PC Decline in 7 Days Twitch Streamers
- Thread starter xXBadDreamXx
- Start date
Kage848
Stream Team
Ya know thinking about alpha 17 some more, specificly lbd vs perks I'm cool with either system.
I think where I go wrong is i see people bagging on a17 like it offers nothing cool, is a junk of an update and everyone hates it I come to the defense of a17. Even though I liked lbd and perks I side with perks because I feel the other side is being so hyperbolic. That might also just my, unfair, perception of what people are saying.
That's a fault of mine. Honestly if they reverted back to lbd tomorrow I'd be fine with it.
Little off topic but wanted to say that. I want everyone to love the game.
I think where I go wrong is i see people bagging on a17 like it offers nothing cool, is a junk of an update and everyone hates it I come to the defense of a17. Even though I liked lbd and perks I side with perks because I feel the other side is being so hyperbolic. That might also just my, unfair, perception of what people are saying.
That's a fault of mine. Honestly if they reverted back to lbd tomorrow I'd be fine with it.
Little off topic but wanted to say that. I want everyone to love the game.
Kattla
New member
Sometimes i like to watch streamers playing this game, other times i like to do
other things or watch other games beeing played.
No bias against alpha 17 in particular. I've had my share of fun with it and it's streamers.
Games are entertainment, and so are streams. If i no longer find entertainment in them,
i just do other things. Like watching physic lectures.
other things or watch other games beeing played.
No bias against alpha 17 in particular. I've had my share of fun with it and it's streamers.
Games are entertainment, and so are streams. If i no longer find entertainment in them,
i just do other things. Like watching physic lectures.
Not true at all. I love a few things with A17.
- New vehicles
- Quests
- Prefab editor
- Easy to make modlets
to name a couple. The reason why many (most) of my posts may feel negative is that I am addressing aspects that I feel weren't as good. Just saying "oh this is a great game" (While this is nice to stroke the ego of the dev's! Lol) isn't helpful in the context of addressing what might need to be changed to make things even better.
I think part of the problem with attributes, I've mentioned previously in this thread, as they are now is that they are not clearly defined "Roles".
I had discussion with Roland that if they're pushing us toward "Roles" which it seems we are being pushed towards, can we at least make them logical and clear cut?
For example
Why is crafting and bartering/scavenging lumped together in one role?
Why is mining and melee damage lumped together in one role?
Pushing this point further, if mining was separated from melee damage, more people would think twice about using melee combat as a way to be good at combat AND mining, and force people to specialize from mining separately, which don't me wrong I personally would complain about LOL but at LEAST it would make sense in the grand scheme of pushing people towards roles...
I had discussion with Roland that if they're pushing us toward "Roles" which it seems we are being pushed towards, can we at least make them logical and clear cut?
For example
Why is crafting and bartering/scavenging lumped together in one role?
Why is mining and melee damage lumped together in one role?
Pushing this point further, if mining was separated from melee damage, more people would think twice about using melee combat as a way to be good at combat AND mining, and force people to specialize from mining separately, which don't me wrong I personally would complain about LOL but at LEAST it would make sense in the grand scheme of pushing people towards roles...
Ghostlight
New member
Kage's videos are somewhat unique; he's an obsessive and creative builder. He's not the norm.
PoppaTot
New member
I've said many times that if TFP would have just added the new graphics, POIs, and Vehicles to A16.4 progression and RNG that it would have been the perfect game to me 100%. I enjoy plenty of things about A17+, it's just that, at this point, it's offering very little in replay-ability to me.
Now that is my fault as well because I have no interest in being the farmer, or the medic, etc. I enjoy building and fighting so I'm doomed to go down INT, STR, and PER to get my enjoyability. I really enjoyed searching and looting for the RNG based items. I loved the search for auger/chainsaw parts. Searching for the minibike book and when found trying to get the absolute best parts for it.
Now it's just bland that I KNOW that I will have the vehicles by placing points. I KNOW that I will have whatever gun I want by placing points. Some of this may change when the new books are in play, but for now the game feels a bit too pre-determined for me and has lost the unique (because of RNG) playability.
I still have fun like I said before. Just feels lacking in some sorts when compared to A16.4 to me.
Thanks you articulated what I was trying to convey but maybe didn't convey well.
with LBD you could fill out several unique roles without going down the rabbit hole of grinding 23 skill points to fill out 3,4, or even all 5 attributes first. (the latter would cost you over 100 level ups, deep into end-game). In the current system, this is no longer doable.
Gazz's reply to me is "well, you'd need a 3-d spreadsheet to plan out this new way of doing things". While that may be true to some extent, it's far preferable... IMO... to the hamstrung options we have now via being gated via 23 skill points.
