BeanBagSonic

  • Content count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

108 Excellent

About BeanBagSonic

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

163 profile views
  1. Why Are You Guys Quiet?

    If we were that dedicated to proving that we're both in the right or the wrong, we could host our own servers, have one join the other, and vice versa. If you're interested, you could PM me and we could try it out and see how things go. We'd play a normal world with default settings, and see how our performances are. So yes, we can't prove our claims by word of mouth, but we can try to host our own servers and have us join our servers and see how things play out. It's up to you, though. I personally don't mind. PM me if you're interested. If not, that's alright. As I've already said, mods don't fix problems, merely mask them. I do agree with your comment about wanting to see new content rather than focus immediately on a singleplayer mode, I can admit my wrongdoing there. It was my mistake to not mention that Klei could work on the singleplayer mode way after new content has been included. I didn't want the proposal to come off as a number one priority, but it would be an option that would create a more enjoyable experience for those that like singleplayer and also DST's refined engine. Klei can work on things at their own pace, and I can respect what they think is the main priority, which I would also say is new content at the moment. Your last two lines are a misinterpretation of my previous points. I did not directly link those two together as if adjusted boss health would fix lag, that is preposterous. I can't prove that the "singleplayer" setting would be less laggy, but ideally it wouldn't be laggy. I was proposing a theoretical, if that makes sense. The developers have the most knowledge on that though, and if they can clarify on that aspect, that would be appreciated. I don't know what skill level has to do with any of this. I was talking about ease-of-access for other players. This isn't about me at all. If my advice came off as patronizing, my apologies. I don't understand why you accept downgrading yourself though, as if you were more of a defeatist, and that's where I was trying to help. If you were offended at any point, my apologies. I meant no harm, I simply wanted to help out. As for you saying "That's it," well, I don't think that was it. I mean look where we're at now. I'm kind of lost with your further claims about skill level and all that in both games. I think that's irrelevant, as I was talking about mechanics operating more smoothly in DST. Mechanics working as they should doesn't mean a game is easier more so than it means a game is playable. I unfortunately can't follow through with your suggestion because you're bringing up skill level in a game, and I don't get what that has to do with what we've discussed.
  2. Why Are You Guys Quiet?

    You have overlooked an ungodly amount of additional details that we have provided that I no longer want to continue discussing this if you will continually refuse to acknowledge all the points that have been made. If you simply don't like to read long paragraphs, then please say so. Otherwise, don't engage in conversation if you will purposefully ignore and straw man our arguments. The Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy analogy is so off-base that I can't actually take that seriously. Yes, the surrounding stuff matters a lot, and that's the difference you clearly see in both games, not to mention all its other differences, from new game mechanics and graphics. I have only taken direct quotes from you and explained the flaws behind them, but I do understand that this thread has indeed been a matter of talking in circles. I know you said you no longer want to engage in this conversation, but you would have to provide examples of me putting words in your mouth, because I have done none of that. Your first line didn't give off as much of a punch as you have hoped it would. You aren't explaining how I'm wrong either, so I can't take that statement seriously. If you can prove me wrong, I will very well admit that I have been wrong then, but for the time being I will stand by my posts. Though if you're telling me to try to admit I'm wrong, I'd suggest you do the same then. If you weren't against it, would we be having this very discussion? I don't think so. You say now that you have no objection, to which I can only acknowledge. I would argue though that DS is slowly becoming an option that people don't actually want, but I suppose that's up for debate. Point is, as said multiple times, DS and DST are the same game, though others seem to disagree. Am I wrong? I don't believe so, but take points of mine and tell me how I'm wrong then, and if they're valid points, then that's great. It's a lot better to be proven wrong than to always believe you're right, so prove me wrong.
  3. Why Are You Guys Quiet?

