A negative aspect of this too, if people just start avoiding zombies because they will not hardly drop loot, you weapon skills will suffer later down the road. Like me, I kill every zombie I see, not just because of the potential of loot but it levels up my melee skill, then my blade skill for grinding their bodies up. Horde night, I mostly stick to ranged weapons but mix it up with melee. If you start avoiding zombies, later on when you start getting tougher enemies, you won't hardly be able to down them because you're doing so very little damage to them.
All zombies might be for now is trying to get some xp to level up but TFP might decide to lower your xp gains from those kills too.
People only would be avoiding zombies out in the wild. They practically have to kill zombies in POIs and on horde nights. (See how that "have to" works?) Maybe their gamestage progresses slower (Oh my God! TFP only did this to increase grind!), and so the horde nights which they encounter are not out of their reach to combat.
Wrong, there IS a massive reward for climbing Everest. The knowledge that you did something not only risky but HARD. Extremely hard! Something that very few highly skilled and practiced people in the world are capable of doing. Hardly comparable to the ease of walking up and snuffing out a zombie.
You are going to wander in here and take a snipe at an example? An example which you twisted out of context? And you are going to attempt to tell me that I was wrong when I made
the exact same point you did? Be better next time.
That's a very flawed comparison. I said that if there's a big chunk of your audience that's disappointed by your decisions, it's worth looking into it, not that you should change your product because not the whole world is playing it.
There's a couple of ways we can go about this. Are we going to confine TFP and movie producers to target audiences, or are we going to say that their target audience is the whole world? I can guarantee you that executive producers would love to make as much money as possible, so they want as wide an audience as possible. Shouldn't TFP still be looking to expand their audience?
Let's take the target audience approach (since you seem to think that this will help your point). TFP's target audience is gamers in general, PC gamers specifically. Does it narrow further? Many on the forum are arguing against this new mechanic on behalf of the PVP crowd, a crowd which extends beyond players of this game. PVP is a massive element of the gaming industry. If the PVPers who already are playing the game hate this change, then how can TFP expect to draw in more PVPers? So the logic goes. Maybe, as I've argued elsewhere, TFP isn't interested in targeting the PVP demographic. They, like the
Shape of Water people, have decided against marketing in that direction. Cries to the contrary are irrelevant.
What's the result? Part of the current players might stop playing, and future customers might not come. Why is that a problem if the result is what TFP wanted? "Because they should satisfy the people who have invested in their product!" They have no responsibility to do that. As for your disappointment, I point you again to my wise friend's comments.
If TFP decided tomorrow that in the next update 7dtd will become a battle royal with micro transactions, everyone would go nuts and start basically begging for them to stop. Isn't that an indication that, maybe, it's not a good decision? Well, that's what advanced feedback is all about. Sure enough, it's always better to wait for the final product and then raise your final judgement (as you can see from the results of the poll), but that doesn't mean advanced feedback has no purpose.
First of all, that likely would be a breach of TFP's kickstarter because they marketed the game a certain way. I wasn't around for the kickstarter, so I can't really back that up. My point is that it my be better for you to pick a less extreme example.
That said, I don't think that that response would be an indication that it's not a good decision. It would be an indication that the current players generally don't like the decision. I've tried to tell you that "good" is relative, and the ultimate judgment of "good" rests with TFP. Obviously, if TFP made that change, they likely would be drawing in an entirely new crowd of players, and if moving to battle royale with micro transactions matches what they think is good, then it's a double win for them.
(Personally, I don't like the advent of micro-transactions in games. I still play some of those games insofar as I am able to do so without making use of that mechanic. I think, "Man, I would have enjoyed this game more if that wasn't in there," but I don't expect the companies to take it out. People buy micro-transactions, and they can't help themselves sometimes. I think that's why you saw the outcry over Electronic Arts implementing this mechanic: People knew that they would buy them, and they didn't want to do so. Also, they thought that it would prevent an unfair advantage and lock people out of all the content. I think that EA was wrong to back down (unless there was legal trouble, which I might have missed). That's just what I think for EA because I know that they are a company that is only about making as much money as possible. It would have made them a treasure trove of money.)
