Where I think Don't Starve franchise went very wrong...

[spideswine]

3 hours ago, Lumina said:

I agree that summer is boring in the current state more than challenging. But Winter is challenging and even if you can turtle forever in your base if you want, the possible lack of food and the mac tusk are two reasons to go outside, creating interesting situations and possible rewards for facing the danger. Deerclop is another reason to avoid your base for some time.

Also, i hate things that destroy the base, so it's not really a solution for me.

From the perspective of a experienced/knowledgeable player, winter more or less boils down to "Have a thermal stone and occasionally light an isolated tree on fire", it's barely challenging at all(to a knowledgeable player) summer is more "difficult" and it ends up doing what most levers of difficulty in this game do: glue a person to their base.

Deerclops doesn't exactly make you avoid base, it makes you leave it in order to fight it, you don't really go into different areas to gain/do different things, you just don't want it to wreck your base.

As far as mctusks go, there isn't much motivation to deal with them once you get a tam+cane, and for summer you have ant lion.

So let me reiterate my point: to the knowledgeable player most challenges(to the not knowledgeable player) either end up as a nuisance or a punching bag, I think that works fine for this game because there's enough knowledge to attain but that does mean it will eventually get old unless you're really into base building.

3 hours ago, Lumina said:

Sure, knowledge is a key. But Forge prove also that you can have knowledge and still have to be careful.

I have to disagree, if you play in a premade group after some practice you pretty much never lose and just do the thing faster and faster everytime, sure in a pub environment you can always lose, but that's because one clueless player can screw you over immensely.

3 hours ago, Lumina said:

Some of the adventure mode parts are also like this : the knowledge make it possible to survive, but can't erase the difficulty.

From my experience that's strictly because the rng there can get REALLY obnoxious, which I don't see as very positive, aside from that it eventually becomes a punching bag. Hell didn't some people make a 1hp wes adventure run?

3 hours ago, Lumina said:

These things are easier to set up in situation when you can control all the parameters of the world, and limit their amount. So this is better for event than classic DST. But still, i think it's possible to improve things, even if of course, some improvements will only last for some time.

I completely agree, more things to learn will add a temporary improvement, and more playtime, and is overall good, but you will still eventually reach the point where all challenges are either a nuisance or a punching bag.

3 hours ago, Lumina said:

Yes, i agree. In a mod i'm working on (and maybe a day will release), if you give a bird monster meat, you obtain monster egg. (At the moment will not be a big change for the bacon and egg recipe, but i plan to change this so it only accept one monster ingredient).

It's a medium choice between no egg and easy conversion of monster meat.

I know that this isn't exactly aimed at me, but it still fits my point, as things are now I generally rarely bother with eggs at all, this feels like watsons "meatball nerf".

3 hours ago, Lumina said:

Honey needs some change, yes. Especially since it's so easy to keep forever. I'm not sure about the more honeycombs. I would like to slow honey production if you have too many beebox nearby, at least you'll have to place them right if you want to have a great number of them.

If you nerf one sort of food production people will just go to the next, which will ultimately mean food production will take longer to set up. Is that really something you feel is needed?

[Lumina]

55 minutes ago, spideswine said:

So let me reiterate my point: to the knowledgeable player most challenges(to the not knowledgeable player) either end up as a nuisance or a punching bag, I think that works fine for this game because there's enough knowledge to attain but that does mean it will eventually get old unless you're really into base building.

It's not that a problem since there are a lot of players and some aren't either new players neither the knowledgeable players as you define it. Sure, not all can be solve, but it doesn't mean that nothing can be improved or that all challenge will eventually become "nuisance or punching bag".

57 minutes ago, spideswine said:

I know that this isn't exactly aimed at me, but it still fits my point, as things are now I generally rarely bother with eggs at all, this feels like watsons "meatball nerf".

Again, it's not really a problem. I'm trying to change things so i feel that if i use something, it's balanced. So for example, using eggs will become more balanced. I don't use them usually, neither i use ice as a filler, but i feel like balanced options are more fun to use.

 

1 hour ago, spideswine said:

If you nerf one sort of food production people will just go to the next, which will ultimately mean food production will take longer to set up. Is that really something you feel is needed?

People could also use various options. Honey is very convenient because when it's set up it's forever, when some others option require to be more active. By making change about honey, you could make it a little less convenient, or require a little upkeep, like some others items.

Do i feel like it's needed ? I think it's at least an interesting option and something i want to try so i can see how the game and player behaviour change with some balance here and here. Also, it's more about variety rather than nerfing everything.

Again, i'm not saying that all the change i have in mind must apply to base game (it's why i mention mod, and why i mention an optional way to have some change, depending if you want to play relaxed, challenging or something in between)

[spideswine]

16 minutes ago, Lumina said:

It's not that a problem since there are a lot of players and some aren't either new players neither the knowledgeable players as you define it. Sure, not all can be solve, but it doesn't mean that nothing can be improved or that all challenge will eventually become "nuisance or punching bag".

