PC Death Penalty Poll

[IgnyteZero]

Well, it HAS to be. There's literally THOUSANDS of configurable settings in the XML files. In fact, I'd say well over TEN THOUSAND.
Do you want to sort through a 10,000+ line long in-game options screen? Do you want TFP spending the next 6 months building that?

The Options screen in game will present a small number of MAJOR options. Everything else (that can be) will be in the XML's for those players wishing to spend the time (and it's literally almost no time at all) to further tweak the game settings.

But the death penalty IS a major option (or should at least be considered as such). It severely affects both actual gameplay and QoL. There's a server option for crate drop map marks, that is only QoL and not gameplay-relevant.

All things should definitely not be in the options, that is insane, but some things really really should. Death Penalty time and Backpack despawn time are such features imho.

 

[toores]

Maybe instead of a harsh death penalty we should reward players that stay alive.
Incremental X time alive, to complete reset on death. With bonuses having a hard cap up to a certain amount of time alive.

1. Bonus experience modifiers

2. 7 day horde completion bonus

3. Quest reward modifiers

4. Random occurring air drops

5. Animal hordes (deer, board)

6. Etc.

Scaled down or up depending on difficulty selected. Higher difficultly more rewards. Lower difficulty less to no existent system. This would be coupled with a minor or non death penalty.

I would actually do it the other way around. I fyou die you wont be ferfed but you wont gain XP. Half way through you gain half the XP and so on until you can progress again.

This way it wont cripple the gameplay and fun but would halt your progression for a while. Doing it like that, 1 hour would be ok.

 

[IgnyteZero]

I would actually do it the other way around. I fyou die you wont be ferfed but you wont gain XP. Half way through you gain half the XP and so on until you can progress again.
This way it wont cripple the gameplay and fun but would halt your progression for a while. Doing it like that, 1 hour would be ok.

Not a bad idea.

 

[Redoutz]

To my mind losing your gear, or at the least having to run out to find the bag and reclaim it is enough of a penalty in my mind. Given usually all your best gear, or early on possibly ALL your gear is out there means major inconvenience, loss of time and increased chance of dying again. It quite likely throws your entire day's plan off. And that's without the death debuff.

Early on when food is scarce, knocking you down to 50% fullness would be enough of a penalty since it takes away half your stamina. Even if you have food on hand, you've been penalized by losing the extra food you have to eat to recover.

My vote would be for making it optional - turn it on or off, or perhaps make it a selection of duration from zero all the way up to an hour. They make air drop and loot respawns times adjustable so people can find their play style goldilocks zone, why not do the same for death debuff?

That would keep everyone happy, except of course the HC trolls who will female dog about the casual players being wusses and not playing the game right.

 

[Ghostlight]

There certainly should be a penalty for dying, but this one is stupid. Makes no sense I mean. I forget how to craft things??? Ahahahahaha.

By all means have a death penalty, but make it a sensible one. The old Wellness loss was a very good one.

 

[Zvex]

In survival game there should be one of 2 possibilities

1. Death is a game over

2. The death penalty should be the worst penalty in the game.

I think 60 was fine, 30 is also. 15 would be too weak for a debuff. As for stopping any XP gain while debuff - a perfect idea as an additional penalty.

But still there is one drawback in the current system - you wait (go eat or walk with your dog) and you get rid of it ... so sometimes it doesn't seem to be a big penalty. In some sense the old system was better, because the wellness was gone permanently and not like a temporary debuff.

I would also add some permanent penalty, like loosing XP or even a level. Yes, the game needs to store the history (sequence) of your distribution of points to make a rollback for a character progression, however, that is not a big deal at all (few numbers to store, for 100 level its 4 bytes for the number N of learned perks, and up to 100 bytes with the numbers of perks (1 char type variable per perk), well, unless devs will make more than 256 perks ).

 

[OzHawkeye]

I would also add some permanent penalty, like loosing XP or even a level. Yes, the game needs to store the history (sequence) of your distribution of points to make a rollback for a character progression, however, that is not a big deal at all (few numbers to store).

