PC Feedback for The Fun Pimps on Alpha 17

They haven’t started working on any other game. They are simply designing systems with the perspective that they can be used again in future projects. That’s all I meant. Even some things they experimented with but ultimately rejected for this game may end up being used in a future game.

 
They haven’t started working on any other game. They are simply designing systems with the perspective that they can be used again in future projects. That’s all I meant. Even some things they experimented with but ultimately rejected for this game may end up being used in a future game.
Good one :D

 
Feedback from player since Alpha 6

If it would be helpful, I would like to provide some feedback for the new Alpha 17 version of the game. I do apologise if this is quite long but hopefully there is some valuable feedback in here somewhere:

My Experience & Preface

To keep it short and sweet I have been playing this game since Alpha 6 in a range of forms: singleplayer, 2-player co-op & multiplayer. I generally play on the default settings (but will only drop toolbar on death in 2 player co-op games with my roommate).

Obviously all of these observations are from one customer and should be treated as such a sample. At the end of the day the developers are in charge of their product and can do what they like with it but ideally of course we all want to end up with something which is both enjoyable and meets TFP's vision.

It's also a good idea to keep in mind, as you read (and I write) this critique, that this game is still in Alpha and is therefore not a "finished" product.

Good Things

There are a LOT of positive changes I have seen in A17, I have a suspicion TFP and I may disagree on why some of these changes are positive (based on Gazz's replies) but regardless here they are:

- New graphics / lighting / models / animations are excellent. Cannot state this enough, it's at the top for a reason.

- PoI's feel really fun, have lots of "secret" loot and bosses are a huge welcome (HI GRACIE)

- Zombie AI doesn't do stupid things like spin around on a bush whacking thin air

- Dogs have been "fixed" (they used to spin around in circles when attacking in one Alpha and it was infuriating)

- Weather system being toned down but still an important factory

- Inventory system & encumbrance is a much welcome change

- Party system and sharing XP is a godsend

- Quests - while limited right now, they will be a fantastic feature in the future

- New Vehicles - I've only gotten to mess around with the bicycle so far and I'm loving the new system

- Zombies jumping deserves it's own bullet point

- Item mods are fun and while the quality 1,2,3,4,5,6 isn't exactly to my taste (reminds me of WoW days) I can see why it was done

- New stamina / health / max systems are great and a big improvement on wellness

- and many, many more improvements for which they should be commended on for their hard work.

Issues with the game

Singleplayer

The one major, glaringly obvious issue I'm seeing with single player is that you cannot experience the game fully until much higher levels. E.g. in multiplayer you can have dedicated crafters, melee, stealth, hunters, farmers, etc. but in singleplayer this is pretty much impossible.

Singleplayer does create some very interesting new challenges but it also does severely limit that player's experience of the game to the very narrow specialsations (at least until higher levels).

Daytime

Until higher levels the daytime is basically a zombie grind. I don't know if that's because I'm only on normal difficulty or because of my playstyle but, barring the odd occassion of being caught unawares in a closed space and/or by dogs, zombies generally are not a threat in daytime until you get to much higher levels (and even then..). Note: this isn't necessarily something that needs "fixing" but it does result in the daytime boiling down to "grind zombies, get loot" which can get a bit repetitive, despite the good job TFP have done with POIs. Unsure on a solution (if one is even needed).

Blood Moon & Base Building

By far and large this seems to be where most of the other forum user's complaints (and mine) are centred right now, so bare with me as I try to unpack it.

Firstly let's look at the currently accepted ways (as far as I know) to tackle the Blood Moon:

- Take them head on with guns & lots of ammo, netting yourself a lot of XP in exchange for ammo expenditure

- Devise some sort of strange-looking ramp-infested base that forces jumping zombies to do some weird AI shennaningans in order for you to, essentially, shoot/melee fish in a barrel. This seems to be the current "meta" build and feels exploity as hell.

- Possibly melee them? I've seen reports of people preparing lots of coffee and meleeing throughout the night, I don't know how they don't get swamped but it's apparently a thing.

