Yay or Nay? : Buildings

[FaeLove]

Ok, let me just say this before hand: I love DS/DST to bits and I will most likely support any update Klei comes out with. This is just out of curiosity :3

Ok, now you can continue!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Every now and then when it rains in game, I wonder; Why doesn't Wilson just build a house? Or at least a small shelter!

Does he just not want the feeling that this place is his home now? Or is it a waste of time compared to multiple smaller camps?

 

A lot of the characters in the game are totally capable of building homes, for themselves or for everyone else. So why not?

PERKS:

*Can control the temperature better

*Can be a bit more protective (good for when your health is low and you need to hide)

*ect.

 

CONS:

*Settled, not mobile (but so are tents and siestas)

*ect.

 

What do you guys think?

~Faelove

[Joachim]

It probably makes the game too easy.

[FaeLove]

Also, the more I think about this, the more the game wouldn't seem like don't starve anymore

It's like, if they add building, it's not so much survival as it is making a settlement from scratch and that's it. Similar to a lot of mobile phone games, where you farm, collect, and build a town. That makes me really sad ;-;

Even though it is smart, I would have to say no to the houses and shelters

[Joachim]

And if you're going to do something like add a roof at least, then that means you would need to compensate it with more adversity somehow.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

37 minutes ago, Joachim said:

It probably makes the game too easy.

Wilson was like: "Should I build a house for myself with all of these resources I have? Roofs and doors that will help keep me protected from the elements? NO! Real men make a huge roof-less base and stand in the rain naked!"

I honestly don't see it being OP (Lets say hrass and wooden roofs had some rain, heat and cold protection/insulation whilst stone rooms would have 100% rain protection and some good heat/cold insulation. This could be useful for making like a tiny house for newbies near portal to keep safer during harsh seasons too!). SW already has a Shelter craftable, so why not roofs? And I'm most certain, as confirmed by a modder I know that making them something that can be put on top of walls and go transparent when you're very close to them/right underneath them would be possible. And since now it's multiplayer... It would just make sense to be able to make roofs! I mean we can already make walls, so why not roofs?

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

42 minutes ago, FaeLove said:

Also, the more I think about this, the more the game wouldn't seem like don't starve anymore

It's like, if they add building, it's not so much survival as it is making a settlement from scratch and that's it. Similar to a lot of mobile phone games, where you farm, collect, and build a town. That makes me really sad ;-;

Even though it is smart, I would have to say no to the houses and shelters

Shipwrecked already has a shelter, so...

[AnonymousKoala]

34 minutes ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

Wilson was like: "Should I build a house for myself with all of these resources I have? Roofs and doors that will help keep me protected from the elements? NO! Real men make a huge roof-less base and stand in the rain naked!"

 

Pfft, Real men wear the sack of a demon that protects innocent animals, a cane made out of twigs, gold, and the tusk of a walrus hunter with a fancy hat, and a hat made out of the eyeball of a gigantic one eyed bipedal dear hellbent on destroying stuff, in the rain.

 

[applebottom]

This should be the game description on Steam.

52 minutes ago, AnonymousKoala said:

wear the sack of a demon that protects innocent animals, a cane made out of twigs, gold, and the tusk of a walrus hunter with a fancy hat, and a hat made out of the eyeball of a gigantic one eyed bipedal dear hellbent on destroying stuff, in the rain.

 

[TheTraditionalGentleman]

It would make the game a bit easier, but I'd still like to see at least roofs added. Maybe add grass, wood, and stone roofs, with each of a variable quality. Heck, maybe even make the grass ones leak occasionally. 

 

3 hours ago, FaeLove said:

Also, the more I think about this, the more the game wouldn't seem like don't starve anymore

It's like, if they add building, it's not so much survival as it is making a settlement from scratch and that's it. Similar to a lot of mobile phone games, where you farm, collect, and build a town. That makes me really sad ;-;

Even though it is smart, I would have to say no to the houses and shelters

You definitely have a point there. Later game though, what do most people actually end up doing? Personally, I started building a castle (survival games be darned), complete with marble floors, pig peasants, and tier 3 stone walls (I even had a kitchen, bedroom, and armory). But, if I had a roof to add on, then I wouldn't be a king who still has to cower under a tree with an umbrella whenever it rains. It doesn't look very regal . . . 