I think the simplest solution pretty much was what I suggested before. Get rid of attributes, but keep most of the perks as-is. Instead of 1-1-1-1-1 points to max a perk, make it more like 1-1-1-2-3 or something?? I'd have to dig into the math, but something like this. You still have to think a little about spending skill points, but the far reaching consequences or feeling like you "wasted" skill points is FAR less than with the current attribute setup imo. since now, instead of 23 points of buyer's regret, it's <10 points of potential "buyer's regret".
Basically I propose 2 solutions
-> Either the idea just proposed
or
-> Better defined roles
The current method seems to be on the fence between #1 and #2 and can't decide if it wants clear roles or complete freedom. Pick one. That's all I ask.
My preference is #1, but if the Dev's vision is #2, I can get behind it, as long as it is implemented in a clear and logical fashion.
Last edited by a moderator:
The reason why the only way the current system will work right (in my opinion) by defining clear roles is simple...
If you have decided you want to be a gun expert from several guns not just one specific one, then as it stands perception is GREAT for this as you can pick from all sorts of guns after you level up perception, and this doesn't feel like too much of a waste of 23 points.
What does seem to be a waste is if ALL YOU WANT is mining skills and none of the melee skills. That's literally only one skill in an entire tree. You have now had to spend 28 points to get ONE perk. However, if mining was its own "attribute", this would no longer be an issue, because then you would likely want most or even all the perks under the mining skill-tree "attribute". (You could have some of the perks in the tree be different bonuses to Mining. Here is an example of what a mining "attribute" might look like for an idea
Mining (+5% to Block damage per level), high level "attribute"
Perk 1: Increased damage/harvest to stone
Perk 2: Increased damage/harvest to wood
Perk 3: Increased damage/harvest to iron
Perk 4: Increased damage/harvest to dirt
Perk 5: Ability to craft shovels, pickaxes, fireaxes... ETC
could think of more perks but you get the idea. I would actually probably like the perk system way more if it was done in this fashion.
What's more, this new way of doing it actually increases freedom, which is perfect. let's say I desperately want iron and don't care as much about stone. There's an app (ahem, PERK) for that
If you have decided you want to be a gun expert from several guns not just one specific one, then as it stands perception is GREAT for this as you can pick from all sorts of guns after you level up perception, and this doesn't feel like too much of a waste of 23 points.
What does seem to be a waste is if ALL YOU WANT is mining skills and none of the melee skills. That's literally only one skill in an entire tree. You have now had to spend 28 points to get ONE perk. However, if mining was its own "attribute", this would no longer be an issue, because then you would likely want most or even all the perks under the mining skill-tree "attribute". (You could have some of the perks in the tree be different bonuses to Mining. Here is an example of what a mining "attribute" might look like for an idea
Mining (+5% to Block damage per level), high level "attribute"
Perk 1: Increased damage/harvest to stone
Perk 2: Increased damage/harvest to wood
Perk 3: Increased damage/harvest to iron
Perk 4: Increased damage/harvest to dirt
Perk 5: Ability to craft shovels, pickaxes, fireaxes... ETC
could think of more perks but you get the idea. I would actually probably like the perk system way more if it was done in this fashion.
What's more, this new way of doing it actually increases freedom, which is perfect. let's say I desperately want iron and don't care as much about stone. There's an app (ahem, PERK) for that
Last edited by a moderator:
Feycat
New member
Except plenty of times in A16 we'd go mining for "mats, xp and skillups" and put the points somewhere totally different. I used to bump up my shotgun skills by mining since I was the "at the base" person and rarely went out shooting except for hordes. And mining was ALWAYS the fastest and most efficient way to get xp.
How is that different than going and clearing a POI for xp to buy skills? It's not. Not not more "freedom," it's just doing an activity you don't like to earn those same skillpoints, apparently.
I'm out of the base most of the time now, doing stuff. Mining is still super efficient, building/upgrading the base gives xp, and I'm enjoying combat more than ever. And getting skill points either way to put in WHATEVER. I no longer am forced to dump a bunch of 1-at-a-time points into leveling a skill I'm not using. I can dump points into Fortitude and get access to whatever I want in that tree immediately,.
I have addressed this point many times in many threads, the solution is simple.
Make it logical how quickly various skills are leveled by how frequent/often the average player uses said skill. Yes many A16 skills were not logical in the rate in which they leveled up, but that is super easily fixed.
The reason why you mined to level up other skills was a fault of the implementation of LBD and balance of EXP gained through various activities, not a fault of LBD itself. Big difference. LBD itself could be interpreted many different ways by different people. A16's interpretation of LBD was but one of many.
I'm even being fair and saying that if a different interpretation of the A17 system was made, I might actually almost enjoy it (Clear role definitions). So that the current state of it, while I dislike it, is once again - but one definition/interpretation of a role system.
