The LBD theyre introducing isnt what I wanted or had in mind.

[Kyoji]

It's not that just because you played with Lean by Doing, you automatically like it. I'm talking about people who actually miss it, and as we know, there are quite a lot of them.

That's because others didn't play it so naturally a large portion of the people who miss it would be veterans as we haven't had it in a long time.

Don't get me wrong I think magazines have their own issues and don't mind LBD but I think it was a bit misleading in the way you originally worded it.

That being said, what I dislike about this system the most is melee and ranged weapons are forced into builds. I cant just make a fisticuff shotgun build like I can with LBD easily.

Sadly that doesn't appear to be fixed with the new proposed system. I agree that being able to go down the weapon paths you want is something the devs should look at as shotguns and bows require two separate tree investments. Perhaps if they put weapons into a different category or just had perks be bonuses to "builds" rather than builds themselves.

Plus, LBD gives me more reason to play 7D2D. I want to invest time into my worlds. I already feel like progression is a bit too fast, endgame too soon and too easy. Let me take my time, build up my skills. Invest my time so each skill is decent. I don't mind keeping a lot of it point investment too, like Pain resistance which was originally a LBD skill that was painful for obvious reasons to level up. But having some skills LBD, and some not should be a good compromise. I would stop complaining if all they gave us was just weapon skills.

I think that could be solved with any skill system, but I agree progression feels a bit fast for my taste but can understand others feeling differently.

But you don't need LBD to do that.
I would support weapon skills being moved to the General Perks Tab.

The difference is that most weapons make sense under the attribute they're in.

I would expect a Tank role being mainly under the Fortitude attribute, as I would expect a Strong brute using Clubs, or an accurate person to use a Spear and a Rifle, or a Nerdy person to come up with some weird weapon that gives you a shock on contact and use auto-turrets.

IF they move the weapons skills outside of the attributes I, to the least, expect they'll keep tied to the attributes the weapon perks that each attribute tree gives to their respective trademark weapons. So, for example, if you ONLY invest in leveling up the weapon skill by itself, you get the standard damage bonus for each level. But if you also level up the associated attribute, THEN you'll also get the perk bonuses associated to that attribute/weapon (e.g.: faster reload, better chance of dismemberment and so on...).

I could get behind this kind of change.

Me too. I think this would be a much better implementation than what we have currently.

 

[Treb]

It is not "the thing." If I stop buying their stuff, sure two other people might still, but more importantly four people might not.
Besides, the intention of my post is not to send TFP into negatives. It would be ridiculous to think I alone could do such a thing. All I am saying is that the thoughts of veteran consumers have much more significance than made to believe. Eventually there will be a shortage of new players to please and all that will be left are veterans. It might not happen by the time this game is 100% finalized, but it will happen.

This thing about "their vision" is silly at this point. Their vision changes and has changed.

New players eventually become the veterans. Not sure how you're splitting yourself into 4 persons while the others stay 2 though.

The game is more popular than it was at any point before 1.0.

I don't remember saying their vision doesn't change.

 

[AtomicUs5000]

New players eventually become the veterans. Not sure how you're splitting yourself into 4 persons while the others stay 2 though.

Yes, that is what I said. If you can throw out an arbitrary number of 2, I can throw out an equally valid arbitrary number of 4.

The game is more popular than it was at any point before 1.0.

I don't see that. I see from the graph that every update there are new players added onto previous players. Does that equate to a popularity increase? One might see it that way, but I just see an increase in sales. After every spike there has been about 50% player retention extending months beyond the initial spikes. If we really want to keep up this trend of weaponized math, we could even go so far to say that every update more and more people become uninterested and stop playing after those initial spikes.

I don't remember saying their vision doesn't change.

You are right, you didn't, but then how does it fit into any argument? Why bring it up? Why not just say, "they are going to do whatever they want and don't need a reason for any of it." Maybe because it doesn't sound as good.

 

[meganoth]

Yes, that is what I said. If you can throw out an arbitrary number of 2, I can throw out an equally valid arbitrary number of 4.


I don't see that. I see from the graph that every update there are new players added onto previous players. Does that equate to a popularity increase? One might see it that way, but I just see an increase in sales. After every spike there has been about 50% player retention extending months beyond the initial spikes. If we really want to keep up this trend of weaponized math, we could even go so far to say that every update more and more people become uninterested and stop playing after those initial spikes.


