PC Steam reviews - I kinda figured
- Thread starter hillbilly
- Start date
Viktoriusiii
New member
Sure... but either you have to rebalance it for singleplayer (which doesnt exist anymore, since every server is multiplayer now) or you CANNOT GIVE 12x xp to a group of 4 people. That is insanity. Give them a total of 1.3x maybe 2.0x when beeing in a massive group. 12x IS a gamebreaker.
Yup. Hiding should be an option. Just not 100% safe. And as hordenight is specifically there to once a week CHALLENGE your hiding tactic, beeing 100% safe is an exploit, therefor it should be fixed.
Sorry, but reading both those posts either my reading level is too low or you are contradicting yourself. In the first post you clearly say that now 7d2d is NOT a tower defense game. In the second post you clearly say it IS.
Your main point is the advertisement though. Lets look at the top of the steam page: "open world ... combination of first person shooter, survival horror, tower defense, and role-playing games. Play the definitive zombie survival sandbox RPG that came first."
Both mentions of survival narrow the genre down to "survival horror" and "zombie survival". Whatever you think about the genre "survivial", what is the definition of "survival horror" and why shouldn't 7d2d be one?
There is a game in a spaceship where you hide from an alien you can't fight and try to find information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien:_Isolation . It is called a "survival horror" game in the wikipedia page, but AFAIK it has no hunger management nor temperature management nor farming.
Last edited by a moderator:
Context is everything. In the first post I am talking about what the game has been up until now. It has never resembled a true tower defense game. In the second, I am talking about what the developers have said in their defence of the changes, that the game is meant to be a tower defense game and that is the direction they are trying to move it in.
So yes, your reading level may be too low if you are ignoring context or you are intentionally trying to cherry pick single phrases to create a completely different narrative.
You are also ignoring that before you even read that sentence in the steam page description, the game banner and tagline that is everywhere the game is advertised reads "The Survival Horde Crafting Game".
Maybe you are intentionally cherry picking to create a false narrative...
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets say the following can be misunderstood: "If the game is unfun untill level xyz then a new player is either going to grind like ♥♥♥♥ to get to the actual fun part of the game or just go play somthing else".
I'm actually thinking that "normal" difficulty probably has to be easier to accomodate most new players. Not easier zombies but more time as new players will definitely waste a lot of time while learning the game and then 7 days of 60 minutes are maybe just too dense. But the early game is needed for the survival horror and RPG part of this genre mix and if you want a pure sandbox and avoid those aspects you really have to use creative menue or a mod, or options.
I just want to point out that developers want to add some hurdles for players to jump over before they can circumvent much of the game because that could lead new players to unknowingly remove the fun for themselves.
Best example is an RPG that gives you a powerfull weapon at start (as a bonus for the special edition). But if it makes the fights too easy, a large percentage of the new players might loose interest in this "unbalanced" game not knowing that they partly brought it upon themselves by accepting that weapon
So "faster xp progression" might never surface as an option, but is already trivially changeable in XML: In progression.xml there is the line <level max_level="300" exp_to_level="9545" experience_multiplier="1.0149" skill_points_per_level="1"> .
Alien: Isolation is a survival horror because the gameplay is focused entirely on long term survival. Hunger or temperature management are not necessary for a game to be a survival game. The game mechanics just have to be focused almost completely around survival. Needing to plan ahead is a staple of survival games. Not just surviving through any given moment, but how current actions will affect chances to survive in future. A17 does not have this, A16 did to a degree. In A17 all you have to worry about is surviving any given engagement (and not even that much), you don't have to plan for future survival. In A17 you are forced to seek out situations that put you in danger as it is the only way to progress. In A16 you only put yourself in danger unnecessarily if there was a bonus pay off for it. For example, you wanted to go to a book store to find recipes, or a construction site to find tools. Specific POI now have no distinct value like they used to because no matter where you go you can get everything as long as you are fighting. SO there is no planning out your schedule anymore. No worrying about having everything you need before horde night, because horde preparation now takes half a day at most. The survival elements of the game are very light now.
Basically the game has shifted much more towards action than strategy, and survival and action do not mix well together. You either have action with light survival flavouring, or true survival with occasional action heavy moments.