- Set a lot of traps to thin down the horde BUT lose out on a LOT of XP because trap kills = no XP

Secondly, let's look at a few things which USED to be possible but are not now:

1. Digging down to bedrock, building a concrete bunker and crying like a baby until morning comes. I admit I have done this a handful of times when things got really hairy.

2. Digging pits to cause fall damage. Never my thing, I preferred log spike fortifications personally.

3. Mazes. Not my thing either but I've seen people have luck with it. Felt a bit exploity.

Why is this? A cocktail of the new changes:

- Zombie fall damage was nerfed majorly

- Zombie AI was improved significantly (they now path BETTER than any human could - they are working with perfect information)

- Zombies now get huge increases to block damage when in greater numbers & can dig down

Now Roland has said above:

"I have never ever heard once during developer discussions a single developer say, “We gotta oust people from playing underground”. Again the OP makes the faulty assumption that the devs are out to stop the players from playing a certain way which is not true."

While it may be true that the intention wasn't to eliminate certain methods of play (Gazz admits they do this, contradicting Roland: see Gazz quote below), the effect is still the same: some methods have been eliminated (or, if not eliminated, made much harder). So let's work through that list above, shall we?

I think we can all agree that many exploits have been fixed and that zombies not being able to dig in general was a bit of an oversight that needed to be corrected.

Zombie AI working on perfect information has been an improvement in many ways but does also make it very difficult when they decide to avoid traps or take a path to you that they couldn't possibly have seen or known about rather than just mindlessly shamble/run towards you ala Day of the Dead.

Fall damage is an interesting one. Gazz (a developer) had this to say:

"If a pit kills every zombie with zero maintenance then it should be pretty easy to see why that needs to be fixed.


Every other means of zombie killing requires some degree of constant effort, supplies or maintenance. See the problem now?"


And my answer is: no, Gazz, I do not see the problem. Roland (a mod) often cites in this thread that people should be experimenting and meeting the challenge of designing new bases... yet when people find an easy solution, you take it away. This is a first strike for me. A developer cannot "meet the challenge" of players creating a clever solution so they just alter physics.

So, please, let me offer you several possibly solutions:

- More flying enemies that obviously can't struggle with falls

- Zombies which can stretch and behave as bridges

- Zombies that can jump further (see: what you guys did with Spider zombies)

- A mechanic to "catch" yourself when falling

- Some sort of larger monstrous zombies who are too big to fall down a pit

- Zombie skydivers who have paraachutes that deploy when falling large distances & stop other zombies taking fall damage. Meaning they're now at the bottom of your pit and will tear down your foundations

- Bodies at the bottom of a pit reducing the fall damage drastically (meaning one or two will die but then they will pile up)

- Accepting a clever solution and accepting that digging a massive moat requires a lot of effort. To reiterate: It isn't my playstyle but if other people want to do it, why stop them?

The final point, and by far the most contentious, is the block damage. Thankfully, as Roland helpfully points out, TFP are adding an option to adjust block damage.

I will say that in my experience in its current state zombie block damage is obscene. I have had concrete structures torn down very quickly on day 14 & 21 by 100+ zombies because they all pile in together and get the "group" bonus. Personally, I think they should deal the same damage (or slightly more) as my fists do to concrete. Doors etc on the other hand are fair game, but that's just my opinion.

1/2 posts - sorry it's ended up being quite long!!

- - - Updated - - -

Developer Comments & Game Vision

Gazz & Roland's replies in general do give me a cause for worry as it seems the games vision has deviated from where I previously though it was: a sandbox zombie survival game. It appears to be morphing into some try-hard "git gud" base design meta game where only the most ridiculously quirky (read: AI shennanigans) bases are worth building in the long term.

Sometimes, guys, the onus isn't on the players to adapt and come up with solutions. A lot of the time that's the developers job. See: the fall damage paragraph above.

An interesting note I would like to make here, that many other people have made, is that the game offers a huge number of options but unfortunately a number of them aren't really very viable. A stealth specialist will excel in days 1-6 but is effectively useless in a Blood Moon because zombies are automatically aware of you. Gazz also explicitly states that melee-exclusive builds are crippled:

"If you insist that melee will be your only means of dealing damage in base defense then you are voluntarily putting yourself at a major disadvantage."