I'd like the option of a cottage or cabin, maybe. If I had to choose though, I'd be perfectly happy with roofs. Like has been said, SW has them, so they can't break the theme of the game too badly. Granted, SW has a lot more rain than DST, but I digress.

[CaptainChaotica]

You could maybe have a lovely decorated courtyard in the middle of the castle, say, outlined with flowers and with trees growing in neat rows, that you could stand under and still look fairly regal?  I dunno...

I'm of two minds about the roof thing.  On the one hand, it's HELL YEAH OF _COURSE_ DUH WE HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE WHY THE FREAK CAN'T WE HAVE SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS A _ROOF_?! but...would it still feel like Don't Starve if we did?

I'd enjoy making a building like that, and gradually building it up, etc. but I'm not sure if it would fit the game...

...Notorious

[AnonymousKoala]

45 minutes ago, TheTraditionalGentleman said:

It would make the game a bit easier, but I'd still like to see at least roofs added. Maybe add grass, wood, and stone roofs, with each of a variable quality. Heck, maybe even make the grass ones leak occasionally. 

 

You definitely have a point there. Later game though, what do most people actually end up doing? Personally, I started building a castle (survival games be darned), complete with marble floors, pig peasants, and tier 3 stone walls (I even had a kitchen, bedroom, and armory). But, if I had a roof to add on, then I wouldn't be a king who still has to cower under a tree with an umbrella whenever it rains. It doesn't look very regal . . . 

I'd like the option of a cottage or cabin, maybe. If I had to choose though, I'd be perfectly happy with roofs. Like has been said, SW has them, so they can't break the theme of the game too badly. Granted, SW has a lot more rain than DST, but I digress.

SW did break the theme though.

A lot.

[graycrayon]

I feel like the main problem with buildings would stem from the environment you happen to be in. What if hounds come in the middle of the night while you're snug as a bug in a rug? The second you open that door you would be torn to pieces. What if the house is insulated and you can't hear a giant approaching? Then you lose everything. 

In a world this volatile it makes more sense to be nomadic and aware of your surroundings. 

In terms of gameplay, yeah. You tend to lose the "survival sim" experience when you include sophisticated structures. 

  

[TheTraditionalGentleman]

3 hours ago, AnonymousKoala said:

SW did break the theme though.

A lot.

Well, yes. What I meant was the overall theme of survival. SW was definitely a nautical theme, which was different then the normal DS one, but it was still survival. Just a different flavor of it. I meant that the addition of roofs wouldn't change it so drastically that it would lose the overall theme of survival.

But this isn't necessarily objective, it's just my opinion 

[Arlesienne]

I would like to have really sketchy roofs - for the sake of realism. There are structures in Shipwrecked which look so cute. Why not have lean-tos which hardly protect from the elements, but still make the transient feel better. At the same time, thatched roofs decay quickly. And how wonderfully they burn!

[CaptainChaotica]

BURN...

Heh.  Yeah, when I saw the one thingie in Shipwrecked, I was like, "Wow...a ROOF?  Really?" but then I immediately realised that it still fit the overall Don't Starve style of living, 'cos sure, it has a _roof_.  But the WALLS are completely open--or kinda nonexistent.  It's not like you can go, _inside_.  It doesn't actually SHELTER you, because the wind and rain can still totally get in.  And you can only use it for sleeping in, not, like, actually doing stuff.

Where the problem would come in would be if you could, say, gather the materials for, build, and gradually put roof tiles over an enclosed stone-wall structure.  So that it was a large covered area that was darker inside, and when you went in, the point of view would change and you'd no longer be able to see the outside (think going into a little house in an oldschool RPG town, and how the whole screen changes to the inside view).  THAT is a proper structure you could _live_ inside (as long as you didn't need to go outside for more supplies)...and also not hear the hounds coming in time and have less warning about giants.  So, win/lose, as everything in Don't Starve...

