is kicking newbies while they're down

and making players afraid to do anything

because one mistake and you're fucked

an elegant solution therefore must not be overly strict against newbies and adventurous players

this means that you can have a harsh penalty but it must be temporary

or a minor penalty that's somewhat permanent

removing characters is a harsh penalty

if they're just locked out for a day or two, that's okay but what if that's the only character available to a newbie?

does the newbie just not get to play anymore for 2 days?

being locked as a ghost means that newbies play for 10 minutes and then sit around doing nothing for hours

also a harsh penalty

so do they just not play on that world anymore then?

that server is out of the question for them

start a new game somewhere else

don't play with your friends there

because then their friends have to pack up and leave too

and people will be playing with friends

why not do something silly and over the top

something uniquely Don't Starve

dying makes you a mycanthrope

you turn into a mushroom man on full moons and drop everything

you ravenously devour mushrooms to live until night passes

or your sanity is dinged for several in-game days

when "sane" you see strange shadows and your food tries to eat you

when insane everything is darker than usual

add challenge and encourage growth

by becoming a mushroom and changing your diet, you're forced to explore to deal with a problem

by being insane all of the time and having your food backstab you, you're forced to explore alternative meals

you want the game to provide a positive feedback loop of exploration, growth, and enjoyment

forcing players to be ghosts is a negative feedback loop

new players can't ever become experienced because they never get to play

so they remain new players

and continue to die

 

Me: (making sure ghost mechanics are clear to my friend)

 

ghosts is a short grace period between death and true death

if you haunt things, you have more time

you have to either find a touchstone, a meat effigy, or have someone revive you with a telltale heart to revive before your timer runs out

 

My Friend:

 

that's expensive

that's only dealing with the late game

and is telling of who is playing right now

you build meat effigies and find touchstones once you've established yourself and found secure sources of everything

unless you're just exceptionally lucky

once again, look at who is going to be dying

 

[rezecib]

Edit: Oh no, the quotes didn't get into here for some reason... I added the users I was replying to

 

This is a terrible suggestion, because punishing players in a way they can't prevent is bad game design.

You can't keep people alive. You can help, but ultimately their lack of skill is the deciding factor, especially in a sandbox survival game.

OP spent a lot of time trying to get an unworkable idea to work. It won't, and any "solution" will ultimately detract from the game more than his suggestion will add to it.

This thread's suggestions were all about giving players a way to better prevent punishment. I think you may have misread something?

 

So, my friend wanted to stay anonymous, but he had this to say about the issue (apologies for length. this was originally a skype chat):

 

It sounds like you guys are just looking at these suggestions in isolation. That doesn't really make sense, because then you have no reference point with regard to "well, if we didn't have this suggestion, what would it be like?".

 

As it stands currently, if a player dies and there are touchstones/effigies left, they revive from them (regardless of who activated them). If there are none left, they revive and everyone's health is permanently reduced by a third. If anyone anywhere dies again, another third (so if you were Wilson you'd now have a max of 50 health). A third death, and everyone instantly dies.

 

Now, I don't know about you, but it sounds like that mechanic punishes everyone a whole lot more than the suggested ghost mechanics, not to mention leaving out a whole lot of aspects like choice (do you actually want to be helping these particular people?). Regardless of what death mechanics you put in, the same people are going to be dying (newcomers, adventurous players, players that are just bad). It would be nice if the death mechanic at least gave other players some control over handling their deaths; that's what the idea of a ghost does. It gives the more conservative/better/experienced players in the game a degree of control over their friends' dying spree. Another thing that was suggested here, the Ghostcatcher, also helps with this by allowing them to pull their friends' ghosts to a particular location where they'll be able to get help.

 

Maybe it seemed to me like you weren't considering a reference point because you thought the current state was that everyone could just respawn with no penalty. In which case sure, I think that should be an option. I don't think it should be the default (it doesn't feel in line with the classic Don't Starve experience), by why not have a softcore option for more relaxed playing together?

[Paradoxical]

It sounds like you guys are just looking at these suggestions in isolation. That doesn't really make sense, because then you have no reference point with regard to "well, if we didn't have this suggestion, what would it be like?".

 

As it stands currently, if a player dies and there are touchstones/effigies left, they revive from them (regardless of who activated them). If there are none left, they revive and everyone's health is permanently reduced by a third. If anyone anywhere dies again, another third (so if you were Wilson you'd now have a max of 50 health). A third death, and everyone instantly dies.

 

Now, I don't know about you, but it sounds like that mechanic punishes everyone a whole lot more than the suggested ghost mechanics, not to mention leaving out a whole lot of aspects like choice (do you actually want to be helping these particular people?). Regardless of what death mechanics you put in, the same people are going to be dying (newcomers, adventurous players, players that are just bad). It would be nice if the death mechanic at least gave other players some control over handling their deaths; that's what the idea of a ghost does. It gives the more conservative/better/experienced players in the game a degree of control over their friends' dying spree. Another thing that was suggested here, the Ghostcatcher, also helps with this by allowing them to pull their friends' ghosts to a particular location where they'll be able to get help.

