New boss flees "toadstool"

[AnonymousKoala]

28 minutes ago, BOSSzombie said:

I can see where a lot of people wanting a solo experience are coming from. On the main screen of DST, before you even load in, the game basically calls itself a "Sequel to Don't Starve" and "Don't Starve 2" in the little notes on the sides and bottom of the screen, doesn't it? If you understand how to play the original don't starve, DST isn't much of a jump. Things take longer when it comes to killing, sure, but that's pretty much the only difference. There's even easier tactics to deal with the giants than in Don't Starve! Deerclops can be lured to Dragonfly, Bearger can get tricked into fighting half a dozen Tree Guardians, The Spider Queen is a joke if you take her on a tour of a swamp and let Tentacles go for her, and everything else can be taken out with Gunpowder, even the Dragonfly, because Meteor Fields make Nitre a renewable resource now (Albeit a very slow one).

Actually there's a bunch of bigger(seem smaller but arent) differences. armor not stacking, removing some unintended features, etc.

[BOSSzombie]

12 minutes ago, AnonymousKoala said:

Actually there's a bunch of bigger(seem smaller but arent) differences. armor not stacking, removing some unintended features, etc.

When I played Don't Starve, armor NEVER stacked, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. And I wouldn't really say that balancing is that big a change (Looking at you, Waxwell). And if unintended features refers to glitches and exploits, that's a good thing. Again, the game is certainly harder than Don't Starve, but not impossible to solo for people who know what they're doing.

The Toadstool as it currently stands, IS completely impossible for people to solo, even if they're pros. That's the point a lot of people are making.

[Michi01]

2 hours ago, t1morino88eex said:

It is pretty obvious you can play the game alone, go ahead and do that, but the game is titled Don't Starve Together, reason for which one shouldn't be surprised if there are elements that are supposed to be fully experienced in a multiplayer/coop way.

But it's not called "Don't Starve with 5 experienced Wolfgang players".
Just because the game is intended for multiplayer doesn't mean that there should be things that are impossible to do alone or in small groups.

[AnonymousKoala]

9 minutes ago, BOSSzombie said:

When I played Don't Starve, armor NEVER stacked, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. And I wouldn't really say that balancing is that big a change (Looking at you, Waxwell). And if unintended features refers to glitches and exploits, that's a good thing. Again, the game is certainly harder than Don't Starve, but not impossible to solo for people who know what they're doing.

The Toadstool as it currently stands, IS completely impossible for people to solo, even if they're pros. That's the point a lot of people are making.

It did stack. Not in inventory amounts I mean. In protection. You would get damage reduced by this armor's protection and then by the other's protection. This is a small looking change but its a big one. It means you'll be losing more health and equiping more than one armor piece at once is a waste.

I'd say it is a big-ish change. And if glitches and exploits do something good and help longevity(Read: give you a reason to play past the first in game year or two), and don't harm much(because please, the backpack glitch did nothing bad, no one used it for pure balance issues, they used it so that worldhopping wouldn't be redundant when you couldnt carry enough stuff and will then have to settle down/give up on a possibly very long session because you're now stuck with it), they should stay. Stuff like the infinite lantern I would argue would be a good point but still not too harming, and then we got the furnace so i'm ok with that.

[BOSSzombie]

14 minutes ago, AnonymousKoala said:

It did stack. Not in inventory amounts I mean. In protection. You would get damage reduced by this armor's protection and then by the other's protection. This is a small looking change but its a big one. It means you'll be losing more health and equiping more than one armor piece at once is a waste.

I'd say it is a big-ish change. And if glitches and exploits do something good and help longevity(Read: give you a reason to play past the first in game year or two), and don't harm much(because please, the backpack glitch did nothing bad, no one used it for pure balance issues, they used it so that worldhopping wouldn't be redundant when you couldnt carry enough stuff and will then have to settle down/give up on a possibly very long session because you're now stuck with it), they should stay. Stuff like the infinite lantern I would argue would be a good point but still not too harming, and then we got the furnace so i'm ok with that.

Ah. I wasn't even aware in that change of mechanics regarding armor. I still managed to kill all of the Giants with Maxwell though, and combined with his pre-existing frailness, that should have been a problem. but it wasn't. Again, if you know how to deal with enemies in this game, it really hasn't changed much. You have to re-learn some things, but it's still very solo-able.

