PC My next mission will not contribute to my tier progression

[meganoth]

I just think it's a bit silly this was implemented for singleplayer (even though it can be turned off), especially since trader progression is not nearly as important anymore, or at least from my experience. Imo this would have blended more seamlessly for strictly multiplayer purposes to combat quest progression sharing.

Then again, who knows, perhaps new players were engaging solely in questing and this is way a combat that. How effective it will be and if it was ever a problem to begin with (or if it should be considered a problem in the first place), I don't know.

There is no difference between MP and SP for the games code. How should it know if a game is a SP game or a MP where the second player is joining in 5 minutes? How can it know if two players on a server are playing co-op or practically playing as if the other doesn't exist or even shoot at each other? So forget about any special settings for multiplayer, there are none and there will be none. Pretty sure about that.

Now, as an example: My group of 4 co-op players easily reaches the limit and goes far above without the least of effort. Because we can do 4 quests without driving back to the trader in-between. That saves a massive amount of time.

And currently in our game, even with that neon sign lighting up we still did further quests. For the xp, the dukes and the reward. Ok, that might change after playing further, after all we still have to find our way through all the balancing changes and determine what is "best" for us.

 

[Riamus]

Let me ask you all: How many days does a typical run of the game last for you? (If you set it to longer days, calculate how much it would be in standard days). 

20 or less?

21-30?

30-40?

If you think a limit of 5 is sensible, it means you would assume to be in end-game by day 10 or shortly thereafter (i.e. if not going to the limit all the time). And you think that wouldn't be rushing it??? Do you play 2 horde nights and then calling it quits?

On 2 hour days, my games generally last to anywhere from day 40-80, depending on how interested I am in the game at the time.  When I was playing a lot more often, it would be closer to 80.  When I'm playing less often, it's closer to 40.  I don't enjoy the early game much.  It's too slow and repetitive.  So I enjoy spending more time in the late game rather than doing a bunch of really short games.

I think 5 is reasonable because:

1) Most people aren't rushing quests anyhow, so it isn't going to matter if it's 5.  For most people, 5 has the same impact as unlimited because they just aren't doing that many.

2) Having to waste so much food and water, not to mention time, to run around for at least 4 days (if only doing 3 per day max) before getting a bicycle doesn't sound good to me.  With Roland's suggestion of 2, that's 5 days.

3) Until actually mobile, there isn't a lot to spend time on, imo.  You need to be able to go get resources to do anything and walking everywhere takes so long.

But since it's optional, it doesn't really matter much to me.

 

[meganoth]

I will add though that acquiring a few precious gems is far less impactful to your experience than advancing your quest progression. I think a better analogy or hyperbole would be, "After the 100th ore block destroyed that day, you cease gaining XP points." It wouldn't stop you from mining resources, only slightly discourage you. Whether that's too artificially limiting (or whether it matters at all) is up to the person, I suppose.

I agree, that would be a better analogy.

 

[meganoth]

On 2 hour days, my games generally last to anywhere from day 40-80, depending on how interested I am in the game at the time.  When I was playing a lot more often, it would be closer to 80.  When I'm playing less often, it's closer to 40.  I don't enjoy the early game much.  It's too slow and repetitive.  So I enjoy spending more time in the late game rather than doing a bunch of really short games.

I think 5 is reasonable because:

1) Most people aren't rushing quests anyhow, so it isn't going to matter if it's 5.  For most people, 5 has the same impact as unlimited because they just aren't doing that many.

2) Having to waste so much food and water, not to mention time, to run around for at least 4 days (if only doing 3 per day max) before getting a bicycle doesn't sound good to me.  With Roland's suggestion of 2, that's 5 days.

3) Until actually mobile, there isn't a lot to spend time on, imo.  You need to be able to go get resources to do anything and walking everywhere takes so long.

But since it's optional, it doesn't really matter much to me.

As I said above my group is hitting the limit easily with lower tier quests and we don't think we are rushing. Why would I not do 3 quests back to back if they are just 100 meters apart? And doing 3 tier1 or tier2 with 4 people doesn't even take half a day. And I do like early game, so I don't really want that we are swimming in concrete by day 14, for example.

I actually don't see a problem in having to wait till day 4 to get a bicycle. Obviously the game is intended to make us walk for a bit of time (what else would Cardio be for?). To make us appreciate the bicycle, to give us a progression from foot soldier to cyclist, just like we are progressing from really awful pipe weapons to guns. For a game that is intended to last for say 40-60 days 4 days seem a good duration to me.

