General Possible Necessities

[Merkus]

There's clearly a fair need for new ways to deter or better yet prevent griefing.

Unless the game was absolutely meant to be made that way, in which case I'm calling Klei out as buttfaces.

In all seriousness though, I do have some suggestions, although it's possible that they can simply be community made plugins or mods.

 

Land Claiming-No one likes it when their base gets torched or their food gets stolen. In a faction-like manner, land claiming would prevent outsiders from destroying or interfering in any way with your crud. There would be some visual way on the screen to show which land is yours, but the mechanic would have to be made to some limit, so much that shenanigans won't occur, such as blocking the spawn off with walls on claimed land. (While on the subject, please make it impossible to spawn Tentacles with Wickerbottom on top of spawn.) The only way for someone else to do anything on your land would be to help them out with your own hands or perform the next suggestion. (Mini-suggestion: allow for a small piece of land owned by you, but made available to anyone.)

 

Mutually Declared Partnerships-The game is called Don't Starve "Together," but it can be hard to know who you can trust. By clicking on a fellow player on the same server, you would be able to partner up with them and share the land and the resources that both you and your partner claim, though you cannot build on a partner's land and you cannot destroy their possessions either--only pick them up, store them, and use them. A restriction on walls should be made so that one partner can't potentially trap someone else.

(Mini-suggestions: lockable chests that can't be opened by even partners when locked unless mutually declared as well. A gate between walls that opens only to you and partners to deter griefing.) These bonds can be broken at any time.

 

tl;dr:

-Land claims so no one can do anything with your stuff

-Mutual partnerships that allow resource sharing but no other sort of interaction with resources of partners

 

Again, maybe the chance of being griefed is the risk that DST was meant to have, but there's a difference between surviving together and getting killed by Wigfrids that betray you and overpopulate the server.

 

Have any other suggestions?

[DarkXero]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=404161345

[ThaumicParrot]

Mini-suggestions: lockable chests

 

I believe that's what these are for, they'll probably be added in the future.

 

 

[blowtorch]

-snip-

are these from the game's files?

[ThaumicParrot]

are these from the game's files?

 

They are indeed. 

[blowtorch]

They are indeed.

how interesting, hopefully it is used to lock chests that'd be cool

[ThaumicParrot]

how interesting, hopefully it is used to lock chests that'd be cool

 

Well I can't imagine what else they'd be for, except maybe the door files that were also in that place.

 

There were also these( doors are the second image), all of which seem to imply enhanced protection:

 

[Merkus]

Alright, just thought of another thing to think about.

 

I know that Autumn is meant to be a time to stock up and prepare for Winter, but up to two hours and forty minutes of my time sounds like a fair consumption of my day.

Even if I join halfway through, an hour and twenty minutes still sounds like a lot of time to have to stay on the screen.

And while there is the possibility to come back, there's a chance that the resources will already have been eaten up--though there is the chance that bases will share anyway, so that sort of solves the problem.

 

The issue I personally have with the game is that it's slow going. Yes, this is one of the more realistic survival games out there--putting aside tree monsters, 10-second tree timbers, anthropomorphic walruses, ghosts, giant monsters, magic, so on and so forth--and it's realistic so much in the aspect that surviving takes a while to go through.

 

Up to two hours and forty minutes.

 

This is fairly realistic in many senses of the case, but come on.

Up to almost three hours to find a Walrus Tusk?

Most of the time, I end up leaving the game after three or five days because I can't find gold after searching the map for rocks or players that used it for something else and someone else burned the science machine at the spawn or dug up all the graves.

 

The only way to counter the selfish hoarding would be to get to the server in the early days.

The problem is having to collect enough so that you can survive.

And that takes a while, and leaving the server leaves the possibility of griefing or resource hoarders that signed out because they had to do something else.

 

tl;dr:

I don't want to take so much time out of my day just to try and make my situation in the server easier.

And I could just join the server early, but it can get so boring, realistic as it is.

 

I'm thinking that the game could be faster, to sort of mentally get the brain running.

It takes a lot longer to get from grass on one side of the screen to grass on the other side than you'd think.

 

In all honesty, I'm just impatient and would like some way to enjoy a survival game at a faster rate than realistic.

Sounds like a completely different game, though.

Or commands.

 

[XirmiX]

There's clearly a fair need for new ways to deter or better yet prevent griefing.

Unless the game was absolutely meant to be made that way, in which case I'm calling Klei out as buttfaces.

