PC V2.0 Storms Brewing Dev Diary

[LittleNightma]

Temperature is brought up as an example is fine, but people assume TFP removed temperature on purpose, but they didn't. The code eventually stopped working and the original coder no longer works for the company essentially forcing them to start new. They've always had plans to bring it back.

 

[grz__]

Temperature is brought up as an example is fine, but people assume TFP removed temperature on purpose, but they didn't. The code eventually stopped working and the original coder no longer works for the company essentially forcing them to start new. They've always had plans to bring it back.

I didn't even know they were working on temperature until recently, there have been several versions without temperature, some people might think it's not coming back.

 

[Suxar]

temperature

If you read this thread first, you will see the developers' response that the temperature is being processed and will be returned to the game.

 

[grz__]

If you read this thread first, you will see the developers' response that the temperature is being processed and will be returned to the game.

I already knew it, I was saying it for the people who aren't on the forum or don't see news about the game.

 

[Javabean867]

The problem is that some of those light survival elements were cut and replaced by nothing, for example, wellness, temperature, for me it is fine that 7D is not a survival simulator, it never was, the problem is that the little it had, it has lost, right now survival is nonexistent, I know they are developing things in this aspect now, I only mention it because it is one of the most frequent complaints.

And here is the thing people forget about the temperature (since A 16.4) at least. Once you found a trench coat, military pants and a military shirt we were golden. that's all you needed. So what is the actual difference to what we have now? right before the biome changes, they made all sets of armor give you enough thermal protection that the temperatures didn't matter. Which again, didn't matter after you found 3 pieces of clothing.... I see no real difference.

Now with the current biome progression, it is different again. But as others have stated it is a temps are a work in progress. Which is fine.

BUT the biggest takeaway is this: WE ARE IN EARLY ACCESS STILL. sorry for the caps. Everything is subject to change. if it means ripping a system out, that barely worked right or caused too many issues, until they have time dedicated to fixing it, then that is what will happen. The same is said about optimization. The amount of time spent on optimization is just enough to have the game run smoothly, but final optimization will be much more thorough, and done when the game is out of early access.

 

[grz__]

And here is the thing people forget about the temperature (since A 16.4) at least. Once you found a trench coat, military pants and a military shirt we were golden. that's all you needed. So what is the actual difference to what we have now? right before the biome changes, they made all sets of armor give you enough thermal protection that the temperatures didn't matter. Which again, didn't matter after you found 3 pieces of clothing.... I see no real difference.

Now with the current biome progression, it is different again. But as others have stated it is a temps are a work in progress. Which is fine.

BUT the biggest takeaway is this: WE ARE IN EARLY ACCESS STILL. sorry for the caps. Everything is subject to change. if it means ripping a system out, that barely worked right or caused too many issues, until they have time dedicated to fixing it, then that is what will happen. The same is said about optimization. The amount of time spent on optimization is just enough to have the game run smoothly, but final optimization will be much more thorough, and done when the game is out of early access.

I know perfectly well that the temperature was anecdotal and did not represent a big dilemma, very similar to what happened with the wetness mechanics, but I never saw it mentioned that they were working on bringing them back, until recently, it is easy for people to assume that they are not going to return, as for wellness nothing is known, at least I do not know why it was eliminated, and I have not heard anything about them working on bringing it back, I know that it is an early access, it just gives the feeling that they forgot about survival.

 

[4sheetzngeegles]

I just had a what may be an odd thought. Ok thinking in a heirarchy format.

1__Navezgane is a static prebuilt world.

2__During the town hall meeting Rick said TFP may be working on a flat spot mechanic.
It is actually pretty similar to the way the POIs were placed before tiles were introduced,
they were called lots, which was a precursor to the manual tiles of newer versions, just that
they could vary in size.

3__That means that Nav's POI locations are acceptable flatspot candidates.

4__If that technology is made to work, since there are lines in the poi that dictate the 3d locations
to render the prefabs.

