Shipwrecked for DST

[Streema]

So... I really love the shipwrecked DLC but i wonder if its going to be implemented into DST as well like RoG?

Just asking, it would be awesome to play this awesome dlc with my friends ^-^ What are your thoughts?

[Karmattack]

It was designed with the help of an outside company with single-player in mind, so they're not sure if they're going to implement it. 

It would take a lot of balancing or something, because if you spawned on the first island and there was no flint you're dead day 1 unless someone brings you some. 

[ImDaMisterL]

Hey @Streema, welcome to the forums!

Klei has said they have no plans to port it right now, but it might as well become a reality eventually.

Actually, the quotes of Warly's special crock pot were added to the DST characters' speech files so there's somme speculation about the SW port coming sooner than we think.

All just speculation, though.

[TomatoSensei]

"What about Shipwrecked for DST?

We don’t have any concrete plans right now. Shipwrecked was built without DST in mind, and we’re going to need to evaluate how much is needed if we were going to do this. We would all love to go sailing with our friends!"
Source:

[DwerBomb]

This might be the first time you've asked, but many have asked before. 

The short answer is: not yet. 

DST is it's own game and is still being expanded. SW is its own game too, but would require so much work to be put in multiplayer (a new world, a new cave-like system, not easy to port in multiplayer). 

Enjoy both games the way they are: SW as a singleplayer vacation experience, DST as an adventurous multiplayer game you can enjoy with your friends. DST has lots of cool stuff coming! You can look forward to that!

 

[SenpaiArtorias]

Wanna Throught the Ages first my hopes still glowing

[Maslak]

l know it's kind of mean, but... I'd probably feel weird when all DST users will get Shipwrecked content, even if I paid for it (as a singleplayerd DLC) and they - not.

[ImDaMisterL]

2 minutes ago, Maslak said:

l know it's kind of mean, but... I'd probably feel weird when all DST users will get Shipwrecked content, even if I paid for it (as a singleplayerd DLC) and they - not.

We better get a nice Endothermic Fire Pit skin to make up for it.

[Maslak]

Somewhere someone said something about machete quotes in DST files, too. If this is right, it doesn't mean SW characters but whole SW. Or maybe just another resource variant that needs machete, some super though reeds.

[Axehilt]

On 5/19/2016 at 4:36 PM, Karmattack said:

It was designed with the help of an outside company with single-player in mind, so they're not sure if they're going to implement it. 

It would take a lot of balancing or something, because if you spawned on the first island and there was no flint you're dead day 1 unless someone brings you some. 

"A lot of balancing" sort of over-sells it.  Players could start with 3 flint and that would solve the problem.  OR the flint-spawning birds could be a little faster and that would solve the problem.  

Both are really simple solutions.  Both would help the base game anyway (where late-joining players don't deserve to have to travel super far just to find their first flint.)

They could also create a new game world object that gives each player one harvest of 1-2 flint, and spawn 2-3 of these "flint quarries" within 5 screens of the floral postern (so you still have to explore for your flint, but everyone gets one harvest of 1-2 flint from it the first time they find it.)  It could even refill (probably with a second harvest 2 days after the player's first harvest, and then once every 14 days afterward) so that it acts both as your starting flint, and also a very small supply of emergency flint every so often (I've been on servers where it felt like just about every rock was mined out, making flint rare.)

[Karmattack]

2 minutes ago, Axehilt said:

"A lot of balancing" sort of over-sells it.  Players could start with 3 flint and that would solve the problem.  OR the flint-spawning birds could be a little faster and that would solve the problem.  

Both are really simple solutions.  Both would help the base game anyway (where late-joining players don't deserve to have to travel super far just to find their first flint.)

They could also create a new game world object that gives each player one harvest of 1-2 flint, and spawn 2-3 of these "flint quarries" within 5 screens of the floral postern (so you still have to explore for your flint, but everyone gets one harvest of 1-2 flint from it the first time they find it.)  It could even refill (probably with a second harvest 2 days after the player's first harvest, and then once every 14 days afterward) so that it acts both as your starting flint, and also a very small supply of emergency flint every so often (I've been on servers where it felt like just about every rock was mined out, making flint rare.)

That's not a bad idea, or maybe they can do what they did with the Thatch Pack and make a weaker version of an existing item. 

They could make wooden tools with less durability than normal tools but only needing sticks to create so that they can basically have tools no matter what. 

Only a griefer would dig up all the saplings from the first island. 

[Axehilt]

On 5/19/2016 at 4:39 PM, DwerBomb said:

This might be the first time you've asked, but many have asked before. 

The short answer is: not yet. 

DST is it's own game and is still being expanded. SW is its own game too, but would require so much work to be put in multiplayer (a new world, a new cave-like system, not easy to port in multiplayer). 

