PC Decline in 7 Days Twitch Streamers

[RipClaw]

I see obtaining necessary materials and items as necessary to survival. If I need to enter poi's to obtain those things, I see clearing poi's as part of survival. I never enter a poi without bandages, health recovery items, and weaponry. I minimize risk as much as possible and play carefully.
I also prioritize a garden asap and work toward self sufficiency. But it seems very reasonable to me that I need to go out and get things necessary for survival, so looting poi's seems like something that SHOULD be a necessity as well.

And I also didn't say that you don't have to go to POIs at all but usually you would minimize the contact with the zombies if you wanted to survive.

But you don't have to take the whole issue too seriously. After all, it's a game and should be fun.

To me it sounds like you feel everything necessary to survival should be AT your base (delivered by the old a16 zombie loot train?) for you to pick up and that leaving your base to find things is not part of survival. To me, that sounds not only boring but unrealistic.

Actually, in the end, it should be exactly the way that you have everything in your base that you need to survive. That's how self-sufficiency works.

And in fact at the end of A16 I could make everything myself only from what I had in my base and in my mines.

And nobody said survival had to be fun. In corresponding movies the survivors never look like they had a lot of fun

Almost all zombie/apocolyptic stories regardless of genre (games, movies, books, etc) that I can think of have survivors entering and looting stores, homes, etc. to find what they need to survive and thrive. One exception I can think of is Day of the Dead (I believe... could have been Dawn) where they holed up in a shopping mall and had everything they needed there.

I'm not a fan of horror movies but isn't it the case that someone always dies during such actions ?

And if someone dies then he has clearly not survived

To me, having to go out to find more ammo/weapons/food/mats/people/medicine/etc is logical, realistic, and immersive. You manage risks, not eliminate them. The fact that it also makes for more a more entertaining game is a plus.

A sole survivor against about 6 billion zombies? You have a lot to eliminate

I don't expose myself to more danger than necessary "because the materials could also be obtained in a more harmless way". I can no longer get a small concrete base day 7 by grinding construction tools to get concrete. Therefore I CAN'T obtain it in a more harmless way early. It's just that I don't consider that a bad thing and you do. A16 was much easier for sure.

Once you have adapted, the Alpha 17 is not so much more difficult but just different.

I don't think that's necessarily bad, but I don't see killing zombies as a necessary part of surviving. Just as fun for the player.

I often did not go into a building week one. I had a forge day 1 or day 2. Made my cooking pot. Made my tools. Mined. Built my base and garden. It was safe and efficient. Wandering hordes and screamers delivered loot to me. It was also not nearly as fun as a17 for me.

I understand that. It's just not your kind of fun. And I accept that too and don't want to take it away from you.

My fun is mainly building and in Alpha 17 I think that has receded a bit into the background. I hope that it will get more love in the future with new blocks and new clean textures so that you can build a luxury base.

 

[RestInPieces]

I mean that you do not have to spend your points in the exact same order at the exact same time every time you play. Would I want to play the game without a forge ever? No. But neither do I feel compelled to get one at the soonest moment possible and play every run through always putting my points into intelligence first. If I find a working forge then I set up base nearby and use that forge and do more quests to get iron tools. If I can’t find a working forge then I start thinking about crafting a forge sooner. It isn’t about purposefully gimping myself as some have said. It is about focusing on a different mix of strengths. Someone earlier said that Perception is a waste but I like going strong in perception and using my bow and arrow and then being set up to improve one of my firearm categories as well.
I agree that more randomness in the game is better for more diversity in replays and would be for that as well. If they changed the ability to craft things back to recipes and used intelligence for other abilities I would not be upset at all.

Certainly, in my co-op games I found it pretty worthwhile to specialize into strength/perception/intelligence depending on my teammates (not so much in agility or fortitude but that is a discussion for another time and a matter of more perk balancing).

I couldn't possibly imagine an occasion though, where a solo player, or the int specialist in a team, won't spec into the forge/tools etc at their earliest convenience. I mean, considering its price the QOL/survival benefits are extraordinary. Even if that wasn't the case, a random range would still be better than a set point (like level 20) in terms of replayability wouldn't you think?