Basically the game has shifted much more towards action than strategy, and survival and action do not mix well together. You either have action with light survival flavouring, or true survival with occasional action heavy moments.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree A17 is both the best and worst version of 7d2d
A17 is the most polished and least buggy version so far where pims FINALLY fixed the buggy AI, but ...
It is most dumbed down unimaginative uninnovative and most consol-y version of this game yet. Many of the good and innovative features of the game have been removed and replaced by lazy and unimaginative crap just copied from other crappy games.
I have for long said NPC traders have no place in SURVIVAL game, where the whole point is to scavenge and make you own items. Now they added tho boooooooooring NPC quests to Traders. Has not everyone already been bored to tears with those in EVERY mmo game ?
Ok, those might be ok if those were not made mandatory by them giving xp and perk points.
Another thing I hate is the the perk points I liked the old system where you gained skill by using the skill and exploring the map to find recipe books that unlocked and increased the skill. That made the game much more interesting as every game you played was differnet as you randomly got skills unloacked based on what skill & recipe books you found. And another these new dumb features is having everything level locked that makes this skill allocate more and the game more linear (again like every single other f... mmo game)
It feels like this game had lobotomy after A13 when Pimps started making this a console game. Pimps you made a great game which you then ruined. it is still kind of ok but it's so sad when you had a great game.
Pimps, thanks for you great work. Just sad that you had a game one could enjoy playing thousands of hours and you turned it tio game you get bored in 20 hours. But I guess that is actually our fault, the customers are demanding instant gratification and to get all game content and items in less than 20 hours, not a game that still surprises you after 1000h.
A17 is the most polished and least buggy version so far where pims FINALLY fixed the buggy AI, but ...
It is most dumbed down unimaginative uninnovative and most consol-y version of this game yet. Many of the good and innovative features of the game have been removed and replaced by lazy and unimaginative crap just copied from other crappy games.
I have for long said NPC traders have no place in SURVIVAL game, where the whole point is to scavenge and make you own items. Now they added tho boooooooooring NPC quests to Traders. Has not everyone already been bored to tears with those in EVERY mmo game ?
Ok, those might be ok if those were not made mandatory by them giving xp and perk points.
Another thing I hate is the the perk points I liked the old system where you gained skill by using the skill and exploring the map to find recipe books that unlocked and increased the skill. That made the game much more interesting as every game you played was differnet as you randomly got skills unloacked based on what skill & recipe books you found. And another these new dumb features is having everything level locked that makes this skill allocate more and the game more linear (again like every single other f... mmo game)
It feels like this game had lobotomy after A13 when Pimps started making this a console game. Pimps you made a great game which you then ruined. it is still kind of ok but it's so sad when you had a great game.
Pimps, thanks for you great work. Just sad that you had a game one could enjoy playing thousands of hours and you turned it tio game you get bored in 20 hours. But I guess that is actually our fault, the customers are demanding instant gratification and to get all game content and items in less than 20 hours, not a game that still surprises you after 1000h.
Well, that is an ambiguous statement ("tower defense only" or "tower defense too", the latter being quite ok, this being a genre mix) and one that would astonish me. The direction for A18 is, to my knowledge, more contents, especially more mods, and polishing and balancing. For A17 they wanted to improve the AI because the tower defense didn't work because of the bad AI of the zombies.
EDIT: Hah, actually did read that wrong. You are not saying it is wrong on the steam page, but in advertisement banners? Then what about banners of other games that tell you nothing about the game at all? Or are not even showing in game graphic? Is that all a lie? Well, actually it is. No game banner ever tells the truth and no commercial on the TV ever is about information. But you surely know that.
I don't see why a necessarily short text in an game banner picture has to include a detailed description of every aspect of the game. Sure, if 7 days to die would change into a 100% tower defense game, you would be absolutely right, I just think you are probably misinterpreting some statements if you believe that.
Fun fact: If I search for the full name of "7 days to die", the game isn't in the short drop down list, a really bad search function IMHO.
Last edited by a moderator:
"almost completely around survival" is surely true for a 100% survival game. It is not true if a developer attempts a genre mix. I see the survival horror aspect clearly whenever I loot a building and tiptoe because I don't want to get any ferals on my back. Or when I get surprised by dogs or birds. Or when I hide in the night and hope to not get any zombies knocking the POI down. In fact I see that aspect take up a large part of the early game.
