Why Has Nothing Changed?

[TheKingofSquirrels]

On 19/03/2018 at 1:18 AM, JoeW said:

I don't think you're putting enough thought into how big of a change an entire rebalance on characters is and how much that would affect literally everybody who plays the game, those who want changes and those who don't. Believe it or not, that takes a lot of work, and when most people are fine with it the way it is, it really has to be justifiable work. So it would need to be really cool and for a good reason. 

Hi, just wanted to mention a few things.

So obviously, we underestimate how much work this...But I don't think "the most people are fine with it at it is" is a justifiable reason for not doing changes. A few reasons why:

A) "when most people are fine with it the way it is"...Is that actually true? I don't mean to sound abrasive, but is there any way of actually knowing that. Surely, the drop in Willow and Woody players from DS to DST and the lack of Winona players should indicate the latter? (if there even is a way of seeing statics like that). 

B) The game Rainbow Siege Six has multiple characters and they are ALWAYS doing little re-balances for them. Usually it's just small things, they aren't huge changes, but still justifiable because they make for a better experience. Sometimes it can be annoying...but that's mostly when it's nerfs (and even then, the community is mature enough to handle it). The Willow, Woody and Winona complaints are all about these characters needing upgrades.

So I think it's kinda safe to assume, that most of the community wouldn't be too upset to see them receive a boost of some sort.

On 19/03/2018 at 1:18 AM, JoeW said:

If you haven't thought about it, during The Forge, we played around and tried some things with character abilities and roles and we'll be doing something with the Big Event #2 as well. While those aren't permanent, they do let us experiment in interesting ways. 

If they aren't permanent, then it kinda makes me wonder...What's the point? Forge is fun, but it's not what people bought this game for. They want the survival experience.

I'm not saying stuff like Forge isn't worthwhile (Again, Rainbow did something similar and made like a Zombie event thing). It's a fun thing. It's just...There's no point making character changes that the community wants in a timed event. 

And if the whole point is to experiment...Then if it's a success, it should transferred to the core game. If not, what was the point of the experiment?

On 19/03/2018 at 1:18 AM, JoeW said:

 I understand that some people don't feel that mods are a good solution because they aren't official. 

It's not just that. It's more reliable. You don't have to worry about your world bugging out or the mod suddenly dropping off the face of the earth. 

P.S. pls do something with Winona. It's honestly been the biggest disappointment this community has ever experienced. From day 1, people were not happy.

1 hour ago, Mario384 said:

I've played on a lot of different servers, with a lot of different people.  Never met anyone who could at the very least survive Winter say Woodie and Willow are fine as they are.  If Klei needs proof, put a survey linked in-game to let people share their opinions, and then we'll see how people feel.

This is a really great idea.

[MondayNight]

37 minutes ago, Mario384 said:

Never met anyone who could at the very least survive Winter say Woodie and Willow are fine as they are.

This just made me laugh, thank you, sincerely!

Don't know what people and servers got you to this conclusion, but clearly not what I (and a lot of my friends) experienced.

If I wanna survive (and then thrive) going in a Winter server knowing no one will help me (and I'm never asking for help) - as in most public official servers - hands down I pick Willow for her lighter (burning solitary trees for warmth). Second pick is Woodie (axe and small isolation perk, plus going beaver for mining). Need I say once more my main for a long time was Woodie?! Just one of my happy runs in a Winter-and-Night-Only server (love those), with an even more happy Woodie, day 312 at the print-screen time with a Cave base:

Spoiler

Never mind that, I misread it.

 

Regarding idea of "many people complain about", again it's actually a very VERY small-but-vocal minority as per 90-9-1 Rule for Participation Inequality in social media that can be applied here as well: ~1% from total player mass participates a lot and accounts for most contributions; and from these 1% - us here frequent posters - opinions diverge all over the place.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

2 minutes ago, xxVERSUSxy said:

This just made me laugh, thank you, sincerely!

Don't know what people and servers got you to this conclusion, but clearly not what I (and a lot of my friends) experienced.

If I wanna survive (and then thrive) going in a Winter server knowing no one will help me (and I'm never asking for help) - as in most public official servers - hands down I pick Willow for her lighter (burning solitary trees for warmth). Second pick is Woodie (axe and small isolation perk, plus going beaver for mining). Need I say once more my main for a long time was Woodie?! Just one of my happy runs in a Winter-and-Night-Only server (love those), with an even more happy Woodie, day 312 at the print-screen time with a Cave base:

 

Regarding idea of "many people complain about", again it's actually a very VERY small-but-vocal minority as per 90-9-1 Rule for Participation Inequality in social media that can be applied here as well: ~1% from total player mass participates a lot and accounts for most contributions; and from these 1% - us here frequent posters - opinions diverge all over the place.

