PC Perks and Choices

[RestInPieces]

Those who value the playstyle of efficiency puzzling out the game to find the optimal path of reaching the pinnacle of progression as swiftly as possible need not do this. I never said they did. When those who admitted to this playstyle posted and said that my suggestion would not help them I agreed with them.

The game is, of course, not perfectly balanced yet. However, for those who just play and aren't bothered by where this xp point came from and where that xp point came from the game is balanced just fine. There is zero necessity to only play one way with the caveat that I'm excluding competitive PvP gameplay from this statement.

I disagree with statements that playing less than perfectly optimally means you aren't really surviving. As you say, survival happens when you think in terms of tasks: get food and water, develop a renewable food source, find shelter, fortify shelter, get clothing and armor, secure weaponry. These are the tenets of survival and there is zero requirement to only do the one most efficient action to gain xp in order to secure those things. Playing without considering efficiency is still viable and for those who want more of a feeling of learning by doing, taking some extra time to voluntarily practice an actions before improving it can provide some fun.

Personally, I just find that the old system was more immersive/helped with roleplaying because it feels more connected with the world than "buying" perks every now and then. Who knows, maybe in the future they will turn it into a "raising attributes by doing". But I don't feel as strongly about it as I feel about the perks themselves. About recipe perks not tied to leveling, like Kubikus also said, and survival perks being too effective.

When it comes to survival, as far as I know, you do want meaningful choices with balanced cost/risk/reward etc (e.g. underground debate). The thing is that, since rpg mechanics have been introduced, the tenets of survival (and general progression) became largely dependent on them. And disregarding to balance rpg mechanics... you see where I am going with this.

It is similar (admittedly less extreme), with someone saying that the underground is ok the way it is because it is optional. I am not saying that they have to achieve the perfect balance among choices - there is no such thing. But as in the example above with my friends' in-game behavior, it's not about trying to be perfectly efficient - it's about the game presenting you with meaningful to some degree, choices, and the zombie experience in that case (A14-15 I think it was?) vs other options choice, was less than meaningful. And meaningful choices have to exist because the game is already an efficiency puzzle to a degree, no matter how you see it. All games are if you really think about it, except purely sandbox ones.

Finally, in most discussions lately, I see more and more people treating the game as an arpg where grinding is the general goal. Even if I was eager for rpg mechanics myself, in the end, I think unholyjoe was right in not wanting them. At the very least, perks could be more about complementing the survival gameloop and less about replacing it.

 

[Blake_]

Personally, I just find that the old system was more immersive/helped with roleplaying because it feels more connected with the world than "buying" perks every now and then. Who knows, maybe in the future they will turn it into a "raising attributes by doing". But I don't feel as strongly about it as I feel about the perks themselves. About recipe perks not tied to leveling, like Kubikus also said, and survival perks being too effective.
When it comes to survival, as far as I know, you do want meaningful choices with balanced cost/risk/reward etc (e.g. underground debate). The thing is that, since rpg mechanics have been introduced, the tenets of survival (and general progression) became largely dependent on them. And disregarding to balance rpg mechanics... you see where I am going with this.

It is similar (admittedly less extreme), with someone saying that the underground is ok the way it is because it is optional. I am not saying that they have to achieve the perfect balance among choices - there is no such thing. But as in the example above with my friends' in-game behavior, it's not about trying to be perfectly efficient - it's about the game presenting you with meaningful to some degree, choices, and the zombie experience in that case (A14-15 I think it was?) vs other options choice, was less than meaningful. And meaningful choices have to exist because the game is already an efficiency puzzle to a degree, no matter how you see it. All games are if you really think about it, except purely sandbox ones.

Finally, in most discussions lately, I see more and more people treating the game as an arpg where grinding is the general goal. Even if I was eager for rpg mechanics myself, in the end, I think unholyjoe was right in not wanting them. At the very least, perks could be more about complementing the survival gameloop and less about replacing it.

Personally, I find Skyrim a big piece of exploitable mess for efficient players like me. I find it tedious and boresome to go through skill leveling with hybrid perk choices each and every time instead of a plain and simple perk expending.

As you guys say, I also want this (a17 system) : pure perk system with meaningful choices that allow the player to focus on the fun and the specialization. 10 solid days of the inventory full of cloth to level up medicine by making bandages? Sorry, For me, it just IS the better choice to max out the healing gains from kits. Now we can do it with no boredom at all.

At the end, there are two kinds of players.... Those who top the skills and those who don't. Toppers can be just players with a really old savegame file.

 

[Scyris]

Hello Diablo Franchise

Thats the truth, diablo 2 was great, then diablo 3 hit and I was like "What is this crap?" I expect diablo 4 to be even worse.

 

[Roland]

Personally, I just find that the old system was more immersive/helped with roleplaying because it feels more connected with the world than "buying" perks every now and then. Who knows, maybe in the future they will turn it into a "raising attributes by doing". But I don't feel as strongly about it as I feel about the perks themselves. About recipe perks not tied to leveling, like Kubikus also said, and survival perks being too effective.

