PC It's all gone wrong, terribly wrong.

[AtomicUs5000]

Im glad you finally see how an LBD model harms gameplay. I purposely limit myself on quests for the sake of preserving my own fun much in the way I used to limit myself on spamming crafting or specific skill activities. 

No. I’m living proof that this statement isn’t a universal truth. I’m not the only one. I know that there are many who play differently and focus on other goals than rushing the progression in ways that are unnatural just because it’s possible to do so. Only in a PvP competitive environment is anyone forced to find the most lucrative and efficient progression paths. 

Sure it is. Not only that but it is a viable practical philosophy I utilize whenever I play. The first time I utilized it was when I decided to play Ironman and deleted my own game and started over after I died. It’s called “free will” and I don’t just argue for it, I live by it as well. 
 

You can tell me all day long that the game forces us to spam quest after quest after quest but since I don’t do that AND I successfully survive I just don’t believe you. 
 

I’ll have to address the rest of your post later….

 
I see both of your sides on this. I have to add that when criticizing the current game loop, you should also try to do so from the perspective of a new player.  
I think when you play a lot, and things are not to your liking, you are more likely to shift your habits and try different things. The fact that you can even do this is great, but at the same time, is this really something that should be in the mind of a new player? It's easy to do when you are comfortable with the game and know every single mechanic.
 
I have to agree that this feels like an LBD system. LBD might be terrible for some people, and it might not have been very exciting, but I see some differences. The LBD system was never intended to be the actual game loop for starters.. and although some people might have put focus on it, realistically it never was or could be the main game loop. For most people, it was something a little extra you could do if you chose to. Your survival didn't hinge on it and there was always something more important to do. In this case it is pretty clear, especially to a new player, that this is indeed the more important thing you should be doing (and really compared to LBD, there is actually less variety of things to do).
 
"Just don't use it" or "just don't do it" I think can be valid arguments, especially in this game for some things. There was a time where I would apply that to the trader. I've always hated the trader, so I just didn't use the trader. It was pretty cool that it was balanced where the effort to survive was generally the same whether you chose to do everything on your own or rely on trades and economy. As a new player, you would quickly see these choices and decide on your strategy. These days, avoiding the trader is like removing half of the content and grinding the trader is the go to strategy, conveniently handed to you with no thought required from the player. The trader is the focal point now. Avoiding the trader and the missions for the sake of trying to harness that survival game feeling disconnects yourself too much from that game loop.

 

[Viktoriusiii]

It was pretty cool that it was balanced where the effort to survive was generally the same whether you chose to do everything on your own or rely on trades and economy.

Yeah. Maybe I should have said that... but I thought it was implied:

"Just do something else" is a valid argument, if there are other options that are just as viable as the one you don't like.
So if I dislike that you need paint for a sham sandwhich (obviously I love this detail, but I needed an example that nobody used before ), I can simply eat other foods. There is no noticable difference between a sham sandwhich and other foods.

If I dislike , lets say... building a hordebase.
What am I supposed to do that is equally efficient?

-use exploits (?) like driving away or just dying to crouch the hordenight?
- ... there is nothing else as effective.

Sure I could just build like I did in pre A17 days.
But that would get me killed 9/10 times, because on difficulties that I need to feel challenged, they just rip one hole in the wall and my whole house is at risk.
 

And same goes for quests.
There is no other way to get levels, money AND loot this quickly. There simply isn't.
Give me a group of 3 that don't use the quests, against me with quests, on any day I outscale them so hard that they'd wish to have never started this 3v1.

Wait maybe if you'd just go city to city, just cheesing every pois lootroom... that might be as effective... at least on the loot aspect.
And for xp I could go with a screamer base...

But yeah... both of those are just cheesing a gamemechanic.

 

[Matt115]

View attachment 25120

They want to make 7dtd as " tutorial how to play" as base for mods. That's why 7dtd will not offer "struggle for survival"

 

[JCrook1028]

And no it is not optional.

