You’re joking right? The game being developed not just for The Fun Pimps is right on the Kickstarter page it was supposed to be a game the community helped develop with feedback, ideas and suggestions but like I said that game and development team died a few years ago.
PC We still need Jars
- Thread starter Kalnazzar
- Start date
Roland
Community Moderator
Your problem is your interpretation of that statement. You are injecting way more community power than the community has ever had. That's where your disappointment will continually hit you-- your interpretation.
Kalnazzar
Refugee
I understand your perspective, but I believe you're misinterpreting my suggestions as demanding excessive "community power." My request is for balanced updates that reintroduce features previously in the game, alongside the current systems, to give players options. Specifically, I’d like to see a refined jar crafting and water collection system, a polished vehicle combat system that prevents issues like magical vultures spawning to block riding during horde nights, and a return to the old-school farming system with updated mechanics, such as water irrigation through pipes and trenches for plants to absorb, fertilizer use, UV lights for underground farms to support crop growth, and a hybrid "learn by doing" and "learn by reading" progression. These features were once part of the game, so reintegrating them as optional systems for players who prefer them, while keeping the current systems intact, shouldn’t be seen as asking for too much. This approach wouldn’t disrupt existing gameplay because players who enjoy the current systems can continue using them unchanged, while those who prefer the older mechanics can opt for them instead. By offering choices, the game accommodates diverse player preferences without altering or removing the systems already in place.
Well, that's how it should be. Just as a dog should have one owner, so any system should have one owner. Many can give advice, but only one should make a decision.
If you make a game based on other people's opinions, then even those who expressed these opinions will not play it for long. What's the point of playing something that you absolutely understand?
Roland
Community Moderator
It is not the suggestions that lead to my interpretation. It is your reaction when TFP says, "no" to your suggestions.
There's nothing wrong with those requests. I'm not against any of them, personally. TFP is definitely aware of these requests you just listed and have considered them and they have final say on whether they do it or not.
I don't think you have any idea how difficult a job that would be.
We've already seen the lie in that claim with the release of 2.0 where mechanics were made to be optional so that those who enjoyed 1.0 systems could continue using them unchanged and yet the people who didn't like it decided to review bomb TFP in order to assert their community power to try and drive the development of the game. I wish I could believe you that just making stuff optional would appease everyone but actions are stronger than words and you gave yourself away with how you treated optional stuff with 2.0.
I have nothing critical to say regarding your actual suggestions. I don't hate any of them. But I don't think they would please everyone and due to recent events I definitely don't believe that people like you who believe that the community should have the final say instead of the developers would just be happy if it was all optional. I also suspect that others would continue to criticize TFP for revamping existing features yet again.
Jost Amman
Hunter
Yeah, I get it, but it's still a drop in the bucket.
plzkthxbye
Scavenger
Many people probably comment on multiple platforms too. I comment here, Reddit, and in the YouTube comments, for example.
They did have a reddit post asking about it so it's not like they aren't listening. Also, I am curious why you feel jars will be worth the development time. Personally I think jars are fine if adjusted and feel they should have just done that instead of the dew collector, but now that we are in 2.0 I just think there are far more pressing concerns to deal with including such as giving alternatives to questing or providing content that will give people more reasons to loot high end POIs such as bringing back parts quality, schematics, legendary weapons, etc. I would even argue that darker nights or dynamic moons (full/half) is more pressing than jars when it comes to impact on the game. All I can think of for why jars is nice is because it makes water sources valuable which is a good thing, but I don't think it's more pressing than other concerns IMO.
You would have to rework glue as a byproduct unless you think it's still alright to carry around 1,000 filled water in jars or have a dew collector farm instead of a solar farm. Sadly, without some TLC I don't think many of the ideas in themselves are ideal.
I prefer not to have such a complicated system for farming. Plots don't bother me and at best I think fertilizer increasing yields/time to grow would suffice. I don't want to spend my morning watering plants like Stardew Valley or build convoluted piping like in ARK. You are asking for a lot of manpower to fix something that I personally never even used in the previous systems much as hunting was far easier and without wellness added back I don't see people
I think this could be a win for those wanting jars back but have them consume on use.
I would prefer you guys to get it right before moving on so these issues aren't revisited years later when it's not as logical to reimplement them. Such things as temperature and clothing went quite a while before it's now being added back into the game. I think there are obvious limits, but hopefully with a bit more engagement with the community you can find out what specifically people are thinking and find creative ways to blend those wishes with the developers thoughts on game progression in a way that is mutually beneficial.
Adding new elements to the game is a good thing. I just hope the new things add value to the sandbox style of the game and help diversify the game away from just quest spamming and trader jumping. I think if you guys can get flatspot coding to work with dynamic events that would be a massive win for the game. If not then create small POI parts that spawn crashed helicopters, etc in the wilderness that offer good loot to encourage exploration as currently I just go from one quest to another in the same town until I move on to the next biome and then rinse/repeat.
