PC Optimized

[alphaniner]

... LBD ...

Sorry to derail the discussion, but do you recall if the devs went into much detail about the development of the LBD system, or the decision to drop it? I'd very much like to read a developer's account of either.

 

[BobTheBard]

You forgot to include one more reason.

4) The developers tried a mechanic out and upon implementation and community play testing decided they didn't like it and dumped it for a mechanic more in line with their preferences.

I didn't forget it so much as I would consider it a different phrasing of #2. While it's definitely better to ditch a core system a dev doesn't like during Early Access than after release (looking at you Stellaris) at some point you have to look at it, consider it good enough, and move on. Continuously implementing, overhauling, and removing major systems leads to the same end result as not knowing what systems you want or need in the first place - The game is always changing in large, unpredictable ways and the development process is incredibly long.

Your perspective comes from your opinion that LBD, itself, was "such a core element of the game". I can tell you that the developers never shared that perspective about LBD itself. What they consider a core element of the game is player progression. LBD was just one possible means to that end. It was always "player progression" listed on the road map and never "learn by doing" other than in proposed documents for how to accomplish player progression. Knowing that it is player progression that is the core element it is more plain that the development has been moving forward experimenting with different designs and implementations

I misspoke, perhaps, what I should have called it was a core system. Whether the developers thought that about LBD or not, it was a core system and a central element of the game since it was the entire progression system, one of the key systems that filters and adjusts the player's interaction with every other system. To go back to Stellaris again, it's like saying that the transition from three selectable interstellar transportation options (Hyperlane, Wormhole, Jump) to just one, with elements of the other two (Hyperlane only, with static wormholes and expensive, unlockable, slow-charging jump drives) wasn't that big of a deal because it didn't change any of the broader ideas of the game. In practice though it was one of the biggest changes they've ever made to that game, and they have made a lot of them. Now I don't think the removal of the hybrid LBD system and its replacement by the perk system was as big of a change as the one I just mentioned, but it was still a pretty significant shift and caused major changes in how many people approached the game.

Ultimately though, I don't have a horse in the LBD/Perk discussion anymore, just a preference. It was more an easy way to illustrate the concept I was talking about.

 

[Kubikus]

This implies 7 years not being reasonable if that argument is put against 7d2d, right?

I'm confident that the author of the sentence "I feel like saying that the game is in "Alpha" Is just a lazy cop out at this point, it's been in "Alpha" for years." does think that 7 years in EA is not reasonable. Maybe I'm assuming too much if I think he got the reasonable time frame by looking at other EA games and concluding anything above what he is used to is not reasonable but a cop out. (I feel I had to give at least one example in case you are implying the "people of yours" don't exist. But if they really don't exist and I'm wrong about this poster, even better)

We could ask him for giving us his heuristic for determining "reasonable" if you are interested. Or if you have an opinion about that, you could give your opinion on determining the reasonable time frame of early access.

I actually like BobtheBards argumentation, he is not bringing up years and simply saying 7 years is too much. Instead he is analyzing the progress and is bringing up indications that could point to 7D2D development not being ideal independent of the time frame. I disagree, but I understand his reasons.

We all know the reasons for the unreasonably long time that 7dtd is in EA. Devs developing by trial and error, changing stuff around. We knew that years ago already. Here is a video about it:

 

[Kubikus]

Now, of course, every individual will feel that some part of the game is core for them and there is no arguing against that since we all love what we love and hate what we hate. But from a pure development perspective from the developers themselves they never held LBD up on such a pedestal.

High enough to code it though. Which seem pretty high. Seems like their first choice, even though perks are actually indeed more common in all kinds of games.