In A16 most players invited screamers to farm them for loot. Now they farm them for XP. Both is not balanced but I don't see where A16 is any better. And I don't do such things in my SP A17 game at the moment (with a mix of scavenging, mining, farming and building) and progress quite well.
Lets also not forget that we are comparing A17.0 with a seemingly more polished A16.4. XP was announced as one of the parts that need further balancing.
Your last comment was taking two of my comments made about two very different things and saying they were contradictory when they were not, because you took them out of context. You'll have to forgive me if I took that as hostility because it is a common tactic that people use to undermine others instead of addressing points properly.
ON the Tower Defence topic. MM has made several posts in the last 24 hours defending changes such as the zombie damage against structures, raising of bedrock, and removing viablity of underground bases, by stating that the game is supposed to be a tower defence game. Seeming to imply that the classic notion of tower defence, leading a horde through a maze with several defense points that whittle the horde down, was what they were aiming for. Rather than a tower defence such as has been in the game up until now, that you build a "tower" with defence sturdy enough to withold the horde till they can all be killed, ideally without them breaking into your base. This is apparently why zombies now dig through all base materials at such high speeds, because you are meant to build a tower defence maze and not a tower you defend. If thats what they are aiming for, that is not something they have clearly stated in their description of the game or the gameplay videos.
As to where that game banner is, no it does seem it is no longer on the steam page, I am quite sure it used to be however. It is on the 7 Days to Die webpage though, the top of the forum, most advertisements I have seen outside of steam and most articles about the game. Its the games tagline. If the game is going to continue moving away from focusing on the survival and crafting aspects, I don't think its unreasonable to say they should change the tagline to one more representative of the game.
EDIT: Now I can't find the specific MM post I was thinkng of and am wondering if it was actually just someone else running with what he said in these two posts and it all spiralled from there.
https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?102411-Steam-reviews-I-kinda-figured&p=916881&viewfull=1#post916881
https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?101983-How-to-avoid-bad-reviews&p=916470&viewfull=1#post916470
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually misread that about the banner and changed the post you are quoting, sorry.
I don't think they are at a state where they can really fine-tune how the actual defense has to work. The previous AI was a very limited bandaid and not even able to destroy simple stilt bases. They have to work with some limitations, for example not too many zombies at the same time. For few zombies to be a threat they either have to be HP monsters (which isn't what anyone wants), have more "magic" abilities (I would like that, TFP and a lot of players don't) or be strong offensively.
One of the purposes of A17 experimental (AFAIK) was to see what defense methods players would come up with and then decide which ones the developers would be ok with and which need further AI polishing. I think they would be very happy about a state where methods that work in reality (like castles) also work in the game OR at least "fun" methods work in the game.
Whether that is possible in the constraints of this genre mix is debatable. For example a builder is able to build a lot of walls around himself. Make wall building much slower and builders can't build palaces anymore in a sensible time frame. So zombies have to be able to get through those walls if the player doesn't at least add additional stuff like spikes... Otherwise the zombie as a thread on horde night isn't there anymore.
What I expect and what also is announced by the AI developer is that zombies will get random behaviour eventually. That makes it necessary for the player to safeguard the base from all sides again and limits the effect of what you can achieve with a maze. It will also mean that block damage can be reduced and the zombies be still effective because you can't expect mazes or funnels to take on ALL zombies. So I expect the best strategy eventually will be sturdy walls AND traps/spikes and funnels to lead them to your flint or to a shotgun turret.
Not that the maze strategy works that good. I tried twice now to change the post office building to have a maze/funnel I could lead the zombies through and because of my mistakes they just ignored the funnel. A lot can go wrong.
If the game were reduced to tower defense I would agree.
Last edited by a moderator:
I was super excited about the new zombie AI when it was first teased, the new pathing and jumping looked like a huge improvement. My understanding was always that zombie hordes would act 'instinctively' and spread out and pummel all sides of your base eventually, meaning you can't have only one strong side unless you have a really good system for directing hordes too it. Ideally zombies faced with no way forward should just bash on the closest thing, unless there is a noise or smell to draw them away. I get that they may not be there yet in making zombies unpredictable enough to be a challenge if theyre spread out, but the decisions they chose to stack don't make much sense. why make zombies know exactly where you are, know which block is the weakest and all attack that point, and also do increased damage to blocks! Unless your intention is that you don't actually block the zombies passage and instead create a tower defence esque maze... That's the only explanation that makes sense to me, and it lines up with some of the things the devs have said.