I think from a realism perspective zombies wouldn't exist as they would freeze in the winter and spoil in the summer, but even following that train of thought there would be feasible aways of fixing this as if you get bitten you can cure yourself so logically one would assume you could cure water.
That is true but you also wouldn't be able to carry an inventory filled with so many items either. Again realism I think is a term not meant to be taken literal but meant to combine with logical trains of thought one might expect in a game such as this, especially based on other games of this genre.
I do agree that, and I think the fundamental issue, people shouldn't be able to get water easily. If you made water jars consume on use but could still fill up at water sources it fixes the problems you seem to have. Remember that currently you can find a plethora of murky water in loot even before you get to a dew collector.
First change a percentage of murky water into empty jars and then lower the drop rate of all jars/murky water in loot by a fixed percentage. So now what you have done is made water harder to get as instead of murky water you just boil you get empty jars you have to get water from a source to fill. Then you decontaminate it through boiling and the jars are consumed on use. You have made water harder to come by and made water sources more viable with little effort.
I think what you are saying is that community input is very valuable and that TFP listen to everyone and not just he loudest if I cam correct in assuming. That is true and generally a good practice to follow. You don't want to just make changes every time someone complains, but I do think this time was an exception to that rule as if you watch the town hall they did mention they had it due to the large outcry from the players.
TFP shouldn't just blindly listen to the loudest, but infer issues with the game from posts, videos, discussion boards, etc. and determine if they can improve the game from the feedback provided by the community so we don't need a second town hall.
If we assume that people posting, commenting, rating, posting videos represents a small minority of players then why are we assuming the inverse that it's a large portion of the player base that do not want change?
With limited data and information you can only make decisions based on what you know.
How difficult is it? How many hours? If we can't assume it will be easy then why would we assume the opposite? What if it's not that bad? Sorry playing devils advocate a little here with this one, but depending on how much a feature is wanted or not should determine it's value proportional to the time spent developing it or not.
I am not sure if the OP is explicitly asking for them to do it because they said so but are putting forth their argument for it so that they can determine it to be a good idea an implement it. Idealistic but isn't that the point of any of our suggestive posts? But overall I agree that the ones driving the ship are TFP and have to take suggestions, even popular ones, and fit them into the framework of what they want within the game and have to determine whether it's possible or good to do so and balance that with the sentiment towards that change from the community.
Kalnazzar
Refugee
**“This part right here confuses me. You said:
‘We’ve already seen the lie in that claim with the release of 2.0 where mechanics were made to be optional so that those who enjoyed 1.0 systems could continue using them unchanged…’
But that’s not really what happened. A lot of what was added in 2.0 wasn’t optional at all:
- Loot caps – This wasn’t an optional toggle. People couldn’t turn it off.
- Biome progression – From what I recall, this also wasn’t optional at launch. It was added after, but it still wasn’t something you could toggle off from the start.
- New enemies (Frost Claw, Plague Spitter) – Not optional toggles either. For the record, I actually liked the models and hope when new ones come, the old ones remain as optional variants.
- Badges & storm immunity – The badges were UI icons unlocked by completing quests in a set order (tied to biome progression) to grant weather immunity. Players didn’t want magical badges that gave you storm resistance — they wanted realistic gear or equipment for that, like a breathing respirator or hazmat outfit.
- Clothing system – Clothing used to exist alongside armor, but in 2.0 it was completely replaced by the new armor system. Players have consistently disliked this change, and as far as I know it’s never been addressed. It also wasn’t optional.
- Temperature system – Removed, which a lot of players didn’t like. To be fair, this is being reworked since the old system was broken spaghetti code.
- Storms – Felt cheap and one-sided against players. Adding more stages improved them, but early on they were just frustrating.
- Challenges – Sitting around in a biome waiting wasn’t fun. On its own it might’ve been a small complaint, but when stacked with all the other issues, it fueled a lot of negativity.
So when I look at all that, I don’t really see how 2.0 was about ‘optional systems.’ Most of these changes weren’t optional at all, and that’s where a lot of the frustration came from. Unless I’m missing something?
And that’s just 2.0. A lot of my concerns aren’t even tied to 2.0 specifically — they’re older issues from past alphas that were never addressed. For the most part, 2.0’s problems have been dealt with, but many of those long-standing issues players have brought up for years are still hanging.”**
theFlu
Hunter
I dunno; the jars reddit post is phrased as a question, but is it actually an indication of listening? It basically turned into (I'm paraphrasing a lot, but I think fairly) "The numbers were bad in the first iteration (too easy), now with this system we got the numbers to line up like we want. That's good enough for us".
I don't think they see a difference between immersive in-world systems and shopping lists of UI requirements; so they're going to have a hard time hearing that part.
Adam the Waster
Hunter
I talked with people at work who play 7 days with me and they haven't heard of half the stuff and they basicly go "why did they remove it" granted it's only like 6 people and 6 out of the 5 doesn't play anymore due to how clunky it is