 

[Roland]

I misspoke, perhaps, what I should have called it was a core system. Whether the developers thought that about LBD or not, it was a core system and a central element of the game since it was the entire progression system, one of the key systems that filters and adjusts the player's interaction with every other system. To go back to Stellaris again, it's like saying that the transition from three selectable interstellar transportation options (Hyperlane, Wormhole, Jump) to just one, with elements of the other two (Hyperlane only, with static wormholes and expensive, unlockable, slow-charging jump drives) wasn't that big of a deal because it didn't change any of the broader ideas of the game. In practice though it was one of the biggest changes they've ever made to that game, and they have made a lot of them. Now I don't think the removal of the hybrid LBD system and its replacement by the perk system was as big of a change as the one I just mentioned, but it was still a pretty significant shift and caused major changes in how many people approached the game.

Ultimately though, I don't have a horse in the LBD/Perk discussion anymore, just a preference. It was more an easy way to illustrate the concept I was talking about.

Again, I just think it really depends upon why someone logs on to play the game. If character progression through LBD was the reason for playing then it was a core system to them. If building a fort and exploring and killing zombies is the principle reason for clicking play then LBD is going to be more of a peripheral system. To me, character progression has always felt peripheral. The thing I personally didn't like about spam crafting and LBD in general is that it seemed to steal focus from what I felt was the reason for playing. Even the current system steals more focus than I would prefer. I prefer mining for the sake of getting ore or creating an underground base. I don't want the reason for mining to be farming xp or (as in LBD to just increase the skill). It is the reason I made my mod that removes XP completely and makes character progression a function of time survived without dying. But I understand that that is my own preference and comes mostly from me having put over a thousand hours in the game pre Alpha 11 when character progression was completely absent.

 

[Roland]

High enough to code it though. Which seem pretty high. Seems like their first choice, even though perks are actually indeed more common in all kinds of games.

Well, yes, high enough to code it. But they esteem lots of things high enough to code it because they really are experimenting with the details of their overall plan as they go (as you pointed out). They esteemed zip lines enough to code them. They esteemed the Behemoth enough to code it. They esteemed the Plains Biome enough to code it. They esteemed height based snow lines enough to code them. They esteemed hub cities enough to code them. They esteemed random cave systems enough to code them. I wouldn't call any of those features core to the game necessarily even if I was disappointed that they fell by the wayside.

They talked about perks and even professions in the kickstarter so technically perks always came first. They pushed into LBD initially and then methodically transitioned over time into perks. They still have the code for their LBD system,btw, which they could possibly apply to a future game. They do keep all the experiments they initiated.

There are always different reasons why something is abandoned for something else. You like to point out a lot that you feel they are developing to technical limitations which I think is true in some cases-obviously with zombie numbers as Joel has admitted that fact many times. It can also be because they come to believe a design is ultimately too confusing. This will end up being the case with the Integrated Survival System. Food and water bars are returning to the HUD and the way max stamina degradation and max health degradation works is being altered than how it was-- mostly because they want to remove all confusion about the system and have it be more understandable. Returning the food and water bars to the playing screen is likely to be an overwhelmingly popular decision so when A19 hits, I doubt anyone will complain that TFP esteemed the A17 system highly enough to code it that way or lament that most other games also show food and water bars on their screens.

 

[BobTheBard]

Food and water bars are returning to the HUD and the way max stamina degradation and max health degradation works is being altered than how it was-- mostly because they want to remove all confusion about the system and have it be more understandable.

Given that the main reason I use mods is to see food, water, and temperature on the HUD, all I can say is 'This is definitely a step in the right direction.'

 

[Kubikus]

Well, yes, high enough to code it. But they esteem lots of things high enough to code it because they really are experimenting with the details of their overall plan as they go (as you pointed out). They esteemed zip lines enough to code them. They esteemed the Behemoth enough to code it. They esteemed the Plains Biome enough to code it. They esteemed height based snow lines enough to code them. They esteemed hub cities enough to code them. They esteemed random cave systems enough to code them. I wouldn't call any of those features core to the game necessarily even if I was disappointed that they fell by the wayside.

Progression is a core element of the game. There is no doubt about that. Progression is not of the same relevance like 1 type of enemy or "zip lines" or one of many locations. It is of essential relevance and highly important. It also is a "delicate" system, that needs to be properly "balanced", something you can only achieve over time, through testing it over and over and over again.