 

[Riamus]

As I said above my group is hitting the limit easily with lower tier quests and we don't think we are rushing. Why would I not do 3 quests back to back if they are just 100 meters apart? And doing 3 tier1 or tier2 with 4 people doesn't even take half a day. And I do like early game, so I don't really want that we are swimming in concrete by day 14, for example.

I actually don't see a problem in having to wait till day 4 to get a bicycle. Obviously the game is intended to make us walk for a bit of time (what else would Cardio be for?). To make us appreciate the bicycle, to give us a progression from foot soldier to cyclist, just like we are progressing from really awful pipe weapons to guns. For a game that is intended to last for say 40-60 days 4 days seem a good duration to me.

Just as comparison, and this is only single player, I had less than 1000 concrete altogether in my game so far and am on day 15 with 2 hour days.  I'm most definitely not swimming in it.

I think they main thing to consider with this restriction is whether or not it is good for new players to restrict their questing progression rate.  Is there a legitimate reason to restrict new players to 3 (the current default)?  Roland said to get players to do other things, but as I pointed out, doing those other things on for and with low quality some tools isn't likely to make a new player want to keep playing the game.  I know I've personally stopped playing games that might have been great games because the initial gameplay was too grindy.  So I don't think that is a good reason to restrict new players.  Is it too make the game last longer?  Maybe.  They want that.  But it is an artificial way to do it and it really only affects the first few days because questing isn't required to process and it is really just slowing down getting a bike.  Is that worth restricting new players?  Is there some other reason to restrict them that is more legitimate?

The way I see this restriction is that it is for veteran players far more than new players.  Veteran players are the ones who want more challenges, different gameplay, new things, restrictions, and so on in order to keep the game feeling "new."  But veteran players don't need this as default.  They can switch the setting easily enough.  New players may not know how to switch the setting or that it even can be switched.  So I think the default is better at 5, which most new players aren't likely to hit and so won't be restricted. 

Also, although I have nothing to support this, I have a feeling that the average new player will complete the initial intro quests that will bring you to the trader and then the trader offers them a quest.  They will probably complete that and when they turn that in, they will not be told to go mining or farming or exploring.  They will have the options from the trader to buy/sell stuff or to quest.  I think most will quest.  And likely continue to do so for the rest of day 1.  A restriction will feel out of place, especially when the trader has more quests available. 

Yes, the challenges can get you doing other things, but they are set up in a way that feels like just general goals and not really a roadmap to follow.  So I do think new players will quest all day on day 1.  If the goal is to get them to do something else, I don't think restricting progression of quest tiers is how you do that. 

Either way, it doesn't matter to me.  I set it to unlimited just so I can avoid ever having to see the obnoxious red warning icon that never goes away until the following day.  Since I have the option, I don't really care.  I just think it is better at 5 than 3 for default settings for new players.

 

[BFT2020]

Are we still arguing about a configurable option that the player (SP) or server owner (MP) can adjust from unlimited to a max of 10?

 

[theFlu]

Are we still arguing about a configurable option

Eeh, No.

You can read, I'm almost sure; but for a tiny recap, I'm pointing out that "cuz the UI told me so" is pretty poor design, and Riamus is making the point that even if you limit questing to an arbitrary number, there's not much else to do in the early game anyway.

As TFP is clearly looking for a reasonable way to get people to do other things than questing, I'm sure your ideas might of use. Your snark is welcome by me, ofc, but ideas might be better ..

 

[jdm311]

As I said above my group is hitting the limit easily with lower tier quests and we don't think we are rushing. Why would I not do 3 quests back to back if they are just 100 meters apart? And doing 3 tier1 or tier2 with 4 people doesn't even take half a day. And I do like early game, so I don't really want that we are swimming in concrete by day 14, for example.

I actually don't see a problem in having to wait till day 4 to get a bicycle. Obviously the game is intended to make us walk for a bit of time (what else would Cardio be for?). To make us appreciate the bicycle, to give us a progression from foot soldier to cyclist, just like we are progressing from really awful pipe weapons to guns. For a game that is intended to last for say 40-60 days 4 days seem a good duration to me.

It seems to me that rushing through quest tiers is more of a multiplayer issue rather than a single player one. Instead of penalizing the single player with this limit, assign a party leader to get quests, trigger, and turn in. No parallelized questing mimics single player gameplay resulting in slower natural progression. Of course, you will still clear POIs faster, but the travel time should help slow progression. I bet this change would be unfavorable with multi players, but then again, this new setting is unfavorable with both multi/single players.

