PC Problems with A17.2 that aren't on the 'known issues' list of the patch notes

HAHA love it:)

yeah done a LOT of grinding in my time. never played final fantasy tho, and by the sound of it glad I didn't. the completionist in me would want to make me grind that....

I didn't start playing 7DTD till A17, so not familiar with how bad it was. not really talking about scale, just the mechanic itself in general.

 
HAHA love it:)
yeah done a LOT of grinding in my time. never played final fantasy tho, and by the sound of it glad I didn't. the completionist in me would want to make me grind that....

I didn't start playing 7DTD till A17, so not familiar with how bad it was. not really talking about scale, just the mechanic itself in general.
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder how I would feel about A17 if I hadn't played other alphas. Honestly. Would I like it more, or still hold the same stance I do now? Curiosity.

 
I sometimes wonder how I would feel about A17 if I hadn't played other alphas. Honestly. Would I like it more, or still hold the same stance I do now? Curiosity.
Click to expand...
7D2d is a good game. I know I have my share of negative opinions. I would enjoy it. Don't miss what you don't know eh? I would likely hold similar criticisms but the impact of them wouldn't be as strong felt prolly. I hope my posts don't paint the wrong picture. I would never post a negative review on Steam just because of A17 for example, like some people have in a knee jerk reaction. I haven't even left a review yet tbh. I will probably wait until beta or final release.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would definitely like A17 more if I had never experienced earlier alphas, no question. And that's my cue to quote one of my favorite songs (by James), Sit Down:

Now I've swung back down again,

And it's worse than it was before.

If I hadn't seen such riches,

I could live with being poor.

 
Personally, i hate that i was able to change the field of view. I changed it accidentally and hated the big bubble look on the screen when you increased it. I dont mind not having it.

 
"Learn by doing" vs "Leveling through attribute tree"
I am new to the game as of A17 so I did not experience it when skill ups through activity was a thing, however I am older (45) and have played many games in the past that had that kind of progression such as Ultima Online. the comment that it is a grind is 100% true and one of the reasons you really don't see a lot of games with a "Learn by Doing" system anymore. World of Warcraft had it with crafting, but I don't think anyone that played WoW would say that the crafting skill up grind was "fun". Dunno. it certainly is subjective what is fun, but I see the current Attribute/Level based system in most games now. its just the way things are moving.

Now my personal opinion is that the current system is fine. I like it. I think new players will probably like it. Old players used to a certain way of playing will take time to adapt or will move on. if you have played this game more than say 30+ hours, then you got your money's worth of entertainment anyway.
Click to expand...
The previous alpha was more of a hybrid, than a straight LBD grind. The more you ran, the more athletics points you accumulated. The more you used a bow/crossbow, the better your archery skill...BUT...you also leveled up the same way as in A17, where you accumulated points that you could put into anything (perks or things you didn't want to grind (say archery skills)). It was the best of both worlds, and it can be again. They can keep the perks (but group them better), and use LBD for the attributes, and I'm pretty sure at least 80 to 90% would be happy instead of the 40% to 50% right now.

I probably wouldn't have minded the new perk system too much as a new player, but because I know what I'm missing...

 
Personally, i hate that i was able to change the field of view. I changed it accidentally and hated the big bubble look on the screen when you increased it. I dont mind not having it.
Click to expand...
You don't mind having it or not having. Fine. I, on the other hand (and everyone else who suffers from motion sickness), have to have it. Otherwise we can't play for more than 30 minutes without throwing up.

We used to have an FOV slider, but in this last Alpha, they removed it without explanation and have thus far refused to acknowledge any request to add it back. There has been some speculation that they removed it because they couldn't figure out how to fix some bug that allowed you to see underground in wide FOVs. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but if so, removing the slider does not solve the issue anyway, because you can set the FOV each time you enter a game by pressing F1 while it's loading and typing sg OptionsFieldOfViewNew 100 in the console. So anyone who was reliant on that exploit will be doing that anyway. Cheaters gonna cheat. Meanwhile, non-cheating motion sickness suffereres are not going to know about it, and just ask for a refund. It's what I would have done.

