Jars one time use, need the crucible and smell ruins stealth even more.

[Sapient6]

Zombies are the walking dead. They are rotting. They stink. Very bad. Why are they smelling us, rather than us smelling them?

A wizard did it.

By which I mean: the answers to your question are the same as the answers to the question "why are dead, rotting, stinking carcasses walking, running, and trying to eat us?"

 

[Kyoji]

Perhaps they will in a later update. I'd like to see that myself or, at least, an option to have them. I get that they want rural to be rural, but it doesn't make sense to me to restrict that to a specific biome. It's more an aestethic than a mechanical consideration, imo, and should certainly put the quietus on some of the "they're making us play their way"...stuff.

Would be kind of neat to have one sub-biome within each biome that diversify gameplay. Perhaps some of the sub biomes would be additive to the difficulty of the biome so that you may have a smaller area within the forest than is more difficult than base desert or snow biomes as an example. I am not sure what sub biomes would be lore appropriate, but some new aesthetics within each biome would be welcome.

 

[Worrun]

We're adding sandbox options in 2.8. I added "Vending machines are broken" as an option due to your suggestion, although that will make candy obsolete unless we add a way to find it. I mainly like the elixers but the rock busters and salvage ones are great. We already have trader options planned as well as item archtype abundancy options so you'll be able to fine tune to your hearts content what your idea of balance should be, and yes, this should help us balance the discrepancy between sp and mp.

Perhaps consider adding some or all of the candies to the medical or pharmacy loot table, with a lower spawn chance in the grocery store tables.

 

[faatal]

Is it just me, or are folks just being polite?

Zombies are the walking dead. They are rotting. They stink. Very bad. Why are they smelling us, rather than us smelling them?

As far as a useful thing, why can the surviving, 4 legged predators not get this smell, and hunt down and attack the fresh meat bearing human hunters?

This doesn't offend my delicate sensibilities, and would both make more sense than rotting, mobil corpses smelling me, and improve the game.

Thoughts?

Just because you emit a certain smell, does not mean you cannot smell a wide range of smells. A wild mangy dog might stink, but he can still smell you.

Animals in the game receive smells just like zombies. I called the option AI Smell Mode, not Zombie Smell Mode for just that reason.

 

[faatal]

A wizard did it.

By which I mean: the answers to your question are the same as the answers to the question "why are dead, rotting, stinking carcasses walking, running, and trying to eat us?"

Zombies are pure fantasy.

Animated corpses would no longer be moving in weeks with the lack of food as they already ate most people. Sit in a bunker for a month and zombies would all be really dead. You would then only have to worry about survivors that died, who then turned into fresh zombies, which you would easily kill. Bandits would then be the real issue.

 

[Riamus]

Would be kind of neat to have one sub-biome within each biome that diversify gameplay. Perhaps some of the sub biomes would be additive to the difficulty of the biome so that you may have a smaller area within the forest than is more difficult than base desert or snow biomes as an example. I am not sure what sub biomes would be lore appropriate, but some new aesthetics within each biome would be welcome.

I would love more biomes and sub-biomes. But a sub-biome that looks just like the main biome doesn't really make sense even if it had different stats. And they had to remove a number of biomes because of limitations. Adding sub-biomes with different looks would be the same as adding more full biomes... i.e. not something they can do unless something changes. The best that could be done would be to change tree density, which they do now, or to maybe get some additional tree/plant blocks that can be used to make it seem different without adding more biome textures. But can you make it really look that different in a way that makes sense for it to be harder with just trees? Is a birch wooded area harder or easier than a maple or oak or pine wooded area? There isn't any reason it would be. So I don't think we'll get sub-biomes like you suggest, though I'd still like to see more tree and plant blocks just for variety.

