PC is A17 removing the much beloved run and gun aspect?
- Thread starter ilukaappledash
- Start date
Roland
Community Moderator
You made a political statement about a movement that Trump was involved with to make your point. Based on past experience there would be at least another person who would come on and ignore the point you were trying to make and instead rail against you for your statement on the movement itself. That would be followed by others and the thread would be derailed. I have no doubt that that is exactly what would happen.
Nixon was long enough ago that there MIGHT not be any blowback to that statement but I always err on the side of the rules which states NO politics on the forums is allowed. So please follow the rules and use nonpolitical examples as analogies
Jedo
Refugee
Fair enough. I see that we have different definitions of what constitutes "politics," so now I know.
The rules also say that "commentary on forum moderation must be done by direct personal message to the mods and not as public posts in the forums." I thought you might give leeway on that rule, and I'm glad that you did. I thought that your answer might be instructive for others, hence asking publicly.
Kubikus
Refugee
In most of the sequences, killing a zombie takes only 2-3 seconds, and using other movements does not make backward sprinting insignificant or downright irrelevant. And if that's not what you're trying to say, I don't know what it is.
Observe when the person fires. They mostly fire when they are sprinting backwards and have zombies follow. They, I think in the lengthy sequence where zombies are being "collected", also fire when moving forward or sideways a few times, but it is not very accurate. The key to the playstyle is lining up zombies in front of you, while running backwards, and then shooting them down. With headshots, preferably. If you never tried, you might lack the imagination to simulate it, but as soon as you actually try it, what I am talking about and what you see in the video will come to you naturally.
You seem to assume that I believe that running zombies can't be dealt with when backward sprinting is removed. A mistake. I will have no problem to kill running zombies on the ground in A17. I said that multiple times in this thread already, and layed out multiple methods how it can be done. Since I like action, I assume I will just use a shotgun instead of a pistol, and find other ways to satisfy my passion for precision. Ohter games, if necessary, or an earlier alpha. I was thinking about making a fun mod for A12, when the game was still running great with 100+ zombies around.
Anyways, what I am saying is that the playstyle in question is fun. And what is fun is what you see in the video, where the person is sprinting backwards and while doing so killing zombies. Because the clip is, as I said, "fit to illustrate the much beloved aspect in question".
Sure, "if". But as I said, that makes no sense. You know it does not. Running zombies, slower than the players backward walking speed? C'mon.
For my playstyle you need to be able to sprint backwards for as long as you like. There also is a difference between fighting a handful of trash mobs or 50 ferals and dogs on horde night. Ferals and dogs are much faster, trashmobs have a speed of "1.1", the feral has "1.3something" and dogs should be "1.6". Feral is now called wig or something. These guys are literally glued to your butt, if you just run away, you need 10 seconds and more to create enough space so you can turn around and fire a few shots. It's no fun at all, you run more than you fight, while the beloved playstyle combines both.
Since you invited me over, I didn't want to be inpolite.
Jedo
Refugee
It does as far as the changes are concerned. The backward sprinter in that video either kills or is caught after a short interval. If you are able to do the same (I'm contending that you can) in A17, then there is no problem.
This already is not a thing, and will continue not being a thing in A17. None of the changes mentioned for A17 suggest that you will not be able to do what you already can do.
You can drop the "you must not understand" lines. It isn't as though this playstyle is a mystery. I would liken it to jumping off a building and firing upward at your enemies (as they fall toward you, to complete the image). It's cool. There's a sense of prowess and adrenaline associated with it because it's more difficult than standing in place and picking off targets (moving or otherwise). My understanding of your playstyle is fine.
Morloc
Arch Necromancer
There's always
if things don't work out...
It takes the hassle of keeping your opponent at just the right range by creating an arbitrary boundary for you to navigate. The general "left & right" movement should feel gloriously familiar. As with 7D2D, the enemies can reach you, though a little clever footwork and marksmanship and everything's cool.
That's a pretty old game though, vector instead of voxel etc. Unsure on availability.
-Morloc
It takes the hassle of keeping your opponent at just the right range by creating an arbitrary boundary for you to navigate. The general "left & right" movement should feel gloriously familiar. As with 7D2D, the enemies can reach you, though a little clever footwork and marksmanship and everything's cool.