In all seriousness though, I do have some suggestions, although it's possible that they can simply be community made plugins or mods.

Land Claiming-No one likes it when their base gets torched or their food gets stolen. In a faction-like manner, land claiming would prevent outsiders from destroying or interfering in any way with your crud. There would be some visual way on the screen to show which land is yours, but the mechanic would have to be made to some limit, so much that shenanigans won't occur, such as blocking the spawn off with walls on claimed land. (While on the subject, please make it impossible to spawn Tentacles with Wickerbottom on top of spawn.) The only way for someone else to do anything on your land would be to help them out with your own hands or perform the next suggestion. (Mini-suggestion: allow for a small piece of land owned by you, but made available to anyone.)

Mutually Declared Partnerships-The game is called Don't Starve "Together," but it can be hard to know who you can trust. By clicking on a fellow player on the same server, you would be able to partner up with them and share the land and the resources that both you and your partner claim, though you cannot build on a partner's land and you cannot destroy their possessions either--only pick them up, store them, and use them. A restriction on walls should be made so that one partner can't potentially trap someone else.

(Mini-suggestions: lockable chests that can't be opened by even partners when locked unless mutually declared as well. A gate between walls that opens only to you and partners to deter griefing.) These bonds can be broken at any time.

tl;dr:

-Land claims so no one can do anything with your stuff

-Mutual partnerships that allow resource sharing but no other sort of interaction with resources of partners

Again, maybe the chance of being griefed is the risk that DST was meant to have, but there's a difference between surviving together and getting killed by Wigfrids that betray you and overpopulate the server.

Have any other suggestions?

Griefing, by evidence and logic is decreasing by day. I see it as absurd for someone to think it's a great idea to bring in the ******* capitalism into this game.

[RalphKastro]

I see it as absurd for someone to think it's a great idea to bring in the ******* capitalism into this game.

hold the leash of your ideologies, please. Just because you don't like it as a real thing, doesn't mean it wouldn't make it an interesting mechanic in a game.

(but it's still not that good of an idea. Feels too gamey and weird to have this mystical force of property impeding someone to destroy something just because.)

[XirmiX]

hold the leash of your ideologies, please. Just because you don't like it as a real thing, doesn't mean it wouldn't make it an interesting mechanic in a game.

(but it's still not that good of an idea. Feels too gamey and weird to have this mystical force of property impeding someone to destroy something just because.)

Contradict yourself much?

[ThaumicParrot]

I think a better mechanic would be clans. People could add others to their clan, perhaps they'd be indicated by face-paint or something similar. Land could be protecting by crafting "clan turf", which would protect your base from loners and clans that have less people than you. If a clan is larger than yours, however, they should be able to still attack your base. Also, the clan would have to have more players than yours that are currently online, so a lonely noob of a powerful clan couldn't wreak havoc. That way strong clans could only attack through full-scale tribal wars, which seems pretty sweet to me.

[Merkus]

I think a better mechanic would be clans. People could add others to their clan, perhaps they'd be indicated by face-paint or something similar. Land could be protecting by crafting "clan turf", which would protect your base from loners and clans that have less people than you. If a clan is larger than yours, however, they should be able to still attack your base. Also, the clan would have to have more players than yours that are currently online, so a lonely noob of a powerful clan couldn't wreak havoc. That way strong clans could only attack through full-scale tribal wars, which seems pretty sweet to me.

Now that sounds like fair and organized fun.

So long as it's not as easy to get screwed over.

[XirmiX]

I think a better mechanic would be clans. People could add others to their clan, perhaps they'd be indicated by face-paint or something similar. Land could be protecting by crafting "clan turf", which would protect your base from loners and clans that have less people than you. If a clan is larger than yours, however, they should be able to still attack your base. Also, the clan would have to have more players than yours that are currently online, so a lonely noob of a powerful clan couldn't wreak havoc. That way strong clans could only attack through full-scale tribal wars, which seems pretty sweet to me.

Yes, but Tribes, not Clans, because the word fits better for this game. Though still, land claiming would suck; reason being that eventually the whole world could be claimed if a group of plauers decide to constantly expand. This is why land ownership sucks irl just as much as it would in a multiplayer game such as this. The land is limited. And can people, please, stop bragging on about how to deal with griefing? In far game, griefing isn't too big of a problem and it's decreasing by day because griefers constantly get banned from servers, ergo if they continue to play they either need to change their attitude or not be able to play in more and more servers because of being banned.