 

Maybe it seemed to me like you weren't considering a reference point because you thought the current state was that everyone could just respawn with no penalty. In which case sure, I think that should be an option. I don't think it should be the default (it doesn't feel in line with the classic Don't Starve experience), by why not have a softcore option for more relaxed playing together?

 

That conversation was not supposed to be something in support of or referencing the current situation. The faults in the current system have already been pointed out and explained in detail in this thread. Why would it be necessary to use that as a reference point, when this thread is being used to discuss what the best overall system should be, and what systems we should use instead?

 

It does not matter how the suggested systems are in comparison to the current system. We are looking for the best system, not a better system. This discussion is meant to continually improve upon ideas until we reach a middle ground that most, if not all players can be satisfied with.

 

So, part of the issue with the ghost system is that you are essentially just an observer until you revive. And for the proposed Ghostcatcher--how do you make it? How far of a distance does it cover? What materials will it need? How many uses will it have? Regardless, what will be your priority: a Ghostcatcher, or a sustainable base for winter? Do you think new players will all make it to winter? Do you think all characters will be able to/should meet up early on? Do you think Ghostcatcher materials will be a priority over feeding, say, 5 mouths during winter? Do you think all servers will be playing with veteran players? Also, we should stop thinking in softcore and hardcore for right now and think in default--which is going to be kind of soft core for some players, or else be unplayable for all but experienced/cautious players and MAYBE friends of experienced/cautious players. I actually really like the idea of Ghosts, but unless that system is revamped and refined I cannot see it as a fun system to work with.

 

I think the most important thing we should be asking ourselves here, before or as we brainstorm, is WHY we want to play together. What is the purpose of playing Don't Starve Together? Why would you play it instead of Don't Starve? What are you hoping to see in this game? What are you hoping to do in this game? How do you imagine playing with other people? And what other kinds of responses can you think of people, such as new or adventurous players, having? Once we know what we want and need in this experience, we can start figuring out the best possible solution to game mechanics like death.

 

I would assume that most players want to play Don't Starve Together so that can play Don't Starve, well, together. So how would the death systems we're suggesting effect that? Try to remember what it was like as a new player. How realistic is that system towards meeting your wants and needs as a new player? How much do you think you'd enjoy Don't Starve, if your first experience is playing Don't Starve Together with your veteran friend, who is regularly having to bring you back from limbo, or who is policing you into menial tasks so you don't die? Would you continue to play? Would you eventually just get bored and stop playing the game altogether? Is this the experience you want new players to have?

 

Thinking critically here is super important. This game is really cool, and if we are to suggest changes to the mechanics, I for one want them to be the best possible changes, versus surface level solutions that, while fixing the glaring issues of the old system, may cause big problems of their own later on.

[rezecib]

It does not matter how the suggested systems are in comparison to the current system. We are looking for the best system, not a better system. This discussion is meant to continually improve upon ideas until we reach a middle ground that most, if not all players can be satisfied with.

I have to agree with you on this. I messed up by responding to both of you in the same way, but the context of the conversation you pasted was still a little unclear. Thanks for clarifying. I'm going to rearrange the quotes of your post a bit so I can respond in a more intelligible order (step back and ask what we want out of DST -> specifics of Ghostcatcher).

 

I think the most important thing we should be asking ourselves here, before or as we brainstorm, is WHY we want to play together. What is the purpose of playing Don't Starve Together? Why would you play it instead of Don't Starve? What are you hoping to see in this game? What are you hoping to do in this game? How do you imagine playing with other people? And what other kinds of responses can you think of people, such as new or adventurous players, having? Once we know what we want and need in this experience, we can start figuring out the best possible solution to game mechanics like death.

 

I would assume that most players want to play Don't Starve Together so that can play Don't Starve, well, together. So how would the death systems we're suggesting effect that?

Thinking critically here is super important. This game is really cool, and if we are to suggest changes to the mechanics, I for one want them to be the best possible changes, versus surface level solutions that, while fixing the glaring issues of the old system, may cause big problems of their own later on.

I agree that this is an important thing to do, but I believe two additional things about it: (1) that it is probably not possible or at least feasible to satisfy all major play approaches with one set of mechanics, and (2) that while reevaluating from the ground-up has a place, it's much easier and faster to iterate on existing mechanics, because it's easier to see the current problems and implications of potential solutions. But let's try to reevaluate anyway.

 

Personally, I agree with you. I want to play Don't Starve, but with other players in my game as well, helping me achieve basically the same goals in a cooperative environment. I can imagine this both with newer players and with more experienced once. I think that players with mixed experience levels introduce a unique set of design challenges, that you laid out pretty nicely. So either we can make the experience of death less impactful to the group overall so that newer players don't feel so burdened, or we can provide ways for the experienced players to effectively mitigate losses due to inexperienced deaths. The first approach compromises what it means to play Don't Starve, in my opinion. At its core, it's an "uncompromising wilderness survival game". When you die, it's supposed to matter, and a lot. As I see it, the ghost system provides some degree of mitigation, while also being flexible enough to accommodate other forms of mitigation, such as ghostcatchers.