Why confused?

[Mr.Mulk]

49 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but when it comes to changing things, it’s good to remember that people who don’t want to see changes don’t tend to create long forum threads explaining why they like things the way they are. The existence of long or even many forum threads complaining about this or that aspect of the game is only evidence that a very motivated minority is dissatisfied. That’s not to say that there may not be a lot of people who share that dissatisfaction, but the amount and length of forum posts proves nothing.

Several things. Firstly, the initial group of people you mention, the "people who are opposed to it but don't say anything," you're implying (perhaps unintentionally) constitute everyone who doesn't say anything. I'd suggest that the actual majority of people don't actually have an opinion, as the median play time for players is 2ish hours.The vast majority of players could care less if Klei buffed Willow/Woodie, assuming it wasn't so astronomically gamebreaking it made the game unplayable.

To suggest that the fact there is a near constant flow of buff threads has literally no meaning or validity on the subject seems ridiculous, because these forums I'd like to think are a more accurate representation of what constitutes the actual dedicated playerbase. Obviously not everyone is here but the sample is large enough to represent the population, and the fact that there are so many threads coming from just the sample does justifies klei taking notice and making adjustments, at least in my opinion.

Not to mention, the forums is the place for concerned players to make their voices heard, and the fact that so many have done this on this very subject must be taken into account as validated evidence of community desire. The true question in regards is to ask whether or not this group, along with the "don't care either way group" is large enough to support the buffs.

49 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

It would be very offputting if DST were subject to frequent significant change every time somebody got vocal enough about a preference on the forums that the devs felt obligated to comply, and then the rest of us were supposed to test it out afterwards and then maybe it would change back or some other change would be made. That’s basically a perpetual beta or even an alpha version of a game that’s supposed to be more or less done. It’s also a system that could be easily trolled.

Some things to point out. Not one of the bunches of threads is suggesting Klei take a "Blizzard Stance" and just immediately start making constant character tweaks. And even if they did, it'd never actually happen as Klei is not Blizzard and has shown no intention of becoming them in regards to character tweaks. Sure we want some character rebalancing but to suggest this is a bad thing "because it may cause this constant tweaking" is extreme, it's still leaving something that's broken, well,  broken. If there's a visable issue within the game, it still needs to be fixed regardless of what number fix this is. And to be entirely fair Klei hasn't shown themselves opposed to tweaking entirely, specifically with other aspects of the game. They always seem to be hammering something out or slightly changing another, it's just usually too small for most players to notice.

49 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

For all I know, there are a lot of players who would strongly object to changing Williow and Woodie, or there would be repercussions that people here haven’t anticipated but that the devs have to take into consideration. 

I'll use myself for personal example here. I've played the game for well over a thousand hours, and trust me when I tell you I've encountered a lot of different people. To this day, I have yet to encounter a single person who told me they'd be opposed to buffing Willow and Woodie. And trust me when I say it gets brought up a lot (Willow main here). The closest thing to opposition to a buff I've encountered is the schadenfreude of meta players who enjoy being able to dominate the weaker characters, however even the most belligerent admit a buff would be necessary to improve Willow/Woodie. Really the argument is less about whether or not they need a buff, more about what that buff would constitute.

I don't mean any disrespect with this at all, just wanted to point out my opinion(s) on the stances you've made

Something I do agree with is the stance that the fact as a community we tend to be splintered on the constitution of the proposed buff hurting our chances of making a difference (although still not justification for inaction). At the end of the day, however it is in Klei's hands so the best thing we could do is work together to figure out how to present our desires in a way that is logical and easy to understand.

[MondayNight]

18 minutes ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

Why confused?

First pls put some spoiler tags when quoting others' (pretty long) posts - or just quote the part you will actually comment on, it just stretches your own comments needlessly. Otherwise @nickname works fine for its purpose.

Second:

50 minutes ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

But I don't think "the most people are with it is fine it" is a..

(oh well all of us blunder from time to time)

 

And finally there are just 2,5 months from last big event's (The Forge) end - maybe we will see a bit later on some of its features implemented in main branch?! Willow and Woodie under-perform - that's for sure - but, as we can see, this issue isn't game-breaking thus not a priority (as for how many people are very displeased with this - global in-game survey would clarify for certain). Though would be nice if Woodie/Willow's under-performance would be addressed by Klei via some buffs. On the other hand Winona was, for avid players, just a general disappointment; Wilson without beard insulation, building 2x faster (ok), and making cheaper sewing kits (meh) aren't traits that could justify a new such character at this point in the game's lifespan.

