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

[Donke60]

2 minutes ago, DragonMage156 said:

Wut?

 

[DragonMage156]

Ok but I still dk why you summoned me to this thread :/

[minespatch]

4 minutes ago, Donke60 said:

-vidya-

Wilson?

IS THAT A WILSON?

I luuuuuuuuuuuv Wilson!

Wilson was my favorite character of the Starvengers!

Did you guys catch that Charlie in the trailer! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOA

[Donke60]

2 minutes ago, DragonMage156 said:

Ok but I still dk why you summoned me to this thread :/

I needed someone to throw the chair at
And I wanted you to suffer with me! save me!

[DragonMage156]

1 hour ago, Donke60 said:

I needed someone to throw the chair at
And I wanted you to suffer with me! save me!

Idk whether to sad react or not XD

[Donke60]

42 minutes ago, DragonMage156 said:

Idk whether to sad react or not XD

THIS IS MY HELL!

[Lumina]

Since someone asked for examples of what is missing for the game, i would give some :

 

- There is a lack of reason to go exploring during winter and summer. Yes, there is the Mac Tusk, but you know where they are usually and can even prepare traps if you want to make the fight easier.

- Some biomes are (or will become) empty, like the rocky biome (this one, not the one with the meteor), which is pretty useless when you mined most of the rock, and the swamp biome (first days it's fun to have free food with the tentacle vs merm fight, but when most of tentacles are dead the biome is a lot more boring). The same for some forests that aren't really fun to explore.

- Related to both points, i want reasons to go exploring areas i already know in the hope of discovering fun things, dangerous things, treasures or even just something new and different.

[fimmatek]

9 minutes ago, Lumina said:

Related to both points, i want reasons to go exploring areas i already know in the hope of discovering fun things, dangerous things, treasures or even just something new and different.

Now that is something I agree with!

[Rellimarual]

2 hours ago, Lumina said:

- Related to both points, i want reasons to go exploring areas i already know in the hope of discovering fun things, dangerous things, treasures or even just something new and different

I agree, too. Klaus gives you a reason to go back to the mosaic, and the season events prompt trinket hunts. I do go back the rocky biomes a lot to get turf, forests to get wood chopped by giants and to start spider wars for silk, so I wouldn’t say there are no reasons to go back, but more surprises would be fun.

[Lumina]

Yeah, no reasons is probably too strong since it could vary a lot depending of your playstyle or your character. Still, if i remember well some discussions before, and some biomes seems to lack interest for most people.

[Rellimarual]

29 minutes ago, Lumina said:

Yeah, no reasons is probably too strong since it could vary a lot depending of your playstyle or your character. Still, if i remember well some discussions before, and some biomes seems to lack interest for most people.

If unpredictable mobs, dangerous or advantageous, could show up anywhere on the map, sort of like the no-eye deer or lureplants, late in the game, that would be fun.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

19 hours ago, Toros said:

While I appreciate you’ve elaborated on the skins you don’t like, and to a degree agree with you, you still haven’t made any concrete suggestions about changes you want made.

If I was a klei developer I’d have no clue what you want “finished and balanced”.

Let me try again, even simpler.

If you could tell the dev team what to do, what would you have them do, specifically?

Some variation of “add more story and fix things” is not sufficient.

I'm sure they know what they have not got balanced and finished. There are various items that are completely unreliable and subsequently useless for the most part if not completely, because other things are way more reliable. As a case in point, I could point to you to bee mine, one-man-band, night light (in DST, in DS it actually has one good use and that's in the ruins, but it's only useful because of an exploitable mechanic).

To add to that, again, bosses are just some pinatas rather than actual bosses; for most of them, you have to get out of your way to face them, they are not triggered by any consequential or timed events, and kiting or tanking, as well as the basic mechanics surrounding their attacks makes it easy once you have a good idea of what to do. Boarillas in The Forge actually threw you in the air and made you land down from their swipes, imagine if that was the case with bosses, the combat would already be quite different, a bit scarier and immersive, because those kinds of attacks would make more sense from gigantic beasts. In terms of balance, it's exploits, especially in DS (e.g. fire farms, various ways that the lureplant can be exploited in, coffee in SW is the most OP thing I have ever seen etc.). In DST, structures that can be placed really close to one another can be used as invincible blockages for various mobs, including some bosses, . Smaller creatures post almost no danger due to how easy it is to dispose of them as a threat and farm their loot for stacks upon stacks of it.

And even then, things become easy, because you don't need much skill or effort in order to build some form of base. Imagine how the game could be quite a bit tougher if the science machine required a set of gears instead of a gold nugget for instance? How darts could be slightly more reliable if you could make a blowpipe out of reeds and then have the darts require the darts themselves. Tentacles, while quite the deadly things, can be kited without a hassle once you can kite well, imagine if they could grab you and say, squeeze the living hell out of you. Ewe seemed like a step in the right direction, but there are loose ends to tie up and it seems as if after its implementation, nothing quite like that, which required a lot of player cooperation actually mattered. The player isn't in much danger while fighting and there's not much reason to worry once you're dead, as resurrection is easy.

It's not a single aspect of the game, it's various aspects that build up that ultimately make the game extremely easy by default. It would be good if the developers looked at these exploits, unbalanced/unreliable items and unfinished/basic mechanics and actually tried to actively pursue to make a decent challenge for the players by default, like they are constantly fixing bugs, but they rarely ever do that, and for older content that basically never gets touched upon. And that's the biggest gripe of it all; easy (easy in multiple ways) content, that once announced "finished" doesn't really get touched upon almost at all.