Just lemme know when to book some "moderator leave" if that goes live... ;-)

 

[Gazz]

By all means have a death penalty, but make it a sensible one. The old Wellness loss was a very good one.

It was a very bad design.

As soon as you hit the low cap of 70 you were completely immune to any penalties period.

Sprained leg? Put a bedroll down and die. Infected? So what?

Can't be bothered to walk back to base for horde night? Build a chest, store your loot and die to teleport back.

The wellness loss at the high end, like 200+, took waaaaaaay longer to recover from than the current 30 minute debuff. Even longer than the 60 minutes it was before.

As for stopping any XP gain while debuff - a perfect idea as an additional penalty.

An enticement to not play the game at all? In what universe is that a good idea? =)

With reduced abilities you can play perfectly fine and you can still progress. The way it's designed you can not possibly lose all attribute and perk points.

 

[Zvex]

An enticement to not play the game at all? In what universe is that a good idea? =)

With reduced abilities you can play perfectly fine and you can still progress. The way it's designed you can not possibly lose all attribute and perk points.

Well, a player always can find an activity, where he would not gain any XP anyway

As for loosing XP, another possibility is just to nullify the XP of the current level. Some RPG (slashers) games have that. So players wont loose perks and attributes but penalty would make some permanent negative effect.

 

[RestInPieces]

Well, a player always can find an activity, where he would not gain any XP anyway
As for loosing XP, another possibility is just to nullify the XP of the current level. Some RPG (slashers) games have that. So players wont loose perks and attributes but penalty would make some permanent negative effect.

Would cause x10 times the uproar, if the penalty froze level progression. As these h&s, everything around them revolves around grinding, so an xp loss penalty without losing attributes is more fitting.

 

[OldManBrian]

I understand why it's there and I probably would normally be fine with it, but with what little precious time that I have to game I cannot be spending it gimping around for 60 or 30 minutes. It's fine though, I'll just remove it myself.

This is me too. Many nights I only have 30 min or an hour to play and so far many of the changes in a17 seem to be making it tough for other players like us. As many have said, between level gates, slow mining, paper mache bases, etc, the game seems to have been balanced for players with a lot of time to play with grindy mechanics.

Sure I could mod it the way I want, and I will eventually after the stable release comes out, but it will basically be a total conversion mod instead of just minor tweaks like in the past. Not to mention many players out there just flat out can't get a handle or be bothered to mod the game to make it playable for them. I wish there were more game settings to allow people to adjust the game to fit more playstyles without having to rely on modding.

I'd honestly be ok with a 20 or 30 minute timer, but I think the problem is death is much more likely in a17 due to the AI improvements, POI spawns, spawns in general, and the removal of being able to backpedal run while attacking.

 

[Sergoros]

I get what you're saying Sergoros, that we can't assume this is concrete proof that A17 is a success based on a comparison.

And what I meant, between the lines, is that devs shouldnt just decide, that all changes they made are good, just because numbers right now are good. Changes were good for shorttime attention and interest rise,ofc. Cause they were made in such a way, that players would have to simply spend more hours on the testing and learning the game. But no one can guarantee, that numbers would hold, if core problems of this new build wouldnt be fixed.

 

[Roland]

<Sigh>...I didn’t compare early A17 to late A16. June of 2017 was early A16. It was the release of the experimental version.

I stated clearly in my post that we would only know the true success and acceptance of A17 in the coming months as we watch the numbers. But thanks for repeating my own words back to me as a rebuttal to no disagreement....

I’m only stating that the numbers generated during the month of the experimental version this time has well exceeded the numbers during the month of experimental last time and this is a good sign.

I know that the detractors of A17 in its current form would hate for this version to turn out to be wildly popular as that would work against what they want but I’m not even trying to prove that here. I’m happy the game has grown and not slumped over the past year and a half and I’m hopeful that when the stable releases to everyone as an automatic update we will break the last record of 32k and continue the trend of this game continuing to grow and gain players.