So I do have to question why these options are even in the game at all if using them as you primary specilisation puts you a "major disadvantage"? My own opinion is that, without realising it, TFP have managed to create a situation where only a handful of playstyles are viable for dealing with Blood Moon hordes (providing you don't cheese the AI).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Early Access / Wiki / Merchandising

I do also want to make a few quick notes RE: this subheader:

- The game has been in early access for a considerable time now and every Alpha brings with it an almost entirely new rendition of the game. I am beginning to be worried that it will be this way forever or if there is an actual roadmap (I did check the developer thread but there are over 3300 pages as of today).

- I cannot stress this one enough: when TFP release a new Alpha, please realise that a large portion of the community are expecting it to be stable and thoroughly tested. Yes, I know that's an unfair standard to hold it to but from reading all of the community comments on here / steam / reddit I can say that seems to be the prevailing feedback for years.

- The Wiki needs updating. I would honestly recommend hiring someone to be dedicated to updating it because as it stands the wiki is partially useless. The landing page takes you to a 16.4 video and news from summer 2016.

- I did note in the news that TFP have begun merchandising? Please, guys, I would recommend on finishing the game first and getting it out on all platforms before focussing on merch. Just my opinion but it comes across to me as a bit of a money grab on an unfinished game. I understand the devs themselves may not have much say in this so ignore as necessary.

Atmosphere on this forum

I do have to also point out that the atmosphere and snark from all parties on this forum is absolutely disgraceful and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. I completely condemn the ♥♥♥♥ slinging being thrown at the devs but I would also like to provide a bit of constructive feedback to the mods (I can only apologise to Roland here but you're the most active in this thread so I've drawn mostly your examples. I'm not singling Roland out here and I would like to note that in general he seems to be a balanced and effective mod. We all make mistakes. If you're not Roland or Gazz, skip this section. It isn't intended for you..)

When people come with complaints, a mod, however, should not be replying with things like this (taken partially out of context by me so bare that in mind when it comes to judging and fairness):

"All you are exposing is your own lack of creativity..." <------ (Ad Hominem attack and blaming the customer seems unacceptable to me. I am an employer and if my employees said that to my customers they would be firmly reprimanded unless said customer was an utter twonk.)

"If you can’t figure out how to do it or if solving such puzzles is not fun for you be patient because eventually there will be instructions provided by those who do like to adapt and overcome." <------ Condescending & insulting

"Not an attack. Just the way it is in life, my friend. There are those who give up without trying and call challenges insurmountable and impossible and there are those who get to work and through innovation and creativity they do what the first group proclaims is impossible." <----- Again condescending & insinuating things about the poster's character

"There is a plan to add a separate slider for zombie damage vs blocks so that everyone can choose to basically have their concrete be made of actual concrete, chilled butter, wet cardboard, or that single ply tp your boss buys for the staff bathroom. Those who are tired of the d̶i̶f̶f̶i̶c̶u̶l̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶l̶l̶e̶n̶g̶e̶...er...sorry....tedium and lazy dev shenanigans of raw A17, will be able to lower that slider to the point that even the most basic shack with half damaged door will still take the zombies 3 weeks to break through." <----- again condescending & insulting. Frankly completely unacceptable and the strikethrough is utterly unprofessional and unnecessary.

I will point out that none of this has been directed at me (as of posting) but at other users - whom I will point out are even worse than the examples above. Far worse. I have pretty much used Roland-only examples so I do want to apologise if it feels like I'm attacking him, I'm not. I also think what Gazz said above came off as wishy-washy, condescending, out of touch and unprofessional as well.

 
Regarding the answers of moderators you quoted, it's really a personal feeling. Personally, I find it often funny, sometimes gently mocking, always calm and ... moderate, in short I don't find it condescending and even less insulting. On the forums or the IRC, it's rather easy to give to a text an intention that it doesn't have.

It's also necessary to take into account the aggressiveness or contempt of which certain posts are sometimes colored, this explaining the necessary reframing by the moderators.

