PC I once loved this game...

[Roland]

False, due to even worse choice of wording.

  Say what? What part of what you quoted was worded badly and why do you think it was poorly worded?

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 game isn't done yet. What you say might be true if what we have now is intended as the final version and the recent changes don't work well with it. But it's not the final version. It is an interem version and you have no idea what the final version will be to be able to make a statement like that. I know that 7 years is a long time but, yes, the game is still in development and there are future additions still to come that will make recent changes make sense.

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.

Talking about player freedom is not a card I am playing to excuse anything. There is nothing needing to be excused. You have, for some reason, momentarily forgotten that this game is still in flux and there are future developments that will make recent changes make more sense. Aside from the issue of your speculations into the design process of TFP, there exists a design conversation regarding the balance between player freedom that allows for playing in different ways and rigid rulesets that define boundaries and limit that player freedom. The developers have to weigh what they want to limit against what will be fun. They will favor rigid rules when the exploit is a "software exploit" and favor freedom when the exploit is just an advantage through strategy.  I was just talking about design but I guess you thought I was trying to defend something.

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.

 No. That is not what happened. I'm sorry. Again you are acting like each iteration was what they intended as a final version but then "oops, that doesn't work we have to patch that somehow...". If this game had no early access and all the development was behind closed doors you would never have played tower defense without vehicles, and then with vehicles, and now with vehicles that are rendered useless. It is exactly the method that features are added and then during beta those things are polished and balanced and melded. Those who play the final version will find that the vehicles and horde night are balanced mechanics and they won't know the iterations the game went through. What? You think other games you pick up and play as finished games achieved their final state simply from good planning without any back and forth balancing? Sorry to break it to you but they went through the same growing pains this game has but you were never there to witness it. By the way, Madmole did say multiple times for months and maybe even years before the change happened that driving around all night without risk on bloodmoon was not an intended game feature and would be dealt with. Seems like they did have some inkling about the obvious issue but had other priorities before they could get around to balancing vehicles and horde night closer to the way they intend it to be (not done yet).

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.

And as I just said, neither of these activities were considered intended allowable actions by the developers. In my poorly worded statement I specifically said that exploits that cause the player to play the game in unintended ways must be closed by the developers. Treading water safely all night and driving safely all night were not activities the developers intended players to be able to do. They warned us the change would be coming for a long time and then they made the change. So I agree that these were not legitimate strategies and that is why they were removed from the game. Kill corridors ARE considered by the developers to be legitimate strategies and so they will be staying regardless of some people's opinions that kill corridors are cheesy.

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.

The developers will have to decide whether zombies should be able to path across those or whether they should fall off. If they decide the zombies should be able to path across them then they will do so and it will end that method of defending. So far, the developers have been aggressive in closing endless loop behavior in zombies when they can fix it. They have fixed a lot of it and they will continue to work on fixing those issues because endless zombie looping is not something they intend the zombies to do. It has nothing to do with trying to one-up players or stop their fun. Some players will take it that way and that is why developers do need to be careful in how far they go. When the issue is something like zombies not behaving properly (such as consistently falling off a block that players can traverse) then they will try to fix it just as they did with the steep ramp blocks. Their intention was that zombies can damage blocks and walk up the same types of ramps we can. So faatal made the change so that they could walk up those ramps and successfully attack and break those blocks.

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.

I agree. As long as every feature is working as the devs intend it to then there is no problem. But keep in mind that this is not the final version. More changes are coming and may require balancing. If those changes are too upsetting then the best thing is to simply wait until the game is done. At that day, you can teach your great-grandkids how to play.

 

[Aldranon]

The simple reason many people "exploit" during BM nights is: There currently is no reason to kill the hordes of zombies.

Now, if there was a reason...

-The zombies you kill, reduces the power of darkness (JC Channel uses better terminology and lore) which causes some good things to occur.

-Killing a full hordes worth of BM zombies will keep (Zombie Game Stage) at manageable levels.  Otherwise you will be seeing the green zombies very soon!

Just another reason to separate Loot GS and Zombie GS.

 

[meganoth]

The simple reason many people "exploit" during BM nights is: There currently is no reason to kill the hordes of zombies.

Now, if there was a reason...

-The zombies you kill, reduces the power of darkness (JC Channel uses better terminology and lore) which causes some good things to occur.

-Killing a full hordes worth of BM zombies will keep (Zombie Game Stage) at manageable levels.  Otherwise you will be seeing the green zombies very soon!

Just another reason to separate Loot GS and Zombie GS.

At the moment players with a wide range of good and bad players can play a single vanilla game for hundreds of hours. If you add a negative feedback loop that makes the game harder if you fail to kill enough zombies you

1) will make the game too hard too fast for noobs and still have veterans complain about it being too easy. Such a negative feedback loop only works well in carefully balanced tightly scripted scenario games like strategy games.