But that's the thing; you're not a Klei developer. If you were, you would have at least some idea of what I mean. What I would have them do? Their decision, their game, but so long as they keep with the initial vision whilst allowing for various tactics depending on world options, so that if you wanted things easier or harder, there would be good options for you, but right now, it's done in a way to completely discourage you from changing things around.

Some variation of “add more story and fix things” is not sufficient. <= To that, I say it is. It is still valid feedback. Best if you give examples, but saying "hei, this specific thing is what I want you to do" means you're demanding very specific mechanics that you think should be in, and implying that developers should not have room to applying their own creativity. I'm not their ******* manager, I'm someone who played the game and was, over the span of updates for the game disappointed with the way content was handled in various ways, because I was promised, as it is still advertised, something entirely different than what the game is about. Say what you will, but I think I have the right to complain as a result. I payed for most of the content they hyped up to be something great, but then ended up being half-baked. And because the fanbase for the most part doesn't realise this, because they are just fine with whatever the **** is being shoved in their faces for the most part, due to them thinking that they should be grateful that they are getting something rather than nothing at all, nothing really changes.

P.S. Wilderness isn't really like permadeath at all; you keep your world and you can get your stuff back, that defeats the purpose of what permadeath is.

18 hours ago, ItsPizzaTime said:

We are talking about the same game developers that have been releasing free add-ons since the beginning of this games existence right?

Saying certain skins are "trashy" is self opinion, there is no evidence to back up the claims that skins are "trashy" by any amount and they are completely optional to try and obtain or use so no one is forcing you to use skins.

 

You have way too many things you dislike about this game that even if the developers did care enough and actually spend their time trying to cater to just you it would be the biggest waste of time with no guarantee that you would ever be satisfied. Every time you make a post (even in the same thread) you have another completely different issue that you are certain are all facts and not opinions. There is no nicer way to say this but maybe you should move on. Or, get busy making mods to make your experience more enjoyable if you actually seem to be as passionate as you are about this game. At this point it is seeming like you genuinely have nothing positive to say about this game so I really don't know why you would bother spending the time to make these essays constantly when you could be fixing the problem that you yourself are specifically having or move on with life and find a new video game.

But they're not something that you can switch off from seeing on server/for your client side as a setting or a mod, are they? Yeah, there's no objective way to tell something is "trashy", but there's no objective way to say something is "good" either.

It's all opinion. I care about the game because:

* I payed for most of it

* I was mislead

* The game has a quite a bit more potential then Klei is willing to produce for it

 

And I think I did mention that I will be looking to change various aspects of the game through modding. But why I'm complaining is because Klei still advertises the game as something it really isn't, they aren't striving for it anymore, and it would be great if I don't have to do so much work to do to change various mechanics for getting a decently designed game, if they put some good effort into making survival-adventure based elements. Because I didn't buy the content to then "fix it up" for myself, and I'm probably not going to get payed for the content I produce either, but they do and will.

[Toros]

28 minutes ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

I'm sure they know what they have not got balanced and finished. There are various items that are completely unreliable and subsequently useless for the most part if not completely, because other things are way more reliable. As a case in point, I could point to you to bee mine, one-man-band, night light (in DST, in DS it actually has one good use and that's in the ruins, but it's only useful because of an exploitable mechanic).

To add to that, again, bosses are just some pinatas rather than actual bosses; for most of them, you have to get out of your way to face them, they are not triggered by any consequential or timed events, and kiting or tanking, as well as the basic mechanics surrounding their attacks makes it easy once you have a good idea of what to do. Boarillas in The Forge actually threw you in the air and made you land down from their swipes, imagine if that was the case with bosses, the combat would already be quite different, a bit scarier and immersive, because those kinds of attacks would make more sense from gigantic beasts. In terms of balance, it's exploits, especially in DS (e.g. fire farms, various ways that the lureplant can be exploited in, coffee in SW is the most OP thing I have ever seen etc.). In DST, structures that can be placed really close to one another can be used as invincible blockages for various mobs, including some bosses, . Smaller creatures post almost no danger due to how easy it is to dispose of them as a threat and farm their loot for stacks upon stacks of it.

And even then, things become easy, because you don't need much skill or effort in order to build some form of base. Imagine how the game could be quite a bit tougher if the science machine required a set of gears instead of a gold nugget for instance? How darts could be slightly more reliable if you could make a blowpipe out of reeds and then have the darts require the darts themselves. Tentacles, while quite the deadly things, can be kited without a hassle once you can kite well, imagine if they could grab you and say, squeeze the living hell out of you. Ewe seemed like a step in the right direction, but there are loose ends to tie up and it seems as if after its implementation, nothing quite like that, which required a lot of player cooperation actually mattered. The player isn't in much danger while fighting and there's not much reason to worry once you're dead, as resurrection is easy.

It's not a single aspect of the game, it's various aspects that build up that ultimately make the game extremely easy by default. It would be good if the developers looked at these exploits, unbalanced/unreliable items and unfinished/basic mechanics and actually tried to actively pursue to make a decent challenge for the players by default, like they are constantly fixing bugs, but they rarely ever do that, and for older content that basically never gets touched upon. And that's the biggest gripe of it all; easy (easy in multiple ways) content, that once announced "finished" doesn't really get touched upon almost at all.

But that's the thing; you're not a Klei developer. If you were, you would have at least some idea of what I mean. What I would have them do? Their decision, their game, but so long as they keep with the initial vision whilst allowing for various tactics depending on world options, so that if you wanted things easier or harder, there would be good options for you, but right now, it's done in a way to completely discourage you from changing things around.