 
Regarding the answers of moderators you quoted, it's really a personal feeling. Personally, I find it often funny, sometimes gently mocking, always calm and ... moderate, in short I don't find it condescending and even less insulting. On the forums or the IRC, it's rather easy to give to a text an intention that it doesn't have.
It's also necessary to take into account the aggressiveness or contempt of which certain posts are sometimes colored, this explaining the necessary reframing by the moderators.
I can agree with that to an extent yeah - and I do point out above that generally this is when mods are replying to some rather scathing or disgusting posts directed at them. I do think that in a thread as, er, contentious(?) and argumentative as this, the mods (and devs) in particular should be picking their words wisely given they are the company's community leaders on the board here.

I do think there could be a bit more deleting of abusive posts but of course that runs the risk of people wanting to shout about free peaches & censorship in retaliation.

It may be that I've read them incorrectly as it's easy to do online but the comments I've quoted (when in context and mostly out of context too) are poorly worded and come across to me as being condescending / insulting.

 
Now Roland has said above:

"I have never ever heard once during developer discussions a single developer say, “We gotta oust people from playing underground”. Again the OP makes the faulty assumption that the devs are out to stop the players from playing a certain way which is not true."

Gazz (a developer) had this to say:

"If a pit kills every zombie with zero maintenance then it should be pretty easy to see why that needs to be fixed.


Every other means of zombie killing requires some degree of constant effort, supplies or maintenance. See the problem now?"


While it may be true that the intention wasn't to eliminate certain methods of play (Gazz admits they do this, contradicting Roland)
Where do you see a contradiction? Gazz didn't say, "In an effort to stop players from digging pits we have made the following change..." The devs were not trying to end pit digging as a part of base defense. Fall damage wasn't eliminated only instant death from a fall was. Pits soften them up for further damage to be done by additional traps (with maintenance costs) or the actively playing player.

the effect is still the same: some methods have been eliminated (or, if not eliminated, made much harder).
The methods eliminated were deemed to be exploits by the designers of the game. Sorry, if you disagree, but honestly the developers have to stick to their own definition of what an exploit is and not the player base definition. Players are notorious for having a power bias and being resistant to strategies and abilities that have both an upside and a downside. Players tend to only want upside. Other strategies have been made to be more challenging. Yes.

But, that is what makes a game a game-- win vs loss. There must be opportunity for both. You show me a game without opportunity for both winning and losing and I'll show you an interactive experience falsely calling itself a game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not singling Roland out here
LIE!

and I would like to note that in general he seems to be a balanced and effective mod.
TRUTH!

I guess it balances to neutral...

"All you are exposing is your own lack of creativity..."

"If you can’t figure out how to do it or if solving such puzzles is not fun for you be patient because eventually there will be instructions provided by those who do like to adapt and overcome."

"Not an attack. Just the way it is in life, my friend. There are those who give up without trying and call challenges insurmountable and impossible and there are those who get to work and through innovation and creativity they do what the first group proclaims is impossible."

"There is a plan to add a separate slider for zombie damage vs blocks so that everyone can choose to basically have their concrete be made of actual concrete, chilled butter, wet cardboard, or that single ply tp your boss buys for the staff bathroom. Those who are tired of the d̶i̶f̶f̶i̶c̶u̶l̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶l̶l̶e̶n̶g̶e̶...er...sorry....tedium and lazy dev shenanigans of raw A17, will be able to lower that slider to the point that even the most basic shack with half damaged door will still take the zombies 3 weeks to break through."
I agree that I could have been more....bland....in my responses. <shrug> I stand by the veracity of everything I said. It has turned out to be true. There ARE a variety of bases being built and a variety of strategies being used and threads are popping up describing in the form of instructions for how others can employ those same strategies and bases. The people who complained and called base design impossible when A17 first released have been proven utterly and completely wrong. Things proclaimed impossible are possible.

So what would you say accounts for that? Could it be that just like in life there are some who give up too easily and who don't try or who can't see a new solution.....until.....others do it and show how it can be done?