As I've said you can improve things by adding more things to learn, but they still will eventually(the improvement comes from delaying this point) become either a nuisance or a punching bag, as all challenges in this game do.

16 minutes ago, Lumina said:

Again, it's not really a problem. I'm trying to change things so i feel that if i use something, it's balanced. So for example, using eggs will become more balanced. I don't use them usually, neither i use ice as a filler, but i feel like balanced options are more fun to use.

I don't get it, how would reducing the effectiveness of something which is barely used going to make it more balanced?

16 minutes ago, Lumina said:

People could also use various options. Honey is very convenient because when it's set up it's forever, when some others option require to be more active. By making change about honey, you could make it a little less convenient, or require a little upkeep, like some others items.

this reminds me of disease.

food in this game is quite binary though, either it's better than other foods, then you just stick with it and get annoyed by the added upkeep, or you move to the next best food and get annoyed by the extra time it takes to set that up.

Granted some may not find it a nuisance, and will enjoy spending more time gathering food, but chances are it will remain a trivial task, and as such spending more time doing it will end up being seen as a nuisance.

16 minutes ago, Lumina said:

Do i feel like it's needed ? I think it's at least an interesting option and something i want to try so i can see how the game and player behaviour change with some balance here and here. Also, it's more about variety rather than nerfing everything.

Again, i'm not saying that all the change i have in mind must apply to base game (it's why i mention mod, and why i mention an optional way to have some change, depending if you want to play relaxed, challenging or something in between)

I think a lot of people are confusing a nuisance with a challenge, sure (things like) disease makes the game more challenging, it sure as hell doesn't make it better though.

[Mr.Tarunio]

this feels like a paragraph war.

[Szczuku]

So I was too bored to read through all this... what are you guys exactly having crap-storm about?

[Rellimarual]

If the advanced players I’m familiar with have one thing in common, it’s that they hate having to think about and plan for food. This, I believe, is the main reason they dislike Wigfrid, since they can’t stuff her with whatever berries, seeds or butterflies they happen to come across while doing other stuff. I seriously doubt that making food a bigger hassle would ever go over with them.

[Lumina]

I don't know if it will affect them a lot, anyway. When it comes to bigger abuses, i see often advanced players say "i don't use it". Anyway, in my case i want to try it in my mod because, mostly, i want to add more food, and since food is already common, making it even more common isn't exactly fun.

I think also that planning for food, and planning for food as wigfrid are two different things, because even if, for example, honey require a little more work and you can't use ice as a filler, you still have plenty of options, when your option as wigfrid are already so limited than having a little less honey would not make a big change.

Anyway, i think challenge about food, if reasonnable enough, could be fun. Meaning, not all the time, just some moments when you have to search for more food, which is not that common when you have a base. And maybe it's, at the moment, boring because it's not a challenge, because it's a chore rather than something that break your routine ?

Because in situations when my food is scarce it's often more interesting to think about solution than when i have plenty.

Also, again, it's why some difficulty should come only if player want it, so people not liking some points could still avoid it. But at the moment, you can't really have variations. The more you play, the more options you have for food. Berries farm, farm, beebox, spider farm, mushroom planter, and all the options i forgot.

In fact in some games, the beggining is the most challenging for food and the most fun, because search for food is an active part of the game, not just something i have to do to continue playing.

[minespatch]

11 hours ago, Szczuku said:

So I was too bored to read through all this... what are you guys exactly having crap-storm about?

Arguing out of boredom until Hamlet drops lore.

[Pyr0mrcow]

Overall, it's a difficult position to be in as a dev.
If changes to long-standing mechanics are proposed, people throw a fit. It's altering their character, or a system that they're used to. Primary point being the number of times we've been through topics like this.
So...you make a choice between ticking off a bunch of people by making them feel ignored via focusing on new content rather than updating old, or ticking off another group by making them feel ignored via 'uprooting' old content for the sake of improvement.
The Forge introduced a lot of ideas that could make combat more fun, but adding them to the main game would bring rage from people not wanting a combat focus, not wanting DS to be too behind DST, not wanting to change the nature of the game...ect.
Change general game balance/goal pathing, and the game is moving too far from 'the real Don't Starve experience'. QOL updates like characters and crafting/food systems are heavily related.

Heck, they had to do an entire event just to test temporary character changes/balancing and combat systems without starting a real riot.
But I hope they'll take the start of these events as a chance to ignore the...enthusiasm, and go forward with smoothing out gameplay/progression. They've got a team capable of it; I'm not sure if people realize how much effort had to go into crafting an entire game-mode like this. They might've had a base to work off of, but they basically built their own game inside another game. And damn if it isn't addicting.

[minespatch]

1 minute ago, Pyr0mrcow said:

I'm not sure if people realize how much effort had to go into crafting an entire game-mode like this.

