PC City Atmosphere and Danger

[Feycat]

I do miss the consta-spawning city raids. Going to the 0,0 city used to be something you had to prep for.

 

[KeiraR]

"It's day one and I'm going to the city at 0,0. I know it's stupid but wish me luck!"

That's how some new 7DTD season videos on Youtube started.

That was also when the game was still awesome.

Day one hub city run by Aendams

 

[RestInPieces]

it is not a levelbound but a multiplier.Easy dungeons are ~0.5 while extra hard ones are ~2.75 times your level.

I think that makes them effectively random but still beatable if you absolutely have to (for a quest for example or a specific shout and so on)

I don't know if they also have a multiplier but from what I can see most dungeon encounters have a minimum level, creatures in general have a max level and zones are level-bound.

BleakFallsBarrowZoneThis area has a minimum level of 6, a maximum level of 20, and resets normally. This means that if the player enters the zone below level 6, the encounter zone will ignore the player's level and calculate using its minimum level of 6. If the player enters the zone above level 20, the encounter zone will calculate at level 20, and no higher.

And I'm not sure about you but I really had a blast fighting myself through labyrinthion (mage guild quest) On legendary enemies don't go down easily and all of them have insane spells (draugr even have lvl 2-3 fus ro dah)

Compare that with the probably first dungeon of the game with the stoneplate where each enemy isnt much of a threat even if you only have simple means.

Lab was probably my favorite dungeon as well.

I think people hear "enemies scale" and think of oblivion.

Skyrim's scaling was definitely an improvement over Oblivion. For example Oblivion didn't have a monster-specific level cap if I remember correctly, but in Skyrim a bandit could never be over level 28 according to the wiki.

Obviously it is not the same as in gothic for example.

But gothic is a narrative driven world.

You aren't sent to Irdorath in Chapter 1 (if you don't know Irdorath is the last Chapter and only elite enemies are there) so you have no chance to come across them.

It guides you through "appropriate" zones by design/narrative.

Skyrim is an open world sandbox. You can not make a huge world without a main narrative and have fixed enemy difficulty.

Well you can... but it takes away the "open" world "sandbox" aspect.

Gothic was more story-driven yes and it didn't allow you to go everywhere, but it still allowed you to explore and roam to test your character. G1 and 2 not so much, but G3 had a pretty good open world. It's a shame that game was never properly developed.

Leveled enemies are the only way that I know of of combining OWS(OpenWorldSandbox) with a challange. You can make a minecraft game without challenge... but you can not make an OWS and have certain areas kill the player outright without a narrative slowly pushing him towards harder zones.

Imo it is possible and also the best/true way to simulate a virtual world. You can allow the player to roam freely in the majority of your world but can also sprinkle higher level zones in it. You don't really need a narrative as long as your worldbuilding is great, telling a story of its own and full of visual cues. Many people though don't want an encounter they can't actually predict and beat in their way - while some others enjoy that a lot.

 

[Viktoriusiii]

I don't know if they also have a multiplier but from what I can see most dungeon encounters have a minimum level, creatures in general have a max level and zones are level-bound.

Yeah... I forgot... but doesn't that prove my point even more that Skyrim had other flaws (too fast of an improvementcurve) but the worlddesign was pretty neatly done with hard zones and weak zones.




Lab was probably my favorite dungeon as well.

Skyrim's scaling was definitely an improvement over Oblivion. For example Oblivion didn't have a monster-specific level cap if I remember correctly, but in Skyrim a bandit could never be over level 28 according to the wiki.

Yeah. Ever fought an Ancient Dragon with ease only to be eaten in two bites by a legendary? (*Senile Scribbles reference* If you haven't seen it you must! )

Gothic was more story-driven yes and it didn't allow you to go everywhere, but it still allowed you to explore and roam to test your character. G1 and 2 not so much, but G3 had a pretty good open world. It's a shame that game was never properly developed.

but in G3 there were no real "difficult" areas. Okay sure Vengard (city of the King) is much more difficult. But I never really felt like there are "difficulty zones". No matter if I went into Varant or Nordmar it didnt really fel different.

Imo it is possible and also the best/true way to simulate a virtual world. You can allow the player to roam freely in the majority of your world but can also sprinkle higher level zones in it. You don't really need a narrative as long as your worldbuilding is great, telling a story of its own and full of visual cues. Many people though don't want an encounter they can't actually predict and beat in their way - while some others enjoy that a lot.

