My 2.0 7DTD opinion and questions (no rants, please let's be constructive)

[7DaystoPlay]

Good day, guys! I love this game and wish nothing more than to see it flourish, get more players and really shape the gaming scene.
I don't play since the beggining, so, I have no intention to be in a position of authority, but I come from a place of sincere desire to be helpful, so please bare with me for a bit.
It's clear, at least in my view, that the game has been losing replayability. The number of current players reflect that and in my opinion that is a direct result of the linearirity that is been clearly designed into the game experience. The core concept of playing a game like this one, for so long, is being able to enjoy it in a different manner. The examples are too much to mention, but we are all aware of the fixed trader progression, biome progression, POI fixed paths, etc.. The current updates have been removing things from the game. We had 5 armor slots, now we have 4. We are losing survival mechanics, like food and water mattering. Magical fantasy elements are been introduced in a matter-of-fact-way (monsters, magic badges).
It's a design decision, and it's not my to make, of course. But It's a strange one to course-correct so much of the survival elements of the game after it's been launched. I guess what i expected were improvements, not an overral remake of the game mechanics. I guess my main point is: why? Why has the devs felt the need to turn their sucessful survival game into a semi-RPG?
People used to make so much cool stuff with the base game, that was fantastic. You wanted to make a whole desert map? No. You can't have that anymore. It will screw trader progression and biome lootstage. RNG is what made the game fun to replay. One play is messed up. The other one you have a lucky pistol toilet! Not anymore. Now you have a fixed lootstage progression and guaranteed t2 stone shovel in any cop car you manage to open early game. I miss the RNG aspect that made you spawn a long way from the trader sometimes (not 3km, mind you, I'm not masochist), Or a trader far from anything useful. That was a RNG hardship that is missing. All is hand held in some way now.
Why would I subject myself to the exact same experience a second time? I really don't understand the DEVs, and I wish I did, because I want to continue to play and enjoy this game.
Sorry, it turned up almost a rant, but it's not, and must not be viewed that way.
And it's only my opinion, I don't speak for anybody, so you can safely assume I'm a minority. But should not the minorities concern be also addressed and their fears explained, when possible?
My best regards to the DEVS of this great game and the fantastic community it fostered!

 

[LittleNightma]

Even if you did rant, it's obvious your opinions are genuine. The devs always meant for the game to have RPG elements, but I understand why not everyone enjoys how they implemented them. I enjoy 2.0, but I do have my own opinions about how the game could be better.

 

[Kyoji]

Good day, guys! I love this game and wish nothing more than to see it flourish, get more players and really shape the gaming scene.
I don't play since the beggining, so, I have no intention to be in a position of authority, but I come from a place of sincere desire to be helpful, so please bare with me for a bit.
It's clear, at least in my view, that the game has been losing replayability. The number of current players reflect that and in my opinion that is a direct result of the linearirity that is been clearly designed into the game experience. The core concept of playing a game like this one, for so long, is being able to enjoy it in a different manner. The examples are too much to mention, but we are all aware of the fixed trader progression, biome progression, POI fixed paths, etc.. The current updates have been removing things from the game. We had 5 armor slots, now we have 4. We are losing survival mechanics, like food and water mattering. Magical fantasy elements are been introduced in a matter-of-fact-way (monsters, magic badges).
It's a design decision, and it's not my to make, of course. But It's a strange one to course-correct so much of the survival elements of the game after it's been launched. I guess what i expected were improvements, not an overral remake of the game mechanics. I guess my main point is: why? Why has the devs felt the need to turn their sucessful survival game into a semi-RPG?
People used to make so much cool stuff with the base game, that was fantastic. You wanted to make a whole desert map? No. You can't have that anymore. It will screw trader progression and biome lootstage. RNG is what made the game fun to replay. One play is messed up. The other one you have a lucky pistol toilet! Not anymore. Now you have a fixed lootstage progression and guaranteed t2 stone shovel in any cop car you manage to open early game. I miss the RNG aspect that made you spawn a long way from the trader sometimes (not 3km, mind you, I'm not masochist), Or a trader far from anything useful. That was a RNG hardship that is missing. All is hand held in some way now.
Why would I subject myself to the exact same experience a second time? I really don't understand the DEVs, and I wish I did, because I want to continue to play and enjoy this game.
Sorry, it turned up almost a rant, but it's not, and must not be viewed that way.
And it's only my opinion, I don't speak for anybody, so you can safely assume I'm a minority. But should not the minorities concern be also addressed and their fears explained, when possible?
My best regards to the DEVS of this great game and the fantastic community it fostered!

