PC V2.0 Storms Brewing Dev Diary

[InfiniteWarrior]

But they had a system that worked fine enough and could have made it harder but they took the easy way out and removed it

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 10:56 PM

Yikes neebs gaming isn't happy lol

Who?

They apparently had a lot of systems that worked and were replaced rather than refined for whatever reason, but primarily that apparent tug of war between TFP and gamers of the game's systems, which I get the impression accounts for much of the extraordinary length of the development cycle. That doesn't account for the oversimplification and superficialization we're seeing now, though, with icons taking the place of items to erect temporary gates shortly removed altogether anyway. What's the point of having biome effects and offsets at all in that event?

It'd be a shame to have come this far only for the home stretch to be botched due to whatever pressures that appear to have resulted from the sync--up of the PC and console versions. I certainly have no stake in it, but am surprised to see encouragement of half-assed development from the game's "fans" who are apparently just tired of hearing and dismissing the criticisms of others.

 

[Double G]

Who?

They apparently had a lot of systems that worked and were replaced rather than refined for whatever reason, but primarily that apparent tug of war between TFP and gamers of the game's systems, which I get the impression accounts for much of the extraordinary length of the development cycle. That doesn't account for the oversimplification and superficialization we're seeing now, though, with icons taking the place of items to erect temporary gates shortly removed altogether anyway. What's the point of having biome effects and offsets at all in that event?

It'd be a shame to have come this far only for the home stretch to be botched due to whatever pressures that appear to have resulted from the sync--up of the PC and console versions. I certainly have no stake in it, but am surprised to see encouragement of half-assed development from the game's "fans" who are apparently just tired of hearing and dismissing the criticisms of others.

From what I'm seeing from Youtube comments, Reddit posts, streamer's chats, etc, not everybody is upset with a lot of the older changes such as jars and learn by doing. Some people prefer the new systems.

What shouldn't be forgotten is all of the latest changes from 2.0 are being reevaluated or outright being changed.

I'm in the middle of an Alpha 16 run, to get a feeling for the flavor, and from what I've experienced in the 10 or so in-game days played so far...this should be the template for the proposed sandbox mode. Empty jars aren't that big of a deal, but they help set a certain overall tone. Learn by doing is the same thing. It all makes the game feel a little more organic (for lack of a better word). The pace is slower. The danger feels more real.

If I was responsible for this game, I would play Alpha 16 for 50 in-game days and evaluate what's going on and how it feels.

I work in music. We make songs. Songs can go through multiple different versions. Sometimes there's something better about an older version. That's when we go back and listen to see what's good about it, and then focus on the core aspects that are good and make the necessary changes to improve it where needed.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

what you have proposed would add a nice element to water survival, dew collectors or classic gameplay?

It doesn't have to be either/or and that is, of course, what I mean by options that lock players in or out of one big feature or another even for instanced playthroughs. Options are fine for adjusting difficulty or improving performance or turning on and off enemy types, etc., but the controversy over 2.0 consists of the fact that features players were obviously looking forward to turned out so lackluster and/or pointless, even veterans have decided not to use them or it's caused them to be indifferent about future updates and even to put the game down altogether. Never mind such nonsense as review bombing. That doesn't bode well for the future success of the game.

 

[meganoth]

They apparently had a lot of systems that worked and were replaced rather than refined for whatever reason, but primarily that apparent tug of war between TFP and gamers of the game's systems, which I get the impression accounts for much of the extraordinary length of the development cycle.

I would disagree to this. This is a misreading of what early access really means or a misreading of what this game is. EA (partly) means we players are second-level testers to increase the coverage they get from their internal ones. Now assume some player finds a block that zombies can't cross and builds a horde base with it. TFP finds out about that block (either from internal testers or from youtubers (remember, second-level testers) and corrects that bug. Some of those players using this block then took it personally and called this bug fixing a tug of war.
And no, that takes not much more time than most other bug fixes.

There are some other examples where what TFP saw as balance fixes to exploits (in their view) were again viewed by people using those (if not exploits then call them) generously good strategies as removing their style of play. Which, if you see this as game as a pure sandbox would be correct. If you see it as a game that should have balanced ways of succeeding though you might see them exploits as well

Digging by zombies is such a case. At first zombies could dig. But those zombies had limited AI and they littered the landscape with holes so that feature was turned off for several alphas. When the AI got a rewrite digging by zombies was naturally turned on again (which was the plan all along). But that prompted players to talk about removing their playstyle because non-digging zombies allowed easy safe bases underground.