Apparently @PeterA made a mod years ago, so I'm guessing Peter's mod became actual canon.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

On 25/11/2017 at 4:58 AM, Donke60 said:

now your just making excuses for someone with a lot of time on their hands i'm surprised you haven't done this already.

I actually don't have a lot of time on my hands, I'm writing this **** while ruining my sleep cycle because I'm trying to show what the fanbase is like to the fanbase itself, while they are actively denying it by trying to turn the tables using the same method of toxicity I pointed out they are involving themselves in, I guess you can't win because Toxicity + Positivity = Profit \/_\/

On 25/11/2017 at 4:58 AM, Donke60 said:

I thought this wasn't about DS story you complained about this but that isn't what I addressed.

It's more intertwined. What the adventure mode tried to do in single player DS was combine story progression, with a sense of in-game progression through actions and challenges brought to you ahead. Of course, players found simple ways of making the challenges become a bit more of a DS vacation than anything, but the point is that this isn't being done anymore by Klei and neither could I find anything like that with mods. Modding, again, is way harder than coding the actual bloody game, so no wonder.

On 25/11/2017 at 4:58 AM, Donke60 said:

Then I guess you should stop talking if you can't tell use what you actually having  problems instead going "everything is a problem" "incoherent rambles"

"its not my job to make the game fun for myself"
now this is insulting because its suppose to be, because this is what I hear every topic you post 85% of the time

Oh here we go again, demanding specifics while examples and the oveview of things aren't enough. I'm starting to think it's a way of dodging to admit to various critical faults with the game and the way things have turned out between Klei and its fanbase, but don't worry, I'll get to yet another attempted summary in a second. Go into details, too specific and nitpicky, talk about the overarching issues with the game and the state of things, you're demanded to be more specific, you can't win with you lot you can't ******* win, the toxicity levels are too high goddammit!

On 27/11/2017 at 5:41 AM, Mario384 said:

 

 

I think judging by how much they've been doing for both DS and DST as of recent, I personally disagree with you.  They could've added gameplay bonuses to skins or the ability to buy Pugna lootboxes, but no, they just added cosmetic features in which you are no way obligated to pay.  Not to mention the Steam reviews being at Overwhelmingly Postive, I'd say most folk agree with me as well.

You do realise that the way DST operates, which has little to nothing to do with competition in a multiplayer setting means they have no way of making meaningful advantage to players who would be willing to whale, right? They're quite greedy, but they're not idiots, the mechanics of microtransactions and lootboxes aren't set in stone, you know, each game type would have its own type of bollocks to offer. Cosmetics and lootboxes for those cosmetics, with really low chances of getting actual good stuff, while being able to get duplicates along with the market provision for them AND the ability to purchase these is already very reminiscent of your standard microtrasaction-lootbox system. They'd have to change the entire game in order to do that, but they've been clever about their money-making tactics; a temporary event, oriented around multiplayer combat and extended out of nowhere nevertheless. You get more of that dosh without making huge risks really.

The "overwhelmingly positive" is part of the issue I was trying to address AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD. May be re-read it? If not, here's a summary; Klei's looking for ways that it can cash in more from DS and DST, not for the sake of making well-developed and designed experiences, but to see how far the fanbase is wiling to take it, and from the looks of it, they've cashed in on the toxicity + positivity duo. None really "squeaks the wheel" well enough about overarching issues of the games, it's even discouraged however rarely they appear by most fans themselves, and we get a load of half-baked and reskinned content that, while having potential, not really going anywhere.

On 27/11/2017 at 11:12 AM, Lumina said:

The thing is, the good games ARE their reputation.

I think the above paragraph in reply to Mario384 kind of refutes that statement, at least to the extent that DS and DST are concerned.

On 27/11/2017 at 11:12 AM, Lumina said:

I agree that summer is boring in the current state more than challenging. But Winter is challenging and even if you can turtle forever in your base if you want, the possible lack of food and the mac tusk are two reasons to go outside, creating interesting situations and possible rewards for facing the danger. Deerclop is another reason to avoid your base for some time.

Also, i hate things that destroy the base, so it's not really a solution for me.

Never mind that having a bunch of armour, insulation items and holding the F button at the right times makes this quite the trivial matter. The chances of you dying even in harsh seasons when you're at the point is really flippin' low, it's basically dependent on whether you become careless enough from all the grinding and boredom you'll be evoking with your "mega-base day 1000" lifestyle.

You're showing the exact thing that the video I linked at the beginning of the page was talking about; the player becoming angry from a challenge for something that used to allow for careful and grindy but easy leeway into victory. While I can indeed agree that having to punish the player for not playing the exact way you'd like them to, or, not giving them varied options and approaches is bad, balance between the challenge and the optional play-styles should still be maintained, something Klei doesn't bother themselves with at all, and it's because the fanbase allows it.