Some variation of “add more story and fix things” is not sufficient. <= To that, I say it is. It is still valid feedback. Best if you give examples, but saying "hei, this specific thing is what I want you to do" means you're demanding very specific mechanics that you think should be in, and implying that developers should not have room to applying their own creativity. I'm not their ******* manager, I'm someone who played the game and was, over the span of updates for the game disappointed with the way content was handled in various ways, because I was promised, as it is still advertised, something entirely different than what the game is about. Say what you will, but I think I have the right to complain as a result. I payed for most of the content they hyped up to be something great, but then ended up being half-baked. And because the fanbase for the most part doesn't realise this, because they are just fine with whatever the **** is being shoved in their faces for the most part, due to them thinking that they should be grateful that they are getting something rather than nothing at all, nothing really changes.

P.S. Wilderness isn't really like permadeath at all; you keep your world and you can get your stuff back, that defeats the purpose of what permadeath is.

But they're not something that you can switch off from seeing on server/for your client side as a setting or a mod, are they? Yeah, there's no objective way to tell something is "trashy", but there's no objective way to say something is "good" either.

It's all opinion. I care about the game because:

* I payed for most of it

* I was mislead

* The game has a quite a bit more potential then Klei is willing to produce for it

 

And I think I did mention that I will be looking to change various aspects of the game through modding. But why I'm complaining is because Klei still advertises the game as something it really isn't, they aren't striving for it anymore, and it would be great if I don't have to do so much work to do to change various mechanics for getting a decently designed game, if they put some good effort into making survival-adventure based elements. Because I didn't buy the content to then "fix it up" for myself, and I'm probably not going to get payed for the content I produce either, but they do and will.

I'm going to be quite honest with you:  I never believed you were capable of producing specific, coherent, or viable suggestions.  I've seen too many of your rambling posts to ever expect you capable of a real suggestion, an argument that isn't self-defeating, or demonstrate you actually understand game mechanics.

The reason I've asked you multiple times now to produce actual suggestions is that I knew you would fail, and I want other people to see that you had chances and failed at every one.  Instead you produce a slight variation on the same rant and despite this one perhaps being your magnum opus, the more clear you are the more clear it is you don't have a clue.

While I would love to tear your post apart point by point, it would be a waste of my time as I don't expect you to learn (questionable if you're even capable) from any of this.  But here are some lowlights:

-You complain about bosses being easy to kite and tank, then suggest boarilla is a better example despite being easier to kite or tank than all of the DST bosses already (Goose/Goose and Bearger have disarms, Firefly has enrage, Deerclops freezes.  Bearger loots your food, Deerclops breaks your base if you don't keep his attention).  No one with a moderate understanding of game mechanics would contradict themselves like this.  Also, your tentacle suggestion is terrible.  No one wants tentacles to chain grab you until you die, there's nothing fun or interesting about that.

-You complain about everyone doing the same repetitive and grindy things every game, and then suggest that a gear being used for a science machine would be a good idea.  You're wrong.  It would mean everyone would either pick tumbleweeds or kite/tank the first clockworks they ran into for gears, every game.  How does this promote your goal of gameplay diversity, even a little? (This question is rhetorical, I don't want you to answer with another rant about how players "just accept anything shoved in their face")

-You complain about literally every aspect of the game being disappointing and "half-baked" but when I give you an opportunity to give real suggestions you say "Their decision, their game." If that's the case, shut up and stop making long and pointless posts every day complaining about it.

Frankly, I'm sick of you, I'm sick of your whining, and I'm sick of you talking so much and not having anything to say.  It's time to admit to yourself you don't actually have any suggestions for how the game could be better, and I've given you more than enough chances for you to try to express a thought.  You said that it's the dev's decision, their game, so either accept it or stop making this community poorer for you being a part of it every day.

[LuxuryHeart]

On 11/21/2017 at 7:52 PM, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

Most people who play DS/DST right now, will probably not have any idea why both of these games are a sad reflection of themselves for me, but there's no happy-go-lucky way to put this with concerns not being raised.

I have always found it an issue that getting to a point where you can survive by sitting in a base while at the same time grinding for hours on end by harvesting, killing, storing, cooking in multiple crockpots, doing the same menial tasks over and over again etc. in order to achieve and maintain this status, was part of the games. They were there since the inception of Don't Starve, but for whatever reason became the supposed main goal of the game as a result of making a survival experience, despite the latter not necessitating to mean that the former will inevitably happen. Klei have tried in the past way more to add more things to the world to keep this from happening, but at the end of the day, you would get to a point where you are at this position. Now it seems as though they are trying to encourage it, rather than prevent it, and the game being more about the experience of the struggle, rather than standing near a campfire surrounded by hundreds of gold nuggets and gems, while beating every boss like it's your day job. It's the most generic a game can get, this isn't good game design. I mean, what's with the humongous amounts of decorative stuff, optional bosses, gaps in wrapping content well into the overarching game and

The video I linked points out what I believe to have led to such demise into a social club experience rather than a survival-adventure-horror one; players who complain about something being too hard simply because they could not beat something after they had previously gotten used to being comfortable beating everything on the whim and praising and demanding positivity, because apparently there's not enough of that here already. I may be a hypocrite here, in that I have probably done this myself at some point, and I now realise that it was my will at the time to simply gain a "professional" player status quicker rather than being guided and experiencing the game itself, which is what at first I had going for me, and what I am willing to believe got most people into the game in the first place. Exploits don't make a game good, it destroys the experience, we all know it, but many of us are compelled by it, because for some reason, it is to some level ingrained into us that being an elite 1000 day mega-base player is somehow getting yourself immersed with a well-crafted gaming experience.