As to the topic of A17’s popularity we will only be able to see that after a few more months.

 

[Sergoros]

I know that the detractors of A17 in its current form would hate for this version to turn out to be wildly popular as that would work against what they want but I’m not even trying to prove that here.

Passive aggressive much?

I know that few mods are extreme fanbois and can't think rationaly. Ofc, im not talking about you Roland. Or any mod in particular. Just some mods....

Ignoring that cringy remark...honestly...Roland. Wtf? That was just an empty post and emotions. I am saying that I worry that game is on the wrong track, and in answer...you just claim how happy you are generally? I am really happy for ya pal, but it doesnt clear my worries, right?

If game would suddenly fall on its face, none of us would be happy. Not even you. What "detractors" would want, is for game to turn out good for everybody. And disabling optionality and forcing people into one gamestyle isnt a way to do that, right?

 

[Gazz]

And what I meant, between the lines, is that devs shouldnt just decide, that all changes they made are good, just because numbers right now are good.

Your assumption is wrong.

 

[Sergoros]

Your assumption is wrong.

Thats not an assumption. More like an...advice? I know it might sound stupid. Like "ofc we shouldnt do that". But Roland does make it look like so, with him repeatedly mentioning current numbers and implying that majority of players are happy with the game as it is. In another thread, he even said, that in private, devs are very happy with the results.

 

[meganoth]

Thats not an assumption. More like an...advice? I know it might sound stupid. Like "ofc we shouldnt do that". But Roland does make it look like so, with him repeatedly mentioning current numbers and implying that majority of players are happy with the game as it is. In another thread, he even said, that in private, devs are very happy with the results.

Hint, it wasn't Roland who started the subtopic about player numbers and what it might prove: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?p=887611#post887611. That part of your accusation (EDIT: maybe too strong a word, lets say reproach instead) is hitting the wrong person.

 

[Gazz]

Decisions and implementation have been made months in advance. They are not made because number x is y within so many days.

A17 is getting finished, not rewritten.

 

[Sergoros]

Decisions and implementation have been made months in advance. They are not made because number x is y within so many days.A17 is getting finished, not rewritten.

So, can we have an answer to claim blocks problem then? Would it still be only 1 bugged claim block, or previous system of multiple claim blocks, or at least, an option in xmlp to raise claim blocks limit? Cause if its option 1, I can save you guys your troubles and just let myself be out of here. Cause I have no interest on wasting my time on castrated version of A16, really.

- - - Updated - - -

Hint, it wasn't Roland who started the subtopic about player numbers and what it might prove: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?p=887611#post887611. At least that part of your accusation is hitting the wrong person.

He started it in another thread at saturday. And keeps repeating this same point over and over.

https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?95343-After-4000-hours-with-a11-a16-I-won-t-spend-much-time-in-a17x-Here-s-why-no-fun!&p=879300&viewfull=1#post879300

 

[Roland]

How was my statement passive aggressive? I think I was pretty direct. I believe the evidence is in the fact that you are the one calling names and irrationally misunderstanding what I was saying. You say that I am trying to ascribe meaning of a majority share love and acceptance for A17 in the numbers when I never said that. You’re rebutting an argument I didn’t make out of a kneejerk reflexive need to try and prove that A17 isn’t popular the way it is.

YOU are the one trying to infer why people might be playing A17 longer. I made no such claim. I only said that things are hopeful because TFP has again exceeded their past record and looks to be on track to do it again when they go stable.

I’ll say it again. This doesn’t tell us that A17 is more or less popular than A16. It only tells us that over the last year and a half the player base has not wilted away due to the long development cycle. We won’t know the popularity of A17 for a few more months.

As for fanboism I think you are mistaking a measured and patient response with blind acceptance. I’ve posted my disagreements with A17. I don’t like or defend all of their choices. The difference between you and me is that you can only assume motives and speculate on the whys while I know them for a fact. You then behave as though your assumptions and speculations are obvious truth.

I still think the 27k number is a fantastic achievement.