Your opinion on PvP

[BigGames]

I'm gonna stop chatting now

14 minutes ago, MikeyMusic said:

 

edit: I already regret my decision to respond to that, I think you've mistaken this topic for a chat/messagebox of some sort. Typically, somebody won't post something unless it, y'know... has any meaning or relevance at all. :^)

 

[MikeyMusic]

1 hour ago, Moon64 said:

How would giving rabbit ear the ability to prevent pan flute / STS to affect you effect Co-op at all? Small tweaks like these could be made without affecting Co-op. I don't think PVP should be completely balanced, how is Wes ever going to be as strong as Wolfgang for example. But that doesn't mean PVP can't be tweaked to better cater to the audience that DOES enjoy it.

I'm referring more specifically to the type of adjustments required to make PVP a truly "balanced" experience. Stuff like that would be fine, I didn't mean to say little adjustments are a no-go. It's stuff like character-statistic changes and the likes that I'm not so keen on, like if they had to raise/lower some characters attack or health stats just to level the playing field. Remember when too many Willows burned everything on public servers and then her design was changed to better suit multiplayer? It kinda screwed over anybody who was used to playing as Willow on coop, and as far as I can tell the changes they made don't even seem to make a difference in terms of the griefing thing. I know the case is a little different because Willow's deal was separate from PVP, but I think it helps illustrate a legitimate point. Imagine Wolfgang suddenly doesn't get any stronger OR weaker because his strength gives him an unfair advantage. It's just things like that I want to avoid. By all means if it doesn't affect coop I couldn't care less.

[Hezel]

The real problem is that PVP is completely underapprecieted as a game option, and Klei, while having stated they would balance it in the past, havn't made any significant steps towards defining PVP for players who aren't satiated with classic surviving. What it means is that it's up to the server hosts and the community to make up rules for themselves, which of course can be extremely detrimental for obvious reasons.

Pvp needs changed. We need more options to counter bread and butter strategies; Moon64's idea for rabbit earmuffs is very legitimate considering Sleep is extremely hard to combat right now. It would also work like a backpack of sorts, preventing you from wearing armor without any drawbacks (football helmets are really good) and would add another layer of depth to the game.

Of course Wigfrids (and Maxwell if he makes it as he is in RoG) camping at spawn is a problem, and a sign that PVP is barely anything more than a dummy game mode as it stands.

I agree with SuperPsiPower in a general way. Especially on pan flute and combat logs being huge killers.

It's a real shame that developpers won't pay attention to PVP, because it's a really complex game mode being that you have to keep your 3 stats up; you could get really creative with different types of weapon, armor, and various items like magic staffs, wickerbottom's books, the newly introduced whip, etc. Although now only 4 characters are really worth playing in PVP, the rest doesn't have perks that actually come into action.

It could all add a lot of longevity to the game; ideally I want Klei to focus on this and not on Beefalo riding, which doesn't do anything great (especially giving it doesn't give any speed bonus) and flat out doesn't work for now.

[FTR]

3 hours ago, Hezel said:

The real problem is that PVP is completely underapprecieted as a game option, and Klei, while having stated they would balance it in the past, havn't made any significant steps towards defining PVP for players who aren't satiated with classic surviving.

This is so damn good. It's survival game, I would be happy if klei would remove pvp option completely, the sole fact that it exists is just ridiculous.

Quote

Pvp needs changed. We need more options to counter bread and butter strategies; Moon64's idea for rabbit earmuffs is very legitimate considering Sleep is extremely hard to combat right now. It would also work like a backpack of sorts, preventing you from wearing armor without any drawbacks (football helmets are really good) and would add another layer of depth to the game.

See, this is the problem. Introducing proper pvp to don't starve would require some serious balancing in OTHER aspects of the game, apart from survival. Therefore ruining or marginalizing survival aspect of the game, not to mention that developers would have to spend precious development time on pointless pvp if they could instead create more content for survival, especially as survival mode has infinite potential for improvements (it really does). New enemies, new challenges, new biomes and so on. In worst case they would have to create two completly seperate modes, creating double-rules issue for many items and characters. We already have this issue because rules are slightly different between don't starve and don't starve together, but it would be even worse.

So in the end, no. This is no pvp game and should never be considered as such. Adding serious pvp would require more than just small tweaks.

