Turtling Vs Building a Base -- BIG difference

[w00tyd00d]

With the new preview video out for tomorrow's update (all about "turf" and being able to change your surroundings with a shovel, watch it

), all I've been seeing on the forum and in the video's youtube comments is people up in arms about the fact that they thought the devs are trying to eliminate base building and don't want you to be able to make a base to have all of your stuff in. Base-building is actually one of the more essential things you should do in order to survive in this game. Their intentions are not to get rid of of base building, but to get rid of turtling.

Turtling, at least the way I see it, is just keeping yourself in your safe little bubble and not have to go more than 10 feet in order to get what you need. This is the problem they're trying to fix; they don't want you to feel safe just by staying in your little area surrounded by trees, they want you to have to go explore for new food or supplies to give you the challenge of time management. There's absolutely no challenge in having everything you need right in front of you and then just waiting until day 100+. Hence why they put pushbacks like the hounds, Krampus, winter, etc in the game; to get players to do something different (or just do something in order to survive.) By doing things like these it forces the player out of their little safety bubble and puts them in a position where they have to really prioritize what they need to do next in order to stay alive, but also still providing that "free-play" feel we all know and love from any survival/sandbox type of game.

Am I wrong? What are everyone else's thoughts?

[Sliver]

In a way, I certainly agree with you. But with this new turf, as well as the eventual addition of fences that devs have discusses, just points towards permanent bases.

I think in the game that bases should be temporary, and one would constantly have to pick up what they need and move somewhere else. Right now, you build a base next to some bunny holes, and you're good forever. You never have to move your base around, and with the addition of ways to make your base look nice, it makes players want to not move it even more. I mean, you put so much work into it, why go anywhere else?

[Fire Starter]

I totaly agree with you. For me its no fun just hanging in my base, i get bored real fast.

I also have(or should i say had) everything i needed except for trees. So today at day 108 i had to go get me some logs and went out exploring. Night comes didnt feel like going back to base cuz its fun out here. But guess what i was missing just ONE grass for a fire. Yes just one, and ofcourse no grass in sight. I pleaded with the dark to be friends but it said NOPE!

That is what this game is about. You can die any way you can think of at anytime. That to me is exciting.

[Club]

Well eventually we will have the world progression added in, so one will have to leave their camps in order to find and then go to the next world portal.

[w00tyd00d]

In a way, I certainly agree with you. But with this new turf, as well as the eventual addition of fences that devs have discusses, just points towards permanent bases.

I think in the game that bases should be temporary, and one would constantly have to pick up what they need and move somewhere else. Right now, you build a base next to some bunny holes, and you're good forever. You never have to move your base around, and with the addition of ways to make your base look nice, it makes players want to not move it even more. I mean, you put so much work into it, why go anywhere else?

The only reason I would say they're essential is because you need some spot for a fire/keep your extra stuff/have a good source of food (shouldn't be your only source)/keep your meat effigy(ies)/etc. If the way that you want to play it is to have multiple bases then by all means you can do so, hence the beauty of a sandbox game, though I don't think that it should be necessary to do so. What I think should be necessary is maybe like every 2-3 days be able to chill out at your camp with no problem (if that's what you choose to do) but then those 2-3 days in between you have to gather up the things you need to survive (food especially if they add in spoilage, you won't be able to just stock up for an in-game week's worth of food). Thus, like I said, giving the player a constant challenge to overcome but still giving them that right amount of wiggle room to let them do what they want too, like in this new release's case, allow them to redecorate their living quarters, which I think is a good step in the right direction.

[The Pig Whisperer]

The longer I play, the more I think one base per island may be the way to go. Having multiple bases means you can travel and explore, and there's always a base a day or two away (half a day if you are willing to sprint through the swamps and spider nests.) Survival, in the context of this game, isn't just about fighting monsters. It's about taming the world so that you can survive longer.

Bases are awesome. This looks like a strictly cosmetic change, but I would go out on a limb and guess that it won't stay that way forever. Maybe biomes spawn what we now see as base elements every spring? New tallbird nests, new beehives, new rabbit holes, new grass tufts, new tentacles... Maybe in a rocky biome, you'd even find new boulders hidden under the snow! Moving a nice stretch of savannah to your base might give you a slim chance of Beefalo migrating there?

[ryry117]

I completely agree with you, I've heard some people saying they want it so you almost have to move on eventually.But that's not the way to have the whole game go, let people play it how they like. If I want to build up the entire world to get rid of most threats and be safe and happy. What's wrong with that? Why get rid of the option entirely, if you want to explore, explore, if you want to build and hunker down, do so. That option of going the way you choose to play is what made Minecraft such a hit.