You are right, you didn't, but then how does it fit into any argument? Why bring it up? Why not just say, "they are going to do whatever they want and don't need a reason for any of it." Maybe because it doesn't sound as good.

Well, obviously the current changes, like bringing back jars, are not just whatever they want. It is a compromise between their vision and what a group of players with the help of steam voting demanded

 

[AtomicUs5000]

Well, obviously the current changes, like bringing back jars, are not just whatever they want. It is a compromise between their vision and what a group of players with the help of steam voting demanded

Sure. Or, jars were already part of the vision since they were a part of the game more than not and their removal means that they don't really care about the vision much.

 

[Kyoji]

Sure. Or, jars were already part of the vision since they were a part of the game more than not and their removal means that they don't really care about the vision much.

I used to hate onions. As I grew older I like them. Visions and people can change. The idea isn't whether everything is to your liking but rather then general trend.

With 2.0 people made it clear we wanted more survival added into the game and they have delivered. So that's a plus.

 

[meganoth]

Sure. Or, jars were already part of the vision since they were a part of the game more than not and their removal means that they don't really care about the vision much.

If their vision was that detailed, they probably would have laid out exactly what we have today in their vision statement on kickstarter. All their experimenting with different systems for all parts of the game shows that their vision was as abstract as "visions" usually are. Just read some vision statements of typical companies .

I don't think there exists a **successfull** game developer in gaming history who constructed a game from ground up just in his head and never needed to experiment with or adapt anything. You can postulate that such a super-developer exists in the marvel universe, but not in reality.

 

[HammerDano]

If their vision was that detailed, they probably would have laid out exactly what we have today in their vision statement on kickstarter. All their experimenting with different systems for all parts of the game shows that their vision was as abstract as "visions" usually are. Just read some vision statements of typical companies .

I don't think there exists a **successfull** game developer in gaming history who constructed a game from ground up just in his head and never needed to experiment with or adapt anything. You can postulate that such a super-developer exists in the marvel universe, but not in reality.

and you are pretending THEY have not had over a decade of trial and error to learn from...when's THAT going to kick in? The "vision" should have been in CEMENT when they relaunched to console.

 

[meganoth]

and you are pretending THEY have not had over a decade of trial and error to learn from...when's THAT going to kick in? The "vision" should have been in CEMENT when they relaunched to console.

I don't get your point. The vision is almost complete with bandits and story still missing and that is still their plan. All the current detours like jars and LBD added in was forced by intervention of a group of players and TFP reacted in a way that they still keep what is important to them (for example scarcity of water in early game, perks) but giving the protesters something that might make them happy too (jars, some form of LBD, and options).

That will again take more time and I know that doesn't sit well with you, but they can not make everyone happy.

 

[HammerDano]

I don't get your point. The vision is almost complete with bandits and story still missing and that is still their plan. All the current detours like jars and LBD added in was forced by intervention of a group of players and TFP reacted in a way that they still keep what is important to them (for example scarcity of water in early game, perks) but giving the protesters something that might make them happy too (jars, some form of LBD, and options).

That will again take more time and I know that doesn't sit well with you, but they can not make everyone happy.

All of these complaints existed BEFORE they relaunched.

 

[AtomicUs5000]

If their vision was that detailed, they probably would have laid out exactly what we have today in their vision statement on kickstarter. All their experimenting with different systems for all parts of the game shows that their vision was as abstract as "visions" usually are. Just read some vision statements of typical companies .

I don't think there exists a **successfull** game developer in gaming history who constructed a game from ground up just in his head and never needed to experiment with or adapt anything. You can postulate that such a super-developer exists in the marvel universe, but not in reality.

You don't need to tell me. I'm not the one trying to use their "vision" to justify anything in this thread.

 

[Morloc]

The way I see it, I've played 8,657.7 hours, so....if TFP doesn't do what I want, they should have to pay me $129,865.50 for wasting all that time I invested (based on minimum wage).

Holy crap, I could have paid off my house if I'd only got off my ■■■ and taken a job a McDonalds.

Post automatically merged: Jan 2, 2026

Wait, we can't say "■■■"??

