I don't think so. The forum is work in progress at the moment. New features (like post merging in this case) are added and sometimes bugs slip through.
PC V2.0 Storms Brewing Dev Diary
- Thread starter Crater Creator
- Start date
I don't think so. The forum is work in progress at the moment. New features (like post merging in this case) are added and sometimes bugs slip through.
Jugom
Scavenger
nah, the error, came with the first post. the merged actually went through first try, so, if something is breaking it, that's not it.
Post automatically merged:
The error popped up again. My theory is that clicking 'post reply' while the green dot from 'Drafts' is active triggers the error... but now I'm waiting for it to show up again to try and reproduce it and it doesn't want to blink again x)
Blake_
Captain Obvious
I just watched the dev stream. I do believe the changes are good. I do have some observations though.
.You guys cannot possibly argue that miner69r or motherload shall stay BOTH in strenght just for the sake of having a "construction" label or reaching the "10 perks per attribute" goal. Magazines are a step, but speed of action is important too you know, and RG gods do play an unbearable role sometimes.
.Labels don't matter. What matters is that armors and lucky looter along with some food-based perks where a bit conditional within their respective perks and had to go. And miner and Motherload have to go too to general, because the "condition" here is not entirely madmole's whim, or because he (and me) really find convenient to progress tools faster through our favorite perk in the same tree. We are talking about an entire aspect of the game (building, construction) and our ability to do it effectively with progression and reward. If you don't spec into miner or motherload you are out of luck in the reward category, also in the speed category in that aspect, and building takes forever and you advance crawling while building rather than linearly and in a rewarding fashion.
. Construction is tied to strenght at the moment and it shouldn't. I won't really argue about parkour because yo call jumping agility and I might agree, treasure hunting might be for the perceptive and might be ok. Salvage operations are a stretch and should go to general because they tie the speed of another set of tools to it (again an obligation for those seeking real progression and reward while salvaging without being at the whim of the RWG gods).
So, to sum it all up there's this take on my TLDR speech:
. Merging "speed of action" perks with an attribute isn't such a good idea with the exception of weapons, unless you want a player to choose it because "he builds" or because "she melts stuff", which is not always the case and it restrains a bit of freedom in an otherwise wide and endless game.
.You guys cannot possibly argue that miner69r or motherload shall stay BOTH in strenght just for the sake of having a "construction" label or reaching the "10 perks per attribute" goal. Magazines are a step, but speed of action is important too you know, and RG gods do play an unbearable role sometimes.
.Labels don't matter. What matters is that armors and lucky looter along with some food-based perks where a bit conditional within their respective perks and had to go. And miner and Motherload have to go too to general, because the "condition" here is not entirely madmole's whim, or because he (and me) really find convenient to progress tools faster through our favorite perk in the same tree. We are talking about an entire aspect of the game (building, construction) and our ability to do it effectively with progression and reward. If you don't spec into miner or motherload you are out of luck in the reward category, also in the speed category in that aspect, and building takes forever and you advance crawling while building rather than linearly and in a rewarding fashion.
. Construction is tied to strenght at the moment and it shouldn't. I won't really argue about parkour because yo call jumping agility and I might agree, treasure hunting might be for the perceptive and might be ok. Salvage operations are a stretch and should go to general because they tie the speed of another set of tools to it (again an obligation for those seeking real progression and reward while salvaging without being at the whim of the RWG gods).
And then there is intelligence and its many "havetogo" general perks, starting from the daring adventurer perk, which I call you guys sensual chickens for delaying its departure to avoid entering in a small gameplay balance issue (daring might have to have more levels if merged into general because of its better-than-nice reward). Also, workstations and vehicles... well... not too badly tied are they? are they not? I rather smelt iron for 100 years than investing a ridiculous amount of points into intelligence, right? I have to, though? not really. To weird design choices let's call Roland and advise restraint and solved. See the problem?
So, to sum it all up there's this take on my TLDR speech:
. Merging "speed of action" perks with an attribute isn't such a good idea with the exception of weapons, unless you want a player to choose it because "he builds" or because "she melts stuff", which is not always the case and it restrains a bit of freedom in an otherwise wide and endless game.
Javabean867
Surviver
I suspect whether a block blocks LOS for a Zamb is based on its default orientation as opposed to how it is actually placed. For instance the 1/2 block is default orientation is filling the bottom half of the cube.