 
You don't mind having it or not having. Fine. I, on the other hand (and everyone else who suffers from motion sickness), have to have it. Otherwise we can't play for more than 30 minutes without throwing up.
We used to have an FOV slider, but in this last Alpha, they removed it without explanation and have thus far refused to acknowledge any request to add it back. There has been some speculation that they removed it because they couldn't figure out how to fix some bug that allowed you to see underground in wide FOVs. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but if so, removing the slider does not solve the issue anyway, because you can set the FOV each time you enter a game by pressing F1 while it's loading and typing sg OptionsFieldOfViewNew 100 in the console. So anyone who was reliant on that exploit will be doing that anyway. Cheaters gonna cheat. Meanwhile, non-cheating motion sickness suffereres are not going to know about it, and just ask for a refund. It's what I would have done.
Click to expand...
Some reason was floating around that they wanted to lock it down to ensure a quality experience. I think that meant if your FOV was too high, you would be able to see the sleeper zombies just around corners/in the rafters and it would spoil the surprise. Basically we don't care about people's motion sickness/ability to play. God forbid someone changes the FOV and ruins the jump scare we so delicately placed around every single corner in every single POI. If it weren't for that FOV, people would begin to expect them...

Also @ OP's topic - This friday will be 3 weeks since A17.2 experimental has released. C...c..c...can we get some of 'dat stable.

 
I saw my brother play quite a lot of Tibia and played it myself... GRINDY GRIND for me is picking a specific equipment and going to a pit of monsters, standing still to be hit with blocking (raising BLOCK) and occasionally hitting it for minimum damage (damage dealt didn't matter, just raising specific weapon handling). Early levels came fast, but later on you needed hours to get better. AND you had to be hit by max 2 enemies, because the third bypass your shield. Better skills meant you could block with a shield tougher enemies or hit with a weapon almost every time, compared to missing almost every time. You could try hitting the 400 times needed per skill level on regular mobs, but if you could do it on those that wouldn't hurt you, it didn't involve risking a death, which would decrease your skills.

This is the difference (as i enjoyed the beginning of playing Tibia, but not later on the tedious GRINDY GRIND) - linking LBD towards visible progress makes it feel more real than it is, because you're not spending hours on it and get visible progress. This is why i grinded my first mining levels in A16 with a shovel and then move onto stone axe or pickaxe simply because i wanted the first bonus to be used after getting that 10th level. IT DIDN'T TAKE TOO MUCH TIME! The next 2 upgrades were also anticipated, but in lower expectancy (requiring more time) and later ones i didn't care much.

If LBD came back with raising your attributes and consecutive general levels would give you points which you could assign to skills unlocked through new attribute levels, at some point you would still need to grind attributes. Maybe not at the beginning, but mid-game or end-game surely, because there people focus on specific actions and wouldn't be a jack of all trades.

Some people will not like grinding like that, some will. Some people will find new ways to grind, which wouldn't feel tedious, others will choose different activities making the attributes raise slower in natural usage, but not caring if they do raise or not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
and I'm pretty sure at least 80 to 90% would be happy instead of the 40% to 50% right now.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity where are you getting these numbers from? just from the forum threads? I would say that is probably a very poor source, or just your circle of players? (who are more than likely to share your views?)

Just think that these percentage figures (unless REALLY backed up with analytics of some sort) do nothing to promote your conversation. just an observation, you keep being you:)

as I like to say (probably came from somewhere I read) :

"72.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot"

its better to leave those assumptions out of an argument unless you really do have some real numbers to back it:)

 
"72.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot"
Click to expand...
And five out of every three people don't understand fractions. ;-)

I couldn't agree more with you, I wish people would speak for themselves rather than some unknowable silent majority, and I say that as someone who personally prefers LBD to perks, or even LBD/perks hybrid to perks.