    At this point it's a problem on your end then, and the proposed singleplayer mode for DST would only benefit you, and if it doesn't, consider investing in a better internet plan or a better computer. I don't know what else to say, but I don't know how you could be against something that would benefit Don't Starve Together and Klei, along with its playerbase, in the long run. As @Crimson Chin has already stated, DS and DST are already such a huge split between the playerbases. Working towards something that would unify both playerbases is something that, ideally, most should vouch for. It would appeal to both playerbases, but would also provide more options in case one or the other craves multiplayer or singleplayer. The only way you can actually make it clearer is to provide video evidence or something, because right now it's only you saying that you've got an issue that others have not experienced when hosting a 1 player-slot server with all the other details I have mentioned previously. I will continue to offer you "guidelines" because I believe there's a lot more you could actually consider, rather than just living with the fact that you suffer from connection problems and have to reduce yourself to having two copies of the same game. EDIT: The sad reality is that not all games are meant to run on low-spec computers, and not all game developers can cater to low-spec needs. This is probably a case of your computer or internet provider to be improved so that you have more options in the future. To bring up an anecdote, I used to have a horrible laptop that was quite slow and was overall not meant for gaming, but I had still hosted DST servers without a problem, and with players in it no less. Nowadays I have a much better gaming laptop, and I can host DST servers fine without any issues, but my point is that even back when I had a laptop that couldn't run any other games besides DS, DST and various pixel games, I was able to host servers with people fine.
  4. Why Are You Guys Quiet?

    I accept your apology, but I'm disheartened to hear that you can't see the similarities. The things you've listed are merely trivial content that don't justify releasing two copies of the same game. Yes, SW and HAM add new assets, even after the fact that DST is gaining in popularity, but these two DLCs are isolated and don't actually add to the base game. They add to their own game. To clarify, you don't see people talking about their DS worlds as DS worlds with SW and/or HAM. Instead, people either talk about how their HAM world is, how their SW world is (though you can travel between RoG and SW, and even the same for HAM, but that's travelling between isolated content, not actually adding to the base game), or how their DS/RoG world is. Even if you were to evaluate every DLC and the two games, they're the same games with some variation in flora and fauna. I don't know what more to say, since this will just be a back-and-forth of "I think game is same" and "I think game is different." When presented with the evidence though, and objectively looking at said evidence, it boils down to the same game with similarities I have already stated in my previous post. Other changes that you have mentioned are also trivial ones. Tweaking a boss' stats and adding one or two mechanics doesn't equate to a different game. As I've said, DST has a more refined engine than DS does, but they both use the same engine and everything else. You could see it as a harsh statement, but it's the truth, objectively speaking. DS runs an older, dated engine and uses older, dated and unpolished mechanics. I understand that some people do play singleplayer only, but isn't that what we're discussing in terms of DST and adding a singleplayer mode for those who enjoy singleplayer? This whole thread has become so convoluted that the main point of this thread is more or less out the window. To sum this part up though, having a proper singleplayer mode in DST would be even better than DS because of DST's better engine. I don't know what else to say on that point because DST's engine is just objectively better and is more polished and refined than DS's, which makes it a real shame that SW and HAM were implemented into the older, dated game. Well, you thought wrong, and I would also appreciate it if you expanded upon the problems that DST has faced, as I would like to know the specifics so that we could go over them in detail. This is an opinion, and though I believe all opinions should be valued, they aren't facts. Now, I wouldn't speak for the developers saying what is easy and what is not for them, as I am not a developer. The same would apply to you. As for sacrifices, there might actually be less sacrifices than you think there would be. I would ask that you elaborate upon what exactly would be sacrificed in the hypothetical situation that DS content and DST would be merged. Why would you buy both games when they're more or less the same, save for two isolated DLCs? It's a waste of money and a waste of resources from a general perspective; you're dividing a group into two teams for two similar games, one of which is refined and up-to-date, and as I've said already, mods don't fix problems, merely mask them. Refer to my previous posts for further explanation of that. Admittedly, those do come off as broad, but he has already given his reasons on previous posts of his, so I'm not sure if you're not reading all of his post, or just skimming through what you have time for. I understand that some people don't like the idea of reading large paragraphs, but it's is crucial for a better understanding and so that you could possibly save yourself from typing a paragraph about something that has already been covered. I think a solution to your problem would be to PM @Crimson Chin about your specific questions, because right now in this thread and in the other thread, there are so many topics and sub-topics trying to be covered at once that it's almost impossible to get all the answers you want, so I would suggest PM'ing him, maybe even make a group chat with the three of us in case a third perspective is necessary. Whatever you're comfortable with. Well, if you want my opinion on DS versus DST singleplayer, I believe I have already mentioned that the absence of attack-cancelling, for one, is very off-putting to me. Considering that combat in DS(T) is a crucial mechanic in the game, I would believe that it's more of a big deal than a small one, but to each their own, and this "singleplayer aspect" we're talking about wouldn't be a "completely new" thing, it would be expanding upon the already-existing Alone gamemode. As for what you've asked, I unfortunately don't know what exactly you did ask for, but I would again recommend PM'ing me or Crimson Chin if you have any specific questions. This comes down to how X is for me, and how X is for you, to which I can't say more about that. If your belief is that they're two different games, then so be it, but objectively speaking they are very similar games, dare I say the same. Correct me on this, but I believe places like Reddit, and even Klei forums, can at most times be biased, and people would respond more out of emotion than out of rational thought. Have you looked at what the big paragraphs have actually said? The 2 games don't work, simply put, is because they are both the same game. DS has an old, dated and unpolished engine, DST has a more refined, up-to-date and polished engine. The answer you provided is not entirely true. You're answering with the thought that the other person has knowledge about what DS and DST offers, so the other person couldn't actually distinguish the fact that DS' screenshot is in an isolated DLC called Shipwrecked and not just another part of the DS world, and DST with multiple players doesn't actually say anything because both DS and DST share the exact same art style. That, and you can use console commands to spawn in characters into DS and vice versa, so it's not actually as obvious as you think it to be. That is an example of a bias. Again, you're making the assumption that X price is cheap to everyone, to which again it's not. Again, it's very inconsiderate of you to immediately jump to such a conclusion. You are sort of backing off from your broad statement, but now you're saying that it's "pretty low" when a lot of variables are not taken into consideration. How many people would actually get to experience all the content? DS doesn't exactly hold your hand, and that has been off-putting for a lot of people to the point where they either refunded the game or haven't played the game for more than an hour, so again, game time and such is subjective to the player. Either way, it may sound like enough game time for you for 8€, but it might not even be worth it for other people. Again, it's better to consider other than just yourself when talking about these kinds of topics. Saying that others should simply go elsewhere is a horrible argument, since that takes away sales from the developers. Why drive people away from a good game with so much potential—Don't Starve Together—when you can instead build upon an already great game and make it even better, which would then welcome many more new players and increase revenue? I would argue that I'm "down on the game" because it's visibly dated and is wasted potential that could have been used on the refined version of the game. Don't Starve is not a sandbox. I don't know why people label the game as a "sandbox with survival elements" but it's not by definition a sandbox, unless a sandbox to you is a slab of rock that you can only sit on, because there are quite a lot of limitations in Don't Starve, hence making it a survival game more than a sandbox. Minecraft has a lot more to explore, with a nearly unlimited world to explore and a lot more building that can be done. I mean, take a look at all the creations people have made in Minecraft. Can you do the same in Don't Starve? Absolutely not. I don't believe I've said anything of the sort. It's only a matter of interpretation on your end, and if I came off as such, my apologies. I mean only to express a different angle of critical thought from yours. To briefly answer your question though, I think it's redundant to buy both games when they're both the same game for reasons already stated.
  5. Why Are You Guys Quiet?