 

As I see it, there are a few cases where it would be really nice to have mitigation as an option, and would greatly smooth over the more frustrating scenarios. If you're out doing stuff in the world, you could be paired up or alone. If you're paired up, you'd want your buddy to be able to revive you if something goes wrong. This doesn't have to be a very big window, 10 seconds is probably enough. So 10s ghost + telltale heart addresses this very well, as it was designed to. Now, you might be alone. It makes sense that this should be riskier than being paired up, but it would be really frustrating if that meant you were simply "**** outta luck" and stuck in a useless 1-minute ghost form without anything to do, followed by permadeath. So a way to mitigate that if you or your group planned ahead would be nice. This is where the ghostcatcher comes in; it leaves the 10s window where a ghost can be revived if you are paired up, then pulls it to the ghostcatcher where someone is more likely to be close by and capable of reviving you, or failing that, there may be resurrection resources located there (life-giving amulets, meat effigies, etc). Okay, so I think those two situations are adequately addressed. What about other situations? I think if you're dying and you haven't prepared for it, you should probably die. The game is supposed to be uncompromising, and if nobody's prepared, then you're probably not that far in anyway, or very inexperienced, so you should either be okay with dying (because you only spent half an hour in the game), or you should be learning from the death (because you weren't very experienced).

 

Also, we should stop thinking in softcore and hardcore for right now and think in default--which is going to be kind of soft core for some players, or else be unplayable for all but experienced/cautious players and MAYBE friends of experienced/cautious players.

 

I agree with you, and that was what I was intending to do with my previous suggestions. I think ghosts + ghostcatcher is a good start on addressing problems with default gameplay. Considering other types of gameplay, I think you really do need new sets of mechanics. Often when people play together they may want to play more casually than when they play alone (sometimes vice-versa as well). So having a softcore variant where respawns are unlimited seems like a good way to address this. Another potential gameplay approach would be PvP. It seems to me that the ghost system is adequate for this, as it players can make the choice whether to help ghosts. If the ghost period isn't too long (e.g. 10s), then it doesn't add much of a boring period. If you're really concerned about it, and really want a free-for-all PvP experience where death is sudden and permanent, then that could be a server option too: no ghosts, no free respawns. This also works for a hardcore coop option.

 

Try to remember what it was like as a new player. How realistic is that system towards meeting your wants and needs as a new player? How much do you think you'd enjoy Don't Starve, if your first experience is playing Don't Starve Together with your veteran friend, who is regularly having to bring you back from limbo, or who is policing you into menial tasks so you don't die? Would you continue to play? Would you eventually just get bored and stop playing the game altogether? Is this the experience you want new players to have?

So, if my first experience of Don't Starve Together was as an inexperienced player, being told what I need to do to survive by a more experienced player, it would by itself be a decent experience. I'd say, hey, this game seems to have a lot of depth, so I'm going to have a learning period, and then it's going to get awesome. I think I'd probably still have a lot of fun with the "wtf!?" moments that occur in Don't Starve, and since it was clear from when we started playing together that I had no idea what I was doing, it wouldn't feel like that big of a deal to restart the game several times early on.

 

I don't know if that is representative, but that's how I would predict I'd feel.

 

So, part of the issue with the ghost system is that you are essentially just an observer until you revive. And for the proposed Ghostcatcher--how do you make it? How far of a distance does it cover? What materials will it need? How many uses will it have? Regardless, what will be your priority: a Ghostcatcher, or a sustainable base for winter? Do you think new players will all make it to winter? Do you think all characters will be able to/should meet up early on? Do you think Ghostcatcher materials will be a priority over feeding, say, 5 mouths during winter? Do you think all servers will be playing with veteran players?

I actually really like the idea of Ghosts, but unless that system is revamped and refined I cannot see it as a fun system to work with.

So, specifics on the ghostcatcher. I think you'd probably want to have this be at a level where you can build it in the first 15 or so days if you make it one of your priorities, without totally compromising other survival. For example, if one player could dedicate 10 days to trying to build it, it would be feasible. So something like a purple gem + 4 boards + 10 spider glands. But that may need to be tweaked based on the initial condition of Don't Starve Together-- they said it won't have the Teleportato initially, so purple gems may not be obtainable on that timeframe. In that case, perhaps a pig skin would be better.

