We're at only 50% positive reviews for the 30-day history...

[RyanX]

...on Steam when you limit the review history to the past month. Which means 50% negative reviews right? And it will probably go more negative from where it sits at now. I really hope this lights a fire under TFP's proverbial ■■■■. They have an opportunity to set this straight by simply making the sandbox mode they talked about. Everyone gets what they want...all the TFP simps out there get the game they simp for (because whatever the devs do it doesn't matter to them), the ones who don't care can pick either mode, and the rest get a sandbox game mode that not only brings back the felling this game once brought, but by also having a sandbox down mode, it allows modders greater freedom in adding to the game.

Is it possible to get a win/win scenario? History tells me no, and that things like this seldom recover. But here's to hoping.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

...on Steam. Which means 50% negative reviews right? And it will probably go more negative from where it sits at now. I really hope this lights a fire under TFP's proverbial ■■■■. They have an opportunity to set this straight by simply making the sandbox mode they talked about. Everyone gets what they want...all the TFP simps out there get the game they simp for (because whatever the devs do it doesn't matter to them), the ones who don't care can pick either mode, and the rest get a sandbox game mode that not only brings back the felling this game once brought, but by also having a sandbox down mode, it allows modders greater freedom in adding to the game.

Is it possible to get a win/win scenario? History tells me no, and that things like this seldom recover. But here's to hoping.

 

[Kyoji]

If they make the changes from the town hall then after a while it will go up

 

[Riamus]

Typical review bombing. People who still like it can't make their review current so it counts towards the current rating.

 

[Corwyhn]

Typical review bombing. People who still like it can't make their review current so it counts towards the current rating.

What evidence of that do you see or were you just making your guess why the reviews are still dropping? I mean what is the issue they are review bombing it on? The state of the game or the 2.0 update? Ummm.... I think that is what reviews are for. What am I missing?

I always thought review bombs were more about trashing a game for reasons outside of the game quality and not done because folks have issues with the game?

 

[RyanX]

Typical review bombing. People who still like it can't make their review current so it counts towards the current rating.

Lol review bombing. It's a lot of previously positive reviews changing to negative among other things. Nobody wants this game to do bad. I don't want it to do bad. I love what this game used to be. It's a dumbed down game at this point. And Cor is right, review bombing is for stuff outside the game. Why can't people accept that a VERY LARGE portion of the community does not like where the game has gone? The evidence is there. Ignore it if you want. It's not a subjective opinion at this point.

Post automatically merged: Sunday at 8:52 PM

Not sure what your point is here. Everyone has seen the video. It doesn't mean that they will make meaningful changes. They might do some superficial changes but my money is on them only doing minimal tweaks. At this point it's still really all just talk. It seems like they have a too much pride to make the changes that are necessary.

Just talk.

 

[Riamus]

Review bombing is getting a lot of people to downvote a game (or other thing). It doesn't matter the reason for it. It may be common for stuff unrelated to it, but that's not a requirement.

Most people don't change their reviews. Most don't even review games, or not many games if they do. They certainly aren't going to spend time rewriting their reviews. Some do, yes. But most aren't going to. And even if they did, you could have 90% of people who have ever reviewed the game who like the game, but their reviews are months or years in the past. Their review will not count towards current ratings even though their current review is still a "like". That makes it very easy to review bomb a game on Steam. There isn't much anyone who likes the game and already reviewed the game can do to respond to those reviews.

Also, to be clear, if someone changes their review from like to dislike, it does not change the review's date. It will not count as a recent review (unless the original review is recent enough to be considered a recent review). So, no... it is not a lot of previously positive reviews changing to negative. That would impact the overall rating, not the recent rating.

 

[RyanX]

Review bombing is getting a lot of people to downvote a game (or other thing). It doesn't matter the reason for it. It may be common for stuff unrelated to it, but that's not a requirement.

Most people don't change their reviews. Most don't even review games, or not many games if they do. They certainly aren't going to spend time rewriting their reviews. Some do, yes. But most aren't going to. And even if they did, you could have 90% of people who have ever reviewed the game who like the game, but their reviews are months or years in the past. Their review will not count towards current ratings even though their current review is still a "like". That makes it very easy to review bomb a game on Steam. There isn't much anyone who likes the game and already reviewed the game can do to respond to those reviews.

Also, to be clear, if someone changes their review from like to dislike, it does not change the review's date. It will not count as a recent review (unless the original review is recent enough to be considered a recent review). So, no... it is not a lot of previously positive reviews changing to negative. That would impact the overall rating, not the recent rating.

What would be the purpose for all the negative reviews other than that players are not liking where the game is right now? What "conspiracy theory" explains this? And the fact that most of the negative reviews are recent doesn't change a thing. In fact, it shows that people are pretty passionate right now.

In the corporate world it's a pretty well known thing that for every customer complaint, there are 10 more complaints that don't get reported. It doesn't work the same from the positive end.

The denial is strong with you.