And the devs designed it as LBD initially, and they designed it quite thoroughly, it was a complete system, just that it had flaws. And when they removed it, they changed, as Bob said, "such a core element of the game".

So you can argue that they change all kinds of things all the time. Which is no ... "refutation" or "objection" to what Bob said, but actually supporting his point. Another core system is world generation, that was changed quite drastically in A17, and gradually before. But the removal of LBD, as Bob said very right once more, "was a huge change to the fundamental nature of the game, one that would have to be balanced, rebalanced, and re-rebalanced for a long time, and one that didn't ultimately make any progress towards getting the game any more finished."

They talked about perks and even professions in the kickstarter so technically perks always came first. They pushed into LBD initially and then methodically transitioned over time into perks. They still have the code for their LBD system,btw, which they could possibly apply to a future game. They do keep all the experiments they initiated.

They did? Ok. And then? *shrugs* Well, then they created LBD, balanced that for, what?, years? And then they redesigned progression, which is a core element.

There are always different reasons why something is abandoned for something else. You like to point out a lot that you feel they are developing to technical limitations which I think is true in some cases-obviously with zombie numbers as Joel has admitted that fact many times. It can also be because they come to believe a design is ultimately too confusing. This will end up being the case with the Integrated Survival System. Food and water bars are returning to the HUD and the way max stamina degradation and max health degradation works is being altered than how it was-- mostly because they want to remove all confusion about the system and have it be more understandable. Returning the food and water bars to the playing screen is likely to be an overwhelmingly popular decision so when A19 hits, I doubt anyone will complain that TFP esteemed the A17 system highly enough to code it that way or lament that most other games also show food and water bars on their screens.

Yes, the removal of LBD is, in my opinion as well, not because of technical limitations. And I don't know why you even bring that up. Why would you point out that I point that out in other cases? Where it is true. In this case, I assume they replaced LBD with perks for three reasons:

- (at least) Joel is a Fallout fan and prefers perks

- perks are easier to design and manage and balance on the devs side

- perks are easier to understand and more obvious as a feature on the players side

Actually, at least Joel said that technical problems would be the/a reason to remove lbd, he was talking about a few of it's flaws, like the ole "cacti". Which is not really a technical problem, as flaws like this could easily be fixed.

But again. The concern here is that a core element is being change this deep into development, when we actually expect the final version to drop this year. At least I heard legends and rumours that it would. That's really not so good, don't you agree. Come on, it's at least potentially questionable.

 

[Linkhead2]

Right, because knee-jerk input like upvotes and anecdotal data are all you need to get the full picture. And it's not like people are more inclined to advertise negative feelings than positive ones.

The fact is, only TFP are likely to have all the necessary data to properly understand the long-term health of the game. Yet everyone who's unhappy with the state of the game seems certain that the data supports their perspective. Could it be that's due to hubris rather than rigorous analysis? :eek2:

But anyway, you missed the point of that post. You said you're involved in indie game development and criticized how TFP are doing things. Instead of cherry-picking data about 7DtD, how about providing data about your game (like the aforementioned metrics) to indicate that your development philosophy is sound, and moreover that it has any bearing on the development of 7DtD?

Well where else are you going to get the data from? Just vivid guessing?? You are shooting down my arguments and not presenting your own...

To refute this silly statement...If someone is passionate about a specific topic, they are inclined to write one positive or negative, whether they vent their fustration or pleasure in the reviews or Forum posts, I have written both positive and negative critiques on the forum, So thats why your argument is poorly misinformed. Are you really trying to insinuate that the Fun Pimps have their own private reviewing section of reviews?

"The fact is, only TFP are likely to have all the necessary data to properly understand the long-term health of the game." Do they though? I mean have you asked them? I dont need to know since FTP Staff member "madMole" Had to leave the forums for 1 week due to attacks.