Everyone is going to have those lines in the sand that mark the edge of their own immersion. There's no arguing about what helps or hinders someone else's suspension of disbelief and feeling of rightness about the world. To me, either system works fine and I don't mind spending a point. I usually spend them at night so it almost feels like the old D&D mechanic of spending earned experience between adventures. Maybe I'm just used to that form of progression and nostalgic enough that adapting to it was easy. The game is fun and buying perks is more interesting now than it ever has been-- for me.

When it comes to survival, as far as I know, you do want meaningful choices with balanced cost/risk/reward etc (e.g. underground debate). The thing is that, since rpg mechanics have been introduced, the tenets of survival (and general progression) became largely dependent on them. And disregarding to balance rpg mechanics... you see where I am going with this.

Survival only became largely dependent on experience if speed of progression mattered. I play mostly SP or cooperatively with my family. I also love the early game and almost always start over again once I feel that I cannot die. Because of these two preferences I never once felt pressure to reach a certain level as quickly as possible. A focus on xp and how to efficiently gain it is the result of two things that I have witnessed in thread after thread after thread ever since A11 when this sort of progression first made its appearance.

1) Threads in which players discussed strategies for maximizing the speed of progression for the purpose of being competitive in PVP.

2) Threads in which players complained about how unfun it is to play as a low level character with junk gear.

See, I haven't seen much evidence that maximizing efficiency is truly about survival itself. It's always about skipping past the undesirable early game because the player hates playing with less than top gear and skills and of course in PvP servers gaining an early advantage over the other players.

The proof that survival is not dependent upon experience is that you can survive just fine by not playing an experience gaining optimal game. You can be downright suboptimal and not focus on gaining xp at all and still survive and do well. Someone who takes 30 game days to get to level 20 can do just fine. Therefore people saying that unless they must do everything in their power to get to level 20 by Day 7 or it's not really surviving is hogwash.

I agree that xp adds artificial incentives to the game but I still disagree that xp changes the tenets of survival-- in particular for this game where your character really is already pretty capable for most circumstances from Day 1.

It is similar (admittedly less extreme), with someone saying that the underground is ok the way it is because it is optional. I am not saying that they have to achieve the perfect balance among choices - there is no such thing. But as in the example above with my friends' in-game behavior, it's not about trying to be perfectly efficient - it's about the game presenting you with meaningful to some degree, choices, and the zombie experience in that case (A14-15 I think it was?) vs other options choice, was less than meaningful. And meaningful choices have to exist because the game is already an efficiency puzzle to a degree, no matter how you see it. All games are if you really think about it, except purely sandbox ones.

Sorry but I disagree that all games are an efficiency puzzle. I would say that all competitive games are and for those who are playing 7 Days to Die competitively on a PvP server then I absolutely agree that xp gaining is a key aspect of survival. Now in a sense even in SP we are competing against what the game throws at us but as I already explained there is no need to rush the progression in order to be competitive vs the game. Maybe it used to be that way when the bloodmoon hordes and higher tier zombies were dependent upon the day count. Back then playing 10 minute days was insane because you couldn't progress fast enough to keep up with the difficulty curve of the game. But once gamestages came to be that was all changed. Now the game difficulty curve stays within a margin of the player's progression. This means that playing it as an efficiency puzzle can easily put you way past what the game can throw at you and you march around as a god. As I stated, this is exactly the way some prefer to play the game so they do efficiency to try and skip the nongod part of the game as quickly as possible.

To me, the current mix of perks do present the player with interesting and tough choices. Especially if you are playing at a regular pace so that you aren't leveling up four times a day and swimming in points to spend on everything that is currently affordable. In this playstyle you don't leave your base in the morning with a plan to hunt down and kill zombie after zombie after zombie simply to earn xp. Instead you leave your base in the morning thinking that you need to find some food and water, and then you need to gather clay and stones and start getting cobblestones going, etc. The fact that the game has xp for some actions and that the most xp is gained by killing a zombie doesn't necessarily mean that a player must spend all their time killing zombies or they aren't really surviving.

Finally, in most discussions lately, I see more and more people treating the game as an arpg where grinding is the general goal. Even if I was eager for rpg mechanics myself, in the end, I think unholyjoe was right in not wanting them. At the very least, perks could be more about complementing the survival gameloop and less about replacing it.

Lately? That trend started in A11 even before we had proper xp. In A11 for the first time we had tiers of tools and we could increase the quality by crafting more tools (with a +/- 50 quality random die roll to make it spicy). Because I had played the game before A11 I was in the habit of using a tool until it broke and then crafting a new one to replace it. It didn't even dawn on me to spam craft until I read my first thread in the forums about the optimal way to progress quickly so you wouldn't have to play with a junk tool for more than the first day. Instead of people just playing the game and replacing their tool as they needed and slowly but surely progressing to better gear they were spending the first day just crafting tools so they wouldn't have to play with less than yellow gear. No...people treating this game as a grindfest has been around a long time.

 

[Scyris]

When I think about how humans learn IRL, I find some similarities to perk systems like the pimps are trying.
When I'm using a small tool to fix a bracket on my greenhouse, I'm learning and applying skills that are adjacent, such as hand eye coordination, dexterity, mechanical problem solving etc.

When I'm chopping firewood, I'm learning better stance, methods to preserve stamina, swings with less wear and tear on my tools, and say situational awareness. etc.

When I'm tinkering in my maker shed, I'm thinking of ways to make a better deal with one of my suppliers.