[t1morino88eex]

1 hour ago, Michi01 said:

doesn't mean that there should be things that are impossible to do alone

There actually should be such things, and I'm saying this from someone who is playing the game regularly with my beloved, so no more than 2 people in our world. No, we can't take on the toadstool on our own, yet. I wouldn't want to be able to take him alone either. I believe dragonfly is just in the middle as far as the subject of how many players it needs to be doable.  There's always the trick with the arena for him, so there should also be a trick that involves some special preparation to make him easier, at least give it a chance for a solo player. Which is why I think that dropping recipes from mobs is a totally bad idea.

[Monikazam]

I get wanting people to do raids like on WOW, but, as gamers, most of us don't have enough skilled friends to join our servers and do this. Why not make a raid finder, just like on WOW? So people who build some special item that allows them to do raids (something in the magic tab to "prove" they're skilled enough to atleast make magic things), can meet up with others and kill raid bosses, then split the loot. I'd love to kill the Dragonfly, for example. I have tried 2 times with all the gunpowder it's supposed to take to kill it and more (according to DST wiki), not to mention a team of 2 with dark armor, dark swords, marble suits, tons of helmets from Wigfrid, and pockets stuffed with honey ham and healing salves. Doesn't work. Nothing works lately. Despite the fact every other giant on DST is a piece of cake alone with a log suit and a helmet, the dragonfly (recently), and now this new guy seem pretty much unkillable unless you are hella popular, or atleast until a raid finder is added.

[Auth]

13 hours ago, t1morino88eex said:

You might as well just go for Don't Starve, the single player experience.

On 9/23/2016 at 6:17 PM, Weirdobob said:

I play alone. I like to play alone. I like the new mutliplayer content and the ability for my friends to pop in, so I don't play just the base game.

Thanks for reading, my friend.

15 hours ago, Lumina said:

So maybe we can stop comparing Toadstool to cutting tree or fighting spider. Klei is not planning to change game to force people to play with others. They are just, in a beta branch, trying to add a new challenging boss that will encourage people to play together and make it rewarding in itself beating it.

Look, I was trying to be sarcastic. Apologies if you thought I was actually recommending Klei to implement a timer for trees. I don't. The comparison was meant for humor.

And I know it's an optional boss. But here's the thing.

Vital or not, I'm disappointed.

An insanely difficult to beat boss that pretty much requires multiple people and/or exploited behavior to kill it solo for insanely unrewarding loot is, well, disappointing.

 

I am aware I can walk right on past this thing. I'm aware I don't need anything it drops, or what it drops is even that useful when other things do their jobs better.

But either way it's wound, it's disappointing.

You have the argument that beating it in itself is rewarding.
Sure!
But not for me. If I fight something, I'm fighting it for something, not for the sake of doing so, or I mean, if I have to. (Hounds)

I've fought DF for the sake of being able to say I beat it plenty of times. But trust me, it loses it's charm after a while. I slaughter dragonfly for things I want now. I understand toadstool is optional, but because of how it's made, I will never find myself taking that option. Which, now say it with me kids...

Is disappointing.

[Tainted-Petals]

On 9/23/2016 at 3:10 PM, BOSSzombie said:

I'm honestly surprised that enemies in DST, or at least just the Bosses, don't use a health/damage scaling system based on player counts in the server. Games like Borderlands and Diablo, which have jump in/out co-op, use a system like that.

Basically, with one player only, they have standard amounts of damage/health. Two players makes everything's health and damage multiply by a set amount, Three players increases this amount further, etc. Some other cool mechanics are that tougher enemies become more frequent, rarer items drop more frequently, and some other things.

DST just feels like it would benefit greatly from a similar system rather than "Here's an insanely strong boss, and I hope you have 5 reliable friends that play this game enough to understand how to fight well and are capable of high-level gameplay".

No way you're killing Toadstool with 5 randoms. Most random people wouldn't even survive in the caves before getting to the Toadstool.

There's a few mods that actually successfully do this, and I desperately wish Klei would implement it.

[The Letter W]

it's still pretty new so it's possible they haven't pushed out everything for it yet, including what's more effective on it? though i personally think it'd be neat if as someone above said, canaries had a hand in it. IIRC, they were for detecting gas in mine shafts, yeah? toadstool drops fartshrooms like no tomorrow so maybe there'll be a co-relation. 

that being said i've never actually beat the dragonfly simply out of not wanting to, so what do i know?

and tbh i'm still hoping some of the DST content will be pushed into singleplayer because i still play singleplayer quite a bit ;_;

[Asparagus]

15 minutes ago, The Letter W said:

tbh i'm still hoping some of the DST content will be pushed into singleplayer because i still play singleplayer quite a bit ;_;

Yeah... My main past time in single player was to make villages and bases...