Again, if this was a pure sandbox where balance doesn't matter that would be no problem. But when you could simply dig down 3 blocks and be totally safe through horde night or everywhere else, then that simply isn't a good balance for a game that is also a zombie survival game.

 

[Suxar]

Songs can go through multiple different versions. Sometimes there's something better about an older version.

Whose taste is the better version? One version may appeal to some people, another to others. It is enough to read the comments under any cover of any composition to see diametrically opposed points of view.

 

[Satosik]

@meganoth @InfiniteWarrior pointed out the refinig ingame systems being a problem, bug fixing has nothing in common there except taking time. Also glad you mentioned we are not in the early access anymore but again we are going to have refined/brought back clothing system. If thats not a tug of war i don't know what it is. And please don't use "EA" argument like it changed anything after the game released. We still have new bugs, updates without any schedule and bandits in a far far future.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

I would disagree to this. This is a misreading of what early access really means or a misreading of what this game is. EA (partly) means we players are second-level testers to increase the coverage they get from their internal ones. Now assume some player finds a block that zombies can't cross and builds a horde base with it. TFP finds out about that block (either from internal testers or from youtubers (remember, second-level testers) and corrects that bug. Some of those players using this block then took it personally and called this bug fixing a tug of war.
And no, that takes not much more time than most other bug fixes.

There are some other examples where what TFP saw as balance fixes to exploits (in their view) were again viewed by people using those (if not exploits then call them generously good strategies) as removing their style of play. Which, if you see this as game as a pure sandbox would be correct. If you see it as a game that should have balanced ways of succeeding though you might see them exploits as well

Digging by zombies is such a case. At first zombies could dig. But those zombies had limited AI and they littered the landscape with holes so that feature was turned off for several alphas. When the AI got a rewrite digging by zombies was naturally turned on again (which was the plan all along). But that prompted players to talk about removing their playstyle because non-digging zombies allowed easy safe bases underground.

Again, if this was a pure sandbox where balance doesn't matter that would be no problem. But when you could simply dig down 3 blocks and be totally safe through horde night or everywhere else, then that simply isn't a good balance for a game that is also a zombie survival game.

Come now. It's as plain as the nose on my face, at least, that all those replacements rather than refinements weren't just due to bug fixing. Attributing it to that obvious tug of war that no doubt started out creative and symbiotic, whatever it's become of late, is being generous. You've heard all the "explanations" people have come up with and they're exceptionally unfair and even insulting of TFP.

 

[Adam the Waster]

People forget that there's an end goal where, once everything is in place, it will all make sense.

Ah yes make a game completely different then what was promised/given... genius. Glock said he liked the changes but didnt like others like the frostclaw

Every YouTuber? No way! One great example is Glock9 who liked the way 2.0 was

2/God knows now many.. not to mention alot of people aren't happy with the direction the game is going less about survival and more linear. If you like that good for you. Alot of us dont

 

[Double G]

Whose taste is the better version? One version may appeal to some people, another to others. It is enough to read the comments under any cover of any composition to see diametrically opposed points of view.

The artist, the producers and myself. Rarely is there a time when we aren't all in agreeance.
The public wouldn't know any different because they only hear what's ultimately agreed upon.

No one thing can satisfy everybody - you just have to satisfy enough of them.

 

[Adam the Waster]

No one thing can satisfy everybody - you just have to satisfy enough of them.

Exactly..

I think the up coming slider changes are a great way to see how people can change the game too their liking for me ima basic put everything to close too 0. With some exceptions.

Learn by reading i don't mind, is it my favorite? Ehhh I mean it fits my playstyle and it's good for solo cuz splitting books with the boys kinda sucks

If the game went back too alpha 16 people would complain
If it went to alpha 8 people would complain
So on

 

[meganoth]

Come now. It's as plain as the nose on my face, at least, that all those replacements rather than refinements weren't just due to bug fixing. Attributing it to that obvious tug of war that no doubt started out creative and symbiotic, whatever it's become of late, is being generous. You've heard all the "explanations" people have come up with and they're exceptionally unfair and even insulting of TFP.

Call it balancing, bug fixing, or trying out a new way to do stuff, all changes had reasons (though what changes are you talking about specifically?).
I specifically brought one example that is undeniably a bug fix to make it clear: blocks that zombies can't walk over. If you don't accept that this is a bug fix then I don't know how to bridge that gap between us. And those changes led to people talking about TFP targeting how players play the game.