We're don't throw out these accumulative adjacent lessons IRL, so it feels natural to me to have some system to represent that in game.

Im just an A15 lurker, but it seems like the pimps system is approaching a solid equilibrium.

Ever play the rune factory games? To get better at stuff you have to do it but there is also a overall exp level as well that raises from doing any action as well as fighting monsters, mostly fighting monsters though. Farming for example: ups farming skill, but also vitality, and I think str a bit. Bascally every skill has to be raised by using it, but its also tied to stats, so Mining will up str and such as well as mining skill to get better ores and mine faster. This is what I was hoping A17 was going to have, insted we get.. this horribly dumbed down system even compared to a16 its pretty dumbed down. It reminds me too much of the fallout 4 perk system and that thing was aweful. I did however like how fallout 4 had no level cap, so you could max everything out if you played long enough.

Mind you I wish the skills that you can grind to level in a16 did more, especally for the weapons, I'd rather weapons have lowish damage, and its more based on your weapon skill. in a16, because from 0 to 40 blunt weapon skill I pretty much notice no real difference, still takes same amount of hits to kill, this is without getting the perk that massivly ups it. Only one I notice that does noticable benefits is the medicine skill.

 

[Kubikus]

You make excellent points and I did not really believe that anyone would actually try to earn an entire level and thus secure a point by only doing the one xp earning action that most aligned with the perk they wanted to buy. You are correct that you would have to plant and harvest thousands and thousands of crops if you decided to start being a farmer at level 120. I just stated the fact that the option is there for purists who really want the xp for points spent to come from well aligned actions that earned those points.
What I am really getting at is the argument that many people use to say the perk purchasing system is bad (that being that points earned are incongruous to benefits gained) is not a foregone conclusion. The middle road is to impose upon yourself some practice--enough to feel justified in having earned the right to spend the point in that area. I'm at level 120 and after a huge screamer horde am able to get to level 121 and have a point to spend and feel like doing some farming. If I really felt that learning by doing was fun and immersive then I could spend one day planting and harvesting and doing farming actions before spending the point. Did all the xp come from that? No. But I'm playing the game the way I claim to like and I reject the notion that putting off spending that farming point by one day to do a bit of roleplaying automatically disqualifies that gameplay from being survival gameplay. I also reject the notion that because the current structure allows for roleplaying to capture the feeling of learning by doing that it makes it a weak structure. I think forcing a quest to practice actions before the perk point can be spent would make for an interesting mod but forcing players to learn by doing without the min/maxing powergrind component included would not be a popular thing for the default game because lets face it: the min/maxing powergrind component is the real candy that those players crave and "learning by doing" is just the excuse.

TFP has indeed made their choice and it is against automatic leveling and I'm just offering up a solution that can help those inclined towards role playing. Obviously min/maxers aren't going to apply.

Now as to your points about perks I too hope that TFP gets there. There are fewer incremental percentage perk trees than there were when Joel showed the videos because he does want the perks to grant abilities and be more interesting too and he did rework some. Hopefully the remaining uninteresting ones will get replaced with abilities like kicking or stomping etc...

In the early game, you have to do all kinds of different things and in the later game, it takes very long to level up, so to restrict oneself to do only or mostly one activity between two level ups, is unrealistic as well. There might be a window when your "solution" makes somewhat sense, but even then I couldn't see it as "roleplaying" to restrict my gameplay in a way so I can align it with a perk I buy.
Who those purists are, you talk about, I don't know, myself I don't care about "min/maxing", I (simply) find any gamey game mechanic unimmersive. Like a zombie's health bar or upgrading a wooden block to one that suddenly does not contain any wood anymore or chipping away "wood" after "wood" from a tree, until a "tree" stands before me, that consists of no more "wood" than I need for one arrow.

Besides that, I don't see a reason why I should not get better at something if I do it over and over again, just because I do not have gamey game points left, or why it should take five minutes to improve a skill in the early game, but an hour to improve a skill in the late game (of course I do understand the basic reasoning behind the curve), or (and that's the classic your "purists" seem to complain about mostly) why I should be able to level up my archery skill by gaining experience by breaking down boulders with a stone axe.

What are the reasons for perks again..? That you are free to level up your archery skill by gaining experience by breaking down boulders with a stone axe, right? That "freedom". And getting that monkey off the back of compulsive "min/maxers"? Or denying them their.. "evil" or "wrong" playstyle..? And that a perk system sorta kinda resembles Fallout, a game Joel likes..?

Ok...

Surprisingly, I assume that the system will reduce my freedom. Currently, I can do what I want. I'll always level up my skills and level them up reasonably fast, no matter when I start using them. With the perk system, I have to plan ahead. I might, in the early game, not intend to build a base from scratch. But maybe I'll decide that later, so I have to either set points aside to use them on the corresponding perks later or buy perks I don't currently need, because I might need them later, or get ready for a serious grind because later, leveling up will be terribly slow.

Again: For what? Why is a good system removed? To stop min/maxers? I find that absurd.

Perks are good for games that allow and require from the player to build very different characters. With very different abilities, that play very differently, but still get the job done equally efficiently. Another good example, possibly a better one, besides Skyrim is the perk system in Path of Exile. Sad, very sad, actually, that it's not in first person. In PoE it even makes good sense to mix those "deal 1% more damage" perks in, as you build your character along an actual "path" of perks. Nicely done.

