Riamus
Well-known member
Ok... I'll address this quickly. Heh. Can't seem to help myself.
The standard in the game industry is unfortunately that game devs normally do not give detailed explanations. I'm not saying that is good, but it is normal. Being better than normal is still a good thing, even if it isn't as good as you might want. Just my view on it.
Now, I know the devs really don't post much at all on Steam. That could certainly be improved. But in here, in the update threads and dev threads, they have answered these questions. When 1.0 was first announced, they told us before it was released. I made my opinion on using that version number clear at the time. They haven't said why it was changed and moved out of early access, but if it is due to console, I'm sure there is an NDA preventing them from saying that it is because of Microsoft or Sony. Besides, you don't want to upset the people who decide whether or not you can publish the game or what features (like cross play) are allowed.
And they have also said that although they will attempt to not require restarts going forward, they may still be necessary. Again, that is them relying on this forum, where they do most their talking.
Let me ask something. What is your average number of days for a game (real time) before starting a new game? And what would you guess is the number of real days for the normal player (not the ultra casual player who plays a could hours per week or the person playing on a persistent server that had games going hundreds of days, but the normal player)? I won't give my guess since I don't have proof and you want proof of i guess something. But what is your guess? Now, keeping answer that in mind, 1.0 had been out for a couple weeks or so and stable would likely not be for another 2-3 weeks. Would you say that the majority of players will have started a new game before stable hits? If so, they could time their restart for when stable hits and get the new content without having to restart. This doesn't help players who play experimental, of course, but experimental is expected to be not stable. Just something to consider.
Loot quantity only affects stacks. If you would get 1 magazine, you will always get 1 magazine even at minimum loot quantity. I'm not saying that everyone thinks it is slow. But just read the magazine threads and you will see that most players complaining about magazines feel it is too slow. Edit for clarification: if you set loot quantity higher, you will get more. But you won't get less than 1. And if you would get 2 of the same magazines, lower loot quantity could change that to 1, but it isn't common to get two of the same magazine in most loot containers. And for me, I think magazines are at a good progression for the most part with how I play. Only armor increases too quickly for me. But I also don't go out of my way to loot all the mailboxes and crack a book store and buy every magazine I can find and I don't think the average player does either. I also don't think that a single magazine is worth more than 300. I don't even take a single magazine as a reward unless there isn't anything better. This is really something best adjusted by a server that has this problem rather than for the normal game.
Last edited by a moderator:
