PC Developer Discussions: Alpha 17

Developer Discussions: Alpha 17

  • Newly Updated

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • Check out the newest reveals by Madmole

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Over 100 new perk books with set collecting and bonuses

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's the stamina breaks that gets to me.I wounder how mining would feel if they connect the fancy new slow animation to mining, So when stamina is low you hit slower but actually never stop hitting.
They have perfectly sane system before in A16.4. When you go below 40, your block damage will slowly start to degrade, and hits near 0 will be much weaker but will still go trough. I liked it much more along with constant stamina regeneration instead of current "X pet tick".

 
Hello Fun Pimps

we play on the hardest level currently and still find it a bit easy,

How about a new level of difficulty, for the very tough guys.

 
@faatah

I will dare to ask again: are screamers still seeing trough closed doors? I focked up mentioned A16.4 game on other PC due to one screaming at me at night and called horde taking out my place along with one of two forges (the one that already had crucible) and my main loot chest. Instant ragequit dammit.

 
Hello Fun Pimpswe play on the hardest level currently and still find it a bit easy,

How about a new level of difficulty, for the very tough guys.
* Singleplayer

* Insane

* 60 minute days

* Daylight 12 Hours

* Allways run

* 25% loot

* Loot respawn 50 Days

* Blood moon count 64

* No airdrops

* Death is Death

* No use of repair

* No Gardening

If you say yes to all and you still say its too easy i guess you are not very honest

 
Hello Fun Pimpswe play on the hardest level currently and still find it a bit easy,

How about a new level of difficulty, for the very tough guys.
I would say the new hardesr setting should automatically set everything to the hardest possible:

Always run

No airdrops

32 (64?) Max zombies in hordes or active.

Extra hard hitting zombies.

That might work.

 
* Singleplayer* Insane

* 60 minute days

* Daylight 12 Hours

* Allways run

* 25% loot

* Loot respawn 50 Days

* Blood moon count 64

* No airdrops

* Death is Death

* No use of repair

* No Gardening

If you say yes to all and you still say its too easy i guess you are not very honest
Oh wow, that would be badass! :)

Good for a leaderboard on how long a person could play if they could disable DM.

 
* Singleplayer* Insane

* 60 minute days

* Daylight 12 Hours

* Allways run

* 25% loot

* Loot respawn 50 Days

* Blood moon count 64

* No airdrops

* Death is Death

* No use of repair

* No Gardening

If you say yes to all and you still say its too easy i guess you are not very honest
lol, yeah, no thank you :p . Though if I could figure out how to give a mining helmet at start, I'd do 24 hour night. That way I can see, but a lot more jump scares from it.

 
YES, that's what I want to see too. Of course on Never Run if there will be that many. There becomes a point that if they all run, the base won't survive if there is that many coming at you.
Honestly, that combined with halved or even triple lower block damage would be perfect horde for me. Not current eight or dozen dudes breaking hardened concrete with bare fists (which is dumb), but few dozens of weaker zeds getting trough by mirriads of small bites. With current "muh dissapearing bodies" this can be implemented with lesser optimization problems.

 
Oh wow, that would be badass! :)
Good for a leaderboard on how long a person could play if they could disable DM.
They could simply add a small star icon that appears and stay at the build info as soon as CM or DM is used

(Brigade 7.62 changed the playername to cheater if you used console commands. And X showed "Modded" if you used mods)

 
It's very easy to test within the game. Don't even need a calculator. Just your max stamina above 100 and get hungry.

If everything would have worked exactly the way developers meant it to work there would be no bugs.

As a proof: I have max stamina of 130 right now and fullness of 94. With linear stamina loss I should have stamina cap @ 124 right? However it's capped at 122. Here is why:

130 * 0.94 = 122.2
I am pretty sure that what Gazz was talking about was the loss/recovery rate of stamina, not of the max stamina cap. That's also how I understood your initial message. The max stamina cap gets lowered the more you use stamina, not from hunger. At least that's what I remember the devs saying in the forums. For every 100 points of stamina used, your max stamina goes down by 1, so you still get more juice out of having more maximum stamina.

As for the bug part, yes, I'm aware there might be bugs and a dev might not be aware of them, which is why I specified that you would usually provide proof of your claim (saying "there's a bug" isn't of much help).

 
I'm not sure where you got these numbers from. I just did a crude test and it took about 378 stamina to reduce fullness by 1%.
Sorry, instead of "assume 1" I should have said "use 1 as an example". I know that 1 is too much, but it showed the principle and made calculation easy.

 
Me - "I don't need the meat and the boar will probably kill me so I should leave it alone"

Boar - "oink" (which for some reason enrages me)

Me "Die!" (shoots arrow)

Boar - charges

Me "Oh F..."

stupid death #11

 
I am pretty sure that what Gazz was talking about was the loss/recovery rate of stamina, not of the max stamina cap.
And I was talking about stamina cap reduced at progressively higher rate due to hunger with higher max stamina.

 
Me - "I don't need the meat and the boar will probably kill me so I should leave it alone"
Boar - "oink" (which for some reason enrages me)

Me "Die!" (shoots arrow)

Boar - charges

Me "Oh F..."

stupid death #11
And sometimes, you come across a businessman who was also a UFC fighter on weekends and won't go down no matter how many spiked club hits you land on him. Stupid death #who'scounting

 
Sorry, instead of "assume 1" I should have said "use 1 as an example". I know that 1 is too much, but it showed the principle and made calculation easy.
I'm still not sure what numbers you are talking about. As I shown from the experiment, 1% of fullness is way more than 100 spent stamina. Unfortunately I can't find this relation anywhere in the XMLs.

 
Just my opinion but I think it would improve gameplay & feel more rational if Stamina behaved kind of like this;

No change to regen rate or Stamina pool size until Water or Food dropped to 50%.

Regen rate starts to slow down at Water = 50%, at Water = 25% regen rate is 1/2, at Water = 0% regen rate is 1/4

Stamina pool size starts to shrink at Food = 50%, at Food = 25% pool size has been reduced by ~25%, at Food = 0% pool size has reduced by 75%

Could change the pool size reductions to integer values to incentivize buying the Attribute that adds +10 to pool size.

Thoughts behind this are;

1) I'd prefer not to be constantly managing Food/Water. The oversaturation definately helps but still more micro-management than I'd prefer.

2) No impact until F/W drop to 50% helps w #1 and would also open up the choice to say take on a POI with F/W at 60%, still full size pool and fastest regen but also room to eat/drink for Health regen without as much 'waste'.

3) Just seems more rational to me. 2 hours after lunch I don't feel as if I only have a 1/3 of the energy I had right after eating. 4 hours after eating, if I've been working out or backpacking, yeah I'm real hungry, but not to the point of basically crawling, heh :)

 
Me - "I don't need the meat and the boar will probably kill me so I should leave it alone"
Boar - "oink" (which for some reason enrages me)

Me "Die!" (shoots arrow)

Boar - charges

Me "Oh F..."

stupid death #11
He liked you. He winked you. He gave you his love.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top