Allow several players to use a single container.

[J192]

I think all containers except Crock Pot should be usable by several players simultaneously, there is completely no point in doing otherwise.

 

Expected responses:

This is so I won't have to deal with half-witted objections.

 

1. "To add difficulty! Don't Starve should be uncompromising!"

I searched the dictionary and I found out that "difficult" and "frustrating" are neither synonyms nor have similar meaning.

dif·fi·cult

ˈdifəkəlt/

adjective

needing much effort or skill to accomplish, deal with, or understand.

frus·trate

ˈfrəstrāt/

verb

gerund or present participle: frustrating

cause (someone) to feel upset or annoyed, typically as a result of being unable to change or achieve something.

Making something difficult does not mean it should be frustrating. Exploration is difficult because of the dangers and risks. Having to wait several seconds just to take a piece of flint from a chest is not difficult, it's annoying and unnecessary.

2. "For game balancing!"

Refer to #1.

3. "No! I am also not going to provide any logical reasoning as to why I disagree!"

This is a forum discussion for game balancing, not the YouTube comments section.

4. "To prevent griefing!"

Of all the things you can do to grief, you chose to annoy somebody by rearranging the items in a chest whilst they use them?

5. "It's how Klei Entertainment wanted containers to work!"/"It has been there for a long time, no need to change it!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

 

If your response will not be one of the above, then feel free to discuss.

[rezecib]

@J192, The main reason containers can't be used by multiple people at once is to avoid a whole ocean of synchronization bugs, I think.

 

That being said, it would be nice if you could at least put an item in a chest that was being used by another person. Not sure where that falls in terms of synchronization, but it should be easier than supporting all container actions. 

[J192]

@J192, The main reason containers can't be used by multiple people at once is to avoid a whole ocean of synchronization bugs, I think.

 

That being said, it would be nice if you could at least put an item in a chest that was being used by another person. Not sure where that falls in terms of synchronization, but it should be easier than supporting all container actions. 

Oh, I didn't think that through. Will there still be any hope for it?

[shigad]

4. "To prevent griefing!"

Of all the things you can do to grief, you chose to annoy somebody by rearranging the items in a chest whilst they use them?

you can steal something just when he tries to take it or something like that.

 

also another reason, 6, is that it may cause bugs (maybe it may, didn't check the mechanics behind it)

[J192]

you can steal something just when he tries to take it or something like that.

Or, better yet, just steal it without anybody knowing. There will ALWAYS be griefers in a multiplayer game, no matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be griefers.

[The Letter W]

I think it's probably also to prevent confusion as you can't see the other player's mouse or anything. Nothing like going to grab an item and oops, it's gone into another person's inventory! I do agree that you should be able in the very least, be able to place items into a container providing there's a free spot.