Has 7 Days to Die Become Too Focused on RPG Progression?

[juanchen]

Dear The Fun Pimps Team,

I am a long-time player of 7 Days to Die and would like to share some personal thoughts regarding the game’s future direction.

First of all, thank you for your continuous dedication and updates to the game over the years. I have experienced multiple major versions, and all my feedback comes from a place of deep love for the game and a sincere hope that it can become even better.

My main feeling is that 7 Days to Die is gradually shifting from a true post-apocalyptic survival game toward an experience that emphasizes RPG-style numerical progression and large-scale horde combat. What I personally miss most is the tense, resource-scarce survival experience where every exploration and fight required careful thought and caution.

Here are some of my specific suggestions:

1. Weapon Quality and Damage

I believe that while different qualities of the same weapon should have damage differences, the gap should not be too extreme.

For example, with the SMG:

• Quality 1: 56 damage

• Quality 2: 61 damage

• Quality 3: 66 damage

• Quality 4: 71 damage

• Quality 5: 76 damage

• Quality 6: 81 damage

This kind of progression still provides a sense of growth while ensuring that the same weapon doesn’t feel like entirely different guns across quality tiers.

Additionally, weapon attachments should provide distinct functional benefits rather than directly increasing damage. For example:

• Improved accuracy

• Reduced recoil

• Better stability

• Faster reload speed

• Increased magazine capacity

• Higher durability

I believe a weapon’s power should primarily come from the weapon itself, rather than through stacking massive damage bonuses from quality levels and multiple attachments.

2. Zombie Damage to Structures

I hope that regular zombies deal significantly reduced damage to building blocks.

For instance, when a regular zombie attacks a block with 500 hit points, it should only deal 1 damage per hit.

The reason is simple: zombies are essentially flesh-and-blood creatures. They should not be able to tear through concrete and steel structures as quickly as heavy construction machinery.

Players invest a great deal of time mining, gathering resources, crafting materials, and building defenses. Creating a truly secure fortress should be a meaningful and rewarding achievement.

If a player is willing to spend the time and resources to build a strong base, being able to safely survive inside it should be a valid and effective playstyle.

3. Zombie Threat to Living Targets

Rather than making zombies experts at destroying buildings, I believe their real danger should lie in their threat to living targets.

I suggest:

• A single zombie attack on a player should deal 70+ damage;

• Zombie attacks should apply 100% infection chance;

• Infection should become a genuinely deadly condition that must be taken seriously.

In my view, the scariest thing about zombies should be their ability to injure and infect humans, not their ability to dismantle reinforced concrete structures.

Players should fear getting grabbed or bitten by zombies — not watching their house being torn apart.

4. Importance of Headshot Mechanics

I believe the head should be the most lethal weak point on zombies.

For regular zombies, a successful headshot should result in an instant kill, regardless of the firearm used.

The current situation where players often need to empty entire magazines into a single zombie weakens the feeling of gunpower and turns combat into a mere damage sponge experience.

I would much rather see precision shooting become the most important combat skill, rather than relying on ever-increasing numerical stats.

5. Ammunition Scarcity

I hope ammunition becomes significantly more scarce in the game.

In recent versions, players can easily loot large amounts of ammo, and in the late game, it’s common to stockpile tens of thousands of rounds.

In a post-apocalyptic world, bullets should be extremely valuable, much harder to craft, and players should have to carefully consider every single shot.

At the same time, firearms themselves should be more lethal. If one bullet can effectively neutralize a threat, ammo scarcity would make every fight feel tense and meaningful.

Overall Design Philosophy

My core idea is quite simple:

• Reduce zombie threat to buildings

• Increase zombie threat to living targets

• Make firearms more deadly

• Emphasize the importance of headshots

• Reduce ammunition availability

• Increase overall resource scarcity

• Make base building truly valuable and rewarding

In short, I hope 7 Days to Die leans more toward being a hardcore post-apocalyptic survival game, rather than an action-RPG focused on numerical progression and gear stacking.