    Woah woah woah, let's settle down here. I did take the liberty of looking into what other thread you mentioned, and as much as I'd love to address the points you made there too, I would very much like to avoid juggling multiple threads. Despite your stance on DS and DST, they are actually the same game, from art style to mechanics to gameplay to general dynamic and so on so forth. DS is an out-of-date DST, with dated mechanics that have since been fixed/tweaked for a more fluent experience. Take for example the inability to attack-cancel, since that's a major complaint I've seen when comparing the two. DST essentially fixes that problem, and has also fixed other issues like bees having more range than they should (though I would debate that their range in DST is almost a bit too small, but then you have treeguards who have had short hit range for a very long time). DS DLC does make the difference, and even then at the core of each DLC, the gameplay is the same but with varied flora and fauna. Now, I don't mean to be rude in any way, but I'll have to call you out on the rather short list you've provided. Yes, DST is missing world-hopping and 3 different world themes (which arguably can be incorporated into DST's world without the HAM or SW assets being hamfisted into the world and sticking out like a sore thumb), but then you say the list goes on, to which I'd have to ask how so? You immediately cut your list short by claiming that @Crimson Chin is on a "high horse" holding an "arrogant" and "utopian" standpoint, asking if the DST dream would be nice. The way you're saying everyone would be happy, sure, it sounds nice. Why wouldn't it be? Anyway, by throwing such claims at Crimson Chin, you're also mounting your own high horse and calling him out so adamantly on something he is not and justify those claims simply by your say-so. That general statement could apply to absolutely anything and everything, to say that "not everyone would enjoy X" is such a broad statement that it holds no power in your statement. It is true that there will be people who will not enjoy something, and that's unavoidable. Now, I'm not sure if I would agree with DS being better than DST, even in its singleplayer aspect. I have already mentioned DS's dated engine, and to be honest, it's quite off-putting. Also, if we're talking about a singleplayer change in a multiplayer game, wouldn't such a change centered around singleplayer appeal to those who play singleplayer? Please refrain from swearing, even if you do censor it, as it does not strengthen your points in any way, it merely comes off as immature and impulsive. No one is belittling a large portion of the single player base, and the requested change isn't "nonsense" as you claim. The problem is that both games are the same. That's the major issue. Two copies of the same game are being sold, with little difference between the two. Brief example, show some gameplay images of both games to your friend who doesn't know about the game. Would they be able to tell the difference? The problem isn't laughable in any manner. Either that, or I don't see the humour behind wasting money on two copies of the same game. This is almost a bogus statement with so much inconsideration, sorry to say. Firstly, "laughably cheap" for you can be "terribly expensive" for another individual. I would never jump to the conclusion that a game is so cheap that anyone can pick it up, that is simply untrue. Secondly, they are actually quite short games once you realize the game's main objective, and many have argued that the game is quite repetitive and there isn't much to do after X or Y has been done. Essentially, this last line of yours is heavily subjective for each person, and to jump the gun and say "it's cheap and it's a huge game" is an overstatement.
  6. Why Are You Guys Quiet?