 

[plzkthxbye]

Everyone has seen the video. It doesn't mean that they will make meaningful changes. They might do some superficial changes but my money is on them only doing minimal tweaks. At this point it's still really all just talk.

What exactly are you asking for?

 

[Roland]

They are making some pretty significant changes. People who've been angry since A17 probably won't change their review to positive but most likely those who have given negative reviews because of the 2.0 changes will be happy again.

 

[HammerDano]

They are making some pretty significant changes. People who've been angry since A17 probably won't change their review to positive but most likely those who have given negative reviews because of the 2.0 changes will be happy again.

are they actually going to follow thru on following up on the town hall?

I don't mean about the changes they may or may not do...or the ideas they thru out but definitely were just ideas not promises...I mean the idea that they are going to figure out how they want to solicit opinion/feedback...and implement it.

 

[RyanX]

What exactly are you asking for?

You surely see the question I asked in my post, right? I would obviously be asking the thing that has the question mark after it.

Post automatically merged: Monday at 11:18 AM

They are making some pretty significant changes. People who've been angry since A17 probably won't change their review to positive but most likely those who have given negative reviews because of the 2.0 changes will be happy again.

But are they really? They seem to think that people "want jars back". That's a very narrow view of what the jars issue is about. Do you think they see that it's really a deeper systemic problem that's been brewing for a number of years now? It sounds like they are just maybe going to negate the 2.0 items that people were unhappy with. I don't see that as any kind of change but rather just a rollback. And even then, gating the biomes in any form or fashion is a mistake imo, so changing the badges into "PPE" equipment isn't solving the issue. Making a sandbox mode would be a significant change, and they kind of mentioned that in passing but nothing has been official yet.

 

[plzkthxbye]

Is it possible to get a win/win scenario?

You surely see the question I asked in my post, right?

The one above? I still don't know what you want to see, or what you're specifically asking for.

I mainly see you expressing skepticism that TFP will do anything positive, but you want some changes made. Is that all you're expressing, that you want some changes, but you don't believe they'll happen?

 

[RyanX]

The one above?

Bingo.

 

[theFlu]

They seem to think that people "want jars back". That's a very narrow view of what the jars issue is about.

That's kinda what I expect..

And even then, gating the biomes in any form or fashion is a mistake imo, so changing the badges into "PPE" equipment isn't solving the issue.

This part can also be turned into an example of the above..
Badges = checklist of "tutorial things on a list" (like mine the biome ore). Nothing to do with anything in the world.
PPE can be made exactly the same, so, it's only "visually" better. Sounded like they're going for this, with tags changed and a crafting recipe attached (so, better, but..).
It could also be split into parts / quality of protection etc, so the world interactions would gradually and dynamically change the better PPE you can get. That would turn into an immersive mechanic - the better the lore, the better of course; but just a gradual "gearing up to become immune" would _feel_ so much better.

 

[plzkthxbye]

Bingo.

If only there was one, clearly defined vision of what a "sandbox" mode would look like for this game, this would be easy to discuss.

In the stream, they stated that this is their intention (to have a sandbox mode and a story mode), but you don't seem satisfied that they've expressed this in words, so this is where I'm confused what you're asking for. What do you want to see? And what sort of timetable would be satisfactory for you personally?

Post automatically merged: Monday at 11:44 AM

the better PPE you can get

I definitely like the idea of having different quality tiers of PPE, with increasing levels of protection.

 

[RyanX]

If only there was one, clearly defined vision of what a "sandbox" mode would look like for this game, this would be easy to discuss.

In the stream, they stated that this is their intention (to have a sandbox mode and a story mode), but you don't seem satisfied that they've expressed this in words, so this is where I'm confused what you're asking for. What do you want to see? And what sort of timetable would be satisfactory for you personally?

Post automatically merged: Monday at 11:44 AM

I definitely like the idea of having different quality tiers of PPE, with increasing levels of protection.

I think sandbox mode would be a stripped down basic mode where it didn't matter what order you did things in. Have traders (or not) but no quests. Remove the in game achievements. Remove "monster" zombies. And ofc roll back the biome gating and loot caps. That's for starters.

The modding community would greatly benefit by having a barebones game like this. They wouldn't have to worry about removing so much bloat.

 

[Roland]

But are they really?

yes.

They seem to think that people "want jars back". That's a very narrow view of what the jars issue is about. Do you think they see that it's really a deeper systemic problem that's been brewing for a number of years now?

They are gathering feedback for a possible sandbox survival mode. Who knows whether jars will come back or not. They understand that some people want elements that are more immersive and toward the simulation end of the spectrum for survival gameplay as well as a greater emphasis on the sandbox aspect of the game.

It sounds like they are just maybe going to negate the 2.0 items that people were unhappy with. I don't see that as any kind of change but rather just a rollback. And even then, gating the biomes in any form or fashion is a mistake imo, so changing the badges into "PPE" equipment isn't solving the issue.

