PC Death Penalty Poll

[PoppaTot]

OTHER:

I don't really care about the death penalty because I play for well over 1hr per sitting. But those that have very limited time, I definitely feel for them. If you only have an hour to play and it's spent being nerfed.... I too would probably find something else to play for that hour, or permanently.

I thought I heard this was reduced in B208 though.

 

[Roland]

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

No. That is false. I stated the point you are referring to once and then immediately recanted it and admitted I was wrong. Since then I have never repeated that stance.

You are the one who won’t let go and keep reading what I’ve written in THIS thread to be the same as in that other thread. It is not.

My opinion is that you are so fearful that A17 might end up being popular in its current form with features you personally don’t like that you are irrationally lashing out at me even though I absolutely have not continued that original faulty line of thought and absolutely did acknowledge publicly (and now again) that I was wrong.

Let it go, man, and please read the actual words I’m typing now instead of superimposing what I typed last Saturday. At least do that if you want to call ME irrational.

 

[PoppaTot]

No. That is false. I stated the point you are referring to once and then immediately recanted it and admitted I was wrong. Since then I have never repeated that stance.
You are the one who won’t let go and keep reading what I’ve written in THIS thread to be the same as in that other thread. It is not.

My opinion is that you are so fearful that A17 might end up being popular in its current form with features you personally don’t like that you are irrationally lashing out at me even though I absolutely have not continued that original faulty line of thought and absolutely did acknowledge publicly (and now again) that I was wrong.

Let it go, man, and please read the actual words I’m typing now instead of superimposing what I typed last Saturday. At least do that if you want to call ME irrational.

Why is this argument in almost every thread I go to lmao....

 

[Guppycur]

People are picking on the moderators for having opinions. Dunno why.

 

[Sergoros]

No. That is false. I stated the point you are referring to once and then immediately recanted it and admitted I was wrong. Since then I have never repeated that stance.
You are the one who won’t let go and keep reading what I’ve written in THIS thread to be the same as in that other thread. It is not.

My opinion is that you are so fearful that A17 might end up being popular in its current form with features you personally don’t like that you are irrationally lashing out at me even though I absolutely have not continued that original faulty line of thought and absolutely did acknowledge publicly (and now again) that I was wrong.

Let it go, man, and please read the actual words I’m typing now instead of superimposing what I typed last Saturday. At least do that if you want to call ME irrational.

Sigh, ill just be a bigger man and ignore all your provocations this time. I already said what I think about your posts, and you didnt improve my opinion of you any farther. All that I said before still stands. You are being passive aggressive to anyone, who doesnt share your opinion, that this version of the game is just perfect. Intentionally strawmanning their arguments and prescribing false motives to them. This is very aggravating and I honestly cannot stand this patronising way of dialogue.

Now...please explain to me, what is the purpose of you repeatedly talking about current numbers, if you dont prescribe any meaning to them, besides you, for some reason, "feeling happy" about them? What do these numbers add to the discussion? What argument they support, or disprove?

Ah yes....question...is this the recant you were talking about? Looks more like kneejerk reaction, aka "I hate to admit that you guys are right, but screw you, im still more right than you ever were."

It’s true that Steamcharts doesn’t give the complete picture and isn’t completely accurate. It’s just MORE accurate than the tool you guys are using which is the sample size of your friends and people with your same gaming preferences you’ve met in your servers.
As I said, you go ahead and discount and explain away the data that a high of 17k grew to a high of 23k throughout this first week and cling to the fact that everyone you know hates the game now as evidence that those with your sentiment represents the majority.

 

[RestInPieces]

OTHER:
I don't really care about the death penalty because I play for well over 1hr per sitting. But those that have very limited time, I definitely feel for them. If you only have an hour to play and it's spent being nerfed.... I too would probably find something else to play for that hour, or permanently.

I thought I heard this was reduced in B208 though.

I think that among all arguments to lower the death penalty duration, having little time to play is the silliest of all.

For the last few months I approximately can spare a little more than one hour to play and that is not even every day. Even if I die at the very start of the playsession, why would that prevent me from playing? My next session would be death penalty-free. No matter how long your session is, you will always spend one hour with the consequence of the death penalty when you die.