People argue "it's difficult to implement a system that works well for the game" and while that is indeed true... how is that a detriment for the developers to put more effort into work with the game's design? They develop the game, sell it to us, and we are supposed to expect the most basic and thought-less mechanics that could be in the game? Why? Klei are not inept.

My point is, the fan base seemed to demand a lot of content that went to the detriment of the games, while just mentioning here and there how something could have been better, and Klei gave in. Now they're relying on skins and more skins through a grind-fasted event which, while great to play for a while and is much more seamless and rounded up than the base DST experience and the whole lot of DS, I've noticed that, is ultimately there just for reaping in more cash from the game because they can and not much more. I don't know how well Klei are doing, nobody can, but trying to justify the slow but steady creep into what larger game companies have now indulged themselves into real fast through the idea that the company's not getting enough cash to support the game is sickeningly manipulative.

Really, why should we continue to support the game, if at the end of the day you'll just end up with more farted out content and a bunch of skins than an actually improved experience to the game? Just so it can all be swallowed up, whoop whoop the hype train for whatever else is going to come out and be left unfinished and with half-baked and re-skinned content. I mean, The Forge is going away soon, and that's a moba experience, not a survival-adventure one as the game was and is still advertised as. And what we got from that was, well, basically another boss fight, just an exclusive one. Seriously, what is with the developers and the countless boss-fight introductions? It's just one boss fight after another, have you really ran out of good ideas for this whole thing?

You can call me negative as much as you want, but that's not going to put the games into a position where they are well-crafted experiences. I think it's at least good for one person to speak out about this rather than there being complete dead silence to keep squeaking the wheel of the blatantly obvious cranky ride that is Don't Starve franchise.

The way I see it, it's a perpetual cycle of supply-and-demand between Klei and the fandom, rather than well-designed experiences by the developers to be experienced and critically reviewed.

To be fair, all games are like this.  After a certain point, you beat the game and literally just BS around.  However, online games (i.e. Overwatch, Call of Duty, Mario Kart) can maintain a longer lifespan because you going against people who are also experienced.  

This is the hard part.  Balancing between the new players and pro players.  It sucks because pro players want to make the game as hard as possible while new players literally die quickly online.  I'm not blaming the new players in this situation to be honest.  It's the hardcore experienced players ruining things because they are the ones participating in the forum.  They ruined Willow because "she was too OP."  Now they all complain that she sucks now and needs to be reworked.  You can't make this up!  Of course new players do have their faults.  I recommended that they play offline before joining the online experience.  They learn the basics of the game, are able to contribute, yet learn and collaborate with other players.  Instead they join online and expect others to teach them while they contribute nothing.  

I remember playing Shipwrecked and struggling with finding antidote for poison.  Most people on here complained how hard it was to get it.  Like you literally have to go to several islands and surf around to find the ingredients.  Someone said that it needs to be harder to make.  Like really?  Even the more experienced players on this forum complained about it, but the better players didn't see a problem.  That ties into putting in content that hurts the game.  

[GuyNamedChris]

...tl;dr?

[Lumina]

Just now, Chris1488 said:

...tl;dr?

"I'm right, you're wrong [insert contempt or insult here]"

Mostly.

[Mario384]

Perhaps I can make a  fewcoherent suggestions on behalf of the forum poster which might ease some of his issues:

- The game should have more random events in it to keep the world lively and unique on each playthrough, with things akin to Koalaphant tracks, Klaus, etc...

- More combat variety could be implemented.  We got unqiue roles in the Forge (DPS, Tank, Healer, Reviver, Kiter), but in DST combat boils down to kiting and smacking with a stick.  Perhaps news weapons and armors could supplement new methods of combat, and come with accompanying mobs.

[Lumina]

I would like to see a way (if possible optional) to make the game harder over time. I mean, ok, there are hound waves, but the main difficulty over time is for seasons, and when you know them and are prepared, they aren't that much a challenge.
So season variation maybe, or other dangers, situation when food is becoming scarce so you have to rely on others way to obtain it, random events that could occur, beneficial or detrimental (pig/merm war for example).

Hound waves is even more frustrating than challenging because it interrupt you in what you were doing more than anything else. They are needed, but they don't really change your playstyle in a positive way (more a "will i avoid doing this because of hound wave ?).

 

I would like to see moments when you can't obtain some foods so you can't rely on the same trick, and have to change your playstyle. I don't know, berries becoming poisonous for a season, farm that will become wild and only give grass (kinda like in summer), fish becoming monster fish... Not all in the same time, of course.

[spideswine]

1 hour ago, Lumina said:

I would like to see a way (if possible optional) to make the game harder over time. I mean, ok, there are hound waves, but the main difficulty over time is for seasons, and when you know them and are prepared, they aren't that much a challenge.
So season variation maybe, or other dangers, situation when food is becoming scarce so you have to rely on others way to obtain it, random events that could occur, beneficial or detrimental (pig/merm war for example).

Hound waves is even more frustrating than challenging because it interrupt you in what you were doing more than anything else. They are needed, but they don't really change your playstyle in a positive way (more a "will i avoid doing this because of hound wave ?).

 

I would like to see moments when you can't obtain some foods so you can't rely on the same trick, and have to change your playstyle. I don't know, berries becoming poisonous for a season, farm that will become wild and only give grass (kinda like in summer), fish becoming monster fish... Not all in the same time, of course.

