PC I once loved this game...

[Ramethzer0]

1. what does it matter to you?

2. even i understood the essence through the translator

3. Wow. this is a universal solution!

1.  Because I want a specific starting point in a discussion.  Unfortunately, people on the internet are so dead inside that some folks take the OP as normal discussion and I don't react well to people being prickish to start a discussion.  If they tried that it real life, it wont work out like they think it will.

2 and 3.  I submit these responses as proof of 1.

What does it matter to you to know what it mattered to him how it mattered to Roland? 

Haters gunna hate.   When I look at questions like  'What does it matter to you?'  I just like to posit the fact that the reason why forums exist is to invite feedback, otherwise I come back with 'Why post your personal butthurt in a public place?'  Because if you're gunna invite a negative feedback loop, then be prepared to accept it right back atcha.

 

[Ramethzer0]

I know I'm stupid at times, but I feel worse after trying to navigate this post.

Wait till you see the tsunami of intellectual commentary on Youtube!

I personally don't have a problem with the Z's & their magical sense of weak points in your base. 

I do see & agree with what the OP is saying, I would like an onslaught from all sides as well however that is the type of base I build. 

I've never used kill corridors myself but they are entertaining in their own right from videos I've watched.

I just build whatever the hell I want & deal with whatever weak point the Z's seem fit. 

Yeah.  I've seen this go both ways.  I've seen the zeds come at you from all angles and my SMG rather prefers they clump up on vulnerable spots.  I actually wait for it.  I sometimes build walls with built in flaws specifically for this behaviour.

I've used kill corridors and I gotta be honest, they are boring because I feel too safe and get bored too quickly because of them.  Some people like them, but.. i don't see a reason to harm on their prefs.

 

[n2n1]

1.  Because clearly I want a specific starting point in a discussion.  ////

Maybe... that's probably how it is for you

But for me, your first post looks exactly like my subsequent posts for most.

Everything is as you described in the answer for Kalen .   I was like you.

 

[Ramethzer0]

Maybe... that's probably how it is for you.

But for me, your first post looks exactly like my subsequent posts for most.

Everything is as you described in the answer for Kalen .   I was like you.

But, such is the way of the world.  Point of view makes everything a little complicated.

 

[Roland]

I'll never accept that statement as a valid attitude toward any game.

Some people feel the same way about the moon landing....

The devs could tie up everything within rules and constraints so that nobody could exploit anything......or.......they can leave the world as an open world pseudo-sandbox with loose rules that some players will exploit and others will not. Rules that govern multiplayer play must be tighter to ensure fairness in a competitive sphere. Other than that, what do I care whether some dude figures out an easy way to manipulate the AI in artificial ways and breezes through horde night?

The devs have already stated that they will close those loopholes and exploits they deem to be game breaking but for the rest they expect players to use some restraint and self-discipline. It's like the console. A few months back we had a guy ranting that the game was unplayable because the console was available during play to enable godmode and the creative menu at any time. He demanded the devs to disable the console during play. One could say that leaving such power at the fingertips of the players is a HUGE exploit that could be completely abused to completely destroy any challenge in the game. And yet, the response was for the guy to find some will power because the devs were not going to disable the console. To some degree that is their view of other exploits.

The thing is that nobody on the forum can even agree on most exploits as to whether they really are exploits unless they are ways to cheat in competitive PvP play. There was a big debate on whether double dipping a POI selected as a quest was an exploit and the community was split. Madmole stated they had no plans to change it and that he didn't view double dipping a POI as an exploit at all. Now....clipping into the terrain to look around underground in a PVP game is pretty universally accepted as an exploit and the devs have spent years trying to close all edge cases of that.

Tactics to stop zombies are always going to be debatable as to how exploitive they are. Often something discovered early on that works well is viewed favorably but as time goes on and that tactic comes to be seen as easy and foolproof all of a sudden people start calling it exploitive.

So I agree with you that exploits should be evaluated and removed when possible but at the same time I don't know how restrictive and rule bound I want the game to continue to become-- especially when some exploits you and I might want restricted are not believed to be exploits by others. Freedom is better for those of us who are wise enough not to ruin the game for ourselves.

 

[AtomicUs5000]

Some people feel the same way about the moon landing....[snip]

I mostly agree, but all of that does not make the statement true.  Essentially the AI will always be exploitable if TFP gives up.

 

[Roland]

I mostly agree, but all of that does not make the statement true.  Essentially the AI will always be exploitable if TFP gives up.

If they don't give up then we will have a highly restrictive game and whole subsets of the population will be disappointed that their strategies have been eliminated which THEY never felt were exploits in the first place. We have had dozens of threads over the years attempting to list the current exploits in the game and all of them dissolve into debates about which are or are not exploits and one group or another gets angry because others are trying to dictate how they play.