7dtd does barely allow you to not use an ability the character has. And so far, there are hardly any abilities in the game, that not every character has on the first day already. Those combos (hit 5 enemies in a row and you'll deal some extra damage to the last) remotely resemble the principle, but really, they are not an actual ability of their own. Other than that, you don't need to farm and there are a couple of things you don't have to craft and you don't have to use certain items and blocks, such as certain weapons or electricity.

Edit: Btw, I have a great solution for the issue. Wanna guess what it is? I'm sure you can easily figure it out.

Here is a second edit: This just occured to me when I was, you know, "in the office". Doing "my business". Min/maxers.. Can't they still min/max the crap outta the system..? Spam craft, put a weight on the mousebutton and beat on a block with a club or a stone axe? Level up much faster than the naturalist? I'm sure they can. So for the min/maxer, wouldn't the perk system, instead of a problem, actually be min/maxing heaven? Cuz now they can min/max whatever skill they want with the most efficient activity. If, for example, crafting stone axes would be the most efficient way to earn XP, they could not only just level up their stone axe related skills, but all of them.

Eh?

To stop these guys, you could design it so that you don't get points based on XP, but time. Give points after so and so many minutes and make that a curve. First point after 5 minutes, next one after 6, then 7, and so on.

 

[RestInPieces]

Personally, I find Skyrim a big piece of exploitable mess for efficient players like me. I find it tedious and boresome to go.... 10 solid days of the inventory full of cloth to level up medicine by making bandages?
At the end, there are two kinds of players.... Those who top the skills and those who don't. Toppers can be just players with a really old savegame file.

This is a system's flaw, not the system itself - a flaw that could have been fixed easily with diminishing returns. It has nothing to do individually with some "toppers", because there will always be a way to do that as long as a character progression system exists. In A17 people will grind to top perks. Not to mention that new perks reward you much more for topping them (last rank is especially beneficial). Nothing wrong with that though. It's how games work.

Everyone is going to have those lines in the sand that mark the edge of their own immersion.

I'll try to be brief, because you have a lot of wall of texts to read (and you still didn't reply on the "how to mod blood moons out" thread ). Edit: On hindsight it didn't work...

Sure, that's why I said I don't feel strongly about the old/new system. Mostly concerned about other things I mentioned about rpg elements in general.

1) Threads in which players discussed strategies for maximizing the speed of progression for the purpose of being competitive in PVP.

2) Threads in which players complained about how unfun it is to play as a low level character with junk gear.

See, I haven't seen much evidence that maximizing efficiency is truly about survival itself. It's always about skipping past the undesirable early game because the player hates playing with less than top gear and skills and of course in PvP servers gaining an early advantage over the other players.

The proof that survival is not dependent upon experience is that you can survive just fine by not playing an experience gaining optimal game. You can be downright suboptimal and not focus on gaining xp at all and still survive and do well. Someone who takes 30 game days to get to level 20 can do just fine. Therefore people saying that unless they must do everything in their power to get to level 20 by Day 7 or it's not really surviving is hogwash.

Personally do not care much about PvP at it's current state at least, but do you really think that is the only logical reason for someone to be thinking of how to progress faster? Progressing in the current game context does make your life easier, you experience more content and survive more easily and you seriously think that PvP is the reason people do that? Which is why I said earlier that character progression should be less intrusive to the survival curve!

I am of the opposite opinion than these people. I find that the progression curve is too fast/short. Are you saying that it purely depends on people's tastes whether they progress or not? The game already gives you a lot of incentives to do that with its survival/experience curve. Again not talking about some kind of maximizing.

I agree that xp adds artificial incentives to the game but I still disagree that xp changes the tenets of survival-- in particular for this game where your character really is already pretty capable for most circumstances from Day 1.

Artificial incentives? Electricity, work stations, vehicles, tools, building materials, survival-related item crafting and natural "resistance" to needs? Not mentioning that survival/exploration becomes easier with them - isn't the player incentivised to unlock that content in order to experience it? You are treating the game as if it was a pure sandbox game. I am not talking about optimization, maximization or even rushing, I am just saying that the player is incentivised to progress and as long as he is the game isn't static.

Sorry but I disagree that all games are an efficiency puzzle.... Now in a sense even in SP we are competing against what the game throws at us but as I already explained there is no need to rush the progression in order to be competitive vs the game. Maybe it used to be that way when the bloodmoon hordes and higher tier zombies were dependent upon the day count.... This means that playing it as an efficiency puzzle can easily put you way past what the game can throw at you and you march around as a god...

Besides players already actually being able to experience more of the game's content by progression. Besides every survival game being about trying to survive by improving your survival conditions. Gamestages (thankfully), don't nullify the need for progression difficulty-wise.

I hate that "god" stage you are talking about more than bloody anyone. This is not the players' fault for trying to be efficient - this is plain ol' bad design. You seem to believe that game design is irrelevant to what players do. The irony is that the game and the devs themselves already want you to progress by giving you incentives and unlocking new content.