[fimmatek]

51 minutes ago, Mr.Mulk said:

however even the most belligerent admit a buff would be necessary to improve Willow/Woodie.

I for one don't think that any buff is necessary for them. It would be nice, and could improve them if done well, but in my opinion such changes are far from actally necessary. 

Willow and Woodie are character that aren't so overpowered and have an actual drawback. The Werebeaver is quite fine in my opinion, even if maybe isn't that good as in DS (haven't played him there too much, so I don't really know). But his curse is at last a disatvantage that stays significant even in late game, unlike Wolfgang's or Wickerbottom's. Almost every character's drawbacks can be countered with a decent team/player, which is the reason why I find him more interesting than most of the other characters. I'm not against some rework or buffs, but he should keep some significant drawback.

[Mr.Mulk]

14 minutes ago, fimmatek said:

I for one don't think that any buff is necessary for them. It would be nice, and could improve them if done well, but in my opinion such changes are far from actally necessary. 

Please take a second to look over the wording a bit more in depth. I stated they admit a buff would be necessary to improve them, not that the group in question thinks a buff is necessary. It's a small detail but it makes a huge difference in meaning. You might not think it is necessary, but even you admitted a buff would be important to improve their characters (with the valid caveat of quality).

14 minutes ago, fimmatek said:

Willow and Woodie are character that aren't so overpowered and have an actual drawback. The Werebeaver is quite fine in my opinion, even if maybe isn't that good as in DS (haven't played him there too much, so I don't really know). But his curse is at last a disatvantage that stays significant even in late game, unlike Wolfgang's or Wickerbottom's. Almost every character's drawbacks can be countered with a decent team/player, which is the reason why I find him more interesting than most of the other characters. I'm not against some rework or buffs, but he should keep some significant drawback.

By this logic we should nerf the meta then, which while I'm not opposed to I understand why Klei will not. The way I'm suggesting to make the disparity less is with a buff to Willow and Woodie, although it could certainly be done the other route too.

[fimmatek]

7 minutes ago, Mr.Mulk said:

Please take a second to look over the wording a bit more in depth. I stated they admit a buff would be necessary to improve them, not that the group in question thinks a buff is necessary. It's a small detail but it makes a huge difference in meaning. You might not think it is necessary, but even you admitted a buff would be important to improve their characters (with the valid caveat of quality).

Thanks for clarifying that, I did misunderstood there what you wrote.

[Lumina]

On 21/03/2018 at 11:47 PM, Rellimarual said:

It would be very offputting if DST were subject to frequent significant change every time somebody got vocal enough about a preference on the forums that the devs felt obligated to comply, and then the rest of us were supposed to test it out afterwards and then maybe it would change back or some other change would be made. That’s basically a perpetual beta or even an alpha version of a game that’s supposed to be more or less done. It’s also a system that could be easily trolled.

We don't necessarily need frequent significant change every time somebody got vocal enough. We can take time, to consider and consider again, to debate, to see if other changes that aren't directly related to balance are improving the situation.

I mean, subjects about balance are discussed since a very long time, so we aren't in a situation that is particularly unstable. There are many topics, feedbacks, and analysis about this, even if of course, some could be subjective or not perfect.

This is totally ok for Klei to take time and not change things too often, this is important for players (especially players that have difficulty with the game : a game changing too much, too often, is even harder to master).

 

But it's also important to verify, time to time, if some problems, unbalance or anything like this, that exist for a long time, could be fixed, improved or changed. A New Reign did it, sometimes with small touch, sometimes with bigger changes.

 

An update could come that give improvements, and rebalance some character amongst other things. I consider it being the best option, anyway : this way, people have other things to distract them for changes if the rebalance isn't their thing for whatever reason, people not playing the character still have new things to enjoy (avoiding to have to change all character to give them something new, because in the current state of balance, it's not necessarily possible), and it will probably feel better anyway.

About the "beta" thing, well, there are beta for a reason, and Klei will work on change before the beta anyway, so i don't think it's something to be worried about, as long of course as changes aren't too frequents : but anyway, we are speaking about what ? Changes if they happen will not happen before months, because Klei is focused in the second event.

 

So even if a change happen, it will be after a long stable period without change, with a lot of feedbacks and analysis, with a lot of debate, and possibly a lot of various suggestions. I don't think we should be afraid of these kind of changes.

[Mr.Mulk]

7 hours ago, Lumina said:

We don't necessarily need frequent significant change every time somebody got vocal enough. We can take time, to consider and consider again, to debate, to see if other changes that aren't directly related to balance are improving the situation.