I am happy that A17 slows progression down, but I stand by/spam my opinion that recipes would be better off gated by exploration. TFP could still control the level range at which the player would get them. More reasons to explore, more diverse playthroughs.

Also about efficiency, I know that you don't let it bother you, but just think for a moment what the average joe will do, considering the incentives and spam/harass TFP to at least balance xp sources properly. You are a teacher damn it, you should already know what to expect!

 

[Cirion]

This is only true if the player chooses to play each time exactly the same way. You have figured out what you believe to be the optimal path for you and have decided you must follow that same path every playthrough. Not everyone plays that way.
Replay value will vary for different individuals.

Sorry, but no.

There will always be a "most efficient path" to play no matter what system is used. In A16 there was a most efficient way to play, in A17 there is a most efficient path to play. There will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, be a "meta", a most efficient path to play.

The difference is, back in A16, the meta and most efficient path was muddy, not clear, even taking the "most efficient way to play", you still didn't know when you'd get the minibike book, even if you played the same way every time for example. In addition, and not to beat a dead horse, but I have mentioned previously that many skills are deadlocked behind spending 23 points (or 23 level ups) before you can master it.

 

[Gazz]

The way I see it TFP want there cake and too eat it too. They want us to specialize but they specifically put the perks in key places all but forcing us deep into the attribute trees and then jacked up the price.

That's only because you view some of those as "key perks" so you are forced deep into certain trees. =)

I've seen vastly different definitions on what is a must have perk and what isn't.

 

[RestInPieces]

Btw sorry for being off-topic, but I wanted to ask - what happened to the stacking till the 1/2 of max attributes, death penalty?

 

[meganoth]

The difference is that I doubt the basic assumption that running around and killing zombies is or should be part of survival.Zombies are supposed to be a threat. If you want to survive you normally avoid threats as much as possible.

However, katarynna has written:

This means that katarynna exposes himself to more danger by looting POIs than would be necessary for survival because the materials could also be obtained in a more harmless way.

Ok, but that looks to me simply the difference between playing the game more mining or scavenging oriented. What she described is hardly "running around and killing zombies" but practically the job description of "scavenger"

Saying that the "scavenger" oriented gameplay should not be part of survival is, well, quite a radical view on the game and probably not what you really meant.

I'm not a fan of horror movies but isn't it the case that someone always dies during such actions ?

And if someone dies then he has clearly not survived

In movies they usually also die when holing up :cocksure: . Often because of bandits who like to get the measly belongings they hoarded, or a zombie horde surrounding and finally overwhelming them.

Unlike this game in reality and in movies you just can't build up an industrial production chain by essentially digging down and getting raw resources out of the ground. I like that the game has this possibility, but it hardly is the only sensible route to take, it has its risks as well, even in this game.

 

[Roland]

Sorry, but no.

No, players aren’t choosing to follow the optimal path?

No, all players do play the same way?

No, replay value won’t vary between players?

What are you saying no to?

There will always be a "most efficient path" to play no matter what system is used. In A16 there was a most efficient way to play, in A17 there is a most efficient path to play. There will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, be a "meta", a most efficient path to play.

No duh...I wasn’t disputing this fact. There always will be an optimal path for players to choose to follow in order to rush through the progression.

The difference is, back in A16, the meta and most efficient path was muddy, not clear, even taking the "most efficient way to play", you still didn't know when you'd get the minibike book, even if you played the same way every time for example.

Sorry, but I was witness to too many threads during A16 and A15 before that in which the meta was discussed, agreed upon, and followed by those who wanted to win by day 4. It was pretty clear exactly what to do. I agree that there might be elements such as the minibike that might not be attained early due to randomness and I’m all for a return of that feature. However, that still didn’t stop people from blazing through the progression meta in exactly the same way.

In addition, and not to beat a dead horse, but I have mentioned previously that many skills are deadlocked behind spending 23 points (or 23 level ups) before you can master it. Whereas before you could start working on mining on day 1, without being deadlocked by any sort of gates.

You keep saying this and all I see is “I want it all faster, cheaper, easier, sooner”. 23 points is nothing. I’m sorry but if you can’t stand to wait one to three weeks of ingame time to collect 23 points then it is time to start modding or using the new xp option for yourself because that level of pacing isn’t broken or undesired by other players who aren’t you. If you hate the primitive era of the game so profoundly then give yourself enough xp from the starter quest to start at level 10 and enough points to get your forge on day 1 and start doing everything you want on day 1. The developers don’t intend to design the default version where you can start doing everything you want to do on day 1. You need to progress up to those things. If that doesn’t sound like the experience you want, they have kindly provided ways for you to get what you want.

