PC Gyrocopter sucks..

I would prefer to see helicopter mechanics even if it’s not the gyrocopter. I get what it’s trying to be (an ultralight) but it’s not fun to fly as it is.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I appreciate that the pimps have added vehicles that aren’t ♥♥♥♥ty like the old mini bike, have actual physics and really shine overall. But it’s still not the same as in GTA where you get in a vehicle and it just “feels” right and does crazy insane things you could never expect on that first ride.

 
Instead of complaining about how vehicles are bad now, lets complain about lack of vehicle mods that could make these vehicles more useful/appealing.

 
Even without danger, I see it as a legitimate strategy. To be precise, I consider any strategy that involves risk to be flawed.
Click to expand...
We won't be able to agree on this. To be precise, I consider any strategy that is easy and involves no risk to be an exploit.

You only want the threat because you want thrills but not all of us are looking for thrills or challenges. Some just want to have fun.
Click to expand...
It is a gritty survival game. A player may want to play it with thrills and challenges turned off but the developers aren't trying to make a game like that on purpose. So from their side, they are going to want eliminate cheap, easy, no risk exploits. They can do that by removing them entirely or by introducing a threat to increase the risk of trying that method.

I'm all for players playing how they want and there are even going to be settings now to do that-- for example, turning off the blood moon horde entirely. But to expect the developers to leave loopholes and cheesy tactics in the game for those who have blood moon enabled is unrealistic. Flying the gyrocopter to escape the horde is a legitimate strategy as long as there are checks and balances for it that don't make it an automatic win. Maybe vultures try to suicide bomb it. Maybe gas consumption makes it so you have to touch down and refuel at some point during the night. Maybe the blood moon itself causes accelerated damage. But there should always be downsides to any strategy so that risk assessment is part of the game and choice is preserved.

For example, I'm currently building bases in creative mode and testing them against strong Horde to find an efficient defense that also works against a day 300 Horde.

Investigating what strategy works and what doesn't and how the zombies react to certain things is almost more fun than the main game at the moment.
Click to expand...
That's very cool. That's similar to what faatal is doing but for different reasons.... ;)

 
After I built it for the first time I spent the next three in-game days just flying around with it, it's really fun :) Though I bumped up it's speed a little bit too.

BUT I think it could be unlocked waaay earlier, it doesn't really have any practical use late game, but it would be really cool to have it early to explore the world. It's storage could be nerfed to bicycle size and then I don't think it would be OP to have it around lvl 30 or something. It would add much more to the game that way imo.

 
If u have to spend more ammo in a poi than the ammo you are going to loot, maybe is not worth. Solution? No rads zombies

 
If u have to spend more ammo in a poi than the ammo you are going to loot, maybe is not worth. Solution? No rads zombies
Click to expand...
It's a game with perks : you need to upgrade them if you want to be able to fight against high level zombies without wasting ammo.

Here's a video where I tried to explore 3 POI's without using a gun - only bow and club.

I went into a military base, a "water works" facility and a standard new POI. No buff, but a lot of bandages.

Nomad difficulty, bow and melee perks, stealth and light armor perks.

I wouldn't try it in higher difficulty, not that it would be impossible for an other player, but just because I suck at melee at the moment and need to improve my personal skills...

 
We won't be able to agree on this. To be precise, I consider any strategy that is easy and involves no risk to be an exploit.
Click to expand...
Then you are probably not a fan of successful strategies in general. All military historical successful strategies were based on the weaknesses of the opponents and their exploitation. No successful strategist would not exploit a weakness or take unnecessary risks if he could avoid it.

It is a gritty survival game. A player may want to play it with thrills and challenges turned off but the developers aren't trying to make a game like that on purpose. So from their side, they are going to want eliminate cheap, easy, no risk exploits. They can do that by removing them entirely or by introducing a threat to increase the risk of trying that method.
Click to expand...
Every successful strategy can be presented afterwards as cheap or simple. This is not an argument.