I just don't see a way to do those without conflicting with the current nature of the game.

I mean take summer for example, which is probably the most "difficult season", all it ends up doing is be a pain in the ass(base in desert/go underground), it has some value in pushing newer players to explore the caves, but is mostly just annoying to everyone else.

Harder "difficulty" will just end up gluing people to their base, as that's where food production is and most defenses are, granted you can threaten to destroy said base, but that just ends up even more annoying.

I suppose you could make a setting which will just disable food production(can't build bee boxes, bunny/pig houses/etc) to make the game feel more like a survival game, but that will just end up boring at some point.

The way I see it most of the difficulty in this game comes from knowledge(or more accurately, lack thereof it), tentacles are a hard foe when you start off, then you learn their attack pattern and they become easy, deerclops destroys your base when you start off, then you learn his attack pattern then it becomes easy, what foods to make/where to obtain them/what items to use through the seasons, all of the difficulty in this game comes from knowledge and once you obtain it it becomes easy, and that's not bad.

I mean let's face it, it takes quite a lot of time for most players to gain enough knowledge to kill fuelweaver, or even clear the ruins, just because this game doesn't have infinite replayability doesn't make it bad, you can add more content which will add more things for you to learn and more playtime to be had, and that's good, but it will only delay the inevitable.

Now granted some people really enjoy the base building side of things and then the game can actually have A LOT of replayability, but even if you don't it has plenty of difficulty and challenge for at least a few tens of hours.

[Toros]

2 hours ago, Chris1488 said:

...tl;dr?

This thread was created without any point that could’ve been condensed into a tl;dr.  Hopefully we can change that.

1 hour ago, Mario384 said:

Perhaps I can make a  fewcoherent suggestions on behalf of the forum poster which might ease some of his issues:

- The game should have more random events in it to keep the world lively and unique on each playthrough, with things akin to Koalaphant tracks, Klaus, etc...

- More combat variety could be implemented.  We got unqiue roles in the Forge (DPS, Tank, Healer, Reviver, Kiter), but in DST combat boils down to kiting and smacking with a stick.  Perhaps news weapons and armors could supplement new methods of combat, and come with accompanying mobs.

I would very much enjoy seeing more combat depth and weapon mechanics brought over from the forge, both marble armor and grass armor barely get any use.

1 hour ago, Lumina said:

I would like to see a way (if possible optional) to make the game harder over time. I mean, ok, there are hound waves, but the main difficulty over time is for seasons, and when you know them and are prepared, they aren't that much a challenge.
So season variation maybe, or other dangers, situation when food is becoming scarce so you have to rely on others way to obtain it, random events that could occur, beneficial or detrimental (pig/merm war for example).

Hound waves is even more frustrating than challenging because it interrupt you in what you were doing more than anything else. They are needed, but they don't really change your playstyle in a positive way (more a "will i avoid doing this because of hound wave ?).

 

I would like to see moments when you can't obtain some foods so you can't rely on the same trick, and have to change your playstyle. I don't know, berries becoming poisonous for a season, farm that will become wild and only give grass (kinda like in summer), fish becoming monster fish... Not all in the same time, of course.

We somewhat have that in winter with crops not growing and bee boxes not producing, but food balance in general has some issues.

For example:

-Monster meat and ice are far too useful and trivialize actual hunger issues in winter.  Ice as filler should be gone, monster meat shouldn’t be convertable into eggs as it allows both pierogi and bacon and eggs which are very potent.

-Farm crops in general provide low amounts of hunger and most crops have low utility as well.  Most of them could use significant buffs and most crockpot meals not involving meat or dragonpies actually give less hunger than the raw ingredients (looking at you, fistfull of jam)

-Bee boxes are too easy to set up and produce honey which easily restores health, hunger, and with crockpots, sanity.  The moment you get 3 set up per player food is a joke both short term and long term (and winter too).  Requiring multiple honeycombs per box would be a fair nerf, and capping the honey they can produce per day as well.

-Hound waves initially make the game slightly harder but quickly become regular deliveries of monster meat, hound teeth, and gems.  I personally disable hound waves because it gives nigh-infinite sewing kits which means the top tier clothing options might as well not have durability.

[Rellimarual]

26 minutes ago, spideswine said:

just because this game doesn't have infinite replayability doesn't make it bad, you can add more content which will add more things for you to learn and more playtime to be had, and that's good, but it will only delay the inevitable.

Personally, I think this is the core issue. However much you might love a game and however ingenious its developers are at refreshing it, you will eventually get tired of it. Just because DS/DST has been unusually engaging, doesn’t mean it can be infinitely engaging or that it needs to be drastically reworked to keep longtime players interested. Sometimes the “end game” is just finding a new game to play.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

I blame Klei for not fixing the spoiler indentation bug on the forum, it's really annoying and why everything is indented as it is here... You'll just have to deal with it and open up spoilers to read the rest, because I can't copy/cut out the content within the spoilers for some reason. I'm not on a mobile either, so it's not mobile version to blame.

@Toros where I have written "The focus of the point was" I meant to write:

"The focus of the point was how the mechanics can be expanded to create a more engaging experience with the player and make the player feel like what they're in combat with is much bigger of a threat than it may or may not be."

I can't edit it in, so, you'll just have to bear with that.

