Game Stance: PvE or PvP?

[BlindGunner]

Trenix this is really a PVE game as everyone has said, and its widely loved as that. I feel the vast majority of people agree. Also, if they took the time to worry about pvp, they would be taking away time from the main component, working on pve. 

 

 Also don't forget that some mobs can grief too, so griefing isn't off the table just because you're playing PvE.

A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways.^[1] A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users. - Wikipedia

 

Mobs can't grief.

Unless the Deerclops enjoys destroying your base.

 

[Dipps]

Trenix this is really a PVE game as everyone has said, and its widely loved as that. I feel the vast majority of people agree. Also, if they took the time to worry about pvp, they would be taking away time from the main component, working on pve. 

 

A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways.^[1] A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users. - Wikipedia

 

Mobs can't grief.

Unless the Deerclops enjoys destroying your base.

 

The thing is, people call other players "griefers" merely because they destroy or take away some stuff, regardless the reason (sometimes even after telling them that and having them accept it verbally).

The unfortunate majority of the hosted pvp publics can go as far as banning you for killing a beefalo, because they "c4n help u don die by pupis!" and so, simply taking on their "only" possible deffense against hounds is as blasphemous as maltreating cows in India.

B-A-N-N-E-D.

[Trenix]

A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways.^[1] A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users. - Wikipedia

 

Mobs can't grief.

Unless the Deerclops enjoys destroying your base.

Griefing is a made up word and it's slowly being used for mobs as well. Don't believe me? Minecraft, a widely successful and well-known game has a game rule that you can set to true or false called, "mobGriefing". Times are changing, words included. Also mob griefing is just as annoying as player griefing, sometimes worse.

[Pyromailmann]

Griefing is a made up word

No, it's a community made word when they wanted to be more specific if someone was destroying buildings, or breaking things, or overall ruining fun.

Minecraft

 

Don't you even.

a game rule that you can set to true or false called, "mobGriefing"

You do realize that is only one game. This isn't going to change the games industry entirely.

Times are changing, words included.

 

Yes, because the increase of people speaking "broken English" is counted as "word change".

And yes, I know this brings humanity closer to a universal language, but there will always be people who don't speak English.

 

BONUS DUCKS!

[Trenix]

No, it's a community made word when they wanted to be more specific if someone was destroying buildings, or breaking things, or overall ruining fun.

Yeah and it's being changed by that same community.

 

Don't you even.

 

 

You do realize that is only one game. This isn't going to change the games industry entirely.

Actually it is. Just like one person can invent a new word and have it eventually show up in the dictionary. You're being very naive.

 

Yes, because the increase of people speaking "broken English" is counted as "word change".

And yes, I know this brings humanity closer to a universal language, but there will always be people who don't speak English.

 

BONUS DUCKS!

 

Are you an American? Because to people in England, your language is already broken. Language always changes and evolves, not you or an English teacher will change that. Sorry, but you need to not be so naive. You think people in the last generation spoke like us? Gay used to mean happy, now it means homosexual. This is an example of times changing, you may not like it, but it's happening and will continue to do so.

Now lets go back to the original topic which I still think that balancing the game around PvP will not affect PvE at all. Sure it may take some time to fix up the characters, but by the looks of it, the developers are already doing it.

 

[CaptainFun]

Klie already is balancing them out already and it does seem like it's possibly for PvP.

Balancing characters is good for both PvP and PvE, since you don't want a lopsided cooperative experience any more than you would want an unbalanced competitive one. 

Also let me inform you and the developers with something. Singleplayer and coop games are bad games to make, they're bad for business.

What reality do you live in? Plenty of singleplayer and co-operative games are successful on PC- including Don't Starve, Payday, Magicka, Resident Evil and others. 

Just look at how popular Don't Starve Together got for the fact that it was a multiplayer game. However if the game remained singleplayer or coop, people would just torrent the game. They would either play with their friends through LAN or through an online LAN network. There would be no need to buy the game because the way it's designed is meant to be played with only people you know anyway. I want people to use Klei's official server lists, rather for players to make their own private games and not even pay for the game. To do this we must base this game off PvP and adjust accordingly.

If people were actually going to pirate DST to play it with just their friends cooperatively via LAN, then I don't think optional PvP, a feature they apparently aren't even interested in, would convince them to buy the game. I get that you want PvP, but this hypothetical scenario where the game is pirated just because it has a co-op focus is reaching. 

And yes, Don't Starve, a singleplayer game, was very popular. However it would of been even more popular if it was a multiplayer game from the beginning. Without a doubt, they've lost plenty of money by making it a singleplayer game.

It would have also been much more expensive to make. 

Now lets go back to the original topic which I still think that balancing the game around PvP will not affect PvE at all. 

uh...

 

Right now I'm trying to figure out what's going on with this game. Some people want PvE while others want PvP. Unfortunately you can't balance the game around both.

sure

 

I'm not against PvP or anyone who wants it. I just think they should continue to primarily develop DST as a survival game with a co-op focus.  

 

[Trenix]

Balancing characters is good for both PvP and PvE, since you don't want a lopsided cooperative experience any more than you would want an unbalanced competitive one.

 

That's not entirely true, some people want the vanilla experience throughout but with friends. Last that I've heard, nerfing Willow was frowned upon.

 

What reality do you live in? Plenty of singleplayer and co-operative games are successful on PC- including Don't Starve, Payday, Magicka, Resident Evil and others.

 

And all equally get boring when compared to PvP games. Some of these games I've never bothered with while others were good but eventually fell off for me. In fact, all my games that were either coop or singleplayer I've already stopped playing altogether. Sure it can provide some hype and keep people interested, but they fall off unlike PvP games that last for years. Just take a look at Steam, these multplayer PvP games remain while these singleplayer and coop games come and go.

 

If people were actually going to pirate DST to play it with just their friends cooperatively via LAN, then I don't think optional PvP, a feature they apparently aren't even interested in, would convince them to buy the game. I get that you want PvP, but this hypothetical scenario where the game is pirated just because it has a co-op focus is reaching.

 

If PvP doesn't get the attention it needs, then it would be pointless to do. People would either not buy the game altogether because of it or will just torrent it and get it for free since there is no reason for them to buy the game if it's for coop. The reason they will buy the game for the PvP experience is simple, they will find lots of people to go up against on the official server list. It's rare to have populated private servers. I'm sure there will be coop players willing to buy the game, but PvP players wont, nor will torrenters. You may not care, but I'm sure the developers care if people buy their game or not. I'm just telling you how to get them in their game legally.

 

I'm not against PvP or anyone who wants it. I just think they should continue to primarily develop DST as a survival game with a co-op focus.  

 

 

Focusing coop will destroy PvP. Focusing on PvP will not destroy PvE.

 

 

[DarkXero]

Focusing on PvP will not destroy PvE.

 

Focusing on PvP won't do anything for PvE.

People here in this thread want all the time balancing PvP interactions to go into balancing PvE and creating content for it.

 

People here see PvE as coop play.

You want the opposite.

Not even the middleground, since you think coop will destroy PvP, which you do not want.

 

There's nothing to discuss here, we just have to wait until Klei decides what to do after caves.

What Don't Starve Together is supposed to be.

 

Roadmap, Klei, pls, @Bigfoot?

 

Still, after the dust settles, we will have mods.

[Trenix]

Don't get me wrong, I want some PvE too, just want the game to be balanced off of PvP, not PvE.

[BlindGunner]

Griefing is a made up word and it's slowly being used for mobs as well. Don't believe me? Minecraft, a widely successful and well-known game has a game rule that you can set to true or false called, "mobGriefing". Times are changing, words included. Also mob griefing is just as annoying as player griefing, sometimes worse.

But mobs aren't people. The only person you can blame in that situation is the developers. People on the other hand can join a game, screw with you because its "fun" and then not care when they are kicked/banned or leave on their own. If their was such a thing as "mob griefing" which (regardless of what minecraft says) isn't a thing, it would just be the developers making the game a challenge. Like I said before, the deerclops is set to destroy your base. Okay, so he's "griefing you" because it doesnt matter if he dies in the process. But your expected to deal with him, its a game mechanic/challenge. People aren't supposed to be a game mechanic your supposed to overcome. You can't be expected to deal with people destroying your base, considering if they are hell bent on destroying your base, they'll find a way, whereas there are ways to deal with the deerclops.

[Trenix]

But mobs aren't people. The only person you can blame in that situation is the developers. People on the other hand can join a game, screw with you because its "fun" and then not care when they are kicked/banned or leave on their own. If their was such a thing as "mob griefing" which (regardless of what minecraft says) isn't a thing, it would just be the developers making the game a challenge. Like I said before, the deerclops is set to destroy your base. Okay, so he's "griefing you" because it doesnt matter if he dies in the process. But your expected to deal with him, its a game mechanic/challenge. People aren't supposed to be a game mechanic your supposed to overcome. You can't be expected to deal with people destroying your base, considering if they are hell bent on destroying your base, they'll find a way, whereas there are ways to deal with the deerclops.

 

There are ways to deal with people, by killing them.

[BlindGunner]

There are ways to deal with people, by killing them.

But its easy enough for them to break something before they die. And they lose nothing for doing it and are doing it (often enough) for the sole reason of pissing you off.

[Trenix]

But its easy enough for them to break something before they die. And they lose nothing for doing it and are doing it (often enough) for the sole reason of pissing you off.

 

Boss monsters, spiders, hounds, frogs, mosquitoes and much more mobs piss me off, but I'm still playing. These mobs also don't lose anything either, they just respawn and continue to annoy me. If the game was balanced off of PvP, we could better defend ourselves from enemies, whether it would be from more traps, actual gates for walls, or just stronger walls in general. Maybe we could even own land to prevent griefing altogether.