If you force people to do something then you shouldn't be surprised about criticism. It is always better to encourage people to do something.

If you want the people to fight the bloodmoon horde then you have to offer them an appropriate incentive. And to say it in advance. XP are no incentive.

If you don't want people to use loopholes then you should give them an incentive not to do so.

There is a good Youtube channel called Game Maker's Toolkit. There you can find among other things analyses which strategies successful games use. You should definitely have a look.

I'm all for players playing how they want and there are even going to be settings now to do that-- for example, turning off the blood moon horde entirely. But to expect the developers to leave loopholes and cheesy tactics in the game for those who have blood moon enabled is unrealistic. Flying the gyrocopter to escape the horde is a legitimate strategy as long as there are checks and balances for it that don't make it an automatic win. Maybe vultures try to suicide bomb it. Maybe gas consumption makes it so you have to touch down and refuel at some point during the night. Maybe the blood moon itself causes accelerated damage. But there should always be downsides to any strategy so that risk assessment is part of the game and choice is preserved.
Click to expand...
The opposite must also be the case. For each new difficulty that is introduced, there must also be an opportunity for the player to defend himself adequately. Simply increasing the difficulty without creating a balance will only lead to frustration among the players.

That's very cool. That's similar to what faatal is doing but for different reasons.... ;)
Click to expand...
I hope not to eliminate all strategies that do not suit his kind of defense. He should be open to alternative ways of defence that do not correspond to his view of how the game should be played.

Giving the player freedom contributes positively to the success of the game. If there is only one predetermined way left to defend yourself, the game would be boring.

 
If u have to spend more ammo in a poi than the ammo you are going to loot, maybe is not worth. Solution? No rads zombies
Click to expand...
If you do that, it means you have a whooping total of ZERO perks in firearms and perception, supported by ZERO MODS weapons.

 
Mr ripclaw, i have to appreciate the detail of your comment, like god daym. with that said, you mention the art of war and how exploiting the enemy is how good strategists dont take unnecessary risks. this is true. however, there is two types of explotiation we are talking about.

exploitation of game mechanics, and Exploitation of your foes. I for example, have made a solid building with walls. but my entryway is a gauntlet. of traps, wires and Darts. i funnel the enemy into this kill zone, then actively defend it through the 7 day horde, and what ever else may come my way. This is the exploitation we should be encouraging. useing the enemys AI against them and revealing a vulnerable weakness.

On the other hand we have exploitation of game mechanics. such as the many infinite loops people have come up with in this iteration of the game so they dont even need to bother with the horde. Quarter blocks counting as full blocks and placing them next to each other, so the enemy just keeps looping around and around and around. this is bad, and not at all good for gameplay. am i saying there shouldent be strats to avoid the 7 day horde? no. but i am saying i aggree with roland, they should have there costs.

 
Then you are probably not a fan of successful strategies in general. All military historical successful strategies were based on the weaknesses of the opponents and their exploitation. No successful strategist would not exploit a weakness or take unnecessary risks if he could avoid it.
Click to expand...
You have shifted the goalposts. Roland said "involves no risk." You are saying, "unnecessary risk." Those are different. In your military example, there always is some risk to their strategies because that's the nature of the real world. The goal of the developers is to make sure that there is some risk for every different style. If there wasn't, players are more likely to gravitate to the no risk style, and that's a problem.

If you don't want people to use loopholes then you should give them an incentive not to do so.
Click to expand...
Closing loopholes also is a valid response. It's what rule/lawmakers do all the time. (Well, when they aren't benefiting personally from the loophole.)

The opposite must also be the case. For each new difficulty that is introduced, there must also be an opportunity for the player to defend himself adequately. Simply increasing the difficulty without creating a balance will only lead to frustration among the players.
Click to expand...
You do understand that Roland started with the successful defense tactic, right? Flying the gyrocopter is the "opportunity to defend himself adequately."