These are just my personal opinions as a long-time player and do not necessarily represent the views of all players. I understand that you have your own design goals and vision, but I still wanted to offer this perspective from an old veteran of the game.

Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestions. I wish 7 Days to Die continued success and an even brighter future.

Best regards,

A Long-Time Player

 

[meganoth]

2. Zombie Damage to Structures

I hope that regular zombies deal significantly reduced damage to building blocks.

For instance, when a regular zombie attacks a block with 500 hit points, it should only deal 1 damage per hit.

What would be the danger of the first few horde nights then? One or two simple 3 block high cobblestone pillars would be enough for the player to be totally safe while sitting atop it for the whole blood moon.

By the way, you can use any POI as horde night fortress by cutting away some stairs and early zombies will have no chance to get to you (if you don't miss a hidden entryway). So the game already provides ways to be safe in the horde night. It isn't necessary to make the blocks impervious for that.

 

[jadMurray]

What would be the danger of the first few horde nights then? One or two simple 3 block high cobblestone pillars would be enough for the player to be totally safe while sitting atop it for the whole blood moon.

By the way, you can use any POI as horde night fortress by cutting away some stairs and early zombies will have no chance to get to you (if you don't miss a hidden entryway). So the game already provides ways to be safe in the horde night. It isn't necessary to make the blocks impervious for that.

this could be fixed by adding a zombie thats good at dealing structural damage. I mean this game is supposed to be tower defense, by making certain zombies ideal for digging/structural damage, you can make it dangerous from beginning to end. The construction worker zombie is there already and would fit well for a themed enemy meant to bring down a building.

 

[bdubyah]

I mean, can most of that not be done with the 3.0 sandbox options? Kind of the whole point of them..

 

[Prisma501]

this could be fixed by adding a zombie thats good at dealing structural damage. I mean this game is supposed to be tower defense, by making certain zombies ideal for digging/structural damage, you can make it dangerous from beginning to end. The construction worker zombie is there already and would fit well for a themed enemy meant to bring down a building.

You mean, like the block desolving cop spitter and the demolisher zombie? Well they are already in. For digging: all zombies do.

 

[bdubyah]

Early game doesn't need more threats during the hordes, it's early game. If you aren't new you don't worry but for new players it needs to not be over the top so they can learn. Late game there are all the infernals, they literally exist to tear blocks down. Charged do decent block damage as well.

 

[juanchen]

What would be the danger of the first few horde nights then? One or two simple 3 block high cobblestone pillars would be enough for the player to be totally safe while sitting atop it for the whole blood moon.

By the way, you can use any POI as horde night fortress by cutting away some stairs and early zombies will have no chance to get to you (if you don't miss a hidden entryway). So the game already provides ways to be safe in the horde night. It isn't necessary to make the blocks impervious for that.

I spent countless hours collecting resources and upgrading my base into a heavily fortified concrete stronghold. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to stay inside and enjoy the security that I’ve worked so hard to create?





Sometimes I don’t want to fight. That’s the entire reason I built a strong base. If I wanted combat, I would willingly go out and look for it. Players should be free to choose whether they want to fight, farm, craft, or simply survive behind their defenses. Forcing everyone into combat takes away that freedom and makes the game less enjoyable for players who prefer a different playstyle.

 

[juanchen]

What would be the danger of the first few horde nights then? One or two simple 3 block high cobblestone pillars would be enough for the player to be totally safe while sitting atop it for the whole blood moon.

By the way, you can use any POI as horde night fortress by cutting away some stairs and early zombies will have no chance to get to you (if you don't miss a hidden entryway). So the game already provides ways to be safe in the horde night. It isn't necessary to make the blocks impervious for that.

The developers need to face the reality that floating bases became popular because zombies are able to destroy buildings far too easily.





If large numbers of players are building floating structures, that’s a symptom of a balance problem, not the problem itself. Instead of constantly trying to eliminate floating bases, why not address the underlying reason players keep building them?