Same with the progression rate. Unless one is looking for gratification in a single playsession and is in a hurry to "finish" the game, I don't see what else changes. Anyway, even if reduced to half, hopefully, it should be enough of a consequence for the worst thing that can happen to you in a survival game. Just wish they keep it to a level that it will be enough of a consequence for the player to try to avoid death more than anything else.

 

[OldManBrian]

I think that among all arguments to lower the death penalty duration, having little time to play is the silliest of all.
For the last few months I approximately can spare a little more than one hour to play and that is not even every day. Even if I die at the very start of the playsession, why would that prevent me from playing? My next session would be death penalty-free. No matter how long your session is, you will always spend one hour with the consequence of the death penalty when you die.

Same with the progression rate. Unless one is looking for gratification in a single playsession and is in a hurry to "finish" the game, I don't see what else changes. Anyway, even if reduced to half, hopefully, it should be enough of a consequence for the worst thing that can happen to you in a survival game. Just wish they keep it to a level that it will be enough of a consequence for the player to try to avoid death more than anything else.

Of course we're looking for gratification in a single session, that's the point of playing games, a bit of a break from the day. If it's a slog for most of it then you just find something else to play.

Not to mention, I play with 20 min days, so at the one hour mark you're talking about 3 days of being gimped. At the 30 min mark you're still talking about 1.5 days.

I think the real fix here is just a server side option like day length. (10, 20, 30, 45, 60, 120 min death penalty)

 

[PoppaTot]

People are picking on the moderators for having opinions. Dunno why.

I see it, I try to stay constructive. I've said many times that I am 50/50 on A17e at this time, however, I'm a realist and understand that Devs and Mods will always stand up for what they doing. It's natural to do so.

The only reason that I am 50/50 is because the Devs essentially abandoned the playerbase that I really enjoy, builder/miner. I still enjoy the game because I really like killing zombies too. However; when that is the only way to reasonably level in the game it becomes less enjoyable to me.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that among all arguments to lower the death penalty duration, having little time to play is the silliest of all.
For the last few months I approximately can spare a little more than one hour to play and that is not even every day. Even if I die at the very start of the playsession, why would that prevent me from playing? My next session would be death penalty-free. No matter how long your session is, you will always spend one hour with the consequence of the death penalty when you die.

Same with the progression rate. Unless one is looking for gratification in a single playsession and is in a hurry to "finish" the game, I don't see what else changes. Anyway, even if reduced to half, hopefully, it should be enough of a consequence for the worst thing that can happen to you in a survival game. Just wish they keep it to a level that it will be enough of a consequence for the player to try to avoid death more than anything else.

I respect your opinion on my opinion. However, it does not negate the fact that that is how a lot of the casuals feel.

 

[Doctor3D]

I haven't looked at or compared numbers. But, just based on the type of posts i've read in virtually every other thread the last week or so. Tensions are high..I've read more arguments here this week than I've ever seen here before..This patch appears to have been one of the more divisive ones we've had. Based on me just reading everyone's opinions (hardly a science) - it seems there's two very distinct camps on some of the more major changes in this version.

Group Hug??? :angel:

*Edit - I thought the 30 min change was a fair compromise btw.

 

[Guppycur]

I see it, I try to stay constructive. I've said many times that I am 50/50 on A17e at this time, however, I'm a realist and understand that Devs and Mods will always stand up for what they doing. It's natural to do so.
The only reason that I am 50/50 is because the Devs essentially abandoned the playerbase that I really enjoy, builder/miner. I still enjoy the game because I really like killing zombies too. However; when that is the only way to reasonably level in the game it becomes less enjoyable to me.

I don't disagree; alot of a17 needlessly hampers that entire aspect. And I say needlessly because it added no value and the other good things about a17 wouldn't be diminished if it stayed.

 

[RestInPieces]

I respect your opinion on my opinion. However, it does not negate the fact that that is how a lot of the casuals feel.

