PC Virtually No End Game

[Kryptik]

First of all im a long time player of 7 Days to Die with over 1000 hours so i know that there is still plenty to sort of DO after day 100 ish but will there ever be a proper end game?

Maybe zombie bosses that come with every 7th wave after day 70 that drop specific loot? A roaming world zombie boss that needs to be defeated to truly beat the game?

I generally play single player because if internet issues and truly love the game but i always feel like i get bored and restart after im all set up etc, playing on harder difficulties and higher zombie counts does make it more challenging early game but it still ends up being the same late game.

Id really prefer not to have to turn to mods but that sort of seems like the only option.

 

[Loboling]

Right now, unless you plan on renovating the world, mods are the only answer to end-game. Darkness falls has interesting mechanics and endgame, although I haven't gotten far yet myself. From what I can tell, the dev's are not actually planning to focus on end-game, but rather make the game very repayable. I'd surmise that if endgame is your goal, your only option is to either change up the settings/config files to give yourself the experience you want, or go check out which mods are interesting to you. Once a mod is functional with a build, it usually remains so, and since you can lock 7 days to specific builds you don't need to worry about compatibility issues as much as with other games. 

This is possibly the best modding game ever, it may not have the most mods ever or be the most popular, but even an absolute grunk like myself can do all sorts of fun things in the config files. I think the game was designed with the idea that end-game will be create by the community, so long as the developers build a solid base game that is very replayable. 

TLDR: You'll prob need mods to get any meaningful endgame out of 7 days, unless you love building/renovating. 

 

[Scyris]

This is the problem with most sandbox titles, once your established, there is very little reason to keep going, even more so in a survival type game. Since the goal is to survive once you got food/water sorted out there is really no reason to keep going. I mean if these games had some sort of a story and such might last longer till your thru the main story. You kinda have to make your own content, set a goal like make a big castle or something to keep you busy.

I personally play dead is dead in 7 days to die, if I die, I delete the save and usually the world and start over. Only exceptions is if I say die within the first 1-3 days, i'll just start a new save on the same map. Playing higher difficulties really ramps up the challenge when your playing dead is dead mode.

 

[Maharin]

This game is supposed to have more "tower defense" type game play, meaning that playing longer games gets harder as you go.  Eventually you will be hard pressed to keep up with the damage the hordes and other things do to your fort.  There's a lot of work to be done in this area of the game but the essence will still likely be that prolonged survival is a journey not a destination.

 

[MrRogersBestNeighbor]

I'm fairly new to the game, so obviously take my opinion with a grain of salt. I LOVE the game so far, however whenever I play any game, I enjoy there being a very challenging endgame at the end to test my ability to adapt to it.

One worry I've had with this game (which has been confirmed in watching some videos of people crafting bases that allow them to afk cheese the hardest difficulties) is that playing on the highest difficulty for a prolonged period of time will leave the game becoming FAR easier over time rather than more challenging.

While I understand not everyone is a masochist who enjoys having a game kick their ass, that's what lower difficulties are generally for in video games. There isn't really any replayability in games, for people like me (and there's a lot of us), that don't force you to become more adaptable and skilled at a game for those who like to test their own abilities and "win" a game. I would expect the highest difficulty to really force you to adapt to the game mechanics AND have to depend on a high degree of skill to survive (in this case, on horde nights).

For example, one thing I would expect the game developers to do would to be to nerf the knockback of sledge turrets on some more threatening zombies on the highest difficulty (I've seen sledge turret cheeses that allow people to afk horde nights on days in the thousands). Key words, HIGHEST DIFFICULTIES. If you still want the sledge turret cheese to be in the game, then you can play lower difficulties if you want a more relaxed gameplay experience.

While I understand I can always choose to make the game more difficult for myself (by not allowing myself to use things that can cheese the game), there is a certain satisfaction in thinking through all the game mechanics and skillfully maneuvering my way to making it to points most people haven't. I would expect horde nights on the highest difficulty (no matter how far I've progressed) to be extremely stressful/action packed for the average player, where they would need to abandon original bases and have to skillfully communicate and fight their way to backup bases. As such, I would expect on the highest difficulty for it to be very difficult for most people to survive horde nights on the highest difficulty 100+ days in, no matter what they can build (obviously there would be metas to what structures will allow you to be more likely to survive), but the point is it would still be a challenge for even the most skilled players.

