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

[Double G]

"and everything else"? They would have to add a massive amount of mostly new features (since their code basis changed a lot they would mostly not be able to simply use the old code, they would have to implement many of them from scratch), would have to integrate lots of **alternative** GUI elements to support those different methods and worst of all balance that again:

If they add everything in just one option they would not appease players who want a different set of old features, also some would contradict each other
If they add every feature with its own option, balancing that would be a total and impossible nightmare. And you can bet that the critics want those features balanced as well, see the discussion about the jar slider.

I don't how difficult it would be to implement any of that stuff. Without seeing an example of how it's done I'll just have take your word for it.

Also, I'm not talking about the main game, I'm talking about the free for all sandbox mode. Balance would be much less of a consideration because the player would be responsible for it. Even now there are settings that would allow for the balance to be completely ruined for some players.

For me personally though, I don't care because if I want something in the game I can add it myself. The beauty of modding. Luckily for me the only thing I want is more zombie models.

I'm just looking at this from a PR perspective. It is a shame how damaging public perception can be, regardless of how much weight the concerns really have.

 

[meganoth]

It's just an impression and could be completely off the mark, but I've said myself TFP seems to have allowed perfectionism to get the better of them at some point and that the creative tug of war between a minority of players and TFP over base building, especially -- that actually resulted in some improvements to the game -- seems to have turned toxic at some point, i.e. ceased to be a creative tug of war and became a war of control over. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. So, I don't take my impressions for absolute truth and consider any and all speculation just that. And speculation on the part of the vast majority of community members has been anything but generous or compassionate toward TFP, imo.

As playtesters, all we have are appearances and impressions to go on, none of which will be confirmed or denied by TFP, and the roadmap TFP have published is in keeping with the description of the game in the Kickstarter campaign whether that's the game some wanted/expected to come out eventually or not. Despite the setback with 2.0, which was arguably rushed for whatever reason, they appear to be back on track even if it's not the track many in the community want the game to be on.

Criticism -- of the game -- is quite a different thing than the "trashing the developers" phenomenon I'm seeing everywhere. I think the "change direction, then change it again" comes down to one as yet to be implemented aspect of the game: story mode. Some survival games, e.g. Subnautica, intertwine their (usually forgettable, imo) stories into a static game world/map. Others, e.g. Green Hell, developed a story mode completely separate from a static map. 7 Days has RWG to contend with. My feeling, which again could be wrong, is that TFP initially set out to incorporate the story mode into the map(s). Ergo, static traders, even in RWG, presented according to which traders/biomes are affiliated with which factions, Duke's or Noah's; biome progression (at least, in part); etc.

Again, I could be completely off the mark, but I further get the impression TFP have realized it's not necessary to so interwine the story with the map(s). It could be a separate mode altogether, e.g. Green Hell's, or could be confined to Navezgane or could be approached any number of other ways than un-randomizing RWG and un-sandboxing the game. Are they in the process of separating what they've developed of the story mode from the maps so we can have our cake and eat it, too?

Certainly, none of us know. Only TFP knows and they're not talking about that. So, speculation is going to be all over the place and most of it is going to be dead wrong just as speculation about yours or my or anyone else's character and intentions are usually dead wrong.

Relevant tidbid: At the time of A16/A17/A18 it was said (probably by Roland who was listening into their developer meetings at that time) that story mode would be confined to Navezgane.

 

[meganoth]

I don't how difficult it would be to implement any of that stuff. Without seeing an example of how it's done I'll just have take your word for it.

Also, I'm not talking about the main game, I'm talking about the free for all sandbox mode. Balance would be much less of a consideration because the player would be responsible for it. Even now there are settings that would allow for the balance to be completely ruined for some players.

Ah, ok, you are talking about one sandbox mode with all old features bundled in it.
Though we already have a "true" sandbox mode without balance, creative mode. If players ask about a sandbox mode I would guess they still expect some limits and balance there.

Isn't an important characteristic of a sandbox mode that there is no player progression? So a "sandbox mode with LBD" as you said seems contradictory.

For me personally though, I don't care because if I want something in the game I can add it myself. The beauty of modding. Luckily for me the only thing I want is more zombie models.

I'm just looking at this from a PR perspective. It is a shame how damaging public perception can be, regardless of how much weight the concerns really have.

You are assuming that one mode works for most or all critics. I suspect there is no single mode that would satisfy a majority of the critics. Though maybe it is enough to satisfy just some of them? Depends largely on the amount of effort to do so. Since adding modes and features costs more time and that again will create new critics who lament the game is still not finished.

 

[theFlu]

Isn't an important characteristic of a sandbox mode that there is no player progression?

I defend sticking to definitions, like in the case of "LBD", but I'm not sure "sandbox" is well enough defined. It implies some sorts of freedoms, but I don't think it demands all of them.

 

[meganoth]

I defend sticking to definitions, like in the case of "LBD", but I'm not sure "sandbox" is well enough defined. It implies some sorts of freedoms, but I don't think it demands all of them.