Maybe I should explain that for a programmer anything is a bug when it doesn't show the expected result. So even if the game doesn't crash or show an error message, this is still considered a bug. Is this definition a problem for you maybe? Could we settle it with looking into wikipedia or some other encyclopedia?

When it comes to balancing, yes, there the link is tenuous. As a programmer I would still call some of them bugs (when they were not intended behaviour), but others are not (for example when a developer just tries out different settings until they are satisfied with them). Still fixing balancing issues (or improving balance) is part of what a developer has to do and in cases where players are part of the test audience (service games and EA games) it generates much drama with lots of players even if it were in their best interest in the long run.

 

[HammerDano]

The artist, the producers and myself. Rarely is there a time when we aren't all in agreeance.
The public wouldn't know any different because they only hear what's ultimately agreed upon.

No one thing can satisfy everybody - you just have to satisfy enough of them.

there is a Luxury in that situation that is absent here...in your scenario only those involved have any knowledge of the project.
I prefer that. Less messy.

These guys crowd funded...so they should expect that they don't get the Luxury that you enjoy.

you can change the tempo, the genre, the voice singing it...and nobody will ever know.
They are doing the same thing only we can see them changing the genre...the tempo. and the people watching have developed strong attachments to past revisions.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

I specifically brought one example that is undeniably a bug fix to make it clear: blocks that zombies can't walk over. If you don't accept that this is a bug fix then I don't know how to bridge that gap between us.

Sure did, which in no way implies that ripping out systems and replacing them instead of refining them is even remotely bug fixing. I'm certainly not alone in seeing that tug of war between TFP and those who actively seek ways to game and cheese the game's systems. That's not testing and I think we've established that's what some players consider the actual game, e.g. speed runners.

There is no system that is 100% foolproof. For what it's worth, I also get the impression that TFP have learned that lesson the hard way.

 

[HammerDano]

Call it balancing, bug fixing, or trying out a new way to do stuff, all changes had reasons (though what changes are you talking about specifically?).
I specifically brought one example that is undeniably a bug fix to make it clear: blocks that zombies can't walk over. If you don't accept that this is a bug fix then I don't know how to bridge that gap between us. And those changes led to people talking about TFP targeting how players play the game.

Maybe I should explain that for a programmer anything is a bug when it doesn't show the expected result. So even if the game doesn't crash or show an error message, this is still considered a bug. Is this definition a problem for you maybe? Could we settle it with looking into wikipedia or some other encyclopedia?

When it comes to balancing, yes, there the link is tenuous. As a programmer I would still call some of them bugs (when they were not intended behaviour), but others are not (for example when a developer just tries out different settings until they are satisfied with them). Still fixing balancing issues (or improving balance) is part of what a developer has to do and in cases where players are part of the test audience (service games and EA games) it generates much drama with lots of players even if it were in their best interest in the long run.

In the interest of fairness, Meganoth is right about that specific thing. It should have been explained much better at the time. Which is why I will continue to advocate for a Community Manager.

Public view is that TFP wasted a lot of time patching out stuff that YouTuber's were doing.
Some of it WAS just that...and they should acknowledge it. SOME of it wasn't.

Meganoth's specific example of blocks is accurate. Zombies could not path over the blocks...that affects game play. So yeah, they patched out Jawoodle's force field blocks...and when he figured out new ones? they fixed them. Undoubtedly, most of us agree This added to the development timeline, EXCEPT: they eventually had to fix them, because, they also had to prevent cop spit and being seen thru blocks.
could "they" have prevented a lot of arguments with communication? seems obviously YES

removing Zombie fall damage because some people use dropper bases? now that's an example of an unnecessary limiting change (imo).
with the new ability to crawl thru smaller spaces I'd think breaking their legs might become a disadvantage to some.
Personally I like using a turret for base defence when I am busy crafting or cooking and am distracted...someone else might not care about the XP and just wants to put them in a loop. who cares? it is their game.

 

[Adam the Waster]

Public view is that TFP wasted a lot of time patching out stuff that YouTuber's were doing.
Some of it WAS just that...and they should acknowledge it. SOME of it wasn't.

I mean unfortunately it will take time for them to add some of the patches but this update is a great example of imo the right direction

I cant wait for the temperature and less damaging storms

 

[Noxom]

there is a Luxury in that situation that is absent here...in your scenario only those involved have any knowledge of the project.
I prefer that. Less messy.

These guys crowd funded...so they should expect that they don't get the Luxury that you enjoy.

you can change the tempo, the genre, the voice singing it...and nobody will ever know.
They are doing the same thing only we can see them changing the genre...the tempo. and the people watching have developed strong attachments to past revisions.