EXAMPLE: church_01
<property name="YOffset" value="-23" />
<property name="PrefabSize" value="60, 68, 60" />

5__Can a single tag be added to the pois, that would allow Navezgane to place poi In varied locations.

This could allow Navezgane terrain map to remain intact but each time played it could have pois rendered
in different locations.

Why I am asking about it is because, console is regulated to smaller maps at the moment. But being that small
it becomes a repetitive form of play. If they could be randomized by using a tag and flatspot in combination,
then all pois including traders could be moved around the map just like when you use a seed in RWG, that would
allow sharing, and randomization in that map. From a modding view point a single terrain could be rendered,
placed in the worlds folder, and using a seeded flatspot create a nearly infinite set of combinations, from
a favored terrain layout. There use to be an inclusion in RWG that was a type of overide, that allowed that
very thing in a Prior alpha. It was based on a .PNG that converted to a .Raw that in turn could layout POIs.

I was just thinking about a potential possibility for the tech if it were used.

 

[Javabean867]

I know perfectly well that the temperature was anecdotal and did not represent a big dilemma, very similar to what happened with the wetness mechanics, but I never saw it mentioned that they were working on bringing them back, until recently, it is easy for people to assume that they are not going to return, as for wellness nothing is known, at least I do not know why it was eliminated, and I have not heard anything about them working on bringing it back, I know that it is an early access, it just gives the feeling that they forgot about survival.

please don't think people are dog-piling on you either. We are passionate about the game.

Here's the thing. We as a species have this habit of ascribing motive, and assuming knowledge. in this case, TFP have not publicly stated what they are doing with the survival elements in a way that gets to all of the customers. What a lot of people are doing is saying "the fun pimps are ripping out survival, because they don't care about it!!!' or something like that. What they should be saying, is "i wonder what TFP are up to? I have no actual information to form an opinion" If you don't have any real information, then don't form an pinion on something. Game developers keep things close to the chest. if they don't, then messages get messy, and goals change drastically, which then extend development time.

Here is a funny anecdote. For the original game Borderlands. The game testers were complaining that it felt to slow, when walking/running in the game. The developers literally added more 'rock debris' around, changed nothing else, and the complaints went away. What we think we want changed, may not actually be what needs changed to fix the issue.

 

[Roland]

I think it should be remembered that just as 7 Days is not an RPG game but does include RPG elements it is also not a Survival game but it does have survival elements.

It has never been a constant struggle to survive and all aspects of survival have always been solvable after some time spent in the game.

It’s more of a survive-to-thrive living adventure in terms of environment, elements, and wellness. It is often called a “zombie survival” game which is apt since the threat of death by zombie is always present.

But in terms of hunger and thirst and temperature and wellness it is not likely that this game is going to be a simulation or hardcore survival experience unless you mod it to be that way. Traders are always going to sell drinks and food. Vending machines will always have food drink and potions.

 

[4sheetzngeegles]

Temperature is brought up as an example is fine, but people assume TFP removed temperature on purpose, but they didn't. The code eventually stopped working and the original coder no longer works for the company essentially forcing them to start new. They've always had plans to bring it back.

You are right regarding the main aspect of temperature. It was based on vertical elevation, plus some other timed
variables. But the foundation would not work with the present flat layout, and would only be experienced if you were
in a gyro, or the a little if in the taller skyscrapers. <TemperatureHeight height="0" addDegrees="0"/> in weathersurvival.xml.

They are having to redo it more to a time in country scenario for it to work, variables hinted at by @faatal would be
Torch in hand, Isindoors, Isoutdoors, and if storm is running. Plus the mods to put on the character.

The flatter layout may have come from response to player agency: Broken legs on slopes, data and processing constraints for
older hardware and console inclusion, and a question asked by TFP "What would be an acceptable time frame for rendering
an RWG map". Because there was a long discussion, regarding the length of time it took the rwg maps to generate. So in order
to fit within the generation request things needed to be scaled down.

This part is just a guess.