2) additionally remove strategies that slow down or keep the zombies occupied instead of killing them as fast as possible. This is actually a defendable design choice the devs could make. It is just my opinion that it would make the game poorer for it.

 

[Aldranon]

At the moment players with a wide range of good and bad players can play a single vanilla game for hundreds of hours. If you add a negative feedback loop that makes the game harder if you fail to kill enough zombies you

1) will make the game too hard too fast for noobs and still have veterans complain about it being too easy. Such a negative feedback loop only works well in carefully balanced tightly scripted scenario games like strategy games.

2) additionally remove strategies that slow down or keep the zombies occupied instead of killing them as fast as possible. This is actually a defendable design choice the devs could make. It is just my opinion that it would make the game poorer for it.

MP games should probably be geared for the weakest player.

However for SP, players could make the game amazing with purpose and reason for fighting the hordes of darkness. 

 

[Roland]

Just another reason to separate Loot GS and Zombie GS.

Wait...what was the first reason?!?

 

[Aldranon]

Wait...what was the first reason?!?

I'm SHOCKED you (and everyone else in the world) don't hover over every word I type (for spellchecking mostly).

Under "The Game should Be more hardcore"  I wrote:

Well, a person cant argue very convincingly against success. 

That 7D2D is up so high on the charts proves that its not a bad game for many people.  At the very least.

So the only valid question is what, if anything, can be improved?  If in fact, it IS an improvement.

Problem? #1

Currently, after game options are set, the games level of difficulty for each individual player usually stays the same throughout the game.  Getting key weapons and skills changes the games difficulty somewhat.  As does the introduction of stronger opponents.

Possible improvements:

-Being able to have a curve to the current flat-ish difficulty arc as the game progresses.  One possible solution would be to disconnect Game-Stage from the quality of loot. 

 

[AtomicUs5000]

  Say what? What part of what you quoted was worded badly and why do you think it was poorly worded?

Addressing these things as legitimate strategies... you should have known what I meant because you pointed it out later in your reply.
Tell me then, Roland, since I have presented already three issues where players complain and/or have complained. What exactly are these so-called legitimate strategies players are using that some might call exploiting the AI? Note that these player actions should be "legitimate strategies" and that these exploits should be truly "exploits" and not manipulations within the scope of the intended gameplay.

Previously you also mentioned the hatch elevator. You state that people complain it is gone. I might have seen a post or two in the forums, but since when does someone's voice in here hold that much weight? We've been told countless times it does not, as we do not in any way represent the majority of players. I do see the hatch elevator as an exploit because it steps out the scope of the intended gameplay as defined by the developers of the game. Obviously TFP agrees, and it had to be changed some way.
 
You stated that no matter what, the AI will always be exploitable. I'm saying this statement is pure garbage. I would at least like to know exactly what evidence there is within the history and future plans of this game that anybody could use to draw this conclusion. What I've been saying goes against it, and now what even you've been saying goes against it. You are even saying that what the devs say and do goes against it. So where does this come from and why is it even said? Is it just something to say because you want to avoid using the player freedom card? Is the player freedom card used to avoid using the game isn't done yet card? Isn't it so much easier to simply say that the game isn't done yet? That's the only real fact here after all.

 

[Noctoras]

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.

This is true, but TFP have shown that they can backpaddle, if things go really awry. I agree that a lot of game design decisions starting from A17 have been questionable and I think a lot could have been avoided by taking the community aboard. That said, some is rectified later (hard level gating). And maybe they also will deviate from one-way-to-lootroom-POIs. It would definitely be worthwhile. 

As for exploits, TFP are targeting the worst exploits and a sandbox environment has tons of options for cheesing, which linear games don't have. Granted, the dungeon POIs you mentioned are a bad example, since they are calling for cheesing, but other than that, most designs tried to reduce cheesy exploits. 

 

[faatal]

MP games should probably be geared for the weakest player.

However for SP, players could make the game amazing with purpose and reason for fighting the hordes of darkness. 

The best reason for fighting anything is not dying. Granted our death penalty is not that bad, but maybe someday.

 

[Roland]

Granted our death penalty is not that bad, but maybe someday.

ooh.....baby!

Note that these player actions should be "legitimate strategies" and that these exploits should be truly "exploits" and not manipulations within the scope of the intended gameplay.

That is the problem. Depending on the person you ask you will get different answers. When TFP decides they've covered all the exploits they are going to cover there will be people who will be outraged that they didn't go farther. <shrug> How can I speak for others on what they believe to be a legit strategy rather than an actual exploit. There have been threads devoted to such debates in the past. All I am saying is that TFP is not going to make everyone happy in regards to "exploits". Some will believe they went too far and ruined their favored gameplay and others will believe they didn't go far enough because the game is too easily cheesed.

 

[Aldranon]

The best reason for fighting anything is not dying. <snip>

Historically, that was far from the truth.