It's absolutely optional. NO one is forcing you to do anything. If you cannot control yourself that's on you.

There is no other way to get levels, money AND loot this quickly.

You are the one deciding it needs to be done quickly. You and only you are making this choice. I personally don't go so far as to never do more than 1 quest a day but it's a rare day when I do so. It does happen tho every now and then.

 

[meganoth]

Yeah. Maybe I should have said that... but I thought it was implied:

"Just do something else" is a valid argument, if there are other options that are just as viable as the one you don't like.
So if I dislike that you need paint for a sham sandwhich (obviously I love this detail, but I needed an example that nobody used before ), I can simply eat other foods. There is no noticable difference between a sham sandwhich and other foods.

If I dislike , lets say... building a hordebase.
What am I supposed to do that is equally efficient?

-use exploits (?) like driving away or just dying to crouch the hordenight?
- ... there is nothing else as effective.

Sure I could just build like I did in pre A17 days.
But that would get me killed 9/10 times, because on difficulties that I need to feel challenged, they just rip one hole in the wall and my whole house is at risk.
 

And same goes for quests.
There is no other way to get levels, money AND loot this quickly. There simply isn't.
Give me a group of 3 that don't use the quests, against me with quests, on any day I outscale them so hard that they'd wish to have never started this 3v1.

Since you use survival as the root motivation you have an argumentative problem here: For survival in 7D2D skilling up as fast as possible is detrimental even. Because the enemies scales with your level, but the number of resources you get is constant with time. So skilling up fast means getting the stronger enemies earlier but with less resources to combat them.

So lets remove quests?
NO. That was never the argument.

You probably should rewrite this before Roland gets a cheap shot by rightly accusing you of strawmanning

 

[meganoth]

1. this could be done easy if mining would be only soruce of brass,

I don't see how brass mining instead of looting would help at all.

making bullets will be expensive neccesity of advance workbenches with upgrades + scrapped perks skill by reducing this so receptures + perks magasines ( i don't mean LBL but old magasines like art of mining), 

Ammo could be reduced without changing the game completely. The problem is that TFP itself doesn't see a necessity to reduce ammo further.

 

[Roland]

There is no other way to get levels, money AND loot this quickly. There simply isn't.

Prove to me that it must be done quickly. I don't do it quickly and survive just fine. That's on warrior difficulty which is where I prefer the game and is default +2.  I'm betting that even at highest difficulty you don't have to spam quest to stay ahead of the difficulty curve. You just choose to do so. Its like the very first horde night on day 7 could easily be survived with a wood base because it is such a cakewalk. But how many people push to have concrete in place before their first hordenight? That is far far far more efficiency than is needed to survive and nothing forces you to go that far even if it is allowed as a possibility.

Give me a group of 3 that don't use the quests, against me with quests, on any day I outscale them so hard that they'd wish to have never started this 3v1.

I already said that if you are playing competitively then of course you must keep up and try to surpass those you are against. But in most cases people aren't talking about PvP. Is that what you have been talking about all along? PvP gameplay? I've been talking from the perspective of single player and cooperative where it doesn't matter whether you are the highest level character or not.

 

[Matt115]

I don't see how brass mining instead of looting would help at all.

Ammo could be reduced without changing the game completely. The problem is that TFP itself doesn't see a necessity to reduce ammo further.

1. effectivenes -- > you want to make iron tools - forge. You  want bullet casting? fine spend 1 hour for 10 of them. you want to have them more? mine with better tools and make better forge but this mean you need steel etc

2.  Yes it's problem because of dmg etc perks and because number of zombie hp is too big. If  ammo was reduced by 80-90% this mean bullets have too be much much powerfull that melee weapons and "no gunpowder" range - 2  pistol bullet normal zombie head mean instant dead of zombie.  

 

[Ramethzer0]

I'm not saying you can't have fun without a challenge.
But its not a survival game, if you don't have to struggle to survive.