But efficiency puzzles don't have to mean min-maxing or perfect optimization. Besides pure sandbox games, how are not all games efficiency puzzles? From Tetris and Age of Empires, to Fallout and Planescape:Torment (the RP staple in vgames) and every game out there in general. It's not how an individual perceives them - as long as the incentivise the player to do something, as long as they have itemization or a sense of progression, as long as they encourage you to try various strategies, even board games for gawd's sake, what do you think they are?

Lately? That trend started in A11 even before we had proper xp. In A11 for the first time we had tiers of tools and we could increase the quality by crafting more tools (with a +/- 50 quality random die roll to make it spicy). No...people treating this game as a grindfest has been around a long time.

Yes, poor choice of words. Saying since rpg elements were introduced is more on point. I did my best to explain why people treat it as such and it has nothing to do with pvp, competitiveness or anything like that. I really don't understand how you still believe that the game's progression systems are, or should be, more or less decorative

 

[Kattla]

In the early game, you have to do all kinds of different things and in the later game, it takes very long to level up, so to restrict oneself to do only or mostly one activity between two level ups, is unrealistic as well. There might be a window when your "solution" makes somewhat sense, but even then I couldn't see it as "roleplaying" to restrict my gameplay in a way so I can align it with a perk I buy.
Who those purists are, you talk about, I don't know, myself I don't care about "min/maxing", I (simply) find any gamey game mechanic unimmersive. Like a zombie's health bar or upgrading a wooden block to one that suddenly does not contain any wood anymore or chipping away "wood" after "wood" from a tree, until a "tree" stands before me, that consists of no more "wood" than I need for one arrow.

Besides that, I don't see a reason why I should not get better at something if I do it over and over again, just because I do not have gamey game points left, or why it should take five minutes to improve a skill in the early game, but an hour to improve a skill in the late game (of course I do understand the basic reasoning behind the curve), or (and that's the classic your "purists" seem to complain about mostly) why I should be able to level up my archery skill by gaining experience by breaking down boulders with a stone axe.

What are the reasons for perks again..? That you are free to level up your archery skill by gaining experience by breaking down boulders with a stone axe, right? That "freedom". And getting that monkey off the back of compulsive "min/maxers"? Or denying them their.. "evil" or "wrong" playstyle..? And that a perk system sorta kinda resembles Fallout, a game Joel likes..?

Ok...

Surprisingly, I assume that the system will reduce my freedom. Currently, I can do what I want. I'll always level up my skills and level them up reasonably fast, no matter when I start using them. With the perk system, I have to plan ahead. I might, in the early game, not intend to build a base from scratch. But maybe I'll decide that later, so I have to either set points aside to use them on the corresponding perks later or buy perks I don't currently need, because I might need them later, or get ready for a serious grind because later, leveling up will be terribly slow.

Again: For what? Why is a good system removed? To stop min/maxers? I find that absurd.

Are you saying that the only way to improve skills in A17 is to put perk/level points into them?

That they no longer improve a single bit by use like at least some do in A16?

I'm getting a little bit confused here.

 

[Kubikus]

Are you saying that the only way to improve skills in A17 is to put perk/level points into them? That they no longer improve a single bit by use like at least some do in A16?

I'm getting a little bit confused here.

Yes. Here are the perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFrUPm0uNQgiPRos3TYOpEA/videos

Roland mentioned that things have changed, so the videos do not show what we will actually get in A17.

 

[Kattla]

Yes. Here are the perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFrUPm0uNQgiPRos3TYOpEA/videos

Roland mentioned that things have changed, so the videos do not show what we will actually get in A17.

Thank you.

And i agree. It is not a good system.

 

[Roland]

And that a perk system sorta kinda resembles Fallout, a game Joel likes..?

yes.

 

[KingSlayerGM]

Where are you getting “suggested” from? I stated it blatantly. In less than a page. Here, I’ll say it again plainly and you can gloat again that you’ve somehow caught me in something: becoming better at farming by killing zombies makes no sense.

BS. You conveniently avoided stating this plainly in your original post. On the contrary, your original post is a carefully crafted article that defends the system, only mentions positive things about it and subtly alienates people who prefer different play styles. Your first paragraph is an open statement against the other viewpoint, here:

So........no.

So you just want rules? If the quest system was used to force you to harvest 5 corn and 5 potatoes before the perk point spent on farming would activate it you’d be fine? If every perk had a mini quest that forced the player to do an action related to the perk before they could spend the point on the perk then you wouldn’t complain?

This is isn't enough to give a definite answer. Possibly.

Every time you played the game you would always chop grass since nothing else would make sense..especially if you had friends on the server chopping grass because the worst outcome in the game is to be outpaced by your friends...

Wrong assumption.

To me, this is senseless as well and it means your game is always very samey

Not necessarily, it depends on the game. If the game offered multiple, almost equally efficient ways to progress, then players would have a much freer choice.

and honestly it is also a self imposed playstyle. You are not forced to follow the most efficient path once you find it— you are choosing to do so and then complaining that all the points you earn only come from this one activity and don’t relate to the things you are buying. Sense comes from playing the game in a holistic manner (again a choice) and then choosing how your character progresses as a result. yeah, but by your own admission you’ll never include roleplaying if it involves a less efficient action. Min/Maxing by its very nature excludes all but the one true most efficient path. It is stupid to do otherwise if efficiency is your goal.

