PC Feedback for The Fun Pimps on Alpha 17

[Jackelmyer]

I have a hard time remembering details from A16, but didn't you have to shoot with your gun A LOT and also collect a fair share of levels? Was it gun skill to 60 or 80 to buy the last point in the gun perk? How many shots did you need to reach that? It might not be as much as in A17 but I don't remember ever rushing through to perk 5 in the first few weeks. Could be wrong though.

I didn't perk up in guns until around day 60-70+ in A16. I used a standard wooden bow or a crossbow and for the most part was fine. Brass was a semi rare commodity and shotgun rounds went to my turrets. By the time zombies hit Rad levels on horde night, I had my base so heavily built that even with just a bow I'd be fine. It took some research, youtube watching, and base planning to get to that point. But by the end of A15 I had my method down pat.

A17 made things just more annoying to do.

Mining without stealth skills and stealthing underground draws zombies (which honestly I've not heard anyone test the stealth mining, so don't know if that even is working).

Skills to just get to iron tools requires a week+ (in game time) on all default settings. Unless you go hog wild on POI's pulling XP. But then you don't get much time to setup your week one base without claiming a POI.

And claimed POI's are still buggy. Bug reports on entire bases being lost because a POI reverts to it's original state. Back in the day, I didn't use POI's because zombies would respawn in them on occasion.

I suppose if some of the bugs on POI usage were ironed out once and for all, it wouldn't be so bad. But a release was put out where TFP announces...

"Hey! POI's are safe to take over again survivors! We've fixed zombie spawns, POI's resetting, etc!"...

Then maybe the rest of us who don't want to deal with our starter base getting squashed or surprised spawns would go back to that. In fairness, taking over a POI was fun when I first started playing. Just... was buggy.

 

[Cirion]

I consider perception one of the best "perks" I can put points into, exactly because the bonus works on all ranged weapons and irrespective of hit location. I usually have a prefered gun (at the moment the pistol) that I put perk points into relatively fast, but always use bow as well and some other weapon as secondary. And that is in a co-op group where others use the gun ammo I don't use!

I don't even necessarily disagree here (Perception is a decent attribute overall) but my points still stand which I'll get into a bit later...

But let's get back to your specific argument about the magnum master. When it comes to paying the perk points you seem to argue that the 50% damage bonus for all weapons from perception is insignificant. But for magnum master the same "insignificant" 50% seem to disturb you in your spezialisation attempt. Well, what now?

Basically a lot of your revolt seems to be centered around the 28 perk points aka levels before you are a complete master, i.e. you want to "master it sooner than the current system". But that is just the old argument "I want to be in end game faster" for which the "200% XP gain" option was made. If early and mid game seems too drawn out for you, well, this is the option you want.

No, I think you misunderstand me. 50% is not insignificant, but I'd rather get that 50% on a specific weapon I want, and for less than 28 points. Your point about reaching end-game too quickly is noted, but there is more than one way to gate a player from doing that. Look at how Deep Rock Galactic gates players. In my opinion, their version of gating is the best I have seen. If you have not played DRG, the simplest way of explaining their gating system is that instead of FIVE attributes, there is only ONE. The "one attribute" takes a tremendous amount of points to max BUT... A.) You do not have to directly spend points on the "attribute" to "level it up". No feeling of wasted points as such. B.) The attribute "level ups" merely by getting any perk you want from the ENTIRE gambit of options, No restrictions, complete freedom. However, because there is still a "gate", you can not get too OP too quickly because you can only start off with low level skills, then mid level, then finally end-game. BUT you can pick whatever you want at any point of the time, which encourages experimentation since you are NOT locked in like you are with A17 perks. Sure, you're still gated much like 7D2D, but in a manner that doesn't seem to punish you as badly, and you're going to be buying random perks anyway, so you don't feel the pain of the gating as badly.

This "pick what you want without being forced to spend 23 points first." is a misleading expression because it suggests you have to spend 23 points FIRST to be good at magnum. I know you don't mean it literally but there is a disdain for perk level 3 or 4 in this sentence that isn't supported by the facts.

True, but note what I just said in my previous paragraph.