 

[Guppycur]

Sure, I suppose I *could* save all of my points to become a parkour swimmer, and ignore the necessities, JUST to say "look ma, I'm choosing a different play style!", but that'd be dumb.

Oh, and I can't, because focusing on our specific skill brings a lot of collateral skills I really don't give a frack about, too.

 

[Cirion]

Sure, I suppose I *could* save all of my points to become a parkour swimmer, and ignore the necessities, JUST to say "look ma, I'm choosing a different play style!", but that'd be dumb.
Oh, and I can't, because focusing on our specific skill brings a lot of collateral skills I really don't give a frack about, too.

Exactly. What if I want to become a master parkour swimmer but not spend the 23 points? I can't. Only in A16 could you do something like this.

BTW never once did I say MASTER something by level 1. I said be able to start WORKING on something by level 1 without gates.

I don't want it cheaper, easier, or faster. In some ways A16 took longer, not shorter. You could not master combat in the first 7 days like you can in A17.

Roland, I genuinely don't think you or dev's understand my arguments and it is frustrating. It is not a matter of time or effort. It is a matter of enjoyment, fun, immersion, logical sense. This is why I find myself repeating my point because I think it still isn't coming across. Yeah I can mod it. And I will. But I still am going to debate something that makes no sense... IMO

developers don’t intend to design the default version where you can start doing everything you want to do on day 1. You need to progress up to those things

I'm not arguing against this? Again, I think my thoughts are completely being misconstrued? Never once did I suggest that one should have steel tools by day 2, have level 100 mining, etc....

what I AM saying is that with LBD you could start hacking away with your puny stone axe and start getting mining skills literally right after tutorial mission and start seeing your skills increase.

Sorry, but I was witness to too many threads during A16 and A15 before that in which the meta was discussed, agreed upon, and followed by those who wanted to win by day 4. It was pretty clear exactly what to do. I agree that there might be elements such as the minibike that might not be attained early due to randomness and I’m all for a return of that feature. However, that still didn’t stop people from blazing through the progression meta in exactly the same way.

No arguments, again, there will always be meta. But the meta didn't feel anywhere as boring as it does now. Less freedom (pointing back to 23 pts mandatory to spend), less RNG, less RWG. Two out of the three (RNG and RWG) are getting some love, so that will help, no doubt there. And I am glad those two will get love (thanks MM & others working on RWG)

If someone can not see how broken a game is if I need to spend 2-3 weeks (in game) to get a single skill, when I want NOTHING ELSE under that attribute, then I don't know what else to say.

The PREMISE of the A17 system is more freedom. I am in agreement there. But the APPLICATION of it.... NOT so much.

 

[Guppycur]

When the game gives you glowies at such low levels (fine with it, honest) you really ARE forced to spend your points in certain areas, just to survive, FYI.

 

[meganoth]

The difference is, back in A16, the meta and most efficient path was muddy, not clear, even taking the "most efficient way to play", you still didn't know when you'd get the minibike book, even if you played the same way every time for example. In addition, and not to beat a dead horse, but I have mentioned previously that many skills are deadlocked behind spending 23 points (or 23 level ups) before you can master it. Whereas before you could start working on mining on day 1, without being deadlocked by any sort of gates.

Agree on the RNG, there should be more left to chance. But as far as I know Starcraft succeeded in balancing its three factions well enough that none of the factions provided the "most efficient way to play". At least not in a way that made a measurable difference.

In the general case I would say that if the difference is so small that subjective opinions of the optimal path all point to different paths, then that objective difference does not matter anymore.

It is a very unfair comparison when you talk about "mastering" for A17 and "start working" for A16. And "deadlocked"? Please read the definition of that word on wikipedia.

Exactly. What if I want to become a master parkour swimmer but not spend the 23 points? I can't. Only in A16 could you do something like this.