[GalloViking]

PvP shouldn't exist at all.

You're playing a cooperative survival game, for fox sake. Imo, PvP players have ruine the concept of DST. This is the reason I left it and went back to solo.

If you want to fight other players, play a real PvP game, there are plenty out there.

[Moon64]

4 minutes ago, GalloViking said:

PvP shouldn't exist at all.

You're playing a cooperative survival game, for fox sake. If you want to fight other players, play a real PvP game.

Don't Starve has always been a sandbox game. Who's to say there's a right or wrong way to play it?

People often play very cooperatively in PVP team also. Teams are often organically made due to the fact that yo need them to survive versus other players. 

[GalloViking]

Just now, Moon64 said:

Don't Starve has always been a sandbox game. Who's to say there's a right or wrong way to play it?

We're talking about Together here. The suvival aspect should be even stronger than in solo, as the game is way harder. PvP is just wrong on every level.

[Moon64]

Just now, GalloViking said:

We're talking about Together here. The suvival aspect should be even stronger than in solo, as the game is way harder. PvP is just wrong on every level.

The survival aspect is just as strong/important in PvP. It's not like surviving PvE has ever been difficult for advance players in the first place. Pitting you against both the environment and other players is a lot more challenging. It also promotes team work and cooperation. Saying that it's "wrong" just because it's neither your bag nor a style of game play you understand is a little ignorant. 

[GalloViking]

2 hours ago, Moon64 said:

The survival aspect is just as strong/important in PvP. It's not like surviving PvE has ever been difficult for advance players in the first place. Pitting you against both the environment and other players is a lot more challenging. It also promotes team work and cooperation. Saying that it's "wrong" just because it's neither your bag nor a style of game play you understand is a little ignorant. 

PvP servers don't give a crap about survival.It's all about griefing somebody else and being griefed in return. They usually don't reach winter, and are annihilated when a giant shows up.

[SuperPsiPower]

7 hours ago, MikeyMusic said:

While I agree that PVP could be curbed to better suit actual PVP play style, I think it would take too much change to be balanced. And as somebody who sees DS as a game with much, much greater Co-op potential than PVP potential, I would hate to see DST get all smudged up with PVP specific adjustments and items and such. We've already got the moonstone walls and those barely even do anything. I can understand anybody's desire to play DST specifically for a great PVP experience, but it's similar to the desire for multiplayer of ANY sort in Fallout 3/4; it would require just too many changes, and would ultimately be a different game.

 

If you're really itching for a game where you have to survive AND fight other people, I'd recommend checking out any of the 1000 online survival games on steam. A lot of them are awful but you'll eventually find a game that has both a good survival mechanic AND combat system.

And sure, ping can be an issue but it's usually a smart move to be aware of your ping at anytime anyways, no matter WHAT game you're playing. If it's bad, don't play on a PVP server. No amount of PVP adjustment is gonna fix your poor connection.

I think you misunderstood. Don't Starve Together is already a different game in general, and we've already made so many changes.

• Added Skins
• Layered caves
• Ewecus
• Added Wolfgang, Wendy, Woodie, Walgrithr, Webber and Wes (:D)
• Merged Don't Starve together with RoG content

While you may think for yourself DST is not worth for PVP, then you simply don't have to play it! I mean, don't get me wrong, but surviving with friends tends to get boring after a while. Instead of surviving together, we could have the survival of the fittest, and see whose MORE Don't Starve :^) PVP has potential, and has a lot of challenge. I listed some of my Ideas  to change PVP above. Everything in DST tries to kill us already, so why not humans?  

[SuperPsiPower]

1 hour ago, GalloViking said:

PvP servers don't give a crap about survival.It's all about griefing somebody else and being griefed in return. They usually don't reach winter, and are annihilated when a giant shows up.

If PVP is on, it's not griefing. 

[Arcita]

On 1/25/2016 at 3:56 AM, SuperPsiPower said:

Ghosts Sanity drain should be disabled on PVP categorized servers. Because in PVP, No one will revive you unless you're teamed up with a friend

I agree with everything you said except for this. You can have PvP on and still play cooperatively. PvP is essentially just enabling player interaction. It adds another dimension to gameplay, whether it be competitive or cooperative.