I have a hard time remembering details from A16, but didn't you have to shoot with your gun A LOT and also collect a fair share of levels? Was it gun skill to 60 or 80 to buy the last point in the gun perk? How many shots did you need to reach that? It might not be as much as in A17 but I don't remember ever rushing through to perk 5 in the first few weeks. Could be wrong though.

Yes, A16 system was not perfect. Even I disliked some aspects of it. The difference here is you're gated by using the SPECIFIC SKILL THAT YOU WANT. So I did actually not mind that at all. The only thing I disliked in A16 was that some skills did not necessarily level up at a reasonable pace even when you were grinding it. You brought up a good example actually - guns. They did level up quite slowly. I recall only having gun skill 20-30 by a very late game stage. That's one thing they could have improved.

 

[Cirion]

One slightly alternative way to adopt a kind of "DRG" approach would be this.

Currently you must spend points directly on an attribute, in order to get past the "gates". You could adopt a "DRG" approach without even eliminating or changing any of the current attributes.

What if the following method was employed?

-Each attribute starts off at tier 1.

-To progress to letting the player level skills to 2, the tier must be increased to 2.

-To increase the tier from 1 to 2, a certain amount of perks must be bought. Let's say 3 for example. so 3 skill points spent, 3 perks are now 1/5 in that attribute tree.

-To increase the tier from 2-3, a certain amount of perks must be bought. Let's say 4 for example. you could either upgrade a few of your perks already at level 1 to level 2, OR try out a few new perks at level 1/5, either way, 4 points.

-So on and so forth until finally the tier goes from 4-5, at which point you can now go level 5/5 in any perk within that specific attribute.

** I realize my #'s may not be balanced, just using them for example purposes**

I personally still prefer the idea of just one massive "attribute" like DRG does it, but this method is still preferable to the old method... IMO.

 

[meganoth]

Look at how Deep Rock Galactic gates players. In my opinion, their version of gating is the best I have seen. If you have not played DRG, the simplest way of explaining their gating system is that instead of FIVE attributes, there is only ONE. The "one attribute" takes a tremendous amount of points to max BUT... A.) You do not have to directly spend points on the "attribute" to "level it up". No feeling of wasted points as such. B.) The attribute "level ups" merely by getting any perk you want from the ENTIRE gambit of options, No restrictions, complete freedom. However, because there is still a "gate", you can not get too OP too quickly because you can only start off with low level skills, then mid level, then finally end-game. BUT you can pick whatever you want at any point of the time, which encourages experimentation since you are NOT locked in like you are with A17 perks. Sure, you're still gated much like 7D2D, but in a manner that doesn't seem to punish you as badly, and you're going to be buying random perks anyway, so you don't feel the pain of the gating as badly.

Don't know DRG. Do I understand this correctly that perks don't have any levels so getting a perk is independant of every other perk you could spend? But you have low, mid and high level versions of most or many of the perks? Or is the variation so good that no low level perk looks like the weaker version of the mid level perk for example?

 

[Cirion]

Don't know DRG. Do I understand this correctly that perks don't have any levels so getting a perk is independant of every other perk you could spend? But you have low, mid and high level versions of most or many of the perks? Or is the variation so good that no low level perk looks like the weaker version of the mid level perk for example?

-> Non-tiered perks (Only 1/1 max level). An example might be "Ability to craft bicycles". Something like that (in the context of 7d2d). In DRG if the perk was considered fairly game-changing, you could not get it until a much later tier, so that newbies couldn't be OP.

-> Tiered perks (5/5 max level, in the context of 7d2d)

The perks would still have levels. This remains unchanged. You would still have to progress from perk level 1/5 to 5/5 like before. The manner in which you do, is what changes. When I get off work I might post a screenshot that might help explain it better.

Yes, the variation is enough that there is incentive to get some of the lower level perks even if you had mid level perks. For example, let's say up until now you've only been leveling up rifle skills, stamina, and bartering skills (just as example). You've progressed up high in the tiers. Now you realize... I'd like to have some HP regen. Well, just look back at the older tiers, and go buy it. Even though it's an "old" tier, HP regen is something you currently do not have at all and is going to be useful, whether its early game or end game.