Ignoring the cause while focusing only on the result doesn’t solve the issue.

 

[Riamus]

Are we back to making random statements as if they are fact without providing any evidence again? "Large numbers" of players are building floating structures? Define "large" to begin with. Are we talking 100? That could be considered large, depending on the context, and I'd believe that to be true. But are you saying thousands or tens of thousands? I wouldn't believe that, beyond just trying it to see how it works, which isn't what you're talking about. Not without actual data to prove it. And then there's the follow-up... suggesting that they are building floating bases because bases are too easy to destroy. Again, where's the data to prove that is the reason? I'd say that at least half, as a bare minimum, of those building floating bases do so because they think it's "cool" or "interesting" and not because they can't manage to build a decent base on the ground. But I'll state right out that I am making an assumption about that and that I do not have any data to back it up. In comparison to your statements that are written as if what you say is proven fact, which it isn't. I won't say it might not be true, but I think it's very unlikely. And without you providing something to back it up, it just isn't believable. Remember that just because some streamer says something doesn't make it true.

Instead of making up stuff, just give your opinion based on your own experience and leave out everyone else. In the end, people will be more willing to listen to you if you're talking about your own direct observations in your own games and your own experience rather than making up random stuff about what other players are doing. Once you make a statement that people won't believe, you lose your audience.

Now, to get to the actual content....

To answer the subject line's question... No, I don't think it's too much RPG. RPG was an intended part of the game and just because it wasn't included in the early alphas doesn't change that. I'm sorry if some people don't like RPGs and prefer the older style of the game, but that was the intention for the game from the beginning. The 3.0 game options should give at least some control over "fixing" things for you. If you want to suggest other game options that would also help to "fix" things for you, I'd recommend suggesting them... probably in a new thread that is specifically about 3.0 game options suggestions and doesn't include a lot of other stuff that will just bog down the point of the thread.

Damage based on quality - If there isn't enough gap in damage, there isn't much reason to upgrade your weapon. Take a look at digging or cutting down a tree as an example. Going from quality 1 to quality 3 may not change the number of swings needed to chop down a tree or dig a pile of dirt because the difference in damage is low. If it takes just as many hits on a zombie to kill it whether you're using Q1 or Q3, why worry about upgrading unless you only care about mods. And at that point, why have different damage to begin with? I see nothing wrong with the damage scaling we have now. Besides, the 3.0 update is going to shove in a bunch of "stars" on stats of items that will make the qualities overlap again, which means we really don't want to reduce the gap even more since there will already be overlap in 3.0 without reducing it. No need for more overlap. People have complained about overlap for years. With the current gap (before 3.0), we are almost overlapping with the variable damage of each quality level. Reducing the gap would cause overlap that people don't want.

Mods do provide specific stat bonuses. They just *also* provide a damage boost. Nothing wrong with that.

Block damage - Beyond there already being a game option to adjust zombie block damage, if zombies need to hit a steel block 10,000 times to break a single block, that would entirely defeat any purpose of building a base. A single block wall around you of steel that is 3 blocks high would be all you'd ever need. This is partly a tower defense game. People play this game to create bases that can defend against the horde. Making that trivial would upset a LOT of players. If you want it to be trivial, adjust the zombie block damage. And 3.0 may add even more options that might relate to that. If you don't like defending against the horde, turn off blood moons. If you feel that bases are too easily destroyed, examine how you're building your bases because they really aren't easily destroyed. I couldn't tell you the last time I've had zombies get into my base to start attacking me. And I don't build AFK bases, which are a thing, btw... proving that you can build a base that won't be easily destroyed. All it takes is knowing how zombies attack your base and building it in a way that works to your advantage rather than theirs. If you're struggling with that, take a look at some YouTube videos for assistance. And, no... realism isn't a reason to make zombies unable to break into your base.