" Yet everyone who's unhappy with the state of the game seems certain that the data supports their perspective. Could it be that's due to hubris rather than rigorous analysis?" Well public opinion overrules near enough everything. If your walking through reviews and find that quite a few people have the same scenario, your generally gonna feel like your perspective is more accurate and aligned with community opinion.

Oh...so that explains why you have ignored my entire comment and only took the bottom half? I work on the O.N.I Team (Obviously thats all im telling you cause, privacy) And im very pleased on how successful such a poorly designed idea it became. We didnt have an idea from the start, all we did was debate and discuss ideas and that would be our new big thing for the game.

This is why I and many others are against your idea of Stages, they are an incompatible method in which to design games which are open to the public.

IF the game wasnt public, maybe your prespective might have some more foundations, but unfortunately its open and people wanna play. Im gonna asssume your fairly new to the idsea of 7 days to die? Ive been playing the game near enough to its release date, Its why i stand firm on my opinions.

 

[Linkhead2]

Well, yes, high enough to code it. But they esteem lots of things high enough to code it because they really are experimenting with the details of their overall plan as they go (as you pointed out). They esteemed zip lines enough to code them. They esteemed the Behemoth enough to code it. They esteemed the Plains Biome enough to code it. They esteemed height based snow lines enough to code them. They esteemed hub cities enough to code them. They esteemed random cave systems enough to code them. I wouldn't call any of those features core to the game necessarily even if I was disappointed that they fell by the wayside.

They talked about perks and even professions in the kickstarter so technically perks always came first. They pushed into LBD initially and then methodically transitioned over time into perks. They still have the code for their LBD system,btw, which they could possibly apply to a future game. They do keep all the experiments they initiated.

There are always different reasons why something is abandoned for something else. You like to point out a lot that you feel they are developing to technical limitations which I think is true in some cases-obviously with zombie numbers as Joel has admitted that fact many times. It can also be because they come to believe a design is ultimately too confusing. This will end up being the case with the Integrated Survival System. Food and water bars are returning to the HUD and the way max stamina degradation and max health degradation works is being altered than how it was-- mostly because they want to remove all confusion about the system and have it be more understandable. Returning the food and water bars to the playing screen is likely to be an overwhelmingly popular decision so when A19 hits, I doubt anyone will complain that TFP esteemed the A17 system highly enough to code it that way or lament that most other games also show food and water bars on their screens.

If thats true Roland, Why is it an issue to implement all of these ideas into the game and let the player choose what core features to enable and disable? Wouldnt it be a more entertaining experience to try and play the game on different ideas? Like Playing on Ye olde A15 but with modern-day improvements?

I guess from a Dev's prespective, itd be harder to try and optimize these systems all at once...

Mod support anyone?

 

[Roland]

Progression is a core element of the game. There is no doubt about that. Progression is not of the same relevance like 1 type of enemy or "zip lines" or one of many locations. It is of essential relevance and highly important. It also is a "delicate" system, that needs to be properly "balanced", something you can only achieve over time, through testing it over and over and over again.

<shrug>. I guess it just depends on when you started playing. Someone starting after Alpha 12 might see it as a core system whereas someone who played for years without it might see it as peripheral. I’m sure the same is true of traders and will be true of bandits. Those who buy the game after Alpha 21 wont be able to imagine the game without bandits and reputation. Will that make bandits and reputation a core system? To them it will.

There’s no doubt progression is a big part of the game and the devs have invested a lot in it. The fact that they wanted to get it right before they went gold and so redesigned it is proof that it is important to them. It’s just that you can play the game without progression. Even you have said you’ve played for quite awhile before without spending any points on perks. Now try playing the game without any world generation....

And the devs designed it as LBD initially, and they designed it quite thoroughly, it was a complete system, just that it had flaws. And when they removed it, they changed, as Bob said, "such a core element of the game".
So you can argue that they change all kinds of things all the time. Which is no ... "refutation" or "objection" to what Bob said, but actually supporting his point. Another core system is world generation, that was changed quite drastically in A17, and gradually before. But the removal of LBD, as Bob said very right once more, "was a huge change to the fundamental nature of the game, one that would have to be balanced, rebalanced, and re-rebalanced for a long time, and one that didn't ultimately make any progress towards getting the game any more finished."