 

As for how it would work after you build it, what I was thinking was as follows: once built, each player can interact with it. This pricks their finger on it, and then leaves a ribbon with that player's color, showing that they've paired with that ghostcatcher. Pricking their finger takes the -30 max health penalty normally associated with a meat effigy. Then, regardless of where they are when they die, after their ghost times out 10 seconds after death, they get transported to the ghost catcher with a renewed ghost duration -- how long exactly might need a little tweaking. 20 seconds, perhaps, so you have a little bit of time where someone can run to help you, but it's frustratingly long if that's not going to happen at all. Once transported to the ghostcatcher, you are free to move about and interact with things as a ghost. This would allow you to go enter the meat effigy / touchstone / life-giving amulet nearby, or meet a friend who's running there halfway.

[Legolasgirl1987]

The following is purely my opinion and should be treated as such.

The subject of perma-death is a touchy one when it comes to multi-player for sure. I liked the ghost idea personally and I don't like the current iteration for various reasons. The issue is that when it comes to death in DST there needs to be various implementations to cater to various types of server. In a PvP type server the 1/3rd  max health drain to other players is not an option, and even in co-op servers that still might cause some issues. I generally do not like the idea of someone else dying and respawning affecting you to be a terrible idea. If I'm going to die I don't want to affect other people as they are playing, it seems rude and intrusive to me.

 

Ghost Mode

 

Going back to the ghost idea, I was toying around with ideas on how it could work. My first thought was a moon based cycle. If dying during the rising of the full moon (waxing) then you have until the next new moon to find someway of reviving yourself. If dying during the waning phase (opposite of waxing, going to new moon) then you have until the next full moon to find a resurrection method. As for interaction with other characters as a ghost, minor haunting (non destructive stuff) and an insanity aura (because ghost aren't everyday things) But that could be an indirect way to killing someone. So create a charm that wards off ghosts and has durability that goes down when a ghost is in range, the ghost themselves would hit like an invisible wall and not be able to get closer. Maybe a magic weapon (like a holy symbol or something similar) that causes ghosts to return to their point of origin (where they initially died) or stun them for a few seconds so that you can get away. Again there are potential grief cases with it but I'm spit-balling ideas here.

 

Shared Life Mode

 

An interesting Idea the Shared Life system in place. Every time a person dies and chooses to be resurrected, a set amount (customizable server option) of percentage max health is removed from all players. Like I said, I personally don't like this idea, but it is a viable co-op orientated option. Everyone will be aware of it before they join the server and the amount of max health removed would be visible so that players could decide if they like that number before joining. Give players options to remove said penalty with rituals, boss killings, special magic items and so on, only if they work together so that it re-enforces the co-op aspect of the mode. If all players end up with 0% max health then the server restarts, it would give players incentives to work together. Of course you are always going to get trolls. Perhaps a fail-safe option to remove the trolling player by a majority vote could be put into place, though that too could be abused (though not as much as offending players in my opinion.)

 

Hardcore Mode

 

Standard DS rules, no resurrecting unless an active device to allow such is in the world. No choosing another character to play on the same server, persistent death (to avoid logging out and back in to avoid death), World persists until all people are dead, though as the number approaches 0 the world becomes more and more hostile, sanity drain increases. There would be a grace period of 7 - 14 days at the start (To give low volume servers a chance to gain population before the difficulty gets higher). It's a work-in-progress idea but you get the picture.

 

One Life Mode

 

There are seven standard characters, two "secret" characters (by secret i mean not unlocked by XP) and 2 DLC characters for a total of 11 (or 9 if you don't have the Reign of Giants DLC) This type of server suits a low number of players 2 - 9 (or 11 if server has RoG enabled) Each player plays a different character and that character has only one life. No resurrection devices allowed except touchstones. If the server player cap is lower than the number of characters, then once dead, a player can choose another character to play. This would allow for no duplicates of characters, another hardcore mode variation that could be interesting. Like the previous hardcore mode, the idea is a work-in-progress.

'

As for the whole one player ruining experience and the world resets losing everyone's progress on their bases... that happens anyway when you die in single player... why should multiplayer be any different? yeah you are going to get people who are nasty and try to mess other people up and ruin their fun... but you can find those types of people in every multiplayer game. Don't Starve won't be an exception to that rule, though maybe there should be a blocked list. If you find a person that you don't want to play with because they ruin your fun, add them to a blocked list so you won't have to play with them again. But that isn't about death and respawning so back on topic. This is just a little bit of what I thought up while reading the thread. Some of it might have been said before, in that case just take that as me agreeing with the poster(s), but that is my initial take on it and my spit-balling of ideas. There is not one mode of death that is going to satisfy all types of servers, giving us multiple options depending on what type of server we want it to be seems to be the best option though will take more work in the long-term.

[rezecib]

Shared Life Mode

 

An interesting Idea the Shared Life system in place. Every time a person dies and chooses to be resurrected, a set amount (customizable server option) of percentage max health is removed from all players. Like I said, I personally don't like this idea, but it is a viable co-op orientated option. Everyone will be aware of it before they join the server and the amount of max health removed would be visible so that players could decide if they like that number before joining. Give players options to remove said penalty with rituals, boss killings, special magic items and so on, only if they work together so that it re-enforces the co-op aspect of the mode. If all players end up with 0% max health then the server restarts, it would give players incentives to work together. Of course you are always going to get trolls. Perhaps a fail-safe option to remove the trolling player by a majority vote could be put into place, though that too could be abused (though not as much as offending players in my opinion.)