Agree that food and water don't matter as much and they should and agree that the biome badges are a mess. I do not miss spawning a long distance from traders. That might be a you thing lmao. You can still make a desert map just turn off progression.

 

[Kalen]

I agree. The RNG made each playthrough a little different. Sometimes you got lucky, sometimes you didn't. The fun, at least for me, was learning how to take advantage of good luck and how to overcome bad luck. Now, just about every playthrough ends up, generally, the same. The only differences are where I allocate my skill points which is deterministic and, to me, boring.

 

[7DaystoPlay]

Agree that food and water don't matter as much and they should and agree that the biome badges are a mess. I do not miss spawning a long distance from traders. That might be a you thing lmao. You can still make a desert map just turn off progression.

It won't work properly, because you will take ages to get endgame gear since desert does not have the same lootstage bonus as the wasteland and snow. I made a big forest pine map with biome progression off and by level 40 (if I remember correctly) I was still getting stone tools from cop cars (T2 and T3 stone tools, mind you). Their system seemed to have been designed with that fixed progression in mind, but people play different ways, specially when they are veterans that want to do something exotic.
I just saw Jawoodle's last video. It's kind on the same tone, but he is more accurate because he plays a lot more. But I just got a tad sad from watching him because I cannot picture a more positive person to play a game or to watch a stream from. And he seems bummed out.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 12:17 PM

I agree. The RNG made each playthrough a little different. Sometimes you got lucky, sometimes you didn't. The fun, at least for me, was learning how to take advantage of good luck and how to overcome bad luck. Now, just about every playthrough ends up, generally, the same. The only differences are where I allocate my skill points which is deterministic and, to me, boring.

Exaclty that! Glad at least you feel the same.

 

[Riamus]

Not sure what numbers you are seeing that make you think replayability is wise now. Each new version spikes higher. After time with a new version, the numbers drop. That has been true for a long time and isn't a surprise. Few games are played as much as this one, and that means people get burned out, no matter how good the game is.

Anyhow, to your points....

Yes, the game is linear now. And I also am not a huge fan of certain parts of that. But I just make maps with Teragon so I can have entirely random maps. They work fine if you turn off biome hazards, and can even be used with those on if you have all biomes and they are set up in a way that let's you reach them in order. My current game has traders placed randomly in biomes without any problem other than that the open trade route quests don't necessarily take you to the next biome, which isn't a big deal.

Single biomes work, but you will take longer to get better gear. But that hasn't really changed. I still get high levels of equipment in the forest even with biome hazards, and therefore loot cap, enabled. Yes, it is slower than going into the wasteland. But that isn't really a problem, imo. And if you are making custom maps anyhow, you might as well just mod the loot if you think it is too slow. Just give the wasteland bonus to the desert if that is the only biome on the map, for example.

As far as RPG elements, that was planned from the start. It just took time to implement them, just like it has taken time for many other features. The game was never intended as only a survival game.

Btw, you can still get a toilet pistol in the first toilet you check if you are lucky. That hasn't changed.

Anyhow, yes, it is now linear, but you don't have to play it that way. With hazards disabled and using a map that wasn't made with RWG, you can still have a random map like before without any trouble. Loot drops have changed, but you could easily change them back if you don't like the changes.

I would like RWG to have a random option again and to entirely disable progression, but it is really easy to avoid already if you aren't using RWG.

 

[7DaystoPlay]

Not sure what numbers you are seeing that make you think replayability is wise now. Each new version spikes higher. After time with a new version, the numbers drop. That has been true for a long time and isn't a surprise. Few games are played as much as this one, and that means people get burned out, no matter how good the game is.