5 hours ago, Toros said:

I'm going to be quite honest with you:  I never believed you were capable of producing specific, coherent, or viable suggestions.  I've seen too many of your rambling posts to ever expect you capable of a real suggestion, an argument that isn't self-defeating

Explain to me what by your standards is a "coherent and viable suggestion"? This isn't a suggestion topic either. It's a reflection and an overview of what has been happening and, dare I say "where Klei went wrong". I have made some specific suggestions, but you don't have to be specific to make a suggestion, I don't know where you got that from. A reviewer doesn't say "this needs/needed more of this character doing this in this specific scenario instead of what we got to be better", they would say "it would have been better if the story put a bigger emphasis on this, rather than this". This can and does apply to games too.

And didn't I mention that making a suggestion is probably going to have Klei ignore it, no matter how good it is?

5 hours ago, Toros said:

or demonstrate you actually understand game mechanics.

 

You think I'm really that inexperienced, huh? Care to show me what makes you so good at understanding game mechanics? God, this is dumb...

4 hours ago, Toros said:

The reason I've asked you multiple times now to produce actual suggestions is that I knew you would fail, and I want other people to see that you had chances and failed at every one.  Instead you produce a slight variation on the same rant and despite this one perhaps being your magnum opus, the more clear you are the more clear it is you don't have a clue.

I. Am. Not. Trying. To. Make. Suggestions.

You wanted to see what I thought was wrong with the game specifically, so I gave you points later. At the beginning of the topic there are no suggestions, because this isn't a suggestion topic! Btw, if you want suggestions I have made, here's a list of some, contains concrete issues and concrete suggestions for dealing with said issues:

 

Now do you see? Some of these suggestions are exactly how you want them to be from what I can gather, some of these are exactly as I described about them before; "ludicrously nit-picky issues and how to address them". Most of these seem to have even gotten a positive reception from a lot of members. I'm gonna let you guess how many of those suggestions got implemented or even touched upon by a dev.

4 hours ago, Toros said:

While I would love to tear your post apart point by point, it would be a waste of my time as I don't expect you to learn (questionable if you're even capable) from any of this.  But here are some lowlights:

-You complain about bosses being easy to kite and tank, then suggest boarilla is a better example despite being easier to kite or tank than all of the DST bosses already (Goose/Goose and Bearger have disarms, Firefly has enrage, Deerclops freezes.  Bearger loots your food, Deerclops breaks your base if you don't keep his attention).  No one with a moderate understanding of game mechanics would contradict themselves like this.  Also, your tentacle suggestion is terrible.  No one wants tentacles to chain grab you until you die, there's nothing fun or interesting about that.

The focus of the point was 

You're basically saying A is easy with X, so B will be easy with X. This logic is flawed, because there's no mention of any other attributes of A and B, or any external attributes that might enhance X (e.g. the fact that the base game has survival elements, whilst in the forge you can run with the boarilla for as long as you want). Boarilla is only not deadly when you're in one specific position, all others can be quite fatal, imagine a tank trying to keep a boarilla busy while the rest are killing everything else.

I wasn't implying for tentacle-grabs to be complete insta-deaths, although, considering how death in DST doesn't mean much in relation to what it means in DS, hell, why not? The point was to put emphasis on varied attacks that could have their own levels of deadliness depending on how well you can handle yourself and how ready you are.

4 hours ago, Toros said:

-You complain about everyone doing the same repetitive and grindy things every game, and then suggest that a gear being used for a science machine would be a good idea.  You're wrong.  It would mean everyone would either pick tumbleweeds or kite/tank the first clockworks they ran into for gears, every game.  How does this promote your goal of gameplay diversity, even a little? (This question is rhetorical, I don't want you to answer with another rant about how players "just accept anything shoved in their face")

Well, if this is rhetorical, oh man, you've got me oh nooooes D:

-.- It was an example of a slight shift in game-play and the players needing to survive without the use of science machine's recipes (or alchemy engine for wicker) for longer, or, may be even rely on another player more, since wicker can build science machine stuff without one, which would give an essence of need in DST; to not starve TOGETHER? That's a very basic example of some thought being put into the game design for the games.

4 hours ago, Toros said:

-You complain about literally every aspect of the game being disappointing and "half-baked" but when I give you an opportunity to give real suggestions you say "Their decision, their game." If that's the case, shut up and stop making long and pointless posts every day complaining about it.

If I'm too vague, I get this ****, if I'm too specific, I get called out for nit-picking, you can't win! How about you re-read my beginning post of this topic, may be that'll answer your question. And again, you don't need to give the very pinnacle of specifics to give an idea of a suggestion or how a game can be improved, that's not how it has to work all the time!

4 hours ago, Toros said:

Frankly, I'm sick of you, I'm sick of your whining, and I'm sick of you talking so much and not having anything to say.  It's time to admit to yourself you don't actually have any suggestions for how the game could be better, and I've given you more than enough chances for you to try to express a thought.  You said that it's the dev's decision, their game, so either accept it or stop making this community poorer for you being a part of it every day.

How about you just ignore me? That is an option.

You know what, I don't understand why I'm bothering to answer to you anymore, it's like you try to completely ignore points that you think you can get away with or just stick to some arbitrary idea about to in order to show how much you hate my guts. I mean, I'm getting replied with points that don't even make sense to be assumed about me, what the hell?

One thing I realise though is that:

Klei is not your friend. They care way more about their reputation, and not whether they can make a good game. What they've done to DS and DST is a reflection of that.

And for everyone who thinks this is a suggestion topic:

This is not a suggestion topic. Read the first post of the topic, and try to get an idea of what I'm trying to say.

