PC Alpha 18 feedback and balancing thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Largest group size we've had was 6 at any point, but that wasn't a horde night. We had a Day 21 with 4 players that had 17 Demolishers, after a Day 14 that had numerous Feral Wights and Rads. The Day 28 where we had 40 Demolishers, the game stage was 234 for the party (5 players, individual GS 82, 81, 3x 73).
Is that only going to impact Horde Night, or would it impact wandering hordes and POIs done as groups as well?
Anything that uses gamestage for a group. With my modlet, you'd have gotten gamestage 127 instead. I actually had the wrong number there, so I just adjusted it, and it would now have given gamestage 158, which is closer to twice the top gamestage, which is what I was aiming for.

 
I have a terribly headache, but I think that's what I'm saying? if the thirst nagging pops at 75%
So you go from (same assumed numbers) 75 points of not-thirsty to 100 points of not-thirsty.

 
I have a terribly headache, but I think that's what I'm saying? if the thirst nagging pops at 75%

75% of 100 means you have 75 (cl?) water in the stomach and feel thirsty

75% of 200 means you have 150 water in the stomach and feel thirsty

We're getting extra space for water in our stomach from leveling, but also getting thirsty at the same rate and getting a nag sbout it.

It just feels weird. But I'll just try to mod it to a fixed value to warn me when it's at 50 value.
Just to play the devil's advocate here.

Technically you're not getting the nag at the same rate. With 75 out of 100, you have 25 thirst "points" where you're not getting a nag. With 150 out of 200, you have 50 points before you get the nag. That's 50 vs 25 points where you're not getting a nag, all the while thirst increase

rate remains the same throughout the game, or perhaps even decreases with certain perks.

Not saying the system isn't confusing, but I just wanted to point this out. :)

 
So you go from (same assumed numbers) 75 points of not-thirsty to 100 points of not-thirsty.

Just to play the devil's advocate here.
Technically you're not getting the nag at the same rate. With 75 out of 100, you have 25 thirst "points" where you're not getting a nag. With 150 out of 200, you have 50 points before you get the nag. That's 50 vs 25 points where you're not getting a nag, all the while thirst increase

rate remains the same throughout the game, or perhaps even decreases with certain perks.

Not saying the system isn't confusing, but I just wanted to point this out. :)
Yeah I see the point and the math of it, It just would make a lot more sense to me to have the warning at a set value instead of percentage.

If nothing else easier to grasp immidiatly :p

Does this mean when the ill effects of dehydration also increases as we level up though? Dying from thirst at 0 water goes to dying from thirst at 25 water? :p

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Only 1 way to settle this. Post before and after screenshots, to let everyone see. :)
Sure. Testing on A18.1 (b8) since that's the stable build.

Spec: i7-4710MQ CPU, 32GB DDR3-1600 RAM, GTX 980M GPU (overclocked by hand, pulls numbers similar to a desktop GTX 970) and running off a 1TB NVME drive.

Video settings: 1600x900 windowed (this is my modding machine so I run windowed for ease of checking logs and such), no AA, full texture quality, low texture filter, middle UMA quality, low reflection quality, no reflected shadows, near shadow distance, high quality water, 50% water particles, high view distance, 50% LOD distance, low tree quality (no idea why it was set to that when I usually use medium), normal grass distance, no occlusion, no bloom (I don't like it), no depth of field (don't like it), no motion blur (again, don't like it, it gives me headaches), no SSAO, no sun shafts, no texture streaming.

Microsplat on.

MS_On.jpg


Microsplat off.

MS_Off.jpg


Happy to do more testing on my main gaming rig later, since that runs at 1440p with more details turned up.

Yes there's some slightly more detail in the mountains right at the back, but it's not worth 70fps.

MS On.jpg

MS Off.jpg

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh this discussion again ? :D

I'm not gonna repeat myself again (especially since I got trolled last time) but I'm "glad" the system still confuses people. Why the "thirsty" level isn't a static treshold but is a moving target because it's a percentage of your max is... indeed weird.

 
It's a mod. SphereII made one for it. Should be on the launcher under SphereII Legacy Distant Terrain.
Can't seem to find it in the Mods section, could you provide a link ?

EDIT : Thanks man !