[AlternateMew]

14 hours ago, t1morino88eex said:

You might as well just go for Don't Starve, the single player experience.

Nope. Not gonna happen.

Don't get me wrong, I love the base game. It's a great game. It's what got me into Don't Starve. But here's the thing - I've got a choice. The choice is as follows:

1. Play Don't Starve with the optional DLCs: RoG and SW. Since RoG is built-in to DST, SW is the only one that matters for this choice. SW gives you an entire new world and tons of new resources. It's also extremely buggy when linked with RoG. And on a personal note: I don't care much for it. That's all. I just don't enjoy it like I do the main game with RoG.

2. Play Don't Starve Together: DST changes the giants (in ways I like), adds cool new features (all of which, so far, I like), changes how caves work (in a way I love), gives me the option to invite a friend whenever I please, and lets me put clothes on Webber.

Hands down, for my personal taste, DST wins. It's not even a contest.

 

- Takes a breath -

 

And now to be slightly controversial with myself!

I would actually like it if Toadstool was physically impossible for a single player to defeat alone. I say this as someone who prefers to play solo. The reason? It's humbling.

Despite my choice to play alone often, I feel that one single boss that is physically impossible alone, but possible with two players (that aren't both Wolfgang) would be ideal. It's one boss. One. Boss. One single monster to show you that you can't take this entire world on by yourself. To enforce that sometimes, even the best of the best need an extra hand.

I won't say my opinion is right, since it's simply an opinion. But come on, guys. Can we be okay with one single monster that can't be felled by some lone runt he could flatten in his sleep or swallow whole? We could even have a nice little forum topic made for players to arrange meetups, so us solo players can call for help just that one time. The host gets the loot, and the helpers get to fight a late-game boss with zero prep on their end (because the host prepped all the stuff beforehand).

That said, I do agree he does need to be nerfed. Hopefully into the range of being possible with a pair. I'll be slightly disappointed if he gets nerfed to the point of being possible solo, but I'd get over it.

 

(Wickerbottom mentions bringing a canary into the caves. I hope that's a hint!)

[AnonymousKoala]

11 hours ago, BOSSzombie said:

Ah. I wasn't even aware in that change of mechanics regarding armor. I still managed to kill all of the Giants with Maxwell though, and combined with his pre-existing frailness, that should have been a problem. but it wasn't. Again, if you know how to deal with enemies in this game, it really hasn't changed much. You have to re-learn some things, but it's still very solo-able.

I am not talking about difficulty. I'm talking about things to do.

All these weird complex building stuff people did? Nearly none of them is possible in DST. That's boring. DST is pretty much, once you passed the second year or first, you can go quit/reset the world and re-do the exact same things over and over.

 

[Lumina]

9 hours ago, Weirdobob said:

And I know it's an optional boss. But here's the thing.

Vital or not, I'm disappointed.

An insanely difficult to beat boss that pretty much requires multiple people and/or exploited behavior to kill it solo for insanely unrewarding loot is, well, disappointing.

 

I don't say "don't be disappointed", i understand the disappointment, it's why i'm suggesting options to have the challenge part for multiplayers players (part very important for having a great game, for me), and the ability for a small group or a solo player to manage to kill it, but with downside (to keep some epicness for the well organized groups)

I just say that this boss is a try, a try to add content challenging, something that will push players into news level of skill, and when you try something like this, all isn't perfect in the first try, it's why it's a beta. And since it's a beta and the reward isn't a must have, we could hope for a better balance.

This post mention some tuning so maybe some change will come :

http://forums.kleientertainment.com/topic/70382-how-to-100-money-back-guarantee-gg-rekt-toadstool/#comment-817512

 

 

[Rellimarual]

I like the idea of the boss having hp that doesn't reset when it flees, so that killing it can be a long term project and I also like the idea of its total hp being automatically scaled to the # of people playing, although that might be hard to do what with how players come and go all over the map. 

The upshot of this is that you should be able to kill it with two people who know what they're doing using no cheats. I have never found it possible to play with more than two decent players at a time, and from what I gather, many people play with just one friend at a time. It's just a scheduling issue. Maybe teenagers have the free time to assemble groups of six players at once, but that, to me, is a far greater challenge than any boss.