We can probably say "assassin", and that has TWICE as much ■■■.
...and it's much more offensive/immoral that mere ■■■.

 

[meganoth]

All of these complaints existed BEFORE they relaunched.

But they were not "forced". Maybe you don't know how much financial damage it is to a game's revenue if it gets a "mixed" rating on steam.

You can assume it is similar to what a website experiences if its page rank in google moves off the first page of search results normally leading to it.

Post automatically merged: Jan 2, 2026

The way I see it, I've played 8,657.7 hours, so....if TFP doesn't do what I want, they should have to pay me $129,865.50 for wasting all that time I invested (based on minimum wage).

Holy crap, I could have paid off my house if I'd only got off my ■■■ and taken a job a McDonalds.

Post automatically merged: Jan 2, 2026

Wait, we can't say "■■■"??

We can probably say "assassin", and that has TWICE as much ■■■.
...and it's much more offensive/immoral that mere ■■■.

The guild of ■■■ ■■■ ins intervened.

 

[Treb]

Yes, that is what I said. If you can throw out an arbitrary number of 2, I can throw out an equally valid arbitrary number of 4.


I don't see that. I see from the graph that every update there are new players added onto previous players. Does that equate to a popularity increase? One might see it that way, but I just see an increase in sales. After every spike there has been about 50% player retention extending months beyond the initial spikes. If we really want to keep up this trend of weaponized math, we could even go so far to say that every update more and more people become uninterested and stop playing after those initial spikes.


You are right, you didn't, but then how does it fit into any argument? Why bring it up? Why not just say, "they are going to do whatever they want and don't need a reason for any of it." Maybe because it doesn't sound as good.

My numbers make sense though, yours don't align with reality. More people are playing than before and the (pre-)A16 vets will become a smaller and smaller part of the community whether most of them quit or not.

It's currently playing players, not sales. No one is going to play forever. Some people play for like a month after every update then do something else and it's fine too. Expecting everyone to spend 100+ hours on the game is unrealistic.

A developer that only listen to the whims of vocal players and not have his own ideas is not going to be successful.

 

[AtomicUs5000]

My numbers make sense though, yours don't align with reality. More people are playing than before and the (pre-)A16 vets will become a smaller and smaller part of the community whether most of them quit or not.

My numbers make sense and yours don't. You say if I don't buy two other people might buy. Imagine if the world worked like that? I'm gonna buy this game because you didn't! Ridiculous.
I say if I don't buy, 4 other people definitely won't... possibly more.
I've already said more people play now than then. It is common sense. You have new players plus old players every update.

It's currently playing players, not sales. No one is going to play forever. Some people play for like a month after every update then do something else and it's fine too. Expecting everyone to spend 100+ hours on the game is unrealistic.

The spikes are both. New people buy the game and then they play it. People who already had the game see an update and they play it as well. Who is expecting anything? I am pointing out 50% retention after A16 dropped compared to the same 50% retention after current updates. In fact, pretty much the same thing across the board. Therefore, more people drop the game after that initial play than ever before... because 50% of 50k is more than 50% of 20k. If you want to call that an increase in popularity go right ahead.

A developer that only listen to the whims of vocal players and not have his own ideas is not going to be successful.

Are we really going down this "vocal minority" road again?

 

[Treb]

My numbers make sense and yours don't. You say if I don't buy two other people might buy. Imagine if the world worked like that? I'm gonna buy this game because you didn't! Ridiculous.
I say if I don't buy, 4 other people definitely won't... possibly more.
I've already said more people play now than then. It is common sense. You have new players plus old players every update.


The spikes are both. New people buy the game and then they play it. People who already had the game see an update and they play it as well. Who is expecting anything? I am pointing out 50% retention after A16 dropped compared to the same 50% retention after current updates. In fact, pretty much the same thing across the board. Therefore, more people drop the game after that initial play than ever before... because 50% of 50k is more than 50% of 20k. If you want to call that an increase in popularity go right ahead.


Are we really going down this "vocal minority" road again?

That's a weird way to understand what I wrote. I said that even if you don't buy it, but two others do, then it's a positive. It's not because of you buying it or not, unrelated events.

How do you not see it as an increase in popularity? 25k is more popular than 10k, whether the 25k comes from a peak of 25k or 200k.

We're going with the road that is relevant here.