Then again, (Edit: in this game), if you don't even have to look at the zombies and possibly get injured is best, by your reasoning.  Letting them get killed by some simple defenses is just bonus.

 

[RipClaw]

The best reason for fighting anything is not dying. Granted our death penalty is not that bad, but maybe someday.

If you don't want to die, the best strategy is to run away. That is human survival in a nutshell.

 

[Boidster]

What's nice about the current AI is that you can replicate the approach you could have in a real-life situation, naturally : study the behavior of the threat and use it against itself to neutralize, contain and idealy suppress it.

AKA "exploit" or "cheesing", to some people. Anything other than 100% random behavior will have patterns. Patterns which can be studied and exploited cheesed overcome with attention to detail and planning.

There is no cheese. There is only the enemy's behavior and your behavior, and if you survive to fight another day, you win. That said, of course we all want TFP to fine-tune and polish the enemy's behavior until they are (more) worthy opponents. Still won't mean that we can't find repeatable strategies to overcome them. Which will then be labled as "exploits" and "cheese" by folks like that guy over there. No, not you, the guy behind you. Yeah, that one.

 

[Morloc]

There currently is no reason to kill the hordes of zombies.

Now, if there was a reason...

Survivors you need to defend at your settlement.

This would completely change horde night.

-Morloc

 

[Aldranon]

Survivors you need to defend at your settlement.

This would completely change horde night.

-Morloc

If you mean a settlement with NPC's, that would be perfect!

Perhaps the player wakes up in a bed after being attacked by the duke.  They will give him some food if he can help them defend their base.  

 

[Noctoras]

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.

Granted, traders along with quests in their current form were not really much-needed additions to the game. Okay to have and in case of the traders indeed OP, but working on other game mechanics could have improved the game more in my opinion. 

I see that everyone values different aspects of the game in different ways, so my opinion is just that - mine. 

 

[Morloc]

Perhaps the player wakes up in a bed after being attacked by the duke.  They will give him some food if he can help them defend their base. 

I was thinking more along the lines of "attracting" settlers/survivors after you declare an area to be a settlement (with something like a land claim block).

This way the player still has the same early game as he does now, and isn't pushed/rushed into the settlement portion of the game. There would be advantages to having settlers as well as the liability of keeping them safe. There could be quests to rescue special settlers which would add their unique features/abilities to your settlement.

Dr. Angie - Can cure infection.

Farmer Ed - Auto harvesting.

Agent Hank Kimball - Increased crop yield.

Victor the Engineer - 10% increase to block durability in settlement.

Brother Samson - Able to take a beating (200% standard hit points).

Some late game items/crafting could be gated behind having a certain quantity of settlers, so there could also be settlers with detrimental traits which you might be willing to keep given the headcount they provide.

Fat @%$# - Decreased crop yield.

Mr. McFeely - Decreased morale (may trigger other settlers to take the day off and not provide their bonuses).

Navesgane Sam - Bully who will on occasion rough up another settler leaving them immobile and unable to provide bonuses for up to a week.

Most/all of the settlers need not be able to fight (that's your job), so no complex AI necessary for the overtaxed devs.

-Morloc

 

[Aldranon]

I was thinking more along the lines of "attracting" settlers/survivors after you declare an area to be a settlement (with something like a land claim block).

This way the player still has the same early game as he does now, and isn't pushed/rushed into the settlement portion of the game. There would be advantages to having settlers as well as the liability of keeping them safe. There could be quests to rescue special settlers which would add their unique features/abilities to your settlement.

Dr. Angie - Can cure infection.

Farmer Ed - Auto harvesting.

Agent Hank Kimball - Increased crop yield.

Victor the Engineer - 10% increase to block durability in settlement.

Brother Samson - Able to take a beating (200% standard hit points).

Some late game items/crafting could be gated behind having a certain quantity of settlers, so there could also be settlers with detrimental traits which you might be willing to keep given the headcount they provide.

Fat @%$# - Decreased crop yield.

Mr. McFeely - Decreased morale (may trigger other settlers to take the day off and not provide their bonuses).

Navesgane Sam - Bully who will on occasion rough up another settler leaving them immobile and unable to provide bonuses for up to a week.

Most/all of the settlers need not be able to fight (that's your job), so no complex AI necessary for the overtaxed devs.

-Morloc

I wanted to reply to this to bring this back to the top, because this post fits with how the Devs are currently doing the game. (Items have specific bonuses given to the player).

So having people giving bonuses to the player as well would fit in with the game.  Finding people in POI's is perfect because you might find Bandits in POI's as well... Soon!

Also adding NPC's as part of the loot system would liven things up!  

 

[jeromeN7]

"I once loved this game..." This title sums up how I feel about this game.

 

[Maharin]

"I once loved this game..." This title sums up how I feel about this game.

Maybe you need to practice foreplay?