I dont want longer early game make end game content

R

Ragnor

Refugee
My opinion after latest patch

make legendary unique weapons
make more boss enemies
make more tiers than 3 and more quality than 6
give more variety of enemies
---------------------------------------------------
You made charged and inferno enemies and kept weapons at tier 3 and quality 6
Loot stage ends at 205 while you could introduce legendary chance after and legendary enemy chance after that
 
Ragnor said:
My opinion after latest patch

make legendary unique weapons
make more boss enemies
make more tiers than 3 and more quality than 6
give more variety of enemies
---------------------------------------------------
You made charged and inferno enemies and kept weapons at tier 3 and quality 6
Loot stage ends at 205 while you could introduce legendary chance after and legendary enemy chance after that
Click to expand...
Legendary weapons are already planned.

Boss enemies aren't guaranteed, though they have not said no to them. The problem with boss enemies is that they aren't going to make a bunch of bosses, so you'll just see the same one or two bosses over and over again or else they'll be a rare boss that you don't see much of, which means it isn't really worth spending development time on. I'd much rather see additional zombies that are always around than a boss I rarely see.

No need to increase amount of quality levels. An extra tier could be okay, but you're already OP once you have T3 Q6 weapons, regardless of the charged and inferno zombies. So adding another tier without doing balancing or adding a much stronger tier of zombies wouldn't be good. A lot of people already end their save once they have T3 Q6 equipment because it's not a challenge anymore.

As mentioned above, that would be something to do instead of spending time on bosses. We'll see if they do, though.
 
Riamus said:
Legendary weapons are already planned.

Boss enemies aren't guaranteed, though they have not said no to them. The problem with boss enemies is that they aren't going to make a bunch of bosses, so you'll just see the same one or two bosses over and over again or else they'll be a rare boss that you don't see much of, which means it isn't really worth spending development time on. I'd much rather see additional zombies that are always around than a boss I rarely see.

No need to increase amount of quality levels. An extra tier could be okay, but you're already OP once you have T3 Q6 weapons, regardless of the charged and inferno zombies. So adding another tier without doing balancing or adding a much stronger tier of zombies wouldn't be good. A lot of people already end their save once they have T3 Q6 equipment because it's not a challenge anymore.

As mentioned above, that would be something to do instead of spending time on bosses. We'll see if they do, though.
Click to expand...
I'd say the real problem with boss enemies is that the easy route of simply making them more bullet spongey than regular enemies is almost always the preferred route to take in "boss design" regardless even of little constraint in time and budget allowances among the triple As. I can foresee the legendary system being little different than Bethesda's legendary system. Oh? A legendary bandit? Nope. Anything but. S/he just so happens to be carrying a "legendary" weapon and may not even be using it, so let's give them a health bar that depletes to a point, then automatically refills so the player can "kill" them all over again. As an added bonus, we'll be draining the player's ammo and resources for no reason. Win-win.

From the sound, TFP is worried about excess overhead now. Bosses in the vein of actual boss-type enemies, i.e. the Dark Souls games, would no doubt be exhorbitantly expensive for a studio the size of TFP and would have to have been planned from the start. I rarely see any Pimp Dreams that are within the realm of possibility for a relatively small studio.
 
Last edited:
InfiniteWarrior said:
I'd say the real problem with boss enemies is that the easy route of simply making them more bullet spongey than regular enemies is almost always the preferred route to take in "boss design" regardless even of little constraint in time and budget allowances among the triple As. I can foresee the legendary system being little different than Bethesda's legendary system. Oh? A legendary bandit? Nope. Anything but. S/he just so happens to be carrying a "legendary" weapon and may not even be using it, so let's give them a health bar that depletes to a point, then automatically refills so the player can "kill" them all over again. As an added bonus, we'll be draining the player's ammo and resources for no reason. Win-win.

From the sound, TFP is worried about excess overhead now. Bosses in the vein of actual boss-type enemies, i.e. the Dark Souls games, would no doubt be exhorbitantly expensive for a studio the size of TFP and would have to have been planned from the start. I rarely see any Pimp Dreams that are within the realm of possibility for a relatively small studio.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And we can look at Grace as a good example. Grace is nothing more than an extra large boar with a lot more health and that can do more damage. Grace is found in only 2 POI (in vanilla). You rarely see Grace and when you do, as long as you have the firepower (high tier/quality weapons and/or a lot of ammo), Grace isn't hard to defeat. So what is the result of Grace being in the game? It is nice, of course. Any additional enemies are nice. But all the time spent on creating Grace could have instead been spent on creating another regular enemy that you see everywhere, giving us increased variety in enemies no matter where we are instead of an enemy you almost never see. What is the better use of their time? I personally would prefer more regular enemies, even if they are strong/tough.
 