[Epicruins195]

I completely agree with you, I've heard some people saying they want it so you almost have to move on eventually.But that's not the way to have the whole game go, let people play it how they like. If I want to build up the entire world to get rid of most threats and be safe and happy. What's wrong with that? Why get rid of the option entirely, if you want to explore, explore, if you want to build and hunker down, do so. That option of going the way you choose to play is what made Minecraft such a hit.

Maybe they could add a "freeplay" mode that gives you the freedom of doing what you want with no danger? Because if that was the main game if wouldn't be an "uncompromising wilderness survival game" would it? People need to be pushed to survive, if they have the option to just sit back in peace with no danger then the game wouldn't be fun.

[cyrocrystal]

I like the idea of more options for freeplay, but how would they add no danger to that? lots of items require silk, and getting that is certainly not risk free. Gathering honey is not risk free either, or being around anything that can attack you at all? How many people (besides me), accidentally attacked a beefalo while gathering manure and had to run for the hills to avoid the herd?

I don't see how this would work unless they added other methods to get those items.

[mobius187]

...people up in arms about the fact that they thought the devs are trying to eliminate base building and don't want you to be able to make a base to have all of your stuff in. Base-building is actually one of the more essential things you should do in order to survive in this game. Their intentions are not to get rid of of base building, but to get rid of turtling.

True, a base camp lets you gather your resources and launch expeditions.

Turtling, at least the way I see it, is just keeping yourself in your safe little bubble and not have to go more than 10 feet in order to get what you need. This is the problem they're trying to fix; they don't want you to feel safe just by staying in your little area surrounded by trees, they want you to have to go explore for new food or supplies to give you the challenge of time management. There's absolutely no challenge in having everything you need right in front of you and then just waiting until day 100+.

As to the matter at hand "turtling" isn't the problem, it's a symptom. I know for a fact that once I have everything I need in one place, what's the point of traveling further? To be honest, the only reasons I even leave my base camp is to get those resources that I cannot keep on-hand, like reeds. Personally I've always felt that reeds were done properly, while grass tufts, saplings, and berry bushes werehandled incorrectly. If we couldn't replant those resources we would actually need to travel from our camp to collect them. But since I can replant them I keep 20+ on-hand at all times... no need to explore for them.

I'm sure there will be those who don't agree, but personally I think the shovel shouldn't allow us to replant resources. I can however think of lots of other uses for it, other than grave robbing. Digging up clay for clay pots (as per Kevin's "rot/decay" thread), digging holes/pits/trenches, digging wells, and if they ever add a beach biome digging "sand mounds" could yield various surprises (nothing, clams, seaweed, sea shells, driftwood, giant crabs, and maybe even rare treasure chests). Anywho, that's my 2 cents.

Hence why they put pushbacks like the hounds, Krampus, winter, etc in the game; to get players to do something different (or just do something in order to survive.) By doing things like these it forces the player out of their little safety bubble and puts them in a position where they have to really prioritize what they need to do next in order to stay alive, but also still providing that "free-play" feel we all know and love from any survival/sandbox type of game.

The hounds were added as a new threat because players could handle all the existing threats. You knew where the spiders were and they never posed a serious threat back then because you fought them on your own terms. The Krampus was added to deal with players who took advantage of the ease at which rabbits could be caught by hand and punished hoarding. Winter... well, we don't know all the details yet but I assume it will cause resource shortages, specifically for food. Also talk about new creatures appearing during winter would be a welcome change of pace. Lastly, recent discussions about introducing food rot would be another significant change for players such as myself who hoard food to the point where it's ceased to be an issue. I personally look forward to these hardships, although I'm glad the Krampus doesn't punish players as much for hunting rabbits anymore.

Anyway, I look forward to all the new changes coming our way.

[w00tyd00d]

As to the matter at hand "turtling" isn't the problem, it's a symptom. I know for a fact that once I have everything I need in one place, what's the point of traveling further? To be honest, the only reasons I even leave my base camp is to get those resources that I cannot keep on-hand, like reeds. Personally I've always felt that reeds were done properly, while grass tufts, saplings, and berry bushes werehandled incorrectly. If we couldn't replant those resources we would actually need to travel from our camp to collect them. But since I can replant them I keep 20+ on-hand at all times... no need to explore for them.