It is also true that some players are ignoring the variety of bases that are possible because they are more work than some of the easy exploits that are currently available. What's interesting is they keep posting that the exploits are the only viable way to build a base because they are so easy so you MUST use them. When those exploits are closed then what shall they do? (Or would that be another contradiction of what I posted earlier :) )

 
There ARE a variety of bases being built and a variety of strategies being used and threads are popping up describing in the form of instructions for how others can employ those same strategies and bases.
I wouldn't call it a variety of base designs.

Basically, almost all designs can be traced back to a common strategy. You give the zombies a seemingly free path to follow and use the zombies' pathfinding against them. The rest are just variations of what the zombies expect on the way until they reach the player.

The only other working strategy I've come across so far utilizes the pathfinding in a different way by digging trenches and filling them with spikes. But it is not a very effective method because you need a lot of spikes for a decent horde.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’ve also seen old classic designs but with fallback positions built in so that as they break through that weakest point and you are about to be overrun you can escape to a new line of safety.

Also saying that kill corridors don’t represent variety is not correct. I’ve seen many different corridor designs. I could generalize the previous meta to...”walls” and say that all strategies basically involved a type of defensible wall.

Finally, the discovery of what’s possible ain’t over yet...

 
I am still experimenting with the old "Tower above a Bunker" defense popularized in A16. The tower and bunker is reinforced concrete and surrounded by hundreds of spikes and mines with the only access being a concrete ramp 20 blocks long, 3 block wide bridge. It is the easiest access to me but is covered by 2 shotgun turrets and bars on the sides to prevent Z's falling and targeting the reinforced supports below. The tower is topped by a Iron bar enclosed top that holds my Gen banks. On each 7th day I turn off my forges, campfires and Chem stations to lower the below ground attraction and blast away with the marksman rifle until morning. Thus far, day 42 and still going.

This is working for me because since the first Horde night I have tried to adapt and add to my survival chances in this version until the next one, where I will probably have to totally revamp defensive strat to make headway in A18.

 
Early Access / Wiki / MerchandisingI do also want to make a few quick notes RE: this subheader:

- The game has been in early access for a considerable time now and every Alpha brings with it an almost entirely new rendition of the game. I am beginning to be worried that it will be this way forever or if there is an actual roadmap (I did check the developer thread but there are over 3300 pages as of today).
I don't see it that way. They have been following their plan but also experimenting with different implementations of that plan. If you look at how player progression has evolved since A11 there is a clear and undeniable reduction of what people call "learn by doing" and which I call "accomplish by macro". If Alpha's A11 - A17 had been released in quick succession you would be able to see it as well. The only roadmap you will find is the kickstarter goal list which internally they have re-prioritized. Whether the time in development has been long or short is dependent on each person's own sensibilities. Many companies wait until they are almost done with development before releasing the game to early access. TFP released theirs early and have done most of the development in view of the player base.

- I cannot stress this one enough: when TFP release a new Alpha, please realise that a large portion of the community are expecting it to be stable and thoroughly tested. Yes, I know that's an unfair standard to hold it to but from reading all of the community comments on here / steam / reddit I can say that seems to be the prevailing feedback for years.
Those people are wrong and they can pound sand. You said it is unfair yourself. They can wait for the destination if they can't handle the journey. Even if the people with that view are the majority it doesn't change reality.

- The Wiki needs updating. I would honestly recommend hiring someone to be dedicated to updating it because as it stands the wiki is partially useless. The landing page takes you to a 16.4 video and news from summer 2016.
Wikis are up to the player base. TFP does not endorse or maintain any wikis. Personally, I think wiki's are a waste of time to do now. Even modders experience fatigue having to redo stuff with each update and I can't imagine wiki authoring being remotely as satisfying as modding. Could be wrong. If you have passion about it then get to editing. The Wiki is in your hands.