 

Hardcore Mode

 

Standard DS rules, no resurrecting unless an active device to allow such is in the world. No choosing another character to play on the same server, persistent death (to avoid logging out and back in to avoid death), World persists until all people are dead, though as the number approaches 0 the world becomes more and more hostile, sanity drain increases. There would be a grace period of 7 - 14 days at the start (To give low volume servers a chance to gain population before the difficulty gets higher). It's a work-in-progress idea but you get the picture.

 

Another idea was brewing in my head last night that tries to run off of the current -max health system. Basically, that idea is intended to put a limit on the number of free respawns before a world reset is forced, and to make it harder to survive after each free respawn. But the -max health part itself is... I really liked your description of "rude and intrusive". So this got me thinking about a "borrowed lives" mode. Each time there's a free respawn, Maxwell shows up and says something like "You're not looking so good... But I think They might have a little life you could borrow. But be warned, it will find its way back into Their hands sooner or later...". After a certain number of free respawns, if another player tries to use this to respawn, it announces "Their patience is at an end!" and the end-times from the PAX demo start. This would be a way more fun version of the "once a certain number of free respawns has occurred, everyone dies and the server resets".

 

This doesn't have the aspect of gradually getting harder, though, so it might work well to do something like what you were suggesting with hardcore mode, where each free respawn makes the world more hostile (sanity drain/auras gets an increasing multiplier, enemies get more health, plants grow more slowly-- all of these are examples of things that would tax the players more without feeling as intrusive as the -max health).

[Quady14]

why not do something silly and over the top

something uniquely Don't Starve

dying makes you a mycanthrope

you turn into a mushroom man on full moons and drop everything

you ravenously devour mushrooms to live until night passes

or your sanity is dinged for several in-game days

when "sane" you see strange shadows and your food tries to eat you

when insane everything is darker than usual

add challenge and encourage growth

by becoming a mushroom and changing your diet, you're forced to explore to deal with a problem

by being insane all of the time and having your food backstab you, you're forced to explore alternative meals

you want the game to provide a positive feedback loop of exploration, growth, and enjoyment

 

I want to be a Mushroom Man. In all seriousness I would enjoy the ability to become a Mushroom Man and all the things it entails here in Don't Starve.

 

I was toying around with ideas on how it could work. My first thought was a moon based cycle. If dying during the rising of the full moon (waxing) then you have until the next new moon to find someway of reviving yourself. If dying during the waning phase (opposite of waxing, going to new moon) then you have until the next full moon to find a resurrection method...

 

As for the whole one player ruining experience and the world resets losing everyone's progress on their bases... that happens anyway when you die in single player... why should multiplayer be any different? yeah you are going to get people who are nasty and try to mess other people up and ruin their fun... but you can find those types of people in every multiplayer game. Don't Starve won't be an exception to that rule, though maybe there should be a blocked list. If you find a person that you don't want to play with because they ruin your fun, add them to a blocked list so you won't have to play with them again.

 

I dig some of the suggestions you made for various server settings regarding death and resurrection in your post, but for these two I did want to bring up in particular.

 

While I like the idea of being temporarily resurrected to find some way to get your life back based on the phase of the moon, I'm pretty sure a full moon cycle, being around 18 days, takes a little over 2 hours, and as we've mentioned, most people aren't going to want to sit and spectate for 2 hours, or even 80 minutes, before they get a chance to interact with the world again. Most people would leave the server before that would have a chance to happen. I think it would be fun if ghosts would resurrect the same as those buried in graves during the full moon, but perhaps this would be better left as a neat additional feature to come later on down the road, rather than a primary mechanic to base the ghost form's usability off of.

 

For the idea of banning griefers, sure, it's absolutely necessary to have some strict enforcement to prevent people from ruining future games, but we're talking about worlds that can last for hours and hours, it's one thing to be griefed 30 minutes into a game, but if you've poured 4 hours into a world and are just getting some self-sustainability going and somebody runs in and somehow ruins the world for everyone, either through the shared health pool mechanic or some pyromaniac base-burning or even something as destructive as the Old Bell, (Though that would take some effort and patience (and subtlety) on the griefer's part at the very least) the best action right now is to find ways to tone down the level of possible griefing that can be done, within reason of Don't Starve's mechanics, before we start to rely on just letting soft and hard bans sort out those who try to ruin others' game experiences.