Base being destroyed, wrecked, or at the very least, needing to be protected from oncoming danger is something that could very well prevent this mega-base bullcrap and keep the player focused more on survival and progression in story and what they have accomplished for it, rather than what they've grinded through in order to conquer the world and build a base big enough to show how huge their elite professional DS/DST-player d*** is. If you wanted to do that and the game prevented you from doing so no matter how easy you set it, then you could call it quite restrictive, but that's what settings would be for; make the life easier for yourself if you want that experience, change the settings harder to bring more challenge or keep them default to see how well you do in the default experience, or even having well-designed world presets that are encouraged to the player to try out, but the way most of the current settings are done and the fact that the games for the most part doesn't encourage you to fiddle with them at all if you're looking for some different experience is one of the things that go to show how poorly designed the games are. Again, Klei won't bother if most of the fanbase doesn't give a crap.

On 27/11/2017 at 11:12 AM, Lumina said:

Sure, knowledge is a key. But Forge prove also that you can have knowledge and still have to be careful. Some of the adventure mode parts are also like this : the knowledge make it possible to survive, but can't erase the difficulty.

These things are easier to set up in situation when you can control all the parameters of the world, and limit their amount. So this is better for event than classic DST. But still, i think it's possible to improve things, even if of course, some improvements will only last for some time.
It's not a big problem, because you need some difficulty that players will overcome, it gives a sense of victory and progress.

Precisely; the forge and the adventure mode to some extent. But nothing else really, now does it? It goes to show that Klei can make well-designed experiences, but they won't if the fanbase doesn't demand it, which it won't, because they're all sitting near campfires, rubbing their balls while feasting their eyes on their high day-count and a base that spans the entire world. It is a huge problem if the challenge doesn't mean that the player will have time to rest and prepare for a following challenge without having the extra privilege of being the god of the world.

For good design in a survival game, with the default that is presented to the player, the game needs to provide continued challenge with reasonable rests and not allow for game-breaking mechanics. DS and DST don't really do that.

On 27/11/2017 at 11:12 AM, Lumina said:

Yes, i agree. In a mod i'm working on (and maybe a day will release), if you give a bird monster meat, you obtain monster egg. (At the moment will not be a big change for the bacon and egg recipe, but i plan to change this so it only accept one monster ingredient).

It's a medium choice between no egg and easy conversion of monster meat.

Honey needs some change, yes. Especially since it's so easy to keep forever. I'm not sure about the more honeycombs. I would like to slow honey production if you have too many beebox nearby, at least you'll have to place them right if you want to have a great number of them.

To take the example of honey, tweaking existing stats and variables isn't going to do things, mechanics, FUNCTIONS, things that set games in motion can, however. Making a game aim completely towards realism isn't going to make a good game, but taking inspiration from realism can result in greater immersion with the world feeling more fleshed out as well as actually fixing up those game-breaking mechanics. Imagine if you couldn't hold honey with your bear hands, and if food in general wasn't something you could eat without throwing up for eating way too much and losing some of that hunger and may be partly some other stats as well? You'd not only have honey balanced out, but food items in general! The moment you stop requiring a bunch of honey, the moment you will feel less inclined to grind to have 20 bee boxes just ready for you to harvest for filling in all of your health, hunger and sanity needs. The actual healing items would have way more priority for you in order to boost your health up, already making boss fights and the game overall, way more challenging.

On 27/11/2017 at 6:39 PM, Szczuku said:

So I was too bored to read through all this... what are you guys exactly having crap-storm about?

What I was trying to say, if it wasn't comprehensive from my initial post was that, I'm trying to elaborate on the overarching direction Klei have taken DS and DST, which involves microtransactions accompanied by loot-box systems, that the fanbase glances over, because the company has basically gained a monopoly on them through toxicity + forced positivity due to the nature of a player wanting more luxury in a game, despite this ruining a game's design and the challenge that it could otherwise have offered. It's a perpetual cycle of farted out content that doesn't get polished once it's set to "out of beta", because the fanbase doesn't demand it enough. They take what they're given, praise them, and then try to reinforce positivity, faced with mostly ignorance or toxicity depending on how much the wheel is squeaked, if you will . And then the rest of the topic's discussion revoles around me trying to actively explain that to some people, while for some others it's "trying to show what the fanbase is like to the fanbase itself, while they are actively denying it by trying to turn the tables using the same method of toxicity I pointed out they are involving themselves in". Does that make more sense?

[Mario384]

36 minutes ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

You do realise that the way DST operates, which has little to nothing to do with competition in a multiplayer setting means they have no way of making meaningful advantage to players who would be willing to whale, right? They're quite greedy, but they're not idiots, the mechanics of microtransactions and lootboxes aren't set in stone, you know, each game type would have its own type of bollocks to offer. Cosmetics and lootboxes for those cosmetics, with really low chances of getting actual good stuff, while being able to get duplicates along with the market provision for them AND the ability to purchase these is already very reminiscent of your standard microtrasaction-lootbox system. They'd have to change the entire game in order to do that, but they've been clever about their money-making tactics; a temporary event, oriented around multiplayer combat and extended out of nowhere nevertheless. You get more of that dosh without making huge risks really.

