PC 1.0 Experimental Feedback Please let multiplayer quest clears advance everyone's tier progress

[Riamus]

Yes, you get two points when you're on tier 2 quests, per tier 2 job. Alternatively, you could go back to tier 1 jobs but you'd only get 1 point per job. Tier 5 jobs, for instance, should give 5 points per job, or you could do tier 1 jobs to complete tier 5, but it would take 5 times as long

Note: This is singleplayer. I'm assuming it works the same on multiplayer, but as I don't play with friends (or have any), I cannot say.

Ok, I didn't look at that in game yet as I only just got to tier 2 yesterday.  If that is the case, it is better but still off.  That still means 80 quests per tier for 8 players if everyone does the quests at their your level.  That is still way too much.

And this you have. But there is no rule that says groups should be faster progressing in a game.

Like I said, quests tiers can be limited per day without requiring you to do a ton more quests to get everyone up a tier.  It doesn't have to be faster OR slower.

 

[Riamus]

Here is a way to have quest progression the same for any number of players...

Right now, 10 quests per tier, so 2 days per tier for single player with max quests of 5 per day.  Make it so that you can make up to 5x your quest tier in tier points per day, regardless how many quests you complete.  That means if a group of 4 (how you play) completes 5 quests per day, they also finish each tier in 2 days just like single player.  Nice, easy.  Doesn't matter if you are doing high tier or low tier quests.  Doesn't matter how many players.  It is equal across the board.

 

[MechanicalLens]

Ok, I didn't look at that in game yet as I only just got to tier 2 yesterday.  If that is the case, it is better but still off.  That still means 80 quests per tier for 8 players if everyone does the quests at their your level.  That is still way too much.

Like I said, quests tiers can be limited per day without requiring you to do a ton more quests to get everyone up a tier.  It doesn't have to be faster OR slower.

Agreed, 80 quests PER TIER is nuts. That's 480 quests until everyone gets tier 6 complete.

 

[Joey9Baka]

There's just no good reason this setting should be this punishing by default, no coop team will be happy having to do scaling increases of quests just to get a bike to finally start moving much less the higher tier clears. You're only actively encouraging players to not actually play together and that just makes no sense.

Arguing that co op players have it too easy because they can kill together faster is intrinsically a fools errand because that's how co op is in real life, working together with a team will be easier and faster than being solo, trying to balance coop to be slower than or equal to solo pace is crazy

I have been playing this game with family for so many alphas now and seen so many changes, but this is the most coop killing change yet if allowed past experimental. I really hope TFP is listening to these threads because I have known so many co op gamers over the years, and I can't see a single one liking this system. They'll all either mod it out or quit the game and leave a negative review (if they're a more normal person who's afraid of mods)

 

[myrkana]

This isnt needed. The advancement for tier quests is shared between all traders now, your progress at the start will be slower but it needed to be slowed. Before my day 7 I could be at tier 3 quests easily.

 

[Riamus]

This isnt needed. The advancement for tier quests is shared between all traders now, your progress at the start will be slower but it needed to be slowed. Before my day 7 I could be at tier 3 quests easily.

You still can in single player or even 2 player if you push things, and also in higher number of players if each player quests solo.  That hasn't changed.  What has changed is that instead of multiplayer progressing much faster than single player, now multiplayer progresses much slower than single player (assuming multiplayer does quests as a group).  What should have changed was to make it so progression is at the same rate trader tier regardless of the number of players.  That isn't even difficult to do as I showed in the first post on this page.  I have no idea why the swung things around 180 instead of balancing them.

 

[Bask]

That magazines should be exchanged to the person who needs it adds to the feeling of co-op play. In my group everyone shouts out if he found a magazine useful for someone else in the group ("Hey, I got another spear magazine for you"). And giving stuff useful to someone else is adding to the experience. And I think that is why the Funpimps added it. And that is also why they probably will be reluctant to add a switch for auto-sharing, because everyone wants to turn on a switch that saves on inventory space and nobody will think about any hard to measure consequences of long-term co-op play.

Players who decided to give it all to one person have made the wrong conclusion how to tackle magazines. It obviously is not fun and a great example of how to not play co-op. Co-op also means to share the fun. By the same token you don't let only one person loot in a co-op game even if that would be slightly more efficient.

