Swapping Armor Sets

[HammerDano]

would be nice to have one plain set of armour with mod slots...maybe even one without mod slots.

 

[Uncle Al]

There are many playstyles supported by the design which is why it is a good design. What may be bad is the impulse control of some players but that is beyond the scope of this game. Now....that isn't to say that it's a perfect system or that everybody should love it. No feature is going to please everyone.

By this logic, games where you have multiple apparent choices but your choices have no mechanical impact whatsoever on achieving the game goals are good designs.

I don't think that's the case.

 

[Roland]

By this logic, games where you have multiple apparent choices but your choices have no mechanical impact whatsoever on achieving the game goals are good designs.

I don't think that's the case.

How do the choices:
A) swap armor for every action benefit or
B) swap a few armor pieces sometimes or
C) use one set for an entire playthrough or
D) switch off using sets periodically

have no mechanical impact whatsoever? The impact on the game is huge between those choices.

As far as game goals go what goals are you referring to? There’s the player’s goal to be successful at a given activity. There’s the designer’s goal for the player to use the armor pieces in the game. I’m both cases goals are achieved with the mechanic. No?

 

[Old Crow]

I just want the Ranger set to stop sucking. It's so freaking boring.

 

[Lax]

I just want the Ranger set to stop sucking. It's so freaking boring.

Not the whole set, but I usually use the Ranger Boots for a 20% stamina boost and the Ranger Outfit for a 20% health boost. I combine the Preacher Gloves and The Rogue Hood and that's usually the set I use most of the time. I use a Treasure Hunter Mod with the Rogue Hood to boost my loot stage mid/late game.

I keep the Enforcer Gloves in the motorcycle to help with fuel on long road trips. The Enforcer Glasses with a cigar for trading. And the Farmer Outfit and Boots for harvesting crops.

 

[Riamus]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I tend to invest into Intellect early to get the bonuses to eating magazines (intellect mastery 2 & 3), and the first armour piece I aim for is Nerd Outfit.

Well yeah, you don't ever need to do farming to stay fed. You have four main options for food/water: 1) Get it from the environment (animals, lakes, rivers, wild crops), 2) Farm it (farm plots + dew collectors), 3) Loot it (cupboards, POI loot room loot, zombie drops, etc), 4) Buy it (from traders or vending machines, for dukes).

But I tend to make a farm most playthroughs... Just because I enjoy farming. Not because it's "efficient" or "necessary". And I don't bother farming until I've got quality 6 Farmer Boots and Farmer Outfit, and maxed out seed magazines, as well as maxed out Living Off The Land. I want all the crop harvest, not just partial.

What I mean is that you can find enough magazines at a rate that is good (my opinion, of course) without needing to use nerd armor or intellect mastery at all. The only magazines that aren't fast enough if you're not putting points into their perk is armor. Alternate weapons are slow if you don't have points in them, but if you don't have points in those, you're probably not using them and so it doesn't matter if those magazines are slow. Everything else is fast. Now, if you don't like the magazine mechanic (like I mentioned), then you probably don't want to get magazines at a normal rate and instead want them all as quickly as possible. For that, you have the option of using nerd armor and intellect mastery. But they certainly aren't needed and the only reason I'd use either is for armor magazines. Others do things differently.

I wasn't saying you don't need to farm. What I was saying is that you can farm just fine without ever using farming armor. For solo, you can easily manage without putting points into LotL and without the armor. For multiplayer, you'd want points in LotL no matter what you do with armor, but the armor isn't really necessary. If you have points in LotL, you're already going to get way more food that you'll ever need without ever using the farming armor.

There's nothing wrong with using either armor if you want. But there are various people who continue to claim that you "have to" use them or are "forced to" use them. That is simply not true. I will say that if you're on a server with a lot of other players, you might have more need of the intellect mastery or nerd armor simply due to the difficulty of finding unopened mailboxes and stuff. But for normal 1-8 players, which is the intended number, it isn't necessary.

Post automatically merged: Today at 12:20 AM

I just want the Ranger set to stop sucking. It's so freaking boring.