Zombie damage to players - Also a game option already available, this isn't something that most people would like either. From all the posts I've seen here, I'd make an educated guess that the majority of players get at least a couple of times in any large fight. At 70+ damage plus guaranteed infection, you're going to really upset most of those players. The only players who I think might like that are Souls-like players or those who just want a high difficulty challenge. The majority of players, however, are far more casual and wouldn't appreciate that. I've seen many posts about people already complaining that infections are too common and that various zombies do too much damage. Now, if you want higher damage than what the game options currently allow, you can mod it or ask them to increase the damage choices so you can choose that if you want. But it would definitely not be a good thing for default settings.

Headshots - These already do more damage and you have various dismember options in the various weapon perks. 3.0 will even give you a headshot-only option. Instant kills from headshots aren't a good thing, though. I headshot the vast majority of my attacks. If I killed every single one of those in one hit, it would make the game far more trivial than it already is. As a game option, sure. Not as a default setting.

Ammunition - 3.0 gives you game options for loot abundance.

So, the short of it is that some of what you want is already available, at least partially. Other things will be available in 3.0. None of this is something that I think should be done as a default setting for vanilla.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 9:21 PM

this could be fixed by adding a zombie thats good at dealing structural damage. I mean this game is supposed to be tower defense, by making certain zombies ideal for digging/structural damage, you can make it dangerous from beginning to end. The construction worker zombie is there already and would fit well for a themed enemy meant to bring down a building.

For that to actually work without horde nights being trivial, you'd need at least half of all zombies in the horde to be the construction worker or make the construction worker have such high health that you can't kill it without enough time and effort that they'll have no trouble reaching your base and doing damage to it and then make them do so much damage that even one could be a significant threat that you can't easily defend against. Basically, either you need enough of them every horde to have a chance of doing some serious damage regardless of how much you directly target them or you need them to be bullet sponges of such a high degree that they can't be defeated before they can reach the base and start doing serious damage. And people don't like bullet sponges. Could it be done? Sure. Is it worth it? Not really. It's something I can see as a mod. *Perhaps* as a game option. But that's all.

 

[juanchen]

Are we back to making random statements as if they are fact without providing any evidence again? "Large numbers" of players are building floating structures? Define "large" to begin with. Are we talking 100? That could be considered large, depending on the context, and I'd believe that to be true. But are you saying thousands or tens of thousands? I wouldn't believe that, beyond just trying it to see how it works, which isn't what you're talking about. Not without actual data to prove it. And then there's the follow-up... suggesting that they are building floating bases because bases are too easy to destroy. Again, where's the data to prove that is the reason? I'd say that at least half, as a bare minimum, of those building floating bases do so because they think it's "cool" or "interesting" and not because they can't manage to build a decent base on the ground. But I'll state right out that I am making an assumption about that and that I do not have any data to back it up. In comparison to your statements that are written as if what you say is proven fact, which it isn't. I won't say it might not be true, but I think it's very unlikely. And without you providing something to back it up, it just isn't believable. Remember that just because some streamer says something doesn't make it true.

Instead of making up stuff, just give your opinion based on your own experience and leave out everyone else. In the end, people will be more willing to listen to you if you're talking about your own direct observations in your own games and your own experience rather than making up random stuff about what other players are doing. Once you make a statement that people won't believe, you lose your audience.

Now, to get to the actual content....

To answer the subject line's question... No, I don't think it's too much RPG. RPG was an intended part of the game and just because it wasn't included in the early alphas doesn't change that. I'm sorry if some people don't like RPGs and prefer the older style of the game, but that was the intention for the game from the beginning. The 3.0 game options should give at least some control over "fixing" things for you. If you want to suggest other game options that would also help to "fix" things for you, I'd recommend suggesting them... probably in a new thread that is specifically about 3.0 game options suggestions and doesn't include a lot of other stuff that will just bog down the point of the thread.