I mean, subjects about balance are discussed since a very long time, so we aren't in a situation that is particularly unstable. There are many topics, feedbacks, and analysis about this, even if of course, some could be subjective or not perfect.

This is totally ok for Klei to take time and not change things too often, this is important for players (especially players that have difficulty with the game : a game changing too much, too often, is even harder to master).

But it's also important to verify, time to time, if some problems, unbalance or anything like this, that exist for a long time, could be fixed, improved or changed. A New Reign did it, sometimes with small touch, sometimes with bigger changes.

An update could come that give improvements, and rebalance some character amongst other things. I consider it being the best option, anyway : this way, people have other things to distract them for changes if the rebalance isn't their thing for whatever reason, people not playing the character still have new things to enjoy (avoiding to have to change all character to give them something new, because in the current state of balance, it's not necessarily possible), and it will probably feel better anyway.

About the "beta" thing, well, there are beta for a reason, and Klei will work on change before the beta anyway, so i don't think it's something to be worried about, as long of course as changes aren't too frequents : but anyway, we are speaking about what ? Changes if they happen will not happen before months, because Klei is focused in the second event.

So even if a change happen, it will be after a long stable period without change, with a lot of feedbacks and analysis, with a lot of debate, and possibly a lot of various suggestions. I don't think we should be afraid of these kind of changes.

I agree with this.

I also agree that it's time for a character rebalance, although that's pretty obvious by most post. I get some might be afraid because it's been so long or that they worry of a landslide of tweaking will ensue, however I think in this situation it's more than warranted based of the current stance of things.

 

[ButteryStancake]

nerf wes he op

EDIT: get it it's ironic humor aren't I so original xd

[364266_1452783569]

They don't care about you.

[Phen]

Just give woodie a cleaving mechanic like when he swings his axe, all the other trees get affected by the swing and gradually increases in range as he chops.  Just an idea.

[mochilo]

I will drop an informative bomb that may surprise some of you. Ready?

This is not a competitive game. There is no reason to compare characters against each other or make them equal. 

 

BOOOOM

 

[fimmatek]

My my, I haven't seen this thread in ages, I was already almost missing it.

[watermelen671]

Who necro'd this thread?

Spoiler

Why am I even still here?! SOMEONE PLEASE REDIRECT ME OVER TO THE ONI SIDE OF THESE FORUMS!! 

 

[Szczuku]

19 minutes ago, watermelen671 said:

Who necro'd this thread?

  Reveal hidden contents

Why am I even still here?! SOMEONE PLEASE REDIRECT ME OVER TO THE ONI SIDE OF THESE FORUMS!! 

 

[watermelen671]

6 minutes ago, Szczuku said:

FIFY

Spoiler

@Szczuku click the pic.

 

[Sinister_Fang]

7 hours ago, mochilo said:

I will drop an informative bomb that may surprise some of you. Ready?

This is not a competitive game. There is no reason to compare characters against each other or make them equal. 

 

BOOOOM

 

I never understood this argument. Yeah, pve balance isn't as important as pvp balance, but that's no reason to ignore it. Doing so would just decrease character variety. A lot of people prefer to play as optimal as possible, so picking a character that's inferior to others just isn't an option for them. I personally would love to see more people using characters like Woodie or Willow, but not everyone enjoys playing as characters that are generally inferior to everyone else.

[Ressayez]

33 minutes ago, Sinister_Fang said:

I never understood this argument. Yeah, pve balance isn't as important as pvp balance, but that's no reason to ignore it. Doing so would just decrease character variety. A lot of people prefer to play as optimal as possible, so picking a character that's inferior to others just isn't an option for them. I personally would love to see more people using characters like Woodie or Willow, but not everyone enjoys playing as characters that are generally inferior to everyone else.

while nobody should be attacked or criticized for using characters like willow or winona when playing dst, we should still be able to critique the characters themselves, so long as, again, it's not devolving into ad hominem attacks on people who use the characters in their current state

i for one, play "bad characters" quite a bit, and i'd still like to see them changed in the future

i look at willow and winona in particular and i'm just disappointed, they're just oozing with potential to be something great, yet that doesn't mean that when i join a server and someone is playing one of those two ladies i smirk to myself and smugly type "you know winbona is literally just a better wislon, right? almost no point in playing her when you have better options like WOLFGREG, smh, so useles"

edit: sry for responding to u, sinister, was more a response to mochilo and others with the mindset that "dst isnt competitive, so therefore characters being fun to play doesnt matter"

[Lumina]

1 hour ago, Sinister_Fang said:

I never understood this argument. Yeah, pve balance isn't as important as pvp balance, but that's no reason to ignore it.