Anyhow, to your points....

Yes, the game is now linear now. And I also am not a huge fan of certain parts of that. But I just make maps with Teragon so I can have entirely random maps. They work fine if you turn off biome hazards, and can even be used with those on if you have all biomes and they are set up in a way that let's you reach them in order. My current game has traders placed randomly in biomes without any problem other than that the open trade route quests don't necessarily take you to the next biome, which isn't a big deal.

Single biomes work, but you will take longer to get better gear. But that hasn't really changed. I still get high levels of equipment in the forest even with biome hazards, and therefore loot cap, enabled. Yes, it is slower than going into the wasteland. But that isn't really a problem, imo. And if you are making custom maps anyhow, you might as well just mod the loot of you think it is too slow. Just give the wasteland bonus to the desert of that is the only biome on the map, for example.

As far as RPG elements, that was planned from the start. It just took time to implement them, just like it has taken time for many other features. The game was never intended as only a survival game.

Btw, you can still get a toilet pistol in the first toilet you check if you are lucky. That hasn't changed.

Anyhow, yes, it is now linear, but you didn't have to play it that way. With hazards disabled and using a mask that want made with RWG, you can still have a random map like before without any trouble. Loot drops have changed, but you could easily change them back if you don't like the changes.

I would like RWG to have a random option again and to entirely disable progression, but it is really easy to avoid already if you aren't using RWG.

Thank you for your reply and feedback, was not aware of this Teragon. Just took a quick look. It seems great.
I know that, with a small degree of effort we can tweak the xml files, and Mods also work, but that is not exactly my issue.
I wished to understand why TFP feel the need for those changes that make their game feel smaller and less rich, in my perspective.
This railroading will take it's toll in replayability, if not now for you, but in the future, if this path of game design restrictions is indeed the current goal. I guess I just wish it wasn't and this is just some way to vent. Anyway, thanks for your input.

 

[Riamus]

Thank you for your reply and feedback, was not aware of this Teragon. Just took a quick look. It seems great.
I know that, with a small degree of effort we can tweak the xml files, and Mods also work, but that is not exactly my issue.
I wished to understand why TFP feel the need for those changes that make their game feel smaller and less rich, in my perspective.
This railroading will take it's toll in replayability, if not now for you, but in the future, if this path of game design restrictions is indeed the current goal. I guess I just wish it wasn't and this is just some way to vent. Anyway, thanks for your input.

They have always planned to make the game follow a story that moves you through the game. It may seem a change, but that is because the mechanics hadn't been added yet. I don't like gating and I prefer random maps, which is why I use Teragon. But I don't fault them for having a goal for how they want the final game to be, even if not everyone likes that goal. They have made the game very easy to mod, so anyone on PC can adjust the game based on their preferences. With that in mind, I see no reason to worry about their direction.

Anyhow, there are a lot of people who do like these changes. No change, or even just new feature, will appeal to everyone. Some will not like it and some will. In the end, if sales are good, then they did a good job regardless what some people think about the results.

Better to make the game the way they want than to try and please everyone. Devs who try to please everyone end up making games that don't please anyone because it becomes such a mash up of wildly different opinions.

 

[user25955]

Not sure what numbers you are seeing that make you think replayability is wise now. Each new version spikes higher. After time with a new version, the numbers drop. That has been true for a long time and isn't a surprise. Few games are played as much as this one, and that means people get burned out, no matter how good the game is.

Anyhow, to your points....

Yes, the game is now linear now. And I also am not a huge fan of certain parts of that. But I just make maps with Teragon so I can have entirely random maps. They work fine if you turn off biome hazards, and can even be used with those on if you have all biomes and they are set up in a way that let's you reach them in order. My current game has traders placed randomly in biomes without any problem other than that the open trade route quests don't necessarily take you to the next biome, which isn't a big deal.

Single biomes work, but you will take longer to get better gear. But that hasn't really changed. I still get high levels of equipment in the forest even with biome hazards, and therefore loot cap, enabled. Yes, it is slower than going into the wasteland. But that isn't really a problem, imo. And if you are making custom maps anyhow, you might as well just mod the loot of you think it is too slow. Just give the wasteland bonus to the desert of that is the only biome on the map, for example.