 

View attachment 25120

This can be a cheeky and often selfish argument to make.

You might realize that sometimes parts of the game are easy, not because every nuance of it has been made to be difficult by TFP, but because you - as an experienced player in 7D2D - know how to make things easier on yourself.

That's not a flaw in a game's design.   A lot of people seriously overlook the fact that their own presence can change things.   Newer players and players with less experience in managing their play and game will not have the same argument.  People still struggle, and I've personally watched streams of people who clearly have very little knowledge and experience maximizing their own output.

 

[Matt115]

This can be a cheeky and often selfish argument to make.

You might realize that sometimes parts of the game are easy, not because every nuance of it has been made to be difficult by TFP, but because you - as an experienced player in 7D2D - know how to make things easier on yourself.

That's not a flaw in a game's design.   A lot of people seriously overlook the fact that their own presence can change things.   Newer players and players with less experience in managing their play and game will not have the same argument.  People still struggle, and I've personally watched streams of people who clearly have very little knowledge and experience maximizing their own output.

This unfortunatly this way - some things are hard and this not connected with "skill". Because of RNG. L4D2 is good example of that one time while i was playing in dead air i get witch, tank in this same place somehow- this is not possible to do with AWP only team ( lack of ammo so we picked AWP). In older cods you could do easter egg quest very hard or easy depending on your luck. This same thing with city of brass or biding of issac. So... let say gamestage in 7dtd don't exist- if you have in first car you can find automatic shotgun but in small newsstand you can find screamer - so this depends on your luck not on your experience. And.. well spoiled of food is harded that not spoiled food system right? this same thing with smell, corpse decying , old wellness system etc. now 7dtd is much easier that older ones - not because we are more experied but because game is much easier

 

[Roland]

Okay, now for the rest....

Same as before. And while easy normal mode might work like this... why would you even want the skills if they don't give you an advantage?
This is a death or die situation.
Either they are useless so you can use whatever, or they give you an advantage which means using other weapons is less effective, which, as said above, locks them from being "the most efficient route" and is at best a backup weapon.

I maintain that every weapon in the game is good enough to kill zombies. Some work better than others and some work differently than others. If you perk into a weapon then it is going to be the best at killing zombies but that doesn't mean you couldn't do it with an unperked weapon. 

Having different weapons with different strengths and weaknesses makes the game play differently each time you play. Making all the guns equal would make the gameplay feel samey no matter what weapon you picked up. It wouldn't matter if it was a spear or a club or a shotgun or an AK47 if they all killed equally well.

For that reason I am glad the weapons are different and some lead to more challenging playthroughs. For someone who will only play with the best, that means the rest are just backup weapons. For someone who is willing to play with a different kit each time, that means having fun and working through different challenges several times over. The only difference is in the perspective of the player.

There is no way to develop for players who are chronically obsessed with the one most efficient route. No matter what changes or balancing is done there will always be one way that is perceived as the new best path and those players will quickly get bored of the one and only way they choose to play (they call it forced lol) and then are back to chiding the developers for a re-balance. In addition, if developers listen to those players and attempt to do it then all the paths become equal and it doesn't matter which one you take and so for everyone else the game feels samey and loses its replay value.

Best option for developers is to ignore hardcore min/maxers completely. Make the game that they envision people playing if they aren't trying to speed run and either:

A) Put restrictions and rules in place that block min/maxers from rushing the game or

B) Allow gamers to do as they wish and people will choose to either play naturally or rush.

I'm all for a limit on daily quests and a daily cap on xp earned from the same activity. Make it so you can only do 1 quest a day per trader and xp from doing a particular activity diminishes throughout the day until it finally reaches zero and doesn't regen until the next day. That would slow people the hell down for sure....but also take freedom away. I'm happy to continue to self limit how many quests I do since it also allows someone else to spam quests all they want. In my game quests are not broken. They are perfect because I don't abuse them.

So here are our types of gamers

1) Controls self from abusing quests and is pleased with how the game plays.