I don't have a problem with it. But I don't use the set bonus. The gloves aren't any use to me and the set bonus isn't, so I use all ranger except gloves and usually use the biker gloves for melee damage. The bonuses from other pieces work well for me. But I do agree that the set bonus isn't good. You're not normally using revolvers or lever action rifles in end game. Make it all pistols and rifles and it would be good.

 

[theFlu]

What may be bad is the impulse control of some players but that is beyond the scope of this game.

Why is it a mental deficiency to play the game as it is?

 

[Riamus]

Why is it a mental deficiency to play the game as it is?

Impulse control and mental deficiency aren't really the same, imo. But what Roland's referring to is accurate. When someone says that they are forced to play a certain way and it's shown that they have options, but they are unable to unwilling to use those options because they can't handle not playing efficiently or whatever, then that's a problem for them and not for the game.

If a game lets me play in sandbox mode without food consumption, or in normal mode with food consumption, I have the option to play with or without food consumption. If someone is unwilling to play in normal mode because sandbox mode is easier, that's not bad game design. Nor is it forcing the player to not use food consumption just because the player isn't willing to put in the effort to play with food consumption enabled.

That may just be a generic example, but it's the same thing. If a game gives you options but one option is considered by some to be better in some way (more efficient or something else), that doesn't make it a bad game design. And if that player doesn't like the "better" option but is unwilling to use the other option(s) because they aren't as "good", then that is the player's issue and not bad game design.

Now, to be clear, things can be bad game design. But things people here are usually talking about are more about the player being incapable (unwilling or otherwise) of playing in an alternate way rather than the game not allowing them to play in another way.

And in this specific case, we're talking about armor. Yes, you can swap armor constantly. That may be more efficient. But you absolutely do not have to do so. You have the option to do so. You also have the option to not do it at all, or to do it only with certain activities, or to only do it with one or two pieces of armor, or some mix of those. You'll find players doing all of those options, proving that there are other ways to play and that you're not forced to play a certain way (swapping armor all the time). So it isn't the armor that's forcing people to play that way. They are forcing themselves to play that way.

 

[MiTHMoN]

What I mean is that you can find enough magazines at a rate that is good (my opinion, of course) without needing to use nerd armor or intellect mastery at all. The only magazines that aren't fast enough if you're not putting points into their perk is armor. Alternate weapons are slow if you don't have points in them, but if you don't have points in those, you're probably not using them and so it doesn't matter if those magazines are slow. Everything else is fast. Now, if you don't like the magazine mechanic (like I mentioned), then you probably don't want to get magazines at a normal rate and instead want them all as quickly as possible. For that, you have the option of using nerd armor and intellect mastery. But they certainly aren't needed and the only reason I'd use either is for armor magazines. Others do things differently.

I just don't understand why you're attributing playstyle to whether someone likes a mechanic. Why do you think I "don't like" the magazine mechanic? Your conclusion just doesn't make any sense to me. You're just deciding causation incorrectly, and I don't see why you're doing it.

And I disagree. Magazines come slowly.

Take this for example: I enjoy crafting weapons, tools, armour, etc. I enjoy choosing to put resources together to create a usable object. I also like questing and looting. The game is currently balanced in a way where, if you don't invest in perks that increase magazine drops (especially intellect mastery, but also the associate use skill), you will be inundated with resources that you can't yet use to craft better gear than you loot. So the only times you really get a chance to craft gear improvements is basically in stone tier and at quality 6 steel tier.

The only way for me to improve my crafting skills is by looting and questing (magazine bundles) and buying whatever magazines the trader offers that I want. The way I get weapon/tool improvements is the same exact way (looting, questing, buying).

If I specifically invest in magazine drops (intellect mastery, nerd outfit, points into skills to weight that type of magazine), it gives me a chance of being able to craft an item before I've looted or bought a better version. A chance. I *might* get to make use of crafting before quality-6-steel-tier in a playthrough if I specifically build towards that goal.

So again, I disagree that magazines naturally come at a "good" rate.

I wish I could craft gear upgrades, but most of the time I can't. If I want to craft an iron-tier weapon, most times I'll get a steel-tier equivalent before I can even craft any iron tier.