That's something I would absolutely love to see and vastly extend the life of the game for me.  And while there are always PVP servers I could join to increase the challenge, I have friends who aren't absolutely insane at every game they play, but I can still manage to help them enough that we can take on some of the craziest challenges any game throws at us. I play games for those moments of celebration when we've conquered some crazy challenge thrown at us after dying dozens of times before finally figuring out some sort of strategy and dealing with problems we weren't expecting to run into  and successfully conquering them (or even almost conquering them, then rethinking how we can do better in the future). One of the reasons some in the military have trouble reintegrating into civilian life and wind up continually returning to the military is because that feeling of overcoming some insane challenge with others is extremely addicting (Obviously I'm not saying that is the primary reason veterans have trouble reintegrating into civilian life generally, that is clearly not what I'm referring to).

I'm REALLY hoping the final game provides such a difficulty or at least makes certain cheeses obsolete for those specific difficulties. With a game as complex as this, I'd understand if they weren't able to. However, if they could provide such a challenge in the future, this game would easily become one of the best games I've played (if not the best). I'm having a blast playing it now, just hoping I continue to have a blast playing it as my buddies and I increase the difficulty and continue to play.

 

[beHypE]

Bandits have been on the roadmap since the inception of the game and should be that 'end game content'. It's been years without even a glimpse of what it could eventually become besides some pipe dreams, so I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up with a  'sorry, we need to finally go gold and they will be in the sequel' type of ending. Hope I'm wrong but I'm not holding my breath. 

 

[Maharin]

'sorry, we need to finally go gold and they will be in the sequel' type of ending.

I would bet against that being the result as it would greatly harm their reputation.

 

[Yark]

Just wait another three months and maybe we'll get another HD model.

 

[Axonius]

I think there is potential for having a City rebuilding element to the game. Meaning that once a clear a certain region, civilians start moving in and you have to protect to them. Maybe you can 'train' some of those civilians to help you fight zombies. Basicaly a version of what Fallout 4 did with the settlements.

 

[MB83]

I think there is potential for having a City rebuilding element to the game. Meaning that once a clear a certain region, civilians start moving in and you have to protect to them. Maybe you can 'train' some of those civilians to help you fight zombies. Basicaly a version of what Fallout 4 did with the settlements.

That‘s a really awesome idea. I mean since they are working on bandits already, adding civilians and some mechanic for them moving in doesn‘t seem that far-fetched. Maybe even within reach of modders if devs decide against it.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would bet against that being the result as it would greatly harm their reputation.

I doubt that.  The vast majority of people would have no idea and just know the end product is pretty damn good.  I would be okay without bandits tbh.  I would have been okay with the game going gold as is.

That they are still working on it is just gravy for me.  After taking this experience to a few other games I have been let down hard.  A lot of EA titles seem to end up as unfinished garbage heaps.  I generally will not buy EA anymore.  Considering the game is getting ever closer to completion and bandits have been totally absent from anything outside of unused assets, I honestly do not see them making the cut in the end.  Bandits are PvP servers.  And they are pretty difficult  

All these types of games have this problem.  Conan manages to habve a pretty deep storyline and an end game but to achieve that required a static map.  A games like this makes that very difficult.  It is also true the more freedom you give the player, the more ways they will discover that breaks any challenge that the dev may throw at them.

End game content is really what you make it.  I fond that I end up seeking all the books and when found, there is no reason to go outside anymore so the game is abandoned for awhile.

Then again, I play dead is dead so it is tough as hell to get to that end game no matter how powerful you get.  Some pretty simple mistakes gets any character killed.

 

[bdubyah]

NPCs were a Kickstarter goal, so I'd imagine they will be added for sure. If they ever get the story stuff going, I'd imagine there will be an "end" to the game. Probably open-ended like Fallouts usually are, but still.

 

[Spatch]

I still don't understand why some players complain about other's choices for how they play the game!  If you don't like a certain tactic, just don't use it!  I personally still miss being able to just get in a vehicle and drive during horde night, or tunnel down to bedrock to hide from hordes, and the mindless zombies that didn't know how to find a way to you better than you yourself know!

So, the bases where you can essentially go AFK during horde night...  I love that idea!  You don't?  Then don't use it!

Each player should be able to play this game how they want to play it and this is what attracted me to 7 Days initially.  With each release, it seems to be getting harder and harder to make it what I want to make it and instead we get dev- and player-directed changes that some of us just don't want.

And before ya assume how I play, I now play dead-is-dead.  It makes the game difficult in a way I want to make it difficult.  No dev interaction required!

 

[Ornias]

Honestly they could have gone gold with 16.4 with some vehicle upgrades and most of use would have been happy. 

 

[Matt115]

First of all im a long time player of 7 Days to Die with over 1000 hours so i know that there is still plenty to sort of DO after day 100 ish but will there ever be a proper end game?

Maybe zombie bosses that come with every 7th wave after day 70 that drop specific loot? A roaming world zombie boss that needs to be defeated to truly beat the game?

