I think the thing that you're missing is that "go out and scavenge/loot/hunt during the day, and retreat to safety at night (except for horde nights)" is a perfectly valid and enjoyable playstyle for many.
It's certainly the playstyle I prefer and the playstyle that all the people I play with prefer. It has verisimilitude in that it feels like what you should be doing during a zombie apocalypse (especially if the zombies are more active and more dangerous at night), and it matches the rhythm of the game.
First of all, sorry for the long post. I am actually rooting for a similar kind of playstyle, when it comes to suggesting any kind of underground threats, because I like living underground as well. Most of my suggestions are along the lines of "make it harder to maintain/add more reasons to scavenge/add a hazard that can passively, up to a point, be countered". Give the player a
well-weighted choice, between playstyles. Each with its different pros and cons.
Because the main principles of a survival game (like this one, among other genres), is for the player to overcome adversity in order to survive. Without a well-weighted choice, the player who has bought a survival game (among other genres yes, yes), will look for the optimal way to survive. Most people who bought the game, after my recomendation, actually refunded it for that reason.
If the player has to create adversity himself in order to survive (by effectively limiting himself to half the game's worldspace, which is tragic by itself), it can't possibly be considered a survival game.
It's like buying a generic RPG (in which you fight enemies
at your leisure) and saying it is survival by pretending you died of hunger/thirst after an arbitary alarm-clock timer runs out. It amazes me every time I see a "then just don't dig" reply because not only do I consider it completely ridiculous, but insensitive/"douchey" as well, since it's like suggesting the other person to ignore the fact that the game is voxelized. A game with "survival at your leisure/on demand" is definitely not survival.
In other simpler words, the underground is a no-brainer for someone who *wants to survive* at the moment. What some people are doing is to ask the player to use his willpower, to stop seeking survival by ignoring parts of the game, in order to enjoy seeking survival, which is the point of someone who has bought a survival game. That's how non-sensical that is.
I do understand the concept of this "valid playstyle" you describe as I mentioned in the first paragraph. But it's far from valid in its current state. It WOULD be valid, if the game was tagged as an RPG or sandbox, but it is also tagged as a tower-defense/survival, which as explained above cannot be on demand because their very concept is negated by that. So if you want to call the playstyle "valid", you subsequently admit or claim that the game is being falsely advertised.
And let's not kid outselves, the underground being a safe-space
any time you require, with horde nights not being an exception (why would they? I really hope you don't tell me because a player might choose so) is "god mode on demand" even if it is or may be a valid playstyle. Having to scavenge only adds the "on demand" part, because there would be no demand for a safe space if you never had to walk away from it. So how was what I said invalid?
In fact, without food spoilage or any kind of maintenance, this is not even the case after 1-2 weeks in the game. Resources are easily stockpiled with minimal loot settings and just like that you are set for the rest of the game.
Personally I am all for options, since I don't care much about the game's success anymore, I just want to play a good survival/rpg etc game.
No ..The thread should be :- I solved the underground base exploit!!!! FOR MYSELF....Total stupid idea..Just let everyone play as they want to...there money..there game
I guess me telling you that him saying that, would be redundant, is also redudant considering the content of your post.
)