As far as RPG elements, that was planned from the start. It just took time to implement them, just like it has taken time for many other features. The game was never intended as only a survival game.

Btw, you can still get a toilet pistol in the first toilet you check if you are lucky. That hasn't changed.

Anyhow, yes, it is now linear, but you didn't have to play it that way. With hazards disabled and using a mask that want made with RWG, you can still have a random map like before without any trouble. Loot drops have changed, but you could easily change them back if you don't like the changes.

I would like RWG to have a random option again and to entirely disable progression, but it is really easy to avoid already if you aren't using RWG.

Just look at the steam charts. There hasn't been a spike at all. Hell, it hasn't even topped A21's player count.

 

[Kyoji]

They have always planned to make the game follow a story than moves you through the game. It may seem a change, but that is because the mechanics hadn't been added yet. I don't like gating and I prefer random maps, which is why I use Teragon. But I don't fault them for having a goal for how they want the final game to be, even if not everyone likes that goal. They have made the game very easy to mod, so anyone on PC can adjust the game based on their preferences. With that in mind, I see no reason to worry about their direction.

Anyhow, there are a lot of people who do like these changes. No change, or even just new feature, will appeal to everyone. Some will not like it and some will. In the end, if sales are good, then they did a good job regardless what some people think about the results.

Better to make the game the way they want than to try and please everyone. Devs who try to please everyone end up making games that don't please anyone because it becomes such a mash up of wildly different opinions.

You can fault them if the goal isn't done well. Many developers have goals and the games they sold didn't do well. It's ok to have RPG elements but it's how it's done is the important part.

To be fair I'm not saying this is the case but more as a general statement.

Also developers making a game for them is the reason why games have been having issues in the industry outside of many indie titles. They think they know what's best. We have industry heads thinking it's good not to own your game and that live service is the future. Doesn't pan out too well.

Developers have the arduous job of sifting through general feedback trends and apply that knowledge to their development. It's exactly why early access exists.

 

[Riamus]

You can fault them if the goal isn't done well. Many developers have goals and the games they sold didn't do well. It's ok to have RPG elements but it's how it's done is the important part.

To be fair I'm not saying this is the case but more as a general statement.

Also developers making a game for them is the reason why games have been having issues in the industry outside of many indie titles. They think they know what's best. We have industry heads thinking it's good not to own your game and that live service is the future. Doesn't pan out too well.

Developers have the arduous job of sifting through general feedback trends and apply that knowledge to their development. It's exactly why early access exists.

Well, whether or not it is done well is subjective. Just because one person thinks it it's bad doesn't mean everyone agrees.

As far as devs making games a certain way because they think it is best... We have seen games fail horribly even when they should have succeeded specifically because of decisions made in order to make some people happy. And I never said dev choices are always good. I don't agree with every choice made in any game. But I would prefer a game that is designed based on what the devs have in mind than trying to please groups of people. It is more likely to be a cohesive game, whether good or bad.

Besides, just look at the number of complaints here about TFP making changes to please people even when they mostly stick to their plans. Try to please people and others get upset. Don't try to please people and some get upset.

There is no right way to do it. It is my opinion only that making a game based on what the devs want is best.

 

[RyanX]

They have always planned to make the game follow a story that moves you through the game. It may seem a change, but that is because the mechanics hadn't been added yet. I don't like gating and I prefer random maps, which is why I use Teragon. But I don't fault them for having a goal for how they want the final game to be, even if not everyone likes that goal. They have made the game very easy to mod, so anyone on PC can adjust the game based on their preferences. With that in mind, I see no reason to worry about their direction.

Anyhow, there are a lot of people who do like these changes. No change, or even just new feature, will appeal to everyone. Some will not like it and some will. In the end, if sales are good, then they did a good job regardless what some people think about the results.

Better to make the game the way they want than to try and please everyone. Devs who try to please everyone end up making games that don't please anyone because it becomes such a mash up of wildly different opinions.