You would still have to spend points first on HP regen level 1, then 2, 3, 4 and finally 5 much like before. The difference is you would NOT have to spend points on an attribute "Fortitude" first.

In the current system, you can't do this. Not without spending points on Fortitude first.

 

[meganoth]

One slightly alternative way to adopt a kind of "DRG" approach would be this.
Currently you must spend points directly on an attribute, in order to get past the "gates". You could adopt a "DRG" approach without even eliminating or changing any of the current attributes.

What if the following method was employed?

-Each attribute starts off at tier 1.

-To progress to letting the player level skills to 2, the tier must be increased to 2.

-To increase the tier from 1 to 2, a certain amount of perks must be bought. Let's say 3 for example. so 3 skill points spent, 3 perks are now 1/5 in that attribute tree.

-To increase the tier from 2-3, a certain amount of perks must be bought. Let's say 4 for example. you could either upgrade a few of your perks already at level 1 to level 2, OR try out a few new perks at level 1/5, either way, 4 points.

-So on and so forth until finally the tier goes from 4-5, at which point you can now go level 5/5 in any perk within that specific attribute.

** I realize my #'s may not be balanced, just using them for example purposes**

I personally still prefer the idea of just one massive "attribute" like DRG does it, but this method is still preferable to the old method... IMO.

Ok. Not a bad progression system.

But it seems to me to give less freedom for specialization as you can't level up a single perk in an attribute domain, you have to take at least three. And if we merge all attributes into one the number of perks to level before going one step up is probably 12-15 now (if we don't want to change progression speed). That seems also a bit restricting.

You realize your miner/magnum shooter combo ideal is not possible that way, right? After getting 1 point of the magnum perk you must get lots of other perks before you are allowed to put that second point into magnum. If we have interesting perks for it, nice, but it is a bit contrary to the goals you had before. I sense you really really don't like the attributes :smile-new:

If we assume you still get perk points at the same speed there are 23 times 5 points that now need new perks you can put them into (again if we don't want to change progression speed). If we keep perks at 5 this means 23 new perk trees to invent and balance. Could be done if MM scraps the perk books idea and uses the stuff in the books as perks. Or all perks get split up, i.e. Boom Headshot transforms to Boom Nightshot and Boom Dayshot. More headaches for balancing, but possible

Or we get perk points at a much slower rate. That seems doable. Or a mix of both. EDIT: Or perks have 7 steps instead of 5

Yes, the variation is enough that there is incentive to get some of the lower level perks even if you had mid level perks. For example, let's say up until now you've only been leveling up rifle skills, stamina, and bartering skills (just as example). You've progressed up high in the tiers. Now you realize... I'd like to have some HP regen. Well, just look back at the older tiers, and go buy it. Even though it's an "old" tier, HP regen is something you currently do not have at all and is going to be useful, whether its early game or end game.

You would still have to spend points first on HP regen level 1, then 2, 3, 4 and finally 5 much like before. The difference is you would NOT have to spend points on an attribute "Fortitude" first.

In the current system, you can't do this. Not without spending points on Fortitude first.

Well in the current system you might buy Fortitude and Heavy Armor to be badass in a tin can. Later you might get low on glue and look back at huntsmen still at level 0. You could learn huntsmen and you would NOT have to spend points on the attribute "Fortitude" first.

7 days has each attribute with attached perks in its own "pocket dimension" that you have to view on its own. Progression in each attribute space does not influence the others. If you merge them all into one, naturally it can't be that an attribute is lagging behind but at the same time the level gates are more pronounced, there is less specialization possible.

----

To summarize, more perks instead of the 5 attributes I could get behind but it may clash with the new books. I do think it is more restrictive, whether that has much practical consequences has to be seen. Personally I do tend to distribute points and don't think it would change my point disstribution much (at least if we keep 5 attributes)

 

[Cirion]

Ok. Not a bad progression system.
But it seems to me to give less freedom for specialization as you can't level up a single perk in an attribute domain, you have to take at least three. And if we merge all attributes into one the number of perks to level before going one step up is probably 15 now (if we don't want to change progression speed). That seems also a bit restricting.