4 hours ago, LuxuryHeart said:

To be fair, all games are like this.  After a certain point, you beat the game and literally just BS around.  However, online games (i.e. Overwatch, Call of Duty, Mario Kart) can maintain a longer lifespan because you going against people who are also experienced.

For most of DS and DST content, you can't really beat anything. SW has no form of end goal to strive for, except may be escaping the world by default or harder settings at least once, and as for DST, it just hangs there at the ancient portal. But it's the fact that the journey towards this, the adventure, is not really an adventure once you know how to do things. There are ways to make it so that making a mega base that spans accross the entire world that you have conquered becomes unfeasible due to the nature of events around you, and Klei have tried to do things to prevent that. Now they are encouraging it instead, because that's easy to do, not much effort in game design and players will still give them overwhelmingly good reviews. Reputation is all, my friend!

4 hours ago, LuxuryHeart said:

To be fair, all games are like this.  After a certain point, you beat the game and literally just BS around.  However, online games (i.e. Overwatch, Call of Duty, Mario Kart) can maintain a longer lifespan because you going against people who are also experienced.  

This is the hard part.  Balancing between the new players and pro players.  It sucks because pro players want to make the game as hard as possible while new players literally die quickly online.  I'm not blaming the new players in this situation to be honest.  It's the hardcore experienced players ruining things because they are the ones participating in the forum.  They ruined Willow because "she was too OP."  Now they all complain that she sucks now and needs to be reworked.  You can't make this up!  Of course new players do have their faults.  I recommended that they play offline before joining the online experience.  They learn the basics of the game, are able to contribute, yet learn and collaborate with other players.  Instead they join online and expect others to teach them while they contribute nothing.

There are for sure ways that a compromise could be made. I've countlessly given suggestions in that regard a lot already, see this (I had to DIG to find this):

And also the whole rebalancing and encouraging of world options thing that I've mentioned countless times in this topic. Making players play on their own before joining others though, I think is part the same elitist mind-set that you seem to hate; it basically tells newbies to go play on their own until they git gud, instead of trying to play with others no matter your skill.

4 hours ago, LuxuryHeart said:

I remember playing Shipwrecked and struggling with finding antidote for poison.  Most people on here complained how hard it was to get it.  Like you literally have to go to several islands and surf around to find the ingredients.  Someone said that it needs to be harder to make.  Like really?  Even the more experienced players on this forum complained about it, but the better players didn't see a problem.  That ties into putting in content that hurts the game.  

That ties into trying to be a good game designer, which Klei and I guess Capy too stopped trying to be.

1 hour ago, Rellimarual said:

Personally, I think this is the core issue. However much you might love a game and however ingenious its developers are at refreshing it, you will eventually get tired of it. Just because DS/DST has been unusually engaging, doesn’t mean it can be infinitely engaging or that it needs to be drastically reworked to keep longtime players interested. Sometimes the “end game” is just finding a new game to play.

It doesn't need to be long-term engaging, but it needs to be long-term challenging, something a few games try to be, but something that actually makes a game's design good. It means that no matter how prepared or skilled/knowledgeable you are of something, something is still a challenging threat to you as a player, which can maintain to be at least some-what engaging. It's also what could keep, by default, giant bases by day 1000 from emerging ad the player from conquering the game as if it was WoW or a Civilisation-like game, or even keep players from reaching day 1000 entirely, especially if you have good progression in the game.

[LuxuryHeart]

2 hours ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

I blame Klei for not fixing the spoiler indentation bug on the forum, it's really annoying and why everything is indented as it is here... You'll just have to deal with it and open up spoilers to read the rest, because I can't copy/cut out the content within the spoilers for some reason. I'm not on a mobile either, so it's not mobile version to blame.

@Toros where I have written "The focus of the point was" I meant to write:

"The focus of the point was how the mechanics can be expanded to create a more engaging experience with the player and make the player feel like what they're in combat with is much bigger of a threat than it may or may not be."

I can't edit it in, so, you'll just have to bear with that.

Explain to me what by your standards is a "coherent and viable suggestion"? This isn't a suggestion topic either. It's a reflection and an overview of what has been happening and, dare I say "where Klei went wrong". I have made some specific suggestions, but you don't have to be specific to make a suggestion, I don't know where you got that from. A reviewer doesn't say "this needs/needed more of this character doing this in this specific scenario instead of what we got to be better", they would say "it would have been better if the story put a bigger emphasis on this, rather than this". This can and does apply to games too.

And didn't I mention that making a suggestion is probably going to have Klei ignore it, no matter how good it is?

  Hide contents

You think I'm really that inexperienced, huh? Care to show me what makes you so good at understanding game mechanics? God, this is dumb...

I. Am. Not. Trying. To. Make. Suggestions.

You wanted to see what I thought was wrong with the game specifically, so I gave you points later. At the beginning of the topic there are no suggestions, because this isn't a suggestion topic! Btw, if you want suggestions I have made, here's a list of some, contains concrete issues and concrete suggestions for dealing with said issues:

  Hide contents

Now do you see? Some of these suggestions are exactly how you want them to be from what I can gather, some of these are exactly as I described about them before; "ludicrously nit-picky issues and how to address them". Most of these seem to have even gotten a positive reception from a lot of members. I'm gonna let you guess how many of those suggestions got implemented or even touched upon by a dev.