    Thank you for providing a thread that talks about lag in DST hosted servers. Now, the problem with this is that it's talking about lag due to several factors that I've already said are not related to connection issues: Player slots are set to 4, not 1, mods like the minimap mod are causing lag, world coverage and object count, it being a dedicated server and not a solo hosted server, all of which are reasons that do not pertain to connection issues. As much as the linked thread helped explain the technicalities behind game lag and not connection issues, it has only supported my claims more so than yours. 2000 hours and longtime-player terms, weird flex but okay. It isn't the best thing to assume that all new forumers are also new players. Now, apology accepted, but I believe you're mixing up your own statements and reformulating them on the spot, which is natural for people to do, but it doesn't help when trying to discuss core matters. Most of what you've said here is omitting the basics that I have already covered. I wouldn't say I'm "calling for" rather than expressing an idea that if SW and HAM were included in DST, which admittedly isn't part of the singleplayer mode we're discussing, just a means of enriching the game since DST has a lot of potential, it would make DST an even greater game. The singleplayer mode proposal would not be meshed with content updates like SW and HAM, so that's just misinterpretation on your part. A singleplayer mode that follows the guidelines I had stated before but with scaled health for mobs and mechanics that are adjusted for a friendlier singleplayer experience would be more fair to solo players and it would actually help your "connection issues." To address your misinterpretations though, no, adding SW and HAM content that wouldn't be scaled towards the singleplayer mode proposal would not fix your "weak internet connection issues" as I have never explicitly stated that it would. The last paragraph is repeating that hosts lag, but if you follow the guidelines that I had previously stated, you should not under normal circumstances be experiencing any lag. No UI mods, no player slots greater than 1, world coverage and object count being taken into consideration, there's more to game lag than connection issues, and I'm trying to tell you that it may be one of those factors since under normal circumstances, one shouldn't be lagging if they are their own host in their own non-dedicated world using their own bandwidth. DS being as crisp and responsive as you say it is is debatable. DS uses and older, dated and less refined engine than DST does, and it excludes a few mechanics that ultimately make DST a more enjoyable experience, also, both games are the exact same with little to no difference, save for SW and HAM, but even those DLCs are isolated content. Basically, having DS and DST exist is redundant and also confusing for new players who want to get into the game. Centralizing DST, since it already is the game that has more sales, would be a better business move and my proposed singleplayer mode would remedy your "connection issues." I'm not sure how valid your background claims are, considering that you're not a developer, but I'll cover it anyway. I've read and heard that Klei doesn't want to charge for DLCs, I got that. They sell skins now, and the post that I've only quoted once (kind of unnecessary to say that I "keep" quoting it) is that they don't make much money off of skins. I do apologize for saying this, but you're recounting and summarizing a story that I'm already aware of, so it's a lot of fluff that I unfortunately have to skim through because it does not pertain to the topic at hand. I do appreciate the summary though, but it hasn't helped me in however way you wanted to to help, but I could say that firstly, they have been making some money on skins, sure, but not enough. In a sense, they sort of are "bailing" on the business model, or at least not focusing exclusively on said business model. Yes, they are selling characters now. Is it making them enough money? I'm not sure, and debatably character DLCs can also split the community, so the whole DLC distribution and community splitting is a matter of walking on thin ice, since even smaller DLCs like character ones also separate those who do have the character from those who don't, and as a result don't get to experience the (overpowered at the moment) perks of the paid characters, which at least can be weaved with spools, but then how many players are buying characters as opposed to weaving them? Sorry to say, but a lot isn't actually clear, and it's almost never a case of black-and-white, but that's why we have the forums; we can hopefully discuss our uncertainties with each other and try our best to clarify some aspects of a topic. In my opinion though, we're trying to cover a lot of topics and sub-topics without clarifying other variables, which leads to puzzles rather than posts. Hopefully we can separate individual topics and sub-topics that we are not clear about, and focus on those only, though I have my doubts about that since we seem to be deep into the main topic and its sub-topics that it would need new threads on its own to cover all bases.
  7. Why Are You Guys Quiet?