Yes, this is why this is not my preferred approach, and prefer dropping all attributes to one "big" attribute instead. I still don't wish to be limited on an attribute-by-attribute basis as it is now, so I would still probably be salty, lol.

If we assume you still get perk points at the same speed there are 23 times 5 points that now need new perks you can put them into (again if we don't want to change progression speed). If we keep perks at 5 this means 23 new perk trees to invent and balance. Could be done if MM scraps the perk books idea and uses the stuff in the books as perks. Or all perks get split up, i.e. Boom Headshot transforms to Boom Nightshot and Boom Dayshot. More headaches for balancing, but possible

Why would there be 23 new perk trees? You could have one attribute and only 5 tiers easily using a DRG like approach. Each tier would contain ALL of the level 1 skills, tier 2 would have ALL of the level 2 skills and so on and so forth, in the simplest implementation. I suspect, I haven't done a good job describing the DRG system. So with this, because there is now only one attribute, you may have to spend significantly more points (Let's say 10, instead of the 3 as before) before you progress to tier 2, and then maybe 15 to get to 3, and so on and so forth. I STILL would dislike this over the ability to "Simply buy any skill when I want it on demand regardless of level, or attribute", or learning by doing, but I would like this more than what we have now.

EDIT I see the confusion now. Yes to rebalance the game, some skills may need to need more than 1 point per level. This would require maybe some slight thought. Or decrease the max level. Either way.

Well in the current system you might buy Fortitude and Heavy Armor to be badass in a tin can. Later you might get low on glue and look back at huntsmen still at level 0. In your words now only slightly altered: Even though it is an "old" perk it is something you currently do not have at all and is going to be useful whether it is early game or end game. You would still have to spend points first on huntsman level 1, then 2, 3, 4 and finally 5 much like before. The difference is you would NOT have to spend points on the attribute "Fortitude" first.

I simply don't see the difference here.

I don't have the game handy so I can't recall so bear with me. But if the huntsman perk is in an attribute tree you do not currently have any points in, no you CAN NOT get the huntsman perk in A17. Not without spending on the attribute first. Even if you are close to end-game. mid to end-game is where my idea shines the most. End-game you might have 10-10-10-0-0 on attributes (just random example). You want to get a perk on fourth or fifth tree... Whoops, you can't because you have 0 on that attribute.

To summarize, more perks instead of the 5 attributes I could get behind but it may clash with the new books. I do think it is more restrictive, whether that has much practical consequences has to be seen. Personally I do tend to distribute points and don't think it would change my point disstribution much (at least if we keep 5 attributes)

I am not necessarily advocating for new perks. In fact, this system could be implemented with ZERO change to the current perks or attributes, or very minimal, that's the beauty of it. Very little to no re-work. See my previous paragraph for demonstration why it is MORE freedom. You are right, keeping the 5 attributes prolly won't change things too much. Again why I much prefer scrapping them.

The thing is that going to one attribute would probably not affect your playstyle of "spreading points around" all that much for the most part, while it would dramatically improve my enjoyment. That's a win, right? The goal is to make everyone happy. I was advocating LBD for a while but now it's clear many people don't want it, so now I'm just trying to see how I and maybe others can get behind the new system lol

 

[Star69]

Another game to look at with somewhat similar perk system is Payday 2. You must buy enough level 1 perks in order to open level 2 perks which are generally either more powerful than level 1 or give you more abilities related to the level 1 perks. That system allowed freedom to pick & choose perks along the paths you wished to take. There are, if I remember correctly, 5 categories that if you spent points only in one category that made you a specific class of a player ie. buying all perks in the medicine category gave you all the abilities of a medic, same for combat, stealth etc. Within each category are 3 trees, all medic related. In order to buy level 2 perks, you must buy 2 or 3 level 1 perks from the different trees, all related in some way. However, if you wanted to have medic & say combat skills that was fine, without having to buy let’s say stealth skills. So many ways to mix and match perks, so much freedom right out of the gate. This current 7d2d system, everything is inter-related so you must spend points in abilities you don’t want to get those that you do want. Hard to explain unless you have played those games.