Damage based on quality - If there isn't enough gap in damage, there isn't much reason to upgrade your weapon. Take a look at digging or cutting down a tree as an example. Going from quality 1 to quality 3 may not change the number of swings needed to chop down a tree or dig a pile of dirt because the difference in damage is low. If it takes just as many hits on a zombie to kill it whether you're using Q1 or Q3, why worry about upgrading unless you only care about mods. And at that point, why have different damage to begin with? I see nothing wrong with the damage scaling we have now. Besides, the 3.0 update is going to shove in a bunch of "stars" on stats of items that will make the qualities overlap again, which means we really don't want to reduce the gap even more since there will already be overlap in 3.0 without reducing it. No need for more overlap. People have complained about overlap for years. With the current gap (before 3.0), we are almost overlapping with the variable damage of each quality level. Reducing the gap would cause overlap that people don't want.

Mods do provide specific stat bonuses. They just *also* provide a damage boost. Nothing wrong with that.

Block damage - Beyond there already being a game option to adjust zombie block damage, if zombies need to hit a steel block 10,000 times to break a single block, that would entirely defeat any purpose of building a base. A single block wall around you of steel that is 3 blocks high would be all you'd ever need. This is partly a tower defense game. People play this game to create bases that can defend against the horde. Making that trivial would upset a LOT of players. If you want it to be trivial, adjust the zombie block damage. And 3.0 may add even more options that might relate to that. If you don't like defending against the horde, turn off blood moons. If you feel that bases are too easily destroyed, examine how you're building your bases because they really aren't easily destroyed. I couldn't tell you the last time I've had zombies get into my base to start attacking me. And I don't build AFK bases, which are a thing, btw... proving that you can build a base that won't be easily destroyed. All it takes is knowing how zombies attack your base and building it in a way that works to your advantage rather than theirs. If you're struggling with that, take a look at some YouTube videos for assistance. And, no... realism isn't a reason to make zombies unable to break into your base.

Zombie damage to players - Also a game option already available, this isn't something that most people would like either. From all the posts I've seen here, I'd make an educated guess that the majority of players get at least a couple of times in any large fight. At 70+ damage plus guaranteed infection, you're going to really upset most of those players. The only players who I think might like that are Souls-like players or those who just want a high difficulty challenge. The majority of players, however, are far more casual and wouldn't appreciate that. I've seen many posts about people already complaining that infections are too common and that various zombies do too much damage. Now, if you want higher damage than what the game options currently allow, you can mod it or ask them to increase the damage choices so you can choose that if you want. But it would definitely not be a good thing for default settings.

Headshots - These already do more damage and you have various dismember options in the various weapon perks. 3.0 will even give you a headshot-only option. Instant kills from headshots aren't a good thing, though. I headshot the vast majority of my attacks. If I killed every single one of those in one hit, it would make the game far more trivial than it already is. As a game option, sure. Not as a default setting.

Ammunition - 3.0 gives you game options for loot abundance.

So, the short of it is that some of what you want is already available, at least partially. Other things will be available in 3.0. None of this is something that I think should be done as a default setting for vanilla.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 9:21 PM

For that to actually work without horde nights being trivial, you'd need at least half of all zombies in the horde to be the construction worker or make the construction worker have such high health that you can't kill it without enough time and effort that they'll have no trouble reaching your base and doing damage to it and then make them do so much damage that even one could be a significant threat that you can't easily defend against. Basically, either you need enough of them every horde to have a chance of doing some serious damage regardless of how much you directly target them or you need them to be bullet sponges of such a high degree that they can't be defeated before they can reach the base and start doing serious damage. And people don't like bullet sponges. Could it be done? Sure. Is it worth it? Not really. It's something I can see as a mod. *Perhaps* as a game option. But that's all.

If you’re not convinced that floating bases are a common problem, I encourage you to visit a few Asian Chinese servers. You’ll quickly see how widespread they are.

 

[Riamus]

If you’re not convinced that floating bases are a common problem, I encourage you to visit a few Asian Chinese servers. You’ll quickly see how widespread they are.