You and Bob see LBD itself as a core system of the game. The developers see LBD as simply one means to the end of having player progression in the game. You’ll notice that LBD is gone and yet we still have player progression. I’m certain that for you and Bob LBD was critical and core to your personal enjoyment and preference. But to the game? I disagree.

Yes, the removal of LBD is, in my opinion as well, not because of technical limitations. And I don't know why you even bring that up. Why would you point out that I point that out in other cases? Where it is true. In this case, I assume they replaced LBD with perks for three reasons:
- (at least) Joel is a Fallout fan and prefers perks

- perks are easier to design and manage and balance on the devs side

- perks are easier to understand and more obvious as a feature on the players side

Actually, at least Joel said that technical problems would be the/a reason to remove lbd, he was talking about a few of it's flaws, like the ole "cacti". Which is not really a technical problem, as flaws like this could easily be fixed.

But again. The concern here is that a core element is being change this deep into development, when we actually expect the final version to drop this year. At least I heard legends and rumours that it would. That's really not so good, don't you agree. Come on, it's at least potentially questionable.

Joel is actually a huge fan of Skyrim as well and spent years modding it and still plays it from time to time now. I’m certain that that had a big influence on their initial push into LBD. I just brought up what you said about technical limitations to agree that not all design changes are purely based on “vision” but sometimes have more pragmatic reasons. The difficulty of balancing LBD was a big part of why they parted ways with it. Fallout inspiration is another big part.

as far as the game releasing this year I highly doubt that will be the case. They are hoping Alpha 20 will be ready in time for Christmas and they already have things planned for an Alpha 21. That video reviewer you linked really had no clue how much he was under-ranting about how long this game would remain in early access..lol

 

[Roland]

Update: Joel just said this in the dev diary which kind of shows the feeling of the devs on the relative importance of LBD.

Just to be clear, discarded means you had it then you threw it out. I think his intention was it was planned then never done, that is not the case either. It was not planned, but I did design it already. Maybe A20. We discarded sharp sticks, LBD, grid crafting.

Sharp sticks and grid crafting is about the level of "coreness" that LBD had. In fact, the crafting example is good. The means to crafting is not considered core by the devs. That part was able to be shifted without issue because it wasn't really the core and we still have crafting. This doesn't lessen the disappointment for the fans of grid crafting, of course. Their preference was discarded.

 

[BobTheBard]

Sharp sticks and grid crafting is about the level of "coreness" that LBD had. In fact, the crafting example is good. The means to crafting is not considered core by the devs. That part was able to be shifted without issue because it wasn't really the core and we still have crafting. This doesn't lessen the disappointment for the fans of grid crafting, of course. Their preference was discarded.

This confirms for me that Theory #2 is the correct one. As for LBD specifically, I'd argue that it was a major system whether or not the developers agree. They put three years of work into it then just got rid of it for a sidegrade rather than an upgrade. Them not considering it a major or important system and just tossing it aside casually when it was a significant part of the game for so long actually worries me a little more that the game will be in perpetual alpha, though I am encouraged by the steady progress we've been seeing since A18. Guess we'll see if the optimist or pessimist is right.

 

[Roland]

This confirms for me that Theory #2 is the correct one. As for LBD specifically, I'd argue that it was a major system whether or not the developers agree. They put three years of work into it then just got rid of it for a sidegrade rather than an upgrade. Them not considering it a major or important system and just tossing it aside casually when it was a significant part of the game for so long actually worries me a little more that the game will be in perpetual alpha, though I am encouraged by the steady progress we've been seeing since A18. Guess we'll see if the optimist or pessimist is right.