That's a pretty old game though, vector instead of voxel etc. Unsure on availability.
-Morloc
Kubikus
Refugee
But that's not true. Simply. In the sequence with the nurse, it takes fairly long until the nurse is dead and the person is sprinting backwards for quite a long time and in the lengthy sequence with the large group, we do not see the end of it, so the sprinter neither kills, nor are they caught after a short interval. I also mentioned that there are much faster enemies, dogs, ferals, and that you have situations with a lot more zombies, on horde night, where you're being chased by 50 and more. You can't kill 50 and more in 2-3 seconds, and if you continue sprinting backward, you don't get cought.
You would - sorry - understand all of that if you simply tried it yourself. Just activate god mode and you'll see. Or have you argued yourself into one of those corners, where you cannot let go of your false opinion anymore, come what may..?
But you can't do the same thing. You cannot sprint backwards for 1 second anymore, not for 2-3 seconds and not for much longer. What you see in the clip is no longer possible, and if you like doing that, then it is a problem.
What? lol Dude, you can sprint backwards in A16. And you can sprint backwards for as long as you want, well, not years, but with a stack of beer you can sprint through the night.
And in A17, you can no longer sprint backwards at all. Maybe you missed that info..?
You say you do, but everything else you say sounds like you don't.
Strange!
Are you really suggesting to try something out to form an opinion? Welcome to the dark side. :smile-new:
Jedo
Refugee
I already said that the nurse was an exception. Exceptions don't define rules. Furthermore, you presented this video evidence, and I am contending with it. If it is not representative or you think that there is better evidence, then you should share it.
No opinions here. I'm arguing about evidence, facts, and reason. I could be interpreting things incorrectly or not have all the evidence, but this isn't about my opinion. Maybe you forgot what I already said?
This would go back to the relative motion stuff...
This was part of why I stopped engaging: seemingly intentional misunderstanding. Obviously you can sprint backwards in A16 and you can't sprint backwards in A17. It seems that you are trying to win an argument by being as exceedingly arrogant and obtuse as possible. You think that I'm not aware of what we've been arguing about for close to 8 pages?
Kubikus
Refugee
I mean, even your point is completely unclear. Evidence to support my position? My position is that what you see in the clip is fun. To do. What else is there? You basically say "no". To what even? "No, this not fun"? Of course it's fun. Of course it's way to play, aka a playstyle. I've seen it in dozens of videos, btw, many by games4kicks, and z nation ffs and Max Fox. Then you say it's... Irrelevant? Insignificant? There is no evidence for it?
I mean... What are you even talking about?
Kubikus
Refugee
Oh, I missed you there.
Yeah but you see, the difference is that Jedo talks about something he never did, and what you refer to is me, knowing that I won't like that something I like doing is being removed. You argue like I could not know how loosing my legs would feel. Maybe I would like it, you argue. No. I wouldn't like it. I might still find happiness in life, but I'd sure miss walking.
Jedo
Refugee
There you go again, being obtuse. Seriously? Your arguments have been about "it is fun"? The content of my arguments for eight pages has been "it's not fun"? It's good that we're ceasing our discussion because you lack some basic comprehension skills.
Go back and read the discussion you started with Roland in this thread if you don't know what we (you and I and meganoth) have been talking about. Heck, you can just glance at the top of the page where the title asks a question.
Kubikus
Refugee
I swear on my life that I have no idea what your point is.
Yes, I argued that sprinting backwards is fun. I admitted that in it's current form it's unrealistic, and I admitted that you can fight running zombies on the ground without sprinting backwards. Just that it's not (as much) fun.
What do you think I argued for..?
That's always easy to say, but it would be much more impressive if you could lay out in a few simple words what the content of your argument actually is. Because I basically say I don't know. I don't know what you argue against or for. Fun? Necessity?
I know what I and mega are talking about. How about you take a short break from your ad hominen and just write a paragraph laying out what your point is. What you argue for or against. I'm not a native speaker, your point might very well not reach me. I doubt it, but it's possible.
Well, you are also talking about something you never did, fighting on foot with zombies in A17. A17 with a lot of stuff changed, especially zombie behaviour and weapon handling. You are totally sure that those other changes have no perceptible influence on this part of the game. I am not so sure, I would say you are probably right and that is not enough. And even if you are right it has to be seen if all the changes together lead to positive effects that we can't see yet and make it worth it, even for you.