I generally play single player because if internet issues and truly love the game but i always feel like i get bored and restart after im all set up etc, playing on harder difficulties and higher zombie counts does make it more challenging early game but it still ends up being the same late game.

Id really prefer not to have to turn to mods but that sort of seems like the only option.

There is a boss - Demolisher - Official 7 Days to Die Wiki (fandom.com)  ( link about it) 

Bandits have been on the roadmap since the inception of the game and should be that 'end game content'. It's been years without even a glimpse of what it could eventually become besides some pipe dreams, so I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up with a  'sorry, we need to finally go gold and they will be in the sequel' type of ending. Hope I'm wrong but I'm not holding my breath. 

They just need time , know we have something like 1 year terraria . They need first to make early and medium stage "stable"

I think there is potential for having a City rebuilding element to the game. Meaning that once a clear a certain region, civilians start moving in and you have to protect to them. Maybe you can 'train' some of those civilians to help you fight zombies. Basicaly a version of what Fallout 4 did with the settlements.

<sight> nope , 7dtd is more F76 that F4.  7DTD have PVP system so i will just broke balance. 7dtd is somthing betwenn DayZ and minecraft, Ofc we have trades but they are  MMO-style npc

NPCs were a Kickstarter goal, so I'd imagine they will be added for sure. If they ever get the story stuff going, I'd imagine there will be an "end" to the game. Probably open-ended like Fallouts usually are, but still.

And we have NPC now - traders are Npc . In Mmo style but they made  their promise right?

 

[bdubyah]

Well, there was a line for NPC merchants, but another one under the $500k goal for other NPCs to discover. Technically it's in the section that can be "after release", but it's still there.

 

[Roland]

player-directed changes

No such thing. Everything is dev directed and they make changes whether those changes are asked for or not.

I agree generally with you that people shouldn’t concern themselves with how others play, but AFK bases are definitely contrary to dev vision for this game. They want a game that requires player engagement. That’s why the title of the game isn’t “Idle 7 Days to Die”. Granted, players will find a way but they are going to make players work for it, for sure.
 

Also, you can still drive around on horde night....if you make an underground track. 

Honestly they could have gone gold with 16.4 with some vehicle upgrades and most of use would have been happy. 

Well...most of you who liked A16 would be happy but not necessarily most of the player base. Player numbers haven’t exactly dropped off since the demise of A16.4....

 

[7daysexpert]

No such thing. Everything is dev directed and they make changes whether those changes are asked for or not.

I agree generally with you that people shouldn’t concern themselves with how others play, but AFK bases are definitely contrary to dev vision for this game. They want a game that requires player engagement. That’s why the title of the game isn’t “Idle 7 Days to Die”. Granted, players will find a way but they are going to make players work for it, for sure.
 

Also, you can still drive around on horde night....if you make an underground track. 

Well...most of you who liked A16 would be happy but not necessarily most of the player base. Player numbers haven’t exactly dropped off since the demise of A16.4....

actually roland your wrong on the player directed changes in A16 a player could make an underground horde base and now we cant as the zombies seem to have gotten super smart as a few players whined and @%$#ed about people making underground bases

 

[FA_Q2]

actually roland your wrong on the player directed changes in A16 a player could make an underground horde base and now we cant as the zombies seem to have gotten super smart as a few players whined and @%$#ed about people making underground bases

That is not 'player directed.'  They did not change it because people whined nor does any dev care about one player whining about another player.

They plugged an obvious exploit that was never planned to be there in the first place.  I have never seen a single dev state that there should be any place to be safe from the horde save paying for it with dukes and, afaik, they threw that idea out as well.  

I can say that I certainly wanted digging zeds because I actually wanted to make an underground base that would be assaulted.  The game is not there yet as they have not properly designed the AI for vertical travel so I do hope they fix that as well but it is one hell of an unsubstantiated claim to say the devs changed this because of some whining players.

 

[Roland]

actually roland your wrong on the player directed changes in A16 a player could make an underground horde base and now we cant as the zombies seem to have gotten super smart as a few players whined and @%$#ed about people making underground bases

I’m definitely not wrong about this. Zombies could dig since the very beginning of the game. At some point,  at around Alpha 12 or 13 they stopped them from digging until they could overhaul the pathing. That happened in A17 when zombies once again started digging. 
 

it wasn’t a change because the devs felt nervous due to really whiney players. It was always in the game except for a brief hiatus. Zombies have been digging in more Alphas than they haven’t been digging. 
 

The devs are creating their game. If they were as sensitive to community outcry as some like to believe then we most definitely would still have LBD....