The "overwhelmingly positive" is part of the issue I was trying to address AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD. May be re-read it? If not, here's a summary; Klei's looking for ways that it can cash in more from DS and DST, not for the sake of making well-developed and designed experiences, but to see how far the fanbase is wiling to take it, and from the looks of it, they've cashed in on the toxicity + positivity duo. None really "squeaks the wheel" well enough about overarching issues of the games, it's even discouraged however rarely they appear by most fans themselves, and we get a load of half-baked and reskinned content that, while having potential, not really going anywhere.

(Gotta say, you really let me get to use all my Aku gifs!)

"Reskinned and and half-baked content"?  Are we playing the same game?  ANR was by no means either of those things, and brought a lot of new stuff to the table.  I really think your arguments at this point are all personal opinions and not actual, factual issues at all.  And while you might sit down and write a another damn magnum opus of a reply to everything everyone says to you, it seems to me you're overcompensating for the poor argument which at it's core wasn't worth all this.  We really need a reply option for posts on the fourm which doesn't bump the thread, because it'd be really useful by now.

[TheKingDedede]

@EuedeAdodooedoe, if DS/DST isn't what you'd like it to be, what is the standard of a survival game that you would compare DS/DST to? As in, what game would you compare to DST and DS and say to yourself, "While DST does this mechanic correctly/incorrectly, I'd say it needs to be more like games like XYZ etc, etc."?

[ItsPizzaTime]

There is no point to replying to OP in this thread anymore as he already said this is a thread not about how they would improve the game (per their words, they have already done that in other threads).

This thread is merely a place for them to complain that it took them two thousand in game hours to realize this wasn't the game they wanted, that they were lied to, and that the 15 dollars wasn't worth what the game was advertised to be. The introductions of skins and the idea of a box that gives you multiple gifts (despite that it is free to obtain and open) means Klei is evil and only wants money (ignore  all of the free content they have given us in the past, it is all pointless half-assed content). Remember, this is all of our faults because we are too busy building big bases and not asking for more content. Regardless, no matter how much content Klei has put out, it is all "garbage" because OP is too good for the game and is allergic to mega-bases. All opinion, turned into what is what they believe to be 100% fact.

Basically, we should stop feeding the troll.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

On 27/11/2017 at 6:39 PM, Szczuku said:

So I was too bored to read through all this... what are you guys exactly having crap-storm about?

Really? Well, I'm trying to explain to the DS/DST fanbase, based on my observations, how things have come to a point where DS and DST's focus in particular aren't anymore fit for a survival-adventure game with a horror theme, as the content is focused more on , and the reason for this being is because Klei decided to take a lazy approach like this, because it's less effort on design, while still keeping their fanbase satisfied. Klei releases content, and the fanbase pretty much swallows it up. Same with micro-transactions and lootboxes being introduced; nobody seems to care really, and never mind that it's the same old "grind for it, or pay up" model, where you can hope to get the rare skins through grinding in the game for hours on end, or you can pay up to get what you want. While indeed Klei needs to earn money, you don't need to resort to these methods for it.

As for everyone else, most of everyone doesn't find this even a bit peculiar, and so you get attempts at killing the thread via toxicity and now ignoring it completely, all to kill it, cause that's how you get out of discussion on forums nowadays I guess. In their eyes, I'm just a troll who likes to complain, but this isn't a thread for complaints and suggestions, this is for the community to reflect on what's happened and think about why things have turned the way they have.

 

@Mario384 \/

Spoiler

On 02/12/2017 at 2:35 AM, Mario384 said:

(Gotta say, you really let me get to use all my Aku gifs!)

No clue.

On 02/12/2017 at 2:35 AM, Mario384 said:

"Reskinned and and half-baked content"?  Are we playing the same game?  ANR was by no means either of those things, and brought a lot of new stuff to the table.  I really think your arguments at this point are all personal opinions and not actual, factual issues at all.  And while you might sit down and write a another damn magnum opus of a reply to everything everyone says to you, it seems to me you're overcompensating for the poor argument which at it's core wasn't worth all this.

ANR was VERY MUCH about re-skins, in various ways too; a bunch of decorations that are nothing but re-skinned versions of one another and plethora of skins themselves. Although the re-skin part was focused largely on SW, where a lot of the content seems to be the exact same as from single player, just re-skinned. I know that certain things were necessary to have this, but even then there could have been more of a focus on more varying mechanics for the content. And I still don't understand the purpose of having a different world and wanting to launch it as a separate game.

