• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About Zalyn

  • Rank


  1. Sure, you could've been. But you posted a substantive and proportionate response to what can only be seen as an inflammatory attempt to start a fight and ridicule a notable group of users. You're allowed to be pointed, but you did avoid the ad hominems; I doubt I could have done the same given all the vitriol I've seen just in the last day here. I also appreciated getting to learn a bit about the older history of DS's growth and development. You were less petty than a toddler, so you're good to go.
  2. Call me superficial, but I tend to prefer the side that doesn't use loaded language like "entitled," "petulant," "toddler," "histrionics," "hysterical," "whining," "crazy," and "misanthropy" as ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with them. Them's fighting words, and it takes an admirable amount of self-control to not respond in kind. *Edited because I forgot "whining."
  3. Fixed that for you - "people eating people servers" FTW.
  4. Are you excited or disappointed? Why? I don't think that this binary choice accurately represents how people can feel about this. I am happy for Klei that they feel comfortable taking this step. But at the same time, I feel a little sad and concerned that the community will change to the point that it will lose what made it special. Right now, seeing the "Haha, suck it, anti-multiplayer!" posts makes me sad. Do think DST will effect Don't Starve for the better or for worse? Why? I have faith in Klei that they will not let DST negatively affect the core DS game. But nowadays, the game and community are two interconnnected and mutually influencing entities. Ironically, I suspect that playing DS will become more lonely for me after multiplayer is introduced. As I am not interested in multiplayer, I will decline to answer the other questions. I would prefer to find a way to prevent the final update that includes multiplayer, just because that would be my preference.
  5. There should be permadeath and survivors get your stuff, like Castle Doctrine:
  6. Actually, Kuru and other diseases do come from eating human bodies. Hey, if people want multiplayer, then they should have to deal with the uncomfortable questions that arise a la Donner Party and Lord of the Flies. In the second case, we're already all set having pigs in the world. Team Piggy!
  7. I like this idea because it made me nostalgic for my undergrad school. We had an artificial lake that would dry out in the summer and get overgrown with all sorts of neat plants. It was fun to talk about "mowing the lake" since they'd send out a big mowing machine to keep the vegetation trimmed. One perk could be that in some intermediate stage between being full of water and completely dried out there could be a setpiece of reeds in the middle that would only be accessible in that stage.
  8. I just keep a stack of pinecones to plant so I can calm down the Treeguard.
  9. Yeah, I think the starvation time is still off between in the cage and in your pocket - the bird in the pocket seems to take two days to get to "hungry", and a bit beyond that to "starving" (haven't documented it, just my feeling). But two days away and the bird is dead. So I guess a bird in the hand is worth two in the cage...
  10. Chopping down burnt trees for charcoal before all the trees nearby stopped burning. Built a campfire too high after putting some of my stuff on the ground. As Willow, not turning around and running the heck away when at night I started getting stung by bees (wandered into a Killer Bee field). Walking into really dangerous areas (lots of tentacles or bees) with Abigail, especially during the day. Opened a sinkhole near my camp.
  11. I will point out that nowhere in that title is "fight." It is a cultural assumption that survival = fighting (as opposed to occasional violence or killing). I would also argue that if one were to be dropped into a wilderness, the idea of fighting something 10 times your size to the death makes absolutely no sense; it's suicidal and completely counter to the idea of surviving. If survival always meant fighting back to the death, then the bunnies should fight back instead of flee. Instead, they use their advantages to get away. I think it would be interesting if there were a mechanic on some large creatures where they'd run away if you whacked them enough; that includes a realistic amount of fighting while also recognizing that not every problem has to be solved with killing. Addition: Also, relying on the phrase "uncompromising wilderness survival" means that thirst and dysentery should really be implemented because the first priority in wilderness survival is almost always to find safe, drinkable water. I guarantee we'd have a lot of deaths at Day 3 (dehydration - would be funny to watch characters mummify) and Day 6 (just explode in a mess of blood and manure). The point is that games are usually finding a balance between realism (or some consistent in-game physics/reality) and fun. I really enjoy DS because Klei makes fun (sometimes twisted, perverse fun) a priority with features they implement (such as the finite birchnut problem). Similarly, I find that the games that bring me back are the ones that offer many ways to deal with challenges - the ability of people to play as vegetarians is awesome (which is why I support a small change in preservation, like drying, because it encourages more fun and creativity). Back to the main point of contention - I do not yet know the details on all of the giants. But if there is a combination giant or other boss who 1) seeks you out, 2) follows you / teleports to your location, 3) has strong AOE, and 4) can only be defeated by killing it (which entails fite & kite), then it overly constrains play so that you're required to use the simple fight mechanics. I would rather see more development of other options (or rebalancing to let some overworld creature in reasonable numbers to survive against it at least a few ticks) than to rework or add more to the fight mechanics. DS is a survival game, which sometimes includes fighting, but it is not a combat game.
  12. The thing is that the ruins doesn't address the comparative difference between characters. I also was responding in a similar style. Also, if you have the infrastructure to do ruins, you probably aren't going to care about picking evil flowers.
  13. Yes. Since I don't usually engage in fighting, I look at the differences in stats for, say a Tentacle spike and a Hambat, and I shrug and think, "eh, what's the point of wasting meat on a Hambat when I could have jerky instead and need a few more hits for most things?" Since I don't usually kill things for big meat, I just jerky any big meat I find to make the most of it. If there were actual different types of vulnerabilities, I would feel more interested in making the effort to try crafting new weapons. This isn't a request for it (*waves at devs*), but simply an observation of my motivations as a player responding to design features. Here's another idea (inspired by the Gmoose above): what if one giant (or other uber enemy) only attacked you if you carried weapons and armor? Kind of like the Bunnymen, but instead an uber-pacifist. You have to make a show of good faith by dropping your pointy things, and it will leave you alone. That would be an interesting mechanic that is open-ended and promotes player creativity while also making a puzzle. (I figure that this would not be a hard mechanic to implement, except that the Walking Cane would be tricky since it can be used as a weapon but might not count as one...? I don't know Lua)