I wasn't saying you don't need to farm. What I was saying is that you can farm just fine without ever using farming armor. For solo, you can easily manage without putting points into LotL and without the armor. For multiplayer, you'd want points in LotL no matter what you do with armor, but the armor isn't really necessary. If you have points in LotL, you're already going to get way more food that you'll ever need without ever using the farming armor.

There's nothing wrong with using either armor if you want. But there are various people who continue to claim that you "have to" use them or are "forced to" use them. That is simply not true. I will say that if you're on a server with a lot of other players, you might have more need of the intellect mastery or nerd armor simply due to the difficulty of finding unopened mailboxes and stuff. But for normal 1-8 players, which is the intended number, it isn't necessary.

When I play solo, I hoard the canned food that *can* get used for later-game food recipes. I end up getting more "non-crafting" (peaches, cat food, miso soup, etc etc) than I can eat myself. So I end up with a hoard of craftable canned food in mid-late game that I never end up using, and then I end up crafting food with it, and I never run out. Just from looting.

So, farming is never necessary for me. It's just resources for storing. If I make a few Dew Collectors while playing solo, I end up with a chest or two full of water, and I start crafting glue with it or something because I don't have a use for it.

And like I said, I have no interest in farming *until* I have quality-6 Farmer Boots and Farmer Outfit, and maxed Living Off The Land.

 

[MiTHMoN]

When someone says that they are forced to play a certain way and it's shown that they have options, but they are unable to unwilling to use those options because they can't handle not playing efficiently or whatever, then that's a problem for them and not for the game.

I disagree with this is well. The game mechanics decide what a player can do in the game. I can't just use a flamethrower to burn down infested buildings, because the game doesn't have a flamethrower or spreading fire mechanics. I have to play within what the game allows.

Previously when I used to play 7DTD, I would lean more heavily into the melee perks in the early game. Agility knife perk if I was using Bone Knife early, Strength sledge perk if I was using Stone Sledgehammer, etc. I figured, hey, it makes me powerful in melee and makes me use less stamina, so I can do more combat early on. And that's true.

But I got used to playing on Insane, and I realized... If I play on a difficulty lower than Insane, and I don't put points into melee, I'll perform basically the same (since enemies take more damage naturally, and therefore I don't need to use as much stamina to kill them).

So by just turning the difficulty down, I freed up my skill points. So what do I spend them on now? Well, if I choose anything other than Intellect Mastery, I'll hit a point where the only limiting factor is magazines and perk books... So either I invest in getting more books and getting more points per magazine, or I end up at that same situation of "I have more resources than I can use, but can't craft anything I want because I don't have high enough crafting skill".

And since I *want* to craft gear upgrades, my options become binary. I either invest in the only perks that actually help me, or I don't. Not much of a choice.

If a game gives you options but one option is considered by some to be better in some way (more efficient or something else), that doesn't make it a bad game design. And if that player doesn't like the "better" option but is unwilling to use the other option(s) because they aren't as "good", then that is the player's issue and not bad game design.

Soft disagree. When you're given the options for pipe bundle in the early game, the pipe machinegun is just the strongest. If a zombie dog rolls up on you, it's a great panic weapon. Unless you're playing on low difficulty, the pipe shotgun and pipe rifle won't one-shot headshot a zombie dog. You might be able to pull off the kill with the pipe pistol, depending on the difficulty and you landing multiple headshots. But ultimately, the pipe machinegun is the strongest choice.

So every time I pick something other than the pipe machinegun, I do it knowing I'm making a sub-optimal choice, but I'm doing it just because I want variety. That's bad game design.

Good game design would be balancing the options and giving each of them distinct strengths and weaknesses.

Pipe Rifle generally does less damage than a primitive bow while sneaking, but shoots flatter. Still worse overall than a primitive bow. Much different reload speed, much different ammo logistics. Pipe Pistol is just a worse version of the Pipe Machinegun overall.

Point is, the player is given the options between "pick the weaker option simply for variety or vibes", or "pick the mechanically superior option because the game offers it". That's just bad game design. Don't blame players for the game's faults.