LBD discussions got so heated precisely because those opposed to it argued that it was too exploitive and made balancing the game too difficult while those who liked LBD would vehemently deny such claims. Can we get an "Amen!" on no more debates about hugging cacti?

TFP has made segments of the community angry whenever they have closed exploits THEY deemed important enough to pursue. We still get grumbles about people who lost their hatch elevator even though it was based upon a property of the game that universally everyone would agree counted as a glitch. I'm not saying its wrong to tighten up the game but there has to be a balance and I disagree that ALL perceived exploits should be removed and TFP should never stop in that quest.

 

[AtomicUs5000]

I'm not saying its wrong to tighten up the game but there has to be a balance and I disagree that ALL perceived exploits should be removed and TFP should never stop in that quest.

I agree here as well. As I tried to illustrate, there is a difference between exploiting and manipulating AI. The people who argue those other perceived exploits do not know the difference. It doesn't help when nobody is corrected. Instead of explaining that difference, that horrible statement is used instead. The AI should be vulnerable to manipulation. As a game player, it is your task to defeat it.

 

[Maharin]

In every tower defense game I've ever played, the best long term strategy was to learn how each and every bad guy worked and build your defense strategy accordingly.  With that in mind, exploiting the AI is a matter guilt not guile.

 

[Aldranon]

As I like ever more stacks of ammo that I will never use (Its pleasing to the Pack-Rat side of me), I will try not to "waste" my ammo on "hoard" nights. 

If the game remains as just a simple sandbox shooter, then so be it.  But it could be more.

 

[eXSe]

Whatever the poor Pimps do to the AI, players will always, if they want so, find a way to cheese it. It's just human nature

 

[RestInPieces]

Whatever the poor Pimps do to the AI, players will always, if they want so, find a way to cheese it. It's just human nature

Yeah, companies like CDPR get this and never bothered with the AI in the first place!

 

[babspsol]

I don't think it is a good idea to remove the mechanic that Z's attack the weakest entry point and make them spread their damage across every block in your base.  I'd rather they didn't make this game any easier. They have already killed a large part of survival in the base game by introducing traders which are ridicolously OP'd. Thankfully I can remove them when generating a world though would have liked to keep trader Jen for the RP and not sell me stuff.

If you are not happy with having to repair 1 block during horde night then don't use a door. That doesnt automatically make your base a cheese base. If you have to actively defend and repair your base and neglecting to do so means certain death then you are not using a cheese base but in any case why would you care if people are cheesing, you are basically asking TFP to make the game easier in your OP.

 

[Maharin]

They have already killed a large part of survival in the base game by introducing traders which are ridicolously OP'd. Thankfully I can remove them when generating a world though would have liked to keep trader Jen for the RP and not sell me stuff.

Traders will change significantly once they adhere more to the loot availability based on game stages.  Also, considering they will be applying a way to modify GS loot based on specific POIs and biomes they could also have that impact trader's inventory and buying habits.  Maybe drinks cost more from a trader in a desert and bullets cost more from a trader in the wasteland.  Maybe one trader is more willing to buy a certain kind of loot (and in higher quantities) than other traders.  That sort of thing should be possible, or at least I'm hopeful.

 

[Astronomical]

Thankfully I can remove them when generating a world though would have liked to keep trader Jen for the RP and not sell me stuff.

I don't know.. with that deep voice she used to have? Does pre op and post apoc cancel each other out?

 

[Scyris]

I pretty much can't play vanilla 7dtd anymore as its to be frank just to boring now with the current loot setup in a19. A20 will help though I am not liking the idea of gamestaged trader inventories. Finding a nice gun or something in there in a19 was the only way I could stand a19. Though I will have to try it when a20 hits experimental and see how it is, as we've not really seen it in action at all yet just heard it discussed, but.. I'm not going to hold my breath, as TFP has made a ton of very questionable design decisions since a17 imo.

Removal of LBD, the dungeon style poi's which at first I thought were cool, but soon after they started to grate on my nerves because they just don't mesh with the world properly, like who would setup their house like that with only 1 real path, that looks more like a way to trap themselves than anything to me. Newest questionable things was the loot in a19 (However this sounds like it'll get much better in a20) and the dumbing down of the equipment system in A20. Sorry but there is no reason the outfits could not exist and we could also keep the current gear system (they could use the armor slots), its a simple dumbing down of the game period no matter how you look at it, or what you try to say to give it an excuse for being dumbed down. Then we have the stat system, which seems to serve no real purpose other than to screw solo players. The stat system could be forgivien more if the stats did anything of value other than just headshot mult for its weapons.

So far in a19 I wait for the next update to become stable not to play it, but to play my favorite mod in its updated form, as its actually fun compared to vanilla these days. The mod is Darkness Falls if your curious, just a fair warning, do not go into it on insane on a first playthru, you WILL get your butt handed to you.