PS: Since you faulted me for hyperbole arguments let me point out that comparing it to loosing your leg is a hyperbole argument as well, right?
Kubikus
Refugee
To begin with do I have no doubt that A17 will be worth playing. The game won't be ruined with the removal of backward sprinting. And I believe to have learned how to mod it back in.
And then, I am not totally sure that those other changes have no percetible influence on this part of the game. You'll never quote me saying that. You can quote me saying that I like that certain feature and will miss it when it's gone. Because I really really really like that certain feature. I like that certain feature one hell of a lot, enough to build a whole mod around it, that I played for at least 150 hours. So to make it clear: I really love that feature. It is - for me - among the best things of the game. That's why I know that I will miss it, even if A17 will bring me another type of joy.
Another little thingy I noticed: I don't necessarily think that everybody would have to try fighting running zombies on the ground to understand what I'm talking about. It is not necessarily necessary. But since I can't help the feeling that Jedo does not understand it, I suggest that he should try it out. Because then he would - probably - understand. Others will be able to understand it by a description alone or the clip I linked. So doing it is not at all mandatory.
Hmm... Now that I think about it, I made a mistake calling these statements of yours "hyperboles", because a hyperbole is actually a figure of speech, here's the definition:
hyperbole
[hahy-pur-buh-lee]
noun Rhetoric.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
Here is an example of one of your hyperboles:
You do not obviously and intentionally exeggerate. You exeggerate and present your exeggeration as a fact. You behave like my request and suggestion, to leave beloved features moddable, would literally restrict the developer to freely experiment with the game. And that is not true at all, they could still do whatever the hell they want.
I was wrong to use the word hyperbole. You are using exeggerations, and intend them to be taken literall and want me to counter them, like they were actual arguments.
My hyperbole with the missing legs is there to illustrate that I can forsee how I'd react to a severe restriction in mobility. I don't have to loose my legs first to be able to know I'll miss walking. You can understand that, because you love walking too, while you might not be able to understand how I can know I won't like the removal of backward sprinting, because you don't use it.
That paragraph you cited was a direct reply to a paragraph in which you stated "In any case, yes, I believe that if possible, all kinds of playstyles should be protected" and that is in its generality a different statement than above. And that was in reply to a **general** statement by me that said: ""playstyle" as a word is used much too often in this forum. Every single action anyone does can be styled a "playstyle" and then protection of that demanded."
In that first statement I was not talking about your beloved feature-moddable request at all, but about the general misuse of the word "playstyle" and the demands to not change at all because of being "my playstyle"
That is the danger of parallel discussion on multiple topics in a forum, somewhere inbetween the original train of thought on many of these topics gets lost.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kubikus
Refugee
"Demand" is another of your hy... oops, exeggerations. The quote I used is just one of several examples. See, I expect that you read my posts as a whole, and try to understand what my viewpoint is. I expect of you to be... complaisant in a discussion. I don't need you to be on the hunt for mistakes I certainly make, for stuff that you can interpret to "my disadvantage". I want you to assume I'm a reasonable person who says reasonable things. Had you that attitude towards me, you would've understood that when I speak of "protection", I mean moddability.
And in that post you mention, actually in part two, I write this lengthy double paragraph about what I mean, here comes the quote:
So when you read me saying that, and directly afterwards argue that my "demands" and the "obligations" that I allegedly believe the devs have, practically make development of the game impossible, it looks much like there is no actual interest in even recognizing my viewpoint. But an actual interest to twist my viewpoint around, so it sounds like some utter absurdity.
What for?
Btw. I have now actually found a way to mod the speed of backward movement. This is the principle:
https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?41860-Crouching-Through-1-Block-Tall-Spaces-UABE
Just that you search for "PlayerRun" and change the entry "MotorBackwardsSpeed". For me, a value of 0.6 feels nice, vanilla currently has 0.8. Obviously I haven't tested it much. This should be in an easy to access xml-file. Why not? I might've not written more than "I don't like it, but since it can be modded, it's ok I guess" in this thread. Maybe I would've argued why I believe that simply removing backward sprinting is a bad decision in general, but our discussion would quite probably not have happened.