2) Spams quests and is pleased with how the game plays.

3) Spams quests and is not pleased because it dominates their game but they can't limit themselves.

It is only the third group who isn't happy and if they get what they want it won't really affect the first group since they self limit already but the second group will get screwed by actually being forced by the game to not be able to play as they wish. Should the group who has impulse control problems and weak self-discipline and claims to be "forced" when there is no actual mechanism in place forcing be the ones to dictate that the second group is actually going to start getting forced by actual rules and mechanics that prevent them from playing the way they like?

As a member of the first group it wouldn't bother me but you guys in the third group could also read a few self-help books and save the rest of us a lot of trouble....

The demolisher is STPIDLY OP because he does not have a weakness. Said this since his introduction. Still not fixed:
large healthpool, insane damage, a lot of armor, traps activate his bomb and shooting the ticker STILL does massive blockdamage.

I don't think you've played in awhile...

Against the SURVIVAL GAME.
Sure on easy it is easy to survive. But whatever difficulty you chose, it should be challenging to you, or it is no longer a survival game.

I agree that the survival game should be challenging and in limiting myself I make it more challenging. Obsessively choosing the optimal path makes the game less challenging. If you race to concrete blocks before the first bloodmoon then you have basically destroyed the challenge of surviving the horde because it won't ever be strong enough to overcome what you have done by rushing. 

I want the challenge of survival so I don't rush. I play each day trying to mirror what I think I would do in the actual situation (to a degree, of course). I don't try and farm xp using whatever best activity has been determined to be the current flavor for grinding all so I can  be level 20 by day 3 and have my concrete base by day 7. I know that concrete isn't even close to necessary until at least the 3rd or 4th hordenight so work with wood and cobblestone for the first few weeks and that has proven to be sufficient for survival. It also makes for some extremely fun hordenights which would have been a lot more ho hum if I had concrete from the very beginning.

I like clearing towns because that feels more thematic and realistic to what I would do rather than just going to the same few quest locations over and over and over. So I take one job a day and spend time exploring and clearing out other POIs without a quest. Does this cause me to fail at survival? No way. I'm definitely keeping up with the progression the game follows to kill me.

So you reach level 100 on day 40 and I reach level 100 on day 90 and we both survive and get to the point where we feel we won. Who cares that you did it 50 days faster than I did? There is no prize for than other than in your own mind.

I play on Warrior difficulty and feel that my more casual and more natural progress through the development path is more than equal to the task of the challenge of survival. If I upped the difficulty another level I might need to be a bit more efficient but I can't believe it would be by much more and certainly not to the levels people here describe when they come to complain about where their own choices landed them. 

 

[Roland]

I'm not saying you can't have fun without a challenge.
But its not a survival game, if you don't have to struggle to survive.

 

View attachment 25120

7 Days to Die does offer a struggle to everyone who hasn't optimized it out of their game by rushing. "Survival" gameplay is created by the threats to your life. I am saying that as an experienced player, by limiting myself and not playing the game with a focus on always taking the optimal path and always using my time to rush the progression in grindy unnatural ways, I do not outpace the threats and therefore I do experience survival gameplay. 

As an experienced player, you know all the ins and outs of the game and can optimize your play in such a way that any and all threats the game has can be outpaced and left in the dust which means you are not experiencing survival gameplay at all.

Brand new players don't know these strategies and so they do the best they can and are almost always in survival mode.

I am happy to have the game remain as it is so that people can choose to experience survival gameplay by not outpacing the threats or to rush and play the game as a god of the apocalypse and never feel danger from any threats because of what they chose to do.

You want the game changed in a way to prevent you from rushing because you recognize that you don't like the state of the game once you've rushed but you also can't help yourself and will rush every time even knowing that you are erasing the survival gameplay as you do. The problem is that will destroy the gameplay of those who rush and like the result of rushing.

 

[Roland]

So lets remove quests?
NO. That was never the argument.
A great system, like quests or LBD needs to be tweaked until the kinks are gone.