 

In cooperative servers with PvP enabled, you can give 'love taps' or 'prank' your friends, you can have PvP tournaments within otherwise cooperative servers, you must watch out for friendly fire when teaming against mobs which adds another layer onto combat, etc.  

 

Think of it this way. The only reason that there exists an option to DISABLE PvP is to ensure unequivocally that some dummy who doesn't understand or care that the server is cooperative can't come in and start killing people. If everyone was intelligent and/or respectful,  then there'd be no reason at all not to always have PvP enabled, whether it be cooperative or competitive gameplay. 

 

Maybe instead of "PvP" you meant "competitive intention". If so then I 100% agree with you. I just think it's important to point out this distinction since some people don't seem willing or able to make that distinction. 

[werlpolf]

the most stupid way to kill someone in PvP is by hunting him down until he starves to death. This is not an exception. Except the noobs do combat logoff.

 

DST needs more weapons and ranged-weapons and also a different movement speed of the chars for example by the stuff they are carrying. Else PvP degenerates into a 10 minutes run until one of PvP-ler starves (only nice if someone likes to travel and explore)

[MikeyMusic]

2 hours ago, SuperPsiPower said:

I think you misunderstood. Don't Starve Together is already a different game in general, and we've already made so many changes.

• Added Skins
• Layered caves
• Ewecus
• Added Wolfgang, Wendy, Woodie, Walgrithr, Webber and Wes (:D)
• Merged Don't Starve together with RoG content

While you may think for yourself DST is not worth for PVP, then you simply don't have to play it! I mean, don't get me wrong, but surviving with friends tends to get boring after a while. Instead of surviving together, we could have the survival of the fittest, and see whose MORE Don't Starve :^) PVP has potential, and has a lot of challenge. I listed some of my Ideas  to change PVP above. Everything in DST tries to kill us already, so why not humans?  

I think you misunderstood what you thought I misunderstood. I may not have been entirely clear about this at first but did point out later on that my particular issue is with the changes that would need to take place to really make PVP a fully balanced and fleshed out experience. Stuff like balancing character stats, adding/removing/changing items... Things that would likewise affect coop because they're actually changes to the game itself, not just PVP game mode. So you say "if you don't want to play PVP then just don't turn it on!" But I don't think you realize that, from what I can see, if an overall change is made to benefit PVP gaming, such as Wolfgang losing his hunger weakness/benefit, it's not as simple as just turning off PVP. That adjustment will be present whether PVP is there or not, but while it might benefit PVP, it sorely decreases the enjoyability of Wolfgang on coop. So at that point, I am effectively a subject of the PVP changes whether I have the option on or not.

I think some people might think I'm opposed to PVP, and that's incorrect. I appreciate the presence of the ability to hit people with a good tentacle spike a time or two. I'm going to say this again though, and hope nobody else misunderstands me: DST is already an ongoing project of balancing out characters, enemies, items, and environments while retaining the feel and challenge of the original Don't Starve + ROG. I am not against PVP at all, but I don't want the balancing to be made in favor of PVP over coop/non-confrontational survival in such a way that the other game modes actually become weaker or compromised. In addition to this, I'm also able to identify that, in order to make PVP a really good mechanic, a lot of things already existing in DST will just have to be rebalanced. 

i fully agree that DST could use some better PVP and am not at all trying to bash anybody for wanting improved PVP. If Klei can actually make great PVP and retain the games integrity, I would be incredibly happy! My personal qualm is the fact that, in order to truly suit DST for fun and strategized PVP, compromises would probably need to be made that affect nonPVP as well. And that's just a big no, because even with PVP on its only a small portion of everything you have to take care of while playing.

 

also, just to point out: everything you listed (beside the Ewecus) is either something that was already made for single player DS or doesn't affect actual gameplay.

[artemiyME]

On 1/25/2016 at 3:56 AM, SuperPsiPower said:

Panflute and STS - The Panflute should be universally removed from any PVP servers should the PVP option be turned on for dedicated servers. Also, someone once mentioned on the forums that the rabbit earmuffs could prove as protection from the Panflute and Sleepytime Stories (STS) as it keeps your ears covered while wearing it. 

