PC They shouldn't dictate how people want to play. Bring back the cities in forest biome.
- Thread starter roeljohn
- Start date
theFlu
Well-known member
They can't, and they know it, so they don't. But by the act of creating a game, they have to choose how it plays. Apparently what they've chosen isn't what you want, but it is what they want. We didn't get very far with that, thou, no?
zztong
Well-known member
The game includes modlet support for those on PC. These changes are XML-only. If you're on PC, you have the tools to make this change such that maps you generate can have this layout. You can also use an external tool such as Teragon to generate a map that supports your goals.
My suggestion is that if you do so, avoid eliminating the Country Town settlements as you would be taking away POI variety in your world. You'll get more cities, but you'll also get more duplicate POIs.
Last edited by a moderator:
SylenThunder
Community Moderator / IT Guru
On the other hand, they should absolutely design the game the way they intend for it to function. With the limitations and progression that they want.
People seem to forget that they opted to participate in an unfinished game that is still being developed, that could have drastic changes to play-style during the process.
Roland
Moderator
Yes and no. TFP chose to leave early access. It's probably why these new big changes to gameplay are coming with a toggle switch when they've never done that before. Early access comes with the caveat that the game could change and end up being different than the customer expected. But games that are not in early access are usually purchased based on what they are advertised to be at the time of purchase and not what they might turn into later.
Perhaps TFP left early access only for the sake of being able to release the console edition but even so there are still obligations that come with that and we can see that they are taking pains to offer new features but also allow the game to remain mostly the way it was in its 1.0 state for the people who did not purchase it while it was in early access.
Riamus
Well-known member
RWG should be left random, or allowed to be random. It's one thing for changes to Navesgane and even pregen maps, but RWG even has random in the name. It's fine if it's optional, but it should be possible to make a map that is random instead of fixed in some specific pattern. From what I've seen so far, the only thing that would be required is that you have all biomes if you want biome hazards enabled. What's placed in them shouldn't matter for anything they have talked about adding.
Last edited by a moderator:
theFlu
Well-known member
This is .. "current jargon"? It kinda fails to deliver the point, you're talking about removing the dependency between cities and biomes. "Make RWG random" could mean random roads straight thru POIs, floating ore nodes or whatever else. Nitpicky, but something more obviously jargon would work better, #RandomBiomeCities!.
warmer
Well-known member
To say the dev aren't supposed to dictate how we play is antithetical to the concept of game dev. They have to give you guard rails or the game simply won't work.
If you are on PC, use teragon and you can make giant cities that cover and entire map of just forest City.
Vanilla already has a ton of options. Use some mods and you can completely customize the entire experience.
If you are on PC, use teragon and you can make giant cities that cover and entire map of just forest City.
Vanilla already has a ton of options. Use some mods and you can completely customize the entire experience.
Riamus
Well-known member
Yes, they could have a single thing be random and call it a random world generator, but even though it might be technically correct, it wouldn't be very accurate. I know that is an extreme option, and RWG has a lot of randomness still, but it is getting less and less random these days.
Biomes are almost fixed because they want you to do them in order, so they've made the different styles have very little options to them. You can change precents to a point, but only to a point. You can't disable any, or make them very small.
Towns can only appear at certain sizes in certain biomes. Because of the small towns in the forest, they tend to be very similar on every map. And you can't get many of the POI in the forest at all. You won't see old west towns in every biome.
Traders can't appear in different biomes. If you have more than one trader in a biome, it'll be the same trader, rather than being random and spread out/mixed up.
And I didn't know if anyone has had different results, but the admittedly limited testing I've done with RWG since 1.0 had always placed the "rivers" at the edges of the map, and unless I'm remembering incorrectly, the lakes as well. That may just have been bad luck, of course. But if it is always the case, that is another change.
These are all recent changes that remove randomness in the maps that are being generated. Now, whether or not someone cares about having a random map or a nap that is only vaguely random, this is still a lot of changes that remove randomness from RWG.
As I've said before, I really don't care what RWG can or can't do because I don't use it, but most people do, and console users only have that option. Since the changes are not hard to undo (it's mostly just changes in RWG mixer.xml), there isn't any reason it can't be optional when making a RWG map.
These are of course options for PC. However, now that the game is available on console, who only can use RWG to make maps, options should be given to them to make truly random maps instead of very strictly controlled random maps.
theFlu
Well-known member
I don't hate the idea, in fact I'd prefer it; I was just pointing out that "make it random" doesn't really tell much, it needs to be very constricted to look like a world, so it's better to come up with a better shorthand for what you actually want
In practice, I don't mind either way, I'm at the point with my frustrations that I'll prolly try a new game every major patch, to see if progress is still on POI-number-rails and if the ghost hits / glitches are still the only threat in the game... at that rate, I don't need two maps per year, they can be identical for all I care
Lax
Member
Not sure I understand this one. I think the level of freedom you have to play along with the customizations are great.
For example I disable Blood Moons all together so I can just play at my own pace without worrying about preparing for Day 7 Hordes. Once I feel more comfortable I'll re-enable them.
I also use Traders sparingly. I barely ever do Trader quests and just have a blast exploring the game world. It seems very easy to make your play style whatever you want it to be.
For example I disable Blood Moons all together so I can just play at my own pace without worrying about preparing for Day 7 Hordes. Once I feel more comfortable I'll re-enable them.
I also use Traders sparingly. I barely ever do Trader quests and just have a blast exploring the game world. It seems very easy to make your play style whatever you want it to be.
bdubyah
Well-known member
Anyone with basic comprehension knew what he meant with his post. RWG used to be random worlds. Now the biome layout is basically the same every map unless you select one of the limited options they have, which doesn't really change much. No cities in the forest means you already know you have to start moving pretty quickly as there usually isn't much to find in the forest biome anymore. Add in the fact there have been multiple modder made map generators that make much better maps than the game does and it's kind of sad to see the state of it currently.
theFlu
Well-known member
Well, assuming they have an idea of the current state of 7dtd; 99% of people with basic comprehension don't.
Some phrases just irk me for being practically useless.Hmm, ye; it's great that there are options. Haven't felt like those would fix the game for me at any point, still don't; the maps haven't been the biggest weakness ever. The fact that random devs on the internet can do some things better than a company, small or large, isn't that surprising. Companies are limited by a whole host of other things, like larger plans and resources, while a hobby dev can do and focus on whatever they please. It's relatively easy to spend more time on your hobby than it is to spend on a single part of your dev responsibilities (I'm assuming no-one's "the full time map guy" here).
Honestly, what bothers me is that the random gen maps have gotten worse over time. Yes, the cities are better, but the rest of the map just seems to have gotten way worse since A16. The highways are wonkier (well, no more huge drops, but those were kind of fun 
), and the landscape just seems way more boring now. Water features are obviously worse (when they exist at all).
I really need to start using Teragon.
), and the landscape just seems way more boring now. Water features are obviously worse (when they exist at all).I really need to start using Teragon.
InfiniteWarrior
New member
But not console. So, console players are stuck with the strange, "no large cities in the Forest biome" decision, which was apparently among the supposed "incentives to explore" implemented of late but, in actuality, comes across as something very different, namely restricting players in how they choose to play. An unintended consequence, perhaps, but that's the impression.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dead Smarty
Active member
To build a decent sized city you need to cut a lot of trees. Without trees there is no forest, logic dictates your wish is not possible.
Rotor
Well-known member
Ray Garraty
New member
Just paint the "biomes.png" file green in the generated maps folder