No good deed goes unpunished.

[BinarySpike]

A game that finds ways to punish you is frustrating and annoying. - I've had considerable experience on the Xbox Live Indie Games Marketplace (XBLIG) playtesting and reviewing games. One thing I've learned is that a game should never "look" to punish you excessively. E.g. Arbitrarily placing spikes at the end of long paths or jump endings , having multiple you-can't-turn-back choices that only one does not reset your progress etc. etc.

When the Naughty and Nice update came out, I had just learned how to kill jackalopes. I had added them as a main element to my food supply. I became very angry because I don't believe killing animals is wrong. Along the lines of, "Who are you to decide morality and force what I prioritize as food?" I think this was confounded by the fact that the Gobbler does not count towards the Krampus & caging birds can be considered just as immoral as killing them. I suggest that the "Naughty meter" should encompass more gameplay elements like the health and hunger meter.

Some actions that could reduce or increase your naughty meter.

• Stealing Tallbird eggs / Killing eggs (+)
  
• Hatching Tallbird eggs (-)
  
• Seeds maturing into crops (-)
  
• Planting pinecones (-)
  
• Killing scary creatures, spiders, ghosts, tentacles, etc. etc. (-)
  
• Feeding pigs berries (-)
  
• Trapping creatures (+)
  
• Dying with an amulet or effigy (+++)
  

(I'm sure a much bigger list could be thought up)

I think passive creatures should increase (+) your naughty-ness, and all creatures that attack you should decrease (-) it.

Anything that fits in-between should be neutral (no change). Tallbirds, possibly spiders.

My biggest concern, is that the naughty meter is going to turn into either "moral subjection" or "unfair point distribution" (like the research meter is now)

[Excess]

Welcome to the forums.

I, for one, would like not to be punished for killing bunnies if my hunger is really low. Morality becomes irrelevant the moment you are struggling for survival. If I have my belly full and I go on a Jackalope Killing Rampage, then yes, punish me.

[BinarySpike]

Welcome to the forums.

I, for one, would like not to be punished for killing bunnies if my hunger is really low. Morality becomes irrelevant the moment you are struggling for survival. If I have my belly full and I go on a Jackalope Killing Rampage, then yes, punish me.

Thanks, this implies a conditional, "If this, then that" which can make games confusing for players. I would agree with an increase in threshold or a lowering of Jackalope "naughty points" though.

[plinky4]

Why are there naughty points in the first place? Terrible, traumatic things should happen to you regardless of whether you chose to eat a bunny or a berry.

[Knallis]

I didn't see any of the update as a morality by our standards -- but Krampus's. It is he who roars with rage whenever you are naughty. He cares not that you are just trying to survive. The thing is that Krampus doesn't immediately punish the player arbitrarily, but rather, adds a new element of when you can take acceptable risks for dominating the environment or risk envoking the wrath of a psychopathic monster that wants to force you to take a moral high ground that you simply cannot take -- without meat you can't befriend pigs who might be necessary to surviving hound attacks late into the game.

[Tom_Suke]

That, and the fact that Krampus has a schnazzy backpack with 10 slots, bunny genocide ftw~

[Guest Dandytard]

I believe that if you've been very naughty, The Krampus comes with a whip, And you must bend over and take the punishment like a man. It's just a suggestion, though.

[TylerTheDragon]

A game that finds ways to punish you is frustrating and annoying. - I've had considerable experience on the Xbox Live Indie Games Marketplace (XBLIG) playtesting and reviewing games. One thing I've learned is that a game should never "look" to punish you excessively. E.g. Arbitrarily placing spikes at the end of long paths or jump endings , having multiple you-can't-turn-back choices that only one does not reset your progress etc. etc.

When the Naughty and Nice update came out, I had just learned how to kill jackalopes. I had added them as a main element to my food supply. I became very angry because I don't believe killing animals is wrong. Along the lines of, "Who are you to decide morality and force what I prioritize as food?" I think this was confounded by the fact that the Gobbler does not count towards the Krampus & caging birds can be considered just as immoral as killing them. I suggest that the "Naughty meter" should encompass more gameplay elements like the health and hunger meter.

Some actions that could reduce or increase your naughty meter.

• Stealing Tallbird eggs / Killing eggs (+)
  
• Hatching Tallbird eggs (-)
  
• Seeds maturing into crops (-)
  
• Planting pinecones (-)
  
• Killing scary creatures, spiders, ghosts, tentacles, etc. etc. (-)
  
• Feeding pigs berries (-)
  
• Trapping creatures (+)
  
• Dying with an amulet or effigy (+++)
  

(I'm sure a much bigger list could be thought up)

I think passive creatures should increase (+) your naughty-ness, and all creatures that attack you should decrease (-) it.