This is incorrect. They use the words "Open world survival crafting horde" game. This linear progression path removes the "Open world" aspect of the game. And obviously they wanted "Open World" to be front and center or they wouldn't have advertised it as such.

And also, many people don't want to fool with mods. It involves changing files around and using weird installers that many people are uncomfortable using. The base game has lost its vision.

 

[Riamus]

This is incorrect. They use the words "Open world survival crafting horde" game. This linear progression path removes the "Open world" aspect of the game. And obviously they wanted "Open World" to be front and center or they wouldn't have advertised it as such.

And also, many people don't want to fool with mods. It involves changing files around and using weird installers that many people are uncomfortable using. The base game has lost its vision.

How? You can still go anywhere you want. You may have to disable hazards to go there on day 1, but the world is still open world. And there was more to the description than that single sentence.

Mods don't require any installer. You also don't change files. The game changes what is loaded, not the files.

 

[7DaystoPlay]

Well, whether or not it is done well is subjective. Just because one person thinks it it's bad doesn't mean everyone agrees.

As far as devs making games a certain way because they think it is best... We have seen games fail horribly even when they should have succeeded specifically because of decisions made in order to make some people happy. And I never said dev choices are always good. I don't agree with every choice made in any game. But I would prefer a game that is designed based on what the devs have in mind than trying to please groups of people. It is more likely to be a cohesive game, whether good or bad.

Besides, just look at the number of complaints here about TFP making changes to please people even when they mostly stick to their plans. Try to please people and others get upset. Don't try to please people and some get upset.

There is no right way to do it. It is my opinion only that making a game based on what the devs want is best.

I have to disagree with you. They don't seem to have much that planned in that regard. Let's see:
-You have to get water with jars;
-No. Now you have to use dew collectors.
-Too much dew collectors. Now they generate heat.
Does that seem like a plan? No, it does not.
This is reactive design. Tailored to counter to what they perceive are "wrong ways to play the game". Not judging if it's right or wrong, mind you. But it is how things are done, it seems. There are numerous examples like that of things that need no change, but were changed just as a reaction to gameplay. Zombie digging to trash underground horde base is another example. It was not planned from start. Spending time fixing the use of scafolding ladder in horde bases acchieves nothing to players. I don't even play with blood moon on.
I'm not saying they don't have a plan, as a whole, for where they expect the game to go. Not saying that. I'm just stating that several unwelcome changes were not by planned but made as reactive decisions.

 

[Kyoji]

Well, whether or not it is done well is subjective. Just because one person thinks it it's bad doesn't mean everyone agrees.

As far as devs making games a certain way because they think it is best... We have seen games fail horribly even when they should have succeeded specifically because of decisions made in order to make some people happy. And I never said dev choices are always good. I don't agree with every choice made in any game. But I would prefer a game that is designed based on what the devs have in mind than trying to please groups of people. It is more likely to be a cohesive game, whether good or bad.

Besides, just look at the number of complaints here about TFP making changes to please people even when they mostly stick to their plans. Try to please people and others get upset. Don't try to please people and some get upset.

There is no right way to do it. It is my opinion only that making a game based on what the devs want is best.

Subjective doesn't mean you shouldn't use your player base for feedback. Just because people disagree on some of the finer points doesn't mean they haven't heard loud and clear that storms need work. It gives them a way to understand where they need work. They implement the final changes. It's literally how most game development works. It's why you have testers, early access and feedback sections. I know you have provided feedback before. All I will say is try not to get too jaded due to the sheer volume of criticism.

I have to disagree with you. They don't seem to have much that planned in that regard. Let's see:
-You have to get water with jars;
-No. Now you have to use dew collectors.
-Too much dew collectors. Now they generate heat.
Does that seem like a plan? No, it does not.
This is reactive design. Tailored to counter to what they perceive are "wrong ways to play the game". Not judging if it's right or wrong, mind you. But it is how things are done, it seems. There are numerous examples like that of things that need no change, but were changed just as a reaction to gameplay. Zombie digging to trash underground horde base is another example. It was not planned from start. Spending time fixing the use of scafolding ladder in horde bases acchieves nothing to players. I don't even play with blood moon on.
I'm not saying they don't have a plan, as a whole, for where they expect the game to go. Not saying that. I'm just stating that several unwelcome changes were not by planned but made as reactive decisions.