Saying that they put three years of work into LBD is overstating it by quite a bit. They didn't work on that for three years. It was IN the game for three years but that is a different thing altogether from actively working on something. Let's look at water as an example. Water has been been in the game for close to 7 years now but they haven't touched it in quite some time other than some cosmetic graphic changes. Now in Alpha 21 if they change the water into something different than it is now I suppose people who don't like the change will be able to say that they worked on water for 7 years and then suddenly threw it out for this new water-- 7 years of labor down the toilet. Not.

In addition, during the time that they did work on it they consistently iterated what they had from an almost purely LBD model into a hybrid of LBD and perks and then finally into a pure perk model. It was not a constant focus on LBD alone until it reached a pinnacle of LBD purity only to be completely erased for something completely new. Go back and look at the perks in Alpha 16. Many of them are exactly the same perks that we have now or slightly modified versions.

Finally, you are correct that whether something is a major system or not is a matter of opinion. What really matters is whose opinion is weightier. I'd submit that the devs' opinions are the only ones that really matter since as a team they are unified and they have the power and opportunity to act on their opinions. As a community we don't have consensus in the first place, and we have no opportunity nor power to act on our opinions. We can talk but the devs can act. So if you want to believe that LBD is a core major system independent of what I or the devs believe that is fine for you. But the devs opinions are what matter and if they see LBD as something that can be discarded and replaced with a different method. Then their opinion is the reality. LBD did get replaced (really it happened over the course of A15 - A17) and here we still have player progression in the game and the community still has no consensus. Some hate it and some love it.

 

[Kubikus]

<shrug>. I guess it just depends on when you started playing. Someone starting after Alpha 12 might see it as a core system whereas someone who played for years without it might see it as peripheral. I’m sure the same is true of traders and will be true of bandits. Those who buy the game after Alpha 21 wont be able to imagine the game without bandits and reputation. Will that make bandits and reputation a core system? To them it will.

There’s no doubt progression is a big part of the game and the devs have invested a lot in it. The fact that they wanted to get it right before they went gold and so redesigned it is proof that it is important to them. It’s just that you can play the game without progression. Even you have said you’ve played for quite awhile before without spending any points on perks. Now try playing the game without any world generation....

You and Bob see LBD itself as a core system of the game. The developers see LBD as simply one means to the end of having player progression in the game. You’ll notice that LBD is gone and yet we still have player progression. I’m certain that for you and Bob LBD was critical and core to your personal enjoyment and preference. But to the game? I disagree.

Joel is actually a huge fan of Skyrim as well and spent years modding it and still plays it from time to time now. I’m certain that that had a big influence on their initial push into LBD. I just brought up what you said about technical limitations to agree that not all design changes are purely based on “vision” but sometimes have more pragmatic reasons. The difficulty of balancing LBD was a big part of why they parted ways with it. Fallout inspiration is another big part.

as far as the game releasing this year I highly doubt that will be the case. They are hoping Alpha 20 will be ready in time for Christmas and they already have things planned for an Alpha 21. That video reviewer you linked really had no clue how much he was under-ranting about how long this game would remain in early access..lol

Update: Joel just said this in the dev diary which kind of shows the feeling of the devs on the relative importance of LBD.


Sharp sticks and grid crafting is about the level of "coreness" that LBD had. In fact, the crafting example is good. The means to crafting is not considered core by the devs. That part was able to be shifted without issue because it wasn't really the core and we still have crafting. This doesn't lessen the disappointment for the fans of grid crafting, of course. Their preference was discarded.

Saying that they put three years of work into LBD is overstating it by quite a bit. They didn't work on that for three years. It was IN the game for three years but that is a different thing altogether from actively working on something. Let's look at water as an example. Water has been been in the game for close to 7 years now but they haven't touched it in quite some time other than some cosmetic graphic changes. Now in Alpha 21 if they change the water into something different than it is now I suppose people who don't like the change will be able to say that they worked on water for 7 years and then suddenly threw it out for this new water-- 7 years of labor down the toilet. Not.