 

[Psychodabble]

I agree here as well. As I tried to illustrate, there is a difference between exploiting and manipulating AI. The people who argue those other perceived exploits do not know the difference. It doesn't help when nobody is corrected. Instead of explaining that difference, that horrible statement is used instead. The AI should be vulnerable to manipulation. As a game player, it is your task to defeat it.

There is a clear difference between the verb "to exploit", as in to take advantage of, and the noun "software exploit", as in improper use of a design flaw or oversight.

That distinction, however, does not exist on these discussion forums for whatever reason. People use them interchangeably and it renders these conversations completely circular and utterly pointless. I gave up trying to correct people long ago as I suspect many of them are being willfully obtuse about it. Unfortunately, that is the prime reason for the cop out argument that Roland made, which while technically correct, is horrible design philosophy.

 

[Roland]

There is a clear difference between the verb "to exploit", as in to take advantage of, and the noun "software exploit", as in improper use of a design flaw or oversight.

That distinction, however, does not exist on these discussion forums for whatever reason. People use them interchangeably and it renders these conversations completely circular and utterly pointless. I gave up trying to correct people long ago as I suspect many of them are being willfully obtuse about it. Unfortunately, that is the prime reason for the cop out argument that Roland made, which while technically correct, is horrible design philosophy.

Interesting. You say others fail to understand the distinction but then you do the same thing with my statement. Obviously, I was saying that the devs will work to close and end "software exploits" but that they will not try to stop every strategy that people use to gain an advantage over the zombies. 

Stopping people from improperly using flaws (such as the hatch elevator) but allowing them to use legit strategies (such as kill corridors) that ultimately give them an advantage over their enemies is horrible design philosophy? I don't think so.

The real problem is that some legitimate strategies work really well and people start using them to the exclusion of anything else and become bored and refer to them as "exploits" that should be nerfed all so they can be challenged again. The devs may or may not agree with that. But if they decide to "cop out" and retain some of those strategies in the game that are not software exploits but are simply effective methods of playing, I submit that it is good design philosophy because it gives more choices to players who haven't self-limited themselves by only doing those things they perceive as the most efficient and effective.

Regardless, any time the devs remove an advantage whether it is a legit strategy or a software exploit, there will be people who get upset at the change because they liked using it. That was my point. Therefore, the devs should only focus on actual software exploits that they deem important and not try and nerf every gameplay strategy advantage that players find. Now we may not all agree about whether a particular activity is the type of thing the devs should limit or not. That is their perogative. 

 

[Maharin]

PSA:  There are no exploits in a real apocalypse.

 

[AtomicUs5000]

The real problem is that some legitimate strategies work really well and people start using them to the exclusion of anything else and become bored and refer to them as "exploits" that should be nerfed all so they can be challenged again. The devs may or may not agree with that. But if they decide to "cop out" and retain some of those strategies in the game that are not software exploits but are simply effective methods of playing, I submit that it is good design philosophy because it gives more choices to players who haven't self-limited themselves by only doing those things they perceive as the most efficient and effective.

False, due to even worse choice of wording.

The problem comes when you develop a game and insert large game-changing features without considering the impact they will have on your existing large game features. The cop out is trying to play the card that players should have freedom when the reality is that either nobody bothered to think about it, or they simply failed to foresee the potential issues of just throwing features into the game.
For example... tower defense during a blood moon horde. Great idea in a voxel world. A game in itself. Then you add fast and strong vehicles and let a couple years go by without addressing the obvious issue and allow your players to accept using your new feature as a "legitimate strategy" to bypass the existing major game feature, until you later realize something should be done about it.
 
It is a legitimate action to jump into a vehicle and drive around. The problem here is that it is not a strategy. The effort required in the game to accomplish these results with a vehicle is minimal. Such an action cannot be deemed a "legitimate strategy" and therefore doesn't even fit into any logic someone could attempt to use to argue its existence, even using the player freedom card. Some people can complain all they want, but TFP agrees... it had to be changed some way.
 
The same goes for swimming safely in a lake all night during the horde. It was not a strategy and therefore has no place in the game. Some people can complain all they want, but TFP agrees... it had to be changed some way.

Here's some more with a current issue in the game.
People love those ramps where zombies just fall off at the end and loop around and repeat endlessly. Sorry, it might be a legitimate action to build it, but it's not a legitimate strategy and it has no place in a game. The AI shouldn't even be taking that path to begin with if they cannot reach you.
A strategy that falls into the scope of the gameplay and adds to the freedom of choice of using it, would be if you had a ramp that actually pathed to you, but along the path you have a junk sledge (or other pushing traps that do not exist for some reason), that push the zombies off the ramp so that they can take more damage from other traps or by shooting them while they are on their way back to the ramp path.