Balance idea for the game Giants/bosses

[subzero22]

If this has already been suggested sorry. I was seeing a ton of people conplaining about the dragonfly having so much health and I read somewhere that they are trying to make it a raid boss not sure if that's true or not but anyway here's my idea.

What about making it so Giants/bosses or even mini ones like tree ents gain health possibly double their health or gain 1/2 health for every player that's on the server. since things normally don't despawn except for some seasoned monsters im thinking it will keep what ever health it was spawned at for how many players were on at the time. But when a new one spawns that one will spawn with the new current health based on players.

Maybe even have an option for that so they can choose default health or player based health which would be set to default

[Johnny5isAlive]

If this has already been suggested sorry.

It has, many times.

 

im thinking it will keep what ever health it was spawned at for how many players were on at the time.

What about nomadic players that don't play in a group but rather travel around providing aid when they can. They would be forced to solo a boss with extra health for no reason other than there were a bunch of noobs on at the time is spawned. 

[subzero22]

True im one of them lol. Maybe make it so the boss drops more items as a reward? I'm not saying it should do extra damage just extra health and maybe a health cap to so it can't get too op maybe max of 4-6 players then after that doesn't get any extra health

[1v0]

The game is supposed to be specially for multiplayer so I find it normal to see creatures that cant be killed by 1-2 players. Dragonfly is good as it is if you ask me.

[WillPwn4Food]

True im one of them lol. Maybe make it so the boss drops more items as a reward? I'm not saying it should do extra damage just extra health and maybe a health cap to so it can't get too op maybe max of 4-6 players then after that doesn't get any extra health

 

Check out the buffed Dragonfly on the wiki page (http://dont-starve-game.wikia.com/wiki/Dragonfly). He drops one or more of every gem type as well as sheds scales if damaged rapidly enough. The reward seems well balanced with the risk.

 

I think players simply need to realize that they can't play Don't Starve Together solo and still accomplish everything the game has to offer. If that were so, it would be quite dull from the lack of challenge, not to mention there wouldn't be much point to having made the game multiplayer.

 

I just realized this isn't the thread about the Dragonfly being impossible solo, so my above comments are not entirely relevant to the subject

[ohhaithere]

What about nomadic players that don't play in a group but rather travel around providing aid when they can. They would be forced to solo a boss with extra health for no reason other than there were a bunch of noobs on at the time is spawned. 

 

**** them and send 'em back to single player?

[RalphKastro]

No. Increasing health doesn't make things harder or more balanced for number of players, only more boring.

[ohhaithere]

Correct. Deal with this by changing mechanics. Make mobs less stupid and harder to retard-kite them, for example. Kiting should die. It's as braindead as a mechanic can get.

[RalphKastro]

Kiting should die. It's as braindead as a mechanic can get.

actually, in the context of DS combat, kiting is the one that requires more skill, although it's only counterpart is tanking. Combat in DS really is not that well developed. I do think however that there should be more incentive to combat alternatives, such as traps and pig parties and whatever, so that combat becomes more of a last resort kind of thing. 

[DarkXero]

Kiting should die.

 

And what do we put instead?

 

Make each engagement a health trade off between player and monster, depending on the armor and weapon equipped?

 

Give things hitboxes and let Wilson swing the air and apply damage if hit connects?

[ohhaithere]

Hitboxes and proper evasion mechanics. That's all it needs, really.

I cringe every time I see a 'fight' against a treeguard via kiting. It makes me puke.

[RalphKastro]

I cringe every time I see a 'fight' against a treeguard via kiting. It makes me puke.

I suggest you consult a doctor...

[DarkXero]

Hitboxes and proper evasion mechanics.

 

Reference any game, or explain.

 

What do you consider proper evasion mechanics?

How would you picture a fight between a treeguard and a Wilson holding a spear?

 

Because technically DST does the same as many games in melee combat:

- Unit gets close to target

- Launches attack

- If target is there when attack connects, damage is dealt

[RalphKastro]

Gotta have that roll and backflip.

[DarkXero]

Gotta have that roll and backflip.

 

It would be interesting to put a roll with iframes (or a % dmg reduction) in a certain point.

