I really like most of the changes in the current version of A17.
I have some suggestions though:
1) XP: Re-increase the XP from non-killing activities.
XP is the main reward and chart of your progress in the game. At the moment you can only get significant XP from killing zombies, which devalues other aspects of the game. This conflicts with the current attribute system, which encourages specialisation. People want to play as various different types of character, but the game gives much higher rewards to character types that specialise in killing zombies. If you want RPG elements to a game you have to balance rewards for different playstyles, or everyone ends up playing the same character. This is particularly an issue in multiplayer, where the whole point of working as a team is to allow players to specialise. At the moment, that is not practical as you end up with a huge level disparity.
You can still prioritise combat rewards if you like, and make XP rewards there greater, but the current balance needs shifting.
2) Re-balance base defence
There are a number of issues here.
At the moment base design is quite a specialist activity. You have to really understand game mechanics in detail before you can design even a partially effective base. This seems to have created a polarised situation, where bases are either quickly destroyed, or virtually impervious to damage. This has made the game both too easy for experienced players, and too hard for those less experienced.
Not everything should be realistic in a game. The whole point of games is that they aren't realistic, they are simplified so we can enjoy the experience better. But for the parts that do try and reproduce aspects of real life, it helps if they accurately reflect real life. This ensures the learning curve isn't too steep right at the start of the game, which is likely to put quite a few people off. We can debate the positive side of steep learning curves but ultimately having the core mechanics realistic makes the game more accessible, both to new players and to casual players.
This has also reduced the variety in the game, which reduces enjoyment through replayability. If you make a greater variety of base designs viable again, and then balance the game without removing that flexibility, you give people many more opportunities for enjoyment.
Base defence is a continuum rather than having discrete patterns, and I guess ideally you want to encourage players gradually to use a combination of these, but ideally you want elements of all these types of defence to be useful:
a) Passive defences (defences that defeat zombies slowly through attrition)(e.g. spikes)
b) Active defences (defences that defeat zombies with action)(i.e. players in combat)
c) Cunning defences (defences that rely on understanding zombies)(i.e. traps and mazes)
d) Brute force defences (defences that rely on sheer power)(i.e. turrets and walls)
If possible also:
a) Melee combat
b) Ranged combat
All these elements are clearly already in the game. However some of them feel like red herrings because they are so ineffective right now, which frustrates players who feel like they have wasted their time exploring them. I think there are several elements that need to be combined to re-balance this.
i) Reduce zombie block damage. It should be possible for players of all levels to build hardpoints (of materials they can craft in reasonable amounts) that can resist direct zombie attack for a substantial period of time. In previous game versions players gained access to durable materials faster than zombies increased in strength, which led to zombies being delayed too easily, but it has swung too far the other direction now, with materials being delayed longer and zombies seeming to damage blocks faster.
ii) (Re?)Introduce variety into the AI. It's is ridiculous to see zombies lining up in a single line. Ideally, different zombies would behave differently. Some would go for a weak spot, some would go for a direct approach. As the game progresses zombies would try gradually more and more varied means of attack, starting from only the most basic frontal assault and building up to coming from all angles. Without the other changes this would make the zombies truly OP, but done right this would encourage combined and multi-layered base tactics, as there would be no one-size-fits-all approach.
iii) Improve the effectiveness of spikes and turrets to make them effective again. They should pose a substantial danger to zombies when used in the right way. For example, spikes should cause a lot of damage when falling onto them, but virtually none when just moving past them. Barbed wire would be the reverse of that, causing less damage from falling onto it, but more when trying to move through the area. Turrets would be less effective against mobile opponents, but very effective against stationary or restricted ones.
3) Reduce the stamina drain from all activities except combat and sprinting, and reduce stamina regeneration accordingly. At the moment resting to recover stamina is wasted time, because it is too short a period to be able to do anything useful in it, and happens so often as to be a substantial impact on gameplay.
Max Stamina should also degrade more slowly. I think this is an issue caused by 'eating' affecting both food level and stamina, but with food level also affecting stamina. At the moment it feels like being on full stamina is an unobtainable goal, because it takes time for your max stamina to return once you eat something, but your food level will have dropped again by the time your stamina gets near the top limiting your stamina once again. I suggest max stamina shouldn't start degrading at all until food is below 50%, to avoid having to eat when not hungry.
4) Reduce the temperature sensitivity for players, or increase the comfortable temperature range. It's just a bit too hard to avoid the effects of heat and cold at the moment. It feels like we're only using the extreme ends of the scale.
5) Get rid of encumbrance. Having an extra thing to worry about isn't always better in a survival game. We should be concentrating on the interesting or challenging things, and this is neither. I fail to see what is so OP about being able to carry 20 different things in my backpack. The only effect seems to be to make the tedious parts of the game even more tedious. It has introduced 'walking very slowly through the countryside' as a substantial gameplay element, and that is not an improvement. We already have enough of that because we run out of stamina. I don't care whether it is realistic or not. It doesn't add anything. Its only outcome is to slow the game down. It is unnecessary and detracts from the more interesting aspects of gameplay.
6) Give melee weapons a larger area of effect for the purpose of determining hits, ideally simulating their swing arc. Seems a bit odd that a sledgehammer takes 2 seconds to swing, but apparently doesn't actually swing through any of the space adjacent to where you're aiming. I don't want heads to be any easier to hit because it's nice to have that challenge, but it just ruins the melee experience when a zombie creates a small gap in its body shape precisely where your cursor is and thereby negates your attack completely.
7) Don't pay too much attention to experienced players who claim the game is too easy. This is more a suggestion for approach to feedback than a specific change to the game itself. Games SHOULD be easy to play once a player is experienced. A game that never gets easier gets frustrating instead.
The danger with early access games is that because it is playable for a long time, you will get feedback from people who enjoyed the game as it was but who now want something different (developers are not immune to this either, if they are playing their own game). They will tend to suggest changes that are 'different' rather than 'better', because from their perspective different is indeed better. There will almost always therefore be a conflict between the types feedback you receive, between those people, and the newer or more casual players who are still trying to play the game the first time. It is difficult to balance those two source of feedback.
Regarding negative feedback, I think both players and devs should be aware when they get into it, that they are taking a risk with early access games. Players should be aware that early access games can change, and devs should be aware that they have the potential to annoy and maybe alienate gamers by presenting an unfinished product.
I do think though that the responsibility for the player-dev relationship lies primarily with the devs. They initiate everything by releasing the game, and they have the control, ultimately, to decide what happens with it. Changing the game significantly after people have started playing it effectively makes it a new game. They are discontinuing the old game and replacing it with a new game. That's fine for players who think it's just a straight upgrade in every way, or who have got bored with the old game and want a change. But we all have to understand that for people who preferred (or are still enjoying) the older version, the net result is that the devs are stopping them playing a game they enjoy. Even if players can roll back to a previous version, at best the devs have cancelled any future support for their buggy game. Of course players will feel frustrated by this. It's only natural. But that doesn't mean you should ignore it, on the contrary you should listen to it closely. It's the most honest feedback you're likely to get! So devs, take the criticism on the chin and use it to improve the game. That's the whole point of this, right?
Now, go smash some heads!