That's not my argument either. Besides, I already know that quests are being expanded again in A21.

Let's be clear about what you mean when you say quests need to be tweaked. You are saying that they need to be limited somehow. That's fine by me. I would rather 7 Days to Die be more of a game than a sandbox anyway. But, just so you understand, by limiting quests in order to bring them to heel so that they no longer overwhelm the gameplay loop like they currently do, the devs would literally be forcing a particular gameplay style. You are asking the devs to LITERALLY force us to play a particular way even as you are complaining that they FIGURATIVELY force us to play a particular way now simply because the option to do unlimited quests exists.

I just want the people to know I'm happy self-limiting how I play quests and how I use the trader but if the devs decide to impose limits and force us to a more limited questing game that isn't going to bother me either....but it might bother some of you. Just saying...

 

[Matt115]

7 Days to Die does offer a struggle to everyone who hasn't optimized it out of their game by rushing. "Survival" gameplay is created by the threats to your life. I am saying that as an experienced player, by limiting myself and not playing the game with a focus on always taking the optimal path and always using my time to rush the progression in grindy unnatural ways, I do not outpace the threats and therefore I do experience survival gameplay. 

As an experienced player, you know all the ins and outs of the game and can optimize your play in such a way that any and all threats the game has can be outpaced and left in the dust which means you are not experiencing survival gameplay at all.

Brand new players don't know these strategies and so they do the best they can and are almost always in survival mode.

I am happy to have the game remain as it is so that people can choose to experience survival gameplay by not outpacing the threats or to rush and play the game as a god of the apocalypse and never feel danger from any threats because of what they chose to do.

You want the game changed in a way to prevent you from rushing because you recognize that you don't like the state of the game once you've rushed but you also can't help yourself and will rush every time even knowing that you are erasing the survival gameplay as you do. The problem is that will destroy the gameplay of those who rush and like the result of rushing.

No Roland... 7dtd is easy game.  they can find trader very easy and do quest very easy. 7dtd is very fast "learn to play" . and "play on harder setting" hm... here is not solution. Why? zombies are just bulletsponges. Ok i understand why start gun i RE2 need a lot of bullets on normal difficuty to kill zombie - just read this gun decription (it's weak but small pistol). I undestand why stone weapons are weak. okay i undestand that - but firefighter axe need so many hit's too kill zombie?  ( i know about sledgehammer but...  damn sledgehammer should one hit kill spider zombie too) - no more room is good example what i mean - you can one hit kill every zombie using gun except soldiers ( one hand melee is terrible weak but two hand is usually 1 hit kill too) but it's hard - why? infection is rly easy to get, zombie children are so small and fast, number of zombie is big and soldiers zombie need a lot of bullets etc. Yes i know it's not sandbox and zombie limits in 7dtd.  But... this is good example how to do this right. I know it's too late. Just i hope it will be done better in 7dtd 2 . But new 7dtd will released probablymaybe after 10 - 15 years. Damn,..... this sounds so deppresing

 

[Kalen]

Let's be clear about what you mean when you say quests need to be tweaked. You are saying that they need to be limited somehow. That's fine by me. I would rather 7 Days to Die be more of a game than a sandbox anyway. But, just so you understand, by limiting quests in order to bring them to heel so that they no longer overwhelm the gameplay loop like they currently do, the devs would literally be forcing a particular gameplay style. You are asking the devs to LITERALLY force us to play a particular way even as you are complaining that they FIGURATIVELY force us to play a particular way now simply because the option to do unlimited quests exists.

I do agree that questing has come to dominate game play.   But for me the problem isn't really the quests, its POI itemization.   It used to be that if you were looking for certain types of loot, you targeted specific POIs (Working Stiffs for tools, Crack a Book for books.... etc).   Now, however, loot has become homogenized; you can find just about anything anywhere.   With the incentive to loot particular POIs so greatly diminished, I feel like the best course of action is to not bother looting a POI unless you're doing it for a quest.... since it doesn't matter what POI they send you too.