    I might have to stop you there. I'm not sure if you really do understand, because under normal circumstances, a host who is hosting their own private world with only 1 player slot should not be suffering from any connection/lag issues unless your internet is that poor. Maybe changing some settings before world generation could help lag, since general slowdown could stem from more than just connection issues, such as the amount of world entities on one screen, or certain objects taking up more memory than it should, like improved farms' rock and fence sprites reloading itself every time you entered its line of sight. DST isn't known for the best object management, and as a result that can sometimes cause your game to run slower than usual, but I highly doubt that hosts in their own server would suffer from major connection issues. An argument I see far too often in the forums. Contrary to popular belief, mods don't fix problems; they merely mask them. They can be helpful, yes, but they aren't things that players and even developers should rely on. It would be a lot better if Klei acknowledged what the community has been making, and possibly work upon it to make it an actual game mechanic or option, like boss/mob health scaling... To be brief though, no problem is trivial, and it has not been solved. As for the latency problem, I don't believe there actually is one when hosting your own world, or at least there shouldn't be. If there is, then it might be on your end. I don't like to tell people how to live their lives, but if someone is lagging when hosting their own world, they should probably fix that issue by investing in a better piece of hardware or find workarounds to reduce lag caused by the game's entities and whatnot... or voice your opinions on the forums! I understand what you're saying here, but you're also contradicting what you're saying, so I'm kind of confused. Klei does not make much money off of skins, but a lot of people like cosmetics. Does that mean that a lot of cosmetics are purchased? I don't think so. You can find cosmetic drops quite often now with the overhauled drop system, and as a developer himself has said, they don't make much money off of skins. Because of this, it would make even more sense to build upon DST and work upon the potential it has and make the game extraordinary! If there was a proper singleplayer mode to be included, then missing out on characters and cosmetics wouldn't be an issue. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you listed a few issues about going offline, which is the current way to play singleplayer from what I understand, and now you're saying that playing singleplayer as it is (missing out on characters and cosmetics) isn't a real issue? I don't want to come off as offensive, but I would recommend that you evaluate your statements more thoroughly next time. To stay on topic though, having a solo option would fix your weak internet connection issue because it shouldn't be present in the first place. If you are experiencing lag, you could try a few things like setting Lag Compensation to None if you suffer from rubberbanding, though as of typing this line, hosts shouldn't be suffering from rubberbanding if they're the host, so I have no clue what you're lagging from. Maybe your computer specs aren't optimal? I wish I could help, but I really don't know what your issue is specifically, like how are you lagging and how frequently, etc.
  8. Why Are You Guys Quiet?