Again, depends if the game offers different almost equally efficient paths...

That was a statement that what I’m describing as a methodology for play under the new rules is not going to be to your liking

No, you used "thread". "This thread is not for you" is VERY different from "My suggestion is not for you". It makes things very different.

What’s the use of replying if my self-imposed play choice doesn’t work with your self-imposed play choice?

I pointed it out because your original post conveniently omits downsides to your suggested way of playing.

Then why do you continue to do it?

I don't. YOU suggested it.

Using the min/max process is a self-imposed rule, my friend. Nothing forces you to play that way. Believing that min/maxing is mandatory is an illusion. I can play your way and I can play my way—just not at the same time.

Wrong. Your so called min/max process, which I prefer to define it as survival, is not a choice, it is a necessity in the right circumstances. Which can be: highest difficulty settings (I really mean it: zombies always run, max spawn rate, max alive at the same time, max strength...), dead is dead, playing competitively with friends, playing pvp..

 

[Roland]

Personally do not care much about PvP at it's current state at least, but do you really think that is the only logical reason for someone to be thinking of how to progress faster? Progressing in the current game context does make your life easier, you experience more content and survive more easily and you seriously think that PvP is the reason people do that? Which is why I said earlier that character progression should be less intrusive to the survival curve!

No. But I'll be brief. PvP is one reason for rushing the progression. The other reason I mentioned was a strong dislike for playing the game with sub-optimal abilities and gear.

I am of the opposite opinion than these people. I find that the progression curve is too fast/short. Are you saying that it purely depends on people's tastes whether they progress or not? The game already gives you a lot of incentives to do that with its survival/experience curve. Again not talking about some kind of maximizing.

It is a fact that many players try to get through the progression as quickly as possible because they only enjoy playing with the best stuff. It is a safe assumption that PvP players rush the progression to stay with or exceed the progression of their competitors. I'm sure everyone enjoys progression and without those two incentives the speed at which people progress will vary from person to person depending on what they do. I'm not trying to say that anyone avoids progression or doesn't feel an incentive to level up.

Artificial incentives? Electricity, work stations, vehicles, tools, building materials, survival-related item crafting and natural "resistance" to needs? Not mentioning that survival/exploration becomes easier with them - isn't the player incentivised to unlock that content in order to experience it? You are treating the game as if it was a pure sandbox game. I am not talking about optimization, maximization or even rushing, I am just saying that the player is incentivised to progress and as long as he is the game isn't static.

I agree. I'm not talking about whether to progress or not. I'm talking about the speed at which someone progresses. I said artificial because it gives the player incentive to seek out and kill zombies rather than avoid and defend against zombies. In an actual apocalypse people would not put themselves in the danger that we do in order to kill zombies and earn points. I'm not saying that it is artificial to want to progress and gain advantages and better gear.

Besides players already actually being able to experience more of the game's content by progression. Besides every survival game being about trying to survive by improving your survival conditions. Gamestages (thankfully), don't nullify the need for progression difficulty-wise.
I hate that "god" stage you are talking about more than bloody everyone. This is not the players' fault for trying to be efficient - this is plain ol' bad design. You seem to believe that game design is irrelevant to what players do. The irony is that the game and the devs themselves already want you to progress by giving you incentives and unlocking new content.

Sorry I gave the impression that game design doesn't matter. Again, I am not denying the fun or the incentive to progress or that progression itself is part of surviving. I am saying that the rapidity is what doesn't matter. I don't have to be level 20 by day 5 in order to be surviving. I can be level 7 by day 5 and be just fine. The amount of progression I will have experienced in those five days is what I'm talking about. Yes we should progress. Some were saying we should find the optimal way to get to the highest level possible in those five days or it doesn't count as surviving. I'm saying I disagree with that viewpoint.

But efficiency puzzles don't have to mean min-maxing or perfect optimization. Besides pure sandbox games, how are not all games efficiency puzzles? From Tetris and Age of Empires, to Fallout and Planescape:Torment (the RP staple in vgames) and every game out there in general. It's not how an individual perceives them - as long as the incentivise the player to do something, as long as they have itemization or a sense of progression, as long as they encourage you to try various strategies, even board games for gawd's sake, what do you think they are?

Even board games have classifications of genres from the most pure efficiency puzzles (Abstract Strategy) to the most focused on story and experience (Ameritrash). Yes all games are a puzzle and finding the best strategy to win is the goal but win conditions can be different for different games. If my win goal is defined as being the best as fast as possible then the game is definitely an efficiency puzzle. If my goal is to experience a slow progression and try and behave as an actual survivor and do things that will result in great stories then the game is not really an efficiency puzzle. For example when I play with my mom my win condition is to successfully act as her bodyguard. It is completely different incentives and play than when I play solo or if I were to play PvP.

Yes, poor choice of words. Saying since rpg elements were introduced is more on point. I did my best to explain why people treat it as such and it has nothing to do with pvp, competitiveness or anything like that. I really don't understand how you still believe that the game's progression systems are more or less decorative

Not decorative but definitely something that can be used according to taste. I can play it by rushing, by going slow, by only focusing on certain abilities and ignoring the rest to roleplay a certain character type or fulfill an imagined backstory. And again all my comments are about the speed of progression and the actions taken to most efficiently rush through the progression-- not about the existence or not of progression.