If itemization went back to like it was in previous alphas it becomes a choice between doing a quest that sends you to a house, where you're not likely to find high quality tools or weapons... or foregoing the quest to loot a Shotgun Messiah where you are likely to find decent weapons.  Then, I think, questing will no longer be the dominant way to progress.

 

[Viktoriusiii]

[...]

I am sorry to do this, but I cannot possibly answer all of your statements, because if I do, I do it in detail and then I'll need multiple posts

So let me say it like this:

I do not want to take "freedom" away from anyone. Keep the quests if possible, but fix looting systems or whatever.
My point was that there is something wrong with the gameplay loop and I offered an "easy" solution.
But games, ESPECIALLY creative and survival games NEED boundries! They are essential.


But to boil it down:
I think my aspect of 7d2d is horror survival, while yours seems to be roleplay sandbox.
Which is totally fine, I just think the game fails on being a horror survival game and has become less and less so basicially every alpha since 11 I think. (at first it was basicially not noticable and I was actually for it)
This is where our differences lie. I want a challanging game that gives me challenges to overcome, you want to play the game your way and have fun that way.
And it does not matter if I am experienced or not. A good survival/horror game finds ways to challenge even the experienced of players (except speedrunners that use exploits and plan their routes beforehand )
Be it with harder difficulties, less loot or even harder recipes.
The problem is what we want from the game, not my experiencelevel. I've had great games that I optimized that were still challenging. Or if I found something broken they fixed it, tried to or I at least thought they should.

If you want to play an RPG sandbox, that is fine. And I think 7d2d is ok at that.
But in my mind, it isn't. So that is why I say these things. And a "real" survival game is as I stated. it needs a challenge. It needs good balance, or it will be played once and never again (obviously overly generalized but you get the point)



PS: I haven't played it quite a while, that is true. At least not to a point where I was able to analyze demolishers
At least I give you that much

 

[Matt115]

But to boil it down:
I think my aspect of 7d2d is horror survival, while yours seems to be roleplay sandbox.
 

And if i good undestand  some comments - a lot of people want to be just funny MP play to with friends and mode base. So yeah this sound sad but whatever. Not expect nothing good. But this at least explain why  there is so many  similiar PVP sandbox games xd

This is where our differences lie. I want a challanging game that gives me challenges to overcome, you want to play the game your way and have fun that way.
And it does not matter if I am experienced or not. A good survival/horror game finds ways to challenge even the experienced of players (except speedrunners that use exploits and plan their routes beforehand )
 

Well - good survival horror don't have to be challenge to be good - f.e.a.r. , contagion,  dead by daylight, NZA, days gone etc.  it have to : 1. keep good setting 2. don't fear to be controversial 3. not set to be for everyone 4. have a lot lore 

If you want to play an RPG sandbox, that is fine. And I think 7d2d is ok at that.
But in my mind, it isn't. So that is why I say these things. And a "real" survival game is as I stated. it needs a challenge. It needs good balance, or it will be played once and never again (obviously overly generalized but you get the point)


 

I think how 7dtd looks like now is just.... hm... to safe and too much for everyone

 

[Ramethzer0]

This unfortunatly this way - some things are hard and this not connected with "skill". Because of RNG. L4D2 is good example of that one time while i was playing in dead air i get witch, tank in this same place somehow- this is not possible to do with AWP only team ( lack of ammo so we picked AWP). In older cods you could do easter egg quest very hard or easy depending on your luck. This same thing with city of brass or biding of issac. So... let say gamestage in 7dtd don't exist- if you have in first car you can find automatic shotgun but in small newsstand you can find screamer - so this depends on your luck not on your experience. And.. well spoiled of food is harded that not spoiled food system right? this same thing with smell, corpse decying , old wellness system etc. now 7dtd is much easier that older ones - not because we are more experied but because game is much easier

I read this twice and its a bit of a word salad for me to understand, but I'll try my best to respond to what I think is the spirit of your concern: 

if you're saying that your experience hasn't made you better at this game, I'm going to call you out on that.  The foundation of human intuition (and incidentally, progression) is based in pattern recognition, even as newborns.