 

Heck, maybe griefers can live in peace from the fears of being banned and we can just let what happens in Don't Starve stay in Don't Starve, an anarchy server is a perfectly viable option for those who would enjoy it. As much as I'm trying to promote anti-griefing measures here, there is some allure to surviving in a world that's more chaotic in its player-base than it is in its natural threats and hostilities! I'm not big on ruining other peoples' bases, but trying to protect mine from a server full of crazed firebugs could be an interesting experience, though likely short-lived. XD

[LadyMeda]

Call me crazy, but wouldn't the simplest and most elegant solution be to make all three major ideas optional?

Permadeath, ghosts (with or without ghost catcher), and shared health, all optional in world settings. Maybe the ghost option could even have a choice for how long it lasts.

Some examples: Large PvP/co-op servers could enable ghosts and permadeath, noob servers perhaps none of them (letting them learn without much penalty), PvP anarchy servers could have strict permadeath, small groups of friends could share health so that no one is locked out of the server alone while everyone else lived happily ever after.

Any and every variation of the three would be available as desired. Wouldn't everyone get what they want and need, without over-complicating things?

[the truthseeker]

Call me crazy, but wouldn't the simplest and most elegant solution be to make all three major ideas optional?

Permadeath, ghosts (with or without ghost catcher), and shared health, all optional in world settings. Maybe the ghost option could even have a choice for how long it lasts.

Some examples: Large PvP/co-op servers could enable ghosts and permadeath, noob servers perhaps none of them (letting them learn without much penalty), PvP anarchy servers could have strict permadeath, small groups of friends could share health so that no one is locked out of the server alone while everyone else lived happily ever after.

Any and every variation of the three would be available as desired. Wouldn't everyone get what they want and need, without over-complicating things?

Hi LadyMeda Crazy!

 

(But really, she does have a good point!) 

[polygone]

Long OP is long. Anyhow I have somewhat of a solution for griefers.

 

When someone dies, they lose 1/3 their max health to respawn, meanwhile the other players lose 1/6 their max health to revive said person, this allows for sharing pools of life while keeping it a steep penalty for death. In addition, an item will be craftable to restore 1/6 of your max health that has been lost (telltale heart, probably). This allows players to restore their life force if someone comes on and dies a few times, as the person dying has three lives that will cut everyone else's health in half. If a griefer wants to kill everyone they will need to find twice as many telltale hearts as the other players to be able to keep up a steady drain in order to do so, which won't really happen much/the person would probably get banned before that point.

 

If someone's max health were to drop to zero they would become a ghost and must seek out a touch stone to revive. On revive from a touch stone they would have 1/3 their normal max health, so they'd still need to find telltale hearts to be able to do any more damage to the other players.

 

Life-giving amulets can only revive people if being worn, and does so without affecting anyone's max health. Meat effigies will take a portion of the person who built it's max health, but said meat effigy can only be used to revive the person who built it, and the person's max health lost on it's construction will be refunded (with no penalty that would otherwise occur), also meat effigies can only be broken by the person who made it. (Considering the max health drop and the materials, it's highly unlikely someone will abuse the unbreakable nature to block someone in or something)

 

Using all that it provides ways for people to revive/replenish their lost health, while taking power away from griefers who would just die repeatedly on purpose, since the effect of death would mainly punish the person dying, while still affecting everyone else which is needed  to enforce the cooperative aspect of it.

[Isosurface]

The current problem with dying in DST is that the world does not end upon perma-death. If the world doesn't end, people care less about dying.

 

I think a possible solution is to run two (or multiple) identical worlds at the same time. Only one of the worlds is persistent, whereas the other(s) is temperary and will reset quarterly/half yearly/yearly.

• People can only spawn (joining a server) and respawn (death) in a temporary world.
• If a player activates a Teleportato in a temporary world, he/she will be sent to the persistent world.
• When all players currently living in the persistent world have activated the Teleportato, all worlds end the same way as they would in single player DT. A new set of identical worlds will be generated. All players bring their stuff to the new persistent world.

You can consider them as identical islands. If reset, all structures and plants are gone, but natural structures and plants respawn.

Why identical? because the map doesn't have to change when you die. Alternatively, the worlds need not to be identical, and people can get a bit disoriented when respawn.

[LadyMeda]

The current problem with dying in DST is that the world does not end upon perma-death. If the world doesn't end, people care less about dying.

 

I think a possible solution is to run two (or multiple) identical worlds at the same time. Only one of the worlds is persistent, whereas the other(s) is temperary and will reset quarterly/half yearly/yearly.

• People can only spawn (joining a server) and respawn (death) in a temporary world.
• If a player activates a Teleportato in a temporary world, he/she will be sent to the persistent world.
• When all players currently living in the persistent world have activated the Teleportato, all worlds end the same way as they would in single player DT. A new set of identical worlds will be generated. All players bring their stuff to the new persistent world.

You can consider them as identical islands. If reset, all structures and plants are gone, but natural structures and plants respawn.

Why identical? because the map doesn't have to change when you die. Alternatively, the worlds need not to be identical, and people can get a bit disoriented when respawn.