To give you an idea how strongly I feel the exposed-to-the-elements lifestyle of Don't Starve is to its overall...everything, when I made up Willow in the Sims 3, one of the things I made SURE of was that she could never, ever live inside a fully enclosed set of walls with a roof.  She lives on a wilderness lot with a fishing pond, tent, bee box, garden, bonfire (which looks exactly like the Don't Starve firepit), fridge (icebox), stove (crockpot), wardrobe to change clothes for the different seasons, and that's IT.  No matter HOW hot or cold it gets, she is never allowed to go truly Inside.  Cold?  Stand by the firepit and change into your puffy vest outerwear*.  Hot?  There's a swimmable lake right by your house, go nuts.  Raining?  You have an umbrella for a reason.  Etc.

So...yeah.  Even when I AM physically allowed to make a normal house--if it's a Don't Starve character?  They still don't get one.  : P

...Notorious

*Which actually DOES include a puffy vest of the right colour.  Hee hee.  Unfortunately I couldn't find a pair of properly gravity-defying pigtails for her, though.

[NeddoFreddo]

9 hours ago, AnonymousKoala said:

SW did break the theme though.

A lot.

Well Don't starve was originally intended to be a kinda island-based game, with the player having to boat from island to island. pretty sure it was inspired by Cast Away or something.

[AnonymousKoala]

5 hours ago, NeddoFreddo said:

Well Don't starve was originally intended to be a kinda island-based game, with the player having to boat from island to island. pretty sure it was inspired by Cast Away or something.

That's not the how it broke the theme.

It took a dark grim world and brought it to a sunny world who a lot of its mechanics, don't feel like don't starve in the least.

[TheKingDedede]

I say nay. Reason being is that one of the more 'popular' (I use the term loosely) videos on YouTube concerning the Summer season in Don't Starve advises the viewer to take shelter in modded buildings. So, there's that...

Also, the dislikes have killed the likes on this video and some of the comments are mildly amusing. Enjoy.

 

[CaptainChaotica]

 Oh, I dunno. Shipwrecked is only sunny and happy on the SURFACE.  Play for even half a day, and you'll soon find out that, just like in regular Don't Starve, the entire world itself still wants to kill you.

Shark hounds..poop-throwing thieving monkeys...hurricanes...wind blowing your stuff away...hail bonking you on the head...volcanoes spitting freaking FIERY DEATH FROM THE SKY...all the old ways to die AND new ones, including the really nasty new way--poison.  Also now with more drowning!  .

I'd say it's still Don't Starve. Slapping a coat of tropical sunshine on it doesn't stop it from being what TVTropes would call a Death World.  Or is it Crapsaccharine?  Either way, the entire environment wants to kill you to death, so...sounds like Don't Starve to me!

Is Shipwrecked flawed...or is it a legit part of the Don't Starve Universe?

Yes.

...Notorious

P.S.  Awww, that house is so cute!  It's so TINY yet functional.  No, obviously it doesn't fit the game, difficulty-wise, but if I was playing, say, the _Sims_ and wanted to make a really simple but livable house for a homesteading bachelor in the pioneer days (and yes, I've done this), that's pretty much what it would look like.

[AnonymousKoala]

21 minutes ago, CaptainChaotica said:

 Oh, I dunno. Shipwrecked is only sunny and happy on the SURFACE.  Play for even half a day, and you'll soon find out that, just like in regular Don't Starve, the entire world itself still wants to kill you.

Shark hounds..poop-throwing thieving monkeys...hurricanes...wind blowing your stuff away...hail bonking you on the head...volcanoes spitting freaking FIERY DEATH FROM THE SKY...all the old ways to die AND new ones, including the really nasty new way--poison.  Also now with more drowning!  .

I'd say it's still Don't Starve. Slapping a coat of tropical sunshine on it doesn't stop it from being what TVTropes would call a Death World.  Or is it Crapsaccharine?  Either way, the entire environment wants to kill you to death, so...sounds like Don't Starve to me!

Is Shipwrecked flawed...or is it a legit part of the Don't Starve Universe?

Yes.