Now having zombies naturally gravitate to each other as they approach a wall another zombie is already bashing on makes sense. That zombie is making noise. Should it draw every zombie to that exact spot, no, but it should draw the closest ones closer.
Having an additional damage multiplier for multiple zombies hitting the same block, that also makes sense. As a larger mass of zombies piles against a single point in the defense it is going to be more strained and give out quicker.
Maybe those things would be more difficult to implement. Maybe thats why they went a different direction. But it doesn't mean that going in a direction that has everyone questioning how they intend the game to be played going forward was a good decision. Or that isn't a reason for people to be worried.
Now having zombies naturally gravitate to each other as they approach a wall another zombie is already bashing on makes sense. That zombie is making noise. Should it draw every zombie to that exact spot, no, but it should draw the closest ones closer.
Having an additional damage multiplier for multiple zombies hitting the same block, that also makes sense. As a larger mass of zombies piles against a single point in the defense it is going to be more strained and give out quicker.
Maybe those things would be more difficult to implement. Maybe thats why they went a different direction. But it doesn't mean that going in a direction that has everyone questioning how they intend the game to be played going forward was a good decision. Or that isn't a reason for people to be worried.
Another explanation was actually given by Fataal, the AI programmer: Frames-per-second. Voxel cost a lot of CPU cycles, AI costs a lot of CPU cycles, to make the game still run with acceptable FPS you need to cut some corners.
Finding a path inside a voxel space (think of one of the POI dungeons for example) is a non-trivial problem, to do that perfectly (i.e. a zombie sees, hears and smells like it would in reality) would cost a lot of performance (and a lot of development time) which would mean less zombies that could be spawned. If they don't want to go below the 8 zombies per player and 8 players means a PC with minimum specs has to be able to do the AI for 64 zombies at the same time, each one finding its own way in a complex maze of voxel blocks and subblocks.
It is difficult talking about a direction when a completely new AI is inserted and thrown at players to see what they come up with.
Once in A16 I tried to make a cone-shaped path for the zombies where shotgun turrets were at the end. It was completely wasted time. With the new AI it actually is possible now to direct them, but probably too well. That needs further tuning, no question. But I think it is an improvement that you can use your brain now to predict paths they would take and how you can make that path "inconvenient" for them.
lazerblade01
New member
I gave 7DTD a positive review in A15. I enjoyed it and played many hours with my girlfriend.
I just changed that review to negative because I no longer play the game, nor does my girlfriend. We barely played any A16, because we didn't like the direction things were going.
When I wrote the positive review, I felt that anyone buying into the game at that point, at least anyone looking at the game and considering whether to buy it, would likely enjoy it. I included why I enjoyed it.
When I changed the review to negative, it was to point out that anyone who didn't already own the game, but who may have been following it for a while, or who was looking for a game with specific features, could find something better.
And if we're being honest, that's how reviews should work. Not only that, but if you don't read reviews to help you decide whether or not to buy a game, or anything for that matter, then you probably shouldn't write them either. If you do, well, then you're narcissistic, because you value your own opinion so much above anyone else's that you think you ARE the only voice that matters, and all other opinions are useless.
Truth is, the only way to have any impact on someone else's purchasing decisions requires two things - you voicing your opinion and them taking your opinion into consideration.
What drove me to change my review wasn't just that I didn't agree with the changes or that they didn't make sense or felt like the wrong direction - it was the fact that I wasn't the only one. Most of the people I previously played with, or watched on Twitch, or talked to about the game, have been saying the same thing. They don't enjoy the game anymore. Even people who built their streaming channels on the foundation of 7DTD have walked away, because playing a game they no longer enjoy - one they used to love - is too high a price to pay just to get a piece of that viewer pie. Not to mention the loss in viewership when your audience can see that you clearly don't enjoy what you're doing.
So, yes, I changed my review, because my appreciation for the game, and the amount of enjoyment I was rewarded with while playing, changed. Significantly changed. I recommended the game to friends and colleagues in every Alpha stage except 13 (broken for me), 16 and now. I had modded A16 to be more like what I felt was fun, but this is a long and tedious process that not everyone is comfortable doing. And there are still some significant limitations to how far you can go with modding without knowing how to edit C# code and recompile. XML edits are fairly trivial, but there are still a lot of variables locked behind compiled code.