What if I want to be a master weapon smith but not spend time on wrenching in A16? I can't. Only in A17 could you do something like this.

in A16 building up of skills and therefore perks took time. In A17 building up of attributes and therefore perks takes time. There is no difference. You don't get to be master of anything immediately because you suddenly thought of it. Neither in A16 nor A17

 

[Prisma501]

You can still start working on mining on day 1. Make your character stronger (direct benefits from spending points on strengh). Later on when you are even stronger (more benefits only from the attributes alone even) you can start to think about /mastering/ miner69-er for example.

Cheers

 

[Cirion]

You can still start working on mining on day 1. Make your character stronger (direct benefits from spending points on strengh). Later on when you are even stronger (more benefits only from the attributes alone even) you can start to think about /mastering/ miner69-er for example.
Cheers

Yea that is technically true. But you're taking my post too 1-dimensionally which seems all too common in debates like these. I think this is why my points are not being understood. Perhaps I haven't done a good job explaining, but I think I have. If I have to write a book to explain my POV then something is wrong lol

What about Olympic swimmer? What about farming? What about bartering? Just to name a couple more that definitely don't get immediate benefits from the attribute above it. Maybe mining wasn't the best example as such. These other are better examples.

 

[PoppaTot]

I still have hopes someone will be able to overhaul mod the progression system back to the A16.4 LBD. It would be an insta install for me and I would never look back.

 

[Cirion]

I still have hopes someone will be able to overhaul mod the progression system back to the A16.4 LBD. It would be an insta install for me and I would never look back.

Doesn't Ravenhearst have a bunch of A16 elements? I think Jax just released it for 17.1.

 

[OldManBrian]

I still have hopes someone will be able to overhaul mod the progression system back to the A16.4 LBD. It would be an insta install for me and I would never look back.

I plan on modding most of the a16.4 features back in, but I refuse to do it while the localization.txt is still not in xpath or at least overridable by the other xmls. There's just too much that will have to be changed and maintenance between new versions would be a nightmare.

 

[meganoth]

Yea that is technically true. But you're taking my post too 1-dimensionally which seems all too common in debates like these.
What about Olympic swimmer? What about farming? What about bartering? Just to name a couple more that definitely don't get immediate benefits from the attribute above it.

All of them can be bought to level 1 or even 2 without any point in the attribute, right from the start.

You also could look at it as if higher perks are more expensive, i.e. level 2 costs 3 perk points, level 3 costs another 5 perk points. But you get discounts for perks when you already skilled up any of the perks in that category.

 

[Ghostlight]

in A16 building up of skills and therefore perks took time. In A17 building up of attributes and therefore perks takes time. There is no difference.

There is. One makes logical sense, the other is bizarrely abstract.

You don't get to be master of anything immediately because you suddenly thought of it. Neither in A16 nor A17

Disagree. Right now in my play-through I have Perception 7. I have never once fired a Pistol in this game, yet I could accumulate 4 skill points and place all of them straight into Gunslinger and become a Pistol master instantly. In A16, I could NOT do this without using a Pistol a LOT.

 

[PoppaTot]

Doesn't Ravenhearst have a bunch of A16 elements? I think Jax just released it for 17.1.

I'm more looking for a base A17x with just the progression system reverted. If schematics/book and parts could be added that would be awesome. I would never play another game if all that AND upgrading vehicles parts were added.

To me, the perfect game is A16.4 with the updated graphics, POIs, and vehicles of A17.

 

[Cirion]

Disagree. Right now in my play-through I have Perception 7. I have never once fired a Pistol in this game, yet I could accumulate 4 skill points and place all of them straight into Gunslinger and become a Pistol master instantly. In A16, I could NOT do this without using a Pistol a LOT.

There is such extreme cognitive dissonance with the A17 system.

The elephant in the room is that you can indeed master combat in the first week. This point gets conveniently ignored. Probably because killing zombies is the meta for EXP, so you'll not hear anyone complain about it. Except me Mwuahaha LOL

I literally guarantee you. I will almost even bet money. If the ability to master combat in the first week is nerfed, the tears on this forum hating on the A17 system will be ENORMOUS. People love the system precisely because A.) combat is mind numbingly easy to cap and B.) zombies are meta for exp (at least until mid-late game)

This may not be true for EVERYONE (Roland, I do know you tend to play organically) but it is true of a lot of people.