Poor argument which is? Could you elaborate on that?

On 02/12/2017 at 2:35 AM, Mario384 said:

We really need a reply option for posts on the fourm which doesn't bump the thread, because it'd be really useful by now.

While I agree that everyone should be able to hide/ignore the threads for themselves they aren't interested in, it seems like this is another attempt at preventing discussion in a thread like this; toxicity didn't work, so lets try completely ignoring it!

 

 

 

On 02/12/2017 at 2:41 AM, TheKingDedede said:

@EuedeAdodooedoe, if DS/DST isn't what you'd like it to be, what is the standard of a survival game that you would compare DS/DST to? As in, what game would you compare to DST and DS and say to yourself, "While DST does this mechanic correctly/incorrectly, I'd say it needs to be more like games like XYZ etc, etc."?

That's the thing though; there isn't one single game that I know of that tries to explore the idea of truly immersive survival. But a game that seems to come close to achieving this would probably be Subnautica; even when you're progressing and know the ins-and-outs of the vast majority of the game, it still proves to be a deadly challenge whilst you're trying to do this. You can't just put a suit of armour on, grab a weapon and kite around a monster like it was your day job. That's what entices a sense of unease in the game. And it actually progresses to an end point with bits of story in it placed; to escape the planet.

@ItsPizzaTime \/

Spoiler

 

On 02/12/2017 at 3:59 AM, ItsPizzaTime said:

There is no point to replying to OP in this thread anymore as he already said this is a thread not about how they would improve the game (per their words, they have already done that in other threads).

 

Yeah, as I mentioned; trying to die down the thread on purpose...

On 02/12/2017 at 3:59 AM, ItsPizzaTime said:

This thread is merely a place for them to complain that it took them two thousand in game hours to realize this wasn't the game they wanted, that they were lied to, and that the 15 dollars wasn't worth what the game was advertised to be.

I don't remember saying the $15 dollars aren't worth it, rather that the investment provides an utterly broken survival experience, to a point where it isn't even survival anymore, with the devs having given up on the idea, while still advertising it as survival. It didn't take me 2000 hours to realise this, because when I was at around a few hundred hours into DST, they were still developing it, at which point they were still aiming for a survival experience, with the introduction of Ewecus. I'm saying that now they aren't, and are completely ruining the game with the content they are shoving in the way they are.

On 02/12/2017 at 3:59 AM, ItsPizzaTime said:

The introductions of skins and the idea of a box that gives you multiple gifts (despite that it is free to obtain and open) means Klei is evil and only wants money (ignore  all of the free content they have given us in the past, it is all pointless half-assed content).

The idea of a box that gives you multiple gifts? That's the most lenient way to put it. You can't fluff this enough to make it just a fine thing. I'm not calling them evil, just a bit greedy with their approach to this. I'm sure if they could, they would be on the very border of having the micro-transactions like that of other games, but unfortunately it makes no sense to do so, because this isn't some competitive game, and if they were to make an event of that, it would need to be non-canon.

On 02/12/2017 at 3:59 AM, ItsPizzaTime said:

Remember, this is all of our faults because we are too busy building big bases and not asking for more content. Regardless, no matter how much content Klei has put out, it is all "garbage" because OP is too good for the game and is allergic to mega-bases. All opinion, turned into what is what they believe to be 100% fact.

Basically, we should stop feeding the troll.

Yes, it is your fault. You do ask for more content, but you're not looking for any survival experience at all; just more content, more to do. So, they provide it; more content that you can occupy yourself with, but most of the time, it has nothing to do with survival, because that's something you DON'T request.

All opinion? Do exaplin how things turned a 180 from building a survival-adventure horror experience into a social-club moba where people want to show off how big their mega bases are? There are whole threads dedicated to that **** here! I've talked to a developer, they don't deny that this change has happened, in fact they very well confirm that this change of focus has happened.

On 02/12/2017 at 3:59 AM, ItsPizzaTime said:

Basically, we should stop feeding the troll.

And what makes you think I'm trolling?

 

[LuxuryHeart]

On 11/27/2017 at 4:37 PM, Lumina said:

I don't know if it will affect them a lot, anyway. When it comes to bigger abuses, i see often advanced players say "i don't use it". Anyway, in my case i want to try it in my mod because, mostly, i want to add more food, and since food is already common, making it even more common isn't exactly fun.

I think also that planning for food, and planning for food as wigfrid are two different things, because even if, for example, honey require a little more work and you can't use ice as a filler, you still have plenty of options, when your option as wigfrid are already so limited than having a little less honey would not make a big change.

Anyway, i think challenge about food, if reasonnable enough, could be fun. Meaning, not all the time, just some moments when you have to search for more food, which is not that common when you have a base. And maybe it's, at the moment, boring because it's not a challenge, because it's a chore rather than something that break your routine ?

Because in situations when my food is scarce it's often more interesting to think about solution than when i have plenty.