 
You have shifted the goalposts. Roland said "involves no risk." You are saying, "unnecessary risk." Those are different. In your military example, there always is some risk to their strategies because that's the nature of the real world. The goal of the developers is to make sure that there is some risk for every different style. If there wasn't, players are more likely to gravitate to the no risk style, and that's a problem.
Click to expand...
I also said that I consider a strategy that involves risks to be flawed. Not that I consider it completely invalid.

The player's preference for strategies that involve less risk is in the nature of man and I don't see that as a problem at all.

Do you know the turn-based strategy game XCOM and its successor XCOM 2? The second part introduced turn counters and missions failed when a player needed more rounds than allowed. They forced the players to an open aggressive way of playing and that gave a massive negative feedback from the players.

The developers were too attached to the idea that risks lead to triumphs and losses and that this is much more interesting than playing cautiously. However, players in XCOM have enjoyed playing cautiously.

If the developers had rewarded an aggressive risky gameplay instead of punishing the cautious gameplay, nobody would have complained.

Closing loopholes also is a valid response. It's what rule/lawmakers do all the time. (Well, when they aren't benefiting personally from the loophole.)
Click to expand...
You shouldn't overdo it in games. If you exaggerate it can happen that the fun stays on the track.

You do understand that Roland started with the successful defense tactic, right? Flying the gyrocopter is the "opportunity to defend himself adequately."
Click to expand...
I doubt the gyrocopter was built into the game for this reason.

 
I also said that I consider a strategy that involves risks to be flawed. Not that I consider it completely invalid.
The player's preference for strategies that involve less risk is in the nature of man and I don't see that as a problem at all.
Click to expand...
Then you consider every strategy flawed because they all involve some sort of risk. Seriously, you are a finite creature in a world in which you are incapable of knowing all of the variables and incapable of controlling all of the variables. There always is some risk.

Nobody disagrees that people will tend to seek the less risky option, and Roland is not advocating the removal of the less risky options. Again, he is advocating eliminating the "no risk" options. Ideally, all of the options have a comparable amount of risk, just risks of different types. Some will find the risks of one playstyle amenable to them or easily overcome, and others will find those risks too much for them. This then contributes to the variety.

You shouldn't overdo it in games. If you exaggerate it can happen that the fun stays on the track.
Click to expand...
That's fine. Still, closing loopholes while leaving in fun should be a valid option as opposed to leaving in loopholes and rewarding people ignoring them. In my experience, the reward would have to be far too big to keep people from taking the loophole. People like taking shortcuts: less work almost always seems to be preferable, even if the payday is bigger the other way. (Something about instant gratification and the feeling of having gotten away with something.)

I doubt the gyrocopter was built into the game for this reason.
Click to expand...
I fail to see what that has to do with the chain of discussion. That reads like a "I had nothing better to say because I couldn't rebut your point" kind of statement.

 
You built it. You should have written a manual for it, too. =P
Click to expand...
You programmed it into your game with brand new controls, you should have created a journal entry for it.

I get you're trying to be cute. It isn't. You're (jokingly) blaming players for not doing something they can't do which should have been in the game in the first place. You've put in journal entries for dozens of other things far more intuitive than the gyrocopter controls, yet this is the line you refuse to cross and need to push back on?

 
I'm all for players playing how they want and there are even going to be settings now to do that-- for example, turning off the blood moon horde entirely. But to expect the developers to leave loopholes and cheesy tactics in the game for those who have blood moon enabled is unrealistic. Flying the gyrocopter to escape the horde is a legitimate strategy as long as there are checks and balances for it that don't make it an automatic win. Maybe vultures try to suicide bomb it. Maybe gas consumption makes it so you have to touch down and refuel at some point during the night. Maybe the blood moon itself causes accelerated damage. But there should always be downsides to any strategy so that risk assessment is part of the game and choice is preserved.
Click to expand...
That is why we can't have nice things like ziplines, yes?

And why the gyrocopter is dead slow, and an insane fuel consumption, maybe, just maybe,

why we have puking vultures.