    I think what @Crimson Chin was saying, that you misunderstood, was that he wants DST to have a singleplayer option, or mode rather. Playing offline is not the same as playing singleplayer on DST, believe it or not. Going offline is a way of playing singleplayer, but not an officially implemented singleplayer mode. I believe that for new players, when hosting a server there's an option to set your server to Alone (alternatively setting player slots to 1) that the game recommends for all new players, though without proper mob, boss and mechanic tweaking for a singleplayer experience, new players could find themselves bumping into bosses more fit for raids and all that. To sum it up, a lot of DST's content is not singleplayer-friendly, and simply going offline won't solve the issue. As for skins not being able to be used, why should that matter? Skins are a cosmetic component in DST and have no effect on gameplay. This is not the case for Wortox, but this issue wouldn't be present if there was a proper singleplayer mode, which is what I believe is being brought up here. As for skins and character content, I'm not sure if it actually is Klei's method of amassing funds. From what had been said in the past, I think it's DST as a game and not its skins and character content. This is a quote from JoeW pertaining to the value of skins back when the second round of Hallowed Nights skins were released. The proposal for a singleplayer mode in DST would be a breath of fresh air for those who want to unwind from all the multiplayer chaos. Granted, DST is fun in both multiplayer and singleplayer mode, but the latter isn't balanced for an optimal experience. I'm aware that my post is more focused on a branch of what this whole thread was about, so to address a part of the topic at hand as briefly as I could, I too believe it would be smarter from a business perspective to invest more time and resources into a game that is selling more and is accessible to more people (Don't Starve Together, the multiplayer experience) than waste time and resources into an inferior and dated prequel. I mean DST has a lot of potential, and both Shipwrecked and Hamlet have a lot of potential, despite the latter being unfinished. Even DST's events have a lot of potential to greatly enhance gameplay. In conclusion, Don't Starve Together is a polished and up-to-date version of Don't Starve, and Hamlet was possibly an attempt at making Don't Starve more desirable, to little or no avail. A singleplayer mode, along with assets from SW and HAM being ported into DST, would actually make the game super fantastic! I say, the potential!
  9. [POLL] PvP rebalance interest

    I have no clue where you were looking, but I have already made posts that detail what you're asking for. If my ideas aren't "concrete" enough, then we'd have to go over our definitions of concrete. Please read my older posts before responding. Thank you.
  10. [POLL] PvP rebalance interest

    If you want to talk about purpose in how to play a game, there is no actual proper way to play a game. Quick example, friendlies in Team Fortress 2. To answer your question though, I do play DST for PvP since that's what's most interesting to my friends and I. Saying PvP isn't DST's purpose is a poor way of undermining DST's potential. As for your experience, I'd need more clarification on that. Have you played PvP? What was your experience? Player-killing can be a lot more creative with the proposed Forge weapons for one, and DST is not meant for cooperation, it's meant for multiplayer. That "intoxicated" remark is uncalled for, and I don't know why people who like a different gamemode in an otherwise repetitive game worry you.
  11. [POLL] PvP rebalance interest

    I had already stated tweaks in past posts on how a Wolfgang vs a Wickerbottom could be remedied. I would appreciate it if you read my past posts before responding, and if you don't see how something could work, give it 5 minutes of thought or ask the question rather than just stating you can't see it, because then I can't help you there. As for the Gorge comments, they can very well be relevant to the concern of PvP messing with PvE because the Gorge's mechanics are PvE-oriented, and would overall make both sides happy. I had also added the Gorge comments to act as a bit of comic relief, and I believe I had kept it brief with the Gorge comments, rather than having it encompass my whole post.
  12. [POLL] PvP rebalance interest

    If there truly weren't a place for DST, then it would have never been included in the game. There is currently no balance pertaining to PvP because of how it's been neglected, which is why in turn people believe PvP shouldn't exist in the first place and disregard the potential that PvP has to spice up DST and offer more variety in how DST can be played. As for you saying the changes would require a whole new "event," I disagree with you there. I think PvP can be worked on without it having to hurt PvE or be excluded into its own event like Forge or Gorge. Even past events that we've had in DST have potential to work in the base game. I wouldn't say that one forum thread, or even several, would be a good example of representing the PvP community as a whole. In fact, what you're seeing is PvE players who are vocally against PvP and have become toxic due to expressing their emotions rather then ration thought on the idea of PvP. In my experience I have met my greatest friends in PvP, and most of my PvP experiences were not nearly as toxic as you think it to be. I don't believe I said Forge weapons would be the holy grail for PvP, but it would be an interesting addition alongside mechanical fixes. Your claim about them being "clearly" focused on PvE is not entirely true. You're disregarding Klei's flexibility when it comes to tweaking items and mechanics, and the weapons' stunlocking and AoEs can all work fine in a PvP setting with a few balances. Give it 5 minutes of thought, imagine players using the weapons with their specials and all. Much like an old post of mine where I had said "Imagine handing a cheeseburger to a starving Day 1 Wilson" in reference to the Gorge's mechanics and assets being implemented into the base game. All is possible with time, at least I'd like to put such faith in Klei. I had missed this quote at the time of writing, but with adjustments to the Forge weapons, they can work in both single and multiplayer settings. You can have a 1v1 with both parties using Forge weapons, and still have a fun time battling without complaining that one guy's overpowered, and the same can be said with proper teams which is a point you made that I like. It would be very interesting to have a mechanic where players can be assigned to teams and team players can't hurt each other. All in all, I'd like to encourage the porting of Forge content, but also Gorge content, because as many past posts have said, it would be the best to cook with the Gorge's cooking stations and having all the Gorge's foods introduced into the base game. I can't ever emphasize how much I LOVE the sprite work on the Gorge foods, and it's really sad for me that those assets/mechanics are essentially thrown aside with the Forge assets/mechanics.
  13. [POLL] PvP rebalance interest