I support all the points above from Psi, one thing I would like to ask is, i know there is a mod that removes pan flute from game, isn't there a mod (or could be a mod) that removes STS recipe from the game as well? Also i wonder how much modding can be done to fix other issues with balancing.

- art

[SuperPsiPower]

Just now, artemiyME said:

I support all the points above from Psi, one thing I would like to ask is, i know there is a mod that removes pan flute from game, isn't there a mod (or could be a mod) that removes STS recipe from the game as well? Also i wonder how much modding can be done to fix other issues with balancing.

- art

I believe there is a way to remove crafting recipes from a certain tab. Ill look into it for you.

[Hezel]

8 hours ago, GalloViking said:

PvP shouldn't exist at all.

You're playing a cooperative survival game, for fox sake. Imo, PvP players have ruine the concept of DST. This is the reason I left it and went back to solo.

If you want to fight other players, play a real PvP game, there are plenty out there.

Your post could basically be reduced to : "Remove what I don't like"

Are you aware you can join non-PVP servers and not have to worry about what others do ? You cannot complain about getting killed in PVP. If you don't want to play it then don't play PVP servers.

Trust me when surviving becomes trivial for you, you're either gonna be dropping the game or trying to find new ways to play.

[Hezel]

2 hours ago, MikeyMusic said:

Things that would likewise affect coop because they're actually changes to the game itself, not just PVP game mode. So you say "if you don't want to play PVP then just don't turn it on!" But I don't think you realize that, from what I can see, if an overall change is made to benefit PVP gaming, such as Wolfgang losing his hunger weakness/benefit, it's not as simple as just turning off PVP. That adjustment will be present whether PVP is there or not, but while it might benefit PVP, it sorely decreases the enjoyability of Wolfgang on coop. So at that point, I am effectively a subject of the PVP changes whether I have the option on or not.

While that is true, characters that do really well in PVP are the one that already perform really well in classic survivial. Wicker, Wolfgang, Wigfrid, WX-78, those are the top-tier for both game modes because the gaming experience is more or less the same, and what works on mobs also works on players.

On the other hand, characters like Wilson, Webber, Wendy, and especially Woodie and the now fallen Willow (who used to be one of the most able characters in singleplayer) really don't do anything significant in both PVP AND survivial.

I'm not for nerfing characters; I'm for fighting fire with fire and buffing them so they're enjoyable in both of the game experiences.

PVP and survivial don't have to contradict one another. They can really work simultaniously.

[MikeyMusic]

1 hour ago, Hezel said:

While that is true, characters that do really well in PVP are the one that already perform really well in classic survivial. Wicker, Wolfgang, Wigfrid, WX-78, those are the top-tier for both game modes because the gaming experience is more or less the same, and what works on mobs also works on players.

On the other hand, characters like Wilson, Webber, Wendy, and especially Woodie and the now fallen Willow (who used to be one of the most able characters in singleplayer) really don't do anything significant in both PVP AND survivial.

I'm not for nerfing characters; I'm for fighting fire with fire and buffing them so they're enjoyable in both of the game experiences.

PVP and survivial don't have to contradict one another. They can really work simultaniously.

What exactly do you mean when you say "buff?" A stat increase? A stat increase could help a bit but it doesn't change the fact that Don't Starve's combat system itself isn't incredibly sophisticated, and if I really wanted to, I could take down any of those first characters you mentioned using any of the second characters you mentioned. I just have to be good at kiting and finding the resources to make weapons/armour. My specific character doesn't matter much in that regard, as far as I've known.

Or do you mean that those "weaker" characters should be granted new abilities that give them an edge, which raises them up to the "top-tier" of the characters you initially mentioned? This approach definitely compromises the game, because it both changes the way the characters function and creates an even greater difference between Don't Starve and Don't Starve Together. And if we're not gonna stick to the way the characters originally worked, we might as well just get new characters, no?

Maybe you had an idea that I'm not currently understanding? I don't mean to seem confrontational, by the way. I genuinely want to know how PVP could be reworked to a point of actual enjoy-ability without losing or reworking some aspect of nonPVP play as well. I've been racking my brain trying to see how these 2 things could happen together.

[GalloViking]

57 minutes ago, Hezel said:

Your post could basically be reduced to : "Remove what I don't like"

This topic is asking my opinion, I give it frankly. I don't like PvP, it goes against the my vision of the game. So yup, I'm for PvP removal.

