PC No more exploding loot in A17?

[meganoth]

So if we're talking about nerfing food production,
....does that mean Player-owned Colonies have been scrapped?

Lowering supply is not the only route here.

Increasing demand is another.

Okay so spoilage takes care of early game.... but couldn't late game have challenges as well?

I rather like the idea of having to keep a dozen people fed and safe.

I'm really hoping Colonies aren't completely off the table.

Whatever shenanigans happen in the beds of these survivor colonies, they can't possibly keep up with the increase in food production you can achieve with farming in 7d2d. But even if they could, do you want to spend all day working the farm to supply that demand?

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

"default" is for new players. You are already very experienced and should be using "hard".
But unlike previous alphas A17+ "hard" should not just change damage and HP values of zombies but influence scarcity of loot and food (because an experienced player should know much better where to find specific loot).

In A16.4 you already have the choice to set loot to any percentage, you really should do that if survival seems too easy to you. I always forget to do this as well, it is so easy to overlook. Only in my last restart I remembered to finally adjust this value.

A sruvival game should be at least a bit of a challenge on default other than having to learn how to boil water and cook food. Once you know you need a campfire, a cookingpot, Jars/empty can and know how to get them, there is literally no challenge at all.

Finding out how it works isn´t really a challenge either...

 

[meganoth]

A sruvival game should be at least a bit of a challenge on default other than having to learn how to boil water and cook food. Once you know you need a campfire, a cookingpot, Jars/empty can and know how to get them, there is literally no challenge at all.
Finding out how it works isn´t really a challenge either...

I don't think the campfire is supposed to be the challenge. Getting enough food (and sometimes even water) is the challenge. Always having food and water with you when your hunger/thirst reaches 0% is the secondary challenge.

Do you say "thank you" to your god if you see a desert? That is a sign of an experienced player. I've seen a group of novice players avoid the desert like a plague. And they had problems getting enough food.

I'm not saying A16.4 is correctly balanced. I'm saying YOU should play 7days on "hard" (and "hard" should definitely make you find fewer resources). If you then still find the survival part without challenge this would indicate the game is too easy in that regard. But you or I playing on normal does not produce valuable feedback for balancing, normal is supposed to be too easy for us.

 

[LuckyStar]

Whatever shenanigans happen in the beds of these survivor colonies, they can't possibly keep up with the increase in food production you can achieve with farming in 7d2d. But even if they could, do you want to spend all day working the farm to supply that demand?

Do you want to spend all day scavenging for food?

What's the difference?

I think it's a short-sighted approach to remove food production to "add a challenge".

Spoilage is a step in the right direction.

Colonies is another.

Trading food for things we need is also another.

There are better ideas out there.

Though I will say, I don't want another Harvest Moon.

Spending all day farming wouldn't be fun but also starving and having our entire focus be on hoping to get lucky finding food isn't either.

 

[meganoth]

Do you want to spend all day scavenging for food?
What's the difference?

The difference is that scavenging doesn't generate food in a steep geometric progression. If you want to add settlers to eat all the food you can produce you also need a geometric progression in settler numbers to make it a lasting challenge.

I think it's a short-sighted approach to remove food production to "add a challenge".

Good then that nobody said anything about removing food production. But the food production could be done without geometric progression or one that is far less steep. I described one possibility above.

 

[OzHawkeye]

The difference is that scavenging doesn't generate food in a steep geometric progression. If you want to add settlers to eat all the food you can produce you also need a geometric progression in settler numbers to make it a lasting challenge.


Good then that nobody said anything about removing food production. But the food production could be done without geometric progression or one that is far less steep. I described one possibility above.

Your proposal would effectively nerf farming, to pardon the pun, into the ground. A 1:1 return on farming would render it a nearly pointless activity (beyond merely planting, as a one off, any seeds you happen to come across).

 

[meganoth]

Your proposal would effectively nerf farming, to pardon the pun, into the ground. A 1:1 return on farming would render it a nearly pointless activity (beyond merely planting, as a one off, any seeds you happen to come across).

Maybe I didn't explain it well. Quote: "... but a planted seed give food in an endless cycle".

In other words, one single seed will give one fruit every x days without the need to replant it, but no seeds. An endless stream of food. But you can't simply produce seeds you have to find or buy them. So for example if you have founf 2 potato and 1 aloe vera seed after the first week you could plant those and get 2 potatoes and 1 aloe vera every 3 (?) days out of it, but no seeds. Even if you never found any further seeds this garden would have produced 20 potatoes and 10 aloe vera after 30 days (if you don't forget to harvest at the right time, otherwise less)