Accepted. But at least my point about balance would still stand. I am pretty sure nobody would accept an unbalanced LBD sandbox mode

 

[Roland]

The fans fell in love with what they had...and then the "vision" changed...and then THAT "vision" changed.

It is my belief that the vision never changed. It has been rock solid since the Kickstarter campaign. That’s my opinion based on following the development over the last 12 years.

If you see three different visions for the game at different times then you ought to be able to define what each one was and I’d be very curious to read what you claim those different visions to be.

The one vision that they’ve never deviated from in my opinion is a game that combines the open and destructible world of Minecraft, with the zombie apocalypse survival setting of The Walking Dead, with the player progression elements of Fallout. I don’t think that vision has ever changed as they’ve developed the mechanics and features of the game

But what are the different visions you believe they switched to again and again?

 

[Double G]

Ah, ok, you are talking about one sandbox mode with all old features bundled in it.
Though we already have a "true" sandbox mode without balance, creative mode. If players ask about a sandbox mode I would guess they still expect some limits and balance there.

Isn't an important characteristic of a sandbox mode that there is no player progression? So a "sandbox mode with LBD" as you said seems contradictory.

Creative mode is not the sandbox mode they want and you know that.

You are assuming that one mode works for most or all critics. I suspect there is no single mode that would satisfy a majority of the critics. Though maybe it is enough to satisfy just some of them? Depends largely on the amount of effort to do so. Since adding modes and features costs more time and that again will create new critics who lament the game is still not finished.

Did you not see the recent reviews on Steam go from "Mixed" to "Very Positive" when they adjusted the biome progression / storms and added the jars back? Now the complaints on Reddit have moved on to other subjects like the ones I mentioned earlier - trigger spawns, digging zombies, etc. There would still be straggling nitpicking complainers (because they get off on it) but their complaints won't carry much influence or cause any significant reputational damage.

 

[Roland]

With that being said...I think TFP should give the community what it wants. There should be a separate sandbox mode with the LBD, the non digging zombies, reduced screamers, no quests, no trigger spawns, and everything else you see on Reddit.

TFP has a separate sandbox mode planned with a huge list of options and toggles currently being compiled. I don’t know how feasible it would be to create a toggle for skillpoint shopping/ learn by doing as that seems like a massive amount of development and a huge overhaul— but I guess it could be possible. But sliders for screamer activity level, questing, and toggles for zombie digging, and trigger spawns seem doable along with many others.

 

[Double G]

TFP has a separate sandbox mode planned with a huge list of options and toggles currently being compiled. I don’t know how feasible it would be to create a toggle for skillpoint shopping/ learn by doing as that seems like a massive amount of development and a huge overhaul— but I guess it could be possible. But sliders for screamer activity level, questing, and toggles for zombie digging, and trigger spawns seem doable along with many others.

Well problem solved then!

 

[meganoth]

Creative mode is not the sandbox mode they want and you know that.

I was just thorough in mentioning all variants of "sandbox" as the term isn't clearly defined. Since I didn't see any of the recent videos from TFP I also have not much idea what their plans are in that area.

Did you not see the recent reviews on Steam go from "Mixed" to "Very Positive" when they adjusted the biome progression / storms and added the jars back? Now the complaints on Reddit have moved on to other subjects like the ones I mentioned earlier - trigger spawns, digging zombies, etc. There would still be straggling nitpicking complainers (because they get off on it) but their complaints won't carry much influence or cause any significant reputational damage.

This could simply be the effect of the reviews from the review bombing getting too old to be counted as recent review. But sure, it at least means there wasn't a repeat.

 

[Chuck640]

I hate that that would kind of work

My money is on Izprebuilt

 

[HammerDano]

It is my belief that the vision never changed. It has been rock solid since the Kickstarter campaign. That’s my opinion based on following the development over the last 12 years.

If you see three different visions for the game at different times then you ought to be able to define what each one was and I’d be very curious to read what you claim those different visions to be.

The one vision that they’ve never deviated from in my opinion is a game that combines the open and destructible world of Minecraft, with the zombie apocalypse survival setting of The Walking Dead, with the player progression elements of Fallout. I don’t think that vision has ever changed as they’ve developed the mechanics and features of the game

But what are the different visions you believe they switched to again and again?

So this is just an exercise in semantics? Your argument is chiefly on the use of "vision"?
fine...their "vision" has not changed. does THAT change anything else? nope...not in my opinion. I refer to the post you were replying to.

I agree with much of this, your analogy falls a little flat (for me) because these guys ARE the artist and someone else did not mix the "final cut"...in fact the "final cut" of this game has yet to be recorded and mastered, but, the meat of it stands. The fans fell in love with what they had...and then the "vision" changed...and then THAT "vision" changed. If anything, the biggest problem I see, is that they have let perfection be the enemy of something good. Instead of adding to what they had, they change direction...then change it again...while NOT ADDING the bigger elements people have been waiting for (bandits and story) which, to some, makes it LOOK like, every change in direction is a desperate bid to give themselves even more time to try and figure "it" out.

Some might say "that's EA for you".

I thought the bulk of all that had been worked out BEFORE they did the re-release to console...not that "we'd" be going thru the same processes again...that's where my frustrations is. That this half of a game has been reworked soo many times at the expense of actually finishing it.

you seem to want a linguistic argument to deflect from the rest of what was said.