 

[grz__]

please don't think people are dog-piling on you either. We are passionate about the game.

Here's the thing. We as a species have this habit of ascribing motive, and assuming knowledge. in this case, TFP have not publicly stated what they are doing with the survival elements in a way that gets to all of the customers. What a lot of people are doing is saying "the fun pimps are ripping out survival, because they don't care about it!!!' or something like that. What they should be saying, is "i wonder what TFP are up to? I have no actual information to form an opinion" If you don't have any real information, then don't form an pinion on something. Game developers keep things close to the chest. if they don't, then messages get messy, and goals change drastically, which then extend development time.

Here is a funny anecdote. For the original game Borderlands. The game testers were complaining that it felt to slow, when walking/running in the game. The developers literally added more 'rock debris' around, changed nothing else, and the complaints went away. What we think we want changed, may not actually be what needs changed to fix the issue.

I'm calm, I don't think TFP is destroying survival because they don't care, I know they're developing things for future versions, it's just that not knowing why sometimes makes you question things, and although they've made progress in other areas, the survival elements feel abandoned, for people who don't follow the forum or the news, it's as if they've been forgotten.

 

[Riamus]

You literally just described survival. If it doesn't involve struggle and hardship, then it isn't survival.

Yes, I know. I continued to point out that those who like true survival games are a niche audience. They are there, but the numbers are relatively low. Developers can make a true survival game and sell somewhat well, or they can make a game that only includes aspects of survival and sell much better (assuming both types of game are equally well made). It's up to the developers which way they want to go.

As far as awards and such, awards are generally based on genre, even if they don't specifically list a genre. They would compare similar games, which is usually based on genre to determine what is similar, in order to decide what games get awards or recognition. So you can have a critically acclaimed survival game that will resonate with survival gamers and will not be liked by the majority of players who aren't fans of survival games. That is the point I was making.

This isn't the first time I've had to point out that *I* don't go around critiquing casual gamers for what they want to play.

I don't believe I've said anything bad about survival players or critiqued them for playing survival. I only pointed out why I think developers have to make decisions about whether or not to include aspects of a genre that aren't going to be appreciated by a larger audience. That isn't a critique of what people play. I never said there was anything wrong with liking survival games. Why would I? People can like any genre they want. I still play survival games on occasion, but they just don't interest me for long. I don't play pure simulation games that have little to do except simulate reality - lawnmowing simulator, bee simulator, etc. I might occasionally try games like that just out of curiosity, but I rarely get even an hour into them before I get rid of them. But I also don't criticize people for liking those games. I'm just not a fan of that kind of game and if they started adding that kind of gameplay to this game, I would stop updating the game or mod it or stop playing it because I wouldn't like the game that way. That's my opinion, nothing more. It isn't a critique of people who like that kind of game any more than my comments about survival games. It's simply my opinion about it and why developers will often avoid the more niche or less-played genres and only take aspects from those that are more accepted by a larger audience.

 

[EvilPolygons]

So obviously you love hard survival games. Nothing wrong with that. 7d2d is not a hard realism survival game, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's just not what you want it to be.

The survival elements are light. The main thing they want you to survive is the zombies. Food, water and shelter are meant to be difficult for about a day to a week, depending on your playstyle and difficulty.

If you are expecting more, then you need to find a mod that does more.

I never claimed 7DTD was a hardcore survival game. You set up a whole strawman just so that you could knock it down. Good job, I guess.

 

[EvilPolygons]

Yes, I know. I continued to point out that those who like true survival games are a niche audience. They are there, but the numbers are relatively low. Developers can make a true survival game and sell somewhat well, or they can make a game that only includes aspects of survival and sell much better (assuming both types of game are equally well made). It's up to the developers which way they want to go.

As far as awards and such, awards are generally based on genre, even if they don't specifically list a genre. They would compare similar games, which is usually based on genre to determine what is similar, in order to decide what games get awards or recognition. So you can have a critically acclaimed survival game that will resonate with survival gamers and will not be liked by the majority of players who aren't fans of survival games. That is the point I was making.