...Notorious

P.S.  Awww, that house is so cute!  It's so TINY yet functional.  No, obviously it doesn't fit the game, difficulty-wise, but if I was playing, say, the _Sims_ and wanted to make a really simple but livable house for a homesteading bachelor in the pioneer days (and yes, I've done this), that's pretty much what it would look like.

Yes but its the general atmosphere.

Tallbirds for example look unnerving, at least when you try and imagine how they would look realistically. Slurpers? Latch themselves onto your face, put their tongue in your stomach and eat what you already digested(which is sickening). etc. etc. And then there's the general look, the way the game's designed in the first year, and more such things. It at least tries(and occasionally accomplishes it up to a certain point) to scare you. SW doesn't do that in the least.

 

Then there's Mechanics. Giving up difficulty that can be overcome with preperation for tedious aritificial difficulty(ahem ahem floods), adding so many useless craftables(Also because of how its built, every boat other than the raft and armoured boat is useless, because raft is basic, and armoured boat is the best one with the rest not comparing at all) where in DS even the bad craftables had some use, in SW they're usually so much worse, how big the world is and how dull it is, etc. etc. etc.

I'd go deeper but it might go off topic, and I also woke up an hour ago so it'll take some time until i clear up.

[TheKingDedede]

11 hours ago, Arlesienne said:

thatched roofs

AND HE COMES IN THE NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!

This is still funny to me.

[CaptainChaotica]

Oh, so the Dragonfly is the Don't Starve universe's version of Trogdor?  I can get behind that. : P

As for the other thing, Koala...yes, Shipwrecked IS very flawed in its mechanics and balance, but I still think it counts as Don't Starve.  If anything, something that LOOKS all brightly coloured and happy-happy...and then kills you 17 different ways before breakfast...is kinda _creepier_ than something that looks spooky right away.  I mean, you EXPECT it with the spooky one.  Not so much with the sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.  Ever play Eversion?

Sure, I like the gothy atmosphere of the original Don't Starve, but I don't think it's actually _required_ for something to fit into this universe.  Shipwrecked may be the red-headed stepchild of the DS family, but it IS still part of the family. 

I mean, after all, you're talking to someone who has a picture of Walani as her avatar, that she put the effort in to _draw herself_.  (Okay, so the main reason I did that is (a) I wanted an avatar of a Don't Starve character that not many others were using, and (b) I didn't want to leech off of someone else's fanart.) 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Your point of view is right to you, and my point of view is right to me. 

...Notorious

[Arlesienne]

5 hours ago, TheKingDedede said:

I say nay. Reason being is that one of the more 'popular' (I use the term loosely) videos on YouTube concerning the Summer season in Don't Starve advises the viewer to take shelter in modded buildings. So, there's that...

Wut ? I mean, balanced, lore-friendly mods with decent art are all nice and so on, but posting a tutorial telling people to get mods... Nah.

Anyway, if I had the necessary modding skills, I would have a lean-to like this:

(from http://yonderjournal.com.s170181.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/leanto-finished-w1.jpg)

Obviously, it would not protect from the cold, combustion would be a problem, not to mention bigger mobs like hounds or merms, let alone giants, could simply make them fall onto your head if they attack. But it would give a bit of rain protection (depending on the quality, of course) and some shade. Oh, and a tiny amount of sanity - about the value of a garland? I would do this only for flavour while avoiding any real houses. Thatched roofs to cover the base since we use walls and flooring anyway (well, flooring if someone is into such things or has Multifunctional Carpet on) would be fun just for the looks while hardly helping, so, flavour without being OP.

[EinRobot]

In my opinion any further advanced structures would be kind of easy mode. The tent is already almost OP.

[Nicolews]

As far as I'm concerned :

Yay for a single structure that behave exactly like a fully grown tree, as far as providing rain and heat protection goes. At most, a pair of structures, one being flammable (self-combusting in summer), while the other is built from stone and won't catch fire.

It won't break any balance, since there's already something that provide those exact advantages in the game. The only mechanical advantages is that it wouldn't "reset" every so often like trees do, and that the stone version wouldn't self-combust in summer.

 

Nay for anything more powerful than that.