 

[theFlu]

So this is just an exercise in semantics? Your argument is chiefly on the use of "vision"?

I don't think it is.. your argument is that TFP have changed the direction of the game repeatedly. There's been some back and forth with mechanics, for sure, but
- most of the stuff that has been implemented, is still in.
- the back and forth has been in search of good mechanics towards the same "higher level abstraction" of the game. Yes, they "lost" some time in it, but a lot of it was unavoidable. Like water physics, they want to get them right, but have to test what they can do; that experimenting has taught them a lot, and the current iteration is the best yet. Could "someone" have done it better? Honestly, I don't know. The engine is a common one, but their voxel world is a pretty unique beast; there aren't that many experts for hire even now, much less over a decade ago.

 

[Roland]

So this is just an exercise in semantics?

Not at all. I don’t wish to argue over the meaning of vision. I think we are on the same page about what that means. I wanted to give you an opportunity to share more deeply about your opinion by providing details.

I shared exactly the details that I believe support my opinion that their direction has always been the same regardless of the experimenting and iterating with game mechanics.

So please let’s not have a semantics discussion. Just expound on what the three distinct visions or game directions or whatever someone wants to call it that you believe the devs have been chasing.

 

[HammerDano]

Not at all. I don’t wish to argue over the meaning of vision. I think we are on the same page about what that means. I wanted to give you an opportunity to share more deeply about your opinion by providing details.

I shared exactly the details that I believe support my opinion that their direction has always been the same regardless of the experimenting and iterating with game mechanics.

So please let’s not have a semantics discussion. Just expound on what the three distinct visions or game directions or whatever someone wants to call it that you believe the devs have been chasing.

you say it isn't about the semantics and then plough on with the semantics.
You are asking me to define what they were aiming for when they chose to change progression instead of refining what they had? gimme a break. I give credit that you are a clever little debate lord. most people wouldn't see thru that nonsense. they'd get flustered and just ■■■■ off...stop replying.

My complaint is that they changed those things (changed direction) instead of getting on with producing the the Story and Bandits. something YOU don't seem to want to engage with.

 

[Roland]

you say it isn't about the semantics and then plough on with the semantics

Ironically, "semantics" doesn't seem to mean to you what it means to anyone else. To most people, "arguing semantics" is having a discussion trying to refine and agree on the exact definition and meaning of a word. To you, "semantics" seems to mean "I don't like your question and I'm not going to answer it".

In none of my posts (until the above paragraph) have I demanded or requested that you define "vision" or really state the meaning of what you mean by the term "direction" nor have I offered a definition. You made a claim that they had changed their vision three times. I was simply asking you to share more of your own opinion on what those three different visions were that they changed from and to. Since you claim to see a difference in visions at three different time periods of the development, it shouldn't be hard for you to state the characteristics of your observation. That is me requesting you go into more detail about something you shared and not me arguing about the meaning of the word vision.

I have no idea why you are avoiding giving us more of your insight and opinion when usually you don't hold back.

You are asking me to define what they were aiming for when they chose to change progression instead of refining what they had? gimme a break. I give credit that you are a clever little debate lord. most people wouldn't see thru that nonsense. they'd get flustered and just ■■■■ off...stop replying.

I think most people if they made a claim and someone asked them to share more deeply about that claim, they would happy to oblige. Is it just that you were throwing out some buzz words you've read and there is no substance behind your opinion? It's easy to just repeat that TFP changed direction in their vision three times. Is their any substance behind your claim? I don't want you to shutup about this. I want you share more about what you were talking about.

My complaint is that they changed those things (changed direction) instead of getting on with producing the the Story and Bandits. something YOU don't seem to want to engage with.

I'm happy to engage with this. You have a valid complaint as a customer if you are unhappy with the priorities that TFP set. There's no argument from me that for someone like you who wants the development to be finished quickly, that the way development has gone would be upsetting. I understand your frustration completely.

If the majority of the customers felt as you do, then I'm sure there would be some big changes. Unfortunately for you, it seems that most customers are not at your same level of outrage about how long it is taking. About all I can engage with you on this subject is to sympathize that it isn't going as quickly as you would like.

Now that I've engage with you about your complaint, maybe you'll do me the courtesy of answering my question? If you say no again then I'll know that you really really don't want to back up your claim and I won't make any new requests.

 

[theFlu]

Semantic discussion over .. "semantics".
*checks calendar*
*checks pulse*
*spins a top*

Reality seems to check out, but what is this?

 

[Roland]

Semantic discussion over .. "semantics".
*checks calendar*
*checks pulse*
*spins a top*

Reality seems to check out, but what is this?

Only by throwing yourself out of a window or lying down on some train tracks can you be sure, Leonardo...

 

[theFlu]

Only by throwing yourself out of a window or lying down on some train tracks can you be sure, Leonardo...

WATCH How a despicable Moderator tells a R****-leaning poster to go k*** themselves!

 

[Vaeliorin]

Try throwing yourself at the ground and missing.