• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About mrtwoface

  • Rank


Recent Profile Visitors

942 profile views
  1. It's not about what's easy, it's about what's fun. This is a game, not work. If you play a character just because of their powers compared to other characters, you are playing the game wrong in my opinion.
  2. People play their favorite characters, not the ones who have the best abilities. I don't play Wickerbottom because I don't really like her personality revealed through her dialogue strings, and it's the same with Wolfgang. You have to have some sort of connection with the character you are playing through some degree of likability. Otherwise, you are just playing a robot that has an ultimately insignificant bonus compared to another robot. I would plan on meeting some less then halfway competent people if you group with strangers who will just run around until night and then die from the dark. It's the nature of multiplayer that extremely new people or idiots will inevitability encounter you. If you just plain don't like a character then the powers they have aren't going to help you survive as them. You find out in roughly the first ten days of a world how you are going to play a character, and if you can't make it work you'll likely be dead by the thirtieth day. Whether or not the playstyle that works for you involves the character's power is irrelevant.
  3. A really good player can play Wes and be better then a really bad player playing a fully upgraded WX. There is no single definition of "useful" pertaining to this game that I can find. If you have trouble with nights, Willow is useful for you. If you are good at managing hunger but suck at fighting, Wolfgang is useful for you. If you are generally good at the game and don't want any negatives, you likely play Wilson. The reason I oppose the idea of character tiers is that it could make people pressure other people into playing certain characters just so the group will have a variety of strengths. This shouldn't happen; people should get to play who they want to play because they like to play them.
  4. Wouldn't that be kind of unfair considering that different characters have different health values? I know the game isn't supposed to be fair and all that stuff, but it can at least be equally unfair to everyone. It's like building a meat effigy with Wilson (150 health) compared to building it with Maxwell (75 health). I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, but I can see a lot of complaints about this if it was a thing in MP.
  5. Once I get Chester, I get uneasy when he isn't around, like when I put him somewhere so I can fight hounds. The boing boing boing boing becomes a subconscious thing that you don't notice is there until it's gone... And when I get a Glommer, I know I will eventually end up killing it myself somehow. It's happened five times now, darned ctrl+f...
  6. Don't Starve characters cannot be set up into any kind of linear system of usefulness. Both the characters themselves and the game are too complex of entities to do something like that. Want to explore caves? Wendy is one of the best characters to do so with her reduced sanity loss to darkness and Abigail. Want to kill a giant? Wigfrid or Wolfgang. Want to experience the game with a harder character whilst having fun with balloons? Then Wes is the best character for you. I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinion on what your favorite character to play is. I do have a problem with the idea that some character has to be at "the bottom."
  7. A better question is if there will even be PVP or not, since the map and character equality issues kind of depend on that... Not that PVP hasn't already been discussed to death already.
  8. Why must they be seperated into tiers anyway? It makes it sound like the dull PVP matches in big MMORPG games instead of survival-centered Don't Starve. It doesn't how many things you can kill as Wolfgang or Wigfrid if you starve/overheat/freeze to death.
  9. Willow is the best one to fight the Dragonfly (if you are in a ROG multiplayer game) since she can't take fire damage - seeing as the dragonfly is arguably the hardest giant, it is a notable advantage, especially considering the other things people consider advantages.
  10. A five-day in-game wait seems fair if you can't find any other methods of resurrection, but people might use that as an excuse not to find any methods of resurrection at all and just resign themselves to waiting five days. It just seems non-DS somewhat that way.
  11. I personally like the idea that your team can resurrect you but it uses up a method of resurrection for everyone. As in, your team digs up a Life Giving Amulet on Day 1, you goof up and die from the darkness on Day 2, your team can use it on you to resurrect you. Same with touchstones and other SP resurrection methods. But if you don't have any resurrection methods, you die, game over man. That's kind of a big point of the game. Your skull or skeleton or whatever can stay on the ground until your pals find another resurrection method.
  12. What exactly do you mean by "make a house"? I'm not sure I'm getting the right picture in my mind. The anti-withering is a good idea. That way you can put roofs over your crops during summer and then knock them down if you want the other three seasons.
  13. It sounds pretty balanced to craft if you put it that way, especially since you still need the umbrella and other rain items if you want to move much. Would putting a roof above crops make them grow slower since there is less sunlight and rainwater? If so, it might be incentive to make your crops in a different place then your main base.
  14. I think a wooden roof should be a bit harder to make then just with two boards; an umbrella is a lot harder then that but sounds less effective. It should require some sort of item that is semi-difficult to obtain; Slurtle slime to make the rain reflect off, maybe?