Bandits and mods are your only hope tbh. And the endgame weapons, aka Tier 3, are more than enough for the new enemies. They were way overpowered before.
 
Last edited:
Overall general comment with regards to "leveling" and "end game". I think it is the bane of all games.

But for some reason more in this game. Different stroke for different folks, but if you play to survive the day instead of how fast you can get to "the end", you might realize there is no specific need without a story.

It is also why sandbox games some times don't appeal to the masses. Which is why 7d2d is somewhat unique as well in that regard.

So not sure where I am going with this, other than, I guess I didn't need no end game.

Maybe. Atleast not in 7d2d, but I see the appeal to others.
 
8_Hussars said:
Why would they restrict story mode to a specific map?
Click to expand...

Because you will probably need certain POI´s to be present on the map to play the story. And there is no guarantee that a POI spawns on a random map. At least not yet. Maybe that will change. Also i think i read something about that, but that was long ago so i am not entirely sure.
 
pApA^LeGBa said:
Because you will probably need certain POI´s to be present on the map to play the story. And there is no guarantee that a POI spawns on a random map. At least not yet. Maybe that will change. Also i think i read something about that, but that was long ago so i am not entirely sure.
Click to expand...

Restricting story to one map would be seriously short sighted. I am 99% confident that changes to RWG could be made to include specific POIs if necessary (or on switch).
 
I think I saw TFP say it wasn't planned for RWG, though that was probably a year or so ago and I may be remembering incorrectly. But a story in a game is usually for games that you'll play once or twice and then set aside for a long time (year+). Seeing a story dozens of times as you keep playing new games in this one would get old really fast. So a story is mostly just good for one time, maybe two if you don't mind it. Beyond that, it's not going to be interesting anymore, so there isn't much reason to add it to RWG.
 
Riamus said:
I think I saw TFP say it wasn't planned for RWG, though that was probably a year or so ago and I may be remembering incorrectly. But a story in a game is usually for games that you'll play once or twice and then set aside for a long time (year+). Seeing a story dozens of times as you keep playing new games in this one would get old really fast. So a story is mostly just good for one time, maybe two if you don't mind it. Beyond that, it's not going to be interesting anymore, so there isn't much reason to add it to RWG.
Click to expand...
Yep. Were it a RPG (which it isn't by my definition, at least), it would make sense to bind RWG to it because RPGs begin (or should) with story, setting and characterization. That is (or should be) their overarching focus and concern with any mechanics developed supporting the story and characterization rather than the other way around. A game like this doesn't need one at all, but is usually handled separately, i.e. Green Hell, and is just as usually nothing to write home about. Who wants to play through a forgettable story over and over again in a survival game?

Subnautica got around that by tucking the story away in PDAs. FO76 tried to get around that by tucking the story away in holotapes, but of course, that didn't go over very well from a studio known for its RPGs. RWG complicates things even more because the maps aren't static. I think it would be best (and much easier to manage) if it were confined to Navezgane, though I get why some RPG players won't like the idea. Most video game stories are supremely forgettable these days, even in supposed RPGs, afic. I'd like to see that change in the industry, but am not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
I suspect part of the question, is we "collectively" have not defined what the "story mode" expectation is.

Yes RPGs often rely on the characterization and setting and a more or less serial story to complete with the assistance of many NPCs.

Sometimes, the story is just quests and quest series, like Elder Scrolls (e.g. 7d2d could be infiltrate and kill the duke).

Quite frankly, my 7d2d expectation is closer to the latter, and that easily fits into RWG even if you have to force a POI or two to appear.

I do often bring forward Survival, No Trader (SNT) mod which includes Grim Tales. This mod scratches MY RPG itch, way more than the Trader Quest Treadmill ever will. I find the quests non-intrusive, non-serial, and not required. It's just little extra Easter eggs to engage mid to late game and fleshes out the "game world" and the survivor experience.

I also note we need more vanilla "modes". Story mode, sandbox mode, and purge mode; should be an option at start. Additionally, an escape Mode, where the objective is to escape to a safe civilized area.
 
Personally, I'd like more end game just because I hate the early game, but as has been established, I'm a weirdo who cares much more about tools than weapons, and mining with stone tools just isn't fun. So I'd like more to do once I'm rocking q6 steel tools (which is usually early week 2, before Day 10.)

Admittedly, there's building, but when I can make a wooden base that can defeat almost any horde (well, maybe not with Chuck around...haven't gotten to the point of having them show up in a horde night because I usually get bored before then) doing a lot of building after that seems a little silly. Unless I have something specific in mind to build, and given how hard it is to find places that look nice to build now that's kind of uncommon, I've usually got an unassailable base by Day 14. So give me a reason to play to day 50 or 60. The highest I've ever gotten was in the upper 30s before I got bored and started over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top