Anything that fits in-between should be neutral (no change). Tallbirds, possibly spiders.

My biggest concern, is that the naughty meter is going to turn into either "moral subjection" or "unfair point distribution" (like the research meter is now)

They added krampus because they wanted the game to be challenging , they didn't want people sticking to one way to survive , even farming will become useless Soon sinse Winter in the game is coming , meaning that for an extended period of time your crock pot and mobs (that probably most will be hibernating/ Hiding from the snow) that you can cook , meaning that you have to stack up on as much warming food and resources you can , keep your fire up until you have a full winter set.

I like your idea , but the reason krampus comes because you kill animals is because those are the innocent animals , minding their own business and you go around killing them , Krampus doesn't CARE what you think , what he thinks is bad sticks , you can't change his mind , if your being 'naughty' in his terms , hes going to do it , like in real life , you may think swearing is Okay , but teachers in schools don't like it when you say it , its life , people are always going to think that killing animals is bad , that's why there's such things as vegetarians , People will always think that SOMETHING your doing is wrong , you just have to deal with it.

and if gobblers were put as "naughty" people would rage because they can't have any berries again without angering Krampus , and maybe even spawning him , but i think the list is a cool idea.

[mobius187]

While I can certainly relate to the Krampus "punishing" us, and not reversing naughty with nice... maybe we just need some options to avoid being listed as naughty in the first place. As Excess mentioned, I for one used to kill rabbits all the time, and it was mainly for food rather than fun. The issue arises from the fact that traps now catch rabbits alive. Another user suggested that maybe the solution is having two types of traps, the current ones that catch animals alive, and a second set of the "lethal" variety that uses hound teeth. That makes sense to me and let's you decide, will you capture an animal, kill it, or be naughty by killing a captured animal?

[BinarySpike]

without meat you can't befriend pigs who might be necessary to surviving hound attacks late into the game.

As I've only made it ~30 days, I can't imagine. In my experience, the hounds preoccupation with monster meat has made them easy targets from the beginning. Hounds are actually quite a good gameplay element. Yet, although they have similarities with the Krampus, the Krampus's double standard is frustrating.

if your being 'naughty' in his terms , hes going to do it

That's why I proposed the list. It balances the game from a double standard and the associated frustration.

like in real life , you may think swearing is Okay , but teachers in schools don't like it when you say it , its life , people are always going to think that killing animals is bad , that's why there's such things as vegetarians , People will always think that SOMETHING your doing is wrong , you just have to deal with it.

That is a moral subject. The easy response to that is simple, I'm not forced to play their game. (Technically I'm not forced to attend instituted school either) Klei still has to sell their game, and I'm sure that such overwhelming negative feedback from the Naughty and Nice update has made the developers at least take another look at the Krampus. That is the point of a alpha beta cycle.

The issue arises from the fact that traps now catch rabbits alive. Another user suggested that maybe the solution is having two types of traps, the current ones that catch animals alive, and a second set of the "lethal" variety that uses hound teeth. That makes sense to me and let's you decide, will you capture an animal, kill it, or be naughty by killing a captured animal?

As for me, when you drop "live" bunnies, they are sleeping (day or night), giving you plenty of time to kill them yourself. I have not found a use for live bunnies. I don't see the need for a new trap type.

From reading many comments on the Krampus, I've come to realize that a change in my gameplay is needed. I think the largest fears affecting players--including myself--is the requisite changing of our playstyle, as well as a fear of the game changing (such as Krampus's stealing backpacks). - The epitome of a pre-released game.

[mobius187]

As for me, when you drop "live" bunnies, they are sleeping (day or night), giving you plenty of time to kill them yourself. I have not found a use for live bunnies. I don't see the need for a new trap type.

However, when you kill a bunny it's considered "naughty" and if you collect enough naughty points then the Krampus appears to punish you. I figured deadly versions of the existing two traps (rabbit/bird) would be an alternative that would let us perhaps avoid this fate.

I'm don't mind the Krampus punishing naughtiness in principal, only that I don't consider hunting rabbits for survival as being naughty.

[BinarySpike]

I figured deadly versions of the existing two traps (rabbit/bird) would be an alternative that would let us perhaps avoid this fate.