 

[Kubikus]

yes.

:-/.

 

[Roland]

BS. You conveniently avoided stating this plainly in your original post. On the contrary, your original post is a carefully crafted article that defends the system, only mentions positive things about it and subtly alienates people who prefer different play styles. Your first paragraph is an open statement against the other viewpoint, here:

Sorry you misunderstood my OP. I was not defending the current system. Nowhere did I say that the current system is better or worse than the old system. What I did say is that if you value learning by doing the new system allows you to roleplay that by voluntarily doing some actions that align with the point you want to spend on the perk you want to gain. The "so....no" was to those who say that the new system doesn't allow you to learn by doing.

This is isn't enough to give a definite answer. Possibly.

But it's not efficient so I doubt you would do it. You admitted that efficiency is of utmost importance to you.

Wrong assumption.

It wasn't an assumption sadly. There was a 16.x or possibly a 15.x build where grass did give insane amounts of xp and until it was fixed guess what people did? Yep. Crafted hoes as quickly as possible since using a hoe was also the fastest way to cut down the most grass possible.

Not necessarily, it depends on the game. If the game offered multiple, almost equally efficient ways to progress, then players would have a much freer choice.

Agreed. But players who aren't concerned with getting the fastest stream of xp are also free even if the balancing isn't perfect. But this is a separate issue than my OP. My op was purely a suggested way to play using the new system in order to get the feeling of learning by doing. It is a completely inefficient way to play, totally self-imposed, and very much in the realm of story creation/roleplaying. As I said in the OP, if someone's real ideal is learning by doing then they can easily do this under the new system and survive just fine. If someone cares most about efficiency and getting to top of the progression with rapidity then they probably would not like this suggestion.

No, you used "thread". "This thread is not for you" is VERY different from "My suggestion is not for you". It makes things very different.

Well back then I was still under the illusion that we were going to adhere to the original topic which was choosing to impose some practice upon yourself before spending a point for a perk. That was the thread I was imagining. But then the thread morphed into one of people wanting to criticize the new system and also a discussion on what exactly constitutes "survival" and a discussion on the incentives on players provided by xp and progression. So NOW this very well may be the thread you're looking for. But it doesn't matter. I already officially invited you stay and keep posting which you obviously accepted.

I pointed it out because your original post conveniently omits downsides to your suggested way of playing.

Right. But it's just a suggestion. I'm surprised by all the vitriol to be honest. It's almost like you can't stand to have even one suggestion posed for using the new system in a way that might give some the feeling of learning by doing. And now you aren't being completely honest because I did give the downside. I said it isn't efficient so that those who like to play to rush the progression probably wouldn't like it. I think you agreed with me on that downside.

I don't. YOU suggested it.

Exactly. I wasn't speaking to you in my OP. I was talking to those who really like learning by doing but aren't concerned about efficiency. It's like I was saying "For those of you who like chocolate you can pour chocolate syrup over your vanilla icecream" It kind of assumes I'm talking to people who like vanilla icecream. Now if someone wants to barge in to argue about the flavor of vanilla icecream instead of talking about the chocolate syrup I was suggesting that kind of changes the nature of the discussion but it's cool. Seems that there's more interest in the perk system itself than in my suggested way of playing with it.

Wrong. Your so called min/max process, which I prefer to define it as survival, is not a choice, it is a necessity in the right circumstances. Which can be: highest difficulty settings (I really mean it: zombies always run, max spawn rate, max alive at the same time, max strength...), dead is dead, playing competitively with friends, playing pvp..

I guess we agree to disagree on this point. I suppose if you tune the game to such a high degree of difficulty that you must rush through the early primitive stages in order to survive then I agree that you gotta do what you gotta do. But now it's my turn to wonder why you didn't specify your conditions at the beginning of your series of posts. I had no idea you were self choosing to up the difficulty so far. Perhaps this is a third reason someone would focus on efficiency: Insane levels of difficulty require you to do it just to keep up with the difficulty curve of the game.

But that again makes you not the audience for my OP suggestion. Do you do this type of thing all the time when suggestions are made to those who don't necessarily include you? I'm not asking you to leave by any means. I'm just saying there are people who play the game differently than you and what harm comes to you by me making my suggestion to them (not you) of how to play the game using the new system to inefficiently but possibly more immersively help them?

My OP was a suggestion for how to mod the game without changing code...just changing what you do by choice. Nobody has to do this thing. And anyone doing it won't affect anyone else's game. You won't even be able to accidentally join a server that would have this mod installed unknowingly.

 

[RestInPieces]

No. But I'll be brief. PvP is one reason for rushing the progression. The other reason I mentioned was a strong dislike for playing the game with sub-optimal abilities and gear........And again all my comments are about the speed of progression and the actions taken to most efficiently rush through the progression-- not about the existence or not of progression.

I get what you are talking about, but I wanted to see if we were on the same page about whether the game incentivises players to progress, either to experience more content or to achieve a goal more easily etc.

So theoritically speaking:

-There is character progression, which naturally becomes desirable because there is an incentive behind it.

-We have a strong incentive, if I may say, which includes unlocking content, gameplay QOL, becoming more powerful.

-We are presented with choices to achieve it. Each choice has a significantly different speed factor while leading to this result.