If the RNG is the same across the board, then everyone has the same opportunities/chances.  That's the nature of RNG.   It can make things tougher or easier, but to rail against that is like blaming the universe for your own misfortune.  Misfortune is one of the many intricacies that defines a survival experience.

The comparison of the current state of the game versus older version seems to be a pretty flat argument.  Those older versions were not as polished and likely had different goals in mind.  Similarly (if I read this right) comparison includes the state of other games in relation to this one.   Projecting your woes upon this game because it hasn't met the same standards you find agreeable in other games or older versions - that's not something that a developer should ever waste their time worrying about.

You also have the ability on your own to set certain bars that are linked to a more difficult experience.  Have you attempted to play with the settings to trim what sort of experience you're making for yourself?

 

[Roland]

But games, ESPECIALLY creative and survival games NEED boundries! They are essential.

100% agree and I have no problem adding rules and boundaries to make this more of a game than a sandbox. 
 

But trust me that there will be many others screaming bloody murder the moment an aspect of their sandbox is switched to game mode. 
 

I think my aspect of 7d2d is horror survival, while yours seems to be roleplay sandbox.

It’s more like I’m willing to use the sandbox nature of the game to self limit myself so that I can role play horror survival. That way I don’t step on anyone else’s toes by demanding a whole swath of the sandbox get formalized into a game with hard and fast rules. 
 

At the least, limiting myself is a solution for ongoing enjoyment until the devs add rules that limit the game for me. Either way it’s a win. Instead of hating the game because it’s boring since I had my concrete base since day five so there is no threat and no survival, I role play limits and don’t rush to concrete and it’s fun and I’m struggling to survive. 
 

This is where our differences lie. I want a challanging game that gives me challenges to overcome, you want to play the game your way and have fun that way.

The way I see it is you rush the progression because you are allowed to and as an experienced player you know how to and so you feel no challenge. From Day one you are far beyond the threats the game can deliver. I refuse to rush and just do some of everything as my mood or necessity dictates and so I am often behind or right with the threat level of the game and so I actually do experience a struggle to survive. We both want that struggle to survive. You just choose to move beyond it asap. 
 

And it does not matter if I am experienced or not. A good survival/horror game finds ways to challenge even the experienced of players (except speedrunners that use exploits and plan their routes beforehand )

I have to disagree. It is because you are an experienced player that you intuitively know your routes ahead of time. You aren’t the type to use exploits per se but still your experience and knwledge give you an edge over a new player. Most new players flounder about and have a tough time preparing for the very first blood moon while you probably already have at least some of your base built with concrete. Experience in the game is huge for being able to rocket beyond the threats that equal survival gameplay. 

 

[Rotor]

100% agree and I have no problem adding rules and boundaries to make this more of a game than a sandbox. 
 

But trust me that there will be many others screaming bloody murder the moment an aspect of their sandbox is switched to game mode. 
 

It’s more like I’m willing to use the sandbox nature of the game to self limit myself so that I can role play horror survival. That way I don’t step on anyone else’s toes by demanding a whole swath of the sandbox get formalized into a game with hard and fast rules. 
 

At the least, limiting myself is a solution for ongoing enjoyment until the devs add rules that limit the game for me. Either way it’s a win. Instead of hating the game because it’s boring since I had my concrete base since day five so there is no threat and no survival, I role play limits and don’t rush to concrete and it’s fun and I’m struggling to survive. 

I will be the first.  I only have a couple of hundred hours now.

My highest day without dying was like 67.

But I play permadeath.  No quests.  All it takes is one mistake. 

So to get a bit snobbish, I once read that sandboxes are for the intelligent gamer .