Also, if there is no reason to make character equal, it does mean that you have even more space to change character, because it will not ruin the fun of someone if suddently woodie, for example, is more powerful or fun to play.

I think Klei have some possibility to change things, even if of course i understand that it's hard to change things (because people have their habit and could react strongly to changes). Anyway, at the moment, we'll probably have a very different balance during the event, and it will be a nice change. I hope seeing change to the base game, but i already appreciate having opportunities to try others characters and playstyle during events.

[CaptainChaotica]

I have no problem with PvP balance existing as well.  HowEVer, quite often it seems that what balances a character well for one form of play will not work well at all for the OTHER, so...

Basically we'd need two versions of each character, to make sure that the PvP tweaks don't mess up the fun and playstyle of the PvE players, and vice versa. :\

Also DON'T FREAKING NECRO, YOU RANDOM PILE OF NUMBERS geez.

...Notorious

[mochilo]

3 hours ago, Sinister_Fang said:

I never understood this argument. Yeah, pve balance isn't as important as pvp balance, but that's no reason to ignore it. Doing so would just decrease character variety. A lot of people prefer to play as optimal as possible, so picking a character that's inferior to others just isn't an option for them. I personally would love to see more people using characters like Woodie or Willow, but not everyone enjoys playing as characters that are generally inferior to everyone else.

I tried to put it quite simple, to reach everyone's understanding

I didn't even express my personal opinion or made an argument about it. Just trying to end a never-ending story with a simple fact that could help to stop making up unexistent "needs". It's up to you to look at the subject from a point of view or the other; to see that as a "problem" or a virtue of the game, or simply a decission from the developers team or the person who created the game and wanted it that way. You can't tell an artist to change a piece of his song or his painting because you think it would be more apropriate on a different way.

Ooooor you can keep thinking you are more right than others and keep discussing it forever, creating amazing posts full of well constructed arguments and ideas that will go nowhere. It's all about your point of view of choice.

[Sinister_Fang]

6 hours ago, mochilo said:

I tried to put it quite simple, to reach everyone's understanding

I didn't even express my personal opinion or made an argument about it. Just trying to end a never-ending story with a simple fact that could help to stop making up unexistent "needs". It's up to you to look at the subject from a point of view or the other; to see that as a "problem" or a virtue of the game, or simply a decission from the developers team or the person who created the game and wanted it that way. You can't tell an artist to change a piece of his song or his painting because you think it would be more apropriate on a different way.

Ooooor you can keep thinking you are more right than others and keep discussing it forever, creating amazing posts full of well constructed arguments and ideas that will go nowhere. It's all about your point of view of choice.

I was going to write a serious reply, but my neck is starting to hurt. Mind I get the ladder so you can get down from your high horse?

[Lumina]

10 hours ago, mochilo said:

You can't tell an artist to change a piece of his song or his painting because you think it would be more apropriate on a different way.

Well, yes of course you do. And of course it was done during history. How it is possible to say something so untrue ?

Some people pay artist for precise work (so they tell them to change it and do whatever they want). Some artists ask for feedback. Some artists don't ask for feedback but are still open to them. If the artist express that they doesn't want feedback, you have to respect this, of course.

 

But here, we are in a game when we were involved multiple times (first beta, ANR beta, Forge beta, not even including classic Don't Starve and RoG beta). We are in a game from a studio that ask for feedback often (a lot of game have Early Access of some kind). We are in a forum with a suggestion section. And in this very topic, we have someone saying this :

On 19/03/2018 at 2:18 AM, JoeW said:

Everybody knows what we're working on right now. And when we're done with that, we'll be working on something else. I don't know what that is, so discussions like this go a long way to help us prioritize things when we decide what we're doing next. 

(And it's just one example)

So yes, we can tell them what change we would like to see, what will make the game better for our point of view. The artistic statut of the game doesn't prevent this. However, we can tell them, but we must respect them in the process : being polite, keeping in mind that whatever we are expressing is a point of view, not a revealed truth, and accept that they have the final word (because we aren't patrons paying for a work).

 

So please, don't try to end discussion with an argument as fragile and irrelevant as "game is art, you can't ask for change". Especially when we have a message here showing that this kind of discussion is perfectly ok. There is no point trying to end things to the pleasure of ending things. If people need to discuss this matter, and if this matter is allowed to discuss (and it is), then this discussion could go forever, it's not a problem, especially since we can freely not read this topic, or not post on it, if for whatever reason we don't like this subject.

 

As long of course as people are polite and respect Klei's decisions, but as far as i can tell, this is the case, people asking for a change are polite here.