 
And five out of every three people don't understand fractions. ;-)
I couldn't agree more with you, I wish people would speak for themselves rather than some unknowable silent majority, and I say that as someone who personally prefers LBD to perks, or even LBD/perks hybrid to perks.
Click to expand...
Even better, I wish people would try to speak with logical assertions, ONLY :p

 
Just out of curiosity where are you getting these numbers from? just from the forum threads? I would say that is probably a very poor source, or just your circle of players? (who are more than likely to share your views?)
Just think that these percentage figures (unless REALLY backed up with analytics of some sort) do nothing to promote your conversation. just an observation, you keep being you:)

as I like to say (probably came from somewhere I read) :

"72.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot"

its better to leave those assumptions out of an argument unless you really do have some real numbers to back it:)
Click to expand...
If that's the part of my post that you found interesting enough to quote, then you missed the point, but seeing as you asked...

I'm guessing 40 - 50% mainly based on the current mixed steam reviews (and to a lesser extent, the forum and reddit). Seeing as prior to A17, the reviews were mostly positive, (I guess that would constitute 80 to 90% of people), then I imagine something more along the lines of the previous hybrid would please 80 to 90% of people (mostly positive).

Do you feel that is a huge leap of logic? I don't. I think it's completely fair.

 
I think generally speaking (and on every platform in existence btw...like shopping etc) User Reviews can be very useless in the extreme. occasionally you can find a nugget of gold in amongst the pyrite, where the user gives a thoughtful unbiased review.

Its just human nature that if you have issues with something you are overwhelmingly more likely to post negative reviews of something than positive. if you have no issues with something you are going to be out there playing it, not writing reviews of it (this is a generalization, of course there are some that do, and kudos to them). While people that are struggling, or pissed are going to post really quickly:)

its called Negativity Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias)

hehe, I was just thinking that Negativity Bias IS Reddit essentially......but I personally hate reddit for its toxicity....so that is my bias peaking through.

It is funny too, because there are polls that show that people mistrust really positive reviews, but not the same about negative ones.....

anyway, bottom line is I think all those numbers should probably be compared against actual active people playing the game. For instance, if you have 25000 active players, but there are 300 reviews mostly negative, I would read that as success, because 24700 people are enjoying the game enough not to feel the need to comment, or don't care enough to comment anyway.

its all guesswork, regardless. better to not worry about the numbers at all. In this forum context it just makes you sound like you are saying "I have this problem with the game, and I think everyone else agrees with me, therefore you should follow my advice". just don't bother with these strawman numbers. you point are still valid without them.

 
I think generally speaking (and on every platform in existence btw...like shopping etc) User Reviews can be very useless in the extreme. occasionally you can find a nugget of gold in amongst the pyrite, where the user gives a thoughtful unbiased review.
Its just human nature that if you have issues with something you are overwhelmingly more likely to post negative reviews of something than positive. if you have no issues with something you are going to be out there playing it, not writing reviews of it (this is a generalization, of course there are some that do, and kudos to them). While people that are struggling, or pissed are going to post really quickly:)

its called Negativity Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias)

hehe, I was just thinking that Negativity Bias IS Reddit essentially......but I personally hate reddit for its toxicity....so that is my bias peaking through.

It is funny too, because there are polls that show that people mistrust really positive reviews, but not the same about negative ones.....

anyway, bottom line is I think all those numbers should probably be compared against actual active people playing the game. For instance, if you have 25000 active players, but there are 300 reviews mostly negative, I would read that as success, because 24700 people are enjoying the game enough not to feel the need to comment, or don't care enough to comment anyway.

its all guesswork, regardless. better to not worry about the numbers at all. In this forum context it just makes you sound like you are saying "I have this problem with the game, and I think everyone else agrees with me, therefore you should follow my advice". just don't bother with these strawman numbers. you point are still valid without them.
Click to expand...
I understand the point you're trying to make, but with Steam reviews, I disagree. In my observation, people either write reviews because they are super fans or because they are disgruntled. The people who don't write reviews, decline to do so because of apathy. The game is 'just ok'. Prior to A17, the game has mostly positive reviews. That was success. Now they are mixed. Not the end of the world, but hardly success.