Those filthy casuls! (I am one of them nowadays )

Of course we're looking for gratification in a single session, that's the point of playing games, a bit of a break from the day. If it's a slog for most of it then you just find something else to play.
Not to mention, I play with 20 min days, so at the one hour mark you're talking about 3 days of being gimped. At the 30 min mark you're still talking about 1.5 days.

I think the real fix here is just a server side option like day length. (10, 20, 30, 45, 60, 120 min death penalty)

20 min days, ouch. I may be in the minority here, but I don't consider the penalty as a drag, rather as something of a natural consequence and I still can fully enjoy playing while having it. Not to mention that those buff scrolls are pretty imbalanced and almost trivialize it.

Same argument was used for the progression rate - surely you don't believe that in that case, the rate should be balanced around the people who have the smallest amount of free time to play?

What I am trying to say is that gratification should come from general gameplay itself in such games (that is the case for me already), else all casuls like us, would be doomed to playing candy crash saga, just to watch those sweets(?) disappear into points during our brief playsession.

 

[PoppaTot]

And I say needlessly because it added no value and the other good things about a17 wouldn't be diminished if it stayed.

100% agree with this, and for the life of me cannot figure out what the reason was behind this. Hope to see it balanced so building and mining will be viable again. (Still is viable late game I guess, but by then I'm already bored of killing the same zombies from the same POIs and dungeon houses that I would rather start a new playthrough. My guess is that when larger maps are available that I won't be so bored with my maps by the time I hit 100)

 

[Roland]

Now...please explain to me, what is the purpose of you repeatedly talking about current numbers?

They keep going up and it's exciting. I'm hopeful about the future. I was worried about all the talk before A17 dropped of people saying that it took too long and nobody was going to care about A17 at this point. People predicted low turnout because other AAA games were dropping.

The turnout has been great, the reviews have been mixed, but regardless more and more people through the weekend were playing 7 Days to Die. I'd like to think that was mostly trying out A17 but there is no way to know that for sure but interest in the game has not died out and despite the long development time more people than ever before have come back during the month of an experimental release. I'm interested to see the numbers this weekend.

 

[Sergoros]

They keep going up and it's exciting. I'm hopeful about the future. I was worried about all the talk before A17 dropped of people saying that it took too long and nobody was going to care about A17 at this point. People predicted low turnout because other AAA games were dropping.
The turnout has been great, the reviews have been mixed, but regardless more and more people through the weekend were playing 7 Days to Die. I'd like to think that was mostly trying out A17 but there is no way to know that for sure but interest in the game has not died out and despite the long development time more people than ever before have come back during the month of an experimental release. I'm interested to see the numbers this weekend.

Well, nothing to say here. As long as this doesnt cloud the devs judgement on the problem issues, new blood IS a good thing for the game. As long as they stay. Zed survival is what brought me to the game. Voxel based structure and complex building system is what made me stay.

 

[Poojam]

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.

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.

Then lower the cap from 70 to 30.

What do you think nerfing all their skills for a set time period is? Everyone is standing around going "i can't craft anything, carry what is laying in my dead body's bag, my strength is shot, my hp/stamina are lower, and my agility sucks."

 

[Poojam]

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.

Then what is the flipping point of releasing an experimental?

Hey Survivalist,We’ve just released Alpha 17 Experimental B208 and could really use your help finding the last remaining big issues.

If you’ve played B199 from our previous experimental post see the fixes below for more info.

As always TFP is interested in all constructive criticism and feedback....

Pretty clear to me that TFP says they want to hear feedback. You're coming down to the dungeons (/General) to tell us that feedback doesn't matter, as it won't get incorporated. Which is it? Just lip service?

I can understand not wanting to play with the balancing much, the magnitude of the level gates, the nature of the perks/abilities, but I will not accept the following;

1 LCB active only. This is absolutely devastating for multiplayer PVE and PVP alike. The reason stated for this change creates much worse problems than it "solved". I have yet to see any recognition of this fact.