 

[Kyoji]

I would love more biomes and sub-biomes. But a sub-biome that looks just like the main biome doesn't really make sense even if it had different stats. And they had to remove a number of biomes because of limitations. Adding sub-biomes with different looks would be the same as adding more full biomes... i.e. not something they can do unless something changes. The best that could be done would be to change tree density, which they do now, or to maybe get some additional tree/plant blocks that can be used to make it seem different without adding more biome textures. But can you make it really look that different in a way that makes sense for it to be harder with just trees? Is a birch wooded area harder or easier than a maple or oak or pine wooded area? There isn't any reason it would be. So I don't think we'll get sub-biomes like you suggest, though I'd still like to see more tree and plant blocks just for variety.

I thought it was only ground textures that were the issue? Either way it would be nice to get biomes looking nicer even if there isn't anything special about them.

 

[Riamus]

I thought it was only ground textures that were the issue? Either way it would be nice to get biomes looking nicer even if there isn't anything special about them.

Right, but if the ground looks the same, does it really change anything by just changing trees and bushes? As it is, the burnt forest and the wasteland look so similar now that they might as well get rid of the burnt forest and replace it with something that is more unique. There isn't really anything about it that feels like a different biome other than that you cough smoke instead of radiation when not protected and the wasteland has iron. I know the ores have a different ratio, but that's not really a big deal. And I know the zombies have a different ratio, but again... not that big of a deal, and I don't think that's necessarily a good choice for sub-biomes since those can be pretty small. So what really makes it feel like a different biome other than how it looks? And the terrain texture is a pretty big part of that, imo.

 

[Kyoji]

Right, but if the ground looks the same, does it really change anything by just changing trees and bushes? As it is, the burnt forest and the wasteland look so similar now that they might as well get rid of the burnt forest and replace it with something that is more unique. There isn't really anything about it that feels like a different biome other than that you cough smoke instead of radiation when not protected and the wasteland has iron. I know the ores have a different ratio, but that's not really a big deal. And I know the zombies have a different ratio, but again... not that big of a deal, and I don't think that's necessarily a good choice for sub-biomes since those can be pretty small. So what really makes it feel like a different biome other than how it looks? And the terrain texture is a pretty big part of that, imo.

I think it can make a big difference. Adding terrain feature variety would be a massive help. Adding more tree, grass and bush types in the snow biome along with perhaps frozen lakes that require a pick to break before you can get water. The burnt forest needs more variety as well with fallen down trees, smoldering trees with cinders etc. The desert biome could use more as well with a variety of tree types native to the desert. The wasteland needs pools of toxic water with green gas emitting from them. These are just random ideas off the top of my head, but with some thought I am sure someone can think of a few good things to add to liven up the scenery.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

Would be kind of neat to have one sub-biome within each biome that diversify gameplay. Perhaps some of the sub biomes would be additive to the difficulty of the biome so that you may have a smaller area within the forest than is more difficult than base desert or snow biomes as an example. I am not sure what sub biomes would be lore appropriate, but some new aesthetics within each biome would be welcome.

The biomes overlap and I think that's enough, though they could use some more visual interest if console memory, especially, allows. I think it odd entire biomes are being gated behind effects requiring players to constantly pop stews, etc. to combat those effects the whole time they're there. Pockets of effects would make more sense to me, but who cares what makes sense to me? It's the overall appeal of the game that is of import. So, I try to think of what would be best for the game.

 

[Riamus]

I think it can make a big difference. Adding terrain feature variety would be a massive help. Adding more tree, grass and bush types in the snow biome along with perhaps frozen lakes that require a pick to break before you can get water. The burnt forest needs more variety as well with fallen down trees, smoldering trees with cinders etc. The desert biome could use more as well with a variety of tree types native to the desert. The wasteland needs pools of toxic water with green gas emitting from them. These are just random ideas off the top of my head, but with some thought I am sure someone can think of a few good things to add to liven up the scenery.