Crowdfunding doesn't mean the game is now publically owned, and all ideas/development have to be approved by a player democracy. Feedback has more value during early access, but that doesn't mean the devs aren't allowed to make their own game and song.

This notion of them changing the direction of the game is entirely dishonest. The game started with placeholders and store-bought assets. Them replacing these assets with original assets (good or not) doesn't mean they're changing direction. Balancing mechanics doesn't mean they're trying to force choices. The main concepts the game kickstarted with are still very much relevant.

It's so strange how people play a game in development and get attached to pieces that you should be fully aware are temporary. Somehow you know and can define a game before it's even done defining and fleshing itself out.

 

[Adam the Waster]

The main concepts the game kickstarted with are still very much relevant.

But unfortunately alot of people aren't really a fan of some things like progression. Ill reread the kick starter too see if they said anything about progression

Post automatically merged: Friday at 11:35 AM

I mean it says skill trees and we got skill trees during i think Alpha 17 or 18. But imo the progression went the wrong direction for some people..LBR is great for looters but that's really it..if you do work around the base mostly or are basicly living as a caveman out in the woods then your screwed

 

[Noxom]

But unfortunately alot of people aren't really a fan of some things like progression. Ill reread the kick starter too see if they said anything about progression

"XP and Skill Trees - Earn XP and upgrade your skills to become the ultimate Bruiser, Gun Nut, Gadget Man, Chemist or Stealth Agent. Upgrade your melee skill learning to craft better melee weapons and swing them harder & faster and even learn special finishing moves."

"Improve crafting to make better items. Improve cooking to make purer food and water."

I would argue that they intended, at least in part, for the player to gain incremental strength, and to make better and better items.

E: People seem to want this game to be some kinda survival sim, from what i can tell. Kickstarter only had "Basic Survival" yet people seem to think its mainly a survival game. Food was easy, water was trivial and shelter can be built in minutes. It's difficult to have real survival when the player has RPG skills, buffs and progression. The survival gamers want a whole different game or mode. You would have to extremely nerf the player, fully change many mechanics and remove progression to get a proper survival experience. I'm sure it'd be fun, but that's not 7DTD.

If it's the wrong direction, then what's the right direction? Who gets to decide what the right direction is?

 

[meganoth]

Sure did, which in no way implies that ripping out systems and replacing them instead of refining them is even remotely bug fixing. I'm certainly not alone in seeing that tug of war between TFP and those who actively seek ways to game and cheese the game's systems. That's not testing and I think we've established that's what some players consider the actual game, e.g. speed runners.

There is no system that is 100% foolproof. For what it's worth, I also get the impression that TFP have learned that lesson the hard way.

I think we are speaking about different changes then. Each change has its own history, for some I can only guess at the reason, many were explained by a developer, some are quite obvious, see the block change or the zombie dig case. Both cases, where the change was logical and indisputable (in my opinion) but people protested vehemently about TFP destroying and specifically going against specific playstyles.

Other changes were different. Jar removal, as an overused example, was definitely not a bug fix, but a design decision they could or could not have done. We would have to look at each example to determine motivation of TFP and whether players were right about it being about preventing some behaviour that TFP didn't like, and I assume you meant that with the tug of war. Also muddying the water is that for every change there usually were multiple reasons, advantages and disadvantages and AFAIK those were discussed in meetings inside TFP, meaning there were people for or against some changes inside TFP as well.

Speed runners are a different case. They take a game and actively look for ways to speedrun, including exploits. If they do that while the game is in active development there is quite some danger that if they demonstrate their shortcuts that those get fixed as bugs. Sorry, there is and can't be protection for speedrun-exploits form game developers and most speedrunners accept this. A developer will fix those exploits if they get notice of them, that is part of the package that players are testers now, for most games even after release.

 

[HammerDano]

But unfortunately alot of people aren't really a fan of some things like progression. Ill reread the kick starter too see if they said anything about progression

Post automatically merged: Friday at 11:35 AM

I mean it says skill trees and we got skill trees during i think Alpha 17 or 18. But imo the progression went the wrong direction for some people..LBR is great for looters but that's really it..if you do work around the base mostly or are basicly living as a caveman out in the woods then your screwedView attachment 36159

A victim of their own success?

It's my impression that people are trying to say, "They intend to make a different game and can't seem to grasp that they MADE the game people wanted...already...and they should flesh THAT out...instead of plowing on, not listening."