The focus of the point was 

You're basically saying A is easy with X, so B will be easy with X. This logic is flawed, because there's no mention of any other attributes of A and B, or any external attributes that might enhance X (e.g. the fact that the base game has survival elements, whilst in the forge you can run with the boarilla for as long as you want). Boarilla is only not deadly when you're in one specific position, all others can be quite fatal, imagine a tank trying to keep a boarilla busy while the rest are killing everything else.

I wasn't implying for tentacle-grabs to be complete insta-deaths, although, considering how death in DST doesn't mean much in relation to what it means in DS, hell, why not? The point was to put emphasis on varied attacks that could have their own levels of deadliness depending on how well you can handle yourself and how ready you are.

Well, if this is rhetorical, oh man, you've got me oh nooooes D:

-.- It was an example of a slight shift in game-play and the players needing to survive without the use of science machine's recipes (or alchemy engine for wicker) for longer, or, may be even rely on another player more, since wicker can build science machine stuff without one, which would give an essence of need in DST; to not starve TOGETHER? That's a very basic example of some thought being put into the game design for the games.

If I'm too vague, I get this ****, if I'm too specific, I get called out for nit-picking, you can't win! How about you re-read my beginning post of this topic, may be that'll answer your question. And again, you don't need to give the very pinnacle of specifics to give an idea of a suggestion or how a game can be improved, that's not how it has to work all the time!

How about you just ignore me? That is an option.

You know what, I don't understand why I'm bothering to answer to you anymore, it's like you try to completely ignore points that you think you can get away with or just stick to some arbitrary idea about to in order to show how much you hate my guts. I mean, I'm getting replied with points that don't even make sense to be assumed about me, what the hell?

One thing I realise though is that:

Klei is not your friend. They care way more about their reputation, and not whether they can make a good game. What they've done to DS and DST is a reflection of that.

And for everyone who thinks this is a suggestion topic:

This is not a suggestion topic. Read the first post of the topic, and try to get an idea of what I'm trying to say.

For most of DS and DST content, you can't really beat anything. SW has no form of end goal to strive for, except may be escaping the world by default or harder settings at least once, and as for DST, it just hangs there at the ancient portal. But it's the fact that the journey towards this, the adventure, is not really an adventure once you know how to do things. There are ways to make it so that making a mega base that spans accross the entire world that you have conquered becomes unfeasible due to the nature of events around you, and Klei have tried to do things to prevent that. Now they are encouraging it instead, because that's easy to do, not much effort in game design and players will still give them overwhelmingly good reviews. Reputation is all, my friend!

There are for sure ways that a compromise could be made. I've countlessly given suggestions in that regard a lot already, see this (I had to DIG to find this):

And also the whole rebalancing and encouraging of world options thing that I've mentioned countless times in this topic. Making players play on their own before joining others though, I think is part the same elitist mind-set that you seem to hate; it basically tells newbies to go play on their own until they git gud, instead of trying to play with others no matter your skill.

That ties into trying to be a good game designer, which Klei and I guess Capy too stopped trying to be.

It doesn't need to be long-term engaging, but it needs to be long-term challenging, something a few games try to be, but something that actually makes a game's design good. It means that no matter how prepared or skilled/knowledgeable you are of something, something is still a challenging threat to you as a player, which can maintain to be at least some-what engaging. It's also what could keep, by default, giant bases by day 1000 from emerging ad the player from conquering the game as if it was WoW or a Civilisation-like game, or even keep players from reaching day 1000 entirely, especially if you have good progression in the game.

This isn't an elitist mindset.  I said until they learn the basics.  I don't mind new players, as long as they aren't co-dependent on me to the point of it being ridiculous.  There's, "which mushrooms make me sane?" and then there's "can I follow you around the entire game/camp at your base the entire time?"  At least learn enough to be able to survive on your own.  Like you shouldn't stalk me and take some of my loot like a Shipwrecked Monkey.

[Mario384]

 

3 hours ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

Klei is not your friend. They care way more about their reputation, and not whether they can make a good game. What they've done to DS and DST is a reflection of that.

 

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.

[Lumina]

9 hours ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

Klei is not your friend. They care way more about their reputation, and not whether they can make a good game. What they've done to DS and DST is a reflection of that.

The thing is, the good games ARE their reputation.

 

11 hours ago, spideswine said:

 

I mean take summer for example, which is probably the most "difficult season", all it ends up doing is be a pain in the ass(base in desert/go underground), it has some value in pushing newer players to explore the caves, but is mostly just annoying to everyone else.

Harder "difficulty" will just end up gluing people to their base, as that's where food production is and most defenses are, granted you can threaten to destroy said base, but that just ends up even more annoying.

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.

11 hours ago, spideswine said:

 

I mean let's face it, it takes quite a lot of time for most players to gain enough knowledge to kill fuelweaver, or even clear the ruins, just because this game doesn't have infinite replayability doesn't make it bad, you can add more content which will add more things for you to learn and more playtime to be had, and that's good, but it will only delay the inevitable.

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.

11 hours ago, Toros said:

12 hours ago, Lumina said:

 

We somewhat have that in winter with crops not growing and bee boxes not producing, but food balance in general has some issues.

For example:

-Monster meat and ice are far too useful and trivialize actual hunger issues in winter.  Ice as filler should be gone, monster meat shouldn’t be convertable into eggs as it allows both pierogi and bacon and eggs which are very potent.

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.

11 hours ago, Toros said:

 

-Bee boxes are too easy to set up and produce honey which easily restores health, hunger, and with crockpots, sanity.  The moment you get 3 set up per player food is a joke both short term and long term (and winter too).  Requiring multiple honeycombs per box would be a fair nerf, and capping the honey they can produce per day as well.

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.