I agree and disagree. I never doubted that turtling is indeed a symptom, but that symptom is indeed a problem that needs fixing. You shouldn't be able to feel content just posting up at your base indefinitely at all, no matter what day it is. I think you're right as to re-plantable things not being handled right, but I think that the option to be able to should still be there. I think instead of removing the mechanic all together, how about adding a number as to how many times you can re-fertilize the same plant (berries, grass, etc) until it dies and gets respawned somewhere else on the map. That way you can use it to gain a tiny bit of leverage with your food supply, but it can't last forever and you will have to find more to replace it when it dies. You wouldn't even have to include a respawn for it, so that way it's either scavenge for them out in the wild or abuse them for a short time and then they're gone for good.

The hounds were added as a new threat because players could handle all the existing threats. You knew where the spiders were and they never posed a serious threat back then because you fought them on your own terms. The Krampus was added to deal with players who took advantage of the ease at which rabbits could be caught by hand and punished hoarding. Winter... well, we don't know all the details yet but I assume it will cause resource shortages, specifically for food. Also talk about new creatures appearing during winter would be a welcome change of pace. Lastly, recent discussions about introducing food rot would be another significant change for players such as myself who hoard food to the point where it's ceased to be an issue. I personally look forward to these hardships, although I'm glad the Krampus doesn't punish players as much for hunting rabbits anymore.

I'm aware of why each individual pushback was added in, all I'm saying is that the reasons each one was added was because players were finding ways to survive the game that were not intended by the devs. The devs don't want to make the game too too difficult, but at the same time they want to add just enough of a challenge so that the player is constantly making decisions as to what they need to do in order to survive. Turtling, relying on one simple way to get food, anything of that sort, they're all the opposite of that vision, and therefore a problem that needs fixing lol. That's all I was trying to say.

[mobius187]

I agree and disagree. I never doubted that turtling is indeed a symptom, but that symptom is indeed a problem that needs fixing. You shouldn't be able to feel content just posting up at your base indefinitely at all, no matter what day it is.

Well that's why the game needs to give players more reasons to have more than a single base camp. My base camp is one the grassy plains (where the beefalo roam) and right now the only reasons I travel outside my base camp right now are for:

1) Reeds

2) Frog legs/fish

3) Spikey sticks

4) Silk

5) Boulders (stone/flint/gold ore, which I also get from bribing the pig king)

6) Tallbird eggs

To me swamps are the one biome that is handling itself well. Ponds and reeds are only found there and so are reeds. If we want them, or spikey sticks from tentacles (which only spawn in swamps too) then we have to go to the swamp. Of course I'm all for others reasons to explore, but so far there aren't any. However I am looking forward to anything they can do to change this state of affairs.

I think you're right as to re-plantable things not being handled right, but I think that the option to be able to should still be there. I think instead of removing the mechanic all together, how about adding a number as to how many times you can re-fertilize the same plant (berries, grass, etc) until it dies and gets respawned somewhere else on the map.

I don't know... I mean if I'm only the grassy plains there are tons of grass tufts and I would assume grass tufts that die would respawn in their biome. I could just dig up more and bring them back. If the grass tufts die too quickly to account for this fact then what's the difference between that and not letting the player dig them up at all?

Only the berry bushes would have any real impact as they can be in any biome, but I feel guilty always pointing the finger at them because we've been doing it for so long and the Devs keep adding more and more nerfs for them.

That way you can use it to gain a tiny bit of leverage with your food supply, but it can't last forever and you will have to find more to replace it when it dies. You wouldn't even have to include a respawn for it, so that way it's either scavenge for them out in the wild or abuse them for a short time and then they're gone for good.

Based on your other comment I'll assume you don't mean to say resource are finite in the world, but rather just from the source the player is harvesting. To be honest I don't know if this will fix the issue or not, only that it wouldn't make it as static. However if resources do die is there any point to replanting them?

I'm aware of why each individual pushback was added in, all I'm saying is that the reasons each one was added was because players were finding ways to survive the game that were not intended by the devs. The devs don't want to make the game too too difficult, but at the same time they want to add just enough of a challenge so that the player is constantly making decisions as to what they need to do in order to survive. Turtling, relying on one simple way to get food, anything of that sort, they're all the opposite of that vision, and therefore a problem that needs fixing lol. That's all I was trying to say.

Well all I can say is that nothing has really happened yet that has changed my play style. Oddly enough the only change I do recall involves the hounds, namely that I don't explore as freely as I used to because I want to always be sure I'm in a good strategic situation should they start howling. Funny how that turned out...

But hey, that's just me. I'm still looking forward to winter, the sanity meter, and rot to make some changes to the game.

[The Pig Whisperer]

It's true. The hounds make it harder to explore, rather than harder to turtle. Actually, if you have been boxes and a crock pot, they are delivery service for meat, teeth, and useless red gems. (Well, not useless, but I absolutely do not have anything remotely like the skill to use the amulet... And I do have the skill to use a meat effigy.)