I don't believe I've said anything bad about survival players or critiqued them for playing survival. I only pointed out why I think developers have to make decisions about whether or not to include aspects of a genre that aren't going to be appreciated by a larger audience. That isn't a critique of what people play. I never said there was anything wrong with liking survival games. Why would I? People can like any genre they want. I still play survival games on occasion, but they just don't interest me for long. I don't play pure simulation games that have little to do except simulate reality - lawnmowing simulator, bee simulator, etc. I might occasionally try games like that just out of curiosity, but I rarely get even an hour into them before I get rid of them. But I also don't criticize people for liking those games. I'm just not a fan of that kind of game and if they started adding that kind of gameplay to this game, I would stop updating the game or mod it or stop playing it because I wouldn't like the game that way. That's my opinion, nothing more. It isn't a critique of people who like that kind of game any more than my comments about survival games. It's simply my opinion about it and why developers will often avoid the more niche or less-played genres and only take aspects from those that are more accepted by a larger audience.

You have, actually. I remember a post a couple of months ago where you insinuated that hardcore survival fans are basically jobless weirdos who live in their parents' basements. I called you out on it, and you gave me a cookie.

ANYWAY, much like javabean, you're strawmanning. I've never demanded that 7DTD be turned into a hardcore survival sim. Any suggestions I make for the vanilla game are either focused on already existing mechanics (like my original water gathering vs consumption post which had NOTHING to do with hardcore difficulty) or game options. The only loud requests I've ever made to TFP have been for adding more mod hooks, or begging faatal not to totally gut the code for deprecated features, so that modders could bring those features back.

 

[Roland]

I've never demanded that 7DTD be turned into a hardcore survival sim.

To be fair, you kind of gave that impression about yourself when you rejected most of the games listed as being actual survival games and ridiculed Palworld as even being on the list. It’s exactly what a hardcore survival game fan would do.

I think 7 Days is probably closer to Palworld level of survival elements than it is to say Green Hell. I think the vanilla version should be on the lighter side with options to ramp up the survival difficulty and (for PC players) mods to go even closer to the simulation end of the spectrum.

 

[EvilPolygons]

To be fair, you kind of gave that impression about yourself when you rejected most of the games listed as being actual survival games and ridiculed Palworld as even being on the list. It’s exactly what a hardcore survival game fan would do.

I think 7 Days is probably closer to Palworld level of survival elements than it is to say Green Hell. I think the vanilla version should be on the lighter side with options to ramp up the survival difficulty and for PC players mods to go even closer to the simulation end of the spectrum.

Roland, you're taking what I posted completely out of context. I rejected most of those titles as hardcore survival games because most are not hardcore survival games. That's it. And I only posted what I did, in that tone, because of the post I was responding to. I tend to give back what I get.

I don't go around posting walls of text that amount to "casual bad." But Noxom's post was nothing but a diatribe about why "realism bad."

I'll say it again: if YOU (speaking broadly) can't describe what YOU like without throwing shade on what other people like, then that's a YOU problem. I could write an entire essay about "hardcore survival and realism in gaming" without ever mentioning casual games or casual gamers even once.

I don't need anyone to explain to me what I should and shouldn't enjoy. If I enjoy lugging buckets from a river back to camp, one at a time, to boil water on a fire in order to avoid dying of dehydration, then that's what I f'ing enjoy. Period. My preference for simulation neither breaks their leg nor picks their pocket, so why should they even care?

 

[Pokketninja]

As far as I know, she is in charge of the Content Creators (which is basically the Twitch Streamers and YouTubers who enrolled in the Creator program).
@Pokketninja is a streamer herself so it makes sense, plus there's that other reason... ???

That is correct, I work closely with TFP Content Creators and also QA test

 

[Roland]

Roland, you're taking what I posted completely out of context. I rejected most of those titles as hardcore survival games because most are not hardcore survival games. That's it. And I only posted what I did, in that tone, because of the post I was responding to. I tend to give back what I get.