 

[Riamus]

It seems to me that rushing through quest tiers is more of a multiplayer issue rather than a single player one. Instead of penalizing the single player with this limit, assign a party leader to get quests, trigger, and turn in. No parallelized questing mimics single player gameplay resulting in slower natural progression. Of course, you will still clear POIs faster, but the travel time should help slow progression. I bet this change would be unfavorable with multi players, but then again, this new setting is unfavorable with both multi/single players.

The setting is fine.  It should just be 5 for default, imo.  It is definitely better than what they had initially in 1.0.

 

[jdm311]

The setting is fine.  It should just be 5 for default, imo.

The setting is annoying, that's why people are complaining. If the devs implemented it in a way where the trader job list for the day couldn't be refreshed by a restart, that would have made more sense to me, so just the 5 quests for the day. But then you should be able to hit other traders up for quests to gain progression too. The restriction just feels too artificial.

 

[Riamus]

The setting is annoying, that's why people are complaining. If the devs implemented it in a way where the trader job list for the day couldn't be refreshed by a restart, that would have made more sense to me, so just the 5 quests for the day. But then you should be able to hit other traders up for quests to gain progression too. The restriction just feels too artificial.

You can set it to unlimited, so it isn't an issue for those who want to do just that.

 

[meganoth]

Just as comparison, and this is only single player, I had less than 1000 concrete altogether in my game so far and am on day 15 with 2 hour days.  I'm most definitely not swimming in it.

Swimming in conrete may be the consequence if someone progresses too fast in trader progression and for example can choose the concrete mixer as a tier reward very early. Why did you not swim in concrete? Simply because you didn't have a mixer to select on day 10 I would say.

 

[theFlu]

As counterintuitive as it may seem to you it is nevertheless true. The freedom is not in being denied the one most powerful, rewarding, and optimal thing. The freedom lies in all the other things a player wouldn't normally choose suddenly becoming viable with that one thing removed as a choice. 

I was thinking of letting this slide, but ... no. That's an absolute abuse of language, which is large part of why the world is the mess it is right now. Slavery isn't freedom, and it won't be. Denying you options isn't giving you freedom, it's taking it away. Fix your language before you destroy the world.

 

[meganoth]

I think they main thing to consider with this restriction is whether or not it is good for new players to restrict their questing progression rate.  Is there a legitimate reason to restrict new players to 3 (the current default)?  Roland said to get players to do other things, but as I pointed out, doing those other things on for and with low quality some tools isn't likely to make a new player want to keep playing the game.  I know I've personally stopped playing games that might have been great games because the initial gameplay was too grindy.  So I don't think that is a good reason to restrict new players.  Is it too make the game last longer?  Maybe.  They want that.  But it is an artificial way to do it and it really only affects the first few days because questing isn't required to process and it is really just slowing down getting a bike.  Is that worth restricting new players?  Is there some other reason to restrict them that is more legitimate?

Sorry, the typical new (single) player won't do 3 quests per day anyway because he will usually be pretty overwhelmed with finding his way around, managing stamina and finding food. The only novice player hitting the limit might be an action-game-trained player who walzes through the POIs with ease and has read too much about the game in player guides. And he might actually benefit from being slowed down in progression. 

It isn't really artifical. Can you build up trust with some trade partner by simply doing lots of good things for him in just one day? That is how very cheesy crime television plots work, but in reality building up trust takes time and being a reliable friend/helper/bussiness partner for a time. Sure, he will pay you square for every dealing with him (aka the quest rewards), but trust (aka reputation) grows slowly. Look at other games, they usually make sure you can't simply hit max reputation with some faction in early game.

The way I see this restriction is that it is for veteran players far more than new players.

I fully agree. But it is especially for multi player. The more players the more this limit is needed.

Veteran players are the ones who want more challenges, different gameplay, new things, restrictions, and so on in order to keep the game feeling "new."  But veteran players don't need this as default.  They can switch the setting easily enough.  New players may not know how to switch the setting or that it even can be switched.  So I think the default is better at 5, which most new players aren't likely to hit and so won't be restricted. 

In my view this is a balance setting that is applicable for all players, veterans included. Veterans can change the default, but then they know they changed it and can't claim that the balance is borked. Vanilla default has to be as balanced as possible, for everyone, even veterans. If you do 5 quests per day the balance is borked. Not necessarily on day 2 when you get your bicycle, but on day 10 when you already can do tier5 quests and then complain the game seems already finished because you went into that tier5 twice already.

