mobius187

Moderator
  • Content Count

    1726
  • Joined

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About mobius187

  • Rank
    Feeling Pretty
...

Badges

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Enable
  1. You sure like the phrase "on the flip side".

    1. ImDaMisterL

      ImDaMisterL

      You sure like commenting on profiles :p

  2. That is a creepypasta, isn't it?

  3. Just like Snake...? That or poison darts... there's always room for more darts.
  4. Well originally the Krampus had nothing to do with morality. The Krampus was added back before rot, when players hoarded food and items in dozens of chests at their base camp. The easiest food to catch back then was rabbits and player also hunted pig men to "harvest" them for resources (i.e. hams/leather). To reduce the abuse the Krampus was added to discourage this type of gameplay. However with the changes that have happened since then I felt that the purpose of the Krampus needed to be refocused. IMHO, killing rabbits and birds shouldn't be considered "naughty", it's just the basics of survival and besides, they're smarter now and not as easy to catch. I felt that "naughty points" should only be gained by killing pig men, smallbirds, burning down forests (i.e. 10+ trees), and other actions with evil intentions. Also, rather than steal the player's items I felt he should attack the player character, and once he drops you to 25% or less Health he would kidnap you in his bag, teleport far off, and drop you on the ground... taking away all the items in your inventory to boot. That being said, if you want to be evil, be evil and kill the Krampus. He does have that bag after all. The only unnerfing of the Krampus I made was that he should be restored to his original power/toughness and be impervious to sleep. Anyway, that's just my opinion and maybe I'm hampered by the fact that whenever I play a game I always take the moral high ground whenever possible. Agreed. Well Don't Starve is a very hazardous game. Death teaches you what to do and what not to do. In some cases it can be fairly obvious, while in other cases, not so much. I usually go into a situation fully equipped and, when I'm in further than I expected, I would run away. Yup, I always value a good strategic retreat. But didn't you attack a giant spiders nest? You must have had some inkling that this possibly could have not ended well for you. I remember the first time I died... I had no light source and wandered off to far, night came, and the Grue ate me. A pity I hadn't gotten around yet to building a Meat Effigy, so I died, and then restarted as Wendy. That turned out for the best, since IMHO, Wendy is the best character. That's my unbaised opinion. For me I originally felt that the main issue with players not exploring was a direct result of a lack of goo reasons to explore. At the time I had argued that the game needed more unqiue random locations for players to stumble across and resources that couldn't be supplanted near their base camp (i.e. like reeds). I know that in Adventure mode the Devs are working on creating unique locations, so I'm interested to see what they will come up with over time. Agreed. Back when this was a focus issue players who stayed near their home base were considered to be "turtling". There was much discussion about how this behavior was bad and players should be punished/nerfed in order to get them to stop it. However I always felt that "turtling" wasn't the problem, it was a symptom. The real problem was, as I stated earlier, that players had no incentive to explore. Then Hounds were introduced and this served to further this behavior as players didn't want to run the risk of being caught off-guard by a Hound attack just to explore. Hmmm. "Safer" doesn't usually equate well with the theme of Don't Starve, but I'm reading this post as I respond, so I'll reserve my opinion until after I've heard what you have to say. My thought on this is: what do you mean by "better"? If you mean the vanilla upgrade of "better damage" and "better durability", then I'm against it. I play Minecraft and its linear progression for the tech tree is one of its worst failings, IMHO. It's boring as all hell and promote getting the best (i.e. diamond) and then ignoring the rest. Now if by "better" you mean, "new/unique powers" then I'm onboard. If you have some suggestions for new types of armor or weapons, then I wouldn't mind hearing them. For me, ever since gunpowder appeared in the game I have felt my old suggestion, namely the flintlock rifle, has renewed chances of actually being added to the game. If so, I felt its main feature should be killing power (i.e. one hit kill most enemies), but on the downside that it should require ammo (i.e. lead balls/gunpowder), needs 3-5 seconds to reload (making it terrible for multiple enemies), and cannot be fired when it's raining. Also, when its fired it creates a loud bang, which startles and frightens off various creatures (i.e. rabbits, birds, beefalo, ect). Let me know if you have any of your own suggestions. Personally I've always argued you should lose everything you researched. The exception, I suppose, could be Wilson... as he's the starter character. I personally have no issue