BFT2020
Hunter
I said it because I know that feature was in the works in the last days and since it needs to check all posts whether they can be merged with a previous one, all posts, even first ones, would need to run that code.
4sheetzngeegles
Surviver
I may be in the lesser category, but, I liked the stream this time. It kept my attention
till i didn't realize that two hours had passed. I cant wait to get my hands on the storms,
I want to see how much I can manipulate them and mix and match. And 500% potential
increase I wonder what that would be like. I missed the lighting though maybe because
it was daytime. The only thing I would like to adjust is the arc of the boulder the distance
Frostclaw is away and the speed, seem too easy to dodge. Now if it does or can be modded
to do block damage over an area then oh yeah.
till i didn't realize that two hours had passed. I cant wait to get my hands on the storms,
I want to see how much I can manipulate them and mix and match. And 500% potential
increase I wonder what that would be like. I missed the lighting though maybe because
it was daytime. The only thing I would like to adjust is the arc of the boulder the distance
Frostclaw is away and the speed, seem too easy to dodge. Now if it does or can be modded
to do block damage over an area then oh yeah.
4sheetzngeegles
Surviver
Is it possible to just remove it and have the siren go off in the distance, as a warning?
FranticDan
Surviver
considering the boulder will do roughly 225 dmg on insane (without armour) plus an massive 8 second stun, its good that its easy to dodge, just gotta not be distracted from other enemies. If it did half the dmg and no stun, then I'd expect it to be maybe 3 times faster.
4sheetzngeegles
Surviver
I get it, but I was talking about the base game. Your example is if the
damage is amped up by manually choosing an additional option. The reason for
choosing that option is because it isn't tough enough for personal preference
in the base game.
What it seems like is they are naturally raising the bar of difficulty
in the base settings. Which comes naturally closer to what is being done
by increasing difficulty through an option.
So raising to insane, would really make the game play truly insane.
And the base game become nearly insane.
EDIT: just thought about something, watching the orange guys. If they blast through the doors
in basic mode then on extreme if they are pare of a screamer horde, or horde night then 5-10
of those little buggers can swiss cheese a Base, rather quickly. That'll be interesting unless the
option for lowering block damage is selected.
Last edited:
The look of the storms are very good, however, the fact that you take such high damage in the Snow Biome is concerning. Will reserve judgement until I play it though.
The biome progression concept isn't bad, but I don't like that you are basically hard-coded out of the biome until you complete challenges and generally the biome badge concept is terrible.
I would much prefer a softer lockout such as draining your thirst even more rapidly or getting heat exhaustion from being out in the sun too long requiring you to take cover in a POI to recover your exhaustion bar of which this could be mitigated with clothing or hypothermia requiring heat/fires or radiation poisoning requiring tablets every 30 minutes to an hour depending on scarcity. In this way you can still enter a zone you enjoy and can progress albeit with a much harder difficulty.
Badges themselves should be similar to gear mods that lessen and eventually remove the penalty of being in the new zone and should be granted via quests completed in the previous zone. For example you could add a new cooling mesh mod for the Desert, etc. If you don't want to mod clothing then use that mod in the badge spot. Doing random small quests inside the zone that is actively killing you seems strange and off-putting.
Why are we changing the open world game to be more linear? Part of the fun is being able to go wherever you want and do what you want. Furthermore, if you want people to play end-game in the Wasteland then you should make it look better. It is by far the worst looking biome offered IMHO. The colors are drab and depressing and it's just not a fun zone to be in for long. If people are spending more time in the other zones perhaps make the zones people dislike better looking.
The biome progression concept isn't bad, but I don't like that you are basically hard-coded out of the biome until you complete challenges and generally the biome badge concept is terrible.
I would much prefer a softer lockout such as draining your thirst even more rapidly or getting heat exhaustion from being out in the sun too long requiring you to take cover in a POI to recover your exhaustion bar of which this could be mitigated with clothing or hypothermia requiring heat/fires or radiation poisoning requiring tablets every 30 minutes to an hour depending on scarcity. In this way you can still enter a zone you enjoy and can progress albeit with a much harder difficulty.
Badges themselves should be similar to gear mods that lessen and eventually remove the penalty of being in the new zone and should be granted via quests completed in the previous zone. For example you could add a new cooling mesh mod for the Desert, etc. If you don't want to mod clothing then use that mod in the badge spot. Doing random small quests inside the zone that is actively killing you seems strange and off-putting.