[Asparagus]

Griefing is a made up word

Actually, ALL words are made up... just throwing it out there...

 

But yeah to summarize everyone's points: The game is made PVE initially, but PVP adds a little spice for it. The game isn't to blame for grievers, its those who abuse it (and any other game).

 

As for balance, it would make a very big change if everyone had an overhaul... depending on how they're change, it could make or break the game...

[TuffDwarf]

Having just read all this topic I can only say that if DST is balanced for PVP I will never play it again.  I don't know how many others feel that way about it, but I certainly hope all of Klei does.  I love DS, and having played more than my fair share of hours on it, I eagerly awaited DST so I could share the experience with friends and family.  No way do I want a game where I am expected to kill others.  I am utterly repulsed by Trenix's insistence that only PVP will 'save' DST.  My feeling towards him is to tell him go away and find some other game to ruin.

[Johnnyprofane]

I'm not opposed to pvp, but I've sunk hundreds of hours into DS without it, while any pvp centered game I've played has gotten boring within 20 hours at most. Even the ones I have stuck with longer are ALWAYS because I've got someone else to play WITH against everyone else. People who strive for pure pvp without a viable system of strong co-op underneath strive for a world without friends. I don't want that world. Which is exactly why whatever DST becomes it should focus on the TOGETHER part being unbelievable long before it strengthens people's ability to murder each other's faces off.

I mean, Wilson didn't make the portal so he could have something to hunt while Maxwell( or the watchers or whoever is on the throne in the canon nowadays) was toying with him. He built it for help in getting out of this world. Or something like that. He did look a little crazy when building it, putting a finger on his motives is hard.

[Trenix]

Think this topic is going out of hand and people are not quite understanding what I'm saying. I'll just make a quick breakdown and put it on the original post and leave it at that.

1) Singleplayer and coop games are highly torrented. Adding a strong element of PvP and balancing around PvP, will stop this from happening because official servers are highly populated unlike private ones.

2) I'm not saying to remove PvE or to stop working on it, I'm just asking to take PvP into consideration since PvE games can get away with imbalance features while in PvP you can't. A perfect example of this is using sleep darts and gunpowder to take out a boss monster which is supposed to be hard to kill. I want balance in my game, even if it is about killing a computer. I also don't want to be able to use sleep darts or gunpowder on enemy players.

3) Games that are strictly PvE don't last very long because they're repetitive and predictable. Random generators and coop may cure this, but not entirely. Torrenters also take advantage of this by getting the game, playing it out till they're bored, and then throwing it without costing them anything. However paying customers will eventually play it out and then throw their game in the graveyard, where they'll regret buying a game that didn't last as long as they expected it to.

A perfect example of this for me was Minecraft. They didn't take PvP into consideration at all, making it useless to even bother having. The only other option is to rely on PvE to improve, which they stopped updating for over a year now. That game is in the graveyard and I'm highly disappointed with it.

[Vanderer]

Think this topic is going out of hand and people are not quite understanding what I'm saying. I'll just make a quick breakdown and put it on the original post and leave it at that.

1) Singleplayer and coop games are highly torrented. Adding a strong element of PvP and balancing around PvP, will stop this from happening because official servers are highly populated unlike private ones.

2) I'm not saying to remove PvE or to stop working on it, I'm just asking to take PvP into consideration since PvE games can get away with imbalance features while in PvP you can't. A perfect example of this is using sleep darts and gunpowder to take out a boss monster which is supposed to be hard to kill. I want balance in my game, even if it is about killing a computer.

3) Games that are strictly PvE don't last very long because they're repetitive and predictable. Random generators and coop may cure this, but not entirely. Torrenters also take advantage of this by getting the game, playing it out till they're bored, and then throwing it without costing them anything. However paying customers will eventually play it out and then throw their game in the graveyard, where they'll regret buying a game that didn't last as long as they expected it to.

A perfect example of this for me was Minecraft. They didn't take PvP into consideration at all, making it useless to even bother having. The only other option is to rely on PvE to improve, which they stopped updating for over a year now. That game is in the graveyard and I'm highly disappointed with it.

 

 

You make interesting arguments, but i'll leave that to everyone else to contest over, though I will point out that using Minecraft as an example isn't exactly the best one. Granted, it's alot like Don't Starve in many ways due to it's... Survival-yness.

I got 24 hours out of it before becoming bored.

It's a tool of creativity more so then a game. If you really like making things out of blocks and Lego is too expensive, well, here's your cheap alternative. Get some friends over and get drunk, onto a winner.

The base game on normal is just too easy. Higher modes just mean higher enemy damage.

If there is someone out there who honestly plays Minecraft deeply for the survival mode aspect, well, I guess there must be something i'm missing here. Basically, if the single player game of survival Minecraft does not incorporate much fun, why would adding more people and making it a death match make it that much better?

Just make it not good, not really good or great... Make it the best darned fantastic thing you can, then if playing the game single player is really, really fun, then it should rub off in multiplayer, for PVE and PVP.