I think tweaking initial concepts is fine and isn't indicative of not having a plan. That being said I'll be the first to say collector's adding heat is silly. It does nothing to offset the sheer number of dirty water containers in loot and is a terrible bandaid to a larger problem. They are trying to fix the issue just unsuccessfully.

 

[Riamus]

I have to disagree with you. They don't seem to have much that planned in that regard. Let's see:
-You have to get water with jars;
-No. Now you have to use dew collectors.
-Too much dew collectors. Now they generate heat.
Does that seem like a plan? No, it does not.
This is reactive design. Tailored to counter to what they perceive are "wrong ways to play the game". Not judging if it's right or wrong, mind you. But it is how things are done, it seems. There are numerous examples like that of things that need no change, but were changed just as a reaction to gameplay. Zombie digging to trash underground horde base is another example. It was not planned from start. Spending time fixing the use of scafolding ladder in horde bases acchieves nothing to players. I don't even play with blood moon on.
I'm not saying they don't have a plan, as a whole, for where they expect the game to go. Not saying that. I'm just stating that several unwelcome changes were not by planned but made as reactive decisions.

Many things were done in the beginning of development to make the game playable even if they weren't planned for the final version. Some things get changed because it is decided they didn't work well for one reason or another. But a plan doesn't mean things don't get changed. And I was referring to the plan for the game... That it would have a story that you would follow, that it would have RPG elements, etc. Changes don't mean there isn't a plan or a final goal.

You assume they are countering players. There are others who think like that. But it doesn't make it true. Yes, they will fix exploits. That is good. Being able to do something like dog underground and be entirely safe isn't answering that should be possible, so they made it so zombies can dig. That doesn't mean you can't have underground bases. It just means you need to defend them. Stuff like that should be done.

 

[Dark Sun]

Even if you did rant, it's obvious your opinions are genuine. The devs always meant for the game to have RPG elements, but I understand why not everyone enjoys how they implemented them. I enjoy 2.0, but I do have my own opinions about how the game could be better.

Mmhmm. I will agree with OP on the lack of replayability aspect. The achilles' heel with ultimate game balance (expecting premeditated outcomes every step of the way for every playthrough, with the intention of removing negative/frustrating/perceived to be imbalanced outcomes) is it kills variety, and as we all know, variety is the spice of life. Aside from maybe, just maybe, finding a crucible in a working stiff tool box before you could craft/purchase one, that part of the game is gone now.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 11:33 PM

The game is very predictable now, and predictability, once you've experienced it the first time, is boring.

Note: Still love the game, but I think gone are the days where I can enjoy run after run, one after another with no breaks in-between.

 

[Riamus]

The game is very predictable now, and predictability, once you've experienced it the first time, is boring.

Note: Still love the game, but I think gone are the days where I can enjoy run after run, one after another with no breaks in-between.

I'm assuming you've gotten at least 1000 hours in this game from things you've said. No matter what they bring to the game, it's going to become predictable. Even when it was more random, it was still basically the same game over and over. Some things might happen in a different order before magazines and it might make for a slightly different experience, but after a dozen games you're going to have experienced most variations of any note. I think a lot of the time, veteran players expect new versions to somehow make the game an entirely new experience that will make them want to put in just as many hours as they have already put into the game. But it just doesn't work that way. Once you've played any game long enough, it is going to start getting predictable and boring no matter how random things are. The benefit of this game is that you can use overhaul mods that can completely change the game, which can make it feel very different. But vanilla isn't going to be making those kinds of drastic changes.

So I'd say that lack of replayability is more a matter of having spent MANY hours in this game more than what kinds of changes there are. I'm not saying the changes don't impact replayability in some respect, but I think many (most?) players who have spent thousands of hours in this game would still have done so if the game X years ago when they started was what we have now.