 

Wait, I'm a little confused about how this makes permadeath more... "permanent".  Could you explain further?  If all players spawn on a "temporary island" and can always respawn on that island, isn't it pretty much the same as if the world wasn't "temporary" and has no real consequences to dying?  Even if the more experienced players could escape to the "real" version of the world with the teleportato (and away from the dying noobs), it seems like you might as well just let them go to a new world altogether instead of making a "real" version of the same "temporary" world. Plus, why would they do that? The "temporary" world they just left had no consequences to dying!

 

I still think it would be way easier to just make permadeath (AKA being locked out of that particular server until the world respawns), ghosts, and shared health all available and all optional (like recommended here):

Call me crazy, but wouldn't the simplest and most elegant solution be to make all three major ideas optional?

Permadeath, ghosts (with or without ghost catcher), and shared health, all optional in world settings. Maybe the ghost option could even have a choice for how long it lasts.

Some examples: Large PvP/co-op servers could enable ghosts and permadeath, noob servers perhaps none of them (letting them learn without much penalty), PvP anarchy servers could have strict permadeath, small groups of friends could share health so that no one is locked out of the server alone while everyone else lived happily ever after.

Any and every variation of the three would be available as desired. Wouldn't everyone get what they want and need, without over-complicating things?

Using the teleportato would not only require things that will not be implemented into DST in the near future, but would require far more stress on a server than needed (making multiples of the same world). There is a far simpler solution that would require none of those things.

[Isosurface]

There is no real permanent death in DST unless you get auto-kicked and IP-banned by a server every time you die. Otherwise as long as you can rejoin a server, you are not truly dead, right? Buildings are still there, friends are still there, etc.

In single player DS, you restart fresh with no buildings. However, destroy all existing buildings (yours or not) and kill all existing players is not an option in a multiplayer world. My suggestion is to have something in between.

Using the teleportato would not only require things that will not be implemented into DST in the near future, but would require far more stress on a server than needed (making multiples of the same world). There is a far simpler solution that would require none of those things.

Teleportato mechanics definitely has to change somehow or be removed, no matter how death is implemented.

[LadyMeda]

There is no real permanent death in DST unless you get auto-kicked and IP-banned by a server every time you die. Otherwise as long as you can rejoin a server, you are not truly dead, right? Buildings are still there, friends are still there, etc.

In single player DS, you restart fresh with no buildings. However, destroy all existing buildings (yours or not) and kill all existing players is not an option in a multiplayer world. My suggestion is to have something in between.

From what I understand it, that is something the devs were worried about and trying to make more flexible. They understood the need for a permanent death(u no join server again 'cause u ded), but met some opposition and were trying to find ways to make that more forgiving. That's where the ghost mechanic (and eventually shared health-loss) came in. So it is currently undecided if death means you can't rejoin a multiplayer world. If you couldn't rejoin the world, wouldn't that be exactly the same as normal gameplay?

Aaaaand... that is precisely my point. If you don't get permanently kicked from a server (which is basically the same as dying in a singleplayer world), the game is no longer roguelike. The whole point of Don't Starve is that it is a roguelike game!

But still... some people might not like that idea for a large co-op/PvP server. SO LET THEM CHOOSE! Let them make (or join) a server where you DON'T get permanently kicked if you die. Let them choose those cool ghost mechanics if they want. Let them share health if they want. WHATEVER THEY WANT! In the end, everyone is happy because they all get to choose what works for THEM.

*steps off soap box*

Edit: Spelling error. 61 posts?! Holy jeeze, I need to spend less time trolling these forums when I'm bored at work!

[the truthseeker]

So far I too am interested in a persistent world option, but would like an option that can permanently remove the world if everybody dies/leaves. However, I'm not an initial fan of the three deaths as explained. I'll hold off on more until i see what is being tested/released though. 

[Flare2V]

I'm guessing this is a temporary solution. If not, I don't have a problem with this revive system so long as everyone in the server has to comply with the penalty when someone dies. Help your friend out, make sure they don't die. It's not like it's all that hard to throw some meat and beard hair their way every once and a while.

[shigad]

what about that dying will just drain 1/3 of your max health, and not others'?

also i think there should be just a big bunch of servers, and you can spawn any server that you were'nt already in and was'nt reset-ed

[tetrified]

If you want to punish someone for death, but not boot them out of server completely, take their time.

Say, if ghost perishes, it's then sent to adventure mode map or harder and has to escape it in order to return to the main world. Other players could enter that purgatory world to help with revival.

 

I REALLY like this idea, they're not doing nothing, but they have to survive a hard map without the help of others to get back. when they get back, they'll be a more expirenced, better player, as well.

 

How about this too: if all the players end up in this world, it's game over?

[rezecib]

I REALLY like this idea, they're not doing nothing, but they have to survive a hard map without the help of others to get back. when they get back, they'll be a more expirenced, better player, as well.

 

How about this too: if all the players end up in this world, it's game over?