Even if they are widespread, that doesn't mean it's because bases are easily destroyed (they aren't, unless you build them poorly). It also doesn't mean it's a problem. If TFP felt that floating bases were an actual problem, they'd remove the block that makes that possible, or at least change it so it's not invisible and so hard to hit. But they haven't done so, and those have been around for a long time. That's a pretty good indication that they don't think it's a problem or that they feel it's such a minor problem that it's at the bottom of their list of things to fix. And why is it a problem? I don't build them, but I've seen someone build one in a game I was in. They did it for fun. Not for any difficulty with building good bases. I personally didn't like it... it was too unrealistic to me, even though I don't really care how realistic or unrealistic the game is in general. But it didn't bother me that they built it. Why should it? Who cares if someone builds a floating base? It's their base. They can build it floating or underground or underwater or inside a mountain or on stilts or as a tower or as a pillbox or as a castle or as a 150x150 sized base that goes all the way from bedrock to the top of the sky. It doesn't matter.... it's their base and they can build it however they want.

The only reason it could be considered an actual problem is in PVP as it could be said that it's too hard to find the invisible sections to destroy them. But if PVP players can't figure out how to deal with that in a game that lets them build stuff really quickly and easily, then they shouldn't be playing PVP.

Beyond that, there really isn't a problem. If you don't like it, that doesn't make it a problem. If you think it is unrealistic, as I do, that doesn't make it a problem. Even if 80% of players did it, it wouldn't be a problem. Though if it really were that high and people didn't build anything else, then maybe TFP should do something to incentivize building other kinds of bases. But that still doesn't make it a problem.

If you think it's a problem because you think it's impossible to build a decent base that isn't going to fall apart on horde night, based on your other posts in this thread, then that's simply incorrect. It is very easy to make a base that won't be destroyed during horde night, even if you sit there and don't do anything all horde night. I build a wide variety of bases and beyond making a bad choice in design, they don't break. Sure, you'll have some blocks destroyed, but that's hardly a problem. Blocks *should* be destroyed. If you don't like blocks being destroyed, there are game options to limit block damage from zombies. Try them out.

 

[juanchen]

Even if they are widespread, that doesn't mean it's because bases are easily destroyed (they aren't, unless you build them poorly). It also doesn't mean it's a problem. If TFP felt that floating bases were an actual problem, they'd remove the block that makes that possible, or at least change it so it's not invisible and so hard to hit. But they haven't done so, and those have been around for a long time. That's a pretty good indication that they don't think it's a problem or that they feel it's such a minor problem that it's at the bottom of their list of things to fix. And why is it a problem? I don't build them, but I've seen someone build one in a game I was in. They did it for fun. Not for any difficulty with building good bases. I personally didn't like it... it was too unrealistic to me, even though I don't really care how realistic or unrealistic the game is in general. But it didn't bother me that they built it. Why should it? Who cares if someone builds a floating base? It's their base. They can build it floating or underground or underwater or inside a mountain or on stilts or as a tower or as a pillbox or as a castle or as a 150x150 sized base that goes all the way from bedrock to the top of the sky. It doesn't matter.... it's their base and they can build it however they want.

The only reason it could be considered an actual problem is in PVP as it could be said that it's too hard to find the invisible sections to destroy them. But if PVP players can't figure out how to deal with that in a game that lets them build stuff really quickly and easily, then they shouldn't be playing PVP.

Beyond that, there really isn't a problem. If you don't like it, that doesn't make it a problem. If you think it is unrealistic, as I do, that doesn't make it a problem. Even if 80% of players did it, it wouldn't be a problem. Though if it really were that high and people didn't build anything else, then maybe TFP should do something to incentivize building other kinds of bases. But that still doesn't make it a problem.