So while some die-hard fans may still enjoy the game, because they've owned it and played it enough to be comfortable and familiar with most of the mechanics, I can't in good conscience recommend the current state of the game to newcomers.
I just changed that review to negative because I no longer play the game, nor does my girlfriend. We barely played any A16, because we didn't like the direction things were going.
When I wrote the positive review, I felt that anyone buying into the game at that point, at least anyone looking at the game and considering whether to buy it, would likely enjoy it. I included why I enjoyed it.
When I changed the review to negative, it was to point out that anyone who didn't already own the game, but who may have been following it for a while, or who was looking for a game with specific features, could find something better.
And if we're being honest, that's how reviews should work. Not only that, but if you don't read reviews to help you decide whether or not to buy a game, or anything for that matter, then you probably shouldn't write them either. If you do, well, then you're narcissistic, because you value your own opinion so much above anyone else's that you think you ARE the only voice that matters, and all other opinions are useless.
Truth is, the only way to have any impact on someone else's purchasing decisions requires two things - you voicing your opinion and them taking your opinion into consideration.
What drove me to change my review wasn't just that I didn't agree with the changes or that they didn't make sense or felt like the wrong direction - it was the fact that I wasn't the only one. Most of the people I previously played with, or watched on Twitch, or talked to about the game, have been saying the same thing. They don't enjoy the game anymore. Even people who built their streaming channels on the foundation of 7DTD have walked away, because playing a game they no longer enjoy - one they used to love - is too high a price to pay just to get a piece of that viewer pie. Not to mention the loss in viewership when your audience can see that you clearly don't enjoy what you're doing.
So, yes, I changed my review, because my appreciation for the game, and the amount of enjoyment I was rewarded with while playing, changed. Significantly changed. I recommended the game to friends and colleagues in every Alpha stage except 13 (broken for me), 16 and now. I had modded A16 to be more like what I felt was fun, but this is a long and tedious process that not everyone is comfortable doing. And there are still some significant limitations to how far you can go with modding without knowing how to edit C# code and recompile. XML edits are fairly trivial, but there are still a lot of variables locked behind compiled code.
So while some die-hard fans may still enjoy the game, because they've owned it and played it enough to be comfortable and familiar with most of the mechanics, I can't in good conscience recommend the current state of the game to newcomers.
Viktoriusiii
New member
Okay its 3:5 again (21:35)
so yeah... I still think my prophecy "reviews will tank and playernumbers will drop after a few weeks" will come true... which is pretty sad.
Is there a way to track that type of information?
As in alpha 17 was released Dec 23rd (I think) purchases after that date are likely playing alpha 17 not previous alphas. It would be a long term watch I guess. but if you can see who bought it and how long they play, it would be a pretty simple figuring to see if the game before this was more fun - players with 1000+ hours vs the alpha 17 purchase days that let's say will likely play way less than 1000 ish hours.
Again obviously, that's a tracking scale spanned over much time. But isn't that how it's done? And if not, why wouldn't it be? That's simply the easiest way to determine which alphas kept people around.
As in alpha 17 was released Dec 23rd (I think) purchases after that date are likely playing alpha 17 not previous alphas. It would be a long term watch I guess. but if you can see who bought it and how long they play, it would be a pretty simple figuring to see if the game before this was more fun - players with 1000+ hours vs the alpha 17 purchase days that let's say will likely play way less than 1000 ish hours.
Again obviously, that's a tracking scale spanned over much time. But isn't that how it's done? And if not, why wouldn't it be? That's simply the easiest way to determine which alphas kept people around.
lazerblade01
New member
Gonna be nearly impossible, at least from an outside standpoint, to see those numbers, since Steam changed what data and how much data they reveal to the public, most likely in response to GDPR regulations, which went into effect this year (2018).
So A17 is basically safe from information scrutiny. But you can see the overall trend from roughly launch to May 2018, and see that sales have been fairly steady, but actual playtime per game owner has been on a downward trend since somewhere between A15 and A16.
Looking at the actual numbers, it doesn't seem too bad, until you realize that it's about 12.5% and slowly getting worse. Which I suppose is better than the comparison of positive to negative reviews since A17 released.
Greymantle
New member
The game is doing great over 20k people playing every day since 17 was launched. I'm sure TFP are quite happy with that stat. 