 

I remember briefly playing another game with a similar system. It sounds really interesting on paper, but in practice it becomes really really annoying, especially for newer players. I didn't keep playing that game for long.

[tetrified]

I remember briefly playing another game with a similar system. It sounds really interesting on paper, but in practice it becomes really really annoying, especially for newer players. I didn't keep playing that game for long.

 

Do you remember the game? I'd be interested in playing it to see why it isn't good in practice.

[rezecib]

Do you remember the game? I'd be interested in playing it to see why it isn't good in practice.

 

I've been trying to, but to no avail. I remember other details about it, though, but nothing that seems to have been effectively searchable. I think it had "Plane" in the name, as in something like "Planescape", but that wasn't it. It was pre-release of some sort of MMO, where interactions with NPCs required you to actually type out the questions/responses rather than choosing from a list. Dying in it sent you to an underworld that you had to work to get out of.

 

But perhaps it's not a fair comparison. I think adventure mode is probably more similar to Don't Starve's normal gameplay that it's less jarring. But one thing that is parallel is that it establishes a punishment loop for new players that they have great difficulty escaping. They're going into this game not knowing how to play, so they unintentionally get into bad situations that force them into worse situations where the burden of knowing how to play is even greater. When considering groups of players of the same experience (or single-player, since your experience level is the same as your own), it's better to just start them back off on the same field (e.g. reset the world). When considering groups with different experience levels, I think it's better to have a system where the more experienced players can help out the less experienced ones. Sending players who die into an adventure mode world cuts off that potential.

 

So... while the lore implications and idea of it are kind of neat, I don't think it would work out very well in practice.

[tetrified]

I've been trying to, but to no avail. I remember other details about it, though, but nothing that seems to have been effectively searchable. I think it had "Plane" in the name, as in something like "Planescape", but that wasn't it. It was pre-release of some sort of MMO, where interactions with NPCs required you to actually type out the questions/responses rather than choosing from a list. Dying in it sent you to an underworld that you had to work to get out of.

 

But perhaps it's not a fair comparison. I think adventure mode is probably more similar to Don't Starve's normal gameplay that it's less jarring. But one thing that is parallel is that it establishes a punishment loop for new players that they have great difficulty escaping. They're going into this game not knowing how to play, so they unintentionally get into bad situations that force them into worse situations where the burden of knowing how to play is even greater. When considering groups of players of the same experience (or single-player, since your experience level is the same as your own), it's better to just start them back off on the same field (e.g. reset the world). When considering groups with different experience levels, I think it's better to have a system where the more experienced players can help out the less experienced ones. Sending players who die into an adventure mode world cuts off that potential.

 

So... while the lore implications and idea of it are kind of neat, I don't think it would work out very well in practice.

 

I'm under the impression that the vast majority of people playing online will be people that have at least made it through their first winter. And completely new people will play offline for a bit before coming online.

 

I think it would probably be a bit worse for a new person trying to join servers, only to get kicked after they die two stupid deaths (like we all did when we first started) because the people that have been working on the server for a few hours don't want to lose all their progress because of some newbie who may be a griefer. I could also see people getting kicked immediately if they let anyone know that they're new, if the "pooled health" system stayed.

 

[Richie84]

I haven't read all the posts on this topic, so please forgive me if anything I say has been already stated.

 

Isn't the point of the closed beta testing is for the players to TEST the game? I personally don't have a solution to the "allowing resurrection but keeping the Don't Starve experience," but this is my opinion on the matter. I personally feel they should have released the beta for testing with the ghost mechanic and let the players give their feedback of what they liked, what they didn't liked, what could be changed, and any other issues. Right now it sees they are just playing/testing it themselves and giving their opinion on what they feel is good gameplay. I say let the players decide and adjust the game as the feedback comes. Let it be in testing for a very long time tweaking with the help of the players.

 

From the posts I've read on here about concerns with possible griefing, the ghost mechanic with telltale hearts seemed like a good solution to solve that. Yeah there's touch stones but those will get used up fast and there's no point making a meat effigy when telltale hearts are so much easier to make. It all boils down to players resurrecting you. If you're a problem player, you just don't get resurrected by other players. Just make it if you permadeath as a ghost you can't rejoin the server and start a new character. Problem Solved. That keeps the Don't Starve experience by allowing a permadeath, solves the griefing problem, and allows your friends to resurrect you.

 

Now one of the issues with the ghost mechanic they stated on the livecast on Twitch was that death wasn't such a big deal because you could just resurrect your friend if he happened to die. Easy fix to that is just adjust the materials required for resurrection. Make the telltale heart harder to make.

 

There other concern on the livecast with the ghost mechanic was that it was boring as a ghost. Well, "tough cookies!" Do you guys want your friends to come back or do you want the Don't Starve Experience of stress and death? Yeah, being a ghost is boring but that's your penalty for dying. I would personally rather have a permadeath and no ghost state upon death than everybody's max health dropping by 1/3 and the fact they reduced everyone's damage to boot sucks.