Oh, I'm not saying that improving biome decorations wouldn't be good. I prefer more variety, and mods that add more types of trees and bushes and stuff make a huge difference. But like I asked previously, if you are in the forest biome and you want to have a sub-biome and use the same terrain texture but just make it birch trees instead of pine trees, is that going to really be enough reason to change any kind of stats about the sub-biome? It's fine to have sub-biomes with different types of trees and stuff, but what would you need to make it actually need different stats versus the main biome? A new biome like a swamp could easily have different stats - temp, weather, plants and trees, terrain, etc. But a sub-biome that just changes plants and trees and maybe ore types or something? Is that enough to make it make sense to have different stats? Maybe I'm not seeing an example where it would? Do you have some example in mind that you're thinking of?

If you just mean a sub-biome to use different types of trees/etc. so it has some variety, then that's what is already being done to clump trees together and I agree that more use of that could be good. But I thought you were talking about more interesting sub-biomes than just a way to group different kinds of plant life or other biome decorations. I'm fine with adding more biome decorations and I don't think that is really a problem for them to do.

 

[Kyoji]

But like I asked previously, if you are in the forest biome and you want to have a sub-biome and use the same terrain texture but just make it birch trees instead of pine trees, is that going to really be enough reason to change any kind of stats about the sub-biome?

I don't think it would hurt, but people will often assume something different gameplay-wise with sub-biomes. For example white birch trees with flowers nearby and natural beehives would be like a honey reserve that one could venture upon that would give out extra honey as a nice surprise if you chance upon the biome. You could also have challenging sub-biomes such as in the wasteland with toxic miasma and toxic pools of water that glow green and have irradiated spawns naturally in the area instead of basic zombies but also spawns extra ore veins with high probability of diamonds spawning naturally in the veins.

May not be the best idea but you should get the gist. If you pair sub-biomes with benefits then it's like finding that secret level in a game or the rare biomes in Minecraft which give players copious amounts of dopamine when found.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

I don't think it would hurt, but people will often assume something different gameplay-wise with sub-biomes. For example white birch trees with flowers nearby and natural beehives would be like a honey reserve that one could venture upon that would give out extra honey as a nice surprise if you chance upon the biome. You could also have challenging sub-biomes such as in the wasteland with toxic miasma and toxic pools of water that glow green and have irradiated spawns naturally in the area instead of basic zombies but also spawns extra ore veins with high probability of diamonds spawning naturally in the veins.

May not be the best idea but you should get the gist. If you pair sub-biomes with benefits then it's like finding that secret level in a game or the rare biomes in Minecraft which give players copious amounts of dopamine when found.

I forget what it's called in 7 Days, but would the new random pockets designed for emergent gameplay work? Or would they be too random?

 

[Kyoji]

I forget what it's called in 7 Days, but would the new random pockets designed for emergent gameplay work? Or would they be too random?

Not sure what you are referring to as the only new tech I know of is Flat Spot which they discussed. Have any more information?

 

[Suxar]

A new biome like a swamp could easily have different stats - temp, weather, plants and trees, terrain, etc. But a sub-biome that just changes plants and trees and maybe ore types or something?

A sub-biome shouldn't have its own weather. Different temperatures and humidity are possible, but not weather. In the current game implementation, sub-biomes make little sense. To make them meaningful, the game mechanics would have to be significantly reworked, for example, by adding a movement speed factor and/or a plant growth rate factor. This would require significant changes to the game engine.

 

[meganoth]

[About large towns coming back to the forest] Perhaps they will in a later update. I'd like to see that myself or, at least, an option to have them. I get that they want rural to be rural, but it doesn't make sense to me to restrict that to a specific biome. It's more an aestethic than a mechanical consideration, imo, and should certainly put the quietus on some of the "they're making us play their way"...stuff.

I remember a lot of discussion about the previous biome gates being (negative) prohibitions and a sandbox should work with (positive) incentives. Now this is a good example of an incentive. "Stay in the forest and you will get everything as well and be safer at it. But there's cities in the wasteland, with bigger POIs than you have ever seen, aren't you curious?"

Why should that reason be useless now when loot cap isn't a reason anymore to go out of the forest? I would say it is the other way round, it makes it even more important that they restrict big cities to the more dangerous biomes.