 
I would prefer to see helicopter mechanics even if it’s not the gyrocopter. I get what it’s trying to be (an ultralight) but it’s not fun to fly as it is.
Click to expand...
You realize that gyros fly like airplanes more than helicopters? The rotor has no power to it and acts like airplane wings more than anything. That’s how they were designed in real life so it makes sense for it to work like that in game... I don’t understand how people mistake GYROcopters for HELIcopters... yea movies and other games make them act like helicopters because they don’t know better. I’m glad TFP actually knew how they work.

 
You realize that gyros fly like airplanes more than helicopters? The rotor has no power to it and acts like airplane wings more than anything. That’s how they were designed in real life so it makes sense for it to work like that in game... I don’t understand how people mistake GYROcopters for HELIcopters... yea movies and other games make them act like helicopters because they don’t know better. I’m glad TFP actually knew how they work.
Click to expand...
I stated that I get it’s an ultralight. I’d rather see a helicopter.

EDIT: I work for a company that does aerospace design. I know a few things about the differences ;p

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then you are probably not a fan of successful strategies in general. All military historical successful strategies were based on the weaknesses of the opponents and their exploitation. No successful strategist would not exploit a weakness or take unnecessary risks if he could avoid it.
Click to expand...
I am a fan of successful strategies. In real life, if you can find a risk free solution you should always take it. In a game if a risk free and effort free solution is found the developers should introduce some risk in order for there to be a chance of failure. It's a game. Win vs Fail is built into the definition. I'm not saying the devs should close strategies and make them worthless. I'm saying there needs to be something to make it not an automatic easy win because then there is no game. Some strategies should be eliminated because they are bad for the game. Dig a hole three blocks down with a frame block covering the top is no longer a good strategy. Dig a bedrock base is still viable but has more risk. The first is closed the second is still a worthwhile strategy but not guaranteed.

Every successful strategy can be presented afterwards as cheap or simple. This is not an argument.
Click to expand...
I don't even think this is true in real life in all cases let alone in video games. No argument? This IS the internet....

If you force people to do something then you shouldn't be surprised about criticism. It is always better to encourage people to do something.If you want the people to fight the bloodmoon horde then you have to offer them an appropriate incentive. And to say it in advance. XP are no incentive.

If you don't want people to use loopholes then you should give them an incentive not to do so.

There is a good Youtube channel called Game Maker's Toolkit. There you can find among other things analyses which strategies successful games use. You should definitely have a look.
Click to expand...
First of all nobody is trying to force the players to do anything. This supposed dev vs player antagonism is just how you are interpreting things. For example, people keep posting that the devs obviously want to "force" players to the surface and are against players digging and having underground bases. Nothing could be further from the truth. They just want digging zombies and they want players to develop strategies for defending their underground bases. There is zero brainstorming going on for how to screw players over in the dev chat.

The opposite must also be the case. For each new difficulty that is introduced, there must also be an opportunity for the player to defend himself adequately. Simply increasing the difficulty without creating a balance will only lead to frustration among the players.
Click to expand...
Of course. Who said otherwise? This is exactly what I have been saying. Every strategy must have an opportunity for success but not necessarily guaranteed success. An opportunity for success also includes an opportunity for failure.

I hope not to eliminate all strategies that do not suit his kind of defense. He should be open to alternative ways of defence that do not correspond to his view of how the game should be played.
Giving the player freedom contributes positively to the success of the game. If there is only one predetermined way left to defend yourself, the game would be boring.
Click to expand...
He isn't developing to stop strategies. He is developing to control undesired zombie behavior and simulate desired zombie behavior. If he notices zombies are failing to jump at a ledge and when they fall they run back and do it again in an endless loop he will want to stop that behavior. He isn't thinking about all the folks who build a base designed on that behavior. He isn't targeting those players while twirling his mustache.

So he will improve them so they jump better and don't fall off but if they do fall they may try a couple more times and then break the loop and start destroying nearby blocks. That solves the endless loop which is all he wanted to accomplish.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top