Now. When, in general, one is incentivized to progress and is presented with various choices to achieve that progression, what is the most humanly sensible thing for that person to do?

The answer explains why more and more players perceive the game as a grindfest. It's not because they are completionists, it's not because they have to be pvp'ers, it's because it's the most logical thing to do, considering the above, established factors that the game design is responsible for.

That's why I am spamming for:

-Balancing the ways you get experience as much as possible.

-Essential perks like recipe perks not to be tied with character progression.

-Survival perks not changing survival so drastically (shrug off diseases, injuries, 999% more satiation etc), but complementing it.

Now, if there was an insignificant difference between these choices and character rpg progression was not significant enough, then and only then would I justify your viewpoint and say it is a matter of playstyle.

Btw I'll mention it again (until they implement it). The new system opens the way for an even better system of "raising attributes by doing", so I am still hopeful!

 

[SnowDog1942]

Thats the truth, diablo 2 was great, then diablo 3 hit and I was like "What is this crap?" I expect diablo 4 to be even worse.

So you haven't heard of Diablo Immortal?..... you gotta check it out if you haven't lol....worth it for the laughs.

 

[KingSlayerGM]

@Roland

I appreciate you kept your cool and took the time to calmly reply to each of my posts. Thank you.

I, on the other hand, was a bit rough. I'm sorry for that.

 

[SickPuppy]

I learned Karate by painting a fence. Its all good.

Nice.

The only worry I have with the new system is in the end we will still be overpowered to the point it's not about survival anymore. For me the fun has always been early game stages. I saw a couple of perks one was totally immune to broken legs, the other immune to stun. These two alone plus having stacks of ammunition and a plethora of weapons, I'm guessing will make late game the same as A16 where people will become bored and start complaining for A18 and more challenge again. It will take the survival purist to not take those perks.

I'd prefer a more player skill based challenge than unlock a perk and now the action you used that didn't work or got you killed now suddenly works, but you are still doing the same action that got you killed in the first place. Saying that and without trying A17 I can't see a big problem with it. I'm not a purist that has to do that same action over and over again because it boils down to fun. I enjoy killing zombies and looting but mining resources puts me to sleep. But I'm happy to know I can still build cement bases from doing what I find fun.

i think what TFP has done should be commended, it seems to me they have tried to do the impossible and please everyone, even though it doesn't seem like it on forums, the open play style and options / settings to suit everyone's play style is astounding. Not to mention making their game easily moddable.

 

[bloom_meister]

A lot has been written of late about the desire for a system where you gain advantages in an action by practicing that action. Those who are detractors of the Perk system say that it is flawed because by killing zombies they can magically be better at planting and harvesting corn. They claim that there is a huge disconnect between where they spend their points and the actions they did to gain those points.
So........no.

The new perk system is an open and free system that allows people the choice to play the game however they wish. If someone doesn't care about where points come from or how they are spent they can play it that way.

If someone cares very much about where points come from and how they are spent, the good news is they can choose to play the game that way as well.

For example:

We earn xp from farming. There is a farming perk. I could grind farming at the exclusion of all else until I earned a point that came purely from farming and then pend that point to improve farming.

We earn xp from mining. I could do the same as I outlined above.

Now this is a very purist and probably very boring way for most people but for those who have been going on and on and on about how much they supposedly love this style of play....it is there for them if they choose to take it. And why wouldn't they since they talk and talk about how much they love it....

But there is an even less extreme way that those who say they like to learn by doing could do just that and here is how:

The player could play the game doing all sorts of activities but probably (realistically) getting most of their points from killing zombies. Now lets say that this player wanted to be able to craft seeds and so wanted to put a point into the farming perk but they had not yet done any farming. Well, that player could then do some farming. Not enough to earn a complete point by solely farming but enough to feel that they had gained some experience and learning. THEN, they could spend the point on farming.

Now lets say that the player wanted to improve their accuracy on headshots but knew that most of their kills had been by melee. Well, that player could then decide to practice headshots by killing the zombies by ranged attacks for the rest of that day and maybe the next to really put some headshot practice in. THEN, the player could spend that point on improving headshots. In this case most of another perk point would even have been earned purely by doing that action.

In reviewing all the perks there is not a single perk that a player could not choose to practice before spending the point on that actions to improve it. And in the vast majority of the perks the actual action used to practice actually does earn xp which would actually contribute to the point that would be spent for that action.

So why wouldn't a player play this way?

1) They actually care more about min/maxing and endgame rushing than they care about making sure skill progression matches the actions aligned with that skill.

2) They really don't care at all about learning by doing and are just fine with perk points earned not aligning with perk points spent.

3) They didn't realize they had such freedom to play the game the way the really wanted to all along (but now they do after reading this)

4) They don't like choices like these and want the game structure to force them to play the way they say they like to play.

Maybe somone who says they like to learn by doing can explain why they wouldn't play that way given the fact that the game allows for it if they will just choose to do what they want.

I like dead is dead and I sometimes choose to play that way. Whether the devs ever put a mode in that forces it or not I will play dead is dead whenever the mood strikes me because that is what I want. I've already decided to give what I've described a try although I am not one who has proclaimed learning by doing as the pinnacle of game design.

Level gating the perks annihilates your points