By the way, it doesn't take long to reach day 4 at default, but because you play on 2 hour days those same 4 days may feel like an eternity in comparison. This may be a reason why day 4 bike is so difficult for you to accept.

7 hours ago, Riamus said:
Also, although I have nothing to support this, I have a feeling that the average new player will complete the initial intro quests that will bring you to the trader and then the trader offers them a quest.  They will probably complete that and when they turn that in, they will not be told to go mining or farming or exploring.  They will have the options from the trader to buy/sell stuff or to quest.  I think most will quest.  And likely continue to do so for the rest of day 1.  A restriction will feel out of place, especially when the trader has more quests available. 

Yes, the challenges can get you doing other things, but they are set up in a way that feels like just general goals and not really a roadmap to follow.  So I do think new players will quest all day on day 1.  If the goal is to get them to do something else, I don't think restricting progression of quest tiers is how you do that. 
Expand  

I am not Roland. You replied to me, but seem to argue a lot about Rolands ideas.

 

[meganoth]

Eeh, No.

You can read, I'm almost sure; but for a tiny recap, I'm pointing out that "cuz the UI told me so" is pretty poor design, and Riamus is making the point that even if you limit questing to an arbitrary number, there's not much else to do in the early game anyway.

As TFP is clearly looking for a reasonable way to get people to do other things than questing, I'm sure your ideas might of use. Your snark is welcome by me, ofc, but ideas might be better ..

Though questing is not limited at all. I think we can all (or almost all) agree that that icon is a bad idea. It looks like a "forbidden" sign while obviously it doesn't hinder you to quest at all.

Maybe just changing that sign is all there is needed to make the problems of everyone go away

 

[theFlu]

Maybe just changing that sign is all there is needed to make the problems of everyone go away

I mean, sort of... hide the trader rep entirely, make it somewhat random per quest, have each daily quest give diminishing rep.. would be more "life-like", and probably a better experience.

At some point, I was arguing for accurate info on the UI, as some things were completely counterintuitive to expectation (+20% sell price was actually +100% since your "base sell" was 20% .. and other such things). But the game doesn't have to Reveal everything in "written" form, just the type of effect, somehow. Trying to do so just ends up in things like this, and actually just encourages min-maxers ...

 

[meganoth]

I mean, sort of... hide the trader rep entirely, make it somewhat random per quest, have each daily quest give diminishing rep.. would be more "life-like", and probably a better experience.

At some point, I was arguing for accurate info on the UI, as some things were completely counterintuitive to expectation (+20% sell price was actually +100% since your "base sell" was 20% .. and other such things). But the game doesn't have to Reveal everything in "written" form, just the type of effect, somehow. Trying to do so just ends up in things like this, and actually just encourages min-maxers ...

Agreed. I wouldn't miss that sign at all.

 

[Mister Forgash]

Initially I was agreeing more with Riamus, and while I still think that 4 quests(Largely because of coop bias) might be a more sensible limit for 60 minute days, as the discussion has continued, I find myself less bothered with the limiter. Maybe this is just the gross exaggeration of "slavery isn't freedom" getting thrown around over this, but hear me out- You're not being forced into not doing quests- you still get all the loot from the PoI, plus the dukes, plus the item reward, only thing you lose is progression towards the next Tier.. Now I'm thinking leave everything the way it is EXCEPT make T1 >T2 take only 9 points, and then if you push really hard, you can get that bike bundle on day 3.

 

[Riamus]

Swimming in conrete may be the consequence if someone progresses too fast in trader progression and for example can choose the concrete mixer as a tier reward very early. Why did you not swim in concrete? Simply because you didn't have a mixer to select on day 10 I would say.

I am tier 5 and that wasn't a choice.  I'm guessing it's just a possible choice and not a guaranteed choice, maybe?

 

[Roland]

I was thinking of letting this slide, but ... no. That's an absolute abuse of language, which is large part of why the world is the mess it is right now. Slavery isn't freedom, and it won't be. Denying you options isn't giving you freedom, it's taking it away. Fix your language before you destroy the world.

I guess you don’t understand the concept I’m explaining. It’s probably partially my fault for not explaining it well. Regardless, it absolutely is true that in games, specific imposed limits can actually promote more player choice. This is one of those cases. Limited inventory space is another. There are other scenarios as well where it is true. You can’t see it and Riamus wants to quest without limitations so badly he refuses to see it. 
 

Thankfully, the people designing the game get it. If they had simply limited quests from the very start there wouldn’t even be a question about it now. That was their only mistake with the quest system. Good thing they didn’t start out with the creative menu enabled by default and then decide to turn it off for 1.0….