I mean... I don't think that is true... at kleast I can#t see how you can manage to hold a player in certain/from certain zones without a compelling narrative... But if you can manage/find one, please tell me I'd be willing to try!

Spoiler

PS: I wrote something in the News Post asking if you can explain it better or if I'm just wrong could you take a look?

 

[RestInPieces]

I mean... I don't think that is true... at kleast I can#t see how you can manage to hold a player in certain/from certain zones without a compelling narrative... But if you can manage/find one, please tell me I'd be willing to try!

You don't have to hold the player in/from certain zones, just encourage/discourage him via static loot, difficult encounters, penalties, dynamic encounters, mechanics etc. In the world of Kenshi for example there is no real narrative and the world is just a sandbox. Its worldbuilding creates its own narrative. That world has random static loot, enemies and dynamic encounters which correspond to the actions of the player in that world. The player is discouraged e.g. from visiting an area full of acid storms until he gets proper equipment or they are encouraged to settle in the holy lands as long as you are weak enough to need their protection because there is a chance for them to offer you reinforcements when a bandit raid happens. Or e.g. even the UO dynamic ecosystem could be used for that purpose. Ways are infinite even without a strict narrative.

Spoiler

PS: I wrote something in the News Post asking if you can explain it better or if I'm just wrong could you take a look?

Could you link that post?

 

[Viktoriusiii]

You don't have to hold the player in/from certain zones, just encourage/discourage him via static loot, difficult encounters, penalties, dynamic encounters, mechanics etc. In the world of Kenshi for example there is no real narrative and the world is just a sandbox. Its worldbuilding creates its own narrative. That world has random static loot, enemies and dynamic encounters which correspond to the actions of the player in that world. The player is discouraged e.g. from visiting an area full of acid storms until he gets proper equipment or they are encouraged to settle in the holy lands as long as you are weak enough to need their protection because there is a chance for them to offer you reinforcements when a bandit raid happens. Or e.g. even the UO dynamic ecosystem could be used for that purpose. Ways are infinite even without a strict narrative.



Could you link that post?

What you describe isnt really an "open world" anymore. That, I feel is the difference. Either you want the player to be able to go everywhere if they are smart enough, or not.

I mean I wouldn't be against 7d2d not beeing open world, since it is the same bland thing over and over anyways (with no hubcitie and one less zone to explore) I never really go anywhere that is further than 1.5km (~0.95 miles) away anyways.

But I think the definition of open world is kinda that you can go everywhere if you are smart enough.

Yes cities were pretty dangerous and I wouldn't go close to the wasteland ever since I knew that dogs spawn there on the regular (today its zombie bears) so as far as that, 7d2d already implemented at least one such zone.

But maybe I am totally wrong... maybe they can make the wasteland richer in loot and add more enemies to it...

I don't know ^^

Spoiler

p 829:

And here we see the fundamental flaw. Certain weapons should be more powerful! If I am a bowguy, a t6 shotgun should still be a find I am happy about.

Yes you can say that this is replaced with weapons of your choosing beeing the "awesome find".

But then it looses its bond to reality.

If there was a zombie apocalypse (like the one in 7d2d with stronger and weaker z's) out there, I would be MUCH happier about a shotgun or AK than about a pistol.

I actually am having trouble explaining this... because it makes sense on first glance, but it removes something that I actually can't describe...

Hey RestInPieces would you be so glad?

Obviously... only if you see my problem...

but you've been far FAR better with words So you may be able to describe why putting every level on an equal playingfield is a bad thing for a survival game.

this describes it pretty well already... but it doesnt explain why "all weapons are garbage until you specc into it" is a bad designchoice.

Or am I just wrong in this?

 

[RestInPieces]

What you describe isnt really an "open world" anymore. That, I feel is the difference. Either you want the player to be able to go everywhere if they are smart enough, or not. I mean I wouldn't be against 7d2d not beeing open world, since it is the same bland thing over and over anyways (with no hubcitie and one less zone to explore) I never really go anywhere that is further than 1.5km (~0.95 miles) away anyways.

But I think the definition of open world is kinda that you can go everywhere if you are smart enough.

Yes cities were pretty dangerous and I wouldn't go close to the wasteland ever since I knew that dogs spawn there on the regular (today its zombie bears) so as far as that, 7d2d already implemented at least one such zone.

But maybe I am totally wrong... maybe they can make the wasteland richer in loot and add more enemies to it...