In addition, during the time that they did work on it they consistently iterated what they had from an almost purely LBD model into a hybrid of LBD and perks and then finally into a pure perk model. It was not a constant focus on LBD alone until it reached a pinnacle of LBD purity only to be completely erased for something completely new. Go back and look at the perks in Alpha 16. Many of them are exactly the same perks that we have now or slightly modified versions.

Finally, you are correct that whether something is a major system or not is a matter of opinion. What really matters is whose opinion is weightier. I'd submit that the devs' opinions are the only ones that really matter since as a team they are unified and they have the power and opportunity to act on their opinions. As a community we don't have consensus in the first place, and we have no opportunity nor power to act on our opinions. We can talk but the devs can act. So if you want to believe that LBD is a core major system independent of what I or the devs believe that is fine for you. But the devs opinions are what matter and if they see LBD as something that can be discarded and replaced with a different method. Then their opinion is the reality. LBD did get replaced (really it happened over the course of A15 - A17) and here we still have player progression in the game and the community still has no consensus. Some hate it and some love it.

LBD itself is not a core element. Ob-, Roland, -viously, as it is gone. Noone ever said LBD was a core element. If you think someone did, you misunderstood them, I promise. For example did Bob very clearly say "Changing such a core element of the game". What was changed? Was LBD "changed"? No, Roland, LBD was not "changed". LBD was removed. What was changed, Roland, was progression. Which is a core element. Tweaking progression is the core of your mod, isn't it? 0XP?
This discussion is not about "but I prefer LBD, I'm sad they removed it".

The point is that the design of a core element was changed this deep into development and (possibly) this close to the final release, is problematic, particularly in case of progression, because such a mechanic needs to be fine tuned and can only be fine tuned with experience. When they replaced LBD with perks, they went back to square one of the core element "progression". And now they are in the process of tweaking it back and forth.

Aren't they. Roland. Aren't they.

 

[SylenThunder]

...
The point is that the design of a core element was changed this deep into development and (possibly) this close to the final release, is problematic, particularly in case of progression, because such a mechanic needs to be fine tuned and can only be fine tuned with experience. When they replaced LBD with perks, they went back to square one of the core element "progression". And now they are in the process of tweaking it back and forth.

It's only problematic for those people who played when it was the old way, and liked it the old way.

You guys are really looking at things backwards. How will it look for the person picking the game up off the shelf for the first time when it's a finished product? Don't think about what used to be. Think about what will be. This is a game that is still being developed. Core features will change. That's a hard known that you basically have to agree to in order to participate in an Alpha or Beta. If you can't accept that, then go away. Playing games still in development is not for you. You are part of the issue.

 

[Kubikus]

It's only problematic for those people who played when it was the old way, and liked it the old way.

You guys are really looking at things backwards. How will it look for the person picking the game up off the shelf for the first time when it's a finished product? Don't think about what used to be. Think about what will be. This is a game that is still being developed. Core features will change. That's a hard known that you basically have to agree to in order to participate in an Alpha or Beta. If you can't accept that, then go away. Playing games still in development is not for you. You are part of the issue.

I just said and marked that it's not about "I'm sad a feature I like was removed". And then I explained what the problem was. And now you pop up saying if I'm sad a feature I like was removed, I should go away.
Absurd. *shrugs*

So once more, buddy: We are back to square one of the progression system, because now the perk system has to be tweaked. It's not the end of the world and whatnot, but it's kinda a problem to go back to square one after the game is already longer in EA than 99% of all games in EA.

 

[SylenThunder]

... but it's kinda a problem to go back to square one after the game is already longer in EA than 99% of all games in EA.

You keep beringing this up like it means something. It doesn't. None of those games are even remotely as complex as this one. Hell, this game is more complex than 98% of the big name AAA companies titles whose average development time is 5-7 years. You just keep bringing up this strawman argument because it makes you seem like you're making a point, but you aren't. You're just comparing apples to oranges and getting bananas as a result. Go tape it to a wall somewhere.