Also, again, it's why some difficulty should come only if player want it, so people not liking some points could still avoid it. But at the moment, you can't really have variations. The more you play, the more options you have for food. Berries farm, farm, beebox, spider farm, mushroom planter, and all the options i forgot.

In fact in some games, the beggining is the most challenging for food and the most fun, because search for food is an active part of the game, not just something i have to do to continue playing.

Just play online with 2 or more Wolfgangs who ALWAYS want to be mighty.  Problem solved.  :~)

Here's how to get a challenge for bored people!  :~)

- Host a server

- Only invite Perma Mighty Wolfgangs and reckless Woodies who spawn tree guards

- Make sure you have at least 2 of them (It'll be better with 3 though) and then have 2 reckless Woodies spawning tree guards.  Bonus points for a clueless Wilson in the mix.

- Though make sure you're ready for the challenge and chaos ready to come.

 

 

Edit: It's only been like 30 minutes and I'm still in awe of how great this comment is.  If only we could like our own posts...

[TheKingDedede]

@EuedeAdodooedoe,  I absolutely appreciate the response! I was expecting the thread to die down and not see one, but it's good to have a discussion every once in a while.

5 hours ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

And it actually progresses to an end point with bits of story in it placed; to escape the planet.

In my opinion, the Don't Starve universe has bits of story placed into the game, with some parts of the story being behind ARGs, which brings the community together to try and solve them so we can have small bits of plot and allowing others to understand what's happening, while also building a small narrative.

I think it's strange when you bring up DS not having an 'end goal', as it were. What I feel that you're getting at is that the world of DS needs an ending, although correct me if I'm wrong. Not all games, I think, need a definite ending, be it good or bad. While part of a different genre entirely, the Fallout series comes to mind.The player walks into a world that's in a terrible state, and depending on your actions throughout the story, you can either make things better for everyone and yourself, benefit only yourself and harm everyone else, or make things worse for everyone, including yourself. Some of the games allow you to play after the end, and even then in the best endings, you can only affect so much in the world that you're in.

A game that is part of the survival genre is Minecraft. The story there is practically non-existent, and it's the community that creates their own stories and theories as to why they're inside of the world they're in. However, I agree that in Don't Starve, this doesn't really work because you have all these bits of information on the characters and backstories, it would make sense that with the narrative the community had, the characters would find a way home or, and even when I was playing the game, I was expecting a resolution to the story at hand. You get to the Nightmare Throne, and it's a downer ending.

I don't think Klei ever predicted that Don't Starve would become as big as it did. It started out life on the Google App Store (Correct me if I'm wrong), and grew into a bigger game that had frequent updates and a backstory that was fleshed out as it went on.

However, in DST, it seems that the playable characters are making strides towards getting out or improving the situation that they're in. Maybe Klei never intended for the story to come to an end? Maybe DST was meant to focus more on the social aspect of things, seeing as how it has multiplayer. Maybe Klei wanted to write a bittersweet continuation, with the characters making the most of their situation and making a home in their new environment? At least, that's what I think.

5 hours ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

But a game that seems to come close to achieving this would probably be Subnautica; even when you're progressing and know the ins-and-outs of the vast majority of the game, it still proves to be a deadly challenge whilst you're trying to do this. You can't just put a suit of armour on, grab a weapon and kite around a monster like it was your day job. That's what entices a sense of unease in the game.

I'll say that DS and DST's combat systems are very simplistic, and I don't think it's going to change anytime soon. They might add more weapons down the line, but that's just a guess on my part. I take it that you believe that a game's combat should provide most of the challenge, and that's perfectly respectable. However, as it stands, it really is simplistic, but I think it serves its purpose. You can have different weapons that can all hit at different strengths, and armors that can protect you. You can just hold the F button in most cases when you have a weapon and you'll be fine.

I think the game's challenge's lies in the self-imposed challenges that a player can set up for themselves. While the default settings can be adapted to, I'd argue that they're more of a jumping off point for beginners to try and understand the game's mechanics better. They're not too hard and once you understand what's going on, that's when players can turn up the difficulty if they so choose. Once a player gets good at the game, they can make it harder for themselves. Don't like how berries are a good source of food? Turn them off. Are Tallbirds too much of a hassle for you? Well, a player can tone down their numbers because they might come to the conclusion that, while Tallbirds can be a hassle at first, they're worth keeping around because of what the Tallbirds can provide.

But I don't like how the game's idea of making enemies more challenging is to basically turn to the player and say, "Just overwhelm the player with numbers and zerg rushes. Are you sure you want to turn the 'Hounds' settings up?" It comes off as a cheap way to increase the difficulty without having to change the enemies in any way, in my opinion.