    I more so meant the Forge weapons, though the arena could be nice for those who would rather have quick PvP rounds, because PvP prep time can take long to reach optimal prep, and that's not counting magic. I'm more for the Forge weapons because their mechanics were super interesting and would be fun to see in the base game being used against actual players rather than AI. It would make for a very dynamic and very interesting form of fighting, but then comes your next point which I agree with. This can somewhat be remedied by my past proposition of including the Forge weapons into the base game, but even with varying ways of striking a player or enemy, it still boils down to the traditional stunlocking and kiting. I would like to think though that the inclusion of Forge weapons could change the way in which you approach players, and would thus make fighting more than just a matter of stunlocking and kiting with DST's mostly-melee-weapon arsenal, since Forge did have a fair amount of ranged weapons, and melee weapons with minimal ranged capabilities and the ability to block all hits for a short time.
  14. [POLL] PvP rebalance interest

    My wording was off on that one, my apologies. I'm aware that it doesn't relate 1 to 1, but I wanted to say that even through aggressive actions it can be taken as an insult. Passive-aggressiveness can follow the same line where through action, and not through just direct wording, said actions could be insulting to others. I understand what you mean though that they aren't the same, but in cases they can also have similar effects, if that makes sense to you. Concrete ideas, these are small though. For PvP changes that would also affect PvE in a positive way: Have STS and Pan Flute make players drowsy instead of putting them to sleep; this change would not affect PvE since players can't be put to sleep, but it would make PvP situations a bit more fair to deal with. Another could be to have player hits on players not always stun them, similar to how bee stings work. This idea might be a bit more controversial though because at the moment we rely on landing stuns to get more hits on a player, but this can be remedied with additional weapons, mostly the Forge ones with balancing edits to not instantly smash players, but give more variety in how players can be fought. This would also fix the issue of some players running for eternity if the Forge's ranged weapons were introduced, albeit with aforementioned edits to make them balanced. Unfortunately, I can't remember what else would have helped PvP a little bit, but for now the ideas above could serve as a reference when thinking about how PvP can be improved without manuring on both PvP and PvE. @Ashkain had some great ideas in his posts too, which can also serve as a reference.
  15. [POLL] PvP rebalance interest

    Aggression comes to insult, and vice versa. Nothing is ever black and white, and that's what I wanted to say when I made my previous post. As for taking time, for my posts I will say that as I'm thinking them out, it takes longer than 5 minutes, but unfortunately for the list that would also take a lot more than 5 minutes, so I can't get the list to you on time, but eventually when things settle down and PvP is given a new light, I will do my best to propose what could be done, and what should be done, for both PvP and PvE. To further expand upon this great point, the Forge's weapons have had functions just like this, and it would be fantastic to see those weapons incorporated into the base game, with some minor edits for balancing purposes such as the darts have durability, using 10% per shot and 50% for the special attack. Of course the values could be changed, but this general idea is a very good one, and I appreciate the input. It's completely natural to have felt that way, and as a Wolfgang player I might have been scared of losing my toys, but in the long run I believe all character reworks will give so much more life into the cast of characters. As for your points, you're pretty much said what I would for all those points. Toxicity is something that will always be present in any shape or form in any game. It's a sad reality, but there have been implemented ways to deal with them on Klei's part, which I am appreciative of. It's alright, we forgive you. It was understandable at the time from your viewpoint to have been bothered by others proposing a possibly undesirable change for a game you love. What we want to do is make DST an amazing game, because I still believe it has its charm and is a fun game as it is, but DST is oozing with potential, as demonstrated with the Forge and Gorge, that can bring so much life to the base game, PvE and PvP. That is what I've been wanting to express. Thank you very much though for being courteous and polite.