Even if a vet has 10k hours, his voice doesn't have more weight than 10 players with 50 hours.

 

[Scyris]

Have you ever heard of asymmetrical RPG game play?
That's the VISION behind the Attribute perks.

Min/maxers of course see this as just a forced path to achieve what THEY think it's "the best way to play".
All those that are asking for a bland, LBD based, all-round balanced action-based progression, are simply trying to change the game AT ITS CORE.

No, its going back to what the game USED to be, before it got dumbed down to its current state. You have no ■■■■ idea how much features have been removed since alpha 15/16, and still have not returned. Also I never said remove stats entirely, I said decouple just the weapons and harvesting/salvage tools from them. You can add some stat based new perks in their place if needed. Right now the game is very bland, most people use the same build over and over because its the main one thats viable, largely due to weapons being locked to stats. Like I have 0 interest in fortitude perks, but if I wanna use machine guns I am forced to level that stat just so I can get the machine gun perk. See the problem with the current system? Removing weapons from stats means I can now pick what I use, get better at using it, and get related perks without wasting points in a stat I otherwise would not touch.

7dtd is not a rpg, its a action shooter survival game, you can't force rpg like mechanics in a game like this as it just doesn't work well at all, especially with the very limited weapon selection.

 

[YourMirror]

No, its going back to what the game USED to be, before it got dumbed down to its current state. You have no ■■■■ idea how much features have been removed since alpha 15/16, and still have not returned. Also I never said remove stats entirely, I said decouple just the weapons and harvesting/salvage tools from them. You can add some stat based new perks in their place if needed. Right now the game is very bland, most people use the same build over and over because its the main one thats viable, largely due to weapons being locked to stats. Like I have 0 interest in fortitude perks, but if I wanna use machine guns I am forced to level that stat just so I can get the machine gun perk. See the problem with the current system? Removing weapons from stats means I can now pick what I use, get better at using it, and get related perks without wasting points in a stat I otherwise would not touch.

7dtd is not a rpg, its a action shooter survival game, you can't force rpg like mechanics in a game like this as it just doesn't work well at all, especially with the very limited weapon selection.

"7 Days is an open-world game that is a unique combination of first-person shooter, survival horror, tower defense, and role-playing games"

Just from steam. Didnt you read when you bought it?

 

[ALEXZANDER]

No, its going back to what the game USED to be, before it got dumbed down to its current state. You have no ■■■■ idea how much features have been removed since alpha 15/16, and still have not returned. Also I never said remove stats entirely, I said decouple just the weapons and harvesting/salvage tools from them. You can add some stat based new perks in their place if needed. Right now the game is very bland, most people use the same build over and over because its the main one thats viable, largely due to weapons being locked to stats. Like I have 0 interest in fortitude perks, but if I wanna use machine guns I am forced to level that stat just so I can get the machine gun perk. See the problem with the current system? Removing weapons from stats means I can now pick what I use, get better at using it, and get related perks without wasting points in a stat I otherwise would not touch.

7dtd is not a rpg, its a action shooter survival game, you can't force rpg like mechanics in a game like this as it just doesn't work well at all, especially with the very limited weapon selection.

Originally, it was a survival sandbox game with some rpg elements! But some guys think 7 days was always a crappy ubisoft no choice rpg only

 

[Scyris]

Originally, it was a survival sandbox game with some rpg elements! But some guys think 7 days was always a crappy ubisoft no choice rpg only

Yeah, I wish it'd go back to that, as thats when the game was really good.

Post automatically merged: Jan 2, 2026

"7 Days is an open-world game that is a unique combination of first-person shooter, survival horror, tower defense, and role-playing games"

Just from steam. Didnt you read when you bought it?

I've had the game since alpha 10.2 so yes I did read that. But I don't think the game classifies as tower defense, it lacks most of the reuseable traps that genre has, Its not a rpg, there is no plot, story, your just a random person surviving the world, just because it has a exp system does not make it an rpg. As for survival horror, its not really remotely even scary anymore with how predictable sleeper placement is now. You go into a room and see no zombies? they will come stupidly from the cieling or the walls from fake walls. It just looks overly fake.

Also if you didn't play back in alpha 15/16 you have no idea what the game used to actually be and should not be commenting on it as you never played it.