I also find it strange that there's a stigma associated with changing the settings at all, since it's seen as 'cheating' in some circles, but I might be stretching it and going off-topic. That's a topic for another day. Besides, I think a player shouldn't care what others think of what they do with their copy of a game, as long as they're having fun with it. Change the settings and download as many mods as they want, the point of a game is to have fun, not treat it as a job.

I don't think it's possible for a game or a genre to appeal to all gamers. There's just no way. You like Subnautica because of the challenge it provides, but another player could dislike the constant roaming about in search of resources. Personally, I dislike RTS games and would prefer to play a game where you play as the unit (Does Halo count?). But I do understand that the RTS genre does appeal to players. Just look at how much the Sid Meier's Civilization games can sell, and they're a part of the RTS genre.

What do you think so far? Can it be possible for DS and DST to appeal to everyone?

 

[ItsPizzaTime]

9 hours ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

 

  Hide contents

Yeah, as I mentioned; trying to die down the thread on purpose...

And what makes you think I'm trolling?

 

No, you're not trying to let the thread die, and I think you're trolling because this game IS a survival game, as in if you don't take care of your characters needs he will die. Just because you think the recent added in content isn't survival oriented doesn't make this game anything less.

You bought the game based on how it looked a while ago, since then they have added loads of free content that emphasizes or resembles what their earlier ideas were. They haven't removed anything from the time period that you were first interested in the game, only added onto those things all of which have enhanced the game play of the game by giving the players more things to be able to do. If these newer things do not appeal to you for whatever reason the game doesn't become any less of a survival game.

If you still cannot figure out how entitled of a human being you are coming off as by complaining about a game that has given you more game play and free content than most $60 AAA titles these days then allow me to elaborate. Saying "I think X should have been implemented differently" or "I don't see how Y correlates to Don't Starve's mechanics of blahblah" is one thing and perfectly acceptable, but it is incredibly rude and adds zero value to your argument to diminish the amount of effort that Klei has given the community down to "Farted out" content simply because you feel that way based on your OPINIONS. The best part about your OPINIONS is that you feel that we (the consumer) should have 100% say so in what goes in the game and are the sole dictators of what content is added into the game. (why would they even give us the workshop if they just added in what any person told them they wanted in the game??? Its the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the workshops existence to allow the player to fulfill whatever needs they have for their own experience.) The TRUTH is it is NO ONES decision other than Klei's to add whatever they feel like adding into their game. Yes we can try to influence them and if that's what you want to do then fine but the way you are going about it is horribly wrong not only because you are insulting them for what seems like the most petty of personal reasons, but you are also making massive essays that people who browse the forums regularly even have almost no time to read. Seeing as the majority of the community feels that the game is just fine as it is you should probably spend more time making mods to solve the problems you are having with enjoying this game.

Also, quit bumping the thread if you really want it to die. Almost an entire week not having to see this pointless thread and then you revive it and say in your post that you wanted the thread to die. *Facepalm*

[Toros]

I strongly disagree with the people saying that combat doesn’t have any depth in DST.  There is a world of difference between someone starting out and someone who can solo the “raid” bosses whom I would just call the harder bosses.

I’ve played a lot of dark souls, and particularly in dark souls 3 bosses were quite difficult in my opinion.  But death is cheap in dark souls, nothing is lost on death.

If we’re comparing to say, mmo bosses only at the endgame raiding will you get bosses as complex as fuelweaver and toadstool.  FF14 bosses are more complex than WoW bosses at the same point in leveling, but don’t take practice until endgame.

Point is, don’t starve has always been a game that tried to appeal to both casual and more skilled players and the sheer amount of optional combat challenges is how they’ve catered to both.

Especially in a 2 person world I love the challenge and there’s still a sense of being stuck in the wilderness.  

[TheKingDedede]

7 minutes ago, Toros said:

I’ve played a lot of dark souls, and particularly in dark souls 3 bosses were quite difficult in my opinion.  But death is cheap in dark souls, nothing is lost on death.

If I remember correctly, Dark Souls 2 would give you a 10% health penalty for every time you died, for up to 50% of your health. The health penalty would make it harder for you to beat bosses and take hits, and if you could not recover all of your souls from the last time you died, the next time you died, all of your souls would disappear. DS2 also had the Human Effigies, but if you were a clever player, you could accumulate a large amount of them through hosting 'Fight Clubs'. It didn't matter how limited they were, since a player who could go online could, if they had the patience, accumulate 198 Effigies (The limit). I haven't touched DS3, but I assume death in that installment carried a lighter punishment?

17 minutes ago, Toros said:

Point is, don’t starve has always been a game that tried to appeal to both casual and more skilled players and the sheer amount of optional combat challenges is how they’ve catered to both

Also, I completely agree with how DS and DST tries to cater to both audiences, and it does a pretty good job at that. If a player doesn't like facing the Fuelweaver, Klaus, or Toadstool, they can leave those bosses be. I also like how the bosses expect you to learn how to fight them, so tanking isn't always an option with them.