The issue is that more than just one person wants to be able to make stuff of a certain type. Imagine multiple people want to use a certain type of item (obviously they will in some facit most of the time) then how are they supposed to split magazines based on who needs it if everyone needs it? For me and many others what's fun about co-op is working with and alongside teammates while still being able to do some things for yourself and personally be able to see how far your team has come. I know not all agree but many do. I guess arguing about it is irrelevant given the point is that this should be a setting to make everyone happy. Similar to the quest-sharing change, it won't actually slow down trader progression it will just mean that one person is going to be starting every single quest and that is honestly just lame. It quite literally doesn't slow down progression it's just inconvenient (that goes for mags and quests.) It doesn't even have to be auto shared with all allies, it could be an option to manually share with specific players in game. The thing we can all agree on is that splitting a certain type of magazine between teammates or splitting the quests via the quest starter is what would actually slow progression down, which nobody would do for that reason. Imagine the friend that's able to craft all the items or start the quests is offline or afk, that's not adaptation or cooperation its just poor design and a hindrance to real teamwork - "Hey I know you worked equally as hard to get our mag progression/ quest level to this point but you can't actually utilize any of that yourself; your teammate needs to when he gets off work in 4 hours".

 

[Arez]

I've only played one co-op game in 1.0, for a full 7 in-game days, with a large group of people. We were all split into smaller groups. 

Within the group I was with, we each took a quest and we would go (as a group) from one quest to the next until they were all complete and then we'd go back to the trader and collect our rewards. 

Did we progress slower than usual? Sure, but I don't know if I see a problem with that. We took on each quest as a group. I had fun and it sounded like everyone else was having fun too. 

 

[meganoth]

because that's how co op is in real life, working together with a team will be easier and faster than being solo

What has reality to do with game balance? Nothing.

To everyone: Like in all alphas before people come here complaining about features they haven't actually tried for some in-game days to have actual evidence. Experimental is done by TFP so players can play the game and give their opinion from actual game play experience. If you don't want to be test dummy, wait a month for 1.0 stable.

And don't say "I don't need to play to know this is dumb". I have seen that sentence hundreds of times in this forum and often it turned out to be wrong.

 

[meganoth]

The issue is that more than just one person wants to be able to make stuff of a certain type. Imagine multiple people want to use a certain type of item (obviously they will in some facit most of the time) then how are they supposed to split magazines based on who needs it if everyone needs it?

An actual example from your group would have been nice for your argument.

My group has been playing that way for a long time now and it actually improves co-op play when you need another forge and have to ask the one doing forges to make another one. Most of the magazines are for items you build once every few quality levels, especially guns and armor. Most of the time the one person who wants a specific gun is also the person who reads the magazines for that gun. This is the natural choice because he is also the one who will find the most of that type of magazines and often the only one interested in crafting this. The only exception is if two people use the same type of gun or armor, then  it isn't hard to ask the other person to craft a helmet or pistol for you.

Some magazines (like traps) are for mass-produced items, but it is the task of the person who gets those magazines to produce enough of them into a storage box so others can take them out of the box when building with them. And like in any good co-op game complain when not enough of them are in the box (with all the usual jibes about underlings not working correctly .

Another example is medicine, but in our group it exactly works like with food. One person is getting the medicine magazines, but for that he has to create lots of first aid bandages and put them in the medicine box. If there aren't enough ingredients to produce them he has to ask the farmer to provide more. The "medicine provider" will also usually mention when he has produced a new batch. Examples of good communication in co-op play.

I don't understand when you seem to argue that it is more CO-OP when everyone can craft anything and therefore does not depend on others for crafting specific things. The optimal co-op play IS when everyone depends on everyone else.

It works very well for us, working as a team with specific tasks for everyone. Actually co-op play and helping the others is the main glue why we still play together a small list of games for many years, especially 7 days.

If you want, please tell us of an actual example from your group where it doesn't work well, and tell us why you think it is the failure of the game and if it were different co-op would improve in your game.

 

[8_Hussars]

Oh, and this isn't true.  It takes 30 quests for one person to compete tier 2.  At five quests per day, that is six days to reach tier 3.  I haven't looked at the requirements for the other tiers, not even if it was still 20 points for each tier after 2 (2 is 20 additional points), that still means 4 days each tier for a single person doing 5 quests per day.  And I have a feeling the points continue to increase each tier.

Doh...

 

[Riamus]

Doh...

Yeah, ignore that.  I didn't realize the points you get per quest go up with each tier.  It was pointed out to me earlier in the thread.  It isn't as bad as I thought because of that, but number of quests per tier goes up with each player added - 10, 20, 30, ..., 80 depending on the number of players.  Even doing this with a 2 player group, it just feels frustrating.  And I *like* questing.  Besides, I showed how to balance progression regardless of number of players.  It's not difficult to do.  Not sure why they want to swing the pendulum 180 instead of balancing things.  I get that more players = faster quest completion, but you just aren't going to do enough quests at higher player counts to keep up with single player if you quest as a group.  And I feel like the goal should be to make it so that it doesn't matter how many people are in the party - you should still be able to progress at the same rate if you want.  It was too fast for multiple players before.  Now, it's too slow.