This shows you didn't listen very well probably since you were focusing on all of your other objections to the game. There is no rollback. The options to turn off storms and biome progression are already in the game if you want a rollback. They are planning to change the 2.0 elements based on the feedback they have gathered from those who actually played it, gave it a good try, and then shared their criticisms. For example, they are not just changing the badges into "PPE" equipment. They are removing the loot caps and changing it so the biome protection equipment can be crafted for any biome in any order. They are changing storms in a way that will bring back wetness and temperature mechanics as well as keeping the deadly storms but offer ways to mitigate the damage. That is not a rollback. The changes that have already started coming and will continue to come will change storms and biome hazards significantly. Some will find the changes to be for the better and some will find the changes to be for the worse....as per frickin' usual. But they are big changes.

Making a sandbox mode would be a significant change, and they kind of mentioned that in passing but nothing has been official yet.

And it won't be official until they explore the possibility fully. But it is under serious consideration. It was not simply a placating but insincere gesture.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

They seem to think that people "want jars back". That's a very narrow view of what the jars issue is about. Do you think they see that it's really a deeper systemic problem that's been brewing for a number of years now? It sounds like they are just maybe going to negate the 2.0 items that people were unhappy with. I don't see that as any kind of change but rather just a rollback. And even then, gating the biomes in any form or fashion is a mistake imo, so changing the badges into "PPE" equipment isn't solving the issue. Making a sandbox mode would be a significant change, and they kind of mentioned that in passing but nothing has been official yet.

True. Biome effects/offset are getting a facelift that better fits the 7 Days theme. That's all. Smoothie recipes are merely being replaced by recipes for injectables and stews and drinking animations replaced with eating and injecting animations. The badges are merely becoming themed icons rather than PPE. This doesn't change the checklist/icon/HUD as opposed to gameplay nature of biome effects/offset. The changes are exceptionally superficial, but you'll be hardpressed to get anyone against the "rollback" to begin with or who insists pre-A17 commenters are simply "bitter" to see the difference and why it matters. Their minds are already made up.

As for the biome gating, it's a mistake, imo. You shouldn't have to pass a checklist to access the biome in the first place. Biome effects would better be like storm effects -- not constant, but something you have to prepare for on a situation to situation basis, e.g. a radiation storm rolling in or particular POI instances in which you require PPE in order to complete an objective, whether self-instantiated or instantiated by the game, e.g. a particular area or room you can't enter unless conditions are met. Examples would be the irradiated location you have to access in the 'Come Fly Away' quest of New Vegas with either PPE or all the RadX and Radaway you have in your inventory in order to obtain a macguffin or the section of the Ash Heap for which you need a mask in order to stay there in FO76.

I gather TFP are going for something more like "the Glow" in FO4 for all the biomes aside from Forest. Fair enough, but you don't need a badge or icon to access the Glow. You need a good set of power armor with radiation resistant lining and/or all the RadX and Radaway you can carry. That would be a cumbersome and oppressive requirement for every biome in a game. Ergo, why instanced requirements would be better for 7 Days, but a gate is a gate regardless what it looks like.

As for water collection methods and LBD, there are good conversations going about hybrid old and new systems well-balanced against one another possibly making an appearance, preferably much later down the line than 3.0 and 4.0.

In short: it doesn't have to either/or. It can be both/and.

 

[HammerDano]

yes.


They are gathering feedback for a possible sandbox survival mode. Who knows whether jars will come back or not. They understand that some people want elements that are more immersive and toward the simulation end of the spectrum for survival gameplay as well as a greater emphasis on the sandbox aspect of the game.


This shows you didn't listen very well probably since you were focusing on all of your other objections to the game. There is no rollback. The options to turn off storms and biome progression are already in the game if you want a rollback. They are planning to change the 2.0 elements based on the feedback they have gathered from those who actually played it, gave it a good try, and then shared their criticisms. For example, they are not just changing the badges into "PPE" equipment. They are removing the loot caps and changing it so the biome protection equipment can be crafted for any biome in any order. They are changing storms in a way that will bring back wetness and temperature mechanics as well as keeping the deadly storms but offer ways to mitigate the damage. That is not a rollback. The changes that have already started coming and will continue to come will change storms and biome hazards significantly. Some will find the changes to be for the better and some will find the changes to be for the worse....as per frickin' usual. But they are big changes.


And it won't be official until they explore the possibility fully. But it is under serious consideration. It was not simply a placating but insincere gesture.

speaking of...you missed my question in this thread about the same thing...or just ignored it.
Are they actually going to follow up on the Town Hall? they implied they would...I understand it takes a minute to formulate a plan on how and what they wish to solicit. Anything IS better than nothing...just a "we're still formulating a plan would be nice."
People on here are trying to tell them that Any good will, the town hall generated, is rapidly running out...and believe it or not, I want them to survive. I'll never buy another game from them that is not complete on purchase, but, I do want them to survive.