 

[Uncle Al]

How do the choices:
A) swap armor for every action benefit or
B) swap a few armor pieces sometimes or
C) use one set for an entire playthrough or
D) switch off using sets periodically

have no mechanical impact whatsoever? The impact on the game is huge between those choices.

As far as game goals go what goals are you referring to? There’s the player’s goal to be successful at a given activity. There’s the designer’s goal for the player to use the armor pieces in the game. I’m both cases goals are achieved with the mechanic. No?

That was my point. Your blanket statement 'supports multiple play styles so is good' doesn't work unless those different playstyles also have mechanical impact.

Though we seem to agree there, I go further and say it's not good design unless there is some risk/reward balancing between the playstyles.

With the current design, you can't ever risk/reward balance the 'support' armour sets, because you'll always be able to access their benefits and avoid their drawbacks, by armour swapping.

That balance issue is also why, of your four choices, I'd wager that the vast majority of C and D players never use the support/gatherer sets. In the current design, those sets can't be actually good because they'd have no drawbacks for the swappers, and thus they're never good enough for the non-swappers.

 

[theFlu]

Now, to be clear, things can be bad game design. But things people here are usually talking about are more about the player being incapable (unwilling or otherwise) of playing in an alternate way rather than the game not allowing them to play in another way.

There's the jokey saying: If you're well-adjusted to a sick society, you're insane. If it's insane to play the game as-is, the game could be better.

EDIT: @Prisma501 please do elaborate, I think my point is rather self-evident?

 

[MiTHMoN]

There’s the player’s goal to be successful at a given activity. There’s the designer’s goal for the player to use the armor pieces in the game. I’m both cases goals are achieved with the mechanic. No?

I don't really know what the designers' goals are with the armour sets. But if their goal is for players to use the sets, why don't they make the sets more cohesive?

If a player wants to play melee, their options for "melee" sets come down to: Preacher (generalist), Biker (melee), Juggernaut (melee). If a player wants to be good at guns, there's Preacher or Commando (ranged weapons). If the player wants to be good at explosives, there's Preacher. And those benefit come from the gloves.

If a player wants to specialize in gathering, their options are: Lumberjack (wood), Scavenger (salvage), Miner (mining), Farmer (crops).

If a player wants to conserve food/water/stamina, there's Nomad and Athletic.

If they want to specialize in lockpicking, Rogue kind of leans towards that. Specifically .44 guns, the full Enforcer set.

If they want to advance themselves faster, Nerd helmet and outfit.

This leaves Ranger in a weird place, because it gets benefits specifically to two iron-tier weapons. And by the time you're really considering armours you're already deep in steel tier, in most cases.


So, what's wrong with the sets currently? Well...

If someone is actually interested in mining, the Auger is their best option, and so only the Helmet and Gloves of Miner set are actually worth using.

If someone is interested in farming, the Boots and Outfit are the only pieces worth using.

If someone is interested in harvesting wood, the Chainsaw only benefits from the Lumberjack Helmet.

If someone wants to play a sneak archer, the Assassin set is mostly good, but then the gloves lose out on the normal 50% or 60% damage increase, so when you inevitably no longer get the sneak bonus in a POI you just have a weaker combat set.

I could redesign the set bonuses to make them more cohesive. I could make a mod for it. But the devs probably aren't going to do that, so the vast majority of players just have to play with these half-hearted sets.


If you're playing as a sneak archer (or sneak knife, I guess), technically you're better off switching out the Assassin gloves for Preacher gloves. And so many times, that's what the solution is. Preacher gloves give a bonus to all weapons, so even if you use 50% melee and 50% ranged, Preacher gloves will be a better fit for you, always. Not to mention explosives.


I would love to play the game with one set, without the desire to mix-and-match pieces. But sadly the game doesn't currently work like that.

Playing a sneak archer with Assassin set, 4 of the 5 bonuses don't apply during blood moon. And the bonus that does apply, from the gloves, is worse than other set gloves.

Playing as a dedicated farmer, you could argue that the Helmet is beneficial for looting, but mostly it's the Boots and Outfit. The gloves give you no benefit to farming whatsoever, and the set bonus is redundant, because if I'm a farmer I'm already extremely well-off for food and water. So to actually be the best farmer you can be, you're probably better off using Assassin gloves so you can harvest crops faster (with bone knife) and harvest corpses faster (with machete).