Why are we changing the open world game to be more linear? Part of the fun is being able to go wherever you want and do what you want. Furthermore, if you want people to play end-game in the Wasteland then you should make it look better. It is by far the worst looking biome offered IMHO. The colors are drab and depressing and it's just not a fun zone to be in for long. If people are spending more time in the other zones perhaps make the zones people dislike better looking.
Quagmire1428
Refugee
Might be a silly question, but now console is in the mix i remember a conversation way back that updates could not break peoples older saves because of (i think it was from MS xbox) console rules . . . SO with 2.0 is this going to be like older Alpha updates that made old saves unplayable or will older saves from 1.0 still function?
Professor-Pip
Refugee
With 140 new POI's, new game mechanics and new zombies, I would expect you need to start a new game in a new world if you want to effectively play 2.0. It really isn't reasonable to think that a major update isn't going to break an old save. If it were 2.0 to 2.1 or similar, then you might have legitimate expectations that the 2.0 save won't break, and that might be what was referred to.
SylenThunder
Community Moderator / IT Guru
From what I understand, if you keep playing your existing save, you will basically keep playing version 1.4. In order to play 2.0 you would need to start a new save.
Quagmire1428
Refugee
Yeah, this is exactly what i thought. Just wanted to get some other opinions as i was having a chat with someone and this is the conclusion i can to as well 
Thanks 
Thanks
SylenThunder
Community Moderator / IT Guru
Yeah, don't quote me on it, because I am not speaking from any official standpoint on it at all. I seem to recall that being mentioned either in a previous dev stream regarding the 1.0 release, or in another discussion with either developers or testers somewhere.
I know that they did lay the groundwork for that kind of behavior with v1.0 though.
I know that they did lay the groundwork for that kind of behavior with v1.0 though.
4sheetzngeegles
Surviver
If they continue to follow the same line of development then there will be a hierarchy
of battles that could lead to the duke battle.
You have basis, Biome protectors, feral, green projectile,green projectile feral, blue speed freaks,
orange blockbusters, Coming soon Bandits, the only thing after is the boss event.
Just imagine if for giggles, they randomized the combinations, like a feral, spitting, boulder
throwing, blue and orange screamer.
of battles that could lead to the duke battle.
You have basis, Biome protectors, feral, green projectile,green projectile feral, blue speed freaks,
orange blockbusters, Coming soon Bandits, the only thing after is the boss event.
Just imagine if for giggles, they randomized the combinations, like a feral, spitting, boulder
throwing, blue and orange screamer.
Quagmire1428
Refugee
Yeah, the original thought behind it was i remember Rich saying that one of the reasons console was an issue is MS told them they couldn't keep breaking people saves with each consecutive Alpha update. So they held off to 1.0 as that would then no longer be a problem for future updates. However even if you can play a 1.0 save on 2.0 it would surely be still pull the map from a prior save that would in fact be from the older version, so it would cause a conflict the the change in base code . . . at least in my mind. PS i know nothing about dev work LMAO!!
Riamus
Hunter
I think some things do belong in the attribute trees. I never expected or thought that those mining perks would or should go into the general tree. The general tree has basically what I was expecting. The goal of the general tree isn't to keep people out of the attribute trees. You get plenty of points to spend, so it's not an issue getting everything you want by late game. Mining fits in with strength. But stuff like armor doesn't really fit anywhere, which is why it's now in general. The idea was to move stuff that didn't really fit anywhere out of the attributes. Not to make it easy to avoid attributes. Just my opinion, of course.
Keep in mind that Lathan was level 1 (later level 2) and that he had only one piece of armor for much of the stream. Damage won't be as much by the time you're actually getting to those biomes. Also, you have things you can use to help reduce biome hazard damage that you can use while completing the required challenges. I think those challenges will end up being something you'll be able to complete within a very short time once you're used to it. Similar to how you can complete the initial challenge row in 2-3 minutes without difficulty once you know how it works. The biome challenges will probably take longer than that, but I think it's likely you can still complete them quickly. The storms are going to be something you'll have to just avoid, which was their intention. In the end, though, I'll probably end up disabling both hazards and storms after one playthrough because I think they just unnecessarily limit your freedom to explore.
The badges are a bad visual choice. They should change the icons to something else that looks like protection. The mechanics can remain the same.