 

[Scyris]

Yeah, this change has made multiplayer and absolute SLOG. I can think of a dozen different ways to re-balance the co-op progression system, and this is by a good margin the laziest and most negatively impactful, especially for large group play. Now the best thing to do when playing with your friends is to... not play with your friends? 2 players already doubles the total quests needed, but with my group of 5? That'd be 50 FREAKING QUESTS were we to do what friends want to do in video games, and, you know, play them together. Regardless of TFP's stance on this one, it'll be a non-issue in no time. Such an abysmal feeling change will have a mod in a week if TFP hasn't fixed it yet. Just a bummer for those that can't be bothered with mods to have their co-op prog completely borked.

V1.0 is what I have nickname the tedium/slog update, as so much of it seems to be focused on making things overly tedious and feeling like your walking thru a bog and slogged down by all the crap in the water. Like I get it the game has no real content and you wanna make it so console players take a while before they figure this out, but to any older player its plain as day why its like this in 1.0. I started a game of 1.0 and was bored out of my mind by day 5 the game just had all the fun sucked out of it and whats left now is a dried out husk. This may improve with the next patch but I feel they should have waited till the entire system was done before making this change. Also random gen needs to be put back to being random, with any size city being able to spawn in any biome, and randomized traders, No one ever asked for trader progression like this, they did ask to rebalance rewards and such though, which was done, maybe too well, as its not hard to earn dukes, and quests no longer award weapons or armor anymore. Honestly alot of my drive to do quests in the game is gone in 1.0 as I used to use them to get gear for the most part, and now? all they offer for reward is pennies and a bunch of useless junk most of the time.

What has reality to do with game balance? Nothing.

To everyone: Like in all alphas before people come here complaining about features they haven't actually tried for some in-game days to have actual evidence. Experimental is done by TFP so players can play the game and give their opinion from actual game play experience. If you don't want to be test dummy, wait a month for 1.0 stable.

And don't say "I don't need to play to know this is dumb". I have seen that sentence hundreds of times in this forum and often it turned out to be wrong.

Except the devs never seem to listen to what the players want, if they did the game wouldn't be in the state it is now. Any one who played a16.4 generally prefers that skill system over the trash the game has now. It needed some tweaks yes, could also keep the learn by reading system with the action skill for the weapon/tool and its assoiated perk that the level you can raise it too being based on the action skill. My biggest gripe is that weapons are locked to stats, so you have to waste to many skill points to make a weapon viable, especially in 1.0 with the inflated hp zombies have. Its prob why the preacher gloves are so good, to help balance this out. They are going to be basically required in every build, or one that buffs damage of specific weapon types at least.

 

[meganoth]

Any one who played a16.4 generally prefers that skill system over the trash the game has now.

And here we have your obviously false statement again, simply because "anyone" includes me and I definitely do not generally nor specifically prefer that skill system. Start from a false hypothesis and you reach false conclusions.

 

[BFT2020]

I'm the same as @meganoth, I prefer the current skill system compare to the previous system.  I never been a big fan of LBD type of progression, especially when it comes to crafting.

 

[Riamus]

I also don't enjoy LBD for crafting, or even for most things.  It was a chore in Morrowind and since then I have not enjoyed it.  I'm fine with LBD for fighting skills because you never have to go out of your way for those.  But when you ask me to make a bunch of stuff I don't want or need to make just to level up a skill?  No thank you.

 

[Joey9Baka]

What has reality to do with game balance? Nothing.

To everyone: Like in all alphas before people come here complaining about features they haven't actually tried for some in-game days to have actual evidence. Experimental is done by TFP so players can play the game and give their opinion from actual game play experience. If you don't want to be test dummy, wait a month for 1.0 stable.

And don't say "I don't need to play to know this is dumb". I have seen that sentence hundreds of times in this forum and often it turned out to be wrong.

I brought up real life as comparison as it sets player's expectations, players expect games to become easier in co op than in singleplayer. I know veterans like yourself and others understand and adapt to any change TFP do and therefore don't really see any change as truly detrimental because it can't stop you, but I'm trying to tell you the perspective of more average folk you'll be bringing in with 1.0 and console releases.

Balancing the game around only how pros play in elite coop teams will only alienate the new players you'll be getting further.

At the absolute least this should be a configurable option (with shared progress probably being default) so the players themselves can decide if they want co op progress to be slower than solo progress. Again I know mods will fix this and players like me will just do that. But the new console players will be unable to do this and will instead just complain and leave negative reviews.

I'm sorry you clearly deal with rude or aggressive people very often yelling at you (As most moderators of long running games do). I am not one of them.

 

[Scyris]

I'm the same as @meganoth, I prefer the current skill system compare to the previous system.  I never been a big fan of LBD type of progression, especially when it comes to crafting.

Thats why I said with some tweaks, as in remove crafting quality from the action skill, I hated that part of it as well back in alpha 15, or was it earlier a16? I don't remember its been ages. It would have been a hell of alot less work for the devs to tweak it than completly redo it like they did. TFP tends to create unneeded work for themselves changing things that often do not need to be changed in the first place, its a big reason why the vanilla version of the game has gone basically no where in well.. since 10.2. Gameplay is well, not the same, options were taken away, Steel is still top tier, radiated still top tier zombies.  The game has gotten stale to many older players, and prettier graphics aren't going to fix it. Only thing saving it is the modding community for many players.

Now you may say: "Well why not just play modded then?" Well I usually do, I usually only play vanilla for a bit when a update releases. I'd play vanilla more if it had more to do, but the game has a severe lack of it. The current trader progression system is god aweful as well, because it makes rwg maps boring, every trader in a biome is the same, 0 variety, it gets stale fast. I nicknamed 1.0 the tedium update, or the slog update.

I do sort of like the new difficulty though, I was on day 4 on warrior doing a restore power quest and had 2 feral lumberjacks with over 1050 hp each to deal with, that took some strat, as a 30 dmg pipe machine gun is going to take a ton of ammo to kill those. Ended up kiting them with a crossbow, some wood spikes and some melee. I'd like it much better if TFP would remove the cheapshots with the rage system where they suddendly sprint, and the fact they for whatever dumb reason stagger towards you instead of back when hit, often being able to attack the player with 0 animation, you just get hit without the zombie even swinging. I've played alot of zombie games, and only seen these 2 things in 7dtd and no where else. The Rage Mode I would love to be in the advanced options like feral sense so players could choose to turn that crap off if they want to. I bet you the majority would turn it off if they could do it in game without a mod. I am guessing this is why the armor value is so high on armor. My tier 5 padded set has about 45 armor total. Stuff still hurts even with that on warrior thou.

 

[meganoth]

I brought up real life as comparison as it sets player's expectations, players expect games to become easier in co op than in singleplayer.

Ok, a valid point. Though I see in almost every game with SP and MP play that the game tries to level the field, in most games enemies are simply harder or have at least more hit points if you go into a dungeon as a group. Ask any game designer and he will tell you that he would try to make a game so that a group has the same challenge as a single player.

The optimal case should be a balanced game no matter with how many players you play it. Why should I be bored to death in co-op because the game wants a challenge in single-player or vice-versa? Most players want some difficulty so they feel the satisfaction of having survived combat. Only a subset of players is happy with a game without challenge.

I know veterans like yourself and others understand and adapt to any change TFP do and therefore don't really see any change as truly detrimental because it can't stop you, but I'm trying to tell you the perspective of more average folk you'll be bringing in with 1.0 and console releases.

Ok. But have more average folk the knowledge to increase difficulty just because they play as a group? Don't they expect to have a challenging but managable experience no matter how many they are when they start with default difficulty?

Balancing the game around only how pros play in elite coop teams will only alienate the new players you'll be getting further.

At the absolute least this should be a configurable option (with shared progress probably being default) so the players themselves can decide if they want co op progress to be slower than solo progress. Again I know mods will fix this and players like me will just do that. But the new console players will be unable to do this and will instead just complain and leave negative reviews.

Don't worry about this setting. In every alpha before the experimental started like half a souls game in difficulty, every veteran player was happy and novice players were complaining. Then with every new experimental version the "worst" settings got toned down after people posted their feedback. I am just astonished how many players, even veteran players, don't even try pout the new settings but think they can evaluate the new alpha with just by thinking about it for a few minutes.

I might guess that the new setting we are discussing about is going too far, but I have no doubt that the general setting in A21 was too good for co-op players as well. Probably some middle ground is applicable and I at least have to play for a much longer time to know how far that setting has to go back or if it has to be replaced by something else entirely.

I'm sorry you clearly deal with rude or aggressive people very often yelling at you (As most moderators of long running games do). I am not one of them.

I am sorry if I sounded too harsh. Like you I am interested in polite discussion but sometimes my sentences miss the polite fluff words

 

[Brakiss]

How about a setting like the „Share XP“ option we have now, to make it possible to switch between shared trader progression or individual progression?

or make quests you help complete count half a point for your own progression