I don't go around posting walls of text that amount to "casual bad." But Noxom's post was nothing but a diatribe about why "realism bad."

I'll say it again: if YOU (speaking broadly) can't describe what YOU like without throwing shade on what other people like, then that's a YOU problem. I could write an entire essay about "hardcore survival and realism in gaming" without ever mentioning casual games or casual gamers even once.

I don't need anyone to explain to me what I should and shouldn't enjoy. If I enjoy lugging buckets from a river back to camp, one at a time, to boil water on a fire in order to avoid dying of dehydration, then that's what I f'ing enjoy. Period. My preference for simulation neither breaks their leg nor picks their pocket, so why should they even care?

Noxom’s post did not come across to me as “realism bad”. It came across to me as a post showing that there are multiple games in the industry tagged as survival that are pretty similar in scope to 7 Days to Die, and that with the current level of thirst mechanics 7 Days already exceeds the standard level of mechanics needed to be called survival.

Realism isn’t bad….its niche. And the more realistic you get the more niche the game becomes. If the game forces the player to bring bucket-loads back to their base to be processed via a complex multistep process (eg radiated murk—> murk —> drinkable water —> teas) using a combination of filtration and boiling etc, that will be fun for some and tedious for others. If the game doesn’t force that by offering alternative methods like shopping and scavenging then there will be complaints that the shopping and looting of water ruins the survival aspect of the game.

Anyway, I’m all for using buckets to gather water. I just mainly am against empty jars returning. I’ve gone back to remember playing with them and I hate them now.

 

[EvilPolygons]

Noxom’s post did not come across to me as “realism bad”. It came across to me as a post showing that there are multiple games in the industry tagged as survival that are pretty similar in scope to 7 Days to Die, and that with the current level of thirst mechanics 7 Days already exceeds the standard level of mechanics needed to be called survival.

Difference of opinion. I'll leave it at that.

Realism isn’t bad….its niche. And the more realistic you get the more niche the game becomes. If the game forces the player to bring bucket-loads back to their base to be processed via a complex multistep process (eg radiated murk—> murk —> drinkable water —> teas) using a combination of filtration and boiling etc, that will be fun for some and tedious for others. If the game doesn’t force that by offering alternative methods like shopping and scavenging then there will be complaints that the shopping and looting of water ruins the survival aspect of the game.

Nowhere in my initial post did I suggest any of what you just described. I stated plainly that TFP chose to cut off believable and intuitive methods of acquiring water in order to shoe-horn in a hackneyed new game mechanic (dew collectors) in order to increase survival aspects related to water. *TFP* made that decision because *TFP* wanted water to be more important to survival. Clearly TFP believes thirst mechanics should be a thing their game -- so debating that point is a waste of time.

I don't know how else to spell it out. I'm not advocating more hardcore survival for vanilla 7DTD. I made a suggestion regarding what the vanilla game has right NOW; TFP failed miserably given their stated intent of making water more important to survival, and in the process they stomped all over immersion and the player's ability to interact intuitively with the environment. They could have gotten the effect they wanted by keeping water collection exactly the same, but increasing water costs: x + y = y + x.

The end result would have been the same, but at least those immersive elements wouldn't have been stripped away. Plus, it's so much easier to use water consumption as your lever in designing a game mechanic like this, than trying to regulate how water is gathered. The former is just a number, whereas the latter is A) going to place all kinds of fake restraints on players, and B) always going to be a losing battle between the game designer and the powergamer.

Anyway, I’m all for using buckets to gather water. I just mainly am against empty jars returning. I’ve gone back to remember playing with them and I hate them now.

We agree on that, at least.

 

[Adam the Waster]

Temperature is brought up as an example is fine, but people assume TFP removed temperature on purpose, but they didn't. The code eventually stopped working and the original coder no longer works for the company essentially forcing them to start new. They've always had plans to bring it bacback

But they should have told the masses that rather then the few on the forums