I don't know ^^

Well it's not a complete sandbox but I think it's still an open world - some areas may require the player being smart enough (rewarding the ingenuity of the player is always a great thing), but having various areas sprinkled in the world, which the player CAN attempt to explore, but realize that it is just not worth it at that point or needs some preparation, is not the same as having invisible walls that completely prevent the player to move to the "next zone".

I mean, even in that example with that acid storm biome, the player could get smart and attack bandits with the proper equipment, steal it, or get a job and buy it. If it's "soft-gating" that rewards player ingenuity, but also his effort and correct world interactions, all the better.

I think 7DTD would really benefit from this, radiation zones that were frequently requested being an example. The player will still get rewarded by efficiently crafting or earning coins to buy equipment in order to visit these zones. At least personally, I find that a completely sandbox world that scales with you, is mostly predictable, loot included, and allows you to see absolutely everything from the get-go, is mundane and flat.

I certainly hate the "get to level 10 to unlock area B and then 20 to unlock area C" popular mmo model - it's much worse. But a virtual world that does allow you to go anywhere but is sprinkled with different level encounters/subzones is how a real ecosystem would work and I think it makes for a much better and varied exploration experience.

PS: Replied on that post in the dev diary

 

[Moldy Bread]

I hope a modlet comes out that allows large cities to generate their own classic city biome and dangerous wandeing zombies. Or a modlet that adds the hub cities back with the best loot only available in these cities.

 

[Viktoriusiii]

Well it's not a complete sandbox but I think it's still an open world - some areas may require the player being smart enough (rewarding the ingenuity of the player is always a great thing), but having various areas sprinkled in the world, which the player CAN attempt to explore, but realize that it is just not worth it at that point or needs some preparation, is not the same as having invisible walls that completely prevent the player to move to the "next zone".
I mean, even in that example with that acid storm biome, the player could get smart and attack bandits with the proper equipment, steal it, or get a job and buy it. If it's "soft-gating" that rewards player ingenuity, but also his effort and correct world interactions, all the better.

I think 7DTD would really benefit from this, radiation zones that were frequently requested being an example. The player will still get rewarded by efficiently crafting or earning coins to buy equipment in order to visit these zones. At least personally, I find that a completely sandbox world that scales with you, is mostly predictable, loot included, and allows you to see absolutely everything from the get-go, is mundane and flat.

I certainly hate the "get to level 10 to unlock area B and then 20 to unlock area C" popular mmo model - it's much worse. But a virtual world that does allow you to go anywhere but is sprinkled with different level encounters/subzones is how a real ecosystem would work and I think it makes for a much better and varied exploration experience.

PS: Replied on that post in the dev diary

Hmmm... I'm not really certain that this would work and still feel like an open world game. Certainly it would be a great way to guide the player and be rewarding.

I think our difference is only in the definition of "open world"

But yeah I think if implemented correctly (but hey its TFPs! Playing smart isnt accessible to dumb players, so its not appealing to the biggest demographic *if anyone else reads this, this is called hyperboly, playing up a certain thing into ridicoulusness* )this might benefit the game, because it seriously lacks variety of gameplay right now... at least in the exploration department.

PS: thx ^^

*edit*

Isn't it weird how you can have different views without beeing condescending and actually bringing forth arguments, leading to a better understanding of the other person? So weird

 

[RestInPieces]

Hmmm... I'm not really certain that this would work and still feel like an open world game. Certainly it would be a great way to guide the player and be rewarding. I think our difference is only in the definition of "open world"

True. Like in the level-gate discussion during A17 launch, the thing I hate most are fixed/predictable gates like the ones they introduced, but I am a fan of soft-gates which can be affected by the player's planning/ingenuity/efficiency. In the same way, in an open world or semi-open world game, I believe that exploration should be free without invisible walls or gimmicks, but paced with soft-gating which the player can overcome with the above-mentioned traits.

Isn't it weird how you can have different views without beeing condescending and actually bringing forth arguments, leading to a better understanding of the other person? So weird

Common sense is a super power nowadays

 

[beHypE]

They really need to make something unique about each biome to make them worthwhile. I mean, unless i'm in dire need of water, yucca or birdnests, there's literally no point going into the desert or the snow. It gets even worse with the burnt forest that has absolutely no valuable resource and a terrible atmosphere. Last but not least, the wasteland is by far the toughest biome but again... nothing rewards you for going there, so why would you ?

They should probably try to make certain types of loot only findable in certain biomes. Right now a forest is all you need, as it's both the most resource filled biome AND the most aethestically pleasing one.