If I kept going the message would be too long, but my point is that, there's no in-game mechanical reason to choose one set of armour, and you're actually disadvantaged if you do in most cases.

 

[Kire]

I don't really know what the designers' goals are with the armour sets. But if their goal is for players to use the sets, why don't they make the sets more cohesive?

If a player wants to play melee, their options for "melee" sets come down to: Preacher (generalist), Biker (melee), Juggernaut (melee). If a player wants to be good at guns, there's Preacher or Commando (ranged weapons). If the player wants to be good at explosives, there's Preacher. And those benefit come from the gloves.

If a player wants to specialize in gathering, their options are: Lumberjack (wood), Scavenger (salvage), Miner (mining), Farmer (crops).

If a player wants to conserve food/water/stamina, there's Nomad and Athletic.

If they want to specialize in lockpicking, Rogue kind of leans towards that. Specifically .44 guns, the full Enforcer set.

If they want to advance themselves faster, Nerd helmet and outfit.

This leaves Ranger in a weird place, because it gets benefits specifically to two iron-tier weapons. And by the time you're really considering armours you're already deep in steel tier, in most cases.


So, what's wrong with the sets currently? Well...

If someone is actually interested in mining, the Auger is their best option, and so only the Helmet and Gloves of Miner set are actually worth using.

If someone is interested in farming, the Boots and Outfit are the only pieces worth using.

If someone is interested in harvesting wood, the Chainsaw only benefits from the Lumberjack Helmet.

If someone wants to play a sneak archer, the Assassin set is mostly good, but then the gloves lose out on the normal 50% or 60% damage increase, so when you inevitably no longer get the sneak bonus in a POI you just have a weaker combat set.

I could redesign the set bonuses to make them more cohesive. I could make a mod for it. But the devs probably aren't going to do that, so the vast majority of players just have to play with these half-hearted sets.


If you're playing as a sneak archer (or sneak knife, I guess), technically you're better off switching out the Assassin gloves for Preacher gloves. And so many times, that's what the solution is. Preacher gloves give a bonus to all weapons, so even if you use 50% melee and 50% ranged, Preacher gloves will be a better fit for you, always. Not to mention explosives.


I would love to play the game with one set, without the desire to mix-and-match pieces. But sadly the game doesn't currently work like that.

Playing a sneak archer with Assassin set, 4 of the 5 bonuses don't apply during blood moon. And the bonus that does apply, from the gloves, is worse than other set gloves.

Playing as a dedicated farmer, you could argue that the Helmet is beneficial for looting, but mostly it's the Boots and Outfit. The gloves give you no benefit to farming whatsoever, and the set bonus is redundant, because if I'm a farmer I'm already extremely well-off for food and water. So to actually be the best farmer you can be, you're probably better off using Assassin gloves so you can harvest crops faster (with bone knife) and harvest corpses faster (with machete).

If I kept going the message would be too long, but my point is that, there's no in-game mechanical reason to choose one set of armour, and you're actually disadvantaged if you do in most cases.

At some point you have to revert to whats best for combat, aka the preacher gloves. Or biker outfit. Not taking those can be a death sentence in harder POI's. Trying to have fun with other armors just makes the game so much more difficult than it has to be in my opinion

The thing is that its inevitable to be facing off against stronger and stronger enemies like the raditated/infernal/charged zombies. No matter if youre playing casually or slowly progressing. Eventually you'll face those things. And if i'm roleplaying as a lumberjack i'm gonna get rekt unless i'm playing on a lower difficulty. I was trying a scavenger build and increased the difficulty each week and eventually i had to switch because i was just making myself suffer

 

[MiTHMoN]

I could redesign the set bonuses to make them more cohesive. I could make a mod for it. But the devs probably aren't going to do that, so the vast majority of players just have to play with these half-hearted sets.

I decided to make a post for this concept, so I can be judged. It's in "Pimp Dreams". https://community.thefunpimps.com/threads/slight-armour-rework.47065/

 

[Roland]

Why is it a mental deficiency to play the game as it is?