Death penalty for player inflicted kills. This is insult to injury and greatly inhibits the ability to have an active back/forth competition. You get nerfed for getting killed, and thus the aggressor has an even bigger advantage. Then you can't even pick up the contents of your bag and move, because of the encumbrance system. You stated that you were going to try and remove this from counting for player kills, but it's been a few days now. I've specifically asked you about this on multiple occasions in these threads and have seen you post after that question gets asked. Are you ignoring me, don't care, or just haven't noticed that it's an issue that might be worth discussing?

Xp for anything other than bonking zombies is an exercise in futility.

p.s. I get the impression TFP are so focused on whether or not they could, they never stopped to ask themselves whether or not they should. With the multitude of gameplay mechanics that have been axed or severely modified, with no apparent balancing completed and bravado statements about how this is the "game they envisioned", they clearly have no clue on how a large proportion of their playerbase even plays the game. I would be much more sympathetic if the statement was "we changed this a bunch. we love the direction it's headed, and hope you agree. Give this a whirl and let us know what you think."

 

[Poojam]

They keep going up and it's exciting. I'm hopeful about the future. I was worried about all the talk before A17 dropped of people saying that it took too long and nobody was going to care about A17 at this point. People predicted low turnout because other AAA games were dropping.
The turnout has been great, the reviews have been mixed, but regardless more and more people through the weekend were playing 7 Days to Die. I'd like to think that was mostly trying out A17 but there is no way to know that for sure but interest in the game has not died out and despite the long development time more people than ever before have come back during the month of an experimental release. I'm interested to see the numbers this weekend.

You probably wouldn't be getting so much flack about numbers if you didn't post in this thread about how the only ones that really count as disliking the death penalty are the ones willing to uninstall the game because of it. Really shows your true colors on the opinion poll.

~46% of voters think it should be 15 minutes or less or none at all.

 

[Roland]

Then what is the flipping point of releasing an experimental?

Finding bugs and improving performance for the largest number of players is the primary reason.

TFP will also listen to feedback on design decisions and make adjustments as they did with the penalty. But changing their designs isn't the main reason for experimental.

 

[Exxodous]

What do you think nerfing all their skills for a set time period is? Everyone is standing around going "i can't craft anything, carry what is laying in my dead body's bag, my strength is shot, my hp/stamina are lower, and my agility sucks."

Well, not "EVERYONE". I continue playing the game

The way I see it, if I die in the game then I made a mistake, or didn't calculate the danger correctly. I'll take my lumps and learn from it hoping to improve next time. Just like in life, actions have consequences and instead of standing around complaining, blaming others and crying "it's not fair", I put on my big boy pants and continue on.

As I tell my son, "Can't" never got the job done. Think about the problem, adjust your approach and overcome the obstacle. Can't is for quitters.

This uproar over the death penalty is not a game problem, it's a societal problem.

 

[Poojam]

Well, not "EVERYONE". I continue playing the game
The way I see it, if I die in the game then I made a mistake, or didn't calculate the danger correctly. I'll take my lumps and learn from it hoping to improve next time. Just like in life, actions have consequences and instead of standing around complaining, blaming others and crying "it's not fair", I put on my big boy pants and continue on.

As I tell my son, "Can't" never got the job done. Think about the problem, adjust your approach and overcome the obstacle. Can't is for quitters.

This uproar over the death penalty is not a game problem, it's a societal problem.

No. It's a problem that you are unwilling to spend 10 minutes understanding.

People kill people in the game. They compete over resources. They steal each other's stuff. When you kill one player, it stands to reason that the one who died wants to get their stuff back and continue the fight. With the death penalty in place, you are gimped and the aggressor is buffed. It's a terrible mechanic to have embedded and it will be terribly unfair.

I don't care if you want to keep it in for PVE deaths. I don't like it, but I understand that others want to have more teeth to dying. I would prefer it be amended to negate player inflicted kills and included as a global server parameter like LCB multiplier, or claim size so that everyone can just write a number of minutes they want it to apply for. But MOST importantly. It can not apply to player kills with the current penalties it inflicts.

- - - Updated - - -

Finding bugs and improving performance for the largest number of players is the primary reason.
TFP will also listen to feedback on design decisions and make adjustments as they did with the penalty. But changing their designs isn't the main reason for experimental.

Pretty thin.