[Mday]

Last I check, most server are COOP. This could mean 2 things:

1) PVP need more development. PVP is not balanced and players don't find the PVP experience enjoying, hence less server/ players doing PVP.

or

2) PVP is a waste of time. The game just isn't for PVP and most players aren't into that kinda thing.

Who knows what will happen if klei spend more resource in PVP? May be it can double the player base? May be it can bring the current COOP players into PVP? May be it is just a total waste of resource?

I personally think that PVP does have a market. However looking at the modding scene I will say that market is relatively small. PvP mode have been around for some time and if it is indeed a concept worth exploring, the modding community would have done so much more on it.

[Nickolas2600]

Nick's opinion on PvP is a simple one. I hate PvP as an idea for DST I feel it doesn't belong in the game.  

[JohaneBrote]

I think the biggest problem with this is that PvP isn't really a game mode as it is, it's just an option you can turn on or not within the three actual game modes (Survival, Wilderness, Endless was it?). So, how about if there was another game mode where PvP actually made sense? Lets say there was a game mode called 'Deathmatch', in which the server would wait for x players to join before the round starts and the goal would be to kill off other x-1 dudes and be the last man standing. It would keep a record of how many kills everyone has as well as deaths, and maybe after a couple of rounds it would declare a winner. There could be a number of changes made to the game within this game mode akin to the Telltale Heart in Survival etc. which would have absolutely no impact on the other three modes while making this one more fun and balanced. Also I don't think it would be that impossible to make as I vaguely remember seeing a mod which allowed players to split into teams and try to feed more stuff to the Pig King than the other team in the allotted time, and I believe that's a much bigger change to the core game mechanics than the ones I suggested. I personally don't play on PvP servers much but that's no reason not to make it more fun for people who like that sort of stuff, and I'd definitely be more inclined to give it a try if there was actually a mode which embraced the concept instead of treating it as a nuisance and a griefing opportunity.

TL;DR: PvP doesn't make sense right now because all the game modes are co-op oriented, make a PvP game mode people!

[Arcita]

1 hour ago, Hezel said:

While that is true, characters that do really well in PVP are the one that already perform really well in classic survivial. Wicker, Wolfgang, Wigfrid, WX-78, those are the top-tier for both game modes because the gaming experience is more or less the same, and what works on mobs also works on players.

On the other hand, characters like Wilson, Webber, Wendy, and especially Woodie and the now fallen Willow (who used to be one of the most able characters in singleplayer) really don't do anything significant in both PVP AND survivial.

I see what you're saying, but I actually like that there are different classes of character. The first-class characters actually require skill and knowledge in order to utilize their abilities effectively. Especially Wolfgang. If a newbie picks Wolfgang, then that choice will most likely be detrimental to them since they'll probably be in wimpy form most of the time and/or waste food by being mighty unnecessarily. 

The low-class characters are useful to new players because they have abilities that are incredibly small in their scope but are specifically geared to help inexperienced players because they are just there without requiring much, and they cater to the common pitfalls of newbies.

Wilson - Without Wilson's beard, it's inevitable that a newbie is going to freeze come winter. 20 days down the drain. It will seem incredibly unfair. But if they play Wilson first, then they'll learn about winter without inevitably and instantaneously dying to it. 

Webber - Newbies aren't able to fight spiders effectively. They attack one too close to a nest and the whole spider army comes out. With Webber they can shave for silk, make a top hat, and progress to the magic tab. 

Wendy - Ghost fights for you. 'Nuff said.

Willow - Willow... uh. She has a bear? And comes with a free torch...?? ... OK Willow is useless. Ya got me there. 

I do agree that it'd be nice to have more variety in the first-class characters, but I think more characters should be added to suit those roles. Let's not forget about the newbies and their stepping stones. 

edit: so why not just Buff the characters? Well you can't simply buff characters without introducing some downside as well. That's what balance is about. If you introduce a major downside then they're no longer an easy entry for inexperienced players. 

[Hezel]

1 hour ago, Nickolas2600 said:

Nick's opinion on PvP is a simple one. I hate PvP as an idea for DST I feel it doesn't belong in the game.  

How can you claim to dislike, or formulate an opinion on something you've likely never tried before ?