Also, I see tribes working for both PvP and PvE; in PvP, each tribe would go against each other and a player has to decide which tribe they want to join and that way things like tooth traps and bee mines would work on people from opposition tribes. In PvEs however, each tribe could basically mean people with multiple bases and who could trade with each other or something (dunno how I feel about trading, but collaboration seems better most of the time, though not saying that trading is coherently bad in off itself. Am saying this from an Ancom perspective).

[ThaumicParrot]

Though still, land claiming would suck; reason being that eventually the whole world could be claimed if a group of plauers decide to constantly expand. This is why land ownership sucks irl just as much as it would in a multiplayer game such as this. The land is limited.

 

What if "Tribe Turf" was very expensive? Perhaps something like 3 beefalo wool, 3 gold, and a living log? I like your ideas of trading and such, that seems pretty cool.

[XirmiX]

What if "Tribe Turf" was very expensive? Perhaps something like 3 beefalo wool, 3 gold, and a living log?

That... isn't expensive. Like, it wouldn't take me that long to kill a tree guard/chop a Totally Normal Tree, shave a beefalo and mine 2 - 3 gold boulders. I am even on a server, where we have started using Living logs for fuel because we have way too many of them and there are still quite a few Tree guards alive across the map. In terms of such things, you must think long term; if a player plays on a server, for say a 1000 days, but then gets bored, leaves the server and never comes back, but has an area occupied only for him/her, then that area will never get touched, which could result in majority of the map occupied and un-used. Griefing used to be a big problem, but as time goes on, due to banning and such, griefer amount had decreased and now it is no longer that big of a concern as it was many months ago. For me, I have in-game mechanics that I'm worried about rather than some griefing that will occur like once every 10000 servers (in fact, the only griefing that had occurred in the server I keep playing over and over again, which is now over 1000 days old now, btw, was when some Wickerbottom decided to spawn in tentacles in a base; and that wasn't even the main base! And it wasn't too long until I dealt with that myself by killing the tentacles).

[Snowhusky5]

If anti griefing measures are really necessary, one way to do it would be to allow players to vote on rollbacks, rather than requiring the server owner to do it all. Same goes for voting on bans, etc.

[XirmiX]

If anti griefing measures are really necessary, one way to do it would be to allow players to vote on rollbacks, rather than requiring the server owner to do it all. Same goes for voting on bans, etc.

Hmm... There is one thing that is a bit of a problem with vote kick... Whilst griefing isn't that big of a concern due to banning, with everyone in a server being able to vote-kick or vote-ban would result in banning being the tool for griefing itself! It is much better for the host to hold control over who stays and goes, and I know I douns very authoritarian (which irl would be in contrast to what my political ideology is), but let me explain:

I am not okay for a host telling people what to do all the time and everyone doing the host's bidding; who would even play the game anymore if this happened most of the time? I see it that there are people who you can trust to keep the server safe and there are people who will try to use such force against the rest of the players. So say, you're in a server, where half or a majority need to vote to ban/kick someone and you are there with 2 more people who are decent. Now, if 3 griefers came into the server, they could simply ban you if you're hosting it as a dedicated server, or if not, they'll be able to ban your friends. What happens then is that your friends won't be able to join anymore. This could be prevented by you, being a host, being able to un-ban them, but the 3 griefers you encountered could not be banned anymore! With vite banning and kicking, griefers would always have the upper hand who would make the first move! Now, may be there is something I am missing, and I wish I did, because I would love to see this game's mechanics to be more equal to each player and to keep players free to make as many choices as possible, but reality here seems different from the game. Irl, most people in such a sociatal way would be willing to live and keep away from pain, thus in the process, to avoid that, would also avoid engaging in attacking other people, but in the game, you have spawning and respawning, something that doesn't apply irl, and so, griefers could ban people and wreck servers without being banned themselves and they would have no consequences, because they are not really the character they play as; they don't care what happens to their character, all they care about is that the character fullfills their interrests, in this case, griefing.

But, when I mentioned earlier about trust, I meant that host can give people the ability to ban and kick people who he/she trusts the most to keep their server safe, and so, more people would get to keep the server safe.

There is something concerning the idea of host being almighty or something, which I have a few probalems with and I have experienced problems with before in one server (I am not referring here to dictatorship of the host) but I don't think it's something to talk about in this topic, unless someone really really wants me to talk about it... I just really don't want to go too off-topic here. Tell you what, I'll make a topic on what I'm concerned about in terms of host.