- I did note in the news that TFP have begun merchandising? Please, guys, I would recommend on finishing the game first and getting it out on all platforms before focussing on merch. Just my opinion but it comes across to me as a bit of a money grab on an unfinished game. I understand the devs themselves may not have much say in this so ignore as necessary.
We have had complaints about the merchandise release. It pretty much summarizes to "Why are there no mugs?!"

lol

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i am still experimenting with the old "tower above a bunker" defense popularized in a16. The tower and bunker is reinforced concrete and surrounded by hundreds of spikes and mines with the only access being a concrete ramp 20 blocks long, 3 block wide bridge. It is the easiest access to me but is covered by 2 shotgun turrets and bars on the sides to prevent z's falling and targeting the reinforced supports below. The tower is topped by a iron bar enclosed top that holds my gen banks. On each 7th day i turn off my forges, campfires and chem stations to lower the below ground attraction and blast away with the marksman rifle until morning. Thus far, day 42 and still going.

This is working for me because since the first horde night i have tried to adapt and add to my survival chances in this version until the next one, where i will probably have to totally revamp defensive strat to make headway in a18.
impossible!!!!

;)

 
I’ve also seen old classic designs but with fallback positions built in so that as they break through that weakest point and you are about to be overrun you can escape to a new line of safety.
In other words, with these bases, you hope the zombies won't destroy your entire base while you retreat room by room and have enough ammo to fend off the horde. That's what I call gambling, not strategy.

I test each of my base designs against a gamestage 450 horde on Nomad difficulty and if the base has survived that I test it again against a gamestage 900 horde.

Only if the base has survived such a horde without major damage and the repairs take less than an ingame day do I consider the base to be valid. A base doesn't help me if I have to rebuild it every time after a horde.

I also tested what ammo it would take to fight a gamestage 450 horde alone with firearms. The consumption was about 6000 rounds of ammunition. There can be no talk of efficiency.

People who defend their base that way are lucky that steel ammunition was introduced. If you were dependent on brass it would hardly be possible to produce 6000 rounds per week.

Also saying that kill corridors don’t represent variety is not correct. I’ve seen many different corridor designs. I could generalize the previous meta to...”walls” and say that all strategies basically involved a type of defensible wall.
I can also build dozens of different variations of bases based on ramps. One has a deep pit under the ramp with spikes. The next has electric fences and blade traps and the next has arrow traps.

Nevertheless the ramp bases were always summarized under one term and not considered as individual designs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can also build dozens of different variations of bases based on ramps. One has a deep pit under the ramp with spikes. The next has electric fences and blade traps and the next has arrow traps.

Nevertheless the ramp bases were always summarized under one term and not considered as individual designs.
It's not strictly kill corridors/ramps or whatever, it's pathfinding. It is what the TD genre is about and allows for way more creativity than just putting walls between you and the enemy, as tRoland said. 7DTD doesn't work as a pure TD though, so the ideal thing would be a combination of the two, with a more "horde-like" AI and various different zombie profiles, bringing back some of the old zombie randomness.

 
Where do you see a contradiction? Gazz didn't say, "In an effort to stop players from digging pits we have made the following change..." The devs were not trying to end pit digging as a part of base defense. Fall damage wasn't eliminated only instant death from a fall was. Pits soften them up for further damage to be done by additional traps (with maintenance costs) or the actively playing player.
He pretty much did say that digging pits was an expoit and whether you agree it was intentional or not that has been the result: digging a pit is supposed to no longer a base defence solution. (it is though, see below. So Gazz fixed nothing.)

The methods eliminated were deemed to be exploits by the designers of the game. Sorry, if you disagree, but honestly the developers have to stick to their own definition of what an exploit is and not the player base definition. Players are notorious for having a power bias and being resistant to strategies and abilities that have both an upside and a downside. Players tend to only want upside. Other strategies have been made to be more challenging. Yes.
But, that is what makes a game a game-- win vs loss. There must be opportunity for both. You show me a game without opportunity for both winning and losing and I'll show you an interactive experience falsely calling itself a game.
Well frankly I completely disagree with the developers here. This is supposed to be a sandbox RPG (according to steam), emphasis on SANDBOX. I think the players know more about the fun we'd like to have than the developers caring about what is or isn't an exploit.

By the way, this hasn't been fixed at all as people can just create 3 tier pits. So instead of being innovative and taking this "exploit" as an opportunity to make some positive changes to the game, the devs just made it harder to do pits. Sounds like a great solution. You're defending a castle on sand here mate. It was a bad solution. FACT.