What if all I want in the fortitude tree is HP regen and nothing else? This is why I don't like it. I have to spend 23 points just to get HP regen (and max HP, which I admit can be nice also) but still.
Last edited by a moderator:
Now that I think about it, Deep rock galactic has a decent approach to their "perk" system that I found virtually no complaints with (my only complaint was that some perks sucked, or the upgrades to some perks sucked, but that's it) and actually did not hate. So I think it's possible to make a good perk system even for those of us who don't normally like perks.
What they did was this.
To prevent players from getting too OP too quickly (One can certainly make the argument that SOME gating is required for this reason), while also retaining virtually full freedom, a "Tiered" system was made.
Tier 1 - Low level skills (Mining level 1, HP max level 1, HP regen level 1, etcetera)
Tier 2 - level 2 skills
...
Tier 5+ - level 5 skills
and so on. Some other games have applied a system like this but what made DRG stand out is this
To progress to tier 2 you had to buy 5 perks from tier 1. To progression to tier 3 you can buy any perk from tier 2 OR BELOW. You didn't just have to buy stuff from tier 1, just stuff from tier 2, you could pick anything from any tier or below! Which encouraged lots of experimentation with both high and low level skills you didn't own yet.
To progress to higher tiers you had to spend points in the lower tiers first. So there was some limitation of freedom, but the thing is you could get anything you wanted in the long run without being gated by attributes. The only gates were what tier you're on that's it. So basically instead of five attributes, DRG has but "one" attribute. As a result, no buyer's regret, no feeling of wasted perk points, because EVERYONE had to level up the same "attribute" no matter what they wanted to get. Of course, you did still need to get the lower level of a perk before getting the higher level of the perk but you were not gated by anything other than the tier you were on which increased naturally and organically as you picked the perks you wanted rather than feeling locked in by the attribute system we have here.
What they did was this.
To prevent players from getting too OP too quickly (One can certainly make the argument that SOME gating is required for this reason), while also retaining virtually full freedom, a "Tiered" system was made.
Tier 1 - Low level skills (Mining level 1, HP max level 1, HP regen level 1, etcetera)
Tier 2 - level 2 skills
...
Tier 5+ - level 5 skills
and so on. Some other games have applied a system like this but what made DRG stand out is this
To progress to tier 2 you had to buy 5 perks from tier 1. To progression to tier 3 you can buy any perk from tier 2 OR BELOW. You didn't just have to buy stuff from tier 1, just stuff from tier 2, you could pick anything from any tier or below! Which encouraged lots of experimentation with both high and low level skills you didn't own yet.
To progress to higher tiers you had to spend points in the lower tiers first. So there was some limitation of freedom, but the thing is you could get anything you wanted in the long run without being gated by attributes. The only gates were what tier you're on that's it. So basically instead of five attributes, DRG has but "one" attribute. As a result, no buyer's regret, no feeling of wasted perk points, because EVERYONE had to level up the same "attribute" no matter what they wanted to get. Of course, you did still need to get the lower level of a perk before getting the higher level of the perk but you were not gated by anything other than the tier you were on which increased naturally and organically as you picked the perks you wanted rather than feeling locked in by the attribute system we have here.
Last edited by a moderator:
PoppaTot
New member
I'm honestly confused by this, no sarcasm intended. I guess I don't get what was bad about mining for mats, xp and skillups and getting better at your mining skills by doing that AND being able to place perk points into what ever else you wanted from gaining level points at the same time?
Are you not mining now? If so, you are still doing the same thing, except getting better at mining simultaneously without having to buy the perks for it. You still get the points to buy whatever you want, and you should still be mining regardless of the progression system, no?
See my previous example a couple posts up saying how DRG does it. You still have the front the cost of the perk skills of course, and the costs might change a little to reflect this different way of doing it. I would recommend (if you aren't already familiar with that game) to at least check out how they do it and see if it might be something you would consider doing something similar with.
Again, the problem is what if I only want ONE skill from the attribute? And want to MASTER it (5/5) not just 1/5? And none of the others? In many of my games I want to get max level mining ASAP. But this requires 23 points in strength. And I rarely want any of the other melee skill. Which means it feels like a massive waste, just to get what I actually want (mining) and none of the other things.
If I'm understanding you, you want it to take some effort to max out a skill under that attribute. I absolutely 100% agree. Where I disagree is that I have to feel like I'm spending points on perks I do NOT want. Does this make sense?