With the roll you could move like a 10 distance.

It would be useful to dodge the Deerclops AoE attack.

 

A backflip could be same as roll, but with some more iframes.

You wouldn't move very far though, you would remain almost in the point you were (else you could just walk to dodge).

Useful for spider bites and treeguard claws.

 

However, I don't know how balanced it would be.

It certainly would make players, that want to invest into remembering timings, better.

[ohhaithere]

Reference any game, or explain.

 

Demon's or Dark Souls. If you've played them, you'll know what I mean. If you don't, let me know and I'll explain.

[DarkXero]

Demon's or Dark Souls. If you've played them, you'll know what I mean.

 

I was thinking of the Witcher 3 with rolls (rolling) and backflips (sidestepping).

 

I understand the mechanics and the design but I have a hard time thinking of the Don't Starve equivalent.

Because in Dark Souls, you have parries and shields and stamina, also different melee weapons have different movesets and range.

 

Making attacks go between random intervals and having a button so you quick sidestep to dodge seems worth exploring.

[ohhaithere]

Even though in DS there are parries and different weapons with unique animations and ranges, it doesn't mean that that aspect has to come into this game too. You can pretty much scrap the parries and the different attack animations and just leave the stamina* consumption for dodging -be it via rolling or sidestepping or whatever-.

I don't think people would care that a Tentacle Spike has the same attack animation and range as a Spear, for example. *As for stamina, well, we have hunger here. Make dodging cost a certain % of hunger. You can still get away from mobs by running away, but you can't fight them like that. Will this make the game harder because you have to manage your hunger better for combat? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Well, I think not.

[RalphKastro]

wait, are we really comparing DS to... DS? They don't seem to really fit the same combat mechanics. In a survival game like Don't Starve, you'd expect combat to be clunky and weird, as combat is as alien to you as it is to your character, and the main point is not to fight a Capra Demon, but to survive. In Dark Souls, however, the entire gameplay of the game is based around fighting things and getting better at fighting things and learning how to fight new things.

You're also a warrior, Pyromancer, Sorcerer(just not a cleric, or are you?) or any other thing that is supposedly trained to combat and capable of doing his fighting stuff, not a gentleman scientist or a delusional actress.

I like the clunky combat Don't Starve has, but I do think it could be more clunky in that the player feels weaker, not stronger. Right now it's just about walking away from attack animations, and no extra complex dodging mechanics is going to fix that. Instead of trying to make the combat more interesting, why not make it less interesting, as in "I don't want to do that stuff directly because I'm probably going to get screw'd". Make combat a non-option, or at least inviable in most circunstances, forcing the player to use the environment or traps to kill what they want to kill, in order to survive.

[Johnny5isAlive]

Make combat a non-option, or at least inviable in most circunstances, forcing the player to use the environment or traps to kill what they want to kill, in order to survive.

I really like this.. But Klei would have to get very creative with new traps and strong enemies for TTA. 

[Luponius]

Making combat a non option would unnecessarily cut down on the alternative paths players could take. I think some sort of lag-tolerable, multi-target system with a hard cap on how far a player can take it would make more sense. Like what?

To compensate for lag, a dodge mechanic would have to be introduced, it would still be equivalent to moving out of the way, andit could be as simple as right clicking and hitting wasd when in combat to dodge in that direction, this however could allow lag tolerance of typically up to 300ms.

In addition some form of targetting system would make combat a little clearer allowing you to focus your efforts on a specific enemy.

Finally, to make armor and weapons actually useful and distinct you could integrate different mechanics like brief attack combos or clear cut stun effects from blunt and bleeds from piercing / serrated attacks.

I understand combat seems like a bad direction to focus on, but since it does exist, putting some love towards it would give the game more depth and possibly help balance pvp a little (as it stands, whoever gets there first and sits on better equipment wins, although maybe that's not always the case)

The alternative would be to simply throw it away. Do away with all forms of combat and let players take the sideways approach. Such as hunting koalefants by chasing them to a specific area (like digging a deep hole with spikes to act as a trap). One could refer to a game like Unreal World for an idea on how this could be accomplished.