Rosten

It doesn't really make any sense. Anti-Griefing isn't a universal rule and it'd be. Weird that there's just some arbitrary selection of items that can't be burned by the player with no justification.

This is largely a problem DST has that I'm not totally sure if it can be fixed. The game was originally designed with single player and trial and error learning in mind, but there's pretty much no way to allow new players to get their bearings on servers with veteran players without either totally trivializing death as a consequence or being a massive inconvenience to stronger players.

Why do people think Warly is bad? I don't have Shipwrecked, but looking at his biz it doesn't much look like a big problem.

I don't think that player-triggered events causing difficulty increments is within the spirit of DS. The point of things like the Hounds and Giants are that they force you to be at a certain level of competency and progression in order to survive them, instead of just allowing you to leisurely do everything at your own pace.

Let me say this in big bold text so you can't miss it. I never said that being a newer player makes your opinion on the direction the game should go in the future lesser or invalid. What I said was that in terms of the argument of "What were the design ethos under which Don't Starve was originally developed" that people who were there while it was being developed would know more than people who downloaded Don't Starve Together a few months ago. Whether or not Don't Starve's original design ethos are relevant anymore or a good idea is a conversation which I am perfectly open to the opinions of newer players, hell, they're the ones who'll be playing it same as me after all. I would maybe even argue that in order for the game to flourish, some ideals are going to have to be abandoned. Currently, Don't Starve Together is in this weird, conflicting mish-mash state where half of the game's mechanics are totally at odds with each other. For a very basic example; the core game's mechanics were designed around having one life, and as a result, failure is either almost always result of a player's deliberate actions (I.e. Fighting a treeguard and failing to kite it properly.) or a result of inaction in the face of a timed threat (I.e. The Giants or Hounds) At the moment, these elements of the game exist in half-states throughout. Death is *kind of* meaningful. Timed threats are *kind of* threatening. The problem is that this half-state of everything caters to nobody. People who enjoy the social, aesthetic and base-building aspects of the game are totally at odds with the timed challenges and bosses who wreck your base if you aren't attentive enough. People who enjoy the challenging, uncompromising survival aspect of the game are at odds with the game's laxer pace, lack of meaningful incentives for progression (I.e. There's no pressure to prepare for the Dragonfly, which is a pretty big deal on most player's first season in DS.) and the relative meaninglessness of death compared to the original. The various options for how death works are a pretty clear indicator of this. Klei is trying to sort-of cater to two completely different audiences and the game feels totally split down the middle and neither are totally happy with it. I don't know how new players feel about this, it's possible that they accept the game in it's current state fully due to not really having had the context of the original game and how it was made, but threads like this make me feel like there's a clear bent towards "Most people aren't happy with a fair few aspects of the game, and a lot of those desires are irreconcilable with others." What I'd really appreciate if Klei would either properly split development on DST, the base-building quirky party "survival" game, and DST, the uncompromising wilderness survival game where any cockily poorly planned outing could mean the end of your run, or just declare that one of those was the focus and abandon the other so fans who enjoy that aspect of the game can stop being teased by the half measures Klei implements to appease both sides.

Why would I bother? Your points are garbage, and your argumentative strategy is "Restate things because surely if I just say a thing more times it'll make it truer." Plus you're taking up this hilariously high and mighty attitude while saying literally nothing of value and demanding that people debate points that they've either already responded to several times over or are absolute nonsense based on literally nothing other than "I think it's true so it must be." If you did actually read what I was saying, then I'd really love to know why you're asking me to say it again.

Imagine calling someone a Senior clown when you spent a non-zero amount of time going through a bunch of my posts and reacting with "Confused" to them. Like, dude. Get a life, lmao.

I'm not simplifying your argument, that is *literally* what you are saying. Both of you have said that you don't care for the game, just the aesthetics. Stop trying to come in here and take away DS, the unique survival roguelike,from the people who spent years of their lives helping it grow into what it is just because you want to look at the pretty art and ignore the rest of what makes the game what it is.

I would say when it comes to such topics as "Knowing the design ethos under which most game decisions were made in a game that was actively developed alongside and heavily influenced by the ideas and contributions of an involved community" seniority is a pretty meaningful indicator of whether or not you know what you're talking about. So far the arguments presented were: "I don't like the game, I just like how it looks. So it should change to fit my preferences." and "Well the exact thing you mentioned isn't mentioned word-for-word in the game's Steam blurb so clearly it wasn't a consideration at all." Like, it's great that you love the aesthetic, I do too. That doesn't give you the right to wander in and demand that Klei alter the core concept of a near-decade in the making game to fit your particular preference instead of that of the thousands of people who'd contributed their ideas, time, and money into the game since it's inception.

Is this the part where you dramatically pull off your cowl, revealing that you were actually Lord Battal all along? I wouldn't even be mad, honestly.

I respect this point of view, but also

This thread is honestly just ridiculous. I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of people on the matter of whether or not the sky is blue. But I mean, what do I know? I've only been an active participant in Don't Starve's community for six years, and a lurker for longer than that. After all, it's really just silly to think that somebody who had a hand in shaping Don't Starve's development with the rest of it's original community would know anything about the game's design ethos. Surely, the people who only started playing when DST got popular would know better, silly me.

Imagine how many more player the niche cult classic indie game would have if it just abandoned it's core ethos that made the people who enjoy it like it in the first place. Why don't we turn CS:Go into a party game and Mario Party into a competitive shooter while we're at it?

If you don't like it, play a different game? I'm not sure what to tell you, it's pretty entitled to expect the developers to upend the entire basic philosophy under which the game was designed to cater to your taste. I'd say Don't Starve's 50k positive reviews on Steam speak for themselves in terms of whether or not it's a good idea.