It's only fine if you know you want nearly all (or even all) the skills under that attribute. That's why I think deep rock galactic nailed it nearly 100% in comparison. They address both the ability to get too powerful too quickly as well as retain the freedom that I desire. It is truly (imo) the best of both worlds. Even though there is only one "attribute" in that game, you will have put many hours in the game before you have progressed to the maximum level of the "attribute". So, you still have to put in the work, you can not max any skills on day 1, or even day 7, you still have to put a good solid amount of hours in a game to max anything which puts a better control on progression and also prevents people from being OP combat speccs by day 7.
If that's not something TFP wants to consider doing, I'll deal with it, but if SPECIALIZATION is the goal we need a PROPER specialization. Stuffing mining into a single perk under a large attribute called STRENGTH is not logical to me, even in the context of specialization. Mining is such a big thing in this game it should be its OWN specialization / attribute tree. IMO.
So I guess what I am saying is, in the spirit of specialization if this is TFP's vision and not to consider the other idea I had, I'd like to see more than 5 "trees" and have the perks contained within make more logical sense as such
Medic
Farmer
Miner
CQC (closer quarter combat) Expert
Athlete
Gun Nut
Chemist/Cook
Handyman
Expert Negotiator
--- just to name a few possibilities.
Some of this already has the framework laid out. Perception is for the most part "gun nut", strength is for the most part "CQC". It's just that it feels disorganized right now because some perks don't seem to "fit".
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackelmyer
New member
Gazz I've been wondering. Have you guys been aiming to keep people in the stone tools and stone structures for a week+ in game time?
One of the large challenges to A17 is... we don't know how you want us to play exactly. lol. I mean. Yeah, I'm all for converting attributes to skills and taking away the Attribute gating myself. Get's us back to a more sandbox mode of the game IMO.
But if there's a way you guys are aiming for us to skill up and progress in the game, the wide open skill list doesn't really help people to figure that out.
This is one of the reasons you see games that push people down more linear paths have rigid linear skill trees.
And I get it, "TFP isn't making the game linear". I've heard that. But the game play? Doesn't feel like that.
So honestly.
* Is TFP trying to structure how people advance through the game?
* Sub point: If not, can you explain why there's level restrictions and attribute restrictions on skills? If I literally can't craft a workbench till level 35, can't craft a forge till 10, and so on, how is it not a structured way of allowing people to advance?
* Does TFP have a vision of how players would typically allocate skills to be successful?
* If so, what's the vision?
Ranzera
New member
You might not have caught my other posts or caught it from the text alone. But the amount of sarcasm dripping off of my words in that comment could one shot a zombie bear. I loathe this alpha.Ha. Haha. Whaahahahaha
I mean... I am happy for you that you can enjoy it. I truely am and whoever says otherwise tries to put words in my mouth, but objectively, when looking at features and gameplay, A17 is worse than A16 or even A15. Obviously there are ppl who enjoy it/still enjoy it. But there are also ppl who enjoyed Atlas at release. Or No Mans Sky at release (I was one of them!) that doesn't mean that they are good games. Just that their flaws are just not as important to you.
A17 added loads of nice things like vehicles and ragdolls and way more pois as well as graphics, but it broke WAY more than those improvements could ever fix. RWG is only a minor part. A big one, but one that is acknowledged and is beeing worked on. Others that basically broke progression... will see us die on a hill
Maybe A18 undoes some of it, but I'm not holding my breath.
As I said before: its still a good game. It is just worse than A16, which means I don't have fun playing it, since I constantly think "this is what it did better, that is ni- damn another thing that worked perfectly is broken"
I have to disagree that it is "admirable for a small plucky indie studio to stay true to what they want for the game instead of selling out to the cash grab represented by giving into the masses?" bit. How about we rewrite it as "isn't it kind of admirable for a small plucky indie studio to make a game that an audience loved and then do their level best to change it despite fans and customers of theirs from the beginning begging and pleading and pointing out how disliked the new features are!"
And it isn't necessarily one feature or another that bothers most people. It is the feedback that the devs send to us through forum moderators.
"because they like it better" Well, good thing they aren't being paid to give us a product, right? I know when I go into Waffle House and order eggs and they give me a bowl of cereal it is better because, even though I paid for eggs, they like cereal else better. For cereal, pun intended, that does not sound like a business model that would endure.
"If the Fun Pimps minds are boggled by this, consider that not everyone has their set of preferences or their tastes."
Again, they sold a game to an audience under the impression that they are selling product a, not product b. Sure, it's alpha, things will change, get out of jail free card for any indie developer that grifts their player base and all of that, but they sold a particular product and then, against the will of their playerbase, changed features that seems to have had a negative impact on customer satisfaction.
Hey, you've already got my money, so you really don't need to worry about anything I say. I bought the game for myself and about four or five more copies for friends and family. I'm just a cash cow, and my opinion does not matter, but I do have to say that at the moment I'm not buying another copy for anyone.