with permdeath, as the game is Roguelike in that aspect. Death also teaches us the greatest lessons in "life" (i.e. Don't Starve) and thankfully we can actually learn from them. For the record, I play Minecraft and I die fairly often (once a month or so, usually due to stupidity on my part ). I don't play Hardcore mode because I've spent 200+ hours building massive castles and underground complexes so dying and losing all of that would suck. In contrast I've never done anything in Don't Starve that I couldn't redo, mainly because there is a limit to what you can build in the game, which works well with the permadeath aspect as no death is so painful that you'll quit the game. That being said I know there are people who will argue for this or an Easy mode. I have no problem is there is a setting or mode that allows this option, so long as it's not forced on everyone. Then it's the best of both worlds. If you want more Health, play as Wolfgang. As for a near-death warning... there is the Health meter. Or are you asking for the screen to tint or something... as a warning? I know when I die I'm usually in the wrong mindset to do anything constructive, i.e. "panic mode". It's only funny after you die and think "Awww-man, why did I just run around like a chicken with my head cut off?". We'll call that Mistake #1 . That's why I consider this a serious mistake. If you can craft armor you should have some on at all times. I recommend always wearing a log suit, maybe a football helmet too. Especially if you want to wander around in the swamp. That's my opinion. Ah, well that's fine. I'm not sure it will help, I mean, usually when you're about to die the death part happens very suddenly by that stage. At what Health % would you suggested this effect trigger? Well the opposite used to be the case. Any food gave you good healing and dying wasn't as serious an issue so long as you had food, and later, honey. Sweet, sweet honey... it made you nearly invincible. The Devs opted to enforce a more realistic healing system and reduce the effects of food on Health. I can't argue it because we all used to abuse the healing powers of food. Ah, what wonderful memories. I agree with you about the healing power of sleep, but I think the straw roll is abused too much. Players have been avoiding the night and its dangers, plus maybe a lack of firewood, by using the straw roll. IMHO, you shouldn't be able to sleep without a light source and the straw roll should only let you skip the night for so long as the light source (i.e. firepit) provides a certain degree of light, otherwise you should wake up and need to feed the fire again before you can go back to sleep. Then, if it's daylight, you should be allowed to click on the straw roll to roll it back up and return it to your inventory. I would have to disagree. Each character has their own stats and powers right now, not to mention the Devs mentioned not too long ago the idea of adding an active power unique to each character (in contrast to their passive powers/bonuses). Personally, I prefer my solitude. Having multiple survivors standing around would ruin that atmosphere. But hey, that's just my opinion. I'll reserve judgement right now on this suggestion, since you haven't stated any specifics. However, maybe you could provide some examples on what you would like to see? For me I always felt that the ability to re-plant resources was a key issue that led to "turtling" as players no longer needed to travel far to collect the resources they needed. Unlike reeds, which required you to travel to the swamp. This is debatable. Personally I don't want to "civilize" the isalnd or become so far advanced that you can just sit back and relax. That's not to say I wouldn't want some conveniences that you could acheive to make your life somewhat easier, especially in surviving random attacks. Still, I'm always open to suggestion and I would like to hear your ideas when you have them.
  5. Well, if it makes you feel any better, I was wrong to say "1900s". I probably meant to say 19th century. This was a while back, when I supported cabins/cottages to some degree, but after I gave it some thought I realized that probably the Devs wanted us to stay "exposed", not just to the elements, but to dangers as well, by not allowing us to build homes. Of course I've never actually seen them say they were for or against the idea. By "dock" I probably meant "pier". It was felt that this would be the easiest way to allow players to craft/launch boats, rather than my older/first idea, which was to launch the boat from a beach biome.
  6. Hmmm? Oh yes, the Devs have stated the game takes place in the 1920s. Unfortunately I lacked the ability to foresee this fact back in November of last year. You may want to check the date on a post before you mock someone. What, that the game takes place during the Victorian Era? If so, then someone has been necro-posting something fierce. And to think, I asked about flintlock rifles and blunderbusses long before the Devs added gunpowder to the game. Maybe I helped influence something. Who knows? And maybe, just maybe, the Devs will give Wendy laser-beam eyes... if I keep mentioning it...
  7. Oh god finally someone who loves Wendy as much as I do!