I agree that I could have been more....bland....in my responses. <shrug> I stand by the veracity of everything I said. It has turned out to be true. There ARE a variety of bases being built and a variety of strategies being used and threads are popping up describing in the form of instructions for how others can employ those same strategies and bases. The people who complained and called base design impossible when A17 first released have been proven utterly and completely wrong. Things proclaimed impossible are possible.
Roland we both know I was talking here about the manner of communication rather than the content and it was unprofessional in my opinion. I'll leave it at that.

So what would you say accounts for that? Could it be that just like in life there are some who give up too easily and who don't try or who can't see a new solution.....until.....others do it and show how it can be done?
In almost every instance I've seen of someone "designing" a base, in the end when you get a picture or video it's a ridiculously overengineered mess full of ramps and/or shooting zombies like fish in a barrel as their AI has them careening around.

That quote above is also extremely condescending again, Roland.

And furthermore: My opnion is that in a game, you shouldn't have to watch a load of youtube tutorials to be able to build a defensible base because the developers want the learning curve to be high.

t is also true that some players are ignoring the variety of bases that are possible because they are more work than some of the easy exploits that are currently available. What's interesting is they keep posting that the exploits are the only viable way to build a base because they are so easy so you MUST use them. When those exploits are closed then what shall they do? (Or would that be another contradiction of what I posted earlier )
They adapt of course Roland. You can step off your high horse. But when players adapt the developers "accidentally" remove their options. E.g. underground bunkers or pit falls. And there is absolutely no need for your snarky reply in the brackets either. It's once again extremely unprofessional.

TFP does not endorse or maintain any wikis.
Just to let you know then: this very website links to the wiki. Someone should fix either that link or the wiki if it isn't being endorsed.

I will also point out several additional notes here mate:

1. You have consistently asked for constructive criticism on this forum and yet when presented with it, I don't even get a thanks.

2. You have taken nothing on board of what I have said. Absolutely nothing. You have gone into full-on defense mode and resulted to quoting single sentences or paragraphs to reply to - especially ones that are barely even relevant like merchandising rather than actually addressing any of the actual issues. That is deeply saddening from a customer point of view.

3. I really don't appreciate being given attitude and snark as a customer trying to provide feedback on a game I have enjoyed for years.

You can disagree with the criticism or ignore it for sure, but being snarky is just uncalled for mate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am still experimenting with the old "Tower above a Bunker" defense popularized in A16. The tower and bunker is reinforced concrete and surrounded by hundreds of spikes and mines with the only access being a concrete ramp 20 blocks long, 3 block wide bridge. It is the easiest access to me but is covered by 2 shotgun turrets and bars on the sides to prevent Z's falling and targeting the reinforced supports below. The tower is topped by a Iron bar enclosed top that holds my Gen banks. On each 7th day I turn off my forges, campfires and Chem stations to lower the below ground attraction and blast away with the marksman rifle until morning. Thus far, day 42 and still going.

This is working for me because since the first Horde night I have tried to adapt and add to my survival chances in this version until the next one, where I will probably have to totally revamp defensive strat to make headway in A18.

Impossible
Yeah... I did say that using a lot of traps is an option. Re-read the post mate. Emphasis on hundreds of traps and mines and shotgun turrets netting you all precisely 0XP. I did cover this in my post.

 
Well frankly I completely disagree with the developers here. This is supposed to be a sandbox RPG (according to steam), emphasis on SANDBOX. I think the players know more about the fun we'd like to have than the developers caring about what is or isn't an exploit.
This is a very confusing and presumptive paragraph. You can disagree with the developers, but in the end, it is their game. The people who like the game that the developers are making will play it. I didn't buy Pokemon: Let's Go, Pikachu! for that very reason, but that doesn't mean that I get to dictate to those developers what game I thought they should have made in order to match my fun. Funny then that you think the emphasis is supposed to be on SANDBOX. I didn't realize that your name was in the credits as a developer.