Regardless, the whole point of my post was not to talk about numbers, but to explain that the old system was a hybrid. Not like the LBD you mentioned. I don't think I would enjoy straight up LBD as much. As you say, it can lend itself to grind.

 
I understand the point you're trying to make, but with Steam reviews, I disagree. In my observation, people either write reviews because they are super fans or because they are disgruntled. The people who don't write reviews, decline to do so because of apathy. The game is 'just ok'. Prior to A17, the game has mostly positive reviews. That was success. Now they are mixed. Not the end of the world, but hardly success.
Regardless, the whole point of my post was not to talk about numbers, but to explain that the old system was a hybrid. Not like the LBD you mentioned. I don't think I would enjoy straight up LBD as much. As you say, it can lend itself to grind.
Click to expand...
I think one thing that could have made A16 a lot greater and possibly even made haters of it at least tolerate it or even enjoy it...

My diplomatic response - I do remember it seemed pretty much a waste of skill points to use them on the 100 max level skills because skill points were hard enough to come by that you couldn't reasonably level a lot of skills that way. If they changed it to where you got say 5 levels per 1 skill point, something like that, then I think a lot more people would then appreciate the freedom this would entail. Since most fans of A17 system throw around their "Freedom" in virtually every post, I figure this is what they want.

I do NOT think you should have quite enough SP's to be able to max everything this way, but enough to where you feel like you can make virtually any build you want without being "forced" to grind a whole bunch of stuff. Hate hugging cactus for hours? Just spend 20 SP and max it that way... or whatever.

This is in fact one way that A17 was attempting to do it, but in a different way. In a way that I didn't like (But, I've already beat that dead horse, so I won't again here.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
really I am fine with any system on the spectrum as long as solo play is still maintainable. What I wouldn't want is restrictions to points to force people into roles. this would seriously impact solo play, something at least I am in favor of. if this went to pure LBD I would still play and grind and probably still enjoy. if it stays as it is I would (and do) enjoy as well. Lol, maybe ill drop off this thread since Ill find my enjoyment in either.

 
really I am fine with any system on the spectrum as long as solo play is still maintainable. What I wouldn't want is restrictions to points to force people into roles. this would seriously impact solo play, something at least I am in favor of. if this went to pure LBD I would still play and grind and probably still enjoy. if it stays as it is I would (and do) enjoy as well. Lol, maybe ill drop off this thread since Ill find my enjoyment in either.
Click to expand...
"Roles" seemingly are what the goals of the Dev's are, Gazz has essentially said as much, so probably the rest of us are going to need to mod the game to suit our wants/needs.

It still boggles my mind how one can have restricted roles while also having freedom, but I've already written a book as to why that is silly, and I don't feel like writing another one so I'm gonna leave it at that lol.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Roles" seemingly are what the goals of the Dev's are, Gazz has essentially said as much, so probably the rest of us are going to need to mod the game to suit our wants/needs.
It still boggles my mind how one can have restricted roles while also having freedom, but I've already written a book as to why that is silly, and I don't feel like writing another one so I'm gonna leave it at that lol.
Click to expand...
Could you quote him on that? Yes, perks were made with different possible specializations in mind, which is fine, but if they build/balance the game around disconnected/independent roles and not holistic gameplay, imho, they would be making most of the game activities redundant. For example a possible "nomad" role against BM TD necessity (I really hope my suspicions of them increasing player speed to support that role are not true, because if they did that in good conscience... I don't even want to dwell on it). Anyway, depends on various things, I shouldn't dwell on conspiracy theories either.

 
Ahh yes sorry I meant specialization not roles, there is a slight difference between those words.

Specialization is fine, my problem with A17 is it tends to restrict you to specific roles (classes) rather than specializing how you want. Dunno if that makes sense?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top