 

[Dark Sun]

I'm assuming you've gotten at least 1000 hours in this game from things you've said. No matter what they bring to the game, it's going to become predictable. Even when it was more random, it was still basically the same game over and over. Some things might happen in a different order before magazines and it might make for a slightly different experience, but after a dozen games you're going to have experienced most variations of any note. I think a lot of the time, veteran players expect new versions to somehow make the game an entirely new experience that will make them want to put in just as many hours as they have already put into the game. But it just doesn't work that way. Once you've played any game long enough, it is going to start getting predictable and boring no matter how random things are. The benefit of this game is that you can use overhaul mods that can completely change the game, which can make it feel very different. But vanilla isn't going to be making those kinds of drastic changes.

So I'd say that lack of replayability is more a matter of having spent MANY hours in this game more than what kinds of changes there are. I'm not saying the changes don't impact replayability in some respect, but I think many (most?) players who have spent thousands of hours in this game would still have done so if the game X years ago when they started was what we have now.

Actually, you might want to add another 0 to that number.

I do understand and agree with your sentiment though. A lot of my issues probably come from 7D2D fatigue at this point. While A18 was way over the top (robotic turret and AK-47 from a wall safe on day 1, anyone?), I will comment that the game has lost some of its randomness regardless. RWG maps are now linear (although I recently found out you can paint biomes in them in paint programs, weee!), and as mentioned above, those oh shoot moments very seldom occur anymore. Finding a crucible out in the wild is the best you can hope for, really. But maybe that's just me.

 

[4sheetzngeegles]

The core concept of playing a game like this one, for so long, is being able to enjoy it in a different manner.

We are losing survival mechanics
It's a design decision, and it's not my to make, of course. But It's a strange one to course-correct so much of the survival elements of the game after it's been launched.

There have been some changes. The reason I have a neutral impression for now is because there is still time ahead.
In regard to the why, any answer that you get will only be a hypothesis, and here is mine.

The linear path is a mirror image of the open world everyone is use to. Until more is developed I think of it
as trying to finish up the obligations to Kick starter "at an accelerated rate", only the future will show the final result.
The obligations I speak of are incorporating the bandit ai, and a story.

Stories at least the simplest ones I have played and read are linear also , that is why I think of it this way. Recently
on the forum story thoughts were quite, verbose, including and down to timelines, political correctness of charcaterization,
location etc. Quite a few people on the forum participated, and it pretty much showed a positive support toward a story
development. Also a story in this environment, would feel like an RPG, because it would strip most of the freeplay style,
that has been the norm to a basic playthough. Coincidentally like what is being done now.

If they are trying to get to full release, and add the story. Then it is not much different than anything before. It just
feels from an outsiders point of view as condensed. The story will be the hardest part to achieve, because in open world
suspension of disbelief allows the flexibility of just adding stuff and player imagination does the rest. Example: I bet no
one has ever even cared or thought of how you automatically light the forge "Wheres the pilot light", or a torch "Where's
the match or the flintstones".

But a story in "this" game, that's gonna take some real-time authoring. It may, as a moderator posted, be overly simplified, but
it will still need elements to carry it. Am I on the right or wrong thought process once again dunno, but those are the things
I keep seeing. RPG not really, I've played RPG games this ain't it. If I were told to think of the present config as an RPG,
I'd have to equate it to Zork I. If I were told it was a story test I'd believe it

For a lot that was removed, do I believe that it could be added back now, yes, why because A lot of the things that did not work
in prior alphas, were because of lack of human resources, cumulative experience and the engine, and just using plug and
play modules from the engine. It was like using a vanilla engine core to make a vanilla game. You could easily tell when it
was cursory vs personal. Now human resources and experience have grown, It shows by comparing it to then and now, and comparing
it to the unity games released then and now.

But it's not one sided, on the opposite side: If you give someone a million dollars a year for 12 years, they naturally will
get use to the freedom, then you take away what you gave them and give them 60k. They can exist on it but the comfort and freedom
are now gone. Same reactions are happening here.

Like I posted above which way it's headed dunno, since this is only the first wave, I'll just reserve my thoughts, and start
modding my butt off again. There is a lot of opportunity.

I posted a picture representation once before regarding open vs story, so as it seemed to head in that way it hasn't been too much
of an inconvenience or shock to me.