Enjoy both games the way they are: SW as a singleplayer vacation experience, DST as an adventurous multiplayer game you can enjoy with your friends. DST has lots of cool stuff coming! You can look forward to that!

 

Do you have any specifics on the "so much work" thing?  You seem to kinda gloss over whether there are actually significant technical hurdles.

Just seems like a server would host either a Shipwrecked world, or a Standard one. Why do you fee SW would need a cave-like system? Why do you feel it wouldn't be easy to port to multiplayer?

I mean I've worked on plenty of games to know that there are undoubtedly a lot of little special cases to handle, like when Warly gets added can other players pick up his portable crock pot or is it more like Lucy the Axe?  But the amount of content SW would add to DST relative to the amount of work it would take would be ridiculously time-efficient.

 

[Karmattack]

I think the caves-like system they're referring to is the Seaworthy linking to Reign of Giants, but I'd assume that wouldn't be included in a DST version of Shipwrecked. 

[DwerBomb]

1 hour ago, Axehilt said:

Do you have any specifics on the "so much work" thing?  You seem to kinda gloss over whether there are actually significant technical hurdles.

Just seems like a server would host either a Shipwrecked world, or a Standard one. Why do you fee SW would need a cave-like system? Why do you feel it wouldn't be easy to port to multiplayer?

 

49 minutes ago, Karmattack said:

I think the caves-like system they're referring to is the Seaworthy linking to Reign of Giants, but I'd assume that wouldn't be included in a DST version of Shipwrecked. 

That, and volcano. If it gets implemented as it is it would have RoG, Caves, SW and Volcano running at once. Good luck handling that :/ 

[Axehilt]

1 hour ago, DwerBomb said:

That, and volcano. If it gets implemented as it is it would have RoG, Caves, SW and Volcano running at once. Good luck handling that :/ 

Well sure, but why imply it's all or nothing?

Admittedly I didn't get that much time in on Shipwrecked before switching over to DST, but it really didn't feel like the standard world needed to be connected to Shipwrecked. (In fact it felt a little weird coming to the regular world from a SW start...it almost felt like the two worlds shouldn't have been connected.)

Launching with just SW+Volcano alone seems worth it.

If it's only a matter of server perf, then (unless running all 4 worlds simultaneously is crushingly, geometrically bad for performance ) it seems fine to leave the option to do that in-game and let hosts sort out whether their server is strong enough to handle it.  Especially if server-linking allows each server to handle the load of one map type (I never dug into the details of how this works, but it seemed like either this is already possible or very nearly so.)

[Arlesienne]

I think @Axehilt's idea of the SW island being either a separate server type or yet another shard sounds plausible. It looks like it's possible (modders port the content to DST), but I believe it will take a lot of time (IF at all) to get it in the game. I think not starving on a tropical island while in a group could be fun.

[AnonymousKoala]

On 23.5.2016 at 1:23 AM, Axehilt said:

Well sure, but why imply it's all or nothing?

Admittedly I didn't get that much time in on Shipwrecked before switching over to DST, but it really didn't feel like the standard world needed to be connected to Shipwrecked. (In fact it felt a little weird coming to the regular world from a SW start...it almost felt like the two worlds shouldn't have been connected.)

Launching with just SW+Volcano alone seems worth it.

If it's only a matter of server perf, then (unless running all 4 worlds simultaneously is crushingly, geometrically bad for performance ) it seems fine to leave the option to do that in-game and let hosts sort out whether their server is strong enough to handle it.  Especially if server-linking allows each server to handle the load of one map type (I never dug into the details of how this works, but it seemed like either this is already possible or very nearly so.)

Oh boy you're really giving in that you didn't play SW that much.

It has so little content that post year 1 you'll probably realize soon enough why almost everyone merge worlds. 

[Axehilt]

4 hours ago, AnonymousKoala said:

Oh boy you're really giving in that you didn't play SW that much.

It has so little content that post year 1 you'll probably realize soon enough why almost everyone merge worlds. 

Exactly what percent of DST players do you believe survives a full year?

My experience has been that servers are consistently full (8/8) on Day 20 and consistently lose 63-75% of players (2/8 or 3/8) by Day 24.  We're not talking about the end of Year 1.  We're talking about Day 24.

Given the reality we're actually living in, SW would be a tremendous amount of new content for at least 63-75% of players.

Why be confrontational with such a faulty opinion?

[AnonymousKoala]

2 minutes ago, Axehilt said:

Exactly what percent of DST players do you believe survives a full year?

My experience has been that servers are consistently full (8/8) on Day 20 and consistently lose 63-75% of players (2/8 or 3/8) by Day 24.  We're not talking about the end of Year 1.  We're talking about Day 24.

Given the reality we're actually living in, SW would be a tremendous amount of new content for at least 63-75% of players.

Why be confrontational with such a faulty opinion?

Ok yeah you're correct on that. Also why people love SW so much on steam. How many of these reviewers survive a full year there.