 

[Greymantle]

Biggest mistake with 17 IMO...

I feel the dev team underestimated how important RWG is to this game at this point of development. They had a year plus to get this right for version 17 and failed to deliver. I feel a lot of the complaints about other parts of the game would be much smaller if we had a working RWG. What do you all think?

 

[Poojam]

I don't really care much anymore. Too little too late.

 

[Cirion]

Another game to look at with somewhat similar perk system is Payday 2. You must buy enough level 1 perks in order to open level 2 perks which are generally either more powerful than level 1 or give you more abilities related to the level 1 perks. That system allowed freedom to pick & choose perks along the paths you wished to take. There are, if I remember correctly, 5 categories that if you spent points only in one category that made you a specific class of a player ie. buying all perks in the medicine category gave you all the abilities of a medic, same for combat, stealth etc. Within each category are 3 trees, all medic related. In order to buy level 2 perks, you must buy 2 or 3 level 1 perks from the different trees, all related in some way. However, if you wanted to have medic & say combat skills that was fine, without having to buy let’s say stealth skills. So many ways to mix and match perks, so much freedom right out of the gate. This current 7d2d system, everything is inter-related so you must spend points in abilities you don’t want to get those that you do want. Hard to explain unless you have played those games.

I have not played Payday 2 but yes, this sounds exactly like the DRG system and what I am advocating for.

 

[Royal Deluxe]

What do you all think?

Why my chips are so salty. Could eat much more if they would not be so salty.

There is a world you wish, and a world we have.

In reality not everything is as you wish.

Sounds like "Weltschmerz"

 

[Cirion]

It would certainly have helped, about 50% of it. I have harped again and again on skills so I won't here. RNG is almost the other half of the game I liked previously. Luckily though, RWG is getting fixed and RNG is getting new love with legendary items and the books MM is introducing, so that should help with that department as well.

 

[Ranzera]

I think the RWG is just insult to injury. The game loop problems would exist even on a perfect RWG. RWG has obvious quantifiable problems, so that makes it an easy target. Those happen to be problems that TFP are willing to acknowledge so I'm a little less worried about those, though removing the plains biome was stupid.

 

[Cirion]

I think the RWG is just insult to injury. The game loop problems would exist even on a perfect RWG. RWG has obvious quantifiable problems, so that makes it an easy target. Those happen to be problems that TFP are willing to acknowledge so I'm a little less worried about those, though removing the plains biome was stupid.

Roland confirmed to me in another thread that they are looking into returning the underground caverns, as long as they can fix the problems they had with it. That'll be a huge boon to RWG if they can get it. I never played the older alphas that had it, so that'll be a sweet addition to the game for me.

 

[Cirion]

Here is a screenshot from the game that may clear it up for any one confused still



The # arrows tell you how many perks you must buy from that tier or lower tiers to progress to the next tier, the # is the level of that perk skill (much like you have perk levels in this game).

 

[Ghostlight]

I feel the dev team underestimated how important RWG is to this game at this point of development. They had a year plus to get this right for version 17 and failed to deliver. I feel a lot of the complaints about other parts of the game would be much smaller if we had a working RWG. What do you all think?

Absolutely no! A revamped perk system that nobody wanted was obviously much more conducive to a positive play experience than a workable map.

 

[Jackelmyer]

In fairness RWG has been jacked up for a while. More functional in other Alpha's, and A17 really hit it hard. But the fact they're stating that there's is very dedicated work being done to RWG right now, and not just patching like I've seen the past few Alpha's, leaves me a ton of hope on that point.

 

[Poojam]

In fairness RWG has been jacked up for a while. More functional in other Alpha's, and A17 really hit it hard. But the fact they're stating that there's is very dedicated work being done to RWG right now, and not just patching like I've seen the past few Alpha's, leaves me a ton of hope on that point.

Fool me 16 times shame on me, fool me 17....

 

[xXBadDreamXx]

itll be ok poojam.... cmere well hug it out bro....do like me and play on ultrra easy mode with 200% loot...i go on a 1 day loot run and get 1500 rounds of ammo and feed it back to the zombies