I don't think more trap types is a good idea. Hounds teeth sounds like a firecracker mousetrap. (Thus complicating the moral concept)

I'm don't mind the Krampus punishing naughtiness in principal, only that I don't consider hunting rabbits for survival as being naughty.

Agreed, although if the Krampus were more observant of "good" deeds I would let this slide.

[Arrow Del]

Easy way to avoid krampus...don't "stock up" on rabbit meat very quickly. You can easily get by on 2-4 rabbits per day and supplementing with berries (and turkeys) to keep from getting so much that he shows up. As far as I can tell you have to ACTIVELY kill more than 5 rabbits a day to trigger Krampus.

[mobius187]

I don't think more trap types is a good idea. Hounds teeth sounds like a firecracker mousetrap. (Thus complicating the moral concept)

Short of killing pig men and smallbirds... I'm hard pressed to consider the other actions as "naughty". The player is trying to survive after all. The simplest solution would be to exclude killing rabbits/birds from the naughty list.

Agreed, although if the Krampus were more observant of "good" deeds I would let this slide.

I think the argument here is the Krampus doesn't care how nice someone is... only their misdeeds which it tallies. The only way to escape its wrath is to simply stop being naughty.

In game terms this is a classic problem from "Fallout 3" and its broken Karma system, a system, may I say, that I abused to high-heaven.

It worked like this. When you did evil actions, like say, killing innocent people in their sleep with the Sandman perk (heh) it was evil and it earned you negative karma. This would impact the game. However, if you gave water bottles to the old guy outside Megaton then you gained positive karma which counter-acted the negative karma. In short order everyone forgets you killed dozens of people in their sleep and robbed their corpses. Then it was simply a matter of wash, rinse, and repeat. No impact so long as you could be nice to counter the naughty.

With the Krampus right now it's a one-way road and I think that's the point.

[TylerTheDragon]

Easy way to avoid krampus...don't "stock up" on rabbit meat very quickly. You can easily get by on 2-4 rabbits per day and supplementing with berries (and turkeys) to keep from getting so much that he shows up. As far as I can tell you have to ACTIVELY kill more than 5 rabbits a day to trigger Krampus.

Your right , i currently have a map that on the small island , it has over 30 Berry bushes , On One Island , I could easily survive , and sinse its right around water , all I need is to chase down a turkey that may eat 10 maximum berries , and 20 left for me , the only problem I currently inhabit is to find where all of the beefalo's are located , if there on the next island , i can easily just grab poop and go back.

Just , to avoid krampus , mix up your playstyle , have a farm but kill a few bunnies every now and then , and bird cages aren't THAT expensive unless you need to research everything , sinse giving the pig king a grave item deploys alot of gold , and On my previous map , I had a swamp with 15 reeds in a close and reasonable distance , and unless you stood still near the beginning of it , you wouldn't encounter any tentacles. Its not that hard to mix up the playstyle , Even I every now and then kill a beefalo (wendy is currently my favoruite character because abigail can kill all the beefalo's for me without them even noticing , hehehe)

Maxwell , you must steal my resources , your minions aren't enough!

[Knallis]

I think the game is going in the right direction by applying a double-edged sword to everything. Just, that edge hasn't been sharpened everywhere yet. I have my own play style too, a list of things that, when I restart, I want to do asap. But I'll roll with the punches when those things don't become viable, because I am hoping the game will reach a point where that, even if I try the same strategy twice, it might not work the second time around, so it will always keep me on my toes.

So the only thing I'd want from krampus is for him to become perhaps a little bit more capricious. I haven't even encountered him yet and I still occasionally hunt beefalo.

All in all I like the mentality that you CAN, in fact, be naughty, but it might screw you over. Whether it SHOULD be called naughty is kind of arbituary 'cuz if the developers hadn't used that expression and just said "you might piss off a nature spirit by killing animals" maybe this discussion might have not gotten into more philosophical grounds. Just from gameplay, I really appreciate that we're being given a mechanic that forces us to make sound judgment calls. Don't take unnecessary risks, take them when you know you can more than handle it!

It is kind of like provoking tree guards in that respect -- krampus is certainly more of a "threat" since he goes after your stuff and breaks your furniture, but they essentially are the same thing. You need a resource, and if you want it that badly, you're going to risk pissing off a thing of nature. They're just two different levels of that. Speaking of which, I think treeguards need to develop something to make them more dangerous as the game develops. I wonder if the devs will feel the same way. Currently I just gather near a pig village since pigs seem to treat treeguards as a threat and intervene during the fight -- allowing me to safely harvest pigs