Speaking of "sandbox": it's kind of a tricky word. Obviously, it doesn't mean that you can do anything you want because boundaries and rules remain. Interestingly, it also doesn't necessarily mean that the main sandbox element occurs within the regular game. I've played plenty of strategy and building games where sandbox is an extra mode outside of the game. It would seem that creative mode would satisfy that requirement.

And furthermore: My opnion is that in a game, you shouldn't have to watch a load of youtube tutorials to be able to build a defensible base because the developers want the learning curve to be high.
Roland didn't say "have to watch"; he suggested that those who lack the creativity or the vision to find the solution could look to what others have done. I'm an amateur logic puzzler. When I can't figure out the solutions to the puzzles, does that mean that I "have to watch" somebody else's solution? If I do, was that the fault of the puzzle maker? No.

While I'm here, I noticed your use of "my opinion," something which takes up much of this post. I just want to mention that because it means that you cannot get the "right" of this conversation (though you can get the wrong).

They adapt of course Roland. You can step off your high horse. But when players adapt the developers "accidentally" remove their options. E.g. underground bunkers or pit falls.
Welcome to Early Access where things change and strategies are demolished as the developers continue to implement the game piece-by-piece.

Just to let you know then: this very website links to the wiki. Someone should fix either that link or the wiki if it isn't being endorsed.
It's kind of like those times when a company points to a resource that they know their customers have found helpful, but they have no control over that source and, being outside of their quality control, they in no way endorse it. Maybe TFP should just put a disclaimer like other companies do.

 
This is a very confusing and presumptive paragraph. You can disagree with the developers, but in the end, it is their game. The people who like the game that the developers are making will play it. I didn't buy Pokemon: Let's Go, Pikachu! for that very reason, but that doesn't mean that I get to dictate to those developers what game I thought they should have made in order to match my fun. Funny then that you think the emphasis is supposed to be on SANDBOX. I didn't realize that your name was in the credits as a developer.
Speaking of "sandbox": it's kind of a tricky word. Obviously, it doesn't mean that you can do anything you want because boundaries and rules remain. Interestingly, it also doesn't necessarily mean that the main sandbox element occurs within the regular game. I've played plenty of strategy and building games where sandbox is an extra mode outside of the game. It would seem that creative mode would satisfy that requirement.
Again more snarky toxic remarks.

This game has been in early access for years, it does not in any way compare to pokemon. Early Access games need feedback. read my previous post, I literally cover everything else you say including saying they can ignore my feedback if they would like at the bottom of that post you quoted.

"A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. You're another one defending a casrtle built on sand.

Roland didn't say "have to watch"; he suggested that those who lack the creativity or the vision to find the solution could look to what others have done. I'm an amateur logic puzzler. When I can't figure out the solutions to the puzzles, does that mean that I "have to watch" somebody else's solution? If I do, was that the fault of the puzzle maker? No.
Yes he does, I literally quoted above where he recommends that someone watch other videos if they cannot enjoy the game.

While I'm here, I noticed your use of "my opinion," something which takes up much of this post. I just want to mention that because it means that you cannot get the "right" of this conversation (though you can get the wrong).
I'm not even sure what your point is here, you're just being toxic and offensive now. I did say it was all only the opinion of one customer and should be treated as such. Read the post above and you'll see.

Welcome to Early Access where things change and strategies are demolished as the developers continue to implement the game piece-by-piece.
Yes and God forbid anyone tries to give constructive feedback eh?

It's kind of like those times when a company points to a resource that they know their customers have found helpful, but they have no control over that source and, being outside of their quality control, they in no way endorse it. Maybe TFP should just put a disclaimer like other companies do.
Yes they probably should. It's a bit misleading to say that something isn't endorsed when the site links directly to it.

 
You know what guys, argue amongst yourselves. I really cannot be bothered. I have provided my constructive feedback for a game I love with plenty of positives and negatives, as well as some solutions. I have done so thanklessly, as many others have, as a paying customer. I did not namecall or behave offensively.

Whatever happens I hope your game does well, but I have to say I am extremely disappointed by the attitude of the moderating team here, as well as the toxicity of some members and it will be reflected in my changed Steam review.

 
Back
Top