You guys keep acting like you're playing with a finished product. Or that you previously played a finished product. You aren't, so stop pretending you are.

 

[Roland]

The point is that the design of a core element was changed this deep into development and (possibly) this close to the final release, is problematic, particularly in case of progression, because such a mechanic needs to be fine tuned and can only be fine tuned with experience.

I addressed this but you chose to ignore it-- I suppose to work on your bolded size 5 text.

Yours and Bob's premise is flat out wrong. Progression wasn't just completely and suddenly changed with no warning at A17 causing a problematic situation where they are now scrambling from square one.

A11 LBD tool crafting was introduced

A12 tool crafting was tweaked but still mainly LBD

A13 skills were added and were a point system. LBD crafting expanded.

A14 perks were added to the skills. Skills were changed to LBD. LBD crafting continued.

A15 LBD crafting cut.

A16 Skills could either be purchased or grinded. Perks remained points only

A17 LBD Skills cut. Perks expanded and Attributes added-- All points based

A18 Refinement of the system

A19 Further refinement of the system

A20 Further refinement of the system

A21 Further refinement of the system.

It seems clear to me that LBD rose and then diminished over a few alphas. It also appears that they have plenty of time still to refine before gold hits. I know you're clinging to your rumor that you heard but conservatively I don't see the game going gold before Summer of 2021. They still have time to do the fine tuning that is required, worry not. There is nothing problematic here.

When they replaced LBD with perks, they went back to square one of the core element "progression". And now they are in the process of tweaking it back and forth.
Aren't they. Roland. Aren't they.

Well are you talking about when they added perks way back in Alpha 13? I mean I've seen the perk Miner 69 (for example) on my character progression screen for years and years. It and many other perks didn't blink into existence suddenly with A17 to replace LBD. For a long time point based perks and LBD skills and LBD crafting existed together. As far as "tweaking it back and forth" I'm not sure what you mean. A18 is still central xp point system for perks and governed by attributes just like A17 was. There was some rebalancing done but not much. A19 will see more balancing done and more perks added because every weapon will have 3 tiers and some of the non-combat perks are being reduced to only 3 steps. But A19 will remain the same system we have right now. A20 and A21 will see minor refinements but no major changes.

so....

No they aren't. Kubikus. No they aren't.

 

[BobTheBard]

This discussion is not about "but I prefer LBD, I'm sad they removed it".

Thank you. People are getting too hung up on the dead horse. This has nothing to do with LBD except as an example of a pattern of behavior that is worrisome.

It's only problematic for those people who played when it was the old way, and liked it the old way.

You guys are really looking at things backwards. How will it look for the person picking the game up off the shelf for the first time when it's a finished product? Don't think about what used to be. Think about what will be. This is a game that is still being developed. Core features will change. That's a hard known that you basically have to agree to in order to participate in an Alpha or Beta. If you can't accept that, then go away. Playing games still in development is not for you. You are part of the issue.

You're also missing the point. The point is really quite simple, it's worrying that if these major changes continue happening there will never be a finished product to pick up, or at the very least it will happen so far into the future that few of us will still be here to see it. To repeat myself:

I see a lot of new ideas being tried - the scent system of earlier alphas, the removal of LBD for skills and perks, the shift from wandering zombies to sleepers, the infamous homing architect zombie AI of A17, the segregation of playstyles, the addition, removal, and re-addition of schematics, the Behemoth and Demolishers, the dungeonization of POIs.

I'm worried about a cycle of making new systems, testing them, balancing them, then getting rid of them for something new, over and over again. That's the difference between forward development and sideways development, and the real core of my point. That's what I'm worrying about. As I've said many times, I don't particularly care about LBD or the perk system anymore.

As for your last two lines, please. The 'If you don't like it then GTFO' attitude is terribly unprofessional coming from a community moderator. Criticism is going to happen, and attitudes like that only make the people who post it more argumentative and hostile. After all, if a mod does it, it must be okay, right?