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh this discussion again ? :D
I'm not gonna repeat myself again (especially since I got trolled last time) but I'm "glad" the system still confuses people. Why the "thirsty" level isn't a static treshold but is a moving target because it's a percentage of your max is... indeed weird.
I thought I was going insane and being dumb. Thanks! Now I feel less of a dumbass.

 
Yeah I see the point and the math of it, It just would make a lot more sense to me to have the warning at a set value instead of percentage.If nothing else easier to grasp immidiatly :p

Does this mean when the ill effects of dehydration also increases as we level up though? Dying from thirst at 0 water goes to dying from thirst at 25 water? :p
AGREED this needs to be set at a static number and not based on %. Its extremely weird why TFP have choosen %, it just does not fit the thirst/hunger system and is over complicated IMO. A set value would get rid of all confusion especially for new players and would make it all fit together nicely.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Excellent, the pictures show the tradeoff very well.

I see another difference: Without microsplat the colors look a lot more washed out (on my monitor at least). Can this be countered with gamma or some other setting?

A further interesting thing would be to compare the non-splat-Version to a turned down A18.2 b5 Terrain Quality video option as well.

I.e. is the new setting an adequate substitute to sphereii's patches?

 
I intend to test that as well out of curiosity, but i'd probably still use the patch anyways just because it allows old-style farming. ;)

 
AGREED this needs to be set at a static number and not based on %. Its extremely weird why TFP have choosen %, it just does not fit the thirst/hunger system and is over complicated IMO. A set value would get rid of all confusion especially for new players and would make it all fit together nicely.
well imho it does make sense. While playing, I would rather get heads up when I am at half hydratation then a static number.

What does not make sense is debuff that is tied to it. That essentially removes reason for having hydratation pool increasing.

 
well imho it does make sense. While playing, I would rather get heads up when I am at half hydratation then a static number.
What does not make sense is debuff that is tied to it. That essentially removes reason for having hydratation pool increasing.
What I mean is the warning pops up at a set value, say when you reach 50 hydration then the warning pops up. do % just makes no sense. the flaws of using % has already been pointed out. see above conversation.

Its a constant guessing game without being forced to go look at exact numbers....over complicated how the system is based on %...I mean...I get why but its just not implemented in a good way at all, thus why there is so much confusion for new players. This is the only game I have every seen do this...i've been playing games for 30+ years..so.. its not normal and the reason its not is because its confusing and complicated.

Sorry if I am still not explaining my thoughts clearly...have not had my morning bowl yet lol. :)

I'll make a poll later about this when I have time to clearly think out my thoughts and articulate them properly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure. Testing on A18.1 (b8) since that's the stable build.
Spec: i7-4710MQ CPU, 32GB DDR3-1600 RAM, GTX 980M GPU (overclocked by hand, pulls numbers similar to a desktop GTX 970) and running off a 1TB NVME drive.

Video settings: 1600x900 windowed (this is my modding machine so I run windowed for ease of checking logs and such), no AA, full texture quality, low texture filter, middle UMA quality, low reflection quality, no reflected shadows, near shadow distance, high quality water, 50% water particles, high view distance, 50% LOD distance, low tree quality (no idea why it was set to that when I usually use medium), normal grass distance, no occlusion, no bloom (I don't like it), no depth of field (don't like it), no motion blur (again, don't like it, it gives me headaches), no SSAO, no sun shafts, no texture streaming.

Microsplat on.

MS_On.jpg


Microsplat off.

MS_Off.jpg


Happy to do more testing on my main gaming rig later, since that runs at 1440p with more details turned up.

Yes there's some slightly more detail in the mountains right at the back, but it's not worth 70fps.
Can you still use the new way of farming tho

- - - Updated - - -

Excellent, the pictures show the tradeoff very well.
I see another difference: Without microsplat the colors look a lot more washed out (on my monitor at least). Can this be countered with gamma or some other setting?

A further interesting thing would be to compare the non-splat-Version to a turned down A18.2 b5 Terrain Quality video option as well.

I.e. is the new setting an adequate substitute to sphereii's patches?
Where are these so called splat options lol

 
Where are these so called splat options lol
In A18.2 b5 experimental, in video options, is a Terrain Quality setting. Setting to Low or Lowest will use a simplified terrain shader.

 
It's a mod. SphereII made one for it. Should be on the launcher under SphereII Legacy Distant Terrain.
Thanks I'll use this till A18.2 stable is released as a bandaid for the time being.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top