  8. Is this what you want!?!https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6146610944/h8244E5FB/ On a more serious note, I know players in the past have requested the much more dangerous honey badger be added to the game. Those honey badgers look seriously vicious. Without ants wouldn't they starv-ahhhh I see what you did there. Don't starve ant-eaters! Heh.
  9. I remember suggesting beeswax a while back, when we debated fixing the Miner's Helmet (i.e. replace fireflies with candle). The goal being that the new version of the miner's helmet wouldn't be "On" (and thus deplete) while being worn, but rather the player would need to light the candle on the helmet (/w flint) and could extinguish it by removing the helmet from their head. Personally I preferred the idea of refining Silk into String (like how Grass is refined into Rope). Then you would combine string and beeswax to create a candle. Hmmm, not sure. Maybe you could create an alternate pumpkin lantern? Or lantern? I still think revamping the crafting recipe for the Miner's Helmet would be a good idea. I have to agree with Excess. For nectar to make any sense it would need to have a use, otherwise it just seems like it exists for the sole purpose of making extra work for the player. It would be better to adjust the honey production values instead.
  10. Abigail just wants hugs... and she'll give them to you if you're not careful...
  11. My guess is the next unlockable character will be Woodie. This is mainly because, just like Wes, he already has artwork in place for his character profile.
  12. Sure, why not? I'm sure players would enjoy any option that would let them customize their maps.
  13. While I agree focusing all the effort, or blame, on one aspect of the gameplay obscures the truth revealed when you focus on the gameplay as a whole, I still think challenges need to be carefully balanced so they do not overwhelm the player.For me survival games are about what needs to be done and what can be done. The first are tasks the player needs to perform in order to survive from one day to the next, while the second refers to those tasks the player sets for himself and connects to the sandbox elements of the game. The balancing comes in with the needs and how much of the player's allotted time they occupy in order to fulfill them. Too few and the game becomes too easy, too many and the game becomes tedious/hard.Consider another game, The Sims. At the start the player is forced to devote all their time just to meeting basic needs while working to optimize their lives to best meet these needs. However as time progresses the player is rewarded with benefits that help mitigate some of these needs and slowly the player is provided with more free time to pursue their own "wants". The same is true in other games, like Minecraft, where initially your efforts are focused on simply surviving, but as each day passes you are able to branch out into the other sandbox/creative elements of the game.What I hope is that Don't Starve remains difficult, but still allows players the chance to obtain a degree of freedom where they do not feel like every day is a constant struggle to not die. I know there are players who would disagree with me, but to them I would say Klei has already provided a solution, the ability to create portals to more challenging new worlds, a path they can take the moment they feel bored with the difficulty of their current world (i.e. when they feel they've "beaten it" and there's no longer any challenge). Players who would rather not could just stay in the world they've mastered.Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter (without getting into the specifics). However everyone is entitled to their beliefs in this matter. Yes, I know exactly which thread you are referring to as I read it this morning (no post from me however). I agree that spiders should be feared. Maybe not unlike the corruption in Terraria... spreading their webby influence across the island. It would be interesting if spiders affected the biomes they occupied, perhaps causing pine trees to become withered, flowers to perish, and grass to become discoloured (or covered in webs, as normal). Then the player would build a wall to hold off the spread of the spider nests and their influence before launching an attack to purge them from the island... you know, give the player something to do. Yes. Farm plots are not the only source of food, so players not interested in tending the farm plots could ignore them, but they wouldn't just "plant and forget" like they do right now. Or worse, use manure to speed-grow. Funny you should mention Harvest Moon, I played it a while back on the NDS when I friend loaned it to me and I recall getting upset with the Stamina/Fatigue system. I was always so damn tired... :pWhen I think about tending crops I'm reminded of a review I watched for a farming mod created for Project Zomboid. In it the player tills the soil (i.e. creates farm plots), plants seeds (i.e. same as in Don't Starve), but then you need to water the plants and weed the garden. You can also use fertilizer (i.e. manure) to help the crops grow faster, but they never grow too fast. The crops grow in stages too.Another player once suggested that we should have two types of crops: those that grow fairly quickly and with minimal effort required to tend to them, but are harvest once; and those crops that require more time/effort to grow, but then harvest more than once over a few days (i.e. like tomatoes). I thought this was a very interesting idea, since players who didn't want to invest too much time in farming could grow easy crops, while those who took the time (because they wanted to) would be rewarded with more food as a result of their efforts. I do think random events would be a nice change to the monotony of every day being like the last (well, except for Winter, of course). It would help spice up the game, not to mention unique locations and creatures (i.e. similar to the Koalaphant) would also help. I'm not a huge fan of "increased difficulty over time", rather I prefer the idea that each island you portal to should delegate the increases in dificulty as a decision of the player rather than an arbitrary one enforced by the passage of time (and player success, at not dying/starving). Agreed... but what do we know about Maxwell's true intentions? Yup, time will yield more definitive results. I am still hopeful that the released game will meet most of the expections set by its players.
  14. Wait, weren't we talking about tweaking the sanity rules so players couldn't avoid insanity so easily? When did food become involved? :pActually this discussion has come up before, but not as "diminishing returns", rather more like "food poisoning". It involved the idea that if a player exclusively ate vegetables OR meat, they would suffer health problems (and this isn't an imaginary problem, it exists in reality too). However rather than be connected to specific foods, the issue was linked to those two groups of foods. Also you would need to track foods cooked in the crock pot too.However, I would have to ask, what is the main purpose for requesting this update? What are the merits of forcing players to eat various foods? Is there a serious issue right now with players only eating one or two foods? Let me examine some of the reasons you did provide... Okay, so you want to prevent players from hoarding just a few foods. Is hoarding the issue or the foods that are being hoarded? Maybe candy is broken and needs to be fixed as a better solution. Food spoilage seems to work fine right now, well, unless you have issues with the whole stack being replenished by fresh food. However short of assigning rot values to individual foods I cannot see how this issue could be overcome.I should mention though that Project Zomboid (indie game) actually does track food spoilage on a per item basis... Please provide more details. I usually just imagine eating whatever I can get my grubby hands on. So long as they researched those advancements. I'm not sure how this would impact space. What I would like to see is a more interactive farm plot that requires tending and watering as a means of engaging the player more. And if they would rather not, then they just wouldn't build a farm plot.Still, you've made some good points.
  15. Argh! I hates that guy! Why won't he let me enter his dungeon? Why the skulls of death? I personally liked the fact that Terraria used Minecraft as its inspiration, and then it seemed like players wanted a lot of the ideas Terraria suggested in Minecraft (i.e. boss fights). There's nothing wrong with using the same ideas, so long as the point isn't to just rip-off another game's formula to milk its success.