If you think it's a problem because you think it's impossible to build a decent base that isn't going to fall apart on horde night, based on your other posts in this thread, then that's simply incorrect. It is very easy to make a base that won't be destroyed during horde night, even if you sit there and don't do anything all horde night. I build a wide variety of bases and beyond making a bad choice in design, they don't break. Sure, you'll have some blocks destroyed, but that's hardly a problem. Blocks *should* be destroyed. If you don't like blocks being destroyed, there are game options to limit block damage from zombies. Try them out.

You were denying the floating base problem just a moment ago. How come you’re admitting it exists now?

 

[SabinSnake PS5#1]

I spent countless hours collecting resources and upgrading my base into a heavily fortified concrete stronghold. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to stay inside and enjoy the security that I’ve worked so hard to create?





Sometimes I don’t want to fight. That’s the entire reason I built a strong base. If I wanted combat, I would willingly go out and look for it. Players should be free to choose whether they want to fight, farm, craft, or simply survive behind their defenses. Forcing everyone into combat takes away that freedom and makes the game less enjoyable for players who prefer a different playstyle.

Fighting for survival is 90% part of the game, if you're saying that's not what you want, then this game isn't for you. Play something more mellow, like Palia, No Man's Sky or Boundless, there's plenty of building, crafting and etc in them, with minimal to no (or "forced") combat/fighting required.

 

[juanchen]

Fighting for survival is 90% part of the game, if you're saying that's not what you want, then this game isn't for you. Play something more mellow, like Palia, No Man's Sky or Boundless, there's plenty of building, crafting and etc in them, with minimal to no (or "forced") combat/fighting required.

That’s one of the reasons I’ve barely played the game since A22. I just don’t enjoy the direction the game has been taking.

 

[SabinSnake PS5#1]

That’s one of the reasons I’ve barely played the game since A22. I just don’t enjoy the direction the game has been taking.

What were you expecting from a game with zombies in it? Before getting the game, all you'd have to do is watch a gameplay video of it on youtube, to see if the game was right for you to play. Or, at least that's what I usually do before buying a game, look for key elements or features in it that i'd love/enjoy.

 

[meganoth]

I spent countless hours collecting resources and upgrading my base into a heavily fortified concrete stronghold. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to stay inside and enjoy the security that I’ve worked so hard to create?

Well, I already can in my horde bases, without shooting once if I want. This would just need a bit of repair effort after a horde night. So the game already has this. If you can't, with "countless hours collecting resources" then maybe you set the difficulty of the game too high.

Sometimes I don’t want to fight. That’s the entire reason I built a strong base. If I wanted combat, I would willingly go out and look for it. Players should be free to choose whether they want to fight, farm, craft, or simply survive behind their defenses. Forcing everyone into combat takes away that freedom and makes the game less enjoyable for players who prefer a different playstyle.

And they are free. Make the test: Build a large concrete block (wild guess: say 15x15 height 4 blocks with an overhang should suffice I think. The overhang is so zombies can't stack on the wall), put a small hut on it (for the flying zombies), sit in it, maybe repair blocks of your small hut once in a while to repair vulture damage, and you are completely safe at default settings. Never actually tried it out though. And you don't even need floating blocks for this.

Now even with 2.6 you could decrease block damage of zombies simply in the options if you want. So you wouldn't even need 3.0 to seriously hamper their ability to destroy blocks and make yourself even safer.

In default though most players want danger to exist in horde night, as do the developers. And players who say they don't want it would often find out that when horde night becomes totally safe they don't want to play horde night anymore, because there is no challenge anymore.

One of the developers said something like "In general there should never be 100% safety". Why? Because it is a zombie horror survival game.

 

[Riamus]

You were denying the floating base problem just a moment ago. How come you’re admitting it exists now?

Did you read what I wrote? I said repeatedly in what you quoted that it isn't a problem. Are you referring to the first sentence, where I gave you the benefit of a doubt? That doesn't mean I believe it. It means that even if that were true, it's still not a problem and still doesn't mean they are doing it for any reason other than that they think it's fun.