Playing the game as it is does not indicate a mental deficiency. All of us are playing the game as it is because the game allows for different play styles. The game mechanics are the same for each of us provided we are playing unmodded. The only differences are the choices we make for how to play with those mechanics. Where the mental deficiency starts to creep in is when someone repeatedly chooses something that brings them misery because they can't stop themselves and they blame external forces for their situation. btw, I think everyone suffers from this to one degree or another in one or more areas of our lives. It's part of being human.

 

[Roland]

If I kept going the message would be too long, but my point is that, there's no in-game mechanical reason to choose one set of armour, and you're actually disadvantaged if you do in most cases.

You are not disadvantaged compared to wearing no armor at all. When I stick to one armor type it isn't because I think I've found the best and so that is why I'm wearing it. I stick to one type because I want to play the game with that particular mix of bonuses. It creates a character that may be weaker in melee combat or ranged combat or mining or farming but have strengths in other areas. I like to answer, "How long could this type of survivor survive?" by playing it out.

The in-game mechanical reason is the same as choosing one or two primary attributes and sticking to those without respeccing with the elixir. Why not respec whenever it seems you'd be disadvantaged not to do so? I think most people probably do not respec that often but stick to the character they've built. I simply extend that same thinking to the armor. Those particular mix of bonuses become my character that I want to try and survive using. Maybe that character is stronger in stealth for POI exploration but weaker on bloodmoon nights that some other character but that's okay. It's the character I'm playing.

If you can't stomach playing with any disadvantages and view a flawed character as the antitheses of a survivor then obviously you aren't going to be interested in my playstyle. But that doesn't mean that the in-game mechanics of the game don't support viable and fun choices. It just means it isn't for you.

I decided to make a post for this concept, so I can be judged. It's in "Pimp Dreams". https://community.thefunpimps.com/threads/slight-armour-rework.47065/

How would your redesign end the suffering of those who feel compelled to swap armor frequently so they always have the best bonuses for everything they do?

 

[meganoth]

It's great that @FenixMatariki plays it differently than I do or than others do. It is even more proof that the design doesn't dictate how to play. The design is simply armor pieces with bonuses and set bonuses. That's it. Some people swap stuff out multiple times a day and love it. Others swap stuff out multiple times a day and hate (but do it anyway...). Others swap only certain pieces occasionally. Others wear one or two sets for an entire playthrough. Others might do a "Set of the week" and swap out in celebration of living through another bloodmoon.

There are many playstyles supported by the design which is why it is a good design. What may be bad is the impulse control of some players but that is beyond the scope of this game. Now....that isn't to say that it's a perfect system or that everybody should love it. No feature is going to please everyone.

Sure, but all that the critics have been saying is that the new armor design provides incentives for swapping and such incentives for swapping were cited by madmole as a reason for redesign in a different case.

Nobody denies that different players follow those incentives to different degrees and may or may not like the design.

 

[FenixMatariki]

Sure, but all that the critics have been saying is that the new armor design provides incentives for swapping and such incentives for swapping were cited by madmole as a reason for redesign in a different case.

Nobody denies that different players follow those incentives to different degrees and may or may not like the design.

Finally a summary i can understand, now i just need to know WHY its a problem and what the criitcs are wanting it replaced with.

Is it that a few armor bonus's are providing too much situational bonus's and encourage excessive swapping?

 

[theFlu]

Where the mental deficiency starts to creep in is when someone repeatedly chooses something that brings them misery because they can't stop themselves and they blame external forces for their situation.

... That doesn't remove the reason to fix the actual external force pushing towards the stupid action, where possible. Whether that's fixing the armor system, or destroying all the tempting stockpiles of chocolate in your cupboards.

If you want me to stop obsessively calling you out on calling people obsessive, stop calling people obsessive

Is it that a few armor bonus's are providing too much situational bonus's and encourage excessive swapping?

Yes, and; the worst offenders don't offer a continuous benefit, ONLY the temporary one. Like the rogue hood, you only want it on for the moment you're opening something. There's no reason to wear it permanently. Same with the reading outfit, etc.